Developer and Town Abandon Hillcrest Commons Appeal

Hello all - there is some good news that came our way.  Both the developer of Hillcrest Commons off Rte 52 and the Town of Carmel have abandoned the option to appeal Judge Nicholai's decision.  I am attaching the Press Release from CWCWC.

Merry Christmas everyone, especially the folks from Hill & Dale who supported the Coalition and CWCWC and our attorney, Jim Bacon.

Sincerely,
Ann

10/24/07

Carmel tries to halt DEP dam reconstruction
By BARBARA LIVINGSTON NACKMAN
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original Publication: October 20, 2007)

CARMEL - The town has issued a stop-work order against New York City, attempting to halt a multimillion-dollar dam reconstruction project near the Putnam-Westchester border that it says lacks the proper permits.

The order was issued Tuesday, but it seems there is no quick way to shut down a project of that size. Yesterday, trucks barreled back and forth along the site off Croton Falls Road, and backhoes piled crushed rock into a mountain. The town told the city by certified mail and in person at the job site that it was to "suspend" work described as a "regrading, rock crushing/mining operation, and modifying the existing spillway" because it requires "multiple approvals" from the town's Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, which apparently were not secured before construction started.

The city Department of Environmental Protection yesterday said it would cease construction but needed to secure the site first.

Mahopac residents Mitch and Homa Oscar, who live across the street from the southern end of the dam project, are hoping for some relief from the blasting near their home -at one point strong enough to knock their 11-year-old son off the couch. They also hope that some of their environmental concerns will be addressed.

In February, the DEP began the $74 million project at the Croton Falls Reservoir and the Diverting Reservoir off Route 22 as part of an upgrade and rehabilitation of city-owned dams east of the Hudson River. The intent, the DEP said, is to meet current state and federal dam safety standards and extend the life of the dams for 50 to 100 years.

The Oscars said they realize the work must get done and they must endure a few years of construction. But they are frustrated that they can't seem to get information about the work and a timetable from the DEP, that their home was never inspected before the nearby blasting and that the agency doesn't seem to want to mitigate the significant environmental impact on them.

Further exacerbating the matter is Homa Oscar's story.

A political refugee who fled Afghanistan with her family, first to Pakistan and then to New York City in 1982, Homa Oscar said the Croton Falls blasting and extensive construction is upsetting.

"I lived in a place where there was a curfew and bombs were going off in the night," said the 36-year-old jewelry designer who works from home. "When you are here and your home shakes, well, it gives me tremors and makes me nervous."

The blasting has rattled the Oscars' 11-year-old cedar house and shaken it from its foundation, they said. In July, they thought their boiler had exploded. Mounds of dust have filled their deck's swimming pool and settled on their landscaping, preventing any summertime swimming and causing asthma and breathing problems for Homa Oscar.

The DEP said it notified residents within a prescribed area from the center of the work, but the Oscars said they were not notified and repeated attempts to discuss the issue with DEP representatives have fallen on deaf ears.

Town officials said they could take legal action if the DEP does not stop the work.

The DEP said it would resolve the issues with the town, which include regrading roadways and mining without the necessary approvals.

"(We are) eager to work with Carmel's Code Enforcement agency to resolve this situation," said spokeswoman Mercedes Pidalla, "and address its concerns so DEP can resume full operation expeditiously."

09/06/07

Camarda - Blasting His Way thru Putnam

Good morning - Please note the following; it should be of particular concern to all in Carmel and Putnam County.  We are a county of steep slopes and projects such as Camarda Park,  Hillcrest Commons, Gateway Summit (hotel) and Patterson Crossing will require blasting.  The Town of Carmel lacks a blasting code as also the towns of Kent and Patterson.  As you know, I have sent letters to supervisors of both towns to address this striking omission.

Please watch for showings of the September 5th Carmel Town Board - Doris Stahl's response to Councilman DiBattisti should not be missed.

The following is a copy of my post on carmelresident.org:


On June 27, 2007, Camarda issued a letter addressed to Supervisor Munday and the Town Board.  In it, he relieves himself of all responsibility for the ensuing destruction to residents' quality of life and property.  I quote from the first paragraph: In my twenty years developing property in Putnam County, I have only had to deal with ledge rock on two sites.  In the Willow Ridge subdivision, we blasted ledge rock on a small section of the road without any problem or impact to any of the neighbors (there weren't any to speak of).  The second site is at Carmel Centre,  This is a site that I sold more than a year ago to Pulte Homes.... who contracted with Brennan Construction to perform the pending infrastructure construction.  Although I have no involvement in the ownership of the land or the construction, I would like to offer the following:
 
The rock excavation/blasting is approximately ninety percent completed. The small remaining area will either be chipped, hammered, blasted or a combination of the three.  The only other pending site of which I am aware that may require blasting is the hotel site located at the Gateway Summit.
 
For nine months, the town has dragged its feet in enacting a blasting code that protects residents.  Finally last Wednesday, August 29th, it was discussed as #31 on the workshop agenda.  And still there is no resolution.  
 
And we can see why in the next portion of the letter, "Changes to the ordinance could make it very difficult for blasters to get insurance coverage when they work in Carmel.  This could put all parties, including the Town of Carmel, and any adjoining property owners at risk."  I guess Camarda hasn't heard but there are property owners presently at risk of losing their insurance and their homes.  
 
Another concern is that changes to the ordinance could double or triple to cost of rock removal which could have a very detrimental effect regarding the hotel's budget and overall feasability." So there we have it.
 
Obviously Camarda has not read or thinks we have not read that the New York State Blasting Code was fashioned to protect the blaster and his workers not the blastee, the property owner.  And it was on this point that Rob Vera, the assistant engineer, stressed that the code must contain provisions that would give the building inspector powers to immediately respond to resident complaints and most importantly, shut down the operation until a full investigation is completed.  I must say that I was shocked that Mr. Vera should consult with Brennan Construction, the very company engaged to "chip, hammer, blast or a combination of the three" the hillside off Stoneleigh.  For residents, the name "The Retreat" attached to the senior complex, must seem like some sick joke.  There is no retreat.
 
However, in my opinion, it is the Planning Board that bears the obligation to thoroughly assess the consequences to residents of any project proposed on Carmel's unprotected steep slopes.  Together with the Town Board, they are the government entities duty bound to protect the health, welfare and safety of residents not the health, welfare and safety of a developer's investments.  
 
Another instance of profits over safety. 

Sincerely,
Ann

05/31/07

Good morning all -  Unfortunately, the writer fails to identify the owner of FourMen Construction Company  none other than Carmel Supervisor Wannabee, head of the Town of Carmel Recreation Committee and all-around sportsman, David Furfaro, who thinks he can do a better job than either of the candidates or the present supervisor.    Question:  Did the hapless Mr. Newkirk finally receive the $600,000 due him from the another FourMen mishap?  While Mr Furfaro doesn't have liability insurance, perhaps before November, the residents of Carmel should make certain that they do.

Sincerely,
Ann


Peekskill not protecting citizens

Regarding "Cove project riles Peekskill neighborhood," May 19 story:

A stop-work order was issued on "The Cove" at 324 Simpson Place on March 13. As of May 18, FourMen Construction Inc. has not secured the site and the structure, their responsibility under City Code 138-17.B: "All openings shall be sealed in a manner to prevent unauthorized entry." This site is likely to attract undesirable activity, impacting quality of life in that neighborhood.

Peekskill officials also have not done their job. They have not kept watch on this company, which has a sad record in our city. In 2004, Herbert Newkirk's home was destroyed, the result of site prep by FourMen at Lincoln Terrace. A 2006 decision by Judge Mary Smith, Supreme Court, Westchester County, in the case of Herbert Newkirk, Plaintiff, vs. FourMen Construction Inc., DMAC Construction LLC, et al., Defendants, states: "Defendants, who initially had denied any liability, in any event had no insurance to cover any damages alleged by plaintiff Newkirk . . ." and later states, ". . . defendants had no liability insurance . . ."

Doesn't Peekskill require that construction companies working in our city have liability insurance, and verify its existence? It took citizen complaints for our city to notice flagrant violations at "The Cove" and issue the stop-work order. It took two months, and more complaints, for city officials to start insisting that the "Cove" site and structure be properly secured as required by our city's laws.

It is time for Peekskill, our city, to represent us, and to enforce the laws put in place to protect us, the citizens of Peekskill.

Jim Knight

Peekskill

05/24/07

Good morning all -

It was another mindless night in Carmel with Camarda again presenting his plans before the Planning Board to transform our town and county into his vision of what the residents need and want and it certainly wasn't anything of high caliber but what "working stiffs" would think is just grand.  The entire scheme was just grand: the four floors of the 123 room Staybridge just chock full of style and grace.   Former South African resident and now Tourism Director, Valerie Hickman can't understand why residents should want more and better.  And she finally admitted that this was a hotel for businessmen and not for families - only 26 one bedroom rooms available and 3 two-bedrooms.  She failed to mention that despite Councilman Ravallo's persistent efforts, Marriott and Hilton said no thanks to Carmel. Can't wait to reserve my 300 sq.ft room with kitchen.  Gee Hannaford is opening soon.  Just like home.

Robert Buckley has pre-registered.  His family can't wait.  And even though there was evidence to the contrary last week, (see my letter to the Journal News) he is looking forward to his first tax rebate check.  Well, the only ones who will be getting any tax rebates are the Jaral Property investors and Camarda. 

No questions need to be asked.  And how tiresome of me to ask them.  For ex. why wasn't a market analysis included in the Draft Environmental Statement and if it wasn't included why didn't the Planning Board demand that it be done.  Who determined that a four-story, 123 room extended stay hotel with a 75% average occupancy rate was right for Carmel? Why not 90 rooms and three stories? That was the figure that Camarda gave to the Economic Development Committee of the legislature in May of 2005.  I have the tape. Perhaps the study would reach inconvenient conclusions.  Let us not shed the light of truth into the shadowy world of Carmel's backroom deal making. 

And of course, let us not deal with the possibility that the owners could flip the hotel and presto, we have the makings of another condo.   Many people have suggested that possibility to me. Not outlandish. All owners have to do is to obtain the approval of the attorney general bypassing town officials. Hotels in New York i.e. Plaza are no longer but are now residences and the St. George in Brooklyn in the 70s became overnight a Single Room Occupancy for the homeless. When I mentioned it, Chairman Gary unaccustomedly raised his voice and directed the secretary, Peggy Moore, "to strike it from the record."  In order to protect the town and residents,  I persisted and demanded that the site plan include the condition of restricting the use to simply that of a hotel and nothing else.  I will scrutinize the site plan for that restriction.

Mahopac resident, Cifalone, decried the past mistakes of town officials who discouraged IBM, Pepsi and yes, according to another resident, Hamlet of Carmel Civic Association member, Gebhardt, the Rupert Brewery.  And of course, there is always the Danbury Mall, a favorite of the late Ed Heelan.  Has anyone been to Danbury, seen its Main Street, recently undergoing some renovation from the devastation of its business section unable to compete with the mall.  How many of you are moving to Danbury?

And lastly, senior housing and assisted living - all 300 units.  That's what the law and market will bear says Camarda and he is going to make sure that it isn't 299. Made $30 million on the senior housing project off Stoneleigh - can't wait to read what he is going to make on this one. 

Nor is the Planning Board going to compel him nor scrutinize other alternatives for the area.  In reading the Alternatives section of the Draft Environmental Statement, I suggested that a simple residential subdivision would preserve open space; reduce traffic; protect water quality and vistas. And why wasn't that alternative selected?  You guessed it - "it was to the investor's advantage not to do so and the impact to the schools would be intolerable - the subdivision would generate 15 children (DEIS)  Greed written large. 

No matter that even according to Camarda's figures each of the 150 senior units would have space for a two-car garage _didn't he say, seniors don't drive) and get this for 300 additional visitor parking spaces and that the hotel would have 1,194 parking spaces.  Just for comparison, Brewster Highlands has 2,000.  A resident's concern about traffic was dismissed as inconsequential.  $1 million dollar "improvements" to Rte 6, installation of a traffic light (totaling 4 from the juncture of Rt 6 and Putnam Plaza) and traffic will disappear.  

As I said in my letter, all smoke and mirrors.  Carmel residents can view it on 95.

Sincerely,
Ann

05/23/07

Good morning all - after three weeks, my computer is finally working so there is a lot of catch to do.  In case, you haven't seen it, on the heels of Wednesday night's Carmel Town, I wrote a letter to the editor which has appeared today.  Word limitation prevented me from further discussing other issues raised by residents.

For example, John Butler cited the contract which explicitly stated that residential development would be excluded.  Guess what? Senior housing does not meet the definitional parameters of "residential," according to the wordsmith Camarda. So we now have 150 market rate senior units plus a 150 unit senior assisted living facility.  All this is going to save Carmel residents thousands in tax dollars since seniors don't generate children.  Empty nests invite birds from Long Island and Westchester together with their hatchlings who need schooling.   

Not included in the tab will be the extra dollars spent on emergency services: fire, police and ambulance in additional staffing and equipment.  Response times so critical to survival will be reduced for all residents as limited roads become clogged with traffic. Don't worry Camarda says, seniors don't drive.  And the maintenance of a town road specifically dedicated and built to provide ingress and egress from the development who's paying for that? 

What about the issue of the "Y" raised by long-time advocate Scott Friedman.  Carmel desperately needs a complex that provides comprehensive services and activities for all residents and the "Y" is the answer.  But don't tell that to the entrenched sports interests who are busy recklessly devastating land and communities - at a recent Board meeting, the quoted price alone on Camarda Park is $3.7 million to start and over $400,000 for the fields at the Mahopac Airport.

And where is the public scrutiny over a project that will change the face of Carmel.  Certainly not from the mindless parrots that perch on the dais of the Town Board.  Who will come to Carmel to stay in studios with one bed? Families with children? As I stated in my letter over 80% of the tiny rooms fit this description - 82 out of 123 to be precise; 26 one bedroom;  and 3 - two bedroom.  The rest are handicap accessible. 

Tonight the Planning Board will hold a public hearing at 7PM on the hotel and senior housing portion of the Gateway/Fairways project.  Camarda is banking that the public won't attend.   

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.

Smoke and mirrors on hotel plan

Carmel was the scene ("Public lodges views on Carmel hotel plan," Friday story) of a one-night stand for a Manhasset-spawned production starring former hometown boy, Paul Camarda; his friends, aka the investors, Jaral Properties and the architect from Garden City; directed by Councilman Bob Ravallo who, though overtly requesting one half-hour "update" as an agenda item, covertly plotted for 2 1/2 hours of smoke and mirrors before a stacked audience comprising some members of the Hamlet of Carmel Civic Association, the Industrial Development Agency and supervisor wannabees. Accidental attendees: the public.

After one hour of persistent resident questioning, Camarda sheepishly admitted that the hotel was not the luxury, original represented by the architect but a 123-room (80 percent studio) copycat of Staybridge Hotels pictured on their Web site, tweaked cosmetically with materials and colors.

Lie No. 2 - Although job generation has been on the Camarda spin list, a defensive Albert Salvatico of Jaral Properties evaded the issues of union construction jobs, salaries, number of executive-level positions and hotel staffing needs. The Putnam paradox: Putnam residents need not apply.

Lie No. 3 - Tax relief. In the revelation of the evening, Kevin Bailey from the IDA admitted that Jaral and Camarda were being forgiven at least 50 percent of school taxes the first year with a sliding scale through the decade; sales taxes and other perks. But the final stab in the back was that Camarda admitted that the taxes generated by some of the senior housing units would benefit not Carmel but the Brewster school district. Thank you, Mr. Camarda.

Ann Fanizzi

Carmel

The writer is chair of the Putnam County Coalition to Preserve Open Space.

Good morning all - in a brazen attempt to nullify the freshly enacted (flawed) Carmel senior housing law and substitute their own interpretation of the law and definitions of "active seniors,"  Pulte Homes resident architect, officials and spokesmen Tim Miller, sought to transform the "315 senior Retreat" oon the carpet bombed slopes off Stoneleigh Avenue into a Condo project.  Nevermind "staying in place" as Camarda's slick propaganda stated, Miller said well if anything happened, they would have to leave The Retreat and move into assisted living.  They were not building for the handicapped but for the active senior. 

At the ZBA Thursday night,  I strongly opposed the attempt to obtain a variance as an act of nullification superceding town law;  setting a terrible precedent for all the other proposed senior housing in the Kent, Carmel area (800 units) and ending with a personal anecdote re: my elderly mother i.e. buzzers and doors.  

As the article clearly states, Pulte is feeling the pinch of the downturn in housing and is trying to wrest the last dollar in profits by cutting corners.  And they would have been significant if the ZBA voted the other way, millions were at stake.  Accoding to AARP figures I cite, just for widening doors, the purchase price of a house could increase from 1% to 2%.  Just do a bit of math and see what just that feature would come to in 315 homes ranging in price from $300,000 to $500,000.

I have advertisements from Pulte's other projects and each one trumpets reduced prices anywhere from $15,000 to over $25,000.  Let's see what they do in Carmel. 

Bravo to the ZBA and for an excellent article written by Barbara Nachman. 

Sincerely,
Ann


Carmel turns down national developer over features for senior citizens
By BARBARA LIVINGSTON NACKMAN
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: April 30, 2007)

CARMEL - A national builder who has torn up a very visible hillside off Stoneleigh Avenue to construct 315 units of senior housing must include special features for elderly residents, such as buzzers and extra-wide doors, even if they might make the housing more expensive to build and less appealing to an affluent active buyer.

Pulte Homes, which paid developer Paul Camarda $30 million for the 96-acre property and its development rights, was flatly turned down by the Carmel Zoning Board of Appeals in its bid to get free of such specified features, such as bathroom doors that swing in and out of the room, 36-inch wide doors and windows fitted with safety devices so they can't slam shut once opened.

"My concern is not for their marketing but whether an applicant can build without getting special permission," said zoning board Chairman Mark Fraser. "In this case, it was clear that they could comply with the code."

The board voted 7-0 that Pulte had to include those items that are part of a senior-citizen housing law that was enacted just a year ago -a law whose critics contend was largely approved to facilitate Camarda's projects. Camarda had initially proposed an office complex known as Carmel Corporate Centre, then considered a large retail project. He split off 9 acres for another senior-citizens project, Stoneleigh Woods, with 68 units. That piece was sold to Blue and Gold Development of Riverhead, Long Island, for $3.1 million in April 2006, but construction hasn't started yet.

Pulte representatives came before the zoning board Thursday night.

"There were items that we needed clarified and the board did that," said Jim Mullen, development approval manager for Pulte Homes' Bernardsville, N.J., office. Mullen stressed that most of the buyers at The Retreat, would be around the 55-year-old range and not in need of any sort of special help.

"These people are not going to sit home in their wheelchairs," Mullen said. "It is a more active buyer."

Mullen said he hopes to complete construction plans and get building permits within 30 days. Crews have already built an access road, Terrace Drive, into the site. Extensive excavation work on the hillside overlooking Putnam Plaza shopping center has gone on for months, generating some complaints of noise and dust along with shock about changes to the once-wooded vista.

Ann Fanizzi, a Southeast resident who has been critical of this and other large projects, said she was glad town officials upheld the new zoning law, which allows senior-housing clusters in commercially zoned areas.

"They were trying to transform and supersede the town code," said Fanizzi, president of Putnam County Coalition To Preserve Open Space. "They are trying to make this into a condo complex (without the senior-citizen features). That wasn't the town's intent with this zoning law."

Plans call for 315, two-bedroom apartment units in clusters on the sprawling property near Route 6. There will be a recreation center and some outdoor facilities, such as a putting green and walking trails.

Michigan-based Pulte Homes, one of the nation's largest builders, has had a difficult start to the year, part of a larger downturn in the real estate market, but said it is nevertheless moving ahead with its Carmel project.

Officials announced last week that the company's revenues for the first quarter were down 37 percent from the same time period last year. In 2006, Pulte built 41,487 homes and generated consolidated revenues of $14.3 billion, according to its financial statements. During its 57-year history, the company has constructed nearly 500,000 homes.

In coming to the Carmel board, Mullen said, the company wanted to better understand the code requirements and be certain that features like double-acting door hinges and extra-wide doors were needed since they would add to the cost of the complex.

The buzzer system requires the units to have an emergency button throughout the apartment such as in the bedroom and bathroom so that if a tenant falls or has an attack, he or she can alert others in the same house or the complex with a sound or flashing light.

"It may save a person's life," Fraser said. "It's the law - it's in the code and it's needed."


Reach Barbara Livingston Nackman at bnackman@lohud.com or 845-228-2272.

04/02/07

Good morning all - am sharing this letter from a resident whose home is close to the 381 senior housing project - "The Retreat" off Stoneleigh.  Even tho I warned residents in the area of the hoax that was being perpetrated and the costs including taxes and maintenance charges incurred would skyrocket,  the threat of a Wal-Mart et al on their doorstep, trumped common sense.

Mr. Knupple says $300,000 but that is the low end of the project; the high end is $500,000 and get this Pulte Homes, to whom Camarda flipped the 100 acres, getting a cool $30 million, is now asking the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance from the senior housing law in order to dispense with such senior amenities as buzzers, wide doors, doors that swing in and out, etc.  Active seniors don't need them, they say. 

So now we will have housing with at least two bedrooms with possibly three, visitor parking, garages and community club house.  Now let me see.  To me it sounds like an ordinary condo community like mine not senior housing.  Are Camarda and Pulte trying to pull a fast one - circumventing both the senior housing and single family housing law?

What will the Town Board officials say who were so intent enabling Camarda to push thru this law so that he or his surrogates, would build not only "The Retreat" but another 150 senior housing units attached to the so-called Gateway/Fairways - hotel, etc. development, not one mile from Stoneleigh, threatening the area around Kelly Ridge.

Lastly, Mr. Knupple, who is a fine gentleman, mentions Leibell's Putnam Foundation Corporation building another 120 senior units adjacent to Putnam Hospital.  Well, guess what, they also want a variance from the senior housing law which requires that all such developments be within 2,500 ft. of a retail establishment.  Well, they are.  The seniors can go to the hospital commissary and pick up food or go to the gift shop and get slippers, sweaters and sweets. Anyone opening up a window and shouting, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more? "

Sincerely,
Ann

Camarda housing plan no help to seniors

Paul Camarda's $300,000-and-up "senior housing" off Stoneleigh Avenue in Carmel is not for the seniors who have been living in Carmel for decades. We cannot afford such "luxury," particularly when you would be living in stamped-out cardboard houses or just another condo community.

About four or five years ago, state Sen. Vincent Leibell announced the wonderful news that rental apartments for middle-income seniors (a much-neglected group) would be constructed next to the Putnam Hospital Center, at a monthly rental of $800 to $1,000, depending on the size of the apartment. The outfit in charge of the project, Putnam Community Foundation, put my name on the waiting list, along with my handicapped cousins. We were even given a choice of ground floor or upper floor apartments. We have waited all these years for construction to start, being reassured by PCF and Sen. Leibell's office that construction would start "in the spring." That was repeated each year.

I tried to get through to PCF but the phone company advised that the phone is no longer in service! With an 18 percent property tax increase by our compassionate Legislature, the sky-high school taxes, and now the county executive's sales tax increase proposal, Putnam's "Donald Trump" is here to help with $300,000 housing, plus yearly maintenance charges.

I asked Camarda to give some of his money to the Putnam Humane Society, but as of this date, no dog or cat has informed me of receipt of any contribution to build a shelter to replace the crumbling one they now live in.

Jack Knuppel

Carmel

03/31/07

Response to William Shilling

Good morning all - am sharing with you my response to William Shilling- Guest Column - March 22nd, which appeared in the Putnam Courier.  I don't know whether they will print it, but I couldn't resist not saying what I thought.  If you are not a subscriber, you can find it available in Mahopac and Reed Libraries.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com


Rare to find agreement with Camarda's erstwhile attorney, William Shilling, but I did find it. Agreed, "it is the Hamlet's last chance to have a park within its confines," thanks to the orgy of Camarda-initiated residential and commercial development, leaving the Hamlet with only 37 unbuildable acres.  

Agreed, Camarda Park should remain a "beautiful little pocket park tucked away in a wooded area ... a beautiful asset to the Hamlet for generations to come."  The irony is that it will be but a memory if you, the sports associations and those enslaved to them, the town politicians, have their way - 22 acres of  "wooded area," graced by old maples and oaks, will be axed and slopes leveled. There will be, however, some survivors, a 50 ft buffer will remain so that "residents can continue to enjoy their property."

Do "Pocket Parks" have professionally designed major and minor league fields; 100 parking spaces; bleachers, bathrooms, significant operation and maintenance costs, paid staff, lighting or need to blast 14,000 tons of rocks and dirt, costing millions. No, but they do have picnic areas, hiking trails, playground, and small all-purpose field, in David Furfaro's memorable phrase, for "disorganized sports."  All within walking or biking distance. No buses, cars or SUV's, plying Seminary Hill's narrow, hilly lanes and no need to stagger coach-supervised games or harried parents driving hither and yon. 

"Pocket Park"describes Ward & Associates' "neighborhood park" concept. Contracted for $55,000 by the Town Board, a sum omitted from Shilling's recitation of legal (DEP-sued the Town not environmentalists) and engineering expenses (two firms had to be hired), amounting to over $200,000 and counting, it was tasked with developing a town-wide resident survey and Master Plan.

The survey, the results of which Town officials, the  Committee and Mr. Furfaro deliberately withheld from the public, contradicted the fiction "That the majority wanted ball fields."  Of 11,000 mailed,  450 responded, of which over 300 reported that "That they didn't have any children" and "They didn't know or use any of the parks."

Both were ultimately scrapped or perverted, together with DiCarlo's promised resident referendum,  part of the hoax perpetrated on town residents to provide a fig leaf for "the  plan - fair and balanced -  chosen by the Town Board and recommended by the Recreation Commission," headed by David Furfaro. 

Faced with a survey that proved nothing, town officials chose to ignore it, for one that had already been taken.  Responds Mr. Shilling, "rely on the directors of the sports associations" as to whether "there is an urgent need for such a park." Certainly not on a survey, not on $55,000 consulting firm, not on Cindy Katz,  not on Paul Ehrlich or even Carmel School District personnel who indicated that out of a total 5000 students, 1,500 participate in various sports activities, without waiting lines. 

Brushing aside surveys, contracts and expressed wishes of residents, attorney Shilling patronizingly advises Seminary Hill residents to "embrace the project," secure that "they will be heard as to their concerns and desires."  Heard by whom? Town officials and David  Furfaro, not one of which lives in the Hamlet and who have displayed contempt for residents, the sanctity of contracts, and the democratic process.

Ann Fanizzi
2505 Morgan Drive
Carmel, New York 10512
(845) 228-4265

02/28/07

The Camarda Park Saga Continued

Good morning all - I am sharing with you this morning's post on carmelresident.org.  (If you are not a member, you can still view the posts, but are prohibited from replying).  The post was in response to one by John Dondero wherein he mentions Herbert Newkirk and I further elaborate on this case.

Sincerely,
Ann


John, you certainly have whetted my curiosity so I did a little research and lo and behold there was a case - Herbert Newkirk, Plaintiff against Fourmen Construction, Inc, DMAC Construction LLC, et al, Defendants.  For those who are not aware, Fourmen Construction, Inc. is David Furfaro's company. And when I looked at their website, up popped the name of Robert Pozzi.  Is he the same Robert Pozzi who was the former supervisor of the Town of Carmel?
 
The genesis of this case was the following and here I quote "Mr. Wallace had been retained by Herbert Newkirk on November 24, 2004, pursuant to a contingent fee retainer agreement to recover damages for the destruction of his house due to ongoing excavation and construction activities undertaken by the defendants on the land situated below Mr. Newkirk's house. The house, which at this point had been vacated by Mr. Newkirk and his tenants due to its structural instability, was described as "falling down the hill"; its condition rendering the structure unmarketable.  Indeed, condemnation proceedings appareen tly had been commenced with respect to the subject property.  Moreover Mr. Newkirk, who then was living in a motel, was still liable for mortgage and tax payments on the house and was in dire financial straits."  
 
It goes on:  "defendants (Fourmen Construction et al) at that time had admitted liability and had been willing to commit in writing to compensate plaintiff $700,000 with a $6,000 per month "living expense" payment to plaintiff until May 2, 2005 and $3,750.00 per month to be paid from June 1, 2005, until rendering final payment of $350,000.00 on or before June 1,2006."
 
Question:  Has Mr. Furfaro compensated the hapless Mr. Newkirk or is Mr. Newkirk still a nomad living in motels?
 
2. A little more research and Mr. Furfaro's name came up associated with Turf World on Rte 22 in Brewster.  He was the contact person.  The same Turf World who got assembly-line approval from the Town Board for a zoning change in Mahopac on 100 acres off Miller Rd in Mahopac to enable a Rec Center to be built.  Wonder who is going to bid on that contract?  By the way, a vigorous advocate of that change was none other than the widow of Jimmy McDonough, Susan.  MMMMM
 
3. And lastly, Mr. Furfaro is the disinterested, impartial Chairman   of the Recreation Commission who is currently squiring Camarda Park through the same Town Board, ignoring chapter and verse of Ward & Associates contract; surveys and Master Plans that were to govern the Recreation plan for the Town.  Not to worry - the ends justify the means, the first sign of corruption.

02/21/07

Good morning all -

I have posted the following response in the LoHud Forum section. You might wish to do so also.

Sincerely,
Ann

Jim Flanagan's letter responding to Cindy Katz's objections to Camarda Park is replete with misrepresentations.

1. The "community" did not decide unless Mr. Flanagan's universe includes only the sports community and it does since he is a member of the Carmel Sports Association. As per instructions from the town board and in violation of their own process that a survey and Master Plan would guide their decisions, the "community" was instructed to choose one of three imposed options.

2. The needs assessment or survey created by Ward & Associates was scrapped and never examined by Mr. Flanagan, the Recreation Committee, and the Town Board because it reflected an "inconvenient truth" that only 458 responded out of a total of 11,000 mailed and out of the 458, over 300 self-reported that they had no children; rarely used parks. Without factual ground, Mr. Flanagan, the sports association and the Town Board steamrolled their version of the park for their use, not for the community's use.

3. Ward & Associates entangled in a political muddle between the sports association and a town board hell bent to have the sports version of Camarda Park become a reality and with their survey discredited and useless and ignored and Master Plan shredded by a mendacious town board and complicitious Rec Committee, tried to put the best face possible.

4. There is no factual foundation that the Hamlet of Carmel needs the sports association version of a park. School officials have indicated that out of 5,000, approximately 1,500 participate in some form of sports activities; that waiting lists are non-existant and that fields are available for all extracurricular activities. Only the sports association, a private group, funded by parents and taxpayer dollars have raised the specter of insufficient fields.

5. Since taxpayers from the entire Town have to bear the exorbitant costs of a park, then a referendum is mandatory. Let's put it to a vote, Mr. Flanagan. That's what Councilman DiCarlo said, "I'll never make a decision, the people will.

02/21/07

Good morning all - in the event that you may have missed this morning's Journal News Letters to the Editor section, responding to Camarda's crowning piece of self-promotion in the Community View.

Sincerely,
Ann


Retail development won't lower taxes

In Paul Camarda's Monday Community View, he claims to have the solution to our problems of higher taxes. Our problems? He lives in Ridgefield, Conn., not Putnam, and pays school and county taxes to them, not us. These are our problems, not his. The fact is that he is here in Putnam to make money, period. His solutions to "our problems" are simply self-serving. A "more diverse economic base with more shopping centers, commercial space and a hotel" will not solve our problems but will result in the exact opposite: more and more taxes, more and more services, and more and more traffic congestion. A perfect example of what he is proposing for our property tax woes already exists. It's called Bergen County, N.J., a shopping mecca if ever there was one, with numerous corporate parks, shopping malls galore and hotels, and yet with all this revenue-generating base, Bergen County has the fourth-highest property taxes in the U.S. Is this a great model for Putnam or what? And traffic is so horrible that stores must be closed on Sundays so the local folks can get a little relief.

Want another example? Look at Westchester County- major shopping, major number of corporate parks and numerous hotels, and its taxes qualify it to be in the top three highest-taxed communities in the U.S. No thanks. We can surely do better.

How about Paul Camarda giving his generous plan to Ridgefield? I'm sure residents there will embrace it with open wallets.

Peter Katz
Carmel

So Paul Camarda wants to build Patterson Crossing here in our lake community of Lake Carmel (Kent.) He says that it will curb our taxes. I have a hard time believing this, considering the burden of policing this mall will fall primarily on Kent taxpayers.

Consider what has happened to Clarkstown after the Palisades Center mall was built in Rockland County. According to a Jan. 23 article in The Journal News: "Clarkstown officials yesterday pressed the county for more sales-tax revenue to cover the town's cost of policing the Palisades Center mall in West Nyack . . . citing the town's yearly cost of $3.3 million to police the mall, Supervisor Alexander Gromack continued his public campaign to get more sales-tax revenue from the county . . . Clarkstown gets $1.5 million in sales-tax revenue yearly from the county - and wants more."

So Clarkstown polices Palisades Center at a cost of $3.3 million, but only gets $1.5 million in sales-tax revenues. Is Kent is going to become another Clarkstown?

And having to police Patterson Crossing is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems with building this mall in our community. Let us not overlook the effects many more cars will have on both noise and pollution. Oh, and how about runoff in our lake and The Great Swamp? This mall will be an ecological nightmare that the citizens of Lake Carmel and Kent do not need.

Say "No" to Camarda; say "No" to Patterson Crossing.

If we wanted more shopping, we would have moved to Westchester.

Patricia Bolgosano
Lake Carmel

When Mr. Camarda refers to "our" tax base and community, I am sure he means Ridgefield, Conn., and not my town of Lake Carmel where Patterson Crossing is proposed.

In this month's issue of "Ridgefield" magazine, an article written by Amanda Bergen tells of Ridgefield's sales-tax slump. Ridgefield has an Economic Development Board that determined not to focus on one or two big companies (like Wal-Mart and Costco perhaps?) If Ridgefield is experiencing a sales-tax slump, why doesn't Mr. Camarda bring these ideas of large-scale retail box stores to his own community and solve the problems in his own back yard?

The EDC of Ridgefield is looking to develop their town in accordance with the town's personality. What are our local leaders and business people doing to preserve our personality? Have they all been bought or bamboozled by Camarda's mythological dissolution of property taxes through sales tax? Where are the county leaders? Have they been swayed by their sons working for Camarda's development company?

Look to Rockland County, to Yonkers, to anywhere on Long Island and New Jersey to see what large-scale development does to property taxes. The property taxes consistently increase due to the increased demand on services required to support the businesses. Not one town's property taxes have gone down due to the type of economic development proposed by Mr. Camarda.

Wake up, Putnam County. Say "No" to Patterson Crossing and the myriad other proposals Mr. Camarda has for his New York neighbors.

Charlotte Berwind
Lake Carmel

02/13/07

Good morning all - Seminary Hill Road resident, Cindy Katz, raises the question: Is Camarda Park as Proposed Needed and who pays.  A sensible recommendation for a neighborhood park for Hamlet residents, esp. Willow Ridge, Little Pond and Seminary Hill Rd. follows.
Sincerely,
Ann

Build park that serves whole community

Before Carmel's former director of recreation and parks, Richard Gennero, retired, a neighbor and I had a face-to-face with him regarding ball fields in the town and the need for more fields at the proposed Camarda Park. He talked about the possibility of new ball fields at the old airport and at Baldwin Meadows. He said that if those fields became a reality, then we wouldn't need fields at Camarda Park. He also mentioned that more than 33 percent of the Carmel Sports Association's members do not live in Carmel.

