SUBSCRIBE MY PROFILE
HOME | BREAKING NEWS | POLICE & FIRE | IN MEMORIAM | PEOPLE | OPINION | SPORTS
 JOBS  
 DINING & ENTERTAINMENT  
 HOMES  
 CARS  
 FUNERAL HOMES  
 GOODS & SERVICES

News of Otsego County

Paul Palumbo

Town of Richfield Comp Plan, Zoning Showdown Tonight

Town of Richfield

Comp Plan, Zoning

Showdown Tonight

Anti-Windmill Faction Plans Vote

Frigault
Palumbo

RICHFIELD SPRINGS – A showdown is expected this evening between two factions on the Richfield Town Board when a vote is due on a comprehensive plan and zoning code that grew out of the opposition to the the Monticello Hills Wind Farm.

The board meets at 7 p.m. in the Richfield Springs Central School cafeteria.

PALUMBO: ‘We Were Told, Don’t Worry… …And Then, We Were In Legal Jeopardy,’ Supervisor Declares

Column

‘We Were Told,

Don’t Worry…

‘…And Then, We Were In Legal

Jeopardy,’ Supervisor Declares

At the Monday, Sept. 23 comp plan public hearing, Richfield Town Supervisor Paul Palumbo, center, reads the statement reprinted below. Other Town Board members, from left, are Rex Seamon,
Larry Frigault, Fred Eckler and Kane Seamon. At right is Town Clerk Maggie Young. (JIm Kevlin/www.AllOTSEGO.com)

Editor’s Note: Richfield Town Supervisor Paul Palumbo read this assessment of the town’s proposed comprehensive plan and zoning code at a public hearing Monday, Sept. 23.  Palumbo and Town Board member Fred Eckler want to delay approval; Town Board members Larry Frigault, Rex Seamon and Kane Seamon, want to vote at 7 p.m. next Monday in a meeting in the school cafeteria.

By PAUL PALUMBO • Special to www.AllOTSEGO.com

You are probably asking yourself, how could a document that supposedly represents the desire of the residents and what is best, compiled over several years be so controversial here, at its final stage? A very good question, so I will summarize how we got here.

A few years ago, it was recommended the Town of Richfield should have a “Comprehensive Plan Document.” Although we already had a land-use ordinance, we were told that if we wanted to be seriously considered when applying for grants, it was much better to have additionally a Comprehensive Plan, in the proper format.

READ ARTICLE ON MONDAY’S HEARING

Fair enough, being better positioned to receive grant money sounded like a good thing. However, even at that time there was a bit of skepticism, folks wanting to know what else this effort might bind us to do.

“Nothing else” we were told: This document is not a law, this document is just a guide or roadmap, it will not have any binding significance.

As the comp plan was being developed, the public was given occasional peeks at it. Many people were puzzled, as it seemed to be banking on farming being our entire future, even though few residents actually do it, or plan to.

But again we were told, don’t worry, you don’t have to go this way.

Agreed – a lot of work went into the plan by nearly a dozen people at one point. It was so well written in fact, it did win an award (not necessarily for its future outlook, but more its presentation and content). By the end of 2017, the plan was ready for approval.

Some board members and residents still had concerns, but again we were told “don’t worry”, and it was passed.

Then what seemed like only a matter of days later, we were informed that our land-use ordinance was so out of whack with the comp plan we just passed, that we were now in legal jeopardy, and must update our zoning immediately.

All of a sudden this benign, harmless comp plan became a serious driving force.

Then much to the public’s surprise, an updated 70+ page zoning document appeared almost overnight. But how, as the board hadn’t even appointed a zoning commission yet!

It was written in private meetings by a small subset of the comp plan committee, oddly before the comp plan was even approved! And when it came time to appoint the “official committee,” by a lopsided board vote, the people who had written the document in private were selected, and no new members were allowed in.

Yes, there were some minor personnel changes thereafter, but it ended up being only three people.

OK, enough of the troubling history. Not surprisingly, this zoning update is heavily weighted toward farming – just as the Comp Plan was.

It clearly states that yes, farms will be emitting odors, noises, bright lights, nighttime activity, traffic from vehicles, heavy equipment, general nuisances, etc.

Alright, we all know what farms are, and none of those comes as a surprise. But what is surprising, is that absolutely no other business can do any of those things, along with a laundry list of other restrictions.

Does that seem fair to you? To have one business type totally exempt from everything, while other businesses are tightly controlled?

For example, larger business activity will now be limited to a very small area of the town. Your customers cannot park in front, they must park at the rear or side. You can’t display your goods outside. Anything outside needs to be fenced, so that others won’t see it.

If you rent your home as a short term summer rental, you will now have a pile of new rules. If you want to do a larger solar project on your property, you can’t. Many uses are now prohibited. These are just a tiny sample of the many inequities.

Oddly, most of these new rules don’t come from the comp plan, many appear to be cut and pasted from other towns’ zoning laws. There is also minimal evidence that discussions occurred with people that would be affected by the new rules.

Tonight I am asking this board to truly listen to what the public has been saying to for a while now – they are just not on board with this, or how it was done! Does this update need to be totally scrapped? No, but it does need a good review from an independent group of residents, including folks that are effected.

Anyone not totally on board with this update is being called uninformed and misguided. But let’s not be misled again, as we have been multiple times throughout this process, by the name calling.

This update is just not equally fair to all property owners by any stretch, and needs some heavy duty revisions.

Fate Uncertain In Richfield Over Divisive Comp Plan 3 Wind-Farm Opponents Seeking To Push Vote Through, But Election Could Erase It

Fate Of Richfield’s

Divisive Comp Plan

Uncertain For Now

3 Wind-Farm Opponents Seeking To Push

Vote Through, But Election Could Erase It

At the start of this evening’s hearing, Richfield Town Supervisor Paul Palumbo, center, reads a statement of his position on the comp plan and zoning code. He asked town board members to do the same. Fred Eckler (tan shirt), Palumbo’s ally did, but the other three board members, from left, Rex Seamon, Larry Frigault and Kane Seamon, did not. At right is Town Clerk Maggie Young. (Jim Kevlin /AllOTSEGO.com)

By JIM KEVLIN • Special to www.AllOTSEGO.com

At tonight’s hearing, town supervisor candidate Nick Palevsky said, “I call on the town board to suspend this public hearing and delay next week’s vote.”

RICHFIELD SPRINGS – The fat’s on the fire in the Town of Richfield, and may be until a new town board is installed after Jan. 1.

About 70 people descended on the RSCS cafeteria this evening for two hours of polite but divided opinion on a new comprehensive plan and associated zoning code.  Some say the plan and code were developed by West End neighbors to block the five-turbine Monticello Hills Wind Farms, and that the resulting documents are too restrictive.

About 20 people spoke. Then the action began.

Hearing over, a town board meeting was called to order, and it surfaced that three West End allies – Council members Larry Frigault, Rex Seamon and Kane Seamon – have scheduled a meeting for 7 p.m. next Monday, Sept. 30, to push through a vote on the new law and code before the Nov. 5 election, when they may lose their majority.

Posts navigation

21 Railroad Ave. Cooperstown, New York 13326 • (607) 547-6103