The town of Lysander received the petitions in favor of the Lamson Road Water District, Supervisor John Salisbury announced at the July 27 meeting of the town board.
Salisbury said he received the petitions earlier that day and said he would inform those who passed the petition that the deadline was July 31, even though the petitions had already been handed in. The board had also never previously set a deadline during prior discussions of the petitions.
“Tomorrow I will call the people who have passed the petitions to say that the deadline is July 31, but as I said we have already received them and as far as I know tonight at 5 p.m. I received the last list,” Salisbury said.
Town assessor Theresa Golden will begin the process of verifying the signatures on the petition by matching each signature and parcel to the tax map. She will calculate the assessed value of each property whose owner signed the petition.
The total assessed value of the signatories’ property must comprise 51 percent of the proposed district’s total assessed value in order for the town board to consider the petition and go forward in the process to create the district.
Cindy Todd, a resident of Dinglehole Road who has voiced her opposition throughout the petition process, reiterated her concerns about the way the petition was passed.
“At a previous board meeting I had expressed concern over the way the petition was being presented, that it was not being presented as you had specifically asked it to be presented. That was two different people, and one of them spoke themselves at one of the board meetings, and I heard it myself also at one of the Lamson Road sign-up. So I am wondering how is that going to be addressed by the board,” Todd said.
“Those comments can be made at the public hearing. If someone was misled they should bring it up at the public hearing,” town attorney Tony Rivizzigno said.
“So the board won’t take that into consideration?” Todd said.
“How can we?” Salisbury asked.
Todd suggested the town call the signatories to make sure they understood what they were signing.
“That is not part of the petition process,” Rivizzigno said. “We can’t call 500 people and ask them what they said and who said what. They need to come to the public hearing and make their comments to the board.”
Todd also expressed concerns that one of the petition leaders, Marty Ochsner, was the person who collected water samples used in the map, plan and report (MPR).
“Marty does not work for the town but yet the map, plan and report indicates that the town was the one that did the water sampling,” Todd said.
Councilor Andy Reeves admitted that the MPR may be inaccurate as to who actually collected the samples, but he said the town “cannot spend money or time gathering them or doing the samples,” so Ochsner volunteered to collect them.
Another Dinglehole Road resident, Scott Bogardus, questioned the fairness of the petition process, which does not consider the number of signatories on the petition, but the assessed value.
“One signature with a $1 million property is going to override a whole bunch of people that don’t want it. They don’t want to pay for this kind of thing and they are just out of luck,” Bogardus said.
“I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but that is the way the law is,” Rivizzigno said.
Bogardus asked when the town would hold a public hearing on the issue.
“We can’t even say a public hearing because if there are not enough signatures with assessed value, then there won’t be one,” Reeves said.
Board at odds over incentive zoning
While the recently revised Comprehensive Land Use Plan is meant to provide guidelines for development in the town of Lysander until the year 2050, town officials are already butting heads over the first applications for incentive zoning.
At a work session preceding the July 27 meeting, Councilor Bob Geraci expressed his reservations about a proposed incentive zoning project in the Whispering Oaks subdivision. Cabbage Patch Partners LLC wants to build a 37-lot subdivision under R-20, which allows residential development on 20,000-square-foot lots.
“It’s not acceptable to me,” Geraci said of the proposal. “Incentive zoning is a way for the town to get what it wants … there is nothing in this proposal that says we desperately want something.”
Geraci said the Whispering Oaks proposal does not specify what improvements the developer will make to improve the town as required under Chapter 139, Article 27, of the town code.
Article 27 deals with the transfer of development rights, which was essentially replaced by guidelines set out in the CLUP adopted by the town board in June.
Geraci said he wanted to see fewer homes and more consideration for green space and trees in incentive zoning applications so new developments resemble those in Radisson.
Reeves said too many trees can cause damage to roofs, so the decision to plant trees should be up to the individual homeowner, not the developer.
“If a guy wants trees in his yard, he puts them there,” Reeves said.
Salisbury noted that much of the land surrounding Whispering Oaks is unsuitable for farming, and Reeves estimated that 25 percent of the land between Dunham and Emerick roads is wetland.
Salisbury said having more residences in the Whispering Oaks Sewer District would reduce the burden of the cost on all of the residents there, which he considered a benefit to the town.
“It’s an ancillary benefit because it has nothing to do with Article 27,” Geraci said.
Reeves suggested the town push for development along the existing sewer line west of Route 690, which he said has a capacity of 150 homes. He said exhausting the sewer capacity in that area of town ultimately would lead to reduced development west of 690.
“Just because we have the capacity doesn’t mean we have to use it,” Geraci said, calling Reeves’ number of 150 homes a “moving target.”
Salisbury said the CLUP provides for ways that developers can help clean up the Seneca River as well.
He asked Geraci to compare the 37-lot Whispering Oaks proposal to Melvin Farm’s 447-lot proposal on the east side of Hayes Road, but Geraci said the two proposals were “apples and oranges.”
“What I’m getting is CLUP is not something you’re on board with,” Deputy Supervisor Melinda Shimer said.
“That’s the tail wagging the dog,” Geraci replied. “We don’t have a philosophical agreement on what we think Lysander should look like.”
Reeves warned that development could go unchecked on the west side of town. “It is going to happen and you’re not going to like what you see afterwards,” he said.
Councilor Roman Diamond said the way the town handles the first incentive zoning proposals will “set a precedent” for the way future proposals are handled.
Geraci said he was not against development in the town, but he is for “judicious” development.
Geraci also said he wanted to discuss incentive zoning at a regular town board meeting so the public has a better chance of being informed.
“I don’t want this conversation to be limited to a work session,” he said.
