Link to pdf. at Town website.
§91-4. Rules of Operation B does not specify that it is for Irondequoit Bay only - so I'm still unclear on that part.
Part A DOES limit the speed on Lake Ontario to 25 mph within 1,500 feet from shore along the contiguous border of Irondequoit - part B seems to limit the speed on Lake Ontario to 5 mph within 300 feet from shore all along the shoreline as well....even though the e-mail from the Supervisor made it seem like the only 5 mph speed limit on the Lake would be the "300 ft. zone".
I think Part B needs to be clarified to avoid any confusion.
Update 5/18: WHEC10 article on proposed law.
Here's what the "new" 300 ft. zone would look like:
FYI:
The Town cites Article 4, Part 1, § 46-a (Regulation of Vessels) of the NYS Navigation Law in the resolution - that law does not say anything about having a three quarters vote to pass, notice in 2 newspapers with 30 days notice of a Public Hearing, or anything about posting signs or things like that.
That part is in § 46 of the NYS Navigation Law - which the Town does not cite in their resolution.
Their resolution is titled § 91-1. “Ordinance for the Regulation of Vessels (not vessel regulation zone) on Irondequoit Bay and Lake Ontario abutting the Town of Irondequoit.”
I don't know if it's legal or not or if they have to follow § 46
or not, so.....I'm not sure on that. But, the Town Attorney has access
to the most current Laws of NYS - the NYS Laws site might not be the
most current or updated version - so when the boaters hire counsel for
their lawsuit, it will be something they can check into.
Just so you have an idea on the time frame of when the Board publicly mentions a resolution amending the Town Code for boating laws:
These are meeting minutes from a workshop meeting on March 14th - you can access past resolutions and meeting minutes (workshop and regular) at this link.
Anyways, the Supervisor "introduced her resolution amending the Town Code for Boats and Boating" - she goes on to explain that residents have contacted the Town to do something about trespassers and that they held a meeting in March with residents addressing safety and trespassing issues. States that a required Public Hearing will be held at April TB meeting about it. Discussion on reduction of speed - Marasco asks questions about speed and what agency will enforce new regulations. Lt. Tantalo said the MC Sheriffs will patrol area - said it was a collaborative effort.
These are meeting minutes from the regular Town Board meeting on March 20th, (you can access the minutes from the link above, or watch the meeting at this link.
Perticone makes the motion to adopt a resolution calling for the Public Hearing on revisions to the boating laws in Irondequoit - Marasco gives the second - and it's open for discussion - it was stated that the Town has been working with MCS, IPD, neighboring Towns and checked out the IBHMP - everyone is happy to move this issue forward - Supervisor reads the resolution and said it will be on the website along with pictures of what residents have faced. Motion was unanimously approved to hold a Public Hearing to amend the laws.
21 comments:
"Boaters against stricter boating laws in and around Irondequoit Bay To our favorite observer "Jax", a proposal shouldn't be rushed, that hasn't been properly researched, conflicts with the Bay Harbor Plan, and is bad for the local economy. We're actually surprised you're not asking for the process to be slowed down so that it is actually thoughtful, reasonable, and LEGAL."
Awww - thanks! You're my favorite too! *mwah*!
I did say that I thought the TB should have included everyone (boaters, residents, various boards etc.) in the "discussions" over the past two years they've supposedly been working on this law...and while I do agree with many of your points....I have to be honest:
At first I thought you were upset about your 'boater rights on the water' - but it turned into so much more.....especially the "they don't own the beach" and the constant harping on that....it made me realize that some of you (not all of you) really don't care about anyone else but yourselves.
The proposal was/is being rushed - I agree with you on that.
I think it's been properly researched.
I don't know what conflicts you're talking about with the Bay Harbor plan because nothing is changing on the Bay.
It might be bad for the local economy - I'm sure beer sales will be down significantly, and that will be something they'll have to deal with.
I don't think the process would be thoughtful or reasonable enough for some of you even if it took 3 years to discuss it. You (not "you" personally, but "you" in general) don't want the law against tethering - no amount of time would change your minds on that.
As far as being legal - I think it is. We'll see if it isn't when you challenge it in court I suppose.
There have been so many ugly rumors regarding this....
I think the reason it is being rushed has less to do with these rumors and more to do with summer is almost upon us.
