|
Home
News
Issues
Action
Calendar
DCC
Photos
Discussion
| |
March 13, 2000
Mr. Supervisor and Town Board Members:
The following comments have been prepared by the
organization called the Drumlins Concerned Citizens and are representative of
the views of this community organization. The organization consists of residents
of the Town and Village of Victor who reside in and around the area that is
known as the Drumlins.
We first would point out that in reviewing the
written minutes of the Victor Planning Board meeting held on February 29, 2000,
there are three omissions of discussions that took place that evening. We
believe their omissions are most likely an oversight, and since citizens do not
have the opportunity to speak at the planning board meeting until after the
minutes from the previous meeting are voted on for approval, we would like to
make certain that all parties involved with the operations of the town
government are aware that these minutes are incomplete and should be corrected
before being approved. The three discussions we mention are as follows.
- At the beginning of the meeting the planning
board chairman announced that he would entertain no resident's concerns on
the Drumlins project. We believe that the citizens were not allowed their
legal right to be heard. In any case, the announcement the planning board
chairman made is not in the minutes.
- The discussion which took place around the
date change of the public hearing from March 28 to March 21 is not
there.
- The complete transcription of the slide
presentation made by the Drumlins Concerned Citizens is not there.
Once again, we request that these omissions be
corrected before the minutes be approved.
We next question the justification and wisdom
concerning the decision to suspend the application that Pioneer Corporation has
submitted to construct an apartment complex on Rawson Road between Wellington
and Burlington. We feel the application should be denied for the following
reasons.
- The issue that has brought this project to
a halt is the fact that the Village of Victor cannot commit to accepting the
sewage from an apartment complex this size. It has been a known fact that
the village has been under a consent order from the New York State D.E.C.
for improper ammonia levels and that infiltration of the storm sewer water
into the waste sewer has been an ongoing problem for years. On September 28,
1999, planning board minutes show that Christie Hart, Planning Board
Chairman, requests that Jerry Goldman, council for the developer, obtain a
sewer capacity commitment letter from the village. Mr. Goldman never
received that letter. As a consequence, a sewer capacity commitment from the
village was never included in the formal application. When Mr. Goldman was
questioned about the sewer issue at the planning board meeting on February
29, Mr. Goldman states that the village is "prepared to go
forward". This was not a true statement and we feel it was said to
mislead our town planning board and thus the people of Victor. In light of
this clear misrepresentation to the town, the developer's application should
be denied.
- The sewer problem was explained in detail in a
letter dated January 18, 2000 by Richard Senges. The letter was sent to the
supervisor and read into town minutes. A letter to the editor from the
Drumlin Board president appeared in the Daily Messenger on December 20,
1999. This problem has been made known to all parties in various ways over
the past six months. And yet when we asked why this application was being
suspended, we were told that it was to be fair to the developer and they
needed time to resolve the problem with the village. The developer has had
at least six months to solve this problem. Why do they need more time?
- At the December 14, 1999 planning board
meeting several citizens politely asked the planning board to hold off until
March, the public hearing on this project. They were told the planning board
could not delay by scheduling a later public hearing due to a schedule they
had to keep and for legal reasons. Also, at the February 29, 2000 planning
board meeting a discussion was held regarding rescheduling the public
hearing on this proposal from March 28 to March 21. By the way, this
discussion is the one that currently does not appear in the draft minutes
from that meeting. The attorney representing the Drumlins Concerned
Citizens, upon informing the planning board he could not be present on March
21 was told it was too bad and that the planning board had a schedule that
it had to keep. It was only after the town attorney interceded that the
schedule was returned to the March 28 date. So our question is, why was the
planning board so rigid with a request by the citizen's attorney to maintain
the original schedule but now seems to be willing to be very flexible for
the developer? More time to fix the problem should not be allowed to the
developer because the planning board, in their own words, has legal issues
and a schedule to keep that cannot be changed. And we remind you, the
developer has had at least six months to rectify the problem.
- Hearsay has it that the town code requiring
basements was incorrectly applied for by the town to the State of New York.
The town forefathers wrote this code for a good reason. If the Drumlins
application is denied, the town can properly file with the state so that
these and other developers have to include basements in their projects just
as was required for all the past development. This is another good reason to
not have a suspended application slowing up the workings of our town
government.
In conclusion, we ask that the town reconsider
the decision to suspend this application. If the town does not agree with our
views and will continue with this suspension, we then request that it be for the
limited period of time of two weeks.
|
