[0:00] Uh, welcome. I'd like to call the September 2026

[0:04] uh meeting of the New York State Cemetery Board to order. I am Michael

[0:07] Morris. I uh represent New York State Secretary of State Walter Mosley, and

[0:13] I'll turn it over to my colleagues here on the board.

[0:15] » I'm Stephanie Gilman. I represent Dr. McDonald in the Department of Health.

[0:20] » And I'm Jill Faber, and I represent Attorney General Letitia James.

[0:25] » Thank you. We're physically holding this meeting at 99 Washington Avenue in

[0:30] Albany, and 44 South Broadway in White Plains, where Jill is, and virtually as

[0:36] well. We'll start off the meeting by reviewing

[0:38] the minutes from our August 2026 Cemetery Board meeting. Does anyone have

[0:43] any questions or corrections to those minutes?

[0:49] Jill, Stephanie, great. All right. I will make make a motion to

[0:53] approve the August 2026 minutes of the New York State Cemetery Board meeting.

[0:58] Do I have any questions? Oh, no, no, I'm sorry. I'll make a motion to approve the

[1:03] minutes of the 2026 meeting as distributed. Uh, do I have a second?

[1:08] Thank you. All in favor? Aye.

[1:11] » Aye. >> Our minutes are approved as distributed.

[1:14] We'll now move on to our counsel, uh Vanna Bless, to provide a report on

[1:18] legislation and regulation. >> Good morning, everyone. Uh, for

[1:22] legislative report, there are no changes from last month.

[1:26] Regulatory report, the division and I continue to develop a notice of proposed

[1:29] rule making for the board's consideration. And then finally, uh just

[1:34] uh in terms of litigation, I think it's fine for me to do this in open session.

[1:38] Uh, last month, the Cemetery Board recommended uh that Supreme Court

[1:43] approve Riverhurst Memorial Association's petition to loan them

[1:46] funds from its permanent maintenance fund.

[1:48] Uh, the draft petition we reviewed did not name the Cemetery Board as an

[1:51] opposing party. The filed petition did. Uh, because we uh the Cemetery Board was

[1:56] named as a party, I did review it. Uh, the relief sought

[1:59] uh, was in accordance with the Cemetery Board's recommend- recommendation. Uh,

[2:03] so uh, the Department asked uh, the Office of the Attorney General to appear

[2:08] and uh, to avoid a default and not to oppose. Uh, the Office of the Attorney

[2:12] General did that and the court uh, so ordered uh, the loan uh, under the terms

[2:18] the Cemetery Board recommended. So, just wanted to let you know that

[2:21] happened uh, in the interim. >> Any board members have any questions?

[2:26] And after that? No. All right.

[2:29] We'll move on to a division report from our Division of Cemetery staff. Lewis,

[2:33] were you going to be giving that? >> Sure. The first thing I have here is a

[2:36] staffing update, but I don't think I actually have a staffing update. Um,

[2:40] Um, we had uh, our latest um,

[2:44] auditor Scott Nickerson started right before the previous meeting. And no, he

[2:49] started after the previous meeting. I'll take it back. So, Scott

[2:51] » Are you mistaken? No. >> All right, Scott Nickerson is our new

[2:56] auditor in Syracuse. Um, and uh, we're working on filling a

[3:01] couple of more couple more vacant positions.

[3:05] Turning to the uh, issue of land purchases and sales. Uh, there several

[3:10] types of applications for which we've created um,

[3:14] application forms. But but standardized things and to make

[3:18] it easier for uh, the semet- cemeteries to know what we

[3:22] want and for us to review them. We do not have ones for land purchases and

[3:26] sales. Um, but we thought it would be a good idea to put together guidance

[3:32] document describing to cemeteries seeking approval from the Cemetery Board

[3:38] for land purchases and sales as to what we're looking for. As part of that, I

[3:43] reviewed the uh, background. I gave I gave the

[3:47] board a memo on the background on The most on um,

[3:52] one particular issue that's come up in land purchases and sales, which is

[3:59] appraisals. If you go back about three decades,

[4:03] apparently the board would rely on broker price opinions. At some point,

[4:07] the board started asking people to submit two appraisals from licensed

[4:12] appraisers. Um

[4:15] I want to say about five years ago, we

[4:19] we started recommending approval for smaller transactions roughly about

[4:24] $50,000 and under with one appraisal and for really small

[4:30] transactions with any type of evidence that a cemetery

[4:36] could could gather to show that the sale or purchase is for fair market value.

[4:40] What we're proposing is to issue a guidance document, the main change of

[4:46] practice of which would be to allow cemetery to to say that

[4:52] in the ordinary case, we ask cemeteries to submit only one appraisal from a

[4:57] licensed appraiser and the exception being where the sale or

[5:03] purchase involves a related party, where we would want at least two.

