FREE counter and Web statistics from sitetracker.com

Current Issues........ The Lake Reporter The Naples Record Daily Messenger - March 2008 Daily Messenger -December 2007 Daily Messenger - November 2007 Daily Messenger - October 2007 Daily Messenger - September 2007 Daily Messenger - August 2007 Daily Messenger - July 2007 Daily Messenger - June 2007 Daily Messenger - May 2007 Daily Messenger - April 2006 Daily Messenger - March 2007 Finger Lakes Land Trust Ketmar High Banks Recent Driveway Cut thru Cliffs Ketmar before Development after a rain   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 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 January 2007 Issue 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. The Lake Reporter November, 2006 Thanks for Your Help, and…… ….once again, the Board of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance asks for special support from its members. Thirty-two of our members have contributed a total of nearly $5,000to our legal fund to contest the Town of Canandaigua’s zoning determination regarding RSM West Lake Road LLC’s application to build a private clubhouse and slips and moorings for over 100 boats on Canandaigua Lake’s shore. We thank those contributors. As yet the Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeals has not ruled on our appeal, but, after some delays, the issue has been the subject of a public hearing on September 11, October 16, and October 23. At the October 23 meeting, the ZBA said it would issue a ruling at their regular November 14 meeting. Though we hope that our position will be susteines by the ZBA, it seems highly likely that there will be appeal in the courts, no matter which way the ZBA rules. We will continue to advance this case as long as our members financially support CLWA’s effort. We believe that it is a CRITICAL ISSUE to the future of Canandaigua Lake. Audiences at the hearings and others who became familiar with the issue agree. Litigation is costly but necessary at times. We have hired Carol Maue, a partner at the Chamberlain D”Amada and a Canandaigua resident, to research and articulate our case within the existing zoning and docks and moorings laws. We are pleased with her presentations at the CLWA Annual Meeting and at the public hearings of our case. Luckily, the East Shore Association has been willing to share the cost of representation. But costs have already exceeded the original $5,000 retainer and will continue during the appeal process. Once again, the Board of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance asks for special support from its members. All contributions to the legal defense fund will be kept separate, and a special report on their expenditure will be made to contributors. In the unlikely event that any funds remain after the conclusion of this action, contributors can choose pertial refund or a direct contribution to other CLWA activities. To discuss making a tax-deductible contribution to CLWA, call Marty DeVinney at 734-2178 or steve Lewandowski at 394-5030. CLWA may also be reached via e-mail at stachu14512@yahoo.com. Please send your clearly marked (Legal Fund) contribution to CLWA, PO Box 323, Canandaigua, NY 14424. 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 July 2006 We Need Your Help Our appeal can only advance as far as our members are willing to financially support it. We believe that this is a CRITICAL issue to Canandaigua Lake. The board of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance, after long consideration, has decided to appeal the determination of the Town of Canandaigua Zoning Officer regarding the ability of the RSM (Mancini) development on West Lake Road to build a private clubhouse and extensive docks at the shoreline in the area currently occupied by German Brothers Marina. Any decision involving zoning will be difficult and complex, and this one is no exception. We feel, in this case, however, if the Zoning Officer's determination is allowed to stand, the Canandaigua Lake niform Docking and Mooring Reglations, in place for over a decade, will be gutted. The precedent, if applied elsewhere on the lakeshore, would lead to almost unlimited ocks and boats on the lakeshore, would lead to almost unlimited docks and boats on the lake, the very condition that the Docking and Mooring Regulation was enacted to avoid. The Watershed Alliance has retained the services of a law firm to advise on the appeal. Initially the appeal will be made to the Town of Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeals, but if that appeal is unsuccessful, further legal action may be needed. The CLWA Boad has aggreed to pay a $5,000 retainer, but the potential cost of this action is likely to far exceed this amount. In order to sustain this action, the Board of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance needs to ask for further financial support from its members. If you consider this issue (Unlimited boating access to the lake for non-shoreline property owners) important to the future of Canandaigua Lake, please consider a special contribution to the CLWA Legal Fund. All contributions will be kept in a separate fund, and a specific report on their expenditure will be made to contributors. In the unlikely event that any funds remain after the successful conclusion of this action, contributors can choose a partial refund or a direct contribution to other CLWA activities. To discuss making a tax-deductable contribution, call Keith Harter at 396-1916 or Steve Lewandowski at 394-5030 or send your clearly marked contribution to CLWA, P.O. Box 323, Canandaigua, NY 14424. The Lake Reporter 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. The Lake Reporter A publication of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance July 2006 Preserve Productive Land By STEPHEN LEWANDOWSKI Many of our ancestors were drawn to the “new world” by its promise of land. They came to have land to farm, log, build homes and factories on, and carry on the commerce that supported their families. The authors of the Declaration of Independence believed that the “pursuit of happiness” required access to land. Jefferson thought that democracy required “free-holders,” that is, landowners and preferably farmers. At about the same time that American democracy was being formed, modern economic theory was developing crucial tenets of what became known as capitalism. In many ways, capitalism and democracy are twins. Scottish economist Adam Smith published “The Wealth of Nations” at precisely the moment when America was shaking off English rule. In “Wealth,” Smith described the “invisible hand” of the market as being that force harnessing all the individual choices that “consumers” make, in a way that almost equates spending dollars with casting votes. Two hundred and thirty years have passed. Notions of wealth have changed. Ways of making and accumulating wealth have changed. Land hasn’t changed, but our attitudes toward it have. Our direct experience of the land’s production of our sustenance is very limited; we have forgotten where our food, clothing, fuel and shelter come from. The “invisible hand” of the market has proved to be very, very good at providing and allocating some things, but not so good at others. Health, education, beauty and spiritual well-being are notably ill-served by the market’s “invisible hand.” Further, the democracy and capitalism twins must balance one another in providing rights and goods. Some towns in the Canandaigua Lake watershed are considering the preservation of land. They have been questioned, “What is the land being preserved for?” This is a moving target and a very hard question to answer since we have lived through a period of great change, driven primarily by technological innovation, and we must consider that the future may be just as volatile. So, what is land to be preserved for? What does the future hold? Perhaps the best answer is to say that land should be preserved for just those qualities and conditions that the market serves most poorly: health, education, beauty and spiritual well-being. Practically, watershed land should be preserved in a natural condition because runoff from natural land is far superior