Well, it looks as if the airport and the Baldwin Meadow fields are moving along well. So why, then, is the town pushing forward with a park for the hamlet of Carmel that is all about ball fields as described in the Feb. 9 article, "Carmel gets look at plans for park"?

Yes, there can be a park. But let it be a community park, with a ball field, playground, basketball court and picnic tables. Build it on the east side of the entry road, and leave the west side wooded with walking and nature trails. This option would be the least burdensome to the taxpayers, would offer activities that would not overwhelm Seminary Hill Road and the surrounding neighborhoods, and would be the least environmentally destructive.

And as for the 33 percent of CSA members who are not residents of Carmel, I'm curious as to who exactly the taxpayers are being asked to build all the proposed ball fields at Camarda Park for?

Cindy Katz
Carmel
 

02/12/07

Talk Back to the Journal News - Camarda Park

02/12/07

Read My Lips - The Natterers on the Carmel Town Board

02/04/07

01/30/07

01/29/07

Good morning all - opposition grows to Camarda Park - reminder January 30th meeting - Sycamore Park - 7:00PM.  If this is a neighborhood park as Ward & Associates describe it, then neighborhood folks i.e. Seminary Hill, Willow Ridge, Little Pond, should be the decision-makers as to the appropriate activities that could accommodate the area, not the sports associations and their tax and spend political supporters and bulldozing buddies.

So far, over $250,000 have been spent on engineering firms trying to round out the square hole of all the environmental obstacles; $55,000 for Ward & Associates to create a survey and Master Plan is not neither being permitted to be published nor commented on by the public in violation of expressed town official statements and that the entire matter would be subject to a referendum.

And a gag order imposed by Mahopac Sports Association Pres. Furfaro at the so-called informational public informational meetings at Sycamore Park, required by the Stipulation Settlement and the DEP,  that issues of traffic, eminent domain, noise, lighting, blasting, referendum, park alternations, are now off the table.  The DEP should not be viewed as complicitous in this sham and perversion of the very process that is part of a legal agreement.

This is another instance of the lack of official accountability in blatant disregard of resident and taxpayer concerns.  With the town facing over 9% tax increase; county taxes at over 18%; school taxes spiraling out of control and with town department heads demanding golden parachuttes, how much more can the residents of Carmel bear -  $5 million more for a park to accommodate the over-the-top sports associations' field of dreams.  Outrageous

Sincerely,
Ann
PS- please share with neighbors

Many reasons to object to Camarda Park proposal
By PAUL EHRLICH
(Original publication: January 29, 2007)

When I went to the first public discussion meeting about Camarda Park, I experienced a combination of shock and outrage. Shock that such an inappropriate park was being planned for a lovely old narrow, winding road, and outrage that it was talked about by smiling local leaders as an accomplished fact- although there had been no public discussion and none was being permitted.

(Editor: Camarda Park, which backs up against the upscale Willow Ridge subdivision, is to include a 90-foot baseball diamond, a Little League and multipurpose fields, a playground and walking trails. Sizes of each element vary depending on which of three plans is chosen by the Town Board, which has charged a Recreation and Parks Advisory Committee with developing a specific park plan and a vision for townwide recreation in general.)

My objections to the park presently contemplated range from not too important to supremely important. There are five main objections.

First, it would needlessly spoil Seminary Hill Road forever by widening and straightening, and condemning some of the houses on the road so that parents could drive at 60 mph or more to and from ballfields. Right now there are narrow places on the road where two school busses cannot pass each other. The cost to tax-payers would be enormous. The cost of maintaining the planned park, year in and year out, would be enormous. The traffic created would be horrendous. The dirt road I live on, Rock Mill Road, would have to be paved to supply an access road. At game times the grid lock would prevent anyone from going into town without re-routing to Stoneleigh Avenue.

There is no urgent need for such a park. There are several parks fairly close, with ball fields and parking lots and easy access, that are underutilized; William Heustis Park on Farmers Mills Road, with several ballfields and a basketball court, is one. So is Ryan Park in Lake Carmel. There are ballfields in Mahopac, on Crane Road and Long Pond Road, that are also not fully utilized by children.

There are enough other locations for such a park, if needed. Nearly every day I pass the corner of Fair Street and Simpson Road, where at the top of the golf course is a large unused lot, big enough for many ballfields, with perfect access and no need to straighten or level. There is some type of digging going on there now, and "eminent domain" might have to be called into use. But eminent domain would have to be used on Seminary Hill Road to displace all the good citizens whose houses would have to be bulldozed to make way for widening and straightening. Why are they less important?

It is strikingly obvious that Seminary Hill Road is not the right place for the park being planned. Perhaps the customers who bought the Willow Ridge houses were promised a ballfield next door. Perhaps they would be satisfied with some tennis courts. Probably most of them will not be there by the time any ballfields are built. The average homeowner is said to change his home every four to five years. At any rate, any promise made to them is dwarfed by the promise made by our town board to maintain our way of life in the best and most honorable way.

I know about children's need for sports and healthful exercise. I myself, when my kids were growing up, was a Little League coach for baseball and football. I was also a Webelos leader for Boy Scouts. Before that I played college football. So I am not a person who is denying children's needs. What I am denying is the outrageous idea that this is the right place for the planned park, and the outrageous stubbornness that keeps on spending our money on it.

The writer lives in Carmel. Now retired, he was the longtime orchestra director at John Jay High School in Katonah.
 

01/19/07

Hi all - "Bully" for you, Virginia.  Terrific letter.  By the way, Patterson Crossing supporters have tried to bully the Pennysaver over the Camarda as "Santa" ad that appeared in the Dec. 20th issue.  The representative got quite a tongue lashing for permitting its publication.  What happened to free speech!

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com


Don't shove project down our throats

I read with interest your Jan. 11 article, "Developer finalizing Patterson Crossing plans." It comes as no surprise that the developer wants to start construction by the end of 2007. Had he been able to start yesterday, he would have. Residents of Putnam County, wake up!

There are two words that come to mind when I think of this developer - ramrod and bully.

First, the developer is trying to shove the Patterson Crossing down our throats. I applaud Santec, Patterson's consulting engineers, who originally raised serious questions and doubts about the original draft environmental impact statement report of this development. These issues should have been addressed and answered; they weren't. Sorry, it is a long, expensive and tedious process for the developer. The major issues with the Patterson Crossing were given to them free. It was at Patterson taxpayers' expense that they chose to do nothing. Since Santec's original recommendations were totally ignored, we cannot assume that the developer will comply with recommended DEIS changes.

The developer says, "The plan is going to change somewhat." Does anyone realize how much change has to be done when water usage has been underestimated by two-thirds and that septic fields, equivalent to eight football fields, have also been underestimated by two-thirds? "The plan is going to change"? You bet it is! The project has to be cut down to one third the size. It's not worth building at this reduced size.

The ramifications of a project this size have lifelong implications on Putnam County and its residents.

Virginia Reeves

Carmel

01/16/07

Pleasantville vs. Camardaville

Good morning all

Just sharing a post that I wrote on carmelresident.org.  The whole of Putnam County will become Camardavilles if we don't rise up, attend meetings and shout it loud and clear - "we're mad as hell and we're not taking it anymore."

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

The wringing of the town officials hands and their protestations that they want to ease the tax burden on residents, is something to behold.  Let's see how they are trying to accomplish this laudable purpose and compare it with Pleasantville, Katonah, Beacon,  and North Salem.

1. Storage Facility next to Post Office on Rte 6 - a huge piece of property with astounding curb appeal, facilitated by the town zoning board of appeals that approved a setback variance of approximately 5 feet. 

2. Hilltop Properties also on Rte 6, a strip mall on the hill with a well located right on the slopes.  How convenient.

3. Mahopac Rail & Tie - Rte 6 - relocation of a business that is by consensus one of the worst eyesores around.  Temporarily halted by the Coalition and resolute residents surrounding the property. 

4. Hotel/conference center, restaurant, office, senior housing etc.  of Rte 6, another tax enhancer and job producer and tourist venue to survey the hot spots of Carmel - United Rental, the car dealership, Friendly's, and of course, Giggles up the block. 

And I am only skimming the surface.  For coming attractions, the Town Board on Jan 4th held a public hearing on a zoning change that would include "Recreation" so that  Turf World with the blessing of Furfaro could construct,  you guessed it - a recreation center on 100 acres off Miller Rd. - the Olympic Diner is on the corner.  I guess that shouldn't be included in the Master Plan either.  The Camarda promised "Y" isn't and it won't be entoned Councilman DiCarlo.

Let's see what Pleasantville and the other towns have done to ease tax burdens and provide a commercial base and still maintain small town atmosphere.  Is there a theme?

In this week's NYTimes Real Estate section entitled "Art House to Get a Campus." I quote: "In 2001 when the three-screen 18,500 sq ft Jacob Burns Film Center open on Manvile Road, it was a much welcomed addition to this sleepy suburban village which had a handful of pizza parlors, several restaurants and one or two bars."

Now building on five years of succss, the film center has broken ground on a new $12 million, 25,000 sq. ft media and education center that is scheduled to open in 2008."

And what has been the benefit to the town?  First to students - some 15,000 in Grades 3-12 take part in the film center's educational programs.  Now did Carmel have such an opportunity.  It sure did but threw it aside because the sports jocks had to have their way.  A family was willing to donate $200,000 to help create such a program on the grounds of Sycamore Park.  So now as Ravallo is busy raiding the Rec Fund so as to wreck land and a neighborhood, he and other wreckers on the town board, couldn't match the funds. 

But here is the real kicker.  According to the article, "The village was pockmarked with empty storefronts in the late 1990's, but now it is thriving.  It is estimated that more than 200,000 people visit Pleasantville each year to attend events at the Burns center, often window-shopping on their way from a nearby parking lot and dining at local establishments before and after the show....  Rents have increased to $25 per sq ft from $18 and residential real estate has also benefited."

The same pattern is true for each of the towns mentioned above.  Each has an art and performance center; Katonah - Caramoor; Beacon, The Dia; North Salem, Hammond Museum.  What does Carmel have? Teasers, Giggles, nails, lubes, strip malls and storage.  No wonder the public is reeling when officials are tied to third rate developers and their jock friends.

01/12/07

Who Says We Need ... (Fill in the blank)

Good morning all - just sharing with you my latest post on carmelresident.org.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

There are whole bunch of projects out there with the advocates trying to make you believe that you need them; just can't live without them.  Let's see what they are and who says so and on what basis.

1. Who needs a hotel? Councilman Ravallo vociferously says so supporting his lunch companion efforts, Camarda, by tweaking the proposed senior housing code so that the hotel would have an advantaged location off Rte 6.  He is not the only one, the three other Board members joined him.  
 
Asked upon what basis was this momentous decision made.  Can't tell you.  Hush, hush.  All we can say, we need a hotel and the hotel folks won't release a study to the public, us the residents and taxpayers of Carmel and citizens of Putnam County.  Shouldn't the town board produce one?
 
2. Who needs more ballfields? Well here the Town Board at least put on a veneer of credibility by ceremoniously vetting along with the Rec Committee appointed by Pozzi,  made up of a five members of the sports associations, the largest single grouping among so-called representative body and then hiring an experienced firm, Ward & Associates to do a "Needs Assessment." But like all veneers, it was a cheap trick used to lull the residents and provide cover for pre-ordained results.    
 
When first engaged, Ward & Associates told the Board it would take over a year (if memory serves me correctly, 18 months) since it would include a survey of the residents; a survey of all the facilities including those present and proposed and those provided by schools and then in conjunction with residents, interested stakeholders and organizations develop a comprehensive Master Plan  Ah, but the need was great, so great that we filed the survey in the circular file with the Master Plan being reviewed by the Masterminds.   Nevermind that $55,000 out of taxpayers funds were expended on this firm from Batavia.
 
The plan is no longer comprehensive but compromised.   And so we had a meeting on Camarda Park sans survey, sans comprehensive plan, sans numbers of students and schedules and as my previous post indicated sans grappling with the major issues of road access; traffic; cost to taxpayers; quality of life; property valuations (Seminary Hill and Willow Ridge residents.  - blasting 14,462 cubic yards to create a Major League Field.  All discussion shut down by Furfaro.  
 
I invite you to go to the corner of Mechanic and Northgate and see what blasting has done to build 381 senior housing units. Carl Albano had no problem with this project and he had no problem with Camarda Park.  Why should he?  
 
 Latest reports are that cracks are evident in the basement of the residence most affected.  Who will pay for the repair and who will pay for the peace of mind and the enjoyment of one's property?  Not Furfaro, not Ravallo, not the town board.  Get out of our way residents, we're bulldozing through.  
 
3. Who needs senior housing? Why none other than the unofficial town planner and supervisor of Carmel, Paul Camarda.  He says so.  He says we need 1,300 units of senior housing in the Hamlet.  Can't have enough seniors - so benign - don't cost the taxpayers a dime or so he wants you to believe.  They'll move from their price inflated houses to his "Retreat" and of course, no one will move into them.  
 
 Being a senior, I know that in my future I will probably cost the taxpayers many dimes.  I'm going to need emergency services- ambulance;  maybe I'll demand more police (safety is a big issue) and if my eyesight worsens, even the fire department and of course, Ill demand centers for me to gather with my friends, eat and enjoy good conversation.  And being on fixed income, I'm not going to be too sympathetic to the tax increases to fund school projects and budgets.  Oh yes, having a disproportionate number of seniors in our midst will be a boon to Carmel.  
 
What we really need is to have a demographically balanced community not overly represented by any one age group and if we do, then we need to understand the consequences for the present and future of the town.  
 
4. Who needs Patterson Crossing on the Kent/Patterson border and Stateline on the outskirts of Southeast? You guessed it.  Camarda does.  His slickness sends out slick postcards screaming, You Need COSTCO. Why? We have in various towns- a ShopRite slated to expand by 10,000 sq ft; at least four A&P's; Hannaford scheduled to open in Carmel; STOP &SHOP on the Carmel border and Ace Endico up on 312 requesting permission to open as a food retail center.  Putnam has been targeted and nobody is asking "Who Says We Need.........

01/10/07

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, According to Chairman Fufaro

Good morning all - am sharing my comments on carmelresident.org concerning last night's meeting at Sycamore Park re: Camarda Park. 

Sincerely,
Ann

One thing I failed to mention and will include is the devastating impact on Willow Ridge residents, especially those who reside on Majestic Ridge. In one of the choices, The major league fields will be there on land that requires blasting over 14,462 cubic yds of dirt and rock to level it and parking.

Last night's meeting re: Camarda Park was vintage Fufaro - shut up and don't ask.  I'm the Chairman.  Well what shouldn't residents and taxpayers (I am a Carmel taxpayer) not ask, here is the list:
 
1. Don't ask about Seminary Hill Rd. safety, traffic and possible eminent domain proceedings to effect access to the park.  Off -topic that's not what we're here for; we design parks, growled a discourteous Fufaro to several residents.  Nobody had read the Collins Traffic Report about reconfiguration of Drewville and Seminary Hill.  Even the representaive from Ward & Associates could not restrain lowering his eyes and laughter from the audience when talk of left turning lanes and correcting line of sight were mentioned while giving assurances that no property would be taken just more blasting, I guess.
 
2. Don't ask about the survey - and well should Fufaro hide that piece of wanton misuse of the public's money.  A sham in the thousands of dollars perpetrated on the honest taxpayers of the town allegedly to assess community needs but meant to deceive and to mask predetermined results steamrolled by Fufaro and his official friends and Camarda.  The results are well known - 458 received out of a 11,000 mailed or is it 14,000 - depends on who you speak to; 185 disgarded and over 300 remaining souls stating they had no children.  Wow what a model for future statisticians.  Shut-up don't say anything about that either.  
 
Aren't plans usually based on a survey of needs?  Oh yes, but not the community.  Just the say so of the higher up of the sports association and the Pozzi hand-picked Rec Committee, some of whose members are well meaning and hope to do the best for the residents and the town.  
 
3. Don't ask about the referendum - the park belongs to the people, let the people decide - promised  Town Councilman, DeCarlo. on several occasions, one of which was at the Hamlet of Carmel Association meeting in May and never rebutted by either Councilman Ravallo or Supervisor Munday who attended Tuesday's meeting and sat there like deer in headlights when I mentioned it.  Sudden amnesia took hold of the both of them and neither one of them to whom Fufaro is accountable for his position as a member of the Recreation committee and for inexcuseable behavior, saw fit to stop bullying me, a Carmel taxpayer.  Shup up, Ann
 
4. Don't ask about safety and police - Obviously Recreation Director, Jim Gilchrist has not read Carmel Police Chief's  Johnson letter where he advises lights and possible additional park personnel but certainly not additional police who if all of us were to read the papers, have a great deal on their hands besides patrolling parks.
 
5. Don't ask about the forced choice of three - that residents have to make as to the activities in the park, prompting one resident to comment and I paraphrase - among the worse, the first one is my choice - a choice by the way not elicited from any survey or true appraisal of the community's needs.  
 
Is it possible, that there is a fourth choice but one that does not conform with the Fufaro drumbeat that the Hamlet must be disadvantaged, if the ballfields are not located within its boundaries and the children bereft if they are not participants in sports.  Let me count the ways that the children of Carmel are indeed disadvantaged.  They lack an Art and Performance Center befitting a community of 37,000 souls; aside from schools, they lack after school facilities to hone their technological and science skills; they lack a community college to take advanced courses and be truly competitive.  Indeed, there is a lack but there appears to be no lack for the sports headed by an individual who last night violated every rule of sportsmanship: courtesy.  
 
We must be cognizant that the Carmel Sports Association unlike Fufaro's Mahopac, represents a regional constituency since it includes students from Kent, Patterson, Carmel, who are part of a regional school system, the Carmel Central School District.  Shouldn't efforts be made to find a regional solution to providing facilities for our children? Hard isn't it. 

Re: Don't Ask,Don't Tell, According to Chairman Fufaro
Reply #1 - Today at 11:42:38     
It may require adoption of Intermunicipal agreements - oh horrors that we should be talking across the invisible wall of town borders that Fufaro and his ilk constantly raise so that problems cannot be solved.  But it's quite all right for an out of town, out of state resident to come to Carmel and try to direct our way of life, affect our quality of life, destroy our landscape and vistas for what he envisions.  As critical as I am of Camarda, at the very least he has a vision of what he wants which is more than I can say for our elected officials.  

01/03/07

Good morning all -

It is New Year but I can scarcely recognize it as such.  However, I thought I would share with you an exerpt from a letter sent to the Carmel Planning Board by a resident on Northgate.  It endorses the senior housing units now being built off Stoneleigh Avenue and euphemistically called "The Retreat." 

The letter writer states the following: "In my opinion, the major fears of traffic, increased medicaid and environmental impacts were adequately answered and allayed by the builder.  The Town of Carmel, as any other town in Putnam County, will not remain static but will continue to grow each year.  I would prefer to see the fields where I have walked my dogs for the past thirty years remain in their natural beauty, but that is not possible.  Therefore it is our job as concerned citizens to choose those developers who have shown a commitment to preserve the integrity and beauty of our area.  I feel Mr. Camarda has those intentions."

I invite you to visit the area of Carmel's premier preservationist of  beauty and integrity, Camarda and now Pulte Homes.   You will see deforestation on a massive scale; slopes blasted to smitherens; retention ponds literally located in residents' backyards; a road that slashes up and around the contours of Carmel's former incomparable landscape and wildlife scattered.  And more.

This devastation is scheduled to be duplicated on the slopes of Hillcrest Commons behind ShopRite;  on the slopes of Rte 6 to make way for a hotel, restaurant, senior housing, etc. etc. and of course, on the slopes surrounding Patterson Crossing off I84.  Finally, the blasting of rock to make way for three ballfields for Camarda Park, estimated to be over 14,462 cubic yards and an emergency access road right in the backyards of Willow Ridge residents on Majestic Ridge.

Here are the directions:  Take Rte 35 - which is Stoneleigh (at the corner of Friendly's near the A&P Plaza; proceed past Watson Pharmeuceuticals to Interlochen (the sign is a bit obscured by trees).  Proceed up to Crosby Avenue - turn right and go to the end, cul de sac). Look around and you will see retention ponds galore and the road (Terrace Drive) Once you've finished there, continue on Interlochen to Northgate and proceed to the end (Mechanic) and you will see a house completely surrounded by orange fencing and a huge retention pond out front; historic Gilead Cemetery next door no longer surrounded by noble trees but isolated; The owner of the home has given permission for us to visit. 

What has been wrought here? What is the price?  Who is guarding the integrity and beauty of Carmel and Kent and Putnam County?  Not the lunch companions of Camarda who sit on the Town Board scheming how to facilitate the next planned devastation of the character of our community.  Fellow residents of Putnam County, it is up to us to become the guardians of our homes and of the land we prize so dearly. Time is short - The barbarians are at the gates.

On January 10th, there will be a Public Meeting, where Ward & Associates, contracted by the Town Board to create a credible survey and Recreation Plan for the Town of Carmel, will present their plans for Camarda Park aka - Hamlet Community Park.  Please make every effort to attend, however, please check beforehand in the event of rescheduling. 

Sincerely
Ann

Good morning all -  the letters are really coming - three in the Journal News on the Town of Southeast open space referendum and this one on cemeteries in the free Putnam County Times - can be had at A&P in Carmel and Southeast and ShopRite in Lake Carmel.

Just a bit of a background.  There are many cemeteries located on this side of Putnam County, holding the remains of many of the figures well known to historians.  You can see them attached to churches or along county roads.  It is difficult to keep them in a state of repair and individuals located in each of the towns have formed "Cemetery Committees" to maintain them.  What is even harder is to find volunteers and the equipment to do the job.  Enter Paul Camarda who at a monthly meeting of the Cemetery Committee, offered to help.  Not even the dead can rest in peace - away from Camarda's reach.  By the way, he also offered to maintain Gilead Cemetery which now is feeling the effects of the massive senior housing construction off Stoneleigh.

The pastor of the First Baptist Church, Larry Maxwell remembered Camarda's offer and requested his assistance.  The letter by Lake Carmel resident, Joan Castiner, makes the point that Camarda was very quick to help the dead while at the same time, devastating the living.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

December 8, 2006

Putnam County Times

Letter to the Editor

Fax (845) 628-8400

Dear Sir,

I read with interest the article regarding a Patterson Cemetery restoration by the same developer who proposes the Patterson Crossing Retail Center at I-84 and 311 on the border of the Town of Kent, thereby destroying 90 ½ acres of hill adjacent to the densely populated Lake Carmel Park District. While I applaud efforts to restore the resting place of the dead, it would be just as heroic to take care of the living. We residents will be within 500 feet of the daily digging and blasting to remove rocks, dirt and hill for an estimated period of 2 to 3 years. We too long to keep the tranquility we now experience.

While rescuing one graveyard, we are completely ignoring the creation of another kind of graveyard wherein residents of modest means, unable to fight big money, chance losing their bucolic way of life. Values of their homes could plummet and the integrity of the structure of their homes, wells and septic systems could be put at great risk. If residents run out of water, will the Board of Health allow them to stay in their homes? Could the daily onslaught of construction create a mass exodus of Lake Carmel residents, that is, if they can find buyers for their homes?

The priorities here are skewed. On the one hand, we rescue a graveyard and on the other, we risk burying the way of life of a community residents now know and enjoy.

Sincerely,
_________________________________

Joan Castiner

Lake Carmel, NY 10512
 

11/28/2006

Good morning -

As many of you know, a Stipulation of Settlement has been signed between the DEP and the Town of Carmel, effectively ending the threat of litigation.  An informational meeting - not a public hearing -  was held on November 15th which has been reported in the Journal News.

For over three years and through two town administrations, residents of Seminary Hill Rd. - Cindy Katz et al, CWCWC and the Coalition have worked to bring the grave environmental and quality of life issues before public officials and the community at large against the forces of special interests.  And we naively believed that the litigation would provide the means to bring some sanity to a SEQRA process that had been compromised, forestall the environmental devastation and give residents of the immediate area - Seminary Hill, Willow Ridge and Little Pond - the vehicle to create a park in harmony with the environment and yet fitting to their needs. 

Much to the dismay of many, in utter disregard of the wishes of the residents of the immediate area, the DEP approved a travesty - a stormwater plan that abetted maximum destruction of the environment and a full-build out Sports Rec Plex instead of a modest neighborhood park envisioned by residents.

In response to Wednesday night's meeting, several letters from the Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition have been sent to Supervisor Connie Munday together with my own letter on behalf of the Coalition to Preserve Open Space. 

Please feel free to distribute this letter to friends and neighbors.  The consequences of the DEP's alliance with the supporters on the Town Board and sports special interests groups, are grave and must be challenged.  

And please do write and call Supervisor Munday's office at 628-1500.  At the present time, only the supporters of these special interests are being heard and the voices of the residents are being drowned. 

Rest assured that every effort will be expended in reversing this unfortunate decision. 

Sincerely,

Ann

10/06/2006

Hi all

Just a brief summary.  Councilman Ravallo was there but not Connie Munday.  He probably came in her place.  Fufaro chaired - I mean bullied -  in place of Joe DiMarzo. 

Maps produced by Ward & Association were out on the table, giving access points, etc.  It was great to see the preliminary plans for all the parks, especially Mahopac Airport and Camarda Park.

Fufaro et al didn't want to hear about the survey; how it had been sent to folks in various towns that had Carmel 10512 as postal address - the old saw, "garbage in, garbage out."  They'll fix it - there was a question on school attendance and they would remove any that reported Brewster, said  Jim Gilchrist, the Town's Park Director. So what, ridiculed another member - how much could they affect the result. I simply said that everyone should have confidence in the result and they wouldn't have. They really didn't have a clue about how you create a valid study.  And I'll keep saying it.  And let us not go into the survey itself, I called it a "Sports Survey" with only two questions reserved for cultural affairs and two for Open Space.   "Unfair, unfair, protested Fufaro.

The Committee was very defensive.  We really shouldn't put too much emphasis on it since they was " a multilayered" process, including meetings with adjacent neighbors (Seminary Hill and Hill St. - they're coming, and the committee would be able from a variety of sources, to make a considered judgement as to the needs and wants of the community.

And then there was the whole issue of Open Space.  In not one town that I am aware of is Open Space subsumed under Recreation.  That was what Pozzi wanted and I am disappointed that Connie continued that practice especially after she promised during the campaign that she would create a "Carmel Open Space Committee."  But then Open Space=ballfields to the jocks.  Like one of the CSA folks said to me with respect to Camarda Park a little while ago - ballfields preserve Open Space and protect the environment.  Are you gagging yet?

Seems we are going to be running on " parallel tracks" - developing the Master Plan while at the same time developing the plans for each of the parks. Two years said the man from Ward and even sooner.   A sham if ever there was one.  The survey and anything else will provide cover for what has been already decided.  "You see we're doing what the residents told us to do."  They had gathered about 195 returns at the Sycamore Park Center. 

By the way, an interesting tidbit, prior to the meeting, there was a session held in late afternoon attended by "Special Interest Groups."  I was invited.  But I came a bit early and everyone was complaining that there wasn't an all-purpose center in the town fit for seniors, teens and adults.  I piped up what about The Y.  Well Bill Huestis, head of the Putnam County Office of Aging went into a long discourse and tried to completely discredit the idea and The Y.  Brought up the issue of what happened in Somers which I really wasn't up on.  So friends, the Y is history.  Disgraceful - deceiving a trusting, gullible public with that robber baron costing him just $1.2 million for 19 acres. 

I'll quite now - don't want to completely spoil your day.

Sincerely,
Ann

P.S. In a telephone conversation, there was comic relief.  Gilchrist share with me a comment by one of the residents.  Build Camarda Park in Ridgefield.

10/06/2006

Good morning all - Well $500,000 for the hospital from the Senator and all he got was thanks and a pat on the back but Camarda beat him out - got the entire building named after him for the same $500 thou. You think the Senator will at least get a bench?
Sincerely,
Ann

Hospital gets $500,000 check for cancer center expansion
By: Eric Gross
10/06/2006

CARMEL-State Sen. Vincent Leibell last week presented a check for $500,000 to Putnam Hospital Center officials for the medical center's new multi-million dollar five-story patient tower that will house the hospital's new cancer center and enhanced cardiology services.
 
"It was the senator who pushed hard in Albany to help make this expansion happen. The senator also assisted us in obtaining nine acres of land from our neighbors that will allow for the expansion of hospital parking," Weber said.

Leibell thanked Weber for his accolades but said they were unnecessary.

"This is a wonderful hospital," said Leibell. "I have tremendous confidence in this facility because I can't tell you how many times members of my family and I have been here. I had some tough surgery performed several years ago and there was some question at the time if I'd ever walk again. I'm walking!"

"The issues that face everyone in health care today are challenging," said Leibell. "What I love here is the spirit - the sense of community. Just as our community has grown over the years, so has our hospital grown."

Putnam Hospital will fund the $34 million required for the new building project through structured borrowing and philanthropy with a $15 million capital campaign.

The Campaign for Tomorrow was created to raise funds for the new patient tower as well as the renovations and new parking.

10/05/2006

Good morning all - There is no end.  On the heels of the Public Hearing, on behalf of the Coalition, I wrote the following letter which reiterated some of the issues brought up at the hearing.   Talk about the "emperor having no clothes" this law has no competitors and it shouldn't have any takers.  But the Hamlet, the Town and its residents sure have been had.

Sincerely,
Ann

10/05/2006

Good morning all

Attention: Recreation Committee meeting tonight at Sycamore Park - I believe it is at 7 or 7:30 PM - Please check. Your attendance is urgently needed.  Why?  The survey is invalid.

Here is another instance of the "gang that couldn't shoot straight."  After contracting a so-called recognized firm, Ward & Associates for thousands of dollars to develop a "recreation survey," and town-wide Recreation Plan, the company simply sent it to "Postal Customer"  i.e. Carmel 10512.  And nobody checked how many towns came under that postal address - Southeast, Carmel, Kent, and a sliver of Patterson.  So guess what.  I got it as did several of my neighbors who live on the border of Carmel and Southeast and bear the postal address of Carmel 10512.  I don't know how many residents in other towns may have also received the survey.

Last night at the Town of Carmel Board meeting at the Firehouse in the Hamlet of Carmel,  I brought this instance of inexcuseable sloppiness threatening the entire Recreation Master Plan process to the attention of the Board. 

The survey must be scrapped. An official notification must be sent out to all those who erroneously received it;  public notification to the papers must be made and Ward & Associates dismissed as incompetent. 

The purpose of the survey was  to obtain the sense of the residents of Carmel not those from other towns.  With such skewed results, how can we be confident that this same company who didn't take the time to determine the geographical area of its targeted population, help the town create a Master Plan. Ward & Associates must go.  This inexcusable error at the beginning of the process, portends other significant problems in the future, having to do with the survey itself.  Questions were poorly framed.  Those dealing with open space should have been segregated from the rest.  And there is more which I will not go into at the present time. 

Sincerely,
Ann

09/05/2006

Good morning all -

I received the summary of the Stipulation Agreement re: Camarda Park.  It is about 14 pages but I wish to quote the beginning.  And I am doing so because there have been efforts by some to blame the Coalition, residents and myself for the lawsuit filed by the Department of Environmental Protection against Supervisor Pozzi and the Town of Carmel.  The Stipulation Agreement was ordered by Justice Andrew O'Rourke and signed by Attorney Thomas Costello for the Town of Carmel.  A public informational meeting is tentatively scheduled for sometime in October.

"Whereas as of July 26, 2005, the City of New York commenced this proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, alleging that respondents Robert J. ozzi and the Town of Carmel Board had violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by issuing on May 25, 2005 a "negative declaration," finding erroneously that the proposed project known as the Paul A Camarda Park in Seminary Hill Road in the Town of Carmel, County of Putnam would not have a significant impact on the environment, by including in that negative declaration conditions intended to mitigate potential environmental impacts of the Project, despite the fact that conditioned negative declarations are not permitted for Type 1 projects such as the Project and by failing to develop those mitigation measures  through an open and deliberative public process."

On May 25th I wrote a letter to Pozzi and the Town Board which I then read at the meeting, prior to the adoption of the negative declaration.  In it, I warned that SEQRA procedures were not being properly followed and that the Town by its procedures had attempted to circumvent the process, denying residents and interest organizations, a full and proper hearing on all aspects of the project.  And the rest is history. 

I hope that this will put to rest some of the misleading statements made during the course of this year by individuals who believe that the end justifies the means.

Sincerely,
Ann
 

08/28/2006

Good morning all

At last Wednesday's Carmel Planning Board meeting, residents and I spoke opposing the relocation of Mahopac Rail & Tie from a highly developed "industrialized" section of Route 6 to a relatively "virgin" area extending from the Church of the Holy Communion.  The proposed relocation is across the way from a neighborhood store, Valley Market, and its entrance is to be on the same unimproved road leading to the Northwood Inn.  Aside from Rte 9, a worst instance of commercial sprawl, is hard to find.

The Town of Carmel Commercial Code makes no distinction in the types of businesses that can be located anywhere on Route 6.  That Mahopac Rail & Tie whose shabby appearance is already an eye sore, wishes to relocate without impediment to an area that should be designated as a "Gateway" to the heart of the Town of Carmel, is an indication of the lack of sensitivity on the part of Town and Planning Board members who in the words of its newest member, Frank Lombardi, said that "as long as it brings tax dollars, he has no problem."  He has no problem with that type of business at the Gateway to reservoir areas, residences, churches and small neighborhood businesses and would approve the application.  The Commercial Code literally would permit anything and everything in the area extending from the Church of the Holy Communion to the heart of the Town of Carmel, Lake Gleneida, threatening the vistas of Belden House and the efforts of so many who wish to upgrade and beautify the area. 

For those of who are not aware that was the same attitude that prevailed several years ago when the Lemcar (outdoor storage of concrete and paving materials) application came before the Town Planning Board.  It has since become the bane of residents, the business expanding at will, and the present Planning Board who has sought to provide landscape cover and distance but to no avail.

After my testimony before the Planning Board, I brought up the issue at the Town Board and again pleaded for a change in Commercial code, especially in view of Councilman DiCarlo's critical assessment of the shabby "look" of Route 6. 

On behalf of the Coalition to Preserve Open Space,  I have written a letter to Supervisor Connie Munday.  It is presently in draft form and is being reviewed by the Board.  As soon as I have received approval, I will share the letter with you.

Sincerely,

Ann

08/25/2006

Good morning all -

This Wednesday's Town Work Session and Planning Board meetings (yes, they are scheduled concurrently), were notable for several items on both of their agendas and for one which did not appear on any agenda, the Ethics issue.  And notable also for the leader of the charge in both of them: Councilman DiBattisti who initiated the round-robin letter reading exercise by members of the Town Board roundly denying any Ethics violation or perception of one, reported in its tawdry detail in today's Journal News. 

Mr. DiBattisti has also been prominent in the effort to move the matter of Camarda Park along, as expediously as possible.  Which bring to mind, the old adage, "haste makes waste."  It was haste to get the hotel going that percipitated the filing of an Ethics complaint; it was haste to get Camarda Park going that percipitated the DEP to litigate the project.  In both instances, Town Board members threw caution and judgment overboard and almost sank their prized projects. 

We now have according to Town Counsel, Tom Costello, a 400-page decision, soon to be accessed online, outlining the conditions and parameters of the agreement arrived at between the Town of Carmel and the DEP.  A formal public informational hearing is scheduled for sometime in October. 