[5:08] Um again, this is a good The proposal is a guidance document. It's not a It's not

[5:14] a rule making. There wouldn't be a hard and fast rule, but we want people to

[5:18] have a better sense of what we're looking for and also maybe release

[5:21] reduce the regulatory burden on cemeteries by reducing the transaction

[5:25] cost in hiring two appraisers. Um I don't think Rob, do we need formal

[5:31] action from the board to approve a guidance document or can we just put it

[5:35] out there as a division? >> I think it's fine for this So, the last

[5:40] time you raised this, right? Where Of course I don't remember. The The time

[5:45] you raised this where you suggested that the cemetery board begin accepting one

[5:50] appraisal for smaller land purchases, uh the cemetery board voted to adopt

[5:56] that guidance. So, I don't see any reason to deviate from that over

[6:02] here. >> Okay.

[6:03] So, I will make a motion to >> So, does anybody have any I guess any

[6:06] » Oh, I'm sorry. >> Well, no. Make your motion, then we'll

[6:08] see if anyone has any comments on it. >> I'll make a motion to adopt the new

[6:12] guidance. Um does any Do you Jaelor Stephanie do you

[6:16] have any questions on that? >> No.

[6:21] » Do I have a second on that? >> Second.

[6:24] » All right. Uh all in favor? Aye.

[6:29] All right. Motion is approved. Um

[6:33] we will move on next to our vandalism and abandonment report for this month.

[6:38] Alicia, will you be doing that? >> Yep.

[6:40] » Okay. >> Yep. So, I posted the report. Pretty

[6:43] much status quo. Um we're slow on deposits

[6:48] for the year at at this point in the year. They come trickling in, so

[6:53] March, February, March are our big months where we get a lot of

[6:57] animals and payments in.

[7:00] Um we've approved $1.2 million worth of

[7:05] applications so far this year. Uh we've paid out in cash

[7:11] $732,000. >> How much is still hanging out there from

[7:14] previous years? >> From previous years, let's see. 2016

[7:21] Well, we have available funds in the negative

[7:25] if we had to pay everything. >> Including things that we've approved,

[7:28] 25% but not 100% but >> Yeah.

[7:32] » not concerned. >> No, and it's it's

[7:35] the requests for payments are going to slow

[7:38] down now because the work is going to slow down in the fall.

[7:41] » Okay. >> Typical cycle.

[7:44] Animals and payments.

[7:47] » Members of the board, any questions on that? Anything to add from the division?

[7:53] All right. Um my understanding is this month we have no applications for the

[7:59] vandalism fund. So, no motions to make there. No

[8:03] um discussion on that. However,

[8:07] we have uh I did five additional applications that have been submitted in

[8:11] front of the board. Um

[8:14] take them in order on the on the uh agenda.

[8:18] Uh we have an application in front of the board from White Chapel Cemetery in

[8:22] Erie County. It's an application for a columbarium and major alteration as it

[8:26] pertains pertains to its cremation section.

[8:29] Uh staff, who's going to present on >> I'll do I'll do it. So, White Chapel has

[8:34] as you drive into the cemetery, there's a um

[8:37] a circle, a traffic circle, a roundabout first traffic circle

[8:41] um >> roundabout

[8:42] » just through yeah, just through the rotary. Um so, now we've named all the

[8:47] terms for it. Um that that you get into as you come into the cemetery. All it

[8:52] has right now is a flagpole. The concept and there are no burials there. The

[8:56] concept is to develop it as a cremation section with a series of columbaria,

[9:02] uh some walking paths through it and curving along the edges.

[9:07] Um they are it's a multi it's a three-phase project. They're asking for

[9:13] approval of phase one and part of phase two

[9:17] as part of this application with the understanding they have to come back for

[9:20] the rest of phase phase two and phase three. This phase is going to be

[9:25] two 140-in um

[9:28] uh pre-fab columbaria and five rows of in-ground burial spaces plus pads and

[9:34] curbing. Uh the pads and curbing will be just

[9:36] drainage is involved and arguably other things means that

[9:43] we're treating this as a major operation as well as a

[9:47] as common barium application. By definition, a common barium is not a

[9:51] major operation, but there are major operations associated with this

[9:55] project. So we are treating it as both. Where the total estimated cost is

[10:01] $244,502.50.

[10:05] We're recommending I'll get to

[10:09] stuff in a minute. We're recommending We're getting some noise in the

[10:12] background. If you're not speaking, could you please mute?

[10:16] If you're If you're not speaking to the

[10:19] board, I should say. If you're speak If you weren't speaking, you wouldn't have

[10:21] to mute. Um

[10:23] So we're recommending the subject receipt

[10:27] of all other local approvals. I believe they have all of their local approvals

[10:31] that they need. I'm just putting it in there in case there's one that none of

[10:34] us knew about. In terms of seeker, the locality treated

[10:39] this as a type two action. They were really only looking at the

[10:44] common barium structures as far as I can tell.

