Town of Tusten - Public Comment and Response - Zoning Law

APPENDIX 1 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (EAF) PACKET: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes and responds to all substantive comments received during the public review period on the Draft Zoning for the Town of Tusten.1 The draft was prepared in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Section 8-0113, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, set forth in 6NYCRR Part 617. Public review of the Draft Zoning began on August 10, 2011 and concluded on October 21, 2010. On August 10, 2011, when the Town Board declared their intent to be lead agency under SEQRA, the written comment period was opened and the draft zoning document was made available for public review on the town website (www.tusten.org), and on CD-ROMs and hard copies in the Town Hall and the Western Sullivan Library. The Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), together with a supplement narrative, and the draft zoning was circulated to interested and involved agencies. A public notice advertising the availability of the Draft Zoning, the duration of the written comment period and the date, time, and location of the public hearings was published in the River Reporter and the Sullivan County Democrat. On September 12, 2011, the Town Board officially declared themselves lead agency and set two public hearings on the zoningthe first public hearing was on September 26, 2011 and the second public was held on October 10, 2011. The availability of the draft zoning document and information on the public hearings were also published in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservations Environmental Notice Bulletin. Each public hearing gathered oral testimony from the public and from involved and interested public and private agencies through the use of a stenographer and a microphone system. The public hearings were conducted in the basement of the Town of Tusten Town Hall located at 210 Bridge Street in Narrowsburg, New York. The written comment period remained opened for 72 days until the close of business on October 21, 2011. This chapter indentifies the individuals and organizations that commented on the draft zoning during the comment period and then summarizes and responds to their comments. It consider all comments made at the public hearings on September 26, 2011 and October 10, 2011 and all written comments submitted during the written comment period, which ended on October 21, 2011.
LIST OF COMMENTERS
1. Olivia Grady, Narrowsburg, N.Y. 2. Charles Hoffman, 10 Lackawaxen Road. 3. Gary Packer speaking for Mr. Venner who owns property in the Town of Tusten
1
The term comment is defined here as an observation focusing on a particular aspect of the proposed zoning document which could be, for instance, a sentence, definition, Article, or section. As such, the spoken and written narratives offered by members of the public at both public hearings and during the written comment period are responded to in this section by the specific comments that comprised the verbal and written presentations. Hence if an individual during their presentation focused on four aspects of the proposed zoning, the description to follow offers a response to each observation separately.
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Dick Crandall, Aspen Way, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Charles Petershein, the Catskill Farms, 42 Proctor Road, Eldred, N.Y. Kevin Vertress, Country Road 23, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Linda Slocum, P.O. Box 230, Narrowsburg, NY. Sean Mc Guinness, Superintendent for the National Park Service of the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River Ned Lang, 67 Arena Court, Narrowsburg, N.Y. 12764 Debbie Wasylyk, 69 Forest Pond Road, Narrowsburg, New York 12764 Charles Blanchard, 101 Main Street, Narrowsburg, N.Y. 12764 David B.Soete, Senior Resource Specialist, Upper Delaware Council, 211 Bridge Street, P.O. Box 192, Narrowsburg, NY 12764-0192 Johanna Spoerri, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Liza Phillips, 358 Gables Road, Narrowsburg, NY 12764 Jim Stratton, the Flats, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Jane Luchsinger from Lava, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Stephen Morse, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Sharon Chopping, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Anne Willard, 58 County Rte. 132, Callicoon, NY 12723 Peter Comstock, Head of School The Homestead School, 428 Hollow Road, Glen Spey, N.Y. 12737 Stanley Harper, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Brandi Merolla, 214 Mathias Weiden Dr., Narrowsburg, NY 12764 Jason Simon, 166 Blind Pond Road in Narrowsburg, NY 12764 Lance Brodmerkel, 10 Lackawaxen Road, Town of Tusten Penelope Morgan-Lohr, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Jane W. Prettyman, Honesdale PA Susan Sullivan, 7878 SR 52, Narrowsburg, NY 12764 Weiden Lake Property Owners Association, P.O. Box 191, Narrowsburg, New York 10956 Tina Spangler, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Star D. Hesse, 7698 State Route 52, Narrowsburg N.Y. 12764 April Bidwell, resident, Town of Tusten Bruce R. Bidwell, 1303 Crystal Lake Road, Narrowsburg N.Y. Michael Eurey, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Amy Thompson Hock, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Ben Younger, 404 Gables Rd, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Arnold Melman, Weiden Lake, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Kevin Caico, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Francis Cape, 358 Gables Road, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Stefan Spoerri, 214 Mathias Weiden Dr., Narrowsburg, N.Y. 12764 Mary Greene, 1258 Crystal Lake Road, Narrowsburg, N.Y. 12764 Terrance Lohr, Weiden Lake, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Jan London, Narrowburg, N.Y. Karl Wasner, Narrowsburg, N.Y. James Gann, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Claudine Luchsinger, Town of Cochecton 2
46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. Jane Morris, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Doug Adler, 474 Crawford Rd., Narrowsburg, NY 12764 Vera B Williams, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Kathy Mithell, 42 School Street, Narrowsburg, N.Y. 12764 Rita Macrini, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Anne Adler, 474 Crawford Rd., Narrowsburg, NY 12764 Benita Hack, Resident of Narrowsburg and NYC Richard J. Marcel, 266 Swamp Pond Rd., Narrowsburg, NY 12764 Ron Littke, 3 Lake Street, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Kevin Vertrees, Tusten Concerned Citizens Peter Comstock, Lumberland Concerned Citizens Carol Roig, Highland Concerned Citizens Karen London, Bethel Concerned Citizens Andrew N. Krinsky, Tarter, Krinsky, and Drogin, LLP, Attorney at Law, 1350 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10018 Andrea Reynosa, Town of Tusten resident Carla Hauser Hahn, Management Assistant, Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River, NPS, 274 River Road, Beach Lake, PA 18405 John Fischer, Vice President , Weiden Lake Property Owners Association Frank Bernarducci, Hoffman Road Matt Solomon, Cochecton, N.Y. and Main Street Business Owner in Narrowsburg, N.Y. Penelope Morgan Lohr Bob Wiegers, Owner of Eagle's Nest Estates Brenda Seldin, Narrowsburg, New York David Slottje, Attorney at Law, Executive Director, Community Defense Council, PO Box 898, Ithaca, NY 14851 Carol Roig, Town of Highland Heidi Schneider, 38 Erie Avenue, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Steve Ritcher, 38 Erie Avenue, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Anna Bern, Narrowsburg, N.Y Anie Stanley, Luxton Lake Jane Morgan Puett, resides in Damascus Township but works in Narrowsburg, N.Y. Liza Phillips, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Francis Cape, Lava, N.Y. Andy Boyar, Town of Highland Tony Stafferi, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Glen Goldstein, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Robert Turner, Tusten Resident. Darryl Brasseale, Resident of the Town of Town of Cochecton and business owner in Narrowsburg, N.Y. (Bridge Street). Kathy Grady, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Terresa Steakley, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Allison Ward, Narrowsburg, N.Y.
COMMENT 1: HiI'm Kathy's daughter. I'm 16 and I ought to be working on my homework right now but I'm not because I'm here because it's important to me. It's ironic that the homework I'm working on is a biology lab about the quality of water in certain areas around us. We were talking about how algae cant survive if certain things are messed up in the water, which they will be if we let heavy industry in. I'm for Article 14 because I don't want anything here tobe messed up for profit. That's not how we should do things. It'sjust adding to the corporate greed that's driven all of AmericaWe're all in debt now and it's obvious because some people just wanted more and more and more and they didn't think about the smaller people that were suffering for it. And we the smaller peopleI'm glad that other people from different towns are coming here to our meeting because that's what we should be doing. We should be going to other towns. We should be showing them how they can have an Article 14 of their own in their own town, like in their planning, because this isn't where the river begins. It begins all the way upstate. And if anything gets messed up there we suffer for it. Once again, we're the little people, [but] we're all connected by [the river]. And you just can't protect one portion of the river. It's not like the river is suddenly dirty upstream, it's suddenly clear where we don't havethe heavy drillingNo; it's all connected. And so that's all I have to say (O. Grady). RESPONSE: As stated in the Town of Tusten 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the vision of the town is as follows: We see our community growing in a balanced, diverse manner that protects its rural character by building on our strengths and historic roots.2 To uphold this vision, the Zoning Rewrite Committee researched the development of Article 14 with the pro bono assistance of the Community Defense Council legal team from Ithaca, New York. This initiative was based on the premise that state law allows towns to protect their residents since municipalities are mandated by the State of New York to protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents. This logic is grounded in Frew Run Gravel Products. V. Town of Carroll where the New York Court of Appeals found that municipal zoning law regulated land use generally and, therefore, was not preempted by state regulations for a particular industry. Paralleling this thinking is the finding that municipalities can regulate private property through zoning to advance the public welfare (Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)) and the decision that a mere diminution in property due to zoning regulation is not a taking (Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly, 377 U.S. 713 (1964)). Therefore, the development of Article 14 by the zoning rewrite committee is seen as a proactive measure to mitigate vested rights should case law yield a plain-meaning interpretation of ECL 23-0303 further underscoring the jurisdiction of municipalities to regulate land use involving the public health, safety, and welfare which falls outside the State of New Yorks regulatory program.
Town of Tusten 2007 Comprehensive Plan. 2007. Sullivan County Division of Planning and Environmental Management, Monticello, New York, pg. 2.
COMMENT 2: I have to say that I am very concerned about a revision thats taken a document that was 54 pages and now has gone over to 207. I think its taken something that was very simple, very basic, with good understanding, into something that now is going to take a considerable amount of time, effort and money to enforce. I think its taken a working document and shifted focus (Hoffman). RESPONSE: The increased page length of the zoning document is attributed to two factorsnew subject matter given the changing times since the last zoning update and conversion of narratives into tabular form to facilitate a better summary of uses and their respective requirements. In reference to item one, the document includes new definitions relevant to timely issues facing the town and many definitions had to be revised requiring additional text to assist planning and zoning board members in their review of future applications that will require clarification of terms as it relates to the schedule of district regulations in Article IV. Furthermore, the zoning draft includes specific performance standards for commercial and light industrial uses. As noted in the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) narrative, the proposed zoning also includes additional Articles that the zoning rewrite committee felt was critical in upholding the objectives of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, which include Zoning Vested Rights and Explicitly Prohibited Uses. In reference to item two, the zoning committee wanted specific narratives converted to tabular form to make it easier for planning and zoning board members and the public to visually match specific uses with specific land use requirements. Indeed, a trade-off of this approach was a longer document. For example, unlike the previous version of the zoning, which did not incorporate the schedule of district regulations in the body of the zoning text, the new zoning in Article IV incorporates the schedule of district regulations in tabular form to allow for a more user friendly visual of the regulations by district. The same concept was applied to the article on sign requirements. Again, a trade-off is this approach was a longer document, but nonetheless a format that facilitates a better visual presentation in understanding the zoning requirements in a more expeditious manner. COMMENT 3: Next, I think that the Title 14 or Chapter 14, or whatever youd like to call it, is being driven by outsiders (Hoffman). RESPONSE: The research and subsequent drafting of Article 14 was not driven by outsiders; the idea was advanced by the zoning rewrite committee who are residents of the Town of Tusten. The rational was to explore the applicability of harmonizing the Statue of Local Governments, which establishes Municipal Home Rule, and ECL Article 23, title 3 in upholding the towns mandate of protecting the health, safety and welfare of its residents and meeting the goals of the Town of Tusten 2007 Comprehensive Plan through its zoning regulations. COMMENT 4: You have families here that have owned property for 150, 200 years that have paid taxes all that time. And if they decide that they want to sign a lease or theyre entertaining it, let them investigate it. But what youre doing is circumventing their right as property owners and denying them the access to the mineral rights underneath them that theyve 5
paid for over, you know, a great many years, and basically doing condemnation without compensation. And you need to be careful that you might be opening up a huge pool of litigation. So I would suggest that until those cases are decided that that section be totally removed (Hoffman). RESPONSE: Article 14 is based on the premise that state law allows towns to protect their residents. This logic is grounded in Frew Run Gravel Products. V. Town of Carroll where the New York Court of Appeals found that municipal zoning law regulated land use generally and, therefore, was not preempted by state regulations for a particular industry. Paralleling this thinking is the finding that municipalities can regulate private property through zoning to advance the public welfare (Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)) and the decision that a mere diminution in property due to zoning regulation is not a taking (Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly, 377 U.S. 713 (1964)). Therefore, the development of Article 14 by the zoning rewrite committee is seen as a proactive measure to mitigate vested rights should case law yield a plain-meaning interpretation of ECL 230303 further underscoring the jurisdiction of municipalities to regulate land use involving the public health, safety, and welfare which falls outside the State of New Yorks regulatory program. COMMENT 5: The other simple thing that Im concerned about is I dont find that this document is very business friendly, home business friendly, in that as an educator I could only tutor one student at my home at any one time. If Im preparing a group of students, Ive tutored your grandchildren, two and three at your kitchen table at a time; I couldnt do that under this zoning law. It would be illegal. Thats you know, if somebody has an e-Bay or an antique business there couldnt be any retail business outside of this area. Again, under current zoning that may be permitted. Under this now new zoning I dont think that that would be permitted under my interpretation of the document. Again, there are some people Im sure on this board that havent even read 207 pages. I had both documents open on my computer, side by side, doing comparison. It was it was extremely difficult, and I have a Masters degree. I dont know how youre going to enforce it (Hoffman). RESPONSE: This observation is inaccurate. Section 6.7.1 favors the development and sustainability of home occupations while preserving the residential character of neighborhoods. To begin, the floor area allowed is very liberalnot to exceed more than 50% of the ground floor areawhen compared to other towns in New York State where, for example, the floor area for a home occupation cannot exceed 30% of the ground floor area. Next, the zoning allows for tutoring of more than one student in the home; the language specifically states Tutoring for not more than five (5) students at a time. This threshold is very consistent with research on tutoring and student performance, where small groups of 2-6 students are recommended. Hence, tutoring two and three students in the home as mentioned above is permissible. Finally, Section 6.7.1 allows for certain home occupations, tutoring for example, as an accessory use to relieve the burden on the applicant to apply for a special use permit. 6
COMMENT 6: Im not a resident of the townI dont own property in the town. I am here [for someone] who does own property in the town. It might not be exactly in keeping with what Dr. Pammer had mentioned before, but weve come before the Planning Board for several months, and several months ago, and what were looking for here is an expansion of business in the town, and weve asked the Planning Board to consider an expansion of the Roadside Business area. [The individual is] developing a piece of property on which there is significant amount of roadside business that is available, that adjoins roadside business properties. We would like to incorporate that, have that annexed. Its vacant land. Its immediately across from a roadside business and its immediately adjacent to roadside business. I hear talk of a hotel. Theres a very significant road out on 97. It isnt like these little streets. It would be much more conducive, by all means, to attract a hotel. And we just dont know exactly what procedure we should take, what board we should come before or where we should go with this. We would like to come to your group, if thats at all possible, to look at it. And I think its probably a good time to do it right now (Packer). RESPONSE: Throughout the zoning rewrite process some discussion focused on reconfiguration of the Roadside Business District (RB). It was the consensus of the committee that a possible modification of the RB would occur after the current draft zoning is approved due to the extensive research and discussion on modifications in the text along with attention to changes in the Downtown Business (DB) District. In the meantime, however, perhaps the owner of the property should request another meeting with the Planning Board to discuss the parcel, or parcels, in question, and their adjacency to the existing RB District. However before the meeting commences, the property owner should be prepared to offer the board the legal description of the property to be rezoned, the proposed use, and acreage of the parcel(s). This information, along with a comprehensive review of the existing RB District by the Planning Board can lay the groundwork for a possible zoning amendment of the RB District in 2012 or beyond. Understand that a modification in the RB District would require another public hearing and approval by the Town Board.
COMMENT 7: Good evening. The only comment I have is in the enforcement section of the previous zoning we had an unclassified misdemeanor which entitled a person to a jury trial and we ended up with thousands of dollars in legal fees and in the Court of Appeals. I think that any violation of the zoning ordinance, first offense, should be allowed as a civil compromise. The Town would get whatever funds are generated by the compromise. We would take criminal stigmatism out of it. And then if it goes on to a second violation you can impose a criminal case. It might cut down on some of the unnecessary paper work and legal fees if you do the civil compromise (Crandall). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Indeed some municipalities resort to a misdemeanor compromise to mitigate violations while avoiding potentially costly litigation. This strategy seeks to facilitate an agreement between a violator and a municipality in which the municipality recommends that misdemeanor charges involving the violator be dismissed upon agreeing to specific terms to mitigate the violation and payment of a fine. Misdemeanor compromises are not always a panacea to resolving violations of specific offenders in that 7
parties do, from time to time, violate the terms of the agreement. Hence, compromises need to consider new charges being issued if agreements are not meet. It behooves the town to retain an attorney who is well versed in these compromises that can contain court costs while addressing violations. Finally, it is recommended that the feasibility of misdemeanor compromises consider the violators past compliance history and degree of culpability (i.e., whether the violator knew or should have known of the requirements of the zoning regulation). COMMENT 8: We own land in Tusten, as we do in Lumberland and Highland. And having attended a few of these in neighboring towns, this is really a refreshing approach to community dialogue. Id like to thank the Zoning Rewrite Committee, the Town Board and Dr. Pammer for that refreshing approach because it is fostering, I think, a non-confrontational dialogue which has been lacking other places. And Id like to encourage you to continue with the moderation and the intelligent approach to the gas drilling issue because I think there is real litigation risks and theres no reason why the Town of Tusten or the Town of Lumberland or the Town of Highland need to be in the forefront of legal cases now working their way through the court system. Thank you (Petershein). RESPONSE: Please see the response to COMMENTS 1 and 4.
COMMENT 9: I want to read something out of the proposed draft GEIS stuff. This is under Section 8.1.1.5, talking about local planning documents. It says: The Departments exclusive authority to issue well permits supersedes local government authority relative to well citing. However, order to consider potential significant adverse impacts on land use and zoning as required by SEQRA, the EAF addendum would require the applicant to identify whether the proposed location of the well pad or any other activity under the jurisdiction of the department conflicts with local land use regulations, plans or policies. The applicant would also be required to identify whether the well pad is located in an area where the affected community has adopted comprehensive plans or other local land use plans and whether the proposed action is inconsistent with such plans. For actions where the applicant indicates to the department that the location of the well pad or any activity under the jurisdiction of the department is either consistent with local land use laws, regulations, plans or policies, or is not covered by such local land use regulations, plans or policies, the department would proceed to permit issuance unless it receives notice of an assertive conflict of a potentially impacted local government. My reading of this is that New York State is to support home rule and that its important for you guys to continue on the path in putting some kind of process in place. For towns that arent doing anything, this says is that they can come in and that [the companies] dont have to, the companies do not have to basically specify that they are in conflict with local zoning or local regulations. And given that we have a comprehensive town plan that 8
talks, you know, that went through a four-year process, and that the majority of the people in this town really want to maintain the rural character and the heritage, that what you guys are doing I commend and I hope that we dont remove the language regarding industrial language or the industrial uses, that you continue to refine it so that it is applicable and protects this town in the future. Thank you (Vertress). RESPONSE: Please see the response to COMMENTS 1 and 4.
COMMENT 10: Okay. I have read the draft zoning code and the town zoning map amendment. One, regarding the proposed expansion of the Downtown Business District, it goes to Erie Avenue, my concern is that there is inadequate parking for the current uses in place, let alone for any proposed expansion of business use, and there are potential negative impacts on existing residential properties, particularly on the lower end of Erie Avenue past School Street (Slocum). RESPONSE: The proposed zoning, which calls for an expansion of the Downtown Business District (DB), is a direct legislative action by the Town of Tusten that sets forth specific guidelines for the Planning and Zoning Boards to follow when reviewing proposed projects in the zoning districts of the town. Therefore, future projects proposed for the DB District will be subject to review on a case-by-case basis using the new regulation standards in Article IV (Schedule of District Regulations), Article V (Supplementary Regulations for Buildings and Lots, and Article VI (Supplementary Regulations Pertaining to Specific Uses). As such, applicants will be required to show potential impacts on surrounding residential properties and parking requirements under New Your State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) and the site plan process outlined in Article VIII (Special Use and Site Plan Review Criteria). This review, in turn, will require that the applicant meet specific conditions to mitigate impacts on surrounding land uses.
COMMENT 11: Portable storage units: Thank you for addressing this very important issue. It does not, however, address what the Town may do about any of the existing portable home storage units already in use (Slocum). RESPONSE: Indeed. However, alterations or attempts to enlarge existing units would be prohibited. Enforcement, in this case, would be initiated by a complaint to the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO).
COMMENT 12: Lighting and glare: Unfortunately, a globe covering a bulb does not adequately prevent lights glare from negatively impacting adjacent properties. Shades on bulbs should be required and down lighting standards required, as well, to protect adjacent properties from unwanted glare, especially with lights mounted at 15 feet high (Slocum). RESPONSE: Comment noted. The first criterion in Section 6.13.4 will be revised to require full cutoff lighting fixtures that direct lighting down toward ground surfaces.
COMMENT 13: [Finally,] EAF or SEQRA Forms should be required for any proposed driveway that is longer than 200 feet due to the potential negative impact of tree removal, drainage and flooding issues and construction of impervious surfaces within the Town of Tusten that may affect adjacent roads and properties (Slocum). RESPONSE: Driveways, specifically those that exceed 200 feet, typically occur in two situations proposed subdivisions and proposed construction of a single family house where, on the average, the former yields a higher probably of longer driveways. As such, proposed subdivisions require the completion of a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) because under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) this type of development is considered a Type I Action because this type of development carries with it a presumption that it is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and may require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However, the planning board must evaluate information contained in the EAF, and additional applications, filings or materials, against the criteria in 617.7 to determination if an EIS is required. Nonetheless, an EAF is required for a subdivision to help the Town Planning Board determine, in an orderly manner, the extent to which a driveway, and other attributes of a subdivision, have a significant impact on the environment. In the end, this assessment assists the Planning Board in determining the applicants requirements to mitigate impacts as a condition for approval. An applicant who is proposing construction of a single family home and its accessory attributes such as a driveway, and detached structures, etc. is not required to prepare an EAF nor an EIS. The rational under SEQRA is that this type of development does not have significant adverse impacts on the environment. Nonetheless, the applicant must comply with the proposed zoning ordinance, which requires a sketch plan conference with the Planning Board, along with the Code Enforcement Officer, to review the plan for the parcel and assess if variances are needed and if the proposed project meets the steep slopes provision in 6.17.10 (Development on Steep Slopes). During this period of time, issues such accessory attributes to the principle use will be reviewed as will the distances and locations of septic and water. If it is found that certain conditions must be meet, the applicant will be required to seek a specific use permit from the Planning Board. COMMENT 14: Good evening. My organization represents the current and future generations that live in Tusten and all your visitors that come here to your town. And its just Im encouraged that I recommend that you follow the guidelines, the land and water use guidelines, that are in the river management plan. They were well thought out. They were very they were fought over back in the late 70s and 80s, and theyre good. So just review those and incorporate them into the plan, into your planning document. Im encouraged to see that Article 14 does include prohibition of heavy industrial uses in the River District, so Im encouraged to see that and hope that follows through regardless of how Article 14 ends up, that the River District does have those restrictions and follows the river management plan. The future is bright for and whats going to provide opportunities, economic opportunities, are outstanding natural resources: 10
Clean water, clean air, quiet nights, dark skies. Those kinds of things are really important in the future of Tusten. And its going to I look forward to working with you and the Planning Board if you have any questions on the River District. So I appreciate it. Thank you (Mc Guinness). RESPONSE: COMMENT 15: Comment noted. Good evening. I guess everybody knows me pretty well. Did you receive the Comprehensive Plan Review that I sent you today, Peg? Listen you know, I think when you look at this new zoning you have to go back to the Comprehensive Plan and look at the basis for which the zoning, this new zoning, proposed zoning, comes from. And when I go back and I look at the basis of the Comprehensive Plan I look my intent is that this town remain sustainable, its economy viable. When I go back and I review the Comprehensive Plan I find those parts of it missing. The planners and the committee people of the Comprehensive Plan did a wonderful job. Their hearts and minds are in it and I commend them. Not condemn, commend. But the one thing thats missing is the stakeholders of this town, the business people. There are five stakeholders which Ive outlined in my review, Peg. And I want you to review, you know, pass that around (Lang). The Town of Tusten 2007 Comprehensive Plan underscores the importance of sustainability and economic vitality of the town. Furthermore, survey data and focus group feedback gathered to develop the plan revealed that the rural character and scenic river corridor were major contributors to the economic vitality of the town in that these natural amenities played a major role in influencing people to not only purchase a home but, in some cases, purchase a main street business. It is also important to emphasize that the comprehensive plan was developed using a board-based stakeholder process that entailed a systematic random sample of homeowners and businesses in the town, three public focus groups, and two public hearings. The focus groups and public hearings were publicized in the local newspapers to encourage public participation. These venues offered ample opportunity to provide review, commentary, and feedback on the plan.
