Greenway Plan criticized at Town Board work session

by Alice E. Gerard
Lewiston Porter Sentinel, December 16, 2006

At the Lewiston Town Board’s Dec. 11 work session, both Supervisor Fred Newlin and Councilman Sean Edwards criticized provisions of the Niagara River Greenway Commission’s plans as taking authority from the towns to generate their own projects. They also argued the commission was too inflexible and fails to take into account future needs of the river communities.

Newlin told the board that as a member of the Niagara Power Coalition, he has had time to study the plan since it was released in late November. “At this point, the Power Coalition has some serious concerns with who will be determining consistency with the Greenway plan and who will authorize the funding. We are submitting a point by point response back to the Greenway Commission,” Newlin said.

Members of the Niagara Power Coalition include the towns of Lewiston and Niagara, the city of Niagara Falls, Niagara County, the Niagara Falls City School District, the Niagara-Wheatfield Central School District, and the Lewiston-Porter School District.

“My issue with the Greenway plan concerns the town of Lewiston’s share of greenway money,” Edwards said. “We have good plans in place and viable projects. What part of our contract with the New York State Power Authority states that the state tells us what project we can do? I’m not an attorney, but it seems pretty simple that if our projects fall within parameters, we do our projects, not their projects.”

Town Needs Flexibility

Newlin said that the town of Lewiston has, “some very good infrastructure for a Greenway. We have a path right along the river so you can actually walk on pavement from the Village of Youngstown to the Village of Lewiston. We have four or five state parks along the river or within a mile from the river. We also have a bunch of town parks and village parks. I think that any outside analyst would say that we’re going in the right direction.

“In Lewiston, we have always worked to maximize the beauty of our river,” he continued. “What we need to do now is to have the flexibility in the next 50 years to expand westward from our river front to other exciting opportunities for recreation for our residents and for tourists. We have the burgeoning wine trail that is coming to us, as well as the standard historical society projects. We need to keep that flexibility in that agreement, which I negotiated for all of the towns.”

He pointed out that environmentalists, many of whom come from Erie County, view the proposed Greenway plan as a way to “redress environmental concerns.” On this Newlin said the Power Coalition, whose task included addressing the economic impacts on this region, specifically lost tax revenue,” does not need to be mutually exclusive. The Power Coalition’s concerns center around the fact that the Niagara Power Project’s 2,400 acres are off the tax rolls. “That is part of the reason for why we have high school and property taxes in the county. So we’ve always gone at it as a way to address those considerable economic and financial challenges,” Newlin said. He added that utilizing the Niagara River Greenway areas for eco-tourism would benefit both environmentalists and the local economy.

Newlin pointed out the Hudson River Valley’s Greenway has a plan that works. “The money (there) can be spent anywhere in the towns,” not just on projects along the river.

A 50-year plan would have to have enough flexibility to allow for future needs in the river communities, Newlin said. “We need the flexibility, not just for us, but, more importantly, for future boards, who will see projects that we can’t even identify right now, no matter how much time we spend on this issue.”

According to provisions of the plan, the Town of Lewiston would receive “more than half a million dollars a year for 50 years” in Greenway funds for greenway projects, Newlin said.

The cities and towns in Niagara and Erie counties, including Niagara Falls, the town and village of Lewiston, the Town of Niagara, Buffalo, Amherst, and many others, are expected to vote on whether or not to adopt this plan by late March 2007. “If one community does not vote to support this, whenever the vote is taken in February or March, the whole plan is gone. It needs the support of every community. In essence, each community has veto power,” Newlin said.

In other news, the Town Board voted to approve Verizon Wireless’ application to make modifications to its tower at 4746 Model City Road. According to Robert Burgdorf, who spoke on behalf of Nixon Peabody LLP, the law firm representing Verizon Wireless, “This is a priority one site in terms of call dropping that we’ve had here. It’s important for ambulances and so forth that rely on it. Currently, the capacity issue causes calls to be dropped.”

The Town Board also voted to approve its role as the lead agent for supplemental environmental impact statements for the Senecas’ planned golf course which will be located off of the Robert Moses Parkway between Pletcher and Creek roads and which is expected to open sometime in 2008.

The Town Board also formally approved to relinquish its ownership of the old town landfill to Modern Landfill Inc. Town Attorney Joseph Leone said the lease agreement between the Town of Lewiston and Modern Landfill gave Modern the option of purchasing the old property. “Modern’s attorney has expressed interest in that corporation exercising its right. Modern will then assume the responsibility of cleaning it up.”

The Town Board also voted to permit Newlin to sign any documents required for the conveyance of the property, via a quick claim deed, with the acknowledgement that the transfer of property may be subject to a permissive referendum.

In addition, the public hearing that was to be held at 6:45 p.m. on Thursday, Dec. 28, on a proposed local law on uniform fire prevention and building code, has been cancelled. It will be rescheduled during the regular town board meeting on Dec. 28, Leone said.