[10:47] I had a conversation with them and that that they clarified a little

[10:51] bit why they came up with that. We thought this is probably better

[10:54] characterized as an unlisted action because in addition to these small

[10:59] units, the the they're doing curbing and and possibly drainage associated with

[11:05] that and there might be some grading work with

[11:09] respect to the the sidewalk. So we we figured it was better

[11:13] just to treat it as an untitled as an unlisted action.

[11:17] We have prepared a They submitted a part two a part one

[11:22] short EAF to us. We prepared a separate parts two and three. We also

[11:29] This project came up as potentially that that this area or someplace close

[11:36] to it came up as potentially listed a lot I guess that's not really the right

[11:40] word on the

[11:42] national state register. So we reached out to Shippo. Shippo gave us a letter

[11:47] of no adverse impact on Tuesday. That's why it was a little slow to get this out

[11:51] to you guys cuz I was waiting on that letter. Um

[11:55] it is not in a coastal area even though I believe I believe the the area is an

[12:02] is an L D L L >> L D W R P

[12:05] » L W R P area but it's not within a coastal zone. So you don't have to worry

[12:09] about that. Um which is a long-winded way of saying

[12:13] we do we are asking you to make a motion adopt a resolution preserve seeker first

[12:19] and once you do that adopt a resolution approving the Columbarium and

[12:25] major alteration. >> Okay.

[12:29] I think the form >> They're both of them are spelled out in

[12:31] the you know write up.

[12:35] » Okay. Um

[12:38] » You'll note that when I wrote the seeker resolution I say finding that the major

[12:42] alteration is an unlisted action. I was really focusing on the major alteration

[12:47] aspects of it because those are the ones that I thought would be the ones that

[12:51] could take it out of type two but it might actually be better to say finding

[12:56] that this major alteration and Columbarium are

[12:59] You know what I mean? >> I have no objection to that.

[13:03] » It might it might just cover our bases better.

[13:05] » Okay. >> Although I think frankly think it's fine

[13:07] as it is but it might be better.

[13:12] » And you did get a second on that. Members of the board?

[13:20] Joe, are you good? >> Yeah.

[13:23] » All right. Um I'll make a motion as to seeker

[13:27] finding this a major this major alteration and columbarium as

[13:33] unlisted actions under seeker finding that the major alteration will

[13:39] have no or minimal environmental impact and issuing a negative declaration

[13:45] and authorizing board chairman Michael Morris to sign the draft short

[13:49] environmental assessment form part three accompanying the memo presented to the

[13:54] board. Do I have a second on that?

[13:58] Thank you. All in favor? I.

[14:01] » I. >> The motion

[14:04] as it relates to seeker is adopted. So next we'll move on

[14:10] as um as the columbarium and major alteration

[14:14] I'll make a motion approving the installation of the columbarium and

[14:17] major alteration described in the cemetery's application at a cost not to

[14:22] exceed $244,502.50

[14:27] subject to the receipt of all other required approvals.

[14:31] Do I have a second on that? Right.

[14:34] All in favor? I.

[14:37] » I. >> All right, that motion is approved.

[14:41] Um we will next move on to an application

[14:46] in front of the board from Webster Union Cemetery in

[14:49] » It'll be Mike Seelman. >> Thank you. From Webster Union Cemetery

[14:53] in Monroe County. The application is for a major alteration which included

[14:58] the development of a new section to create 1,740

[15:02] in-ground burial spaces for both traditional and cremation interments.

[15:08] Project includes a new entrance and paved roadways to access new graves.

[15:13] Sounds like Michael Seelman will be presenting this one.

[15:17] » Uh yes, this is Mike Seelman from the division of cemeteries.

[15:21] Uh Webster Union Cemetery is an 18-acre full-service cemetery in the town of

[15:27] Webster, Monroe County. They average 63, uh, grave sales per

[15:32] year and they currently have less than 3

[15:35] years in inventory remaining. Therefore, they need to, uh, develop a

[15:40] new section. They've requested approval

[15:43] for a cemetery renovation to develop section 5 of the cemetery, which will be

[15:49] 2.58 acres and will include 1,740

[15:55] new graves. These are graves for both, uh, full uh,

[15:59] full body burial and cremation graves. Uh,

[16:04] the development of section 5 will be to the west of the existing sections.

[16:10] Uh, the project will cost 1,700 1,107,975.

[16:19] Uh, and is projected to net, uh, 1,022,705.

[16:26] Uh, the funding will come from the cemetery's general fund

[16:30] and it'll, uh,

[16:32] require approximately a year to develop, uh,

[16:37] this project. The construction will include, uh, a new

[16:41] cemetery entrance and 960 lineal feet of paved roadways to access the new graves.

