[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.