TOWN OF WATERTOWN
Special Meeting
Municipal Building
May 28, 2026
Members Present: Joel R. Bartlett, Supervisor
David Prosser, Councilman
Joanne McClusky, Councilwoman
Michael Perkins, Councilman
Robert Slye, Councilman
Members Absent:
Supervisor Bartlett opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a roll call of members present. Attorney Harrienger was also in attendance.
The Board waived the acceptance of the minutes from the May 15, 2026 meeting until the June 11, 2026 meeting.
Supervisor Bartlett announced that public privileges would not be held during this special meeting. The Board then proceeded to address the scheduled agenda item.
Supervisor Bartlett introduced the primary item of business: consideration of an amendment to the proposed agreement between Stewart’s, the Town of Watertown, and Thirty One Development LLC/Philip J. Simao. Supervisor Bartlett explained that during the prior month’s session Mr. Simao had been absent and unable to contribute to the agreement discussions. Supervisor Bartlett proposed modifying the agreement by deleting Section 6, which provided protection to the Town, and stated that a motion would be presented following board discussion.
Councilwoman McClusky expressed disagreement with several provisions described as Mr. Simao’s demands, specifically objecting to proposed timelines that the Board could not guarantee. She referenced correspondence from the County Planning Board which she stated the Stewart’s application had been denied, and she argued that the board was acting prematurely.
Supervisor Bartlett stated that the County Planning Board correspondence was strictly a referral related to Planning Board actions and did not pertain to Town Board authority. It was stated that the opinion from the County Planning Board did not mean anything and that any discrepancies identified in the referral would be addressed by the Planning Board and that the referral served solely as guidance for that Board.
Councilwoman McClusky questioned whether recipients of the County Planning Board correspondence had noted that copies had also been sent to the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT).
Further discussion followed regarding the Planning Board’s role and authority. Councilman Prosser explained that the referral process returns the matter to the local Planning Board, which holds the authority to approve or deny the application. Councilwoman McClusky stated that the Planning Board had not yet met to address the matter and argued that planning review should occur before the matter came before the full Town Board.
Councilwoman McClusky raised concerns regarding proposed timelines contained within the proposed agreement. She argued that the timelines were not feasible, specifically referencing language requiring submission of plans to the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) by June 12, 2026.
Councilwoman McClusky stated that the version currently under discussion had been amended by Mr. Simao and differed from the one reviewed and countered during the May 15, 2026 Board Meeting. Attorney Harrienger advised that the document currently before the Board had been amended by Mr. Simao beyond the removal of Section6.
Further discussion referenced a prior email containing eight original points or conditions proposed by Mr. Simao. Supervisor Bartlett stated that those conditions had been rejected by the developer and returned to him with amendments.
Councilwoman McClusky raised additional concerns regarding the projected cost of the required traffic study and related infrastructure improvements. She stated that engineering estimates presented at a prior meeting placed the minimum cost at approximately $50,000. Questions were raised regarding who had made that determination, and it was clarified that the estimate had been provided by the town’s engineer Mike Altieri and town electrician Mr. Green.
She also expressed objection regarding provisions stating that the Town would be solely responsible for costs associated with operation, installation, and ongoing maintenance of the proposed infrastructure improvements. She stated that such terms were unacceptable and further argued that the Town should not serve as the lead agency for permitting purposes.
Attorney Harrienger stated that under the proposed agreement the Town would serve as the lead entity responsible for submissions to NYSDOT. Supervisor Bartlett stated that was correct. He argued that the designation of lead agency was not significant so long as the plans and engineering work were submitted properly; others argued that the designation was important because the Town would ultimately bear the associated costs.
Supervisor Bartlett stated he was under the impression the traffic study and engineer reports had already been completed. Attorney Harrienger reminded Mr. Bartlett that traffic studies and related analyses had not yet been completed. Superintendent Clement commented that the traffic study itself had not yet been performed.
Councilwoman McClusky stated that, based on prior discussions, Stewart’s had agreed to construct approximately 250 feet of roadway, and any additional road construction beyond that point would become the Town’s responsibility. Supervisor Bartlett mentioned eminent domain proceedings could be initiated for any remaining property acquisitions necessary to complete the project. Councilwoman McClusky raised concerns regarding additional costs associated with that.
