Q: Is the ice skating rink going to be built?
A: No, not this year apparently. Camp Eastman land was not level enough to facilitate the ice rinks. I do not know if it's going to happen next year either.
3/3/10 MPN article on ice rink.
Q: Was Marty Piecuch fired?
A: No, he was not reappointed officially at a Town Board meeting, but he still had the job. He wanted to be officially reappointed, it didn't happen, he chose to leave. He has since been hired by
Q: Did Stephanie bring the campaign mailer like she said she would at the TB meeting in January? - see January 19th Town Board meeting.
A: No, she did not. - see February 23rd Town Board meeting.
Q: Does Mary Ellen Jones still want everyone who disagrees with her to go away?
A: Yes, she does. You are negative. Go away. If you don't, she will channel various residents who agree with her at public input and read letters from them. see February 23rd Town Board meeting.
Q: Does Georgetown, Texas really have a library with all of those wonderful things like rooms, more rooms, more books, a coffee shop, and a bistro/cafe?
A: Yes, they do. They also are a city and county seat of Williamson County, Texas with a (year 2000) population of 28,339 (city data lists it at 49,618 in 2008.) It's downtown is historic, and Georgetown has become known lately as the "Retirement Capital of Texas" - due mostly to it's warm climate year round, and for it's excellent medical care.
Georgetown Sales/Property tax rates:
Sales tax is 8.25%, effective October 1, 2005.
"The City's sales tax base is diverse, with revenues being generated by national retailers, building materials and utilities, etc. The heavy residential growth over the past few years has also created a demand for more restaurants and other retailers that have also expanded the City's tax base. Sales tax has increased over the past few years due to an increase in new retail developments within the City."
Total Combined Property Tax Rates for 2008 (per $100 taxable valuation) are $2.1362.
Mean prices (per city data) for Georgetown in 2008: All housing units: $227,736; Detached houses: $228,937; Townhouses or other attached units: $192,358; In 2-unit structures: $204,270; In 3-to-4-unit structures: $101,996; In 5-or-more-unit structures: $147,385; Mobile homes: $50,658
So, let's say you are a senior living in a townhouse in Georgetown. On average, you will be paying about $691 a year in property taxes in Georgetown Texas if you lived in a $192,358 home.
Mean prices (per city data) for Irondequoit in 2008: All housing units: $130,275; Detached houses: $127,378; Townhouses or other attached units: $195,069; In 2-unit structures: $237,517; In 3-to-4-unit structures: $246,613; In 5-or-more-unit structures: $102,713; Mobile homes: $137,500
So, let's say you are a senior living in a townhouse in Irondequoit. On average, you will be paying about $1,268 a year in property taxes in Irondequoit if you lived in a $195,069 home.
To compare, property tax rates only: The town of Irondequoit pays about $6.50 per $1000 valuation, and the city of Georgetown pays about $3.60 per $1000 valuation.
Let's see.....Georgetown is booming in development, their property taxes are half of what Irondequoit's are....of course they have a beautiful library. Link to info and history of Georgetown Public Library.
Here is a link to another site that goes into more detail about the funding behind all of Georgetown's remarkable buildings housing libraries and community centers etc.
If Irondequoit can build a 49,500 sf library without increasing the property tax rate any more than it already is - please do. Work that magic wand!
Q: Why do men have nipples?
A: Nobody really knows, but one popular theory is: (from this link.)
"Every human being gets a unique set of 23 pairs of chromosomes at conception. These fall into two categories.
One pair of chromosomes determines sex--the XX combination means you become female, the XY combination means you become male.
The other 22 pairs, the non-sex chromosomes (they're called autosomes), supply what we might call the standard equipment that all humans get. These 22 pairs constitute an all-purpose genetic blueprint that in effect is programmed for either maleness or femaleness by the sex chromosomes. The programming is done by the hormones secreted by the sex glands.
For example, the autosomes give you a voice box, while the sex hormones determine whether it's going to be a deep male voice or a high female voice. Similarly, the autosomes give you nipples, and the sex hormones determine whether said nipples are going to be functioning (in females) or not (in males)."
Q: Can we still have public input at the Planning Board Meetings regarding the Newport Project?
A: Apparently, no. The PB Attorney, Mr. Aureli, has declared that the PB has fulfilled their legal duty for public input. - see February 22nd PB Meeting.
