THE TOWN OF MILO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2009

THE TOWN OF MILO

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2009

A RURAL FINGER LAKES COMMUNITY OF TODAY AND FOR TOMMORROW

TOWN OF MILO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Draft: June 15, 2009

SECTION TITLE PAGEI. Introduction and Process………………………………………………………… I-1 II. Comprehensive Plan Committee and Subcommittees…………………………... II-1 III. Physical Characteristics of the Town…………………...………………………... III-1 IV. Demographic Characteristics of the Town.………………………………………. IV-1 V. Agriculture and Rural Areas……………………...……………………………… V-1 VI. Lake Issues Subcommittee and Lakeshore Area.………………………………... VI-1 VII. Land Use Subcommittee and General Recommendations.…………...…………. VII-1 VIII. Economic Development ……………….………………………………………… VIII-1 IX. Intermunicipal Cooperation ………………..…………………………………….. IX-1 X. Future Land Use Plan………………………….………………………………… X-1 XI. Analysis of Existing Zoning…………………………………………………….. XI-1 XII. Implementation Schedule……………………………………………………….. XII-1 XIII. Executive Summary……………………………………………………………… XIII-1

Appendices A. Participants…………………….…………………………………………………. A-1 B. Table of Land Use Codes and descriptions……………………………………. B-1 C. Survey…………………………………………………………………………….. C-1 D. Analysis of Survey……………………………………………………………….. D-1 Methodology & Qualitative Analysis………………………………………… D-2 Tabular Analysis of all Returned Surveys…………………………………….. D-17 Tabular Analysis of Retuned Surveys from the Town Only………………….. D-25 Tabular Analysis of Returned Surveys from the Village of Penn Yan.………. D-33 Tabular Analysis of Questions by Neighborhood and Age Group…………… D-41 Written Responses from the Town Only……………………………………… D-52 Written Responses from the Village of Penn Yan……………………………. D-82 Written Responses from Mixed Origin (claiming Village & Town)…………. D-113 Written Responses with Unknown Origin……………………………………. D-115

E. Photo Inventory of Town………………………………………………………… E Part 1………………………………………………………………………….. E-1 Part 2………………………………………………………………………….. E-14 Part 3………………………………………………………………………….. E-43 Part 4…………………………………………………………………………. E-71 Part 5………………………………………………………………………….. E-103

Draft: June 15, 2009 Page I-1

I. INTRODUCTION

This Comprehensive Plan is the product of several years’ development by the Town and Citizen Groups. In the spring of 2006 the Milo Town Board appointed a special Committee to prepare a new Comprehensive Plan for the Town. In addition, the Town Board hired two consultants, Reggie O’Hearn and Thomas P. HarveyAICP to assist the Comprehensive Plan Committee in preparing the plan. As chosen by the Town Board, the new Town Comprehensive Plan employed a citizen participatory model; engaging interested citizens, business owners, town and other local officials in the process of developing the new Plan.

The Town used a variety of methods to engage participants in developing the Comprehensive Plan. These included advertising the meetings of the Comprehensive Plan Committee in local newspapers and radios, and inviting local residents to meetings. For the first year, the Committee meetings included a presentation by a guest speaker on a topic affecting the Town, such as the history of an important local business, lake level control, or of generation of electricity by wind energy. Residents became more engaged in the process and volunteered to serve on subcommittees dealing with a particular group of related issues. The planning consultants hired by the town furnished these Subcommittees with information and assistance with organizing their work. The Subcommittees presented topical findings and recommendations to the Comprehensive Plan Committee. The Comprehensive Plan Committee then discussed, modified if necessary, and then endorsed the various Subcommittee recommendations for inclusion in the plan. For input from the agricultural community, the consultants worked directly with the Town’s existing Agriculture Committee. Business owners with in the Town were engaged through one-on-one interviews conducted by the Consultants. Finally, residents and homeowners were engaged in the process through a public survey mailed to every business, property owner, and residence within the Town. The survey collected some demographic information, but was aimed primarily on soliciting opinions on issues and potential recommendations that the Comprehensive Plan Committee was working on. Results were tabulated, discussed with the various Subcommittees and committees, and recommendations developed or adjusted accordingly.

The Consultants used the information endorsed by the Comprehensive Plan Committee to draft the Comprehensive Plan. Individual chapters of the Comprehensive Plan were then presented to the Comprehensive Plan Committee for review, modification, and approval. Individual Chapters of the draft Plan were posted on the Town’s website as well as being presented at the Comprehensive Plan Committee meetings. Two members of the Town Board regularly attended the Comprehensive Plan Committee meetings and provided continuous information between the Comprehensive Plan Committee and the Town Board. When the draft was finalized, a Public Hearing was held at the Milo Town Hall in front of the Comprehensive Plan Committee on May 20, 2009.

The draft Comprehensive Plan was presented by the Comprehensive Plan Committee to the Town Board for review and approval. In accordance with Town Law Section 272a, the draft Comprehensive Plan and coordinated environmental review conducted by the Milo Town Board pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act were the subject of a Public


Hearing before the Town Board on July 20, 2009. The draft Comprehensive Plan was reviewed by the Yates County Planning Board on _________ ??, 2009, which recommended the Town Board adopt the plan as presented. The Milo Town Board adopted the Comprehensive Plan on _________ ??, 2009 by resolution, in accordance with Town Law Section 272a.

Draft: June 15, 2009 Page II-1

II. MILO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE

The Milo Comprehensive Plan Committee (Comprehensive Plan Committee) consisted of a group of Town Citizens interested in charting the future growth and development of the Town. They were appointed by resolution of the Milo Town Board in the spring of 2006. Over the three years the plan was developed, membership varied slightly. A complete list of participants may be found in Appendix A.

For the first several meetings of the Comprehensive Plan Committee, monthly programs were organized to inform participants on various planning topics, approaches, town assets, town issues, and the resources available to the Comprehensive Plan Committee. As the public attended these meetings, the several people volunteered to serve on topical ‘SubCommittees. Over the next 2 years these SubCommittees provided valuable information and recommendations on a wide range of topics to the Comprehensive Plan Committee. The Comprehensive Plan Committee itself researched and made recommendations on the remaining issues, using interviews with business operators and the results of a survey of residents and property owners to gauge opinions of the general public and of affected interest groups. The volunteer Subcommittees and the issues they were formed to address are summarized as follows: I. Agriculture & Rural Character:

A. Existing Conditions 1. Type & location of businesses: review existing land use Map and map of agricultural

land uses 2. County Agricultural District review and recommendations 3. Natural resource inventory a. Review soils maps:

1.) erosion vs. agricultural capability. 2.) Presence of prime agricultural soils

4. Trends in Agriculture a. Open Space preservation and rural character b. Municipal utility service availability c. Mennonite impacts

1.) Land values 2.) Secondary businesses in agricultural areas 3.) Other businesses 4.) Auxiliary residences

5. Development threat of agricultural land: Ownership patterns of agricultural land a. Farmer Owned b. Rented from Farmer Friendly owner c. Rented from a developer d. Vacant and at risk land

B. Existing and potential land use conflicts 1. Rural residential development 2. Rural Commercial development 3. Growth of the Village of Penn Yan and loss of farmland 4. Is non-agricultural related rural residential development an impediment to agriculture?

C. Zoning Changes 1. What are the limitations of existing zoning on agricultural operations:


2. Are lot sizes too small/ too big? 3. Are too many non-AG related residences allowed in agricultural areas? How do these

impact each other (noise & odor vs. shade and pools too close to lot lines)? 4. Are additional land uses that could increase farm income limited by existing zoning

(such as welding shop, seed sales, etc.)? 5. Zoning changes to favor agriculture.

II. Business (handled by Consultants through interviews, reporting back to the

Comprehensive Plan Committee) A. Survey of existing non-agricultural businesses in Town

1. Commercial sales 2. Tourism related 3. Magnitude of employment and fiscal impact 4. Importance of land use character to businesses 5. Identification of concerns of business owners

B. County Airport 1. Description of Asset

a. What type of aircraft can the airport handle? b. Fixed base operator c. Auxiliary businesses

2. Adjacent development a. What types of supplemental/supporting land uses are located in proximity

to the airport now? b. Are there existing conflicts with adjacent uses? c. Is there sufficient, properly zoned land to accommodate growth in

supplemental/supporting adjacent land uses? d. Is there sufficient utility and transportation infrastructure to support

growth in supplemental/supporting adjacent land uses? C. Wineries

1. Inventory of number and location in Town 2. Identification of special needs

a. Restaurant auxiliary uses b. Special events (for example: weddings & receptions)

3. Zoning a. Support of wineries and auxiliary businesses b. Conflict with

1.) Existing adjacent land uses (residential and agricultural) 2.) Adjacent residential development

c. Encourage proper design and location. III. Rural Character (Photo Inventoried by Consultants, issues handled by

Comprehensive Plan Committee) A. Inventory significant views in the Town

1. Windshield/photo inventory of town and significant views 2. Survey residents 3. Produce final significant view map.


I. INTRODUCTION

This Comprehensive Plan is the product of several years’ development by the Town and Citizen Groups. In the spring of 2006 the Milo Town Board appointed a special Committee to prepare a new Comprehensive Plan for the Town. In addition, the Town Board hired two consultants, Reggie O’Hearn and Thomas P. HarveyAICP to assist the Comprehensive Plan Committee in preparing the plan. As chosen by the Town Board, the new Town Comprehensive Plan employed a citizen participatory model; engaging interested citizens, business owners, town and other local officials in the process of developing the new Plan.

The Town used a variety of methods to engage participants in developing the Comprehensive Plan. These included advertising the meetings of the Comprehensive Plan Committee in local newspapers and radios, and inviting local residents to meetings. For the first year, the Committee meetings included a presentation by a guest speaker on a topic affecting the Town, such as the history of an important local business, lake level control, or of generation of electricity by wind energy. Residents became more engaged in the process and volunteered to serve on subcommittees dealing with a particular group of related issues. The planning consultants hired by the town furnished these Subcommittees with information and assistance with organizing their work. The Subcommittees presented topical findings and recommendations to the Comprehensive Plan Committee. The Comprehensive Plan Committee then discussed, modified if necessary, and then endorsed the various Subcommittee recommendations for inclusion in the plan. For input from the agricultural community, the consultants worked directly with the Town’s existing Agriculture Committee. Business owners with in the Town were engaged through one-on-one interviews conducted by the Consultants. Finally, residents and homeowners were engaged in the process through a public survey mailed to every business, property owner, and residence within the Town. The survey collected some demographic information, but was aimed primarily on soliciting opinions on issues and potential recommendations that the Comprehensive Plan Committee was working on. Results were tabulated, discussed with the various Subcommittees and committees, and recommendations developed or adjusted accordingly.

The Consultants used the information endorsed by the Comprehensive Plan Committee to draft the Comprehensive Plan. Individual chapters of the Comprehensive Plan were then presented to the Comprehensive Plan Committee for review, modification, and approval. Individual Chapters of the draft Plan were posted on the Town’s website as well as being presented at the Comprehensive Plan Committee meetings. Two members of the Town Board regularly attended the Comprehensive Plan Committee meetings and provided continuous information between the Comprehensive Plan Committee and the Town Board. When the draft was finalized, a Public Hearing was held at the Milo Town Hall in front of the Comprehensive Plan Committee on May 20, 2009.

The draft Comprehensive Plan was presented by the Comprehensive Plan Committee to the Town Board for review and approval. In accordance with Town Law Section 272a, the draft Comprehensive Plan and coordinated environmental review conducted by the Milo Town Board pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act were the subject of a Public


Hearing before the Town Board on July 20, 2009. The draft Comprehensive Plan was reviewed by the Yates County Planning Board on _________ ??, 2009, which recommended the Town Board adopt the plan as presented. The Milo Town Board adopted the Comprehensive Plan on _________ ??, 2009 by resolution, in accordance with Town Law Section 272a.


II. MILO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE

The Milo Comprehensive Plan Committee (Comprehensive Plan Committee) consisted of a group of Town Citizens interested in charting the future growth and development of the Town. They were appointed by resolution of the Milo Town Board in the spring of 2006. Over the three years the plan was developed, membership varied slightly. A complete list of participants may be found in Appendix A.

For the first several meetings of the Comprehensive Plan Committee, monthly programs were organized to inform participants on various planning topics, approaches, town assets, town issues, and the resources available to the Comprehensive Plan Committee. As the public attended these meetings, the several people volunteered to serve on topical ‘SubCommittees. Over the next 2 years these SubCommittees provided valuable information and recommendations on a wide range of topics to the Comprehensive Plan Committee. The Comprehensive Plan Committee itself researched and made recommendations on the remaining issues, using interviews with business operators and the results of a survey of residents and property owners to gauge opinions of the general public and of affected interest groups. The volunteer Subcommittees and the issues they were formed to address are summarized as follows: I. Agriculture & Rural Character:

A. Existing Conditions 1. Type & location of businesses: review existing land use Map and map of agricultural

land uses 2. County Agricultural District review and recommendations 3. Natural resource inventory a. Review soils maps:

1.) erosion vs. agricultural capability. 2.) Presence of prime agricultural soils

4. Trends in Agriculture a. Open Space preservation and rural character b. Municipal utility service availability c. Mennonite impacts

1.) Land values 2.) Secondary businesses in agricultural areas 3.) Other businesses 4.) Auxiliary residences

5. Development threat of agricultural land: Ownership patterns of agricultural land a. Farmer Owned b. Rented from Farmer Friendly owner c. Rented from a developer d. Vacant and at risk land

B. Existing and potential land use conflicts 1. Rural residential development 2. Rural Commercial development 3. Growth of the Village of Penn Yan and loss of farmland 4. Is non-agricultural related rural residential development an impediment to agriculture?

C. Zoning Changes 1. What are the limitations of existing zoning on agricultural operations:


2. Are lot sizes too small/ too big? 3. Are too many non-AG related residences allowed in agricultural areas? How do these

impact each other (noise & odor vs. shade and pools too close to lot lines)? 4. Are additional land uses that could increase farm income limited by existing zoning

(such as welding shop, seed sales, etc.)? 5. Zoning changes to favor agriculture.

II. Business (handled by Consultants through interviews, reporting back to the

Comprehensive Plan Committee) A. Survey of existing non-agricultural businesses in Town

1. Commercial sales 2. Tourism related 3. Magnitude of employment and fiscal impact 4. Importance of land use character to businesses 5. Identification of concerns of business owners

B. County Airport 1. Description of Asset

a. What type of aircraft can the airport handle? b. Fixed base operator c. Auxiliary businesses

2. Adjacent development a. What types of supplemental/supporting land uses are located in proximity

to the airport now? b. Are there existing conflicts with adjacent uses? c. Is there sufficient, properly zoned land to accommodate growth in

supplemental/supporting adjacent land uses? d. Is there sufficient utility and transportation infrastructure to support

growth in supplemental/supporting adjacent land uses? C. Wineries

1. Inventory of number and location in Town 2. Identification of special needs

a. Restaurant auxiliary uses b. Special events (for example: weddings & receptions)

3. Zoning a. Support of wineries and auxiliary businesses b. Conflict with

1.) Existing adjacent land uses (residential and agricultural) 2.) Adjacent residential development

c. Encourage proper design and location. III. Rural Character (Photo Inventoried by Consultants, issues handled by

Comprehensive Plan Committee) A. Inventory significant views in the Town

1. Windshield/photo inventory of town and significant views 2. Survey residents 3. Produce final significant view map.


B. What defines the rural character of the Town: 1. Low density of development—how low? 2. Character of Agricultural buildings and land use 3. Size of non-agricultural businesses in agricultural areas.

C. Wind Towers: 1. Map of wind potential in Town 2. How does the Town of Milo’s wind resources compare with other locations? 3. Is the transmission infrastructure (electric grid or local transmission lines) in close

proximity? 4. Evaluation of commercial production facility vs. installations for on-site use. 5. For on-site consumption: Lower height, normally smaller size, owned by the property

owner 6. Survey of Residents

D. Regulation of Communication towers 1. Existing tower locations 2. Regulatory framework and extent of federal pre-emption. 3. Develop regulatory framework from options: Can’t exclude!!!!

IV. Lake Issues (for both Seneca Lake and Keuka Lake)

A. Lake water quality 1. Storm water & Erosion control 2. Fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide use 3. Steep Slope development issues

B. Lake level 1. Shoreline erosion 2. Shoreline maintenance 3. Issues in regulation of lake level

C. Review of new development: 1. Is site plan review needed to ensure

a. Impact on views from adjacent residences and properties. b. Stormwater runoff onto adjacent properties and the lake. How much of a parcel

can be paved or built upon? 2. Private road access:

a. Access to new home businesses: what rights do private landowners have to use a private drive (especially one that is shared) to support a home based business.

b. Access to new subdivided parcels off a shared private road or driveway. Note: NY State only regulates access for roads serving 5 or more dwelling units or properties, when they are setting up a new private road. It does not regulate subdivisions accessed by existing private roads.

3. Height, size, character of new or remodeled structures: a. Is there any adjustment to allowed maximum height, foot print (area) of

residences based on the size (area) or width of the parcel? b. Is there a minimum size stipulated in the code for year round residences? c. Are single wide mobile homes (commonly referred to as ‘trailers’) an issue? d. Are seasonal dwellings expressly allowed? Is there a minimum size standard?


e. Are design standards needed to address architectural styles? D. Are Lake front property values displacing local residents? E. Open burning F. Noise from boats, other watercraft, and other adjacent land uses. G. Density of Development concerns H. Rental Property maintenance and impact on neighborhood character, noise, traffic.

V. Intermunicipal Cooperation (handled by Comprehensive Plan Committee

A. Relationship with Village 1. Commercial districts and scale of commercial uses 2. Residential Neighborhoods 3. Expansion of village into the town 4. Yard Waste collection and composting

B. Utility infrastructure 1. Water district location/capacity, etc. 2. Sewer district location/capacity, etc.

C. Service consolidation D. Route 14A Corridor Study E. KLOC (Keuka Lake Outlet Compact)

VI. Land Use

A. Property maintenance (Eyesore properties) 1. Assessment of magnitude of problem, scope 2. Grounds 3. Buildings 4. Number of Properties 5. Options for regulating

a. Need for Property maintenance Local Law b. Existing NYS Building Code

B. Land Uses 1. Review existing maps of land uses, supplement as necessary 2. Review appropriateness of mix of development presently existing. 3. Identify public utility districts, water, sewer, etc. Note capacity/pressure zone issues. 4. Identify “neighborhoods.” These are areas of the town with similar characteristics 5. Document the characteristics of each neighborhood

a. Hamlet b. Village c. Commercial (strip, local, etc.) d. Agricultural e. Residential (low density, high density, waterfront). f. Others

6. Develop Future Land Use Map to establish goal for next 10 to 20 years. C. Zoning Ordinance Review

1. Review existing Zoning Code (ZC) in regard to protecting or enhancing characteristics of neighborhoods defined in B. above.

2. Review ZC in terms of obtaining overall goals and objectives of Comprehensive Plan


3. Review ZC in terms of ease of use, clarity, and fairness. 4. Identify other issues that need to be addressed:

a. Fair housing b. Application procedures/submission requirements c. Expedition of review & approval process for simple issues: combining lots,

subdivisions involving moving of lot lines where the result is conforming lots, etc.

d. Erosion control e. Building Height/view shed analysis f. Environmental Review g. Modular construction on single lots

D. Subdivision Regulations 1. Major vs. minor 2. Access management 3. Accounting for soil agricultural values 4. Erosion control 5. Performance bond requirements 6. Maintenance bond requirements

E. Mobile Home Local Law F. Property maintenance G. Other local laws, existing or needed

Each Subcommittee conducted its own meetings and kept minutes of their work. A record of this activity is on file in the Milo Planning and Zoning Office in the Town Hall, along with the minutes of the Comprehensive Plan Committee meetings.

Draft: June 15, 2009 Page III-1

III. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TOWN OF MILO

A. General Physical Characteristics

The Consultants obtained data from the Yates County Office of Real Property Tax Services, the Town Assessor, the Yates County Soil and Water Conservation Service, and the New York State GIS Clearing House and augmented that with data they developed to provide a base of information on the Town of Milo for the Comprehensive Plan Committee. This data was input and processed through a computer based Geographic Information System and used to provide a series of maps and analysis. These maps and data generated from them were used to educate the Committee, the volunteer members of the various SubCommittees, and the general public on the physical characteristics of the Town. This data and maps will be provided to the Town in hardcopy and in digital format for their reference and future use.

The Town of Milo consists of about 22,692 acres of land outside of public right-of-ways and is situated on the east side of Keuka Lake extending to the west shore of Seneca Lake in Yates County. The Town's general location within Yates County and within the region is depicted in Map 1 below.

MAP 1: General regional map.


A base maps was then needed for the town. Because the public is generally familiar with road maps, a base map using street centerlines was developed. The intention of this map is to establish a base that is easy for the viewer to reference (orient themselves to), onto which various other data can be added.

MAP 2: Street Base Map.

Many times viewers wish to know where individual properties, especially their own, lie on various maps. Thus a second base map showing the current property boundaries in the town was developed. This map was based upon tax map parcels of the Town as maintained by the Yates County office of Real Property Tax. Map 3 shows the most current Tax Map parcel base for the Town of Milo.


MAP 3: Tax Map parcel base.

The consultants then prepared a series of maps depicting the physical characteristics on the Town. The County’s Soil and Water Conservation District supplied digital soil maps of the Town, which were matched with a data set provided by the USDA Resource Conservation Service. Map 4 depicts the boundaries of the various soils within the Town. It is a non-orthographic depiction of the soil types present within the Town.

MAP 4: Soil types found within the Town of Milo.


This map is based upon the SOIL SURVEY OF ONTARIO AND YATES COUNTY (SOIL SURVEY), published by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in 1949. The SOIL SURVEY was mapped on a montage of 1938 aerial photography (a montage is a splicing of many photos into a larger single sheet, and the 1938 aerial photography was not orthographic). The USDA has transferred this soil boundary data onto a new orthographic base and digitized the data (entered the boundary location data into a computer mapping file). The result is an orthographically corrected map of soils within the Town.

