Michael, the Town Board are good starters but very slow finishers.

Is that acceptable?  Not to me anymore.

Pine Grove Fire Dept and Rotterdam PD just responded to a fire in the woods in question.  Another open burning violation?  Say it with me...UNBELIEVABLE!   It must be Saturday, Sunday, or another holiday.  Next report:  Thanksgiving weekend.

If that fire was man made due to illegal burning back there then there had better be a citation issued for the infraction or the Town Board will lose all their credibility as far as I'm concerned. The state should be notified if it's a man made fire due to illegal burning too.

Michael, who the heck owns this property where all of the illegal action is taking place? Although I am not totally supportive of the actions that were taken against Mr. Marotta in the Jct., at least there was 'action'. And let us remember that the town went to 'the county' and they handled it. Perhaps this may be another avenue to look into.

Quoted Text

What would you think is going on if there are standing decrees in place and every time work takes place it's on a weekend or holiday?

Michael... this doesn't make any sense at all! Rotterdam has law enforcement supposedly ready, willing and able 24/7. Not to mention the State Police. So what's the problem? Unless these are the cops themselves...or their buddies whom they protect! That would seem to be the only explaination! Otherwise there seems to be a major part of this puzzle missing!!

The cops have been called b4 and even though open burning is against the law all the cops ever do is to warn this individual not to do it again. The next weekend or holiday he's back to cutting and burning again.

Ownership of the property is sort of beside the point.

I also want to add that I am quite pleased with the police and fire prompt response.  Despite what has been lacking in citation, I want to make it clear they do respond and respond quickly.

There is one wrinkle to the open burning law that complicates giving a citation.  I'm reluctant to add exactly what it is here because it will only make it easier to break the law as it is intended.  That doesn't mean the police can't use their discretion and give one...and I hope they did today because the individual has already received several warnings.

How many times does the police and fire departments want to committ resources to responding to events that they could probably stop if citations were being issued?

I'd like to know what the Town Board intends to do?

I know what the wrinkle in the burning law is, a burning permit is still needed b4 the fire is started, open burning can be allowed in a more rural setting but in a populated area where people with asthma can be harmed it's supposed to be restricted and in most cases denied. The quality of air, the chance of the wind coming up and endangering  someones life or property, and it violates the state law by clearing trees in a wetland area. The Town Board should take this issue a little more seriously than it's doing because with all the documentation that's been done if someone is injured by the illegal activity that's being done there it opens them up for a big lawsuit.

Quoted from Michael

There is one wrinkle to the open burning law that complicates giving a citation.  

Let me guess, they have a package of hot dogs their when the police show up.  So actually they are cooking food, and not just burning.  I guess you would need the town board change the open burning law.  If the law gets changed to close the loophole, then all those people in Rotterdam who enjoy those backyard fire pits in the summertime would have to worry about citations when using them at picnic's or barbecue's.

Michael, there is your first test as a politician.  Do you change the law over a few complaints, while pissing off the many?  Doesn't sound like a political winner.

Quoted Text

I'd like to know what the Town Board intends to do?

Hypothetically you're the Town Supervisor....... What would you do??

Quoted from Michael

Ownership of the property is sort of beside the point.

  

Find out who pays taxes on the property and take them to task.  If you're gonna make accusations, make sure they're pointed.  I want to read something like...Mr. John Doe is doing this illegal activity on property X,  and Mr. Tommasone is doing nothing about it.  You have to find out if it's small town cronyism going on, or maybe this person is doing nothing illegal.  In a small town like this, it's not hard to connect the dots as far as who knows who.

I'm no politician.  Worrying about whether it's apolitical winner or loser doesn't really get my attention much.  I don't intend on staying in the job beyond a term.

The law might have to be changed, yes.  If done properly, we'll all be okay.  But let's say I've got to alienate those backyard fire pit people.  I think I would if it ensured safety by preventing dangerous situations like we have over here.  

