Piermont, New York?: Meet Frank DeCarlo, The Siltmaster.

Frank DeCarlo and his “Piermont Developers Limited Liability Company” entity are threatening to build a planned monstrosity known as “447-477 Piermont Avenue” right in the center of Piermont, New York – a real estate development that would wreck the character and functionality of the Village of Piermont forever, if built.
 
Therefore, the residents of Piermont have an absolute right to know whether Frank DeCarlo has a record of responsible building and development - and for that matter, whether their Piermont Village government has already done a responsible job of due diligence researching Frank DeCarlo’s past building and development work.
 
You already know the second answer. If Piermont Village government did any due diligence on Frank DeCarlo or his companies to date, Piermont Village government has certainly not shared it with the residents of Piermont. More likely, dysfunctional Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker and other Piermont board members, committee members, and government officials are far too inept to even know how to do due diligence on Frank DeCarlo and his companies. That is why they are indubitably reading this Blog and looking to me to do their work for them, just like they surely have been doing over the past four months.
 
As for the first answer, newly-unearthed documents from the Bergen County Soil Conservation District (BCSCD) make the answer pretty clear. Those newly-discovered documents are linked below, and you are going to want to read them. The documents tell you whether Frank DeCarlo has a record of responsible building and development.

There is a law in New Jersey called the “Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act” (Chapter 251, P. L. 1975; L. 1975 C. 251, § 1 eff. Jan. 1, 1976):
https://www.nj.gov/agriculture/divisions/anr/agriassist/chapter251.html
https://www.nj.gov/agriculture/divisions/anr/nrc/njerosion.html

Pursuant to this law, and to simplify, a Bergen County, New Jersey builder and developer is beholden to the “Standards” promulgated by the local authority. In this case, the local authority is the Bergen County Soil Conservation District (BCSCD) - the same entity that forwarded me the below-linked original documents.

The applicable rule is simple. If the builder and developer seeks to move more than 5,000 square feet of soil, the builder and developer must notify BCSCD in writing by mail at least 48 hours in advance. It's not merely hortatory. The builder and developer failing to observe the requirement risks adverse consequences up to and including a Stop Work Order in a worst-case scenario - as iterated in the below-linked documents.
 
As explained to me by BCSCD, BCSCD’s timely receipt of this written notification is vitally important to their own work on behalf of the people and communities within Bergen County, since BCSCD permits are normally good for three-and-a-half years. Therefore, BCSCD might not otherwise know when a builder and developer starts digging-out for the foundation. After all, BCSCD cannot possibly monitor every single previously-permitted site within Bergen County twenty-four hours a day – and builders and developers like Frank DeCarlo of course know that.

Keep in mind that soil movement is often directly related to, and a prerequisite to, the building of a foundation for a structure. We already know about foundations and Frank DeCarlo’s record as a crack builder in Paramus:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/06/frank-decarlo-crack-builder-from-new.html
 
If a builder and developer gives the proverbial bum’s rush to the BCSCD and flouts the notification requirement, that could in theory turn out to be the same builder who rushes the ensuing foundation work - possibly leading to a cracked foundation or other structural problems, not to mention ineffectual erosion control practices and sloppy sedimentation consequences.

 
Here comes the unbelievable part. 

Between Year 2012 and Year 2020, Frank DeCarlo and his various entities failed to provide BCSCD the requisite 48 hours advance notice of land disturbance activity - not just once, but seven (7) different times, at seven (7) different Bergen County, New Jersey locations. The BCSCD failure notice letters are here:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/07/frank-decarlo-fails-and-pays-non.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/07/frank-decarlo-fails-and-pays-non_48.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/07/frank-decarlo-fails-and-pays-non_31.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/07/frank-decarlo-fails-and-pays-non_71.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/07/frank-decarlo-fails-and-pays-non_27.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/07/frank-decarlo-fails-and-pays-non_32.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/07/frank-decarlo-fails-and-pays-non_65.html
 
I read this as a series of wanton consecutive recidivist violations. Yet Frank DeCarlo just paid the relatively modest “noncompliance fee” to BCSCD each of the seven consecutive times. He no doubt chalked it off as a simple cost of doing business - yet while thereby flouting the rules with flagrant disregard for BCSCD’s work and purpose, not to mention the rights and well-being of adjacent neighbors.
 