It is important for the reader to understand that soil boundary maps are generalizations at best. The precision of the original SOIL SURVEY maps is such that soil type regions of less than 3 acres in size were not shown nor mapped. In a region with glacial soils (soils laid down mostly after a glacier event) the actual characteristics of the soil on an individual parcel (even within a single soil type) can vary wildly. Thus, neither the maps in this report nor the original SOIL SURVEY maps should be considered adequate for site specific analysis (in other words, on site inspection of soil must be made in order to accurately evaluate soil suitability for uses such as septic systems, ponds, agriculture, etc. The resulting computerized soils maps are, however, of sufficient utility for use in the broad planning analysis used in this comprehensive plan. This assessment is based upon the fact that most analyses utilized herein grouped soil types into a small number of analytical categories. This is further enforced by the fact that soil types that have similar analytic characteristics (such as high permeability rates, or good suitability for farming) are typically found in immediate proximity to each other. Thus, since large contiguous portions of the Town are mapped as possessing the same physical soil characteristics, the resulting map is very useful in judging the suitability of a particular large area to certain land uses. For example, if a 300 acre portion of Town is mapped as possessing soils which are poorly suited to on site septic systems due to high percolation rates (or low permeability), it matters little that the exact boundary location of the grouped soils may be off by 25 feet or that 5% of the soils in this area may support conventional septic leach beds. In this example, greater than 95 % of the 300-acre area mapped as having poor suitability for septic systems would indeed lie within the boundaries mapped.

The following map depicts the suitability of soil types for residential construction. Soils containing percolation rates in excess of 1 inch per hour, a seasonal or consistent water table within 4 feet of the ground surface, or a depth to bedrock of less than 4 feet, were judged to be severely limited for residential development. This is because the leach lines serving on-site septic systems are required to be buried a minimum of 4 feet deep, as are foundation footers, to be beneath the frost line. In addition, leach lines are required to be a minimum of 24 inches above the seasonal high water table. Soils possessing a permeability rate of between 45 minutes and 1 hour per inch, having a depth to bedrock of between 4 and 6 feet, and a depth to seasonal high water table of between 4 and 6 feet, were judged to have moderate limitations for residential development. Soils possessing permeability rates of less than 45 minutes per inch, a depth to bedrock of greater than 6 feet, and a seasonal high water table of greater than 6 feet, were rated as having few limitations for residential development. This soil rating scheme was utilized by the Ontario County Environmental Management Council (EMC), and may be found in the publication, ONTARIO COUNTY SOILS INTERPRETIVE REPORT published by the EMC. Rating of the various soil types within the Town by these criteria yields the following map of the Town:


MAP 5: Soil Suitability to Residential Development.

Other maps were generated from various interpretations of the soils maps. These maps were prepared in support of other Subcommittee activities and may be found in the chapters of this report dedicated to the activities of each Subcommittee.

Topographically, the vast majority of the town has very mild slopes. The areas surrounding Keuka Lake and Seneca Lake are characterized by steep slopes. These areas are also characterized by steep ravines cutting into and extending up into the upland. The other significant topographic features of the town are two major ravines: One containing the Keuka Lake outlet and the other beginning near the intersection of Chubb Hollow and Second Milo Road, running south east to just north of Rice Hill Road then running east toward the hamlet of Himrod. The following map depicts the slope categories derived from the soils maps compiled by the USDA in the soil survey of Ontario and Yates Counties.


MAP 6: Topographic Slope.

The combination of topography of the town and surrounding are with the rural, agriculturally dominated, land use of the town create a town of spectacular views and obvious natural beauty. A photo inventory of the town was conducted in the fall of 2007 to document existing conditions, including significant views and character areas within the Town. The following map depicts the photo number and the direction of the views that are considered significant within the town. These views help create the character of the town, contribute to residents’ quality of life, and are important to tourists who support tourism related businesses in the town and county. The future land use plan should take these views into consideration, and the review criteria for subdivisions and site plans should be amended to provide the planning board with the tools necessary to protect these important views. These tools should include the ability to require reduced heights of buildings, reducing allowed density of development, and/or the relocation of certain buildings, structures, and other landscape elements to preserve these views.


MAP 7: Significant Views

The next series of maps prepared using the data collected by the Town Assessor for the

real property tax parcels in the Town. One map prepared from this data and used by multiple Subcommittees was the land use map. Pursuant to State law, the town assessor must assign each parcel a single land use code from a standardized state list. The land use code assigned must depict the major land use found on the parcel. The hundreds of individual land use codes used by the Town Assessor were grouped into eleven separate categories as described in Appendix C in order to produce Map 8 on the next page:


MAP 8: Land uses from real property tax records.

Analyzing this map, the acreage in the town attributed to each land use category is as follows (figures do not include data for the Village of Penn Yan):

Parcels Square

Feet Land Use Acres

% of Total

Average Parcel

189 625154918 Agriculture 14,352 63.25% 75.934

955 178918574 Residential 4,107 18.10% 4.301

239 89425323 Vacant 2,053 9.05% 8.590

5 5461788 Multifamily 125 0.55% 25.077

35 6854159 Commercial 157 0.69% 4.496

5 11523796 Recreation & Entertainment 265 1.17% 52.910


Parcels Square

Feet Land Use Acres

% of Total

Average Parcel

13 1634754 Community Facilities 38 0.17% 2.887

3 8562851 Industrial 197 0.87% 65.525

12 20282276 Infrastructure 466 2.05% 38.801

14 14657643 Forest & Open Space 336 1.48% 24.035

68 25984056 Missing 597 2.63% 8.772

1538 988460138 Total 22,692 100.00% 14.754 By far, the predominant land use within the Town is agricultural related.

B. Cost of Services Analysis In creating a comprehensive plan, especially in regard to the development of a future land use plan (depicting the character and density of uses proposed for the town), it is important to assess the cost of services provided to each general land use category in the town versus the tax revenue it generates. This is generally known as a ‘Cost of Services’ study, and many have been performed around the country based upon a methodology promulgated by the American Farmland Trust. Generally, such studies find that Industrial Uses generate much more in tax revenue for each $1.00 in municipal services they use, commercial uses generate about as much tax revenue as the cost of services they require, while residential uses require much more resources than they generate in tax revenue. Agricultural uses are generally lumped with vacant and forested land, and a great deal of analysis is done to extract the residential assessment (value of the residence or residences and the prime lot containing the residence) from the agricultural category. If this is done, the cost of services analysis invariably shows that agricultural uses generate much more in tax revenue than they consume in municipal services. This is due primarily to the fact school districts have by far the highest local property tax rate when compared to town and county tax rates, and that vacant, agriculture with the residences removed, and wild and forested land uses don’t consume any services from the school district. To make the analysis more reflective of the character of agriculture in the town, in this document the residential uses associated with agriculture were not extracted. In the Town, a certain amount of residences exist on farms and these ancillary uses require services. This will provide an analysis based on the actual character of existing agriculture within the town. For the purpose of this Comprehensive Plan, an analysis of the cost of providing school services versus the tax revenue generated by the various categories of land uses in the town was performed. The analysis began with the calculation of revenues. The 2008 real property tax roll was used to provide a breakdown of the distribution of real property tax assessment between the various land uses in the Town. The following table shows the breakdown of assessed value for the Town as a whole, and separately for the portions of the town within and outside of the Village of Penn Yan. For comparing the value of the lakefront area with other portions of the town, the value of franchises (cable TV, telephone, electric, and gas franchises) were removed


since they are determined by the State and are set on a municipality wide basis (entire village, entire town outside the village), and cannot be separated by lakefront vs. rural area of the town.

Jurisdiction Total Assessment Percent Total w/out Franchises

Percent

Total Town Assessment: $543,899,925 100.00% $535,020,775 100.00%Village Portion: $233,626,223 42.95% $229,303,048 42.86%Town, outside Village: $310,273,702 57.05% $305,717,727 57.14%Lakefront $189,473,702 35.41%

The following table presents the assessment by the general assessment categories for the Town outside of the village and for the entire town including the village:

Land Use Category Outside Village Percent Including Village Percent Agriculture $45,007,182 14.51% $45,007,182 8.27%Residential $227,522,860 73.33% $338,893,062 62.31%Vacant $10,384,350 3.35% $12,861,750 2.36%Commercial $9,454,000 3.05% $54,594,200 10.04%Recreation & Entertainment $4,307,100 1.39% $7,449,500 1.37%Community Services $3,833,000 1.24% $59,815,500 11.00%Industrial $1,255,100 0.40% $7,180,700 1.32%Public Services: $7,805,210 2.52% $17,384,531 3.20%Wild, Forested, Public $704,900 0.23% $713,500 0.13%Total: $310,273,702 100.00% $543,899,925 100.00%

To use the assessment data for the Cost of Services analysis, two additional adjustments must be made. First, the value of apartments was taken out of the commercial land use category and moved into the residential category. Second, the value of non-taxable property was removed from each category. The following table presents the result of this analysis.

Total Assessment Taxable Assessments Land Use Category

Outside Village Percent Outside Village Percent Agriculture $45,007,182 14.51% $44,959,282 14.97%Residential (including Apts) $227,655,960 73.37% $231,532,860 77.11%Vacant $10,384,350 3.35% $9,606,450 3.20%Commercial $9,320,900 3.00% $5,313,100 1.77%Recreation & Entertainment $4,307,100 1.39% $1,662,000 0.55%Community Services $3,833,000 1.24% $556,600 0.19%Industrial $1,255,100 0.40% $1,255,100 0.42%Public Services: $7,805,210 2.52% $5,026,065 1.67%Wild, Forested, Public $704,900 0.23% $350,600 0.12%Total: $310,273,702 100.00% $300,262,057 100.00%


As indicated in the following map, the town is divided between two school districts, Penn Yan and Dundee.

MAP 9: School Districts serving the Town of Milo

Because the two school districts have different tax rates and serve a different number of students, the assessments were divided by school district as shown in the following table:

Taxable Assessment Land Use Category Penn Yan

Schools Dundee Schools

Agriculture $41,409,282 $3,597,900 Residential $195,560,410 $36,103,350 Vacant $7,246,900 $3,017,250 Commercial $2,928,400 $2,384,700 Recreation & Entertainment $4,201,400 0 Community Service $1,020,100 0 Industrial $20,300 $1,234,800 Public services $255,762 $214,328 Wild & Forested Land $344,900 $79,500

Multiplying these values by the tax rate in each school district will yield the tax revenue

from each land use category. This data is presented in the summary table on page III-11.

Next, the cost of services for the portion of the town in each school district was


determined. To perform this analysis, the number of school age children residing within each land use category and within each portion of the school district in the town had to be determined. Since the only two land use categories with residences are the agricultural and the residential categories, the number of dwelling units was totaled from the real property tax data. Once the total number of dwellings for each category was determined, the number of permanently occupied dwellings had to be determined. Since few, if any, agricultural related dwelling units are vacant in the town, an adjustment was applied only to the residential land use category. The vacancy rate from the 2000 census data (35.08%) was applied to the residential land use category. This was further justified by a review of the real property tax data that indicates there are nearly 200 seasonal residences in the town, most of which are on the lakefront. The number of occupied dwelling units was then multiplied by the median household size (2.82) for the Town as reported in the 2000 Census. The total population residing in each land use category in each district was then multiplied by the percentage of town residents (20.37%) that are school age (this percentage again being obtained by from the 2000 Census). This analysis is summarized below:

School District Land Use Category Total

Dwelling units

Occupied units

PopulationSchool

Age

Agriculture 10 10 28 6Dundee School District Residential 299 194 547 112

Agriculture 108 108 305 62Penn Yan School District Residential 880 571 1611 328

Next, the cost per pupil was determined. The budget for each school district was divided

by the total number of students in the district. This figure was then multiplied by the number of students from the Town of Milo to ascertain the cost of services for the portion of each district in the Town of Milo. A similar analysis was performed using just the total tax levy information from the school district for reasons that will be explained further later. The results are summarized below:

Penn Yan Dundee Total School Budget: $25,789,462 $12,997,921 Total Students: 2,235 1,084 Total Cost per student: $11,538.91 $11,990.70 Total Tax Levy: $14,299,470 $4,173,144 Tax Levy per student: $6,397.97 $3,849.76

This shows that Dundee gets a much greater percentage of its operating revenue from

sources other than the tax levy than Penn Yan. A review of the budgets for each district reveals that Dundee receives a much greater percentage of its revenue from state aid than Penn Yan.

To calculate the cost of educating students from Milo, the number of students from within each land use category for the portion of each school district in the Town must be multiplied by the cost per student from the table above. Combining this cost data with the data on tax revenues determined previously, the following table summarizes the revenues and costs


for school districts serving Milo:

School District

Land Use Category

Total Cost/ per Student

Milo Cost Total

Tax Rate

Tax revenue from Milo

Revenue to cost Ratio

Tax Revenue /Student District

wide

Tax levy for students

Revenue to cost Ratio

Agriculture $11,990.70 $68,878.67 $18.44 $66,345.28 $0.96 $3,849.76 $22,114.35 $3.00

Residential $11,990.70 $1,336,989.67 $18.44 $665,745.77 $0.50 $3,849.76 $429,257.14 $1.55

Vacant $0.00 $18.44 $55,638.09

Commercial $0.00 $18.44 $43,973.87 Recreation & Entertainment $0.00 $18.44 $0.00 Community

Service $0.00 $18.44 $0.00

Industrial $0.00 $18.44 $22,769.71

Public services $0.00 $18.44 $3,952.21

Dundee School District

Wild & Forested Land

N/A

$0.00 $18.44 $1,465.98

N/A

Agriculture $11,538.91 $715,860.91 $16.83 $696,918.22 $0.97 $6,397.97 $396,923.04 $1.76

Residential $11,538.91 $3,786,689.36 $16.83 $3,291,281.70 $0.87 $6,397.97 $2,099,603.74 $1.57

Vacant $0.00 $16.83 $121,965.33

Commercial $0.00 $16.83 $49,284.97 Recreation & Entertainment $0.00 $16.83 $70,709.56 Community

Service $0.00 $16.83 $17,168.28

Industrial $0.00 $16.83 $341.65

Public services $0.00 $16.83 $4,304.47

Penn Yan

School District

Wild & Forested Land

N/A

$0.00 $16.83 $5,804.67

N/A

In the table above, the revenue to cost ratios for agriculture and residential land uses are

highlighted. The ratios in red text show the amount of tax revenue generated by each land use for every $1.00 in school district expenses. This analysis shows that Agricultural property, including the associated residential uses, very nearly generates sufficient tax revenue to meet the expense of providing educational services to the students that live on agricultural property, even in the absence of any other source of revenue. Specifically, agriculture land uses generate $0.96 in tax revenue for every $1.00 in services delivered in the Dundee Central School District, and $0.97 in the Penn Yan Central School District. In addition, a number of school age children within the Town of Milo attend private Mennonite schools instead of the public school system, making the actual cost of services delivered to Milo less than what has been calculated here.

The analysis for residential property varies widely by school district, but uniformly residential land uses generate less revenue per dollar of expenses. In the Penn Yan district residential land uses generate about $0.87 for every $1.00 in school district expenditures, while in Dundee it is only $0.50. This disparity is due partially to the higher average assessment of residences in the Penn Yan District, especially as the Penn Yan District encompasses much more of the lakeshore area of the town and the higher value homes there.


The cost ratios in green text show how much tax revenue the land use generates per $1.00 of district expense paid for by the local tax levy. In short, it adjusts for state aid and other revenue sources. It uses the existing tax rate to calculate revenues, but does not take into account whether the existing tax rate is reasonable or appropriate. In this analysis ratios show that both agricultural and residential properties generate significantly more tax revenue than expenses for students from those land uses that are paid for by the local tax levy. This is an important analysis since it shows that the Town of Milo pays significantly more in tax revenue than it receives in services from the school district. If properties in the town are generating more tax revenue than expenses, this means that the other portions of the school district are consuming more resources than they are generating revenues. This makes sense, as the lower residential values and multifamily units that exist in the villages of Penn Yan and Dundee would be expected to generate significantly less revenue than they consume in services.

The question invariably arises as to how much a new residential property must be assessed for in order to generate sufficient tax revenue to cover expenses. Calculation of this value is calculated in two ways in the following table, for each school district. First, it is calculated based on the amount of revenue needed to offset the cost of all services while ignoring revenue from non-tax levy sources using each district’s existing tax rate. In other words, what assessment must a residence have if the tax levy was the sole source of revenue? Second, it is presented based on the amount of tax levy necessary to offset expenses currently paid for through the tax levy using each district’s existing tax rate.

Dundee Penn Yan People per household: 2.82 2.82

Percent school age: 20.37% 20.37% Average # school age

people per Dwelling Unit: 0.574434 0.574434

Total cost per 1 student, all revenue sources:

$11,990.70 $11,538.91

Average cost per Dwelling Unit, all revenue sources

$6,887.87 $6,628.34

Existing tax rate per $1,000

$18.44 $16.83

Assessment needed per each Dwelling Unit if tax levy was sole revenue

source:

$373,528.58 $393,840.86

Costs per student currently paid for from tax

levy $3,849.76 $6,397.97

Tax levy needed per Dwelling Unit

$2,211.44 $3,675.21

Tax rate per $1,000 $18.44 $16.83 Assessment needed per each Dwelling Unit given

current revenue sources:

$119,925.99 $218,372.75


C. Infrastructure The Town has two sanitary sewer districts serving the shoreline area along Keuka Lake, a

few near upland parcels, and the Country Estates and Lane View area as depicted in the map on the next page.

MAP 10: Wastewater (sewer) Districts in the Town of Milo

The existence of a shoreline sewer district along Keuka Lake eliminates the threat of sewage contamination from the near shore area. The Town’s sanitary sewer districts drain into the Village of Penn Yan sewer system, and wastewater is treated at the Village’s treatment plant. The Village’s wastewater treatment plant does not have much additional capacity, and the Village has no plans to invest in additional capacity. Thus, there is little opportunity for the extension of the sewer district to the east (uphill) from State Rt 54 (East Lake Road). The lack of an opportunity to extend municipal sewer service to this area will be an important factor in limiting the density of development in this area of the town. Similarly, the lack of any municipal sewer service in proximity to Seneca Lake is a factor that should limit the density of development in this area of the Town.

The Town has four water districts as depicted in the following map.


MAP 11: Water Districts in the Town of Milo

Water Districts 1 and 2 cover roughly the same area as is served by the Town’s sewer

districts, with the addition of the area near the County airport on Old Bath Rd. Water District 3 serves a very small area along Himrod Road near the County Fairgrounds. All three of these districts purchase water from the Village of Penn Yan. The Himrod water district serves the dense southern portion of the hamlet of Himrod.

The limited area of the town served by public water and public sewer service is

significant in developing a comprehensive plan for the town. There are vast areas of the town where service is not provided, nor is likely to be provided. This means any residential development will need an on-site source for potable water and the ability to dispose of liquid waste on site as well. This greatly limits the density of development that should be allowed in these areas.

Draft: June 15, 2009 Page IV-1

IV. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TOWN

Introduction: The United States Census Bureau is the main source for demographic data on residents of the area, including the Town of Milo. In order to protect individual people and business’s right to privacy, some of the data is reported only at the Town, Village, or Census Tract level, while other data is available at the Census block level (the Town comprises only a portion of Census Tract). The map below shows the Census Blocks into which the Town and surrounding area is divided, each with its own unique name (4 digit number):

MAP 12: 2000 US Census Blocks in the Town of Milo

Population: From the 2000 US Census and those from previous decades, we can see that the Town of Milo’s population grew from 1980 to 1990, and leveled off from 1990 to 2000. Outside of the Village of Penn Yan, the Town of Milo has shown very modest growth from 1990 to 2000 (the village population actually decreased by 29 during this period, while the town as a whole grew by 3). Other rural towns in Yates County grew dramatically over this 20-year period, and only the Village of Dresden and Town of Torrey showed a decrease in population. Population counts from the last 3 US Census counts for the municipalities in Yates County, compiled by the Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council, are presented below:


Total Population Change (1980 - 2000)

Municipality 1980 1990 2000 Number %

Barrington 1091 1195 1396 305 27.96%Benton 1981 2380 2640 659 33.27%Italy 953 1120 1087 134 14.06%Jerusalem 3908 3784 4525 617 15.79%Middlesex 1127 1249 1345 218 19.34%Milo 6732 7023 7026 294 4.37%Potter 1436 1617 1830 394 27.44%Starkey 2868 3173 3465 597 20.82%Torrey 1363 1269 1307 -56 -4.11%Village of Dresden 378 339 307 -71 -18.78%Village of Dundee 1,556 1,588 1,690 134 8.61%Village of Penn Yan 5,242 5,248 5,219 -23 -0.44%Village of Rushville (All) 548 609 621 73 13.32%Total 21,459 22,810 24,621 3,162 14.74%

Source: US Census Bureau The following table presents historic population data for each municipality in the County, separates the portion of each Village from the Town in which it is located, and presents US Census projections for future years:

Historical Projected Place 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Yates County 18,614 19,831 21,459 22,810 24,621 25,994 26,955 27,833 28,647V. Penn Yan (all) 5770 5168 5242 5248 5219 5223 5207 5203 5201Town of Barrington 754 929 1091 1195 1396 1506 1584 1654 1720Town of Benton 1742 1826 1571 2017 2142 2274 2361 2441 2515

V. Penn Yan (part) 351 333 410 363 498 521 523 524 525Town of Italy 428 532 953 1120 1087 1180 1245 1309 1365Town of Jerusalem 2760 3571 3855 3717 4454 4780 5010 5218 5410

V. Penn Yan (part) 87 10 53 67 71 74 75 77 78Town of Middlesex 817 925 1127 1249 1345 1470 1561 1645 1722Town of Milo 1633 1829 1953 2202 2376 2535 2661 2767 2866V. Penn Yan (part) 5332 4825 4779 4818 4650 4628 4609 4602 4598

Town of Potter 800 708 1036 1209 1387 1492 1568 1636 1698V. Rushville (part) 306 374 400 408 443 466 480 494 505

Town of Starkey 1129 1244 1312 1585 1775 1903 1993 2071 2149V. of Dundee 1468 1539 1556 1588 1690 1792 1858 1920 1240

Town of Torrey 570 736 985 930 1000 1081 1139 1192 1240

V. Dresden 437 450 378 339 307 292 285 280 280

Note: Town Population does not include Villages


The Town of Milo also has an unusual age distribution of residents. The Town has a fairly normal number of children below age 17, a dramatically low number of residents from 18 to 29, a below number of residents between 30 and 49, and a larger than normal population of people age 50 and over, as shown in the graphic below. This age distribution is explained by a number of factors. First, the fairly normal number of children is attributable to the relatively large family size that residents with children have, as is typical of members of the Mennonite faith. The lower numbers of college age residents is explained by the fact that many local residents leave the community to attend college. The lack of jobs in the County, however, seems to keep many people from returning to the area after college, as indicated by the low number of 20 to 49 year old residents. Many people seem to return to or just retire to live in the area, as is indicated by the large population over 50 years old.

