FREE counter and Web statistics from sitetracker.com

KETMAR DEIS PROTECT OUR STEEP SLOPES IMPORTANT MEETINGS HOT OFF THE PRESS THE LAKE REPORTER WHO'S BUILDING WHAT KETMAR RSM E.C.A. SACRED LAND SUPPORT OUR APPEAL LakeVisions is dedicated to promoting dialogue, community & environmental stewardship. We exist to provide a vehicle for sharing ideas, concerns and visions regarding the increasing environmental and developmental pressures currently facing Canandaigua Lake and its watershed. Please alert us to any associated initiatives, issues and upcoming meetings. KETMAR DEIS Seneca Point Landing/ Ketmar Development Revised draft of the Final Environmental Impact Statement from the Department of Environmental Conservation. Caution this may take up to 10 minutes to download with a high speed connection. DEC draft Final Environmental Impact Statement Detailed responses to the comments made by the DEC regarding the October 2007 draft FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement). Detailed Comments PROTECT OUR STEEP SLOPES A working group of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Council, the Land Use Subcommittee, issued a Local Laws Report in May, 2007 that calls for the towns to act to restrict development on steep slopes, provide greater setbacks from watercourses, and manage stormwater more effectively during and after construction as a matter of their local laws. It also gives them model laws. Each of us can help by asking our individual towns how they intend to address this issue and if they intend to follow the CLWC's advice. View the Local Laws report IMPORTANT MEETINGS The Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance Annual Meeting The Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance Annual Meeting is scheduled from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Saturday, August 23, at the Bella Lago Restaurant at 158 Eastshore Drive. Call (585) 394-5030 or e-mail stachu14512@yahoo.com before 8/16 to register and get more information. HOT OFF THE PRESS Also check out "WHO'S BUILDING WHAT"; "RSM DEVELOPMENT"; & "KETMAR" (Click from list above left) for specific developments around the lake. For additional information, see the "Current Issues" and "In Your Town" pages. Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger March 18, 2008 A tale of two perceptions Is development in the town of Canandaigua out of control? Or is the town actually growing alot slower than some would have you believe? By PHILIP ANSELMO Messenger Post Staff Back when Jim Holden was supervisor in the town of Canandaigua in the 1980s, he remembers using the phrase “managing the pressures of development.” The phenomenon was a new one. Folks were starting to discover what everyone who lived in the town already knew — it was a nice place to live — and they wanted in. “We were on the threshold of big things starting to happen,” said Holden. Route 332 was the center of some major attention — $100 million worth — from a Rochester development firm. Housing proposals were mounting. And many residents were up in arms over the boom that threatened to transform the town’s “rural character” into an unwieldy suburban monster — think Henrietta, says Holden. “We saw an endless list of housing projects,” he said. “It seemed like every few weeks, we had another project show up.” Most of them, however, never saw the light of day, he said. But that has all changed. Holden is in awe at the number of potential homes “in the pipeline” these days — well over 1,200 at his last estimate. Not everyone would agree with Holden’s claims. In fact, one planner would even argue that the opposite is true: Development in the town is crawling if it’s moving ahead at all, and few of the homes Holden has counted “in the pipeline” show any sign of coming out of that pipeline and getting built. Still, there is no doubt Canandaigua has grown over the past couple of decades. From 1990 to 2000, the population in the town increased by 489 people, or about 7 percent, to 7,649, according to U.S. Census figures. Then, in the six years from 2000 to 2006, the population shot up 10 percent to 8,413. That has been the story over much of Ontario County, which has gained about 4,000 people in the past seven years. Meanwhile, neighboring Monroe, Wayne, Livingston and Yates counties all saw a decrease in populations from 2000 to 2006 — most dramatically in Monroe County, which lost about 5,000 of its residents in those years. In Canandaigua in particular, the expansion of Route 332 in 1999 was expected to bring the retailers en masse, even though many of the stores opted to set up shop along Routes 5 and 20, including Lowe’s and Super Wal-Mart. But does all that translate to out-of-control development? Schools in the county have seen a meager growth of barely 1 percent from an enrollment of 17,500 in 2003 to 17,716 in 2008, an increase driven solely by the spike of more than 700 students in Victor. Every other district lost students in those years. Whole developments, too, have stagnated, notes Ron Brand, town planner. Pittsford-based developers S&J Morrell Inc. have let preliminary planning approval expire for a 54-lot subdivision that was to be built along Route 21 in the town. The same has happened with a portion of the 294-lot development Lakewood Meadows along Middle Cheshire Road. But whatever problems the town may have with development — too much or too little — residents with blue-collar backgrounds such as Nila Repard say there is plenty of evidence that the town is losing its working-class roots. Repard was born and raised in Canandaigua and, save for a spell in Gorham, she has lived here for all of her 49 years. She has been a school bus driver for the past 18. “It’s very hard for the middle class — especially in the town,” said Repard, who spent part of her 15 year tenure as a town employee with the planning department. “It’s very hard for the middle class to buy a house when these homes are going for $200,000.” Repard and her husband live up on “the poor side of Nott Road,” as her husband calls it, between Route 21 and Woolhouse Road. When they bought their home in 1992 on a one-acre plot, they paid about $70,000. The house was last assessed at around $118,000, she said. That’s a 40 percent increase. “People want to live in the country and work in the city, and they want the city amenities,” said Repard. “It’s starting to burst at the seams. ... People expect so much more nowadays than they ever have.” When the Town Board increased the recreation fee for new homes from $500 to $3,000 in January 2007 — a move that has since been rescinded — many home builders and town residents alike decried the fee hike as a way of penalizing developers and pricing out potential lower-income residents. Others, such as Penfield’s building chief, Harold Morehouse, said at the time that a recreation fee was a perfectly legitimate means of funding recreation needs — Penfield set its fee at $1,000. An increase in population means an increase in demands. And more demands mean more pressure on town leaders to fulfill the often antagonistic wishes of residents, most of whom seem to at least agree on one fact: “I would love it if nobody ever moved into the town of Canandaigua, and it stayed the way it was,” said Repard. “But I don’t expect that to happen just because I want it to happen.” Dealing with development “The basic thing I found over the years is that you can’t stop the development,” said Cheshire resident Ed Varno, who worked as a planning director in Victor in the 1980s. “You have to manage it,” he added. “It comes from having good rules, continuity of personnel and having a team inside the municipality that knows who does what and respects those authorities.” The Villas at Canandaigua proposal has been a case study in managing development. The project calls for 132 condominiums to be constructed on a 49-acre parcel between Routes 5 and 20 and Middle Cheshire Road. The town approved rezoning for the project in October. Proponents of the Villas, including town Supervisor Lloyd Kinnear, have called the project a perfect fit for that land. The type of housing is in demand and the plans are aesthetically sound, they say. Its detractors, however, including Town Board members Marion Cassie and David Dawson, have vehemently argued against the project on the grounds that it is far too dense and would bring too much traffic to the intersections there. Both Cassie and Dawson said that the land should not be divided down any further than one home per one acre of land. That’s where the problem lies, said Repard. There is no objective management of town land — not for zoning, not for building, not for services. Another case study in subjective development, she would argue, is West Lake Road. “If you go down West Lake Road, there are very few (public) places that you can look out over the lake,” she said. “They have the ‘I’ve got mine’ attitude, and there is no reason to feel that way.” That sort of attitude becomes more than just isolationism when residents of that part of town “go to town meetings and try to rewrite the laws,” such as the restrictions on lakefront rental properties attempted by the board last year, said Repard. Anthony Busch does not think that is the case at all. Lakefront homeowners are in a sticky situation. They are accused of the “I’ve got mine” attitude when they speak out against lake development, when in reality, argues Busch, their interests are the interests of the whole community. They’re not trying to close the door, they are merely calling for more vigilance, more ecological caution. “We’re not opposed to development,” said Busch, president of the Eastshore Association, a group of lakefront residents formed in the 1950s to represent their interests. “We’re just saying that the development that comes should be in the best interest of the lake. And that benefits everybody in the greater Ontario County region.” There is a push for development in Canandaigua and around the county right now, according to Busch. And it needs to be responsibly controlled. “Our concern is that when they take property that presents ecological concerns such as steep slopes, it jeopardizes the health of the lake and shouldn’t be developed,” he said. “It’s not no development, it’s intelligent development.” Rick Bolton lives on the other side of the lake, on East Lake Road in Middlesex. He heads up a group called the Environmental Compliance Alliance and has attended Canandaigua town meetings in the past, especially when a potential lakefront development was on the evening’s agenda. “Water quality is our main concern, but we have other concerns as well,” he said. In a letter posted on a Web site forum called LakeVisions, Bolton addressed some of those other concerns. He wrote: “Developer friendly town boards (some having members with serious conflicts-of-interest) ... have aided developers through the approval process with next to no consideration for the severe environmental effects: aesthetics, noise pollution, safety, traffic, consideration for public opinion or public involvement in the democratic process.” Repard said that her time in the planning department taught her that many people simply over react to the environmental threats. “As far as I’m concerned, silt happens,” she said. “There’s good runoff and bad runoff. It’s going to happen because that’s the way the world is made.” What pressure? Bolton’s group and others are not out to put a halt to development, he insists. Like Repard and Varno, he calls for “responsible development.” For Bolton, that means enforcing environmental-quality reviews and taking a long, hard look at the impact that a potential development could have on ecology, especially water quality. The town of Canandaigua has never once asked for one of these reviews, he claims. Town Planner Ron Brand begs to differ. Brand said he has personally handled many of the environmental reviews along with the town Planning Board. Nor were all of the projects passed without question. “If you take a look at my record, in the five years I have been there, we have not been challenged on any environmental determination,” he said. “It’s one thing I take very seriously because it’s the easiest thing to mess up.” As for development pressures, Brand said he doesn’t see it. Most of the pressures seem to be to the north, in Farmington and Victor. “I really don’t think the town is under that much pressure right now,” he said. “Though there are some who would like everyone to think the sky is falling.” “We’re not seeing anywhere near the activity” as in the past, he added. “We’re seeing subdivisions that had been given preliminary approvals expire because there’s just not a market there right now.” S&J Morrell Inc. got planning approval for Lakewood Meadows in July, 2004, several phases of which have since expired. Marty McMillan, owner of McMillan Realty, would agree. In fact, he said, actual home values in the town —the price they are selling for — are often below their assessed value. For example: the house at 2180 Route 21 was built in 1999 on 10 acres of land. It was last assessed at $245,000, listed for sale at $219,000, and actually sold for $205,000. “In the past 30 years, I have witnessed values on the lake drop twice,” he said. “I have seen homes sell for less than what buyers paid for them — nowhere near in line with the appreciation of other lakefronts in New York State.” His solution: build according to market demands. “The market is demanding more housing like the Wegman project, yet the town is fighting tooth and nail,” said McMillan. “Let the market demand what housing is wanted and desired as opposed to letting special interest views of the Town Board dictate.” THE LAKE REPORTER Canandaigua, NY The Lake Reporter January 2008 Ketmar Moves Forward with Seneca Landings The Pittsford based Ketmar Development Corporation proposes to build 20 houses on a 47.2 acre South Bristol property plus docks, decks and storage buildings and slips for twenty boats on the property’s 543 feet of Canandaigua Lake shoreline. Our concerns with the project include the management of stormwater runoff from the very steep site during and after construction, over-reliance on a home-owner’s association to manage an environmentally sensitive property, protection of the sixty-foot high shale cliffs overlooking the lake, and assurance that the extent of the project’s docks, decks and other buildings at the shoreline are in conformance with the Uniform Docks and Moorings Regulations for Canandaigua Lake. At the same time that Ketmar is going through the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process to obtain permits for Seneca Landings, Ketmar has built a 4632 square foot building at 5409 Seneca Point Road (across the road from the Seneca Landings property). Their literature calls the house “a model” whose price is $1,450,000. As part of the SEQR process being coordinated by the NYS DEC, public hearings were held to “scope” the concerns of neighbors, residents, and the community. CLWA and many others submitted extensive comments about concerns. In July 