Kent Manor litigation - letter to the editor "Putnam Courier"
Submitted by cnarbey on Mon, 07/20/2009 - 10:51am
I spent many hours reading the court documents in this case. Mr. Tartaro has been a councilman for more than 10 years and, I believe, has more knowledge of this litigation than I. He knows that the NYCDEP on May 8, 1998 gave conceptual approval to Kent Manor’s application for inclusion in the Phosphorous Offset Pilot Program, subject to the approval of either the Town or the County. He knows that on January 27, 1999 the County Watershed Administrator wrote that the County’s policy of "home rule" meant that the County would consider such approval a "local matter" for action solely by the Town. Further, Mr. Tartaro knows that a 1989 court-ordered Stipulation requires that the Town issue "all local approvals and consents necessary" for the construction of the Kent Manor project. He knows that the Town Board has not approved the project’s application for inclusion in the POPP and that the Town Building Inspector has not renewed the expired building permits already issued, despite the court’s orders.
Re.: Kent Manor lawsuit
Town of Kent Councilman Tartaro takes issue with the County Legislature’s decision to settle the lawsuit brought by the developers of the Kent Manor property.
In my opinion, there were misstatements of fact in "The Putnam County Courier's" report and correspondence on the Kent Manor litigation published in last week's issue.
I have today submitted the following letter to the "Courier's" Editor:
"Dear Sir,
I spent many hours reading the court documents in this case. Mr. Tartaro has been a councilman for more than 10 years and, I believe, has more knowledge of this litigation than I. He knows that the NYCDEP on May 8, 1998 gave conceptual approval to Kent Manor’s application for inclusion in the Phosphorous Offset Pilot Program, subject to the approval of either the Town or the County. He knows that on January 27, 1999 the County Watershed Administrator wrote that the County’s policy of "home rule" meant that the County would consider such approval a "local matter" for action solely by the Town. Further, Mr. Tartaro knows that a 1989 court-ordered Stipulation requires that the Town issue "all local approvals and consents necessary" for the construction of the Kent Manor project. He knows that the Town Board has not approved the project’s application for inclusion in the POPP and that the Town Building Inspector has not renewed the expired building permits already issued, despite the court’s orders.
Yet Mr. Tartaro rails against the County decision to extricate itself from the decades-long legal actions (a suit for damages and a tax certiorari action against alleged unfair assessments of property value). He claims that the County alone has denied the approvals for the project to continue.
The developer of this property alleges that the Town Assessor, supported by the local Board of Assessment Review, has over-assessed this property, placing a full market value on it for its highest and best use, while knowing that the development as residential condominiums could not proceed because the Town Board would not issue the necessary approvals.
So, Mr. Tartaro has known that Town taxpayers have paid lesser school and Kent taxes (except for their share of the County payments) and may eventually have to make this up, if the developer prevails in Court.
Yours sincerely,
Clifford G. Narbey
Kent Cliffs
Because of space limitations, I did not submit a final paragraph from my original draft, but I feel that it is important (and fits with Joyce Mitchell's report about this matter from the Town Board meeting of July 13 (see the category "Town Board Meeting" at left). So this is what was omitted from my letter to the Editor:"It is ironic that Mr. Tartaro protests the way in which the County legislators took their vote to extricate the County from these legal proceedings, when he has been a member of a Town Board that has discontinued videotaping of Workshops and some Town Board meetings, refused to give access to information under the Freedom of Information Act, does not comply with the Open meetings Law regarding Executive Sessions, denied that the Town is being sued for damages and does not even acknowledge receipt of correspondence from his constituents."
