Saturday, November 30, 2024

Rockland County To Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker: "You Haven't The Faintest Idea What You Are Doing, Do You?"


DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
Dr. Robert L. Yeager Health Center
50 Sanatorium Road, Building T
Pomona, New York 10970
Phone: (845) 364-3434          
Fax: (845) 364-3435
           
Douglas J. Schuetz                           
Acting Commissioner
 
Richard M. Schiafo             
Deputy Commissioner
 
November 18, 2024
                                   
Piermont Village Board
478 Piermont Avenue
Piermont, NY 10968                          
 
Tax Data: 75.55-1-19, 75.63-1-1, 75.55-1-20, 75.63-1-64, 75.54-2-27, 75.55-1-14.2, 75.54-2-11, 75.54-2-29, 75.54-2-13, 75.54-2-10, 75.54-2-17.3, 75.55-1-18, 75.54-2-36, 75.54-2-31, 75.54-2-33, 75.54-2-40.1, 75.54-2-8, 75.55-1-13, 75.54-2-35, 75.54-2-37, 75.55-1-17, 75.54-2-15, 75.55-1-21, 75.54-2-16, 75.54-2-38, 75.54-2-14, 75.54-2-26, 75.54-2-24, 75.54-2-39, 75.54-2-40.2, 75.54-2-25, 75.54-2-12, 75.54-2-17.1, 75.54-2-9, 75.54-2-32, 75.55-1-15, 75.54-2-17.2, 75.54-2-30, 75.54-2-23, 75.55-1-14.1, 75.54-2-28, 75.55-1-16, 75.54-2-22, 75.54-2-34
 
Re: GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW REVIEW: Section 239 L and M
 
Map Date:
Date Review Received: 10/25/2024
Item: Central Business Mixed-Use (CBM) District (GML-24-0291)
 
A zoning map and text amendment to create a new Central Multi-Use Business (CBM) zoning district in place of a majority of the existing Business B (BB) District that will be more closely aligned with existing built conditions and uses in what is widely considered to be the Village's downtown. The proposed law also includes a provision to impose a limit of one dwelling unit per 1,250 square feet of lot area for dwellings over commercial uses within the BB zoning district.
 
Along Piermont Avenue, roughly bounded by Kinney Street and Tate Avenue for the proposed CBM zoning district and throughout the BB zoning district.
 
Reason for Referral:
County Route 8 - Main St, Sparkill Creek, Ash Street Station Park, Long Path Trail, State Route 304, US Route 202 & 9W, Tallman Mountain State Park, Orangetown
 
The County of Rockland Department of Planning has reviewed the above item. Acting under the terms of the above GML powers and those vested by the County of Rockland Charter, I, the Commissioner of Planning, hereby:
 
Recommend the Following Modifications
 
1. The local law must be amended to update the Village's Table of General Bulk Regulations and Table of General Use Regulations for the proposed CBM District.
 
2. The Village may want to consider creating individual bulk requirements for studios/professional offices, as the pre-existing BB district had different bulk requirements for those uses and the proposed zone will be replacing most of the BB district.
 
3. Section 210-61.2(B)(1) provides some specifications for architectural appearance of multiple dwellings. This department recommends that language be added to this section that requires review by the Piermont Architectural Review Commission. The Village should also consider amending section 4-4.C of the Village Code, which governs the jurisdiction of the Commission, to include applications within the proposed CBM zoning district.
 
4. Sections 210-61.1 through Section 210-61.6 of the proposed law reference the CB district. This should be changed to CBM, so that all references within the proposed law are consistent.
 
5. The EAF submitted with the application calls the new zoning district "Central Business-Multifamily" while the draft law calls the zone "Central Business Multi-Use District." This must be corrected. All application materials must be consistent.
 
6. It is recommended that the local law specifically identify the individual parcels that will be changed from the BB district to the CBM district. Although Section 3 of the proposed law provides street boundaries of the new zone, providing the parcel numbers will provide clarity and a more descriptive depiction of the new zone.
 
7. Based on the map provided on page 3 of the Local Law, it appears that parcels 75.54-2-22, 23, & 24 are to be included in the CBM zoning district. However, these parcels do not meet the provisions described in the same section. This must be clarified. All application materials must be consistent.
 