2007, Ketmar submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the project to the NYS DEC, which the DEC declared complete. Another public hearing was held in August at which concerned parties offered critique’s of Ketmar’s DEIS, CLWA and the East Shore Associaton replied at length to the DEIS. From documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act detailing correspondence between Ketmar and the NYS DEC in November 2007. We have learned that Ketmar remains adamant about their plans, refuses to consider developing alternatives, resists mitigative measures, and has characterized most of those concerns put forward during the scoping as those of “meddlesome neighbors”. In one passage, ketmar alleges that “Precedence and cumulative impacts are irrelevant to the current application.” Consideration of precedence and cumulative impacts and the development of alternatives are precisely what SEQR requires. We commend the NYS DEC for upholding the clear instructions and intent of SEQR in requiring Ketmar to provide information necessary to good decision-making. We encourage others in the community to review Ketmar’s plans, ask questions and comment to the NYS DEC’s Thomas Haley at (585) 226-5393. Canandaigua, NY The Lake Reporter January 2008 Our Appeal to RSM Proceeds Thanks to Your Support When CLWA and the East Shore Association took legal action against RSM’s proposal to build 70 homes, a clubhouse and many docks off West Lake in mid-2006, we asked for the support of our members and supporters and promised to take the action as far as contributions would allow us. We thank you for your strong support to date. Background In late 2006, the Canandaigua Town Zoning Board or Appeals ruled in our favor. On appeal by RSM, acting-Supreme Court Judge William Kocher overturned the ZBA ruling in June, 2007, clearing the way for RSM to proceed. Why We Appealed Judge Kocher’s ruling effectively negated the “home rule” powers of the Town. He reasoned faultily that certain opinions of the Town’s Zoning Officer were binding, and eliminated CLWA/ESA’s standing to take legal action in the case. Judge Kocher’s decision was finalized in July, and on August 17, 2007 CLWA/ESA filed an Appeal with the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, in effect a panel of judges. Where the Appeals process stands In June 2007, the Town of Canandaigua announced that they would not appeal Judge Kocher’s decision, siding with their Zoning Officer against their Zoning Board of Appeals. In late November, 2007, the Town of Canandaigua announced that they would not be filing a brief in the case being appealed by CLWA/ESA, leaving the argument of this case, with important implications as to the Town of Canandaigua’s “home rule” powers, in the hands of CLWA/ESA. In October 2007, the CLWA/ESA Appeal was consolidated with the appeal of private citizens Al Kraus, Priscilla Herbik, and Oksana Fuller. In November and December, the briefs on the case were compiled by attorneys from Chamberlain D’Amanda representing CLWA/ESA and Hiscock & Barclay representing RSM, published in 39 and 56 page documents respectively and submitted to the Court with request to be heard by that Court for 15 minutes each during the March, 2008 session of the Court. Briefs critiquing the opponents’ cases have also been prepared and submitted to the Court. Contributions from CLWA/ESA members and supporters have been outstanding. They not only allow us to continue our appeal, they indicate a strong public interest in the outcome of this appeal. We thank all who have contributed to the Legal Defense Fund. Canandaigua, NY The Lake Reporter August 16, 2007 “This decision is a dangerous precedent for the Town of Canandaigua, for watershed residents, and for the health of Canandaigua Lake.” In an interview with The Lake Reporter, Carol Maue, Canandaigua resident and lawyer representing the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance and the Eastshore Association of Canandaigua Lake, explains why it’s important to appeal decisions that would gut the Canandaigua Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law and further harm the waters of the Lake. The Lake Reporter: Carol, in summer 2006, CLWA, together with East Shore Association (CLWA/ESA) and three private citizens, Oksana Fuller, Colonel Al Kraus and Priscilla Herbick, appealed a determination by the Town of Canandaigua Zoning Officer to the Zoning Board of Appeals that would have allowed RSM/Mancini Brothers to build a private marina with a 1,500 foot lakeshore clubhouse and up to 116 docks at the shoreline in the area now occupied by German Brother Marina. Can you walk us through that appeal and bring us up to date? Maue: While we made many legal arguments, we appealed largely because the Canandaigua Town Zoning Officer’s determination would set a terrible precedent. If upheld, it would gut the Canandaigua Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law, the “Dock Law.” One reason the Dock Law was adopted ten years ago was to prevent intensive development of a relatively small portion of lakefront for a relatively large number of upland residents and to prevent each upland resident from putting a boat on that small portion of shore. The docks in the current version of the RSM/Mancini Bros. (RSM) conceptual plan would serve owners of approximately 70 upland homes and add 116 docks to 540 lineal feet of Canandaigua Lakeshore. However, the Canandaigua Town Zoning Officer actually determined that “the proposed project is permitted to have 220 boat slips and 195 moorings” under the ‘All Other Land Use’ category rather than the ‘Residential Land Use’ category of the Dock Law. That’s a whopping, additional 415 boats on the Lake to serve 70 families. In the 2006 appeal of the ZO’s determinations to the Town Zoning Board (ZBA), we argued that: • since the upland in RSM’s development is to be used for the construction of 70 houses, (including 3 houses to be built on the existing German Bros. parcel) and the clubhouse, docks and moorings located at the lakeshore are to be owned for the exclusive use of these homeowners, this development is a ‘residential’ project in a residentially zoned area of the Town. • contrary to the Canandaigua Zoning Officer’s determination, the lakeshore development on the German Bros. parcel may only legally occur under the “Residential Land Use’ category of the Dock Law rather than the more expansive ‘All Other Land Use’ category. The difference in the number of boats, docks and moorings that would be legally permitted is significant: 415 as opposed to 22. • the RSM clubhouse and related facilities could not properly be characterized as a “private water oriented recreational facility” under the Town of Canandaigua’s Zoning Code which would require a special use permit. Under previous precedents, a private water-oriented recreational facility is only available for a water-dependent use. Since RSM’s proposed lakefront structures (clubhouse, sundeck, pump house, storage facilities) are not water-dependent uses, this classification of special use permit is not available to RSM. • the proposed 1500 square-foot sundeck to be built at the water’s edge adjacent to the clubhouse was a sundeck, not a dock, and thus was a prohibited structure under the provisions of the Dock Law. • the German Bros. use of its land for a commercial marina is a pre-existing nonconforming use of the parcel as the use of the land as a marina began prior to zoning. Since then, the German Bros. property has been zoned as Residential Lake District (RLD) property by the Town. The law is quite clear that once RSM knocks down the existing buildings on the German Brother’s parcel, the parcel reverts to its RLD ‘residential’ zoning status consistent with the zoning of the surrounding neighborhood. The RSM development will therefore create a legal precedent for residentially-zoned lakefront in the Town; RSM’s assertion that the existence of a commercial marina on this property is a sufficient legal basis to distinguish this project from similar projects in the future on residentially zoned lakefront property is meritless. • CLWA/ESA was timely in filing its appeal to the ZBA and both Associations had legal “standing” to appeal the Zoning Officer’s determinations with respect to both the Zoning Law and the Dock Law. There is well-established legal precedent in New York that grants to Associations standing to litigate on behalf of its members provided that the administrative determination appealed will have a harmful effect on the Association and its members that is different from the effect on the public at large and so long as the Associations and its membership are within the ‘zone of interest’ to be protected by the relevant law. We argued that both the CLWA and ESA had legal standing because the Associations have a combined membership of over 1,100 people, consisting primarily of landowners living in the Canandaigua Lake Watershed, many of whom live in close proximity to the RSM development. We noted that CLWA’s members include Putt Moore whose lakefront home is sandwiched between the German Bros. parcel and the Johnson parcel that comprise RSM’s development and Oksana Fuller, whose lake front property abuts the Johnson property. We also argue that RSM’s development would also have a serious, adverse impact not only on the water quality of Canandaigua Lake (that provides drinking water for over 60,000 people), but also on the western ridgeline view shed from the eastern shore of the Lake and the littoral aquatic habitat at the shoreline and that this development will also cause noise pollution, adverse traffic impacts and congestion, all of which are contrary to the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Our standing arguments were in response to very technical arguments made by RSM and its lawyers based on their assertion that while the Town’s ZBA had authority to hear appeals of the Zoning Officer’s determinations with respect to RSM’s development that required interpretation of the Town’s Zoning Code, the ZBA did not have legal authority or “jurisdiction” to hear appeals of the Zoning Officer’s determinations that required interpretation of the Dock Law. RSM argued that the Dock Law was not a “zoning statue” within the legal purview of the Town’s ZBA. Keep in mind that as part of this project and as indicated in its Conceptual Plan, RSM intends to subdivide the German Bros. parcel, artificially separating the German Bros. lakefront from its associated upland to create a separate parcel consisting of just the narrow strip of German Brothers lakefront land on the eastern side of West Lake Road on which RSM proposes to build its clubhouse (the “Clubhouse Lot”). RSM intends to incorporate the remainder of the German Bros. parcel on the other side of West Lake Road as part of another lot to be created within the Project. Also keep in mind that RSM’s Conceptual Plan shows three houses and a 53 car parking lot on the existing German Brothers parcel on the western side of West Lake Road. RSM argued to the ZBA that to determine who has standing under the Dock Law to appeal to the ZBA, the ZBA must necessarily assume that subdivision approval for separation of the German Bros. lakefront from its upland had been granted and then argued that the only ‘parcel’ relevant for determination of the standing issue was the new, artificially created, Clubhouse Lot consisting just of the lakeshore portion of the existing German Brothers parcel. RSM then asserted that since this Clubhouse Lot was owned by German Bros Marina, Inc., that German Bros. Marina, Inc. was the sole, aggrieved “adjacent upland owner” who had standing under the Dock Law to appeal directly to the ZBA any of the Zoning Officer’s determinations made with respect to the Dock Law. According to RSM, the only remedy available to anyone else in the community to redress the Zoning Officer’s Dock Law determinations was a direct appeal to the New York Supreme Court under Article 78 of the NY Civil Practice Law and Rules, an expensive and time-consuming proceeding, bypassing completely the Town ZBA. Did the Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeals agree with the basis of CLWA/ESA’s appeal? Maue: Yes. At its November 14, 2006 meeting, in almost every case, the Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeals rejected RSM’s arguments and upheld the positions taken by the CLWA/ESA in our appeal. Though all of the Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeal’s determinations announced on November 14, 2006 were important to our case, our focus was to preserve the integrity of the Dock Law. By granting the relief we requested and reversing the Zoning Officer, the Canandaigua ZBA defeated a plan to put an impossibly large number of boats on Canandaigua Lake that would create a precedent for similar developments, on residentially zoned property, all the way around the Lake. If the ZBA upheld our appeal, why are we still fighting this in the summer of 2007? Maue: On December 14, 2006, RSM filed an Article 78 proceeding challenging the Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeals, charging that its decision was “arbitrary and capricious” and should be set aside. An Article 78 is a costly “special proceeding” designed for the appeal of decisions made by administrative bodies like a town zoning board of appeals. It is commenced by filing a Petition in New York State Supreme Court and the issues presented are then decided by a single, Supreme Court Judge, in our case, Acting State Supreme Court Judge William Kocher of Victor. The decision of the Court is based entirely on the record of the proceedings to date and the legal arguments made to the ZBA and allows for no public input. A hearing was held before Judge Kocher on February 6, 2007. On June 15, 2007, Judge Kocher issued his Decision. It effectively reversed the Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeals determination and paved the way for RSM to continue through the approvals process. The Judge determined, among other things that : • The Associations’ and the Residents’ appeals to the ZBA of the Zoning Officer’s determinations were timely filed; • While the Town of Canandaigua ZBA possesses the legal authority to consider appeals of any determinations made by the Zoning Officer that required interpretation of the Town’s Zoning Code, the ZBA lacks the legal authority or “jurisdiction” to consider appeals of any determinations made by its Zoning Officer that require interpretation of the Dock Law, holding that the Dock Law is not a “zoning statute” within the meaning of Section 267 of the NY Town Law; • While the Associations and the Residents who appealed the Zoning Officer’s determinations to the ZBA had standing generally under New York law to appeal the Zoning Officer’s determinations made under the Town’s Zoning Code, only the Petitioner, German Brothers Marina, Inc., had standing to commence a direct appeal to the ZBA of the Zoning Officer’s determinations under the Dock Law. The Court based this holding on its assertion that German Brothers Marina, Inc. is