Age Distribution

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

UNDER5 5-17 18-21 22-29 30-39 40-49 50-65 65 &Over

Age Group

The following map shows the median age by Census Block within the Town. This map clearly shows that the blocks of the Town with lower median ages are in the rural agricultural areas of the town, and the areas with older residents are along the lakefront.

MAP 13: Median Age of Residents by Block Group


Economic Indicators: One of the most important measures of economic vitality for a community is known as median household income. This measures the income level at which one half of the households are above and the other half below. It is a truer indicator than just an arithmetic average, which can be distorted by a few very high income levels. Data comparing the Town of Milo to other municipalities in the 1990 and 2000 Census records is presented in the following table.

Median Household Income (1990, 2000)

1990 2000 rank 1990 rank 2000 Change

Barrington $27,308 $35,391 6 8 -2 Benton $28,462 $37,957 3 6 -3 Italy $24,875 $33,710 9 9 0 Jerusalem $27,701 $38,542 5 4 1 Middlesex $31,413 $43,819 2 1 1 Milo $21,062 $31,149 12 10 2 Potter $28,080 $42,105 4 3 1 Starkey $24,384 $29,601 10 12 -2 Torrey $26,793 $38,289 7 5 2 Village of Dresden $23,125 $42,500 11 2 9 Village of Dundee $20,625 $26,289 13 13 0 Village of Penn Yan $26,275 $29,911 8 11 -3 Village of Rushville $31,583 $36,786 1 7 -6 Total $24,874 $34,494

The table above shows that residents of Milo rank near the bottom of municipalities in Yates County in terms of household income. Interestingly, the Village of Penn Yan does not seem to have pulled the Town’s rank down until 2000, and then only slightly. When you compare the income level of residents with the high value of property on the lakefront, much of which is owned by people who do not reside within the Town, there is a dramatic disparity within the Town between residents and non residents that own lakefront property in the Town. This data also supports the many resident written responses to the survey where they mentioned the need for higher paying jobs. In reviewing the Census data on where Yates County residents work, in 2000 there were 10,916 employed residents of the County, but a total of only 7,892 reported working in Yates County (of this number, 6,315 were Yates County residents). These numbers support the concern that many residents expressed, as in 2000 there were 3,024 fewer jobs than employed people who lived in Yates County. In terms of commuting patterns, just under 58% of the resident workforce is employed within the County, meaning that 42% are employed outside of Yates County. By comparison, about 62% of Ontario County residents are employed within Ontario County, and 1,902 more jobs exist within the County than there are in the resident workforce. In short, a significant number of Yates County residents have to look outside of Yates County for jobs. It should be noted that these numbers do not include the number of people who are unemployed


who reside within Yates County, which would make the shortage of jobs within the County even larger. The Census Bureau also reports this information at the Town level (so the portion of the Village of Penn Yan within the Town is included and cannot be separated out). The pattern evident at the County level is also true of the Town of Milo. Specifically, during the 2000 Census 3,315 Milo residents reported being employed, while 2,967 people reported working in jobs within the Town of Milo (of this 1,378 were Milo residents). This reveals there are 348 less jobs available than there are employed residents of the Town of Milo. In terms of commuting, the majority of people who work in the Town of Milo reside in adjacent Towns within Yates County. The following table presents the location of residency of people who work in the Town of Milo:

Place of Residence Number Employed in

the Town of Milo Barrington town Yates Co. NY 74 Benton town Yates Co. NY 264 Italy town Yates Co. NY 25 Jerusalem town Yates Co. NY 426 Middlesex town Yates Co. NY 23 Milo town Yates Co. NY 1378 Potter town Yates Co. NY 44 Starkey town Yates Co. NY 172

Total Yates County Residents: 2536 Steuben County 140 Ontario County 122 Schuyler County 52 Seneca County 30 Wyoming County 27 Livingston County 9

Similarly, the majority of employed Milo residents work within the town or in adjacent towns. Forty-one point 6 percent (41.6%) of working town residents are employed in the town and 63.7% work somewhere within Yates County. The following table presents the location where relatively large number of Milo residents work:

Place of Work Number of Employed

Town of Milo Residents Barrington town Yates Co. NY 43 Benton town Yates Co. NY 280 Jerusalem town Yates Co. NY 116 Middlesex town Yates Co. NY 4 Milo town Yates Co. NY 1378 Potter town Yates Co. NY 53 Starkey town Yates Co. NY 114


Torrey town Yates Co. NY 123 Yates County total: 2111

Wayne County Total: 61 Steuben County Total: 116 Seneca County Total: 92 Ontario County Total: 597 Monroe County Total; 93

The type of employment (education, health care, retail sales, etc.) that workers in a community engage in are reported only on a County level by the Census Bureau. The Yates County data is still useful in painting a general picture of the type of employment opportunities and the types of businesses that compose the local economy. A surprising number of residents reported working in manufacturing with only a slight decline from 1990 to 2000, while the number employed in agriculture fell nearly 30% over that period. Also surprisingly, given the importance of tourism to the local economy, is the relatively low number of people working in retail and the fact that this number decreased from 1990 to 2000. This trend runs contrary not only to expectations but also to national trends. Two sectors of the local economy that has followed the national trend are the dramatic increase in employment in Health Services and Food Service and Accommodations. The latter is also indicative of a tourism rich local economy. The total breakdown of the number of workers employed in the various sectors of the local economy is presented in the following table:

Workers by Industry (1990, 2000)

Workers Industry

1990 2000

Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries 1,045 727 Mining 20 4 Construction 856 839 Manufacturing 1,750 1,713 Transportation 375 332 Communications and Utilities 233 283 Wholesale Trade 289 306 Retail Trade 1,535 1,251 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 290 420 Business Repair Services 326 279 Personal Services 243 233 Entertainment and Recreation 107 127 Health Services 945 1,667 Educational Services 1,267 1,429 Other Professional Services 571 484 Public Administration 363 423 Food Service & Accommodation - 674 Total 10,215 11,191


Housing: The Town of Milo, outside of the Village of Penn Yan, is characterized by a very high rate of vacancy (455 of 1297, or 35.8%) of its dwelling units due to the large number of lakefront properties that are owned by non-residents. The next map shows the distribution of the vacant housing units in the town showing the largest numbers are on the lakefront. The vacancy rate within the village is relatively low, around 6.5%. Normally, a healthy local housing market has about 5% of the dwelling units vacant; reflecting the existence of some second homes and a few dwelling units that are between owners or residents.

MAP 14: Number of Vacant Housing Units from 2000 US Census, by Block

The following map shows the percentage of dwelling units in each Census Block that are vacant. Again, this clearly shows the predominance of vacant housing units in the lakefront area.


MAP 15: Percent of Housing Units Vacant, from 2000 US Census, by Blocks

The following map shows the date of construction of residential housing units as recorded in the real property tax roll in 2006. This map is consistent with the Census Data that reports that the median year of construction of housing units in the town was 1944 when the 2000 US Census was taken. This ranks the Town of Milo 9th among the 13 municipalities in Yates County, and is indicative of a slow growing or stable population. The 2000 Census data for all the municipalities in Yates County is presented in the table following the map on the following page. In the years since the Census Data was taken, a number of lakefront rebuilds and new rural single-family residences have been built in the Town of Milo showing a sudden increase in residential development pressure.


MAP 16: Year Residence was constructed, from Real Property Tax Records

Year Structure Built (Source: 2000 US Census)

Municipality 1939 or earlier

1940-1949

1950-1959

1960-1969

1970-1979

1980-1989

1990-1994

1995-1998

1999- 3/ 2000

Total Median

Year Built

Rank

Barrington 195 42 117 110 153 140 93 46 18 914 1969 3

Benton 465 39 73 46 93 91 60 75 26 968 1945 8

Italy 121 21 21 80 106 115 62 35 17 578 1974 1

Jerusalem 771 180 206 246 344 375 256 97 57 2,532 1964 4

Middlesex 283 34 52 70 107 93 46 43 4 732 1959 5

Milo 1,581 250 357 276 447 234 144 53 35 3,377 1944 9

Potter 272 11 6 20 96 107 76 34 4 626 1970 2

Starkey 775 46 169 125 216 140 78 89 0 1,638 1950 8

Torrey 283 36 73 71 90 72 54 20 0 699 1954 7

Village of Dresden 117 6 8 13 1 2 0 2 0 149 1939 10

Village of Dundee 371 38 44 50 105 40 47 21 0 716 1939 10

Village of Penn Yan 1,282 209 249 112 271 95 24 25 14 2,281 1939 10

Village of Rushville 134 3 4 10 25 36 20 4 3 239 1939 10

Total 4,746 659 1,074 1,044 1,652 1,367 869 492 161 12,064 1956 6

Draft: June 15, 2009 Page V-1

V. AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AREAS In December of 2007 the Town’s existing Agricultural Advisory Board began meeting to work with the consultant on the agricultural component of the Comprehensive Plan. Members of the Board include Councilman Dale Hallings, Howard Hoover, Russell Hunt, and Harry Lewis. The Committee began its work reviewing some of the physical characteristics of the Town. The Town of Milo is blessed with some significant soil resources. While only 8% of the world’s soils are considered prime for agricultural reasons, approximately 72% of the Town of Milo’s soils are ranked as prime, with approximately another 9% considered prime if drained, according to the current soil survey of Ontario and Yates County, published in 1948. In short, only about 19% are not considered prime. It should be noted that it is likely that an even larger percentage of the Town would be considered prime if the soil survey information provided by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service were updated to modern soil classification system. Approximately 10% of the soil types listed in the soil survey of Ontario and Yates County are not recognized in the modern classification system. For the purpose of this analysis, these were lumped into the ‘not prime soil’ category. The following map depicts the soil ranking of prime, prime if drained, of statewide importance, and not prime.

MAP 17: Soil Classification for Agricultural Use, USDA Natural Resource Conservation

Service


The Agriculture committee recognized the impact of the Yates County Agricultural District. Property within the County Agricultural District cannot contain rules that unduly burden agricultural activities. It also, in combination with a right to farm law, requires the purchasers of non agricultural property to be alerted of the existence of agricultural activities prior to purchase, along with the fact that farms and farmers cannot be found guilty of creating a nuisance when they are involved in normal agricultural activities (as those are defined by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets). Finally, the benefits to farmers include reduced agricultural land assessments on properties of 10 acres or more that produce at least $10,000 worth of agricultural products. The following map depicts the properties that are currently within the County Agricultural District:

MAP 18: Yates County Agricultural District

At the same time, the County Agricultural District also makes it much harder for the town to create special districts, such as sewer, water, and drainage, to name a few. Proposals for the creation of such districts are subject to review and comment from the County Farmland Protection Board and subject to review by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ag & Markets’). Ag & Markets, in reviewing a proposed improvement district, is empowered to prohibit future non-agricultural hookups to such districts within the limits of a County Agricultural District. Thus, it is very important for the Town to


ensure that denser residential areas of the Town are not within County Agricultural Districts. The Agriculture Committee made the following recommendation and analysis: A. County Agricultural District Review

1. Recommendation: a. Residential property fronting on Seneca Lake and the hamlet of Himrod should be

removed from the County Agricultural District. See Map 19 below:

b. Other Town owned property, such as the Town gravel mine and former landfill,

should also be removed from the County Agricultural District. c. The Town should request these changes at the next 8-year review of the County

Agricultural District by Yates County that is scheduled for 2009-2010. d. Areas that are active agriculture should remain within the County Agricultural

District. 2. Issue generation

a. These areas are not agricultural. b. These areas of the town have a density of residential development:

1.) Presently requiring water service 2.) In the future potentially requiring:

a.) Waste water service b.) Drainage districts

MAP 19: Recommended Changes to County Agricultural District


c.) Other municipal service districts. c. The Town has experienced the delays the additional review by the County and Ag &

Markets creates during the recent creation of the water district serving Seneca Lake shoreline properties and the hamlet of Himrod.

3. Reasoning a. Removing these areas from the County Agricultural will simplify the creation of

needed special improvement districts to supply municipal infrastructure b. There is little, if any, property that is proposed to be removed from the County

Agricultural District that is more than 500 feet from an active agricultural operation within the County Agricultural District. Thus, prior to purchase, people purchasing properties within the areas proposed to be removed from the County Agricultural District will still be notified of the protections afforded agricultural operators.

The Committee then considered the present extent and types of agriculture currently occurring in the town. The map below was developed categorizing each whole parcel into a single use. The Committee reviewed the data from the real property tax roll and refined it based on a review of aerial photography and their personal knowledge. The map is a fairly accurate record of the types and location of the various types of agricultural activities occurring in the town. As expected, there are many acres dedicated to vineyards, and for the most part these are concentrated on the slopes overlooking Keuka and Seneca Lakes. There is a significant amount of land devoted to dairy operations, much of which (but not all) reflects the local Mennonite population.

MAP 20: Agricultural Land Uses in the Town of Milo


The Committee then reviewed ownership patterns of the property in agricultural use. The intent was to learn what portions of agriculturally used land was owned by farmers, rented to farmers by farmer friendly owners, and properties considered at risk (many of which were rented to farmers but the Agriculture committee felt were hold the property for development). The committee also identified properties that were farmed by small, part time farmers. They felt that part time farmer owned property was at a greater risk of development than farmer owned, but not as much as investor owned properties. Except for areas adjacent to the Village of Penn Yan, the vast majority of at risk property identified is property that has potential views of either Keuka or Seneca Lake. It is important to note that this same area is vital to the signature ‘character’ agricultural land use, vineyards, which is equally important to area tourism. Continued conversion of land in this area to residential development, no matter how environmentally conscious that development may be in minimizing impacts on lake water quality, threatens the signature character of the area and its ability to attract tourists. The map below depicts the results of this effort.

MAP 21: Ownership of Agricultural Land Used in the Town of Milo

The Committee then considered land use and zoning issues related to Agriculture. They came to the conclusion that the soil resources of the town, combined with the viability of existing agriculture in the town, combined with the ability of agricultural operations to preserve the rural character of the Town that is so important to residents, merited crafting zoning that more clearly


supports and enhances agriculture. The result of these discussions resulted in the following recommendations B. Enhanced Agriculture Zoning

1. Recommendation: Within Zoning, the Town should define an ‘Enhanced Agriculture Zone’ where Agriculture is the preferred use with the intent of preserving both the agricultural soil resources and rural character of the Town. a. The Town should switch from a large minimum lot size to a density standard for

new residential construction in the ‘Enhanced Agriculture Zone.’ The Town of Seneca's, Ontario County, Agricultural Zoning model should be adapted to use in the Town. Residential housing density in this area should average about 1 house for every 40 to 50 acres. This should be controlled not by requiring large lot sizes, but by specifying that only lots of 100 acres or more can be subdivided for uses other than agricultural. 1.) Lots under 40 or 50 acres should not be allowed to be subdivided. One

residential unit may be permitted on such a lot. Additional housing units providing housing for the owners and/or agricultural workers shall be allowed.

2.) Lots of 80-100 acres may have only one lot for residential purposes divided from the parent parcel.

3.) Lots of more than 80-100 acres may have 1 residential subdivision lot for the first 40-50 acres, and one additional residential unit for each unit of 40-50 acres of the lot over 80-100 acres.

b. The boundaries of the ‘Enhanced Agriculture should conform roughly to those shown on Map 22 below.

MAP 22: Proposed Agricultural Zoning in the Town of Milo


c. Whole parcel planning with an eye to preserving the agricultural viability of fields and agricultural operations should be required as part of subdivision and site plan review for new residential and farm building construction.

d. Agriculture should be the primary principal use within the district. Setbacks of homes, tree plantings, and other amenities associated with residential land uses should be set at levels that enhance adjoining agricultural use. For example: 1.) Large shade trees should be set back a sufficient distance from property lines

to ensure that they do not impact field crops. 2.) Pools should be setback from property lines and located so that dust and debris

from harvesting activities does not impact them. During the application for construction of a pool in such areas, non farmers should be notified of the potential impact by adjacent agricultural activities such as harvesting, and they should be required to sign an acknowledgement that the residential owner bears the responsibility of any damage or inconvenience resulting from normal agricultural activities on such pool or the use thereof.

e. Multiple residences should be allowed on single parcels with a site plan review by the Planning Board to ensure that properties can be subdivided in the future in a conforming manner.

f. Auxiliary businesses related to agriculture should be permitted. These uses should 1.) Provide a service to agriculture. 2.) Sell agricultural products or crafts produced on the premises 3.) Ancillary sales of products not produced on site, but related to the main

business should be allowed as long as it is not the primary portion of the business. For example, a farm implement repair shop should be able to sell lubricants, or a quilt shop selling cloth and thread.

4.) Have primarily employees that are the owners or the immediate family of the owners of the related agricultural business. A limit of 4 employees shall not be family members.

5.) Be ancillary to an agricultural use of the property. 6.) Be limited in size to a 2,500 square foot building. 7.) Design standards for such uses should be established to ensure that the

character of the buildings used protects the rural character of the area. These should emphasize ‘farm like’ buildings, including gambrel roofs, wood siding, and a rustic appearance.

2. Issue Generation a. Existing zoning in agricultural areas of the town:

1.) Requires large lots that tend to disrupt efficient shape and use of farm fields. This tends to destroy the rural character and convert more land from agricultural production than smaller lots.

2.) Gives no preference for locating new residences on soils that are not significant for agriculture.

3.) Lists residences as a principal use, making it as preferable as agriculture. 4.) Provides numerous rules for dividing land for residential use, but little or no

rules for enhancing agricultural use of property. 5.) Requires a separate lot for each residence, even if the new residence is farm

related. This is a major issue for agricultural operations that use farm laborers


and for the resident Mennonite population that prefers to keep retired members on the farm close to their relatives and community.

b. There are significant areas of the town where agricultural land is not at risk for development, and existing owners and agriculture operators have made along term commitment to continuing agriculture.

c. There is a need for housing for agricultural workers and owners and their families. Mennonite owned farms are characterized by providing housing for retired family members.

d. Ancillary businesses supply important revenue to family owned farms. Their size needs to be limited and their appearance subject to design standards to ensure that the rural character of the agricultural district is protected.

3. Reasoning a. The agricultural value of the soils in the Town of Milo is so significant that they

merit protection. b. Many members of the agricultural community, both Mennonite and not, have made

a long-term commitment to the preservation of agriculture within the Town. c. Creating a density standard while reducing required lot sizes would consume less

agricultural land and preserve the low residential density. d. Whole parcel farm planning will preserve the maximum agricultural use of a

property while allowing a density of residential development that preserves the character of the Town’s rural, agricultural community. Such development also allows the agricultural landowner access to capital when needed, and the ability to remove unproductive land and the taxes thereon from farm ownership.

e. Many agricultural operations rely on farm labor. At the same time many of the local resident Mennonite population will reach retirement age in the coming years, and will desire to continue to live in the agricultural area while turning over the agricultural operations to younger members of the community. While the location of such housing should be part of whole agricultural parcel planning, and should be located so as to be able to be subdivide in the future, as long as the parent parcel is large enough there is no reason for the Town to require that each residence be on a separate lot.

f. Rules for setbacks of non-agricultural uses and other zoning rules should be written to favor agriculture as the primary principal use in this district.

g. The Town cannot prohibit the establishment of reasonable residential housing for agricultural workers within the confines of a County Agricultural District.

h. Design standards for ancillary businesses are important to maintain the rural character residents and tourists desire.

C. Special Hillside Agriculture Zoning 1. Recommendation: A special zoning district should be established for the areas of the

town overlooking Keuka and Seneca Lake where the land use is characterized by a mix of agriculture including a higher component of vineyards than the rest of the agricultural areas of the town. See the Map 22 above, under B. Protected Agriculture. a. Allow a mix of vineyard and other agricultural, winery, and scattered (low density)

single-family residential uses.


b. Alert residents in this district of the special needs of both vineyard operations as an agricultural use and of wineries for tourist attraction, sales, and special event hosting.

c. Clear standards should be established for: 1.) The density and lot sizes for residential development. 2.) Public access to wineries. 3.) Special events hosting, such as live music, festivals, and party hosting (such as,

but not limited to wedding receptions). d. The Town of Seneca's, Ontario County, Agricultural Zoning model should be

adapted to use in the Town. Residential housing density in this area should average about 1 house for every 20 to 25 acres. This should be controlled not by requiring large lot sizes, but by specifying that only lots of 40 acres or more can be subdivided for uses other than agriculture. 1.) Lots under 40 acres should not be allowed to be subdivided. One residential

unit can be developed on such lots. 2.) Lots of 40 acres may have only one lot for residential purposes divided from it. 3.) Lots of more than 40 acres may have 1 residential subdivision lot for the first

40 acres, and one additional residential unit for each unit of 20 acres of the lot over 40 acres.

e. The rules established for additional residences for farm owners and farm workers as described under the “Enhanced Agriculture” recommendations in A. above should also apply to this district.

f. Whole parcel planning should be done for new development. g. Erosion control plans should be required for new construction disturbing more than

1,500 square feet of surface area. h. Site plan review by the Planning Board should be required for non-agricultural

related activities disturbing more than ½ acre, and for non-agricultural activities disturbing more than 800 sq. ft. within 20 feet of a permanent or intermittent stream draining directly to Keuka or Seneca Lake.