8. The GML referral form sent with this application describes this law as a "Zoning Text Amendment". It should be corrected to "Zoning Text and Map Amendment". The EAF refers to this law as "Adoption of Text Amendments to the Zoning Local Law of the Village of Piermont". All application materials must refer to this proposed law as both a text and map amendment.
 
9. Section 3 (4), of the proposed law states that lot 75.55-1-14.3 will become part of the CBM district. This department does not have any record of such a lot being created nor can we find any record in the Town of Orangetown tax mapping or assessment systems for a such lot. Once a subdivision has been approved, a filed map cannot be used to convey property, nor can the tax maps be updated with the lot changes, until the deeds are filed with the County Clerk, conveying the portions of the lots that are required to achieve the lot configuration indicated on the subdivision map. The applicant and the Village must make sure that the deeds are properly filed with the Rockland County Clerk to ensure that the tax maps are properly updated.
 
A previous GML referral received by this department on November 16, 2023, proposed a subdivision of lot 75.55-1-1.1 to create lot 75.55-1-14.3 as part of an application to construct a new 3 level, 14 unit multiple dwelling development in the CBM zoning district. This department issued a disapproval letter of this application on December 11, 2023, indicating that the local law that created the CBM zoning was invalid as a matter of law, as this department had not had the opportunity under GML Section 239 to review the proposed law. The court has since found the Village of Piermont Local Law No. 4 of 2023 to be null, void, and jurisdictionally defective (October 11, 2024). Prior to adopting this proposed law, it would appear a subdivision application would need to be submitted, or Lot 75.55-1-14.3 removed from the proposed law. Under GML Section 239-n, a subdivision application must be submitted to this department for review.
 
10. Section 210-68.1.B of the proposed local allows certain uses to satisfy off-street parking requirements through the leasing or renting of off-site spaces, subject to certain conditions. Subsection (1) states that off-site spaces "must either be within the Business B Zoning District or Central Business Multi-Use Districts or (if not in Business B or Central Multi-Use) be within 250 feet of the food/beverage service establishment lessee's business." This subsection does not include a maximum distance that would be applicable to leased or rented spaces within either the BB or CBM districts. This provision could be interpreted to allow the leasing of spaces located anywhere in the BB or CBM districts to any food/beverage service establishment that is also within the BB or CBM district. The distance between the northern end of the proposed CBM district and the existing BB districts along the southwestern boundary of the Village is approximately 0.9 miles. The Village should consider amending this section to include a maximum distance between the establishment and the leased or rented spaces that would be applicable in all circumstances.
 
11. The online posting by General Code of the Village's zoning regulations continues to show this law as already adopted and added on March 8, 2024 by Local Law No. 4-2023. The Village should contact General Code to either remove this section or, should it approve the proposed local law, update the posting with the correct date and law number.
 
12. Pursuant to New York State General Municipal Law (GML) Sections 239-m and 239-n, if any of the conditions of this GML review are overridden by the board, then the local land use board must file a report with the County’s Commissioner of Planning of the final action taken. If the final action is contrary to the recommendation of the Commissioner, the local land use board must state the reasons for such action.
 
 
Douglas J. Schuetz
Acting Commissioner of Planning
 
cc:  Mayor Bruce E. Tucker, Piermont
New York - New Jersey Trail Conference NYS Department of State
NYS Department of Transportation Rockland County Department of Health
Rockland County Div of Environmental Resources Rockland County Drainage Agency
Rockland County OFES Rockland County Planning Board Piermont Fire District
 
*New York State General Municipal Law § 239(5) requires a vote of a 'majority plus one' of your agency to act contrary to the above findings.
 
The review undertaken by the County of Rockland Department of Planning is pursuant to and follows the mandates of Article 12-B of the New York General Municipal Law. Under Article 12-B the County of Rockland does not render opinions nor determines whether the proposed action reviewed implicates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The County of Rockland Department of Planning defers to the municipality referring the proposed action to render such opinions and make such determinations as appropriate under the circumstances.
 
In this respect, municipalities are advised that under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the preemptive force of any provision of the Act may be avoided (1) by changing a policy or practice that may result in a substantial burden on religious exercise, (2) by retaining a policy or practice and exempting the substantially burdened religious exercise, (3) by providing exemptions from a policy or practice for applications that substantially burden religious exercise, or (4) by any other means that eliminates the substantial burden.
 