Q: Did the applicant for the Newport Project answer any of the questions/ concerns that were raised at the January 25th PB meeting?
A: No, they did not. Not at the 2/22 meeting anyways.
Q: Do you know what the height of the condos are?
A: No, I do not. That question was not answered at the 2/22 meeting. At the January 25th PB meeting there were some residents who gave input about the Newport Project. ( I encourage you to view it, as there are some good points made by residents and some valid concerns.) After thoroughly dissecting the sign application from Allstate for 37 minutes and 19 seconds - they move into the Public Hearing. Aureli can be heard off mic speaking in hushed tones to the PB member to his right about "getting the Public Hearing over with" - and closing it - "that would be my recommendation to the board". If you turn your volume up, you can hear him whispering this. So - anyways, one input from a nice lady at around the 85:55 mark of the 1/25 meeting mentions the height of the buildings - she says she knows the townhouses are 31 ft. high, but then at the 86:58 mark of the video she asks "How high are the condos?" Andrew answers: "We're not exactly sure yet." Some shuffling of papers, and various murmurs later Andrew says the condos are 52 ft. but says that this question will be answered in a while.
At the Feb. PB meeting, Aureli presents the board with a 17 page proposed resolution that clearly states on page 13, Section VII - A. Building Height "Pursuant to Town Code Section 235-33(C)(4), the height of the proposed condominium buildings is established by the Planning Board at a maximum of 49.5 ft."
Now, when I go to the e-code site that shows Town Code, and I go to Section 235-33(C)(4) it says this: "(4) Maximum building heights for all other permitted principle uses specified in this section shall not exceed 45 feet, except where it has been determined by the Town Planning Board during the special use permit review and approval process that, based on a visual analysis of the site prepared and submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the Board, such building heights would interfere with identified scenic views or vistas or destroy the aesthetic integrity of the waterfront area. In such cases, the Town Planning Board shall be empowered to establish maximum principle building heights in order to protect the scenic views and vistas and the aesthetic character of waterfront areas in general."
So, even though the Chair has no clue what the height of the condos are, 52 ft is unacceptable as it doesn't follow the Town Code. Unless, the PB feels that this particular developer doesn't have to follow the Town Code - it had better be made perfectly clear what the height of those condo buildings are at the next meeting so the public is fully aware of how you handle your lead agency duties. Is it 49.5 ft? 53 ft? 52 ft? 45 ft? Just pick one and tell us why.
Over a half hour was dedicated to picking apart the friggin' color combination of a small sign on Titus avenue......at a previous PB meeting, over a half hour was dedicated to false testimony of a PB member regarding Newport road - but when someone asks what the height of the condo buildings are.....we can't find that out right then and there? It's dismissed with a "that will be answered in a while"? We can't spend a half hour discussing it or finding out what height they really are?
Weak!
The Newport Site Plan lists the condo units at 53 ft., at the bottom it lists the dates and revisions - the last revisions were 2/4/10 and it still lists 53 ft. as the height of the condos.
This is clearly in violation of Town Code Section 235-33(C)(4). The maximum height that condos can be is 49.5 ft. (as per the planning board attorney in his resolution proposal). RSM needs to revise the site plan to reflect that compliance to Town Code.
Q: Why is the Planning Board using the 1985 Town Master Plan for this development? - See bottom of page 16 of the PB Attorney's proposed resolution.
A: I have no friggin' clue why, in 2010 (or 2007 for that matter), we would be using a Master Plan from 25 years ago. Well, I have a clue....but....ya know. Ya can't just come out and accuse people of stuff that ya really can't prove. But, I will recommend that you directly ask one of the Planning Board members, and ask nicely for an answer right then and there. From the PB members.....not the attorney.
Q: What happens when you ask questions about the plan (that has changed since the last meeting) about consistency with the LWRP?
A: You will be accused of "finding darts" by the Chair if you ask questions. - see February 22nd PB Meeting. Even though, at the 12/21 PB meeting (Link.) The Chair had asked the new PB member if he has any comments regarding Newport -PB member brings up some concerns about public comments that he wanted some answers to regarding Density, Height, and application of applicable laws - specifically Alternate C calculations as it relates to the non-residential docks and/or marina. The Chair answers that the height issue is definitely something that is not directed in the EIS other than to say that "we" have control over that issue at the board when it comes to site plan review - he also says that it is open ended per review of the site plan and doesn't think they've locked any of it in stone. Fast forward to the 2/22 meeting, and "open ended" suddenly becomes "finding darts". Nice. All of this was after the 38 minute 48 second speech about guarantees for reconstructing a road that isn't in danger of immediate failure.