Just to recall the facts of the case.  Camarda Park, envisioned by the former Town Board and Supervisor, contained almost 15 different activities, ranging from minor and major league baseball fields; tennis, soccer and bocci courts;  bleechers, grandstand; concession stands; amphitheater, gazebo, picnic area, toddler playground, parking etc. destroying 37-acres of pristine, environmentally fragile watershed property, a trout-spawning stream   The Park is located off Seminary Hill Road, a residential, narrow, windy road, with precipitous curves, narrowly adjacent to walls and residences.  Attempts by the Supervisor and Town Board to minimize the effects of the project and then to deny the eventual scope of it, were met with skepticism as simultaneously crews were sent out to assess property lines and width of the Seminary Hill Road. 

The project was subject to State Environmental Review requirements which mandated the declaration of a Lead Agency.  In their haste and arrogance, the Town Board became the Lead Agency, personally responsible for shepherding the project thru the SEQRA process.  Instead of following the process, admittedly often slow,  they attempted to fast track it, circumventing the usual SEQRA procedures and issued a negative declaration (no environmental impact).  Nor were they deterred by warnings from residents, Cindy Katz, the Watershed Inspector General, Trout Unlimited, Riverkeeper or Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition.  On behalf of the Coalition to Preserve Open Space, I wrote in a May 25th letter that given residents' concerns, environmental impact, and the lack of a coordinated review with the DEP, invited litigation.  And it did.  The DEP sued the Town.  So one year later, we now have a 400-page decision. 

Haste does indeed make waste.  And here we have two instances where that adage was never truer. 

Sincerely,
Ann

PS: Watershed Attorney General Tierney has sent me a letter, summarizing the decision. As soon as I receive it, I will copy it for you to read.

Hi all - the headline should have read - "Project Disses Local Residents". 

Another news event comes to mind of more than a quarter of a century which perhaps some of you might remember.  The then Mayor of New York City, Abe Beame, went to President Ford, hat in hand and related the plight that ordinary New Yorkers would be faced if the city went bankrupt.  He came away with nothing so the Daily News, the following day screamed this headline: "Ford to New York City - Drop Dead".  Ford was defeated for election.

Sincerely,
Ann

Project disregards local residents

(Original publication: August 11, 2006)

As a layperson reading the Patterson Crossing draft environmental impact statement, I was struck by the callous disregard for the well-being of nearby residents during the construction phase. Just one example: Blasting will be done by experts. Homes and wells within 500 feet will be monitored. Are they expecting repercussions?

Residents will receive blasting schedules. What to do then? (1) hit the floor, (2) evacuate, or (3) put in issued ear plugs to avoid hearing damage? I am not treating this lightly, only pointing out the absurdity of this scenario. The developer, Patterson Planning Board and County Executive Robert Bondi are treating our plight lightly.

A recent letter to County Executive Bondi expressing concerns received no reply. After all, what could be said? "You are an expendable pawn in a situation considered as a means to an end, nothing personal?" The indifference to our plight, lack of public outcry on our behalf, contribute to one feeling expendable.

Whatever happened to neighbors looking out for neighbors, elected officials looking out for all constituents? As a retiree, my home is my biggest financial and emotional asset. Lake Carmel has given me the chance to afford a home, peace of mind and tranquility. Now a contrived money-making scheme preys on residents with modest incomes who have no voice. If proponents need a mall, find another location. If not, find a conscience! This is a morality issue. Nothing would have progressed this far if we were an affluent town. It appears money talks.

Joan Castiner, Lake Carmel

Residents don't want shopping nearby

(Original publication: August 4, 2006)
Isn't it interesting that the people "for Patterson Crossing" are those who will be least affected by it being built! In a recent letter, Elena Longinotti mentioned needing shopping close by. If she is so concerned about having shopping close by, why did she move here? Move to New York City. The rest of us moved here because of the beautiful open spaces, the chance to raise our children without the traffic, noise and general "city-like" atmosphere that Patterson Crossing will bring. There are places to shop in Putnam — our small stores that are being put out of business by these big-box stores.

A final note to Ms. Longinotti: There are more than a "few" people opposed to this development. I would venture to guess her "few" is more like hundreds in reality!

Mike and Pat Ravert, Lake Carmel

Donations just fuel opposition to project

(Original publication: August 3, 2006)
Paul Camarda recently boasted that he has spent $1.2 million on the Patterson Crossing project to date. I'm assuming this includes the donations of $500,000 to Putnam Hospital and $100,000 to the Mahopac schools, since both were a ridiculously lame attempt to purchase support for the project.

Camarda Charitable Foundation? He must be kidding. Here's a news flash for Mr. Camarda: Decent people's values aren't for sale. This decent person still vehemently opposes Patterson Crossing and no amount of money will change my opinion of this unacceptable project. Projects that are good for communities don't require "purchased support." Thank you Mr. Camarda, for raising yet another red flag for the Patterson Crossing project!

Robert Molloy, Carmel

Camarda's donations are self-serving

(Original publication: August 3, 2006)

In response to Keith Austin's Sunday letter ("Appreciative of Camarda's donations"), please let me educate him about Paul Camarda's "donation." Mr. Camarda did not reach into his pants pocket and come out with $600,000. It came from the corporation and it is known as "the cost of doing business."

If all of Mr. Camarda's projects had sailed through local town legislatures, do you really think Putnam Hospital and the organization trying to raise money for Mahopac sports would be the recipients of Mr. Camarda's generosity? These are corporate decisions that are made in order to make money for Mr. Camarda. He is hoping his $600,000 investment will bring him millions, literally.

Virginia Villegas, Lake Carmel

Developer sells Carmel land with approved senior housing plan

By BARBARA LIVINGSTON NACKMAN
bnackman@lohud.com
THE JOURNAL NEW

(Original publication: June 24, 2006)

CARMEL — Developer Paul Camarda has sold 96 acres of his Carmel Centre property to one of the country's largest home builders for nearly $30 million.

The property is off Stoneleigh Avenue and has town approvals for more than 300 units of senior citizen housing.

The new owner, Pulte Homes Inc., says it bought the site because it had a ready-to-go design. The company plans to proceed with Camarda's vision of a campus with a variety of two-bedroom homes and recreation facilities for active adults older than 55 years old.

"Putnam County is a new destination point. It is beautiful and I can see why," said Jim Mullen, development approval manager for Pulte Homes' Bernardsville, N.J., office. "Senior housing is very popular. People want to stay nearby in communities they have lived in or move closer to their families."

Camarda persevered in developing the site behind the A&P Shopping Center and Watson Laboratories for more than a decade. He sold the land to Pulte on May 12.

He first proposed an office complex known as Carmel Corporate Centre, then moved on to consider a large retail project, dropping "corporate" from the project name.

With a new town code allowing multifamily housing, he shifted gears and designed a plan for upscale townhouses with a clubhouse, tennis courts, swimming pool and 3-hole pitch-and-putt golf area. He worked on the plans for seven years and in 1998 purchased the land for $1.5 million.

He split off Stoneleigh Woods — about 9 acres with town approvals for 68 senior-citizen units — and sold it to Blue and Gold Development of Riverhead, Long Island, for $3.1 million on April 3.

During the approval process, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection sued Camarda, demanding additional environmental reviews. Another group took the town to court, saying natural resources should be studied further, but the courts upheld the Planning Board's review. With legal issues out of the way, Camarda hired Brennan Construction of Carmel to build an access road, Terrace Drive, from Stoneleigh Avenue and lay the groundwork for utilities and town water and sewer lines.

"I see my job as a developer to bring in other companies to become part of my developments," Camarda said. "Pulte shared the same vision for the property that I had. They are pre-eminent builders of senior housing, and this will be a win-win for Putnam County." He says he will stay active in the process if Pulte needs him and that a project of this size undoubtedly will mean work for many local businesses.

Pulte Homes is a 56-year-old building company based in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., with offices in 27 states. Last year, the company built 45,630 homes in the U.S. and had revenues of $14.7 billion.

Christopher Burtt's home for more than 30 years borders the property. He said he wasn't surprised by the sale but is concerned how the complex will look.

"I am encouraged that most of it went to one buyer," he said, meaning it would have a unified appearance. Plans for housing, he said, appeal to him more than ones for a commercial or industrial use.

"Really, I have no control over someone else's property. They have rights and all I can do is moan and groan. But in the end, I hope the details Camarda described to the residents will really happen."

As far as Dawn Onufrik, 45, is concerned, the main issue is that the town must keep an eye on the project.

"I hope proper procedures are followed," she said, noting that any changes in the approved plans must be reviewed again by town boards. "I'm not sure we need and can handle all this senior housing, but it is not my land, and it is their prerogative to build. Just do it right is all I have to say."

Camarda has developed other sites in Putnam using a similar model of preparing design plans and then bringing in a builder for the construction phase. He worked with Wyndham Homes on a 71-lot subdivision, Willow Ridge.

Elsewhere in Putnam, Camarda has proposed retail centers in Patterson and Southeast, and on Route 6 in Carmel, a hotel-conference center with adjacent senior-citizen housing units.

Fred Dill Sanctuary and Outdoor Education Center becomes Carmel's jewel

By: Eric Gross
07/28/2006

HAMLET OF CARMEL - Fred Dill was a man who achieved great business success.
    
Despite his notoriety and wealth, Dill enjoyed using his financial accomplishments to benefit the people of Putnam County.

The Fred Dill Wildlife Sanctuary and Outdoor Education Center that was officially opened Tuesday was the entrepreneur's final project before his death in 2004 at the age of 91. The late Dill and his wife, Nancy, donated land to Putnam County off Fair Street that was originally used as the Putnam County Fairgrounds.

Mrs. Dill cut the ceremonial ribbon with members of the Dill clan at her side. "This is such a pleasure. Knowing that scores of people will enjoy this beautiful sanctuary for years to come makes the project worthwhile," she said.

County Executive Robert Bondi described the late Fred Dill as a "dedicated businessman who had a heart for his community. Fred was always there to help the needy. He cared about the social and human services Putnam offered its residents. Because of this generous donation of land, Fred and his family have made, others will be able to enjoy the beauty of Putnam's landscape for generations to come."

The Dill Sanctuary is a 156 acre parcel consisting of a trail map kiosk that contains self guided interpretive trail pamphlets. Visitors will be able to walk two miles of marked hiking trails that contain a dozen educational stations along the way. Each station informs the visitor of a unique historical or environmental feature. A pavilion with picnic tables is located near a pond and benches and tree markers can be found along the trails.

Chris Ruthven, Putnam's Superintendent of Parks and Lauri Taylor, District Manager of the county's Soil and Water Conservation District also had words of praise for the late Dill.

"Fred Dill held this property close to his heart," said Ruthven while Taylor added: "This is a jewel in the middle of Carmel and we all have Fred Dill to thank for that."

Lynn E. Greenwood Sr., the Putnam sportsman, who knows the property like the back of his own hand told the ribbon cutting ceremony: "I have walked this brook since I was knee high to a grasshopper. I caught frogs here and hunted deer. In life, it's the little things that count but Fred Dill's generosity was far from small. He was a giant of a man for what he achieved in his lifetime and for the legacy he has left behind."

Dill's son, Carl, said his dad was looking down from heaven and saying "Nice going Chris! Thanks Nancy! Great job Lauri! Thanks Lynn!"

The younger Dill called the trail and sanctuary his father's final dream.

©Putnam County Courier 2006

Good morning

It was a wonderful dedication ceremony made all the more poignant by the fact that the sanctuary had been slated years ago to be paved over as a bypass to Rte 52 and that having failed, a reservoir disapproved by the DEP.  On the third try, everybody got it right - a wildlife preserve to be enjoyed by young and old alike forever.  Now if only the same thing could happen to the 37-acres of Camarda Park, an equally environmentally and ecologically sensitive property, home to all manner of wild things rapidly disappearing under the maws of the wrecking machines.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com


Wildlife preserve opens
By SCOTT GARGAN
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: July 26, 2006)

CARMEL — The Fred Dill Wildlife Sanctuary and Outdoor Education Center, named after the late business owner and philanthropist who donated 45 acres for the preserve, opened yesterday.

"I'm delighted after all the years people have been working on (the sanctuary) that it's finally opened," said Nancy Dill, his widow and a member of the committee that planned the park.

Dill family members, including his wife and three sons, and Putnam County officials, park rangers and friends attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the park entrance on Fair Street, next to Carmel High School.

Rolling hills, stone walls and wetlands adorn the sanctuary, which consists of 156 acres on what used to be the county fairgrounds and a horse-racing track. The sanctuary also features 2 miles of walking trails and a pavilion for outdoor education classes.

Dill, who died in January 2004, became successful as part owner of the 21-store Lloyd Lumber chain, but friends and family said he will be remembered for his humanitarian legacy. Besides donating the land, Dill contributed time and money to numerous Putnam institutions, including the Carmel Rotary Club, the Red Cross and Drew United Methodist Church.

"(The sanctuary) is a very fitting tribute to a man who cared deeply about his community," said Putnam County Executive Robert Bondi, a member of the committee and a friend of Dill's.

Preparations for the sanctuary began in 2001 after Dill bought the land from the Grossman family of New York City for $220,000, and got the donation approved by the county Legislature. County Park Superintendent Chris Ruthven, soil and water specialist Lauri Taylor and park rangers designed the trails and nature descriptions located throughout the sanctuary.

Plans for an 1,800-square-foot building that would have housed a park ranger's office, a classroom and a veranda fell through in 2003 after state transportation officials threatened to take back $3 million in anti-pollution grants if the county went ahead with the construction of an adjacent parking lot.

The county wanted to build a main entrance and the lot along the south end of the sanctuary on Route 6, but the DOT said the lot's planned proximity to a bike trail posed a conflict. Parking is available in front of the park entrance.

Bondi said he hoped the county could eventually persuade the DOT to "reconsider," as a Route 6 entrance and parking lot would give people from outside Carmel better access.

Despite the setbacks, planners of the sanctuary were pleased with its completion.

"The overall theme of what we worked to do still came across," Ruthven said.

Carl Dill, who started his own chain of home-improvement stores — Dill's Best — in 1985, called the preserve's opening "wonderful."

"Hopefully, my dad is watching down," he said. "I think he'd be pleased."

Hi all - terrific letter - just an addendum - the headquarters of the Chamber is in Putnam Lake, the other side of town and if we persuse their website, many of its member businesses are in Brewster, the other side of the Patterson town line.  Ah yes, distance does make the heart grow fonder.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com


Chamber's support of project questioned

(Original publication: June 22, 2006)

There are nine board members of the Patterson Chamber of Commerce. A recent statement by this group presents the appearance of unequivocal support for the 90-acre retail center astride the Patterson/Lake Carmel border. The enthusiasm is so unbridled that it would appear the vote was somewhere beyond unanimous.

The chamber's board members seem to have set their own time table as to how this development will sail through the friendly trade winds of the Patterson Planning Board and escape unscathed from the scrutiny of the draft environmental impact statement stakeholders (Department of Environmental Protection, state departments of environmental conservation and transportation, etc.) within a year. Their political clout with these important oversight agencies must be greater than my own. When I speak to concerned agency representatives, they don't seem to be in any rush to usher this project to an early start date.

The Patterson Chamber of Commerce also predicts groundbreaking in little over a year. The voters (and, amazingly, it's an election year!) are being promised great tax savings. I hope the chamber did its homework regarding the continued absence of any significant tax windfall from Brewster Highlands.

How thorough was the canvassing of the chamber members? It is the unwritten intention of most big-box boards of directors to eliminate all local competition, Main Street be damned. Are the "Stop Patterson Crossing" signs appearing in Patterson beginning to remind board members of how galvanized the citizens of Patterson became 15 years ago when a similar commercial venture threatened the town? My money is on "too close to call."

Kathy Day, Carmel

June 20, 2006

Hi all - Another Lake Carmel resident says "No" to Patterson Crossing.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com


Project will damage our quality of life . . .

I attended the Stop Patterson Crossing meeting and oppose this proposed retail center. Proponents are lured by promises of tax relief, yet it is the developer who will line his pocket while the rest of the citizens will see a paltry amount at best. All this at what cost to the Lake Carmel residents, particularly those residing on the hill in close proximity, surrounded on three sides by this mammoth project.

Residents have quality-of-life concerns such as noise, traffic, water pollution, overtaxing our emergency systems, using our most accessible roads as an emergency route. Of immediate concern, though, is the location, and the quality of life our citizens will have during construction as well as after. This project will be larger than all of Brewster Highlands. I shudder to contemplate the effect that the daily onslaught of blasting, drilling and dirt removal will have on local residents, not to mention duration or lasting effects. Will blasting damage home structures and put wells at risk? What noise levels will we endure while this project is ongoing?

All Putnam citizens deserve to enjoy the peace and tranquility of their property. As a retiree, my home is my biggest financial and emotional asset. Are we to be the sacrificial lambs for a few dollars? This project is in the wrong location. If proponents must have another retail center, please consider another location. Brewster Highlands was isolated from residential dwellings.

Joan Castiner, Lake Carmel
 

Good morning all -

I received this e-mail from CWCWC President, Dr. Rose.  It concerns Hillcrest Commons (behind ShopRite on Rte 52) straddling the Carmel/Kent border. 

Although it is good news in terms of the applicant's efforts to eliminate one component: 60,000 sq. ft of Corporate Offices, it leaves the 150 units of senior housing on the hillside intact.  Considering the Coalition's position that adoption of a moratorium is imperative to put a break on the glut of senior housing (1300 units) in the Hamlet of Carmel and effectuate a change in the code that permits this glut, the applicant's failure to also reduce density is troubling.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com


Dear Members of CWCWC and dear Board Members,

The good news is that one of the most egregious proposed developments in Putnam County, namely, Hillcrest Commons, has been seriously cut back. CWCWC, with the collaboration of PCCPOS, worked hard on this one to cut it down to size. Attorney Jim Bacon, CWCWC, Hudsonia's Erik Kiviat and archaeologist Eugen Boesch (both hired by CWCWC), Ann Fanizzi of PCCPOS all sent in hard-nosed comments. Some of you will recall that we monitored the stream, Michael Brook that would receive pollution from the proposed project. Those results also helped.

The good news is that, this afternoon, just as I was about to leave the Town of Carmel Planning Department, I was handed a Fax that had just arrived. It stated that the applicant for Hillcrest Commons has ”stated his intention to revise the scope of the proposed development so as to remove the office building component. The number of proposed residential units would remain the same…The applicant will present the proposed revisions at the May 24 meeting. If the Board finds the changes to be acceptable, the final EIS will be revised to include the new plan as the preferred plan.”

Here is a description of the original project. To quote from the Town Of Carmel announcement of its original acceptance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project:

“The action involves a subdivision, two Site Plan Applications and a Special Exception Use Permit for a total of 150 units of senior housing, and 60,000 square feet of office space on a total of 107.76 acres of land. The two Site Plans, involving 77.80 acres, will be reviewed simultaneously and considered a single project in the SEQRA review process. The project includes new roads and infrastructure with connections to municipal water and sanitary sewer service. The project is located in the vicinity of NYS Route 52, in the Town of Carmel, Town of Kent, Putnam County, New York.”

We still have work to do but this is a big step forward.

For more information on Hillcrest Commons, please go to our website at www.newyorkwater.org


Visit www.newyorkwater.org

Running on Empty?? - The Hamlet of Carmel

Good morning all - Thank God it is wet and as you read this e-mail you will understand why I said so.

A problem may be on the horizon which I found alarming, as should every Hamlet of Carmel and Town of Carmel resident.  It is a problem arising from a presentation by Town Engineer, Jack Karell at Thursday's Hamlet of Hamlet Civic Association meeting on "Managing Growth."

Camel might be "Running on Empty"   Besides the physical destruction and degradation of the environment and quality of life reaped by unbridled, unsustainable development, the Hamlet may be facing a future water problem, an irreplaceable resource.  
 
According to Town Engineer, Karell and Supervisor Munday, while Sewer District 2 in the Hamlet has a capacity of 1.1 million gallons, in January it used over 930,000.  And this without the following developments coming on line:  The expansion of Watson Pharmaceuticals to 200,000 sq. ft; the expansion of Putnam Hospital by over 110,000 sq. ft; the construction of 1,300 units of senior housing; the 150 room "luxury" business hotel; additional restaurants; offices; Hannaford, etc.  In response to my concern, Mr. Karell noted that the Town had engaged a consultant to assess the situation and proposed several fixes i.e. drawing from the West Branch and among the most expensive and problematical, a new filtration plant near Croton Falls.  Is this a Rolling Greens in the making?    
 
The hidden cost of reckless, unsustainable development, will be borne not only by present residents but future generations and may threaten the viability of the town and the county.  Already, the towns are chafing under the burden of finding funds to comply with additional, stringent MS4 Stormwater Regulations to protect water quality. The imposition of these regulations by the DEP is directly connected to stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces - parking lots, roofs and roadways - occasioned by unprecedented development in the Croton Watershed.  Impact fees to help defray the heavy cost of town compliance, should be levied on developers who are principally responsible for this situation.  
 
In addition,  County Executive Bondi has proposed an innovative solution which has been gaining numerous supporters: A $2 annual tax imposed on all water users not only in Putnam County.  
 
The threat to water supply and water quality is an issue that we cannot ignore or neglect.

The "Road" Connection

Good morning all - 

A seemingly insignificant detail in the proposed new Elderly Senior Housing Law tripped up the Town Board and especially Mr. Ravallo, who had the floor at the time.  It exposed the unholy alliance between public officials and developers in enabling projects to move forward by constructing laws and codes to fit the private interests of the developer and not the public interest of the town's residents.  There was a lone defender of that public interest and it was Supervisor Munday.

And what was the trip wire?  Should the law use 2,500 "road" feet or just feet in determining distance from shopping.  And why were Coucilman Ravallo and the other Town Board members so adament that "road" be removed from the law?  Simple.  It would threaten the "Hotel" another of Mr. Camarda's face-lifting projects for Carmel because the Gateway/Fairways Project not only includes the "Hotel" but also senior housing and if the law read "road" it would compel the movement of the hotel from its present curb-side appeal location on Rte 6 to another portion of the property, totally unacceptable to the project developers - more about them in a subsequent e-mail - and the hotel would be lost to Carmel.  In other words, the hotel and senior housing would flip locations.    

(Parenthetically, it had been a mystery to Supervisor Munday, myself and others as to why the Town Board members appeared so inflexible on the subject and now I know and if you listen in on COMCAST, you also will know and I hope be similarly outraged.)  Better still, there is a meeting tonight, Thursday, 7:30 PM at the Carmel Fire House and you can personally see and hear for yourself.  

Mr. Ravallo and the other Town Board members offered no apology but in a lengthy and repetitious speech, he sought to justify this blatant attempt to cut the ground from under the law by cloaking it in the garb that the public interest would be served by filling a persistent public cry for a hotel while simultaneously providing much needed injection of revenues for the town and the county. (By the way, Dan Birmingham, Chairman of the Legislature and former member of the Legislature's Economic Committee, was in the audience.  Mr. Camarda was a guest speaker of that committee.)

And who were the lobbyists for a hotel?  Well, we know:  the Economic Development Council who appear not to be able to find jobs for the 70% of residents who must travel to Westchester, Connecticut, New York and other points to earn salaries commensurate with their experience and living standards in Putnam. Now isn't that a Putnam Paradox???; Joe Girven, former Chairman of the Carmel Zoning Board who resigned under a cloud;  Paul Camarda, the four Town Board members who met at varying times at a restaurant with development company representatives.  All hush, hush.  Marked Absent: the Supervisor of the Town, Connie Munday.   

And lastly, when I questioned the real-life consequences of the formula proposed by the Board for reducing the 1300 senior housing units in the Hamlet,  none, none could tell me or the audience.  The real life situation was Camarda's Senior Center with 381 units.  I asked a simple question.  If the law were adopted and applied to this development, what would be the effect on the total numbers. 

Silence - Nobody had done the math.  But we will be doing it, just like we are doing right now from the years of unbridled residential development- on our tax bill; school budgets rejections; and on our quality of life.  And don't anyone tell you that we will not see it on our tax bill because seniors don't have children; they have more - medical problems which will tax our emergency, hospitals and auxillary services. 

Sincerely,
Ann
 

Good morning all

By now you may have either read or received via e-mail notice of the Hamlet of Carmel Civic Association Forum "Managing Growth." to be held this Thursday at the Carmel Fire House on Vink.  Main topics: Camarda Park and Senior Housing (oops - Elderly Housing)

And so to add some spice to the discussion, I thought I would briefly summarize the Carmel Town Board's conception of "managing growth" as evidenced in the proposed new law  quaintly entitled "Multi-Family Dwellings for the Elderly."  Are you 55? No more senior, we're elderly, the active elderly.

1. Don't adopt a temporary moratorium, supported by Supervisor Munday, residents of the Town of Carmel and the Coalition.

2. Don't impede the flow of applications for senior (elderly) housing to the Planning Board.

3. Don't raise the age limit to 62 instead of 55 proposed by Supervisor Munday.

4. Don't grapple with the "affordability factor" in the old law - Multi-Family Affordable Senior Housing Law.  So we still have the attached McMansions priced anywhere from $350,000 to $500,000.

5. Don't limit the number of bedrooms - the new law would permit 3 bedrooms.  Just in case, senior housing becomes unsaleable, the homes can be sold as condos later on.

6. Don't seriously cap to 150 units.  Councilman Ravallo's proposal to limit development to  8 units to an acre instead of the current 40, with a cap of 150 per site sure sounded good until you applied the realty check.  And here it is

a. What is the definition of site?  The entire acreage or the subdivisible lot?

Let's take a real life situation. Camarda's Camel Senior Center of 381 units on 100 acres off Stoneleigh.  How would the formula proposed by Ravallo limit that development?  Going back to the question above? Is it the site or the lots?

Why? Camarda  took one site of 100 acres and subdivided into 8 lots. 

What has to be done?  The law must very clearly read that the 150 cap applies to the existing tax lot or site in other words to the entire 100 acres not to the chopped up subdivisible acres.

8. Don't plug loopholes such as the ability of a developer to request a Special Permit.

I will add that this is my understanding of the consequences of the law as proposed by the Town Board.  If I am mistaken, I will stand corrected. 

7. Piggy backing on the last point, the worst situation - the law is unclear, ripe for litigation. 

And lastly I want to close with a quote from the article in the Journal News concerning the Hamlet of Carmel Civic Association forum.  "I think senior housing would be a benefit to the community. The YMCA is the greatest thing. But all this has to be planned correctly," Albano said. (Residential and senior housing developer).

Forum organizers said they expect officials to discuss how development would affect the hamlet's aging water pumping station, and how growth might improve efficiencies and reduce the operating costs of the multimillion-dollar District 2 sewer plant.

Got it.  


Sincerely,
Ann

Good morning all -

Just a bit of summary on all the doings in Carmel.

1. Revision of Multi-Family Senior Housing Law - Coalition priority - The proposed revisions have been sent to the Planning Board for their input.  Discussion will occur at this Wednesday's Work Session Meeting.  I FOILed for the proposed law and it is currently being reviewed by the Coalition's attorney. 

There is an urgency that this law become part of the zoning code since aside from Camarda's Carmel Senior Center (381 units), all other senior housing proposals are presently before the Planning Board (over 700 units).  The law must be noticed in the papers and a Public Hearing held before it is adopted.  If any of the proposals receive Final Preliminary Approval by the Planning Board, then the zoning code will not pertain to these proposals. 

2. Senior Housing Rec Fees - Coalition priority - Millions of dollars in Rec fees might be lost if this loophole in the law which omitted reference to Rec Fees attached to Senior Housing is not adopted.

However essential are Rec Fees, one of the commentators at the Public Hearing raised the issue that since the Town imposed Rec Fees instead of requiring land from developers, the town might be money rich and land poor.  This essentially is the problem: subdivisions were built without any concern for amenities such as playgrounds or ballfields, leaving the Town beholden to the largesse of developers, making deals such as the one that occurred with Willow Ridge and Camarda Park. 

3. Temporary Resolution of 3-Acre Zoning Case - Coalition priority - maintenance of 3-acre zoning.  almost three years ago, Camarda sued the Town Board when it adopted the 3-acre zoning.  Through the mediation of the court, the continuation of the litigation between the Town and Camarda (Hudson Valley Realty) was temporarily halted for at least six months wherein Camarda could reinitiate the suit. 

During the public comment period at the Town Board meeting, I questioned the six month stay and whether that period signalled that there might have been some agreement between the Town and Camarda concerning the 3-acre zoning.  Mr. Ravallo, on behalf of the Town Board, vigorously assured me and the audience that the 3-acre zoning would be maintained.

4. Camarda Park -Coalition priority - A Stipulation of Agreement has been reached between the DEP and the Town effectively ending the suit.  Again during the public comment period, I questioned Town Attorney, Costello, as to whether this effectively ended the SEQRA process.  He responded that it did.  However, Supervisor Munday, stated that a Public Informational Hearing would be scheduled to inform the public of the substance of the stipulation and offer opportunity for airing of concerns. 

5. Recreation Master Plan - I attended the Thursday, May 4th meeting of the Recreation Committee, tasked with selecting a consultant to assist the committee in developing a Recreation Master Plan and plans for the individual five parks, including Camarda Park and the Mahopac Airport property.  Although I arrived late (another meeting in Southeast), I did hear the proposals of two of the three candidates.  It was the consensus of the group that Ward Associates, Inc. would be engaged as consultants; that a letter from the Committee to the Town Board be sent by Monday for discussion at the Wednesday meeting.

Ward Associates, Inc is a firm well known to the Town since they developed one of the first Recreation Plans in 1969.  Their presentation was comprehensive and professional and included a sample distribution of surveys; analyses of focus groups; needs assessments; evaluation of present status of recreation and proposals that they developed for Scarsdale.

A subcommittee of five was formed to work directly with Ward Associates which included members of the MSA, CSA, and seniors. 

In addition, to broaden the outreach of the Recreation Committee, Supervisor Munday recommended that five non-voting members participate in the Committee meetings.
6. Town Reassessment - At the behest of the Town Assessor, Jonke, the State representative stated that at the present time, the Town of Carmel assessment was at approximately 50% and that the State had the authority to "re-assess" if it felt that the Town was below required limits. Unlike other Putnam Towns that have undergone reassessment (most are at 100% assessment), Carmel has not.  Am attaching the May 5th Journal News article in case you might have missed it.

7. Belden House - Coalition priority - DEP expending $2.9 million to restore the house.  Together with the Friends of Belden House, the Coalition advocated its preservation and restoration and initiated a website and signs to advance the campaign.  Kudoes to letter writers and all who signed the online and offline petition and continue to do so.  We haven't the money yet and as you know, promises can be broken so if you haven't signed, please do so.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
 

Carmel board wary of revaluation
By BARBARA LIVINGSTON NACKMAN
bnackman@lohud.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: May 5, 2006)
CARMEL — The town assessor, to the dismay of some elected officials, is suggesting a revaluation of town properties to bring them back into line with the market."The issue is about equity and maintaining equity," Town Assessor Paul Jonke said. Carmel was among two of the six towns in Putnam County that hadn't updated its assessment roll since a 1996 countywide project, he said.The state's Office of Real Property Services also backs the update, but local elected officials fear a political backlash because a third of the properties could be assessed at a higher value.Councilman Anthony DiCarlo said revaluation "becomes a political nightmare," because voters tend to blame the Town Board for any tax increase that follows. He also said school taxes generally were the largest portion of a homeowner's property-tax bill, but the town was charged with setting the property value and collecting the taxes."If the state thinks it should be done, then (Albany) should do it," DiCarlo said. "The reality is that for a Town Board, it becomes a huge political discussion."Councilman Robert Ravallo said revaluation could mean big tax increases for some."Residential property values have gone up like a rocket," he said.Lifelong Carmel resident Sandra Seymour said she would not object to a revaluation, as long as it was done correctly."It should be an update of assessments, not an increase in money for the town," said Seymour, 72, who sells real estate. "It must be done fairly and consistently from one property to the next."An overall increase in property values generally triggers lower tax rates. That happened in Putnam Valley when it completed a revaluation in 2004, though many property owners complained bitterly about updated values on their homes.Taxes based on property values are levied by towns, villages, school districts, counties and other entities, such as water, sewer and fire protection districts.The most recent revaluation in Carmel was done a decade ago. In Putnam County, the towns of Putnam Valley, Southeast, Kent and Patterson have updated their rolls and kept current each year. Carmel and Philipstown have not tackled the project.Carmel is Putnam's largest town and the county seat. There are 12,660 parcels in town, and about 90 percent of them are residential, Jonke said.Jonke suggested that his office handle the bulk of the reassessment project because staff members are familiar with the town, and it would cost less. The state offers towns up to $5 per parcel when the municipality participates in a reassessment program with updates on each property at least once every six years. Nearly 250 municipalities in the state receive the annual aid, state officials said.State law requires that assessment rolls be kept up to date, said John Wolham, a regional director of the state's Office of Real Property Services. He addressed the Town Board last month."Property owners have the right to know why their property is assessed as it is, and that all assessments reflect properties' values," Wolham said. "I think everyone would agree that property values change from year to year."When property values fall below 100 percent, the state is charged with determining an "equalization rate," an estimate of how far the property falls from market value. Jonke said when the rate falls below 50 percent, there is a greater risk of property owners suing the town for unfair assessments, which becomes costly and time consuming. Carmel's equalization rate is 52.35 percent and, in 2007, will most likely go below 50 percent, he said."This is long overdue," said four-year Carmel homeowner Anthony Fierro, 42, who said he pays some $17,000 a year in property taxes. "Since 1996, real estate has gone through the roof. There has been appreciation that some people aren't paying for and others are."

Bondi will seek re-election
By SUSAN ELAN
selan@lohud.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: May 2, 2006)

CARMEL — Putnam County Executive Robert Bondi, a four-term Republican incumbent who has been noncommittal on his plans to seek a fifth four-year term in November, is in the race.

"I needed time to think about my future, but now I have made my decision," Bondi, 58, said yesterday.

The biggest challenge facing the county, Bondi said, was the polarization over new commercial development, and he expects to play a major role in reconciling the opposing sides.

"There are those who want to keep the county exactly as it is and those who want to see more shopping opportunities," said Bondi, who described himself during a telephone interview as a "tireless advocate" of open-space acquisition and historic preservation.

Bondi's public announcement, planned for later this week, was hastened by news that he was seeking the endorsement of the Independence Party.

William Sayegh, that party's county chairman, described Bondi as a "fine man with a proven record who has served the county well during his past four terms" but said the nominating committee will not announce its endorsements until later this month.

Democratic challenger Mike Santos, Brewster's village treasurer, said he welcomed Bondi as an opponent.

"Things in the county are bad, and they are easy to attribute to Bob Bondi since he has been in office for the last 15 years," said Santos, 57.

The former Brewster village trustee said he joined the race because one-party government was not good for democracy. Eight of the nine members of the Putnam Legislature are Republicans.

Santos said voter opposition to the increase in Putnam's sales tax, the cost of running the county-owned Putnam National Golf Club, and the rise in the number of county management jobs under Bondi's administration would fuel the drive for change.

Bondi said Putnam National provided an important recreational service to residents, and the sales-tax rate was in line with those in Westchester, Dutchess and Orange counties.

But Tom Jemmott, a 17-year resident of Kent, said dissatisfaction over taxes and fees would influence his vote.

"We are very highly taxed and, for what we pay in taxes, we really are not getting much for our money," Jemmott said, as he paid the new $10 fee the county began charging yesterday to drop off recyclables. "We carry a big burden. You have to wonder where all the money goes."

