Signatures 404 total
-
1
Name: Martin Greenberg on Dec 3, 2010Comments: This project is simply not "Smart Growth". It is too dense and the residential portion will place additional tax burden on the residents. Since the property is currently zoned commercial, residential is not allowed. We need a college campus extension in our county and could use an amphitheater. These could be worked into the plan as quality of life improvements are Smart Growth. DO THE RIGHT THING FOR A CHANGE!Flag
-
2
Name: Bhavani Babu on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
3
Name: David Leonard on Dec 3, 2010Comments: There is NOTHING SMART about this growth. I would welcome growth as long as our infrastructure can support it, but it is MOST ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that we cannot. Route 6 is already jammed beyond its ability and INTENT. The Police, Fire and Emergency crews cannot possibly sustain this kind of growth. The school system is ALREADY MEDIOCRE, and the influx of 100 more students will not help it compete with other school systems in downstate New York. We are already forced to send our child to private school because we will not settle for the low standards of Mahopac High School. And with funding options available to us, this does not help fatten the budget surplus. THE ONLY REASON I CAN IMAGINE THAT THE TOWN OF CARMEL and the ZBA WOULD ALLOW SUCH SHORT-SIGHTED "PLANNING" IS ABJECT GREED OR LAZINESS. Who's on the payroll??? Let's get it together and deal with this in an appropriate manner--REJECTION.Flag
-
4
Name: John Kaprielian on Dec 3, 2010Comments: I respectfully request that the zoning variances not be allowed, nor the zoning LAW be changed, to allow the project to go ahead as proposed. A much more appropriate use for the property would be as a combination corporate park (where the residences are proposed) and preserving the farm buildings and creating a cultural center with a performance venue, artists studios, galleries, and shops.Flag
-
5
Name: KIaus Zimmermann on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
6
Name: Jerry Ravnitzky on Dec 3, 2010Comments: Do not destroy the quality of life of our town!Flag
-
7
Name: Eugene Boesch on Dec 3, 2010Comments: An additional big-box store or other commercial development along the road at the gate-way between Putnam and Westchester Counties should not be the first impression given to travelers and hardly fits the “Come to Where the Country Begins” slogan penned by the Putnam County Tourist Bureau to attract visitors. A Union Place property development devoted in large part to preserving the landscape and celebrating Mahopac’s past would be consistent with the Bureau’s sentiment and serve as a wonderful introduction to our town and attractive incentive to return.Flag
-
8
Name: Ann Fanizzi on Dec 3, 2010Comments: Camarda and his accomplices in the Town destroyed one gateway to Carmel substituting monopoly houses for a priceless vista and now they are hell bent on devastating the southern gateway to Westchester forever erasing one of the last historical icons in Carmel - Mahopac Farms.Flag
-
9
Name: Arthur Singer on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
10
Name: Thomas Casey on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
11
Name: Dawn Poallo on Dec 3, 2010Comments: My husband and I am very opposed to this. It will impact the schools and traffic, just to name a few.Flag
-
12
Name: Mario Riccobon on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
13
Name: James Wool on Dec 3, 2010Comments: We don't need another group of un-rented storesFlag
-
14
Name: Cindy Katz on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
15
Name: Sarah Kooluris on Dec 3, 2010Comments: We live off of Baldwin Place Road and are extremely opposed to this "developement".Flag
-
16
Name: Johanna Groepl on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
17
Name: Amy Boesch on Dec 3, 2010Comments: We lost access to much of the Lake Mahopac shoreline due to development, eliminating any tourist potential it had. I do not want to see the same happen at the entrance to Mahopac and Putnam County ("Where the County Begins", according to the County slogan).Flag
-
18
Name: Randy Tompkins on Dec 3, 2010Comments: Too Large----No trust in the developer-------Flag
-
19
Name: Fred Lambert on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
20
Name: Anonymous on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
21
Name: Anthony Seda on Dec 3, 2010Comments: This is not SMART GROWTH.Flag
-
22
Name: Ann Marie Catania on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
23
Name: Anonymous on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
24
Name: Paul Spiegel on Dec 3, 2010Comments: It seems everywhere I turn these days, developers like Paul Camarda are trying to turn Putnam County into White Plains. This sort of development will kill us with new taxes not to mention traffic conjestion and pollution. White Plains continues to bost one of the highest tax rates in the UNITED STATES. Near by suburbs of NYC are not far behind. Tell Camarda to go back to Connecticut where he came from. He is destroying the character and history of our beloved county. As he proved with Patterson Crossing, his promises to finance his developments are shifted to the back of the taxpayer.Flag
-
25
Name: Wendy Dinsmore on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
26
Name: Anonymous on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
27
Name: James Libby on Dec 3, 2010Comments: Now would be a good time to find a developer who would restore the farm and theatre as a tourist destination. Including a "quaint" bed and breakfast, not more sprawl by an unscrupulous developer.Flag
-
28
Name: Chris Trivlis on Dec 3, 2010Comments: Congestion will have to be dealt with. Who is going to give up their land for the need for more outlet roads and wider roads? Eminent Domain is a very real threat for many people here if this moves forward.Flag
-
29
Name: Katie Nugent on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
30
Name: Joyce Lambert on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
31