to that from built-up land. Many people say that their health and spiritual well-being requires regular contact with natural land. Children’s education benefits immensely from field trips, nature walks and camp-outs. Artists who purvey beauty have been known to edit out certain human “improvements” from their works of art — the landscape looks better without knots of powerlines and clusters of houses. Paintings of fields, hills and streams vastly outnumber those of roads and parking lots. Municipalities of the Canandaigua Lake watershed understand their role as governments is to protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens. What better way to do so than by preserving productive land — whether the land produces food or beauty? We are proud when we hear tourists and other visitors speak of the Finger Lakes as unspoiled, pristine, and beautiful, but we should be worried that these attractive qualities can quickly vanish when growth is too rapid and poorly planned. Productive lands of the Canandaigua Lake’s watershed should be protected to ensure future generations’ access to the sources of health, beauty and wealth. The Naples Record Naples, NY The Naples Record June 20, 2007 Commentary: Protect the Finger Lakes Intensity of development will have profound effect on water quality Guest Essay by Andrew Zepp, Finger Lakes Land Trust For all of us who care about the clean waters of our Finger Lakes, Maryland State Senator Bernie Fowler has a cautionary tale that deserves our attention. Fowler grew up on the shores of the Patuxent River, a major tributary to the Chesapeake Bay. He recalls being able to see his feet easily while standing chest high in the river, searching for crabs as a boy. By 1988, water quality in both the river and the bay had declined significantly since the days of his youth. Fowler vowed to use his position aas a senator to fight for cleaner water in these areas. To call attention to the condition of these waters, he started an annual “wade-in” to guage the river’s clarity. For almost a decade, visibility steadily improved, from a low of eight inches to a high of more than 44 inches. To some degree, this improvement reflected substantial public investments as well as private initiatives to control runoff within the river’s watershed. Unfortunately, since a high point in 1996, water clarity has generally declined as intensive development pressures have outstripped conservation efforts. Today, 60 million gallons of wastewater flow into the Patuxent. This flow includes excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous which serve to upset the river’s nutrient balance and foster growth of algae. Today, Bernie Fowler fears for the future of his beloved river, just as an increasing number of Finger Lakes residents share these same fears for our beautiful lakes. While our development pressures are nowhere near those of central Maryland, they are growing and bringing with them growing threats to our water quality. According to Canandaigua Lake Watershed Program Manager Kevin Olvany, there are now proposals for up to 1,000 new homes coming into the Canandaigua Watershed during the next 10 to 15 years. This intensity of development may have a profound effect on water quality, particularly when homes are built on steep hillsides or in close proximity to streams and wetlands. Elsewhere in our region, we’re seeing the development of our last remaining pristine shorelines and increasing development of the hillsides overlooking the lakes. Local residents are increasingly concerned about water quality impacts associated with these developments, as well as the loss of scenic views. Rooftops and paved roads serve to accelerate runoff rather than letting rainfall absorb into the ground. Design standards and careful construction techniques can minimize some of these impacts, but we will fail our lakes if we do not take action now to ensure their future. While our region is blessed with an abundance of open land, development frequently takes place on those lands that are the most environmentally sensitive. Who doesn’t want to live near the water or on a hilltop with an outstanding view of the lake? To ensure the future of our lakes, we must ensure the protection of those wetland areas, streamside corridors, and steep wooded hillsides that are vital for the maintenance of water quality. Through the use of conservation easements(legal agreements that protect privately owned land), we can keep these lands in the hands of local families while securing their conservation values. While a growing number of municipalities are creating local open space programs, more support for oth private and public land conservation is needed. In addition, local governments must ensure that their building and subdivision codes are adequate to protect fragile lands. Does your town call for a streamside beffer zone for new construction? Lastly, we need to better understand the health of our lakes. Ongoing research and monitoring is needed as is greater citizen involvement. So, start your own tradition and wade out into the lake and look for your feet! Andrew Zepp is the executive director of the Finger Lakes land Trust Naples, NY The Naples Record October 18, 2006 Shifting Winds Golisano, once opposed to wind farms, now in wind business by Jack Jones The organizer of a local citizems group opposed to an industrial wind farm project on the Cohocton hill-tops surrounding Naples said last week that an alternative plan being advanced by Victor billionaire, B. Thomas Golisano would be more environmentally acceptable and financially attractive. Golisano’s startup Empire Wind Energy LLC “has expressed willingness to put up towers that are more in line with what the community desires – towers that would be about 200 feet high instead of the 423-foot tall towers” proposed by a competing, out-of-state based UPC.Technologies wind power corporation, said Jim Hall, former owner of the Naples Hotel and organizer of the Cohocton Wind Watch group. “The sort of wind farms being proposed by Empire would not have the adverse effect on property values and on tourism around the Canandaigua Lake and Naples and Finger Lakes area that the UPC plan would cause.” If the UPC project now being considered by town officials goes through, Cohocton could find its hilltops lined with from 50 to more than 100 towers, each taller than Rochester’s Xerox building and with overhead power lines connecting the monoliths, said Hall. In contrast to the town-favored UPC project, Hall said he and others in the community were favorable impressed by a presentation that Golisano and his business partner, Keith Pittman, gave on their alternative wind farming project last week at Cohocton Elementary School. An estimated 200 area residents attended the presentation, and some – citing Golisano’s past criticism of electricity-generating wind turbine projects earlier proposed for Italy, Prattsburgh, Cohocton and other communities – said they were skeptical of his intent. Cohocton supervisor, Jim Ziegenfus, who has supported wind turbine projects, did not return a reporter’s phone calls. Pittman said last week the plan that he and Golisano are advancing around the state in one that would also return more money to local property owners and town governments than those being touted by UPC and another wind farm group, Ecogen, in Prattsburgh, Italy and other locations. Pittman said that after their presentation in Cohocton last week, he and Golisano “have received a tremendous outpouring of support from the community” and also received expressions of interest from some town board members who in the past supported the UPC project. James Sherron, executive director of the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) which has incurred the ire of wind turbine opponents by offering incentives to corporations for wind farm development, said he and other count officials also are open to doing business with Empire if they can prove their project superior to those advanced by out-of-state developers. “We would support any project that would create jobs and support capital investment in our region,” Sherron said. “As long as they’re talking about renewable energy