Right now, while you are reading this Blog post, Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker’s brain is contemplating its next reptilian move.
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/in-shape-of-l-on-their-foreheads.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/for-immediate-release-piermont-ny.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-courts-decision-in-young-v-village.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/piermont-mayor-bruce-tucker-hides-from.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/word-of-ugly-residential-monstrosity.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/residents-sue-piermont-village-board.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/newsflash-humiliated-piermont.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/piermont-garmento-mayor-tucker-violate.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-piermont-mayor-lies-through-his.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/october-10-2024-piermont-referral-to.html
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/newsflash-rockland-county-new-york.html
Bruce Tucker and his shiftless Village Hall submissives are getting beaten badly and are now running out of options.
Sure, Tucker and Piermont could try to appeal Justice Greenwald’s
October 11, 2024 Decision and Order to the Appellate Division:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/warning-to-piermont-new-york-residents.html
But Tucker would thereby waste tons more Piermont taxpayer money, and then lose yet again...
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/warning-to-piermont-new-york-residents.html
But Tucker would thereby waste tons more Piermont taxpayer money, and then lose yet again...
(The leaves at my feet crackle)...
What's that? You wanna go upstairs, Bruce? Go ahead. Go upstairs. See what happens.
Or,
Bruce Tucker and his Village Hall fawners could try to bring an Article 78
proceeding against the Rockland County Department of Planning, in an effort to somehow overturn the above October 23, 2024 letter. But again, Tucker would
thereby waste tons more Piermont taxpayer money, and would lose that maneuver, too.
Tucker is likely
already well into six-figures in the hole on these 447-477 Piermont Avenue litigations.
Tucker’s reptilian brain is now looking for the cheapest way to punish his
local Piermont resident neighbors - his own voters and constituents - who were rightfully
successful in blocking his ill-conceived monstrosity of a real estate development
and his illicit US$312,000 Year-One money-grab plus benefits:
https://rcbizjournal.com/2024/07/30/piermont-mayor-bruce-tucker-talks-about-controversy-engulfing-his-village/
https://rcbizjournal.com/2024/07/30/piermont-mayor-bruce-tucker-talks-about-controversy-engulfing-his-village/
Besides - now he has to find another operating budget for next year, particularly because he has already spent Piermont into a US$8,000,000 Net Position hole.
So
what Bruce Tucker’s reptilian mind is plotting right now, is a snake-like end-run
around the Rockland County Department of Planning, while trailing a clause in New York’s oft-arcane General Municipal
Law (“GML”; sometimes alternatively cited as "GMU").
GML Subsection 239-m(5) (alternatively punctuated as "239-m.5") provides:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/GMU/239-M
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/10/what-now.html
Here is how the Rockland County website describes EO #01-2017:
EO #01-2017 is set forth in this three-page document, which I re-print below in corrected Word format directly above the corresponding three ".jpeg" pages of the same EO which follow it. Please be aware that the key part of the EO does not happen until the end of the document at its Page 3, though:
- - - - -
Rockland
County
Ed Day, Rockland County Executive
OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
11
New Hempstead Road
New
City, New York 10956
Phone:
(845) 638-5122
Fax:
(845) 638-5856
May
22, 2017
To: All Commissioners and Department
Heads
From: Edwin J. Day, County Executive
Re:
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 01-2017 –
Report of
GML Review as a Requirement for a County Permit,
License[,] or Approval
Intent
of Executive Order.
The
New York General Municipal Law (GML) recognizes that the County has an interest
in inter-community and county-wide planning, zoning, site plan[,] and
subdivision considerations and that such considerations are required to be brought
to the attention of the County Commissioner of Planning.[1] The requirement
seeks to promote coordination of land use decision-making and to enhance consideration
of potential inter-municipal and county-wide impacts prior to action being
taken by town and village land use boards. The referral process is sometimes
known as the “GML review” and it is conducted by the County Commissioner of
Planning.
The
GML review contemplates various considerations, including the protection of
community character and the values of achieving and maintaining of[sic]
a satisfactory community environment[,] and expressly authorizes the County Commissioner
of Planning to make recommendations as to whether the local land use board
should approve or disapprove an application for the planning or zoning action
along with recommendations. The local land use board is bound to consider the
County Planning Commissioner’s review and must have a vote of a majority plus
one of all of its members to disapprove any recommendation of modification or
disapproval. Local land use boards, however, override these recommendations
often times[sic] without a stated reason.