She questioned the condition in the agreement regarding land conveyances and proposed timelines requiring action within ten days. She discussed concerns regarding Mr. Simao’s proposed amendment that would remove Section 6 of the agreement, as Section 6 was intended to protect the Town as a government body. Concerns were expressed that eliminating the provision would leave the Town without adequate protections if the project did not proceed as anticipated, including the possibility that the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) could deny the required permit application.
Supervisor Bartlett disagreed, characterizing that concern as speculation.
Councilwoman McClusky stated she feels the Town should spend no money and have no strings attached that would obligate the Town legally or financially. She objected to language stating that the Town would be responsible for all engineering and inspection costs associated with the project. Supervisor Bartlett responded that much of the engineering work had already been completed and paid for by the Town, and that he was fully aware of the costs incurred and services authorized. Councilwoman McClusky stated that the work that would need to be performed could have a significant cost.
Questions were raised about removal of the contents of Section 6. The inclusion of Section 6 has been approved as part of the amended agreement at the May 15, 2026 meeting:
- Stewart’s, Thirty-One Development LLC and Philip J Simao all agree jointly and severally to a complete waiver in release of any damages in the event of any breach by the town.
Supervisor Bartlett argued that such language could be problematic because lenders that are not parties to the proposed agreement holding mortgages on the affected properties would likely be unwilling to permit such a waiver. He further stated that, once all required approvals from the Department of Transportation, Department of Health, and Department of Environmental Conservation were obtained, the Town’s involvement would be limited to standard public infrastructure work, including NYSDOT road cut access and traffic signal modifications.
Councilwoman McClusky maintained that retaining the provision would provide important protections for the Town and limit potential liability.
Supervisor Bartlett compared the proposal to the NYS Route 12F and Salmon Run Mall Road realignment project, stating that similar procedures had been followed for that project without objection from the Board.
Councilwoman McClusky responded that the current situation differed because it involved a third party and could require substantial Town expenditures. Based on prior discussions, she estimated that the project could cost the Town approximately $500,000 or more. Additional concerns were raised regarding the project’s readiness, noting that the Jefferson County Planning Board had explicitly rejected the project and had returned many comments and conditions for further review.
The Supervisor clarified that the application had not been formally denied by the Jefferson County Planning Board but had been returned with stipulations for consideration by the Town Planning Board. Councilwoman McClusky stated that the letter from the Planning Board stated the application had been denied.
Councilwoman McClusky expressed concern about the potential cost of the proposed road project, noting that no funding had been budgeted for the work. She cited anticipated legal expenses, engineering costs, traffic signal modifications, and Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements as potentially significant expenditures. Based on prior discussions, estimates presented by the Town Engineer and Mr. Green included approximately $50,000 to $100,000 for traffic signal work alone, with possible engineering costs approaching $100,000, and DOT-related improvements that could cost as much as $250,000. She questioned how the Town would fund the project, particularly possible lack of funds and ongoing financial scrutiny and an impending audit from the New York State Office of the State Comptroller.
Supervisor Bartlett responded that while the project would require investment, it should also be viewed in terms of its long-term economic benefits. He argued that development of the property would increase assessed values, expand the tax base, generate additional sales tax revenue, and encourage further commercial growth. He noted that vacant land has a significantly lower assessed value than developed commercial property and suggested that adjacent parcels could also become developable as a result of the infrastructure improvements.
Councilwoman McClusky stated that she supported economic development but not at the expense of taxpayers. She argued that developers should bear the cost of constructing infrastructure associated with their projects, with the Town’s role limited to inspection and acceptance of the completed improvements if they met applicable standards.
Supervisor Bartlett stated that even routine inspections involve Town costs and questioned whether her estimates for expenses were as significant as suggested. Councilwoman McClusky commented that those costs would be minimal compared the formally discussed expenditures.