RESPONSE:
COMMENT 16: You know, if you look, and as any planner would tell you, that the residential component of a township, they cost more than the commercial people do. So a commercial entity is a boom to the local tax base and a residential unit is basically a cost to the local tax base and the schools and the county, and even the state (Lang). RESPONSE: During the development of the Town of Tusten 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the findings from the Cost of Community Services in Sullivan County were shared with the public.3
Pammer, William J. and Marc A Baez. 2006. A Cost of Community Services Study for Sullivan County, N.Y. Sullivan County Division of Planning and Community Development, Monticello, N.Y. This study was conducted while the countywide strategic plan, Sullivan 2020, was being developed and includes fiscal impact data of different land
11
The study showed that for every dollar of revenue generated among residential land uses it cost the Town of Tusten $1.27 to provide municipal services to residential properties. In the other hand, for every $1 collected in taxes it cost the town 45 cents to provide municipal services to commercial properties. Similar findings were established for agricultural and open space land uses. This study, however, cautions that towns need to plan carefully to avoid the hidden costs of development. For example, community leaders and town officials try to use these studies as a rationale to look to new commercial developments as a way to bring in more tax revenues. On a short-term basis, this strategy works but costs eventually accumulate. If developments are not properly planned, they will often end up costing much more than they bring in. In addition to unplanned growth straining town budgets, there are other costs of development that include traffic congestion, noise, crime, pollution, and change in community character. Perhaps a major lesson taken from the Cost of Community Services in Sullivan County by the Tusten Comprehensive Planning Committee was that innovative development alternatives were necessary to balance infrastructure costs and the rural character of the town. As such, the proposed zoning proposes compact development (See Article VII, Section 7, Conservation Subdivisions), and investment in the Downtown Business (DB) and Roadside Business Districts (RB) with emphasis on mixed uses conserving open space and maximizing the efficient use of taxpayer dollars. COMMENT 17: So if, you know, this new zoning as I see it, forget about, you know, forget about the gas issues, the, you know, the sign issues and all these other crazy issues. The No. 1 problem, the biggest threat we have to this town is our taxes. Our taxes are so sky high. And if you dont introduce businesses, if you dont propose a basis for businesses such as mine to come into this town, not force them out, or in this new zoning, God forbid, you cant even farm, I mean where this coming from is? Land application is not allowed. Three of the five stakeholders in this town, if we came to this town to put our business in this town wed be told to go elsewhere. What kind of a zoning plan is that? That is nothing but a catastrophe waiting to happen (Lang). RESPONSE: Rising taxes, along with higher tax burdens, are a state-wide issue, and this phenomenon is not caused by zoning. Rising property taxes, coupled with increased tax burdens, are attributed to taxable property going off the rolls and the second is schools which consume more public resources than other types of local governments.4 As noted in the
is located at
uses for all fifteen towns in Sullivan County, N.Y. This source http://webapps.co.sullivan.ny.us/docs/dpem/resources/CostofCommunityServicesStudy.pdf.
See DiNapoli, Thomas. 2006. Local Government Issues in Focus: Property Taxes in New York State. Office of the New York State Comptroller, Division of Local Government and School Accountability, Albany, N.Y. This source is located at http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/research/propertytaxes.pdf.
12
supplement to this Environmental Assessment Form Packet, the zoning recognizes the multi-functionality of agriculture, where some activities take on light industrial characteristics that need review of the planning board to mitigate impacts. This requirement is not an anti-business philosophy but attention to maintain community character to make Tusten attractive as a place to live and do business because a lack of attention to the quality of life will only stifle future investment in Tusten. COMMENT 18: And Ill tell you what. You cant just outlaw certain industries. Ive been doing this. Ive been in the land application biosolids business since 1991. Ive been through litigation. You know, not only in Pennsylvania, some in New York, but basically in Pennsylvania. They have the same issues as we have Okay? They tried to outlaw my industry from certain townships by usurping the states laws and then adding their own individual laws on top of it, and its illegal and its wrong. And its going to cost you people money, its going to cost me money. Myself and my company spend $70,000 a year in this town for our taxes, local, school and county taxes. Okay? You are setting this town up for catastrophe with this zoning. And please, Ill put my, a very detailed overview of my concerns with the new zoning as Ive done with the Comprehensive Plan. Please read them, take them to heart, call me. But please understand that this, you know, this is, I believe, nothing more than a threat to the viability and sustainability to the people of this town (Lang). RESPONSE: Along with creating districts devoted only to residential, commerce, or light industrial, zoning ordinances may permit or prohibit certain uses. Also see the response to COMMENTS 1 and 4.
COMMENT 19: Id just like to [emphasize] the building height issue Just currently, the building height is 28 feet. Thirty-five is the surrounding towns. Twenty-eight you get very quickly depending on the grade of a house (Petershein). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Consideration will be given to maximum building height of 35 feet for residential districts as that height appears to be the standard. The zoning rewrite committee will discuss the feasibility of changing the recommended height of 28 feet in the RB and DB Districts. While deliberating on issue, however, we do need to conform to the requirements of the 1986 Upper Delaware River Management Plan (RMP) required by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior under Public Law 95-625.
COMMENT 20: Thank you. I just had a couple more things that I wanted to touch on. I have to agree with Ned on this, that I too, find this very anti-business, especially home business. I went back to the tutoring (Hoffman). RESPONSE: Please see Response to COMMENT 5.
COMMENT 21: At one time in this town, and still in this town, you can have as many as five dogs. Now youre knocking it back to three. If youre going to knock it back to three then why dont you have a lot size, specific lot size? A quarter acre, you can have three. But if youve 13
got 92 acres or 100 acres and you want to have five dogs, three horses, whatever you want, you should be able to do that, absolutely. You should not be limited to just three dogs or three whatever. I thought that that was very, not demoralizing, but for lack of a better word, you couldnt even have a kennel if you wanted to have a kennel or have a dog breeding business if thats what you wanted, or dog grooming or anything like that, not even mention horses or pigs or whatever you want to do in the ag business (Hoffman). RESPONSE: Please see the response to Comment 81. Also note that according to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the average number of dogs per household is 1.7 and for some surrounding towns they allow 3 dogs over 6 months old. 5 Hence, the dog limit in the proposed zoning exceeds the national average and is a somewhat more liberal than other towns in the county in that allows for not more than 3 dogs over 4 months old. As for kennels, specifically commercial kennels for breeding, these uses are a special use in the R-1 District, which is the largest zone in the town. Finally, the proposed zoning allows agricultural and farm operations as a use by right in the R-1 and R-2 Districts.
COMMENT 22: And again, if youre going to start limiting agricultural businesses, be it dogs or things like that, youre opening up yourself for litigation. I have no doubt about that (Hoffman). RESPONSE: The proposed zoning does not limit agricultural businesses in the Tusten. As noted in the response to Comment 20, agricultural and farm operations are a use by right in the R-1 and R-2 Districts.
COMMENT 23: I find the signage requirements ambiguous. We cant even enforce our current zoning. How are we going to enforce a document thats 207 pages written for Westchester and not for a small little town like ours? (Hoffman). RESPONSE: The proposed zoning has compiled the sign requirements in a tabular format to make it easier and clearer for the public to understand what is required and it offer ease of enforcement by mitigating ambiguity through the use excessive text.
COMMENT 24: I appreciate the time that the people put on it, but I dont think they thought through the small business and home occupations (Hoffman). RESPONSE: Please the response to COMMENT 5.
COMMENT 25: For some people that may have signs on their cars, I know, I think the Comprehensive Plan wrote that out, where you could have a sign on your car, could be considered a traveling sign, do not fall under this, as an exception. But if you have some other business that, you know, or different kind of sign, you may find yourself having a problem (Hoffman).
5
American Veterinary Medical Association. 2007. U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Source Book.
14
RESPONSE: The purpose of the revised sign section was to instill standards in sign presentation to maintain the rural quality of the Town, which was a cornerstone of the Town of Tusten 2007 Comprehensive Plan.
COMMENT 26: And I think like Ned said, too, depending on what businesses, you wouldnt want to come to this town. And maybe thats what certain people want. Like I find it interesting that the National Park Service here wants starry skies and fresh air. And I do want that, too, but I want to have a place for kids to grow up and have a place where they can go to college and come back and grow within the community. Right now theres no business here. Theres nothing anchoring people here anymore (Hoffman). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 15 and 16.
COMMENT 27: I think I find it very interesting that Mr. Hilton is here. We have a school thats bought and paid for by this town and yet we cant even get it for local businesses. What a great idea, to have local businesses in that school. But we cant get that together. The board doesnt want to, isnt pursuing that, it doesnt seem like. We have some board members that are moving. I personally dont think they should be reviewing this whole Comprehensive Plan. I think they should recuse themselves from it because theyre not a vested stakeholder in it. Thats all I have to say. Thank you (Hoffman). RESPONSE: The town has not purchased the school; a private developer has purchased the school. Long before the school was sold to a private party, the comprehensive planning process sought to have to the Downtown Business expanded with the anticipation that if the school were bought it could be developed as a hotel.
COMMENT 28: Ive been born and raised here, and I have read the whole 200 pages. It is anti-business, it is anti-family, it is anti-people coming back here. You say you want people to stay here and raise a family. Theres nothing to build on here to raise a family and support that family with. I agree with the height of the building. As a builder, 28 feet is unrealistic. Also, your clearing, if youre building a new home, 20 percent is not enough by the time you clear for the house, a septic, a well, a leach field and an area around the house so the trees are not falling on your house. I think you need to relook some of this zoning. It is a little overboard (Wasylyk). RESPONSE: Please see the response to COMMENT 19 and the percent of lot clearing can be revisited although the comment is not specific about the zoning districts in question, and any changes by the zoning rewrite committee would have to conform to the 1986 River Management Plan required by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior under Public law 95625.
COMMENT 29: Im not a property owner, Im a hobby owner. I rent in town. Because Im underemployed, I was fortunate enough to be able to work for the census in 2009, 2010. I noticed in the planning that there was information from 2000. In 2009, 2010 15
we found that in this area the incidents of absence in homes on April 1st, Census Day, were 62 percent. The addresses, the homes in this area were empty, 62 percent on Census Day. Well, they could be in Florida, they could be for rent, they could be for sale, they could be a second home. And dont think anybody here is speaking for the second homeowners, although the builders of the second homeowners are speaking. If you look at an aerial map of the area, the roads do not crisscross this area, the Town of Tusten, like they do in Delaware and further north. This is not a farming community. There were chicken farms and a few things, but this has been woodland, and the Boy Scout camp is certainly the largest part of the town thats undeveloped. I think that the voice of the second homeowner should be at least addressed in terms of the business which is here, which is the second homeowner. Main Street does not get its business from the full-time residents, Pecks Plaza does. And this is just one little village in the Town of Tusten. I think that the second homeowner pays at least as much taxes as a previous speaker, but not certainly as one check coming in. I think its really important to consider the spread of the ownership and the voices of all the owners speaking as a non-owner (Blanchard). RESPONSE: Second home owners do indeed play a significant role in Sullivan County and the Town of Tusten. See Second Home Owner Study: Assessing Attitudes, Consumer Behavior and Housing Tenure in Sullivan County published in 2008 by the Sullivan County Division of Planning (www.co.sullivan.ny.us/Default.aspx?TabId=3259).6
COMMENT 30: The 1986 Final River Management Plan (RMP) for the congressionally-designated Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River identifies Scenic River Segments, Recreational River Segments, and Hamlet Areas in the river corridor. The RMP implements the criteria for these segments through the Land and Water Use Guidelines (pages 114 through 134). The Scenic Segments are the most restrictive. For land in the river corridor, the Towns land use regulations are based on the RMP and those guidelines. Both the Towns 1993 and 1998 Zoning Laws included a Scenic River (SR) District and a Recreational River (RR) District and were determined to be in substantial conformance with the RMP. RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 31: The Towns 2007 Comprehensive Plan mentions both the Scenic River (SR) District and Recreational River (RR) District as being in the Towns Zoning Law. In the draft Zoning Law, there are at least nine (9) instances where the Recreational River (RR) District is incorrectly identified as the Residential River (RR) District. All references to the RR
Pammer, William, Ethan Cohen, Jill Weyer, Heather Jacksy, Jennifer Mall, and Ryo Kiyan. 2008. Second Home Owner Study: Assessing Attitudes, Consumer Behavior and Housing Tenure in Sullivan County. Sullivan County Division of Planning and Environmental Management, Monticello, New York. This study offers a comprehensive survey and assessment of narrative feedback from second homeowners in Sullivan County a issues ranging from purchasing behavior in the county to concerns about local policy and planning issues.
16
District as the Residential River District should be changed to Recreational River District. RESPONSE: This section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 32: Page 26 The last sentence of the definition of Planned Unit Development (PUD)at the top of the page refers to Section 7.3. The correct reference should be Section 7.2 (Soete). RESPONSE: This section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 33: Pages 29 and 30 Under sub-sections a and b, should the Scenic Overlay (SO) District be mentioned with the other zoning districts? (Soete) RESPONSE: As an overlay district for these areas it is implied.
COMMENT 34: Page 36 Regarding the definition of Zoning Map, should it be referenced as the Official Zoning Map available at the Town Hall, as mentioned in Section 3.1 on page 37? (Soete) RESPONSE: This section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 35: Page 37 Under Section 3.0, regarding the RR district, change Residential River District to Recreational River District. (Soete and NPS) RESPONSE: This section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 36: Page 37 Section 3.0 states that there are two overlay districts. The 1998 Zoning Law had three overlay districts, including a Wellhead Protection (WHP) Overlay District. Should the WHP District be included in the proposed Zoning Law? (Soete and NPS) RESPONSE: Yes. This overlay district will be added.
COMMENT 37: Page 38 Regarding Section 3.2, Interpretation of Zoning District Boundaries, it would be useful if the Congressionally-designated Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River corridor boundary where shown on the Zoning Map. It is possible that several small areas of the R-1 District maybe within the river corridor, and that some allowed uses might be incompatible. It would also be helpful if the overlay districts are shown on the Zoning Map (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: Agreed. We will work to include river corridor in the final zoning document.
COMMENT 38: Page 39 Regarding the INTENT of the Scenic River District SR, there should only be a reference to the Scenic Segment of the RMP, which is more restrictive than the 17
Recreational Segment. A reference to Section 6.7 under the INTENT section might also be appropriate (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: This section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 39: Page 39 Special Uses listed for the Scenic River District SR include, Agribusiness, Agricultural, On-Site Processing, and Value-Added Wood Processing. Depending on the scope of these Special Uses, it is possible that they could be considered as Other Commercial Development or Industrial Uses which are incompatible in Scenic Segments (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: This item will be discussed among the zoning rewrite committee and reassessed.
COMMENT 40: Page 39 Under Development Standards for the Scenic River District SR, it states that Lot coverage is 1 acre or 15%, whichever is less. The RMP states: A 10% (or comparable square feet) maximum lot coverage, or impervious surface limitation on small lots. Employment of a sliding scale decreasing the allowable percentage of impervious lot coverage as the lot size increases.(Soete and NPS) RESPONSE: This section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 41: Page 40 Change Residential River District RR to Recreational River District RR. (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: This section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 42: Page 40 Regarding the INTENT of the Residential River District RR, it should state, The RR Recreational River District is intended to compliment the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River (UDSRR) as defined and designated as a Recreational Segment in the November 1986, Upper Delaware Final River Management Plan (RMP) prepared by the Conference of Upper Delaware Townships in cooperation with the National Park Service. This District is further intended to preserve the scenic character of the corridor which is presently undeveloped. A reference to Section 6.7 under the INTENT section might also be appropriate (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: This section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 43: Page 40 Special Uses listed for the Recreational River District RR include, Agribusiness, Agricultural, On-Site, and Value-Added Wood Processing. Depending on the scope of these Special Uses, it is possible that they could be considered as Major Commercial or Industrial Uses which are incompatible in Recreational Segments (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: This item will be discussed among the zoning rewrite committee and reassessed. 18
COMMENT 44: Page 40 Under Development Standards for the Recreational River District RR, it states that Lot coverage is 43,560 sq. ft. or 20%, whichever is less. The RMP states: A 10% (or comparable square feet) maximum lot coverage, or impervious surface limitation on small lots. Employment of a sliding scale decreasing the allowable percentage of impervious lot coverage as the lot size increases. (Soete and NPS) RESPONSE: This section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 45: Page 41 As noted previously, it is possible that several small areas of the R-I District maybe within the river corridor, and that some allowed uses might be incompatible. (Soete and NPS) RESPONSE: This item will be discussed among the zoning rewrite committee and reassessed.
COMMENT 46: Page 43 Though it is probably not a new zoning change, I am concerned that the GR District extends south of the Cortese Landfill for quite a distance into what was originally designated as a Scenic Segment in the RMP. While the Town apparently considers this area to be part of the Hamlet of Narrowsburg, it opens up the possibility that an relatively undisturbed area of the river corridor could be subject to 15,000 sq. ft. lots along the river, and on the steep slopes surrounding it (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: This item will be discussed among the zoning rewrite committee and reassessed.
COMMENT 47: Page 47 Section 5.0.1 mentions the Scenic Overlay (SO) District and references Section 6.17. Should the SR and RR Districts also be mentioned along with the SO District? Also, should a distinction be made between commercial and personal use? For example, a personal windmill versus a commercial wind turbine or wind farm (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: This item will be discussed among the zoning rewrite committee and reassessed.
COMMENT 48: Page 67 It is great that Section 6.11 regarding Mineral Extraction states, Major mining operations shall be prohibited within the Recreational River (RR) and Scenic River (SR) Districts and elsewhere limited as provided on the Schedule of District Regulations. Note that Recreational River (RR) District is used here (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: Comment noted and this section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 49: Page 78 In the third line of Section 6.14 (7), change the word city to town. (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: This section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 50: Page 79 It is great that Section 6.17, regarding the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River (UDSRR): The River Management Plan, states The purpose of these provisions, which were introduced in Article 111, Section 3.0 of this law is to ensure 19
development conforms with the recommendations of the Upper Delaware River Management Plan (RMP) of 1986. Note that Residential River (RR) District used throughout Section 6.17 should be changed to Recreational River (RR) District. (Soete and NPS) RESPONSE: Comment noted and this section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 51: Page 79 In Section 6.172 Density in the Scenic River (SR) District, change three to five. It seems like the density of one (1) dwelling unit per three (3) acres for the Recreational River (RR) District should also be mentioned here, or in a separate section (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: This section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 52: Page 79 We note that Section 6.17.3 regarding Prohibition of Types of on NonResidential Development (change on to of) prohibits light manufacturing in the SR, RR, and SO Districts which is in keeping with the RMP. This could address my concern that the Special Uses Agribusiness, Agricultural, On-Site Processing, and Value-Added Wood Processing might not conform with the RMP (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: The comment regarding page 79 will be revised as recommended. In reference to the concern about the special uses of Agribusiness, Agricultural, On-Site Processing, and Value-Added Wood Processing not conforming with the RMP, the zoning rewrite committee will re-evaluate this point.
COMMENT 53: If light manufacturing is a prohibited use in the SR, RR, and SO Districts, it could be construed that Heavy Industrial Uses are also prohibited in these districts. The RMP specifically lists Heavy Industrial Uses as an Incompatible Use anywhere in the river corridor. The RMP defines Heavy Industrial Uses as The manufacturing, production or refining of raw materials or the large scale assembly of component parts for non-local distribution or consumption, typically involving the generation of waste by-products, extensive buildings and ancillary transportation modes, but not including home occupation or traditional activities such as lumber yards or dairy processing plants. The UDC recognizes that some member towns are having difficulty addressing the potential of Heavy Industrial Uses of which gas drilling would be a part. The UDCs position is that because of the size and scope of todays natural gas development, it should be considered as Heavy Industrial Use which would be incompatible anywhere in the river corridor. As such, we believe that all surface activities of natural gas development must be prohibited in the designated river corridor. Horizontal drilling under the river corridor would address the property rights issue, but it should only be considered if it is proven to be a safe operation. If the Town wishes to be more restrictive, that is their prerogative (Soete and UPS). RESPONSE: See response to COMMENT 39. 20
COMMENT 54: Page 80 Section 6.17.5 Special Setback Requirements states that no building in the SR and RR Districts will be located less than one-hundred feet (100) feet from the normal high water mark of the Delaware River. From a health and safety standpoint, it would make more sense to measure the setback from the top of the river bank. (Soete and UPS) RESPONSE: This section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 55: Page 80 Section 6.17.7 Clearcutting Timber for Forest Products should apply to both the SR and RR Districts, not just the SR District. Should it also apply to the SO District? Note that the Land and Water Use Guidelines in the River Management Plan for the most part apply to both the Scenic Segments and Recreational Segments, and to some degree, the Hamlet areas (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: Agreed. This section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 56: Page 81 Section 6.17.8 Signs should apply to both the SR and RR Districts, not just the SR district. Should it also apply to the SO District? (Soete and NPS) RESPONSE: Agreed. This section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 57: Page 82 Section 6.17.9 Lots Fronting on the Delaware River should apply to both the SR and RR Districts, not just the SR District (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: Agreed. This section will be revised as recommended.
COMMENT 58: Page 109 Regarding Section 8.3.8 Hearing Notice, The UDC typically tries to keep track of public notices in local newspapers. If there was a more direct way to notify the UDC of projects located within the river corridor, we would appreciate it (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Perhaps both the Planning and ZBA can include a relevant representative of the UDC in an e-mail correspondence.
COMMENT 59: Page 117 In the first sentence of Section 9.10.1 Single Family Dwelling, change issue to issued. (Soete and NPS) RESPONSE: This edit will be made as recommended.
COMMENT 60: Pages 123, 124 In Section 10.3.1 Enforcement, replace the $XXXsn with dollar amounts (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: Consistent with the response to COMMENT 7 this section will be revised as recommended. 21
COMMENT 61: Page 173 Regarding Section 13.6.1 Obsolete Signs, there should be a provision for the timely removal of event and election signs (Soete and NPS). RESPONSE: Agreed. The zoning rewrite committee will revisit this point with the notion that said signs must be removed in a week.