2. Issue Generation a. Much of the land currently in vineyard production in the Town is considered at risk,

and increasing residential development is occurring in this area. b. Proximity of vineyards to the finger lakes is important to ensure the performance of

vineyards and the preservation of the rural atmosphere of the hillside area that is important to residents and the tourism industry

c. Vineyards and wineries can be productive on smaller lots than other types of agriculture.

d. Wineries need to diversify their business to ensure their economic viability. Hosting of special events can be an important component in their business plan.

e. The rural character of the area and high value lake views create high land values and taxes for vineyard and winery owners.

f. The views and beauty of this rural area are threatened by over overdevelopment. g. Site plan review, including erosion control, for non-agricultural development is

important to protect the water quality of Seneca and Keuka Lakes. 3. Reasoning


a. Allowing wineries a reasonable number of special events and establishing rules for public access and noise will ensure their economic viability and preserve the character of the rural area.

b. Increased residential development of the area needs to be controlled so that density does not increase to a point where 1.) The lack of public utilities (sewer & water) does not result in reduced ground

water quality. 2.) It threatens the rural character and beauty of the area upon which local land

values and wineries depend. 3.) It threatens the ability of vineyard growers to manage their land for agricultural

use. 4.) It threatens the ability of wineries to diversify their business and host a

reasonable number of special events. c. The extension of public utilities (infrastructure) to this area would require a high

density of development that would destroy the rural character of the area. d. The water quality of Seneca and Keuka Lakes is important for their use as drinking

water reservoirs, water contact recreation, and for maintaining the aesthetic resource important for local residents and tourists.

D. Non Agricultural Areas 1. Recommendation:

a. The hamlets of Second Milo, Milo Center, and Himrod should be zoned Hamlet Residential, reflecting their character and mixed land uses.

b. Other non-agricultural areas of the town remote from the lakefront should be zoned as rural/conservation areas with low residential density permitted.

2. Issue Generation a. The 3 hamlets in the town have diverse lot sizes and residents, and have a unique

character that differs significantly from modern ‘subdivision’ type residential development.

b. The character of the hamlets is not supported by the current zoning, which requires larger and more uniform lot sizes, as well as a segregation of uses.

c. Public utilities are generally not present in the hamlets. d. The hamlets are islands of historical development surrounded by agricultural areas

of the Town. e. There are several ravine, near stream areas within the town that are used for

recreational purposes primarily, and also provide significant forest cover, such as the along the Keuka Lake trail and the Himrod Conservation Society.

3. Reasoning a. There has been very little growth surrounding the hamlets over the last 30 years.

This appears to be due to a number of factors, including 1.) Existing zoning that is contrary to the historic character of the hamlets. 2.) The lack of public infrastructure 3.) The lake of public amenities, such as recreational spaces in the hamlets. 4.) The desire of the public for larger lots and smaller homes in areas remote from

the lakefront or without a lake view.

Draft: June 15, 2009 Page VI-1

VI. LAKE FRONT COMMITTEE AND LAKESHORE AREA The Lakefront SubCommittee and the Land Use SubCommittees were the most active subcommittees formed. They developed a list of legitimate concerns, collected and reviewed pertinent information, and developed reasonable solutions. This section will review each of their recommendations, explain the root of the issue being addressed, and the reasons behind the recommendations made. Many of the issues and recommendations overlapped between these two committees. Rather than be repetitive in discussing such issues twice, such overlap is noted and presented once in this comprehensive plan. A. Noise Local Law (issue overlaps with Land Use SubCommittee)

1. Recommendation: a. The Town should develop a comprehensive noise local law with different standards

throughout the Town that reflect both the density of residential development in that area and the proximity of denser residential areas.

b. Careful attention should be paid to establishing easily identifiable standards so that violations may be easily identified making enforcement simpler.

c. Reasonable accommodation must be made for outdoor functions at local wineries and the country club that are in close proximity to high density residential lake front areas, while also protecting local resident’s right to peace and quiet.

d. Construction and agricultural operations should not create elevated noise levels in residential areas between the hours of 9 PM and 7 AM. Any such requirements will not apply to generally acceptable agricultural practices occurring within the limits of a County Agricultural District, as those are defined by the New York State Department of Agriculture and are protected by the state’s various right to farm laws.

e. Within the residential areas of the town, noise levels should not be allowed to exceed reasonable nationally recognized standards. Thus, different standards should be established for day, evening, and night time periods to reflect the normal human activity pattern.

f. Standards developed for existing commercial businesses in commercial districts, including the Lakefront Commercial neighborhood shown on the future land use plan herein, should be carefully crafted and exemptions noted in the local law to ensure that existing uses and practices can continue to operate.

2. Issue generation a. The occupancy character of the lakefront residential is changing in two pertinent

ways. First, seasonal cottages are being converted for year-round occupancy. Second, lake front residences are being more aggressively marketed for vacation rentals, often resulting in occupancy by groups larger than a typical nuclear family. The former results in more residents looking for the type of peace and quiet that is typical of residential neighborhoods, and the later results in transient populations engaging in recreational activities creating noise levels above what is typical of a normal residential neighborhood, especially during evening and night hours.

b. The increasing importance of tourism to the local economy is reflected in the increase in the number of local wineries in the town. In order to appeal to tourists, wineries appear to be seeking property in close proximity to the lakefront residential


area to take advantage of lake views from their hillside vineyard location. These wineries are typified by a central winery building with a sizeable yard area created to create and lake views from the winery building, which typically includes a sizeable outdoor deck area. The beauty of the physical setting makes the hosting of live and amplified music events to attract tourists, as well as the hosting of private parties such as weddings and wedding receptions, a logical natural fit for these businesses. Unfortunately, the close proximity of these wineries to the lakefront residential area results in noise levels above what is normally acceptable in residential areas, especially in the later evening hours. This conflict occurs mostly on weekends, when parties are most likely to be hosted and when residential occupancy of the lakefront area is at its highest.

c. Residents have cited the following sources as the origin of unacceptable noise levels 1) Agricultural operations 2) Construction activities 3) Boats, jet skis 4) Amplified music

d. Residents living within other residential areas of the town, including within the Village of Penn Yan, are entitled to peace and quiet as much as lake front area residents.

e. The absence of a municipal noise law makes rectification of currently unacceptable disturbances very difficult. There is no clear standard to which to hold parties, which means that enforcement must rely only on the nuisance criteria or general ‘disturbing the peace’ standards that are ill defined and require a written complaint.

3. Reasoning for Recommendation a. Noise levels in residential districts are often affected by noise generated both from

within that district (other residential properties), as well as from uses within close proximity. Along with noise from local wineries and the country club, which have been discussed separately, noise generated from construction and agricultural activities were cited by residents as a concern. In close proximity to residential areas, whether the lakefront area, the village of Penn Yan, or the various small hamlets dispersed through the town, noise levels should respect the natural diurnal cycle of humans, namely that elevated levels are acceptable after 7 AM, higher levels are acceptable between 7 AM and 7 PM, somewhat lower levels are desirable between 7 PM and 11 PM, and significantly lower levels should be required between 11 PM and 7 AM.

b. A clear, easily definable standard makes enforcement by law enforcement officers simpler. Without such a standard, enforcement becomes very difficult if not impossible as courts and enforcement personnel struggle to come to terms with what constitutes an ‘unreasonable noise level.’

c. Careful attention should be paid to ensure that noise originating from generally acceptable agricultural practices occurring on property within a County Agricultural District is exempt from any regulation. It should be noted that the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets has jurisdiction over what is considered a generally acceptable agricultural practice, and state right to farm laws prevent local municipalities from regulating such practices within the boundaries of a County Agricultural District. Any law developed should include mention that there is a


process residents and the town may initiate for review by the State Department of Agriculture and Markets.

B. Open Burning/Lawn Debris (shared with Land Use Committee)

1. Recommendations: a. The Town should adopt a local law to prohibit open burning:

1) In and in close proximity to it’s densely populated residential areas. 2) In close proximity to the village of Penn Yan 3) In close proximity to the County airport 4) Where it would create a nuisance to vehicular transportation

b. The Town should consider working with the County Soil and Water Conservation District to provide residents with locations to deliver leaves and other yard debris to local farmers for plowing into the soil. The Town should cooperate in this endeavor with the village of Penn Yan to provide the village with a new means to dispose of yard debris.

c. The Town should regulate detached wood boilers and furnaces. 1) They should be required to be located a reasonable distance, such as 250 feet,

from adjacent residences. 2) They should be prohibited in dense residential areas such as the lakefront and in

the hamlets of Milo Center and Second Milo. 3) Where outdoor boilers and furnaces are installed with chimneys at least 2 feet

higher than the highest point of all buildings within 250 feet, they should be allowed to be closer than 250 feet from adjacent residences.

d. Burning of solid waste (garbage) should be prohibited. e. Fuel used in detached, outdoor wood boilers and furnaces must conform to

manufacture’s recommendations, such as wood, wood pellets, and grain derived products (for example corn).

2. Issue generation a. Many Keuka lakeshore expressed concern over open burning within their

neighborhood and in adjacent agricultural areas when smoke would enter and hang in their neighborhood. This concern is present during all seasons, not just in regard to summer bonfires.

b. Fires from sources without high chimneys, such as burn barrels, outdoor wood boilers, and ground level bon fires of wood and yard debris, and small portable outdoor fireplaces, creates smoke that cools too quickly and returns to ground level creating unhealthy conditions. Yard debris, especially leaves, can often smolder for days, negatively impacting local air quality.

c. The increasing concern of the impact of carbon emissions on global warming requires individuals and local municipalities to review their activities and regulations in order to identify ways to reduce carbon emissions. In this regard, open burning of household garbage and yard debris should be discouraged. These materials need to be blended into the soil to slow tie up carbon instead of having the carbon released into the atmosphere when burned. In this same regard, the use of open burning as a technique to control nuisance vegetation (weeds, vines, and scrub land) should be discouraged for the same reason.

3. Reasoning


a. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation prohibits open burning in towns with more than 20,000 inhabitants (6 NYCRR Part 215). This is a general acknowledgement that open burning needs to be prohibited in densely populated areas due to air quality concerns.

b. Almost all solid waste contains petroleum byproducts and other chemicals that either are hazardous or create hazardous chemicals when combusted, especially when combustion is incomplete and occurs at relatively low temperatures. Combustion of such material poses a health hazard to anyone in close proximity, as the combustion is incomplete and at too low a temperature to ensure that hazardous materials are not liberated or created and discharged into the air.

c. Yard debris, such as leaves, is especially useful in conditioning soil. Providing residents, especially those living in densely populated residential neighborhoods with the opportunity to return that material to the soil where the carbon can be tied up for a much longer period of time than if they were burned.

d. Where detached outdoor boilers and furnaces are fitted with chimneys of sufficient height to prevent near surface collection of smoke, they should not be subject to more stringent regulation than indoor solid fuel devices.

C. Septic System inspection (joint with Land Use) 1. Recommendations:

a. The Town should adopt local laws requiring inspection of septic systems upon sale. b. The Town should work with the County and Village of Penn Yan to investigate

creation of county sewer districts to serve the near shore area around Keuka Lake. 2. Generation of Issue

a. Underperforming septic systems are a major concern for water quality and public health. A mechanism is needed to ensure that privately owned and maintained sewage treatment systems operate properly, and that nutrients and contagion are not released into the environment.

b. Increasing development in close proximity to Keuka Lake threatens lake water quality in a number of ways. First, the existing lake front properties were subdivided and developed many years ago, mostly as seasonal cottage properties. By current standards, many of these lots are on substandard size lots. The conversion of these seasonal properties to year round residences creates an increase burden on septic disposal systems that are in close proximity to the lake. Second, new development adds additional environmental load to the near shore area.

D. Site plan review 1. Recommendations:

a. The town should require site plan review by the Planning Board for new construction and even minor construction in the denser residential areas of the town, near the lakeshore, and in the hamlets.

b. Development of commercial and industrial properties should require site plan review by the Planning Board.

2. Issue Development a. Views from adjacent residential properties are very important near the lakefront, and

can significantly affect the value of property and the owner’s enjoyment of their property.


b. Commercial and Industrial property normally involve a large investment and once constructed, constitute buildings that will affect the character of the town for generations to come.

3. Reasoning a. Requiring site plan review for new construction and even for small additions and

accessory buildings in dense residential areas is important to 1) Trigger soil erosion and sedimentation control requirements. 2) Protect the property values and quality of life of adjacent residents 3) Protect the character of the neighborhood. 4) Provide a forum for negotiation between the board and the applicant for such

things as stormwater treatment systems, provision of pervious surface paving treatments, in exchange for lot coverage or other site improvements.

b. The importance and quality of views and the impact of adjacent development is often a subjective judgment. Subjective judgments are most properly decided by the Planning Board, and should never be left to the judgment of a single town official, such as a building inspector.

E. Keuka Lake Level Control 1. Recommendations

a. The Town should communicate to KLOC that Keuka Lake levels should more consistently meet the guide curve, especially during the fall. Lower fall lake levels will provide residents with an opportunity to perform maintenance on seawalls, docks, and shorelines.

b. The Town should communicate with KLOC that its lake level management should more closely follow the guide curve to reduce the threat of a catastrophic flood event.

2. Issue Development a. High Lake Levels during the winter increase shore erosion and damage to docks,

boathouses, and retaining walls. b. The lack of low water levels over a stretch of many years makes maintenance of

break walls extremely difficult for property owners. c. Spring water levels consistently above the guide curve increases the chances for

spring flood events, and the need for higher spring and early summer discharges from Keuka Lake that increases water levels in Seneca Lake.

3. Reasoning a. Lake level is controlled locally by the Keuka Lake Outlet Compact (KLOC), a

intermunicipal board composed of the town/village supervisors of Penn Yan, Milo, Barrington, Wayne, Urbana, Hammondsport, Urbana and Jerusalem. KLOC is charged with regulating lake level in accordance with the “Reservoir Regulation Manual – Keuka Lake Outlet” as published by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

b. During 2005-2006 lake level was within 1 ft. of the guide curve only 40% of the time, and was over 1 ft. above the guide curve 60% of the time.

c. From 1993 through 2007, lake level never reached the November 30 target of 712 ft. d. KLOC has consistently kept lake levels higher than the guide curve to ensure high

summer levels in support of both recreation and to provide additional summer flow to Seneca Lake in support of electric generation activities on the Seneca River (outlet of Seneca Lake).


e. Since 1993 the consistency of water levels in Keuka Lake being kept above the guide curve indicates that KLOC appears to over protect against potential droughts vs. potential flooding events caused by large storm events.

F. Building height, lot coverage, and ‘Monster’ homes 1. Recommendation

a. Lot coverage standards need to be reduced and the definition of coverage needs to include the entire ‘footprint’ of the roof area of the principal and all accessory buildings (not just the area inside the foundation of the primary building), and impervious paved areas in the lake front and near lake areas to ensure the area doesn’t become too densely developed and impact the lake through increased run off and the character of the area.

b. Lot coverage standards need to be applied to all portions of a lot where it is bisected by public or private right-of-ways.

c. The height of new or remodeled buildings needs to be regulated based upon the size of the lot, especially the width of the lot.

d. Residents should have the right to rebuild existing homes, even relocating them on the lot, without variances where the size (floor area and height) of the new or reconstructed home does not exceed that of the existing home and where any relocation of the building causes the home to be located more to the center of the lot and improves any existing, non conforming, setbacks.

2. Issue Development a. The character of the lakefront and near lake area is important to residents and

tourists. The construction of larger and often taller homes on lots that are often very small as they were originally created for a small seasonal cottage is beginning to have a negative impact on views to the lake and the character of the area.

b. Where a lot is bisected by a public or private right of way, all of the building on the lot is often located on the portion of the property adjacent to the lake. This creates a situation where the town’s lot coverage requirement is met, but the lakeside portion of the parcel is overburdened with building seriously impacting views from adjacent property and roads. The result is homes and other construction on the small lakefront portion of the lot being out of scale and being nearly fully built upon. This has happened with several new homes being built to replace older small homes in the last two years.

c. The proportion of new, large homes built on small, narrow lots that originally were created to contain a small seasonal cabin, is a concern. Large homes on narrow lots are out of proportion, and negatively impact the character of the area.

d. Many homes in the lakefront and near lake area are being remodeled. Many of them also are situated in non-conforming locations on their lots. The

3. Reasoning a. The inclusion of impervious paved areas and the entire ‘footprint’ of roof area of all

buildings on the property will provide a much more representation of how much of a lot is actually developed. This is very important in establishing and preserving the character of the area. The current zoning requirements would allow a lot to be completely covered with the principal structure, accessory structures, driveway, sidewalks, and deck, and still meet the lot coverage standards because the standard only includes the footprint of the existing building.


b. Many municipalities with lake or other waterfront property regulate coverage on each portion of a parcel that is bisected by a public or private right-of-way. By requiring each portion of a lot to independently meet the lot coverage standard, no portion of the lot will be over developed, thus protecting the character of the area. The lakefront committee has filed examples of such regulations with their committee materials at the town hall.

c. Many municipalities with lake or other waterfront property reduce the allowed height on residences based on the width of the lot. The lakefront committee has filed examples of such regulation with their committee materials at the town hall. The thought here is that many existing lots were established to contain a small, seasonal cottage. Because of their small size, they cannot accommodate a large residence. In other words, these small lots are appropriate only to support small residences. The Town needs to establish zoning standards that ensure that the existing small lots are not overburdened with homes that are out of scale to the lot they are on, thus preserving the character of the neighborhood.

d. The Town should establish rules that allow owners to improve or replace existing homes and cottages with homes that do not exceed the size of existing homes. In fact, those rules should encourage owners to remodel or replace existing homes that do not exceed the size of existing homes by streamlining the review and approval process. Other recommendations made concerning height and lot coverage will make it more difficult to increase the size of homes on non conforming lots, so it is important to encourage investment by property owners in the type of improvements and new construction that preserves and enhances the character of the neighborhood. To accomplish this, the town should exempt new construction or reconstruction from needing variances where non conforming situations are not increased or where buildings are moved more toward the center of a lot where non conforming side, front, or rear setbacks exist, provided that lot coverage standards are met or not made more non conforming. Where new construction, or expansion of an existing building is involved, site plan review should still be required.

Draft: June 15, 2009 Page VII-1

VII. LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Erosion Control 1. Recommendation

a. The Town should adopt a soil erosion and sedimentation control local law to protect the quality of our surface waters. These requirements should require implementation of erosion control measures when the area disturbed is as little as 800 square feet within ¼ mile of the lake shore or adjacent to surface streams. These regulations should provide for filing periodic inspection of erosion control measures with the town, as well as providing surety to the town both for the erosion control measures and the maintenance of them throughout the construction cycle.

b. The town should review its standards for lot coverage in the near lakeshore area, and provide incentives for providing on site detention, retention, and recharge of ground aquifers, and discourage direct discharge into the lakes or adjacent streams. These standards should apply not only to new construction, but any time a building permit, special use permit, or site plan approval is necessary—especially for a major rebuild or expansion.

2. Issue generation a. Soil erosion is a prime source of nutrient load, especially phosphorous and

nitrates, into surface waters. The relatively long retention time of water within both Keuka and Seneca Lakes means that nutrient loads discharged into surface waters are retained for a relatively long time in the these two finger lakes, and are thus available to fuel nuisance aquatic plant growth, such as both algal blooms and rooted aquatics). While the New York State DEC has regulations in place that contain standards for discharging stormwater from construction sites, those regulations have several shortcomings: they only apply where more than 1 acre is disturbed, they include no oversight of inspection unless complaints are made directly to DEC, they do not include any requirement for posting surety guarantees to insure required erosion control measures are put in place.

b. Stormwater from asphalt roofs and paved areas contribute petroleum contamination to the lakes. Stormwater from all paved surfaces increases surface water flow to the lakes. This increases flood levels in the lake, increases erosion, and provides a conduit for surface applied fertilizers to flow into the lakes from remaining lawn areas.

3. Reasoning a. On site detention and retention systems can reduce storm water flow, reduce

erosion, and provide for improvement of the quality of stormwater discharges into lakes.

b. Sand filters and the use of pervious surfaces for paving provide for a reduction in stormwater from developed sites and improve the quality of stormwater discharge.

c. The cost of implementation of various detention, retention, and water quality treatment improvements are rightly borne by the development on site.

d. The town can require erosion control measures be put in place for much smaller areas than 1 acre. This is appropriate for areas in close proximity to streams and


to the lakeshore, as these areas directly discharge into the lakes and pose the highest risk for affecting water quality.

B. Excavation and Top Soil Removal 1. Recommendations

a. The Town should revise and update its existing local law, Town Code chapter 140-31(1) (2), relating to the extraction of stone, sand, and gravel. Changes in regard to ongoing inspection, the posting of security instruments to ensure compliance with required improvements and other conditions, including reclamation plans, and the removal of abandoned equipment, are obvious areas that need to be addressed. Consideration should be given to placing reasonable requirements on existing operators as well as for new operations.

b. The town should consider prohibiting new surface excavation operations in areas where scenic views and vistas have been identified.

2. Issue Generation a. There are several small-scale excavation pits located within the town that appear to

require reclamation and proper screening from adjacent properties. b. The existing town regulation does not address ongoing inspection, removal of

derelict equipment, nor any surety be filed with the town to ensure compliance with approval requirements nor that reclamation activities occur even if the operator become insolvent.

3. Reasoning a. Tourism is an increasingly important source of income for the town and the region.

Derelict and new operations that are visible from identified scenic areas of the town detract from the regions natural beauty upon which tourism depends. Reasonable regulation of surface extraction operations is important to balance the rights of private landowners with the regional needs of the tourism industry.

C. Property maintenance 1. Recommendation

a. The town should enforce the property maintenance provisions of the current New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code.

2. Issue Generation a. Residents have expressed a concern over the number of eyesore properties that exist

within the town. b. The photo inventory of the town identified several properties that are overburdened

with trash and debris. Not only are these properties aesthetically unpleasing, but also provide breeding grounds for vermin and mosquitoes. These are well known disease vectors, and pose an unacceptable public health risk for everything from rabies to West Nile or eastern equine encephalitis.

3. Reasoning a. The property owners of such eyesore properties should be required to clean them up. b. Provisions exist within the existing New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and

Building Code giving the town sufficient authority to require remediation of such properties.

