Here is the link to the article in the D&C.
Here is the link to the pdf. of the letter they sent to Rose Harvey, Commissioner of the NYSOPRHP.
As I was reading and mentally noting all the inaccuracies of the letter (for instance, the lines they drew representing the zone (page 2) are totally inaccurate again - the yellow lines are about 500 ft. out along the pier and not 300 ft. 300 ft. out is approximately a little over halfway to the bend of the pier from the shore....but why let facts get in the way of your agenda....really.....)
Anyways, I happened upon page 11 - where there is a photo of a sign that says "Private Property Stay Behind Fence".
Under the picture the person wrote "Image: No Trespassing Signage Place by Homeowner on Lake Ontario Shoreline"
Imagine my surprise when I looked closely at the sign in the picture of the letter that the boaters sent to the NYSOPRHP, and under the words "Private Property Stay Behind Fence" I saw the words:
NYS-OPRHP-Genesee Region
The boaters are claiming that the beach is not private, that it is open to the public and that the residents and Town are privatizing what should be public.
Too bad the NYS OPRHP disagrees - SINCE ROSE HARVEY, THE COMMISSIONER OF NYS-OPRHP AUTHORIZED THE SIGN TO BE PLACED THERE!
I have no problem with the boaters trying to challenge this law, as it is everyone's right to challenge legislation that they feel is unfair. But please....consult your attorney that you claim you have retained before sending out letters to NYS departments or releasing statements and letters to the media.
Seriously.
My concerns with the accuracy of their letter to the NYS OPRHP are below the fold, and if you click on "read more" you can view them.
Accuracy is a good thing - it really is - no matter how much you try to avoid it.
Here is a link to the picture that I screen shot and drew lines on depicting the 300 ft. zone. Link.
Here is a screenshot of google maps images of the area that has a measurement tool, and shows the distance from shore to the bend in the pier - (approximately 425 ft.), and from shore to approximately 300 ft.:
422 ft. out
302 ft. out
Here is the boater's depiction of the zone in the letter to the NYS OPRHP:
This is inaccurate because they claim it is a picture of the ONLY State Park (Irondequoit Bay Marine State Park) in Monroe County.
Hamlin Beach State Park is located in Monroe County.
The picture is also misleading because it is not a picture of anything that is located in the area of the ordinance. It is a picture of the launch across the street, located south of Lake Ontario and in Irondequoit Bay. The zone in which the ordinance is has no public docking or launching facilities for vessels.
Hamlin Beach State Park is located in Monroe County.
The picture is also misleading because it is not a picture of anything that is located in the area of the ordinance. It is a picture of the launch across the street, located south of Lake Ontario and in Irondequoit Bay. The zone in which the ordinance is has no public docking or launching facilities for vessels.
Here is another inaccurate claim and picture:
They claim that this is "the only stretch of shoreline that has a beach large enough to be easily visible by satellite" - they even underline it too for emphasis.
Their screen shot is at the 2,000 ft. measurement - so at that distance I head a little west and.......
....amazingly, I can see the beaches of Charlotte and Durand - they are easily visible by satellite.
Again, if they feel the legislation is unfair, and want to fight it - I have no problem with that, as it is their right to do so. I disagree with many of their claims in this letter though - like -
"it's privatizing the water"
I disagree as you can still navigate through the zone - you just can't anchor, tether, moor, and drift there, which the NYS Navigation Law permits municipalities to regulate things such as speed, anchoring/tethering etc. within 1,500 ft. of their shoreline, and the NYS Navigation Laws are upheld by the Commissioner of the NYS OPRHP - who help in creating these laws.
"families won't be able to enjoy the shallow waters for swimming and wading"
I disagree as you can still wade and swim in the water from the public access to the public beach from the road. Nobody is denying your right to swim or wade or walk along the shoreline in the water with this law. You just can't tether or anchor your boat to do so.
"The Town of Irondequoit deliberately used "Regulation of Vessels" instead of "Vessel Regulation Zone" to avoid section 46 of the NYS Navigation Law"
Whether it's illegal or not to use 46a , I don't know. The town did not cite NYS Navigation Law 46 in their resolution. The Town cites Article 4, Part 1, § 46-a (2)(Regulation of Vessels) of the NYS Navigation Law in the resolution for the new law. There was notice in the paper of the Public Hearing, all parties interested in speaking were allowed to sign up to speak at the public hearing. Nobody was denied the right to speak at the public hearing. You can review the Public Hearing at the Town Of Irondequoit's video archive at this Link.