sources, we are very interested in supporting it.” Sherron said SCIDA is “working as the lead agency in the SEQR (environmental review) process for Prattsburgh and a number of other windmill projects,” and offering assistance and incentives such as payments in lieu of taxes. Although the Cohocton Wind Watch Group and others say that the sheltered Finger Lakes and Southern Tier regions of Upstate New York are not subject to consistent winds patterns powerful enough to generate electricity at levels that would make regional wind farms cost-effective, Sherron said studies have disproved that contention. “It’s pretty conclusive,” that sufficient wind is available year-round to spin the giant rotor blades and generate electricity, said Sherron. “There are all sorts of maps showing that the region has sufficient wind resources, and they’ve places (test) towere to measure them.” Although the Golisano project “sounds like a good idea,” Sherron said, he would like “to se the mechanics of how it would work.” And if the project proves feasible and superior to other proposals “We would support such an effort if it comes to fruition.” Pittman said Empire’s approach is being better received than proposals by UPC and Ecogen, which have divided the residents of Italy, Prattsburgh and Cohocton into bitter pro-and-anti wind turbine camps. Unlike other wind power developers, Pittman said “We are making an effort to design a project around what community stakeholders feel is important.” While the other companies have threatened lawsuits and approached town officials and property owners individually to obtain leases and line up deals without overall community approval, “Ours is more of a peer-partner approach,” Pittman said. “We really want to be more of a partner, and we’re kind-of leaving it up to the communities to tell us what they think would work best for them and what they want.” Pittman said that in addition to assuring that potentially disruptive wind turbines be sited and built in accordance with community concerns about safety, noise and visual pollution, the Empire project would return a whopping 10 times the economic payoff to area communities than that being offered by government-subsidized, out-of-town – and out-of-country – parent corporations behind other regional turbine projects. Pittman charged that the main objective of many of those touting turbine projects involve cashing in on government subsidies being offered by state and federal legislators and officials stampeded by high oil and energy prices into pumping tax dollars into alternative energy projects – regardless whether those alternative sources have proven viable. “What we’ve been seeing is that of the profit and dollars that stand to be generated, something like 95 percent of these benefits are ending up somewhere else – not in New York State and some not even in our country. Our feeling is that it would be best to capture as much of this benefit and profit as can be kept right in a local community,” said Pittman, an engineer and former power plant operator who has served as a consultant on energy and power generation projects around the state. Building projects that are approved by communities and return the lion’s share of any profits to those communities that host the potentially disruptive turbines “just seems to us like a common sense approach,” he said. Although Empire ‘is not opposed to large wind farm projects if that’s what a community wants….There’s just no reason to go large if it turns out you can get the same benefit by building something smaller,” said Pittman. “A smaller project that produces a larger benefit and is less intrusive, less visually disruptive, more environmentally friendly – it’s just a more efficient way to go. It’s a better idea than what has been proposed for some of these communities.” Golisano was unavailable for comment last week, but Pittman said the billionaire Paychex founder and former wind farm critic decided to get involved in a new business venture as a means of “going beyond criticism and using his resources to provide a more constructive solution to a problem.” “It’s true that Tom was anti-wind power and now he’s in the wind power business….Rather than just criticizing, Tom said ‘Maybe I can do something,’ and he started doing his homework that led him to the realization that it would be a tremendous opportunity for New York State to have these projects done in this fashion.” Before the emergence of the Empire alternative, “Communities didn’t have a whole lot of options,” said Pittman. “All the developers had the same message: We will come in and make a frtune for ourselves and leave you with something that may or may not turn out to be significant.” Pittman said Empire had been invited to present its alternative wind power proposals for residents and officials in the town of Italy, and hopes for a chance to meet with the Prattsburgh community. “There are those in these communities who say ‘It’s all set, we’ve got a wind power developer down here and we don’t need your help thank you very much,” he acknowledged. In Cohocton, “We’ve invited town officials to sit down at the table with us and try to work out some kind of arrangement, and we’re hopeful that will happen. I think it helped that we took the time to go down there and dispel a lot of the myths and rumors regarding Tom’s being perceived as anti-wind power in some circles.” Daily Messenger - March 2008 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.” Daily Messenger -December 2007 Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger December 19, 2007 South Bristol opposes NYSEG-RG&E line Guest Essay by Dan Marshall. Dan Marshall is supervisor of the town of South Bristol. For several months now, the residents of South Bristol have been listening to NYSEG and RG&E’s plans for the construction of a 34kw subtransmission line through the heart of our community. Three different routes have been suggested, and to date we are not sure which will be chosen. Both RG&E and NYSEG have met with our residents on several occasions. While we appreciate the effort to communicate with our residents, each meeting has caused more confusion over the real purpose for this project. We were first told it was being done to meet the “rapid development” of South Bristol. As leaders of this town, we know that just is not the case. We were then told the project was meant to solve periodic outages in the northern portion of the county. It is true Farmington has had issues with outages, but the town supervisor told me he had never heard that the solution would be to bring power from the south. The town of South Bristol is opposed to this project for a number of reasons. We are opposed to any project that requires the clear cutting of a 100-foot swath through our heavily wooded and exceedingly steep lands. The concept runs counter to our new comprehensive plan that extols the virtues of both our scenic and rural character. People live in and visit South Bristol to enjoy this pristine area. We have not been shown adequate information regarding the costs to bury a line as opposed to going overhead. It may be more expensive, but given our area, it needs to be considered. Property values will be significantly affected. It would be impossible for a 100-foot cut across a property not to affect land values. Our residents deserve better. We are being asked to sacrifice something we hold dear for the benefit of others. We are concerned that without a well defined purpose, the costs for this project will outweigh the benefits being sought. If the project is only a backup source for the Farmington area, is it worth it? We are concerned over reports by residents that survey marks have been found on property where permission was never granted. This kind of infringement cannot be tolerated. In Ontario County, South Bristol has a special role. We are not expected to provide major economic growth with the development of industry in our town. We are asked to provide an environment that will appeal to those who work elsewhere in the community. We are asked to provide recreation such as golf courses, ski areas and hunting. We are also encouraged to promote tourism that benefits all the communities in Ontario County. Destroying our scenic vistas and creating environmental concerns will not help us fulfill our role. We have a duty to protect our community. In doing so, we ask that you take the extra steps necessary to protect our town. NYSEG/RG&E, please consider alternative methods to achieve your goal. Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger December 9, 2007 Anti-power-line group gets organized The Naples Valley-Bristol Hills Association wants RG&E to bury any power line it puts through the Bristol Hills. By BARBARA RATHBUN Messenger Post Correspondent Citizens in Naples and South Bristol have organized to lobby against the electrical transmission line Rochester Gas & Electric plans to build from Eelpot Road to Bristol Mountain. The Naples Valley-Bristol Hills Association’s goal is to make RG&E justify the need for the 34.5-kilovolt line and to push for buried wires instead of a 16 mile stretch of 50-foot wooden poles though scenic countryside. An underground line would be five to seven times more expensive to install than above-ground lines, said Robert Bergin, director of public affairs for New York State Electric and Gas and RG&E, both owned by Energy East. “I understand the interest in an underground line,” he added. “I respect what these people are doing.” Stiff opposition from residents has already delayed the transmission line. According to Bergin, the project is several months behind schedule. “We have an obligation to our customers to find a solution,” said Bergin of the need for more power in Ontario County. “(But) the north option really is not an option for us,” he added referring to residents’ request that the utility bring power south from a Farmington substation instead of north from the Eelpot Road substation. According to Bergin, the 30-mile distance from the Farmington substation to South Bristol would make it hard to maintain the proper voltage. In addition, he said, the Farmington substation is owned by another power company and RG&E does not have the authority to maintain and upgrade those lines. NYSEG owns the Eelpot substation. “We’re open to any suggestion. If we could find a solution that would work for us, we would pursue it,” he said. “Sometime after the first of the year we would like to meet with residents again. If any organization would like me to meet with them, I’d be more than happy to come.” Several hundred citizens from Naples, South Bristol, Italy, Cohocton and Rochester have expressed opposition to this power line, said Renae Rennoldson, spokeswoman for the organization. Their main concerns are maintaining the scenic views, wind power involvement, environmental issues and health concerns, she said. The Naples Valley-Bristol Hills Association is open to anyone whether resident, renter or landowner, said Rennoldson. The association has recently formed a Web site, www.nvbha.com, and has begun to petition door-to-door. According to Rennoldson, representatives plan to attend the Dec. 10 Town Board meetings in Naples, 7 p.m. at the Village Hall Annex; and South Bristol, 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall; as well as the Dec. 19 Naples Village Board meeting at 7 p.m. Daily Messenger - November 2007 Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger November 30, 2007 Caught between a rock and a nice place Even opponents of Seneca Point Landing say the developer builds a fine house, but they still don’t want to see luxury homes crowd a lakeside cliff. By HILARY SMITH Messenger Post Staff SOUTH BRISTOL — Ketmar Development Corp. opened a model home this fall across the street from a lakeside parcel where it proposes to build a luxury neighborhood. Though the home itself gets good reviews, opponents of the project say it’s not the style of home but the location that makes the project a problem. Marie Kenton, Ketmar’s founder, said the $1.45 million model home at 5400 Seneca Point Road is “representative of the quality” of the 20 homes Kenton plans to build on 47.2 acres across the street. The development, called Seneca Point Landing, would have 543 feet of Canandaigua Lake shoreline. A private drive would serve 19 of the 20 homes, and a golf cart trail would wend down the steep hill to a dock with storage lockers and slips for 20 boats. The model house first opened on Oct. 27. It will remain open on Sundays from noon to 4 p.m. through the end of December. More than 400 guests toured the house during its opening weekend, and several hundred more have visited since, said Cailin Willey, Ketmar’s director of sales and marketing. “I was very impressed by the overall quality of the Ketmar model home,” said South Bristol Town Supervisor Dan Marshall. “I was amazed at the details — paint lines were even, door spacings were exact,” said Jim Schartzer, South Bristol’s assessor. “It showed that they’re really capable of building a fine-quality house that seems to be in tune with the setting.” That, said Kenton, was the purpose of showing the home — to help locals understand the character of the company and to get an idea of the kind of homes it would build within the new development. Opponents have objected to the large scale of the project, the concentration of homes in steeper areas of the site, and the houses’ proximity to a fragile cliff. The location, not the style or quality of homes, makes the project a bad fit for the neighborhood, they say. “I have no real issue with the aesthetics or quality of construction that Ketmar proposes,” said Jane Bronson, who lives in Connecticut but also owns property near the project site. “My issue is primarily with the density of development and the lakeside marina, and no amount of construction aesthetics will assuage what is going to happen in this regard.” Rick Bolton, who owns property on Bare Hill in Middlesex across the lake from the project site, still worries that the development would cause irreparable damage to the ecosystem, and that its steep hills would be subject to flooding. “If Ketmar succeeds in placing homes throughout the steep hillside, the new owners will have nothing but a disaster on their hands,” Bolton wrote in an e-mail. “It’s not about the homes, it’s where they want to put them.” The Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance echoed Bolton’s concerns in a letter it sent to the state Department of Environmental Conservation in August, criticizing the project’s draft environmental impact statement. “The houses become more concentrated as the limitations increase ... In the most critical area, the most disturbance is planned,” the letter stated. The Alliance also objects to the large, conspicuous lockers that would be built at the docks and the “too small” buffer between some of the homes and the edge of the cliff. DEC environmental analyst Tom Haley sent a letter to Ketmar this week requesting additional information about a porous concrete product to be used in the development’s golf-cart path; the product is a change from the material that was previously proposed for the path. The letter in general expresses skepticism about the need for golf cart access to the shoreline, stating that developers should “give further consideration to some of the other shoreline access alternatives or put further effort into minimizing the impact of the proposed cart path.” The letter also asks Ketmar to consider maintaining a larger buffer area between the homes and the cliff. It requests that Ketmar reduce the size of the storage lockers. Haley also requested a more in depth assessment of the entire project’s visual impact. In an additional two page letter sent to the developers, Alan Bauder, a submerged-lands and natural-resources manager employed by the state Office of General Services’ real estate division, echoed the DEC’s concerns about the size of the above-water storage lockers. After Ketmar responds to the letters, the DEC will determine whether the responses are adequate before it approves the project’s draft final environmental impact statement (FEIS.) Haley could not estimate when the FEIS might be approved. Contact Hilary Smith at (585) 394-0770, Ext. 343 or at hsmith@mpnewspapers.com. Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger November 26, 2007 Editorial 60,000 thank-yous for Gorham Credit Gorham for putting human nature to work for the general good. Its new rules for building along Canandaigua Lake reduce red tape for people who want build smaller homes. We predict fewer applications for McMansions on the east shore because people tend to take the path of least resistance. Specifically, Gorham will let people tear down a seasonal cottage and replace it with a year-round or seasonal home without variances — provided the building doesn’t cover any more land and isn’t taller than the original one. The homeowner can, however, move a same-size hometo a slightly better location, for example, if the old one sits on the property line. Another provision of the law would let people build 750-square-foot year-round homes, instead of the 950square-foot houses required in other parts of town. Supervisor Richard Calabrese noted that the goal here is to keep buildings small to retain the cottage community’s character at a time when sprawling dwellings are in style. The town’s code officer, Gordon Freida, notes, too, that the new rules make it easier for people to build year-round retirement homes. All in all, it’s the right direction to go. First, we want people to retire here, not fly off to Florida or Arizona permanently. When they do that, they take their money with them. Second, smaller homes are better for the environment. They use less material and less energy and cover less ground — a key feature for a healthy lake. Canandaigua Lake is bordered by no chemical-spewing factories, and the Ontario County Soil and Water Conservation District’s aggressive program of keeping farm waste out of streams has shifted the focus to what is called non-point solution. In other words, the real danger is rainwater crossing homes and small businesses, carrying lawn chemicals, spilled oil and gas, sewage from broken septics and other pollutants into the lake. Ideally, the ground would absorb and filter pollutants before they get to the lake, but it can’t if it’s covered with concrete, blacktop and asphalt roofs. Smaller homes leave more of the ground to do its work. Beyond that, Gorham encourages people to use paving stone or bricks instead of blacktop or concrete on driveways, sidewalks and patios. Paving stone over sand or stone would let water sink in, whereas water merely picks up speed over pavement. The Ontario County Planning Board commended Gorham for development rules that curb runoff, and we do, too. And so should the 60,000 people who drink Canandaigua Lake water. Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger November 19, 2007 Gorham paves way for return of the cottage Gorham adopts zoning changes to encourage smaller buildings — not McMansions — along the lakefront. By MICHELE CUTRI-BYNOE Messenger Post Correspondent GORHAM — The town haschanged the rules for building along the Canandaigua Lake shore to reduce red tape for residents and — as a side benefit — potentially reduce runoff into the water. Anyone who wants to tear down a seasonal cottage on the lake to replace it with a year-round home or new seasonal cottage can do so now without variances — provided the building doesn’t cover any more land and isn’t taller than the original structure. The building may be positioned differently on the parcel, for example, to move it farther from the property line. Additionally, the roof cannot be higher than the width of the lot. “It should cut down on large homes on small lots, and not change the character of the lakefront community,” Supervisor Richard Calabrese said. The intention of this new rule was to let people replace homes without going through a cumbersome process of getting variances. Keep the house small, and approval is quick and easy. Build a McMansion, and you’ll need to wait for town officials to act on variance requests. As a side benefit, smaller homes would keep more of the land open to absorb runoff, reducing the amount of sediments, lawn chemicals and other debris that flow into the lake, which serves as drinking water for about 60,000 people. Also part of the new zoning rules: •Year-round homes along the lakefront would have to be a minimum of 750 square feet, a reduction of 200 square feet from the previous rules. Year-round homes elsewhere would still have tobe at least 950 square feet. •Seasonal cottages as small as 400 square feet can beput up on lots that, under the previous rules, were too small to build on. •The town would encourage people to build decks with a quarter inch between the planks to allow water to pass through. It would also encourage people to use paving stone or bricks instead of blacktop or concrete on driveways and sidewalks to further reduce runoff. Property owners would get “credit” for using such methods. foot concrete patio would count as 100 square feet of lot coverage, but a 10-by10-foot patio made of sand covered with paving stone would discounted by 30 percent, meaning it would feet of lot coverage. The Ontario County Planning Board commended the town for establishing redevelopment standards meant to reduce runoff. Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger November 4, 2007 Letter to the Editor Too many unanswered questions on wind My husband and I drove to Cohocton to check on the progress of the proposed industrial wind turbines. I was amazed to see that there is a clear view of the entire length of Canandaigua Lake from the turbine sites on Pine Hill. That means the 400-foot-tall turbines will be clearly visible to residents on both sides of the lake. I wonder if the residents appreciate the visual impact the turbines will have on their landscape. Each turbine will have nighttime aviation lights, and during the day the moving blades produce a light flicker from the sun, which is visible for many miles. Not to mention the aesthetic impact of the huge towers scattered across the hilltops. The Oct. 30 article on turbine projects was objective and unemotional regarding an issue that has sparked much anger and divisiveness in our rural communities. It also clearly illustrated the elaborate network of limited liability corporations that has been created to allow the parent company to accumulate great wealth with no accountability. Funds have not been set aside for decommissioning the turbines. When they cease to function in 10 or so years, the towns will be left with the enormous cost of dismantling them. The numbers in the article speak for themselves. In Cohocton alone, the wind company has taken away over 4,000 acres of land to build 35 turbines. Surely, they don’t require over 100 acres per tower. Can anyone doubt that the company is currying favor by leasing from as many landowners as possible? I am not an opponent of wind generated power. If we lived in an area that had sustained winds, and an industrial zone to site the turbines, I would support a wind farm. If we had a need upstate for electricity, I would certainly support the development of additional production. These projects, however, are part of a complex scheme to reap the financial benefits of a political philosophy of throwing money at “clean energy” and “green energy.” Perhaps the enormous subsidies should be used to promote wind energy in parts of the state that have both sustained winds and areas to place these industrial towers away from residential and rural properties. Or, provide subsidies to rural landowners to erect a household windmill and take them off the electrical grid altogether. Deborah Jones Naples Daily Messenger - October 2007 Naples, NY The Naples Record October 24, 2007 Letter to the Editor Is this what we want? Wind towers taller than Xerox tower will be visible for miles and miles To the editor: On my way to Rochester one day, I drove through Victor and got on I-490 north. Between the Victor and the Bushnell’s Basin exits I looked northwest and could plainly see a big black building – the 38 story Xerox tower. Most agree for that point, it is about 10 miles away. Keep that thought in mind. As residents of the Town of Cohocton we received in the mail two letters, one from our town stating we were going to get “X” number of dollars for a wind turbine project and one letter from the project’s developer