If Frank DeCarlo cannot help but repeatedly disrespect the governmental authorities in Bergen County responsible for protecting the landowners, communities, and environment adjacent to his Jersey projects, then why would anyone think that Frank DeCarlo would suddenly have an attack of conscience when installing a multi-unit residential atrocity right in the middle of Piermont, New York?
 
For an even better idea of what Piermont residents will likely face if and when Frank DeCarlo brings his tools and his cute little FDC pick-up truck to the Village, have a careful look at the "Site Inspection Sheet" from Year 2022 linked below. It reflects BCSCD’s follow-up on a complaint regarding a silt and soil maelstrom that Frank DeCarlo caused at 20 Helen Court in Norwood, New Jersey. BCSCD had to dun Frank DeCarlo with repeated contacts and threaten him with a violation letter, before he eventually got around to cleaning up his own mess:

https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/07/frank-decarlo-makes-overwhelming-mess.html

Here are some excerpts from the above-linked Helen Court site inspection. The bold-face emphasis is my own:

"6/14/22
Investigated complaint about 20 Helen Ct Norwood. Interior work underway. Access stoned, overwhelmed by silt, washing along curb and into adjacent inlet. Tracking into street. Silt fence overwhelmed at near left, undermined on far left, and missing in two areas along rear. Soil washing over retaining wall in two locations. Silt fence needs reset and extension. Access needs cleaning and extension. Street needs cleaning.
~DB
 
6/15/22
Call to Frank Mailbox full could not leave message. -DB
 
6/15/22
Sent email to Frank with detialed[sic] discription of needed erosion control maintenance. Specified deadline of 6/22 to complete or recive[sic] violation letter…
 
6/23/22
… Soil still washing over old silt fence and retaining wall — Need to remove old silt fence and install directly above retaining wall.
-DB
 
6/24/22
Left message for Frank with detailed instructions for erosion control maintance[sic]. Repeatedly requested call back to discuss required items.
-DB"

Another Piece Of Nonsense From Tina Traster, RCBJ Succubus.

 
https://rcbizjournal.com/2024/07/30/piermont-mayor-bruce-tucker-talks-about-controversy-engulfing-his-village/
Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker Talks About Controversy Engulfing His Village
July 30, 2024RCBJ-Connect
RCBJ-Audible (Listen For Free)
Voiced by Amazon Polly
Proposed Development Has Cost Village Public Officials, Ongoing Litigation & A Social Media Campaign That Has Turned Personal and Ugly
By Tina Traster
 
Since 2018, Piermont’s Mayor Bruce Tucker has had a sweet ride – the 66-year-old retired textile factory owner has worked tirelessly as a full-time, but part-time paid, civil servant and in return has held onto his seat for what is now his fourth two-year term.
 
“The first design was not anywhere near ready to fit in with the village and the developer got the message,” the mayor said.
 
But the Village’s passage of a rezoning plan along Main Street last March that gives wider berth to a proposed 14-unit apartment complex’s land-use approval process is causing a “seven-year itch,” so to speak.
 
Are Village residents “breaking up” with Tucker, or is the daily drum of vitriolic criticism on Facebook limited to a small subset of neighbors who live close to the proposed development? Can this once-happy “marriage” be saved?  Is it even in danger?
 
For now, the answers to these questions remain unclear. But for the first time in his tenure, Tucker finds himself amid a barrage of controversy in a negative social media campaign that has cost the Village its Planning Board Chairman and a Board Trustee, and has tied up the Village in litigation over its zoning amendment. Debate over whether the “Central CBM (Central Business Multi-Use) zoning district was a sound policy decision has metastasized into an indictment on just about every decision the village has made or is making, whether it relates to issuing filming permits, an oil spill, finances.
 