"Water Quality"
They bring up a good point about water quality at the other public beaches, and how the public beaches are regularly closed during the summer....but I'd be curious to see if the algae/bacteria problem is also in that area by Sea Breeze when the other public beaches are closed due to high bacteria/algae count. It is a somewhat "cove" area there that would trap any flow from the west where beaches are closed. But still, good point....and again....you can still access the water from the public beach and the public access from the road....so....if you really want to wade and swim, you still can in that area.
"Safety of boaters"
Again, good point to be brought up - they claim that forcing boats out to 300 ft. would put them in 9-10 ft. of water....and maybe that's true, but, considering they are incorrect on the zone from their screen shot with lines on it.....I think 300 ft. in front of the public portion of the beach puts them at a depth of around 5-7 ft. of water for anchoring and tethering - an acceptable depth in my opinion. Since the pier is located there, not much boat traffic will be heading their way if they are anchored at 300 ft. - 300 ft. is about halfway to the bend in the pier from the shoreline. I do not believe it puts the boating public at risk to regulate their anchoring or tethering to 300 ft. of shore. I also believe that allowing boats to tether and or anchor close to shore puts the general public at risk when the general public is enjoying the public water from their entry at the public portion of the public beach of the public state park. Tethering creates a safety hazard as it denies the homeowners their riparian rights, it could possibly block emergency vessels from attending to a member of the general public who could be swimming there, and it blocks other boaters from freely navigating the public waters.
They also claim that when boaters anchor out at 300 ft. they will not be in close proximity to their boats and their boats could drift off. A suitable anchor will solve that problem, and 300 ft. is not that far out for you to anchor and swim - and if you feel it is, you could always access the water from the public access point at the road to swim and wade and enjoy the water. Durand and Charlotte are also other options.
"Economic Impact"
Another good point - boaters do stimulate the economy, but in my opinion, the town isn't discouraging boating by enacting this law. They are discouraging anchoring, mooring, tethering, and drifting 300 ft. from shore, on a 1/4 mile stretch of shorline west of the pier on Lake Ontario. Boaters can still access the businesses in the area by parking in the Irondequoit Bay Marine State Park parking lot located on the shore of Irondequoit Bay before and/or after they head out on their boats. A public dock to go along with the public launch located along that Bay area would be great for boaters, as it would encourage them to patronize the businesses - I think the master plan stating that using existing open space is a good idea for that. I disagree that it should be in front of the private beach in the area west of the pier - as the town/county/state has not purchased the properties along that stretch for such purposes.
I also doubt that a majority of the boats anchoring/tethering in the area west of the pier were having an economic impact for that area. I would imagine they spent their money elsewhere, and then decided to loiter 20 ft. off shore and create a nuisance.
They state that the economic impact of boating can be seen with the recent developments along the shoreline of the Bay and River, and that many people choose their homes on the proximity to the water. I don't know about anyone else, but.....I would never spend a ton of money on a lakefront home only to have the same situation occur 20 ft. offshore from my private beach. In fact, seeing such activity as happens west of the pier would DETER me from buying a lakefront home for that reason alone.
"Maps show portion of beach is public"
I disagree as the Monroe County GIS tax map of Irondequoit, and the Parcel Maps of Irondequoit show the boundaries to the water line. The final assessment rolls have been filed, and as far as I can calculate, they are assessed for the beach. The deeds for some of the properties state "to the waterline" as their boundary.
"Right to navigate"
The ordinance does not infringe upon your right to navigate the water in a free and safe manner.
"Anchorage Is a Navigational Right & the Commerce Clause"
Anchoring could be a navigational right - I'm not sure on that, but I doubt the NYS OPRHP would allow municipalities the right to regulate anchoring 1,500 ft. from shore (according to the NYS Navigation Laws) if it weren't legal for them to do so. Maybe it has something to do with the Commerce Clause, but...were the anchored and tethered boats out there really conducting commerce? Really? Is the town really regulating commerce by enacting this ordinance?