Supervisor Bartlett allowed Mr. Simao, developer of the property, to speak to the Board. Mr. Simao addressed the Board regarding his understanding of the history of the project. He stated that more than four and a half years earlier, the Town Board had unanimously approved acquiring property for the planned road connection to the Sam’s Club area. He stated that he had cooperated throughout the process, including providing land and easements needed for sewer infrastructure. According to Mr. Simao, the road project was originally represented as a key component of the site plan approval for the SeaComm project. Mr. Simao stated if the road wasn’t built that the SeaComm project never should not have happened and should have not been approved. He stated he now owns several parcels that remain difficult to develop while he continues to pay approximately $12,000 annually in property taxes.
Mr. Simao reminded the Board that the original acquisition of the property had been approved by a 5–0 vote and noted that the Town had subsequently utilized portions of the property for public infrastructure improvements. He disputed statements that the project primarily benefited him personally, arguing that the infrastructure improvements served broader development goals and enabled other commercial projects in the area.
Addressing concerns about the County Planning Board review, Mr. Simao stated that the County’s comments were advisory recommendations rather than a denial of the project. He also referenced previous approvals for nearby commercial developments, noting that similar access arrangements had been permitted in the past.
Mr. Simao stated that had litigation been his objective, he could have done so years earlier. Instead, he said he had been waiting patiently for the Town to complete commitments associated with the road project. He expressed surprise that his proposed contribution toward construction costs had become controversial, arguing that developers commonly contribute to infrastructure projects and that such contributions should not be characterized as improper.
Councilwoman McClusky was concerned that this contribution could be considered a bribe.
Mr. Simao further contended that the road should have been completed years ago and questioned why progress had stalled despite multiple Board actions. He noted that the Town Board had previously passed resolutions directing the Town Attorney to proceed with eminent domain proceedings and later directing the Town Engineer to move the project forward. According to Mr. Simao, those directives were never fully carried out. He suggested that delays by professional consultants and advisors had contributed to the lack of progress and stated that significant professional fees had already been incurred by the Town during the prolonged approval process.
Attorney Harrienger provided additional background regarding the development process. She explained that in December 2021, the proposed SeaComm project did not meet the required road frontage standards and therefore sought a variance. The ZBA had unanimously denied that variance. Following the denial, Mr. Simao transferred a portion of property associated with the planned road corridor, and the Planning Board ultimately allowed that frontage on the proposed road to be considered as satisfying the zoning requirement for site plan. She stated that, under those circumstances, the project was permitted to proceed.
She further noted that while various Town officials and Board members had discussed the possibility of constructing the road over the years, no formal contract or binding agreement requiring the Town to build the road had ever been executed at that time. She recounted the Board’s more recent actions, explaining that a proposal related to the road was first presented by Supervisor Bartlett June 2025, but after being heavily scrutinized by the Board, Supervisor Bartlett retracted the motion, stating he was going to speak to Mr. Simao. Supervisor Bartlett had then presented the same proposal in July 2025 and again failed following many concerns being raised by the Board on a 3–2 vote. Supervisor Bartlett had then presented the exact same resolution once again on August 28, 2025, and the Board approved it by a 3–2 vote after a change in a board members support.
Mr. Simao stated the media reported following the August 2025 vote that the Town intended to move forward with acquiring the necessary property and constructing the road, including the use of eminent domain if voluntary agreements could not be reached. He also referenced more recent Board actions directing the Town Engineer to proceed with the project.
Mr. Simao emphasized that he had cooperated with the Town throughout the process and had provided easements at no cost when requested. He reiterated that the undeveloped parcels continue to generate approximately $11,700 annually in property taxes while remaining difficult to develop without completion of the road project. He argued that the project would increase the tax base and provide broader public benefits.
Mr. Simao also objected to a proposed agreement provision that would waive claims against the Town if it failed to perform its obligations. He stated that, in his view, such a provision was unreasonable because he believed the Town had already failed to complete actions it previously indicated it would undertake. He argued that signing such an agreement would leave him without recourse against the Town if the project again failed to move forward.
The discussion then turned to easement issues associated with prior infrastructure projects. Mr. Simao alleged that Town infrastructure had been installed on his Route 12 property before formal easements had been executed and that he later signed easements as part of moving another development project forward. He argued that these issues contributed to his frustration with the process and reinforced his view that he had acted cooperatively throughout the years-long effort to complete the road project.
Attorney Harrienger stated that she could not comment on actions taken before her representation of the Town and noted that she was not involved when the certificate of title has been completed for the infrastructure, or when he claims the infrastructure was installed or when the easement issues first arose.