“I had no sense that this was going to be so controversial,” said Tucker, referring to the CBM Zoning, which was promulgated to allow greater density and to bring the entire historic downtown district into zoning compliance. The mayor said the proposed downtown development would add tax rateables, get rid of an unsightly dirt patch that’s been used as an ad hoc parking lot for years, and provide housing aimed at millennials and empty nesters to the village.
 
What has shocked the mayor most about navigating his first significant controversy has been relentless ad hominem attacks on a Facebook page called “Preserve Piermont,” accusing him of enriching himself or enacting laws in secret, particularly when proposals and adoption of the zone change were noticed and voted on in public hearings.
 
“Listen, I can take criticism,” said Tucker, who has lived and raised a family in the village for 34 years. “But the worst of it is the vitriol on Facebook. If people disagree, I’m more than willing to discuss it. But to start accusing us of unsubstantiated inappropriateness, of kickbacks, of being paid off by developers, of not holding public hearings, making personal attacks – this is just dishonest.”
 
Preserve Piermont Facebook was founded in March; it has more than 600 members.
 
Piermont, a picturesque village on the Hudson River with a population of 2,500 residents, has long been a peaceful but pricy enclave that avoided the media’s glare. Mostly, the once working-class village that began gentrifying three decades ago, is comparatively expensive and exclusive compared to much of Rockland County. Notably, its downtown district rarely has vacancy signs; the village is a magnet for area residents and day trippers in search of awesome Hudson River access, coastal beauty, a dining scene, shops, galleries, and a touch of history. The Victorian village played a major role during World War II when more than a million troops marched from Camp Shanks to board vessels destined for Europe, earning the nickname “Last Stop USA”.
 
For his part, Tucker is proud of his record. In citing his accomplishments, he lists closing the Piermont Pier Park to motorized vehicles on Sundays from May 1 to Sept. 30, creating Gair Memorial Park, formation of a traffic committee, passing a “Do Not Knock” law, and securing grants for raising and repaving flood-prone Ferry Road. The Mayor’s administration has also taken a lead on becoming an environmentally-forward community, created a plastic bag-free policy via a Reusable Bag Law, banned Glyphosate (an herbicide) on village-owned property, converted street lighting to LEDs, tightened up an AirBnB law to prevent “ghost blocks”, created a rental registry, and has taken steps to protect the seawall and completed $100,000 in storm drainage improvements on the Erie Trail.
 
The village also approved a marijuana dispensary in the commercial district along Route 9W to “bring revenue to the village to offset rising costs and taxes.”
 
Part of Tucker’s Piermont “honeymoon” with village residents is owed to the board’s feat of 1 to 2 percent annual tax increases for six consecutive years. This year, however, Piermont jolted residents with a 6.9 percent tax increase because “everything hit at once,” the mayor said. “We’re dealing with sticker shock on insurances, inflation, huge retirement mandates by New York State.”
 
And while the village’s May 31, 2023 year-end fund balance is more than $3.2 million – three times what it was when Tucker took office — financial challenges lie ahead.
 
“When prices increase like this, there are only two ways to keep taxes down: either reduce services, which I don’t want to do, or increase rateables,” the Mayor said.
 
Therein lies the rub: Piermont has few vacant sites on which development can take place. It is land poor. There is one pending application for development at 675 Piermont Avenue along the riverfront, though that application has been stalled because the proposed restaurant project is too dense.
 
Apart from the gaping hole at 447-477 Piermont Avenue, there are no significant development opportunities. “We’re almost to the point of zero spaces,” said Tucker. “The fact that this is an apartment building means it’s taxed at a commercial rate.”
 
According to Tucker’s estimates, a 14-unit apartment complex on .4 acres on Piermont Avenue would generate roughly $112,000 annually in tax revenue, with between $100,000 and $200,000 in one-time permitting fees. In contrast, the mayor said a $2 million, 5,000 square-foot house on the site, for example, would generate about $15,000 in annual Village taxes.
 
Residents opposed to the apartment project made their opposition known at an April Planning Board meeting when Piermont Developers LLC showed a modern, boxy, brick-and-Hardie plank multi-family building more commonly seen in urbanized downtowns like White Plains.
 