stating that appropriate approvals from the town and planning boards were given and all permits were in hand. They have started construction. A lot of residents of Cohocton still don’t understand the magnitude of this project. The wind turbines they plan to build are industrial size, they won’t be placed in one small discreet area, they will be scattered over the hilltops throughout the town. Most Naples residents don’t care because their town ans village put laws into place to protect them from these monstrous towers. Unfortunately Naples residents will be shocked by the size when they are installed. The Clipper Wind 2.5 wind turbine will be 420 feet tall, taller than the Xerox tower and 51 of them will be built on top of Pine Hill and Lent Hill, and will be visible from Main Street, County Route 12, West Hollow Road, and Route 21 going south of Naples. If you live on Rt 53, these monster structures will be dominating the hill in front of you and in back of you. Oh yes, Prattsburgh has approved the construction of these structures, maybe not as large, but the FAA requires strobe lights or red beacons on all industrial size wind turbines. So you will be reminded of their presence day and night. Sadly, billions od dollars will be spent on these structures with so little benefit. My husband and I have been part of a group called Cohocton Wind Watch (www.cohoctonwindwatch.org) to learn all that we can about wind farm development, and most of what we learned is that there is a very small amount of electricity produced from oil. Therefore wind turbines will not reduce our dependance on foreign oil. Wind turbines are not a reliable source of electricity. Their output is intermittent, volatile and largely unpredictable. Wind turbines only produce electricity when the wind is blwing at the right speed range ( between 8 and 56 mph). Many times they don’t produce any electricity at all. Most of their electricity is produced at night and in cold months, not in the summer when electricity demand is at its highest. The wind industry and wind advocates have overstated the environmental, energy and economic, scenic and property value impacts. They have mislead the public, media and government officials. The primary reason that :wind farms” are being built is for a few large corporations to take advantage of a very generous tax benefit (ie tax shelters) and not for environmental reasons. The tax burden escaped by these corporations (some have avoided paying any federal corporate income tax) is shifted to ordinary tax payers who do not have such tax shelters. Electricity from wind energy is very expensive, particularly when all its true costs (including tax breaks and subsidies, back up power costs, transmission costs) are taken into account. This pushes up the cost of electricity for ordinary electric customers like you and me. The corporations benefit and many of them are foreign-owned, such as Iberdola, which recently purchases RG&E, NYSEG, and Energy East. When everyone who has said they aren’t concerned because they feel it isn’t in their “backyard” it will be too late. We and the CWW group have been fighting the Cohocton wind turbine development with lawsuits because that is our last resort. All residents in this immediate region need to fight the big, corporate wind turbine developers before the towers go up. Once they are up, it will cost $1.5 million to take each one down. Who do you think will pay for that? What would you like to see happen? Hollis Trude, Cohocton Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger October 15, 2007 Do-or-die vote set for Villas at Canandaigua The Canandaigua Town Board will decide Tuesday whether to rezone to allow a controversial 136-home development. By PHILIP ANSELMO Messenger Post Staff CANANDAIGUA — After several months of controversial public hearings, the fate of a proposed 136-home development will be sealed Tuesday. In fact, the Town Board will have three opportunities to accept or reject the proposal. Rochester-based real estate developer Wegman Cos. is seeking approval to rezone 49 acres south of Routes 5 and 20 and west of Middle Cheshire Road. The site would be developed into 34 buildings of 136 clustered condominiums that would be marketed to empty nesters. At a Town Board meeting on Sept. 5, the board took a straw vote to determine if the Villas fit the town’s comprehensive plan. That vote came in three to two. Supervisor Lloyd Kinnear and Councilmen Ralph Brandt and Brad Purdy said yes; board members Marion Cassie and David Dawson said no. Despite that straw vote, a resolution proposed by Cassie will go before the board at Tuesday’s meeting asserting that the project does not preserve the town’s rural character. Because of its increase by more than 300 percent in the density of homes per acre, the resolution argues, the Villas is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Therefore, Wegman Cos. should be denied the request to rezone, claims Cassie. If two other board members agree, “the application stops,” said Kinnear. He said Wegman Cos. could come back with another application but would be required to build according to current zoning restrictions: no more than 45 conventional homes. If Cassie’s resolution is voted down, the Villas would still have to clear a second hurdle: Town Board approval to rezone. Should the first resolution be rejected and the second approved, a third resolution would come before board members: A vote to approve a list of infrastructure projects the developer would complete in exchange for the rezoning. This is a practice known as incentive zoning, meaning the developer gives the town an incentive to rezone. The projects include: • A 3,800-foot extension of the sewer line along the west side of Middle Cheshire Road. • Installation of a water main the same size as those that already run along Middle Cheshire Road and Parrish Street Extension to prevent a reduction in water pressure in the neighborhood. • Construction of a hiking and biking trail from the site to the city of Canandaigua. • A cash payment of $75,000 to the town for use in developing a park. • A cash payment of $250,000 to the town to make improvements to Outhouse Park, currently being developed along Outhouse Road. • Traffic lights, turning lanes and other improvements at the intersection of Middle Cheshire Road and Routes 5 and 20. All three resolutions will be on the agenda for the Town Board meeting Tuesday at 7 p.m. at the Canandaigua Town Hall, preceded by a public hearing on the issue. Philip Anselmo can be reached at (585) 3940770, Ext. 322, or at panselmo@mpnewspapers.com. Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger October 14 Leter to the Editor Algae growth in lake tied to dishwashers Phosphorus, usually in the form of phosphates, is a major concern for water quality because it is the limiting nutrient, meaning it’s in short supply among the major nutrients plants need for fresh water in the Northeastern U.S. Sources of phosphates include human waste, animal waste, chemical fertilizers and automatic dishwasher detergent. Given the proliferation of dishwashers, it may very well be a significant sources of problems in Canandaigua Lake and others. Our waste treatment systems, whether septic systems, aerobic treatment or sewage treatment plants, do not remove much phosphorus from the waste stream. Some of them, in fact, were never designed to remove phosphorus. When phosphates were banned in most laundry detergents in 1974 to clean up the Great Lakes and other water bodies, an exception was made for automatic dishwashing detergents because dishwashers wouldn’t function properly without some phosphorus in the mix. More than 30 years later,apparently this problem hasn’t been solved, as automatic dishwashing detergents continue to contain quite a bit of phosphorus. We should be concerned about phosphates in detergents because phosphorus is the “limiting nutrient” for most fresh water, including Canandaigua Lake. Adding a source of nitrogen or potassium to a water body will cause some response in plant growth; adding phosphorus gets a major response. The usual measure of growth per unit of phosphorus added is 500:1, so that one pound of added phosphorus