"Environmental Concerns"
They bring up the point that the residents groom their private beach, and that since the beach formed after the pier was built should mean that the beach is public, and the residents shouldn't groom the beach.
I disagree - the beach is private, they have every right to groom or flatten their beach, as long as they don't deposit fill into the lake.
They supposedly quote the 1998 Sea Breeze Revitalization Plan as their proof that the beach should be public - but the section they quote says this:
"On the north side of the road is an elevated berm on which sits a row of 35 small homes facing a broad private sandy beach."
It states that the beach is private.
"One of the key recommendations under this plan was to “improve the public’s access to existing open space and expand recreational opportunities.”
It says "access to existing open space" - not private beaches.
"It’s actually the opposite; it’s effectively privatizing the area by
prohibiting the public from enjoying one of the greatest public resources in the area, in an area which has already been defined as having “very limited access”."
It is not privatizing the area as the general public can still access the public beach and the water for swimming and wading.
They also show a picture of the bar customers of Marge's and claim that they are the problem...not the boaters peacefully tethering off shore. I find that selective, and not really addressing the problem that the residents brought up. When the residents show pictures of the problems, the boaters accuse them of photoshopping the pictures, which I have not found that to be the case. I believe the pictures are accurate representations of what the residents are complaining about, and even if it happens a few weekends every summer - I find it unacceptable and agree with a tethering/anchoring regulation for that area.
It's going to be their right to do this 20 ft. from shore of your soon to be public beach/front yard.
"Water Quality"
They bring up a good point about water quality at the other public beaches, and how the public beaches are regularly closed during the summer....but I'd be curious to see if the algae/bacteria problem is also in that area by Sea Breeze when the other public beaches are closed due to high bacteria/algae count. It is a somewhat "cove" area there that would trap any flow from the west where beaches are closed. But still, good point....and again....you can still access the water from the public beach and the public access from the road....so....if you really want to wade and swim, you still can in that area.
"Safety of boaters"
Again, good point to be brought up - they claim that forcing boats out to 300 ft. would put them in 9-10 ft. of water....and maybe that's true, but, considering they are incorrect on the zone from their screen shot with lines on it.....I think 300 ft. in front of the public portion of the beach puts them at a depth of around 5-7 ft. of water for anchoring and tethering - an acceptable depth in my opinion. Since the pier is located there, not much boat traffic will be heading their way if they are anchored at 300 ft. - 300 ft. is about halfway to the bend in the pier from the shoreline. I do not believe it puts the boating public at risk to regulate their anchoring or tethering to 300 ft. of shore. I also believe that allowing boats to tether and or anchor close to shore puts the general public at risk when the general public is enjoying the public water from their entry at the public portion of the public beach of the public state park. Tethering creates a safety hazard as it denies the homeowners their riparian rights, it could possibly block emergency vessels from attending to a member of the general public who could be swimming there, and it blocks other boaters from freely navigating the public waters.
They also claim that when boaters anchor out at 300 ft. they will not be in close proximity to their boats and their boats could drift off. A suitable anchor will solve that problem, and 300 ft. is not that far out for you to anchor and swim - and if you feel it is, you could always access the water from the public access point at the road to swim and wade and enjoy the water. Durand and Charlotte are also other options.
"Economic Impact"
Another good point - boaters do stimulate the economy, but in my opinion, the town isn't discouraging boating by enacting this law. They are discouraging anchoring, mooring, tethering, and drifting 300 ft. from shore, on a 1/4 mile stretch of shorline west of the pier on Lake Ontario. Boaters can still access the businesses in the area by parking in the Irondequoit Bay Marine State Park parking lot located on the shore of Irondequoit Bay before and/or after they head out on their boats. A public dock to go along with the public launch located along that Bay area would be great for boaters, as it would encourage them to patronize the businesses - I think the master plan stating that using existing open space is a good idea for that. I disagree that it should be in front of the private beach in the area west of the pier - as the town/county/state has not purchased the properties along that stretch for such purposes.
I also doubt that a majority of the boats anchoring/tethering in the area west of the pier were having an economic impact for that area. I would imagine they spent their money elsewhere, and then decided to loiter 20 ft. off shore and create a nuisance.