[16:49] Uh, the cemetery has approval from the town of Webster Planning Board.

[16:53] Um, it doesn't appear that this project will interfere with the existing graves

[16:58] uh, or negatively affect the surrounding community.

[17:01] Uh, I did not personally go to this site,

[17:04] but Michael Catena, the investigator in Western New York, uh, did view the site.

[17:09] Uh, based on part 1 of the environmental assessment form submitted by the

[17:13] cemetery, it appears to be an unlisted action.

[17:17] Uh the division recommends that the board adopt two resolutions

[17:23] uh as the seeker finding that this is a major alteration

[17:27] and is an unlisted action. Uh secondly, finding that the major

[17:32] alteration will have no or minimal environmental impact.

[17:36] Uh third, issuing a negative declaration.

[17:40] Four, authorizing board chairman Michael Morris to sign the draft short EAF part

[17:45] three that accompanies this memo. And as to the major alteration,

[17:49] approving the major alteration described in the

[17:53] cemetery's application at a cost not to exceed $107,975.

[18:00] Uh I I do believe that the cemetery may have a representative there if they have

[18:04] any if the board has any questions.

[18:12] » If there is a cemetery representative online that wishes to speak, uh feel

[18:15] free to raise your hand or type in the chat and I can manually unmute you. Um

[18:19] if not, that's fine, too.

[18:31] » Nothing. >> Hang on 1 second. I'm just making a note

[18:34] of the amount.

[18:39] » All right. Mr. Fleming, you're also able to unmute yourself at this time if you

[18:44] want to.

[18:49] » I think actually Michael has done a fantastic job outlining the project. I

[18:52] think it's for the benefit of not just the lot owners, but the community in

[18:56] general. So, um we appreciate your review and

[18:59] consideration and would request that the project be approved.

[19:06] » All right. Thank you. I uh anything else from staff or council

[19:11] or members of the board. All right. I'll make two motions. Um

[19:17] The first motion as it relates to seeker finding that the major alteration is an

[19:22] unlisted action under seeker. Finding that the major alteration will

[19:26] have no or minimal environmental impact, issuing a negative declaration, and

[19:31] authorizing board chairman Michael Morris to sign the draft short EAF part

[19:35] three accompanying the memo. Do we have a second on that?

[19:40] Thank you. Um all in favor? >> I.

[19:43] » I. >> All right. The motion is adopted as it

[19:47] relates to seeker. Uh on the second resolution, I'll make a

[19:50] motion to approve the major alteration as described in the application at a

[19:54] cost not to exceed $107,900 $107,975.

[20:03] Um Do we have a second on that?

[20:06] All right. All in favor? >> I.

[20:09] » I. >> All right.

[20:11] The motion is adopted. Um

[20:16] Next we'll have an application from Wellwood Beth Moses Cemetery in Suffolk

[20:20] County as it relates to a plan to pay off de

[20:24] minimus certificates of indebtedness. Louis

[20:27] » Yeah. >> Are you presenting on this one?

[20:29] » So uh when the division was created, cemeteries did not have permanent

[20:33] maintenance funds. There also were few if any limits on certificates of

[20:38] indebtedness, which were um notes that a promoter would sell who created cemetery

[20:44] corporation, sell it the land, and then take payments

[20:48] back from the cemetery sometimes on uh ridiculous terms both in terms of the

[20:53] value of uh of the loan the value of the loan versus the land,

[20:57] and uh interest rates and such. Um The state cemetery board early in its

[21:05] 10-year uh issued a whole bunch of orders

[21:08] restricting cemeteries from paying off certificates until

[21:14] the the cemeteries created current or created permanent maintenance funds that

[21:20] look more adequate in terms of generating income to maintain the

[21:24] cemetery on a maintenance only basis. Uh there's a series of orders concerning

[21:30] um what were formerly two cemeteries, Beth

[21:33] Moses and Wellwood. They're next to each other

[21:36] in Suffolk County. Uh they have since uh with the board's uh approval merged. Um

[21:43] the cemeteries' attorney approached us a long time ago

[21:47] with a proposal that the cemetery some of the

[21:52] certificate holders hold relatively small amounts. This is by the way not

[21:57] just for these cemeteries, there are other cemeteries where this is also

[22:00] true. And it's administrative where I have relatively small amounts of

[22:05] certificates and it's administratively burdensome for them to keep track of

[22:11] them, to calculate the payments, to make sure they get the payments, to record

[22:15] changes of ownership and various and sundry other things.

[22:19] Um they are asking they asked whether They asked us two questions, whether we

[22:24] thought there was any order that would prevent them from paying off these uh

[22:30] small certificate holders. They're defining small as holding 3% or less of

[22:35] the total. Each of them they only 3% or less of the total.