Name: William Martinelli on Dec 3, 2010Comments: We don't have the infrastructure, we already have plenty of vacant retail space in the two other shopping centers within a half mile, and don't need the added tax burden, and strain on our volunteer fire department. The fact they are all ready dishonest in estimating the additional burden on our school system is enough to say no.Flag
-
32
Name: Anonymous on Dec 3, 2010Comments: The traffic this project will create makes the proposal untenable. This county already has essential gridlock for residents commuting within the county for jobs and shopping.Flag
-
33
Name: John Leo on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
34
Name: Joann Leo on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
35
Name: Pat Nicolais on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
36
Name: John J. Retta on Dec 3, 2010Comments: When I first saw this project a few years ago, I was for it...not knowing how enormous it was in actuality. I like to refer to Mahopac as a rural/suburban town, and building this "city" within the town doesn't help anyone except the builder. All other factors aside......TRAFFIC TRAFFIC TRAFFIC. 6N will become the new 6, people from either side will use it a new way of getting around this project, and besides that, how many more traffic lights will we have to endure? One of the reason Bob Pozzi didn't get re-elected is because he wanted to add 2 - 3 lights on 6.Flag
-
37
Name: Noel J. Holland on Dec 3, 2010Comments: Over the 40 years we have owned a home in Carmel we have seen it go from a lovely rural village to a haven for so-called developers, with McMansions springing up in areas that used to be protected wetlands subject to the old 1.5-acre zoning restrictions. Carmel is no longer a lovely rural village and unfortunately we can't roll back the clock, but...ENOUGH, ALREADY! Let's not turn our corner of Putnam County into one spralling, ugly shopping mall and "development."Flag
-
38
Name: Dr. Patrick J. Delamere on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
39
Name: Anonymous on Dec 3, 2010Comments: Ken - I know your heart has been in the right place in the past. So I can't believe that this monstrosity is going to be built on your watch. Union Place will only accomplish the following: Increased costs requiring more police and fire protection at the taxpayer expense. Polluted water in the Lake Baldwin area with any remediation efforts paid for by the taxpayers of the Town of Carmel Dangerous traffic conditions throughout Baldwin Place with spillover effects into Stillwater Road, 6N, Myrtle Ave, Baldwin Place Road, 118, US 6 Increased school taxes as we're laying off teachers now and we'll have an influx of new students to pay for if residential units are built More empty commercial space throughout the town to add to the already growing number of empty units Downward pressure on residential housing as we're already in a glut and don't need more More foreclosures as empty properties lower values pushing more real estate "under water" and no longer worth paying off Need I go on??!!! Ken - please think again about this. Union Place will never pay for itself. And that means we the taxpayers will be stuck with the bill. If you put this to a vote right now - a referendum - you know that Union Place would be trounced. So please do what you were elected to do. Represent the taxpayers wishes. Use your powers to stop Union Place. We simply can't afford it. By the way - if you are planning on running for office again - you have to know that Union Place will get the other guy elected - no matter who he is.Flag
-
40
Name: Janet Berberich on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
41
Name: Peter Tezner on Dec 3, 2010Comments: At the meeting two weeks ago the town was overwhelmingly against this project for reasons that were quite obvious. If the Planing Board passes this project against the will of the people then there is something terribly amiss with their duties as guardians of our quality of life.Flag
-
42
Name: Howard Kilik on Dec 3, 2010Comments: This property should be approved for development that will benefit the community rather than create environmental, traffic, and service sector burdens that will not enhance our community, but rather raise costs and stress for us all.Flag
-
43
Name: Clara Boesch on Dec 3, 2010Comments: I do not feel we need another shopping center within our town. Too many are not filled to capacity as it is. I would like to see some other, more passive use for the property.Flag
-
44
Name: Hilda Boesch on Dec 3, 2010Comments: I am a senior citizen and long time resident. The amount of development along Rt. 6 would have made my parents very sad.Flag
-
45
Name: Lori Kemp on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
46
Name: Stan Babiarz on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
47
Name: Roger Phillips on Dec 3, 2010Comments: We need to preserve what is left of historic Mahopac!Flag
-
48
Name: Donna Santoro on Dec 3, 2010Comments:Flag
-
49
Name: John Kotoski on Dec 3, 2010Comments: In and of itself this project offers nothing unique and is unimaginatively similar to other Smart Growth projects. What it does offer is increased traffic, increased school enrollment, and more demands placed on fire, police protection, sanitation and the aquifer. This is just more suburban sprawl.Flag
-
50
Name: Marsha Waldman on Dec 3, 2010Comments: The proposed development cannot be supported with the water resources that are described in the DIEP. If built, it could damage the community water supply and/or require that we build water treatment facilities that will radically change the fiscal structure of our town. In addition, it cannot be protected by our existing police department and is likely to draw crime to our community. It is so close to the high school it could endanger the safety of students. The volunteer fire department is not prepared to respond to fires in the large structures proposed which may result in our town needing a paid force, with all the resulting salaries, benefits, and retirement expenses. Please! Don't sell out our town to Carmarda!Flag