COMMENT 62: Hello I am now registered to vote and I voted in the last election. My thanks to the Rewrite Committee for its careful considerations into this long process. I support the inclusion of the provisions that prohibit heavy industry including gas drilling. Please keep Article 14 and the protective zoning provisions as part of the final draft. To the Tusten residents who are concerned the results of the rewrite will somehow interfere with their ability to have a successful business within the township, at some point in the future. I say the inclusion of the provisions that would prohibit heavy industry would only affect those who intend to exceed those limitations imposed by those protective provisions. To create an enforceable code, it must be backed up by carefully detailed definitions. This requires lengthy documentation, sometimes resulting in a document of over two hundred pages. This attention to deliberate and precise writing promotes fairness to all concerned. In other words, if you want to start a new business, outside of gas drilling and any other new (as opposed to existing) heavy industry, you dont have anything to worry about that you would not normally in the course of starting a new business. This is not about how many dogs you can have or if you can run a puppy mill in Narrowsburg. For the proponents of gas drilling those who claim the gas drilling will create an industry for people to come back to Studies dispute the actual amount of gas within the shale on the eastern edge of the Marcellus reserve. It has been suggested that there may be as little as three years of production available here in Narrowsburg. That is not enough production to come back to. In fact, its not to keep our local people employed. In a study conducted by Timothy Kesley, professor of agricultural economics at Penn State, indicates his estimation of the actual numbers employed by shale gas drilling in Pennsylvania in 2009 was 23,500, compared to the 44,000 estimated in an earlier Penn State study. And of those jobs, 37% went to out-of-state workers 15,000 jobs in the entire state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a big state, I wonder how many were hired from Honesdale? Over one third of all workers will be brought in from out of state and all of the employment will be temporary positions. Pure water, clean air, rich soil, and natures unspoiled beauty is do we have to come back to, and it is already in place. If you cant value these precious resources, what are you doing here? If you just want to make money and dont care about how it affects others, you should be working on Wall St. Lastly, in case you havent noticed, our bridge, at the end of the street, to Pennsylvania is in poor condition. I have taken a few photos documenting the degree of rust, corrosion and deterioration presently occurring. This should concern anyone who crosses this bridge to go to Honesdale for shopping or any other reason. I find it alarming. Each day, local industries including Narrowsburg Feed, Narrowsburg Lumber, timber companies, and the local quarries depend on this bridge to serve the PennYork communities along the Delaware. If the drilling is allowed these important established companies will have to share the bridge and local roads, affecting their bottom line. 22
Eventually the integrity of the bridge will become more compromised with the additional stresses. In the worst case catastrophe might result, lives could be lost, and at the least everyone would be affected and inconvenienced. If you think this is an outrageous claim, consider recent events including bridges of Minneapolis, Cincinnati, and Louisville (Spoerri). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 63: Id like to thank the zoning re-write committee for its months of hard work addressing issues most important to our community, and for adhering to the vision set out in the comprehensive plan. Article 14 is critically important for maintaining jobs and bringing new jobs to the area. Without any protective zoning against heavy industry such as gas drilling, many primary and secondary home owners will leave town, and take their businesses with them. Personally, know people who have deferred construction and renovation projects until they know the outcome of this debate, and there are certainly others who have opted not to come to our area due to growing awareness of this threat to our environment. Our future lies in the natural and cultural resources that we have here already, and the light industries we hope to attract in the future. Lets protect them. Please keep article 14 (Phillips). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 64: The idea of contracting with a company such as PODS, allows a homeowner to load, pack and move personal property at their leisure with the purpose of relocation. To limit a person access or use beyond 72 hr or 2 times in a 30 period flies in the face of common sense (Hoffman). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Additional review of other zoning codes relating to Portable Storage Units indicates shorter time periods are more commonly permitted. It is recommended that the reference to a period not exceeding 72 hours in duration from time of delivery to time of removal... in 1 (see Section 6.14) and the reference to Such temporary structure(s) may not be located on a specific property more than two times in any given thirty-calendar-day period in 3 be deleted and substituted with the following language: One (1) portable storage unit may be located on the property for a period not to exceed thirty (30) consecutive days. It is also recommended that the following language be added to account for extenuating circumstances: When necessary to facilitate clean up and/or restoration activities resulting from a flood, fire or natural disaster to a building or structure one (1) portable storage unit may be located on the property for a period not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days. Finally, Section 6.14 requires a permit to track the time period the container is placed on the site. Therefore, it is recommended that the following language be added: All portable storage unit containers must include a placard not to exceed one (1) square foot in area which is clearly visible from the right of way which includes the container Identification Number, date of its placement on the property, date that removal will be required , and local telephone number. 23
COMMENT 65: Define permanent foundation, slab, and full? Our first home in Tusten was a double wide and was placed on concrete runners (just like in Alaska); It was an acceptable engineering practice with double wide trailers in the past; so why the change now? (Hoffman) RESPONSE: This section is based on Section 6.4 of the Town of Tusten Manufactured Home Law, which, in turn, is established on the standards set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (see Section 2.1 of the Town of Tusten Manufactured Home Law). As such, The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines permanent foundation systems in its Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations as follows: (ii) A site-built permanent foundation is a system of supports, including piers, either partially or entirely below grade which is: (A) Capable of transferring all design loads imposed by or upon the structure into soil or bedrock without failure, (B) Placed at an adequate depth below grade to prevent frost damage, and (C) Constructed of concrete, metal, treated lumber or wood, or grouted masonry.7 This framework has been in use since the adoption of the Town of Tusten Manufactured Home Law on November16, 1998.
COMMENT 66: This entire Section (Section 11.7.4 on Records and Evidence) should be worded that all NYS rules of evidence applies. Anything other than that is unjust; could lead to litigation, abuse of power and arbitrary application of evidence (Hoffman). RESPONSE: Comment noted. In fact, to offer more continuity, the entire wording of Section 11.7.3 will be deleted and replaced with: The ZBA is a quasi-judicial body whose methods and decision making are governed by State law as to the rules of evidence and procedure. Its authority extends to all questions relative to the Town Zoning Code. Its authority falls into three areas: 1. Variances or exceptions to the Zoning Code and (2) Interpretation of the Code when the Department of Development & Operations (D&O) is unable to answer a question. Following this change, Section 11.7.4 will be deleted and replaced with: The ZBA is a quasi-judicial body whose methods and decision making are governed by New York State law as to the rules of evidence and procedure.
COMMENT 67: This section (Section 13.3.1 on Prohibited Signs) limits a property owner the ability to setup a shop or HBHO with any retail aspects. Prohibits a property owner the ability to setup a shop or HBHO and the ability to advertise and promote said HBHO within the confines of their property. Such a limit is arbitrary and otherwise capricious. This limits inter and intrastate commerce (Hoffman).
Part 3282: Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations. 1999. Section 3282.12. Questions regarding whether or not a system qualifies under this definition can be referred to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, 451 7th St. S.W., Room 9156, Washington, DC 20410, phone: (202) 708-6409. 24
RESPONSE: This section does not preclude a home business from advertising through use of signs; it requires individuals and businesses to follow specific sign requirements to avoid compromising the quality of character of the town.
COMMENT 68: I have been a homeowner, taxpayer, and therefore unquestionably a stakeholder, in the flats of Narrowsburg for twelve years. I am also former chairperson of Community Board #1 in Manhattan (covering from Washington Square Park to Battery Park), and was instrumental twice in the rezoning of the areas called Tribeca and SoHo. While Im neither a lawyer nor a professional public planner, I have dealt on equal ground with many of them on zoning issues. Some landowners and entrepreneurs object to legislation that might limit their presumed right to sell or tap whatever resources might be lying under their ground. This they call a taking by government of some alleged inalienable right. The concept of a taking is not new. It has been the basis for lawsuits against many zoning regulations, and most results have been clear: a community has the right to protect itself against heavy impacts within its boundaries. Otherwise any block of stone-rich Lower Manhattan could be turned into a quarry by any owner, irrespective of the impact its crater would have upon city streets and the values of neighboring properties like the Stock Market. My view is that current fracking lawsuits are cynically intended to dupe small communities into delaying and derailing important zoning changes. If its not in the local zoning, drilling can go into the ground without environmental reviews that would likely have stopped it. A court overturning the right of a local community to zone its land would threaten every community zoning resolution in this country. So long as the wording of the zoning covers the probable effectsriver and water pollution, overuse of highways, etc.not even the current probusiness Supreme Court could rip away land use from every American community, even to protect the companies they love. The next battle in this litigation hasnt been reached yet. There are thousands of attorneys who will be on the side of our communities, many more than even the billionaires can hire. Towns that dont fight will succumb, those that do fight will likely be defended in court by heavy-hitters on our side. Vote into law the strongest, most protective zoning restrictions you can, because this is your one chance. If you dont, we will be run over. The politically-infiltrated DRBC may not have the bones to save you. Let the liars sue, because they will lose. If they dont have to sue us to win, it will be us, and our river, and our water that lose. And it will be on your heads (Stratton). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 69: I believe when citizens were polled during the process of the writing of the Comprehensive Plan, the first value citizens reported positively was a small town feeling. The openness of the re-zoning committee meetings and the large turnout at these public comment meetings, to me, affirms this felling and our interest in the future. Thank you for organizing these meetings. I have been impressed with the heartfelt responses we have heard tonight, April Bidwell with roots to the area dating back 4 generations, Matt giving us indisputable math as to the horrors of truck travel as a result of gas drilling, and Brandy caring about the animals as well as us. As most 25
who have spoken this evening support the adoption of Article 14, I too wish to voice my support (Luchsinger). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 70: We are writing to strongly urge the town council to pass the zoning rewrite, including Article 14. From what we know of the energy industrys record of responsibility concerning spills, blowouts and pollution in general, and what we know and dont know about the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing of gas wells, we should beware of any drilling in the Delaware watershed. Neither Tusten nor Sullivan county have the resources or infrastructure to deal with the impact of the excessive truck traffic or the real threat of pollution caused by the extensive drilling planned for this area. We have no first responders trained for large scale HAZMAT operations and, apparently, no plans for such. The threat to the watershed cannot be underestimated. Any major problem in any town along the river or on any tributary feeding into it would cause significant environmental damage as far away as Delaware Bay. There are tens of thousands of wells planned for this watershed which provides 15,000,000 Americans with clean water. Given this areas vulnerability to major flooding, this is an unacceptable risk. If the town of Tusten can stand with Dryden and the many other towns resisting fracking and the moneyed interests supporting it, we may have a chance to preserve this place and provide a livable habitat for the future. It may be a drop in the bucket, but its a drop of clean water. And we cant live without that. Pass the zoning rewrite with Article 14 (Morse). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 71: In the list of explicitly prohibited uses in Article 14, two terms are used that would benefit from additional definition. The first is solid waste disposal facility. This phrase, which also occurs elsewhere in the zoning document, does not appear in the list of definitions. There is at least one facility currently in town, part of Lang Industries that probably falls under this definition but without a clear definition, there is no way to be sure. Obviously, any existing facility would be grandfathered in, but this would still be advisable to pinpoint more precisely. I believe there may be a formal New York State definition for solid waste disposal facility, but if thats the one being used, it still wouldnt hurt to say so, and perhaps to include it by quotation, in an appendix or via a hyperlink (Willard). RESPONSE: Comment Noted. Perhaps the following definitions should be added: Solid Waste or Waste: Any garbage, refuse, industrial, lunchroom or office waste or other material including solid, liquid, semi-solid or contained gaseous material, resulting from the operation of residential, municipal, commercial or institutional establishments and from community activities. The term shall also include any garbage, refuse, other discarded material or other waste. Including solid, liquid, 26
semi-solid or containing gaseous materials resulting from industrial, mining, local facilities or any other by-product or effluent from an industrial, mining or water supply treatment facility, waste water treatment facility or air pollution control facility or any other material defined by the NY DEC as solid, liquid, municipal, medical, industrial, toxic or hazardous waste. Solid Waste Facility, Commercial: Any facility or operation of a private individual or firm pursuant to the laws of the State of New York governing the management and disposal of solid waste including, but not limited to, liquid, solid, toxic, hazardous and medical waste; and, including but not limited to, transfer stations, solid waste landfills, incinerators, medical waste disposal facilities, hazardous waste disposal facilities and radioactive waste disposal facilities. Solid Waste Facility, Public: Any facility or operation of a public entity pursuant to the laws of the State of New York governing the management and disposal of solid waste including, but not limited to, liquid, solid, toxic, hazardous and medical waste; and, including but not limited to, transfer stations, solid waste landfills, incinerators, medical waste disposal facilities, hazardous waste disposal facilities and radioactive waste disposal facilities. Natural Gas and/or Petroleum Extraction, Exploration ot Production Wastes Disposal/Storage Facility: Any of the following: (a) tanks of any construction (metal, fiberglass, concrete, etc.), (b) impoundments, (c) pits, (d) Evaporation ponds, or (e) other facilities, in any case used for the storage or treatment of Natural Gas and/or Petroleum Extraction, Exploration Or Production Wastes that: (i) are being held for initial use, (ii) Have been used and are being held for subsequent reuse or recycling, (iii) are being held for treatment, or (iv) Are being held for storage.
COMMENT 72: The second is deleterious substances. There is a definition for this, but there are two problems with it. First, the plain language meaning of deleterious is harmful. The list given is, however, by no means exhaustive with regard to substances that might in fact be harmful to humans, flora or fauna. With two exceptionsradioactive substances, and substances related to mining in generaleverything on the list is related to natural gas and oil extraction. But surely, there are many other substances that are harmful, and not wanted in the community in keeping with the comprehensive plan, other than those related to these industries. Just for one example: one substance commonly found in fracking fluids is benzene, which has many harmful effects to human health. As far as I can tell from this definition, benzene would be restricted only if it were related to natural gas or oil extraction. But what if somebody wanted to store it, dump it or 27
whatever in relation to some other application? The fact that the definition consists purely of a list, without any attempt to characterize the properties or criteria according to which some substance might be deemed to belong to the list, seems to me to leave an opening for problems like this. There is no way to create a list of all substances potentially harmful to humans and the environment, but I would think it might be possible to conclude the list with some such phrase as or any other substance that has been found, in significant concentrations, to be highly correlated with death or disease in humans, flora or fauna. I can see that such a phrase might run into some legal problems with regard to vagueness, but it would surely be better than nothing. Second, I would think that the virtually exclusive focus on substances related to oil and gas extraction in this definition creates a potential legal vulnerability. As I understand it, under NYS law, one of the principal criteria as to the admissibility of zoning with regard to mining is the extent to which it is incidental to the municipalitys rights and responsibilities with regard to controlling land use, rather than primarily directed at the specific industry in question. A list that consists almost entirely of substances related to one industry, without any reason given for why those substances in particular are regarded as deleterious, may look directed rather than incidental. On the other hand, if such substances are included as only one part of a list that also includes other substances, along with a specification of the common characteristic according to which all items belong on the list, e.g. that they are harmful to biota, that makes it clear that any restriction of natural gas activities related to the prohibition of deleterious substances is incidental to the purpose of protecting health, safety and welfare, and not directed a t the specific industry (Willard). RESPONSE: Indeed the Zoning Rewrite Committee did receive revisions on the draft of Article 14 from the Community Defense Council legal team. Hence, consistent with those revisions the definition of Deleterious Substances will be deleted and replaced with the following definition: SUBSTANCE NATURAL GAS AND/OR PETROLEUM EXTRACTION, EXPLORATION OR PRODUCTION WASTES: Any of the following in any form, and whether or not such items have been excepted or exempted from the coverage of any federal or state environmental protection laws, o have been excepted from statutory or regulatory definitions of industrial waste, hazardous, or toxic, and whether or not such substances are generally characterize as waste (a)below-regulatory concern radioactive material, or any radioactive material which is not below-regulatory concern, but which is in fact not being regulated by the regulatory agency otherwise having jurisdiction over such in the Town, (b) crude oil or gas drilling fluids, (c) crude oil or natural gas exploration, drilling, production or processing wastes, (d) crude oil or natural gas drilling treatment wastes (such as oils, frac fluids, produced water, brine, flow back, sediment and/or any other liquid or semi--liquid material), (e) Any chemical, waste oil, waste emulsified oil, mud, or sediment that was used or produced in the drilling, development, transportation, processing or refining of crude oil or natural gas, (f) soil contaminated in the drilling, transportation, processing or refining of crude oil or natural gas, (g) drill cuttings from crude oil or natural gas wells, or (h) any other wastes associated with the exploration, drilling, production or treatment of crude oil or 28
natural gas. This Definition specifically intends to includes some wastes that may otherwise be classified as solid Wastes which are not hazardous wastes under 40 C.F.R. 261.4(b). This Definition does not include (i) Recognizable and non-recognizable food wastes, or (ii) Storage of waste generated by Agriculture/Farm Operations. COMMENT 73: I am not an outsider even though I live in Glen Speyin the same way that [the Supervisor of Highland] is not an outsider when he came to your first hearing, or [the Supervisor of Tusten], when she joined a session of Lumberlands Rewrite, or like many of you when you drove to Highland in the dead of winter for the Legal Forum. Far from being outsiders, we are all stakeholdersstakeholders in each others towns, simply because we partake in one anothers recreational, cultural and economic opportunities regardless of boundaries. And for that reason we all share a common interesthow best to protect our rural heritage from the onslaught of the most powerful, destructive industry on the face of the earth. To date, the towns of Tusten, Lumberland, Highland, and Bethel, have worked cooperatively to draft effective zoning. This cooperation has taken the form of shared ideas from the Legal Forum to the more recent refinement and implementation of those ideas. And the cooperation has taken the form of encouragement, a word which includes the word courageour courageor our lack of itwhich is not a put down. With Dryden, the boogeyman is on the loose alarming even the most stalwart among us. So, do we muster a courage that includes blind obedience to a goal just because we think it is right and damn the consequences? Of course not. But, how we proceed with our zoning goals is not a choice between financial ruin and capitulation. Period. Tusten could adopt the entire zoning draft with Article 14 and never receive a direct legal challenge. Even if challenged, the town could make a decision whether to retreat or whether to engage and if so how far to take it based upon its will to fight and resources available. Each town will need to decide what resources, if any, to commit to the defense of our way of life, our property values, and the common good against a nuisance created by a small percentage of the population. Letting a Cabot or Chesapeake have its way with our fields and forests is an unsettling prospect, and most of us, as demonstrated by your draft document, are in favor of some level of resistance. But if the fight were to be joined, where would the money come from? Where theres a will theres a way means summoning the courage, determination, and resourcefulness to see us through. We survived the floods. We can do this too. Rearrange our budget priorities. Solicit the help of a national organization. Explore the offer from an attorney experienced in litigation to join in our defense. Fundraising dinners, auctions, art sales, and benefit concertswould blossom if a gas company would be shameless enough to snub our right to determine our own way of life. Support the defense fund of Tusten, Bethel, Highland, and Lumberland Concerned Citizens now at $120,000 on its way to $200,000 and beyond. Sure, our resources are no match to corporate dollars, but we do have means, and we owe it to ourselves to put up a fight on some level. David did slay Goliath. Who knows what the outcome of all this may be, but it certainly will not be financial ruin. It may even be victory. But above all, it most certainly will be the satisfaction that we can tell our children and our 29
grandchildren that we faced an historic and monumental challenge and that we did not blink. Thank you (Comstock). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 74: I urge the committee to retain Article 14 in its entirety and the Board to pass this legislation without delay. I have been in this area for 28 years and am not an outsider as [someone] said in the comment period. I have invested approximately $800,000 in Main Street Narrowsburg over 10 years and I am a stakeholder in spite of *someones+ opinion. Now there are 21 businesses on Main Street. The aggregate of the businesses generate hundreds of thousands of sales tax, of which 50% remains in the county to defer local government expenses and broaden the tax base. These businesses have been largely responsible for the recent boom in local tourism and second home construction. None of us can or wish to remain in the face of heavy industrialization. My business, a Liquor store, is one of the businesses to experience a bump in revenue with the advent of gas drilling. We reject this short-term profitability, however, in favor of long-term, stable growth, preservation of the towns integrity and the well-being of my fellow citizens (Harper). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 75: Hello. I am a full-time resident of the Town of Tusten. I am also on the board of directors of the Weiden Lake Property Owners Association. Id like to commend the Rewrite Committee especially regarding the provisions that would prohibit heavy industrial use from our town. Article 14 is an exercise in FORESIGHTThe foresight to recognize what we would be sacrificing if we were to convert this area from rural to heavy industrial. The sacrifices would be extreme wear and tear of our roads. Our roads were not constructed with heavy truck traffic 24/7 in mind. Our small town couldnt possibly keep up with the road repair surely to result from such usage. Who would pay for this? The sacrifices would be to our wildlife. Exposure to heavy industrial chemicals kills wildlife. Exposure to carcinogens, neuro-toxins, and radioactivity will kill animals. Thank-you for trying to preserve the lives of our eagles, livestock, fish, pets and all forms of life that could perish if exposed to the toxicity that is involved in heavy industry. The sacrifices would be giving up the clean, unpolluted air some of us take for granted. Heavy industry will most certainly pollute our air with constant truck traffic fumes, evaporation of toxic chemicals in open-air holding ponds, and the very real possibility of industrial explosions. Why would we welcome any industry that is exempt from The Clean Air Act? The sacrifices would be to our water supply, one of our most important resources. If heavy industrial use comes to our town, we would face the real risk of destroying our aquifers, our wells, our steams, our river. Once we contaminate our water supply, we cannot get it back! Why would we welcome any industry that is exempt from The Clean Water Act? The sacrifices would be to our health. Everyone here surely knows someone with either cancer, asthma, neurological diseases, brain tumors, ADHD, and so on. We can protect our community from being exposed to industrial pollution, right here in our community, if we adopt Article 14. Lets help our citizens live longer, healthier lives for 30
generations to come. Lastly, we dont have the infrastructure to handle the risks that heavy industry brings. If there is a chemical spill or massive explosion or truck accident or gas leaks or water contamination, where are our 1st responders? We have no hazardous materials teams required in such events in the entire area. Our town is prone to floods. What happens to open-air holding ponds in the event of a flood? Who will stop the ponds from spilling over onto the ground and then into our water supply? Thank-you for considering the consequences heavy industry would bring to our area and thank-you for trying to preserve our roads, air, water, wildlife, & health! This is not the time to be undecided regarding the future of our town. Please do the responsible thing and adopt Article 14. Thank-you (Merolla). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 76: I just want to say a word about jobs. Contrary to the claim that gas drilling will bring jobs to the community, I argue that they have already been lost. I personally know people who have deferred construction projects on their homes because they will have to leave the area if drilling becomes a reality, while others are waiting to buy new homes until they have some reassurance that drilling will not happen. As for jobs that might be created by the gas industry, studies have shown that gas companies have tended to bring in their own workers rather than train local people for jobs that are only temporary at best. Furthermore, I firmly believe that the negative impact on the tourist industry will far outweigh any positive job creation that this heavy industry will bring. With Article 14 of the zoning rewrite in place, many will move to the area in future months and years, and many will move forward with their plans to build and renovate their houses. The tourist industry will not be negatively impacted, and our rural lifestyle will be protected. Lets not throw away everything we have going for us now. Please keep Article 14 in the new Zoning Code (Chopping). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 77: As a Town of Tusten home owner, lifelong resident and modular home business owner, I have a number of concerns about the newly published rezoning document. First, I would like to thank those people who spent hours creating this document. I also believe that we all have to live and work together to create a prosperous community. After reading this 200 plus page document, I would first have to ask what is the vision for the Town of Tusten over the next 5, 10 or 15 years? I was born, raised and continue to live in this community. I remember a time when the Town of Tusten was a dynamic community. Families could shop, buy ice cream, visit local restaurants and enjoy numerous school related activities. There were opportunities for children, adults and senior citizens to meet others and find fun activities without leaving our town. As I read this document, I feel that these regulations will not provide these opportunities to others. If new businesses find it difficult to start in our town, we will miss out on the chance for new jobs, sales tax revenues and entertainment opportunities. This leads me to share my concerns pertaining to the new Town of Tusten Rezoning document. Please consider these concerns as you review and revise this important document. 31
1. Building height restrictions: Please consider changing the max. allowed height of any building from 28 to 35. This would allow a family to build a cape home with 9 foundation walls, 9 ceilings and a 12/12 pitch. 2. Rural Development District R2: I feel you need to address the 20% land clearing restriction. When building an average home of 1500 to 2000 feet on a 3 acre lot ( reference page 42) , you would need to clear: 28 X 60 for the foundation ( on average) 40 around the foundation for accessibility for construction and construction equipment An average septic system requires of 320 of leach field, an average of (4) 80 trenchs An area for an average driveway of 16 X 150 100 feet between the septic and well Trees that are close to the home so that severe weather would not cause home damage due to falling trees If my calculations are correct, a new 3 acre parcel (130,680 square feet) would allow only 26136 sq. ft or 20% of the property to be cleared. I believe that 30-35% (37,000 to 40,000 sq. ft) would be more reasonable and would give the property owner more choices to deal with the rugged terrain of this town. 3. Landscaping 6.13.12: I believe the new landscaping regulations are excessive and may cause an unnecessary financial burden to a new home owner/ business owner. Homeowners / Business owners should have the right to design a landscape that suits their budget and personal style. If a homeowner/ business owner is handicapped or elderly, it would be unreasonable to expect these individuals to pay the cost of the installation and upkeep of such strict regulations. I feel you must be careful to encourage new businesses and maintain the rural integrity of our town. If we want families to move into our town, we must encourage businesses to relocate to our town. We must also make new home building/ Business owners regulations that allow budget strapped families the opportunity to build their dream home. Upon reading this document, I see nothing but headaches and very expensive court cases and lawsuits in our future. If the town approves this document as written, you will make it impossible for new businesses and families to afford to move into the Town of Tusten. I truly believe that our town can adopt a set of zoning laws that benefit all. We must protect the rights of our residents, provide new businesses and agricultural opportunities, protect the environment, and encourage new families to move into our town. Please take the time necessary to review these important regulations so that all concerned parties are satisfied. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter (Wasylyk). 32
RESPONSE: As stated in the Town of Tusten 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the vision of the town is as follows: We see our community growing in a balanced, diverse manner that protects it rural character by building on our strengths and historic roots.8 Hence, some of the aforementioned observations are creditable recommendations to meet this vision. Therefore, it is recommended that readers review responses to COMMENTS 19 and 28. In addition, Section 6.13.12 applies only to special uses and not uses by right, such as single family homes. Furthermore, item 14 in Section 6.13.12 provides for a modification in the requirements suggesting that the Planning Board reviews special uses on a caseby-case basis since every application is different yet some framework for standards is necessary to protect the rural character of the town. Nonetheless, the zoning rewrite committee could entertain a provision in this section that states:The Planning Board reserves the right to modify standards based on a case-by-case basis where the applicant makes a compelling case, but said standards will not be waived.