[22:38] Um and to the extent there were, would we consider relief to allow them to do

[22:43] this? Uh we reviewed the cemetery both the

[22:46] cemeteries' finances and the old orders that we could find. Dropping a footnote,

[22:52] it's entirely possible that there are other orders that we could not find. Um

[22:57] but the ones that we did find, we we've attached to our write-up and it's pretty

[23:03] clear that they can afford to pay back these certificates. Indeed, they can

[23:06] afford to pay off all of their certificates right now if they wanted

[23:09] to. So, we thought given the genesis of these orders were to build up

[23:16] a a a permanent maintenance fund. Now that

[23:18] they have decent-sized a decent-sized permanent maintenance fund,

[23:23] uh we're recommending that the simplest way to deal with this is remove it with

[23:28] vacate any previous order to the extent it prevents them from paying off

[23:34] certificates other than that which the statute itself provides. Or court Or

[23:40] court order. And we have I'm not aware of any court orders on this with these

[23:44] two cemeteries. Um

[23:46] right? >> One of them very much references court

[23:49] order. >> You think it's litigation over

[23:53] over challenging one court order. Okay.

[23:58] These church I mean So,

[24:03] Anyway, you want to describe Why don't you describe what the proposed order is

[24:06] since that's a legal matter. >> Sure. Do you want me to read it?

[24:11] » I think that's probably a good idea. >> Okay. Well, before I start recitation,

[24:16] does anyone have any questions? Once again, feel free to raise your hand

[24:20] in the chat or type or type in the chat if you

[24:23] want to speak up. >> Um

[24:27] » Yes, sure. >> I Louis just

[24:29] Louis just mentioned um that there were some pending litigation. I'm sorry, I

[24:33] didn't I didn't hear I was you're a little bit low. Can you just like a

[24:36] couple of sentences again on what the pending litigation is?

[24:39] » There is no pending litigation. >> There isn't. Okay.

[24:42] » So, in >> Then I completely misheard.

[24:45] » So, in the 60s,

[24:49] the cemetery board issued an order directing or restricting payments.

[24:55] Uh they sued and the cemetery board in reciting a settlement of that

[25:01] litigation, uh, issued an order. So,

[25:04] » Okay. >> one of these orders

[25:06] pertinent to Beth Moses from 1965 is a settlement of litigation between

[25:12] the cemetery board and Beth Moses.

[25:17] » Okay. Thank you.

[25:22] » All right. Any other questions on that before uh uh

[25:28] speaks?

[25:31] Okay.

[25:34] Okay.

[25:37] This is everyone's favorite part. Whereas, Wellwood Beth Moses Cemetery

[25:41] number 52-005 and formerly 52-059

[25:45] seeks to pay the principal certificates of indebtedness and has inquired as to

[25:48] whether any cemetery board orders would restrict such payment, and whereas the

[25:52] Division of Cemeteries has conducted a diligent search and identified prior

[25:56] cemetery board orders that may restrict Wellwood Beth Moses Cemetery's payment

[26:00] of principal certificates of indebtedness, and whereas Wellwood Beth

[26:04] Moses Cemetery's financial position has significantly improved since the time

[26:08] when the cemetery board issued its prior orders. Now, therefore, the cemetery

[26:12] board prospectively vacates those portions of any cemetery board orders

[26:16] that restrict or direct Wellwood Beth Moses Cemetery's payments

[26:21] of principal of certificates of indebtedness. This order does not modify

[26:25] any cemetery board order concerning Wellwood Beth Moses Cemetery's

[26:28] contributions to its permanent maintenance fund or any court order in

[26:32] effect. This order shall take effect when issued.

[26:40] » All right. Any questions from the board on this?

[26:47] » Louis, do we need to ask if anyone from the cemetery wishes to be heard?

[26:50] » Yeah. Nathan, do you want to see if uh if

[26:53] » Yeah, of course. Uh once again, if you are interested in speaking on any of

[26:57] these issues, uh raise your hand or type in the chat so I can unmute you

[26:59] manually. I don't see anyone at the moment,

[27:03] though.

[27:08] All right. >> All right.

[27:10] » I'll make a motion that the board adopts the order in the form of the

[27:13] accompanying memorandum and is read into the record. Do I have a second on that?

[27:18] All in favor?

[27:22] All right. Motion approved.

[27:25] Next we'll have an application from Sciota?

[27:31] » Sciota. >> Sciota, sorry. I'll

[27:33] make sure I get that right as we discuss this. Sciota Rural Cemetery in

[27:36] Washington County for a determination of abandonment.

[27:41] Who's presenting on this one for the town?