- -
- - -
[1]
In Rockland County, the Commissioner of Planning exercises the powers that
State laws provide to a County Planning Board. See Rockland County
Charter § C5.02 and Laws of Rockland County § 5-82.
Rocklandgov.com
- - - - -
[Page
2]
The
GML, however, requires that if overridden, the local land use board shall file
a report with the County Commissioner of Planning of the final action taken
and, if contrary to the recommendation of the County Commissioner of Planning,
the reasons for such action.
Unfortunately,
in the[sic] many cases, the local land use boards fail in their mandated
responsibility to report the reasons for taking such contrary action. Such failure
violates the law and deprives the public of the transparency and accountability
it deserves in the regulation of local development.
As
County Executive, it is my duty, subject to the provisions of the Charter, to
supervise, direct[,] and control the administration of all departments of the [C]ounty
government. Within the parameters of that duty, I have the authority to require
the several [C]ounty departments that issue permits, licenses[,] and other
County approvals relating to real property which has been subject to local
board action, to the extent allowed by law, to require a certified copy of the
report of the local land use board overriding the recommendations from the
County Commissioner of Planning and the reasons for the override, and to
consider those reasons before issuing such county permit, license[,] or approval.
Implementation
of Executive Order
In
order to implement this Executive Order I hereby direct that, to the extent
permitted by law,
A.
Every application for a permit, license[,] or other approval submitted to any
County agency within the jurisdiction of the County Executive shall require the
applicant to provide the following:
1.
where the County Commissioner of Planning has recommended approval of the
proposed action, a copy of [the] County Commissioner of Planning’s report
approving the proposed action; or
2.
where the County Commissioner of Planning has recommended modification or
disapproval of the proposed action,
a.
a copy of [the] County Commissioner of Planning’s recommendations to modify or
disapprove the proposed action, and
b.
a certified copy of the determination of the local land use board overriding
the County Planning Board’s recommendations to modify or disapprove, which determination
must contain, or be accompanied by, a certified copy [of] the statement of the
local land use board’s reasons for the override required by General Municipal Law
§ 239-m(6) and/or 239-n(6).
B.
No County agency within the jurisdiction of the County Executive shall issue a
County permit, license[,] or approval concerning an ongoing proposed action
that was, or needs to be, referred to the County Planning Department, pursuant
to GML § 239-m or 239-n, unless the required documents are produced, and
Rocklandgov.com
- - - - -
[Page
3]
C.
Every County agency required to obtain the recommendations and reports
described in sections B and C [] above, shall consider the contents of those
reports in making their determinations as to whether or not to issue or deny
the application for the subject permit, license[,] or other County approval. [Bold-face emphasis added]
The
term “proposed action” shall have the same meaning as described in GML §§ 239-m
and 239-n.
Nothing
in this policy shall affect any other rights or obligations at law of the County
of Rockland with respect to any matter related to the subject of this Executive
Order.
THIS
EXECUTIVE ORDER IS EFFECTIVE THIS 22 DAY OF MAY, 2017.
_____________/s/________________
Edwin
J. Day
COUNTY
EXECUTIVE
Cc:
All Rockland County Legislators
In other words, it's a two-step process. EO #01-2017 says, inter alia, that the village board must file a certified copy of the written reasons for its disregard of the county planning authority's land use recommendation. Upon receipt of that document, that county planning body is then required to consider its contents and thereupon make a determination as to whether or not to issue or deny the permit.
That's right. The county planning body has discretion to deny the requested permit. Period.
Now in this case, Bruce Tucker and the buzzards of Village of Piermont government already faked a law and lied about it on record repeatedly. They got caught... Schmeissed... Does anyone really think that now, any Rockland County agency is going to embrace any 447-477 Piermont Avenue permit or permission-request with open arms?