the only aggrieved, “adjacent upland owner” under the Dock Law. • Therefore, the Court held that the Associations’ and Residents’ only legal avenue to appeal the Town Zoning Officer’s determinations with respect to the Dock Law was to have commenced a direct, Article 78 proceeding to the NY Supreme Court, effectively bypassing the ZBA entirely and ignoring years of New York precedent that require a litigant to exhaust his or her administrative remedies in the Town before resorting to the Courts; • The club house and related facilities to be built at the lakeshore of the German Bros. Clubhouse Lot constitute a “private water oriented recreational facility” for which RSM can apply for a special use permit in the Residential Lake District under the Town of Canandaigua Zoning Code. The Judge thus rejected the ZBA’s finding, based on prior Town precedent, that a private water oriented recreational facility is only available for water dependent uses, unlike the clubhouse and related facilities which are not water-dependent uses; • The lakeshore development for this project to be constructed on the lakeside, German Bros. Clubhouse Lot can properly occur under the ‘All Other Land Use’ category of the Dock Law rather than the ‘Residential Land Use’ category notwithstanding that all of the land in the Project is zoned residential and the upland will be used primarily for the construction of 70 private residences. The Court based this determination that RSM is entitled to “All Other Land Use” treatment under the Dock Law on its decision that ‘adjacent upland parcel’ as used in the Dock Law refers only to the requested but yet-to-be subdivided German Brothers Clubhouse Lot consisting of just the German Brothers lakefront property and not its associated upland. The Court then reasoned that since the sole use of this Clubhouse Lot is for the erection of the clubhouse and related facilities and not for residences in the conceptual plan, RSM was entitled to lakeshore build out under the All Other Land Use Category of the Dock Law, notwithstanding that the Conceptual Plan shows three houses proposed on the existing German Brothers parcel on the western side of West Lake Road and an additional 67 houses on the upland of the Johnson property, the other parcel of land included in the Project. • While the Court acknowledged that the 1500 square foot sundeck proposed by RSM on the Clubhouse Lot is not properly characterized as a dock and is thus a prohibited structure under the Dock Law as a matter of law, because of its determination that the Associations and Residents lacked standing to appeal this Dock Law determination made by the Zoning Officer to the Town ZBA and the ZBA lacked jurisdiction to hear this appeal, the Court reinstated the Zoning Officer’s illegal determination that it was a dock and a permitted structure under the Dock Law. Were you surprised by the Judge’s decision? Maue: Surprised and dismayed. There are several reasons this decision would set a bad precedent. First, it effectively eviscerates the Canandaigua Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law and deprives a municipality of the right to home rule over matters that occur within its borders. This includes the right to interpret its own laws and to review the actions of its officers. Next there is the issue of who has “standing.” The decision deprives an aggrieved citizen of standing to a challenge the official actions of a town official (the Zoning Officer in this case) by direct appeal to the Town’s Zoning Board, a process that is much less costly than commencing a legal action in New York State Supreme Court under Article 78. This decision also contradicts years of established precedent that state that an aggrieved citizen must first exhaust his administrative remedies in the municipality before commencing an action in Court against a municipal official. The net effect of the decision is to deprive a citizen the right to appeal an adverse decision of a local official to that municipality’s zoning board of appeals, requiring instead that a lawyer be hired and an expensive legal proceeding be commenced in Court. As a general proposition, the cost of an Article 78 proceeding can easily equal the sum of $10,000. This is a draconian result that deprives local communities of the ability to address legal matters within their borders and needlessly burdens the Courts of this state with resolution of purely local matters best left to local determination in accordance with established administrative procedure. Equally important is the chilling effect imposed on the average citizen’s ability to challenge adverse determinations under the Dock Law. This is just not what was intended by the Dock Law and is contrary to years of precedent in New York State. What else is problematic? Maue: The Judge refused to look at the project as a conceptual whole, instead assuming that the land in the Project had already been artificially subdivided into a number of distinct parcels as requested by RSM, separating the German Brothers lakefront from its associated upland and then applying the literal language of the definition of "adjacent upland parcel" to these artificially created parcels under the Dock Law. The Judge accordingly determined that the affected "adjacent upland parcel" consists solely of the lakeside portion of the German Brothers parcel, necessarily presuming that the subdivision of the German Brothers lakefront from the upland had been granted by the Town. In making this determination, he discounted entirely the fact that the entire purpose of the lakefront clubhouse and related facilities is to serve the 70 upland residents that comprise the bulk of the Project. Indeed, the club house and related facilities to be built at the lakeshore and all of the upland green space are to be owned by a Homeowner’s Association in which the upland homeowners are the sole members. The Judge also ignored the fact that on the Conceptual Plan, the German Brothers parcel (before the artificial subdivision) contains three houses, thus belying the characterization of the use of the upland of the German Brothers parcel as non-residential. Most important, this decision imperils the health and well-being of Canandaigua Lake. It opens the door to widespread development around the lakeshore of Canandaigua Lake of private marinas with many hundreds of boats for the exclusive use of a large number of upland residents in areas that are zoned wholly residential. This is contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code adopted by virtually all of the communities around the Lake and is contrary to the intent of the Dock Law. Because of the Court’s decision, RSM can theoretically install up to 415 boats at the lakeshore. This is more than eighteen times the number that would otherwise be permitted for residential property under the Dock Law. Incredibly, because of this decision, developers can also now bifurcate the lakeshore portion of land from the upland where residences are to be located by the artifice of a subdivision, offering what is essentially a private marina at the lakeshore to large numbers of residences elsewhere in the Town with many more boats, docks and moorings than would otherwise be legally permitted under the ‘All Other Land Use’ category of the Dock Law. Taking this decision to its logical conclusion, a developer may now purchase several hundred lineal feet of residentially-zoned lake front property in the Town of Canandaigua and develop it as a private marina under the ‘All Other Land Use’ category of the Dock Law for the exclusive use of a residential development located anywhere in the Town of Canandaigua, even if the property on which the residential development is located is not contiguous in any manner to the lakeshore at issue. This decision, and the prospect of private lakefront marinas that it offers developers, will certainly create an economic incentive for the wholesale development of the steep slopes in the Southern Corridor for upscale residences. This will virtually insure the placement of many more boats on the Lake than anticipated under the Watershed Management Plan inventories taken in earlier years, causing further hydrocarbon pollution, exacerbating the existing erosion problem and further degrading lake water quality generally. Let’s not forget that Canandaigua Lake is our most precious natural resource. It provides drinking water for over 60,000 people. Its gorgeous vistas and clean water is also the source of millions of dollars in tourism revenue. This is all at risk.   Is there a process to appeal the Judge’s decision and if yes, should it be appealed? Maue: Yes. For the health of the lake, for the sake of rational precedents that protect a municipality’s right to interpret its own laws and its citizens’ rights to appeal, this decision should be appealed. It is an ill-considered decision in every respect. It is true that it is still theoretically possible that this lake front development could be stopped if the Town of Canandaigua Planning Board denies a special use permit for the private water oriented recreational facility. Unfortunately, that will not address the case law created by this decision limiting the Town of Canandaigua’s right to interpret and review its own laws and lakefront construction occurring within its borders or construing the Dock Law. As I’ve already said, it dangerously restricts standing to appeal and that opens the door wide for similar, massive residential developments at the lakeshore. Everyone around the lake, but particularly the Town of Canandaigua and its residents, will be adversely affected by this decision if it is not appealed. If this decision stands unchallenged, anyone other than the applicant itself who wishes to object in the future to similar developments under the Dock Law will have to commence an Article 78 proceeding which costs thousands of dollars. As RSM is well aware, this is just beyond the means for the average person. Is there a loophole in the Zoning Code of the municipalities bordering Canandaigua Lake or in the Docking and Moorings Law that needs to be closed? Maue: The most important step that the residents around the Lake can take is to contact their Town Boards to authorize an immediate review of the town’s Zoning Code. A review must be undertaken of uses ‘permitted as of right’ and those ‘special uses’ only permitted with the issuance of a special use permit in residentially zoned lakefront districts to make certain that clubhouses, community centers, social clubs, restaurants, public and private yacht clubs, public and private marinas, and other similar uses (including “private water oriented recreational facilities”) are prohibited in residentially zoned, lakefront districts. It is also imperative that the Zoning Code incorporate well-reasoned definitions that clearly reflect the Code’s intentions. If the Town of Canandaigua is not going to appeal this determination as was recently indicated in the local paper, then it should strongly consider implementing a moratorium immediately. Until dirt is moved, RSM has no vested interest in this project that would be recognized in a court of law. This will afford the Town the time it needs to review and revise its Zoning Code. The Dock Law also needs to be revisited. It is very clear that its purpose was to prevent exactly the kind of development that is being proposed by RSM. It seems equally clear that it never occurred to the drafters of this legislation that the lakefront would be in any manner artificially separated from the associated upland by the artifice of a subdivision to circumvent the intent of the Dock Law or that a Court would construe the statute’s definition of aggrieved ‘adjacent upland owner’ or ‘adjacent upland parcel’ in such a way as to permit a developer to buy residential lake front that is not contiguous to any upland on which residences are to be built and then develop it under the ‘All Other Land Use’ category of the Dock Law as a private marina, with many more boats, docks and moorings that would otherwise be permitted for residential property, for the benefit of a residential development miles away. What else can be done? Maue: The communities around the lake can address deficiencies in the Dock Law. Unfortunately, this process can take up to two years and a lot of damage may be done in the interim. Each municipality’s Zoning Law and zoning process should also be reviewed with respect to lakeshore development. The scope of authority of each municipality’s zoning officer and code enforcement officer to review and interpret law, but particularly the Dock Law, without careful legal oversight should also be reviewed. Some have charged that the appellants are “anti-development” and want to slow the economic growth around the Lake. Is that the case? Maue: This appeal is anything but an attempt to slow the economic vitality of this area. It’s just the opposite. People choose to live here, vacation here, and start businesses here because of the relative health of the Watershed compared to other areas. You don’t see people clamoring to live in the watershed of Onondaga Lake which is practically a dead lake. This isn’t about opposing development; it is about responsible development. To ensure the long-term economic health of the area, we must preserve and enhance the resources that bring people here in the first place. You don’t do that by gutting the laws that were created a decade ago to protect the precious resource that is the Canandaigua Lake Watershed. What can CLWA members do to support an appeal? Maue: Make contributions to the legal fund. Write letters or e-mails to the editor of the local papers. Residents of the Town of Canandaigua (and the other communities around the Lake) can write to the Town Board and the Town Supervisor supporting a moratorium. Members can volunteer to work on committees in their local communities that address these matters. They can also get more active in the Watershed Alliance, the Eastshore Association and other community groups that are concerned with protection of Canandaigua Lake. What exactly are the Canandaigua Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Regulations? Maue: These were crafted over a decade ago with great care by the Ontario County Planning Department with input from many groups and agencies, including the results of community meetings held in every community around the Lake. The purpose was to provide a rational basis for access to Canandaigua Lake’s shoreline. There were many reasons to do this -- Canandaigua Lake provides drinking water for more than 60,000 area residents so its purity must be maintained. Public access to the water and to the views is important as land values on and around the lake rise in value. Municipalities wanted to find common ground to control a growing water pollution and erosion problem. Since the watershed has several municipalities, the idea was find a single standard all these municipalities could agree on and ratify. This was accomplished and then State Senator Randy Kuhl provided legislation that gave the