Everyone – including Tucker – agrees the building’s aesthetics sorely missed the mark and would be incompatible with the village’s historical character. The developer agreed and understood it needed to go back to the drawing board.
 
Two weeks later, four Piermont residents, who oppose the proposal, filed suit in Rockland County Supreme Court seeking to void the village’s new zoning law and to stop the developer’s application before any approvals or permits are issued. Residents Janice Young, Laura Healy-Grznar, John Grznar, and Valentina Zitt, live within 500 feet of the project site at 447-477 Piermont Avenue where Piermont Developers LLC, also named as a defendant in the suit, seeks a Special Permit to build a 14-unit, three-story multifamily residential building.
 
Zitt and Young are the moderators of the Preserve Piermont Facebook page that has become the village’s inadvertent “water cooler.”
 
One poster recently wrote: “The overarching problem is that the page has 600+ followers and is currently a vacuum for complaining and tearing people down to achieve a goal.”
 
The requirement for a Special Permit is part of a new zoning law, passed in March of 2023, that created the CBM (Central Business Multi-Use) zone. Plaintiffs allege the new Zoning Law and the CBM zone are illegal and have asked the Court to declare the local law “null and void.” Plaintiffs also say the Village has violated the Open Meetings Law by not posting notices and meeting minutes as required by New York State law.
 
The legal dispute arose after the Rockland County Planning Department, in a series of letters, wrote the “local law that created the Central Business Multi-Use (CBM) District was not properly referred” to the County Planning Department and that it is “jurisdictionally defective”.
 
Zoning Amendments require review by the Rockland County Department of Planning under what is generally referred to as GML (General Municipal Law) Section 239 Review.
 
At issue is whether the county received the document in a timely manner. To help prove its case, Piermont said it sent a copy of the GML to Grandview on January 10, but the receiving stamp shows a March date after Piermont adopted the law.
 
The Village says it fully complied back in January of 2023 when it mailed the proposed text amendment to the County Planning Department. The county says the village did not comply and says the local law creating the new zone was “not properly referred.”
 
In late May, Rockland Supreme Court Justice Hal Greenwald halted, at least temporarily, the processing of an application pending before the Village of Piermont for a Special Permit to construct a multi-family dwelling unit at 447-477 Piermont Avenue in Piermont.
 
Greenwald in late May entered a temporary order granting the residents the relief they sought. The order derails the application, prevents the processing or granting of any approvals, and precludes the village from holding a public meeting unless and until it complies with New York’s Open Meetings Law by making the materials available related to the application available to the public. The Court was supposed to revisit the temporary order July 8th.
 
The parties are due in court on Aug. 21st.
 
Tucker does not understand why residents went to court, rather than await new architectural plans.
 
“The first design was not anywhere near ready to fit in with the village and the developer got the message,” the mayor said. “People don’t have any patience. The developer said he would redo the plans, but they couldn’t wait.”
 
The residents who filed the suit and others have made it clear on Facebook and through their community activism they believe a 14-unit apartment complex will invite additional “unwanted” development, as well as increased traffic along Main Street.
 
But the mayor is even more distressed about a letter to the court sent by the petitioners’ attorney Brian Condon that effectively questions whether the village clerk/treasurer has perjured herself.
 
“In 25 years of practicing law, I have never accused anyone of perjury,” Condon writes. “However, in light of the stamped document presented to this court showing that the mailing was not made to the Village of Grandview until March of 2023, I think (Jennifer) DeYorgi Maher must be questioned under oath.”
 
Tucker said he finds the accusations distressing.
 
“Jennifer is the most honest person I’ve ever met,” adding she is an EMT, alongside petitioners on the lawsuit. “There’s no honor with these people; they don’t even respect fellow volunteers. It’s unbelievable.”
 
Even more confounding to Tucker is the Judge’s decision to impose a temporary injunction.
 
“I thought the judge would by now have lifted the injunction,” said Tucker. “Condon keeps submitting letters after the cutoff date. Our attorneys have never seen anything like this.”
 
The village has hired outside counsel to handle the case, Desmond Lyons of Lyons McGovern LLP of White Plains.
 
