Reform eyed after Smithtown demolition probe

A day after a Suffolk grand jury criticized Smithtown town officials for encouraging an illegal demolition of buildings, town leaders said Wednesday they would consider adopting reforms recommended by the panel.

Meanwhile, town officials said the end of the grand jury probe may accelerate long-delayed development at the site of a closed lumber yard where those officials said the demolition occurred in 2009.

Without naming names, the 42-page grand jury report released Tuesday indicated two town officials pressured a developer to improperly raze buildings on a property he owned. The grand jury recommended no charges be brought against those involved.

Town Councilman Edward Wehrheim acknowledged Wednesday he is the person identified in the report as "Town Employee E," who advised the developer not to tear down the buildings. But Wehrheim said he could not identify others in the report.

He and other town leaders said the investigation was prompted by the 2009 demolition at the former lumber yard at 102 Main St., across from Town Hall.

Wehrheim and others said the investigation stalled development at the site, owned by East Hampton developer Salvatore DiCarlo.

"This investigation held up that property for three years," said Councilman Robert Creighton, who like Wehrheim said he favors DiCarlo's plans to build on the site.

In recent months, DiCarlo has offered a downsized version of previous plans to build retail space and apartments at the site, said town planning director Frank DeRubeis. He said DiCarlo's representatives have not contacted the department since early January.

An attorney for DiCarlo did not return a call for comment.

Because of the way the demolition was handled, the grand jury said Smithtown should impose stiffer fines for violating town codes, strengthen ethics rules, train building department employees in asbestos abatement, and appoint an independent site plan review board.

Wehrheim said Wednesday many of the suggestions should be drafted into law. But Wehrheim had reservations about a recommendation to appoint a separate panel to review site plans. "Do we have to pay those people?" Wehrheim said.