spurs the growth of 500 pounds of algae. This means that one gram of phosphorus available in a tablespoon of dishwashing detergents spurs the growth of 1.1 pounds of algae, per load. Of the products available with phosphorus, we recommend Palmolive Gel, Wegmans Powder and Electrasol Powder Advanced, and urge you to use them according to instructions. You may be able to find non-phosphorus automatic dishwashing detergents either in the “earth-friendly” section of your supermarket or through catalog sales. Check the capacity of the detergent holder built into your dishwasher. Most of these detergents are rated to wash a load with a tablespoon of liquid or powder, but the holder is often sized to suggest that four to eight tablespoons are “normal.” Four to eight tablespoons of most of these detergents will grow four to eight pounds of algae per load. The phosphorus content of your wastewater is little affected by a septic system, aerobic treatment system or sewage treatment plant. Stephen Lewandowski consultant Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger October 9, 2007 Massive wind turbines could be rising in the town within a few weeks. Cohocton, NY - Rick Towner, local spokesman for the Massachusetts wind-energy company UPC, said permits allowing the developer to begin the ground work for the 420-foot-high turbines will be signed soon, signaling the next phase of the construction of 50 wind turbines. On a tour of the wind farm sites Thursday, Towner said special permits have allowed M.A. Mortenson Construction crews to prepare the areas for construction of the tower bases. According to Towner, 57-foot-wide concrete platforms will be topped by a 16-foot-wide tower base and secured by 15-foot bolts into the concrete. Once the concrete has cured, topsoil will be replaced, the towers will be stacked by cranes and the blades assembled and mounted, he said. Ironically, the only natural element that could delay the two- to three-week construction schedule for each turbine is strong wind. “The cranes are limited in lifts to 20-mph wind,” Towner said. “More than that, and they'll have to wait.” Each turbine is valued at $2 million to $2.5 million, he said. Once completed, the project will employ six to eight workers for maintenance and operation. The optimum wind speed for the turbines is 25 to 27 mph, according to Towner. The blades are designed to tilt in order to adjust to the most efficient rotation. In the event of a windstorm, with wind speeds above 50 mph, the blades will flatten to reduce rotation and hydraulic brakes will shut the system down for safety, he said. The Newton, Mass.-based UPC first planned to build 56 turbines along the Cohocton hills, Towner said. But new town zoning setbacks took some sites off the list. There are also restrictions on putting turbines near any existing dwellings or any area where the public gathers, such as a church or park, he said. There are five more wind projects being considered in Steuben County, with UPC and EcoGen vying for space in Prattsburgh, and other projects in the towns of Hartsville, Howard and Caton. Those projects have been welcomed by some as a source of renewable energy and revenues. They are strongly opposed by others who charge the turbines are inefficient and threaten humans and the habitat. Towner said the turbines in Cohocton are likely to generate as much electricity as old coal plants in the area, which shut down years ago. “What replaced them?” he said. “Nothing, as far as I know.” But Towner said there are more benefits for the town than the UPC wind farm. “The restaurants are full, (one) was looking for waitresses,” he said. “The motels are full. I know there are complaints about bringing some out-of-state guys in, but you ought to also look at they'll be spending money here, not taking their wages home to Rochester every day.” Within the last two weeks, both the state appellate court and local court have dismissed allegations the town's local laws regulating the project are illegal. But the project's opponents, Cohocton Wind Watch, have another day in court at 1:30 p.m. Oct. 19. The recent lawsuits charge UPC with violating their conditional Public Safety Commission permit. The action also challenges the issuance of special-use permits by the Cohocton Planning Board. Opponents also claim certain turbines intrude upon the property in neighboring towns and Ontario County. Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger October 4, 2007 Towns need help on wind farms Editorial Town governments are big on local control, but in the case of wind farms, such authority may be more illusion than reality. The legal tangles in Italy, Prattsburgh and Cohocton over projects there show how energy companies have local governments outgunned with lawyers and wind experts at the ready. Most of us defer the total control we exercise over our cars to a mechanic. Wind farms are infinitely more complex, which is why the state needs to provide towns with expertise to evaluate projects or provide cash to hire its own help. The state has stacked the deck against small towns, starting with former Gov. George Pataki’s executive order on June 30, 2001 — and continued by Gov.Eliot Spitzer on Jan. 1, 2007 — that all state agencies buy 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2005 and 20 percent by 2010. Those orders turned the development of wind, hydro and other forms of renewable energy from desirable to a public imperative. The state Public Service Commission cited those orders in granting subsidiaries of UPC New York Wind —itself a subsidiary of UPC Wind Partners —permission to build the Cohocton and Dutch Hill wind farms, a total of 57 turbines, largely north and northeast of the village of Cohocton. Also of note is the selective use of terminology by UPC Wind affiliates. The companies involved in the Cohocton and Dutch Hill projects appealed to the Public Service Commission for a fast track review on the grounds that they were both electric corporations. Meanwhile, WindFarm Prattsburgh, another subsidiary of UPC New York Wind, had argued successfully that it is not an electric corporation subject to regulation by the commission. Granted, the Prattsburgh project is smaller (66 megawatts vs. 128 megawatts at Cohocton and Dutch Hill), but the company has been reluctant to talk about the apparent contradiction. Clearly, it is using technical distinctions to ensure the most favorable regulatory treatment in each case. In neighboring Italy, another energy company, Ecogen LLC, has its eye on some Yates County-owned land and has threatened to use its status as a “utility” to get its hands on the property. The unfortunate part of all this is that wind farms are getting a bad rap; the issue has boiled down to the unhelpful and subjective conclusion that Big Energy is forcing ugly turbines down the throats of locals. Wind turbines may yet have a valuable place among other forms of energy that have problems themselves: Nuclear plants leave us with radioactive waste; the burning of natural gas, coal and oil — though oil is not a big player in electricity — contribute to smog and global warming. If state leaders really back renewable energy, they should have no fear of giving towns the wherewithal to evaluate the costs and benefits of wind farms. It would be naive to think such money wouldn’t come with strings attached, but it would be equally naive to think the state is not already pulling strings. Daily Messenger - September 2007 Canandaigua, NY Daily Messenger September 24, 2007 Nice lake,but what’s with the suds? The alarmed calls are coming in:“Foam!” But the phenomenon is naturally occurring and nothing to worry about, say the experts. By HILARY SMITH Messenger Post Staff Lately, joggers and walkers have noticed a thick, snow-like foam building up along the shores of Canandaigua Lake, particularly at Kershaw Park. It isn’t dishwasher detergent, and it’s not an early onset of winter precipitation. Experts say the foam is a naturally occurring phenomenon produced by falling leaves and dying zebra mussels. The foam surfaces every year and in different seasons, but Canandaigua Lake has not had this much since 2001, said Canandaigua Lake Watershed