COMMENT 78: I have read the draft of the Draft Zoning Code and the Town of Tusten Zoning Map Amendments and the following are my comments: 1. Regarding the Proposed expansion of the Downtown Business District to include Erie Avenue: My concern is that there is inadequate parking for the current uses in place, let alone for any proposed expansion of business use, and there are potential negative impacts on existing residential properties, particularly on the lower end of Erie Avenue past School Street. 2. Regarding 6.14 Portable Home Storage Units: Thank you for addressing this very important issue. The draft does not, however, address what the town may do about any of the Portable Home Storage Units already in use. 3. Regarding 6.13.17 Lighting and Glare: Unfortunately, a globe covering a bulb does not adequately prevent that lights glare from negatively impacting adjacent properties. Shades on bulbs should be required, and down-lighting standards required as well, to protect adjacent properties from unwanted glare, especially with lights mounted at fifteen (15) feet high. 4. Regarding Driveways and Driveway Permits: An EAF and/or SEQRA form should be required for any proposed driveway that is longer than 200 feet due to the potential negative impacts of tree removal, drainage and flooding issues, and the construction of impervious
8
Town of Tusten 2007 Comprehensive Plan. 2007. Sullivan County Division of Planning and Environmental Management, Monticello, New York, pg. 2.
33
surfaces within the Town of Tusten that may affect adjacent roads and properties (Slocym). RESPONSES: Please see responses to COMMENTS 10, 11, 12, and 13.
COMMENT 79: I am writing to urge my town to INCLUDE SECTION 14 in its zoning plan. My understanding is that there is wide agreement in the town about the need to have some control and recourse in the use of its environment, but that there is fear of legal retaliation in the event of this inclusion. I urge the town NOT to give in to these selfdefeating fears, and to stand its ground now, in solidarity with its neighbors. We know that even the most pro-fracking towns in PA have been bullied by the gas corporations, who run roughshod over the most basic civic responsibilities. The best approach is to lay the groundwork now for responsible oversight and regulation. Thank You (Simon). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 80: I am very concerned about only being allowed 1 RV on my property. As of right now I have at least 4. Perhaps there could be separate zoning for those that live outside of Narrowsburg (Brodmerkel). RESPONSE: The terms Recreational Vehicles or RV can assume multiple meanings given the type of recreational vehicle under consideration. Section 6.2.2 pertains only to motorized homes used for travel and recreation. Perhaps the confusion is in the definition of RV. Hence, 6.2.2 should read Individual recreation vehicles that are motorized campers, dwellings or mobile homes used for traveling and recreation, may be stored on any lot to the following restrictions Therefore to offer more consistency, the definition of RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT could be modified to say: Includes all terrain vehicles (ATVs), snowmobiles, off road trucks, motorized boats, boat trailers, trailers, pickup campers or coaches (designed to be mounted on automotive or truck vehicles), tent trailers, and motorized campers, dwellings or mobile homes used for traveling and recreation, and cases or boxes used for transporting recreational equipment, whether occupied by such equipment or not. Therefore, assuming this change is made; under the new zoning a property owner with a home on a parcel would only be allowed one RV that meets the aforementioned definition. Furthermore, if a property owner(s) had four (4) such vehicles on their property prior to the zoning change which is consistent with the aforementioned definition, that property owner would be allowed to maintain the four (4) RVs. However, said property owner could not exceed that number without a variance and would need to comply with ARTICLE IX NONCONFORMING LOTS AND USES-of the new zoning.
COMMENT 81: We have had 5 dogs for many years and living in a country setting it was not a problem. I also foster and transport dogs for shelters and rescues. The new zoning would not allow me to do this anymore. Perhaps there needs to be separate zoning for the Town of Narrowsburg and for the more rural areas of the Town of Tusten (Brodmerkel). 34
RESPONSE: Two approaches could be considered to address this issue. First, if you reside in the R-1 or R-2 District the number of dogs the Schedule of District Regulations (See Article IV, Schedule of District Regulations) could be changed to read: No more than five dogs at least 4 months old. Along with this proposed change, the definition of the word Kennel would have to be changed to read: Any enclosure, premises, building, structure, lot or area in or on which more than five dogs of at least four months of age are kept, harbored or maintained for noncommercial purposes. Please note that if you are keeping dogs for such purposes as fostering and transporting dogs for shelters and rescues for a fee this activity is considered a commercial enterprise and you would be required to seek a special use via the Planning Board. Nonetheless, the options outlined here could be explored by the zoning re-write committee.
COMMENT 82: Box containers are great storage solutions for those that cant afford structures. I can only imagine what other things people will do if these are not allowed. I also pointed out that there is even 1 behind the Town Hall (Brodmerkel). RESPONSE: Please see the responses to COMMENT 64.
COMMENT 83: Signs need to be around so tourists know where to go. If I am in my front yard there is usually someone that stops to ask for directions. Most are nice, however some get upset because they have driven out of there way and some are just not nice. I would like more signs to help these people and myself (Brodmerkel). RESPONSE: Agreed. The sign ordinance does not preclude the establishment of directional signs, particularly directional signs sanctioned by the Town of Tusten. In fact, throughout the zoning re-write deliberations it was noted that more directional signs are need to direct tourists and visitors to Main Street and other attractions in the Town.
COMMENT 84: Home Occupation is a major concern of mine. Hopefully in the not to distant future I will be able to retire. I would like to set up some kind of business at my home where I can work around the house, play with my dogs and just enjoy what I have worked so hard for (Brodmerkel). RESPONSE: While developing the comprehensive plan for the town, community stakeholders repeatedly favored more home occupations. The proposed zoning seeks to meet that objective, and some home occupations are classified as accessory uses if they do not create impacts that need be mitigated through a special use. Please see the response to COMMENTS 5 and 100.
COMMENT 85: I want to thank the members of the Zoning Board for their tireless efforts in drafting the new zoning ordinances for Tusten. Additionally I applaud the Council and the Supervisor for their dedication, time and effort in serving the community during a most difficult period of change and transition.
35
A defining characteristic of our age is the realization that our planets resources are finite, and that our culture is still struggling with this realization. We should also recognize that the limited resources of our physical world in no way curtail our ability to integrate sound principles of sustainability as we plan our communities and enhance our understanding of the earths resources and ecological systems. This eloquent statement begins the Executive Summary to the Town of Tusten Conservation Council goals. It is a statement worthy of taking to heart. The voice of our community was heard and made manifest in the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2007 which states in part We see our community growing in a balanced, diverse manner that protects its rural character by building on our strengths and historic roots. It is in support of the Comprehensive Plan and the vision of the Conservation Council that I ask this Council to adopt the new zoning regulations, inclusive of Section 14 in its entirety (Morgan-Lohr). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 86: I am grateful to the Board for allowing me to speak considering that I live in the state across the river, in Honesdale, PA. We do share the river and the Delaware watershed, and what you decide to do in Tusten (especially related to shale gas drilling) will affect our lives in Honesdale and other areas of Pennsylvania. Since October 2010, as part of a small group of Honesdale Concerned Citizens, I have appealed to the Borough Council and Planning Commission (which is drafting the new zoning law) to prepare the community for the deleterious effects of shale gas drilling after the DRBC lifts the moratorium. In this effort I analyzed the Comprehensive Plan, showing that its call for small-scale industrial development would be incompatible with the new zoning ordinance if shale gas drilling is allowed in the Borough. PA state law requires that local zoning must allow for reasonable development of minerals but case law has held that PA townships can restrict location of drilling although not how drilling is performed. I wrote an op-ed about these various contradiction in The River Reporter, April 14, 2011, and it appears on the front page of the Honesdale Concerned Citizens website (http://HonesdaleCC.blogspot.com). The HCC website, updated weekly, is designed to be an educational resource that the Borough Planning Commission can refer to as they draft the new zoning law. HCC website sections include 1) basic information about shale gas drilling (we rarely use the term fracking since hydraulic fracturing alone is too limited to describe the entire high-impact industrial production process of shale gas extraction); 2) a photo report and 9-min video Bradford County USA are also found on the HCC website, serving as a virtual field trip to show the PC what they could expect when industrial conditions in Bradford County secondary to shale gas drilling, merely 90 miles west of Honesdale, become typical of Wayne County; 4) analysis of the Comp Plan and zoning options; 4) a constantly updated shale news section as well as Google News feed showing numerous contaminations, news of accidents, air and water pollution, climate studies and other negative impact studies related to shale gas drilling along with social impacts such as increased crime and increased rents that accompany 36
the influx of out of town workers. Bradford County USA opens with my voice-over describing my stinging eyes and irritated throat due to air pollution as I entered town. Finally, the video documents the massive drilling-related truck traffic Honesdale can expect to clog our towns two state roads forming a bottleneck in and out of town (Main Street and Church Street). Over time Honesdale valley will likely be filled with a smog of carcinogenic benzene-laced diesel exhaust fumes, ruining Honesdales charm not to mention the respiratory systems of children, adults and elders. One commenter to the Tusten Town Board on Oct 10 mentioned the leaked NY DOT document showing that the state of New York is frankly unprepared for the massive frack track traffic that will overwhelm the roads, highways and towns of NY state. The leaked DOT draft was prepared for internal use by Governor Cuomos office and the DEC. From the executive summary: The potential transportation impacts are ominous. Assuming current gas drilling technology and a lower level of development than will be experienced in Pennsylvania the Marcellus region will see a peak year increase of up to 1.5-million heavy truck trips, and induced development may increase peak hour trips by 36,000 trips/hour. While this new traffic will be distributed around the Marcellus region this Discussion Paper suggests that it will be necessary to reconstruct hundreds of miles of roads and scores of bridges and undertake safety and operational improvements in many areas. The annual costs to undertake these transportation projects are estimated to range from $90 to $156 million for State roads and from $121-$222 million for local roads. There is no mechanism in place allowing State and local governments to absorb these additional transportation costs without major impacts to other programs and other municipalities in the State. This Discussion Paper also concludes that the New York State Department of Transportation and local governments currently lack the authority and resources necessary to mitigate such problems. And, that if the State is to prepare for and resolve these problems it is time to establish a frank and open dialogue among the many parties involved. This study is attached to my email as a Word document so the Tusten Town Board can read it in its entirety. So much attention has focused on the environmental contamination concerns surrounding shale gas drilling that the problem of thousands of truck trips to and from each of hundred of gas wells has been neglected, which NY DOT freely admits. The frack truck nightmare alone should bring drilling to a grinding halt before it ever starts. While as a state road it is not in your jurisdiction, Ive been working to try to ban frack trucks from Rt. 97, the famed Upper Delaware Scenic Byway, as frack trucks will ruin the viewshed, clean air, clean water and recreational economy of the Tusten region along this popular highway. Additionally there is danger of rollovers by drilling-related tanker trucks into the Delaware River, spilling thousands of gallons of 37
toxic flowback waste and chemicals into the River that could greatly harm a major drinking water source for millions of people in NY and PA. But this is a mere side-note of the current Tusten agenda since, unfortunately, the Scenic Byway is under state auspices, not yours, and frack truck traffic on the Scenic Byway will not be subject to the prohibitions outlined in your Section 14 related to high-frequency truck trips. FYI, I put up a petition to ban frack trucks on the Byway and put together a short video. This is off-topic but I recommend that Tusten someday soon take a separate but serious look at the issue of shale gas trucks on the Scenic Byway and consider writing a letter of appeal to the state of NY (DOT, DEC and governor) and DRBC in the interest of your recreational tourism economy in the Tusten area along the River and/or do whatever else you can think of legally to stop frack trucks from ruining the Byway. The UDSB board has recently written an appeal letter of to state of NY and DRBC and the same letter was entertained but rejected by the UDC. Let me say regarding truck traffic within your domain that despite the fact that Tusten is part of the MMTF which largely takes care of road repair costs caused by gas drilling truck traffic, the constant road repairs and construction will hold up traffic (including emergency ambulances, police and fire vehicles) and cause dust-up air pollution which will be extremely detrimental over time, as has been seen in Bradford County. Needless to say, so much road re-construction will ruin the visual charm and quiet of the area obliterated by jackhammers. Finally, at least one commenter on Oct 10 mentioned nearly colliding with a large oncoming frack truck; one wonders how local Tusten drivers will negotiate narrows rural roads shared by large (wide) frack tracks, usually speeding, especially at night. Has this dangerous situation for Tusten drivers been studied or even discussed by the Town Board? I attended the Eldred Legal Forum as well as the zoning hearings of Highland, Lumberland and Tusten in solidarity with our efforts in Honesdale, to learn as much as I can. I am especially pleased with Section 14 of Tustens current draft zoning ordinance for its careful attention to language describing high-impact industrial use and prohibited uses. I commend Dr. Bill Pammer for his leadership in a finely crafted zoning re-write with special attention to Section 14. Dr. Pammer and the entire Board deserve applause for a superb job (Prettyman). RESPONSE: Observations noted. Also, please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 87: Although I am a member of the Zoning Rewrite Committee, I am entering this comment as a property owner, taxpayer, and stakeholder interested in having my interests and investment protected by Tustens new Code, along with my health and safety. I support the Zoning Code Final Draft, even though I believe it to be overly pro business. I support retaining Article 14, which would prohibit heavy industrial uses in the Town of Tusten, for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with Tustens Comprehensive Plan; 2. As I have witnessed other towns in Pennsylvania have their residents exposed to fires, explosions, water well contamination, and air pollution, I am convinced that Tusten needs to protect itself from these dangers in 38
whatever way we are able. There is no provision for testing of wells, or compensation to property owners in the DECs current DGEIS, and; 3. The dangers of natural gas extraction, as one example of heavy industrial use most likely to affect us, has been banned in the New York City watershed, after the results of an independent, peer reviewed scientific study (Hazen and Sawyer, 2009) found such activity inherently dangerous to New York Citys water supply. On that basis, NY DEC has also banned this industrial use in the watersheds of New York City and Syracuse. I feel the residents of Tusten, and the Delaware River watershed deserve equal protection. Failing the State doing its job, we need to take the legal protection afforded by Article 14. It is my understanding the Article 14 would simply trigger further investigation from the DEC, and not require the Town to get into litigation, unless it chose to do so (Sullivan). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 88: Im not a Tusten resident and offer no substantial content comments, just a couple of tiny points related to grammatical problems in the text: Under 14.2 Purposes, . . . (4) protect the Towns irreplaceable historic, recreation, tourism sites, water quality, air quality, scenic and other natural resources, . . . Should this read . . . irreplaceable historic sites, recreation and tourism sites, . . . ? Or a similar alternative? And, under 14.3 Declaration of Intent, . . . (1) (ii) the unsuitability of the Towns public facilities and services (including police, fire, and emergency medical services) in containing or mitigating possible dangerous spillover effects of high impact industrial use activities. Should unsuitability be inability . . . to contain or mitigate? Unsuitability seems an unsuitable word here (Prettyman). RESPONSE: Comments noted. In reference to the second edit suggestion, perhaps the word lack of capatownof the Towns public would be better. Nonetheless, these points will be addressed by the zoning rewrite committee.
COMMENT 89: We have noted the inclusion of the following in Article 14: 1. promote the health, safety and welfare of the Town, its present and future inhabitants, by protecting them from the adverse public nuisance and/or land use impacts and effects that could result if the prohibited uses described in this section of this Law were allowed to be conducted within the Town 2. protect the towns priceless and unique character 3. protect the Towns irreplaceable historic, recreation, tourism sites, water quality, air quality, scenic and other natural resources These protections are a cornerstone for any responsible zoning process. It would be impossible for the Town of Tusten to offer these protections without the prohibition of heavy industrial activities, and the use of toxic, or deleterious, substances. We find 39
Article 14 consistent with the Towns Comprehensive Plan for the preservation of the quality of life associated with the unique rural and historic character of the Town, and is consistent with the (New York State) Environmental Conservation Law. Part of the process of updating zoning laws is to take inventory of the Towns assets, and to identify any current or future threats to those assets and its citizens. In reference to the listed Prohibited Uses, Article 14.4 recognizes that: Any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of this Article 14.4 is a threat to public health, safety and welfare. We believe that Article 14 recognizes those threats, and it is the obligation of the Township to protect its people from them. In 2008, the Weiden Lake Property Owners Association became aware of a violation of our Protective Covenants. These Covenants were designed to protect the people, and the assets, of our lake community. The violation was prohibited commercial activity, activity that would be considered heavy industrial use. The Weiden Lake Board of Directors chose to seek relief from the courts, knowing it was imperative to protect the community and its members. Although a favorable outcome is never certain, the Board recognized its obligations to protect the community, and eventually prevailed. We encourage the Town of Tusten, its Council and Zoning Board, to do the same (Weiden Lake Property Owners Association). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 90: I live and work in the Town of Tusten. I own two homes here, and am in the process of purchasing a third property. What drew me to this area, and what keeps me here, is the natural landscape, the clean water, and the quiet roads. I agree with our towns comprehensive plan, and I support the prohibition of heavy industry in the Town of Tusten. Thank you to the rewrite committee for having the sound judgment to include Article 14 in the proposed zoning law. I encourage you to keep it in. Fear of being sued is not a legitimate reason to delete it. To delete it would expose the Town of Tusten to far more serious dangers (Spangler). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 91: This law attempts to circumvent current NYS Ag law which allow for 5 dogs. If the town wishes to limit the number of dogs on a property; they should consider the property lot size and the number of dogs (Hoffman). RESPONSE: The New York State Agricultural and Market Law does not set limits on the number dogs among municipalities in New York State. This jurisdiction is reserved for municipalities. Also, please response to COMMENT 81.
COMMENT 92: First I would like to thank the Committee members for all their hard work on this very difficult issue of addressing the impact of gas drilling and related heavy industry on our town and surrounding areas. Weighing the problems vs. the possible benefits of natural gas drilling has been made that much harder by the myriad of conflicting information about natural gas drilling, and the main process to be used in this drilling extraction, that of hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking. We have heard and read conflicting and 40
confusing reports from various industry and government experts on the effects of natural gas drilling and fracking. Because of the confusion and the unclear consequences of fracking (both pro and con), our zoning rewrite committee took the prudent step of drafting a zoning code revision, Article XIV, which basically evokes NYS Home Rule provision giving our township exercise of its police powers to prevent damage to the rights of others and to promote the interest of the community as a whole. Article XIV insures Tustens Town Board shall be able to review, regulate, and approve what is done within the township to protect the quality of life and promote the interests of the community as a whole. Article XIV does not prohibit industrial development in the town, nor is it a threat to local businesses. The heavy industrial activity associated with gas drilling and fracking is incompatible with Tustens Comprehensive Plan. Keeping Article XIV in the revised Zoning Code simply affirms the townships legal authority to regulate and stop explicitly prohibited uses of any and all of our natural resources. Ratifying Article XIV puts in place local control over a questionable process, before NYS adopts the DEC regulations allowing drilling to start. If ratified Article XVI would also give additional local control under NYS guidelines for shale gas extraction by providing an extra level of review for extraction activity that does not comply with the towns comprehensive plan. This extra control would then be available, regardless of how the current lawsuit challenging local rights to that control is settled. Ratifying Article XIV permits essential additional time for exploring the impact of gas drilling before it starts. The specter of huge costs to the town if drilling is blocked, have been raised by factions who want drilling now regardless of the consequences. We have to weigh the possible costs of litigation against the costs that would result from pollution of our land, air, and water. The cost of cowering in the face of possible litigation and doing nothing is far greater. Past history is replete with examples of the devastating effects of pollution caused by rushing into something without full appreciation of the consequences. PCBs in the Hudson River (GE), the chemical poisoning of Love Canal, NY, the horrific oil spills in Prince William Sound (Exxon) and the Gulf of Mexico (British Petroleum) are just a few examples of pollution that have occurred, despite promises that there was no danger, and any problems would be immediately contained and reversed. There is no undo button to reverse pollution. Once the ground water is poisoned, either by accident or design, there is no way to clean it up. Right now, Sullivan County has clean water, and great natural beauty. Please dont frack it up. I ask the Zoning Rewrite Committee to pass on your zoning proposal with Article XIV as written, for immediate ratification by the Tusten Town Board (Hesse). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 93: I am a property owner and full time resident in the Town of Tusten. I was born in Callicoon and raised in Eldred. My family has been here for four generations. For 28 years, Ive had the honor of teaching elementary students right here in Sullivan County. I love this area and so do others. People have been coming here for generations. Why? [They want to] to enjoy the countrythe trees, the river, the hills, the wildlife, the people, the tranquil way of life, the peace and quiet. Question is.... are they going to 41
come when theres nothing but trucks and noise..... drill pads and foul water? I doubt it. We have an obligation to protect the land, which is our home, and to maintain its pristine beauty for the sake of the current industries that sustain us. Our way of life is in jeopardy. Some are willing to exchange our real wealth... our healthy and beautiful environment... our clean water and air... for some short term financial gain. They are willing to sellout this very land that feeds us. To turn fields into open pits of chemicals.... to have our roads overused and ruined... to have our way of life forever degraded. Last spring I spent a day in Dimock, PA to see for myself the validity of some pro and con claims being made. What I saw brought tears to my eyes thinking that the area I love so much could come to such an end. I am thankful for the hard work that the zoning committee has done. I believe the document they have created represents our interests as indicated by our town-wide survey and the development of our comprehensive plan. Protections represented in Article 14 are of particular importance and I urge you not to delay in their inclusion. We need to take a stand and protect our way of life right now before its too late (Bidwell). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1,4, and 15.