I also think the compromise is better and more consistent than the original not that owners and their friends cannot tether as well.
I STILL maintain the town should have reached out to the sheriffs, coast guard and our own pd to enforce the laws that are currently there. (at least for a summer) I hate new laws that are made when they arent really enforced.
Also, WHY did this resolution have to be done at a seperate special meeting? Why couldnt it be done at the regular tb mtg?
I agree - a lot of ugly rumors, and a lot of ugly "suggestions" too.
It's been pretty harsh.
I think they did reach out to MCS, CG, and IPD for assistance in enforcing laws already on the books - but again, you can't enforce a law on the water that does not exist.
If there is no law against tethering.....then when it happens 1 time or 50 times a year - there is nothing that anyone can do about it. If there is a "new" law created for regulating tethering in that area - it can be addressed.
It can't be addressed right now without a new law.
I think you are right about it being rushed because summer is almost here - and I think the reason they are amending, discussing, and voting on it at a Special Meeting is because.....their next regular Town Board Meeting isn't until June 19th.....Memorial Day is next weekend - (Memorial Day is Monday, the 28th).
They probably want it approved before the first big "boating holiday".
But they just had a regular town board mtg 3 days ago
"But they just had a regular town board mtg 3 days ago"
....and at that meeting 3 days ago it was explained that they wouldn't be voting on it that night because of the absence of 1 TB member (Essley) - they would more than likely discuss, amend, and vote on it at the Special Town Board Workshop Meeting on the 21st. because (hopefully) the full Town Board will be in attendance at that meeting.
and that no one can make comments at.
"and that no one can make comments at"
....and that meeting isn't televised or recorded on video so the general public can watch it and get clarification of the new resolution.
But - the TB will say the time for public comment was at the public hearing for the original resolution - since they are not "adding anything to" the original resolution (they are "removing" one part and "lowering" the distance the zone would be at) - they can say that the have satisfied the public comment part of this issue.
Not that I entirely agree with it - but it's what they can do. And please don't blame the homeowners for it - it's the decision of the TB to do it this way.
You can always speak at public input during regular town board meetings - you can write letters to the Town, or to the D&C or Messenger Post Media - so you can still comment on it for eternity if you want.
medley--mall---town board--
boat laws---town board
U expect that group to git it right?
they git it right for one side and forgit about the other.
Guess it depends on each person's definition of "getting it right".
Just like the "glass half full/half empty" saying - I think it depends on whether you're pouring or drinking.
Ultimately - I think it's a safety issue that needs to be addressed - can't address a law that doesn't exist - need to make one to enforce it. I may disagree with the process and how they got to the point of making the law - but I agree with a tethering regulation....and I don't think anyone's navigational rights or fishing rights or swimming rights or "walk along the shoreline" rights are being infringed upon by the law....so....I'm ok with it.
Just like if the Town Board decided not to approve the zoning change from R 1 to R 7 on Titus Avenue - I would still be disappointed in the process so far...but would be happy with the end result of not approving the zoning change - because I feel that is the right thing to do. I'm sure the people who are for the zoning change disagree with me and think it isn't the right thing to do.
It's all perspective I guess.
I think the tb probably has heard what many people think regarding this proposed resolution BUT i think they are missing an opportunity. An opportunity to make more people aware of the resolution (whether it is passed or not) by having it at 4pm, on a monday, as a workshop.
As a town board, who states they are all about open govt and transparency, so what if they have to sit an extra 30 minutes to hear the people who elected them. (again)Since it will not be televised live, many people will not be aware of the new changes. Since boat owners dont have to take annual classes, how will they be informed? Will a letter go out to all boat owners in monroe county?Will signs be posted in the water?
They will also be discussing other matters...why not make this a special town board meeting instead of a workshop? The only difference between the 2 is that there is no comments or input or questions and it is not recorded.
So much for open and transparent govt, so much for always wanting to hear what the public has to say.
And I woud like to thank you, by the way...you have given us more information and more facts and clarification than this town board has. The supervisor has the opportunity in her weekly column to be able to talk about whatever she wants, unfortunately its never about information that the residents want to hear about. How sad that we have to get information from a blog. Again, thanks.
"They will also be discussing other matters...why not make this a special town board meeting instead of a workshop?"
I agree, and I wondered that myself before there was even talk about discussing and voting on the boating resolution.