Q: I had public input that I wanted to do, but they did not offer me the chance at the PB meeting on 2/22. Can you put it on your blog?
A: Yes, I can. Thank you for sharing it. It's an excellent public input.
Q: Has the PB discussed the LWRP and IBHMP (Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and Irondequoit Bay Harbor Management Plan) thoroughly at the meetings?
A: To my knowledge, and in my opinion, no.
Q: Since the LWRP and IBHMP involves Penfield and Webster as well as Irondequoit, it is considered inter-community for any development on the fragile shores of our beautiful bay - why didn't the County do more review on this?
A: I don't really know. NYS General Municipal Law Section 239-M(4)( Link. Go to GMU and click on that) states:
Section 239-M(4). County planning agency or regional planning council review of
proposed actions; recommendation, report. (a) The county planning
agency or regional planning council shall review any proposed action
referred for inter-community or county-wide considerations, including
but not limited to those considerations identified in section two
hundred thirty-nine-l of this article. Such county planning agency or
regional planning council shall recommend approval, modification, or
disapproval, of the proposed action, or report that the proposed action
has no significant county-wide or inter-community impact.
Q: What is more important - making sure potential development is consistent with the LWRP & IBHMP, or making sure that Allstate has the appropriate shade of white on their sign?
A: Making sure that Allstate has the appropriate shade of white for their sign. - see January 25th PB meeting.
Two clips from the 2/22 Planning Board Meeting (the audio is barely audible, so you will have to turn your volume up), but it shows that they don't want any more public input, even after not answering the public questions about the height of the condo buildings - and it also shows how an intelligent PB member who is asking important questions is treated.
Q: Newport Road should be reconstructed because it's going to fall into the Bay. We have to protect our residents. Don't you care about them?
A: Of course I do. I also care about honesty, and truth. Labella retained Foundation Design, P.C. in Septemeber 2009, on behalf of the Town of Irondequoit to provide geotechnical services on Newport Road and the steep slope along the road. They did test borings on the road at 5 ft intervals from 10 ft. to 76 ft. deep. They concluded that the slope supports the roadway fairly well, and saw little evidence of erosion of the loose and highly erosive near surface sands. Some minor "remediation" on the slope can take care of any potential failures, and in general, the road is completely safe to drive on. It is not going to fall into the Bay if maintenance is performed on the slope to keep it stable.
In previous blogs, I also show other documents supporting that the road is fine, safe, and not in need of reconstruction. You can read them here, here, and here.
ROAD --Foundation Design Letter 9-09
Q: Did you open up the blog for comments?
A: Yes, I did. Can you folks behave yourselves? We shall see. I'm sure everyone will comment under the popular name anonymous, while whining that I am anonymous. It's still funny. Really, it is.
Q: Your blog sucks. Are there any other blogs about Irondequoit that I can read and comment on?
A: Yes, there are. My favorite is Oh, Irondequoit's blog. Another blog has popped up recently. In the interest of sharing different opinions and views, I encourage you to read it. It is called The Irondequoit Watch. Basically, it's the sequel to Irondequoit Blogger. Enjoy!
20 comments:
Very cool to be able to comment. It is liberating. Nice article.
Welcome back. You have been missed.
Why thank you. I'm glad that you took the time to stop by and leave the very first comment!
Unfortunately, I can't enable commenting for older blogs, so if there is anything you'd like to talk about that was covered in a previous blog, feel free to bring it up.
One other thing I wanted to note - MJD mentioned at the TB meeting that filling out the 2010 census is very important in determining the amount received from CDBG, because if the census finds that the population of Irondequoit has dropped below 50,000 - it negatively affects how much they receive in funding.
The population of Irondequoit (and most of Monroe County as it is) is declining steadily. Irondequoit could very well fall below 50k.
Can you imagine if the King'$ Pork plan had passed and the census determined that Irondequoit's population is below 50k......how would they have paid the lease? Some other programs would have suffered cuts because that money would have been going to out of state landlords on a lease!
I kept thinking about that when MJD mentioned the census and why it's so important to fill it out and send it in. Good thing the residents voted down the plan to lease.