County Legislator Robert McGuigan Jr., R-Mahopac, who recently pulled out of the race for county executive, said yesterday that he would not back any candidate at this time and that he was unconvinced that Bondi intends to serve a full term if re-elected.

"A big part of my decision involved my family because of the very significant commitment," Bondi said. "I have made that decision."
 

Good morning all - we live in a time when we think we can have it all.  But as we are fast finding out - exempt this letter writer - we can't.  The law of physics cannot be suspended - for every action, there is a reaction and it is the latter that some folks refuse to confront.

Just witness the 170% increase in traffic from Rte 312/22 and the continuing Air Quality grading of "F" by the American Lung Association for the Hudson Valley.  And how about the real "Putnam Paradox" where 70% of the residents must commute to jobs to earn a living commensurate with their education and experience - uncompensated time spent on the highway when they should be in Putnam.  Isn't that a tax - a commuter tax added to the school tax and rising town and county taxes?  Do the math and figure out the true cost of "smart growth."

And lastly, what about the effect on our civic life - people too tired or too stressed to come to town meetings; read the newspapers or vote in elections; emergency services begging for volunteers; fire and police stretched to the max. 

Let's indeed get smart - smart about the consequences of growth.  Support sustainable development - one that sustains and nourishes quality communities.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com


'Smart growth' can benefit everyone

(Original publication: April 28, 2006)
I read with great interest your Sunday article about developer Paul Camarda, followed by your editorial describing the challenge to balance growth with preserving the environment and our way of life here in Putnam County.

Ever since I was a young boy growing up here, we have been faced with this challenge — a beautiful, quiet countryside, with few options for shopping and facilities for recreation. Today, as a concerned citizen, homeowner and taxpayer, it appears that after all these years, we remain unwilling or unable to confront the challenge of growth in a cooperative, civil manner.

Like many of my fellow residents, I am very concerned about the quality-of-life issues: preserving open space, traffic, congestion and air quality. But I am also concerned about taking business out of the county and the state, wasting time, money and yes, gas. I can only hope I speak for the majority to say that we should not care about a developer's motivation or gain. And that building projects that provide for housing for senior citizens, retail in areas designated and recognized as business districts on the border of Connecticut and Westchester County, recreation facilities, and a hotel and YMCA built for a county that does not have either, should be supported and embraced. The rhetoric of the "no growth" preservationists and "all growth" developers should not prevail over "smart growth." Let's build and preserve open space.


Walter Recher, Lake Carmel

Good morning  - Camarda needs to go down for the count.
Best to all
ann
www.putopenspaces.com


Save Putnam from greedy developers

(Original publication: April 27, 2006)
Putnam does not need developers like Paul Camarda!
When Camarda is done, everything the residents of Putnam County live here for will be destroyed. Homes now nestled into bedroom communities will sit on the shoulders of congested highways. Forested areas will house big-box stores and expensive senior housing because he claims the area is "underserved." Even more ridiculous is his statement that "these little footprints" will not forever change Putnam County.

Camarda wants to build senior housing to retain elder residents. What happens when the market is so saturated that they need to be sold to families with children? And what about the homes seniors leave and sell to younger parents who do have children? The burden falls on our schools and taxes must go up.

A ride to Brewster Highlands, which houses Home Depot, Kohl's and Linens N' Things will prove that two of the three remain virtually empty, with "Help Wanted" signs continuously posted. This confirms that low-paying jobs are not what Putnam County needs and that shoppers are not being attracted.

Big-box stores will rob from local business. Conglomerates will fill corporate coffers with funds that will never be reinvested back into Putnam County. The Shop Putnam campaign should focus on supporting local businesses with local interests.

Putnam County should be protected from Carmada's destructive greed. We can't be the county where the country begins when outside developers come in and destroy our quality of life. He is not the savior he claims to be.

Paul FC Spiegel , Lake Carmel

Don't backtrack on Clean Water Act

(Original publication: April 19, 2006)
As an environmental educator living in Putnam County and working in New York City and surrounding areas, I have an opportunity to witness and to share with my students the results of the Clean Water Act: Birds such as herons, egrets, ibis, ducks, hawks and eagles are living here again. However, as a member of the Bronx River Alliance, I know that we are far from seeing our U.S. waterways the way they once were — at least 40 percent of them are too polluted to swim or fish.

What exactly are President Bush's goals for weakening the Clean Water Act? I didn't vote for him, but I'm not going to just sit back and say "I told you so." I hope that members of Congress will support stronger water protections like the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act. The education of my students and my future children is too important. And they can't really learn about the wonders of nature if they can't see and feel them.

Chrissy Word, Carmel
 

April 19, 2006

April 17, 2006

Wednesday night's Carmel Town Board meeting was memorable - it seems that the lease to transfer a the Mahopac Airport to the town signed by former Supervisor Pozzi and the County in the closing days of December, is invalid.  Why?  No one thought of getting the signature of the principal party to the deal - the DEP.
 

April 13, 2006

Hi all

Wednesday night's Carmel Town Board meeting was memorable - it seems that the lease to transfer a the Mahopac Airport to the town signed by former Supervisor Pozzi and the County in the closing days of December, is invalid.  Why?  No one thought of getting the signature of the principal party to the deal - the DEP.

And so it goes. And Councilman DiBattisti gets somewhat petulent, when the actions of the former administration are brought up.  Well, current Supervisor Munday is constantly beset by holdovers - only this problem but also one that took over 1 1/2 hours to discuss - the questionable legality of bids of $38,000 to cover the costs of benches, installation and grills for Lake Casse park.  It appears that the Advisory Board was ill-advised by the former Town Attorney - the installation portion was given to a low bidder ($12,000) who happened to be also a member of the Advisory Board.  Current Town Attorney, Costello, advised the board of the possible legal implications connected to the bid.  Just a reminder: The Town Board acts as Commissioners for the various lake districts and the Advisory Boards are just that, advisory boards. But it is the Town Board who has the duty to dot all the i's  cross all the legal t's.  In addition, there were members of the Lake Casse District in the audience who were very critical of the process that the Advisory Board had followed to gain resident consent of the improvements proposed and the cost involved.  

And so in order to clean up this mess, the Town Board scheduled a Public Hearing on May 10th.  Another distraction from urgent town business - the multi-family senior housing law; recreation fees; Master Plan and Zoning Code changes; recreation plans, etc.

Sincerely,

Ann
 
 

March 23, 2006

Good morning all

Last evening at the Carmel Town Board meeting, the issue arose as to the use of the Mahopac Airport prioperty purchased by the county, which includes the Hill/Agor Historical Farm. 

As in the instance of the Tilly Foster Farm purchase, competing interests are vying for the use of the property. In this instance, recreation and historical.  But as David Fufaro, President of Mahopac Sports Association and Lillian Eberhardt, President of the Town of Carmel Historical Society graphically showed last night cooperation is possible and a win-win solution can be found which neither impedes plans for recreational fields nor compromises the historical farm. And both are committed to finding a solution to the impasse.

The prickly point in the matter is the access road off Hill St.  Presently a gravel road divides the farm area of 23 acres - the home on one side of the road and the barn on the other.  Expansion of the road to 18 ft or to a maximum of 25 ft is necessary, according to Town of Carmel Highway Department head, Simone, to permit access to the recreational fields. The cost a mere $30,000 at most. 

According to the "historians," though, the increased traffic of cars and buses would seriously hamper proposed farm activities.  Compounding the problem of traffic, they point out that the road would also serve as the access road to the county's portion of the property which is slated to have a swimming pool and tennis courts. 

And if that weren't enough, Anthony Fabiano of the Red Mills Association, reminded the Town Board of their commitment to maintain at least a 40 ft tree buffer to insulate the community from lights and noise from the fields.  The Town Board expressed their unanimous consent that they would not default on the commitment.  But Mr. Fabiano and his Vice President are seeking more than oral assurances; they want it in writing.  Administrations come and go and with them commitments. 

In the meantime, Jim Gilchrist and the Recreation Advisory Board are in the process of developing a Recreation Master Plan and lent his assurance to Mr. Fabiano that the Red Mills Association would be full participants in the fashioning of the plan.

Supervisor Munday mounted a topo map of the area which showed the proposed ballfields, town and county land and the access road. She pointed out that there were three issues that needed to be resolved: conceptual plan for the town's portion of 35 acres;  the creation of the water district and the access road. 

It appears that the lease transferring the Airport property to the town is conditioned upon  the handover  from the county and the formation of the water district which services the Red Mills community.   Mr. Ravallo was confident that the county did not want to be involved any further in the district and would facilitate an amendment to the lease so that the MSA could begin using the fields sooner than later. The water district was another sore point with Mr. Fabiano who represented the 89 families who were dependent upon it.  And with Supervisor Munday as to possible town assumption of financial costs involved in upgrading the facilities.

Mr. Ravallo met with the County Attorney, Baumgartner (sp.?) and with Deputy County Executive DelCampo and determined that a possible significant delaying factor - consent of the legislature - was not an issue.  Relying on the assurances of the attorney, the Town together with the County Executive could sign off on an amended lease and a resolution by the Town Board adopted. 

Supervisor Munday's attempt include the access road as part of the amended lease, was met with some disapproval from the packed audience. 

After much discussion the Town Board agreed that in early April, Mr. Ravallo would initiate conversations with the county to amend the lease and if need be a special meeting would be called to ratify it.

Stay tuned.

Sincerely,
Ann
 

Hill/Agor Historic Farm

March 06, 2006

Good morning all

Last Wednesday's Carmel Town Board meeting had a significant and, if I might add, contentious item brought forward by Councilman Carmine DiBattisti for discussion by the Board.

Background: The Mahopac Airport Property - encompasses 23 acres of the historic Hill/Agor Farm; the airport property itself approximately 35 acres and Putnam National Golf Course, totaling approximately 372, formerly slated for over 250-300 townhouse had Mr. Adler had his way. School taxes alone would have been stratospheric.

On the eve of Mr. Pozzi's departure as Supervisor of the Town of Carmel, a 99-year lease was signed with the County, transferring the airport and farm acreage to the Town of Carmel.

At issue asked Mr. DiBattisti - was the Town of Carmel in full possession of this property. According to Tom Costello, Town Attorney, it was and could go forward with plans i.e. develop a conceptual recreational plan for the airport and create the water district (another thorn). According to Mr. Ravallo, this ended the matter for County Legislative involvement.

Supervisor Munday treaded carefully on all of the above, insisting that the Town possess full information, including assessments from department heads - the Town engineer (at present unavailable -on vacation) and the Town Comptroller - before precipitiously moving forward on any plans and directed the Town Attorney, Costello, to put into place all the legal items necessary for the creation of the water district (i.e. number of residents estimated to be about 142).

So what was the problem? - The access road for the recreation fields from Hill St. to the airport property was perilously close to the farm and, in fact, depending on the width of the road and amount of traffic, could compromise it. The "historians" had submitted documents attesting to the Farm's historical provence and an archaeological study was underway.

And there was another matter and to this I can personally attest, having walked the land. It is wet; not only wet but parts of it are soaking wet. On the day that I went, ruts apparently made by ATV's, were filled with water.

Councilman Ravallo's initial response to the problematic nature of the fields, was that curtain drains would solve the problem. He later amended the statement by saying that an engineer should assess the land. And he should. Would we wish this property to leak money as that of Crane Rd where drainage problems have been the bane of the town; its engineer, town comptroller and taxpayers?

David Fufaro, head of the Mahopac Sports Association, while conceding some problems, asserted that there was so much land available for recreation and in such good condition, that soccer could be played tomorrow.

Joe DiMestri, head of the Town's Recreation Advisory Board, strongly suggested that the Board become the avenue for discussion, bringing all interests together and reaching consensus.

A compromise in the offing between the "historians" and the sportsmen is "a win-win for everyone - the historians, the sportsmen, the advocates for open space," exclaimed DiBattisti. But it is a compromise that still envisions the fields on the Mahopac Airport. The "historians" have suggested an alternative which would maintain the integrity of the farm and still assure needed recreational fields. Transfer the fields to Austin Road, adjacent to the Austin Rd. Elementary School, they say, and it will truly be a win-win for everyone. The possibility of that option was not discussed last week but perhaps the Work Session on Wednesday, will give everyone of the stakeholders an opportunity to do so.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Need 5 more to 100 for Belden House

March 03, 2006

Hi all

Update: 1. We need 5 more signatures to get to 100 and 6 more to turn the page and start on the next 100.

2. Supervisor Connie Munday, Councilmen Anthony DiCarlo and Richie O'Keefe signed the offline petition at Wednesday's meeting. Due to his relationship with DEP, Councilman Ravallo could not and Councilman Carmine DiBattisti is "thinking about it." We hope to have every one of our Carmel Town Officials supporting the petition drive to preserve and restore Belden House. And we extend an especial note of thanks to Lillian Eberhardt, President of the Town of Carmel Historical Society for signing and for her offer to urge the members of the society to sign on to the offline petitions.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
http://friendsofbeldenhouse.org

Blanketing Carmel with Senior Housing

March 03, 2006

good morning all - At Wednesday's Town Board meeting ( aired by SUSCOM on Friday, Sat, and Sunday at 10:30PM - (prime time?), the issue of Rec fees, especially for senior housing (none are presently imposed - saving Mr. Camarda a cool million from his Stoneleigh development) came up with the firm hired by the Town giving a report. Just to summarize, it seems that the report lacked some necessary data which the town had not provided; the Comptroller had not seen the report until the last minute but then neither did Councilman DiCarlo and before the report would be accepted and adopted, the squares certainly had to be rounded. But the preliminary conclusion was that developers should pay Rec Fees, not in the amount as single family units but pay them nevertheless since seniors not only use the recreation facilities usually embedded in the development, but also use town recreation facilities. The Work Session next week will continue this discussion.

During the public comment period, I pointed out that they had another issue before them and that was the pressing issue of senior housing - a moratorium promised but not delivered; a code begging for revision and still there is delay, delay and more delay.

As Cindy Katz says so well, we need to put a lid on senior housing that is gobbling every piece of open space in the Hamlet and putting at risk residential communities and problematical environmental land in the quest for recreation's field of dreams. As Cindy points out, there are alternatives.

How long is the Town Board going to turn a blind eye to the urgent issue of senior housing which will have implications for residents for years to come.
Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Hi all - Welcome to the "New Miami on the West Branch - Carmel - a very profitable non-profit building more senior housing and right near the reservoir no less. DEP - where are you? What's the count now - over 1,200 senior residential units in the Hamlet. And, in case, it slipped by you, there is more, albeit smaller senior housing, planned on Rte 6 right near the defunct Grand Union. And more - there is Hillside Commons on Rte 52 on the bluffs surrounding ShopRite - another possible 300.

Where is the Supervisor and town board? What has happened to the idea of a Moratorium to sort out the housing needs of Carmel? What has happened to the change in the so-called Multi-Family Affordable Senior Housing Code? The Town Planning Consultant is studying. Really - a study in delay, delay and more delay as more proposals for senior housing make their appearance and get approved. This is happening on the new Town Board's watch and we are watching.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Nonprofit plans 120 senior-housing units in Putnam
By BARBARA LIVINGSTON NACKMAN
bnackman@lohud.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
Project at a glance

• 120 rental apartments: 60 townhouse units and two 30-unit buildings

• 4,500-square-foot community center

• tennis, multisport and bocci courts

• gazebo and landscaped walkway

(Original publication: March 1, 2006)
CARMEL — A nonprofit housing agency begun by one of Putnam County's most influential politicians has presented the town with plans to build 120 senior-citizen housing units off Stoneleigh Avenue.

The Putnam Community Foundation property is just south of Putnam Hospital Center, which has unveiled its own plans for a fourth major expansion.

Joseph DiVestea, the foundation's president and past president of the hospital board, said he was glad the proposed senior housing was moving ahead, seven years after the foundation created by state Sen. Vincent Leibell, R-Patterson, bought the land from Putnam County.

"It has been a long time coming, but we are moving forward," he said. "It is always nice when there is progress. But we have a long way to go."

An earlier plan for the site, never formalized, envisioned 240 units of housing there and a shared access road with the hospital. Besides halving the number of units, the latest plan calls for its own access drive off Stoneleigh.

It would be the foundation's second senior-citizen complex— rentals geared for those with moderate incomes. The first one, 24 units, opened in 2004 on Marvin Avenue in Brewster. Residents there said they were pleased the foundation was working on a new and larger project.

"This is a good thing. I know quite a few people who would be interested in living there," said Linda Latham.

Carol Actis, who moved to Marvin Avenue from a large house in Mahopac two years ago, agreed that the Stoneleigh Avenue project was needed.

"There are so many seniors that can't maintain a large house anymore," she said.

"And, I hate to say it, but it is a convenient location, being near the hospital."

Other residents fear the town is being overrun with senior-housing proposals. The question of whether they will produce a glut was a major issue in the last election.

In addition to the Putnam Foundation project, developer Paul Camarda has approval to build 381 units on the other end of Stoneleigh Avenue, near Route 6, and is pursuing plans to put 300 more in two developments off Route 6 near John Simpson Road.

The foundation's plans show 60 townhouse-style units and 60 additional units in two apartment buildings.

Also on the 35-acre campus would be a 4,500-square-foot community building, a tennis court, a gazebo and a boccie court.

The plans, filed with the town Feb. 13, officially begin what is expected to be a long process requiring environmental reviews and approvals from the town, the county, the state Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. The property abuts New York City watershed land and is within town water and sewer districts.

The project received a $20 million promise of construction financing from the Putnam County Industrial Development Agency in 2003.

The foundation created by Leibell bought the original 44 acres next to the hospital from the county for $150,000 in 1999 — some $30,000 less than what was owed in unpaid taxes on the land and half what others had bid in a private development deal that would have kept the property on the tax rolls.

In December, the hospital paid the foundation $1.5 million for nearly 9 acres to build a new parking lot to accommodate its planned 111,000-square-foot medical wing.

February 28, 2006

Good morning all -

Now is the time to re-double our efforts. Please take a moment to sign the petition - http://friendsofbeldenhouse.org and spread the word.

And thanks to the many who already have signed on and offline. As you can see from the narrative below, our website came just in time.

We have received an incredible, unexpected boost in our campaign to Save Belden House. At a workshop meeting on Saturday in White Plains concerning preservation, Kathleen Delamere whom many of you may know as Chairman of Putnam County Landmarks Preservation Society, happened to meet Peg Breen who heads the New York State Landmarks Preservation Commission. A discussion of our efforts to save Belden and the Hill/Agor Farm ensued with Ms. Breen requesting written documentation.

It was providential. Wasting not a moment, during the weekend, Ms. Delamere sent Ms. Breen a history of Belden House reproduced from our website (thank you Sallie Sypher) and detailed some of our efforts. Ms. Breen, in turn, has contacted several New York City and State Preservation Organizations.

So many people have been involved in this effort. As Bruce Heilman, the chairman of Friends of Belden House, has said, nothing less than success should cap the efforts of so many.

Join the campaign to save this Putnam County original. Thanks again.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Hi all

Our goal is to have 100 signatures online this weekend for the preservation and restoration of the 1760 Belden House on Rte 6 in Carmel. The DEP has put a band-aid to protect the roof but any day they could simply let it go and with it another piece of Putnam's historical heritage forever lost. Offline, we have over 300 signatures and growing.

Please take a few moments to support this effort. The website address is: http://friendsofbeldenhouse.org.

Thanks.
Sincerely,
Ann

Good morning all

Great News - the Friends of Belden House website is online and you can join in helping preserve and restore this historic 1760 structure situated off Rte 6 in Carmel.

You can access the website: http://friendsofbeldenhouse.org. In association with the Coalition to Preserve Open Space and launched by senior citizens - the Friends of Belden House have attempted to raise public awareness and public support. We need to prod the DEP and the County to preserve our irreplaceable heritage.

An online and paper petition is available to you. and contact addresses for public officials. Please join this effort. Putnam County is fast losing its most precious treasure, its history. At the present time, the Department of Environmental Protection owns Belden House but the county has been in negotiations with them for many years. In the meantime, the exterior house has deteriorated somewhat but the DEP has stemmed it for the present by installing a roof and boarding up some of the windows.

So time is of the essence. We cannot wait any longer. And only you, the residents of the County can save it.

Thanks so much.

Sincerely,
Ann
http://putopenspaces.com

Hi all - another first. This is what happens when delay becomes the rule and not the exception. Public officials ignored a festering problem. .
Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Carmel dump to be capped at 170 feet high
By BARBARA LIVINGSTON NACKMAN
bnackman@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: February 10, 2006)

CARMEL — The town's former landfill, once dubbed "Mount Trashmore," is expected to become a giant mountain as workers begin to close a back portion of the dump along Route 6 and Drewville Road.

Town officials announced this week that capping the decades-old pile of debris would create an earthy mass towering nearly 170 feet high — more than 700 feet above sea level because of the area's elevation.

Consisting of soil with some vegetation, th mass will undoubtedly be visible from the road.

Ann Fanizzi, chairwoman of the Putnam County Coalition to Preserve Open Space, said she was shocked to learn of the capped landfill's height.

"A mountainous mass of (more than) 100 feet towering above Route 6 certainly gives new meaning to the old saw, 'a sight for sore eyes,' " she said. "Is this Carmel's addition to the world's wonders?"

The state Department of Environmental Conservation in 2001 required the town close its 9-acre landfill. A popular recycling center at the site may remain open.

The project includes gas venting and collection systems, and barrier and topsoil layers. While the town will continue accepting newspapers and recyclables at the adjacent Incinerator Road depot, its operation might be periodically suspended during construction.

Town Engineer John Karell said the new mountain would be 50 feet higher than originally planned, bringing the total height to 170 feet from the road elevation. That elevation is already more than 540 feet above sea level, prompting alarm among some who have viewed topological drawings that show the final elevation to be more than 700 feet from sea level.

The town spent a lot of time discussing the project, Councilman Robert Ravallo said.

An alternative to carting debris off the site was discounted because it would substantially increase the project's cost, he said.

"We knew it would be high. It is no surprise," he said. "Hopefully, it will look like a mountain."

February 09, 2006

Good morning all

Last night's Town and Planning Board meetings were lengthy and very pertinent to the affairs of Carmel and I wish today to deal with two of them with which the Coalition has had more than a passing interest.

1. Camarda Park - It appears that the DEP may be on the verge of finally approving the stormwater plan and therefore the park. However, there is a problem and the problem is: how does one finance even a greatly downsized project. You will recall the extravagant plans set forth which now have dwindled to approximately three ballfields, parking lot and perhaps a picnic area. But what has not dwindled is the cost - variously estimated at between $3 to $4.5 million.

Now if we do a bit of math, how much would that come to per participant. Last year I FOILed to attempt to get the exact number of participants in the Carmel Sports Association. I did not get that information. Why not?

And there is another bit of a problem. The full cost of the park will be borne by Carmel residents. Are all participants and users of the park, Carmel residents? I can tell you right now the answer is no. In addition to Carmel, children come principally from Kent and Patterson. Now wouldn't you think that the residents of these towns should be contributing to the construction of the park and its operation and maintenance. Oh yes let us not forget, O&M - ongoing that the residents of Carmel will be paying for. By the way, Jim Gilchrist, the Town's Recreation Director, stated that the cost for lighting alone at Sycamore Park to be $200,000. What will it be for Camarda Park?

Instead of imposing this onerous debt or tax on the residents, Town Councilman DiCarlo has strongly urged that before a penny is put in the budget or bonded, that the entire issue be brought to the residents in a referendum.

And perhaps we should consider the following: since children from other towns are involved, then perhaps an intermunicipal agreement should be reached which would apportion cost and tax according to the numbers served.

And finally, instead of locating this park in an eenvironmental problematical area of the Hamlet off dangerous Seminary Hill Road and devastating the quality of life of residents, isn't there county land that could service all the children from whatever towns? I think there is.

What do you think?

2. Senior Housing - Councilman Ravallo has been unswerving in its efforts to remediate the more egregious portions of the Multi-Family Senior Housing Law and to impose Recreation Fees for all housing, including those for seniors. At the present time, the developer of a single family house must pay $7,500. The law is silent on senior housing and other multi-family dwellings i.e. condos. Mr. Ravallo would impose $3,500 on senior housing and $2,500 on other multi-family dwellings.

The numbers are flexible but Mr. Ravallo who is running out of patience but I'm happy to say last night not out of energy and persistence, wants to move this questions along - it has been festering for 13 months.

At a time, when Recreation is solely needing funds, shouldn't this grave omission in the law be rectified before either Mr. Camarda or other developers increase the Hamlets senior housing stock?

A prickly issue raised its head but like a turtle quickly retreated. The issue: Should Mr. Camarda pay the Recreation Fees for his 381 senior housing units on Stoneleigh Avenue? I don't believe the units have yet to receive their full approvals so there is still time to get $1,333,500 of sorely needed recreation fees. Stay tuned.

The other issue of fixing the broken senior housing law, really was not a fixing but a tweaking and not a good one at that. Again, to his credit, Mr. Ravallo wanted this issue to move. So he suggested that instead of the 40 units per acre presently permitted, be drastically reduced to 8 per acre which drew the observation from Supervisor Munday, that 5 per acre would be better. Well neither is. And why?

Let's attach the lower figure of 5 to Mr. Camarda's Stoneleigh project. That project has 100 acres. Are we to see 500 units instead of the present 381? How does that truly reduce the glut of senior housing that is overtaking the Hamlet. Certainly further discussion would have been helpful but at least the discussion has started in earnest.

The position of the Coalition is that there should be a major overhaul of how we design all subdivisions. Present planning principles have urged that developers set aside land for recreation. That is the problem in Carmel - yes we have obtained the fees but we are land poor to provide the necessary recreation space for all segments of the population. And we have so designed our subdivisions, that it is imperative that harried parents transport their children to recreational areas, thereby contributing to traffic and air pollution. If we redesign our subdivisions so that recreation is close to home, we will reduce our auto dependency and give the good Earth, ourselves and our children a break.

Take care.
Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Hi everyone -

In this week's Putnam Courier, an article trumpeting the benefits of a hotel in Carmel, features Valerie Hickman, Tourism Director. I have written a response to that article and I hope it will be published in this week's PC. The paper now has the same requirements as the Journal News as to word limitation and frequency of submission. I might have gone over on the words so I don't know whether they will print it. But here goes.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Good morning all - I've copied this entry that I wrote for carmelresident.org so as to fill in what Ms. Nachman's article on the hotel rezoning omitted.

Sincerely,
Ann

The New Carmel Code Book
12/30/05 at 12:53:21
With its last gasp on Wednesday night, Dec. 28th, the current Carmel Town Board ( 3 members present), adopted the New Carmel Code Book, laying the groundwork for Putnam's first and might be only hotel ( in sewer districts) - the Staybridge. A dream fulfilled; a promise kept.

And it was this last minute change and in the absence of two members, that prompted John Butler to seriously question a decision wherein, as he put it, "60% of those present," would not be there on January 1st. This provoked a counter-response by Town Board member, DeCarlo, to take issue and declare that the Board had the duty and legal obligation to conduct the town's business until the last hour.

But what will be the consequences of this last minute "customized change in code," in the face of a tape recording which is in my possession wherein Mr. Camarda in a presentation before the Legislative Economic Development Committee on May 11, 2005, made the following extraordinary admission: "That this community only warrants a 90-room hotel" but that a bunch of entrepreneurs will go to 150. Did anyone inquire who are the backers?

And what are the implications for the town and ultimately its residents of this 40% increase in rooms not warranted by the community? According to Mr. Camarda, if the number of rooms are lowered, ergo the Town of Carmel will attract only lower end hotel chains such as Quality Inn and Hilton Garden. (It seems that most Staybridge Hotels run about 150). Mr. Camarda says "he wants to do it right," but is overbuilding doing it right?

Further, in order to maintain the number of rooms, the hotel will go to five stories from the proposed three. During Mr. Camarda's last presentation before the Town Board, he continued to display the conceptual drawing showing three stories not five. Has anyone had a glimpse of the new conceptual drawing taking into account the new height? What will it look like in scale to the surrounding area? Will major changes be made to accommodate this new height? Did anybody ask? Does anybody know?

How did we arrive from three stories to five? The change to five stories from three was in response to Watershed Inspector General Tierney, Riverkeeper and Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition/Coalition engineers' scathing dissection of the environmental impact on water quality and the watershed which threatened the entire development. Mr. Camarda made a pilgrimmage to Albany and agreed to a reduction in the hotel's footprint thereby lessening impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff but at the same time necessitating a increase in height since the number of rooms remained at 150.

I have only addressed the issue of rooms and height but there are other issues. Do we need another two restaurants - one "adult" and one "family style," not one mile from the "restaurant capital of Carmel" - Putnam Plaza and McDonalds, Friendly's and the restaurants in the A&P Plaza. And what about the restaurants along Lake Gleneida? Has a study of the "carrying capacity of more restaurants, in other words, an economic feasibility study been proposed to determine whether the town can support more of the same? Don't Know. Don't you think we should before codes are changed and customized to fulfill dreams and promises?

Good morning all - what a way to end the year, the latest in a series of revolting, brutal acts perpetrated by humans on the helpless animal victims who need our protection and care. This latest one so ironically at Tilly Foster Farm that so many of us fought to preserve as a sanctuary. And what will be the penalty?
Sincerely,
Ann

Cops say Carmel woman abused horse
By TERRY CORCORAN
tcorcora@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: December 28, 2005)

SOUTHEAST — Two scabs — a long, thin one and a smaller one — on the nose of an 11-year-old thoroughbred were the only visible signs yesterday of a beating that police allege his owner, a 20-year-old Carmel woman, inflicted on the horse last month.

Colby appeared in good spirits as he greeted visitors at Tilly Foster Farm, a Putnam County-owned horse farm on Route 312 where the beating took place. Covered by a green horse blanket, he roamed a paddock behind a massive white barn on the 199-acre farm, stopping occasionally to nibble some grass.

Police say Anna Nicole Bruno struck Colby on the head and face with a chain-like piece of equestrian equipment on Nov. 20. The horse had several cuts to his face that a veterinarian used sutures and staples to close.

Chris Ruthven, the county's parks supervisor, said the beating took place after most farmhands had left for the day, but that at least two other people witnessed it.

"Other boarders saw it, were upset and reported it to authorities," said Ruthven, whose department oversees the farm.

Putnam sheriff's Deputy Barbara Dunn, who is also president of the county Humane Society, arrested Bruno on a misdemeanor animal-cruelty charge Dec. 17. A Southeast town judge ordered her to keep away from Colby — and to return to court Jan. 11.

"We're very happy to obey the judge's order," said Deputy County Executive Frank Del Campo. "We agree the horse needs to be protected, and we intend to do so until the judge instructs otherwise."

Bruno, who has competed with Colby in equestrian events throughout the region, is one of a handful of people who pay $18 a day to board horses at Tilly Foster. She could not be reached for comment yesterday.

The county acquired the former dairy farm three years ago to protect it from development. It owns two of the horses that live there; 10 others are privately owned.

"The horse is doing well," said Undersheriff Peter Convery. "This is the first major incident we've had where a horse was beaten like this."

Hi all - Besides the DEP, we should all join the seniors, roll up our sleeves and open our pocketbooks and help preserve this grand lady of historic houses. More to come.
Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Work begins to repair Belden House roof
By SUSAN ELAN
selan@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: December 15, 2005)

CARMEL — Work on a temporary roof to prevent further deterioration of the 245-year-old Belden House has begun.

New York City's Department of Environmental Protection will pay $22,000 for the repairs, which are expected to take about a week, agency spokesman Ian Michaels said yesterday.

"We're shoring it up for winter," Michaels said. "We believe this will stabilize the building and give us time to evaluate our options on what to do with it."

The city has owned the house off Route 6 for more than 114 years.

Members of a Putnam seniors group working to save and restore the Carpenter Gothic-style structure greeted the news with enthusiasm yesterday.

"It's a step forward, and whether it's a giant or a small step, it's absolutely in the right direction," said Geoff Lock, 70, of Carmel, a member of the 24-member committee formed several months ago at the William Koehler Senior Center in Mahopac.

Bruce Heilman, 77, of Mahopac, said the committee has begun meeting with County Executive Robert Bondi's administration to discuss how they can contribute to the preservation and future community use of the circa-1760 house.

"I won't give up until the (restoration) work is done or the house collapses," Heilman said.

Greenport Roofing of Hudson, N.Y., has been hired to do the repairs.

Michaels said the work involves covering holes in the roof with plywood and then putting rubber matting over the surface.

Application of chemical-resistant tape used to seal the joints of the matting requires temperatures above 30 degrees, making completion of the project dependent on the weather, Michaels said.

The DEP once used the house as a residence for a custodian and offices. It has fallen into serious disrepair after remaining unoccupied for many years.

A May 2001 architectural study recommended immediate repair of the "extremely deteriorated" roof.

After the county spent several years negotiating with the city toward that end, Putnam legislators refused to assume ownership of the house as part of a recent land swap with the DEP because the cost of restoration is expected to exceed $1 million.

Good morning all

Like a death of a thousand cuts, we are self destructing. Here is a letter from Lake Carmel resident concerning the destructive correlation between the amount of road salt and overdevelopment. How about Patterson Crossing at 439,000 sq. ft and 2,079 parking spaces and the glut of proposed 1000 units of senior housing in Carmel requiring more asphalt. And did you happen to see the unrelieved paving over for parking near Carmel High School? Not a tree or an island of green in sight to absorb all the carbon emissions. Now isn't that an educational lesson.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

More development — more road salt
(Original publication: December 13, 2005)

Maybe, but it's not just roads that are the problem. It's a brave new world of impervious business tycoons who view ecosystems as mere techno-nuisances. Tweak them with a dash of pseudo-science, a twist of bravado and a tablespoon of luck and get the paperwork signed fast. A society not-so-slowly salting itself to death with an addiction for paved surfaces reflects the essence of a famous curse — "May you get what you want."

With all the evidence to date, you'd think that anyone proposing to lay waste to dozens of acres of forest on the New York City watershed to build a salt-sucking parking lot for yet more big-box stores would be run out of town on a rail. Not so. Interesting times make interesting local heroes. Besides, multi-national CEOs have families to feed, too.

Clearly, to try to stem the tide of the retail titans' phenomena is beyond the scope of this letter. The double whammy gypsy curse continues, "And may you want what you get." Who knows? Maybe like fish, we can adapt to salt water. Personally, I like salt water taffy. Isn't that made from salt water?

William Ullman, Lake Carmel

Good morning all - in the event that you may have missed this article on the Camarda Park affair, I've copied it below. I regret the tardiness but have had some problems with AOL.

Please note: the principal interest of the DEP and the Inspector General in development projects, is protection of the watershed. However, as SEQRA indicates all factors impacting on a development have equal weight and should be evaluated equally, including Cindy Katz's comment on traffic; Carmel Supervisor-Elect Munday's comment on the cost estimated between $3 million to $5 million that would be borne by taxpayers and the question - are there alternative, less contentious locations that would better serve the needs of the Hamlet without incurring all the environmental and quality of life disadvantages of the 37-acre parcel off Seminary Hill Rd? As of this writing, this last question has not been open for public discussion nor has there been a robust discussion of the entire issue of the recreation needs of the town.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Carmel, NYC closer to resolution of park dispute
By BARBARA LIVINGSTON NACKMAN
bnackman@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
Original publication: November 29, 2005)

CARMEL — A dispute between the town and a city agency over the environmental impact of a long-planned park off Seminary Hill Road may be nearing a settlement — not a court date, officials said.