COMMENT 94: I am a permanent resident and property owner [in the Town of Tusten]. I am retired from the Eldred Central School District after thirty years of service as an educator. My family has owned property in Sullivan County since 1940 and my wifes family since the early 1870s. Thank you for the countless hours spent and careful consideration given to the preparation of this important document, and for having the courage to address the specter of gas extraction as it relates to our towns health and welfare. Last spring I spent a day in Dimock, PA to see for myself the validity of some pro and con claims being made. I would be happy to share my photos and observations with the town board and zoning committee. What I witnessed was appalling ruined vistas, ruined roadways, spoiled drinking supplies and loss of the quiet enjoyment of ones property and community. The words Heavy Industrialization were no longer an abstraction to me as I imagined this tableau placed over our river valley townships. For all the promises of employment and wealth, there was little sign of prosperity... even though gas operations started here several years ago. Clearly, that promise of money flowed somewhere else. This is both our refuge and our place of business. It is the place that feeds us both literally and figuratively. It is our home... and we choose to be here because of the the things it is and just as importantly, the things it is not. Our industries here rely on the character and quality of its natural resources like its clean air and water, and the beauty of its natural setting. If we allow the gas industry and its speculators to make us into another Dimock then you can say goodbye to all this. The landscape and collateral damage that the gas corporations have left in its wake run completely counter to those resources that sustain our industries and those that we strive to build on. Nothing could be more incompatible. Those who, like myself, oppose the heavy industrialization of Tusten and who have spoken out against it either individually or through the many grassroots organizations make no gain by doing so... unlike the gas corporations, land leasers and some politicians who stand to profit. We of course only stand to loose... and will do so by doing nothing. But we are not about doing nothing. 42
You will have our continued support as you include Article 14 in our zoning regulations. Perhaps those who feel we should not make policy for fear of being challenged in court would prefer to have our lives dictated by multinational corporations. With this kind of thinking wed still be British subjects. From what we have learned, article 14 is within our lawful rights and backed by legal precedence. I urge you not to delay in providing this critical protection to the citizens of Tusten (Bidwell). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 95: This document fails to establish zones for light industrial businesses. RESPONSE: This observation is incorrect. The proposed zoning document not only offers a definition of light industrial, but additional terms that fall within the light industrial narrative are also defined. Those terms are, in turn, specifically listed in the Schedule of District Regulations in Article IV.
COMMENT 96: MINERAL EXTRACTION and SECTION 14 this section should be removed entirely; and it is out of step with State and Federal Law which regulate such businesses. Further, it limits inter and intrastate commerce. This may also be considered condemnation without compensation under the NYS and Federal law (Hoffman). RESPONSE: Please see the response to COMMENT 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 97: Landscaping- the town is now going to regulate what type of plants and landscaping are aesthetically pleasing environment? This is too ambiguous, over regulating and leaves too much for interpretation favoring the winds of politics (Hoffman). RESPONSE: Please see the response to COMMENT 77.
COMMENT 98: The ZBA and members terms. I do not believe any member of the ZBA should be appointed for period in excess of more than one year. The ZBA members serve at the discretion of the board and should be appointed yearly at the towns restructuring meeting. Terms of 5 years are excessive and without merit (Hoffman). RESPONSE: The terms for Planning Board and ZBA members are established by the Town of Tusten Board.
COMMENT 99: Standards Applicable to Existing Junkyards this portion of the law is expo fact and attempts to reregulate existing businesses. This could be considered condemnation without compensation; pushing a property owner into bankruptcy to meet the changes. Further it may in-fact limit inter and intrastate commerce (Hoffman). RESPONSE: This statement is inaccurate. This Section of zoning does not regulate the business of existing junkyards; it regulates the land uses of these activities. Furthermore, the zoning 43
has nothing to do with intrastate and interstate commerce in that it does not regulate the transportation of materials and goods across state lines or within New York State. COMMENT 100: HOME BASED BUSINESSES/HOME OCCUPATIONS (HBHO-Prohibited Uses The following uses shall not be permitted as home occupations: 1. Commercial stables; 2. Commercial kennels; 3. Vehicle or equipment service operations and 4. Veterinarians. This limits a property owner the ability to setup a shop or HBHO with retail aspects with no regards to lot size. This limits inter and intrastate commerce (Hoffman). RESPONSE: These uses are not allowed as HOHB because of noise, traffic, lighting, pedestrian and automotive traffic or visual impacts and waste, beyond what is generally produced by a single-family residence. As such, they are considered special uses which, in turn, are listed in the Schedule of District Regulations.
COMMENT 101: I would like to ask the committee to keep Article 14. The Board should pass it into law without delaying it until after the election. Our Supervisor now admits that she wont commit to an anti-fracking position, claiming that she is on the fence. That, coupled with her support from Tustens most outspoken pro-drilling advocates, leads us to the conclusion that she is attempting to delay the re-write until after gas drilling is grandfathered by our inaction. Even though we did not know anything about fracking during the 2 years our committee worked on the master comp plan, common sense made us exclude heavy industry. Now with the threat of fracking, we see how wise this was. We should keep it in, now more than ever. The promise of natural gas has been exaggerated to create a bubble on Wall Street. According to insiders, the commodity is being traded at a much greater value than is justified by the amount and quality of gas here. We are being asked to sacrifice our natural treasure for a bubble which will collapse far sooner than anyone now predicts. A few families in Honesdale thrived on the coal industry for awhile and now its citizens are paying the price, finding themselves without drinking water. That is our future if we fail to pass this zoning law (Eurey). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 102:HelloI am a relatively new Narrowsburg resident. I am also relatively new to the fracking debate. Nonetheless many concerns already weigh on my mind. One of them is: What if something were to go wrong? Recent history is telling. Where were the citizens protectors in the Gulf of Mexico when oil gushed into the ocean for 87 days? Or, where were they when over 1.5 million gallons of sewage was dumped into the Hudson River? Where were the safe levees and protectors in New Orleans once they broke and left thousands homeless? I could go on, but my point is, those protectors were late and arguably insufficient. You, the Board, are different. Your timing is right and your efforts are laudable. You have demonstrated a willingness to be effective protectors with the prohibited uses language of Article 14, and I urge you to take the next step. Be the guardians of our land for those of us that enjoy it today, as well as those, like my 15month-old daughter, who will continue to enjoy a clean, peaceful, non-toxic tomorrow if you do the right the thing. I implore you, prohibit heavy industry. By doing so, youre 44
protecting the areas existing industries that relate to tourism, such as camping, canoeing, fishing, shopping, and dining at local restaurants, and the second-home market. Thank you (Thompson Hock). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 103: Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the meeting on Monday but wanted to take a moment to go on record on where I stand on the issue. First off, I have to say how grateful I am that the re-write committee has gone to such great lengths to insure both the safety and the development of our little township. Thank you. I want to come out strongly in favor of keeping article 14 in our zoning laws. I could list the many reasons why I think this is a good idea but Im going to focus on just one. There is a strong sentiment, both nationally and locally, to protect private land rights. I agree with this sentiment. I feel the same way. The issue with hydro fracking is not that its bad for the landowner he/she can do whatever they like. The issue is that its bad for me the neighbor. When you drill for gas youre not just affecting your land/water/air. Youre affecting mine. If that distinction isnt made (and at the moment it is not) then I need article 14 to protect myself and all my neighbors. Thank you (Younger). RESPONSE: Please see the responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 104: I have a home on Weiden Lake in Tusten. I am a physician in New York State and after reviewing the data I am aware that hydrofracking is a danger to all of those people who live in the area in which it is being done. I call upon the board to truly represent the people and vote for amendment 14 as written to prohibit gas drilling in our town (Melman). RESPONSE: Please see the responses to COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 105: Please adopt Article 14 prohibiting any and all heavy industrial zoning in the town of Tusten. With so few naturally beautiful environments remaining I strongly believe we have a duty to protect our environment from the negative impacts of commercial and industrial zoning particularly in the wonderful lower tier of the Catskill mountains (Caico). COMMENT 106: I write in support of retaining Article 14 in its entirety. Many spoke at the public hearing on October 10th in support of the same and covered all the points I might have made myself. I, therefore, write to back up what they said. In particular I wish to stand beside Stanley Harper in his protest at opinions voiced in the earlier public hearing when some claimed some stakeholders in the town have more right to be heard than others. I was raised in Britain where there is a tradition of some, by birthright, having more right to be heard than others; they are called royals. They were thrown out of Tusten in 1776. Such a claim is not only undemocratic, it is un-American.A broad point I wish to add is that, since heavy industry first appeared on the surface of the 45
planet people have moved their homes away from it. Historically there was the move out of industrial cities to the suburbs and the country. Geographically you only have to look at the Meadowlands to see why the people of New Jersey choose not to live there. We would be foolish to act against what history shows us by not taking action to prevent such industry from invading our town. A final point: Mr Lang expressed his concern for our nations dependence on foreign sources of energy. I share his concern. However, to destroy our environment (I refer you to the drinking water in Dimmock, and neighbor Mats estimation of truck traffic as two examples of what we can expect) to achieve fuel independence would be like the family who, realizing they are running low on firewood, burn down their home to keep warm. Let us not be so foolish. Keep Article 14 in the Zoning Rewrite in its entirety (Cape). RESPONSE: Please see the responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 107: HelloIm a licensed fishing guide, homeowner, taxpayer and a stakeholder in the town of Tusten. A clean healthy environment and the clear waters of the Delaware River is what brought me here. Its that same clean environment and water that brings customers to me and other eco-tourism based businesses here. Heavy industry could come and go, but would most certainly leave scars on our area. Are we prepared to sacrifice local wildlife such as eagles and fish and indeed our own health for heavy industry? I am not prepared to do this. Please lets agree to adopt Article 14 to protect our quality of life, our air, our water, our roads, and our quiet. Thank you (Spoerri). RESPONSE: Please see the responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 108: I own two homes in the Town of Tusten and I am a small business owner in Tusten. I work in Narrowsburg. I raised a daughter in Sullivan County who was a member of the first graduating class of Sullivan West. I am writing to show my support for the inclusion of Article 14 in the zoning rewrite. Thank you (Greene). RESPONSE: Please see the responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 109: My wife and I have a home as well as another parcel of land at Weiden Lake in the town of Tusten. Please adopt Article 14 in the zoning rewrite prohibiting all heavy industry in our town (Lohr). RESPONSE: Please see the responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 110: Hi. I want to voice my support for Article 14 in the upcoming Tusten Zoning rewrite. Here are some examples of reasons I believe we need these home rule protections. Ive seen actual lease grids from further upstate NY. This information was presented in a lecture by Dr Anthony Ingraffea, Cornell professor. He got this information from gas industry records. It shows that the gas industry wants to drill every available square mile to maximize profits (each land unit id 640 acres, or 1 square mile, although they are rectangular in shape.) All they need is 60% of each land unit in order to drill 46
the other 40%. This further diminishes our rights by potentially 40%. We need to have the ability to either halt this high density drilling (high volume slick water hydro facture gas drilling), or at the very least limit where this drilling can occur and be safely contained. There was a recent pole last week that showed that 7 out of 10 Sullivan County residents oppose drilling coming to the area. The last Farm Bureau newsletter had an article on farmers in Pennsylvania being paid for leasing their land for wind turbines. They still can have a viable, safe farm, make added income and help produce valuable clean domestic energy. This is an avenue that should be researched and implemented in our region instead of risky heavy industrial gas drilling while still creating generous lease payments. I know the industry holds the fear card on suing all of the towns with any restrictions against them, but they are showing their true bullying colors and whether they are welcomed or not they will continue to be bullies whenever they are questioned. Just look at Dimmock where they will no longer bring water to those affected by their faulty wells. Thanks for all of your good work (London). RESPONSE: Please see the responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15. This is my comment on the zoning regulations. Please enter it in the record accordingly. I am a property owner here in Narrowsburg on Main Street with a multi unit mixed use commercial and residential building providing housing and store fronts to the area. I operate an Architectural design office here in Town and my wife operates a clothing store and design business here on Main Street. We have two (2) young children we are raising here in the River Valley. Our Home is in Milanville. Last year we experienced first hand a little bit of what may be coming to the area with heavy industry and gas drilling. Our direct neighbor in Milanville is Vernon Crum, the Crum test well was drilled next to our home last year. The test well is only a minor project compared to actual production drilling. The amount of disturbance to our life by this single vertical bore was drastic. The activity was 24/7, every day (even Sunday) and all night long (all night long). The trucks violated every restriction in the area and no one stopped them. I called the police so many times they asked me to stop calling and explained they were under staffed and simply could not keep up with the problems. The workers lived on the well pad. The noise was unreal. The lights were obtrusive. The activity totally destroyed the rural character of the neighborhood. It got so bad my kids could not sleep, I literally fell out of bed from the noiseit ruined our summer. Two of my neighbors wells went bad. We wound up being forced to move out for the duration of the activity. This displacement affected our family very deeply. I strongly feel that every effort should be made by TUSTEN to protect the rural character we have. I support Article 14. I do question the word consideration in the Article, please verify that is the right way to phrase this article. Thank you for your time (Wasner).
COMMENT 111:
RESPONSE:
Please see the responses to Comments 1, 4, and 15.
47
COMMENT 112: My understanding is that in the current zoning law, a property owner is now allowed to have an RV (specifically, a travel trailer or camper) on his/her vacant property. RVs are currently allowed only if there was a home also on the property. It appears to me that that has changed in the zoning rewrite; in the future property owners will be allowed one RV on their property, with or without a house. I support that change. However, I am unclear about whether the RV needs to be moved at certain intervals? Or may the RV remain in the same spot indefinitely? (Spangler) RESPONSE: Under the new zoning you are allowed one RV on your property indefinitely if you have a home. RVs on vacant property cannot remain indefinitely; you will need to get a permit from the Town Code Enforcement Officer which sets a time limit on how long you may keep it on the vacant parcel. Also please see responses to COMMENTS 80 and 119.
COMMENT 113: I think that the restriction of one RV should only apply to travel trailers and campers, not to smaller recreational vehicles as snowmobiles and ATVs. Perhaps there should be a different restriction for smaller RVs that are parked out in the open (not in a garage or other enclosed structure). (Spangler) RESPONSE: Agreed. The provision is for RVs that are campers, dwellings or mobile/motorized homes used for travel and recreation. Please see the responses to COMMENTS 80 and 119 offering additional insight on this point.
COMMENT 114: Regarding area or use variances from the ZBA. Currently, the zoning law states that a property owner applying for a variance must notify all of her/his neighboring property owners within 500 feet. This makes sense if the property is a couple acres and has a couple hundred feet of road frontage. However I suggest that there be a different requirement when a property is located in an older development with smaller existing lots. For example, in the Luxton Lake development, most lots are 50 feet x 200 feet. There could be upwards of 40 different property owners within 500 feet in all directions Perhaps in these situations, the applicant should be required to contact the adjoining neighbors, plus one layer out (Spangler). RESPONSE: You still need to contact your property within 500 feet; this is a standard requirement in zoning.
COMMENT 115: I support the Proposed Expansion of the Downtown (DB) District to include Erie Street and the former Narrowsburg Central School (Spangler). RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 116: I agree that the PDF of the zoning law draft was difficult to navigate, and that a PDF with a side panel or other navigation tools would have made the document much more user friendly. Thank you to the committee for your dedication and hard work on this comprehensive document (Spangler). 48
RESPONSE: Comment noted and this milestone will be addressed as the document is finalized.
COMMENT 117: I would like to make a comment about the zoning rewrite. I live in Narrowsburg south, in a rural residential area. First I would like to thank the rewrite committee, second I would like ask the committee to keep all of Article 14 in the rewrite, prohibiting heavy industrial use in our town. I have been to Dimock , Pa. and have seen firsthand the destruction of beautiful farm land and quiet country roads, diesel trucks in all directions , homes with potable water delivered to them daily,( courtesy of the gas companies , yet gas companies claim no responsibility to their water contamination), and air quality that left me with a headache as I drove home. I am also going to forward info about what the town board did in Pittsburgh, Pa. banning fracking in their town, can you please pass it on to the lawyer and town board members ,. Because no one has the right to destroy mine , my son Ayden , my daughter Tallula and wife Teressas way of life with drilling. Thank you (Gann). RESPONSE: Please see the responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 118: I do think the restriction on the number of dogs a resident may have should be based on the ability to properly care for the animals, and be set at a higher number (although still restricted somewhat) based on that ability to hold and provide care without causing inconvenience to neighbor (Hesse). RESPONSE: Please see the response to COMMENT 81.
COMMENT 119: As to the number of ATV or other recreational vehicles an owner might have, I think restricting to one is a bit severe. Couldnt there be some kind of permit per vehicle that the town could issue, (like fishing/hunting licenses) where the town could collect a fee and which could be revoked if the owner/operator was found to be causing damage to the environment or had noise or other complaints made by his/her neighbors? It would be increased revenue for the town and hold the owner to a responsible standard of usage or have the permits revoked (Hesse). RESPONSE: Section 6.2.2 pertains only to motorized homes used for travel and recreation. Perhaps the confusion is in the definition of RV. Hence, 6.2.2 should read Individual recreation vehicles that are motorized campers, dwellings or mobile homes used for traveling and recreation, may be stored on any lot to the following restrictions Therefore to offer more consistency, the definition of RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT could be modified to say: Includes all terrain vehicles (ATVs), snowmobiles, off road trucks, motorized boats, boat trailers, trailers, pickup campers or coaches (designed to be mounted on automotive or truck vehicles), tent trailers, and motorized campers, dwellings or mobile homes used for traveling and recreation, and cases or boxes used for transporting recreational equipment, whether occupied by such equipment or not.
COMMENT 120: In the debate in this issue of protective zoning, I hear the complaint that the town of Tusten cannot tell a citizen stakeholder what to do with their property. To that 49
argument I say that the Town most certainly can in fact by law, has the obligation to tell each stakeholder in the community what they can and cannot do with their property. This is the essence of what is always aboutnamely the need for a town to ensure that the health, safety, welfare and the accustomed way of life of all citizens is protectedour rural heritageand that the specific use a property owner might to engage in, such as a dump, burning tires, uncontrolled construction or the clearing of land, does not constitute a nuisance and overwhelm the well-being of the community. Heavy industry and in particular gas drilling (with its pollution, water contamination and the impact of heavy truck traffic) creates side effects on a daily basis which do not observe property boundaries. Therefore the stakeholders as a whole have the right to be engaged in the decisions concerning whether the activity is permissible or not! A prohibition of certain deleterious industrial practices could be lifted or rendered moot if in the future technological developments might reduce or eliminate the negative impacts of those practices. If in the future is emphasized. While a community or citizen stakeholders could alter a prohibition on an industry, the consequences of large scale, high volume hydraulic fracturing and the entire infrastructure that it entails once done, cannot be undone. Looking at this reality, CAUTION is the proper course. The Rewrite Committee unanimously endorsed this approach with extensive deliberations and consultations with legal experts. It drafted a reasonable and sensible set of provisions to protect the well-being of our community against the ravages of high impact industrial activity. The Committee realized it had an obligation to translate the vision and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan into an effective zoning ordinance proposal that would protect ALL its citizens stakeholders against the action of a small percentage of property owners (less than 1/10 of 1% in Sullivan County) who would subject their neighbors to so many ill effects of this dangerous industrial practice. I respectfully request the Rewrite Committee to stay true to its initial instincts by retaining all of Article 14 (the prohibited uses). The Committee and the Town Board should not be dissuaded from making the correct and best choice simply because someone shouts LAWSUIT. The Town is on firm legal footing with the adoption of the current draft. I and many others have pledged our own moneys to be used as a defense fund to assist local municipalities in the event of an ill-begotten challenge to our zoning provisions prohibiting high impact industrial activity. We have no choice but to be courageous and stead-fast stakeholders in our community (Blanchard). RESPONSE: Please see the responses to COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 121: Im a residential property owner in the Town of Tusten and a resident in the Town of Cochecton, where Im running for Supervisor on the Rural Heritage Party Line. Id like to thank the Board for hiring a professional, unbiased planner one who is NOT a paid lobbyist for the oil and gas industry. The Town Board is accountable for the health, safety & welfare of all citizens of the Town ... and due to the fact that the National Environmental Protection Agency has not completed their study to understand any potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water and ground water, I think that it is in the Towns best interest for the Board to adopt the re-written 50
zoning codes to support our rural heritage I support Article 14. Please do not be bullied by industry lobbyists who threaten the town with lawsuits. Our health and safety is more important than a potential lawsuit. Thank you (Luchsinger). RESPONSE: Please see the responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 122: I am a business owner in Narrowsburg. I am requesting that Article 14 stay as is. I thank the Zoning Rewrite Committee for all their hard work (Morris). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Also, please responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 123: It is extremely difficult for a government to find the proper near and long term balance between maximizing the opportunities for economic growth and providing for the safety, health, quality of life and rights of its citizens. The zoning code is the obvious intersection of these diverse and sometimes competing interests. Taxes in Tusten are certainly high, and getting more commercial, taxpaying entities established here would certainly have the potential to benefit property owners, in the form of lower taxes, as well as all other citizens by providing job opportunities and improved town services. The issue the Draft Zoning Code faces head on is in identifying the types of industries that can provide a net positive impact on the economics of the Town and its citizens without having a deleterious impact on many to the benefit of the few. In this case, I think the Draft does a very good job of excluding the industries (Sec. 14.5 Prohibited Uses & Sec. 14.6 Prohibition Against Deleterious Substances) that could and likely would have a significant negative impact on the vast majority of its citizens and the Town itself for the benefit of a very small number. While I believe firmly in the rights of individuals and land owners, I do not agree that those individual rights trump the rights of the community and the greater good of the citizenry. In addition to the information provided in the Draft Zoning Codes Appendix A: Text of Findings of Fact (e.g., character and scenic beauty of the Town, health and safety issues, etc.), there are a number of other economic and legal considerations that support the exclusion of these identified industries. First, it is my understanding that the Town has no legal authority to oversee or regulate any activities related to the extraction of natural gas via hydraulic fracturing and would, therefore, be unable to act to protect its town and citizenry should any issues arise. This is a peculiarity related specifically to the extraction of natural gas as it has been exempted from local rule by federal legislation, making it quite different from most other forms of non-energy related commerce. To the extent that the industry operates sloppily or a bad event occurs, it will be the Towns economic problem to deal with the clean up and issues. The Towns only recourse is to spend taxpayer dollars to go after state and federal enforcement or to hire lawyers to seek recovery or enforcement. Second, it is likely that the value of properties in the Town will fall substantially as a great deal of the allure of our Town is its scenic beauty and charm and the introduction of drilling, pumping and trucking all serve to disrupt those values. Additional costs to the Town and its citizens are many. The introduction of high activity from large trucks and heavy equipment will have a harmful impact on the towns roads, which already require tremendous upkeep due to 51
the climate and whose future maintenance will require a heavy increase in cost. This likely means increased property taxes for all of us. For those whose water supply comes from wells, regular testing of the water to ensure its safety will now be an added recurring cost. Businesses that cater to tourism and those from out of town may find themselves far less popular if our area loses its appeal and charm. This has a multiplier impact as these businesses employ locally. This is not an us versus them argument. It is about looking out for the best interests of all of our citizens and not allowing the benefits for a few to outweigh the good of the many. This zoning code properly weighs the risks and rewards of the Prohibited Uses industries and determines that the risks are too high, the benefits are too few, the costs are too high for too many and the negative impacts carry the possibility of being irreparable for our town. I support the approval of the Draft Zoning Code (Adler). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Also, please responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 124: We need to save Article 14 in the zoning document because; it accords with the rules and intent of the WILD AND SCENIC PRESERVATION RIVER. This designation spells out in its rules the obligation of owners of homes on the river to protect water and shores and tributaries from pollution and alteration. Most of Tusten is on the Delaware or its tributaries or in its watershed. Without prohibition of heavy industry (Article14) it is not possible to maintain A SCENIC PRESERVATION RIVER and the kind of commercial activities that accord with it. Yet this is the premise on which most of us bought homes here and expected to maintain the value in them. We already experience how the threat of Gas Drilling depresses prices, and mortgage availability I urge we promptly attend to the other viable complaints raised and accept the zoning document with Article 14 in it. If we drag out the process waiting on legal outcomes of suits in other towns and NYS and DRBC fail to protect us, Gas Drilling, may proceed and then be grandfathered against our article14. This would clearly betray what appears to be the majority opinion expressed at the hearings and in polls. Re the costs of legal defense ; the town board must not ignore or shrug off that pledges to a legal defense fund are being made and will be kept. This is not to buy a provision in the zoning document but shows the genuine support for maintaining the rural scenic nature of our area. Thank you for your work (Williams). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Also, please responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 125: Section 6.14 PODS should be allowed for more than 72 hours. There are many extenuating circumstances that I can think of such as a family member may have to move in to or from the residence and may take some time to move their belongings or a home renovation that requires storage of their belongings. I would think that a reasonable amount of time would be 30 days (Lang). RESPONSE: Please see response to COMMENT 64.