Pursuant to New York State General Municipal Law §§ 239-m and 239-n, the referring body shall file a report of its final action with the County of Rockland Department of Planning within thirty (30) days after the final action. A referring body that acts contrary to a recommendation of modification or disapproval of a proposed action shall set forth the reasons for the contrary action in such report.

The Next Mayoral Conference Should Be A Fun One.

To:
barbara@nycom.org
brian@nycom.org
eileen@nycom.org
jennifer@nycom.org
jmancini@nycom.org
nicole@nycom.org
norma@nycom.org
rebecca@nycom.org
ursula@nycom.org
wade@nycom.org
 
cc:
Amyvillageevl@gmail.com
cityhelp@mountvernonny.gov
dean@schnellerlaw.com
fmurray@murrayandmccann.com
gmccarthy@schenectadyny.gov
hflou3@rochester.rr.com
info@hamilton-ny.gov
John.Goodwin@CanandaiguaNewYork.gov
kimt@hamilton-ny.gov
legislatormilne@gmail.com
maryklahn699@gmail.com
mayor@cityofplattsburgh-ny.gov
mayor@clydeny.com
Mayor@freeportny.gov
mayor@hamilton-ny.gov
mayor@syr.gov
mayorbuckley@cityofhornell.com
mayoreric@cityhall.nyc.gov
mayorevl@gmail.com
mayorsoffice@cityofhornell.com
mayorsoffice@whiteplainsny.gov
mblackman@brockportny.org
rkennedy@freeportny.gov
SPHInaugural@gmail.com
the97legend@gmail.com
villageclerk@clydeny.com
vwcmayor@westelcom.com
waiello@cityofolean.org
wbrazill@villageofminoa.com
Werunmtvernon@gmail.com
xmantis13@gmail.com
 
cc:
nyscma-l@ls.suny.edu
[To the entire NYSCMA list]

Friday, November 29, 2024: Regarding NYCOM And Piermont, New York Mayor Bruce Tucker – Bruce Tucker And His Company "Rainbow Linens, Inc." Make The Wall Street Journal For Falsifying Sheet Thread-Counts.
 
Dear Mayors and Other New York State Government Officials:

Please see the below:

https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/11/piermont-mayor-bruce-tucker-and-rainbow.html
“Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker And Rainbow Linens Make The Wall Street Journal For Falsifying Sheet Thread-Counts”.
 
If you pull on the thread for long enough, the whole thing unravels.
 
Piermont, New York Mayor Bruce Tucker is currently in the middle of a New York State Comptroller “Risk Assessment” scrutinizing his and the Village’s mishandling of resident taxpayer dollars and finances. The Comptroller’s “Risk Assessment” is the traditional precursor to a plenary Comptroller audit. That’s now well-known throughout the 2,500-person village:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/11/newsflash-office-of-new-york-state.html
 
What is astounding, though, is how little the Piermont, New York electorate actually knows, to this day, about Bruce Tucker and his sordid past history as a sheet and towel salesman with Elizabeth, New Jersey-based “Rainbow Linens, Inc.”
 
Well, all that is about to change. Effective now.
 
Below you can read the Year 2006 Wall Street Journal article, also picked-up in the Atlanta Constitution, explaining how, in his former garmento life in the “sheeting business”, now-Mayor Bruce Tucker actually falsified the thread-counts of his “Rainbow Linens” sheets wholesaled to retailers.
 
Bruce Tucker then got busted by the Wall Street Journal, by the Atlanta Constitution, and by Hearst’s “Good Housekeeping Research Institute” for it… Actually busted by “Good Housekeeping”!… That would be like getting thrown-out of a backstage hang with Ambrosia.
 
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Up to now, Piermont residents have wondered how they could have elected and re-elected a Mayor who, as his unsavory and unscrupulous “pet project”, propagated a fake zoning law, to enable a corrupted real estate development at 447-477 Piermont Avenue - while he lied about its environmental impacts, and while he recklessly put the Village of Piermont into a deep financial black hole by dint of his rank fiscal mismanagement otherwise.
 