[27:43] » I'll do it. So, the cemetery, no one So, the the

[27:48] under town law section 291, a cemetery that no longer has a board or

[27:54] funds available for operations is abandoned within the meaning of the town

[27:58] law, and the town must maintain it. In this case,

[28:02] the cemetery attempted to The cemetery had one board member left, noticed the

[28:08] special meeting to elect officers, told people there was a risk of abandonment.

[28:13] Nobody showed up. It was Nobody showed up. Um the cemetery's funds will run out

[28:19] in under a year if operating under on a maintenance-only basis. So, we have

[28:27] drafted a determination that the cemetery is abandoned to the meaning of

[28:31] town law. We sent that to the town supervisor for the town of Whitehall

[28:36] back in July 31st, and haven't heard anything from the town. The town was

[28:41] aware and participated in the setting up that meeting, so this will not come as a

[28:45] surprise to the town. Um

[28:48] obviously we tried to help these cemeteries identify sources of funds

[28:53] and/or um board members, but that was not

[28:56] possible here. >> Okay.

[28:59] Any questions from council on this or members of the board?

[29:03] » So your your role here is to confirm our determination.

[29:06] » Correct. So I will make a motion confirming the

[29:10] determination of abandonment of Teota Rural Cemetery in Washington County as

[29:15] abandoned within the meaning of town law section 291 because it is not controlled

[29:19] by an existing board or body and for the care of which there exists no special

[29:23] fund or endowment to generate income sufficient to cover maintenance

[29:27] expenses. Do I have a second on that?

[29:30] All in favor? I.

[29:34] All right. Motion is approved.

[29:37] Finally, uh we have an application from Ferncliff Cemetery in Westchester County

[29:42] for a major alteration including the relocation of a crematory and offices

[29:47] and repairs to the chapel. >> Louis, are you going to

[29:50] » me again. So this here is um what what Fer- Ferncliff is do- right

[29:56] now it's um crematory's kind of an annex off of its

[30:00] chapel and kind of spills over into the chapel, which is not a particularly good

[30:05] setup. Um they need to install new machines anyway, so what they're

[30:09] planning on doing is building uh they're relocating their crematory to where

[30:15] their office space now is, moving all of their report putting new equipment.

[30:20] They're going to have new brand new reports in that space. They will have uh

[30:25] storage and crematory office space above the uh crematory, which will be on the

[30:31] first floor. Uh eventual their offices will

[30:34] temporarily relocate. They do have in one of their mausoleum buildings on site

[30:39] they have an office and they are going to that will be their on-site office for

[30:44] the entire cemetery not just for the mausoleum during construction which is

[30:47] about 2 years. Um, they're also going for administrative functions and stuff

[30:52] where they don't need to be on-site, they're renting off-site office space.

[30:56] Uh, at the end of the project they will have the new crematory, they will

[31:02] renovate the space over on the other side of the crematory is to move the

[31:05] offices back in there and they will also be renovating the chapel to make it much

[31:10] more usable and useful as a chapel. Um, the total cost of the

[31:18] project projected by the cemetery is $18 million.

[31:22] It is likely to come in under that because that includes a contingency on a

[31:27] contingency. Um, but that's the number they wanted us

[31:31] to approve and we thought that made sense. Sounds like a lot of money, but

[31:36] the cemetery's general fund alone had a market value of

[31:41] over 256 million as of December 31st, 2025.

[31:47] Because these are all renovations occurring within an existing structure,

[31:53] this is actually, despite it being rather a large project, a type two

[31:56] action for purposes of seeker. So, we there's no need for any kind of seeker

[32:01] review or resolution.

[32:04] » Okay.

[32:06] » Members of the board, any questions for Lewis?

[32:09] Council, any questions for Lewis? All right, I'll make a motion that the

[32:12] board adopt a resolution approving the major alteration as described in the

[32:16] application at a cost not to exceed $18 million. Subject to the and subject to

[32:22] the receipt of all other necessary approvals.

[32:25] » Which I believe in this case is only a is only a series of building permits.

[32:28] You know, building permit, plumbing sign-off, those kind of things.

[32:31] » Right. Do I have a second on that?

[32:34] Thank you. All in favor? I.

[32:37] » I. >> Motion's adopted.

[32:40] Uh and that's the business in front of us.

[32:42] » Um for public comment, we did receive um inquiry that someone

[32:47] might want to address the board who was going to log in remotely. So, maybe we

[32:51] should go with remote first and then in person.