They state that the economic impact of boating can be seen with the recent developments along the shoreline of the Bay and River, and that many people choose their homes on the proximity to the water. I don't know about anyone else, but.....I would never spend a ton of money on a lakefront home only to have the same situation occur 20 ft. offshore from my private beach. In fact, seeing such activity as happens west of the pier would DETER me from buying a lakefront home for that reason alone.
"Maps show portion of beach is public"
I disagree as the Monroe County GIS tax map of Irondequoit, and the Parcel Maps of Irondequoit show the boundaries to the water line. The final assessment rolls have been filed, and as far as I can calculate, they are assessed for the beach. The deeds for some of the properties state "to the waterline" as their boundary.
"Right to navigate"
The ordinance does not infringe upon your right to navigate the water in a free and safe manner.
"Anchorage Is a Navigational Right & the Commerce Clause"
Anchoring could be a navigational right - I'm not sure on that, but I doubt the NYS OPRHP would allow municipalities the right to regulate anchoring 1,500 ft. from shore (according to the NYS Navigation Laws) if it weren't legal for them to do so. Maybe it has something to do with the Commerce Clause, but...were the anchored and tethered boats out there really conducting commerce? Really? Is the town really regulating commerce by enacting this ordinance?
"Environmental Concerns"
They bring up the point that the residents groom their private beach, and that since the beach formed after the pier was built should mean that the beach is public, and the residents shouldn't groom the beach.
I disagree - the beach is private, they have every right to groom or flatten their beach, as long as they don't deposit fill into the lake.
They supposedly quote the 1998 Sea Breeze Revitalization Plan as their proof that the beach should be public - but the section they quote says this:
"On the north side of the road is an elevated berm on which sits a row of 35 small homes facing a broad private sandy beach."
It states that the beach is private.
"One of the key recommendations under this plan was to “improve the public’s access to existing open space and expand recreational opportunities.”
It says "access to existing open space" - not private beaches.
"It’s actually the opposite; it’s effectively privatizing the area by
prohibiting the public from enjoying one of the greatest public resources in the area, in an area which has already been defined as having “very limited access”."
It is not privatizing the area as the general public can still access the public beach and the water for swimming and wading.
They also show a picture of the bar customers of Marge's and claim that they are the problem...not the boaters peacefully tethering off shore. I find that selective, and not really addressing the problem that the residents brought up. When the residents show pictures of the problems, the boaters accuse them of photoshopping the pictures, which I have not found that to be the case. I believe the pictures are accurate representations of what the residents are complaining about, and even if it happens a few weekends every summer - I find it unacceptable and agree with a tethering/anchoring regulation for that area.
It's going to be their right to do this 20 ft. from shore of your soon to be public beach/front yard.
11 comments:
Can we request that they re-send the letter with corrections?
I suppose you could - they asked that the D&C make corrections in their article.
You can ask - but I doubt they will correct their inaccurate drawing of the zone or the parts about the IBMSP being the "ONLY State Park in Monroe County" or the satellite image saying it's the only beach visible by satellite or the picture of the sign that has been there for YEARS that was placed by the NYS-OPRHP saying the beach beyond the fence is private property.
Doesn't hurt to ask them I guess.
My attention was drawn to this post. Isn't it great when a grass roots organization takes on government in a naive way? It must be awful to spend so much time dissecting something you disagree with just to have a couple people notice your diatribe.
I don't think it's naive. I think they should consult their attorney before sending out letters to State departments and/or the media.
What's worse than only a few people noticing my diatribe is sending an inaccurate letter to the media and expecting others to believe your diatribe.
If you want to educate me-it can't be accomplished if I'm getting the wrong information. Over and over again.
FYI
Noeleen isn't the Town Assessor for Irondequoit anymore - that was back in 2000 when Shantz was Supervisor (as the text in your link points out), 8 years before I started this blog.
Terie Huseby is the Town Assessor for Irondequoit.
Link.
This is so wrong -
"I always laugh at people who hide behind their thoughts and beliefs. Why do/say things anonymously, if you don't have the balls to put a name to the words/actions, don't say/do anything! You lose so much credibility,"
Laugh at me all ya want - but I think it's a little rude to accuse your buddies of not having balls and hiding behind thoughts and beliefs.