Representatives from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection met last week with town officials to discuss how the town would modify its recreation plans to better protect the watershed that supplies water to 9 million people in New York City, Westchester and Putnam counties.

The park, which sits above the Croton Reservoir, is expected to include three ball fields, recreational facilities, parking areas and storm-water management facilities on 23 of the site's 37 acres.

"It is clear the town wants to address the issues," said DEP spokesman Ian Michaels. "The town has been cooperative. We are encouraged."

He said the city has "put on hold" a pending lawsuit in state Supreme Court and that deadlines for court replies have been extended to allow for a resolution.

An active cadre of residents opposes the park site and says protecting the watershed is not the only issue. While improved recreational facilities are admirable, they say the park's location is poor because Seminary Hill Road is winding and has limited sight areas.

"There are traffic concerns which are real to people who live on the routes to the park," said neighbor Cindy Katz.

Town Supervisor Robert Pozzi was on vacation and could not be reached for comment yesterday. Citing the pending legal negotiations, other town officials declined to comment specifically on the discussions.

"Things seem to be progressing, and some detail-oriented changes have been made," said Town Planner Magnus Sjoberg, who attended the meeting in Carmel late Nov. 22.

The town of Carmel had determined that the proposed Paul A. Camarda Park, named after the father of developer Paul Camarda, who donated the parcel six years ago, would not have a detrimental impact on the local environment.

New York City officials disagreed. In June, they sued the town, saying it had not done necessary reviews on how the park would affect neighboring streams and waterways.

James Tierney, the watershed inspector general for state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, also had concerns about the impact of the park on the environmentally sensitive site and said he had planned to write to the court about it, as well.

"But, by and large, the town has supplied additional information and redone its storm-water pollution plan," he said yesterday.

"The controls proposed need to be (specified) in a binding way," he cautioned. "This is not a blanket endorsement but does acknowledge that substantial changes have been made."

He said the town proposed eliminating basketball and tennis courts, adjusting the location of three remaining ball fields and sites for storm-water management ponds. It also agreed not to use pesticides or herbicides that contain phosphorus, which spurs algae and other plant growth that discolor water and give it a bad taste and smell.

The town has redesigned plans for the park at least four times, spending more than $116,000. There also have been engineering and traffic surveys.

Some residents are eager for the park to be done, saying it would fill a void in the Carmel hamlet. Among them are homeowners in Camarda's adjacent Willow Ridge subdivision, who were enticed to buy luxury homes near "a recreational wonderland."

Supervisor-elect Connie Munday said she would be glad to see the legal issues resolved so the town then could determine the park's ultimate price tag.

"We need to know what it will cost taxpayers and what exactly it will include," she added.

November 23, 2005

Good morning all

I know that you must be very busy with Thanksgiving preparations but it is critical that you send your comments to the Carmel Planning Board before the ten day limitation from the Nov. 16th date expires. As of this writing, I am uncertain whether they will calculate Thanksgiving as one of the days.

Please do not feel that your comments may not be significant, believe me they are and should form a public record of your sentiment concerning this project.

Some of the issues you might wish to raise are the following:

1. Noise and Air Pollution - The development will not be built overnight and you will be subjected to significant noise from blasting on slopes, trucks and air pollution from dust and debris. The American Lung Association has assigned an "F" rating to the Hudson Valley in terms of air quality - significant increases in cases of asthma and other respiratory cases are plaguing us.

2. Traffic - Although Mr. Camarda made light of the traffic impact, stating that there was a 90% reduction due to the change from retail to residential; nevertheless, on congested Stoneleigh and Rte 6 any amount of increase in traffic, will further exacerbate an intolerable situation. Recall that there are 381 units, some with two and three bedrooms and that the development permits 18 and over to reside with parents, an addition of over 800 vehicles is a significant impact.

3. Erosion and Sedimentation - Although the applicant refused to devulge the number of trees that will be felled to make room for the development, over 1,000 trees were slated for destruction in the Carmel Retail Center documents. The developer should be compelled to divulge the exact number of and species of trees felled.

4. Protection of Vistas - Denuding the slopes will significantly alter the vistas and character of the town.

And finally, although Harold Gary, Chairman of the Planning Board stated that density of the project, was not a legitimate concern of that Board, we maintain it is. Alll of the impacts listed above could be alleviated if the applicant were compelled to lower the number of units from 381.

Your comments should be addressed to: Mr. Harold Gary, Chairman, Town of Carmel Planning Board and Members of the Planning Board; Town Hall; 60 McAlpin Avenue; Mahopac, NY 10541. You can fax your letters: 628-7085

Also please CC: Supervisor Robert J. Pozzi and Members of the Town Board. As you are aware, we have urged a moratorium on all senior housing construction; a review of the senior housing law and a review of the Rec Fees which at the present time, the law is silent when it comes to senior housing.

Please make every effort to send your letters and may you and your family have a most happy Thanksgiving.

Sincerely,
Ann
PS - For those "outside" the immediate area but within the Town of Carmel, please feel free to comment. This is not a localized issue but one with town-wide implications, especially in view of the fact that this is the beginning of the 1000 senior housing units proposed for the Hamlet.

November 18, 2005

Good morning - Here is another outrage concerning Carmel Rec Fees that I posted on carmelresident.org this morning.

Sincerely,
Ann

How Special: Rec Fees
Today at 12:22:23

Towns prosper when rules and regulations are seen as being equitably applied to all. Developers have the right to know what ordinances and codes apply and not be confronted by shifting goal posts that would advantage one developer over the other.

Yet, on Wednesday night, we saw, in my humble opinion, one of the most egregious examples of special rules for special people. Having foot-dragged for over 18 months according to Councilman Ravallo, over the question of Rec fees on senior housing and failing to craft a fair ordinance that would cover all developers of senior housing, town officials now engaged in full public view, to negotiate with Camarda on what would constitute his contribution to the thorny and critical problem of Rec fees. After proffering the spurious argument that he was providing Rec fees by providing recreational amenities in his "Senior Life Style Village", Camarda came up with an offer that he thought town officials could not refuse: he would contribute toward a Carmel Senior Center which Supervisor Pozzi rightly countered with "We would rather have the money."

Rec fees are imposed for the benefit of all residents. And with recreational facilities, as Councilman DiCarlo passionately pointed out, in dire need of repair and upgrading, how could the Town Board not impose a moratorium on the entire issue of senior housing, while crafting a Rec Fee schedule that would be fair and cover all the diverse housing in the town.

When will the public interest prevail over the special interests of one developer?

November 17, 2005

Good morning all - I posted this disgrace on carmelresident.org this morning.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

The New Dirty Little Secret
Today at 12:28:44

Yesterday was a scene to behold at the Carmel Planning Board: 20-25 men filed into the room, each wearing their Carpenter's Union cap. And what attracted so large a number of Putnam County's workmen and representatives of the working families in Putnam? None other than the fact that it seemed that Camarda was planning to use non-union labor to build his "Senior Lifestyle Village" behind Friendly's and off Stoneleigh Avenue.

Ten months of attempts to get the attention of Mr. Camarda failed, so these representatives of our fellow citizens who pay taxes, took their case to the public. You can see it all on SUSCOM. They represented 300 of Putnam County's hard working men who were now going to be left out in the cold while non-union laborers whom Camarda did not have to pay the going wage, retirement or health benefits took their jobs. Well they were not going to have none of it.

Not like what occurred a couple of years ago, when a small cluster of workmen and ladies stood out in the bitter cold outside of Applebees alongside the symbolic "Rat" Perhaps some of you might remember. At that time, I was told that non-union workmen had been bused from the Town of Cornwall, to work on the Applebee building.

Is there an investigative reporter who could possibly delve into this situation? How many of our fellow citizens are being denied jobs in the county in which they live and pay taxes so that a developer can maximize his bottom line on their backs?

October 16, 2005

Good morning - At a recent Carmel Town Board meeting, Mr. Camarda led town officials and the audience to conclude that both Watershed Inspector General, Tierney and Chris Wilde from Riverkeeper, endorsed his plans for the Rte 6 site which included a hotel, restaurants and senior housing. I was at that Board meeting (Jerry Ravnitzky also) and wrote to Mr. Tierney concerning Mr. Camarda's remarks and the possible ramifications for community/organization input and the SEQRA process. He assured me in a telephone conversation that Mr. Camarda had received no such assurances and faxed his letter.

Subsequently, I e-mailed the article that appeared in this week's Putnam Courier, headlined " Riverkeeper, Attorney General's Office back hotel." and in the inset, read, "There is nothing stopping that project from breaking ground next spring." -Paul Camarda, developer. Really??

We should all learn from this embarrassing episode and if we don't, then shame on us.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
PS - I wrote an OP-ED piece in the Courier which appeared the previous week. I made a plea for caution and market studies that would support a 150-room, 5 story hotel.

Environmental watchdogs deny endorsing Camarda project in Carmel
By BARBARA LIVINGSTON NACKMAN
bnackman@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: October 16, 2005)
CARMEL — Riverkeeper and the state watershed inspector general say they have not given their full backing to plans to build a hotel, YMCA, stores and senior housing off Route 6 in Carmel.

They did say they are pleased that developer Paul Camarda has been responsive to concerns about building on wetlands and sensitive areas, but they stressed Friday that more review is needed and the developer still has to provide greater detail on how he will lessen the project's effect on the environment.

A report by a weekly newspaper last week that the two environmental heavyweights had endorsed Camarda's development vision perturbed some local residents as well.

John Butler of Carmel said the projects are too large and too complicated to get a wholesale stamp of approval from such influential sources before final studies are filed with the town's Planning Board and a public hearing takes place.

"I can't imagine they are in favor of all of that," Butler said of the two linked housing and commercial projects. "The Riverkeeper is a powerful voice in our day and age. It is important when they go on the record."

The proposals by Camarda encompass about 300 acres near the Carmel-Southeast border and have been the subject of much public debate and a referendum in which Carmel voters approved selling the developer 19 acres of town-owned land with coveted Route 6 access.

Camarda wants to build The Fairways, more than 150 units of clustered senior-citizen housing inside the Centennial Golf Club, and Gateway Summit, which includes a year-round YMCA facility, a 150-room hotel with banquet and meeting rooms, retail and commercial space and about 150 units of senior-citizen housing.

Camarda said the letters from Riverkeeper and the inspector general were "supportive" and "now they are waiting for the final details."

James Tierney, the state's watershed inspector general, praised Camarda in a June 29 letter for "making substantial changes" to his original plan in scaling back the footprint of structures which he said would have an impact on storm water and disturb land with steep slopes.

"I wouldn't want someone, though, to take my letter and think I've signed off on the project," he said Friday. "We are far away from that point. It is important to note Mr. Camarda has shown a willingness to revise his program and work with environmental concerns."

In his letter he wrote: "While I will await the final environmental impact statement and the details of the storm-water pollution prevention plan, I am pleased to say that you have made great strides in formulating a project that takes into account critical water-quality concerns."

Likewise, attorney Christopher Wilde of Riverkeeper said his letter to Camarda was to acknowledge various improvements the developer made to the site layout, particularly the idea of adding one floor to the hotel and building up slightly rather than out.

"That was the intention of that letter, nothing more or nothing less," Wilde said Friday.

Camarda said he did not circulate the letters but shared them when asked by the weekly reporter.

"The words in their letters were supportive. They are telling the Town Board to allow me to build. It says to me that they are supportive," he said.

The developer met with Riverkeeper and Tierney more than three times to flesh out details of the proposal.

After discussions, he said he reduced the senior-housing units from 341 to 300 and the commercial space from 240,000 to 200,000 square feet.

The overall land use was reduced by 36 percent, from 113 to 72 acres, and the disturbance of land with steep slopes was cut in half from 36 to 17 acres.

Residents outside Carmel are following these projects because their size will affect the entire region.

Cathy Croft of Concerned Residents of Southeast said it is good the developer is discussing how the construction would affect natural resources at the initial planning stages.

"(Camarda) has a long way to go with this," Croft said. "We all need to work together and make concessions, but not jump too far ahead. There are so many different aspects — senior housing, a hotel, YMCA, restaurants and retail space. Putnam needs a hotel and these things, but in the right way."

Good morning all

These letters were published in the Westchester Edition of the NYTimes in response to an article written the week previously entitled "Nature vs. Nurture." Camarda Park is at a standstill due to the good, persistent work of the residents, CWCWC, Riverkeeper and the Coalition. As you may know, the DEP has sued the Town and we are awaiting the outcome on the suit but there were other ramificiations for Carmel which the residents clearly point out.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

September 25, 2005

Megaplex Plan in Putnam County

To the Editor:

As a longtime (35 years) Carmel resident who, like Cindy Katz, lives on Seminary Hill Road, I was naturally gratified to see many of the arguments against the construction of the Camarda Park sports megaplex so well articulated in "Nature and Nurture, Squaring Off Again" (Sept. 18).

While the hamlet of Carmel has a population of 6,000, the town numbers over 35,000. Most live in Mahopac, where pressure for Camarda Park is strongest. There is already a baseball diamond in the town recreation area (Sycamore Park), and more have been approved for construction on the recently acquired former Mahopac airport.

Supporters of Camarda Park also argue that existing local ball fields don't have bathrooms. But installing a few portable toilets is a whole lot cheaper than building a sports complex, which is bound to cost many times the unrealistic estimate of $3 million mentioned in the article.

Along with three ball fields and playground, the grandiose plans include a two-story concession stand, amphitheater with night lights, booming sound system and a bocce court. (Also not included are the millions that will inevitably be awarded in legal judgments stemming from traffic accidents, when cars pile onto narrow, winding Seminary Hill - a road unchanged since it was first built in the era of horse-and-buggy transportation.)

Contrary to the condescending comment of Robert Pozzi, the town supervisor, "Whenever you have a project, you always have about six people who don't want it to happen," the Sept. 13 Republican primary tells a quite different story: Mr. Pozzi's viewpoint was soundly rebuffed by the voters in a landslide victory for his opponent, Connie King Munday, who is widely perceived as more responsive to residents' concerns.

I am sympathetic to local parents' desire for better sports facilities. But Camarda Park is the wrong solution: wrong place, wrong scale, wrong price.

Noel J. Holland
Carmel, N.Y.
_____________________________________________________________________

To the Editor:

Your article regarding the proposal by the Town of Carmel to build ball fields on some of the most environmentally sensitive land in Putnam County was most welcome. Perhaps, however, you should have pointed out that Putnam County, which includes the Town of Carmel, is at the same time asking its taxpayers to approve a $20 million budget to be used to preserve open spaces.

It seems to me there's some contradiction in the two proposals.

Robert Baldwin
Carmel, N.Y.

_____________________________________________________________________

To the Editor:

So much for the opinion of Robert Pozzi, Carmel's town supervisor, that the over-development that he and Camarda Park represent is opposed by only "six people." In a major upset, even though he was the chosen candidate, he lost the Republican party primary to his opponent Connie King Munday, who will run for town supervisor on both the Republican and Democratic tickets. Carmel Republicans spoke loudly and clearly, giving Town Supervisor Pozzi the fewest votes of any candidate.

As a recent resident of Carmel and an independent voter, I am elated to see that so many of my fellow residents, Democrat and Republican, are against the uncontrolled over-development that plagues so much of our great state.

Peter Castro
Carmel, N.Y.

Good morning all - if you haven't seen this letter, Virginia Villegas says it like it is - Patterson Crossing not a dot as depicted in the article but a black eye to the lake carmel community.

Stop Patterson Crossing Committee also has a website: stoppattersoncrossing.com and telephone number: (845) - 306-1843 for up to-date information on activities and committees

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Patterson Crossing larger than depicted

(Original publication: September 23, 2005)

The Sunday edition contained an article in the Putnam section regarding Putnam County Executive Robert Bondi clashing with the "grass-roots advocacy" group, Stop Patterson Crossing. My concern does not lie with the article but with the map that appears on page 2.

The proposed Patterson Crossing development is represented as a small dot on Route 311. In actuality, that "small dot" is a 439,500-square-foot area that would fill in the whole space between Interstate 84 and thousands of homes in Lake Carmel. It will back up to at least five blocks of homes on Concord Road coming as close as 100 feet to some bedrooms. For a clearer representation go to planputnam.org and click on the link to "Help Stop Patterson Crossing." There you will see the behemoth of a project that little dot represents and the effect it will have on the residential community of Lake Carmel.

Virginia Villegas, Lake Carmel

September 22, 2005

Carmel Work Session- The Hotel

Good morning all -

There were, of course, several items on the agenda but foremost was the presentation by Paul Camarda on the status of the hotel - Staybridge.

His presentation resulted from the necessity to change the zoning code to permit a hotel on the parcel on Rte 6 and the necessity to incorporate strict definitions as to what constitutes a "hotel" and "kitchen, etc." into the code to preclude future changes. And this concern resulted from the possibility that in the future the "hotel" would not be a hotel but "apartments. It was the lack of definitional precision that particularly troubled Councilman Ravallo and Marino and posed as the central question of the evening: How does the Board ensure that the hotel does not become apartments?" However, Town Planner Sjoberg attempted to reassure them by pointing out that existing zoning precludes such an eventuality since an apartment building must be in a multifamily zone and the zoning on Rte 6 was commercial but did not contain provision for a hotel.

Why could this be so? Because the "hotel" contained "kitchens" and stoves. But what was equally of interest was that the much publicized "family" hotel was no longer such but indeed was a "business" hotel. What gave it away was the configuration of the rooms as described by Camarda.

No less than 89 rooms plus 2 for "conferences" out of the proposed 150 were studios no larger than 300 sq ft and containing a "kitchen."

There were then 36 - one bedroom suits and 13 - 2 bedrooms of which 2 were for the handicapped.

A significant change. And again what interested me is that the hotel chain, Intercontintental (Staybridge) had made a market analysis, known only to Camarda and the hotel CEO but not made available to the public nor will it be - private. What market analysis and when? The market analysis that supported a 150-room family-style hotel or the one made up ad hoc. slated for business. So what had been sold to the public as a hotel strictly for relatives and friends of residents - you remember - has now been transformed into one basically catering to the business class.

Additionally, there is the statement made by Camarda several months ago at the Economic Committee meeting chaired by Legislator Morini that in reality the area could not really support a 150-room hotel but 90.

The hotel has facilities for a business buffet; conference and banquet facilities; an indoor swimming pool; a library.

The depiction of the hotel displayed by Camarda still was the original three stories. However, again in a much publicized negotiation with the Watershed Inspector General and Riverkeeper, Camarda assured them that to reduce stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, the footprint of the hotel would be reduced by rising five stores instead of three. Last evening we did not see what the hotel would look like at that height nor did we see what the visual impact would be on the area.

The discussion ended by agreeing to further discussion on the matter - with suggestions to the Town Planner for further strengthening the code by including square footage; length of stays; highlighting aspects that would pertain to a hotel but not apartments; restricting location to water and sewer district; prohibiting guest-owned furniture and obtaining further info on the history and locations of the hotel.

Further workshop and Town Board sessions will deal with the matter of the hotel and the code. So stay tuned.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Overdevelopment isn't affordable

(Original publication: September 1, 2005

The United Way study published in Sunday's Journal News raises the whole issue of affordability: "affordable" senior housing and I'm adding "affordable" recreation.

Is there an "affordability" index? Talk to seniors and residents and they say the tipping point has been reached. What is to be done? First, we need to put a stop to this runaway train misnamed "affordable" senior housing with skyrocketing market rate prices in the $300,000 to $400,000 range; maintenance charges of $300 to cover amenities and then $7,000 in taxes for the icing. Is this a win-win situation for seniors desiring to downsize and remain in town?

Town officials need to institute a moratorium, put a brake on the 1,000-plus senior housing units proposed for the hamlet of Carmel that would be destructive of our vistas, forests and slopes; scrap the Swiss-cheese "affordable" senior housing law and put into effect laws that will balance the needs of young and old alike.

Second: The consequences of this glut of proposed senior housing and past development has resulted in areas of the hamlet without open space for residential recreation and regrettably has pitted some hamlet residents against each other in their battle to get the last crumb of environmentally fragile land off Seminary Hill Road. With a $4 million price tag for three ball fields and a parking lot (only Phrase 1 of the Camarda Park project), will residents price themselves out of recreation?

Is there truly an "affordable" Carmel in our future?

Ann Fanizzi, Southeast
 

August 28, 2005

Affordable Housing for All

Good morning all -

I've copied below our response to Greg Ball, candidate for Assembly, on carmelresident.org concerning the entire issue of senior housing in particular and affordable housing in general. Whether you live in Carmel, the greatest impacted by run-away senior housing or in other towns, the entire issue as the United Way study reported in the today's Journal News, is one of Putnam's top needs.

Just as some towns hae had a moratorium on residential development - literally trying to close the barn door etc- While there is still time, we desperately need to have a moratorium on senior housing.

Please join the Coalition in this effort.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
Have you called (628-1500) or written (Town Hall - 67 McAlpin Ave, Mahopac, NY 10541) to Supervisor Pozzi and Town Councilmen to institute a moratorium?

Hi Greg

The first thing that has to be done is to put a stop to this runaway train misnamed "affordable" senior housing which as you state at $400,000 a pop plus maintenance charges which can go as high as $300 and with seniors still burdened by taxes, cannot by anyone's definition be called "affordable."

So I urge you to join in the Coalition to Preserve Open Space call for an immediate moratorium, especially in Carmel where within a 2 mile area - over 1,000 senior housing units are on the drawing board. Not only Carmel but in the administration of Lois Zutell, Southeast Supervisor, we called for a serious "hard look" at the entire issue

Second:

While the moratorium is in effect, which by the way, needs to be town-wide, have all senior housing laws in all towns, presently on the books, revised. Again, I take Carmel, which everyone knows, even town-board officials who have supported the Coalition's call for a revision of the code contains a loophole, granting developers, such as Camarda (the largest developer by far - close to 700 units and Wilder Balter, a distant second, with almost 300 units), almost unfettered license to build.

Last January the Coalition filed suit against the Carmel Planning Board and in Court to put a halt to the train. Would you believe that some who should know better, have criticized us for the effort? Whether we are successful or not, it has brought the entire issue of senior housing to the forefront and has become a major campaign issue in the Carmel election for Supervisor and Town Councilman.

Third: Putnam is not the only county beset by the issue of providing "affordable" housing for our seniors but also for our young people. How to do it? One innovative way is to require a percentage of future subdivisions to be set aside for "affordability." In Westchester, one such developer, has allocated more than 15%. Will that be enough?

Another way is to again look at rental as a possibility. While meeting with residents surrounding the Camarda development, over and over again, the issue arose that rental units would be far preferable than to the current ownership paradigm.

Greg, these are only two but there are several others which if a moratorium were instituted, could be adequately studied and proposals enacted. We need a mix of housing options for all of our residents. We cannot do it so long as the train keeps on going.

Join us in this effort.

August 10, 2005

Carmel road work disrupts, disturbs - New York Journal News Article

Nothing like relegating history to the history books.
Ann Fanizzi

Good morning all - Fish are dying in the Croton Falls reservoir somewhat analogous to the canary in the mine. Is nature sounding the alarm? And are we listening? Morgan and I went Sunday, you would have to see it to believe it. Should you note anything similar in the other reservoirs (Middle Branch, West Branch), please call Ron Pierce, DEC Biologist in New Paltz and the DEP Police in Yorktown and report it immediately.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
Please support the county open space $22 million bond fund on the November ballot. Open Space - the best protector of the environment, our recreational resources and our quality of life.

Cause of Carmel fish kill probed
By MICHAEL RISINIT
mrisinit@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
Original publication: August 16, 2005)

CARMEL —What killed hundreds of fish over the weekend in the Croton Falls Reservoir remained a mystery yesterday.

"Never in my life have I seen anything like it," said Morgan Seymour Jr., 76, a lifelong Carmel resident and avid outdoorsman.

Seymour was describing the 1,000 dead fish — sawbellies, white perch and yellow perch — he saw at the Croton Falls Reservoir floating in the water or washed up on the shore. A retired railroad engineer, he was driving down Stoneleigh Avenue Friday evening when he noticed a mob of gulls and cormorants diving into the water near where the road crosses the reservoir.

"I said to myself, 'That's unusual,' " Seymour said. "So I turned the car around and went back for a look."

The reservoir is part of New York City's water supply, which delivers drinking water to 9 million people, including part of Putnam County and most of Westchester. City and state environmental authorities yesterday were looking for the cause of the fish kill.

"For now, we just don't know," said Ian Michaels, a spokesman for the city's Department of Environmental Protection. "We had people investigating over the weekend and today."

The DEP oversees the water supply. Ongoing dam construction has lowered the water level by about 50 feet, squeezing the Croton Reservoir's fish into smaller and shallower areas than usual.

Michaels said researchers were testing for various pollutants and looking to see if the construction upstream at the Middle Branch Reservoir released any contaminants into the water. They were also monitoring the reservoir's content of dissolved oxygen — what fish need to survive.

"It seems whatever the condition was has subsided. We're going to keep trying to figure it out." he said.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation is assisting the DEP with the investigation. A DEC spokeswoman said fish kills aren't unheard of during the summer — a result of warm air temperatures and little rain leading to low levels of oxygen in the water. Michaels said tests showed oxygen levels were adequate as deep as 5 meters — more than 16 feet. More testing would be done, he said, at greater depths.

Yesterday, dozens of fish still floated belly-up in a corner of the reservoir's eastern lobe.

A few cormorants sat on the surface, some gulls hovered overhead and the breeze carried an aroma of decay. The site is about a mile south of the Putnam Hospital Center.

Seymour said some of the fish he spied Friday "were swimming in tight circles, upside-down." The reservoir, he said, had a "gray look to it. ... These reservoirs, when I was growing up, were always crystal clear."

Over the weekend, he said, the number of dead fish increased. On Sunday, Southeast resident Ann Fanizzi went with Seymour to see the dead fish and said she was "shocked." The gulls, she said, seemed to appreciate the easy food source. "They were circling and having a grand old time," Fanizzi said.

August 10, 2005

Raze Belden House, Putnam legislator says - New York Journal News Article

Nothing like relegating history to the history books.
Ann Fanizzi

Good morning all - how many more Brewster Highlands/Patterson Crossings have to be built? First the article on traffic taking twice as long to get anywhere and now sales taxes not meeting projections.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.
Support the open space bond referendum on the November ballot.

Putnam sales tax takes a hit
By: Eric Gross
08/04/2005

CARMEL-For the first time since March 2004, Putnam County failed to collect more sales tax than it did during the same period a year before.

Commissioner of Finance William Carlin presented his monthly sales tax report to members of the Putnam Legislature's Audit Committee last week indicating $2,437,588 collected in sales tax for the month of June. The figure was down by $138,201 from June of last year when $2.575 million was collected.

For the first six months of 2005, Putnam consumers have spent $17,561,107 in sales tax. The county has budget $39.8 million in sales tax revenue by year's end.

County Executive Robert Bondi attended the meeting. Bondi called sales tax critical to the daily operation of county government. "Putnam County is providing vital and essential services including health, social services and police protection. There is no way we can shirk those responsibilities," he said.

Bondi said the recent approval of a one-half percent increase in sales tax was key especially in the wake of the unexpected decline. "The sooner we can start collecting that money, the better off we all will be," he said.

By a vote of 6-1 with two legislators absent, the Putnam Legislature approved increasing Putnam's sales tax to 7.875 percent from the current 7.375 percent.

The county's share will rise to 3.5 percent with the additional funds generated to reduce a pending fiscal crisis facing the county next year.

The June vote followed state legislative approval of the request in late May.

Putnam Legislature Chairman Robert McGuigan admitted that "no elected official wants to raise taxes but this gives us two years to get ourselves back on track."

The legislation expires on Nov. 30, 2007 and if the county decides to keep the increase, lawmakers must request approval from Albany again.

Legislator Vincent Tamagna voted in favor of the increase because "sales tax is spread out over a broader base. This is the most sensible approach."

Legislator Regina Morini called Putnam's sales tax "extremely reasonable. It is still less than our surrounding counties."

The lone dissenting vote came from Legislator Sam Oliverio. The Putnam Valley Democrat called on his colleagues to return a portion of the sales tax revenue to each of Putnam's six towns. "The towns generate the sales tax. They should reap some of the benefits. I'm not saying give each town a half, a third or a quarter. A small percentage would certainly give each community the incentive to bring in commercial endeavors while reducing the local tax burden," he said.

Following last week's committee meeting attended by Legislators Tony Hay, Terry Intrary, Dan Birmingham, Mike Semo and Commissioner of Finance William Carlin, the commissioner called it very important that people shop locally. "Every tax dollar spent locally works for the local economy," he said.

Legislator Hay, who chairs the Audit Committee, was asked if he felt the county would meet its sales tax projection of $39.8 million by year's end.

"Of course, we have upped the sales tax by one-half percent. We can't miss!" was the reply.

Hay said the half-percent increase was originally set aside to balance the budget for the 2006 and 2007 fiscal years and not for 2005. "That's my concern. We will be using money that we didn't have in the first place," he said.

©Putnam County Courier 2005

August 4, 2005

Carmel Work Session - Referendum et al

Good morning all - I've concentrated my notes on the issue of recreation which I know many of us are most concerned. I hope you will find them helpful.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Last night's Town of Carmel Work Session (8/3) was memorable: we learned for the first time that serious funding will be needed to carry forward all the public works projects (landfill etc) and recreation plans on the table - according to Councilman Marino close to $20 million; according to Councilman Hennelly $8 million. To obtain the necessary funds, bonding will be necessary.

What of course, Mr. Hennelly didn't want to expose are the huge costs connected with developing Camarda Park so he conveniently failed to include them in his calculations. And we learned that there is not one phase as deceptively advertised but at least two, each at over $3 million a pop. And it was not just three ballfields but also concession stands etc. Drip, drip, drip. I wish to remind the readers that the elements of the plan envisions a full-build out and that means a "Rec Plex." in the future.

During this discussion, Hennelly made a false, bald face assertion that the "DEP is suing the town over three ballfields." And he said it looking straight into the camera. The DEP, together with the Watershed Inspector General as a friend of the court, is suing the town because in their opinion, the Town failed to follow the SEQRA process and engage in a coordinated review with the relevant agencies, a point that I made writing for the Coalition in my May 25th letter counseling issuance of a Pos Dec. and following the SEQRA process to the letter.

By the way the costs also omitted the Baldwin Meadows 15-acre baseball field attached to the development that was "donated" by the developer.

During this course of this discussion and I invite everyone to listen in on SUSCOM, was the strong advocacy by Councilman DiCarlo of a Referendum on the entire issue, a step that appeared to have the approval of all the town board. Let the people decide if I may paraphrase the Councilman.

And further, there was the report by Mr. Gilchrist, the Recreation Director, of studies first around an "Athletic Field Master Plan" and then a "Recreation Master Plan." Each of these studies would focus on needs, facilities available, etc. The time frame for completion of these studies was at the minimum two years. Mr. Fufaro, head of Mahoac Sports Association and member of the town's Rec. Committee and Mahopac Advisory Board, paid special attention to the necessity of involvement of all members of the community and Mr. Gilchrist echoed by announcing that all meetings would be open to the public.

Councilman Marino focused on costs, the possible future liability of the residents in terms of increased property taxes, the uncertainty of county and state finances who themselves might be looking to cover their own budgetary problems with tax increases.

To recap: So far in terms of ballfields - we have Crane Road, Sycamore, Baldwin Meadows, and perhaps Camarda Park. Some needing serious upgrading; two are proposed. So the question will revolve around do we need all these ballfields as one senior citizen asked and do the costs justify expenditure not only for development but for operation and maintenance.

Again, please see playback schedule on SUSCOM and tune in.

July 22, 2005

Carmel Planning Board Vote

Good morning all

Will wonders ever cease! Just a recap before the astounding news. In case not everyone got my report concerning the session at the Town Board, I asked a very simple question of Councilman Ravallo since he appeared the most enthusiastic about the hotel. The question was: had anyone done any market analysis to support a 150-room hotel. I asked that question because Camarda at an Economic Development Committee meeting stated that the area really could only support 90-rooms but he was going for 150. Quite a spread.

Somebody got back to the Planning Board because lo and behold they voted unanimously (5 with 2 absent) to recommend to the Town Board that a market/feasibility study be done and that hotels be located only in those commercial districts that have sewer and water. Can you imagine what would happen if hotels could be located in all commercial districts?

It is an indication that persistent pressure on the vital topics affecting residents does work. I know Councilman Hennelly finds it annoying that an "outsider" who happens to also be a taxpayer, should raise these issues, but I see he has no problem with an applicant who is not only outside of town, outside of county but also outside of state.

Regardless of well-intentioned negotiations up in Albany concerning changes in the Gateway project, it is we residents that in the final analysis must live with the consequences.

Stay tuned.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Good morning all - The long-standoff between the haves and have nots obviously is over - residents will get water; the price: development of the area - note the mention of the 19 empty lots.

As the article states, this has been a most contentious, divisive community issue, with solutions offered over the years, bearing their own seeds of contention. It was a tough issue that even Solomon would have a hard time solving.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

____________________________________________________________

State OKs water district for Rolling Greens
By BARBARA LIVINGSTON NACKMAN
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: July 26, 2005)

MAHOPAC — A water district for Rolling Greens can't come soon enough for Fran Moore.

She has lived in the community since 1991 and has had more than a decade dealing with a sometimes failing private well, prompting her to curtail family gatherings, wash clothes in a coin-operated laundry and rarely water outdoor plants. As co-chairwoman of the Rolling Greens Water Committee, she has worked to get approval for a solution to the problem of dry wells for some homes in the roughly 70-home subdivision.

Now, after a long campaign, the state has given its permission for a public water district, although the issue remains deeply divisive in the neighborhood off Baldwin Place Road.

In a July 18 letter, the state Comptroller's Office said the public interest would be served by the town's establishing Water District 13. Officials can now get bids to construct 5,100 linear feet of water main connecting 51 existing homes, 18 proposed homes and 19 vacant lots. The state Department of Environmental Conservation issued a permit for the district June 8.

"This puts us well on the way to a water district," Moore said.

About eight homes are getting emergency water from Fire Department hoses running along the streets, she said. Her home is not one of them.

Over the years, dozens of Rolling Greens homes have suffered with no water, poor water pressure, and water that comes and goes. A dispute has raged in the neighborhood for more than a decade over how to solve the problem.

The state's Department of Audit and Control must approve a new district if the community intends to borrow money for the funding and if the cost for a typical property would exceed $575 a year.

The district is expected to cost no more than $1,030,000. For a one-family home, the annual operating and maintenance cost is expected to be $1,590. A hook-up fee is an additional $2,000, according to the town's application to the state. The district would hook into Water District 10, which is supplied from Lake Mahopac, and the filtration system of District 8.

In his July 18 letter, Deputy Comptroller Mark P. Pattison said, "The cost of the proposed district will not be an undue burden upon the property (owners)."

Some residents, whose wells produce adequate water supply, opposed an earlier district that would have relied on shared community wells, saying it could change the groundwater resources and possibly harm the healthy wells.

Robert Mongelli, vice president of the Committee to Preserve Rolling Greens, said he was against the water district because it would allow new construction, increasing traffic congestion and bringing higher property taxes. "It is not about the water," he said yesterday. "We have never been against people getting water. This is about allowing overdevelopment."

Mongelli said the district has made it easier for two new housing proposals — Baldwin Estates and Baldwin Woods. The developer of each has submitted plans for a community well system that would be constructed if District 13 didn't materialize.

