By Peter Boody Supervisor Art Williams raised some questions at the Town Board work session Tuesday about the Waterways Management Advisory Council's proposal to allow small-scale "quay" docks in waters where larger docks would not be allowed. He wondered aloud whether or not the proposal represented "an end-around with the DEC to create more possibilities for structures in our town waters" than currently permitted. "If so, maybe there's a problem with our code," he added. The supervisor noted that at one time the WMAC had been considering a proposal to see some waters designated as "restricted," with rules prohibiting docks and motor boats. "That fell apart," he said. During a freewheeling discussion with board members about the details of the WMAC "quay" proposal, the supervisor expressed some frustration with the overall document in which it is contained: a rewrite of the entire dock code that the WMAC has proposed after years of discussion. "Unfortunately, the WMAC didn't revise the purpose and applicability" paragraphs of the existing dock code so "we can't get a sense of the intent of this," Mr. Williams said. "Unlike lots of sections of the code, you dive right in without any real sense of what's going on." It was noted that a draft of the proposed code has yet to be submitted to the DEC for its reaction and that the WMAC is still discussing some aspects of it so "it's a pretty fluid process," Mr. Williams said. Board members agreed there was no rush for the board to formally respond to the WMAC proposals. Nature preserve discussion The board continued to talk on Tuesday about the Conservation Advisory Council's proposal to add five preserve properties to the town's Nature Preserve System. Resident Joy Bausman repeated her criticism that expanding the Preserve System could lead to the creation of a whole new department of town government to manage it. Resident Al Kilb questioned the new management plans stating goals for the use of preserve properties; he said there were no such plans for existing preserve properties "all these years and it's never been a problem." Such plans are required by the town code section that governs the Preserve System. Supervisor Williams said he had "no problem" including two of the properties, called Osprey Wetlands and Heritage Wetlands by the CAC, in the system because they are wetlands and can't be developed for any future uses. But he expressed concern about committing other properties "in perpetuity" to the preserve system. "My view," he said, "is that their management plans should be reworked so they are not inflexible for the future." The supervisor said that, before any further discussion, the board should: investigate whether or not there are covenants and other restrictions already in place on the properties, including any that may have been imposed by the county as a partner in their purchase for open space preservation; check whether or not the county would have the authority to review and approve any management plans; and "tweak the plans" drafted by the CAC "with the idea of creating broader objectives that allow flexibility without creating a burden of commitment that could be undesirable down the road." The five town-owned properties proposed for inclusion are referred to by the CAC as: Osprey Wetlands off Osprey Road; Heritage Wetlands of Heritage Road; Dickerson Park off South Menantic Road; the St. Mary's Nursery property; and Rasmussen Woods off North Ferry Road next to Cards Cabins. Their proposed management plans vary with most touching on issues including removing invasive species, clearing paths, allowing and prohibiting the removal of downed trees for firewood, allowing hunting with proper permits and prohibiting horses and motorized vehicles.
|