D. Outdoor lighting 1. Recommendations


a. The town should implement a standard for outdoor lighting that is sufficient for security and minimizes light spillage onto adjacent properties, public and private roads, and to the sky. This standard should apply to all land uses, especially those in close proximity to or within the higher density residential areas of the town. A reasonable standard should be developed especially for the higher density areas of the town, such as the lakeshore and hamlet areas.

b. Consideration of light fixture placement, fixture design, and spillage on adjacent property should be part of every site plan review for energy efficiency, the character of residential neighborhoods, and the safety of drivers.

2. Issue Generation a. Residents have sighted concerns about light pollution, specifically:

1.) The waste of energy that occurs with fixtures that do not focus light toward the ground.

2.) Spillage of light from residences and commercial operations onto adjacent residential property.

3.) Outdoor light fixtures creating glare and distractions for vehicular traffic. 3. Reasoning

a. An outdoor lighting standard is necessary to create a mechanism for addressing issues created by light fixture installations that are exempt from building, site plan, or other local permit issuance.

b. For large developments E. Regulation of Development and activities on Steep Slopes and in proximity to streams

draining directly to and areas within 500 feet of Seneca or Keuka Lakes (joint with Lakefront Committee) 1. Recommendation: The Town should establish a Steep Slope Overlay District to establish

special density, erosion control, and stormwater management requirements for uses in this district. a. The Town should require site plan review, including submission of an erosion

control plan for non-agricultural disturbance of ground cover of as little as 800 square feet in these areas.

b. The Town should require treatment of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces prior to discharge from the site.

c. There are model ordinance examples, and examples from other municipalities to use as a guide for writing the overlay district requirements. One example would be from the Town of Irondequoit (which may be found with the Committee’s materials on file at the Town Hall).

2. Issue Generation a. The Lakefront and Land Use Subcommittees recognize that development in areas

that drain directly into Keuka and Seneca Lake, and areas of steep slopes, have the greatest potential to impact lake water quality.

b. Existing state regulations, specifically State Pollution Discharge Elimination Permits for stormwater discharge from construction sites, are only required when construction activities will disturb 1 or more acres of land.

c. A significant amount of erosion resulting in a negative impact on lake water quality can occur from sites where less than an acre of land is disturbed.


d. Existing engineering practices stress positive drainage from residential construction, meaning that water is generally discharged from sites as soon as possible.

e. Only large-scale residential development is required at the present time to mitigate storm water discharge rates (the NY State Stormwater Phase II regulations require the rate of discharge to be equal to or less after development than prior to development).

f. Existing NYS Stormwater Phase II regulations allow degradation in water quality after development as compared to the pre development condition.

g. The soils on the slopes overlooking Keuka and Seneca Lakes have a high erosion potential, as shown in the following map:

MAP 23: Soil Erosion Potential, USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service

3. Reasoning a. Development on12 to 15% slope is recognized generally by Land Use Planners,

Environmental Engineers, Environmental Scientists, and Landscape Architects as requiring special consideration to limit erosion.

b. Transportation Engineers do not recommend roads be constructed at grades over 11%.

c. A significant amount of land overlooking both Seneca and Keuka Lakes possess slopes over 12%.


d. Erosion control measures are not difficult to design, and significant local resources are available through the Yates County Soil and Water Conservation District to assist landowners, developers, contractors, and the town in designing and implementing reasonable erosion control techniques.

e. Where practical, individual lots should be required to meet the same rate and quality discharge standards as large subdivision development must meet. It is inherently unfair to make large developers meet a different standard than individual lot developers, especially given that the cumulative impact of individual lot development with no erosion control far outweighs that from the few large developments in the town.

f. There are practical on-site storage (detention) and water quality treatment option (such as sand filters) that are appropriate for mitigating individual lot runoff.

g. Direct discharge from roofs, driveways, and other impervious surfaces into Keuka or Seneca Lakes, or directly into their tributaries should not be allowed without adequate rate and quality control. Without rate and quality treatment of stormwater: 1.) Direct discharge into the lake conveys petrochemical, fertilizer, herbicide, and

pesticides directly into the lake. 2.) Direct discharge into tributaries in addition to the issues cited in 1.) above,

increases peak flows and leads to additional erosion of the tributary channel further impacting water quality.

h. Site Plan review of development by the Planning Board prior to construction will: 1.) Establish a requirement for erosion control and stormwater treatment. 2.) Provide the town with an opportunity to work with applicants to establish

reasonable stormwater and erosion control measures. 3.) Provide the town with an enforcement mechanism through site inspection by

the code enforcement officer. F. Regulation of Signs

1. Recommendation: The Town needs to adopt a comprehensive new sign regulation within its zoning local law to standardize the location, appearance, and type of signage allowed in the Town. a. The new regulation should also address the removal of disused, outmoded, and non-

conforming signs. A reasonable amount of time should be established before mandatory removal of signs made non-conforming by the new zoning law, in order to allow amortization of the sign owner’s investment. Existing signs advertising businesses in the Lakefront Commercial area shown on the Future Land Use Map herein, that are permitted by the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) should be grandfathered, meaning they would be exempt from any requirement for removal. Grandfathering of such signs should expire if at any time the sign involved does not have a valid permit from DOT.

b. Standards for size, location, and appearance of business signs should be established based upon local speed limits.

c. Interior illuminated signs should be either forbidden or the intensity of the lighting strictly regulated.

d. Flashing, moving, and otherwise distracting signs should be prohibited, as they can become a distraction for drivers and thus a safety issue.


e. The town should establish rules for temporary signs, including those for occasional events such as garage sales, special business events, etc. This is not the same as requiring a permit for such signs. Such temporary signs should be allowed a specified length of time to be displayed during the calendar year. This will allow the town to require removal of non-conforming signage.

f. Rules must be established for if and under what circumstances off premises business signs will be allowed.

g. The town should consider creation of unified business district, resort, or winery area signage on main roads to direct tourists and other interested customers to the areas where businesses are clustered.

2. Issue Development a. The Photo inventory of the Town revealed:

1.) Off premises business signs, especially for businesses located outside of the Town of Milo, are prevalent within the Town. In fact, off premises signs that are prohibited in adjacent towns are apparently purposefully located in the Town of Milo because of their lack of prohibitions.

2.) The location, size, and appearance of signage on State Rt 14A do not conform to the recommendations in the Route 14A Corridor Study published by Yates County.

3.) Many disused signs remain up long after the use they are advertising. This is true both of signs advertising temporary events, and true for businesses that are either seasonal or no longer exist.

4.) Many businesses within and adjacent to the town use temporary plastic (often plastic corrugated) signs to excess within the town—to the point that they become almost permanent—and attach them to many sign posts and utility poles throughout town.

b. Reasonable accommodation for business signage must be made to ensure the economic health of businesses.

c. The character of a community is heavily impacted by the type and number of signs, especially along its main thoroughfares—State Rt 14 and State Rt 14A.

3. Reasoning a. A coordinated, standardized appearance of signs can

1.) Help establish the character of the Town. 2.) Will level the playing field between competing businesses.

b. Federal law has long established the right of local municipalities to require removal of non-conforming signs as long as a reasonable period of time is allowed for the owner to amortize their investment in the sign.

c. The proliferation of off premises business signs, including the use of multiple plastic business signs, is counter productive in that there are so many of them that motorists can’t pick out the one they are looking for.

d. Unified area signage (resort, business area, winery area) signage will be much clearer for tourists and other interested parties, and all businesses will benefit.

e. There are many model sign regulations, including one from the American Planning Association and from the Town of Irondequoit that can be used to draft adequate sign regulations for inclusion in the zoning local law. These are on file with the committee materials at Town Hall.


G. Townhouses and Multi-Family Dwellings (joint with Lakefront Committee) 1. Recommendation: Townhouses, apartments, and similar multifamily dwellings should

not generally be allowed within the Town. a. Adequate provision must be made for the conversion of existing, large housing to be

converted into multifamily use (apartments) where on-site water and waste-water disposal systems are adequate to support the use. Such conversions can preserve existing large residences that may otherwise be cost prohibitive for single occupancy.

2. Issue Generation a. Townhouses, apartments, and multifamily dwellings are high-density residential

uses that require sewer and water service. b. The character of the majority of the Town of Milo is rural. c. Townhouses, apartments, and multifamily dwellings would create too high a density

in the lake front area. d. Views of the lake are important to residents, tourists, and local businesses. They are

accommodated by the current density of development. The construction of townhouse buildings and apartments would invariably cut down on the views through lakefront or near lakefront properties substantially affecting lake views.

3. Reasoning a. Adequate provision of multi-family housing exists within the Village of Penn Yan

to meet the need of local residents where public utilities are available. b. The character of the Town’s lakefront area is strictly single family residential,

including both permanent and seasonal residences. Multifamily dwellings and townhouses do not fit the character of the lakefront area.

c. Townhouses and apartment buildings tend to be much larger than standard single-family detached dwellings. Their construction on or near the lakefront would be a detriment to residences, tourists, and businesses (especially those that depend on tourists), as they would negatively impact views of the lake.

d. The Town contains a wide range of housing types and costs, as noted in the study of assessed valuations and rents.

e. The Town, outside of the village, has a high vacancy rate for rental units. There does not appear to be an additional need for rental units within the town.

H. Registration of Rental Properties (joint with Lakefront Committee) 1. Recommendation: The Town should adopt a local law (outside and separate from

zoning) regarding residential rental property to: a. Require owners of residential rental property to register their contact information

with the town. This will provide the town with verified contact information to resolve any issue that may develop with the rental property.

b. Provide the Town with a method to revoke the right to rent where property condition, behavior of tenants, violation of town laws and/or ordinances, and/or violation of state codes exist for an unreasonable period of time.

c. Provide landowners with rental property copies of important local laws, such as noise ordinances, that the town may require to be posted or provided to renters.

d. Require the landowner to provide all renters with the town recognized street address for the property that agrees with local 9-1-1 records.


e. Require landowners of rental property to display properly sized and located house numbers on the rental property, including any unit numbers to provide better field identification for emergency service providers (police, fire, and emergency medical services).

2. Issue Generation a. Rental properties, including multifamily dwellings and apartments, are investment

properties often with absentee landowners. This can result in less than desirable maintenance of rental property to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood.

b. Municipalities often have difficulty in locating absentee landowners to address pressing issues concerning violations of town and state laws.

c. The Town can only regulate the physical characteristics of construction, and not whether an owner chooses to offer residential property for lease or live there as owner.

d. The Town can take steps to ensure that lessors act in a responsible manner and adhere to all the applicable laws of the state and the town.

e. Short-term renters are more prone to having emergencies, especially on the lakefront, and are not familiar with their address or their surroundings.

3. Reasoning a. Requiring registration of rental property is an easy method to establish a database of

contact information. This will aid the town if and when owners of rental property need to be contacted concerning the condition or their property or the behavior of their tenants in regard to state and town law requirements.

b. The registration process will afford the town with an opportunity to personally explain any applicable local laws or ordinances, such as noise ordinances, to the landowner. The town may choose to require that copies of certain local laws or ordinances, such as a noise ordinance, be provided to all renters. Alternatively, the Town may require posting of significant points, such as quiet hours, and permitted noise levels, in the rental unit.

c. Requiring posting of recognized house numbers, unit numbers, and of informing renters of the rental property’s proper address, will ensure timely delivery of emergency services, especially where short term rentals are involved.

d. These measures are intended to improve the health, safety, and general welfare of the public.

Draft: June 15, 2009 Page VIII-1

VIII. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT This section of the comprehensive plan makes recommendations on zoning and town policy changes that should be put in place to encourage the growth and location of desirable businesses within the town. Desirable businesses are those businesses of a scale, appearance, and other characteristics that positively impact the neighborhood, do not detract from the village of Penn Yan’s business district, and provide meaningful employment within the town. This section of the comprehensive plan deals with businesses other than agricultural operations (which are the subject of section V of this plan). The recommendations made herein were developed after an inventory of existing businesses was performed, the operators of those businesses were interviewed to solicit their opinions and ideas, and recommendations were developed, reviewed, and ultimately endorsed by the Comprehensive Plan Committee. Map 24 below depicts the locations of the various non-agricultural businesses that were identified within the town outside of the village of Penn Yan. In the map the numbers are keyed to the photo inventory of the town, contained in Appendix E. The numbers appearing in green are roadside stands.

Map 24: Location of Non-Farm Businesses


These businesses run the gambit from manufacturing operations, an airport, to retail sales of various scales and types that vary from full time operations to part time operations intended to simply supplement family income. Taken as a whole, they paint a picture of a diverse and active business community that provides significant employment and income within the community. The consultants interviewed the proprietors of 40 of these businesses; collecting information on the business, their dependence on tourism, their dependence on rural character of the area, and views on what actions the town can take to encourage businesses. Of the businesses surveyed, they provide employment for some 427 people, of which 150 were full time, with the part time employment equaling the equivalent of another 140 full time positions. Thirty-Nine of these businesses generate nearly Thirty Million Dollars in gross business receipts (not profits) on an annual basis, or an average of nearly $750,000 per business. The fortieth business was not included in the financial figures above, as it is a large retail sales business with annual gross receipts equaling more than the other 39 businesses combined. The survey of businesses identified a few specialty businesses, such as Penn Yan Aero and some fabrication shops that serve a special population or provide services to other businesses both locally or nationally. Camp Cory, although owned by a private not-for-profit business (the Rochester YMCA), provides some significant seasonal employment opportunities, as camp staff, maintenance & grounds workers, and counselors are employed to run the various summer programs. Many businesses located in the Town serve local resident populations (such as the gasoline station, dog kennel, liquid propane delivery, & auto sales), but the vast majority are either wholly or substantially dependent on tourism (wineries, gift shops, antique shops, quilt shops, airport, gasoline station, restaurants, golf course, motels, & hotels). Even the owners of Wood Tex Manufacturing (which makes and sells small prefab buildings) state that a significant portion of their business is tourism dependent. The importance of tourism to the majority of businesses in town is reflected in the responses to the business survey where over 81% of businesses stated that tourism was important to their business and more than 87% stated that the town’s rural character was important. The dependence on tourism for future business growth is supported by the fact that less than 20 % of business owners thought there would be more residential development in the town in the future, and some of the few that did remarked that increased residential development is not desirable in the rural areas of the town, especially on the hillsides overlooking the lake. On the other hand, the vast majority thought there would be increased business in the future, leaving increases in tourism as the primary source of this additional business. In the survey responses, the owners of property along State Rt 14A from the Village of Penn Yan to Second Milo identified the provision of municipal water service to be important for business. They did not seem to equate the provision of municipal water service as a stimulant for new residential development (especially at a density of development that would be incompatible with their desire to maintain rural character). A. Extension of Municipal Water along State Rt 14A south of the village of Penn Yan

1. Recommendation: The town should seek ways to extend municipal water service along State Rt 14A from the village line to the area near Mac’s Dairy Bar business. a. Care must be exercised in limiting the boundaries and capabilities of the water

district so that water service cannot be extended to agricultural areas creating


opportunities for new high density residential or other incompatible development that would disrupt the rural character.

b. During any consideration to extend municipal water service, the Town should carefully explain the link between the provision of municipal service and development.

c. Extension of water to the Second Milo area to the bulk food business should be considered only if grant funds can be identified to make the cost reasonable, if local land owners and residents report issues with drinking water quality, and if restrictions are placed on the water district preventing future non-agricultural connections to the district in the area from the intersection of Old Route 14A south to the hamlet of Second Milo.

2. Issue Generation a. Existing commercial businesses in this area have cited the lack of public water as a

concern. b. Restaurants, an important component of tourism business, tend to locate where

municipal water is available. c. During the survey of business owners, it became evident that while they understood

the benefits the provision of municipal water service would have for their businesses, they did not appreciate the potential for incompatible development that accompanies the provision of municipal service if not done carefully.

d. The land and area between Mac’s Dairy Bar and the hamlet of Second Milo is a strong agricultural area that is important to retain to protect the town’s rural character. This area is also very sparsely populated.

e. While the density of development of the hamlet of Second Milo is high enough to raise concern about the proximity of on-site septic disposal systems to private wells serving individual properties, there are few problems with drinking water reported from residents and businesses in the hamlet of Second Milo.

f. The majority of residences and buildings in the hamlet of Second Milo date from the 19th and early 20th century, and have a ‘New England’ character typical of the layout of these hamlets scattered throughout the Finger Lakes region. This is characterized by a mix of lot sizes, including some very small residential lots where wells are in close proximity to sewage disposal systems. This proximity raises concerns over potential contamination.

3. Reasoning a. State Rt 14A has a high traffic level for the area, and presents an opportunity to

locate tourism based businesses if suitable infrastructure is in place. b. The character of the area is important to the quality of life of local residents, and the

long term economic viability of tourism business. A balance must be maintained with the size, density, and type of commercial businesses that will be allowed in order to ensure protection of the rural character of this corridor, and in the hamlet to respect and enhance its historic character.

c. The provision of public water will bring increased economic opportunities and thus investment in businesses in this area over time.

e. Careful consideration must be given to the area to be served by municipal water service, and zoning and land use controls must be in place to control the density and type of development allowed in the area served by municipal water service. The


reasons for these controls must be carefully explained to the residents and business owners in the area served.

f. The land between Mac’s Dairy Bar and the hamlet of Second Milo is important for agriculture and in establishing the rural character of the town in this major transportation corridor to subject it to increased development from the extension of public water. Adequate development restrictions must be in place to ensure that agricultural land is not converted to other uses.

g. The cost of extending public water to Second Milo would not be economically feasible without grants. From the Old Route 14A intersection with State Rt 14A and Second Milo there is approximately 1.5 miles of water line with very few users to support (or share) the cost of construction.

B. Municipal sewer service near the County airport and along State Rt 14A south of the Village 1. Recommendation: The Town should work with the village to extend municipal sewer

service to the industrial properties on and near the County airport and the commercial strip along State Rt 14A from the southerly village boundary to Friendly Chrysler Jeep property. a. Cooperative efforts between the Village, the Town, and the County to identify

grants for infrastructure improvements should be made both for the extension of sewer line and for improvements to the village treatment plant.

2. Issue generation: a. Business owners in this area of town noted the lack of municipal sewer service as

limiting the ability of their businesses to grow. b. The County has invested heavily in the airport to support local business and attract

economic development in the region. c. The area near the airport currently supports airport related businesses. d. Restaurants, a significant component of tourism business, require good public

infrastructure. e. The village sewer treatment plant is near capacity. Expansion of service must be

coupled with expansion in treatment capacity or elimination of infiltration from ground water and storm water.

3. Reasoning a. The area around the airport requires municipal sewer service to support existing and

attract future compatible industry. The lack of sewer disposal infrastructure in this area limits opportunities for businesses. The location of additional industry in this area without municipal sewer service is undesirable because of its proximity to the lake and the potential threat to lake water quality.

b. The corridor along State Rt 14A from the Penn Yan village boundary to Friendly Chrysler is close to the village and can easily be served by gravity sewer extended from the village.

c. The extension of municipal sewer will lead to additional economic development opportunities.

C. Tourist overlay businesses 1. Recommendation: Tourist based businesses such as rural dining, especially family

restaurants and higher end establishments catering to tourism, need to be allowed in the tourist overlay districts.


a. The size of such businesses and restaurants should be no more than 3,000 square feet or a capacity to serve no more than one hundred patrons.

b. The character of the architecture must reflect the Town’s rural character. Natural siding, sloped roofs, requiring the use of architectural styles based upon or echoing the predominant late 19th century architectural styles prevalent in the area, and the avoidance of recognizable ‘corporate architectural styles (like McDonald’s famous golden arches) should be established as design standards.

c. Outside of the hamlets of Second Milo & Himrod, density should remain low to ensure the rural character of the area.

d. While driveways should be clearly visible, parking must be required to be visually screened from the public right-of-way and adjoining properties.

2. Issue Generation a. Tourism businesses have the potential for growth in the region. b. The corridors of State Rt 14 and State Rt 14A have great potential for tourism

business growth because of their high traffic counts. c. Maintaining the rural character of the area and respecting the predominant

architectural character of the area is important to ensure the long-term viability of tourism business. The survey of existing businesses in the town confirmed this link.

d. The size of businesses must be limited to ensure they blend into the rural character of the area.

e. Many respondents to the public survey noted the need for more family restaurants in the area.

f. The predominant architectural styles defining the Finger Lakes region and the town of Milo date from the mid to late 19th century. New construction should reflect this design tradition.

3. Reasoning a. The town needs economic growth to create jobs within the community, eliminating

the need for so many residents to seek employment outside of the town and even the County (see Chapter V).

b. The Town’s zoning must balance the need for economic growth possible through tourism related businesses with maintaining the area’s rural character.

c. Construction of fast food restaurants and other national chain businesses utilizing their typical ‘corporate architectural style’ would detract from the scenic beauty of the area and the town’s rural character. This is not to say that national franchises should be prevented from locating in the town, only that the town should require them, as well as any new businesses, to use architecture and site design that reflects and enhances the character of the area.

D. Businesses in Hillside Agriculture 1. Recommendation: Wineries and other tourism-based businesses should be allowed but

widely scattered in Hillside Agriculture areas. a. Wine production should be allowed as part of winery sales businesses. b. Wineries should be allowed to host special events, such as wedding receptions,

inside as long as the number of vehicles and noise is confined to the property (is not disruptive to the neighborhood).

c. Bed and breakfasts, inns, and spas, should also be allowed in this area. Bed & breakfast operations should require owners be occupants and have no more than 4


bedrooms for rent, and inns and spas should have no more than 20. All should be designed to reflect the rural character of the area, including reflecting the Town’s predominate mid to late 19th century architectural style. Special attention should also be paid to the appearance of the property from the public road right-of-way, including screening of the parking area and minimizing the massing of the building form, to protect the town’s rural character. A visual assessment should be required as part of the zoning review and environmental assessment to ensure the proposed development does not interfere with significant views and does not negatively impact the character of the town as viewed from surrounding areas.