The 30-year resident and retired New York City police officer is also worried about the costs. Mongelli said he might have to pay part of the costs even if he didn't hook up to the system.

"I can pay it right now, but I don't know in a few years," he said. "I am sure people will have to move out of their homes because of this."

Mongelli and neighbor Matthew Bennett, a Planning Board member, sued the town, saying officials improperly approved the water district and the Baldwin Estates subdivision. In February, a state Supreme Court judge threw out the lawsuits, saying they were not filed on time.

Supervisor Robert Pozzi said the state approvals would allow a serious water problem to be solved.

"You can't have people living in a place where they don't have water. It is a pretty basic need that we can't ignore," he said.

At least 50 homeowners signed petitions asking for the district and saying they understood the cost.

"This is the will of the people," Moore said.

Refurbished fire tower's views dazzle residents
By BRUCE GOLDING
bgolding@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: July 25, 2005)

KENT — Mike Arciola paused to catch his breath after climbing five of the eight flights up the newly refurbished Mount Nimham fire tower yesterday.

"Holy smokes!" the 63-year-old retired watch technician said. "I thought I was at the top already."

Arciola was among dozens of celebrants at an afternoon dedication ceremony that featured speeches, live music, homemade brownies and lemonade.

But the main attraction was the tower, whose 102 narrow steps lead to a sweeping, 360-degree view of the trees and lakes that stretch for miles around its steel skeleton.

"I think it's cool, really cool. Scary," said 11-year-old Samantha Kelly of New Milford, Conn. She ventured up with her uncle and three cousins, including 5-year-old Alexandra Pope of Mahopac, who poked out her head to peer down from the observation deck.

For decades, the Depression-era tower was used to spot forest fires, and a lookout's cabin once sat near its base. But by the 1970s, airplanes, satellites and suburban sprawl had rendered it obsolete, along with thousands of others across the country.

After that, the 83-foot-6-inch tower fell into disrepair, and a bonfire set by teenagers destroyed many of its original wooden steps.

As part of a five-year, $40,000 renovation effort, new steel steps were bolted in place and workers dangled from climbing harnesses to scrape the structure and coat it with battleship gray paint.

Funding included $10,000 from the PLAN Kent group, a $7,800 state grant and $100 contributions from donors whose names adorn the new steps, said George Baum, chairman of the Kent Conservation Advisory Committee.

During yesterday's ceremony, Gil Cryinghawk Tarbox of Kent led four members of the Nimham Mountain Singers in Algonquin-language chants and drumming. Tarbox, who wore a feathered headdress and beaded necklace, also invoked the spirit of Daniel Nimham, the 16th-century chief of the Wappinger tribe after whom the mountain was named.

"The people who are buried here, whether they were settlers or natives, their energy is here," he told the crowd. "Nimham is buried in the Bronx, but his energy is here."

Kent Councilwoman Kathy Doherty praised the project, saying it was "bringing back history."

"You can't beat the view if you go up there, but I'm afraid of heights," she said. "My son's been up there twice."

Also attending yesterday was local sculptor Michael Keropian, who handed out fliers in support of his proposed 12-foot bronze statue of Chief Nimham. Keropian hopes to raise about $300,000 to pay for the artwork, which would stand near the town library.

July 23, 2005

Stream Monitoring

There is another development confronting Kent and that is Hillcrest Commons. Just a recap - it is on Rte 52 and includes a 10,000 sq. ft. ShopRite expansion; 50 parking spaces; a 60,00 sq. ft office building and 150 senior housing units. Wilder Balter, the developer of the senior housing portion may remove the office building and instead construct another 150 senior housing, which would bring it to 300 units .

I am relaying this message from Dr. Marian Rose, President of Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition (I'm a Board member and Putnam Rep) requesting volunteers for stream monitoring. We have monitored streams before to obtain base line data as to their health, principally by examining the small and microscopic beasties. The determination of water quality is essential since this water course is being so impacted by development.

If you are interested or wish to learn more, drop me a line. Just a word - the terraine is somewhat difficult.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

______________________________________________________________________---
Dear Steam Monitors,

I hope you're all still free to do some important stream monitoring on Saturday, August 6.

We shall be monitoring Michael Brook that runs from close to our initial meeting place (see below) and from there, into Croton Falls Reservoir. Why Michael Brook? Because there are plans for a large development on the hill at the back of the Rte. 52 shopping plaza that would, no doubt, seriously degrade the stream.

Here's the plan:

We'll meet at 10 AM at the southern end of the Rote 52 shopping plaza, situated on the right hand side as you drive from Carmel towards Lake Carmel. The shopping plaza is opposite a large cemetery.

From there, we'll drive a short distance to Fair Street to where Michael Brook crosses under it (at the Fred Dill Nature Preserve) and take our first samples.

Then, we'll take a second set of samples where Michael Brook enters Croton Falls Reservoir. - off Hughson Street.

Both sites are somewhat rough going and, for those who are sensitive, you should be sure and wear protective clothing against poison ivy.

Then, we'll take our samples to the VFW center on Ice Pond Road (off Rte.312) where we've met before, and order pizza and other goodies before settling down to work to sort the samples.

Pray for good weather!

Please be sure and e-mail me or call me to let me know whether you are coming so that we are sure to wait for you if you are a couple of minutes late.

Best regards to all,
Marian

Visit www.newyorkwater.org

July 22, 2005

Carmel Planning Board Vote

Good morning all

Will wonders ever cease! Just a recap before the astounding news. In case not everyone got my report concerning the session at the Town Board, I asked a very simple question of Councilman Ravallo since he appeared the most enthusiastic about the hotel. The question was: had anyone done any market analysis to support a 150-room hotel. I asked that question because Camarda at an Economic Development Committee meeting stated that the area really could only support 90-rooms but he was going for 150. Quite a spread.

Somebody got back to the Planning Board because lo and behold they voted unanimously (5 with 2 absent) to recommend to the Town Board that a market/feasibility study be done and that hotels be located only in those commercial districts that have sewer and water. Can you imagine what would happen if hotels could be located in all commercial districts?

It is an indication that persistent pressure on the vital topics affecting residents does work. I know Councilman Hennelly finds it annoying that an "outsider" who happens to also be a taxpayer, should raise these issues, but I see he has no problem with an applicant who is not only outside of town, outside of county but also outside of state.

Regardless of well-intentioned negotiations up in Albany concerning changes in the Gateway project, it is we residents that in the final analysis must live with the consequences.

Stay tuned.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Good morning all - very good idea but here's a better one - let's get at the source of stormwater runoff: residential, senior housing and commercial overdevelopment like the 1000 senior housing units planned for the Hamlet of Carmel, including the Carmel Senior Center, the Fairways and Hillcrest Commons and 300 Townhouses in Kent and the 439,000 sq ft cookie cutter, big box Patterson Crossing and the other huge projects on the drawing board. That'll save you lots of paving and runoff.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
PS - Support the Senior Housing Moratorium in the Hamlet of Carmel - call or write Supervisor Pozzi at 628-1500 or write: Town Hall - 60 McAlpin Avenue, Mahopac, NY 10541

Bondi proposes $2 per person tax on water
By MICHAEL RISINIT
mrisinit@thejournalnews.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
On the Web

For more information, visit the state Department of Environmental Conservation's Web page at www.dec.state.ny.us/web site/dow/main page.htm.

(Original publication: July 17, 2005)
CARMEL — A gallon of domestic bottled water in the local A&P supermarket goes for $1.29. If one used that water for a year's worth of everything, such as drinking, bathing and flushing toilets, the annual bill would be a little more than $64,000.

Paying $2 a year to keep oil, pesticides and septic waste from washing into the water supply, therefore, is a bargain, says Putnam County Executive Robert Bondi. He is proposing that everyone in Putnam, Westchester and New York City pony up so communities can comply with federal rules aimed at keeping pollutants out of streams, lakes and reservoirs.

The rules went into effect in March 2003 and are the next step in the Clean Water Act. Almost every city, town and village in Westchester, Putnam and Rockland counties must develop storm-water management plans.

The state is charged with enforcing the regulations. Such efforts involve installing more high-tech storm drains, searching for and mapping storm-water discharge points, and improving how materials, such as road salt or fertilizer, are stored. They're also expensive.

"Everybody has had to commit to a management plan," said Maureen Fleming, a Kent resident who leads the town's Storm Water Management Committee. "Since it's an unfunded mandate, where's that money going to come from? That's the question nobody's willing to answer at this point."

Communities must fully implement their plans by 2008, and some grants are available. But when the final details are worked out, municipalities could be faced with bills from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

"Generally, the more impervious surfaces a community has, the greater the cost," said Patterson Town Planner Rich Williams, referring to places such as parking lots and roads that collect contaminants and hold them until they are washed away.

Storm water is water from rain or melting snow running off land, carrying pollutants into nearby water bodies and aquifers. The pollution can close beaches, clog lakes with weeds and dirty drinking-water supplies.

"Storm water is the biggest threat to water quality in (New York City's) watershed," said Chris Wilde, a watershed attorney with the environmental group Riverkeeper. "We're always interested in new funding opportunities for controlling storm water."

Bondi suggested the $2-a-year charge for all users of water from New York City's Croton watershed in a letter circulated last month to village mayors, town supervisors and county leaders. Those users are the 8 million people in New York City and 1 million in Westchester and Putnam counties who either rely on the city's water system or get their water from wells — which also are affected by storm-water pollution. With matching funds over a 10-year period, Bondi said, the program could generate $360 million.

"What is needed is a long-term format for a continuous, incremental, annual revenue stream, one that would not present an onerous burden to the taxpayer," Bondi wrote in his letter. "Projects of this nature take years to complete and reliance on grant funding, while helpful, should be pursued; however, it is not the solution for a long term endeavor."

Such an undertaking would be akin to specially formed districts that raise money through taxes for a specific purpose, such as a sewer or school district. The measure would require state and local approvals.

"It certainly is good to have a steady flow of revenue," said James Tierney, watershed inspector general for state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. "I think the county executive is certainly onto something."

On Friday, Deputy County Executive Frank Del Campo characterized Bondi's proposal as an "idea we're floating." Only those directly benefitting from the protected reservoirs and wells would be charged, he said.

"It should be a sharing over the many, many years of the responsibility," Del Campo said. "We feel very strongly there has to be a regional approach to solving these storm-water problems."

Don Cuomo, a Southeast resident and a hydrologist, said attention to storm water was long overdue and would most likely be expensive.

"In my mind, it's a step in the right direction," Cuomo said. "The costs are going to be great."

July 9, 2005

Sculptor looks to history to create Nimham statue - New York Journal News Article

Good morning all -

Please view the work session that occurred Wednesday; the topics discussed are of vital concern to the future of the Hamlet and of Carmel. What were the issues? Senior Housing for one.

To the credit of town officials, especially to Councilmen Ravallo, Marino and now DeCarlo, Supervisor Pozzi directed Magnus Sjoberg, town planner, to initiate an independent study of the housing needs of seniors in the area; a position that the Coalition has long and consistently advocated. Central to the whole issue is one of density and how much can the Hamlet support. It is complicated and will need time to fully research, arrive at valid conclusions and develop a credible plan.

In the meantime, we have urged a moratorium and this is especially vital in view of the town planner's admission that there are 976 units on the docket to be approved (Mr. Camarda alone has 655 units) and that doesn't include the Hughson Commons (94) units or Gleneida Mews (100+) numbers, already built. Again, as we have stated, if all those units are built, can the Hamlet support an additional population increase of 20%? Have we analyzed the consequences of such a population increase on traffic, medical and emergency services, on the economy of the town and the schools? Is there a tipping point? And most importantly, on the water capacity of Sewer District 2 being strained by proposed commercial and senior housing development? We cannot build another sewage treatment plant. That's it.

Is this not a vital issue? What is the use of closing the barn door after the 976 units have been built? Stop the process while the study proceeds. You can do a great deal by calling Supervisor Pozzi's office (628-1500) urging a moratorium or writing a short letter addressed to Supervisor Robert Pozzi and Members of the Town Board; Town Hall; 60 McAlpin Avenue; Mahopac, N.Y. 10541. Town officials need to hear from the residents.

Please don't put it off. If we take a few moments now, we will have no regrets in the future.

Thanks again. A great Fourth to all.

Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
If you wish to support the Coalition's many efforts and contribute: our address is: P.O. Box 122; Carmel, N.Y. 10512.

June 29, 2005

Hi all - John Butler's on-target post appeared on carmelresident.org. This is in reference to the DEP and Watershed Inspector General's Tierney suit against the Town of Carmel - violated SEQRA State Environmental Quality Review) process.

By the way, this is the second time that the DEP has had to intervene in Carmel: the first being when the Planning Board attempted to fast track Camarda's Corporate Center development - now Senior Center off Stoneleigh. They wanted to outrace the promulgation of the stringent MOA regs. The result: court action and Camarda lost his chance to become a big league, big box player in Carmel. It's getting to be a habit - very expensive and very divisive. Some people never learn.

Sincerely,
Ann
wwwputopenspaces.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am forced to suspect the sudden attempt to "fast track" the process was a result of political expediency more than anything. With election time coming what a great coup it would have been to have a shovel in the ground around primary time.

The result is a project that is actually travelling backwards and this after tens (100's?) of thousands have already been spent by the Town.

In reading Kevin's quotes one would think the NYC DEP is on a mission to deny the Hamlet a park. Of course this is ridiculous, the reality being this is a classic over reach on a project. Its a matter of attempting to do more than the land or law would ever allow and then blaming the regulators for enforcing what everyone knew (or should have) were the realistic parameters of development of the site.

Its kinda like applying for a million dollar mortgage on a $20,000 a year salary and then blaming the bank who turned you down with denying your family a place to live.

It would be naive to think dealing with the DEP is easy; it is not. Their job is to avoid risk to the watershed which effectively means the door is locked until you can convince them to open it up for you. That can be done with a gentle knock or a sledge hammer. The Town's elected officials chose the latter and now we pay the price and another generation of Hamlet kid athletes are without a home.

The DEP is not responsible for this mess, its the failure of the people who we elected to get the job done in a smart and responsible fashion.

Good morning - another paving job - this time compliments of Putnam Hospital.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Alternatives exist to parking-lot plan
(Original publication: June 29, 2005)

Not only should the Putnam Hospital/Putnam Community Foundation $1.5 million windfall (June 5 article) raise the ire and disgust of Putnam residents, but also the cookie-cutter plan to pave over 8.8 acres to build an additional sprawling, polluting parking lot.

Hospital directors have opted for paving, maximizing stormwater runoff and the possibility that phosphorous-laden pollutants and contaminates will discharge into an already impaired watershed. Such pollutant discharge has been the target of the Environmental Protection Agency's promulgation of MS4s stormwater regulations for which towns are being held accountable. You would assume that a hospital cognizant of the threat of spreading infection would itself not be the source of spreading pollution.

Instead of thinking horizontally, the directors should think vertically — minimize runoff, conserve 8.8 acres of open space while providing convenience and safety for its employees and visitors. A garage is too expensive? Have they researched the possibility of turning the existing, sprawling parking area into a garage with the $1.5 million that would otherwise be expended for the 8.8 acres? Have they read of a "space-age" garage for over 325 cars constructed on a 100x100 foot lot?

While trumpeting itself as a first-rate, innovative hospital, Putnam directors have opted for the second-rate and most destructive — we have the land, let's pave it over.

Ann Fanizzi, Southeast

Good morning all -

Even tho we have our eyes on Patterson Crossing, we should also keep this development in our sights. Why? Both Sir Galahad (sic) and Kent Manor are after the grail - the last of 3 DEP approved phosphorous offset programs for the Croton Watershed. Here's a 2001 JNews article which gives a good summary of the case.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

$150M condo suit may target Putnam
By MICHAEL RISINIT
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: Nov. 20, 2001)

KENT - Efforts to settle a $150 million lawsuit brought by two developers against Kent and New York City died earlier this month, says one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, and Putnam County may become a target of the suit.

The developers - Joseph Cioccolanti of Kent Acres Development Co. and Harold Wolland of Lexington Realty Development Corp. - accused the municipalities of extortion for not approving the construction of a 300-unit condominium project. Negotiations, said Kevin Young, Wolland's attorney, broke down about two weeks ago. At that point, he said, the city had offered $3 million to settle the suit and Kent was offering between $400,000 and $500,000.

Ed Heelan, a local real estate agent who opposes the watershed regulations, estimated the land's worth at roughly $4 million last year.

"We worked and worked and worked on a settlement," Young said yesterday. "We just couldn't agree on a price (for the 113 acres off Nichols Road)."

Wolland and Kent Acres, the property's owner, have been negotiating with the town and the city about the project's size and whether the town would recommend it for a special sewage-treatment plant. The property is in the city's watershed.

Kent Acres began construction soon after receiving approvals from the Kent Planning Board in 1988 but stopped after financing for the project collapsed. Wolland wants to buy the land from Kent Acres and continue development.

Yesterday, Young and County Executive Robert Bondi disagreed over the county's role. Young contended that Putnam could have recommended the project for the city's sewage plant pilot program and didn't, which is why it would be named in the suit.

"There's no requirement," Bondi said. "As a result, we've never recommended a project (in any of the watershed towns). We've left it to the town supervisors."

The developers filed suit in December 1999 in state Supreme Court in Carmel. The lawsuit contends that town approvals granted in 1988 and the project's acceptance into the city's pilot program in 1997 should allow construction to start. Both companies maintain that earlier approvals give Wolland the right to continue construction.

Participation in the program requires city approval and a recommendation from Kent, which the town isn't required to give. Susan Amron, an environmental attorney with the city's Law Department, has said the city withdrew its conceptual approval because it became apparent that the town wasn't going to recommend the project.

During public hearings, residents worried that the townhouses would bring more cars to the neighborhood's narrow roads, pollute a nearby lake and overburden an already crowded school district. Amron didn't return telephone calls yesterday, and Kent Supervisor Annmarie Baisley said she didn't know the status of the lawsuit.

Young said he planned to file an amended complaint by the end of the year naming Putnam as a defendant. Thomas Singleton, attorney for Kent Acres, said the discovery process would continue after Jan. 1.

Kent Acres owes Putnam County about $2 million in back taxes, Bondi said. The county, he said, is not involved in any development issues, regulatory matters concerning the city's watershed or the assessment process.

"There are no grounds to sue the county," Bondi said. "The county's interest is $1.9 million in back taxes, interest and penalties."

The county wants the money or will take the property, Bondi said. The former farm is on Bondi's list of acquisitions for open- space preservation throughout Putnam.

Young acknowledged the outstanding taxes but said a lot of taxes had also been paid. The county, he said, has taken money but denied the developers' right to use the land.

In August, a lightning fire destroyed several unfinished townhouses on the land, and the Town Board has ordered the damaged structures to be torn down.

Good morning all - Watershed Inspector General, Tierney and the DEP have supported Coalition's and residents' position that the Town violated the SEQRA process imperiling the environment and residents' safety and quality of life. Kudos must go to Cindy Katz who has been indefatigable in this effort and the many residents who wrote and attended meetings.

There can be no doubt that town officials appear to be more beholden to the organized sports interests than to upholding a process meant to protect all of us. On May 25th, The Coalition wrote and urged adherence to the SEQRA process, but our arguments and plea for restraint fell on deaf ears. We have consistently urged a neighborhood park in keeping with the environmental constraints of the property and the needs of the residents. And we were not confident that the "promise" of so-called Phasing of the park would not ultimately lead to a Rec Plex. The Negative Declaration, as adopted, did not envision a limited park but a full-build out and under those conditions the Town could have done so in the future.

Here is the May 25th letter for your information.
Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
 

NYC sues Carmel over park plan
By BARBARA LIVINGSTON NACKMAN
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: June 28, 2005)

CARMEL — With Carmel officials refusing to back down, New York City officials have filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the town's determination that a long-planned park near the Croton Reservoir won't disturb the environment.

In papers filed late Friday in state Supreme Court in Carmel, the city Department of Environmental Protection said the town has not explained how it would deal with environmental effects of building ball fields on nearly 20 acres of a 37-acre site off Seminary Hill Road.

The city agency said that although the town has studied park plans for years and made design changes, it did not follow up with specific information on remediation for storm-water run-off and traffic congestion.

"The issue is, we have been raising concerns, but these haven't been addressed," DEP spokesman Ian Michaels said yesterday. "Typically, you make that available for public review and then issue a declaration. That was not done in this case."

The land falls within the Croton Watershed, which supplies water to nearly 9 million residents in New York City, most of Westchester and parts of Putnam.

Town officials contend they have involved the city agency and the public throughout the planning process. They refused the city's request made in a June 10 letter that they rescind a May 25 vote in which the Town Board said the park would have no ill effect on the environment.

"It is a sad day for the residents of the hamlet of Carmel that they can't have their park," Deputy Supervisor Kevin Hennelly said.

By yesterday, the town had not been served with legal papers.

Town residents opposed to the park applauded the city for challenging the town's decision.

"I don't think the town should be able to do anything they want. They didn't do it aboveboard," said 45-year resident Maryan Bills, who lives a few houses away from the proposed park in a house that has been in her family for 90 years.

"I realize they want a park here for nearby residents, but this thing is getting ridiculous with plans for an amphitheater, lights and a snack bar."

The town wants to build three ball fields at the park as the first phase of the project.

The Carmel Sports Association supported the park since the land was donated by developer Paul Camarda in 1999. The group says its sports teams must use fields at Carmel public schools and those of their opponents.

"It seems like these fields have been talked about forever. At every turn, something pops up. Now that this lawsuit has been slapped on the town, I don't know when we will see something," said Michael Berg, commissioner of baseball for the Carmel Sports Association, which has about 450 boys and girls registered to play baseball, softball and Little League.

The city has received support from James Tierney, watershed inspector general for state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

"This one sent up a red flag as an unusual situation," Tierney said. "It is a large development in a sensitive area without an environmental impact statement prepared.

"The park would clear nearly 20 acres of forest, and in doing so disturb large amounts of earth and get into wetland buffer areas and streams.

"Given its size and location, it is a type of project that our office would generally like to see a full environmental statement."

He said he hoped the city and town would come to an agreement without litigation.

"We have told New York City that if a lawsuit proceeds, the state of New York would file a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the city's position," Tierney said.

Lake Carmel Organizes to Fight Mall

Press Release:

For additional information, contact: Paul Spiegel
Daytime Telephone (203) 796-4190
E-Mail pspie10304@aol.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

LAKE CARMEL, NY: Lake Carmel Organizes to Fight Mall
The residents of Lake Carmel continue their effort to organize and educate the community about the negative impacts of the proposed ?Patterson Crossing?, the enormous shopping plaza that would cover over 90 acres of land that border the properties of approximately 48 Lake Carmel homes and threatens to disrupt the quality of life for 8,000 residents in 2,500 neighboring homes. The proposed mega-mall will surround one of the most densely populated areas in Putnam County and would dwarf the recently constructed Brewster Highlands Mall, which homes Home Depot, Kohl?s and other large chain stores located less than three miles away in the town of Southeast.

Residents are planning a community action meeting on Saturday June 25 (10:30 am ? noon) to discuss potential damage to the quality of life caused by the proposed ?Patterson Crossing? development. The meeting, which will be held at Lake Carmel Community Center on Yorktown Road, is intended to educate local residents on the effects the development will have on local business, environment, traffic, and taxes. Residents will be advised on what they can do to stop the project from going forward by arming them with facts that they can communicate to their neighbors. Organizers assert that the upcoming meeting is not intended to be an open forum for opponents to vent but rather to inform and educate residents with real facts. The meeting will end with a questions and answer period to address specific concerns and clarify any misconceptions.

The gathering is being organized in response to the realization and frustration that many local residents know so little about a project that will have such a significant impact on their community. A major objective of the meeting is to inform residents that the project has not yet been approved and to force town and county officials to take notice of how many of their constituents will be negatively effected by a project that is nearly half the size of the lake it threatens. Advertisements currently run by The Patterson Chamber of Commerce give the impression that the project is a ?done deal? and will benefit residents of Putnam County, a misconception that is at the center of the communication effort.

Good morning all

The real facts about the Carmel RecPlex (see letter below). Residents are not fooled or "phased" by Town officials words to phase in the park or phase in the costs to burdened taxpayers, young and old alike. This is not a neighborhood park for neighbors and the Hamlet, it is a RecPlex for special recreation interests who are teaming together with town officials.

Let's remember that SEQRA documents call for a full-build out, including open air amphitheater, pavilion, bleachers, concession stands, press boxes, major league ballfields, multi-purpose fields, bocci, basketball and volley ball courts, picnic areas, parking for over 150 cars and more - all in an environmentally-fragile area off winding, narrow Seminary Hill Rd. And that's what was approved when the Board declared a Negative Declaration in early June.

Nothing has changed and nothing will until the SEQRA process is opened to residents most impacted by these misguided plans and the behind closed door deals ended.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Residents opposed to park proposal
(Original publication: June 22, 2005)

The buildout plan for Camarda Park is excessive and projected to be extremely expensive. At a recent information meeting conducted for the Recreation and Parks Advisory Committee, it was stated that the full park price tag will be in excess of $7 million. Taxpayers need to hear that number because it is their tax dollars that will pay for this extravaganza. They need to hear that the cost to renovate Sycamore Park, which is in need of work, is estimated to be about $7 million. They need to know that to cap our landfill will be over $7 million.

Mahopac taxpayers recently defeated a school budget. The Mahopac Library budget was defeated. Carmel residents narrowly passed their school budget, but defeated propositions for buses and land.

Perhaps the residents should be heard about footing the bill for Camarda Park. The Town Board has said it intends to do only Phase One. (I thought the Department of Environmental Protection didn't allow segmenting projects.) Phase One consists of three ballfields to the tune of over $3.5 million. The cost is so high because the land, predominantly woodlands, wetlands and slopes, must be leveled.

In his June 15 letter to the editor, William Shilling asks the Town Board to consider the sentiments of the people who reside in the hamlet. And so do I. Because the people I have spoken to in the hamlet and throughout the Town of Carmel are opposed to the scope, location and cost of this park.

Donald Bills, Carmel

June 17, 2005

Bulletin: DEP Orders Pos. Dec

Dear Friends:

In a June 10th blistering two-page letter, Jim Benson, Director, Division of SEQRA Review, supported the Coalition's, CWCWC's, Riverkeeper and residents call for a full, fair and open SEQRA Review Process of the Camarda Park project. As late as May 25th (the date of the issuance of significance), the Coalition again wrote and urged that either no action be taken or that a Pos DEC be issued.

The Benson letter states, "We are forced to object to your Notice of Determination of Non-Significance and to demand that the Negative Declaration be rescinded and the Full Environmental Assessment be distributed as a draft for public review and comment in full compliance with the procedures contained in the SQRA.

Closing with the following statement, "We must hear from you by June 15th (The date of the Work Session) or we will refer this matter to our legal counsel for appropriate legal action."

In reply to the Benson letter, Town Planner, Sjoberg, made several statements at variance with the record i.e. although I requested the changes to the so-called EAF, stormwater, traffic, etc., Mr. Sjoberg stated they would not be available until the evening of the May 25th meeting, procluding the Coalition's, CWCWC's, Riverkeeper and resident's ability to adequately assess the envieronmental and quality of life impacts of the proposed changes. And I so stated in my May 25th letter which was CC to Mr. Benson, Ms. Kelly, Mr. Tierney, Watershed Inspector General and the DEP attorney at the Bureau of Legal Affairs.

Additionally, Mr. Sjoberg mischaracterized the May 5th meeting as a "Public Information Meeting to solicit input on the plans." Publicity surrounding this meeting stated the following: "Paul A. Camarda Informational Meeting to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Committee." The 5- minute Power Point presentation by each of the town's department heads and In-Site Engineering was for the benefit of the Advisory Committee and was so stated by Supervisor Pozzi in his opening remarks. It was not a Public Hearing as commonly understood within the SEQRA process.

From start to finish, I regret to say that Carmel Town Officials have sought to so manipulate the SEQRA process as to thwart the Coalition's and residents" ability to "have a hard look" at this project, conceived and birthed under questionable circumstances. As in so many other instances i.e. senior housing complex and the Gateway development, The Coalition has urged restraint, moderation and compliance with SEQRA. Instead, Town officials to appease special interest groups have taken the road that can only lead to community division and official embarrassment.

Sincerely,

Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
PS - An analysis of the Senior Housing issue appears in this week's Putnam Courier in the B Section.

The REC PLEX on the road to wrecking the place and Carmel residents pocketbooks at $3 million for Phase 1.
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Carmel OKs Carmarda plan
By BARBARA LIVINGSTON NACKMAN
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: June 4, 2005)

CARMEL — Despite an outcry from residents and some environmentalists, the town has declared Camarda Park will not negatively affect its surroundings and is moving ahead with plans to build ballfields on a portion of the park's 35 acres.

One environmental group has praised the town for completing a lengthy study of its initial concerns about pesticide use and storm-water management. Meanwhile, residents of an adjacent luxury subdivision, Willow Ridge, are eager for the park, which was heavily promoted when they bought their homes three years ago.

"We've taken a long, hard look, taken extra time and listened to concerns," Supervisor Robert Pozzi said of the park's progress. The Carmel Town Board approved an environmental review May 25 and by August expects to begin building two baseball fields and an all-purpose sports field on the property off Seminary Hill Road.

Plans for tennis and basketball courts, a snack bar and a stage might be considered in the future, Pozzi said, but a townwide recreation master plan must come first. Current park plans are estimated to cost $3 million.

Lifelong Carmel resident Morgan Seymour said a park and improved recreation are good, but officials are considering it in the wrong location.

"There is very little wildlife habitat of this quality, and the park will destroy it," he said of deer, turkeys, grouse and rabbits that live there and the "trophy-sized" trouts that swim in the nearby Croton River. The park is on sloping land where runoff could flow into the west branch of the Croton River, he explained.

Also, residents have said Seminary Hill Road, a long, winding street in the Carmel hamlet, is not designed for heavy traffic from families and sports teams, which would be drawn to the new fields.

The land for the park was donated in 1999 by developer Paul Camarda, who also paid $213,000 in recreation fees for his Willow Ridge subdivision. The park is named after the developer's father, Paul A. Camarda. As part of the deal, Camarda dug a gravel access road and brought town sewer and water lines to the park's border.

Not everyone saw the donation as a good thing.

The town was criticized by some residents for accepting it. They argued it removed acreage from the town tax rolls and was partially unusable because of wetlands.

Members of Trout Unlimited's Croton Watershed chapter at first faulted the town for its earlier environmental review, saying it did not consider potential damage to the natural landscape. This week, the group's conservation chairman, John Keane, said town officials had addressed those issues and he no longer opposed the park.

"The town has incorporated changes into its plan. They listened, and I am satisfied," he said. He said officials told him pesticide use on fields will be curtailed and additional storm-water ponds would be planned to maintain the water temperature of the Croton River. Raising the temperature could have harmed the local fish population.

Having a local park nearby was a strong enticement to prospective Willow Ridge homeowners.

Carmel newcomer Kari Steffanci, 31, said this week that knowing a park would be built helped her to agree to buy a home with an awkwardly sloping backyard.

"A park was a big selling point," she said, pointing to her yard's long drop-off as her 2-year-old rode his bicycle in the driveway.

"I can understand things take time," she said, "but a lot of kids would benefit from it."

Nearby, Jon Melarczik, 35, a Metro-North locomotive engineer, added mulch along tree beds in his Willow Ridge yard.

"There is no park around and we're still waiting," he said. "I would expect the town to take the time it needs to address the issues properly. We don't want to destroy anything, but we'd like a park."

Ann Fanizzi, president of Putnam's Coalition to Preserve Open Spaces, said she was sorely disappointed with the town's determination.

"We're not against a park or recreation," she said. "But this is no longer a neighborhood park. It is shaping up like a major recreation center without careful planning."

Wrong location for Camarda Park
(Original publication: June 2, 2005)

Carmel's plans to construct the Camarda Park sports complex, with its elaborately ambitious game plans, are quite well-known by now, but consider the following:

The proposed area is located just east and uphill from the New York City-owned West Branch of the Croton River. This river of pristine qualities, of approximately 2.5 miles in length, is home to a prosperous wild brown trout population. Trophy-size trout move up from the Croton Falls Reservoir each fall to spawn in this river. Ron Pierce, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's chief fish biologist of Region Three, rates this river as one of the state's best.

The river is a vital link to the water consumed by millions of people in New York City. The wooded wetland, adjacent to the river on its east side, is a delicate ecosystem and is a vital part of the river's high quality. A variety of wildlife also inhabits the area.

Athletic fields would be an asset to Carmel, but not in this location. To construct and maintain the complex as planned will set the stage for present and future challenges with mother nature.

Equally important, consider the residents living along the entire length of Seminary Hill Road, where the only park entrance is. This road borders the project on its west side. Its residents will have their safety challenged, and tranquility blown apart, with noise, glare and traffic along this dangerously narrow, hilly and winding country road.

Morgan Seymour Jr, Carmel

Hi all

Hope everyone has seen this latest JN article on the impact of road salt. UMMM - how much will be needed for Patterson Crossing, Camarda Park and how about the 9-acres of paving proposed by the Putnam Hospital Center to expand parking areas. Lest we forget the effort to pave Maple Rd and Couch Rd. Anyone total up the number of acres paved in the last decade? Is Putnam becoming the county where the paving begins?

Sincerely,
Annof acres and wetlands
www.putopenspaces.com
PS - Thanks again for your contributions and your encouraging words. It's tough out there so your continuing support is really appreciated.

Kent man sues state over water woes
By MICHAEL RISINIT
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: June 1, 2005)

KENT — Henry Boyd knows water, a byproduct of his more than 30 years in the well-drilling business. As president of the Empire State Water Well Drillers Association, he's campaigned against the threat posed to drinking water by road salt.

Now, the Kent resident can hold himself up as Exhibit A when explaining the negatives of road salt to others. The pipes in his Route 52 home are corroding, and his well this winter had high levels of salt. That, he said, is the result of the state's recently installed drainage pipe along Route 52, which sends rainwater and melting snow cascading across his property. The water carried salt left behind after snowstorms.

"We never had a big flow of water on my property," said Boyd, 56, referring to the pre-pipe era. "They made a major wetland."The pipe was part of the state Department of Transportation's efforts to realign the Farmers Mills Road intersection, add turning lanes and improve drainage.

According to a lawsuit Boyd filed against the state, the pipe was installed in the fall, and he discovered the contamination in his well in late winter."I just want them to correct the problem," Boyd said.Boyd filed the suit early last month in state Supreme Court in Carmel.

Peter Graves, a DOT spokesman in Albany, said the agency doesn't comment on pending litigation. Clifford Davis, Boyd's White Plains-based attorney, said the state has until June 23 to answer the complaint. A suit seeking unspecified money damages is also pending in the state Court of Claims.

Boyd suggested lengthening the pipe so it discharges farther down the hill from his land or building a retention pond to allow the water to settle before it flows across the landscape. The best solution, he said, is stopping the use of salt in front of his home, which sits across from the Kent schools.

Salt lowers the freezing point of moisture on a road's surface, keeping snow and ice from bonding to pavement and allowing roads to be cleared more easily. First used in the 1930s to make roads passable, local public works departments spread millions of tons of salt each snow season. The state this winter used about a million tons of salt, according to a spokesman.There's no direct evidence linking road salt to wells with high levels of sodium chloride.

But Boyd, who isn't the first homeowner to blame the material for his well woes, said the drop in the level of chloride in his drinking water from 280 milligrams per liter during the winter to a more recent reading of 77 milligrams shows it must be coming from the road. Warmer weather means less salt. The state standard is 250 milligrams.The de-icer is the assumed culprit in polluting wells in Putnam Valley, Pound Ridge, North Salem and Stony Point.

