Town Board wants details on additional
acreage request for golf course

by Larry Austin
Lewiston Porter Sentinel, December 17, 2005

The sale of 10.88 acres of town land to Old Creek Development will have to wait until the town has answers to some legal questions.

Attorney Michael Dowd of Old Creek Development was unable to attend a scheduled public hearing Monday at Lewiston Town Hall to answer questions on the issue.

“It’s hard to make a decision without the principle here,” Councilman James Langlois said.

Dowd has made it clear he will request additional acreage for the course, Councilman Dan Kilmer said. In total, the town could sell 17 acres of contiguous property for the proposed course, planned for an area between Creek Road, Pletcher Road and the Robert Moses Parkway. Such a matter could come up at the Dec. 29 meeting of the board.

Details Needed

There is no price tag on the entire 17 acres, Town Supervisor Fred Newlin said. The 10.88 up for discussion at the public hearing had a price of $147,000. Councilman Michael Johnson said the board needed to hear from the developer regarding restrictive covenants to protect adjoining back yards.

Several members of the public had questions that went unanswered, as well. One, Frank Fracassi of Curtis Court North, said, “I’d like to see where the property line is actually going to be. I think it’s odd that the developer isn’t here with some better plans for us to review.”

“I’m in favor of a golf course, but again I’m an avid golfer. I would like to see what the heck it’s going to be like.”

Village of Lewiston Trustee William Geiben, a former town councilman, represented the village.

Benefits Lewiston

“We speak highly of this project and we recommend you go ahead with it,” Geiben said. “We look at it this way: it’s positive name recognition for Lewiston, a quality golf course and recreation for Lewiston, improved drainage, and improved tax base.”

Geiben was on the town board in the ‘80s when the property’s use came before the town. At the time, it was considered as a site for girls' softball diamonds, but that idea was rejected.

“We thought the access off of Creek Road was too long and isolated,” Geiben said. “We didn’t care for having Creek Road as the egress. And as the development was taking place along the residential part of Lewistowne subdivision, we weren’t in favor of having on-street parking for the park.”

Geiben said the property is not conducive for a town facility on its own. A private golf course, however, is an “ideal” suggestion, he said.

John Stoyell of Thornwood Drive said he believes the town should never go into the golf course business, but said he favored a cash sale of the land to someone who will pay taxes on its use.

Concerns

Former Town Board member Paulette Glasgow was concerned that because the property was accepted and dedicated as a park under local law, the town must approach the state legislature for special legislation to have it sold.

Town Attorney Joseph Leone said the property was conveyed to the town by a developer in lieu of a recreation fee. Whether the state legislature would need to authorize sale is a “touchier question,” Leone said, adding also that the town needs time to see if there are any restrictions on the deed of conveyance.

Newlin said the developer of a golf course would have to meet the same regulations as any other developer with a new project.

“They would have to come to the town, to its planning board, to its zoning board, they would have to go fire control and fire safety, and then submit a plan,” Newlin said.

Once that land is sold, that’s just the very first step, he said, and after that, the town still retains full development rights.

Power Authority Items

In another matter, Newlin reported that at the most recent Power Coalition meeting, the seven members agreed to take separate checks from the New York Power Authority as part of the relicensing agreement. He said each entity would receive an initial payment of its signing bonus of $1.3 million before Dec. 31.

Secondly, the town’s insistence on an independent audit of coalition books took a step forward, Newlin said, with the creation of an ad hoc committee. “Finally, I guess the rest of the coalition has come around to our way of thinking and they appointed Mr. (Kerin) Dumphrey from the Niagara Wheatfield school district and Mr. (Don) Rappold from the Lewiston Porter school district to a finance committee,” Newlin said. The committee will interview CPAs to do an audit next year.

The town received a reaffirmation of its position on power, Newlin said, from coalition legal advisors from Harris Beach. The coalition attorneys took a while to conclude that the real value in the relicensing agreement was in cheap power, Newlin said, a position that the town held all along.

Newlin reported that the town would have to make a decision before the end of the year on whether to join the other six members of the coalition in a municipal distribution authority to handle the power allocation or create its own town MDA.

“There are pluses and minuses to both sides,” Newlin said. “I think either would be a viable option.”

The town board later met in executive session to discuss issues related to such MDA contracts.

CWM Water Discharge Issue

The board also voted 4-1 to rescind an authorization from last month’s meeting to complete a study that could permit the town’s Water Pollution Control Center to receive additional streams. WPCC Administrator Tim Lockhart said last month that if the town accepts effluent from CWM Chemical Services in Porter as a potential revenue source, a pretreatment plan is needed. Likewise, the flows from other sources, such as dental offices and hospitals, are subject to categorical pretreatment standards by federal regulations, he said.

The town authorized the study two years ago in a 5-0 vote and spent $5,600 in completing 95 percent of the analysis, Langlois said. The board voted 3-2 last month to finish the work, with Newlin and Ceretto voting no.

Langlois said completion of the study would give Lockhart the assurance that if other streams come in the future, he will have the capability to handle them.

This month, Johnson changed sides on the issue and moved to rescind the action from last month, citing legal questions. “I was led to believe that everybody was for this and I find out that a couple members of other boards were not aware of it,” Johnson added, referring to members of the boards in Youngstown, Porter, and the Village of Lewiston.

Kilmer said opposition to the town possibly accepting effluent from CWM as a revenue stream for the WPCC stems from fear that such action will support CWM’s most recent permit application for landfill RMU-2.

“I think that’s just an extrapolation that’s just way out of bounds,” Langlois said. “We’ve authorized this study. We ought to finish it up. It doesn’t mean we have to accept anything from anybody. That’s a special vote that we can take at any time.”

Langlois said to negate the earlier vote because of what he called “political pressure” is, “absolutely the wrong thing to do.”

Residents Concerned

Ceretto, who voted with the unanimous board when the issue first came up two years ago, said he now had more information, prompting him to change his vote.

“I’ve received numerous calls from residents,” Ceretto said. “Their concerns are with the increasing discharge of hazardous substances. It’s difficult to turn away revenue, but in this case I have to say I’m against the revenue increase in Lewiston,” he said. “It’s unacceptable anymore to receive blood money. Because of that, you have to take a stand.”

Newlin voted to rescind the measure, saying the town faces a potential danger in liability if material treated at the plant was found in the river that exceeded state regulated safety levels. Other members of the system (the Town of Porter, Village of Youngstown, and Village of Lewiston) were indemnified against such possible suits, Newlin said.

Langlois and Kilmer disputed a memo from county legislators on the matter, which suggested accepting the effluent would assist CWM’s permit application. Langlois said the county letter contained “fallacious information.”

Kilmer said, “I don’t care what the hell the county thinks about. This is not their plant.”

“I’d like to remind the board that we’re not voting on accepting anything,” Langlois said. “We’re voting on completing a study that we authorized two years ago, so that if a need comes along from any source we can do something. We’re not voting to do anything. Why you’re afraid to essentially complete a study that’s 95 percent done and we’ve paid for and voted for is beyond me.”

Langlois said last month that accepting CWM effluent, which the company sends to the Niagara River by permit, would generate approximately $100,000 in revenue for the district.