52
COMMENT 126: Section 11.9.1; Disapproval of county action; There is no reason that the ZBA has to have a vote of the majority plus one when they decide to forgo the counties recommendation. This is a democracy so the majority vote wins regardless (Lang). RESPONSE: Under New York State General Municipal Law (GML) 239 all municipalities are required to have a super majority vote to override county recommendations. Failure to do so could yield an Article 78 by any party.
COMMENT 127: Although I am on the zoning re-write committee, I want to have my support of Article 14 noted for the record. In light of the industrial developments happening regionally in the past two years, I believe it is essential to protect us and maintain our community the way we know it and cherish it (Michell). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Also, please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 128: A couple comments: Separating the definition of recreational vehicle to have multiple personal RVs such as ATVs which would be housed in garages and then large pull behind/live in type RVs in another category where only one is allowed (Michell). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Also please see responses to COMMENTS 80 and 119 offering additional insight on this point.
COMMENT 129: There are some comments about wording and typos which other letters have covered (Michell). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Editorial and syntax changes will be addressed upon inventorying all feedback from the public and the committee.
COMMENT 130: Regarding the expansion of the DB district to Erie, I support it but think it should be a little more carefully worded regarding what types of businesses would be consistent with the rural character of our hamlet. Certainly a large scale hotel would not be. Also, it should be stated that Erie Ave. is the DB street, not School St and Grove St which would be unable to support any heavy traffic, nor should they since they run through the GR district. It should be stated that businesses along Erie cannot have commercial ingress or egress on either side street (Michell). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Also see response to COMMENT 10.
COMMENT 131: I also think we should add the stretch of RT 97 mentioned at our meeting to the Roadside Business district since it is wholly on a busy state highway (Michell). RESPONSE: Perhaps. Nonetheless, discussion would have to focus on existing infrastructure and how the change would impact surrounding properties. Perhaps this observation is related to COMMENT 6. Please see the response to that comment. 53
COMMENT 132: I believe that this rewrite group took their time and meticulously included and/or expanded how they feel this town should grow. They dotted their Is and crossed their ts when it came to the most explicit definition of signs and their use or nonuse. I believe that this should stop anyone of the towns residents from using a sign to express their own personal opinion or feelings. There will be no first amendment rights in this town as regards to signs (Macrini). RESPONSE: Article 13 of the new zoning, the Sign Requirements, does not preclude anyone from expressing their opinion. The requirement has a neutral effect on speech in that it does not seek to regulate a point of view, it does not seek to define the content of a sign, nor does it seek to prohibit any resident from posting a sign on his or her property. The regulation focuses on the number, size, and placement of signs meeting a valid public purposeprotecting the towns community aesthetics and character.
COMMENT 133: The next item that hit home with me is the newest zoning addition, 6.14 on page 77, Portable Home Storage Units/Portable on Demand [PODS]. As I read it, you cannot use a portable storage unit on your property unless you first get a permit from the Code Enforcement Officer and then you will only get the permit if you meet certain requirements. Then you can only have the unit for three days including the day of delivery. Hey Tony, does this pertain to Hertz Rentals also! I also did not see anything about having railroad freight cars on your property! This hit home with me because I have rented a storage unit to store items of clothing, furnishings, etc from my attic and basement while my family has been repairing and renovating the attic and our basement which had water damage from the heavy rains we have had (Macrini). RESPONSE: Please response to COMMENT 64.
COMMENT 134: After reviewing over 200 plus pages, WOW, the last zoning book only had 56 pages, I feel that Article 14 should be revisited. At this pivotal time in providing for Tustens growth, we still need and most residents should favor development or expansion within the Town of Tusten of: Professional services, service oriented businesses, retail shopping, light manufacturing, research and development facilities, visitor and tourist related facilities. Tourism is a major part of tax revenue and the town should seriously look into opening discussions with the railroad about a passenger stop in Narrowsburg to bring visitors from the city and perhaps provide transportation for our residents who could get employment in the city since there seems to be nothing around here. I wonder if this Article 14 is simply a political ploy to prohibit natural gas drilling by banning heavy industrial use. New York State has not even taken a stand on this issue so how can the town. I do not know enough about the natural gas drilling at this time to be for or against it (Macrini). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 3 and 4. Also, the zoning allows for light industrial uses. Any existing uses considered heavy industrial would be non-conforming uses under the new zoning; they would be legal and allowable uses but they would have to comply with Article 9, Nonconforming Lots and Uses. 54
COMMENT: 135: I am a 67 year old senior citizen, former ZBA member of 13 years, who only wants what is best for everyone in this town and not just a few. I have to work as long as I can to meet our School Taxes and Town/County Taxes and to keep my heating oil tank and car tank full. Thank you for listening to my opinions (Macrini). RESPONSE: Comment noted; please see the response to COMMENT 17.
COMMENT 136: The charm and beauty of Tusten are rare and fragile treasures. They should be preserved for the enjoyment of the majority of the townspeople and should not be destroyed to benefit just a few who will profit from fracking (Adler). RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT 137: I support the rewrite of the zoning issue, especially Article 14, which effectively bans fracking within Tusten town limits. There is serious proof of the danger that fracking poses to the Tusten community, as well as to the water quality in NYC (Hack). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Please responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 138: I have a home at Weiden Lake in the town of Tusten. I am writing you to express my support for Article 14 in the Town of Tusten zoning rewrite. Please adopt Article 14 in the zoning rewrite prohibiting all heavy industry in our town. Thank you for your consideration (Marcel). RESPONSE: Please responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 139: I just want to put my two cents into the mix. I totally support the rewrite. I particularly want to mention that I support Article 14 to ban fracking in Tusten. The amount of money brought in by the fracking would be a fraction of the amount of money lost in the tourist trade, and property value. Anyone who doubts these needs only look across the border to Pennsylvania. Fracking would take Narrowsburg back to the 1970s-1990s; after the train stopped running and before second homers and kayakers discovered the area. RESPONSE: Comment noted; please see the responses to COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 140: Section 6.2.2; there can be no more one RV stored on a lot. How about all the summer camps, Boy Scouts properties etc.? This should be tied to lot size. If you have more than ten or twenty acres and you would like to have a group of family or friends visiting there should be allowance for RVs to stay for 60 days if they meet all of the setbacks contained within this section (Lang). RESPONSE: Please see the responses to COMMENTS 80, 113, and 119. 55
COMMENT 141: Section 6.7.2; Home based businesses should not be confined by the amount of employees that they have or if they have outside equipment that has the lettering of their business on it they should not be regarded as noncompliant. The planning board should look at these issues and make a determination of total vehicles which can park there during their site plan review to ensure the operation will not adversely affect the neighborhood. Additionally it is outside the purview of the town if an individual would like to place signage on their vehicle as long as it conforms to DOT regulations (Lang). RESPONSE: Please responses to COMMENTS 5, 84, and 100.
COMMENT 142: Section 6.13.5 Noise; My hunch was correct, I believe the committee believes this town has moved and we now reside or need the same type of overbearing zoning that you would need in the Hamptons. How can a company possibly believe that they are going to conform to these ridiculous regulations? In fact does anyone on the committee even have a clue regarding the levels of noise that the requirements allow? We are a rural community that doesnt need this type of nearsighted overzealous regulations! When the planning board has the proposed project before them they can decide if the impacts including noise will adversely affect the neighborhood. I suggest that anyone living alongside Route 97 is subject to more noise than any business activity which has produced or currently produces in the past 51 years that I have lived here. Remove this section entirely!! (Lang) RESPONSE: Disagree. The Planning Board, when conducting a review, needs standards to assist them with mitigating impacts to surrounding parcels and preserving community character. The approach upholds the vision of the Town of Tusten Comprehensive Plan. See the response to COMMENT 77.
COMMENT 143: Town of Tusten sign law; this section is 30 pages long and is so complex you would need a separate sign enforcement officer to enforce it. This is so overbearing that you would think that Tusten was not a town but a city. I find evidence that this proposed zoning was gleaned from that of a city zoning ordinance as has been referenced numerous times as I read through the document. We must remember that signs are an active exercise of our constitutional right of freedom of speech. It is the very essence of what America was formed around, which is why it is our First Amendment right. What are we so afraid of? We need to go back and look at what is right for Tusten and not allow and embrace the influence of out of the area individuals and the doctrine they promote! (Lang) RESPONSE: Article 13 of the new zoning, the Sign Requirements, does not preclude anyone from expressing their opinion. The requirement has a neutral effect on speech in that it does not seek to regulate a point of view, it does not seek to define the content of a sign, nor does it seek to prohibit any resident from posting a sign on his or her property. The regulation focuses on the number, size, and placement of signs meeting a valid public purposeprotecting the towns community aesthetics and character. Also, the document will be edited to ensure all references are specific to town. 56
COMMENT 144: Section 6.17.7 Clear cutting of more than on acre which shall include the cumulative cutting of smaller lots will require a special use permit. I own 235 acres adjacent to the Delaware which is currently included in a NYSDEC approved forest management plan. Does this mean on top of my foresters oversight, the NYSDECs oversight I now have to acquire a special use permit from whom in the town of Tusten? Once I were to acquire this permit whom in the town has the schooling to ensure that the permit complies with all NYS regulations? Additionally why is a soil and erosion plan required and what is the cost to the landowner of the same? It is a well known fact that the proper harvesting of a forest is very beneficial to the quality and health of the forest. This requirement will preclude landowners from the proper maintenance and care of their forest assets. Again, this is overbearing and unreasonable (Lang). RESPONSE: Under Section 6.17.7, the logger, or harvester, shall comply with the New York Timber Guidelines promulgated by the Department of Environmental Conservation (the individuals schooled in this area) and no timber harvesting activities shall take place without a valid permit from the town. In effect, an approved NYS DEC forest management plan would be a prerequisite for your special use permit from the town to ensure that the project is in substantial compliance with the River Management Plan as required by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior.
COMMENT 145: We, the undersigned, represent the Concerned Citizen groups in the four Sullivan County towns Tusten, Lumberland, Highland and Bethel which are now actively considering zoning restrictions as a measure of protection against high impact industrial activity including gas drilling. If Tusten is serious about proceeding with protective zoning, but is hesitant about the costs of a possible legal challenge, the Legal Defense Fund pledge drive initiated by our organizations would be a resource that might help to address that concern. The total money pledged to date has topped $120,000and that is without a large public solicitation of funds. We fully expect the pledge total to exceed $200,000 by years end. This fund would be available to any town in Sullivan County that might receive a challenge to its protective zoning provisions. The criteria for use of the fund would include passage of a thorough, defendable and expertly crafted zoning ordinance, as determined by our steering committee. If interested in exploring this resource for your town, a meeting could be arranged at which we could assure Tusten of the legitimacy and substantial nature of our effort. Again, we would want to see that Tusten is serious about proceeding with protective zoning before agreeing to a meeting. We certainly hope that our effort is just one of the many resources that Tusten should realize that it has at its disposal, and that being bold with effective zoning should not hinge upon our effort alone. We are dedicated to encouraging the cooperative effort between citizens and public officials in each of our towns, in what we hope will become a county-wide and statewide movement toward asserting home rule prerogatives as a protection against the incursion of a major heavy industry. We believe our rural heritage depends upon the successful outcome of this collective struggle. We look forward to hearing from you (Vertrees, Comstock, Roig, and London). 57
COMMENT 146: Article 14 is an outright challenge to the constitutional guarantee of interstate trade, a classic example of selective enforcement, and condemnation without compensation. This town is part of America and a component of NYS government. We cannot cherry pick and select what types of business we want to settle here and what types we dont. The fact that High impact industrial use as defined in the definitions section includes three of the five stakeholder businesses in the town which would be outlawed according to this document, is absurd.. Additionally any use that is likely to result in the degradation of the water supply, either public or private includes almost any light industrial uses as well as land development projects. If every township in this state could cherry pick what types of businesses the planners liked or disliked, businesses such as mine or fuel delivery trucks, would be coming from either hundreds of miles away or out of state. The town is also exposing itself to potentially huge legal costs which are irresponsible use of the taxpayers money in order to satiate the concerns of a minority of town residents. This article is attempting to unlawfully preclude a landowner from gaining access to the mineral, oil and gas rights that they own under NYS law (Lang). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 147: I understand that Community Environmental Defense Council has assisted the Town of Tusten in connection with the proposed language to the towns draft zoning code to expressly prohibit certain industrial activities. In the event the Town of Tusten and it Board have any concerns regarding the adoption of this protection zoning amendment, due to implied or express threats of litigation or otherwise, I would be please to offer my services, without charge, as litigation counsel to the Town and it Board. The issue of local authority to determine land use within its borders and, in so doing, the quality of living within and character of the town, is one of great significance and any such case will establish legal precedent. As a close friend of Sullivan County residents and founder partner (with 35 years of litigation experience) of a mid-sized Manhattan law firm, this letter expresses my offer to serve as pro bono litigation counsel in the event that suit is ever initiated in connection with Tustens adoption of the aforesaid amendment (Krinsky). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 148: I suggest the zoning rewrite committee revisit the statement our contracted land use attorney, Mark Sweeney, made in the September 22nd Bethel meeting suggesting the committee consider bifurcating the draft zoning document, to be presented to the Town Board for two separate Board votes, leaving Article XIV out of the draft document until further notice. I think it would be prudent to fully understand what special council Sweeney's reasoning is behind his remarks to the zoning rewrite committee and how he thinks that this action would protect the Town and the residents of Tusten? (Reynosa) 58
RESPONSE: At this point in the process the attorneys reasoning is irrelevant. However, the following facts are clear and relevant. First, the attorney recommended to the zoning rewrite committee the following three options: (1) include Article 14, (2) modify Article 14, or (3) exclude Article 14 from the new zoning until case law establishes a plainmeaning interpretation of the statutory phrase related to the regulation in ECL 23-0303. Second, the zoning rewrite committee is very clear on what the decision options are. Finally, the committee knows they can exercise their discretion on any one of three aforementioned options based on their research and the review of the public comment. Upon reading this response, it is important that responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15 are reviewed.
COMMENT 149: Home based business/ home occupation appears to me to be excessively restrictive in that only 3 persons either part time or full time can be employed by this business and the fact that there can be no exterior storage materials or other exterior indication of the home occupation or variation from the residential character basically means that all activities have to be from within the dwelling which I find extremely confining. I would suggest that most of these provisions can be dealt with during planning board review and the fact that the home based business definition is so restricted, you might as well not even have this type of use in the zoning as I can see no practicality for it. In my experience, a home based business would be one of a tradesmans such as a plumber, heating oil, plumber HVAC contractor, landscape business or perhaps a route driver such as a Mac Tool supplier or a Frito Lay route driver. These are examples of the real possibilities that a home based business would be derived from and yet this type of zoning absolutely precludes businesss operating within the zoning use. RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 5, 84, and 100.
COMMENT 150: Hydraulic fracturing is a predictable, preventable ecological disaster waiting to happen, the cost of which could further ruin NYSs already tattered and teetering economy. The proposed rules on gas drilling in NYS provide no protection against the pollution and environmental damage that gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing have already caused. History is replete with examples of the devastating effects of pollution caused by rushing into something without full appreciation or control of the consequences. PCBs in the Hudson River (GE), the chemical poisoning of Love Canal, NY, horrific oil spills in Prince William Sound (Exxon) and the Gulf of Mexico (British Petroleum), and the fracking disasters already in neighboring Pennsylvania, are just a few examples of pollution that have occurred, despite promises that there was no danger, and any problems would be immediately contained and reversed. There is no undo button for pollution. Once the land and ground water are poisoned, either by accident or design, there is no way to reverse it. None of these regulations deal with or change this basic fact. NYS has clean water, and great natural beauty. Please dont frack it up (Hesse). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
59
COMMENT 151: It is essential that Article 14 be included as part of the Town of Tusten's new zoning regulations. We cannot allow heavy industrial uses, like natural gas extraction, in the Town of Tusten. To do so would threaten our way of life, our community, our water, our air quality, our roads, our quiet town, our natural resources, as well as our health, safety and general welfare (Slocum). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 152: The definition of a deleterious substance along with specific waste derived from crude oil exploration or natural gas drilling fluids etc. also includes solids wastes which are not hazardous waste under 40C.F.R. 261.4(B). If you take the time to look that definition up, some of the specific wastes include domestic sewage and septage which then encompasses my businesses as this is one of the commodities that we handle, store and process on a daily basis. Deleterious substance disposal/ storage facilities according to the formal definition would also include my solid waste storage and processing facility (Lang). RESPONSE: Please see the response to COMMENT 72.
COMMENT 153: The definition of high frequency, high impact truck traffic includes more than 20 one way trips by high impact trucks to and from the site of the proposed use during the 24 hr. period at any time. Therefore, of the five stake-holders businesss located within the Town of Tusten which are the Feed Co., the Lumber Co. and Lang Industries all qualify as high impact industrial use on several levels. RESPONSE: The stipulation is for a 24 hour period... at any time. All local businesses using trucks may, from time to time, operate them after hours, but, by and large, the local businesses noted in the comment above have regular business and defined work week.
COMMENT 154: The definition of dump is land upon which deleterious substances on their residue or constituents before or after treatment are deposited, disposed, discharged, etc. Therefore, anyone who uses compost which contains BioSolids, which a lot of the compost which we purchase and use today contains, there land is considered a dump, according to this definition. There is no quantity listed nor is there any definition of other types of deleterious wastes which are excluded therefore, all of these substances are included (Lang). RESPONSE: Based on feedback from the Community Defense Council legal team, the definition of dump will be deleted and replaced with the definition noted in COMMENT 72.
COMMENT 155: Section 6.2.1; All campgrounds must have central water and sewerage facilities if they an excess of 5 campsites. Does this mean that all campgrounds in excess of 5 campsites must be located within town water or sewer utilities? If not then why do you need central water and sewerage throughout the entire campground? You can 60
stage onsite systems that can handle groups of sites depending on the topography. This is really a planning board issue again. RESPONSE: No because it may not be practical for all campgrounds to be located within a town water or sewer district because a minimum of ten (10) acres of land must be provided for the campground with five (5) or more campsites. Therefore the applicant needs a 10+ acre parcel and the applicant must service the property with on site central water and sewage facilities where the density shall not exceed 8 sites per acre and permanent occupancy shall be strictly prohibited.
COMMENT 156: Section 5.1: There should be more than one accessory building allowed without any special permits for lots that are larger than twenty acres. How could a farmer store his equipment if he was only allowed one accessory building on his farm? Larger parcels of property require more maintenance and equipment and therefore buildings to store them in. RESPONSE: This comment is not clear as Section 5.1 makes no specific reference tp accessory buildings on large. Section 5.2 specifically exempts uses defined as Agriculture/Farm Operations for the height and year requirements. The issue of accessory structures, however, for these types of uses could be revisited by the committee to make it more specific in this section.
COMMENT 157: Upon oath of office, our local government promises to protect the health, safety and welfare of our town. Section 14 of our draft zoning regulations helps enforce that promise, by limiting specific activities, including high impact industrial uses, that would dramatically impact our towns rural character and environment. It was pointed out by a local business owner and candidate for Tusten Town Council, at our first public hearing, that there are only five major stakeholders in our town. I wonder what his definition of a stakeholder is? Most individuals within this town may not be owners of big businesses, but every Tusten resident is a stakeholder who deserves to be protected by our town. If you drink the clean water and breathe fresh air, you are a stakeholder. Our town board is considering taking a neutral position on gas drilling due to litigation concerns. But at a time when our town is threatened by fracking, we have a right to expect leadership from our leaders. Are we so afraid of being sued that we are willing to give up our rights to govern and safeguard our own community? Do we really want to be neutral about the effects that heavy industrial uses and not put in place proactive zoning measures (which can always be amended as the law is clarified)? Think about it (Reynosa). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Also please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 158: Section 6.13.15 Sewerage Disposal; Currently the NYSDEC law allows for the application of BioSolids to land if approved by the department. As I have stated before a large portion of compost contains these materials so the average homeowner will utilize them in their gardens and it is unlawful for the town to attempt to usurp the states 61
authority to regulate. I have been in numerous lawsuits in Pa. that have attempted to do the same things and they have lost in every case and SynaGrow and the PSMA have been reimbursed for their legal fees (Lang). RESPONSE: The language in 6.13.15 does not attempt to usurp the State of New York. Also please see the response to COMMENT 154.
COMMENT 159: Major mineral extraction. I believe that operations extracting greater that 750 cubic yards per year of material is prohibited. NYS Mining Law allows for up to 1000 cubic yards of materials to be removed without the necessity of a mining permit. 1000 cubic yards sounds like a lot of material however, one of my dump trucks could move 1000 cubic yards of material in one 40 hr. work week if we were to transport it from here to my property in Pleasant Mount, PA. Therefore, I believe the 700 cubic yard requirement should be conforming to the 1000 cubic yard requirement and defined by NYS DEC mining law. Therefore, the minor mineral extraction should then be changed to less than 1000 cubic yards per year of materials moved. RESPONSE: Section 6.11 makes reference to a required New York State Department of Environmental Conservation permit which would address these issues followed by a special use permit from the town.
COMMENT 160: Section 6.6.3; the purpose of this section is to ensure that the town roads are not negatively impacted by logging. I agree that we need to protect our roads due to logging operations however the logger should be required to get a permit from the town highway dept. that is ultimately responsible for the roads. Why is the Code enforcement officer getting involved? It is obvious that any logger has to conform to NYSDEC regulations and the CEO does not need to do the DECs jobs. If so are we then going to oversee other agricultural events such as a farmer harvesting hay or corn or a landowner harvesting firewood? Additionally the language that if the logger doesnt comply the town will withhold any further permits from the town. That is absurd and if enforced the town is inviting a huge liability. It is like saying that if you speed or dont follow other town codes you will not be allowed to operate a vehicle or live within the town. RESPONSE: No. The language of Section 6.6.3 focuses on the first 100 feet into the property being logged not the use of town roads or any public road. The driveway cut and the use of public roads is the jurisdiction of the Town Highway Superintendent, assuming it is a town road. However, Section 6.6.3 makes reference to a minimum of one-hundred (100) feet into the property which is the jurisdiction of the Code Enforcement Officer because it is an inspection issue on the property.
COMMENT 161: Quite simply there are so many serious issues with this proposed rezoning that it must be taken back to a committee that represents the stakeholders, gatekeepers and some of the officials of the town, for review and the appropriate changes made or the towns viability and sustainability will be in question. 62
RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 15, 16, and 17.
COMMENT 162: Thank you for letting us speak and thank you to the Committee and thank you to the Board. I wanted to ask the Committee to retain Article 14. I wanted to ask the Board to act on adopting the rezone without delay. I also wanted to address the process by which the decision is being made, the process meaning whose voice is being heard and whose voices are being ignored. I didn't know until I read the minutes from the last meeting that you can give live in an area for 28 years and be an outsider if you're on the wrong side of this issue, according to some people. I didnt know that you could invest $800,000 of your own money, ten of your last productive years trying to create a business and help the town that you've grown to love and not be a stakeholder. I didn't know you could generate income and collect sales tax, 50 percent of which remains in the county and helps knock off everybody's tax liability. I didn't know that you do all these things and not be a stakeholder. I didn't know that you could accept grants and encouragement and be cajoled and rewarded for coming here to invest in an area under the name of tourism and recreation and bucolic circumstance and then have, ten years later, find out that, well, now there's some ready cash to be made, it's not tourism at all, it's industry. Well, the IDA, the Sullivan County Partnership, all of these people, they give grants and they say specifically what they want you to open, and they offer to help you open it. But I think at the moment when they ask you to invest your own money as well, it becomes a bait and switch. Now, we're not the only ones on Main Street. I am a stakeholder no matter what anybody says. And there are 21 businesses on Main Street. And between us all, we didn't come here in a vacuum. We were invited here, we were asked to come here. We were rewarded for coming here with grants and other kinds of support. And we complied and we gave it our best. Now I fell like thousands of people come here year-round because of these businesses on Main Street. Thousands of people that don't go to the other river towns, they come to this town because theres something very special here. People see that effort. They appreciate that effort. They love this town. And I think that --And I think that the bait and switch is unfair to all us who have invested so much in this town (Harper). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Also please see responses to COMMENTS 1, 4, and 15.