“This is the first time in seven years the village has been named in a lawsuit,” said Tucker. “We’ve had meetings where people disagree but nothing like this has happened in a decade.”
 
Tucker, who worked in the private sector for nearly 30 years, said the village will get through this.
 
“I’ll get through this, the board will get through this,” said the mayor. “This has been very distressing. Not the fact that people are disagreeing but the personal attacks, the misguided tactics. Residents who are for development are also being attacked.”
 
He added: “If I thought this one building in downtown would change the whole character, I would never have been for it.”
 
Asked if he’ll run for re-election in 2026, the Mayor quipped: “Ask me in March,” adding “a lot can happen.”

- - - - - - - - - -

In response:

Letter to the Editor
July 30, 2024
 
Dear Ms. Traster,
 
I am writing to express my concern over the recent article entitled “Mayor Bruce Tucker Talks About Controversy Engulfing His Village.” This article, published in the July 30, 2024 edition of the Rockland County Business Journal, is not only biased but also riddled with factual inaccuracies which call into question the journalistic integrity of the endeavor.
 
Preliminarily, much of the article takes swipe at “Preserve Piermont.” The portrayal of this dedicated community organization as merely a “Facebook page” engaged in “relentless ad hominem attacks” is a gross mischaracterization that does a disservice to the residents of the Village – many of whom have come out to speak about current Village government and its inability or unwillingness to listen to residents.
 
Preserve Piermont is far more than a social media presence. It is a committed group of residents advocating for governmental transparency and responsible development. The “controversy” currently engulfing our Village – not Bruce Tucker’s – is self-imposed, resulting from this Village’s lack of transparency and woeful failure to govern in accordance with the wishes of its residents. To suggest that the dissatisfaction within the community is rooted in a series of personal attacks overlooks the genuine and widespread concerns of the Villagers. Our government’s actions have consistently contradicted the principles of open and honest governance, leading to a justifiable sense of frustration and disillusionment among the populace.
 
One of the most glaring issues with your article is the biased coverage of the Village’s creation of a new zoning district: the Central Business Multi-Use District. Implemented in March of 2023, this legislative act was undertaken largely without public input, knowledge, or awareness. It was also undertaken without the input of the Rockland County Department of Planning. Certain zoning and planning actions, as you are likely aware, must be reviewed by the County Planning Agency. The purpose for this is to allow for County input on impacts the action might have. These impacts, or potential impacts, range from an analysis of traffic, density, flooding, and other pertinent impacts that might be sustained by the local municipality or adjacent property owners as a result of the legislative change. Rockland County Executive Edwin J. Day also signed an executive order that requires this process be followed. A failure to follow that process prevents the issuance of permits, approvals, and, most importantly, 911 addresses.
 
Despite your article’s reference to the proposed development at 447-477 Piermont Avenue and characteristically reducing residential opposition to “four Piermont residents”, I can assure you that since January of 2024, the overwhelming majority of residents speaking at public meetings are concerned with this Village’s failure to solicit County comment for the community’s benefit and the impacts of this failure. As far as I am aware, the residents of the Village of Piermont do not look to stop development altogether. Instead, residents look to their government, and Mayor Tucker as its purported leader, to ensure that responsible development occurs while their homes and families are protected in the process. As of late, it feels like irresponsible development is set to occur at the expense of our homes and families.
 
Preserve Piermont was started to seek to hold our leaders accountable, and ensure that development serves the best interests of all residents, rather than a select few. This organization has been instrumental in highlighting the lack of transparency and advocating for more inclusive and responsible governance. As such, I call on you and the Rockland County Business Journal to fairly represent community organizations like Preserve Piermont. I urge you to provide a more balanced and realistic assessment of the situation in future reporting. By doing so, you will not only be upholding the standards of journalistic integrity but also supporting the efforts of residents and families who are working tirelessly to ensure that our Village remains a vibrant and liveable community for all.
 