They're discussing the PILOT for I Square - I'd like to see that. Since I work, I can't get there by 4 pm., and since it's not recorded - I won't know anything about it.
I don't like the new trend of doing important things at workshops where the public can't comment - they discussed this a while ago (I think it was Stephanie Aldersley) who said that they could do away with Public Input - or not show it live but let the residents get a copy of a DVD at the library etc. Here's the link to the blog about it, and here's the link to the workshop meeting minutes where the comments were made.
Technically - they do NOT have to allow public input at TB meetings....only Public Hearings. So - what little scraps of meat they throw the public for commenting - I guess that'll have to do. They really don't want public input - they think people are "negative" and that gives the Town a "bad rap" - it's not THEM that give the Town a bad rap - it's people who speak at public input. So - they do their thang at the workshops where nothing is recorded on video and no public gets to speak. That's the way they like doing things. If they didn't, they'd be more "open and transparent" and do it at regular meetings.
Thank you for the compliments - I don't think I did anything that anyone else couldn't have done...but it's nice to have some understanding of things - myself included. I learn right along with everyone else.
I hope we can all gain a better understanding in the future.
To the person who private messaged me earlier:
The resolution that was on the Town website when I went to look at it never stated that the Bay would be reduced to 20 mph.
Here is a link to the original proposal on the Town website that I saw (the original that proposed 450 ft.) - nowhere in that document does it say they were going to reduce the speed limit on the Bay to 20 mph.
It was clarified and explained at the Public Hearing (several times) that the speed on the Bay was not changing.
Here is a link to the April 17th TB meeting and Public Hearing.
The Public Hearing starts at around the :32:09 mark of the video (Supervisor reads "procedures" of Public Hearings, but she did not read the resolution prior to comments) - the first time the Supervisor explains it is at around the 00:41:17 mark of the video. She states it a few more times during the PH about the speed NOT being reduced to 20 mph for the Bay.
I don't know why someone told you that they had 20 mph in the resolution until they found out it was illegal....I don't know if it's illegal, but the resolution I saw never said they were reducing the speed on the Bay.
The e-code for Irondequoit Town Code does/did say 20 mph on the Bay - but that's because it was never updated to coincide with the NYS Law - and the Supervisor did explain that at the Public Hearing about the website not being updated.
So the Town Board passes a controversial law at a day time Workshop - pretty wimpy and spineless if you ask me.
This is what the TB was doing - they were amending the current Town Code on "Boats and Boating".
In the resolution, it states:
§ 91-1. Title.
This chapter shall be known as the “Ordinance for the Regulation of Vessels on Irondequoit Bay and Lake Ontario abutting the Town of Irondequoit.”
It also references the NYS Navigation Laws they are citing:
§§ 45 - Reckless operation of a vessel; speed,
45-aaa - Special provisions relating to speed on Irondequoit bay,
46-a - Regulations of vessels (2) "...the towns of Irondequoit,
Webster, and Penfield in the county of Monroe" - (which deals with the construction of boathouses, moorings, and docks within 1,500 ft. from shore...so I don't know why they cite this part (2) of the law when 46 a - a through e regulates tethering/anchoring etc.)
and 73-c - Penalties/Violations of the Navigation Law.
They do not cite in the resolution NYS Navigation Law § 46. Vessel regulation zone which mentions the "three quarters vote" and the posting of signs etc.
I don't know if this omission was on purpose, or an oversight, or something they can or can't do.....but it is interesting that since they are creating a "zone" that regulates speed and tethering/anchoring/drifting/mooring.....that this part of the NYS Navigation Law was not cited in the resolution.
I'm sure your lawyer could answer that for you when you file your lawsuit - I would suggest, however, that before you file that lawsuit, you make it clear to everyone that they should not attempt "retribution" in any form as that will not help your case - and will only prove the stereotypes about boaters that have surfaced.
Just a suggestion - you don't have to do it of course. It's just....if I was planning a lawsuit to fight an "unfair" ordinance - I would not contribute to the stigma attached to me and my group.
Correct me if I'm wrong on this one - the Town of Greece has an ordinance that regulates the speed of vessels to 5 mph 200 ft. from shore all along the contiguous border of the Town of Greece.
