Popular Searches
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Share
Domain? Unknown
By Francesca Olsen
Months of discussion about eminent domain proceedings for a rehabilitation project on county routes 7 and 7A have resulted in no decision on whether to proceed or not, if the project is truly cost effective, or whether to use the term “eminent domain” at all.
Forty-five Norway Spruce trees line the property of resident Susan Winchell-Sweeney along a 153-foot curved section of 7 and 7A and are the subject of debate recently due to Winchell-Sweeney’s faithful collecting of information using freedom of information laws regarding the project.
The first issue raised is whether removal of the trees is truly cost-effective. Winchell-Sweeney says that the certified appraisal of her property contains contradictory information. David Robinson has stated that several of the trees are actually on county land, but the appraisal identifies all of the trees as Winchell-Sweeney’s.
“Why would the county order an appraisal on property it already owns?” Winchell-Sweeney asked at the Public Works/Waste committee meeting Monday. Robinson replied that it was easier for the appraiser to “just assume all the trees are coming down,” and that the value assessment was based on the loss of screening, not on the actual trees themselves.
Winchell-Sweeney, in a letter to Robinson which was also sent to the full committee and the Register-Star, said that “in an e-mail reply acknowledging receipt of the tree county, the appraiser states the value of trees will be based on replacement cost.”
The appraiser has also told Winchell-Sweeney it is arguable that the trees may die of old age and need to be replaced with all new trees. Winchell-Sweeney argues that the life expectancy of Norway Spruces is 100-220 years. The trees in question are 40 years old.
“She cited no publications, no landscaper’s opinion, no data,” she told the committee Monday, adding that the true value of the removal of the trees would be much higher than the $15,000 the county offered her, rendering their removal cost-prohibitive to the county.
“If you used real numbers, this would be cost-prohibitive,” she said.
“I think this is a workable situation,” said Supervisor Tom Dias, R-Ancram. “No one’s being obstinant here. The idea of eminent domain is abhorrent to me, but I don’t want to take it off the table.”
A speed limit reduction denial from the state Department of Transportation was appealed by the town of Copake. Studies by the DOT concluded that the sight-distance issues at the intersection did not warrant a reduction. If the decision by the DOT is repealed, eminent domain proceedings may not be necessary.
Dias made a motion to allow the county to proceed with eminent domain on Winchell-Sweeney’s property; the motion was not seconded. “What I’m trying to do is move this one step further,” he said, citing the lack of progress on the issue.
“Why? There’s no sense in going forward with this and upsetting the citizen,” said Supervisor Joe Finn, D-Hudson 3rd. “Right now, we’ve got nothing we can act on.”
The first step in eminent domain proceedings, according to county attorney Tal Rappleyea, is to make a formal offer on the property. An original offer was made to the mortgage company that owned the property before Winchell-Sweeney in December 2007. She acquired the property in October 2007. Rappleyea told Winchell-Sweeney at the committee meeting that the county did not have the information that she owned the property when they made the offer to the mortgage company.
Supervisor John Musall, D-Hudson 1st, moved to table the issue because no formal, written resolution to go with Dias’ motion was provided. The motion passed.
Supervisor Doug McGivney, D-Kinderhook, who is not a member of the committee, attended the meeting. “My feeling is very strongly that this is not an eminent domain case,” he said. “We’ve taken much more dangerous situations off the table because of cost-efficiency. I, for one, will not support eminent domain in this situation.”
Committee chair Supervisor John Rutkey, R-Greenport, said, “I can tell you right now we’re not going to do this again next month,” If there are no new ideas regarding the issue, “we’re not going to discuss it,” he said, adding that Robinson and Winchell-Sweeney should meet together outside of the committee as soon as possible to discuss the issue.
To reach reporter Francesca Olsen call 518-828-1616, ext. 2272, or e-mail folsen@registerstar.com. To comment directly on this story, visit www.registerstar.com.
Forty-five Norway Spruce trees line the property of resident Susan Winchell-Sweeney along a 153-foot curved section of 7 and 7A and are the subject of debate recently due to Winchell-Sweeney’s faithful collecting of information using freedom of information laws regarding the project.
The first issue raised is whether removal of the trees is truly cost-effective. Winchell-Sweeney says that the certified appraisal of her property contains contradictory information. David Robinson has stated that several of the trees are actually on county land, but the appraisal identifies all of the trees as Winchell-Sweeney’s.
“Why would the county order an appraisal on property it already owns?” Winchell-Sweeney asked at the Public Works/Waste committee meeting Monday. Robinson replied that it was easier for the appraiser to “just assume all the trees are coming down,” and that the value assessment was based on the loss of screening, not on the actual trees themselves.
Winchell-Sweeney, in a letter to Robinson which was also sent to the full committee and the Register-Star, said that “in an e-mail reply acknowledging receipt of the tree county, the appraiser states the value of trees will be based on replacement cost.”
The appraiser has also told Winchell-Sweeney it is arguable that the trees may die of old age and need to be replaced with all new trees. Winchell-Sweeney argues that the life expectancy of Norway Spruces is 100-220 years. The trees in question are 40 years old.
“She cited no publications, no landscaper’s opinion, no data,” she told the committee Monday, adding that the true value of the removal of the trees would be much higher than the $15,000 the county offered her, rendering their removal cost-prohibitive to the county.
“If you used real numbers, this would be cost-prohibitive,” she said.
“I think this is a workable situation,” said Supervisor Tom Dias, R-Ancram. “No one’s being obstinant here. The idea of eminent domain is abhorrent to me, but I don’t want to take it off the table.”
A speed limit reduction denial from the state Department of Transportation was appealed by the town of Copake. Studies by the DOT concluded that the sight-distance issues at the intersection did not warrant a reduction. If the decision by the DOT is repealed, eminent domain proceedings may not be necessary.
Dias made a motion to allow the county to proceed with eminent domain on Winchell-Sweeney’s property; the motion was not seconded. “What I’m trying to do is move this one step further,” he said, citing the lack of progress on the issue.
“Why? There’s no sense in going forward with this and upsetting the citizen,” said Supervisor Joe Finn, D-Hudson 3rd. “Right now, we’ve got nothing we can act on.”
The first step in eminent domain proceedings, according to county attorney Tal Rappleyea, is to make a formal offer on the property. An original offer was made to the mortgage company that owned the property before Winchell-Sweeney in December 2007. She acquired the property in October 2007. Rappleyea told Winchell-Sweeney at the committee meeting that the county did not have the information that she owned the property when they made the offer to the mortgage company.
Supervisor John Musall, D-Hudson 1st, moved to table the issue because no formal, written resolution to go with Dias’ motion was provided. The motion passed.
Supervisor Doug McGivney, D-Kinderhook, who is not a member of the committee, attended the meeting. “My feeling is very strongly that this is not an eminent domain case,” he said. “We’ve taken much more dangerous situations off the table because of cost-efficiency. I, for one, will not support eminent domain in this situation.”
Committee chair Supervisor John Rutkey, R-Greenport, said, “I can tell you right now we’re not going to do this again next month,” If there are no new ideas regarding the issue, “we’re not going to discuss it,” he said, adding that Robinson and Winchell-Sweeney should meet together outside of the committee as soon as possible to discuss the issue.
To reach reporter Francesca Olsen call 518-828-1616, ext. 2272, or e-mail folsen@registerstar.com. To comment directly on this story, visit www.registerstar.com.
Share this Article
 |
 |
|
| Germantown Dems select candidates | Police urged to ticket drivers on cell phones |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of registerstar.com.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