municipalities – not the NYS Navigation Law – the authority to determine the number of docks and moorings allocated on Canandaigua Lake, according to a uniform formula of square footage of shoreline. The Regulations work hand in hand with the Watershed Management Plan, also agreed to by the surrounding municipalities, to equitably place rational restrictions on practices and uses that could slow the deterioration of the water quality in the watershed. Canandaigua, NY The Lake Reporter May 2007 Beware of this precedent By Carol Maue Misinformation is still circulating regarding the residential lakefront development that the Mancini brothers, the owners of RSM West Lake Road, LLC wish to build on West Lake Road in the town of Canandaigua. Unlike RSM, the not-for-profit corporations and the three courageous citizens who have taken this matter to court do not have unlimited funds to hire public relations professionals to prepare slick “Facts or Fiction” brochures to sway public opinion. This is a complex zoning case that requires understanding of complex legal principles. The proponents of this project are using this complexity to obfuscate the facts and to confuse the public. The Canandaigua Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law is a uniform local law adopted by every community around Canandaigua Lake, intended to supplement each community’s zoning laws. Prior to the enactment of the Docking Law, the Ontario County Planning Department conducted public meetings to explain its objectives. Minutes of these meetings demonstrate that the law’s primary purpose was to prevent “intensive development of a relatively small portion of lakefront for a relatively large number of upland residents” and to prohibit “each upland resident from owning a boat.” To curtail intensive, lakefront development in residential zoning districts, the Docking Law states that it is the upland use that controls the kind of development that may occur at the lakeshore. The more lineal feet of lakeshore one owns, the greater the number of docks, boats, berths and moorings permitted for property that is zoned residential. The Docking Law therefore creates two categories of lakeshore development, the “Residential Land Use Category” that applies when the use of the upland is for residences or “places of dwelling”, and the “All other land Uses Category” that only applies when the use of the upland is for some other purpose than places of dwelling. The upland use contemplated by RSM is for construction of approximately 70 residences and green space to be owned individually by the resident or by a Homeowners Association in which only the residents are qualified to be members. Since the upland use in this Project is residential, it seems self-evident that the associated lakeshore development must occur under the more restrictive, “residential Land Use Category” of the Dock Law. But the Town’s Zoning Officer determined that the ”All Other Land Use Category” applies based solely on the label that RSM applied to its lakeshore development. Although the Zoning Board of Appeals reversed the Zoning Officer, RSM has appealed to the Supreme Court. This is the crux of the pending lawsuit. Moreover, if RSM is permitted to develop the shoreline of this Project under the “All Other Land Uses Category” of the Docking Law, by constructing a 4,000 square foot clubhouse with seating for over 350 people, a view dock over 1,000 feet in length with docks and moorings for over 116 boats on approximately 540 lineal feet of lakefront and a 53 car parking lot, then any other developer who buys lakefront property in the Town’s residential zoning Districts can rely on this precedent and do exactly the same thing. This is the case because the German Brothers Property on which this intensive lakeshore development is to be built is zoned as “Residential Lake District” property and its current use as a commercial marina, open to the public, is a pre-existing, non-conforming use that may continue to exist only so long as it is not changed in any respect. Once the German Brothers marina is torn down by RSM, under the Town’s zoning Law, the property’s status as a pre-existing non=conforming use is extinguished and it may then only be developed for residential purposes regardless of its prior use as a commercial marina. The mere “fact” that there was once a commercial marina on the German Brothers Property is irrelevant and will not be a sufficient legal basis to distinguish RSM’s lakefront development from any similar residential development. Any competent lawyer representing another developer will take full advantage of this precedent and it is disingenuous for RSM to contend otherwise. The precedent will destroy the views and passive enjoyment of Canandaigua Lake, promote over-crowding, over-population of boats and hydrocarbon pollution and have an adverse impact on tourism, property values and most importantly, water quality. Canandaigua Lake is a vast reservoir, providing drinking water for over 60,000 people in the Canandaigua Lake watershed. Don’t be swayed by slick advertising, particularly when the continued vitality of Canandaigua Lake, our most precious resource, is at stake. Carol S. Maue is a Partner with the Chamberlain D”Amanda law firm and is the attorney representing the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance, Inc. and the East Shore Association of Canandaigua Lake, Inc. in the court case regarding this Project that is currently pending in the new York Supreme Court in Ontario County. Ms. Maue and her husband are also West lake Road residents and lake front owners in the RLD zoning district in the Town of Canandaigua. Canandaigua NY The Lake Reporter, a publication of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance January 2007 - Volume 5, Issue 1 Some Success and Further Challenges RSM’s West Lake Marine Club Defeating a plan to put “impossibly large numbers of boats on Canandaigua Lake” On November 14, 2006, after hearing testimony and receiving documents at public hearings on September 11 and October 23, 2006, the Canandaigua Town Zoning Board of Appeals rendered decisions on the matter of several determinations by the Town’s Zoning Officer. In almost every case, the position taken by the Canandaigua Lake Watershed task Force and the East Shore Association (CLWA/ESA) on these determinations was upheld by the ZBA. Though all the determinations were important, CLWA/ESA focused on the question of what would be allowed under the Town’s Zoning and Docks and Moorings Regulations. The Zoning Officer’s original determination would have allowed RSM to build a large number of docks and moorings to serve the private club. CLWA argued that, though the German brother’s Marina had become part of RSM’s plan, the Marina is a pre-existing, nonconforming use of the parcel (developed as such prior to zoning) and that if the current use as a public marina is changed, the parcel would revert in zoning to reflect the residential use of all other properties surrounding it and become zoned Residential. As a residential parcel of land, the developer would be allowed to build the number of docks and moorings allocated by the length of shoreline owned. On December 14, 2006, RSM filed an Article 78 challenge to the Canandaigua ZBA’s November decisions. The challenge will be heard by Judge William Kocher of the NYS Supreme Court at the Ontario County Courthouse on Tuesday, February 6, 2007. CLWA/ESA will present answers to RSM’s challenge, as will an attorney representing the Town of Canandaigua and representatives of the neighbor’s group that was also a party to the original action. The Supreme Court’s decision will be largely based on the record of the proceedings thus far, and there will be no opportunity for public input. RSM has alleged that the Canandaigua ZBA’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious” and should be set aside. Judge Kocher will decide if the record supports this claim. Though we anticipate a favorable outcome in the Supreme Court decision (probably rendered some months after the hearing), the decision could be appealed by either party to the highest court in NYS, the Court of Appeals. CLWA/ESA entered this contest unwillingly. Costs of such legal action are high. CLWA/ESA felt that the precedent set by the Canandaigua Zoning Officer’s original determination would have gutted the Uniform Docks and Mooring Regulations and allowed impossibly large numbers of docks, moorings and boats on Canandaigua Lake. If you have not already contributed to supporting this important action, please consider doing so now. Checks noting “Legal Fund” and made out to CLWA should be sent to P.O. Box 323, Canandaigua, NY 14424. From the Chair By Marty DeVinney As readers of this newsletter most certainly know, the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance has partnered with the East Shore Association to appeal several of the Town od Canandaigua Zoning Officer’s interpretations of the town’s land use ordinances and the Uniform Docks and Moorings Law regarding RSM LLC’s proposed residential subdivision on the west side of the lake. Most of the issues appealed were decided in our favor at the local level by the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals. However, RSM has appealed the Zoning Board’s ruling to the State Supreme Court. The public discussion of what is happening has become very legalistic, as it must and should. I am concerned, however, that the “why” of our appeal could get lost in the legalities and technicalities. In this case, the “why” is at least as important as the “what”, and the “why” is the same reason that the Watershed Alliance exists. The Watershed Alliance was founded decades ago because it was correctly perceived that Canandaigua Lake’s water quality was slowly but significantly deteriorating. Many individuals, groups and organizations began to work together to study, understand and mitigate the problems. Scientific studies were performed to understand its causes. No single cause was found, but several major contributors to the problem were identified: erosion from agricultural operations and residential development, failed septic systems, and motor boats. A “Watershed Management Plan” was developed to describe a set of actions addressing the causes of pollution and degradation. The Plan was adopted by the watershed municipalities and NYS in 1999. The Watershed Management Plan has been used as intended. Public education, such as the painted warnings on storm drains in the City of Canandaigua, was carried out. Training sessions for municipal boards and highway superintendents were prepared and presented. Municipalities used the Watershed management plan’s recommendations to involve their residents in a discussion of the issues. This resulted in the municipalities amending their land use regulations and adopting the Uniform Docks and Moorings Law to lessen the impacts of erosion and pollution. The amended regulations were not intended to prohibit particular activities, but only to equitably place rational restrictions on those practices and uses that had been identified as most severely contributing to the lake’s deteriorating water quality. But these improved regulations can achieve their purposes only if they are interpreted wisely and enforced judiciously. And this is the most difficult part of the process. Definitions can never be inclusive, and ordinances can never address all possible actions or situations. Different readers will inevitable reach different conclusions regarding just what is permitted. There will always be public debate and, at times, judicial review, to determine what any law really means. Last April, The Watershed Alliance and the East Shore Association decided that the Canandaigua Zoning Officer’s interpretations did not represent what we believed to be the intent of the Town Zoning and Dock and Moorings Laws. Our two organizations were concerned that this situation would weaken critical erosion and pollution controls we felt were absolutely necessary to regulate the construction of a large residential development planned for a less than ideal building site along the lake’s western shoreline. We felt obliged to question the interpretation and to seek another opinion. In summary, the legal challenge needs to be seen in the context of the years of research, education and outreach which resulted in our decision to undertake it. And this “routine” work continues, with your help and support, because we continue to believe that it is absolutely vital to the protection of the watershed. Our Opinion: Docks and Moorings Uniform docks and moorings regulations for Canandaigua lake were proposed over a decade ago with the urpose of providing a rational basis for access to Canandaigua Lake for riparian (shoreline) property owners. Then-State Senator Randy Kuhl provided the legislation which transferred regulation from docks and moorings under the NYS Navigation Law from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation to the municipalities with Canandaigua Lake shoreline, if the municipalities would agree on a single standard. After a year’s work by the Ontario County Planning Department, standards for lake access (the number of docks and moorings allowed) allocated according to the linear footage of shoreline owned were developed and ratified by the municipalities. The standard that was developed approximated current usage so that a large number of exceptions would not have to be made immediately. It should be no surprise that such a standard linking lake access and shoreline ownership would be challenged. Lake access has great demonstrated value in selling upland properties. At present, two developers are proposing upland development plans that challenge the Docks and Moorings standards, and undoubtedly the resolution of these challenges will determine the future effectiveness of the Docks and Moorings Regulations. We urge Canandaigua Lake municipalities individually and as associated in the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Council to stand firm on the standards developed for lake access in the Uniform Docks and Moorings Regulations. WHO'S BUILDING WHAT Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger December 29, 2006 Year in Review Construction in the Canandaigua Lake Watershed WEBMASTERS NOTE (ALL IN CAPITALS): I DO NOT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO REPRODUCE THE DAILY MESSENGER’S MAP. THEREFORE, I WOULD SUGGEST ANY INTERESTED PEOPLE TO USE A MAP OF THE AREA AND LOCATE THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT SITES. The large map below shows, in light green, the Canandaigua Lake watershed, the 174-square-mile area that drains into the lake. The smaller maps show proposed and ongoing housing construction hot spots within the watershed. Each project is detailed below the corresponding map. Canandaigua Lake is the third-largest Finger Lake by volume. It’s 15.5 miles long and 276 feet deep. It holds more than 400 billion gallons and provides drinking water to approximately 60,000 people. Amber Meadows, 5100 Bristol