2. Issue Generation a. Large areas of vineyards exist in the areas overlooking Seneca and Keuka lakes.

These areas provide the natural settings that can attract tourists. b. The density of tourism uses needs to be low to protect the agricultural uses,

especially vineyards, in the areas overlooking Seneca and Keuka lakes. This will also limit the impact of these uses on lake water quality.

c. The hosting of special events provides important income for winery businesses, but can be disruptive to neighboring businesses and residences, even to residences on the lakefront.

d. Over development of the areas overlooking Keuka and Seneca lakes threatens lake water quality and the character of the area. These areas are vital to the quality of the scenic resource of the area, both within the town and the region.

e. Combining vineyards, wineries, and small-scale inns & spas has been a successful business and tourism model used in other areas of the country.

3. Reasoning a. Wineries, bed and breakfasts, and spas are tourism dependent businesses that are

compatible with the low density of development necessary to preserve the agriculture, especially vineyards, in the areas overlooking Keuka and Seneca lakes. In other words, these businesses can provide sufficient income to the owners of agricultural properties, either through sale of property or through operation of the business, to preserve agricultural land uses in these areas.

b. The town needs to increase opportunities for new tourism businesses that build on the community’s strengths in wine production, rural character, and tremendous rural lake views, while ensuring that these businesses are not so large that they create traffic problems and destroy the very rural character they need to be successful.

c. Bed and breakfast operations should be small, owner run, businesses that are housed in residential structures similar in size to those surrounding them.

d. Limiting inns and spas to 20 rooms for rent provides a business opportunity of a size that offers investors a reasonable return on the investment necessary to establish such a business, but also limits the potential impact on visual character, traffic, soil erosion, runoff, and lake quality of such these types businesses.

E. Lakeshore Commercial 1. Recommendation: Zoning should allow a mix of residences and water related

businesses such as lakefront restaurants, marinas, boat launches, hotels, and motel businesses in the areas of the town near Keuka and Seneca lakes where such mixes currently exist.


a. Allow businesses the ability to expand as long as they don’t negatively impact adjacent residential properties and neighborhoods.

b. Use performance measures, such as traffic levels, noise levels, and impacts on lake views to determine the suitability of proposed expansions of existing businesses or construction of new businesses. This can be accomplished through requiring site plan review for construction and/or changes of use in this zoning district.

c. Allow multiple uses on a single lot, as long as access, parking, and utilities are adequate.

2. Issue Generation a. There are two areas of the town where a mix of residential and water related

commercial uses exist now. Current zoning of these areas makes it difficult if not impossible for the businesses to grow or new businesses to locate there.

b. Existing zoning in these areas are based on classic Euclidean type zoning (named for the 1926 Supreme Court case of the village of Euclid Ohio vs. Ambler Realty, validating the concept of zoning based upon a separation of commercial and residential uses into distinct areas or zones).

c. Business owners in these areas often feel thwarted by the restrictions placed on the growth of their businesses by existing zoning.

d. Multiple uses on a single lot allows for a logical clustering of related uses, and eliminates the need for subdividing uses that can share utility, parking, and access.

3. Reasoning a. Water related businesses serve both the local population and are important elements

in tourism. b. Water related tourism businesses should be allowed to expand and locate in this area

as long as they do not negatively impact adjacent, often small lot residential uses. c. Modern planning practice has shown that a well designed and managed mix of

residential and commercial uses creates a more economically viable neighborhood and enhances the quality of life for residents and neighbors as opposed to the classic Euclidean zoning separating such uses.

d. Allowing multiple related uses on a single property will help manage access onto public roads, reduce investment in duplicative infrastructure such as parking, water supply, etc., and allow for more creative design.

F. Businesses in Enhanced Agriculture area

1. Recommendation: Zoning in Agricultural areas should allow a mix of ancillary and primary businesses as long as the rural character of the area is preserved. a. Home occupation businesses such as but not limited to lawyers, real estate agents,

or certified public accountants, should be allowed by right. These should be defined as having no more than two non-resident employees and located in an existing residence or occupying less than 500 square feet in an existing or separate out-building. A site plan submission showing adequate parking, public road access and signage, should be required, and processed through an administrative review process by the Code Enforcement Officer. The town should provide a simple checklist for the Code Enforcement Officer to use in performing the administrative site plan review. Further, the zoning law should grant the Code Enforcement Officer the authority to refer the application to the Planning Board for site plan


Four Chimneys Winery and residence

review where there is any question or concern over the application meeting the requirements of the checklist or if there are any other issues regarding the application not covered by the checklist. Formal review of the site plan by the Planning Board should be required any time the application involves a non-conforming lot, structure, or any variances. Home-based businesses should be allowed on the same parcel as the residence and/or farm.

b. Small Agricultural related businesses and services limited to 1,000 square feet in area and no more than 4 non-resident employees should be allowed with a Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. Agricultural businesses and services are things such as, but not limited to, agricultural seed sales, welding, farm implement repair, and small farm equipment sales involving 10 or fewer full size tractors or the equivalent. This type of business is not intended to include things like lawn tractor sales to the general public. Small Agricultural related businesses should be located mostly in existing buildings on the same property as the residence or agricultural buildings whenever possible. Small shops selling primarily products produced on the premises, including agricultural products, should also be included in the definition of small agricultural related businesses. They are distinct from roadside stands due to their size, location in a permanent structure, and/or year-round existence.

c. Larger businesses and industry should be allowed by special use permit and require a site plan review by the Planning Board. These are businesses that are larger than 1,000 square feet, but no more than 5,000 sq. ft. in size, and/or involve more than 4 employees. Performance standards should be clearly spelled out in the zoning law to ensure minimal impact on neighbors, surface & ground water, traffic, scenic views & vistas, and neighborhood character.

d. Whole parcel plans should be required for all such land uses to ensure that the business does not occupy prime agricultural soils, and is located in a manner that does not interfere with the agricultural use of the property or adjacent property.

e. Design standards for all uses should be clearly stated and mandate maintenance of the rural character. Small Agricultural related businesses and larger businesses, especially manufacturing buildings, should look like a barn or be hidden from view from the public right-of-way with landscape plantings. The pictures here and on the following page show examples of buildings with agricultural character. Uses that require a special use permit should be reviewed to ensure they are located outside of scenic view sheds or are designed to reduce visibility and impact on


Miles Winery Rush Machine Co.

State Rt 364, Gorham, NY

rural character from both the buildings and any parking lots or storage areas.

f. Retail sales should be limited to businesses that cater to agriculture, or to the sale of

craft, agricultural, food, or similar items produced or manufactured on the premises. g. Roadside stands should be an allowed use of right, with clear standards for access,

parking, size, and signage established. All signage must be on the premises. The majority of sales must be of items produced on the premises. All roadside stands should require the submission of a site plan to the town. Road side stands, defined as those with up to 200 sq. ft. of display area and having up to 4 off street parking spaces, should be allowed with an administrative site plan review by the Code Enforcement Officer, to ensure the location, parking, visibility (especially site distance from the access point along the public right-of-way), and other dimensional requirements established in zoning are met. Businesses that have a sales area of more than 200 sq. ft. are not considered a roadside stand.

2. Issue Generation a. The Town and County have a growing Old Sect religion, mostly Mennonite,

population. b. As the rural Old Sect population grows, an increasing number will seek employment

through craft and service businesses such as, but not limited to, woodworking, carriage building, quilt shop, greenhouse sales, farm implement repair, and produce sales. Still others will seek to establish somewhat larger scale operations, such as furniture construction.

c. Provision of business services that support agriculture is important to maintaining economic viability of the agricultural community in general.

d. Allowing small-scale businesses in Agricultural areas will provide needed economic opportunities for town residents in a manner compatible with the town’s rural character.

e. During the photo inventory of the town, several roadside stands were inventoried, with some located in areas with limited off street parking and limited site distance


(visibility necessary to avoid on coming traffic). These need to be addressed for public safety purposes.

3. Reasoning a. Drawing from the lessons of other regions of the country, such as Lancaster

Pennsylvania, home based businesses, widely scattered larger businesses and even small industrial manufacturing businesses, all no more than 5,000 square feet, should be allowed. The larger uses, especially manufacturing, should not be required to be located in commercial or industrial areas, to avoid conflict between automobile and truck traffic and horse and buggies. Thus, these small manufacturing uses need to be located outside of the industrial parks and zoned areas of the town.

b. Standards for differentiating the level of review necessary must include both area and number of employees, as these measures are more indicative of the potential impact on the neighborhood.

c. Preserving the rural character is vitally important to the community, so design standards ensuring the rural character must be incorporated into zoning. Use of existing buildings where possible will promote reuse and rehabilitation of existing buildings and help insure that businesses are located in buildings blending in with the existing rural character.

d. Roadside stands provide an important source of supplemental income to rural residents, and are a tourism draw. The town needs to ensure that they are located in a safe manner so that they do not become a traffic hazard.

Draft: June 15, 2009 Page IX-1

IX. INTERMUNICIPAL COOPERATION A. Keuka Lake Watershed Land Use Planning Guide: Over the last several months the Genesee

Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council has been working with County and local governments on a Keuka Lake watershed wide Land Use Planning Guide. Implementation of that plan depends upon the cooperation of the several municipalities within the watershed, including the Town of Milo. Many of the land use action items included in that plan have already been expounded in previous sections of this report, while others are new. Instead of reproducing the development of the vision, issues, and reasoning from that plan, an abbreviated vision statement, goals, and recommended action items of the plan are included here. Where new goals and actions are introduced in this document for the first time, more of the explanatory text from the watershed plan has been included here for clarity. For more information concerning the explanation of the development of the vision statement, goals, and action items, please refer to the Keuka Lake Watershed Land Use Planning Guide, which is on file at the Milo Town Hall.

1. DRAFT Keuka Lake Watershed Vision Statement

To provide Keuka Lake Municipalities with a Watershed Land Use Planning Guide that represents a cooperative Lake Community effort promoting environmental stewardship and open space land use practices. The Guide is intended to encourage all municipalities toward actions representative of “smart development” and preservation of the area’s much desired “rural character.” In the context of the Guide, the phrase “smart development” refers to a series of planning recommendations aimed at focusing new public and private investment in designated growth areas, protecting working agricultural land and undeveloped open spaces from poorly designed development projects, and ensuring that any new development that does take place in the watershed is environmentally sound and respectful of the character and scale of existing development conditions. Each goal statement is reinforced by a series of “Actions,” which describe how the municipalities within the Watershed can realize the goal statements and, by extension, the vision statement above. Each Action is followed by one or more paragraphs that explain the Action in greater detail.

2. Goal Statement: Protect steep slopes from potentially damaging development projects.

Steep sloped areas are more vulnerable to soil erosion and pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer than low slope areas. This vulnerability makes additional scrutiny and design requirements for new development important for these areas because of the potential impact on lake water quality. It is important to note that The State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Construction Activity GP-0-08-001, Part I.D, details activities that are ineligible for coverage under this General Permit. These activities include construction activities on lands that are tributary to waters of the state


a. Revise municipal comprehensive plans to include commentary on steep slope development issues.

b. Consider adopting a municipal steep slope development law. Steep slope laws provide a special set of requirements that builders must comply with in order to build on steep slopes, which are typically defined as any slope 15% or greater. This should include referral to the New York State DEC for review of new development for regulation of stormwater discharges. It is important to note that beginning on June 29, 2009, development on designated areas in the Keuka watershed will no longer be covered under the existing State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Construction Activity GP-0-08-001, as Keuka Lake is classified as AA. The DEC is currently working on mapping the designated areas. Until the mapping is adopted, DEC encourages municipalities to refer construction projects on sites that have a high potential to contribute to a violation of water quality standards to the DEC (in this case the Region 8 office in Avon, NY) to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

c. Include steep slope development safeguards in municipal subdivision regulations and Site Plan Review provisions of zoning codes. Site Plan Review laws & subdivision regulations should require the municipal reviewing board to consider the impacts of proposed development projects on steep slopes.

d. Produce educational materials about steep slope development issues for the public. The Keuka Lake Watershed municipalities should prepare a set of public informational materials – such as flyers or pamphlets – that describe and explain the potential hazards of building on steep slopes and what landowners and builders can do to mitigate the impacts of construction activities on steep slopes.

3. Working Agriculture Protection and Enhancement Goal Statement: Create land use policies and zoning regulations that support the economic viability of agriculture and viticulture. a. Encourage new development that is compatible with agriculture. New development

projects located in and near agricultural/viticultural areas should be designed and built in such a way that they limit disruption of high quality agricultural soils and vineyards. For example, if an agricultural field is subdivided to create building lots, those lots should be located along the edges and in the corners of the field. Spaces should be left so that the field can be accessed from a road with agricultural machinery. A good local model for the Keuka Lake municipalities to follow in this regard is the Town of Seneca in Ontario County, which includes strong agriculture-protection provisions in its comprehensive plan and zoning law.

b. Preserve high quality and unique agricultural and viticultural areas by guiding non-agricultural development into other areas of the Watershed. Using maps of local soil and microclimate conditions, local officials should determine specific areas of their municipalities in which agriculture and viticulture should be encouraged. This process should be coordinated with county agricultural district boundary adjustments. Large-scale development proposals should be located in areas that are not well suited to agriculture.

c. Explore ways to advertise agriculture lands in the watershed that are up for sale across the country, perhaps through some sort of “Agriculture Development Agency.” Create a directory of agricultural properties in the Watershed that are for


sale and provide this directory to real estate firms and websites that specialize in agricultural land dealings.

d. Encourage farmers to participate in New York State’s Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) program. AEM is a voluntary, incentive-based program that helps farmers make common-sense, cost-effective and science-based decisions to help meet business objectives while protecting and conserving the State’s natural resources. The Keuka Lake watershed was selected by the Governor in 1996 as a Pilot watershed to test the AEM program for the state. Farmers work with local AEM resource professionals from SWCD, NRCS and CCE to develop comprehensive farm plans using a tiered process:

• Tier 1 – Inventory current activities, future plans and potential environmental concerns.

• Tier 2 – Document current land stewardship; assess and prioritize areas of concern.

• Tier 3 – Develop conservation plans addressing concerns and opportunities tailored to farm goals.

• Tier 4 – Implement plans utilizing available financial, educational and technical assistance.

• Tier 5 – Evaluate to ensure the protection of the environment and farm viability. The advancement of sound agricultural practices within the local farming community has been occurring on a voluntary, incremental basis for a number of years through programs like AEM. Within the watershed 171 Tier 1 surveys and 75 Tier 2 assessments have been completed to date (2008). Tier 4 practices implemented in the watershed include: diversion ditches, Barnyard systems, Pesticide handling facilities, grass waterways, Pasture improvement projects (include fencing, laneways, water systems), stream stabilization, Roof runoff management, fuel storage secondary containment. Municipalities should seek methods and incentives that will encourage farmers to participate in AEM and other voluntary conservation programs. Yates County, for example, currently requires farms interested in participating in the NYS Purchase of Development Rights program to first enroll in AEM.52

e. Encourage farmers to participate in New York State’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a statewide program that operates through the Department of Agriculture and Markets and funds the installation of vegetated buffers between agricultural fields and pastures and watercourses. Farmers can voluntarily enroll in this program and receive financial incentives from the state to plant trees, shrubs, and grasses along stream banks that will help reduce the runoff of pesticides, fertilizers, and sediments into local streams and, eventually, Keuka Lake.

f. Publicize information about farm and viticulture operations to non-farm residents. As a means of building awareness of common agricultural practices among non-farm inhabitants of the Keuka Lake Watershed, local governments should provide information (in the form of brochures, flyers, and Internet resources) about farming operations to residents and landowners who do not directly participate in agricultural and viticultural activities. Specifically, this information should stress


the environmental advantages of retaining working farmland and how sound agricultural management activities benefit local and regional natural resources.

g. Publicize information about agricultural conservation easements to local landowners. According to the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, conservation easements are legal documents, written in the form of a deed, in which a landowner permanently restricts the future development of real property for the purpose of preserving or maintaining the scenic, open, historic, agricultural, or natural condition, character, significance or amenities of that property. These restrictions remain in place when ownership of the land changes hands. Easements provide a practical and effective means of preserving farmland on a voluntary and non-regulatory basis. The Finger Lakes Land Trust works with landowners (both agricultural and non-agricultural) in the Keuka Lake watershed to learn about and develop conservation options for their properties.

h. Research and support Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) programs for local farmers. A Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program is a potential technique of retaining undeveloped land in a community. Once the PDR program has acquired the development rights on a piece of property, it holds on to those rights and the tract can no longer be used for development. However, the tract remains in private ownership. It could be used for active agriculture or it could be allowed to lie fallow – the main purpose of the PDR program is to hold the land open and undeveloped so that, at some point in the future, it could be put back into agricultural production. Effective PDR programs have 1.) a coordinated approach with specific areas identified for protection and 2.) a sound funding basis. A municipal government can directly fund a PDR program through local resources and/or available grant funds. However, a non-profit agency such as the Finger Lakes Land Trust can also fund the acquisition of development rights.

i. Consider establishing an agricultural advisory subcommittee or inter-municipal agricultural advisory subcommittees. Municipalities should consider establishing a local agricultural advisory subcommittee or task force to the Planning Board or local governing board upon which members of the local farming community (and other agricultural advocates) can serve. The purpose of such a subcommittee is to provide local governing boards with the information necessary to make sound land use decisions that do not infringe on farmers’ ability to conduct business in an efficient and respectful manner. Subcommittee goals can include the mediation of farmer-neighbor conflicts and nuisance complaints that target normal agricultural activities (dust, odor, noise, etc.). Education and outreach to local residents with regard to the normal activities that are typical of modern agricultural operations should also be an overarching goal of such subcommittee. Finally, subcommittees from each municipality can convene regularly on a regional basis to discuss issues and problems that may be common throughout the Keuka Lake Watershed. Added by the Milo Comprehensive Plan Committee: While the Town of Milo has an agriculture committee, it currently does not have a well established relationship with the planning board to provide input on development proposals in agricultural areas of the town. This committee could also be utilized to provide farmers with assistance in developing whole farm parcel planning when a farmer desires to


develop some portion of their agricultural property in order to minimize the impact of that development on agricultural use of the property.

j. Endeavor to implement land use decisions that are in accordance with the Yates County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan. This document is designed to act as the basic agricultural protection strategies for Yates County. The plan establishes existing conditions with respect to the state of agriculture and further establishes measurable goals and actions to ensure the protection and, when possible, enhancement of agribusinesses. This plan can greatly assist agricultural development and farmland enhancement within Yates County. To whatever degree possible, local municipalities should encourage policies and practices that support local farmers. This not only includes making sound land use decisions that do not impede farmers’ ability to conduct business, but also includes setting a local priority to encourage amenable conditions that allow for the expansion of new agribusinesses and new products. Furthermore, actions that “buy local” and community-supported agricultural programs which encourage local residents to support neighboring farms and agribusinesses should also be supported and promoted to the greatest degree possible.

4. Goal Statement: Encourage greater watershed-wide cooperation and sharing of services; network to share ideas among municipalities. a. Hold an annual watershed-wide “conference” among local officials and board

members to discuss land use issues, trade information, network, review the current status of major development projects, and serve as a “clearing house” of information about land use issues in the watershed. In order to foster increased cooperation and communication among local boards and officials, the eight municipalities bordering Keuka Lake should hold an annual conference at which local board members and officials gather to discuss land use issues and offer insight to their colleagues on how they addressed specific issues in their municipality. The main purpose of this conference would be to build and continually expand a strong network of local leaders that trade information regarding land use issues among each other. Create a directory of resources that are common to the municipalities that will encourage greater inter-municipal coordination. A directory, which might take the form of a website and accompanying publication listing various organizations that local officials can call on for support and assistance, should be created to provide a readily available list of resources that local officials can call on for assistance with specific development issues. For instance, this directory might include a list of professional engineering firms that can help local boards with reviewing the technical requirements of a large-scale proposed development projects.

b. Create a directory of resources that are common to the municipalities that will encourage greater intermunicipal coordination. A directory, which might take the form of a website and accompanying publication listing various organizations that local officials can call on for support and assistance, should be created to provide a readily available list of resources that local officials can call on for assistance with specific development issues. For instance, this directory might include a list of professional engineering firms that can help local boards with reviewing the technical requirements of a large-scale proposed development projects.


c. Support compatible land use plans/regulations for all municipalities in the Keuka Lake watershed. The Keuka Lake Watershed municipalities should work towards making their respective land use regulations, such as their subdivision and site plan review laws, as similar as possible in terms of the processes that applicants must follow when applying to the municipality and the factors that reviewing boards must consider when approving proposed development projects. This will encourage a consistent watershed-wide approach to reviewing and permitting new development.

d. Keep all land use plans and regulations up-to-date. e. Publicize land use training programs for municipal staff and board members.

County and municipal staff should routinely communicate with governing boards, planning boards, zoning boards of appeal, any miscellaneous local boards such as a conservation board or architectural review board that might be set up by a municipality in the future; other organizations involved in land use issues such as local Soil & Water Conservation Districts and Cooperative Extension programs; and interested citizens, regarding the availability of land use training programs hosted by state, county, and qualified non-profit agencies.

f. Work with Yates and Steuben County planning departments to assess the impacts of proposed developments. In addition to routine GML 239 review requirements, town and village officials should draw on the experience and resources of their respective county planning and development offices for input on proposed development projects, especially with regards to the planning and design aspects of any proposed development.

g. Submit proposed development projects to County Soil and Water Conservation Districts for review and comment prior to approval. SWCD staff can provide insight on the environmental implications of proposed projects and on how local officials can mitigate potential adverse impacts. Municipal subdivision and site plan review laws can include a provision for referral, if the reviewing board deems it necessary, of a proposed project to the SWCD for comments during the review phase.

h. Improve coordination with State agencies, such as New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC); the New York State Department of Transportation (NYS DOT); and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYS OPRHP). Local boards should seek out advice and input from state agencies when reviewing proposed development projects that have the potential to severely impact natural resources, state highways, and local historic/cultural resources.