Clearbluewater? Ch? Boaters Against Stricter Boating Laws In And Around Irondequoit?
All anonymous. Not their real names. You think they aren't credible, and are ball-less - I disagree.
I don't care if you use your real name or not - if you are anonymous and make a good point, or offer a factual counter-argument, or educate me with correct information, or just offer your opinion on something - I don't think to myself, "Wow, this person is anonymous so they must be cowards and their opinions don't matter...."
I don't even think about them being anonymous or not - their real names don't matter to me unless I want to do some searching on them.
Maybe that's what they are trying to avoid - being internet stalked? Maybe they have a job where their public opinions could jeopardize their employment? Maybe they just don't want to deal with the bullshit of some internet looney who might "get back at them" for offering up their opinion?
Or, maybe, they're just like me...self-important and irreverent (or maybe irrelevant as well?)..cowardly and ball-less. Sitting here in my Mother's basement (or on the stretch of beach where the ordinance is) collecting my welfare check while I write diatribes on my blog that nobody reads ever. Spaghettio stains on my wife beater t-shirt, ordering things on QVC because I can't show my greasy face in public (unless I'm at Marge's) - it's too hideous! I scare children - and puppies whelp at my presence. I have no friends (except for all the homeowners who wanted this ordinance in place), and I'm just jealous of the hotties.
Seriously - come up with any adjective, name, or idea that you want to label me with, I'm ok with it. Honestly. It doesn't hurt my feeling (singular - because I only have one right now, apathy).
But whatever you do - don't be like the three anonymous boaters who post good points on your facebook page and offer reasoned counter-arguments.....that would be cowardly.
Gotta go - my stolen Walmart grocery cart awaits. Have to go garbage pickin' and collect some bottles so I can buy more potato chips and soda.
xoxoxo
Jax
In-fighting while law makers bask at the anger turning away from them and pussy fights take center stage. If those hot boat broads read the Jax Journal they would realize 99% of it has been directed against the town.
It doesn't matter if 99% of my diatribes have been against the town....nobody reads my irreverent rantings, and I'm anonymous, so what I say doesn't matter.
I wonder if donations made anonymously means you are not credible and are a coward without balls? I bet not! Funny how that works.....
Instead of talking about the law or SEQRA or anything like that, can you just say "who cares?" and call me names and speculate on who I am and where I live and who I might be friends with and how I should be investigating past assessors who don't work for the Town anymore....and things like that?
Here....I'll start....
Jax, You are a big poopy-face-tomato-nose and unless you tell me your name, address, phone number and blood type - your arguments are invalid.
Oh...and you probably smell like swiss cheese, or sour milk...or something like that.
Why don't you investigate things like why an employee who worked for the town 6 years ago did something that might be considered GROSS INCOMPETENCE!!!!
You big doo-doo head, youuuuu!
Stumbled on to Foils because of the Boating Ordinance. Finding out alot about this Town I didnt know.
Have to say thank you for the chuckles today!
Under something that says how to avoid looking silly.... did we really blow kisses and hugs and did I really just read doo doo head?
Yes, you did.
This blog, which I have been writing for about 4 years now, is chock full of silliness and juvenile outbursts and sarcasm.
As much as I can see your point about "the pot calling the kettle black" - I'm not really getting it.
I'm not sending my shit out to agencies and the media. I'm not telling any of the anonymous people that they are not credible or they have no balls or are cowards.
I don't care.
I don't force you to come here, I don't e-mail you, post the blog on facebook, tweet about the blog...I don't advertise....don't get paid....not personally involved in any of the things that happen in town....I just give my opinion on it. Anonymously.
If that makes me a coward or silly or whatever....then so be it. I'm not forcing you to click on my link, or type my URL into your address bar, or search the blog on a search engine, or e-mail it to others, or anything at all.
Come here, read it - disagree with me or agree with me. Or, call me names and talk about how non credible and ball-less I am because I'm anonymous.
It's up to you.
Anybody wanna talk about SEQRA and how I think it might have something to do with the Town possibly losing this fight in court?
Wanna prove me wrong on anything?
Show me how and where my arguments are weak?
No?
Just wanna whine about me some more?
B.A.U.
Post a Comment