Supervisor addresses concerns about construction near Round Lake

Town of Monroe Supervisor Maureen Richardson, during the April 20 Monroe Town Board meeting, addressed some residents’ concerns about construction activity near Round Lake. According to the Supervisor, they have spoken with the homeowner of the site and visited it, determining that the project is the graveling of a driveway that connects to a town road.

The board will remain in talks with the homeowner. A temporary stop-work order was placed on the project due to some concerns about the stream and wetlands that may be affected. However, no violations have been discovered so far with the project.

“We are not concerned about environmental impacts at this time,” stated Supervisor Richardson.

Supervisor Richardson addressed that there was misinformation spreading about a playground being built on the site and stated that that was false.

Supervisor Richardson also mentioned that they are not accepting applications for new zoning or planning projects at this time due to the recent loss of planning board and zoning board secretary Norinne McSweeney. A motion from the floor was passed to appoint Town Clerk Valerie Bitzer to sign on behalf of Norinne McSweeney for planning and zoning matters until a new secretary for those boards is hired.

New appoints, IMAs

There were a few new appointments to town personnel during the meeting. Barbara Singer was appointed as first deputy town clerk and Mildred Torres was appointed as second deputy town clerk. Susan Cirello was moved from the position of part-time account clerk to full-time account clerk. The board thanked these individuals for their hard work and dedication to the town.

Two Inter-Municipal Agreements (IMAs) were signed by the supervisor during the meeting. The first was for the 2026 Dial-A-Ride Woodbury IMA at a renewal rate of $18,500 paid to Monroe, and the second was for a Woodbury Animal Shelter IMA, which renewed the contract terms at a cost not to exceed $33,000.

Board addresses New York For All Act

Multiple residents encouraged the town board to sign and support the New York For All Act during public comment. The act “broadly prohibits state and local officers from enforcing federal immigration laws, funneling people into ICE custody, and sharing sensitive information with federal immigration agents,” according to the New York Civil Liberties Union website. Each of the board members gave their thoughts on the act after residents finished their public comments.

Supervisor Richardson stated that they are a bi-partisan board, and getting into certain political requests extends beyond their purview, especially since the legislation focuses on state-level changes. She also mentioned that the town does not meet all of the qualifications of the act, since they do not have a town police force.

“When we took a look at the other act, I have no problem saying that that’s not my purview, I’m not a state senator, I’m not an assemblyperson. We don’t have a police force, so I support – and I speak for myself – every sentiment that you’ve said, but do I feel comfortable weighing in on state-level legislation? No. Town Hall is for town business, and that’s just what I feel,” Supervisor Richardson stated.

“The New York For All act ... there’s so many facets to it, and like the supervisor mentioned before, we don’t have a police force. So, because we don’t have a police force it is kind of hard for us to impose something that there’s no one to impose it on, because we don’t have a police force,” said Councilman J. Luis Rivera.

Councilwoman Mary Bingham also expressed her general support for the act, but she also expressed that the wording of the act and the specifics of not having a police force is why the board cannot fully support it at this time. She stated, “In general, I’m in support of it ... the way it’s written right now, that’s why the board can’t support it, because we don’t have that section that applies to us. I would support the New York For All act if it could be reworded ...”

Councilwoman Bethany Stephens stated on the matter, “I do see it as town business because it affects members of our town ... It’s really not hard for me to be okay with the New York For All Act, because it does keep ICE out of our schools and out of our hospitals, and it does affect residents. I’m still open to supporting it.”