Yet the answer was hiding in plain sight all the time. It’s right there in the Wall Street Journal. He is the same Bruce Tucker now, as he was then. He lied to his retailer customers and the purchasing public then. And he lies to his Piermont constituents now. Meet the Recidivist Garmento out of Elizabeth, New Jersey – Piermont’s very own hometown Mayor, none other than one Bruce Edward Tucker.
 
Now the Piermont taxpaying residents must pull on that thread, and demand Bruce Tucker’s resignation and permanent removal from office.
 
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/11/piermont-mayor-bruce-tucker-and-rainbow.html
“Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker And Rainbow Linens Make The Wall Street Journal For Falsifying Sheet Thread-Counts”.

See also:
 
Brought to you by:
Unhand Piermont!
Garmentomayor.com
RainbowLinens.com
- - - - -
 
The text of the Wall Street Journal article from Year 2006, follows below:
 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116052613652288766
Good Housekeeping Touts Its Test Lab To Seek New Readers’ Seal of Approval.
By Sarah Ellison
Oct. 11, 2006 12:01 am ET
 
The research arm of Good Housekeeping magazine has been testing products for more than a century and granting advertisers who pass muster its famous seal of approval for almost as long. In its early days, the magazine’s “experiment station” was designed to help new brides become better housekeepers.
 
The Hearst Corp. magazine has evolved since then, but it is its testing lab -- now called the Good Housekeeping Research Institute -- that has undergone the biggest facelift of late as the magazine pushes to maintain its position among traditional women’s titles while fending off arriviste like Martha Stewart Living, Real Simple and O, The Oprah Magazine.
 
[Testing a dress in the 1940s].
 
Good Housekeeping, with a circulation of 4.6 million, still has more than double the audience of the newer entries but has been losing readers over the years. Circulation is down nearly 25% since the late 1960s, and 11% since 1995.
 
The institute and its gleaming 20,000-square-foot headquarters on the 29th floor of Hearst’s new midtown Manhattan building will be part of a push to tout Good Housekeeping’s product testing, serving as the backdrop for the magazine’s regular segments on ABC’s “Good Morning America” and NBC’s “Today.” It will be the most visible sign of the magazine’s efforts in recent years to emphasize its research -- including expanding its work beyond issuing the seal of approval to qualified advertisers to rating products from linens to washing machines.
 
“I think we can use it more,” says Rosemary Ellis, who was named the magazine’s editor-in-chief in May, replacing longtime editor Ellen Levine, who became editorial director for all Hearst magazines.
 
The Good Housekeeping Seal famously promises that if a product proves defective within two years of purchase, Good Housekeeping will offer a refund to anyone who requests it. To advertise in the magazine, a product needs to qualify for the seal. Likewise, to get the seal, a product has to advertise in the magazine, which some say hurts the seal’s credibility as an objective measure of quality. Consumer Reports, for instance, doesn’t accept advertising, and has an extensive testing lab. It doesn’t offer a refund, though, to unhappy consumers.
Good Housekeeping defends the seal. “It’s a money-back guarantee,” says Publisher Patricia Haegele. “We have to be able to back it up, and the process is even more deliberate because of that when it comes to putting a seal on the product.”
 
[The seal of approval today].
 
But the seal had lost its relevance with younger consumers. “The seal still gives consumers confidence, but for people between the ages of 18 and 34 who didn’t grow up with grandma and grandpa’s Good Housekeeping seal, they’re not really sure what it means,” says Burt Flickinger, a marketing and retail consultant and managing director of Strategic Marketing Group in New York.
 
As much as the Good Housekeeping Seal became a household name throughout the last century, the testing lab behind it remained relatively unknown. That is, until Ms. Levine gave the researchers who staff the institute a broader mandate: Instead of just testing products and making sure they were safe to be advertised, she urged staffers to do their own research, to sniff out faulty products or consumer frauds that she could expose in the magazine, regardless of whether the products were advertised in Good Housekeeping. “We urged them to become reporters,” says Ms. Levine.
 
[The institute tests a variety of products, including stuffed animals].
 
Now, says Ms. Ellis, “They are all like a dog with a bone.” One of the most zealous is Kathleen Huddy, director of the institute’s textiles laboratory. Every day, Ms. Huddy tortures fabrics, rubbing rough metal over them to encourage fraying, pulling on them to see if they’ll tear and setting them on fire.
 