[32:53] » All right. I got to open that up. I'm going to do the next uh cemetery board

[32:57] meeting here. We're going to open up public comment soon, but our next

[33:00] meeting, the New York State Cemetery Board for the October meeting, will be

[33:04] held Wednesday, October 14th at 10:30 a.m. at One Commerce Plaza in Albany and

[33:11] also at 44 South Broadway in White Plains. That is a departure again from

[33:16] our normal Tuesday timing. But >> Yeah, there the reason is

[33:20] the Monday right the Monday is a holiday, so I didn't want us not to have

[33:23] a day before the meeting in case something needed to be dealt with right

[33:27] before. >> So, and as Lewis mentioned, there might

[33:31] be some online comment first, so we'll open up public comment online first. So,

[33:37] Nathan, uh you want to provide any directions for people

[33:41] looking to speak? >> Yeah, once again, either utilize the

[33:43] raise hand function or the chat feature so that I can know to unmute you. Um I

[33:48] don't see anyone with their hand raised at the moment. Oh, it's David.

[33:53] Uh but if you, you know, there's plenty of

[33:55] time, so if we don't get to you right away, we'll

[33:58] I'll see your hand eventually. All right. Thank you for your waiting,

[34:01] David.

[34:03] » Yeah, I just want to thank the board on behalf of NYSAC for um their movement

[34:09] and consideration of the appraisals issue. It's quite significant,

[34:13] particularly for smaller cemeteries, and it really does make good public policy

[34:18] sense, and we're deeply appreciative that this change has been made. So,

[34:21] thank you to the board for that those efforts.

[34:26] » Good. Thank you. >> Uh I will now again getting uh Mr. Chris

[34:30] Black.

[34:33] All right. you are good to go.

[34:37] » Yes, uh good morning. Hope everyone had a great summer and hope everyone's

[34:42] family is well. My name is Chris Black. I'm the president of the Concerned

[34:47] Taxpayers of Wheatley Heights, Dix Hills Incorporated Civic Association.

[34:52] And I'm just wanted to ask if the board or any members have received

[34:59] uh any application pertaining to the Bristol project

[35:03] that uh Pinelawn is looking to lease land to

[35:08] to build an industrial park.

[35:13] » I have not received any application in front of the board.

[35:17] Division? >> Nothing from them.

[35:20] » No, Mr. Black, we have nothing in front of the board.

[35:24] » Okay. Are you aware of something coming down the pipeline possibly?

[35:30] » I am not aware of any timing. >> The cemetery has stated that they will

[35:35] submit an amended application to us. They have not given us a time frame for

[35:39] which they will do that. >> Okay, so they will be submitting a

[35:44] amended application.

[35:47] » That's our understanding. >> Okay.

[35:51] That and of course I won't ask number three because you haven't received it.

[35:55] So I would say I would only ask if you look at the project and look at the

[36:02] community and make a fair determination. That's

[36:06] all I ask, but you haven't seen it haven't received the application, so we

[36:10] won't go any further. Thank you.

[36:14] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[36:16] » Okay. >> Uh Ms. Lefoy

[36:20] you should be good to speak now. Thank you for your patience.

[36:23] » Oh, it says she left the call. >> Oh, there she is.

[36:26] » Oh, no, there she is. >> No, no, I'm here.

[36:28] » You're back. >> Yes, good morning everyone. Thank you

[36:31] for having us here and allowing us to make

[36:34] comments. My topic is the same as Mr. Black's. I

[36:38] sent a letter to Director Palasek earlier this week

[36:42] in regards to the Pylon project. My I represent the historical conservation

[36:48] society of Wheatley Heights and Wyandanch. We're a relatively new new

[36:51] group that has formed in response to this project that Pylon is building. And

[36:56] we've been doing some some of our own Twitter research into what's going on

[37:00] there. And you know, one of the things we came

[37:03] across was that the secret was passed based on what they

[37:08] said was one of many things that based on what they said was an archaeological

[37:12] study. When we looked at some of the details of that study that appeared in

[37:16] the the secret I think on page 111 in the main report in the

[37:20] FEIS main report. It said that they didn't really do a

[37:25] like a full study. The community had requested a um

[37:29] a ground penetrating radar study, a GPR study that goes deep into the ground to

[37:34] see if there are um you know, people buried there. And I

[37:38] think according to the study the secret report, they only went about 7 or 8

[37:42] inches of just a few centimeters into the ground and they did cover a wide

[37:48] portion of the land but they did not go deep. Certainly 7 inches is not deep

[37:52] enough to see if there's any additional people buried there outside of what

[37:56] Pylon has said. So, we're very concerned about that because we many people in the

[38:00] community believe that there are additional people buried on that land

[38:04] outside of the lot two, which is the cemetery that Pylon acknowledges even

[38:09] though they don't take care of it. It's a segregated cemetery. There are

[38:14] Civil War veterans buried there which you all know. So, we just want we would

[38:18] like for the board to really consider denying Pylon's application. This is the

[38:23] request I put in my letter because of the fact that they have not done the GPR

[38:28] uh study to make sure that lot one, the main lot, does not also have um people

[38:34] buried there. So, I just wanted to put that make that statement. It was in my

[38:38] letter, but I also wanted to make it personally to the board.

