http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Tougher state laws needed to protect Schenectady’s aquifer

   The 2007 legislative session reintroduced proposed revisions to amend the New York State Public Health Law, [A2057 and S902] to increase the penalties for persons found to have violated regulations pertaining to the protection and contamination of public water supplies.
   These laws have not been updated or amended since first introduced in 1885 and 1899. Currently, these laws do not adequately penalize property owners who are in violation of the Public Health Law. Accordingly, prosecutors are restricted to assessing penalties of $200 per violation in sensitive aquifer protection areas that are critical to maintaining public water supplies.
   Recently, the town of Rotterdam and Schenectady County had to prosecute a property owner for a violation of the Schenectady County Watershed Rules and Regulations that involved a property used as a junkyard and for the storage of waste and debris in a sensitive aquifer area. Despite a court order, the property owner failed to comply with the watershed rules and regulations and the cleanup had to be funded by the town of Rotterdam and Schenectady County.
   In a cooperative effort to deter the unlawful use of properties in sensitive aquifer protection zones, the fi ve municipalities that compose the Schenectady County Intermunicipal Watershed Rules and Regulations Board (city of Schenectady, village of Scotia, and towns of Glenville, Niskayuna, and Rotterdam) are considering, or have already increased, their local zoning code enforcement penalties to the maximum amounts possible.
   In addition to the local enforcement described above, the reintroduced legislation would allow the state Health Department to also impose administrative civil penalties for violations of the New York State Public Health Law. More serious violations would be deemed a misdemeanor, subject to higher penalties, and also subject to the possibility of court-order reparations for any permanent and/or substantial damage that may have resulted from the violation.
   It is now the responsibility of the state Legislature to fully support these bills and pass this important and vital legislation. The use of properties as illegal junkyards, the illegal disposal of construction and demolition material, and other land uses in sensitive aquifer areas and identified as having the potential to compromise the public’s water resources need to be deterred by increasing the current antiquated penalties.
   The Great Flats Aquifer of Schenectady County supplies potable water to nearly 150,000 residents in both Schenectady and Saratoga counties. It is one of many critical natural resources that need to be protected and preserved by the passage of these bills.
   We urge that New York state legislators act on these bills immediately.
   MARY BARRIE
   Rotterdam
The writer is a member of the Rotterdam Conservation Advisory Council. Her letter was signed and endorsed by the entire council.  

  
  
  

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Junkyard problem prompts legislation
BY BOB CONNER Gazette Reporter
Reach Gazette reporter Bob Conner at 462-2499 or bconner@dailygazette.net.

   The frustration experienced by local officials in trying to close down an illegal junkyard in Schenectady County has spurred an effort at the state level to toughen penalties for violation of Health Department regulations.
   Rotterdam Town Supervisor Steve Tommasone and Peter Edman, an aide to Sen. Hugh Farley, R-Niskayuna, both said concerns about the Marotta property on Route 5S in Pattersonville, and its potential pollution of an aquifer that feeds public water supplies in the region, played a role in motivating lawmakers to draw up the legislation, which was sponsored by Farley and then-Assemblyman Paul Tonko, D-Amsterdam. Following Tonko’s resignation from the Assembly to head up the New York Energy Research and Development Authority, Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh, a Manhattan Democrat, took over the sponsorship in that house.
   The bills, S-902 and A-9367, would toughen penalties for violations of rules relating to possible contamination of water supplies, including raising fines to up to $1,000 a day, instead of the current $200 per violation. According to the bill memo, the current penalties have not been updated since the late nineteenth century.
   The Rotterdam Town Board last week voted unanimously to urge passage of the legislation. So far, however, and despite having majority-party sponsors, the bill has not made it out of the health committee in either house.
   Edman said that is in part because the focus of the committees has been elsewhere. An aide to Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, DManhattan, chairman of the Health Committee, confirmed this, but said the Assembly sponsors do not appear to have been active in bringing the bill to the attention of the committee. The aide said the penalties would need to be consistent with other federal and state regulations, but does not see any immediate reason why Gottfried would oppose the bill.
   Edman said there are other similar pieces of legislation around that the health committees will need to examine and reconcile, a process he expects to take place this fall and expects to be involved in. The Legislature is not now in session. He said he was not aware of opposition to the concept of updating and strengthening penalties.
   Tommasone noted that potential threats to the aquifer are widespread, citing as an example the state Department of Transportation’s former practice of dumping fill near the Campbell Road exit of Interstate 890.  