I moved to Piermont in 2018. My wife and I emptied our bank and retirement accounts to purchase our home on Ladik Street in 2021. My first son was born the following year, and my second son was born this year. I am a volunteer firefighter for the Village of Piermont Fire Department, and while I am not tested or experienced, I volunteer to give back time to the community that was welcoming enough to let me become a part of it. I do not yet have the privilege, or confidence, to consider myself a true Villager because I haven’t been here half as long as the rest of our Village, or as long as Mayor Tucker.
 
But I have chosen this community as the place to build my family’s future and we are committed to doing whatever it takes to protect and preserve the unique character and values that drew us here in the first place.
 
I could only expect, and hope, Mayor Tucker will do the same.
 
Very truly yours,
 
Robert C. Zitt

Tell It To Tom.

As you are likely already aware, Piermont Village Hall made a “decision” late last week to finally release and upload to the Village of Piermont website, the multiple years’ worth of Village financials which Village Hall previously sought to conceal from Piermont residents since Year 2020. Piermont Village government rushed to do this after discovering that the “Unhand Piermont!” Blog released and uploaded these same Piermont financials last Wednesday, July 24, 2024. “Unhand Piermont!” sourced the relevant documents and information from the Moody’s website, and from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“EMMA”) website at “msrb.org”. It is astounding that Piermont government worked so hard for years to try to conceal from Piermont residents, a set of documents specifically intended for those Piermont residents to see and review real-time – especially given that those documents were hiding in plain sight at other locations on the Internet.

As you can imagine, the spotlight placed on the Village of Piermont financials last week has caused a flurry of activity since, including inquiries made to New York State and United States federal regulators regarding: (A) the sanctity vel non of the Piermont financials themselves, and (B) the true economic state of well-being vel non of the Village itself. Perhaps the most important regulator and protector against Piermont Village Hall financial misconduct is Tom DiNapoli and his Office of the New York State Comptroller (“OSC”). His photo is posted here. The Newburgh/New Windsor OSC field office apparently handles Piermont.

Accordingly, the following OSC contact-information has been forwarded to me for YOUR use. If you have any information whatsoever regarding financial malfeasance perpetrated by the Village of Piermont government or by any individual public official therein, you are urged to forward it to the following OSC e-mail address:
muni-newburgh@osc.ny.gov

Naturally, there are manifold protections for whistleblowers in federal, state, and sometimes even local law. Those protections can be easily reviewed by basic Internet searches as well as communications with one’s own counsel versed in whistleblower protection law. Moreover, I am informed that OSC will also accept information anonymously when mailed to the following address:

Office of the State Comptroller
33 Airport Center Drive, Suite 102
New Windsor, NY 12553 USA

Thank you for your careful consideration of this memo.

John J. Tormey III, Esq.

Frank DeCarlo And The "Ramapo Developers" LLCs.

As you will recall, Frank DeCarlo and his “Piermont Developers” entity are threatening to build the planned monstrosity known as “447-477 Piermont Avenue”. [The street address may be changing since the Reilly’s pull-out, but you know the development that I mean]. I have posted OPRA’d document-findings from the Bergen County Soil Conservation District (BCSCD), to this “Unhand Piermont!” Blog, regarding Frank DeCarlo’s past movements of soil in New Jersey. Specifically, please have a look at these two checks from that BCSCD batch, each bearing Frank DeCarlo’s signature and made out to BCSCD. You will see from the checks that Frank DeCarlo is linked to two very similar-sounding LLCs, each associated with the same Mahwah NJ address on the check-stock: “Ramapo Developers LLC”, and “Ramapo Developers LLC #2”. Sure, one could try to argue that these two checks are insignificant due to the 2016 date on each check. But guess what? According to the New Jersey Secretary of State Internet website, “Ramapo Developers LLC” is still an extant entity.

Anyone with further information as to the connection between Frank DeCarlo, Craig R. Weis, Jr., and the name or concept of “Ramapo”, is certainly welcome to come forward with it now. There could be up to 2,500 of us now willing to listen. Some further documents from the public record establishing the links, as posted on the Internet, appear below:

Frank DeCarlo And FDC Contracting Make An Overwhelming Mess: 20 Helen Court, Norwood, NJ.