Greece Town Code, Chapter 65, Article II Boating, Lake Ontario Shoreline Speed Limit.....does Greece have signs and buoys saying "vessel speed regulation zone" at either end of their borders 200 ft out on the water and large ones on the shore?
Does Durand or Charlotte have giant signs on shore or buoys on the water announcing their regulations for their 500 ft zones?
I don't think they do. But, I could be wrong.
I'm just letting you know that the law you are citing about "three quarter vote" is not included in the resolution.
But, again, I'm sure your lawyer could clarify it for you all. If you are able to let me know - I would be interested in learning if this should have been included in the resolution and if it's legal to not have it in there.
Did anyone understand aldesley reasoning that she lived on lake property several places so waterfront should be restricted? what kind of thinking is it to compare public water to a street? Wouldn't the Lake be more like living next to a park parking lot or picnic area where the public parks and gathers. Seems like irondequoit would want a law banning parking in a parking lot in a park if the right people wanted that buffer zone from their house.
I don't know what you are referring to about Aldersley's statements - I could not view the meeting, and I wasn't in attendance - so I don't know what that is about.
I live across from a park - It's for the public to use - parking lots, tennis courts, basketball court, building rental for parties, little playground, soccer games - I knew moving in that there would be extra traffic and people at the park. I don't have a problem with that until it interferes with my safety or private property.
There are regulations for parking, regulations for the time the park is open to the public, regulations on alcohol to be within the building....tons of regulations for the use of a public park.
They can't trespass on my property, or stand on the sidewalk and drink or grill food, can't use my front yard to play in, can't sit on the street in front of my house and party.......they are contained in an area designated and controlled by the Town for such purposes.
I have to navigate the public streets and sidewalks to get to the park or my house - other houses are on that street, other members of the public besides the homeowners are on that street - I can't speed down the street, I can't block in driveways, I can't drink in my car on the way down the street, I can't block the street by pulling up alongside my friend's two cars to talk....there are rules and regulations in the public parks and on the navigable streets and sidewalks that the general public uses.
Since that area has a giant cement pier and public access through the public strip of beach to the public water where the general public could be swimming at any time - I believe that the area should be regulated.
You should have been able to view the discussion FOILS. Poor form by the Town Board handling the vote this way.
I agree it was poor form. If this meeting had to be held at 4pm for whatever reason they concocted, it should have been televised.
Most of us do not get to see the discussion. :(
Sick of TB's playing these games. I think it stinks that they can get away with it.
If you can't stand up, discuss and vote in front of your constituents, (thru being televised or a meeting hour that is decent) you shouldn't be sitting in those seats.
Have you seen the "fundraiser" posted on Rochester New York Boaters Lake Ontario Area's Facebook page? The picture they are using looks like a total misrepresentation of the issue of the ordinance, doesn't it? They wouldn't want to show an actual picture of the "problem" would they? Something isn't right with this, but I can't put my finger on it.
What's not right is the Town's process of ceding public property rights to private individuals.
What's not right is the Town intentionally circumventing laws meant to ensure thoughtful and appropriate planning decisions.
What's not right and not legal is the Town holding a public hearing and not allowing the public in the building. Irondequoit Officials allowed a public hearing to proceed after the Fire Marshal ordered citizens could not enter the building.
Anon. @ 5:05pm -
I saw the fundraiser, and it looks like they changed their picture.
Anon. @ 3:18pm -
"ceding public property rights to private individuals"
As far as I know, the beach is private. County says so by the fact that they put the fence and signs up....Town says so...Court says so by the fact that a homeowner was sued when someone fell on a rock that was partially in the water and on the sand. If it was public, then the homeowner wouldn't have been sued.
The water is still public. The general public can still swim, kayak, canoe, and navigate in a jetski or boat.
"intentionally circumventing laws meant to ensure thoughtful and appropriate planning decisions"
Then, sue them. Take 'em to court if they "intentionally circumvented laws".
"What's not right and not legal is the Town holding a public hearing and not allowing the public in the building. Irondequoit Officials allowed a public hearing to proceed after the Fire Marshal ordered citizens could not enter the building."
So, you are saying that they should have canceled the Public Hearing and announced a different venue to hold the Public Hearing at - so everyone could fit into the room?
You're saying it's illegal that they didn't do that?
Sue them. Take 'em to court.
It's your right to do that.
Post a Comment