Road •Developer: Charles J. Normand Builders Inc. of Rochester and William Metrose Ltd. of Pittsford. •Description: 71 single-family homes on 50 acres straddling the Canandaigua town and city line. •Status: City Planning Commission is awaiting further detail from developers before ruling on whether the subdivision will have a significant environmental impact. If the commission rules that it will, the developers will have to file an environmental impact statement. If the commission rules that it won’t, the city and town will move forward on preliminary site-plan approval. Old Brookside, Buffalo Street Extension •Developer: Home Properties of Rochester •Description: 168 apartments, 172 single-family homes on 152 acres •Status: 82 single-family permits issued with 79 homes built to date; 8 buildings with 64 apartments and a community center now under construction The Villas, corner of Parrish Street and Routes 5 and 20 •Developer: Wegman Companies Inc., Rochester •Description: 154 town homes on 50 acres •Status: Company would need rezoning to proceed but has not yet applied. Fox Ridge, Butler and Middle Cheshire roads •Developers: First phases: Griffith Builders; middle phases: Diamond Construction; current developer: Property Development of Western New York/Ryan Homes •Description: 155 homes on 126 acres •Status: Preliminary approval on all 155; 91 building permits issued to date; 79 homes built to date. Waterford Point, Middle Cheshire Road, south of Wyffels Road •Developer: S&J Morrell Inc. •Description: 52 single-family homes on 44 acres •Status: Final approval on all 52; 49 built to date. Le subdivision, corner of Wyffels Road and Middle Cheshire Road •Developer: Anh Le •Description: 12 homes on 15.9 acres • Status: Final approval on all 12 homes, site work under way, no building permits issued yet. The Residences at West Lake Marine Club, 3907 and 3950 West Lake Road •Developer: RSM West Lake Road, Victor •Description: 69 homes, a private clubhouse and marina on 77 acres. Marina would have 12 docks, 35 mooring buoys and 89 boat slips •Status: Town is awaiting the company’s environmental impact statement; RSM filed suit against the town on Dec. 14 asking a judge to overturn a Nov. 14 Zoning Board of Appeals decision rejecting the private marina and limiting boat slips to 23. Lakewood Meadows, east and west sides of Middle Cheshire Road •Developer: S&J Morrell Inc., Pittsford •Description: 230 single-family, including 69 patio-style, homes on 228 acres •Status: Preliminary approval granted on all 230 homes; 40 built to date. The Landings,Hillcrest Drive and County Road 16 •Developer: Singer Realty of Rochester •Description: 11 single-family homes on 46 acres •Status: Final approval on all 11; six building permits issued; four built to date. Seneca Point Landing, 5409 Seneca Point Road, South Bristol •Developer: Ketmar Development, Pittsford •Description: 47 acres, 20 single-family homes, 20-slip dock •Status: In a Nov. 27 letter to Ketmar, the state Department of Environmental Conservation asked for further detail in its environmental impact statement; once the DEC deems the document complete, the agency will release it for public comment. Bristol Harbour duplexes, Cliffside Drive, South Bristol •Developer: Bristol Harbour Development LLC, South Bristol •Description: 17.1 acres, 30 duplexes, 3 single-family homes for total of 63 units, to be built behind the resort's lakeside condominiums •Status: Final approval of all 63 units; no building permits issued to date; Bristol Harbour awaiting state Department of Environmental Conservation approval of its plans to manage stormwater during construction Water’s Edge (formerly Fallbrook Meadows), 3556 Route 364, Canandaigua •Developer: Property Development of Western New York/Ryan Homes •Description: 35 townhomes on 7.4 acres •Status: Final approval on all 35; five buildings with 20 units total built to date. East Lake View Estates, Route 364, Gorham •Developer: Carmen Laviano •Description: 62 single-family homes on 187 acres •Status: Preliminary approval on all 62 homes, final approval on 47; 39 homes built to date. Laviano has not yet applied for final approval on the last 15 homes. Spring Hill, Route 364, Gorham •Developer: Schoenberger Associates LP •Description: 62 single-family homes on 55.5 acres •Status: Preliminary approval on all 62; Gorham Planning Board granted final approval on first 14 in June; Schoenberger awaiting approvals from Ontario County for sewer service and state Health Department for water main into development. Deep Run, corner of Route 364 and County Road 1, Gorham •Developer: Bero Contracting and Development •Description: 104 single-family homes on 76.4 acres •Status: Preliminary approval on all 104; 22 built; town granted final approval for 10 more lots on April 24; Bero awaiting approvals from Ontario County for sewer service, state Health Department for water main into development and state Department of Environmental Conservation for stormwater management during construction. Lakeside Estates, 4196 County Road 16 •Developer: Bero Contracting and Development •Description: 44 single-family homes on 134 acres •Status: Final approval on 20 homes; 10 built to date. Quailbush Townhomes, Cedarbush Drive • Developer: Chrisanntha Inc. of Gorham •Description: 44 single-family units approved in 1985 •Status: 30 completed LAKE EFFECT A total of 17 ongoing and proposed subdivisions ring Canandaigua Lake, but the bulldozers only rolled at seven during the 2006 construction season. These seven projects added 52 more single-family homes and 12 townhomes to the watershed since mid-May: • Old Brookside: 9 homes • Fox Ridge: 10 homes • Waterford Point: 1 home • Lakewood Meadows: 11 homes • Quailbush: 3 homes • East Lake View Estates: 16 homes • Lakeside Estates: 2 homes • Water’s Edge: 12 townhomes. In addition, 64 apartments are under construction at Old Brookside off Buffalo Street Extension in Canandaigua. That brings the total in these 17 subdivisions to 436 units built with a potential for 1,092 more units if all were built as planned. But the fate of several projects is still in doubt. In November, the Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeals issued a decision that could force RSM West Lake Road to redesign its project. The company has filed suit in state Supreme Court to overturn the decision. A hearing has been set for Jan. 23. Another Canandaigua project, the Villas, won’t get built without rezoning. Two Gorham projects, Spring Hill and Deep Run, are awaiting regulatory approvals before they can continue. Gorham, in fact, had a moratorium in place for most of the past year on new subdivisions within view of the lake. The town has used the past 11 months to adopt new rules meant to reduce the density of any future subdivision, thereby reducing the potential for runoff to carry pollution into the lake. By allowing fewer homes, the town also hopes to retain its rural character, noted Supervisor Richard Calabrese. The town increased the lot size from a minimum of 15,000 square feet to an average of 18,000 square feet. Gorham allows construction on only 50 percent of the land area, leaving 20 percent for infrastructure and 30 percent for open space. This year, it gave the Planning Board the discretion to put the open space where it best serves the community, according to Calabrese The upshot of all the tinkering with town code: A few years ago, a developer could have put nearly 400 homes on a 200-acre lot. Now, that same 200-acre lot can only have 240 houses. In 2007, Gorham may take its effort to rein in development one step further: “The only thing we’re trying to do that is earth-shattering is limit the number of housing units per year,” Calabrese said. The idea is still under discussion so he has no numbers to throw out yet. Such limits are rare, but not new. The town of Clarence, near Buffalo, limits single-family permits to 240 per year. Calabrese said developers might not like it, but, “We’re not here for developers. I could care less what someone outside of Gorham wants to do in Gorham.” Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger May 28, 2006 Where It Stands: Construction in the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Drive around Canandaigua Lake, and it’s obvious the construction trade is booming here. So much so that people have begun to ask: How much is too much? shed down a development road on Some say erosion that can carry sediment, lawn chemicals and other pollutants. Has already begun taking a toll on the lake. Runoff from an April 2006 shower waRoute 364 and into the lake. Last July, muddy water poured down an open sewer pipe at a Middle Cheshire Road project, surged out a manhole cover on West Lake Road and spilled into the lake. Then there was that mudslide at Fox Ridge in 2002. The incidents have led to greater public scrutiny of construction. And there’s a lot to watch. Within the watershed, there are 17 ongoing or proposed subdivisions of 10 or more homes. If they all get built to completion, they would contain 1,426 single-family homes and 168 apartments. Why should we worry? That depends. Of the 1,426 single-family homes, only 319 have been built to date. Some projects were started years ago. One subdivision of 154 town-homes is on hold pending a zoning map change in Canandaigua. Moreover, there’s no guarantee all homes will ever be built. “In (the Town of)Canandaigua last year, there were only 80 building permits issued,” noted Scott Morrell, owner of S&J Morrell, Inc. “There’s only so much demand. We don’t entertain building unless the market is favorable. ….It’s a good market, but it’s not fast-paced. Everything is not built at once.” Nor is construction the only threat to the lake. Residents over zealous with their lawn chemicals, failing septic systems, runoffs from farms and spills from motorboats and jet skis pollute too. Just this month a SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry discussed the results f his study of gasoline in Canandaigua Lake. Samples drawn near Kershaw Park show that on summer weekends in 2001,the levels of xylene, a chemical in gas, were above the state’s water quality threshold. Still, the towns of Canandaigua, Gorham and South Bristol have have granted either a building permit or final approval, the last step before building permit, for a total of 236 additional homes and 64 apartments in the subdivisions (below). Over the coming months, the Messenger will update this lake construction map and continue to report on a wide range of issues that could affect what is commonly called the Jewel of the Finger Lakes. WEBMASTERS NOTE (ALL IN CAPITALS): I DO NOT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO REPRODUCE THE MESSENGER’S MAP. THEREFORE, I WOULD SUGGEST ANY INTERESTED PEOPLE TO USE A MAP OF THE AREA AND LOCATE THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT SITES. The large map below shows, in light green, the Canandaigua Lake Watershed, the 174 square mile area that drains into the lake. The smaller maps show proposed and ongoing housing construction hotspots within the watershed. Each project is detailed below the corresponding map. Canandaigua Lake is the third largest lake by volume. It’s 15.5 miles long and 276 feet deep. It holds more than 400 billion gallons and provides drinking water to approximately 60,000 people. NORTH WEST SIDE OF CANANDAIGUA LAKE – IN THE TOWN OF CANANDAIGUA. Amber Meadows, 5100 Bristol Road *Developer: Charles J Normand Developers, Inc. of Rochester and William Metrose Ltd. of Pittsford. *Description: 71 single-family homes on 50 acres straddling the Canandaigua town and city line. *Status: City Planning Commission is awaiting further detail from developers before ruling whether the subdivision will have a significant environmental impact. If the commission rules that it will, the developers will have to file an environmental impact statement. If the commission rules that it won’t, the city and town will move forward on primarily site plan approval. Old Brookside: Buffalo Street Extension *Developer: Home Properties of Rochester *Description: 168 apartments, 172 single-family homes on 152 acres *Status: Town has granted approval on 64 apartments, 76 homes. 70 homes built to date. The Villas: corner of Parrish Street and Routes 5 and 20 *Developer: William Wegman Inc., Rochester *Description: 154 townhomes on 50 acres *Status: On hold pending an update of town zoning. Fox Ridge: Butler Road (with new entrance under construction of Middle Cheshire) *Developers: First phases: Griffith Builders; middle phases: Diamond Construction; current developer: Property development of Western New York/Ryan Homes *Description: 155 homes on 126 acres *Status: Preliminary approval on all 155; 81 building permits issued to date; 63 homes built to date. Waterford Point: Middle Cheshire Road *Developer: S&J Morrell, Inc. *Description: 52 single family homes on 44 acres *Status: Final approval on all 52; 48 built to date. Le Subdivision: corner of Wyffels Road and Middle Cheshire Road *Developer: Anh Le *Description: 12 homes on 15.9 acres *Status: final approval on all twelve homes, but state Health Department requires an environmental impact statement before project can move forward. The Residences at West Lake Marina Club: 3907 and 3950 West Lake Road *Developer: RSM Development/West Lake, Victor *Description: 69 homes, a private clubhouse, and marina on 77 acres. Marina would have 12 docks, 35 mooring buoys, and 89 boat slips. *Status: Canandaigua Planning Board issued a document on April 11 stating the issues RSM must address in its environmental impact statement; town is awaiting that document from the developer. Lakewood Meadows: east and west sides of Middle Cheshire Road *Developer: S&J Morrell, Inc., Pittsford *Description: 230 single family, including 69 patio-style homes on 228 acres. *Status: Preliminary approval granted on all 230 homes, 32 building permits issued, 29 built to date. The Landings: Hillcrest Drive and County Road 16 *Developer: Singer Realty of Rochester *Description: 11 single-family homes on 46 acres *Status: Final approval on all 11; six building permits issued; four built to date. Lakeside Estates; 4196 County Road 16 *Developer: Bero Contracting and Development *Description: 44 single-family homes on 134 acres Status: Final approval on 20 homes; eight built to date. NORTH EAST SIDE OF CANANDAIGUA LAKE – IN THE TOWNS OF CANANDAIGUA AND GORHAM Golf Beach Shores: 3300 Route 364, Canandaigua *Developer: George Sullivan of Clermont, Fla. *Description: 110 town-homes on 12.83 acres *Status: final approval on all 110 town-homes; 42 built to date. Water’s Edge (formally Fallbrook Village): 3556 Route 364, Canandaigua *Developer: Property Development of Western New York/Ryan Homes *Description: 35 town-homes on 7.4 acres *Status: Final approval on all 35; two buildings with eight units total built to date. East Lake View Estates: Route 364, Gorham *Developer: Carmen Laviano *Description: 62 single-family homes on 187 acres *Status: Preliminary approval on all 62 homes; final approval on 47; 23 