 |
| May 05, 2024 |
Welcome! Click here to Login
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Click to visit the
Official Town Site
|
|
|
|
|
|
General News: Tempers Flare at Town Meeting
|
| Photo by Jim Lennon. Meeting attendees sat in hallways, on the floor or in the room adjacent to the court room, some people left. |
|
| Photo by Jim Lennon. Meeting attendees sit in room adjacent to court room. |
April 24, 2013
04/23/13
By Joseph Oliveto
Confusion over the difference between a public meeting and a public hearing led to angry outbursts at this week’s special Town Board meeting.
Concerned citizens packed into Town Hall Monday night, many of whom had to stand in the back where it was difficult to hear what was being discussed, while the Town Board heard a presentation from Gerald Jacobowitz of Jacobowitz and Gubits, the firm which represents Cornwall Commons.
The new proposal for Cornwall Commons involves 108 of the development’s 490 residential units to be used as age-restricted dwellings for residents without children, while the remaining 382 will not involve such age restrictions.
Despite originally being a Planned Adult Community, Jacobowitz said that the County Planning Department advised that restricting the age of the residents would not be a sustainable plan for the development, nor would it attract the investors needed to provide the capital for the project
The comprehensive plan adopted by the Town Board only requires that 100 of the units to be age-restricted to qualify as a Planned Adult Community.
Jacobowitz and developer Joseph Amato cited slow population growth in Cornwall as a problem, claiming that the development would – over a period of several years – attract families that would be more likely to be consumers than senior citizens would, increasing revenue for the town.
Board member Randy Clark called the proposed plan a “major change” from the previous plan and called for a new one that involves less density.
As Jacobowitz and Amato fielded questions from various Board members, audience members grew impatient, complaining that they could not hear and that they were not being given the opportunity to comment, having attended the meeting under the assumption that it was a public hearing which would involve more input from the town’s citizens.
Tempers rose as Jacobowitz accused Clark of playing politics, reminding the Board that the new plan is in accordance with the comprehensive plan that the Board itself voted on.
As angry outbursts from the crowd continued, Board member Al Mazzocca said that some people were being “very rude” and called for “a little more order.”
With little progress being made on the issue – due partially to the fact that the memo sent to Town Board regarding the new plan was received the day of the meeting, leaving the Board little time to look it over– Mary Beth Greene made a motion to table the issue so that the Board could take more time to consider it.
The Board plans to seek out a larger venue for a future public hearing so that the citizens can make their voices heard on this issue.
Comments:
|
Very sad.
When will towns like Cornwall learn that development does not necessarily equal increased revenue and prosperity? Huge developments like this cause congestion of roadways, more infrastructure wear, increases in pollution, use huge amounts of water, produce huge amounts of sewage, increase environmental degradation, decrease areas of natural runoff and water absorption, and inexorably alter the character of a town. The additional taxes promised by development like this very often do not offset these negative impacts.
There are plenty of recent studies that point to this phenomenon. I realize that the Town Board thinks it is doing the right thing, but this is 1970's thinking and planning being applied in the 21st century. It is the development equivalent of a snake eating it's own tail. The increased costs will cancel out or overwhelm the increased revenue and then where will Cornwall be? Will Main Street be any more revitalized? Will the school budget be anymore under control?
Cornwall needs to do more with what it has and find the value in its location and positive qualities rather than build dense housing communities on the outskirts of its center that do nothing but spur further big box development and the "suburbanization" of a beautiful town.
posted by Ted Warren on 04/25/13 at 4:17 PM
|
|
It is such a shame that no one listens, when the issue of a possible change to large age restricted developments maybe subject to change, if a developers needs cannot be fulfilled due to economic downturns. This was brought up when the comprehensive plan was updated, and again when CC was being proposed. It is unfortunate that persons are unable to see how this will play out in the future. But, alas.....
posted by kate goodspeed on 04/26/13 at 6:36 AM
|
Add a Comment:
Please signup or login to add a comment.
|
 |
|
|
|