Additionally, I
have already been assured by one local government official in Rockland County that EO #01-2017 is
still in full force and effect, and has been in full force and effect continuously since the day it was signed by the County Executive in 2017. Additionally, I am informed that EO #01-2017 itself spawned the electronic messaging system since put in place in Rockland County,
which now assures that the Rockland County Department of Planning is easily able
to exercise oversight over abysmal land-use and zoning practices like those of Piermont
Mayor Bruce Tucker and the cretins of Piermont Village Hall.
What
is particularly wild here, is that even rank anti-environmentalist and RCBJ Succubus
propagandist Tina Traster herself acknowledged the existence of EO #01-2017 back in April – within one
of her several "articles" on topic that otherwise all read like they were planted by Tucker
himself:
“…Complicating
the matter further is Executive Order [#0]1-2017, signed by Rockland County
Executive Ed Day, that requires county departments to verify that real property
applications subject to local board action have complied with GML, prior to
issuing permits or approvals. If the project is non-compliant, County
Departments cannot issue any required approvals, permits, or new 911 addresses…” [Emphasis
added].
From the RCBJ propaganda-piece entitled “Piermont Proposal Draws Ire At Planning
Board Meeting; Residents Oppose Modern Design - Planning Board Chairman Wants
Clarification On Legality Of Local Law That Allows Multi-Family Dwellings Along
Piermont Avenue”, by Tina Traster, RCBJ Succubus – Rockland County Business
Journal (“rcbizjournal”), April 10, 2024.
“What is Executive Order #[0]1-2017?
Rockland County Executive Ed Day issued an Executive Order (EO) that requires land use development projects subject to local board action and seeking a permit, license or other approval from a County agency to first provide a copy of the General Municipal Law (GML) Report associated with the County Planning Department’s review of the project. The applicant must also provide the pertinent copy of the minutes or resolution from the municipality’s board.
Failure to comply with the requirements of EO #[0]1-2017 will result in the County not issuing permits or approvals for such uses as water and sewer connections, well permits, rooming house permits, drainage permits, road opening permits, issuance of new addresses and others.” [Emphasis added].
https://www.wesleyhills.org/planning-board/pages/land-development-process-eligibility-county-permit-license-or-approval
Here's the print-out from the Wesley Hills website:
That’s
right.
Wow.
Just now, somewhere in Piermont, a reptilian vagus nerve started throbbing.
So,
sure. Bruce Tucker can try to snake around the Rockland County Department of
Planning by setting-up a staged “supermajority” override vote, deploying the four unctuous dissembling elvers currently sitting on his eminently-detestable Piermont Board of Trustees. Tucker
can then rubber-stamp the 447-477 Piermont Avenue development under GML
239-m(5), with a “supermajority” override vote expressly purporting to flout Rockland County’s October 23, 2024 determination.
But
do you know what will happen as a result?
The
County will then deny Tucker and the developers any new “911” address or designation
on the subject 447-477 Piermont Avenue property. I am sure that federal
Homeland Security officials will really enjoy hearing about that. And I know just the guy to tell them.
Additionally,
on an even more primordial level, the County will deny Tucker and the
developers any sewer hook-up, water hook-up, drainage permits, road opening
permits, and pretty much any other utility connection or permit that Tucker and
the developers would ever want to otherwise have for 447-477 Piermont Avenue.
In politics,
government, and law, it’s really all about how you deal with the head of the snake.
And... wait a minute. No sewer hook-up?
Given
that the 14-unit monstrosity as last planned for 447-477 Piermont Avenue by Bruce Tucker
and his supplicants has virtually no set-backs and is intended to take up
almost the entire footprint of the site, EO #01-2017 means that once the structure is built, there will soon
be a veritable Matterhorn of sewage there and no room whatsoever to put it –
except, perhaps, piled on top of an already disgusting-looking 35-foot-high roof. Now, that hardly sounds like it
would fit in with the otherwise-prevailing artsy aesthetic of Piermont Avenue. Then
again, Bruce Tucker’s newest Trustee-enabler Rondi Casey is a sculptress who works in
mixed media. Therefore, what an astute Board of Trustees "appointment" the Tucker selection of Rondi Casey was in retrospect, and what a perfectly-appropriate resultant visual expression of Bruce Tucker’s towering mayoral reign... Bruce Tucker's own personal "substack", as it were.
Who NEEDS the County - right, Bruce?
Problem solved.