5. Goal Statement: To protect Keuka Lake’s natural plant and animal life, sustain the lake’s current AA rating, and continually work to improve the lake’s water quality. a. All municipalities should continue to support the Keuka Lake Association (KLA),

the Keuka Watershed Improvement Cooperative (KWIC), and the Keuka Lake Outlet Compact (KLOC). In addition to fulfilling specific and necessary functions related to water quality issues, these organizations provide important venues for inter-municipal discussions that can lead to greater cooperation and coordination of local resources and efforts.

b. Support the environmental stewardship objectives of the Great Lakes Basin Compact. The Great Lakes Basin Compact, an agreement among eight states and


two Canadian provinces to collaboratively work to improve natural and human resources in the Great Lakes basin, should be a model for local governments to follow when considering revising and adopting new land use plans and regulations. Specifically, any attempts to divert or sell off water from Keuka Lake for profit and shipment to other part of the country and the world should be strenuously opposed by local governments and citizens. Detailed information about the Great Lakes Basin Compact is available at: http://www.glc.org/index.html.

c. Continue to monitor the health of Keuka Lake. Local governments should continue to support scientific research into the Keuka Lake water quality. While the municipalities themselves do not need to directly support these activities, they can back research efforts through sponsoring grant applications and cooperating with researchers working within their jurisdiction.

d. Support efforts that minimize invasive and exotic animal and fish species/non-native plants. Local boards and officials should support land use regulatory measures that are aimed at reducing the spread of exotic species and non-native plants. For example, steep slope development regulations could include a requirement that calls for selectively removing non-native plant species from slopes that are being built on and replacing them with native species. Local officials should provide landowners and developers with lists of native tree and plant species that would be encouraged on proposed developments. The Finger Lakes Partnership for Regional Invasive Species Management (FL-PRISM) website contains resource materials pertaining to the FL-PRISM, invasive species of the Finger Lakes Region and New York State, information on NYS and federal invasive species policies, and information on other PRISMs throughout NYS, is found at: http://www.fingerlakesprism.org/.

e. Protect watercourses by requiring setbacks from streams and gullies that feed into the lake. Municipal land use regulations should require setbacks along watercourses. Setbacks create an important buffer between the built environment and sensitive environmental habitats, erosive soils and water resources. Vegetated setbacks can further be specially designed to provide habitat for native plant and animal species and/or pollution and stormwater filtration. When implemented consistently throughout an entire stream system, setbacks and vegetated buffers can be very effective at reducing the risks of property damage that result from flooding. When considering possible implementation scenarios, a municipality could revise its zoning regulations to state that any development located on a parcel through which, or adjacent to, a watercourse passes must have a minimum setback of 50 feet from the watercourse. No construction or significant disturbance of soils and/or vegetation would be allowed within the 50 foot wide area. This leaves a “buffer” in place to help prevent pollutants from running into the watercourse.

f. Reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers on private yards, farm fields, and vineyards.

g. Support ongoing public education/outreach programs about lake water quality. Public informational sessions should periodically be held around the Watershed for residents and landowners to attend and learn about what they can do to protect water quality in the lake and its tributaries. Presenters can include speakers from public agencies, non-profit organizations, and professionals in the area of land management and water quality. Municipalities should consider developing an


educational “welcome package” that can be delivered to new homeowners under each transfer of property. Materials to be considered should include those subjects referenced in detail in “The Keuka Lake Book: A Citizen’s Guide for Protecting Keuka.”

h. Develop a series of educational publications (brochures/flyers/pamphlets) about water quality for the public. Local governments should provide information (in the form of brochures, flyers, and Internet resources) about water quality protection to residents and landowners. This information should apply to Keuka Lake and its tributaries. Specifically, this information should stress the simple, day-to-day actions that ordinary citizens can take to help protect the lake and its tributaries from pollutants.

i. Publicize the availability of the revised Keuka Lake Book, which includes Best Management Practices (BMP) for homeowners in the watershed. The Keuka Lake Book is a useful publication that provides background information on the watershed and information on how residents and property owners can manage their properties to reduce the possibility of polluting local streams and water bodies. The availability of this book should be publicized as part of public outreach activities.

6. Goal Statement: “Sustainable” Development is development undertaken with consideration for the long-term community and neighbor relations, environmental stability, and economic capability of the Keuka Lake Watershed. a. Enact municipal stormwater management regulations to reduce stormwater runoff.

Municipal stormwater management regulations, which can be adopted as a stand-alone local regulation or integrated into laws such as zoning, subdivision, and site plan review, should be adopted to reduce the amount of runoff that enters Keuka Lake and its tributaries. Impervious surfaces such as roofs, roads, driveways, and parking lots can be regulated by a municipality through its local laws and regulations. Once water runs off of private property, it tends to become the problem of the municipality. Poorly designed or maintained public drainage infrastructure, such as ditches, can cause erosion, which leads to sedimentation of waterways. Not only a significant cause of non-point source pollution, sedimentation can increase costs for municipalities in terms of ditch and storm drain cleaning. There are many ways the municipality can improve the construction, operation and maintenance of this drainage infrastructure, which in turn leads to less damage to both private and public (roads, bridges, etc) property and improved water quality in local and regional streams and lakes.

b. Continue to promote effective municipal and private wastewater management practices through the KWIC. In order to help protect Keuka Lake’s water quality, local governments should continue working through the KWIC to regularly inspect wastewater treatment systems and monitor the discharge of pollutants into the lake. The mission of Keuka Watershed Improvement Cooperative (KWIC) is to protect and improve the purity of waters in the Keuka Lake Watershed by planning for uniform regulation of wastewater (septic system) management, assist in uniform enforcement of local wastewater management regulations and pursue appropriate action to resolve other potential threats to Keuka Lake. Towns should commit to supporting the goal of meeting their annual septic/KWIC septic law inspection targets, including identifying the resources, staff, equipment and other necessary


capital outlays that may be necessary to meet those goals now and in the future. The overall goal, mission and future and planned activities of the KWIC should be supported and publicized. In an effort to increase public awareness of the KWIC, efforts to publicize the KWIC’s activities should be explored and implemented, utilizing a mix of resources, including (but not limited to): door hangers, brochures, and web-based media. Municipalities should support updates of the KWIC’s reporting systems and current level of equipment and technology.

c. Promote sustainable agriculture and viticulture: Local boards and officials should work with NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets to prepare municipal agricultural and farmland protection plans that will identify specific parcels for protection. Once a municipal agricultural and farmland protection plan is adopted by local governing boards, it can be used as the basis for applications to the Department of Agriculture and Markets for farmland protection grant funds. Investigate the possibility of the development of a joint county farmland protection program and pursue as prudent. Detailed information about the NYS Farmland Protection Program is available at: http://www.agmkt.state.ny.us/AP/agservices/farmprotect.html.

d. Consider the location of existing and proposed roadways and roadway access (driveways) when reviewing and permitting new development. Transportation infrastructure can be challenging to design and build, especially when building on slopes where erosion and drainage issues are special concerns. Local zoning, site plan, and subdivision laws should ensure that private roads and driveways are built to minimize slope disturbance, provide sufficient space for drainage infrastructure, be well marked and easy to see, and be at safe intervals from intersections and other driveways.

e. Protect significant viewsheds from insensitive development. A comprehensive watershed-wide survey of scenic vistas is a necessary precursor to any coordinated attempt by Keuka Lake municipalities to protect the Watershed’s scenic vistas. The municipalities around the lake should work together to identify and protect, through some combination of local laws and incentives, scenic vistas that are regionally significant and contribute to the appeal and character of the area.

f. Revise local codes to encourage the use of “Green Building” techniques. For example, “green” developments may use native vegetation for surrounding landscaping instead of non-native species, reduce the “heat island” effect through the use of certain materials on roofs and paved surfaces, and reduce or eliminate stormwater runoff from the site. Zoning laws should not discourage the residential development of permitted and commonly accepted alternative energy solutions, to the degree that such solutions do not infringe on the quality of life of neighbors and other residents. Examples include alternative energy infrastructure such as solar panels, small-scale wind turbines, geothermal heating systems, combined heat and power generating systems, and other innovative green energy systems. Additional information on Green Building is available from the United States Environmental Protection Agency at: http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/, and from the United States Green Building Council (developer of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards) at: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=222.


g. Include environmental considerations as a component of Subdivision approvals. Local subdivision laws should include provisions that require the subdivider to consider environmental resources when subdividing a property to create building lots. When creating building lots, a subdivider should pay attention to the location of sensitive environmental features such as wetlands, steep slopes, and mature native tree stands and ensure that there will be sufficient space within each lot to build while not disturbing these features. A municipal subdivision law can be written to require, or at least encourage, this approach to development.

h. Include environmental considerations as a component of Site Plan approvals. Site Plan review laws should be written to require developers to integrate environmental considerations, such as geology, topography, soil characteristics, vegetation, micro-climate, surface drainage, erosion, ground water, wetlands, and flood hazard areas, into proposed site plans. Furthermore, such regulations should require the reviewing board to consider the environmental impacts on those resources when reviewing proposed site plans.

i. Require an assessment of water supply and treatment capabilities as a component of municipal review of proposed development projects. The reviewing board should consider the sources of the water supply (typically public water lines, wells, or Keuka Lake) and should also consider how wastewater from the development will be treated (typically public sewer lines or septic systems). The reviewing board should ensure that water supply and treatment are properly addressed before approving any proposed development project.

j. Develop a series of educational publications (brochures/flyers/pamphlets) about sustainable development issues for the public. To build public awareness of sustainability issues among residents and property owners in the Keuka Lake Watershed and encourage individual actions that are aimed at realizing this Section’s Goal Statement, local governments should provide information (in the form of brochures, flyers, and Internet resources) about sustainability issues to residents and landowners in the Watershed. Specifically, this information should stress land management practices that contribute to the overall environmental health of the Watershed.

7. Goal Statement: Provide the incentives and infrastructure that will attract new growth in villages and hamlets to direct growth there instead of in agricultural areas. a. Use Comprehensive Plans to recommend that new development be focused within

hamlet areas. Comprehensive plans should recommend new institutional, commercial, or light manufacturing uses be located in existing hamlet areas and villages. Residential development in hamlet areas should be designed along traditional “village” scale with small lots and yards; houses sited near the street; narrow, curbed streets with sidewalks and streetlights; and architectural features such as front porches that encourage greater social interaction. Where a town would like to see a concentration of new growth occur, it can designate one or more locations (primarily the areas around important intersections) as hamlet areas and recommend that new development take place in these locations.

b. Include hamlet zoning districts within municipal Zoning laws. Municipalities should update their zoning laws to create one or more “hamlet” zoning districts where different lot sizes and dimensional standards apply. The purpose of these


hamlet districts should be to implement the recommendations in comprehensive plans calling for designated development areas. Higher-density development can be focused within these hamlet districts and serviced by public utilities.

c. Include provisions in Subdivision laws that, in designated locations, support the creation of small building lots for hamlet developments. While small building lots may be inappropriate in rural areas, they are necessary in village/hamlet areas because they encourage a greater density of development.

d. Include provisions in Site Plan Review laws that, in designated locations, support the development of street and pedestrian-oriented buildings. Site Plan Review regulations should allow, and in designated areas such as hamlet districts require, buildings and infrastructure to be laid out in a traditional village pattern with traditional design features. The site plans for proposed projects in hamlet areas should show the principle use building (such as a house); accessory buildings and uses (such as a garage, workshop, or swimming pool); and the location of driveways, sidewalks, and other infrastructure. Detailed site plans such as these allow the reviewing board to effectively determine how the proposed construction project will fit into surrounding development.

e. Focus public investments such as roads, utilities, and community facilities into designated hamlet areas. When deciding where to build new public infrastructure and facilities such as roads, water and sewer lines, storm sewers, sidewalks, streetlights, government/community buildings and various other public infrastructure/facilities, local governments should make every effort to locate these resources within designated hamlet areas. This will set a precedent of using public resources to achieve “smart development” goals and serve as an enticement to developers by providing them with available infrastructure that they can use for their projects.

f. Encourage the use of “Cluster Development” practices in rural areas through their zoning or subdivision laws. Well designed cluster developments can protect natural resources such as high quality agricultural/viticultural areas, scenic views, mature woodlots, wetlands, and unique wildlife habitats. Cluster development practices encourage builders to realize the maximum development potential of a parcel allowed under the Town’s zoning law by increasing the density of new construction in one section of the parcel while leaving other sections as undeveloped open space. For instance, if a 20-acre tract of land is located in a residential zoning district that requires a one acre minimum lot size, a developer could build about 18 housing units on that tract. Some space would be required for roads and utilities, as well as any setback requirements mandated by the municipal zoning law. If built, this development would consume the entire 20-acre tract and possibly destroy any unique natural resources, such as a wetland or stand of old-growth trees, located on the tract. However, if that developer were to use cluster development techniques as laid out by the municipality, he could build the same 18 units on perhaps only ten acres of the 20 acre site, thus leaving the remaining ten acres as open space and protecting any natural and scenic resources located on those acres. As this example shows, cluster development techniques provide considerable leeway to the municipality, developers, builders, and private landowners to balance new development with interest in protecting a community’s natural resources. In


general, local governments should encourage cluster developments in open areas that are no longer profitable for vineyards or agriculture that will help to preserve hillside woodlands and open spaces.

B. Coordination with the Village of Penn Yan:

1. Recommendation: The Town should investigate the establishment of a joint Planning Board and a joint Zoning Board of Appeals with the Village of Penn Yan a. State law allows these to be established, with membership, costs, and even

operational matters dictated by an intermunicipal cooperation agreement. 2. Issue Generation

a. The recruitment of volunteers to staff two boards in each municipality is becoming increasingly difficult.

b. The cost of operating four separate boards can be reduced and shared between the two municipalities.

c. The quality of life and economic vitality of the Town of Milo and the Village of Penn Yan are interrelated. In short, the municipalities are interdependent.

3. Reasoning a. More communication, coordination, and cooperation is needed between the two

municipalities because of their interdependency. Establishment of joint boards will help foster communication and build coordination and cooperation.

b. Existing cooperation exists between the highway departments and includes surrounding towns as well. They assist each other in projects and resources. This is a model of cooperation that should be built upon.

c. Elected officials need to move beyond politics and a feudalistic view of jurisdiction to foster better communications for the benefit of their citizens.

d. This is an opportunity to reduce redundancy and increase efficiency in government. e. The interdependency of the two municipalities, the need to cooperate, and the ability

under state law to establish joint boards would still exist even if the Village of Penn Yan were converted into a City as the Village is currently investigating.

Draft: June 15, 2009 Page X-1

X. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN

The Land Use Committee built upon the work of the Agriculture Committee and developed a proposal for the future land use for those areas of the Town that were not agricultural. This work was reviewed and refined by the Comprehensive Plan Committee. The map below depicts the results of this effort.

Beginning on the following pages each land use category is discussed in detail, and in some cases enlargements of various areas of the town are shown. This is done to clarify the intent of the comprehensive plan and the character of the area that is envisioned for each land use category. At the end of this section are additional maps and text that present a concept of having additional commercial tourism overlay uses in areas along State Rt 14 and State Rt 14A.

Map 25: Future Land Use Plan


Commercial: There are scattered properties in the Town that contain sizeable commercial businesses. This includes Friendly Chrysler Dodge and New York State Department of Transportation properties on State Rt 14A, the monument business property located at the intersection of State Rt 54 and Old Bath Rd. just south of the Village of Penn Yan, and the hardware store at the corner of Himrod and Haymaker roads. None of these properties are dependent on proximity to the waterfront and they are not large enough to encompass a planned commercial district. These existing businesses are well established, but don’t fit with any of the other commercial land uses proposed in

this plan, although they are proximate to other commercial property. Thus, this plan proposes that those uses continue, but does not propose that the area in this general commercial category should be expanded. Similar uses to these should be located within the Village of Penn Yan in the future.

Conservation: These are high quality forested areas, often characterized by steep slopes, and

the ravine surrounding the Keuka Lake Outlet. Residential development should be very low density (large lots), because of the steep slopes and flooding threat, as well as the importance of these areas to maintaining the town’s rural character. Hunting cabins, forest management, recreation trails, and scattered single-family residences characterize this area. Residential development and cabins should be required to be as inconspicuous as possible to protect the character of these areas. Hilltop and ridgeline development should not be allowed, as it would have a dramatic impact on character.

Enhanced Agriculture: As stated in Section V, the Enhanced Agriculture land is characterized by a variety of agricultural uses and associated residences supporting agriculture. Limited non-agricultural uses are allowed, but the creation of new residences and lots is subject to whole-parcel planning (required by the site plan provisions of zoning and the town’s subdivision regulations) to preserve the agricultural use of the surrounding land. Farm businesses and related agricultural sales are allowed, but the character and the size of the businesses are limited to preserve the rural character of the area that is so important to both


residents and the area’s tourism industry. See Section V for a more complete discussion of recommendations for this land use area and the zoning that is envisioned for this area.

Hamlet: The hamlets of Second Milo, Milo Center, and Himrod are typical upstate New York hamlets that date from the 1800’s. As such, they are more organic than modern subdivisions in that they contain a mix of lot sizes, different uses in close proximity, and building setbacks (as opposed to uniform lot sizes, setbacks and segregated land uses). When they were originally formed, the commercial uses they contained supported the needs of immediate neighborhood. As the automobile allowed more mobility, and competition drove commercial establishments to consolidate, grow, and serve a larger population, their commercial uses disappeared as they were served mostly by the uses in the Villages of Penn Yan and Dundee. At the same time, their small size and the distance from these villages prevented the extension of public utilities such as water and sewer. As a result, they have suffered economically and socially (there are fewer social organizations such as churches, playgrounds, etc. in these areas) so that they experienced very little growth over the last 50 years. In short, people moved to areas where there were more services and social organizations. As a result, property values in the hamlets fell, less economically well-off people reside there, and many properties are not well maintained furthering the downward cycle. There is hope for the hamlets, however. Regionally, planners are seeing resurgence in investment interest in historical hamlets. This is fueled by recognition from local residents and people moving from other areas of the historic significance of the hamlets and the unique character of the development pattern of upstate New York. To encourage reinvestment in the hamlets, the town must zone them appropriately, invest in amenities, and enforce property and building maintenance. Zoning cannot be the typical low-density residential zoning requiring large, uniform lots, uniform building setbacks, and separation of uses. Instead, zoning needs to be much more flexible, allowing replacement of existing structures, construction of new structures of similar character, and having different land uses in close proximity. Zoning around these hamlets should not be low density residential because the character will clash with that of the rest of the hamlet, and will not help to funnel investment to existing homes in the hamlet especially in a town that is not experiencing much overall growth. Investment in amenities such as sidewalks, trails, and recreation facilities (picnic areas, playgrounds, ball fields, etc.) are important to attract families—they want these types of amenities in residential areas. Funds can come from grants, the collection of a recreation fee for the creation of new residential units (the town can establish such a fee that can be used by the town only for acquiring recreational land and equipment or the maintenance thereof), private donations, or from general town funds. People will also be more willing to purchase and invest in properties when they are assured that adjacent properties will be maintained; another reason the town needs to do all it can to ensure a reasonable level of property and building maintenance. Through traffic or speed limits need to be reduced in these areas to enhance their residential character. Finally, the Town should consider funding or seeking a grant to fund a report (by an entity such as the Historic Society of Western New York) documenting the historical development and the historic architectural styles of residences in these hamlets. This can be a useful tool for real estate developers to use in marketing properties in the hamlets and for the town in seeking grants for public improvements and amenities.


Hillside Agriculture: As stated in Section V, the Hillside Agriculture land is characterized by

a mix of agriculture including a higher component of vineyards than the rest of the agricultural areas of the town. The intent is to allow a mix of vineyard, winery, and scattered (low density) single-family residential uses to preserve the rural character of these important scenic areas. The density of residential uses must be low enough so there is little conflict with the wineries and adjacent vineyards, and so that the value of the scattered residential lots is maximized. This lower level of density is also important to limit the degradation of lake water from high nutrient and pollutant stormwater runoff. See Section V for a more complete discussion of recommendations for this land use area and the zoning that is envisioned for this area.

Lakefront Commercial: There are two areas of the town are currently characterized by this

land use pattern and should remain so in the future. These areas are characterized by high volume commercial businesses that depend on their location on or near the lakeshore, and also include or are in close proximity to residential uses. Waterfront restaurants, hotels, campgrounds, boat sales, service, and marinas as well as cottages, bungalows, single-family residences and similar uses comprise

the mix that exists in these areas. Expansion or redevelopment in these areas should require site plan review because of its proximity to the lake, include whole parcel planning, and ensure that the mix of uses is functional and not disruptive to adjacent lakefront residential property.

Lakefront Residential: The majority of the shoreline and near shoreline areas along Keuka

and Seneca Lakes are characterized by small lots and a variety of single family structures ranging from seasonal cottages and mobile homes to traditional year round residences some of which are second homes. As identified in the survey and the demographic analysis of the town, the trend in these areas is for older residents to live there and for much higher income people to own these properties especially as second homes or investments. This higher income ownership often brings with it the desire and the financial ability to replace smaller residences with much larger new ones. The zoning for these areas must control the size and height of new homes on these often smaller lots for several reasons. First, it is important to the character of the area; if the lakes are ringed by large homes on small lots, lake views from public rights of ways and non-shoreline properties will be greatly reduced. Second, high lot coverage on lake front parcels will increase storm water run off quantities and reduce water quality as opportunities to provide on site detention and water quality treatment will be limited if not impossible. Third, the ability to build large homes on small lots discourages the consolidation of lots into a larger lot that is capable of supporting a larger home. Fourth, the ability to construct large homes on small lots inflates the value of small lots and makes it increasingly difficult for the moderate income owners to continue to own them; in other words, it forces moderate income owners to sell their


properties because the tax burden becomes too high and especially affects the aged on fixed incomes. Zoning for these areas should also take into account where municipal sewer service is available, and require larger lots where municipal sewer service is not available, such as all along Seneca Lake. Because of the small lot sizes, site plan review including sedimentation and erosion control should be required for new residences and modest sized additions in these areas in order to protect water quality in Seneca and Keuka lakes. Please refer to Section VI for additional recommendations for the Lakefront areas of the town.

Planned Commercial/Industrial: The

concept for this land use is to require a whole parcel development plan be submitted, including plans for combined access so that traffic issues do not become a problem, instead of allowing single business proposals (commercial or industrial). A whole parcel plan should be required for any site plan or subdivision proposed for property in this district through requirements written in the Town’s Zoning Local Law and Subdivision Regulations. The area of the town meriting this land use designation is the Morton Salt property in Himrod. The mine is currently inactive, and the intention of the corporate owners is unclear. This large property has ample road frontage and railroad access, but limited utility services. Property maintenance is also a concern as some of the structures on the property are highly visible. Including this property in a Planned Commercial/Industrial land use and zoning district designation would give the Town the ability to require whole parcel planning and manage access, while preserving the flexibility to negotiate a variety of uses with the landowner or potential landowners for the property.