In 2002, she did her first towel investigation and found that many towel manufacturers added a softener to the finished product which makes the unwashed towel feel softer in the store. It also helps the towel hold its shape for a few washes. However, after being washed repeatedly (Ms. Huddy’s test includes 25 washes) the towel lost its softness and shrunk.
 
In its October issue that year the magazine ran an article telling readers, “Towels: Don’t fall for the fluff.” In it, the “biggest loser” was Martha Stewart’s Everyday Egyptian towel because it shrunk almost six inches after repeated washes. A spokeswoman for Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. said the company did its own tests and found Good Housekeeping overstated the amount of shrinkage.
 
Ms. Huddy followed up on her research earlier this summer and concluded that many manufacturers have stopped using the softener and have increased the size of their towels by two inches. She picked Kohl’s Sonoma brand as her favorite for “fade resistance” and avoiding shrinkage.
 
After the initial towel tests, Ms. Huddy turned her attention to sheets. She had noticed sheet sets on sale for $169.99 that claimed an 800-thread count. But by looking at the sheet fibers under a microscope and counting the number of threads per square inch, she discovered that some manufacturers, such as Synergy and Rainbow Linens Inc., were counting the individual plies that make up each of the threads in the thread-counts, thereby doubling the actual number. A follow-up earlier this year found similar problems with other brands, including Synergy.
 
Bruce Tucker, Rainbow’s owner, says his company now only use single-ply threads, but it had nothing to do with the institute’s findings. Synergy did not return calls seeking comment.
[Bold-face emphasis added].
 
In Hearst’s new corporate headquarters, which officially opened earlier this week, the institute gets a whole floor. It houses 15 employees as well as multiple test kitchens and labs, a climatology chamber to expose products to extreme temperatures, a soundproof room and updated equipment to test things ranging from the durability of stuffed animals to the effect of moisturizers on human skin.
 
The first thing visitors to the newly revamped institute see when they walk through the glass doors is a white wall with a red line slashed through the middle of it. Above the horizontal line are “good” products, those that have earned the Good Housekeeping Seal. Below is a kind of hall of shame of products such as a princess dress that easily caught on fire or a “fake fitness belt,” a vibrating belt that was designed to help a user lose weight but burned some people instead.
 
Write to Sarah Ellison at sarah.ellison@wsj.com




































Bruce Tucker, NY CON.

 
Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.
John J. Tormey III, PLLC
1636 Third Avenue, PMB 188
New York, NY  10128  USA
(212) 410-4142 (phone)
(212) 410-2380 (fax)
jtormey@optonline.net
https://www.tormey.org
 
Saturday, November 30, 2024
 
VIA FAX: 1-845-638-5298, and U.S. MAIL
District Attorney Tom Walsh
Rockland County District Attorney’s Office
1 South Main St, Suite 500
New City, New York 10956-3549 USA
 
VIA U.S. MAIL and E-MAIL:
info@rocklandda.org
Criminal Investigations Unit
Rockland County District Attorney’s Office
1 South Main St, Suite 500
New City, New York 10956-3549 USA
 
Re: NEW Financial Information Regarding Piermont, New York And Mayor Bruce Tucker
 
Dear District Attorney Walsh, and Colleagues:
 
Further to my April 17, 2024 and July 21, 2024 letters to your office, and mindful that the Village of Piermont is currently under an OSC “Risk Assessment” inquiry, investigation, or audit as the case may be - there has been a significant new development in Piermont with potentially grave economic and other impact to the Village.
 
My belief is that your office should be made aware of this news now, if not aware already. I have also informed OSC about it.
 