Quoted Text

The Rotterdam Town Board last week voted unanimously to urge passage of the legislation.

Wow....the word 'unanimously'...which means of course that Robert 'no change' Godlewski voted for it! Of course this really isn't changing the course of Rotterdam, just doing something that should have been done years ago. And of course it won't cost any money!

Quoted from bumblethru

Wow....the word 'unanimously'...which means of course that Robert 'no change' Godlewski voted for it! Of course this really isn't changing the course of Rotterdam, just doing something that should have been done years ago. And of course it won't cost any money!

Probably just another "feel good" vote.  Plus, let's remember, as we get closer to November, people, I think that the residents of the outlying towns in the western part of the county have now shown, through their vote greatly in favor of Mr. Amedore, that they DO have some sort of power in deciding what happens not just at the town level, but also at the state, and therefore, the county level.

Yes, the view is bigger than just our Town Hall and this forum.....But, the weedy vines that have infiltrated and become overgrown are right up the the government tree.....Grassroots are very much needed.....

Obviously, it is all a political thing. And the dems have been in control long enough. It is time for the changing of the guards. Don't know if the reps can do any better, but we clearly do not have an alternative.

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Impose, then enforce, tough dumping laws

   The town of Rotterdam, embroiled in two separate incidents last year involving the dumping of illegal junk or construction and demolition fill on land near the county aquifer, is wisely working to get the state to toughen laws that deal with such environmental threats.
   When the town was in the middle of its protracted battle with Michael Marotta over his operation of an illegal junkyard in the aquifer recharge zone, Supervisor Steven Tommasone regularly complained about the state’s antiquated public health law, which allowed for fines of no more than $200 for such violations. He was absolutely right, and it’s good news that he managed to persuade Sen. Hugh Farley and (before he departed a couple months ago) Assemblyman Paul Tonko to sponsor bills in their respective houses that would boost the penalties for jeopardizing public water supplies to as much as $1,000 per day. The bills failed to make it out of their respective health committees, which is hardly surprising given the glacial pace at which the Legislature typically acts.
   On the other hand, the town did have a chance to come down harder on persistent scofflaw Marotta, but ultimately let him off with little more than a slap on the wrist: Instead of the misdemeanor he was originally charged with, which would have permitted a deserved jail sentence of up to six months, the town agreed last winter to let Marotta plead to two violations, carrying a fine of just $500; and it dropped entirely similar charges against his mother.
   A get-tough approach is absolutely called for in these cases — the aquifer is the sole drinking water source for more than 100,000 county residents — and the state law is indeed pretty lame. Rotterdam made its local law tougher in the aftermath of the Marotta case. But even under the old law in effect at the time, the town could have come down a lot harder on this unrepentant lawbreaker, but passed.

  
  
  

Isn't it amusing how we pick and choose who can trash the aquifer and who can't. Ya just can't trash it anymore than the Rotterdam Sprawl Mall and the SI Group that has every cancer causing agent on premises known to man! Now that's what I call 'trashing the aquifer'!

Quoted Text

he managed to persuade Sen. Hugh Farley and (before he departed a couple months ago) Assemblyman Paul Tonko to sponsor bills in their respective houses that would boost the penalties for jeopardizing public water supplies to as much as $1,000 per day.

Okay...so here  is one thing that Tonko did!

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

ROTTERDAM
County plans to recoup cleanup costs
Officials claiming right to lease out Marotta land
BY JUSTIN MASON Gazette Reporter