COMMENT 163: I'm a business owner in Narrowsburg. And I'd like to start off by saying that my family has been coming to area since the 1800s. My grandparents renovated, bought and renovated a small farmhouse in Yulan in the 40s. While the house was being renovated we would live on a small farm in Yulan owned by Maggie and Ruby Buddenhagen. My love of land and water is vast. I'm asking the Zoning Rewrite Committee to please keep Article 14 in place. I thank you all for working so hard to preserve this land and water. Thank you (Morris). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Also, please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15. 63
COMMENT 164: Hi. I own two homes here and I'm in the process of purchasing a third property. What drew me to this area was the clean water and air, quiet roads, and landscape. And I agree with our town's Comprehensive Plan and I support the prohibition of heavy industry in the Town of Tusten. Thank you to the Zoning Rewrite Committee for including Article 14 in the zoning law. I encourage you to keep it in. Fear of being sued is not a legitimate reason for deleting it. And deleting it exposes our town to much more serious danger. Thank you (Spangler). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Also, please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 165: Hello. I am the vice president of the Weiden Lake Property Owners Association, for the record. The Weiden Lake Property Owners Association applauds the Town of Tusten, the Tusten Town Board, the Tusten Zoning Board and residents for exhaustive work on the proposed new zone laws. In particular, the Weiden Lake Property Owners Association supports the inclusion of Article 14 explicitly prohibited uses. We noted the inclusion in the following Article 14. No. 1: Promote the health, safety and welfare of the town, its present and future inhabitants, by protecting them from adverse public nuisance and/or land impacts and effects that could result if the prohibited uses described in this section were allowed to be conducted within the town. No. 2: Protect the town's principal and unique character. No. 3: Protect the town's irreparable historic, recreation, tourism sites, water quality air quality, scenic or other natural resources. These protections are a cornerstone for any responsible zoning process. It would be impossible for the Town of Tusten to offer these protections without the prohibition of heavy industrial activities and the use of toxic substances. We find Article 14 consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan for the preservation of quality of life associated with the unique rural and historic character of the town, and in consistent with New York State Environmental Conservation Law. Part of the process of updating zoning laws is take inventory of the town's assets and to identify current or future threats to those asset and its citizens. In reference to the listed prohibited uses, Article 14.4 recognizes that any condition caused or permitted to exist in a violation of Article 14.4 is a threat to public health, safety and welfare. We believe that Article 14 recognizes those threats and it is the obligation of the township to protect the people from them. In 2008 the Weiden Lake Property Owners Association became aware of a violation of our protective covenants. The covenants were designed to protect the people and the assets of our lake community. This violation involved prohibited commercial activity, activity that would be considered heavy industrial use. The Weiden Lake Board of Directors chose to seek relief from the courts knowing that it was imperative to protect the community and its members. Although a favorable outcome is never certain, the board recognized its obligation to protect the community and eventually prevailed. We encourage the town of Tusten, its counsel and Zoning Board to do the same. Thank you (Fisher). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Also, please see responses to COMMENTS 1, and 15.
64
COMMENT 166: Good evening. I live on which is one of the most southern parts of the Town of Tusten, an absolutely beautiful area. And for something a little bit different, Im someone that was born and grew up here and have lived here my whole life. So after listening to everybody talk, I'm almost feeling like an outsider here. It's a little strange. First of all, my concerns are a little bit different than everybody else's. I have a big mouth. It's okay. My concern is, to start with, is the RV regulation. Now, as you know, I'm an out - might not know. I'm an outdoorsy kind of person. I have a boat, I have a camper, I have all this. In the new regulation it says only one. Uh, that doesn't fly with me. I mean I live in a rural area. I love the outdoors. I want to have fun. You know, I like my toys. Why is it down to one? I'm concerned about that. That I don't understand. I have plenty of space to park everything. It's all put out of the way; it's not a big deal. The next thing is the dog change. You used to be able to have five dogs, which I have had for many years. And I'm not saying they're perfect. Dogs are never perfect. They have a way of getting trouble. But as time goes I have learned I have had to do things. We put in the invisible fence. They're wonderful. Right now we're down three. Now, I also transport dogs for the Eastern German Shorthair Pointer Club which means periodically I have extra dogs at the house. Now, they're only there for maybe a week or two, but still, under this rule I couldn't do that because now we down to only three dogs. This is a concern to me. I mean it seems like over regulating to me. I mean it almost seems like Washington DC. You have your big topics and then we throw in all these little topics under it. I don't wanted people to forget about all these other little topics that are underneath there. I'm not saying, you, know that you didn't think about it, but what I would like you to do is think about people that live outside of the Town of Narrowsburg. I mean there might need to be like a separate set of rules for those that live in town. I can understand five dogs in town that might be an issue; outside of town not so much. Okay? Signs. Where I live it would be nice to have a few more signs. You would not believe how many people stop at my house and want directions because there are no signs telling people where to go. And I'll tell you, some of them I'd like to tell where to go. It has not been enjoyable. So I would like that revisited also. It would be helpful, especially with the Boy Scout property. They don't know where to go up in there. There are no signs telling people where to go. That would be helpful. The last thing--storage containers. Well not the last thing. People don't get storage containers because they can afford to build sheds or outbuildings and stuff. They do it because of purpose. And ironic thing I just saw, when I came in here there's this storage building right back here. You know, one of those truck body things. And you want to regulate it, but that's got to be there for a reason, too. So that's another one of my concerns. The last one was a business. Believe it or not, I'm going to be retiring here soon and I'd like to set up and have a career. Okay? I would like to be able to have the luxury to do a home business I would hope that you wouldn't eliminate that, especially with the way the economy is. Thank you (Brodmerkel). RESPONSE: Please responses to COMMENTS 64, 81, 83, 84, 100, 113, and 119.
65
COMMENT 167: I'm a homeowner in the Town of Tusten. I'm pretty much against everything, but I do support the adoption of Article 14. And I'd like to submit in writing, on behalf of a group of homeowners where I live up on Hoffman Road. Not all of the homeowners but many of them are also in support of this. So we can submit those names to you at a later date I'd appreciate it. And that's all I have to say. Thank you (Bernaducci). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Also, please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 168: I addressed a number of concerns at the last Public Hearing and I want to just go over some more of the things. Mr. Brodmerkel mentioned the pods. In here you limit the amount of time to 72 hours or twice in a 30-day period. I mean I don't understand, then, how the Town has one sitting out here for months at a time. That just seems overburdening to me and flies in the face of common sense. When people go and get these pods in order to pack and move personal property for relocation purposes and do it as time avails themselves. That's why they go with one of these companies, namely Pods. Manufactured homes, I could not find a definition of a permanent foundation. Were you talking about a slab or were you talking about full foundation? I wasn't sure how that applies manufactured homes? I know when we put our first home in it was a manufactured home a double-wide, and it sat on concrete runners much like they do in Alaska. I'm not sure how the engineering process has changed in the last few years. I doubt that it's changed, but I'd like to know why it now needs to be on a full foundation like that. I don't understand that at all. Article 11 (7) (3), Rules of Evidence. I think that unless -- this just struck me as being really off the mark. Unless otherwise provided by any statute, the ZBA will not observe the rules of evidence observed by courts. That flies in the face of jurisprudence. I find that totally outrageous, totally outrageous, and unjust and could lead to further litigation, abuse of power by the people that are sitting on that board, an arbitrary application of the evidence that may be presented. It's just flat wrong. Next: Prohibited signs. Again, it almost seems like there's a movement here where we dont to have any business at all except for a centralized part here in town turning into a landscape much like 209 between Milford and Stroudsburg. I don't understand that, where there are not signs, rotating signs, no ribbons, no pennants, no streamers, revolving signs. What if you're starting a new business and you want to open it up and you want to advertise that? Couldn't do that. I just think that for the $21,000 you spent putting this document together it could have been done a whole lot differently rather than taking one document that was 54 pages and then developing something that's 207 (Hoffman). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 64, 65, 66, and 67.
COMMENT 169: Thank you. I'm a property owner and full-time resident in the Town of Tusten. I was born in Callicoon and raised in Eldred. My family has been here for four generations. For 28 years I had the honor teaching elementary students right here in Sullivan County. I love this area, and so do others. People have been coming here for generations. Why? To enjoy the country--the trees, the river, the hills, the wildlife, 66
the people, the tranquil way of life, and the peace and quiet. The question is are they going to come when there is nothing but trucks and noise, drill pads and foul water? I doubt it. We have a obligation to protect the land which is our home and to maintain its pristine beauty for the sake of the current industries that sustain us. Our way of life is in jeopardy. Some are willing to exchange our real wealth, our healthy and beautiful environment, our clean water and air for some short term financial gain. They are willing to sell out this very land that feeds us, to turn fields into open pits of chemicals, to have our roads overused and ruined, to have our way of life forever degraded. Last spring I spent a day in Dingham, Pennsylvania to see for myself the validity of some pros and con claims being made. What I saw brought tears to my eyes, thinking that the land I love so much could come to this end. I am thankful for the hard work that the Zoning Committee has done. I believe the document they have created represents our interest as indicated by our town wide survey and the development of the Comprehensive Plan. Protections represented in Article 14 are of particular importance and I urge you not to delay in their inclusion. We need to take a stand to protect our way of life right now before its too late (Bidwell). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Also, please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 170: Hello. I'm a property owner in Narrowsburg. My wife is here full-time. I am not really up to speed on the entire Article 14 of the zoning, but what I'd like to say that in terms of the heavy industrial use and the truck traffic through the town, I think that knowing what we know about the responsibility that big energy and industry in general takes as far as living up to their responsibilities in damages done, and what we know and what we don't know about what's contained in fracking fluid which at any time could spill, I think that Article 14 should be passed and I think that we should not really worry about lawsuits at this time. Thank you (Morse). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 171: Hello. I'm here to voice my support for Article 14. I've seen actual [drilling activity] from further upstate New York. Enter Dr. Anthony Ingrafia and You Tube, you can see this information. It shows that gas companies want to drill every available square mile to maximize profits. All they need is 60 percent of every land unit which equals a square mile which potentially diminishes our rights to further 40 percent. We need to have the ability to either hault this high density drilling, or if drilling comes to the region, to limit where drilling can be done safely and be contained. There was a Rasmussen poll on hydraulic gas drilling that was completed in the last few days and it shows that 70 percent of Sullivan County residents are opposed to hydraulic gas drilling. The New York Farm Bureau newsletter had an article on wind turbines on leased farm land in Pennsylvania. It showed a successful use of sharing farmland with clean energy production benefiting the large landowner with generous gas leases, generous leases and payments. This is an option that should be explored. Thank you for your hard work (London). 67
RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 172: Good evening everybodyand I did provide comments last time. I am in support of keeping Article 14 intact. I do have a couple other critiques, though, for the Zoning Rewrite board. I do feel that in looking at the electronic copy that it was kind of difficult to navigate through the document itself and that to jump around between sections and see how it flowed. I think that since it's a digital document, by having some kind of navigational panel, you know, that kind of expands, a table of contents, maybe having a summary that kind of explains what each article references and things like that. So those are technical things about the actual navigation of the document. I encourage everybody to read through the document. Article 14 is a big issue here tonight, but there is a lot of other things that could be clarified in it. The other point I would like to make is more to the Board directly. The Rewrite Committee, under Bill Pammer, has done a fantastic job really kind of bringing this issue and kind of bringing it to the public for comment. And my understanding is that it may be coming to you soon for a vote, and I hope that you guys keep the time line for the vote. If the Rewrite Committee does their job and brings things up, I think that you'll have a very representative document that represents the health, safety and welfare of the community itself. And you know, I urge you to not make this a political or election kind of issue by punting it for a future board to deal with. Thank you (Vertrees). RESPONSE: Comments noted. Also, please responses to COMMENTS 1, 5, 71, 72, and 116.
COMMENT 173: HelloI live in Cochecton but I have two businesses on Main Street. I just wanted to address some figures that I came across in a Department of Transportation study which I think are very important because there's a lot of dispute about whether the water will be poisoned or the environment, but I think there are certain indisputable facts concerning gas drilling that would cause the Board to include Article 14. As a business owner I've noticed you cannot survive as a business based on the number of people who live in a five mile radius. We're not an island. We depend on people to come from Livingston Manor, from New Jersey, from Philadelphia to support us. Now, truck traffic in this study shows that each well, one well, will require up to 145 trucks per well to drill it and then 1,150 trucks per well to frack it, and that 1,150 trucks will occur over a period of three days. That's one well. That's an indisputable mathematical fact. There's no dispute about that. Now, what they're showing is that the industry suggested drillers will have a string of well sites to be developed served by local routes. Simply put, they're build the first pad, then initiate drilling of two wells on that pad. At the same time they're initiate construction of the second well site. Eventually, they'll be constructing well sites, drilling, fracking and trucking waste simultaneously from a number of gas sites served by the same local road. If the first two wells on each pad prove fruitful they'll return to drilling, frack an additional four wells. That doesn't include refracking over a period of time. The scale of impact will depend on the number of wells served by a road, and thus, likely to be larger where multiple wells use common routes simultaneously in sequence or both. Thus, it is likely that the largest operational impacts are found not in the area of the gas wells 68
themselves, but downstream where trucks from multiple wells in a larger area converge on common routes, the water supply sites, equipment, material staging or the like. That's the bridge right over there, and theyre all going to be coming from Pennsylvania. Okay? If you have ten sites with two wells each, just ten, that is between -- that's 23,000 trucks. Okay? If they drill the additional four wells, this is indisputable, its 69,000 trucks coming over that bridge. We're all finished. No one will come here; no one will leave their houses. Okay. Well, that's my point. I hope I've made it--that we should consider the indisputable facts in determining what's good for the whole community (Solomon). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 174: I live and work in this wonderful town. I want to thank the members of the Zoning Board for their tireless efforts in drafting the zoning ordinances for Tusten. And additionally, I applaud the council and supervisor for your dedication and time and effort in serving our community during the most difficult period of change and transition I'd like to give you a quote. "A defining characteristic of our age is the realization that our planet's resources are finite and that our culture is struggling with this realization. We should also recognize that the limited resources of our physical world in no way curtail our ability to integrate sound principals of sustainability as we plan our communities and enhance our understanding of the earth's resources and ecological systems." This very eloquent statement begins the executive summary to the Town of Tusten's Conservation Council's goals. It's a statement worthy of taking to heart. The voice of our community was heard and made manifest in the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2007, which states, in part: We see our community growing in a balanced, diverse manner that protects its rural character by building on our strength and historic roots. It's in support of the Comprehensive Plan and the vision of the Conservation Council that I ask this council to adopt the new zoning regulations inclusive of Section 14 in its entirety. Except, you might want to take a look at that dog thing (Morgan Lohr). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 175: Good evening. I am the owner of Eagle's Nest Estates and other acreage in town. Actually, I have just questions, actually. What happens after this meeting? Does the Town Board decide what happens or does it go on a ballot on a public question? Okay. All right. The other one is that I understand there are two towns in New York who zoned out the gas and are being sued by the gas company at the present time. We all know that the gas companies have deep pockets and litigation could go on for a long time, and the town taxpayers are going to have to pay the lawsuit. Now, would it not be to our advantage to see what happens with these two towns and take a look see? 69
Because I' not talking about the any second homeowners in town, but I'm talking about the people that live here and trying to make a living and working for people and so forth. They're hurting. There's 16 percent unemployment in Sullivan County at the present time. And if you have to pay the lawyers to fight this thing to court, through the taxpayers, it's going to cost a lot of money. It may pay to see what happens with these towns that are being at the present time. Thank you (Weigers). RESPONSE: Adoption of new zoning and amendments to zoning do not require a public referendum; they are adopted by the Town Board when the public comment period concludes and the zoning rewrite committee submits their recommendations and the new zoning document to the Town Board for approval. Also please see COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 176: Before the time...starts, this is the first I heard thatyou folks areevaluating the Dryden and the Middlefield lawsuits. Within this room I am uniquely qualified to speak to every aspect of those suitsI am *also+ uniquely qualifiedto speak to issues such as what kind of lawyers, what kind of law firms from around the country have volunteered to defend those suits. I'm uniquely qualified because in many cases they've contacted us directly. Okay? I've been a lawyer for over 30 years. I've worked on many projects. The second thing I ever worked on was a $2.2 billion dollar transaction for an oil company. More recently, I've spent more than 1,000 hours on what New York communities can do to protect themselves from the harmful effects of industrial style gas drilling. My conclusion, what some would call my bias, is that I believe that communities cannot rely on Albany to put the interest and the safety of people first ahead of the interest of the politically powerful gas drilling industry. So how can you tell when someone's advise is or isn't worth taking? I don't think it makes sense to judge them, the quality of the advice, by what the person wears or how much they charge. You can start with what some lawyers call the smell test. Here are two things that don't pass the smell test. When the gas industry tells you that there is no need to enact any kind of protective law because they have no interest in coming to your town but they pay a lawyer to tell you he will sue you if you don't let them in to your town, that doesn't pass the smell test. When Governor Cuomo promises to make fracking industry decisions based on science and not on politics but both he and his DEC proclaim that fracking is not safe enough for the people who live in New York City or its watershed but is safe enough for the people whose votes the governor doesn't need, that doesn't pass the smell test. So here's my free advice about this, and I think it does pass the smell test. Given where this town finds itself mere months before the DEC will begin issuing drilling permits, the Town should ask its paid lawyer the following two questions, just two questions, and be guided by his answers. But, before pose these two questions I want to point out three facts, and I really hope the public, as well as these committees, will keep these facts in mind. Fact Onethe largest law firm in upstate New York, very publically agrees that the Court of Appeals will uphold a town's right to use land use laws to ban drillingPoint 2: Listen to this one, people. Whiteman, Osterman, and Hanna, the law firm of the lawyer that this committee is using as special counsel to guide it through this process, very publically 70
agrees with this analysis. That you can applaud for. Point 3: Michael Kenneally, Associate Counsel for the Association of Towns, also agrees. Okay? Remember thatI understand thereare the questions about what could happen if Tusten passes this law without waiting for the two years it will likely take the Court of Appeals to decide the matter in the Middlefield and Dryden cases. Questions have arisen suggesting that it could cost the Town $100,000 or maybe $150,000 if it has to defend this suit, this suit which thefirms I just mentioned to you all agree you'll win, including your own lawyer. So here's the first question I have for you. Please ask your town's lawyer this, the town's paid lawyer. What happens if Tusten does nothing and allows drilling in? Here's the question. Is there any possible chance it will cost Tusten less than $150,000 once the industry comes in? That's Question 1. Question 2, ask the paid lawyer what happens if Tusten does not pass this law, passes a law but does not pass this law before the DEC begins issuing drilling permits, and if the issuance of the DEC drilling permits results in the establishment of what the lawyers call vested rights. Here's the question for the lawyer: Is there any possible way that the Town will be better off waiting until after *DEC+ permitting *begins+ to pass this law? If the answer is yes, get it in writing. Thank you (Slottje). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Also, please see responses to COMMENT 148.
COMMENT 177: Okay. I want to speak in favor of maintaining Article 14 with its details. It's very important, and I think it is one of the main activities that the Zoning Committee, though there are many other things and I'm in favor of many of the things you've done, butone that is difficult for you. It's difficult for all of us, and it represents asituation in which heavy industry of any kind, if it were of the scope of gas drilling, is basically an incompatible use. I bought my house here because of the river. Before I bought it I lived all around the area renting, and thinking about whether this was a good place to invest the amount you need to buy a house, to pay taxes, to participate in the life of the community. A fact, an indisputable fact is that this [area] is a scenically preserved federal river. In a way, I feel like I am speaking for that river-- the river doesn't speak, but it a very major stakeholder in our whole area and community. I looked at the brochure that, or the information that [is about the] the river and all. I just want to read one of the things from it which I feel incumbent on myself as a citizen on the shore of this river. "One of the most important provisions of the Act of Section 7," that's what set up these preserved rivers, "protects the free flowing condition and other values of designated rivers from the harmful effects of project proposals within the river's beds or banks." The supervisor spoke here at the last hearing, but I think that we haven't heard enough about that. I think I've made that clear and many people realize that, too. One other thing I want to say. I am a consumer in this area. I consume the service and everything that goes with owing a house and with enjoying the river, and I would like to see those protected, not just for myself but there are hundreds of us. So this will protect us (Williams). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15. 71
COMMENT 178: Members of the Tusten Town BoardI live and work in Narrowsburg, New York. As a resident of Narrowsburg I'm here to ask you to vote in the zoning created by the rewrite commission, including the provisions prohibiting heavy industry in our township. The work that the Rewrite Committee has done over many months has been extensive and greatly appreciated by all. I choose to live here for the quality of life that includes clean air and water. My experience is visiting places like Dimmock and Bradford County where drilling is going full force have included becoming sickened by the noxious air; getting almost sideswiped by a water truck coming around a corner at a dangerous speed as it headed toward a nearby drilling pad; and meeting people whose water supplies are tainted and whose home values have dropped by 90 percent, forcing them to stay in an untenable situation. I don't what that for the people here. That is not living. That is a sacrifice of the many for the enrichment of a few. Please vote in the Zoning Rewrite and please do not discard Article 14. Thank you (Seldin). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 179: We live in the Town of Highland, and we believe that the inclusion of Article 14 represents the express desires of a decided majority of your town residents because I've been in touch with a lot of them. Ordinarily, I would never come to another town board meeting and speak my peace, but this is not an ordinary circumstance. This is an extraordinary issue and an extraordinary threat. Tusten can't contain the damage that will be done to the Delaware watershed if this area is industrialized. So we are all stakeholders, all of us, who breathe air and drink water and cherish our peace and quiet and our historical heritage and the exceptional beauty of this area. Once lost, those things cannot be regained. So we are all affected by the decisions of each of our river towns. All of our towns are facing this dilemma and these decisions. There are compelling reasons to get this law on the books and not wait until the outcome for Dryden. The DEC has implicitly recognized in its draft the rights of towns to assert their zoning regulations so it's really important to get this on the books. Tusten has a chance to lead the way for all of us on that. I just want to say five or ten or twenty years from now, we're all going to want to have stood up and been on the right side of this issue. We are not going to be happy saying: Well, we could have done something but we were afraid. So I want to thank you for indulging the comments of neighbors who care deeply about our river valley and the people who live here, and we wish the Town Board and Zoning Board and the people of Tusten all the best in their endeavors to deal with this extraordinary threat to our way of life. Thank you (Roig). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 180: We are residents at 38 Erie Avenue, Narrowsburg for 11 years, and we have lived right across the river in Damascus Township for 25 years. I must have to say that I'm very unhappy with what's happening in Damascus. And I like everything that I heard here, or mostly everything, tonight and the night before. And I'm proud of everybody here 72
for coming out and really telling us, you know. I couldnt say all of these things, but to hear them was just great. And I also want to thank this committee and also the hard work that the Zoning Board, the Planning Board, the Town Board is putting in and making this town what it is. And I love it here. I do have to say I live on 38 Erie so Im little worried about this becoming a main street. And perhaps somebody could explain what this is really going to mean. More trucks? You know, we already have a lot from Narrowsburg Lumber. So I hope it's not going to mean really that our dear Erie Avenue is going to become whatever. Needless to say, I'm not in favor of industrialization of this area or Sullivan County. It's too late for Damascus (Schneider and Ritcher). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 181: Hi. Thank you for letting me speak. I reside in Narrowsburg and I own a business on Main Street for five years, which makes me a stakeholder. Also love this area. I'm asking the Board and the Committee to keep Article 14. Please prohibit high impact industrial use as it will destroy our businesses, but most importantly, the environment and it will poison us, all of us who love this area. Thank you (Bern). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 182: HiI grew up in the Catskills. I swam the streams, the lakes, I went fishing, I climbed the mountains, I ate the corn. I moved to New York City for 20 years and then I decided to buy property in Narrowsburg. I told my friends the last thing I need to worry about here is Walmart. Now I got to worry about gas drilling. Okay? I live in Luxton Lake. I'm on the board of directors. I've been working on and preserving the history and the beautification of that area. Im surrounded by hunting land, I'm surrounded by the Boy Scouts and the Tusten Ten Mile River flows through my property. Charles Petershein is here, too. He just built a big development up on the hill, all new houses, and beautiful houses. All these New York City people have just bought these houses. And the hunting club down the road is thinking about signing a lease. You know what they said to the Luxton Lake property owners? If we get the money from signing that lease we'll bring back Luxton Lake. Great. It'll be a polluted lake. I have lost at least six projects in the past year. I do design and restoration on old farmhouses in this area, mostly New York City vacation homeowners. They don't want to invest any more money in their houses or the area because they're afraid of gas drilling. So I support Article 14 staying in place. I also advise the future Zoning Board not to let someone on the Zoning Board that has been dumping toxic waste in lakes in the area. Thank you (Stanley). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 183: Hello folks. Thank you very much. My name is Jane Morgan Puett. Thanks for allowing me to [share] some comments. I live and work on both sides of the river. I live over in Damascus Township. I work and live also in Narrowsburg. I'm a new business owner. 73
And I'm also an artist, a designer, a teacher, and most importantly, I'm a mother, all of which makes me not only a stakeholder, but a cultural producer in these parts. And I want to stand up for the arts and the culture in these parts. I am proud to be a part of this community. I feel very strongly that I'm a stakeholder, and I resented the remarks in the past days that were published and spoken. This culture in Narrowsburg is smart, strong and it's growing, and I'm proud to be a part of that culture, and I would reckon that makes me a stakeholder. I simply want to plead with you to keep Article 14 intact and any other article that protects this environment, protects the businesses that I'm also a consumer of, protects, most importantly, protects our children in this community, and further importantly, this culture. Further, please consider the millions of minutes PHOPB AOU man see sees around us I also speak nonhuman species around us. I also speak for the river. Thank you for those of you who have been standing up those other beings that we sit, stand, walk, swim, boat on side by side throughout these lives, and no one speaks for them. They are also stakeholders. So let's be democratic about it, about these important decisions. Make note of the recent polls. Thank you very much who brought those numbers up. I'm a part of that 70 part. I'm proud to be a part of this 70 percent who is speaking tonight. We human and nonhuman don't want fracking or any other polluting and heavy industry that threatens our quality of water, threatens our quality of air, our land, our life, our culture. Please. Thank very much. And thank you for all your work. And I say damn, it takes courage. Do the right thing. Thank you (Morgan Puett). RESPONSE: Comment noted. Please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 184: HelloI live and work in Narrowsburg. I'd like to thank the Zoning Rewrite Committee for its months of hard work addressing issues most important to our community and for adhering to the vision set out in the Comprehensive Plan. Article 14 is critically important for maintaining jobs and bringing new s to the area. Without any protective zoning against heavy industry such as gas drilling many primary and secondary homeowners will lave town and take their businesses with them. I personally know people who have deferred construction and renovation projects until they know the outcome of this debate, and there are certainly others who have opted not to come to our area all due to growing awareness of this threat to our environment. Our future lies in the natural and cultural resources that we have here already and the light industries that we hope to attract in the future. Let's protect them. Please keep Article 14 (Phillips). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 185: I live in Lava. I'm here to speak in favor of keeping in Article 14 in its entirety. There's almost nothing I can add to the many points people have made except for the general one, which that historically, ever since industrial use arrived on this planet people have been moving their living away from it. People moved out of the cities into the suburbs, into the country. That's history. If you want to try geography, go look at the Meadowlands. Nobody lives there. So why would we even consider allowing industry 74
to come into our town. It should be the other way around. Obviously, I am a new resident of the town by comparison, but I would to like support Stanley in everything he has said. I point out to where I came from originally, there was this idea that birth right gave you a stronger voice. It was called royalty. In 1776 it was thrown out of the Town of Tusten, quite rightly, too. And a final point is to back up something that has been said, which I was talking to somebody last night who said that 35 years ago this part of western Sullivan County was just sort of another destitute upstate bankrupt result area, and in the last 35 years it is totally improved (Cape). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15.