Manager Kevin Olvany. The foam occurs when decaying organic matter, mostly fallen leaves, produces a “surfactant” — a fatty, soapy substance that is less dense than the surrounding water. The surfactant floats to the top of the water, where waves and wind agitate it into a foamy state, much as a washing machine or dishwasher creates suds from liquid soap. Leaves fall into lakes and streams every year, so the foam is always being produced. It can even surface in the winter, when “it can freeze into odd and interesting shapes,” said Stephen Lewandowski, consultant to the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance. This year, as in 2001, the lake has had a higher volume of foam than normal. The cause, said Olvany and Lewandowski, is a large-scale die-off of zebra mussels — an invasive species native to eastern Europe that was first discovered in the United States in 1988 and in Canandaigua Lake in the mid-1990s. As each generation of mussels reaches the end of its fiveto six-year life span, many mussels die at the same time, releasing more organic matter into the water. The extra decaying matter causes more foam. Studies done by Finger Lakes Community College conservation professor Bruce Gilman and his students have confirmed what scientists know about the mussels’ lifecycle, reinforcing their belief that the foam is related to many mussels dying around the same time. Olvany said he doesn’t know whether the five- to six year cycle of die-offs and increased foam would continue. For now, he stressed that the foam is a natural, relatively benign phenomenon. “It’s not a health threat,” he said. “It’s just a part of the ecosystem at this point.” To the Top Daily Messenger - August 2007 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 7, 2007 Last call on wind farms As Gorham prepares to adopt windmill regulations, some who favor wind energy don’t want the town to impose a de facto ban on large turbines. By MICHELE E.CUTRI-BYNOE Messenger Post Correspondent GORHAM — A public hearing Wednesday may be residents’ last chance to offer their two cents on windmill regulations. The town has discussed a proposed law for more than a year. As it stands, Gorham is poised to effectively ban large-scale wind farms, the type that generate power for sale to the grid, by setting a lower-than-standard height restriction. The current draft would allow turbines of 300 feet or lower; typical commercial turbines are about 400 feet tall. Empire State Wind Energy CEO Keith Pitman confirmed that the height restriction of 300 would eliminate most commercial interest in Gorham. Though some residents have argued against windmills, West Swamp Road resident David Eldredge has put up a sign supporting wind energy. “We have to come up with an alternative source for electricity,” said Eldredge, who was working as a manager for New York State Electric & Gas during the blackout of August 2003. He also worked for 10 years at Greenidge Station, a coal-fired plant on Seneca Lake in Dresden. “There is no way to completely stop them from polluting,” he said of coal plants. “I would have a windmill if I could afford one. ... I wouldn’t mind a wind farm.” “I wouldn’t mind it either,” said his neighbor, Jim Pease of Robson Road. Pease owns land on Bassage Road and his father, Ed, owns land nearby. “There aren’t many houses on that road, so if we did something, we wouldn’t be bothering anybody,” said Jim Pease. He and his father might not choose to put up a wind farm now, but they would want the option. Ed Pease agreed. “We need to use our wind resource,” he said. “It doesn’t take anything away from the Earth. From a financial standpoint, a wind farm is better than farming.” Ed Pease said he doesn’t know if his land is suited for windmills but he’d like to explore it. “I don’t think we can depend on wind energy solely, but it could take a lot of the pressure off the other resources used for energy,” he said. Ed Pease’s daughter, Joane Elwell of Robson Road, doesn’t own enough property to put up a wind farm, but she doesn’t mind that her father and brother might consider such a prospect. “I have absolutely no problem with windmills going up around me,” said Elwell. “We need to be looking forward. We can’t bury our heads in the sand about how we generate electricity and the repercussions down the road for future generations.” Another neighbor, John Frank of County Road 29, a former Town Board member, has also been outspoken at town meetings defending wind energy. Wednesday’s hearing begins at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall, 4736 South St. 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 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 determination that RSM could install up to 415 boat slips or moorings at its private marina, while the Watershed Alliance and East Shore Association believe the law allows the development to have just 22. “This narrow interpretation is clearly contrary to the intent of the docking and mooring law that was adopted more than 10 years ago by all the towns around the lake to prevent the intensive use of a relatively small amount of lineal feet of lakefront by a large number of upland homeowners,” stated Tony Busch, president of the East Shore Association, comprised of more than 450 Canandaigua Lake homeowners. Kocher could not be reached for comment on the case. Developer Steve Mancini of RSM had little to say about the impending appeal. “We’ll just continue as planned,” he said. The appeal will be filed as soon as Kocher officially signs off on his ruling, expected within the next week to 10 days. Carol Maue, partner of the law firm Chamberlain D’Amanda, represents the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance and East Shore Association. She predicted it will take close to a year for the court to render a decision. Daily Messenger - July 2007 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 31, 2007 EDITORIAL A call to action on the lake Canandaigua Lake’s watershed manager issued a call to arms last week against the threat of overdevelopment. A recent court ruling exposed holes in town regulations regarding construction along the lake, said Kevin Olvany, who works for the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Council. Specifically, Olvany called for a six-month moratorium on all multi-residential and semi-publicuse developments, even those already proposed. The latter would include the Residences at West Lake Marine Club, a plan by RSM West Lake Road LLC to turn German Brothers Marina into a private marina and club serving 67 homes uphill and to the south of the marina. The town Zoning Board of Appeals effectively halted the project late last year by ruling that RSM could not apply for a specialuse permit to privatize the marina. The company appealed, and state Supreme Judge William Kocher said, well, yes, RSM is free to apply. Kocher could have stopped there, but he went ahead and pointed out weaknesses in town laws that leave room for RSM’s project. Olvany sees disastrous potential here: If developers can find creative ways to link upland property to what everyone wants — a piece of the lakeshore — then a new burst of construction could erupt and degrade the lake. Now it’s up to the Town Board to take the judge’s hint. Get the ball rolling on zoning amendments. Hire a consultant to review the judge’s decision and check out other lakefront towns’ laws — but only if the person or firm can guarantee a draft in a few months. This is an important job, not an epic one. Some may argue that all the border communities, including South Bristol, Middlesex and Gorham, should work together on standardized building regulations. That’s true, but it should not stop Canandaigua from moving ahead. It’s true, too, that a moratorium would give the town the greatest protection in the meantime. Six months shouldn’t unduly inconvenience anyone. A retroactive ban, however, would be unfair, not to mention a potential legal tangle. Supervisor Lloyd Kinnear is right to point out that moratoriums can lead to dithering as officials lose all sense of urgency. Gorham, for example, has extended its ban on wind turbines three times. We suggest a compromise: a six month, no