   Schenectady County officials are banking on a seldom-used provision within the state’s Public Health law to recoup costs incurred during the spring cleanup of Michael Marotta’s property in Pattersonville.
   County Attorney Chris Gardner said the law would allow Schenectady County to lease out the vacant property off Route 5S for the $15,457 owed by Marotta for the cleanup. Under the law, the county would seek bids for a lease of the 5-acre property for the exact amount of the outstanding debt. Bidders would specify the duration of the lease, which would be awarded to the proposal for the shortest duration, Gardner said.
   “We’re preparing our lawsuit to collect the money under Public Health law,” he said Monday. “If they don’t pay it, then we’re prepared to lease out the property.”
   Gardner said the lease provision isn’t one that has been used before in Schenectady. However, he expressed confidence that the law would allow the county to recoup its costs.
   “One way or another, we’re going to get the money from Mr. Marotta,” he said. “He’s the one who polluted [the property], so he’s the one who has to pay for it.”
   But Marotta’s lawyer, Frank Putorti Jr., disputed the legal grounds for the county’s action. He said the county is trying to recover money it had no business spending in the first place.
   “They didn’t have to spend all that money, it was unnecessary,” he said. “They prevented Michael from using the property and they took equipment off his property that was running.”
   Putori said it is the county that should owe Marotta money for removing his equipment and preventing him from accessing his land.
   He said Marotta filed a notice of claim against the county this summer and will likely file a countersuit once the county attempts to recover the money spent on the cleanup. “If they sue us first, I expect we’ll file a counter-claim,”
   Marotta cannot be reached by phone.
   For nearly two years, the county has wrangled with Marotta over the use and condition of his vacant property, located just south of the Route 160 intersection. Both the county Health Department and Intermunicipal Watershed Board filed charges against Marotta, citing that the old machinery and vehicles stored on it could pose a threat to a sensitive recharge area of the Great Flats Aquifer.
   In April, state Supreme Court Justice Joseph Sise issued a permanent injunction against Marotta, giving the county the authority to clean up the property. Marotta tried to stop the county action by seeking a restraining order, but was denied by the court.
   The county initially awarded R. Freedman & Sons of Green Island a $5,200 contract to clean the property, a cost based partially on a number of items the company had hoped to salvage. The contract was later increased by $3,800 after Marotta removed several items from the property that the company considered valuable. Sheriff’s deputies were then posted at the site at a cost of $500 per day to prevent the landowner from removing any other items.
   Gardner said Marotta owes the county $2,000 in fines besides the cost of the cleanup. He said Marotta also owes “a few thousand” in back taxes on the property and could eventually face foreclosure proceedings.
   “They’re on our list of delinquent properties,” he said.
   Gardner is also looking into recent claims that more equipment and refuse has appeared on the property. He said there is some evidence that a truck and some new tires were dumped on the site.
   “There is some indications of [the junk] creeping back in,” he said.  

  
  
  

As far as recouping this money goes, I think it's a no-brainer.  The county should get it's money back.  Now, from what I've heard, when a case goes before the court, they can actually take the money directly out of paychecks that Mr. Marotta would receive.  Is this not a possibility, since he's in construction and it would be on a per-project basis?  Are there other incomes that the Marotta family has that this lein can be taken out against?  

And isn't this more of the same?

Quoted Text

Marotta cannot be reached by phone.

Maybe he doesn't have a phone?  And if he doesn't, how does he get projects to pay for the land (and the taxes on it) that he did own?  

And I say that after the town leases this land for however long it's going to take to get back this money, they should actually have direct ownership of it, in the new deed for the property, it should state that Mr. Marotta and any relative and/or descendant should not be able to own this land for a specified amount of time (considering the genealogy work that may have to be done in the distant future, make it a 50 year or 100 year thing, where it would only go through 2 or 3 generations, giving someone else a chance to make a change inhow this family operates).

I also say that any of the equipment that can be identified as being on that property on the date of the county possession should be considered county property and in that, if Mr. Marotta sells this to someone else, or better yet is using it on a future project, he should be held accountable as if he stole this equipment from the county or from the people who were contracted to clean up this dump.

BTW, has anybody ever seen, or actually have a picture of this Marotta guy?  Or is he a vampire and would not appear in person during daylight or a photograph?

Okay, let me say that I am not trying to defend Mr. Marotta, per say. But come on  and lighten up here. He is a life long Rotterdamian. He is our 'neighbor'. Perhaps one that didn't behave in the manner we would approve. But my God, I am somewhat disappointed at the 'Lynch mob' behavior' of my other Rotterdamian neighbors and 'the gazette'. And perhaps Mr. Marotta brought this all on himself, but ya know what? Why doesn't the 'Lynch mob' go after the town government for allowing the trashing of the Aquifer by the Rotterdam Square Mall, Putnam Condos. The new proposed development where the old Main florist one stood. The mobil station on the corner of Burdeck & Campbell who's uphill of the aquifer and has been known to leak chemicals on occassion. And then there is the SI Group. Not to mention the trees taken down for development that was a 'natural' filter for the aquifer.

Mr. Larned is uphill of the aquifer. I see no complaint there. Or perhaps if condo's or housing was built on that triangle, than people would show concern? And if folks were 'really' concerned about the aquifer, and health concerns in general, then the folks should have been screaming for public sewers years ago.  Our sh** is contained in underground cement boxes, around, near and over the aquifer for God's sake. Who is regulating them?