Mr. Simao argued that the events in question occurred in 2024 and involved current Town officials. He asserted that Town representatives were aware that infrastructure was being installed on several of his Route 12 properties before easements had been secured. He stated that he had remained largely silent about the issue but felt compelled to raise it because of the ongoing delays surrounding the road project. Mr. Simao emphasized that he was not seeking special treatment but was asking the Town to move forward with actions that had previously been authorized by the Board.
Mr. Simao also referenced correspondence regarding a proposed connection to an existing traffic signal, stating that approval from the owner of the signal, COR Plaza had been communicated to the Town.
After being asked for her legal opinion on a number of matters, Attorney Harrienger stated that the Board might want to consider an executive session to seek the advice of legal counsel. Mr. Simao argued that the issue concerned his private property and questions regarding the installation of infrastructure, rather than confidential legal advice. He repeatedly asked whether infrastructure had been installed on his property without easements in place, without receiving an answer from legal counsel.
Supervisor Bartlett then acknowledged that infrastructure had been installed before easements were finalized and stated that responsibility for obtaining the necessary easements rested with the Town’s engineer and legal counsel. Mr. Simao replied that the issue affected his multiple properties.
Councilwoman McClusky sought executive session for legal advice. Supervisor Bartlett responded that he had already explained the circumstances surrounding the installation of the infrastructure.
Attorney Harrienger then stated that she had previously provided clear legal opinions to the Board on the matter and emphasized that the role of legal counsel is to advise the Board, while the ultimate decisions remain with the elected officials. She advised that if Board members wanted a more detailed legal analysis of the proposed agreement, related issues, or any other matter, that discussion could occur in executive session. She added that the Board also had the authority to proceed without seeking additional legal advice.
Mr. Simao strongly raised concerns about the proposed agreement itself. He argued that additional parties connected to the transaction, like the Doldo Estate should have been included in certain release provisions.
Attorney Harrienger disagreed, stating that those individuals were not parties to the contract under consideration and that including additional beneficiaries would be inappropriate. She stated Mr. Simao was the contractor of deed.
There was a heated disagreement between Mr. Simao and Attorney Harrienger concerning the easement issue on NYS Rte. 12F.
Supervisor Bartlett then advised against further public comment from legal counsel on the matter and stated that if the Board wished to receive legal advice, it could enter executive session. He then indicated he would entertain a motion to enter executive session for that purpose.
He clarified that the proposed executive session would be limited to discussion of the Stewart’s agreement and related contractual matters. He commented there would be a second executive session to discuss a contract with Mr. Lundy.
Attorney Harrienger advised that the public notice for the special meeting only identified discussion of the Stewart’s matter and did not include other subjects. She cautioned that additional topics could not be added under a general “any other business” provision because special meeting notices must specifically identify the matters to be discussed.
Motion #79-2026
Supervisor Bartlett offered a motion to adjourn to executive session at 7:29 pm, the motion was seconded by Councilman Prosser.
4 Ayes, 1 No
Following executive session, the Supervisor called the meeting back to order at 8:28 p.m.
Supervisor Bartlett reported that no formal action had been taken during executive session. He announced that consideration of the proposed use agreement involving Stewart’s Shops, Thirty One Development LLC/Philip J. Simao, and the Town of Watertown would be tabled until the Town Board’s regular meeting on June 11, 2026.
He then addressed Mr. Lundy, who had remained at the meeting throughout the evening. He explained that the Board had decided not to conduct an executive session regarding the existing contract between the Town and Mr. Lundy’s organization because that subject had not been specifically identified in the public notice for the meeting. As a result, discussion of that matter would need to occur at a future meeting.
Supervisor Bartlett suggested that, in the meantime, Mr. Lundy could meet individually with Board members, subject to applicable requirements, or pursue other options available under the terms of the existing agreement.
He reiterated that the reason for postponing discussion was the lack of specific notice to the public that the contract matter would be considered at the June 11, 2026 meeting.
Motion #80-2026
Councilman Prosser offered a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 pm; the motion was seconded by Supervisor Bartlett.
Ayes All
____________________________________
Pamela Desormo, Town Clerk