1. The Piermont Pier Tip Is Crumbling. It was just reported-out to all of us on Thursday, Thanksgiving Day, November 28, 2024, that the end of the famed and cherished Piermont Pier is in imminent danger of collapse into the Hudson River. Piermont Village government has shut it down and closed it off:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/11/attention-piermont-residents-your-mayor.html

https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/11/piermont-piers-final-section-closed.html
 
2. Mayor Bruce Tucker Said That He Had Approximately US$3,000,000 Banked. I trust that you will recall this next part from prior correspondence. Mayor Bruce Tucker attested in an April 16, 2024 Board of Trustees meeting and in a subsequent RCBJ interview published on July 30, 2024, that Tucker and Piermont Village government were flush with a US$3,210,196 “unassigned Fund Balance”. Mayor Tucker further indicated in that meeting that he would only be using US$216,000 of that US$3,210,196 “unassigned Fund Balance” to offset the pain of a 6.9% tax increase inflicted on Piermont resident taxpayers because, in Tucker’s words at the time:
 
“Bond counsel recommends not to take from the fund balance because it will affect the Village’s credit rating. [Emphasis supplied]. The credit rating decides the rate of interest the Village will pay on Bond (Capital) items. Currently the Villages[sic] S&P rating is AA+.”
See “Incorporated Village or Piermont, Board of Trustees Meeting”, April 16, 2024 Minutes, Page 4 of 8, at:
https://cms9files1.revize.com/piermont/document_center/Agendas%20&%20Minutes/2024/Minutes/BOT%20Meeting%20Minutes%20April%2016%202024.pdf

Therefore, even assuming arguendo that Mayor Tucker already parted with US$216,000 in tax relief, it would stand to reason that he would have approximately US$3 million remaining, extant, and banked. Yet based upon the below, it now appears that he either never had it to begin with, or if he did ever have it, he since squandered it.
 
3. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker Is Now Begging People For Money. Unbelievably, Mayor Tucker and Piermont Village Hall are now, in essence, pleading poverty in their public statements about the imminent collapse of, and needed repair or replacement of, the Piermont Pier tip. We are now told that the Village Board is “investigating the possibility of potential [g]rants[emphasis added] that may be available to replace” the crumbling Pier section:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/11/attention-piermont-residents-your-mayor.html
 
Moreover, Mayor Tucker himself was quoted in yesterday’s Journal News article as pathetically begging for money to replace the crumbling Pier tip:
 
“The Village Board was working on obtaining cost quotes to replace the concrete portion, which includes seeking grants… ‘We are going to need some major money here”, Tucker said. “If anyone has any money, we’d love to talk to them’”. [Emphasis added].
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/11/piermont-piers-final-section-closed.html
 
4. It Now Appears That Tucker’s Claim Of A US$3,000,000 Fund Balance, Was A Lie. Mayor Bruce Tucker is an individual who took the Village of Piermont from a US$800,000 Net Position surplus, way deep into a negative (-US$7,600,000) Net Position abyss, in his seven short incompetent years as Piermont’s Mayor. It now appears that this former garment industry hack’s April 16, 2024 and July 30, 2024 public attestations about having US$3,000,000 banked for the benefit of the Piermont residents who trusted him, was simply of whole cloth. Same as it ever was. Just like he lied about his sheeting company’s thread-counts then, he is lying about Piermont’s finances now:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/11/piermont-mayor-bruce-tucker-and-rainbow.html

Why would Mayor Bruce Tucker “need major money” and beg rich individuals for it in the Journal News, if he had US$3,000,000 safely banked in an “unassigned Fund Balance”?
 
5. Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker Is A Fiscal Failure. The fact of the matter is, Bruce Tucker’s failures as Piermont's Mayor caused Piermont’s current financial distress. Tucker and the Village obviously did not adequately plan for eventualities. In a rare moment of ingenuousness from Tucker in a different interview:
 
“‘[E]verything hit at once’, the mayor said. ‘We’re dealing with sticker shock on insurances, inflation, [sic] huge retirement mandates by New York State’.”
https://rcbizjournal.com/2024/07/30/piermont-mayor-bruce-tucker-talks-about-controversy-engulfing-his-village/

https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2024/08/piermont-do-you-speak-succubus.html
 
Piermont Mayor Bruce Tucker is not only an economic disaster.
 
He cannot even keep his own story straight, press interview-to-press interview.
 
I hope that you and your colleagues will see fit to incorporate the new information contained in this letter, and the above-quoted statements out of Mayor Bruce Tucker’s own mouth, into a further review and analysis of the misconduct of the Village of Piermont government and Mayor Bruce Tucker.
 
The residents of the Village of Piermont are counting on you.
 
Thank you for your continued attention to this matter.
 
Very truly yours,

John J. Tormey III, Esq.
Resident of the Town of Orangetown, New York