I mean really, it's not like Mr. Marotta is a murderer, drug dealer, rapist, child molester or bank robber!!! And now the 'Lynch Mob' wants to take his land away!!! Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with this picture?  Geeezzzz!

Quoted Text

But Marotta’s lawyer, Frank Putorti Jr.,

Isn't the name Putorti involved in County issues.....a family member in politics??

Quoted Text

He is a life long Rotterdamian

I thought that he was residing in Colonie?....this may have been on the old forum...

The leaders are dancing and singing an old song...

"....it is good that one should 'die' for the many..."

Did we REALLY think this would be an attack on 'the peoples machine'......just a red herring......

Just put a lein on the property and garnish his wages until such debt is paid......DONT TAKE THE PROPERTY....BAD BAD THING......
put the code enforcers to work.....

Quoted Text

   For nearly two years, the county has wrangled with Marotta over the use and condition of his vacant property, located just south of the Route 160 intersection. Both the county Health Department and Intermunicipal Watershed Board filed charges against Marotta, citing that the old machinery and vehicles stored on it could pose a threat to a sensitive recharge area of the Great Flats Aquifer.

"Could pose a threat"! Well so does our vehicles that drive over this sensitive area. So does the run off from the Rotterdam Square Mall. And what about GE? Our septic systems could 'pose a threat' also.
Pallleeezzze....if it was really about the aquifer, people would be vocalizing their concerns with other issues that pose a threat to these 'sensitive' areas.

It all boils down to.....IT DIDN'T LOOK GOOD!  And that's okay...just say it for what it is! This was clearly a code enforcer issue!!!!!

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Physics, sewage and the development near Rotterdam Square
MARJORIE L. SCHMID Rotterdam

   Rotterdam’s current leaders are doing their best to play catch-up after decades of short-term thinking, which allowed development with no long-term planning and limited oversight. No wonder we have drainage and flooding problems, crumbling roads and major septic problems!
   Twenty-five years ago, when I was one of the group fighting the construction of Rotterdam Square Mall, the lack of a sewer line on Campbell Road, about a half-mile downhill from the sewage plant, was a major issue. Wilmorite repeatedly claimed their mall, employing an underground septic holding tank for nighttime pumping up to the plant, was more protective of the aquifer than the structures with septic systems they would be demolishing.
   So they constructed a septic holding tank under the Campbell Road side of Kmart’s parking lot for 74 stores in a 650,000-square-foot mall, for which they were finally granted a permit. The problem is they built 101 stores in 800,000-square-feet and later added Hess (now Macy’s).
   A few years later the town allowed [developer] Bob Iovinella to pave over 19-plus acres of woods and open fields across from the mall, rearrange and reroute a stream, cut off the back of Camp Tippecanoe to build BJ’s, Office Max, Schermerhorn Hollow Village and Burger King. All their septics went into Wilmorite’s holding tank.
   Next came the 64-unit Edison Apartments, emptying into the same line! Once, it exploded and parts of two parking lots were needed for repairs. It has backed up twice. Naturally the flow seeks the lowest elevation — Burger King and lower Putnam Road.
   During Supervisor Paolino’s reign, he pushed through zoning changes on the secondary aquifer overlay area (240 to 250 feet in elevation) which allowed George Amedore Jr. to build 42 condos called Putnam Woods across from Burger King, with a “state-of-the-art” septic system. They wanted Schonowe School and nearby residents to hook into it. They hold all the septic on-site in a wood-enclosed structure to the left of the Annabelle Boulevard entrance, and guess where they pump it to in the wee hours? The biggest guess is, where will they move this behemoth now that a neighbor has won a lawsuit requesting just that!
   A July storm brought down several remaining trees on the property, taking out power for 24 hours and blocking the only entrance road. Project attorney Donald Zee claimed the required secondary road wasn’t necessary, and if firemen couldn’t get in they had a “state-of-the-art sprinkler system.”
   There’s more. The developers of Long Pond Village, 192 apartments in eight buildings “have agreed to help upgrade the mall’s sanitary pump station” [Sept. 5 Gazette]. The mall is 237-239 feet in elevation. The former Main Florist is 228-230 feet, and was flooded regularly. The elevation of the critical aquifer overlay zone on the other side of Campbell Road is 223-227 feet.
   Can lawyers and builders rewrite the law that liquids seek the lowest level?