A 2001 study on road salt's environmental impacts by the environmental group Riverkeeper concluded the substance can create significant adverse health, environmental and infrastructure problems.A federal judge last summer ordered Pound Ridge to pay $100,000 to Peter and Patricia D'Agostino, who believed their well water was contaminated by the town's spreading salt on the road near their home. The town was also ordered to no longer use road salt near the couple's home.

Davis also represented the D'Agostinos. He said road salt is "absolutely" becoming a water-pollution problem. Homeowners, he said, just want a clean water supply."All of these municipalities are over-salting their roads in the name of protecting their citizens," Davis said. "But there are environmental impacts associated with all this salting."

May 26, 2005

Carmel Rols Over Residents and SEQRA

Good morning all

Well the Carmel Town Board has done it again - steamrolled another project thru- Camarda REC PLEX- heedless of residents' concerns and SEQRA. Issued Neg Dec last night - no environmental impact. And the craven DEP who at first so severely criticized the project, almost to extinction, caved. Never have known one project in the Croton that the DEP has stood firm. Would never have happened in the Cat/Del Watershed since the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) of '97 specifically requires that they protect that watershed at all costs, $250 million alone for land acquisition and we're fighting for a paltry $20 million in a referendum in November.

But the Croton - so what. It's going to be filtered anyway so development no matter how outrageous and devastating, can go forward. That's the trade-off to get developers and officials in the Croton towns to sign onto the MOA. And we have seen the impacts all around us.

Regardless, courageous and principled residents on Seminary Hill, especially Cindy Katz, Coalition attorney, Jim Bacon and myself wrote comments to the Board. We are on the record and that is vital in the event of future action.

Here are my comments. Jim's and Cindy's will be posted at a later date

Sincerely,
Ann

Bondi rallies support for Belden House
By CARA MATTHEWS
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: May 25, 2005)

CARMEL — As the debate over whether Putnam should acquire the historic Belden House continues, County Executive Robert Bondi's administration is rallying advocates for its renovation and organizing volunteers to serve on committees.

Bondi and Deputy County Executive Frank Del Campo organized a meeting last night in a last-ditch attempt to save the 245-year-old structure off Route 6. Some 50 people, including one county legislator, Republican Regina Morini of Mahopac, attended the meeting, which was held at Cornerstone Park.

"When it's gone, it's gone. We can't say later, 'We should have saved the Belden House,' " said Sallie Sypher, deputy county historian, who raved about the house's marble fireplaces, fine plaster and millwork, and high Gothic style.

Bondi's office has been in negotiations with New York City about the Belden House for four years. A deal was nearing completion for Putnam to give the city 50 acres of vacant land in exchange for the city-owned property, but county legislators largely are no longer behind the plan. Lawmakers would have to approve the swap.

Del Campo said New York City is ready to hand over title to the property and is waiting for a call from the county to move forward.

Even if Bondi's administration were successful in finding benefactors and grants to repair the house, legislators said, it is almost inevitable the county would have to contribute toward the repairs. It could cost more than $1 million, according to estimates. Putnam is facing a 2006 budget deficit of up to $9.1 million.

Legislature Chairman Robert McGuigan, R-Mahopac, said last night that seven of nine legislators he surveyed recently said they did not support acquiring the Belden House. He accused Bondi's administration of intentionally scheduling an event that conflicted with two legislative meetings.

Tim Gregg, 52, of Carmel questioned why legislators have balked at the project. He believes it would cost no more than $250,000 to renovate the house. "I think we're being penny-wise and pound-foolish," he said.

But Meredith Waltman of Carmel, who described herself as the skunk at a lawn party, said there is more to owning the house than initial renovation costs. The county needs to factor in how much it will take to maintain the property, she said, adding that she would not be willing to pay higher taxes to support the Belden House.

Bondi said legislators don't want to spend county money on the house, and he wants to work with them to avoid that. Employees of the county highway department could help with renovations, he said.

The house needs a cash infusion, especially for a new roof. The structure has been allowed to deteriorate under New York City's ownership. The roof leaks, causing structural problems inside, a report four years ago on the house's condition concluded. Walls and ceilings had large cracks in them. The county has tried to protect the building by placing tarps on the roof. On the outside, the wood clapboard has not been painted in years, and paint has flaked off.

Thomas Belden, a land agent for the wealthy Philipse family, built the Belden House around 1760. After the Civil War, George Mortimer Belden added marble fireplaces, ornate wood trimming and other flourishes to the outside. The city acquired the Belden House in the late 19th century and constructed a dam behind it, creating the West Branch Reservoir. Over the years, it has been used as housing for a custodian and offices for the Department of Environmental Protection.

For information on plans to renovate the Belden House, contact the County Historian's Office at 845-278-7209 or leave a message at Town Hall for Jane Brandon Garbo of Mahopac, co-historian for Carmel, by calling 845-628-1500.

May 19, 2005

Alert - Neg Dec on Camarda Park

Good morning

Last evening the Town Board took a "hard look" at a document concocted by the Town Planner, Magnus Sjeborg, that resembled an Environmental Impact Statement. It contained the EAF (errors were discovered); the traffic study, and the stormwater plan. It was read page by page with Town Board members using the elementary school teacher's technique of round robin reading; each taking a turn.

At the close of the meeting, it was determined that the project would not impact anything, including Seminary Hill or the Trout or the watershed or the ambient noise and therefore, at the next Town Board meeting, a Neg Dec would be declared.

But I've saved the best for last. How was this going to happen? They would build in phases and cost out in phases ($3 million) but the "SEQRA" would include all factors assuming a full build out condition i. e. amphitheater, pavilion, concession stands, senior rec, etc. etc. Do we not see the hand of the DEP in this?

Phase 1 would only entail three ballfields. They would then assess the impact and if it appeared minimal, they would then go on to the next phase, whatever that would be. And all of this would be done within the context of a proposed Town Recreation Master Plan, being developed concurrently by the town-appointed Recreation Committee. According to Pozzi, depending on the findings and conclusions reached in the Master Plan, they might not have to go beyond the three ballfields since they would have the airport property, Sycamore Park and Crane Rd. and maybe even the DEP property around Lake Gleneida.

That's how it's done in Carmel.

Sincerely,
Ann

Good morning all - maybe it's not the hotel that is time sensitive but Camarda's finances - a house of cards ready to topple. And look at the list of who is propping him up.

By the way, at the meeting, Camarda admitted the following - it was not reported in the Courier infomercial below. The Carmel market cannot sustain 150 rooms but only 90. But he didn't want to bring in a Budget, Quality Inn or a Hilton Garden, he wanted quality, so he negotiated for the Staybridge, an extended stay, cookie cutter hotel which is close to the end of the line of the Intercontinental chain. (You can see for yourself on their website; they do a little architectural tweaking to fit the location).

Question? what will happen if the 150 rooms are not occupied but only 90; How do you make up for a 40% vacancy rate?

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Camarda warns hotel complex is time sensitive
By: Eric Gross
05/19/2005

CARMEL-While developer Paul Camarda wants Putnam visitors to no longer have to travel to greater Danbury or the Fishkill area for lodging, he also realizes that his planned hotel-conference center is time sensitive.

Camarda closed on a real estate transaction earlier this year to bring Putnam's first hotel to the Route 6 corridor on a 19-acre parcel at the Carmel-Southeast line.

In addition to the hotel, Carmel also hopes to welcome Putnam's first YMCA facility.

However, at a meeting of the Putnam Legislature's Economic Development Committee last week, Camarda expressed concern to Legislators Regina Morini and Dan Birmingham that unexpected delays on the project could jeopardize the entire deal.

"Should delays result and interest rates skyrocket, those factoring in the expense of the hotel will look at their money costs that may have doubled or tripled and something has to give. What do we do? Are stones removed from the facade of the building? A budget must be met. Financing is a key component to building," he said.

Camarda said he was moving forward as rapidly as possible to make the hotel become reality. "I believe the town is preparing to move this along as well," he said.

In early April, Camarda handed over a check for $550,000 to the town in connection with his agreement to purchase the land for $1 million. The remaining $450,000 is due within the next three years. Camarda already paid the town $150,000 during a ceremony earlier this year when the project was announced.

Supervisor Robert Pozzi called the occasion of the land sale special. "Through negotiations, we have been able to obtain an additional $450,000 from the original sale price."

The transaction began four years ago when Carmel voters agreed to sell the choice parcel off Route 6 to Camarda.

"Staybridge Suites, a subsidiary of the Intercontinental Hotel chain, is designing the multi-million dollar 150-room facility specifically for Carmel and Putnam County," said Camarda.

The Putnam hotel will consist of 12,000 square feet of banquet and conference facilities, an indoor pool, tennis courts, a walking and jogging path and a covered bridge to an adjoining restaurant and to 45,000 square feet of retail shops.

Guests will have the opportunity to recline in studios, one bedroom, two bedrooms or suites.

Camarda hopes to break ground on the project a year from now. "People want a hotel in Putnam. An upscale hotel is needed and now it will happen," he said.

Pozzi promised that the town administration would do "everything in its power to make this happen. This is an historic moment for the town of Carmel. Coupled with the development of a new YMCA, residents now realize that greater Carmel will be the place to live and raise our families. The new hotel and a Y will be great additions to our community."

Kevin Bailey, chairman of the board of the Putnam County Economic Development Corporation, called the hotel a "no brainer. Residents of the Town of Carmel voted overwhelmingly in favor when they authorized the selling of the property to Paul Camarda."

Legislator Birmingham stressed that a balance was needed in Putnam County. "We on the county level really have no oversight on the project but I commend our committee chairwoman for holding such an informative session," he said.

Morini said the hotel complex must happen. "Anyone visiting always winds up outside of our county in order to receive quality accommodations. It's a terrible situation in this day and age but hopefully things will be different a couple of years from now."

Camarda said that his job was now to satisfy the environmental standards that "we intend to meet. Hopefully, we will break ground next spring."

Former Carmel Supervisor and now Deputy County Executive Frank DelCampo called the land closing "another step in the right direction. This is a victory for the entire county since Putnam's economy will receive a new infusion of business growth. Not only will jobs be created but Putnam residents will be able to use the hotel when guests visit. The conference center and banquet rooms will also have a tremendous economic impact since local groups will no longer have to travel out of county for dinners and convocations," he said.

©Putnam County Courier 2005

May 07, 2005

Carmel contract change angers residents
By BARBARA LIVINGSTON NACKMAN
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: May 7, 2005)

CARMEL — In addition to being earmarked for a hotel/conference center and a YMCA with an arts center, land at Route 6 near the Carmel-Southeast border could also become a spot for self-storage businesses.

Some critics say a warehouse storage company is contrary to the grand plans for property dubbed "the gateway to Carmel." They are asking why the town changed its mind at the request of a developer who had said the town's salt shed and a nearby tool rental business would be unsightly neighbors.

"It is the wrong thing at the wrong place," said John Butler, a longtime Carmel resident and a YMCA supporter.

The town closed on the sale of 19 acres west of John Simpson Road to local developer Paul Camarda on April 4. Last week, though, it amended the contract, removing a clause specifically prohibiting a storage unit facility on the land. The property is in a commercial zone that allows such businesses.

On the former town land and an adjacent 68 acres, Camarda has proposed building Gateway Summit, which, in addition to a hotel, would include 98 units of assisted living or market-rate senior citizens housing, stores and two restaurants. He owns another 100 acres where he intends to build The Fairways, clustered housing inside the Centennial Golf Club. He also has agreed to sell land for a YMCA.

"Has anyone considered why (storage units) were prohibited at the outset?" Butler said. "The fact that it was put back into the contract has not been explained and remains another mystery in this very convoluted transaction."

Supervisor Robert Pozzi said that the entire project would "enhance the character of the area" and that the town was removing a restriction originally requested by the developer, not the town.

The town's salt shed is set for removal because Camarda said it would deter a luxury hotel from investing in the area. He has announced that InterContinental group will build a 150-room Staybridge Suites hotel with banquet and conference areas there. He hopes to break ground next spring.

"I voluntarily told the town I wouldn't do certain things on the property," Camarda said, referring to warehouse operations, dry cleaners, self-storage companies and subsidized housing units for senior citizens. But, he said, once actual site planning began, he realized there was unobtrusive space for a storage business behind the planned restaurants.

"At the end of the day, it is the gateway to Carmel and will look beautiful," he said. "I have a hotel and two restaurants on the same site fronting Route 6. I'm not going to do anything that doesn't give Route 6 an appealing look."

The Town Board agreed and voted 4-0 to approve the change.

Councilman Robert Ravallo said the town's former acreage provided the least conspicuous site for the storage center. Camarda could legally put storage units on his other larger parcels.

"It is allowed in the zoning. Why would we deny it, especially to someone who is bringing in a hotel?" he said.

Councilman Norman Marino, who abstained from the vote, said the town was giving something away.

"It was an item in the contract and should have been protected," he said. "We shouldn't be donating to a developer. I think it's worth $300,000."

News of the change has sparked heated e-mails for a week among residents, some of whom have posted on a local residents' Web site.

Mahopac resident Jerry Ravnitzky said in a telephone interview that he was disgusted with the Town Board's actions.

"They have changed the terms," he said, "and basically gone back on a promise."

Town critics are also angry with other revised terms of the contract. One gives Camarda the possibility of constructing an interior road from Route 6 to Fair Street between The Fairways and Gateway Summit. Another change has YMCA supporters buying property from Camarda rather than accepting a land donation from the town, because officials said giving land to an organization could raise legal problems.

Land sale timeline
• July 2000: YMCA facility proposed.
• February 2001: Voters approve selling 19 town-owned acres to developer Paul Camarda of the Hudson Valley Realty Corp., of Carmel.
• January 2003: Town's land sale option expires.
• September 2004: Town and Camarda agree on sale despite passing of deadline.
• April 2005: Contract signed between town and Camarda.

May 07, 2005

Camarda Park on the Installment Plan

Good morning all

For those of you unable to attend the Camarda Park Informational Meeting on Thursday at Sycamore, the plan as outlined by representatives of the town government, can be summarized in a few words - Camarda Park on the installment plan - phasing in taxes and costs of construction.

It was really all smoke and mirrors that not even the wizardry of the town's financial guru, Tom Carey, could clear up and straighten out; altho he tried, number crunching to phase in the tax pain and the construction costs so that residents would buy what they could not afford or need.

Phase in the pain - $32.28 tax for the park's Phase 1 construction cost of $3.5 million in today's dollars. And how many phases? What's Included? Nobody knows and nobody said. If three, we are looking at over a $10 million price tag and over $100 in taxes. According to Councilman Marino, a tightwad with money if ever there was one, at least 15% should have been added.

Underestimating the pain and the cost is a cardinal tenet of the installment buying - phasing in - religion.

Cost overruns?? Remember the Court House went from $8 million to $26 million. Isn't this one of the reasons why we may be looking at increased county sales taxes and more? Ain't goin' to happen in Carmel or is it?

Wait and this is for only one park. Then there is deteriorating Sycamore Park, the field of dreams at the Mahopac Airport, the recent expansion at Crane Rd and the Baldwin Meadows donation of 15 acres. How many ballfields is that? Has anyone scored the total financial costs? Who will pay?

Even Kevin Kievens, member of the town's Recreation Advisory Board, was stunned. How could all of this happen absent a comprehensive Recreation Master Plan for the town?

Finally, the phasing-in crowd is always joined by the must haves. And none was so adamant than Councilman Hennelley, up for re-election this year. "Zero, we have zero land left in the Hamlet Carmel, no where for Carmel residents and their children to recreate," sputtered the Councilman. Not exactly. We have several hundred acres - all taken by his favorite developer, Camarda for 1000 senior housing units, hotel/conference centers, self-storage, retail, and restaurants, etc.

It is unplanned, overdevelopment on top of town officials acceptance of rec fees from developers instead of land for people to recreate, that is the real culprit. The residents are reaping the consequences of run-away development. I invite all to look at the zoning map in the Planning Board office and note the sea of yellow, all denoting residential development, without a green space intervening.

What is left? A 37-acre swamp and woodland, fit only for fisherman, hikers and naturalists, obtained as a result of deal for the 71 home Willow Ridge development.

As a concept, Camarda Park is bankrupt and any attempt to realize this Rec Plex, will truly wreck the place - financially, environmentally and Carmel as a community. The community needs a neighborhood park not the extravagant and expensive Rec Plex proposed.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

May 06, 2005

The Camarda Road Show Moves to the Emergency Services Building - May 11th.

Good morning all

Legislator Regina Morini has been very concerned of late regarding the lack of balanced presentation and influence between the environmentalists and the business community. It seems we are ever present at committees, in meetings, in news articles, etc while they are unseen, unheard and unlauded. It is a balance that as Chairwoman of the Economic Development Committee of the County Legislature, Ms. Morini means to redress. The usual committee meeting will not be held at the Putnam County Building in small, cozy Rm 318 but in far larger, newer quarters, as befits her invitee: Paul Camarda.

On Wednesday, May 11th, 7PM at the County's Emergency Services Center on Old Rte 6, the Committee and the residents of the County will have an opportunity to hear that ultimate acrobat, Mr. Paul Camarda, hold forth on his developments in Carmel, including senior housing and the hotel and conference center, to be followed at a later date by his premier act re: Patterson Crossing.

I am told that the Center may hold as many as 200 but will find out exact number. Legislator Morini did not elaborate as to procedures involving the public but I will be contacting her on this matter.

Let us not disappoint and uphold our reputation as being ever present and ever vocal.

More to come.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

May 06, 2005

Country Villas - Stoneleigh Ave.

Hi all

Every bit of land on Stoneleigh will be developed; the latest is a 14-unit 2-story townhouse development on 3.45 acres near Vista on the Lake. In addition to the units, development will have a playground and basketball court. Developer is Calauti Family LTD Partnership - Croton Falls.

Problems: 1. 2 wetland areas on either side of the project exceed minimum threshold and therefore must be regulated by town's wetland ordinance. The wetlands are hydrologically connected thru a stream to the reservoir and so the applicant has had to move all the units. 2. Variances had to be obtained since it was located in a commercial zone and the units are multi-family.
3. Tree removal serving as buffer to Vista on the Lake.

In reviewing the documents, I noted some opposition to the development over the years coming from residents of Vista on the Lake.

This is the reason we have zero land left for a town park in the Hamlet - out of control development -thanks to Camarda et al -something Town Councilman. Hennelley refused to acknowledge in his comments last night at the Camarda Pk Informational meeting in Sycamore Park.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

April 27, 2005

Hi all - Kudos to Lini but not only are competent studies needed but what is needed is for the Carmel Town Board to comply with the law and stop trying to circumvent and subvert the SEQRA process. Conduct a full Environmental Impact Study as is their duty and obligation to all the residents of the Town of Carmel now. Why won't they do it?

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
Thanks to all who have contributed to support our efforts. We couldn't do it with you.

More studies needed on park proposal
(Original publication: April 26, 2005)

In the article, Town Planner Magnus Sjoberg said, "The town is looking at the potential impact of the proposed plan." Yet, what are residents to think when the town chooses the week when traffic is light due to school spring break to update the 2-year-old traffic study of Seminary Hill Road, the access road to the park site? Credibility is compromised when the concerns of residents who live on the road are not taken seriously. The road is a hilly, windy, narrow, country-style thoroughfare that already is overused due to the overdevelopment of the area.

Town officials must look at the consequences of using this site as a full-blown town park. The starting place is a full environmental study and an accurate traffic study.

Laleene Ali, Carmel

April 27, 2005

Putnam legislators tell Bondi to find private funds for Belden House
By CARA MATTHEWS
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: April 27, 2005)

CARMEL — Some Putnam lawmakers recently gave County Executive Robert Bondi's administration an ultimatum on the Belden House: Find a third party willing to underwrite repairs and restoration of the historic homestead or discontinue negotiations to obtain the property.

New York City acquired the historic home and surrounding property in the late 1800s and built a dam behind it, creating the West Branch Reservoir. The structure, now some 245 years old, is in poor shape. Water leaking through the roof has damaged floors, ceilings and walls.

The county has been in talks with the city's Department of Environmental Protection to take over the building. In return, Putnam would sign over a few parcels of undeveloped land. But faced with the specter of $1 million or more to repair the home, legislators are asking Bondi to back off from the proposed deal.

"They're negotiating something that they know isn't going anywhere," said Legislature Chairman Robert McGuigan, R-Mahopac.

Legislators eventually would have to approve the deal to swap land for the house, and there is little support for making the house county property, he said.

Deputy County Executive Frank Del Campo said this week that negotiations are coming to a close.

Bondi first approached the DEP in late 2001 with a proposal to trade 138 acres of county land in Kent for the Carpenter's Gothic structure. The building has wood siding, with areas where much of the white paint has flaked off. Some of the tarps the county put on the roof are tangled up on the ground, along with the wooden boards nailed in to stabilize the material.

"We do not want to jeopardize this acquisition, and that's what will happen here," Del Campo said.

The city is negotiating with the county; it's not possible to bring in a third party at this point, he said.

"We want to protect the house. We want to save it. We want to accept title to it. We'll go out and get the private funding," he said.

Lillian Eberhardt of the Carmel Historical Society said taking on the restoration of the house would be a massive, costly project. There's a lot involved with getting something on the National Register of Historic Places, she said.

"It's a shame, because it was a beautiful landmark," she said.

DEP spokesman Ian Michaels said the agency had a conceptual agreement with the county and intended to pursue it so the transfer could be made.

The DEP has made a few concessions recently, Del Campo said. The agency agreed to allow the county to traverse DEP property to get access to water and sewers and to give more room around the house for parking.

The parcels the city would get are 8.39 acres in Carmel, and two properties totaling 41.8 acres in Kent.

An architect hired to do a feasibility study of the farmhouse in 2001 found that the building was "highly endangered" because of all the damage.

The study, performed by Preservation Architecture of Valatie, N.Y., said the attic was infested with bats, and large buckets set up to catch water from leaks in the roof were not emptied regularly. The interior boasts marble fireplaces, ornate wood trimmings and decorative plaster.

County Legislator Regina Morini, R-Mahopac, said Putnam should get an updated report before making any decisions. The property is in her district. "Some people are saying it just isn't worth fixing, and we really don't have that in writing," she said.

Legislator Vincent Tamagna, R-Philipstown, said that to do the job right, it would take a significant investment. The county's not in a position to do that, he said.

McGuigan said no one has made a commitment for any contributions toward the Belden House. It will cost at least $500,000 to fix the roof, he said.

"They're negotiating. We have no idea what they're negotiating about. We can't take a chance with these bottomless money pits," McGuigan said.

Bondi said in February that Putnam was facing a potential 2006 budget gap of up to $9.1 million. The county has asked the state for an increase of half a percentage point in the sales tax, to 8 percent, and Bondi has said property taxes might be raised 10 percent.

April 23, 2005

Good morning all - This short response on carmelresident.org resulted from John Butler's questionning the substance of the 19-acre sale contract between the Town of Carmel and Carmada, specificially the fact that "residential housing" would be prohibited. Currently, Camarda has planned approximately 300 senior housing units for the site on Rte 6 and Fair St. Camarda's version of the book, Animal Farm.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

________________________________________________________________________-
John - we have a word in Italian for the kind of spin that emanated from the lips of Paul Camarda on Thursday night on the very issue you mention.

It is "imbroglione" from which we get the English word, "imbroglio". Clinton could have learned from Camarda. When is residential not residential?

Well John, when it is senior housing. And so in addition to the slickmeister circumventing the town's 3-acre zoning by finding a very profitable loophole in the town's Multi-Family "Affordable" Senior Housing Law (over 700), he now has twisted the word "residential" to mean only single family housing and not senior housing.

So there you have it John. And what was most egregious and very disturbing was that Camarda's one-hour infomercial was permitted to occur at a Thursday night residents meeting under the aegis of the Hamlet of Carmel Civic Association, one that proclaims itself to be impartial, non-partisan and non-political.

For a more lengthy expanation of the implications of the senior housing sham, I wrote an Op-Ed piece that appeared in the April 14th issue of the weekly Putnam Courier.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

April 16, 2005

Good morning all - so much to write about - am attaching the Op-Ed piece I wrote that has appeared in this week's Putnam Courier on Carmel senior housing. I apologize if you have it already. Also you might want to take a look at two additional free PR pieces: one on the Scoping Session meeting entitled "Developer "Costco is Eager to locate in Putnam County" and the other on the first page "Carmel Closes Hotel Deal." Fit for framing.
Have a great weekend.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com
PS thanks so much for the contributions - much appreciated.

April 12, 2005

Good morning all -

Carmel Residents Beware - the only thing you have to lose in the Camarda senior housing derby, is your shirts. The Coalition is demanding a moratorium on the construction of senior housing units and a entire revamping of the so called swiss-cheese Multi-Family "Affordable" Senior Housing Law, permitting Camarda et al to build approximately 1000 units in the town.

Please note letter from Coalition member, Margaret Kogan.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

Town must be wary of development plans
(Original publication: April 13, 2005)

Developers who do not live in the communities in which they build have only one motive for building: the profit motive. Their concern for the surrounding community and environment is limited to negotiating — or trying to change — protective laws in order to make the most money. The developers themselves live elsewhere, so the damage that they do does not affect them.

Now that the reckless development of McMansions in the Town of Carmel has slowed, developers are looking to senior housing as a new source of easy money, at the expense of the community and the environment.

The first myth cloaking this scheme is that construction of senior housing will not raise taxes. All available research contradicts this assertion.

The second myth invoked is that existing infrastructure supports the construction of thousands of units of senior housing. The truth is that the infrastructure of the Town of Carmel is already strained. In the past 10 years, traffic has increased exponentially, and sewage and water are already a problem.

The third myth — and perhaps the cruelest — is that the development is "affordable" for senior citizens. The truth is that, with few exceptions, so-called affordable senior housing is priced at fair market value, which is not affordable for senior citizens of modest means.

It's time for the Carmel Town Board to take action in the best interest of the people it is supposed to serve, and not in the best interest of nonresident developers. If the board refuses to do so, we have to wonder why.

Margaret Kogan , Carmel

April 8, 2005

Good morning

Two very large and influential list serves have distributed John Keane's Press Release - Riverkeeper and

The Coalition thanks them for their continuing support in this effort to urge the Town Board to re-visit the entire RecPlex proposal and to enforce SEQRA as it is their duty and obligation. In other words, be representatives of all the residents not just a special interest group.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

April 7, 2005

Good morning all

Please distribute this Press Release to e-mail lists. The Coalition is continuing the pressure on the Town to do the right thing: As John Keane says - follow SEQRA and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. This is a world-class natural spawning trout stream and at the very least, every effort should be made to examine the impacts of constructing an extravagant and expensive 37-acre Rec Plex off narrow and dangerous Seminary Hill Rd.

On Monday night, I met with a Putnam County sportsmen's association and we are preparing to send the word out throughout the State.

Your letters and attendance at meetings have been pivotal in the DEP re-assessing the entire project. Kudos to one and all but an especially word of thanks to Cindy Katz.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

April 3, 2005

Hi all - here is a copy of a post I wrote on carmelresident.org. It is on the proposed study of rec fees. I hope you will find it interesting.
Sincerely
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

>> I would like to bring up another potential problem which bears some watching.

At the Wednesday meeting, the Town Board discussed the question of rec fees and a study is to be undertaken. Currently, whenever subdivisions are proposed, the developer either pays rec fees ($5,000 and up) or cedes land for recreation on the assumption that the occupants will impact the recreational services of the town. Of course, the other assumption, is that the occupants will be families and children.

But what if the occupants are senior citizens? Should the developer pay the same amount for a group that it is alleged will not have the same impact on services as families?

And I say alleged because if you were at or saw the Old Fashioned Town Meeting (Sunday - 8:30PM SUSCOM), you will have noted that a senior citizen remarked on the lack of recreational services for seniors and the need for the town to provide them.

Mr. Camarda is eagerly waiting for the completion of the study. Why? [b]He is not building single family housing but Multi-family Senior Housing[/b], totaling close to 700 units in the Hamlet alone with another 300 planned on Baldwin Place. If we were to use the single family formula and do a little math, Mr. Camarda at $5,000 a pop, would have to pay close to $5 million in rec. fees, not chomp change.

So let's watch this one - let's watch who will be doing the study, the assumptions, the methodology, the formula and the conclusions.

April 4, 2005

Good morning all

John Butler in his carmelresident post (see below) has confirmed what is the real reason for the reconstruction of Fair St. - not safety - but so that Mr. Camarda can build his Fairways project via a

Indeed there is a problem in Carmel and we should know by this time what it is.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

There Is a Problem in Carmel
« on: 03/31/05 at 15:11:23 »
When reading this post please note the following;

Restrictive Covenant

1 : a covenant acknowledged in a deed or lease that restricts the free use or occupancy of property (as by forbidding commercial use or types of structures)

Lot #1 in the Centennial Golf Properties Subdivision is the site of the proposed "Fairways" condominium project


The Contract of Sale between the Town of Carmel and Hudson Valley Realty dated March 19, 2001 contained the following; (words in parenthesis are mine)

18. SELLER's (the Town) obligation to close the purchase of the PREMISES under the contract are also subject to and conditioned upon the fulfillment of the following conditions precedent:

(c)(ii) Restrictive covenant prohibiting all access to Lot #1 (The proposed Fairways condo site) in the Centennial Golf Properties Subdivision, filed map#2692 filed in the Putnam County Clerk's office on 10/2/96, through the property conveyed to PURCHASER by the Town of Carmel under this contract except emergency access.


An Agreement Amending the Contract of Sale was signed on January 26, 2005 which stated;

5. Paragraphs 18(c)(ii) of the Contract of Sale are hereby deleted

In other words, the Hudson Valley Realty is no longer prohibited in building a road through the 19 acres owned by the Town to the Fairways site.

The Town Board acted without any public disclosure, discussion or explanation in signing the amended agreement and in doing so eliminated a critical safety net for the Kelly Ridge area.

In last night's Old Fashioned Town Meeting I raised this issue and asked the question as to why this was done and what discussions were held leading up to this decision. I got a promise from Kevin Hennelly to address the point "asap" and received no comment from any of the other Councilmen. The silence was deafening.

For a very brief moment I am satisfied to await the speedy resonse from Mr Hennelly that must precede any thought of closing this transaction with the covenant deleted.

In the meantime readers of this post are free to draw and share their own logical conclusions as to why this has been done.

Contract terms

Sale price: $1,150,000, with $150,000 already paid; $550,000 due at closing; $450,000 within three years, at no interest.

Closing date: On or before April 15.

Park offered: Camarda agrees to build in-line skating rink and playground on town land to be determined at a later date.

Y option: YMCA has 7 1/2 years to purchase 13 acres at below-market value on which to build a year-round recreational facility.

(Original publication: April 1, 2005)
CARMEL — Within the next two weeks Carmel officials are expected to close on a real estate transaction that began four years ago when Carmel voters agreed to sell a choice 19-acre parcel on Route 6 to local developer Paul Camarda.

Some residents, though, have lingering questions about the sale's final terms.

The town is hoping to get the county's first year-round YMCA facility on a Camarda-owned lot nearby, while the developer plans to have an unsightly town salt shed removed from where he intends to build Gateway Summit, a hotel and conference center, stores, restaurants and senior citizen housing.

"I am a pragmatist," said 20-year Carmel resident John Butler. "I am a proponent of a hotel/conference center and especially of a Y. Nothing is perfect, but there are questions here."

The initial agreement had barred the developer from building a main access road from Route 6 into The Fairways, a 150-unit senior citizen housing project that Camarda wants to build on land surrounded by the Centennial Golf Club, both adjacent to Gateway Summit.

The new document deletes the road restriction, and plans for The Fairways already show an access road off Fair Street. A second access from Route 6 would make a direct connection from the state road to Fair Street. That would essentially create a road parallel to heavily traveled John Simpson Road.

"It is a wild card — coming out of nowhere — and I don't know why," said Butler, who lives in nearby Kelly Ridge, where residents are worried about the potential traffic.

Camarda said he doesn't understand why people are studying the final contract.

"What is it with some people? This is a good deal," he said. It has been negotiated and there was a public referendum. Without this there won't be a hotel or a Y and the town is getting an extra $450,000."

In January, Camarda signed a contract to sell a 13-acre parcel near Route 6 to the Regional Y of Western Connecticut and Eastern Putnam for $450,000. He signed another contract to pay $1.15 million for the 19 acres of town land to complete the Gateway project. The plan includes a Staybridge Suites hotel with banquet hall and meeting rooms, 184 units of assisted-living housing, a restaurant and 45,000 square feet of retail space.

By a 2-to-1 margin in February 2001, voters approved the land sale.

The most "glaring change" in the terms, said longtime resident and local activist Jerry Ravnitzky, is that Camarda has three years beyond the closing date to pay $450,000 of the $1.5 million purchase price to the town without any interest. The YMCA has 7 1/2 years to exercise its option on the the 13 acres.

Ravnitzky has criticized the Town Board for not disclosing the changes in the contract. He reviewed copies received by The Journal News in response to a Freedom of Information Law request.

Town Supervisor Robert Pozzi said the terms were kept private during negotiations, but were available for residents to review without any attempt to hide the details.

He said the deal was a good one for residents and was consistent with the referendum.

"We are doing what we can to encourage a YMCA to come here and we are getting $1.15 million," said Pozzi, who took office in January 2004.

A 65,000-square-foot YMCA building would include a performing arts center, swimming pool, child care and other services.

Gary Kozak, president of the Regional YMCA, said the agreement allowed the community to purchase valuable property at less than market value.

"Camarda has been generous," he said of the $450,000 purchase price.

The size and scope of the Y will be determined by Putnam County residents, who will be asked to donate money toward the land purchase and the building's construction.

"It is a real community project," Kozak said. "Having a closing means we are moving ahead."

Hi all

Although the agenda was full, I wish to focus on two issues of priority to the Coalition:

1. Camarda Park
2. Senior Housing

As you are well aware, on both of these issues, we have expressed grave reservations in letters to the Supervisor, Planning Board and Environmental Board. Reservations in the main not only centered on environmental concerns but also on the scope and density of the projects making them untenable, inappropriate and counterproductive to the goals of recreation and affordable housing. In the case of senior housing, we are currently litigating the 388-senior housing units off Stoneleigh Avenue, calling attention to the loophole in the Multi-Family Senior Housing Law that would ultimately result in close to 1000 additional units in the Hamlet. More about that later in the post.

Camarda Park - It was encouraging to learn that the Town Board will be re-visiting the flawed traffic study full of "inaccuracies" originally conducted some time ago which in the words of Councilman Hennelley "misled the public." The study assumed that Camarda Park would be town-wide, hosts not only to Hamlet of Carmel residents but also Mahopac - the infamous 70-30 split). Again, Mr. Hennelley, "People from Mahopac are not traveling from Mahopac." It appears that there may have been a re-assessment of that ratio.

Supervisor Pozzi has directed the Town Planner, Magnus Sjoberg to make it clear to John Collins, Traffic Study Consultants, that the study should focus on Hamlet traffic patterns; that he should consult with the Director of Recreation, Gilchrist and MSA.

Additionally, the scope of project for SEQRA purposes, represented "worse case scenario." No truer words were ever spoken. The Supervisor continued: it represented "Maximum use of the park but not every single thing mentioned would ultimately be built." Amen. And he added that since the Town and the DEP were arriving at a meeting of the minds respecting the public use of the area around Lake Gleneida, the gazebo and the amphitheater could be then located there and removed from Camarda Pk. A good beginning with hopefully more to come.