Thank you @ 10:01! I appreciate the kindness. :)
Hey....are you related to 9:36? You guys have the same name....small world, eh?
Thanks for stopping by!
Welcome back. Happy to have your comments open.
About that fancy library in Texas: I didn't see the point of presenting the letter at the meeting. Irondequoit voters turned down the consolidation idea.
What makes sense for well-heeled retirees in Texas (who are themselves paying for the library they want now, for their own use) is irrelevant in Irondequoit, where the senior citizen population is dying out. They're being replaced by technology-literate young families with working parent(s)in a society that may be moving away from book-storage libraries.
Is it fair or reasonable to expect them to foot the bill for a $multi-million facility with bells and whistles for the use of a declining segment of the population? If that isn't the request she was making, then why take up time at the mike?
One has to wonder what the Town's motivation is to post resident comments about Newport on its website (some redacted and others not) despite the fact that Public Input has been closed. Can someone help me here?
Anonymous @ 9:58 a.m. -
Welcome!
I believe (older) Newport comments have been on the website for at least a year. As new ones come in, I think they are putting some of them up as they get them.
Since they have closed any more "face to face" public input at the PB meetings regarding the Newport application, they may just want to document any comments they receive on the website.
I see them claiming they are "open government" by documenting the e-mails and comments received - what I don't see is an answer to some of the questions that many residents have raised.
Liiiiike.....what is the height of the condos? Is the development consistent with the LWRP and IBHMP?
These are questions that were raised at the last Public Input, and the lawyer for RSM said that they would answer these questions at the next meeting, or in writing to the board.
I don't see an answer for the height of the condo buildings.
I think that's one of the easiest questions to answer....yet....nobody knows how high they are going to be.
RSM is frustrated that it's taken 3 years to get to here.
I'm frustrated that after 3 years - nobody can tell me the height of the condos.
Odd, isn't it?
Anonymous @ 3:47 a.m. -
Hello there! Welcome, and thanks for commenting!
I think the "point" of her mentioning it at the meeting (and probably every subsequent meeting hereafter) is to keep the bug in your ear about it.
MEJ and MG and the small group of people that agree with them want that consolidated library - and you had better want it too!
If you don't, then you are against progress.
I think that anyone who thinks Georgetown is better because of their library should progress to moving there if they like it so much.
Anyone who thinks closing two small buildings to open up one HUGE building with MORE services and MORE staff and MORE books - and in the same breath tells me that it will save money - is telling me a lie.
It will not save money. It will cost more money, and your taxes will be raised significantly to pay for it.
I don't think "right now" is a good time to be committing to that. Maybe in the future, but right now - no.
Alas! Welcome back, FOIL's ... it's nice to see that you are back up & running - AND with open commentary! (you brave soul, you)
As far as the last PB meeting, and the public input goes -
I feel that although it was certainly lawful for the attorney to advise the chair that it was up to him to allow public input, or not - I would have preferred he have been a bit more consistent with his advisement.
I would have favored that he also advise, and/or inform/remind the rest of the board (and the public) that the board members also reserve the right to make a motion, if they so choose - to vote (in this case, that public input be opened up) ... if in the event they disagree, of course.
Would it have happened? Who knows. But I feel that it could have been presented/disclosed as an option.
Just because the chair makes a decision, most definitely does mean that it is in stone. I feel that this option should have been also been disclosed at that time.
Consistency.
Again, FOIL's - welcome back ... you have been missed by many. ;-)
Ty k! I'm testing the shark infested waters of commenting.
So far, so great!
Thanks for your input, and you are absolutely right that a board member can make a motion to open public input - and that it should have been disclosed along with the fact that they have, legally, fulfilled their duties for public input and don't have to do any more if they don't want to.
"Communicate and Educate"...right?
By any chance....do you know what the height of the condos are?
It would be nice to know before "we" go approving things to "move forward"...dontcha think?
I'm late to the party. Welcome back foils!
The 10,000 dollar question - How tall are the condo buildings?????
I still can't believe that the planning board discussed not knowing the height of the buildings at the January meeting!?
That was bad enough after 3 years of discussion but then they promised the public discussion about all of these matters and that the developer would answer all of the questions that were put forth during public input and NOTHING - NADA AGAIN!