homes built to date. Laviano has not yet applied for final approval on the last 15 homes. Spring Hill: Route 364, Gorham *Developer: Schoenberger Associates LP *Description: 62 single-family homes on 55.5 acres *Status: Preliminary approval on all 62 homes; none with final approval; Gorham Planning Board to consider final approval on first 13 homes no earlier than June 26. Deep Run: Corner of Route 364 and County Road 1, Gorham *Developer: Bero Contracting and Development *Description: 104 single-family homes on 76.4 acres *Status: Preliminary approval on all 104; 18 built; town granted approval for 10 more lots on April 24. WEST SIDE – MIDLAKE – IN THE TOWN OF SOUTH BRISTOL Seneca Point Landing: 5409 Seneca Point Road, South Bristol *Developer: Ketmar Development, Pittsford *Description: 47 acres; 20 homes; 20 slip dock *Status: Project was scaled back from 37 homes following public outcry over construction on a steep cliff; increased boat traffic; dock slips reduced from 30 in out-of-court settlement with opponents. State Department of Environmental Conservation released a document May 6 stating the issues Ketmar must address in its environmental impact statement. Ketmar’s statement will be subject to a public hearing. Bristol Harbour duplexes: Cliffside Drive, South Bristol *Developer: Bristol Harbour Development LLC, South Bristol *Description: 17.1 acres; 30 duplexes; 3 single-family homes for a total of 63 units, to be built behind the resorts lakeside condominiums *Status: Final approval of all 63 units; no building permits issued to date. KETMAR Canandaigua, NY The Lake Reporter January 2008 Ketmar Moves Forward with Seneca Landings The Pittsford based Ketmar Development Corporation proposes to build 20 houses on a 47.2 acre South Bristol property plus docks, decks and storage buildings and slips for twenty boats on the property’s 543 feet of Canandaigua Lake shoreline. Our concerns with the project include the management of stormwater runoff from the very steep site during and after construction, over-reliance on a home-owner’s association to manage an environmentally sensitive property, protection of the sixty-foot high shale cliffs overlooking the lake, and assurance that the extent of the project’s docks, decks and other buildings at the shoreline are in conformance with the Uniform Docks and Moorings Regulations for Canandaigua Lake. At the same time that Ketmar is going through the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process to obtain permits for Seneca Landings, Ketmar has built a 4632 square foot building at 5409 Seneca Point Road (across the road from the Seneca Landings property). Their literature calls the house “a model” whose price is $1,450,000. As part of the SEQR process being coordinated by the NYS DEC, public hearings were held to “scope” the concerns of neighbors, residents, and the community. CLWA and many others submitted extensive comments about concerns. In July 2007, Ketmar submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the project to the NYS DEC, which the DEC declared complete. Another public hearing was held in August at which concerned parties offered critique’s of Ketmar’s DEIS, CLWA and the East Shore Associaton replied at length to the DEIS. From documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act detailing correspondence between Ketmar and the NYS DEC in November 2007. We have learned that Ketmar remains adamant about their plans, refuses to consider developing alternatives, resists mitigative measures, and has characterized most of those concerns put forward during the scoping as those of “meddlesome neighbors”. In one passage, ketmar alleges that “Precedence and cumulative impacts are irrelevant to the current application.” Consideration of precedence and cumulative impacts and the development of alternatives are precisely what SEQR requires. We commend the NYS DEC for upholding the clear instructions and intent of SEQR in requiring Ketmar to provide information necessary to good decision-making. We encourage others in the community to review Ketmar’s plans, ask questions and comment to the NYS DEC’s Thomas Haley at (585) 226-5393. Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger August 5, 2007 EDITORIAL LAKE EFFECT Lawn care is fair game in lake projects Forgive us if this sounds like a stereotype, but someone who pays $1 million for a home typically doesn’t have a soft spot for dandelions. A million would be the typical price of a home in two controversial lakefront proposals: Seneca Point Landing in South Bristol and the Residences at West Lake Marine Club in Canandaigua. Seneca Point calls for 20 homes; the Residences for 67. That’s as many as 87 new orders for landscaping and lawn service, and likely more intensive service than the $175,000 property a couple miles away gets. The long-term use of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers on these properties, which drain directly into Canandaigua Lake, bears just as much scrutiny as the potential for erosion during construction. Lake advocates were right to point out during last week’s public hearing on Seneca Point Landing that the developer’s environmental impact statement leaves too many decisions that could affect the environment up to a homeowner association. Regarding lawn maintenance, the Seneca Point homeowner association agreement merely says that the association may “from time to time, publish specific rules and regulations with regard to what materials, fertilizers and pesticides may be applied ... As a general guideline, only biodegradable products may be applied ...” Biodegradable sounds good, but it’s a broad term. It refers to anything from a living organism that can be put to use by microorganisms. Manure is biodegradable, but you don’t want it washing into the lake. By consulting with sustainable lawn care companies and researchers, the Seneca Point Landing developer, Ketmar Development, could write more specific rules for lawn care. For example, zero-phosphorus fertilizer should be standard for homeowner associations around any lake. The ground has plenty of natural phosphorus. Excess just runs into the lake and promotes foul-smelling algae blooms. The developer of The Residences at West Lake Marine Club, RSM West Lake Road, has pledged that homes there will use only organic fertilizers and pesticides. Organic fertilizer, though, isn’t the same as zero phosphorus fertilizer. When RSM turns in its environmental impact statements, town officials and lake advocates should focus in its lawn-care provisions as well. Ideally, the state would ban phosphorus in all residential lawn care fertilizers. Owners of any home can inadvertently pollute, but the risk is far greater when dozens of upscale homes are going up. Because such projects require environmental impact statements, they offer a key opportunity to raise the issue. And if the folks with money have to stick with environmentally friendly lawn care, think how quickly the industry will make that standard for all their customers. Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger July 31, 2007 Neighbors let off steam about Seneca Point Landing Erosion and the scale of the project were among the concerns raised again Monday. By HILARY SMITH Messenger Post Staff SOUTH BRISTOL — More than 40 citizens, many of them neighbors of the proposed Seneca Point Landing project, gathered last night at the Town Hall to hear eight others voice their reservations about the lakefront housing development. The proposed development would include 20 single-family, “Adirondack style” luxury homes on 47.2 acres between Seneca Point Road and 543 feet of Canandaigua Lake shoreline. Also included in the development would be a private drive providing access to 19 of the 20 homes, as well as a golf cart trail leading down the cliff to a pedestrian-only dock facility with storage lockers and slips for 20 boats. Five additional deep-water moorings could be added later if needed. The hearing was held so the public could offer comments and suggestions on Ketmar Development’s draft environmental-impact statement, a document listing the project’s potential effects on a wide range of ecological, aesthetic and public-health and safety features. Topics raised at the hearing included erosion, pollution, storm water drainage, scale of the project, safety concerns tied to falling rocks and the use of golf carts on a steeply sloping trail, and the interpretation of the Canandaigua Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law. Kate Murdoch owns property just to the south of the project site. Dealing with soil erosion has been “a full-time job” for Murdoch and her neighbors already, even without the development, she said. Minor storms carry sediment from higher areas almost to Murdoch’s front door, and she fears that the development could alter water flows in any number of unanticipated and possibly devastating directions. “Life and nature cannot always be predictable,” she said. Wade Sarkis, a property owner neighboring the site, concurred. “What Mother Nature wants to move around on this property, on these cliffs, she will move around, no doubt about it,” he said. Stephen Lewandowski, an environmental consultant with the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance, listed about two dozen objections to the current draft statement. One concern was that too many decisions with too great a cumulative environmental impact, including management of the boat docking facility and plowing of the development’s private road, would be left to the whimsy of a homeowners’ association rather than being explicitly defined in the impact statement. That concern was echoed by Jane Bronson, whose property neighbors Murdoch’s and is close, though not contiguous, to the Seneca Point Landing project. “The homeowners’ association is a weak link in the plan. These things should be pinned down ahead of time, concretely,” Bronson said. Several speakers echoed the sentiments of Longs Point resident Erik von Bucher, who said he thought “the project could be handsomely done” but objected to its vast scale. Von Bucher argued that going forward with a development the size and scope of Seneca Point Landing could set a precedent for other larger developments in the future. “That precedent will open up a Pandora’s box that scares many of us,” he said. Too much development on Canandaigua Lake would “wreck the golden goose that we’ve all got to enjoy,” he added. Bob Gunderman, a professional engineer and lakeshore resident, raised several public safety concerns. He questioned the safety of golf cart transport on a steep cliffside trail, citing the thousands of deaths and injuries caused by golf carts every year. Gunderman also disputed the development team’s assertion that the danger of falling rocks is minimal because the cliff face along the property’s shoreline is not vertical. “Cliff rocks fall all the time, not just when it rains,” said Gunderman, who added that the crumbling shale can be like “a little guillotine falling down the cliff.” Bucher, Lewandowski and others also said that the plan for 20 boat slips exceeds the number permitted under the Canandaigua Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law. The formula that the law uses to determine the permissible number of boats takes into consideration the number of owners of the lake frontage. However, the draft statement’s wording makes it sound to some as though the docks are the shared property of a single owner, the homeowners’ association, rather than the individual property of 10 different homeowners. Phil Greene, who headed the construction of the docking facility, said that wording in a future draft of the statement would clearly state that the docks sit on ten different owners’ lots. Some hearing attendees also objected to the way that the individual lots were configured, allowing some of the lots to have water access via narrow corridors that Sarkis described as “kite strings.” Representatives from Ketmar and the development team were not surprised by the types of concerns the speakers expressed, although they were surprised that attendance on Monday was not as high as at previous public information meetings, said Scott Harter, civil engineer for the project. Aside from a brief overview of the project proposal given by Frank Sciremammano, the environmental consultant from F-E-S Associates of Rochester who prepared the statement, the developers did not present nor formally answer questions. The meeting was primarily a chance for the public to have their thoughts recorded for the record. “It’s all part of the process,” Harter said. “Now we go back and essentially list responses” to the questions raised by the speakers, he said. Statements made on Monday will be compiled and added to the approximately 40 written responses the DEC has already received, said Tom Haley, DEC environmental analyst. Written comments will be accepted until Aug. 17 and should be emailed to Haley at tphaley@gw.dec.state.ny.us or mailed to Tom Haley, NYSDEC Region 8, 6274 East Avon-Lima Road, Avon, N.Y. 14414-9519. Public concerns, additional questions from the DEC and concerns from other agencies will then need to be addressed by Ketmar, after which the DEC will issue a final impact statement. Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger July 26, 2007 LAKE EFFECT All eyes on Seneca Point A key hearing looms for another controversial lakeside development. By HILARY SMITH Messenger Post Staff A month after a court ruling in favor of a high-profile lakefront project in Canandaigua, attention has turned to another upscale development on the water, this time in South Bristol. The state Department of Environmental Conservation will hold a public hearing Monday on the roughly 400-page environmental impact statement for Seneca Point Landing, a proposal by Ketmar Development Corp. of Pittsford to build 20 luxury homes just south of the Canandaigua town line. The hearing starts at 7 p.m. at the South Bristol Town Hall, 6500 Gannett Hill Road. Monday’s public hearing will not be the last chance for public comments, but it might be folks’ most visible chance to have their concerns put on record. The draft environmental impact statement details the project and explains, among other things, how much land will be disturbed, how the developer will handle erosion during construction and how much of the development will be visible from the other side of the lake. Watchdogs groups have had an eye on Seneca Point Landing since it was first proposed in 2005. They’re also scrutinizing a proposal for 67 homes and a private marina on West Lake Road in Canandaigua. In June, a judge tossed out at Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeals ruling that had halted RSM West Lake Road Inc.’s project, the Residences at West Lake Marine Club. With the Residences now free to move through the approval process, the Canandaigua Lake watershed manager, Kevin Olvany, has asked the town of Canandaigua to put a moratorium on lakefront development to give it time to determine whether the judge’s ruling sets a precedent for more large-scale projects. Olvany sees little connection between the Residences and Seneca Point Landing, though the latter bears just as much scrutiny. “We’re going to review very closely their storm water-management plans” to make sure that they’re “meeting the requirements of state law and treating the water properly,” he said, referring to the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Council, an advisory group with representatives from the municipalities that border the lake or draw water from it. Canandaigua Lake provides drinking water for 60,000 people. Indeed, the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance, another watchdog group not affiliated with local government, has raised concerns about construction on the steep slope that rises from the shore to a cliff overlooking the lake. Finger Lakes Community College Professor Bruce Gilman and the watershed council are concerned that the project does not take adequate steps to protect the lake and the rare cliff habitat. Gilman believes that an undeveloped natural setback or “buffer zone” should extend 100 feet in from the cliff. Ketmar’s plans currently only call for a 25-foot setback. “That is a very fragile landscape,” agreed Olvany. A larger buffer zone would have enough natural vegetation and forest canopy to “stabilize the vegetation along the cliff edge, so as to reduce the erosion that might occur,” said Gilman. It would also provide for a greater surface area for ground water absorption, so that phosphorous and other contaminants would be less likely to enter the lake as runoff. Too much phosphorous, Gilman explained, can lead to murky water and dense beds of seaweed. “The lake overall is in very good condition, and we want to keep it that way. We want to be proactive,” Gilman said. Marie Kenton, president of Ketmar Development, did not respond to phone calls seeking comment on this and other portions of the environmental impact statement. The project has been controversial since its conception. Early on, neighbors were upset because Ketmar’s plan was not subject to review as a subdivision, a designation that would have given the town Planning Board increased oversight over the project. That’s why the DEC stepped in to oversee the environmental impact statement. Ketmar had reduced the proposed number of lots from 37 to 20 in order to avoid the subdivision designation. In October 2005, the neighbors sued Ketmar, reaching an agreement that kept the project at 20 lots but prevented Ketmar from ever building more homes on undeveloped parts of the site. In November 2006, the state Department of Environmental Conservation responded to an early draft statement from Ketmar with a lengthy letter listing concerns and requests for clarification. The DEC’s letter questioned the need for storage lockers on the docks and stated that the size of the docks themselves should be reduced. Though Ketmar’s plans for the docks do conform with the Canandaigua Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law, the DEC said in the November letter that “it should be clear that conformity to local law is only a portion of what the department will consider. The focus of the (draft environmental-impact statement) should be on the need of these structures and why the preferred alternative accomplishes the need while minimizing impacts to the environment.” The letter also questioned the need for golf cart access to the lake at all, suggesting pedestrian-only access as an alternative. In early July 2007, the DEC requested further information from Ketmar regarding the concerns listed in the November letter. “It is too early to determine the adequacy of Ketmar’s response,” said Linda Vera, citizen participation specialist for DEC Region 8. Written comments on the statement — available for viewing at the South Bristol Town Hall, Naples Town Hall, Wood Library in Canandaigua and at www.senecapointlanding.com — will be accepted until Aug. 17. They can be mailed to Tom Haley, NYSDEC Region 8, 6274 East AvonLima Road, Avon, NY 144149519 or e-mailed to tphaley@gw.dec.state.ny.us. “While any comments on the project are appreciated, specific concerns can be more helpful. Many of the local residents have knowledge and experiences with the local area that department staff may not have,” said Vera. The DEC will review all public comments and ask Ketmar to respond to any outstanding issues. Once Ketmar responds to comments from the public, the DEC and other agencies, the DEC will incorporate the information into a final environmental impact statement. Each of the involved agencies must make findings based on the final statement before Ketmar’s application to build can be approved. Ketmar also has an information center at 5409 Seneca Point Road, on the site of the development. For more information on the Seneca Point Landing project or to arrange a free golf-cart tour of the property, call (585) 899-0704 or (877) 280-8378. Hilary Smith can be reached at (585) 3940770, Ext. 343, or at hsmith@mpnewspapers.com. About the Project SOUTH BRISTOL —Ketmar Development Corp.’s Seneca Point Landing project includes 20 single-family homes and a docking facility on 47.2 acres on Seneca Point Road. The odd-shaped parcel extends to a bluff overlooking Canandaigua Lake and has 543 feet of shoreline. Of the individual housing lots, 15 would be between 1 and 2 acres, and five would be larger than 5 acres. The smaller lots range from 1 to 1.46 acres, and the larger lots range from 5.09 to 7.23 acres. Ten of the lots would have direct water access, with at least 50 feet of frontage each. The homes are to be “luxury, custom-built structures with a minimum size of 3,000 square feet,” and each will include a two- or three-car garage, according to the developer’s environmental-impact statement. It would get water and sewer service from the Bristol Harbour resort development, just west of the project site. The development would have a private entrance off Seneca Point Road. The 2,100 foot-long, 24-foot-wide paved road, called Storm Haven Drive, would provide access to 19 of the 20 lots. The remaining lot would have a direct driveway connection to either Seneca Point Road or Coy Road. A 650-foot-long golf-cart path would snake down from a cul-de-sac at the south end of the private drive and lead to the docking facility at the shore. The trail would end in a turn-around and parking lot, as carts will not be allowed to drive along the shoreline. A boardwalk would lead pedestrians from the end of the golf-cart path to the docking facility, which would include 20 boat slips in five docks to be shared by residents of the waterfront lots. The plan allows for five additional boat moorings to be added in the future if needed. The total surface area of the proposed docking facility is 7,285 square feet, with each of the five docks measuring 28 by 40 feet. Plans also call for two storage lockers, each 8 feet deep by 15 feet wide, to be placed on each dock. Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger April 4, 2007 For sale or not for sale? Seneca Point Landing’s advertising seems to walk a fine line. By MIKE COSTANZA Messenger Post Staff SOUTH BRISTOL —“Appearing soon — Seneca Point Landing.” That’s what is stated on two large signs on Seneca Point Road. The signs also bear the phone number of a sales office for Ketmar Development. But the Pittsford developer says Seneca Point Landing’s lots aren’t for sale. “We’re not advertising price — we’re saying that the property will come to market,” said Ketmar owner Marie Kenton. Call the number on the sign after hours and a recorded message will say: “For sales for Malvern Hills or Seneca Point Landing, please call ...,” followed by a woman’s name and number. Malvern Hills is another of Ketmar’s developments. So are the lots for sale or not? Apparently, that’s in the eye of the beholder. One beholder was Sheryl Robbins, senior sanitary engineer for the state Department of Health. “I noticed your beautiful sign advertising Seneca Point Landing properties for sale,” Robbins wrote the firm in January. That was about as pleasant as her letter got. She went on to explain that, by law, Ketmar must have Health Department-approved plans for the development’s water and sewage systems before offering five or more of the lots in it for sale. Even advertising their sale would be “a violation of the public health law and could be subject to enforcement action,” she wrote. As of Tuesday, Health Department officials said, they had not yet received the water and sewage plans. Ketmar’s original plans called for building 37 upscale homes and 38 boat slips on 37 acres between Canandaigua Lake and the rolling greens of the Bristol Harbour resort. South Bristol’s Planning Board would have had wide-ranging oversight over the project. Neighbors of the site complained the development was too large for the area and might cause soil erosion and increase lake congestion. They sued Ketmar in late 2005. Ketmar redrew its plans, calling for only 20 homes and boat slips on the site. The new plan parceled out the development’s lots in such a manner that the town’s Planning Board does not have subdivision review. Health Department spokesman Jeffrey Hammond said Ketmar is working with the department to put together an appropriate plan. Hammond said the department doesn’t plan to take action on the advertisements. “The signage is not an issue with us,” he said. “Our focus is getting the application from them and getting it approved.” Mike Costanza can be reached at (585)394-0770, Ext. 320, or at mcostanza@mpnewspapers.com. Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger December 21, 2006 LAKE EFFECT State wants more detail on South Bristol project The Department of Environmental Conservation had 11 pages of questions for Ketmar Development. By LENORE FRIEND Messenger Post Staff SOUTH BRISTOL — The developer of Seneca Point Landing, a proposed upscale subdivision, has more work to do on its environmental impact statement before the document can be released to the public, a state official said. Sean Hanna, director of the state Department of Environmental Conservation’s Region 8 office in Avon, said his agency asked Ketmar Development of Pittsford for more information on how it plans to control runoff on the steep hillside off Seneca Point Road, where it plans to build 20 single-family homes. “We want to see how they plan to clear and grade. We want to make sure no more of the canopy is lost than absolutely necessary,” Hanna said, describing a portion of the DEC’s 11-page letter to Ketmar, dated Nov. 27. “It doesn’t mean to the tree but it does mean how they select which trees will go and which will stay.” The potential for mudslides into Canandaigua Lake was among the chief concerns of opponents who crammed South Bristol Town Hall in 2005, when the project was first proposed. Since then, Ketmar has scaled back its plans from 37 to 20 homes and from 30 to 20 boat slips. The project would cover 47 acres just south of the Canandaigua/South Bristol town line. Though planning boards typically review environmental impact statements, South Bristol yielded oversight of this stage to the DEC. Hanna noted, however, that the agency’s “jurisdiction in this is actually quite limited” to environmental issues such as erosion control and shoreline access. Still, Hanna said, “Our job is to make sure that if anyone from the public wants to read it, that it will answer their questions.” Marie Kenton, president of Ketmar, said Wednesday that the company is now “researching the answers to their questions, coming back with more data so that they can review it, keeping the project moving. As to when it will be ready, I’m not exactly sure, but the ball’s back in our court to get the answers to them and we’re going to try to do that just as quickly and as thoroughly as we can.” Hanna said once the DEC determines the document is complete, it will release it for public comment. Contact Lenore Friend at (585) 394-0770, Ext. 256, or at lfriend@mpnewspapers .com. The Lake Reporter November, 2006 Update on Ketmar Development Proposal The Ketmar Development Corporation has obtained forty-seven acres of land on the lake side of Seneca Point Road and proposes to build twenty houses on the property plus docks and slips for twenty boats on the 540 feet of Canandaigua Lake shoreline. Ketmar first submitted a Planned Unit Development plan to the Town of South Bristol but quickly withdrew that plan and submitted another in which the property lines were re-drawn so that each upland property would be connected, narrowly, to part of the lakeshore. In the spring of 2006, Ketmar conducted a public information session in South Bristol and began work on an Environmental Impact Statement for submission to the NYS DEC> We are told that Ketmar has submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the pertinent officials at the NYS DEC, and it is being checked by them for completeness before it is officially released for comments be agencies, organizations and the public. CLWA will closely review the DEIS and comment appropriately. Several events in September and October, 2006 have caused additional concern about the Ketmar project. During rain storms that delivered 1-2 inches of precipitation, streams appeared crossing the Ketmar property, dropping over the sixty-foot high cliffs, and severly eroding the “cart path” that Ketmar had “improved” in the spring. These events have been photographically documented by Bob Gunderman and Rick Bolton, adding to the concerns to be addressed by the developers. CLWA will be monitoring the progress of this application because of its potential to violate the Uniform Docks and Mooring Law and to erode severly during and after construction, adding tons of sediment to Canandaigua Lake. The Lake Reporter A Publication of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance A publication of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance July 2006 Update on Ketmar Development Proposal Town of South Bristol, New York As you may remember, the Ketmar Development Corporation has obtained forty-seven acres of land off Seneca Point Road and proposes to build twenty homes on the property plus twenty docks on the 540 feet of Canandaigua Lake shoreline. The project was submitted as a Planned Unit Development in the spring of 2005, withdrawn as a PUD in June, and immediately resubmitted with the property boundaries reconfigured so that all twenty properties would have a theoretical access points to the lake. A group of neighbors filed suit, which was settled between the parties in early 2006. As part of the settlement of the suit, Ketmar agreed to develop no more than twenty house lots (earlier plans had many more), to limit its alterations of the "cart path" leading down the sixty-foot high cliffs to the lake, and to limit its docking facilities (though still not conforming to the Canandaigua Lake Uniform Docking aand Mooring Regulations). Another requirement of the settlement was a "public information" session in South Bristol that was conducted on April 24, 2006 at the South Bristol Town