2. Senior Housing - The issue of senior housing was discussed in the context of re-visiting rec fees in lieu of land that a developer is charged per housing unit. And here the dialogue between and among Board Members and Town Planner was indeed instructive. (I invite all the scan SUSCOM for time and dates of the work session meeting).

Directed by the Supervisor, the Town Planner will contact a firm well experienced in these matters to conduct a study of rec fees attached to single family, multi-family and senior housing with a review of the existing law and how the results of the study will impact it. The law must be viewed as fair and unbiased and defensible against possible litigation. Sjoberg named three firms, among which was F.P. Clark, but Supervisor Pozzi agreed with Councilman Ravallo that it should be advertised and not simply the choice of the Planner.
Councilman Ravallo added the stipulation that the firm employed not be associated with current projects in the town nor projects within a two-year period.

And it is exactly on the scope and purpose of the study that the dialogue became very interesting. According to Councilman Ravallo the purpose of the study would be to pay for projected recreational needs and that the study focus on multi-family housing not as Sjoberg originally proposed single family housing. So strongly did Ravallo feel that the focus should be on MFH that he introduced rewording to the proposed resolution which made MFH the priority. "The study determine actual recreation demand and cost of Multi-Family which will include residential and senior housing subdivisions."

Councilman Hennelley clarified a possible misunderstanding and stated that "Local Law" already stipulated that fees for Multi-Family housing were $500 and 300 sq. ft. per unit on site as amenity for on-site rec.

Mr Ravallo then questionned the Planner's use of wording to describe the study methodology. Why did he use "2 different demands" instead of the "impact,? he asked. To which the Planner replied that it "was the demand generated by different types of land use which will or will not have an impact." Sjoberg continued that he looked at different methodologies and cited the recent study from the Town of Somers which emphasized single family but also discussed senior housing.

Again Ravallo introduced a re-wording (tried to take it down verbatum) with the addition that the study would include the impact of empty nesters whose houses when sold, would be occupied by typical young families. Councilman Marino concurred and repeatedly asserted that the costs on what he termed "the backend" must be examined and that we would not see any benefit.

Comment: Those who believed developers propaganda that senior housing has nothing but upside should think twice. First, as Councilman Ravallo pointed out the county costs of increased social services will have a trickly down effect on higher taxes for the town and secondly, as was emphasized during the work session, empty nesters who will move laterally into senior housing, assuming that they do, will leave homes for families who will generate recreation and school needs and taxes for the town.

It is for this reason that the loophole in the Multifamily Senior Housing Law must be closed. As Councilman Hennelley pointed out only 35 single family homes were built in Carmel in 2004. Why? Because Carmel first had a moratorium on residential development due to residents' demand and second, because the former Town Board instituted three-acre zoning throughout the town (a law which Mr. Camarda is currently litigating in Court to overturn). This closed the door to large-scale development but the window remained opened in the Multi-family Law where developers could build senior housing to the max. And all development whether proposed or completed, especially in the Hamlet of Carmel, has been in senior housing.

On Rte 6 near Putnam Plaza an additional 34 units of 3-level senior housing is being proposed. Total it all up - how much does it come to?

The Coalition has strongly recommended that the entire issue of the senior housing law be re-visited and during that period of study a moratorium be instituted on all construction for that purpose. Instead we have a study of rec fees. Let's hope that it will expand to include senior housing.

Sincerely,

Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

March 14, 2005

Another resident voice.

www.putopemspaces.com
PS - for more info, you can visit our website, carmelresident.org or crotonwatershedtu.org

Supervisor Pozzi,

I hope to add my voice and those of my family to the chorus of those already expressing their extreme reservations about the Camarda Park project. There are significant elements of this project that are beginning to raise alarms with me and with other interested members of the local community. This project simply does not fit in this location. As the vision for this project has evolved (devolved), the number of planned recreational facilities have become far too many, the potential flow of vehicle traffic too overwhelming, the burden on the neighborhood too onerous. This park represents a severe insult to the pristine woodlands it imposes itself upon and will be acutely obnoxious to anyone living remotely close to it.
Mr. Pozzi, in the opinion of everyone I have spoken to (a large constituency to be sure) this park represents one of the most disastrous public works projects you could possibly envision. The area in which you seek to dump this monstrosity of a park is surrounded by some of the highest priced real estate in Putnam County. This is a constituency that I can guarantee will be remarkably unforgiving in the next election if you continue to push forward with the present, thoughtless version of the Camarda Park plan. Now that the mechanisms of the DEP have provided our community with the requisite time to fully examine the environmental impact of this project, it would be wise of you to use this time to re-envision it entirely. The onus is upon you to champion a park plan that is unobtrusive, of lasting value, and with which we all can live.

Sincerely
Ken Rosenquest
62 Lindy Drive
Carmel, NY 10512

March 11, 2005

Good morning all - I am sharing with you a post that I wrote for carmelresident.org. Several pertinent issues are addressed vital to the interests of the residents of both the Town of Carmel and Town of Southeast. They are: 1. Regional impact of development and 2. Town of Carmel Supervisor Pozzi's efforts to erect artificial walls between residents by restricting comment and dissent, the lifeblood of a democracy.

Sincerely,
Ann
www.putopenspaces.com

During the Town of Southeast Work Session on Mar. 10th, the issue of the effect on Southeast roads of development on Route 6 was discussed. It occurred in the context of the Transportation Improvement District around Route 312. The observation was made that the roads in the Town of Southeast would be impacted since the natural route of arrival to the Gateway/Fairways development on Route 6 in Carmel would be Exit 19, Route 312.

And the question arose: Should the Towns of Southeast and Carmel form a Transportation Improvement District that would extend beyond town boundaries and could the two towns reach some kind of intermunicipal agreement? Southeast Supervisor Dunford wrote a letter to Supervisor Pozzi on the issue of traffic impact on Southeast roads.

Comments by the Coalition to the Planning Board have also centered on the impact of this large development on limited infrastructure "stating that there appears to be a disconnect between applicant's development plans and the infrastructure and traffic congestion that would be engendered."

The discussion was important since it recognized the regional implications of development on the quality of life of residents from an adjoining town and that Town of Southeast residents have a legitimate interest which must be part of the equation.

It is a proposition that Supervisor Pozzi has a hard time in swallowing. So much so that he has restricted the March 30th New England Town Meeting to solely residents of the Town of Carmel.

Perhaps, we who are residents of the Town of Southeast should petition our elected officials that travelers on our roads show proper resident identification. The notion of course is ludicrous since public officials in the 19th century recognized that the free flow of commerce and traffic was essential to the health of a growing US.

And so is the free flow of information, comment and dissent essential to the health of a democracy, Mr. Pozzi, especially when town action affects the lives and property of nearby residents.

In the words of the late President Regan, "Bring Down that Wall, Mr. Pozzi.

Ann Fanizzi, Putnam County Coaliton to Preserve Open Space
www.putopenspaces.com
 

February 25, 2005

Mr. Harold Gary, Chairman
Town of Carmel Planning Board
60 McAlpin Avenue
Mahopac, New York 10541

Re: Gateway Summit/Fairways
State Route 6, Town of Carmel
DGEIS Engineering Review Comments

Dear Chairman Gary and Planning Board Members:

At the request of our client, the Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition, our office has reviewed the Gateway Summit and Fairways proposed projects’ Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) with regard to particular engineering issues. Specifically, we have reviewed issues regarding stormwater impacts, erosion and sediment control issues and unanswered questions in relation to the capacity of the wastewater treatment facilities and public water supply system that will serve this project.

Our office has received and reviewed the following materials in reference to the above-mentioned projects:

Fairways Project

“Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, Volumes 1 & 2”, Dated January 3, 2005
Sheet DB1 – “Pre-development Watershed Area Plan”, not dated
Sheet DB2 – “Post-development Watershed Area Plan”, not dated
Sheet DB3 – “Soil Classifications”, not dated
Sheet G-0002 (2 of 43) – “Existing Conditions Plan”, not dated
Sheet C-1100 (4 of 43) – “Overall Site Layout Plan”, not dated
Sheet C-1300 (20 of 43) – “Overall Grading and Drainage Plan”, not dated
Sheet C-2101 (30 of 43) – “Road Profiles”, not dated
Sheet C-2102 (31 of 43) – “Road Profiles”, not dated
Sheet C-2103 (32 of 43) – “Road Profiles”, not dated
Sheet C-2104 (33 of 43) – “Road Profiles”, not dated
CDROM electronic files containing Stormwater analysis and design calculations

Gateway Summit Project

“Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, Volumes 1 & 2”, Dated January 3, 2005
Sheet WS-1 (1 of 4) – “Pre-development Watershed Area Plan”, not dated
Sheet WS-2 (2 of 4) – “Pre-development Watershed Area Plan With Soil Boundaries”, not dated
Sheet WS-3 (3 of 4) – “Post-development Watershed Plan”, not dated
Sheet WS-4 (4 of 4) – “Post-development Watershed Plan With Soil Boundaries”, not dated
Sheet C-100 (2 of 19) – “Existing Conditions Plan”, dated March 4, 2004
Sheet C-201 (7 of 19) – “Conceptual Overall Site Plan”, dated March 4, 2004
Sheet C-202 (8 of 19) – “Conceptual Overall Grading Plan”, dated March 4, 2004
Sheet C-401 (11 of 19) – “Proposed Road Profile”, dated March 4, 2004
Sheet DT-1 (1 of 1) – “Deep Test Plan”, dated December 22, 2004
CDROM electronic files containing Stormwater analysis and design calculations

The proposed projects are located in a “TMDL” (i.e., Total Maximum Daily Load) area, as identified by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The areas’ TMDL Program was established as a joint effort with the US EPA as mandated by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act of 1977. The sites are tributary to the Middle Branch Reservoir, which flows into the Croton Falls Reservoir System. As you may know, the Croton Falls Reservoir and Middle Branch Reservoir do not meet the NYS phosphorus guidance values (as determined by the NYCDEP and the NYSDEC) and action must be taken to improve this New York City drinking water supply. The concentration of Phosphorus is over the required maximum levels in both the Croton Falls and Middle Branch Reservoirs. Wastewater treatment plants within this watershed have been targeted as point sources for excess phosphorus loading and, consequently, many wastewater plants are scheduled for or have undergone extensive treatment unit upgrades in an effort to reduce their phosphorus output.

However, the NYCDEP clearly states in “Proposed Phase II Phosphorus TMDL Calculations for Middle Branch Reservoir” (March 1999) that the upgrade of wastewater treatment plants can only partially reduce the existing excessive phosphorus load in the drinking water supply reservoirs. According to this latest NYCDEP TMDL report, non-point sources such as urban stormwater runoff are the other major contributors to the phosphorus loads within the reservoir Programs and measures must be implemented within the watersheds to reduce the pollutant loading from these sources. With that said, the proposed project involving the construction of vast areas of impervious surfaces and massive land disturbance in close proximity to the Middle Branch Reservoir is a major concern, requiring substantial and complex mitigation methods to minimize this recognized significant adverse impact. A review of the DGEIS information for these projects does not reveal that these concerns that affect one of the world’s largest water supplies have been appropriately addressed.

As previously stated, the phosphorus loading to the Middle Branch Reservoir and the entire Croton Falls Reservoir watershed must be reduced to meet NYS phosphorus guidance values. According to the TMDL report prepared jointly by the NYCDEP, the NYSDEC and the US EPA titled “Nonpoint Source Implementation of the Phase II TMDL’s,” dated April 2001, a phosphorus load reduction in the Middle Branch Watershed is required to meet water quality objectives within Croton Falls Reservoir and within Middle Branch Reservoir. The total “Wasteload Allocation” (i.e., the contaminant load allotted by the TMDL for wastewater treatment plant discharges) is currently below the requirement as per the TMDL report. But the Phosphorus load still exceeds the TMDL loading limits. Therefore, the reduction in phosphorus must come from non-point sources such as urban runoff.

As per Table 4.5 “Example Upstream Reductions for Croton Falls Reservoir” of the above referenced 2001 TMDL Report, the Middle Branch Reservoir watershed requires a load reduction from non-point sources of 403 kg/yr to meet phosphorus concentration goals within the downstream Croton Reservoir. As per a TMDL report prepared by the DEP in March 1999 entitled “Proposed Phase II Phosphorus TMDL Calculations for the Middle Branch Reservoir”, page 32 states “ Middle Branch Reservoir currently exceeds the Phase II TMDL based on the existing guidance value of 20 mg 1-1 and requires non-point source reductions of 204 kg/yr”. The document also states in Section 5.2 – Basin Results, “The principal phosphorus sources in the Middle Branch Watershed are Lake Carmel and urban land use”. These documents clearly require that the phosphorus load should be reduced in the project area to meet water quality standards outlined in the TMDL.

As you are aware, the project proposes the conversion of large areas of undeveloped forest to urban areas. As mentioned above, urban areas are identified as the “principal phosphorus sources” in the Middle Branch watershed. It has been shown in the project documents that were reviewed by our office that the submitted stormwater management design is apparently proposing to increase the phosphorus loading to the reservoir instead of reducing this pollutant load. Therefore this proposal does not meet the minimum TMDL requirements established by the DEP and DEC. The projects must therefore be redesigned to meet these TMDL Phosphorus reduction requirements.

The NYCDEP and the NYSDEC each require the implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed construction activity. However, the requirements of the SWPPP differ for each department. The DEP “Rules and Regulations for the Protection From Contamination, Degradation and Pollution of the New York City Water Supply and Its Sources”, dated June 30, 2002, requires the implementation of the previous SPDES permit GP 93-06. However, the more recent DEC Phase II Stormwater regulations require the implementation of the current SPDES permit GP 02-01. For this project, both permits must be satisfied to comply with current regulations. The NYCDEP will review the project design to insure that their requirements have been met and the NYSDEC is required to also review the Stormwater design in compliance with the SPDES requirement for projects located in a TMDL area. In cases where the requirements within the regulations “overlap”, the worst case scenario must be used, as verified with regulatory review staff members at both the NYSDEC and the NYCDEP.

Additionally, this office has investigated any capacity issues for the added sanitary flow to Sewer District #2 and the added water demand on Water District #2. We still need to finish our investigation on this issue.

Our comments specific to the Fairways Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Appendix K of the DEIS) are as follows:

Section I.A.5 – To our knowledge, the Erosion Control Plan has not been included as part of the DEIS. It is assumed that the Erosion Control Plan was contained within the original plan set (i.e., the 43 sheet plan set that is referenced in the DGEIS narrative but is only partially included in the DGEIS documentation). The erosion control plan should contain a very detailed design indicating how sediment runoff will be controlled throughout the construction process. Due to the very steep slopes on the site and close proximity to the reservoir, the construction activity has a very high potential risk of discharging sediment-laden runoff to the reservoir. Once the detailed Erosion Control Plans have been circulated, a detailed review must be conducted to verify that appropriate mitigation measures have been specified in the project’s design.
Section I.A.6 – The DGEIS report asserts that “critical constraints have been identified on the plan”. However, none of these referenced “critical constraints” have been identified on the plans.
Section I.A.7 – To our knowledge, detailed design drawings for the stormwater ponds have not been included as part of the DEIS. It is assumed that proposed grading for the ponds and associated stormwater structures (i.e. swales, culverts, outlet control structures) were contained within the original plan set (i.e., the 43 sheet plan set that is referenced in the DGEIS narrative but is only partially included in the DGEIS documentation). Without the detailed information that describes the proposed ponds, it can not be determined whether the ponds meet the requirements set forth by the DEP and the DEC as water quality treatment structures. However, it can be determined from Sheet C-1300 (Sheet 20 of 43) – “Overall Grading and Drainage Plan” that many of the ponds do not meet DEC pond requirements as per the “New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual” (DEC Design Manual). For example, the discharge to each pond must be “pretreated” with a sediment forebay prior to discharge to the main body of the pond. However, no sediment forebays are shown on this plan. The DEC Pond design has many other requirements that must be met such as a landscaping plan for each pond, maintenance access, permanent pools, etc. Once the detailed design drawings for the stormwater ponds have been circulated, a detailed review must be conducted for each pond.
Section I.C.3 – The Construction Sequencing Schedule, as required by GP 02-01, was not found in the Appendix. This schedule will be critical for this proposed project, considering its sensitive setting, downstream receiving waters requirements and very steep slopes. Without specifying the schedule that a maximum of 5 acres of land disturbance will occur during the numerous stages of the project’s construction, the potential for significant adverse impacts to the site and nearby resources could be severe and irreversible.
Section I.D – The report refers to the “diverting of existing drainage and the capture and treatment of the road improvements only.” Judging from the plans, it is unclear whether it is proposed to capture and treat runoff from all developed areas – which is a minimum requirement of the necessary NYCDEP and NYSDEC permits.
Section II.A – Each pond must meet all the requirements set forth in the DEC Design Manual Section 6.1, as well as the NYCDEP requirements. For example, treatment of the Water Quality Volume (WQv) must be provided through the use of a permanent pool and extended detention. Again, this is a minimum requirement of the necessary permits that has not been considered in the proposed project’s design.
Section II.B – The calculations for the design of stormwater conveyance system was not found in Appendix. Without this basic information, it is not possible to perform a detailed review of the project to verify design compliance with the necessary permit requirements.
Section II.D – Requirements for the Channel Protection Volume (CPv) must be met as per Section 4.3 of the DEC Design Manual. This is accomplished by providing 24-hour extended detention of the 1-year, 24-hour storm. Additionally, a Downstream Analysis should be performed, considering the especially sensitive site setting, as per Section 4.7 of the DEC Design Manual. It is recommended that this analysis be performed regardless of the CPv requirement. The analysis would be of significant value to the Town in determining if any adverse downstream conditions exist or will be created with regard to capacity and channel erosion.
Section III.A – Some of the pollutant loading rates for specific land uses utilized in the analysis, taken from “Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development” (Reducing the Impacts) are no longer current. Amended pollutant loading rates for Phosphorus are used by the NYCDEP in TMDL reports, as in “TMDL Calculations for the Middle Branch Reservoir”, “Table 4.1 – Land Use Export Coefficients for the Middle Branch Reservoir”. These more recent, site specific pollutant loading rates must be used in the pollutant loading and removal calculations for this project. Using these revised loading rates will clearly indicate that the current project design does not even remotely comply with water quality treatment that is required to meet the more stringent pollutant loading values for pre-development conditions – let alone providing for a required reduction in post-development pollutant transport from the site. For example, the phosphorus pollutant loading values shown in TMDL report for undeveloped forest is significantly less than what was used in the analysis. The pollutant loading analysis must be revised to use the proper loading rates, and then the stormwater quality treatment design must be revised to accommodate these more stringent standards.
Section III.B - The ponds were not labeled on the plans that were received by our office. The labels are needed to determine which pond was providing the treatment in the analysis. The “series” of ponds could not be followed, from the plans provided, to verify the treatment. Additionally, the swales, overflow weirs, culverts, etc. connecting each of the ponds were not shown to indicate flow from one pond to another.
Section V – Weekly inspections of the construction site are required as per Part III.D.3 of GP 02-01. These requirements must be identified in the SWPPP as a requirement of the Permit.
The SWPPP should be signed by a responsibly party in accordance with Part V.H of GP 02-01. These requirements should be identified and supported in the SWPPP.
The SWPPP should contain a section identifying the signatory requirements for contractors as per Part III.E of GP 02-01.
Appendix A – The time of concentration path shown on Sheet DB-1 for the pre-development condition does not match the TR-55 print-out in Appendix A. This is a significant error in the calculations that will require a re-design of the stormwater management facilities. Additionally, a maximum of 150 feet of sheet flow is required as per Section 4 of the DEC Design Manual. This maximum sheet flow length has been exceeded, as shown in the calculations, which also will require a re-design of the stormwater management facilities.
Due to the TMDL status of the project, a 60-day NOI (Notice of Intent) is automatically required for GP 02-01. During this time period after submittal to the NYSDEC, the NYSDEC may choose to review and provide additional comment on the SWPPP.

Our comments specific to the Gateway Summit Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Appendix L of the DEIS) are as follows:

Section I.A.5 – See comment #1 above for the Fairways project.
Section I.A.5 – See comment #2 above for the Fairways project.
Section I.A.7 – To our knowledge, detailed design drawings for the stormwater ponds were not included as part of the DEIS. It is assumed that proposed grading for the ponds and associated stormwater structures (i.e. swales, culverts, outlet control structures) were contained within the original plan set (19 sheets). Without the detailed information about the ponds, it can not be determined whether the ponds meet the requirements set forth by the NYCDEP and the NYSDEC as water quality treatment structures. However, it can be determined from Sheet C-202 (8 of 19) – “Overall Grading and Drainage Plan” that many of the ponds do not meet NYSDEC pond requirements as per the “New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual” (DEC Design Manual). For example, the discharge to each pond must be “pretreated” with a sediment forebay prior to discharge to the main body of the pond. No sediment forebays are shown on the plan. Once the detailed design drawings for the stormwater ponds have been provided for review, a detailed review can be conducted.
Section I.D – The ponds were not labeled on any of the drawings received. Therefore, the functionality of the pond treatment “train” could not be verified. Once the detailed design drawings showing the details of the pond system have been provided, a detailed review can be conducted.
Section II.A – Each pond must meet all the requirements set forth in the DEC Design Manual Section 6.1, as well as the NYCDEP requirements. For example, treatment of the Water Quality Volume (WQv) must be provided through the use of permanent pool and extended detention. These design requirements are not included in the drawings that were available for review.
Section II.B – The calculations for the design of stormwater conveyance system was not found in Appendix.
Section II.D – Requirements for Extreme Flood Control - Qf (100 year storm attenuation) as per Section 4.5 of the DEC Design Manual. This requirement is not met at Design Point 1, however the report suggests the condition will be amended at a later date. Requirements for the Channel Protection Volume (CPv) must be met as per Section 4.3 of the DEC Design Manual. This is accomplished by providing 24-hour extended detention of the 1-year, 24-hour storm. If either of these conditions cannot be met (CPV and/or Qf), a Downstream Analysis must be performed as per Section 4.7 of the DEC Design Manual.
Section III.A – See comment #9 above for the Fairways project.
The pollutant loading rates shown for post-development conditions show an increase of Total Phosphorus (TP) at Design Point 1, an increase in Total Nitrogen (TN) at Design Point 1 and an increase in Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) at Design Points 1 and 2. As per the report, the project will result in an increase in Phosphorus load (in a watershed basin that requires a reduction of the Phosphorus load), the increase in total Nitrogen load at one location, and substantial increase in the Biological Oxygen Demand. This proposal, in close proximity and tributary to a substantial drinking water supply, can by no means be considered in the best interest of the public health. These pollutants must be reduced, not increased, and especially the phosphorus load due to the TMDL requirements.
The report mentions that the analysis did not account for the water quality treatment provided under proposed conditions by “swales, deep sumps, filter strips, etc.”. To our knowledge, no credit is given by the NYCDEP for deep sumps. To receive credit for swales from the NYCDEP, they must have a low gradient and be designed in accordance with the “Reducing the Impacts” Manual. Similarly, the filter strip must be designed in accordance with the “Reducing the Impacts” Manual. Calculations and details must be provided for each structure to receive credit for water quality treatment, and such calculations are not provided in the information submitted in this DGEIS. It should also be noted that the 2001 NYSDEC Design Manual gives only credit for pretreatment of sediments and gives no credit for water quality treatment for standard grass swales, deep sumps or filter strips.
See comments 11, 12, 13 and 15 above for the Fairways project.
Appendix A – The time of concentrations shown of Sheet WS-1 for the pre-development condition do not match the TR-55 print-out in Appendix A. This is a significant error in the calculations that will require a re-design of the stormwater management facilities. Additionally, a maximum of 150 feet of sheet flow is required for pre-development conditions as per Section 4 of the NYSDEC Design Manual. This maximum sheet flow length has been exceeded, as shown in the calculations, which also will require a re-design of the stormwater management facilities.
Appendix B – The time of concentration and area summaries for several basins do not match the information shown on plan sheet WS-3.
Sheet WS-3 – Most of the time of concentration paths are not delineated on the plan, making it impossible to review. Also, ponds and reaches are not labeled on the plan making the drainage routing difficult, if not impossible, to follow.

Our comments regarding the capacity issues for the added sanitary flow to Sewer District #2 and the added water demand on Water District #2 are as follows:

Our comments are…

Our general comments concerning both projects are as follows:

The hydrologic and hydraulic calculations provide in the CD have been briefly reviewed. The calculations for each project, if printed out, would be approximately 800 pages each (total of 1,600 pages for both projects). This is an unreasonable amount of information to consider without being summarized to provide the salient points that are critical to the stormwater facilities’ design. Also, the Hec-1 Version 4.1 software print-outs are found to be very difficult to follow for even as a professional in this field. Since public input is an integral part of the DEIS process, it is requested that the project engineer provide maps and calculations summaries that help the public and other consultants to better understand the drainage analysis.
It is our opinion that substantial changes to the project design are necessary to bring the project in compliance with current stormwater regulations. Issues such as revised pollutant loading rates (see Comment #9), revised time of concentration values (see Comment #14 - Fairways, Comment #12 - Gateway Summit) and many other issues mentioned above could substantially change the layout, scope, scale and direction of the project.

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on this project. We look forward to our involvement in the project as the plans develop and we receive additional design detail. Please feel free to call with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,
David Clouser & Associates

David B. Clouser, PE, LS

cc: Marion Rose, Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition
Ann Fanizzi, Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition
James Bacon, Esq.

March 1, 2005

CWCWC's comments on Proposed Camarda Park Project.

Robert J. Pozzi, Supervisor
& Town Board of Carmel
60 McAlpin Avenue
Mahopac, NY 10541

Re: Comments on Proposed Camarda Park Project

Dear Supervisor Pozzi and Members of the Carmel Town Board:

Riverkeeper is dedicated to protecting the Hudson River, its tributaries, and the New York City drinking water supply watershed. In addition, Riverkeeper is a negotiator of and signatory to the 1997 New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). As such, we have a demonstrated interest in all development proposals with the potential to affect the ecology and water quality of the New York City drinking watershed. We have a particular interest in the proposed Camarda Park project, and submit the following comments urging the issuance of a positive declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for this development.

We acknowledge the importance of providing recreational opportunities in Carmel and indeed throughout the watershed, and recognize parkland as preferable to many other, more intensive forms of development. Nevertheless, we believe the nature of this project, with potentially significant impacts from clearing of large portions of existing woodland and its sensitive location near the West Branch of the Croton River, clearly warrants the issuance of a positive declaration under the relatively low threshold enumerated in SEQRA. We thus urge the Town Board to issue a positive declaration for this project and require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The Camarda Park proposal creates the possibility of a variety of significant impacts to natural resources. A full review of these impacts in an EIS is necessary to allow the Town Board as lead agency to make an informed decision on the proposal. Agencies are required to “choose alternatives which, consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects, including effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process.” N.Y. ECL § 8-0109(1). Given the standards for determining significance of impacts under SEQRA, the Town Board should issue a positive declaration to ensure thorough review.

Under SEQRA, if there is merely the “potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact,” the lead agency must require an environmental impact statement. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.7(a)(1). Conversely, the lead agency may only issue a negative declaration if it “determine[s] either that there will be no adverse environmental impacts or that the identified adverse environmental impacts will not be significant.” 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.7(a)(2). Clearly these provisions read together create a strong presumption for issuing a positive declaration. In fact, the proposed Camarda Park is a Type I action under SEQRA, as the 22.16 acres of disturbance is well above the 10-acre threshold for such classification under SEQRA. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.4(b)(6)(i). A Type I action “carries with it the presumption that it is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and may require an EIS.” 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.4(a)(1).

To make a determination of significance, the lead agency must identify areas of environmental concern using the EAF and an illustrative list of criteria that are indicators of significant impacts on the environment. The statutory presumption of significance is further bolstered here given the applicability of several of these criteria to this project. Among the indicators of significant adverse environmental impact listed in SEQRA are “a substantial adverse change in …ground or surface water quality or quantity [or] a substantial increase in potential for erosion, flooding, leaching or drainage problems…” 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.7(c)(1)(i). According to the EAF, the project will convert over twenty acres of currently-forested land to impervious and semi-pervious surface area. In particular, the project envisions construction of 1.5 acres of impervious surfaces in the form of buildings, roads and other paved surfaces.¹ The impacts of impervious area are well known. Roads, driveways and rooftops reduce the infiltration capacity of previously pervious surfaces, facilitate the concentration and scouring of pollutants to surface waters, and accelerate stormwater runoff velocities.

In addition, this project would essentially substitute approximately 20 acres of forest with lawns and landscaping for athletic fields.² Phosphorus-laden lawn areas, while not generally considered in impervious estimates, in fact have an imperviousness value of 9% and therefore contribute nearly 1/10 of their pollutant loadings to downgrade receiving waters.³ Particularly during significant rainstorms, or during snowmelt before spring thaw, precipitation collected on lawns typically becomes sheet runoff, transporting fertilizers and pesticide residues to a receiving water body.⁴ The amount and impact of semi-pervious area such as lawns, particularly at the expense of forested area, must be taken into consideration when evaluating the potential for stormwater quality and quantity problems posed by this proposal. In fact, the removal of over 20 acres of forested land – well over half the entire site acreage – is on its own an additional indicator of significant impact. Under SEQRA, “the removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna” is also relevant to the determination of significance. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.7(c)(1)(ii).

The consequences of replacing large areas of natural forestland with parking, access roads, and manicured and treated athletic fields, are particularly acute here given the proposed park’s proximity to the West Branch of the Croton River. As you are likely aware, the West Branch is a well-known wild brown trout spawning stream, classified as A(TS) by NYSDEC. Clearly, the addition of pollutants from stormwater flowing from the proposed park site nearby could have severe impacts on this important spawning habitat. Pollutants of concern in this instance would include sediment, thermal, and phosphorus loading.

In addition to potential impacts to trout habitat in the West Branch, runoff from the park site could impact drinking water quality downstream. The West Branch ultimately flows into the Croton Falls Reservoir, which is part of New York’s unfiltered drinking water system, rendering the addition of pollutants into the West Branch a significant issue for drinking water quality.

Riverkeeper appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments on the proposed Camarda Park development. Please keep in mind that this letter does not serve as opposition to the proposal for additional recreational facilities in Carmel, but rather as comment on the need for the Town Board to undertake thorough, public review of the current proposal in accordance with SEQRA. If I may provide any clarification regarding the above comments, or any other additional information, please contact me at the above address or at 914.422.4450.

Sincerely,

Christopher M. Wilde
Watershed Attorney
 

¹ See EAF, Part I at 3.
² See id.
³ See Capiella and Brown, “Impervious Cover and Land Use in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed”, Center for Watershed Protection, 2001.
⁴ See id.
 

January 28, 2005

Ann Fanizzi's's comments on Proposed Camarda Park Project.

Sincerely,
Ann

Paul Camarda, Hotel & YMCA: Mr. Camarda presented his proposed hotel and the YMCA plans. For background, there was a referendum in February, 2001 that approved the sale of the town-owned 19 acres of commercial land on Route 6 in Carmel to Hudson Valley Realty, Mr. Camarda’s corporation. At that time, Mr. Camarda heavily advertised that he would provide a first class hotel/conference center and there would be land for a YMCA. While the initial contract was for three years, it was subsequently extended for another 15 months.

In leading up to his announcement, Mr. Camarda said that he had spoken with Marriott and Hilton, but he rejected them because they wanted him to accept their design and that was unacceptable to him. For Mr. Camarda’s sake, we were happy to hear that, since the rumors about town were that those hotels had rejected Mr. Camarda’s plans.

Mr. Camarda announced that a Staybridge Suites Hotel would be built on that site. Some additional information is provided by this observer. That hotel is part of the Intercontinental Hotel Group, a large British corporation that has more than 3,500 hotels in nearly 100 countries. They also own the Holiday Inns, Crown Plaza Hotels and Candlewood Suites. Staybridge Suites is often listed as Holiday Inn’s Staybridge Suites.

Intercontinental considers Staybridge to be in the “upscale” category, whereas Holiday Inns are considered to be “Midscale”. Also, Staybridge is advertised as an extended stay hotel with fully equipped kitchens and internet hook-ups. It is not clear how many of the Intercontinental Hotels are franchises and how many are corporation owned and operated. The value of Intercontinental’s stock has increased over the past two years. In looking at the photos of other Staybridge locations, it was evident that they all look very similar to the drawings presented by Mr. Camarda at this meeting.

Suite hotels have become very popular in recent years. I stayed at two Homestead Villages and one TownePlace Suites (a Marriott hotel) in Florida. Homestead was okay and TownePlace was excellent.

Back to the meeting: In the Carmel Staybridge, there would be about 150 units, including studio, one and two bedroom suites. There will be a restaurant next to the hotel, across a walking bridge. The YMCA is reported to be on a better piece of land than was originally discussed, one that Mr. Camarda said would cost the Y less to build on. There would be an indoor pool, 12,000 square feet of banquet and conference space, a walking trail and 235 parking spaces for the hotel. The development would also include offices, senior housing and assisted living facilities. There would be a traffic light at the Route 6 entrance to the hotel and Y.

Mr. Camarda said, in response to a question, that the hotel offered him a partnership in the hotel and he will consider it. He also said he wants fast approval to take advantage of the currently low interest rates. He thought that they could break ground for the hotel in a little over a year and be completed with the construction by Christmas of 2006.

The Y will have a 7 ½ year option on about 14 acres. It will be a 43,000 square foot building with two floors, a swimming pool and a theater.

Mr. Ravallo mentioned that the Planning board must dot all the “I”s and cross all the “T”s because anyone can sue. He said the new Y is a quality of life issue, and is a significant recreational facility. He added that the referendum empowered the Board to do everything possible to make it happen. Then he added what was, to me, some amusing comments: “There may be well-meaning but misguided people who will try to stop it. We’ll use all our resources to defend against any lawsuit.” For emphasis, I guess, he added: “They may be well intentioned but they’re still silly, and they may try to stop it.”

Mr. Pozzi added to this line of reasoning by stating: “It should not be a surprise to anyone that there will be people who will voice negative connotations to this project and what’s interesting is most of these folks take the time and effort to make sure that they attend the meetings. But folks that really want the hotel clearly don’t take the time to attend the meetings.” Since I am one of the very few people who regularly attend Board meetings, I wonder if he was referring to me, and to his expectations that I will voice opposition to this project in its current form.

Mr. Ravallo, in the same spirit, then commented: “Most of the criticism surprisingly might come from out of town, non-Carmel residents, and I think that’s strange, weird, silly.” As a resident of the Town of Carmel, I welcome input from people who have more expertise on matters of development and the environment, regardless of their residence, and I hope the Town Board will consider this in the future. We live in a small county, and what affects one town often affects neighboring towns.

Then came a significant question by John Butler, a resident of Carmel who lives in the Kelly Ridge area, just behind the proposed location of the senior citizen housing. He indicated that he favors the hotel and the YMCA, but feels that the 150 homes in back of this development will be impacted by the housing units. His question was: “Do the 500 units of senior citizen housing have to be approved in order for the YMCA and the hotel to be approved?” He was corrected by Mr. Camarda who said he was proposing only 340 housing units. The answer was that they would be considered separately, although Mr. Camarda would like them to be a package deal. At this meeting, there was almost no discussion of the proposals for the remainder of the property.

January 19, 2005

Croton Watershed Chapter - Trout Unlimited Conservation Chairman John Keane's document concerning Camarda Park.