In an email response from the Chair to me he did say that the board knows the height of the buildings now. So I wrote back and said well the public doesn't, so how tall are they? He didn't write back.
But if you want an Allstate sign approved get ready for a grilling!
HUGE buildings on top of the Bay-crickets. Small little Allstate sign-pounding. Priceless!
Yes, it all makes sense. Ha. ;)
I seldom miss a meeting - and when I do, I always tape it anyway ... I like to review it, in addition to being there first hand ... lol - just in case I miss anything ... first round. :)
So, with that - to answer your question - No.
I do not know the determined height of the building - and, like you, nor can I get that question answered. I have *heard* that it has been confirmed ... but, I have yet to learn the disclosure it.
This blows my mind out my ears that the simple answer to this question had not been made public, yet action can be made.
Cheri -
Welcome!
I think it's funny that we know the paint number/color for an Allstate sign - that was discussed at length.
Height of condos on the Bay?
No idea.
We need guarantees to reconstruct a road that doesn't need to be reconstructed - but there are no definite answers to how tall the condo buildings are going to be.
Amazing.
Maybe we can call Robert Ewing in Albany to find out how tall the buildings are? Ya think?
Note to self:
Add that Robert Ewing, of Albany to the lunch list. ;-)
Maybe Robert Ewing would know the answer to building height.
Or we could politicize his commentary and make it a whole monologue twisted to what we want. ;)
On right, that's been done before. :)
The Newport Marine Club multi-unit condominium buildings are proposed/approved to be fifty-three (53) feet tall.
Woooo Foils!
The Planning Board Meetings that i've observed are actually quite entertaining. I find it funny how most of the board makes a big deal out of small issues, and that the issues that are actually important are overlooked!!! It doesn't make sense! The way they argue and belittle other members of the board is beyond me! I feel like there is no integrity within many of the members on the PB and that they lack any compassion towards our town. I'd like to thank Mitch Rowe for actually asking questions that are necessary and showing a concern for the larger issues! Can't wait to see what happens next month!
jetergirl - Welcome! Thanks for your comment, and I absolutely agree with you!
Anonymous @ 5:06 -
Thanks for your comment and welcome!
I don't know where you are getting this number from - 53 ft. is more than the town code allows for condominiums.
Mr. Aureli points out, in his 17 page proposal (that he gave to the board at the 2/22 meeting) that Town Code Section 235-33(C)(4)
says that condos can't be more than 49.5 ft. in height.
So....either the 53 ft. height is wrong, or the PB is allowing RSM to override the Town Code.
Link to proposal. On page 13, Section VII-A Building Heights.
Thanks for the link to the 17 page resolution link Foils.
I skimmed through, a couple of things that I'd like to comment on.
It states - Wheras all members of the Planning Board made comments on the Project,DELIBERATED AT LENGTH on the Application and visited the property;
Really? First off during this application it was discussed that there would be a scheduled site walk of the planning board.
Was there? NOPE!
Deliberated At Length?
Really, when was that? Other than nitpicking grammar in the DEIS/FEIS? Other than politicizing the road issue?
When was the deliberation about anything? The public didn't even find out how tall the condo buildings were? The developer wasn't accountable to answer anything. Even though every month the developer would say that those questions would be answered next meeting. SURE!
The LWRP and Bay Harbor Management Plan were NEVER even discussed!
Then there is this part-
(c) The project is reasonable and necessary.
Necessary? Really?
These are just a couple of things that hopped of the page in my less than 15 minute review.
The approval that will happen of this 17 page document is a travesty and the planning board hasn't deliberated at length.
Back in December PB Member Mitch Rowe brought up concerns he had and was told there was plenty of time to get to those concerns during site plan review.
Site plan review comes (Feb)and Mitch Rowe tries to ask relevant questions and is told he is firing darts!?!?!
((((((WHAT!?!?!))))))
Why doesn't this application require as much discussion/deliberation as sign colors, dumpster enclosures, landscape plans etc.
Much of this application is totally up to the planning board they are LEAD agency!
This project is INCOMPATIBLE with the policies of the LWRP even though this 17 page document says otherwise.
The public never got any answers and the planning board let the developer lead them by the nose.
Making them the "LED AGENCY!"
I think the charachterization of the Planning Board as the Led Agency is true. A 17 page resolution put in front of them at the meeting? It is difficult to accept the result under such circumstances.
Post a Comment