[38:42] Thank you. >> Thank you.

[38:45] Any other online public comment?

[38:50] » I don't see anyone else at this time. >> You're done, thank you.

[38:54] » And next we'll move to in-person comment. We have nobody in Albany, but

[38:59] it looks like we have a couple individuals in White Plains.

[39:05] Go ahead. >> Oh, hi everybody. Um

[39:09] my name is Kendrick Lau and Mr. Tycoon Hills.

[39:14] We are both um lot owners as a Commack Cemetery in Commack.

[39:19] And came to my attention this past year that this cemetery is ran by a board

[39:26] that is corrupt and fractured. Both of us attended a

[39:32] uh lot owner meeting um earlier this month.

[39:36] And this lot owners meeting was held outdoors

[39:40] and on the day where there was a huge funeral schedule. Now, this is a small

[39:46] cemetery and not a big one. So, when all the cars came in,

[39:51] they basically blocked the road so the mourners can could see what was

[39:55] going on. And what was going on was that um

[40:01] during the meeting, the secretary, Julie Minerva,

[40:05] s- had clear had s- declared that the meeting was being uh held illegally

[40:10] because she was not involved in um it s- it being scheduled.

[40:14] And she also made it explicitly clear that after she spoke her statement,

[40:21] Mr. Donnigan here would make his own

[40:23] statement. During

[40:27] in that day, Mr. Donnigan was having trouble speaking, so I was speaking on

[40:31] his behalf. When I started reading,

[40:34] Mitchell Mitchell Hirsch, the vice president of the board,

[40:39] who has own lawyer there, who is not recognized,

[40:42] tried to shut shut it down.

[40:45] And so in effect, this is the last owner's meeting where the lot owner is

[40:49] not allowed to be to to to talk. To

[40:53] make their opinion known. And so there was a slight argument going

[40:59] on back and forth. I continued to read Mr. Donnigan's statement.

[41:03] Mitchell Hirsch's lawyer and Mr. Donnigan's were

[41:08] exchanging words. Some people in the meeting were also speaking loudly about

[41:13] how we were all being you know, acting like immature children.

[41:17] And meanwhile, people are coming in to attend a funeral. And then Mitchell

[41:21] Hirsch or some other individual called the police

[41:25] to intervene saying that we were disrupting the meeting. Which is of

[41:29] course not true. How can a lot owner speaking in a lot owner's meeting be

[41:33] disrupting a meeting? And so basically

[41:38] um I

[41:40] the But basically, I'm just the one I want

[41:43] the state to step in, to take over the cemetery and and remove this board.

[41:49] Because there are a lot of other things happening

[41:52] with this board that I'm not sure you any of you know about, such as them

[41:58] planning themselves to to cut down all these beautiful oak trees in the

[42:01] cemetery. With the

[42:05] forced excuse that they were weather beaten and diseased. And no, they

[42:09] weren't they weren't. I saw these trees myself. We just drove into a cemetery

[42:13] one day and saw them all kicking down with the tree trunks being

[42:19] uprooted. Tree trunks the old chopped up being everywhere. It was a disgrace.

[42:25] And so again, I just want the state to step in and just

[42:30] take over the cemetery if they could do what they can to remove this board

[42:34] because they are not doing their job. They acting like this cemetery is their

[42:37] own province and they just feel like they can

[42:41] just do anything they want with impunity

[42:46] or consequence and no consequences. Mr. D'Agostino, make your statement.

[42:51] » John D'Agostino, I second what Mr. Lauria said.

[42:55] I wanted to thank you all because sitting here listening to our cemetery

[43:00] board and our division of cemeteries, I'm getting an education on applications

[43:07] and how the process works. So with the backing of my mentor, who I met many

[43:14] years ago on Duffield Street, she taught me very well and you all work

[43:18] for Tish and we all know her as Letitia James. So I have confidence

[43:24] in the process and I have to thank Jill Thank Faber for helping me and educating

[43:31] me as well as Kerry McGovern, who's been very astute and excellent and Louis

[43:37] Palumbo, who has helped me and directed me. We may not get along on a few

[43:42] occasions, but I definitely can say that I did get a good education

[43:47] and I feel the process will rectify the Comax Cemetery issues. Thank you.

[43:53] » And thank you.

[44:03] » That's um

[44:06] I think that's it. Anybody have anything else?

[44:11] Make a motion to conclude the September 2026 meeting of the New York State

[44:14] Cemetery Board. Do I have a second? All in favor?

[44:19] I'm sorry. Second. >> Second.

[44:20] » All in favor? Thank you.

[44:23] Uh thank you everybody. Meeting's adjourned.

Cemetery Board Meeting - September 10, 2026

Transcript