Let's just apply common sense to what we have going on in this case.  How big a fire do you need to cook a few hotdogs or marshmallows?  What are the recommendations for open burning when that is your intention?  I guess what I'm saying is it might be possible to accomodate those that have fire pits under certain circumstances.  But push coming to shove, I'll opt to protect general community safety first every time.  (Look at the California wildfires for an example of what can happen when a fire gets out of control.)

I've witnessed the fires in my neighborhood.  They're not safe.  They're not for hotdogs.  They're being fed by unending piles of leaves, stumps, trees and who knows what else.  It's a bad and dangerous precedent the Town is allowing to continue.

Lastly, I've avoided ownership details here on purpose.  The owners/violators are known.  In fact, there was an interesting Gazette article written January 10, 2007 that might be of further interest to you that spoke to the violator.

I'll concede maybe it will be determined that nothing illegal is going on. (I obviously disagree.)  But if you go back over the record of the last year as we have addressed this, you'll see the dots clearly.  I'll let you connect them.

Direct response to your hypothetical:  As Supervisor, I ensure citations are being given by police when they respond to an illegal fire. (No hotdogs.)

As Supervisor, I've had a year already to do something about any changes to the open burning law.  (What's that...did you say a year?)

As Supervisor, I ensure that proper permits have been obtained prior to the tree cutting and road grading work to make sure it's allowable.  When it happens without that, and complaints follow, I make sure punishment is swift, especially when the Town is already lead agency in the matter.

I'm not Supervisor.  I'm just an ordinary guy.

One more thought on open burning...I start a forest fire of immense proportion.  The fire department responds and finds me holding a package of hotdogs.  Do they leave and tell me to enjoy my cookout?

Tree removal resumed today.  The stance of the Town as communicated to me by the Town attorney is that they don't view it as improper or illegal.  Why am I not surprised!

The Town attorney has said the Positive Declaration has no bearing on this matter.

Let me explain why I believe they are wrong.  A Positive Declaration was issued in 2004 when Mr. Masullo was proposing an expansion to Masullo Estates.  Clearing work began (or at least became very evident) in October 2006 while the plans were still on the table and the Positive Declaration was still standing.  A clear violation of SEQRA, in my opinion.  

January 2007 through March 2007 saw various incarnations of a proposed boundary line adjustment to several individuals.  Problem was that the plans and Positive Declaration were still standing when this matter was introduced...oops.  Planning Commission acknowledged my argument of segmentation when the plans were subsequently withdrawn in order to try to facilitate the boundary line adjustment.  Segmentation is a serious matter and actually is the glue binding all this activity.

So then the truly outrageous occurred.  The Planning Commission had a final hearing on the boundary line adjustment...only they allowed the problematic portion to be withdrawn and allowed the other portion to proceed.  I believe they erred procedurally by not denying the boundary line adjustment in it's original form and then approving a separately brought item for the portion they wanted to approve.  Procedurally, they didn't conduct a final hearing.  I made those concerns known then but was dismissed.  Of course, they simply didn't want to have a record of their disapproval of the portion they didn't like.  More importantly, it was a flawed attempt to remove the segmentation aspect.  It's already too late.  The gig was up when the two proposals simultaneously existed, thus binding the force of the Positive Declaration to this matter as well.

The land remains the land.  How is it possible that the Town could issue a Positive Declaration preventing activity until further environmental study, then allow activity by default on the same land without even requiring any review by anyone?  It's a bad precedent.  It's a dangerous precedent.  Not just for Masullo Estates because it's likely way too late to prevent more damage from occurring, but for everywhere in Town.  The Town just basically gave carte blanche to developers to do whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want.  They've abandoned Environmental Law and proper procedural oversight all the while touting Critical Impact legislation.  The hypocrisy astounds me.

So are you saying that it is Mr. Masullo's property and he is clearing the land for further development? Or am I missing something here?