Hall. Presenters for Ketmar included Kailin Willey, sales representative;Scott Harter, professional engineer; Frank Sciremammano, professional engineer; and Phil Green, dock specialist. As a whole the presenters emphasized how, in their opinion, the project could be designed and completed without damaging the setting or the lake. About thirty-five citizens attended the session. At the conclusion of the developer's presentations, public comments were invited. Speakers included Joseph Briggs, Jane Bronson, Rick Bolton, Chris Luley, Wade Sarkis and Steve Lewandowski. Mr. Briggs stated that, the developer's objections to the contrary, he felt that the developers had sought to take advantage of loopholes in the town's zoning. Because South Bristol declined to conduct reviews of the project, the project is being reviewed under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) with the NYS DEC as lead agency. A March 13, 2006 Notice of Scoping went out from the DEC. The CLWA submitted a letter listing concerns to be addressed in a letter dated April 12, and on May 3, the DEC issued a Final Scope Outline for a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (detailing issues and items of concern that the applicant would have to address). CLWA's letter stated its principal concern and issue: How will the developer control runoff from the site during and after construction so as not to affect Canandaigua Lake? At present, we await the applicant's engineer's answers. RSM Canandaigua, NY The Lake Reporter January 2008 Our Appeal to RSM Proceeds Thanks to Your Support When CLWA and the East Shore Association took legal action against RSM’s proposal to build 70 homes, a clubhouse and many docks off West Lake in mid-2006, we asked for the support of our members and supporters and promised to take the action as far as contributions would allow us. We thank you for your strong support to date. Background In late 2006, the Canandaigua Town Zoning Board or Appeals ruled in our favor. On appeal by RSM, acting-Supreme Court Judge William Kocher overturned the ZBA ruling in June, 2007, clearing the way for RSM to proceed. Why We Appealed Judge Kocher’s ruling effectively negated the “home rule” powers of the Town. He reasoned faultily that certain opinions of the Town’s Zoning Officer were binding, and eliminated CLWA/ESA’s standing to take legal action in the case. Judge Kocher’s decision was finalized in July, and on August 17, 2007 CLWA/ESA filed an Appeal with the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, in effect a panel of judges. Where the Appeals process stands In June 2007, the Town of Canandaigua announced that they would not appeal Judge Kocher’s decision, siding with their Zoning Officer against their Zoning Board of Appeals. In late November, 2007, the Town of Canandaigua announced that they would not be filing a brief in the case being appealed by CLWA/ESA, leaving the argument of this case, with important implications as to the Town of Canandaigua’s “home rule” powers, in the hands of CLWA/ESA. In October 2007, the CLWA/ESA Appeal was consolidated with the appeal of private citizens Al Kraus, Priscilla Herbik, and Oksana Fuller. In November and December, the briefs on the case were compiled by attorneys from Chamberlain D’Amanda representing CLWA/ESA and Hiscock & Barclay representing RSM, published in 39 and 56 page documents respectively and submitted to the Court with request to be heard by that Court for 15 minutes each during the March, 2008 session of the Court. Briefs critiquing the opponents’ cases have also been prepared and submitted to the Court. Contributions from CLWA/ESA members and supporters have been outstanding. They not only allow us to continue our appeal, they indicate a strong public interest in the outcome of this appeal. We thank all who have contributed to the Legal Defense Fund. Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger August 28, 2007 GUEST ESSAY An appeal to save Canandaigua Lake By Tony Busch and Marty DeVinney Tony Busch is president of the East Shore Association. Marty De Vinney is chairman of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance. On Friday, Aug. 17, the two lake protection groups we represent, Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance (CLWA) and East Shore Association (ESA), appealed acting Supreme Court Judge Kocher’s recent ruling that would overturn a local zoning decision. Many area residents strongly support the appeal. While there have been several recent articles about the project, some folks still have good questions: What did the judge rule? Why does the decision seem so complicated? Are the groups antidevelopment? Why, exactly, are the two groups appealing? The appeal concerns a 67-home development on West Lake Road that RSM/Mancini Brothers is proposing on the former Johnson property and around German Brothers Marina. Justice Kocher overturned the town of Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeals decision from November 2006 that limited the number of new boating facilities the developers could add under the N.Y. State Uniform Docking and Mooring Law for Canandaigua Lake. Yes, aspects of the decision are complex: Carol Maue, the attorney representing the two groups in the appeal, has done a splendid job explaining key details in an interview in the August 2007 issue of “The Lake Reporter,” the Watershed Alliance’s newsletter. Visit http://clwa.net. While the judge’s decision may seem complex, the reasons to appeal are quite simple: The decision sets several dangerous precedents. The decision “guts” the Uniform Dock and Moorings Law crafted by and adhered to by municipalities around the lake. The RSM/Mancini Brothers development is residential, despite its efforts to classify the lakeside property as a private wateroriented recreational facility. We believe it is subject to the same docking limits as other residential properties on the lake. In allowing the development to use the more expansive “All Other Land Use” category, the judge’s decision permits 415 boats, docks and moorings as opposed to the 22 that would be legally permitted for residential properties under the law. This is a huge difference. The decision deprives a municipality of the right to home rule. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the proper local authority to interpret its own laws, review the actions of its officers and to review its officer’s determinations under the Docking and Mooring Law. The decision takes away the “say” of a municipality. It also conflicts with the basic understanding reached with the state of New York when the Docking and Mooring Law was implemented: that each lakeshore municipality would retain the right to control and review lakeshore development that occurs within its borders. The decision imposes a chilling effect on the average citizen’s ability to challenge adverse determinations. By ruling that area residents, some of whom share boundaries with the proposed development, and both associations had no legal standing to appeal to the Zoning Board the original zoning officer’s decision regarding the Docking and Mooring Law, the court ignored long-standing legal precedent that requires a citizen to exhaust all administrative remedies in the town before appealing to a court. It also has a chilling effect on the average citizen’s ability to appeal improper Docking and Mooring Law determinations since according to the ruling, a separate, very expensive, Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court must be commenced to appeal the zoning officer’s incorrect interpretation of the law rather than just appealing to the Zoning Board, as is ordinarily done. The decision puts drinking water quality at risk. This is no small matter. Canandaigua Lake provides drinking water for more than 60,000 area residents. Water is a precious resource. Many economists today believe that water is “the new oil,” a valuable resource that is finite and must be managed wisely. The decision sets a bad precedent that could threaten the economic vitality of the area. This decision will result in uncontrolled increases in shoreline development, boats and hydrocarbon pollution that will damage water quality and the watershed. People choose to live, vacation, and start businesses in the Canandaigua area because of the relative health of the watershed. Our two groups aren’t anti-development. We work successfully with many developers who agree to follow the rules protecting the lake and watershed. We’re in favor of responsible development that creates homes and jobs in the area while protecting water quality. If we don’t protect this spectacular community resource, Canandaigua Lake, we will lose it. This ruling flies in the face of responsible, long-term economic planning. Voice your opinion: Let your elected officials and planning boards know your views. Support candidates who will protect the lake and its watershed. If this project is permitted to proceed, several others are ready to ride on the coattails of this harmful precedent. Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger August 26, 2007 Letter to the Editor Lake project opponents exaggerate boat traffic Plans for RSM West Lake Road LLC’s project to build 69 high-end homes on the former Johnson property bordering Canandaigua Lake include no more than 116 slips and moorings for boats at the former German Brothers Marina. Recent reports from a meeting of opponents on Aug. 18 indicated the development could have as many as 415 slips and moorings. Although it is true in the strictest and most extreme legal context that up to 325 slips and moorings could be allowed, it appears that opponents are intentionally exaggerating. RSM has remained steadfast that it needs only 116 slips and moorings for its West Lake Marine Club project. While there will also be nine visitor-only slips along the Johnson parcel’s waterfront, that is all it will build unless the town requires otherwise. On April 28, 2006, the town’s zoning officer determined: German Brothers Marina is a lawful, preexisting nonconforming use; RSM could request a “private water oriented recreational facilities or social clubs” special-use permit; a number of setback and other area variances would be required; the number of parking spaces is sufficient and the maximum seating capacity of the community center/clubhouse is 233; the number of proposed boating and mooring slips is less than the maximum allowable; the proposed sundeck on the clubhouse is proper under the town’s Dock Law. Acting state Supreme Court Justice William F. Kocher in Ontario County reinstated the zoning officer’s determinations, which had been challenged by the town Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA’s decision that the development project was only allowed 12 boat slips was incorrect, Judge Kocher found. Opponents also claimed that approval of this project will set a precedent for “funnel” development, in which a parcel of land with limited lakefront access allows more lake and boat use than the amount of shoreline would ordinarily permit. This argument is incorrect because the West Lake Marine Club project incorporates and derives its shoreline rights from a pre-existing marina — German Brothers Marina — which already has 103 slip, dry dock and mooring spaces. This cannot be a “precedent,” therefore, for undeveloped shoreline around the lake because those lands do not have a pre-existing marina on them. These homes centered around a marine club will be a unique asset for the town, the lake, our neighbors and all the taxpayers in the region. Thomas Walsh Attorney Hiscock & Barclay Rochester EDITOR’S NOTE: Hiscock & Barclay is the law firm representing Steven Mancini, a partner in RSM Development LLC. Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger August 1, 2007 Watchdogs to appeal lakefront-project ruling The Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance and East Shore Association will challenge a judge’s decision on a West Lake Road subdivision/private marina. By JULIE SHERWOOD Messenger Post Staff CANANDAIGUA — Two groups representing more than 1,000 members combined in the Canandaigua Lake watershed are taking the case of a proposed housing project and private marina back to court. The Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance and East Shore Association announced they will appeal a recent court decision that allows developer RSM West Lake Road LLC to move through the approvals process for the project called Residences at West Lake Marine Club. Last month, acting Supreme Court Justice William Kocher ruled RSM could move forward in seeking approvals to build 67 homes on the Johnson property to the south and behind German Brothers Marina, which would be converted to a private marina serving the homeowners. Also proposed are 81 boat slips and 35 moorings. Last year, the town’s Zoning Board agreed with opponents of the project who argued, among other points, that Canandaigua Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Regulations allowed far fewer boats than proposed because of the residential nature of the development. That halted the project in November 2006, and RSM filed a suit a month later. The Town Board decided not to appeal Kocher’s ruling on recommendation of the town attorney. Then, last month, Canandaigua Lake Watershed Program Manager Kevin Olvany urged the Town Board to adopt a temporary moratorium on large-scale development - all multi-residential and semi-public use developments, including proposed ones — citing concerns over Kocher’s ruling. “The court decision has identified a major threat to the long-term health of the lake by increasing the market for hillside development by allowing over a 10-fold increase in residential lake access,” stated Olvany. The moratorium would give the town a chance to make necessary changes to its zoning law, he said. The lake-protection groups cited key reasons for appealing the ruling in a statement. Among them: • The development is residential despite efforts to classify the lakeside property as a private water-oriented recreational facility, and should be subject to the same docking limits as other residential properties on the lake. • The Zoning Board is the proper local authority to review its zoning officer’s determinations under the docking and mooring law. • The court decision ignored a longstanding legal precedent that requires a citizen to exhaust his/her efforts to seek remedies with the town before appealing to a court. Essentially, the decision deprived citizens and the town of substantial rights with respect to development occurring within the borders of their community, the appeal contends. “We believe that the town of Canandaigua (Zoning Board of Appeals) made the correct interpretation of its own town ordinances and that the ZBA member’s efforts and judgment should be defended in support of its ‘home rule,’” stated Marty DeVinney, president of the watershed alliance, which represents about 550 residents in the watershed. The appeal also contends that the ruling confirmed the town zoning officer’s determinat