COMMENT 186: Good evening. I appeared at the last meeting and I did not speak, but something was bothering me when I left the meeting and that was the language in the handout which was considering a prohibition. And I see that language, considering the Article 14. I'd like to see something a lot stronger because I interpret that consideration to be a fence sitting. So since last week, I got a magazine in the mail from the New York State Association of Towns, and they did a very nice article. *It is entitled+ To What Extent Can Municipalities Regulate Natural Gas Operation?. I'd like everyone to have a copy of that. I'll hand that OkayI live in the town adjoining. We have a long common border. For more than 40 years I've been practicing law and engaged in legislative activities. In 1972 I was Director of Legislative Activities for the Town of Oyster Bay, second largest town in the state. Based upon all these years of watching and sitting and listening to different ordinances, I'm sharing with you that it's unquestionable in my mind that land use control is vested in towns. We do have the right to zone. We can do this. This is not even a question in my mind. That's what zoning has been historically, that's what it is today. For my town -- and, I apologize for coming to another town to speak. I didn't like it when your supervisor came to my town at a public hearing, or Lumberland hearing. So it's not tit for tat, but because we share this common boundary I do want to talk about this. But for my town, for my town, I do not wish to live in an industrial corporate colony so Im prepared to lead Highland in protecting our way of life to the greatest extent possible. But we in Tusten and Highland share a common border. We share aquifers, streams, roads and a great river. Every drop of Delaware River that comes through Barryville flows through your town first. So we're counting on you to protect the river. Don't spoil it for the down river users. The question is: Is litigation possible? I think litigation is possible on both sides of the issue equally well. So if you adopt it you may become engaged in litigation. And if you don't adopt it, Article 14, you end up with a bunch of environmental issues that you're going to have to litigate anyway. So you might as well be proactive because you'll be engaged one way or the other. So I'm urging you not to sit on the fence because I think all you'll get is splinters. I urge three things. Have courage, have courage, have courage. Thank you (Boyar). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15. COMMENT 148. 75 Also, please read the response to
COMMENT 187: Good evening. And Anie is right; we have probably invested more money in this town than anybody over the last two years. We generate more tax revenue income, property tax, school tax. I think it's to the tune of eight million dollars with of homes that we built since we discovered Weiden Lake and Luxton Lake areas. So we love Tusten. We're against gas drilling but it doesn't mean we agree with some of the ideas that are being bandied about. I think if anybody attended the Lumberland meetings you only had to go to the one in July where Mr. Slottje said no one disagrees that towns can ban gas drilling but gas attorneysLuckily I was there and it caught my attention. I did a little investigation. It turned out not to be true at all. Lots of people disagree that towns can ban gas drilling. Hopefully, I don't even think it's actually a great idea that towns can ban gas drilling because the Town of Tusten is going to a supervisor race. How much money are you spending? $1,000, $2,000, 3,000, 5,000. So to think that the gas companies can't take over the election process, the true electoral process by spending 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 to get 10 million dollars worth of gas is just, I think it's a very clever idea, I just don't think it's a very good. I think in the end home rule does --I think in the end the State will decide who can d gas drilling and who can't. I know it would be a good idea so we're not fighting for the next 25 generations of who should be able to drill for gas and who shouldn't and this doesn't become a generational sort of warfare every two years between the people of the community. Hopefully, the State will come down with some very good rules. I mean good rules to some people, meaning no gas drilling. Maybe that's the best rule maybe they come down with, maybe not. But to have this town fighting over gas drilling for the next 400 years I think is a terrible idea, based on electoral process and who has the most money to run for supervisor, who can overrule zoning. I just think it's a terrible idea. Building heights, 35 feet high is a great idea. Increasing the amount of land you can clear is a great idea. Twenty-five percent is way too low. And there was one other, but those are the two important to us as a builder (Petersheim). RESPONSE: Please see responses to COMMENTS 1 and 15. Also, please read responses to COMMENTS 19, 28, and 77.
COMMENT 188: Hi. I live here permanently, I vote here, I own land here. I must tell you, I have an apartment building in New York City where people who the apartments, we don't get this many people to come to a meeting. This is really impressive. It's one of the reasons I live here. The State of New York released something last week that most of you don't know about. Everybody in here who has a business uses the word "tough" to explain it. Last week the State of New York revealed that for the third consecutive year Sullivan County had the largest rate of increase in tourism of any county in the state. That's money. I mean we outpaced the State of New York, we outpaced all the ten counties around them, including Westchester. Of the ten counties in that area Sullivan's right in the middle. We're fifth. But when the State of New York lost 14 percent of its tourism, was down 14 percent, we were up five percent. When the State of New York was up 11 percent, 8 percent, we're up 10.7 percent over the previous year, and yet business is tough. Now imagine how much tougher it would be if we had all this stuff going on in our neighborhood. There's something you need to know. I'm 76
in public relations and I listen to advertising and public service stuff a lot. There's something you had to know about the gas and oil industry. The most commonly used word is predatory. That's what they do. 150 miles west of here is where the oil industry began in Pennsylvania. It's come full circle. For the last hundred and something years they've been picking the low lying fruit. They've run out of low lying fruit so now they're going to chop the tree down to get what they can out of it, and hat's us. We're the tree, and they're going to chop it down if we're not careful. The advertising for the gas and oil people, they use these really lovely people, these geologists and this woman who you'd let baby-sit your children. I mean wonderful people. But the new tagline is: Explore for oil and gas? Without question. Who the hell are they to tell us without question? We're all here questioning it. One more thing, and it comes from me not being from here so I'm always exploring. If you drive north on Route 97, right before you get to Callicoon on the left hand, the river side, there's this little cemetery that's on the corner of where the river takes a bend, and in there are buried 12 veterans of the Revolutionary War. Those are our ancestors. If they feared what the outcome would be we wouldn't be here. And I think we need to take a message from those people there that -- so what. Fear? If we all fear-- if we didn't do things because of fear none of us would have gotten up out of bed this morning. So I really encourage to keep 14 (Stafferi). RESPONSE: Please see response the COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 189: All right. I promise I'll be short and brief tonightI'm running for town councilman. I'm pro business, pro gas, pro America, pro clean water. You know, I've got a farm out in central Pennsylvania out in -- actually, I shouldn't say central, in northern Wayne County. We have a wind project we want to get started up there. And, you know, Americans at some point have got to be responsible for our own culture, for the sustainability of our culture. We've to a lot of renewable resources around us. When I go to meetings with Iberdrola Energy up in that area I hear the same thing about you're going to destroy our local ecosystem, you're going to kill thousands of birds, you're going to ruin the skyline, you're going to have blenders and all kind of sounds coming off your windmills. Well, what cleaner energy is there than air? Okay. We can't even agree on air. Now, I grew up on a farm across the river in Wayne County, Pennsylvania. The farm overlooked Narrowsburg. I'm a life lond resident here. My family's been here, you know, even before me I guess you want to say. But the bottom line is is that the best, the biggest stakeholders in this whole process are the landowners, the large landowners, the farmers. What better stakeholder is there than a farmer. How much purer can you get than a farmer? Okay? So now if a farmer who resisted the development age and didn't subdivide his property and is now eking out a living, and that's all they're doing is eking out a living, and a gas company comes along, they've got to proof to me that they can drill on my land safely. Okay? If they drill on my land here in Narrowsburg and ruin my water I can't live in my house. So we all have stake in the game. Nobody wants to drill in the middle of Narrowsburg on the flats. Thats ridiculous. There's a lot of large parcels of land out there that can reasonably be drilled on in a very legitimate way that's sustainable. And that's the end 77
of the game. How many more of our men and women in our service have to die for this country because we are shooting ourselves up every day with foreign oil? How many more people have to die? Why can't this country and the people within this country live in a sustainable way within our own energy? Don't use more than we produce. I mean I ask you. If somebody can answer that question then I'll jump on board and I'll say: Great, let's not drill for gas. But until somebody comes up with another way for this country to be able to keep our people free, our water clean, and our cars and our culture going then I am pro gas (Lang). RESPONSE: Please see response the COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 190: I just want to say thanks to Matt. Matt is here somewhere? You're talking about the number of trucks that are going to come. 1,200 per wellI'm Glen Goldstein from Narrowsburg, New York. I live there and I work there. I own a business there. I want to mention another fact we havent really talked about, which is noise. I met with the folks from Cabot which is one of the drilling companies and I asked them how this whole thing works. They said: Well, when we put the well in, it's not when we're fracking, we're actually installng it. We go 24 hours a day for 21 days, 24/7 for 21 days. I said: Okay. Well, what happens after that's. Well, we start another one, and another one and another one. I said: Well, how loud are we talking about here when you're installing a well? And the answer is 82 decibels when you're 50 feet away. I don't know what that means really, so I looked it up. This is a blender and this runs about 82 decibels. (Blender running.) Can you hear me in the back? This is what it's going to sound like when they're drilling the well next to your house 24 hours a day, seven days a week for 21 days, and then they install the next one, and the next one, and the next one. I don't want to have to listen to this all the time. If you think it's annoying now, wait until it's next to your house all the time. (The blender turned off.) It's one of those facts that we can argue about. I thank the Committee for including Article 14. I can tell you that as a small business person, you can sue anybody for anything. You don't need a reason, and so don't be scared of lawsuit. Theyre going to file everything and that's okay. My goal as a private citizen is to make this as unpleasant a town to do business in if you're a gas companyso move in that direction. Thank you so much for your time; I appreciate it (Goldstein). RESPONSE: Please see response the COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 191: I am a property holder here in Tusten. I am a resident of Tusten. I want to thank everybody for showing up and I want to thank the Zoning Board for the work theyve done. I want to thank so many people out there for their very insightful comments that they had to make. I thought they were some very good comments. I just want to bear in mind looking at it from standing back and looking at it. I just want to remind people that there are a lot of towns -- the country is in a certain place right now and there are a lot of places that have industry or were famous for their industry that aren't doing so good now. Some said we need to have industry in this town so we have something people can come back to, but you have a lo of towns all over the 78
country that at one time had been famous for their industry, and yet now they're famous for people not coming back to them. We have an area here where what we have is a longstanding industry. The tourism industry in Tusten, in this area has been around for a long time. It has receded somewhat, but as a speaker just said, it's coming back. I think it will come back as people stop flying all over on vacations or people can't drive or don't want to drive cross country. I noticed you have a lot of people who are coming here from not too far away to enjoy what this area already has to offer. Once we take away that's what's gone. You're talking about maybe an industry that's going to be around three years. Ten years would be too long if it's going to be around ten years. And either way, three years or ten years, with drilling and heavy industry I dont think anyone's going to be doing themselves any favors. It's just sort of a simple way to look at it. But what I want to say, as far as we're getting into complicated matters of the zoning, someone says I'm against get the zoning, I'm for it. You know, I'm against the zoning because of this or that. Some says it reminds me of Washington because, you know, everyone is talking about these little points. Yes, they're talking about these little points. Someone is complaining they can't drive their ATV or something like that. That just doesn't make any sense to me. Well, but, I think the industry that we have is here. I think it can improve. I don't think we need to destroy our area for the sake of some industry that isn't here and will do us no good. Thank you very much (Turner). RESPONSE: Please see response the COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 192: HelloI live in the Town of Cochecton. I have an office on Bridge Street where I run an advertising and graphics company. First of all, I'd like to thank the Rewrite Committee for working so hard to establish these fair guidelines to prohibit heavy industrial activity in the Town to Tusten and to protect the rural nature, scenic beauty, clean air, clean water and the area that we all love so much and we all share. The imaginary boundaries that we call towns and counties and states do not separate us from the impact of the decisions and the non-decisions of our neighbors. Your decision to keep, and implement, Article 14 of the proposed zoning provisions will help set an example and hopefully inspire other towns, like Cochecton, in the area and beyond to implement such provisions and protect their communities. A while back when I was just hearing about this thing called hydrofracking I had a conversation with my father. My father lives in Arkansas. And I was telling him about all people that are leasing their lands and there's this new process. Andhe's like: Oh, yeah... I know all about this. It's been going on in our state for a while. And hestarted telling me all these horror stories, and this was way before anybody really knew what was going on. And I'm like: Really? This sounds bad. And anyway, he went on for while, talking about how people had just literally walked away from farms because their water was polluted, the air was polluted, the noise from the pump stations and the truck traffic and the livestock was dying. It's an area very similar to this. Anyway, he went on for a while talking like that. Then he stopped and he said: You know, maybe you guys should consider selling you home while you can. And I mean that's how bad it is down there because they haven't been fighting it, and it's a real mess. Anyway, we love this 79
area, my family and I, and I wouldn't think of selling our house. And sowhen I talk to my father now I tell him about these meetings and how inspiring it is to come to these community meetings and to see these organizations that are popping that are fighting this thing, and he's kind of blown away. Hes like: Thank God somebody is standing up and maybe somebody down here will listen and maybe we'll be able to fight it on our end, as well. Because, we can live without gas. There are technologies out there that exist right now that are renewable sources. They could make money for this farmland, these farmlands, and these open fields. But we cannot live without clean water. Thank you (Brasseale). RESPONSE: Please see response the COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 193: Hiwe live in Narrowsburg, my family and I. And we've had a house here for 18 years and we've lived here for about three and half. I think -- well, I support keeping in Article 14. But I think part of it is that it's a concerted effort on the oil and gas companies to pit us against each other. We're all neighbors and it doesnt matter where we're from and how long we've lived here and how long your generations go back. We're all Americans, and we're all affected by the pollution. And, you know, my kids have told me: Whatever you do, keep this house. You know, we want to have -you have grandchildren, you want them running around in this area and in this house. And that's not going to happen if it ruined. And it's just very sad to me to see that people think that, you know, one set of people wants one thing and one set wants the other. We all want the same thing for our kids. We want them to be safe and healthy and not exposed to chemicals. And we've had personal experience with that here. We bought our house and they forgot to tell us it was down the street from a Super Fund site. So when we found that out it was cleaned up, but it was the Cortese Landfill and it was bad. You know, it was a lot of heavy traffic, truck traffic, and it was constant for months. And, you know, they weren't doing certain things. They weren't wetting their tires and so it was on our street and we had to keep the kids inside so we were escaping from the city to keep them inside in the country, and it wasn't right, you know. And this isn't right. And my sister lives in Liberty, PA, outside Wellsboro, and it really couldn't be a smaller town. It's a gas station and the convenience store. And she said she feels like she doesn't live in the country anymore. My sister lives in Pittsburgh. They banned it in Pittsburgh. And my aunt, property that she owns where we had a family reunion every year, it's a fracking site now. And you know, my sister brought her dog to check it out. The dog had hives for two days just from walking through there. And so its personal. You know, it's real. When people say, Well, that did happen in Dimmock but it's not going to happen here. You know, we teach our kids to look at facts and they're smarter than that. You know, everyones hurting now. It's not that some people, you know, are going to get rich and other people are going to get their clean land. We're all affected by it. And, you know, I just want to say look at the facts. And I've never heard anyone say there is a clean drilling site and that they've done it right and they followed the regulations (K. Grady).
80
RESPONSE: Please see response the COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 194: Good eveningI am a resident and property owner in Narrowsburg. I moved here after 9-11 with my family: My partner our two young children. When I had first moved here we had originally planned to open a restaurant and I had to go through and get a Special Use Permit. And I remember what it felt like--there was a lot involved in opening up a business and the things that I had go through. But I was really pleased with the integrity of the Planning and Zoning Board. I felt like they had the intention of keeping our community and our area pristine and I really appreciated that. My profession went a different route and I am very lucky to be able to teach at the Homestead. I just want to thank the Rewrite Committee for their exhaustive work and service and keeping the integrity of our town and for the sake of our children, for my children and the many children that live here, the future generations, our community. I implore you to please stay true to the Comprehensive Plan and to not remove Article 14 of the zoning proposal for the future well being of our community and our town. Thank you (Steakley). RESPONSE: Please see response the COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 195: HiMy family and I rent a house in Narrowsburg and we own land in Callicoon, New York. Most importantly, I am the mother of a five-year-old boy named Alec. He can't speak for himself so I'm here to speak for him and for his generation and for the next generation after that, and for the next generation after that. Before we had our son we looked for a very long time to find a place where we felt we could settle down. We chose this area because of the Delaware River, because of the abundance of clean water, because of the purity of the farms and the home grown feel of them. There are so many family run businesses here. And we chose it because he would actually have a childhood. He would have an innocent childhood where he could be in nature without the threat of traffic and pollution and everything that we left Brooklyn and elsewhere for. All of this is threatened by industrial use. Truck traffic, air and noise pollution, toxic chemistry that we can't see, we can't smell -- well, maybe we can smell it, we will smell it -- and everything else that industrial use is. This is a rural area. We are prone to flooding as we have seen. There's nothing the gas industry will do or could do that would prevent massive amounts of pollution. I thank you for including Article 14. I thank you for your time and I thank you for all soul searching you have to do to do this. I thank you for it. I beg you to keep it in. There is a movement in this country that is welling up right now as we speak. Finally, finally people are making their voices heard. All of these people tonight are making their voices heard, and I hope that you listen and I hope that you do the right thing (Ward). RESPONSE: Please see response the COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 196: Good eveningI do own a business here. For two years I was a part of the Master Comp Plan that was for Tusten. At the time we didn't know anything about gas drilling or it would have been in the Master Plan. But I'm here to tell you friends of mine who 81
work on Wall Street that l talk to a lotall say that the commodities are iffy that are being sold for gas drilling. And not only that, if you want one instance, look at Honesdale. When coal came, the water is still poisoned to this day and they cannot drink the water in Honesdale (Eurey). RESPONSE: Please see response the COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
COMMENT 197: Thank you very much, BillI'm from a place called Honesdale, and it's not even in this state, it's over in the other state over there in Pennsylvania. And as this gentleman just mentioned, you know, Honesdale has a little problem. But at any rate, I've been in solidarity with several cities over here: Highland, Lumberland and Tusten. It's heartfelt solidarity I can tell you because all of the comments, almost every comment that's made here tonight I have made in some form or other to the planning commission of Honesdale. And they are of the kind of more the attitude that they want to make gas drilling welcome and, you know, to feel very comfortable town as opposed to the other gentleman that just mentioned that we want to make it uncomfortable for gas drillers here. But there's a major point that Matt made. You know, Matt, about the truck traffic. I did a little film called Bradford County, U.S.A. I went to Bradford County and basically documented. Mostly it's about the trucks in this little town called Towanda. It's just overwhelmed with trucks. And this is a little town. It's kind of like Narrowsburg--very sweet, historic, wonderful town. There is air pollution there you feel it write in your throat as soon as you drive into town. And the thing is that the irritation in the throat goes away after a couple hours. It goes away. And that's what people will say: Oh, it goes away. Well, you know what? It doesn't go awayit means that my body has acclimated to that and it has gone into a sort of a subterranean thing in my body. It's gone into a respiratory pathological, you know, process. And eventually, over time, I would develop some sort of respiratory illness. Now, that's just, you know, I this film to you even though I made the film, just because of the traffic. If you're interested to see it I have a web site called Public Comment. It's called pubcomm.blogs.com. If you're taking notes you can go and see it. It's in the right-hand column of the web site. That's pubcomm.blogs.com. And another quick point if I have a minute more is that, you know, the idea of all of us being in solidarity is really wonderful. I think Carol made the point of several cities in solidarity, and even Honesdale and even other states. I mean the solidarity part of it is really our great power and it's like we are -- right now we just find out about this poll. We are the 70 percent. It's just like, you know, down on Wall Street, we are the 99 percent. Okay? But that's the key thing. And thank you very much for doing what you've done. Please keep Section 14. (Prettyman). RESPONSE: Please see response the COMMENTS 1, 4 and 15.
82

Town of Tusten - Public Comment and Response - Zoning Law

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Town of Tusten - Public Comment and Response - Zoning Law

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

APPENDIX 1 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (EAF) PACKET: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Please see the responses to Comments 1, 4, and 15.

S-ar putea să vă placă și