Rural Residential: Large lot residential properties, often five acres or more, remote from

public utilities, make up this land use type. They are scattered in clusters around the town, usually surrounded by agricultural land. Often the lots are large enough to support a ‘farmette,’ meaning that a small barn housing one or a few horses, cows, or other farm animals without impinging on adjacent residential properties. Home businesses, including those involving direct retail sales to the public, are also easily accommodated in these areas.

Rural Industry: The triangular area bounded by

State Rt 14, Severne Road, and Trenchard Road is proposed as the only area initially characterized as Rural Industry. A moderate size industry is located in this area that does not need significant public utilities (in the way of public water or sewer service). Care


must be taken to ensure the character of this area does not negatively impact the rural character of the area that is so important to the town’s residents and to the tourism industry. As the population of the old sect members such as Mennonites grows in the community and their members look for employment off of the farm, the Town may wish to designate more property to this type of land use in the rural areas of the town. This will be preferable to having these types of industry located in the industrial areas of the community such as the Horizon business park, where public utilities are located that will support more high-tech forms of industry.

Small lot Residential: In the areas of the Town near the Village of Penn Yan, smaller lot

residential development exists or is envisioned in areas adjacent to residential areas of the village to transition from the Town’s rural areas into the village. Denser development in these areas also leaves open the possibility that infrastructure such as sewer and water may be economically extended to these areas in the future and possibly annexed into the village. The character of these areas is intended to be very similar to that of the adjacent village, but likely not as dense as some of the older developed areas of the village.

Tourist Commercial: There are two areas in the Town where businesses that cater to tourist

exist that are not associated with on site agriculture. The first, along State Rt 14, includes an existing winery remote from its supporting vineyards, an automobile service station, and other miscellaneous businesses. The multiple uses that exist on the parcel containing the automobile service station elicited the most comments from survey respondents for any property on the eastern side of the Town citing it for poor property maintenance or generally for being an eyesore. Improvement of the appearance of this property is important to the resident

and tourism business, as it is a very visible property in the important State Rt 14 corridor. The importance of this automobile service business for local residents and tourism industry must be recognized. It is the only gasoline service available for many miles and is located in close proximity to both the state boat launch site on Severne Road and the hamlet of Himrod. If vehicle and other outdoor storage could be visually screened from the public right of way and other general improvements made to the building and property, this business and property would become a greater asset to the community than it already is. This is vitally


important if the town is to be successful in attracting additional commercial tourism business in this area of the town (see the discussion of overlay uses for tourist commercial at the end of this section). The second area of the town characterized by this land use is the Yates County Fair property located on Old Rt 14A just south of the village. Tourism Commercial Overlay: The State Rt 14A and State Rt 14 corridors are the high traffic volume roads in the area serving both local commuting needs and for tourism. The agriculture committee recommendation for zoning much of the land in these areas for agricultural use while allowing farm related and agricultural related sales and businesses does not recognize the existing tourism related businesses and opportunities. At the same time, much of the soil in these areas is of high quality for agriculture uses. The solution is to leave the underlying zoning for agriculture, but establish an overlay district extending approximately 500 ft. back from the centerline of these highways to allow tourism related uses along the frontage on the state highways. Limits on the type and size of the uses should be specified to limit competition with the commercial districts in the Village of Penn Yan, and to protect the rural character. Wineries, farm stores, craft markets, antique sales, and similar retail uses should be allowed. Uses such as gas stations, convenience stores, general grocery stores, hardware stores, automobile sales, etc. that would compete with uses in the Village or be contrary to the character of the area should not be allowed. Modest size retail sales as part of an existing residence or in a separate building limited to 5,000 square feet set back from the highway with a high percentage of green space and tree plantings would be appropriate. The character of buildings should be rural, and not ultra modern, in order to blend with the area’s character. Maintenance of the existing speed limit should also be addressed. To maintain a 55 m.p.h. speed limit, access points should be spaced a minimum of 660 feet apart and aligned with access points across the street (based upon standards promulgated by the National Association of Highway Engineers). Site plan review should be required for any commercial uses, and the location of driveways reviewed in regard to access management standards. Where these standards cannot be met, curb cuts should be designated as temporary and a condition of approval should be removing the connection in the future when development on adjacent property makes conforming access possible.


Map 26: Tourism Commercial Overlay Areas

Draft: June 15, 2009 Page XI-1

XI. ANAYLYSIS OF EXISTING ZONING/PLANNING AND RELATED LOCAL LAWS

A. Introduction: This section of the Comprehensive plan is a topical review of several existing local laws of the Town of Milo that relate to planning and zoning matters. It is not intended to provide the exact wording for rewriting those laws, but to identify issues that need to be addressed in those laws to bring them in harmony with the comprehensive plan, modernize them, and ensure that they work together with other local laws as well as state and federal laws and regulations. Each succeeding paragraph (B., C., D.,…) in this section corresponds to an existing local law of the Town, identified by its chapter number in the Town’s Code as well as its title, and contains specific recommendations in regard to that local law.

B. Chapter 90: Flood Damage Prevention 1. This local law conforms to the latest Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

model, as is required for homeowners to obtain flood insurance in flood plains within the Town. It is important to note that the Town is permitted to add additional standards and criteria to the FEMA model, as long as the standards and procedures are not less than the standards and procedures contained in the FEMA model.

2. In the local law the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals is charged with granting variances to the requirements of this local law. a. Recommendation: The Town should consider adding a paragraph D. to §16 that

adds the following requirements to variances issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals: 1) No obstruction in the floodway shall be allowed that impacts the volume and

rate of flood flows within the floodway. 2) At the very least cut and fill (grading) must be balanced within the limits of

Zone AD (commonly referred to as the 100-year floodplain). Preferably, grading plans should have more cut than fill within Zone AD to ensure that any construction does not decrease the storage capacity for water in Zone AD nor raise flood levels within Zone AD.

b. Reasoning: 1) Obstructions to the floodway have a dramatic impact on the rate of flow of

water during flood events, often resulting in destructive erosion on the subject property and adjacent properties.

2) Development should not be allowed to increase, even incrementally, the height of a flood event through filling in the flood plain. The town should make a clear policy statement that guides incremental decisions of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

C. Chapter 98: Junkyards 1. This local law establishes a licensing mechanism for junkyards at the Town Board level

and requires a modest amount of visual separation from public roads for new junkyard operation.

2. Recommendations a. The Town needs to replace this local law with one adapted from the current model

junkyard ordinance published by the New York State Department of State, Office of Local Government Assistance. This will address: 1) Establishing a firm time frame for compliance by existing junkyards, instead of

depending upon a variance procedure to be reviewed by the Town Board.


2) Coordinate the location limitations for junkyards in this chapter with provisions contained in the Zoning Local Law.

3) Establish a well-defined variance process with guidelines to assist in the decision making process.

4) Provide an up to date definition of junk and junkyard. b. Coordinate the new Junkyard Local law with Zoning. The Town should consider

adding a “Salvage” District to the Zoning Local Law and map to include property where junkyards already are located. If the Town has no active salvage yards, they should consider creating a Salvage District as a floating zone so that new junkyards require a rezoning for that use.

c. Make all junkyards subject to site plan review by the Planning Board. 3. Reasoning

a. The current local law is outdated, and contains an ill defined variance procedure for exempting existing junkyards from compliance with certain sections of the Chapter, and does not make the same variance opportunity available for applicants for new junkyards.

b. The creation of a floating zone, or possibly zoning property that currently contain junkyards to a Salvage zone would establish clear procedures for the application for a new use and for variance procedures, which can be handled by the ZBA that is experienced with the process for granting variances.

c. The current law makes the Town Board responsible for holding a hearing and making the decision on allowing a new junkyard. Such legislative action on an application is harder to overturn in court than an administrative action or one of an appointed board. The incorporation of a floating zone would preserve the right of the Town Board to make that decision, and its stronger position in any court case.

d. Inclusion of site plan approval requirements for any junkyard puts review of visibility and aesthetic issues in before the Planning Board, which has more experience in dealing with such matters than the Town Board. The review of a site plan for a junkyard would follow the site plan procedures and process contained in the zoning code for all site plan applications—it will not have to be duplicated in a separate local law.

D. Chapter 110: SEWERS 1. This local law establishes the town’s authority for requiring sewer improvements within

its sewer districts, establishing the methodology for setting user rates and fees, and contains material specifications for construction of facilities to be dedicated to the Town.

2. Recommendations: a. The Town should consider publishing a separate ‘Design Standards and Guidelines

Manual,’ and require compliance to the latest version adopted by resolution of the Town Board.

3. Reasoning: a. Adopting a separate Design Standards and Guidelines Manual allows the town to

modify the materials, specifications, and practices in the manual quickly by resolution of a majority of the Town Board as generally acceptable engineering, construction, and even regulatory standards (such as those from the New York State Department of Health or Environmental Conservation) change. Currently, material


and specification changes contained in this Chapter must be changed by amending the local law, including filing it with the State Secretary of State.

b. Several of the standards contained in this chapter are outdated and do not include allowance of modern construction materials.

E. Chapter 114: Streets and Sidewalks 1. This Chapter contains standards for public street construction in the town. 2. Recommendation:

a. The Town should consider publishing a separate ‘Design Standards and Guidelines Manual,’ and require compliance to the latest version adopted by resolution of the Town Board.

b. The design standards for streets should include provision for concrete gutters, ditches, pedestrian crossings, sidewalks, trails, and storm water management (pipes, inlets, the alignment of new streets, intersections, driveway access, etc. The town should engage an engineer and perform a comprehensive review of the materials and construction standards it needs to promulgate in its new Design Standards and Guidelines Manual. Much of this information can be borrowed from similar manuals adopted by other municipalities.

c. The site plan provisions of the zoning local law should reference and require conformance to the Design Standards and Guidelines Manual of the Town of Milo.

d. The subdivision regulations should reference and require conformance to the Design Standards and Guidelines Manual of the Town of Milo.

e. § 10 of this chapter states that erosion control is required for subdivisions. This standard needs to be moved to the Subdivision Regulations and also added to site plan requirements in the zoning code. The Design Standards and Guidelines Manual should reference and require compliance with the state’s stormwater regulations, and compliance with a new town erosion and sedimentation control local law.

f. Geometry and structural standards for new roads should take into account emergency vehicle access.

3. Reasoning a. Adopting a separate Design Standards and Guidelines Manual allows the town to

modify the materials, specifications, and practices in the manual quickly by resolution of a majority of the Town Board as generally acceptable engineering, construction, and even regulatory standards (such as those from the New York State Department of Health or Environmental Conservation) change. Currently, material and specification changes contained in this Chapter must be changed by amending the local law, including filing it with the State Secretary of State.

b. Several of the standards contained in this chapter are outdated and do not include allowance of modern construction materials.

c. The current chapter contains no specification for sidewalks, trails, stormwater facilities, and other customary site improvements that may be offered for dedication to the Town. It also contains no criteria for aligning intersecting streets, minimum offset (the separation between roads that intersect the same street), the angle of intersection, slope, minimum sight distances from driveways and other intersections, and many other road construction standards that are important to the general health, safety, and welfare of the community in laying out new roads and developments.


d. Unless the town is including specifications for erosion and sedimentation control methods or equipment, a policy statement such as ‘erosion control is required for subdivisions’ does not belong in a chapter promulgating street and sidewalk design and construction standards. These belong in zoning codes, subdivision regulations, and erosion and sedimentation control local laws.

e. The current standards for dead end roads, road widths, and road structure do not appear to meet minimum standards for emergency vehicle access. Slope, turning radii, and road base weight bearing standards should be included in new road standards to ensure adequate provision of emergency vehicle access.

F. Chapter 120: Subdivision 1. This chapter establishes review procedures and requirements for the subdivision and

associated development of land. It currently has differing levels of review and requirements for applications for major and minor subdivisions.

2. Recommendations a. The Town should consider rewriting its Subdivision Regulations in their entirety. b. All property line changes should be included in the definition of subdivision and be

subject to some level of review as follows: 1) Administrative Review (the subdivision plat must still be signed by Planning

Board Chairman after CEO’s certification that all zoning dimensional requirements have been met). These should consist of: a.) Subdivisions resulting in lots of 10 acres or more for agricultural purposes. b.) The recombination of two or more parcels into a single parcel that does not

result in any violation of the zoning code. c.) Lot line adjustments between adjoining property owners that do not result

in the creation of new lots nor create any conditions that do not comply with zoning requirements (such as creating lots without sufficient frontage).

d.) Lot line adjustments that remedy pre-existing non-conforming lots, as long as no new non-conformities are created as a result.

e.) Other subdivisions as the town may define that are so minor in nature that they will not impact adjacent property or the general health, safety, and welfare of the community.

2) Minor Subdivision: This should include up to 4 lots from a parent parcel existing at the time of adoption of the new subdivision regulations as long as no extension of public utilities or roads are involved. The process for a minor subdivision should include a public hearing before the Planning Board, an environmental review conducted pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, a standard set of submission requirements, and a vote by resolution to approve, approve with modifications, or deny for reasons the application for subdivision.

3) Major Subdivision: This should include all other subdivisions (thus anything more than 4 lots or involving extension of public utilities or roads). The major subdivision should have additional submission requirements and include both a preliminary and a final approval process with a public hearing at each. The Planning Board should have the authority to waive the second public hearing if the subdivision application is not controversial and the final subdivision


applications complies with the preliminary subdivision application as approved by the Planning Board (including any modifications).

c. A single, simple time frame for all applications should be established, based upon the statutory time frames (62 days from application to public hearing, 62 days after the public hearing until board decision). A statement should be included that the subdivision review time frames are suspended until the environmental review process is completed, and another that they may be suspended by mutual consent of the applicant and the board.

d. The sketch plan process should be encouraged, but no vote nor should any written recommendations be made beyond the recording of the discussion in the minutes of the Planning Board. Sketch plans should be informal working sessions and the results not binding on either party.

e. Subdivision designs should be required to: 1) Respond to topography, 2) Protect significant local views, historic resources, and site features, including

preservation of views of Keuka and Seneca Lake, 3) Protect and leave undisturbed trees and other natural ground cover, 4) Comply with the state and any town soil erosion, sedimentation, and/or

stormwater control local law; with the goal to minimize erosion and nutrient flow from the site during and after construction to the maximum extent practical,

5) Respect or improve existing community and neighborhood character, 6) Document energy conservation measures and other efficiencies in design and

construction, 7) Preserve adjacent property values, 8) Provide a buffer to any adjacent agricultural land and operators. 9) Provide a significant amount of open space to preserve the rural character of the

town. f. Major subdivisions should incorporate recreational facilities appropriate to the

target population. This can vary with the size of the development from simple sidewalks or trails to ball fields and other active recreation activities. Minor subdivisions should contribute facilities or payments to the town in lieu of the provision of recreational facilities or land. The town may only use such fees for the acquisition, maintenance, or enhancement of existing recreation facilities.

g. The town should require a certain percentage of every subdivision to be preserved as open space to preserve the rural character of the town. This can be accomplished through dedication, homeowners’ association ownership, development easements, and similar tools.

h. The Planning Board should be given the explicit duty of voting on whether an application before it is complete to initiate the time clock for the review period.

i. The Planning Board should be given authority to accept or require clustered or ‘conservation’ subdivision designs in order to maximize property values, reduce development and maintenance costs, and preserve open space and rural character. As part of this authority, the Planning Board should be authorized to permit reductions in required lot sizes, lot widths, and lot depths in order to create efficient conservation subdivisions. In no case should the number of lots allowed in a


conservation subdivision exceed the number that would be allowed in a conventional subdivision design.

j. The letter of compliance process described in §19 should be deleted. The approval of a final subdivision plat which shows the field location of corner pins for each lot, along with agency design approvals is sufficient for Planning Board action. The final plat should contain a statement that any variation from this plat shall render approval null and void. The subdivision regulations must require recording of the approved signed plat within 6 months of the approval action by the Planning Board. At this point it is not legal for any realtor, attorney, owner, or party to sell a lot that does not comply with the approved subdivision. Finally, the subdivision regulations should include a statement that the CEO may not issue a building, occupancy, or compliance permit for any proposed or completed improvements for any property that is shown on a final subdivision plat approved by the Planning Board where such lot does not comply with said approved plan as recorded in the office of the County Clerk.

k. The town should require percolation tests be conducted that show acceptable percolation rates for the construction of on-site septic disposal system, or the design of alternative means of sewage disposal be submitted with every application for subdivision. These should be attached to or shown on the final subdivision plat and if approved by the Planning Board, filed with the County Clerk as part of the subdivision map filing. Subdivisions for agricultural use should not be subject to this requirement, but the plan should be stamped that the agricultural lot has not been certified by the town as suitable for any use other than agriculture.

l. The Town should require a well or other source of potable water be specified on the application for final subdivision plat approval. If approved by the Planning Board, this information should be required to be filed with the subdivision map at the office of the County Clerk. Subdivisions for agricultural use should not be subject to this requirement, but the plan should be stamped that the agricultural lot has not been certified by the town as suitable for any use other than agriculture.

3. Reasoning a. The existing subdivision regulations are outdated and do not include reference to

many environmental factors that are important to the town, such as the protection of water quality, rural character, and views of Seneca and Keuka Lake.

b. The existing timeline description for sketch plan, minor subdivision, and major subdivisions, are overly complicated as every possible permutation concerning the interplay of subdivision review with NYCRR Part 617 (the portion of the Conservation Law of the State of New York which constitute the regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act) are presented in the text. It is much more efficient to state simply the subdivision time frames (62 days after submission of a complete application until a public hearing, then a decision is required 62 days after a public hearing), and the fact that such time frames are suspended until the completion of the environmental review process. The suspension of subdivision review time frames by mutual consent of the board and the applicant must be reflected in the board’s minutes, but is an important tool to provide an applicant with time to respond to issues that often occur at public hearings without forcing the Board to deny an application that may otherwise be


approved. The statement in the existing chapter that specifies that completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) makes a subdivision application complete is somewhat misleading. A DEIS must be certified as being ready for public comment by the lead agency in order to schedule the mandatory public hearing. If the Planning Board is the lead agency, the public hearing on the DEIS must be scheduled with and as a part of the hearing required for the subdivision application. Thus, a preliminary subdivision application is complete if the DEIS is certified as ready for public review. This does not, however, turn on the time clock for subdivision review as the local board still cannot take a final vote on a subdivision application until after acceptance of a Final Environmental Impact Statement followed by a mandatory ten day public comment period before the local board can issue its final findings. Again, it is much simpler to describe the subdivision review time frame as being suspended until the environmental review process is complete. The Planning Board will likely seek professional assistance from a qualified consultant in the event that it is dealing with an environmental review involving an environmental impact statement.

c. The current chapter defines minor subdivisions as having 4 or fewer lots, but exempts subdivisions of less than 4 lots. Thus, the only subdivisions that are subject to the minor subdivision process are those that are exactly 4 lots.

d. Having all lot line changes require subdivision approval: 1) Simplifies review of plats offered for recording at the County Clerk’s office---

all of them from Milo must have the planning board chairman’s signature. This will reduce the recording of illegal subdivision.

2) The administrative review procedure will ensure subdivisions that are not reviewed by the Planning Board still comply with town lot size and other zoning dimensional criteria. This will reduce the number of land locked and other non-conforming properties that are created.

e. Eliminating written recommendations to the subdivider after sketch plan review eliminates potential liability claims against the Planning Board. During the public hearing and review process, additional information may come to light that may result in changes from suggestions made at the sketch plan phase. Written sketch plan recommendations can be construed in court to comprise assurances of approval and even defacto approvals by the Planning Board—even absent public hearings.

f. Clustered or ‘conservation’ subdivisions allow more efficient use of land, are more sustainable, appreciate in value faster, than conventional subdivisions. Allowing the Planning Board to accept or require clustering provides them with another tool to meet the objectives of the Town’s comprehensive plan when dealing with proposed new development.

g. The existing design storm requirements in § 14 specifying use of a 5 year storm level for sizing stormwater facilities are outdated and do not conform with the state’s stormwater regulation or what is currently considered consistent with sound engineering practice nor with maintenance of lake water quality or prevention of flood impacts.

h. § 15 of the current chapter needs to be amended to mandate a certain percentage of open space be provided as part of a subdivision and that recreation facilities be provided as well.


i. §19 establishes a ‘letter of compliance’ process for the planning board. It should be noted that Realtors are not allowed to list lots for sale until the final plat is recorded in the County Clerk’s Office (this is a punishable offense), pursuant to the Real Property Law of the State of New York. The Planning Board should not be certifying lots comply with the approved plans. The inspection of field improvements should be made by the town CEO, engineers, highway department, water department, and sewer department, and other professionals, and certified to the CEO. The final control is that no building permits shall be issued on a lot that does not conform to the approved and recorded final plat.

j. Requiring soil percolation, sewage disposal method, and source of potable water with final subdivision application is important to limit the Town’s liability (since subdivision approval indicates that the lots shown on the plat have been certified as buildable by the Town). They are also important for buyers to understand, many of whom may not be experienced buyers, and it is this group that the Planning Board has been created to support.

G. Chapter 130: Vehicles, Outdoor Storage Of 1. This chapter is relatively up to date and attempts to limit the number of derelict vehicles

left on private property. 2. Recommendation: The definitions in this local law need to be made consistent with

those of chapter 98 Junkyards, and the Zoning Local Law. H. Chapter 134: Wastewater Management

1. This chapter deals with requirements for municipal and private sewage disposal, inspection of private waste systems, and construction standards for holding tanks and other equipment. It does a good job generally of referring to the applicable state laws that specify materials, locations, and state approval processes.

2. Recommendation: Keep this local law updated in coordination with other municipalities within the watershed.

I. Chapter 136: Water 1. This chapter establishes design & construction standards for individual municipal water

hookups, extensions of municipal water supplies, maintenance, liability, billing and related measures.

2. Recommendation: Remove the portions of the law that deal with design and construction standards, place them in a ‘Design Standards and Guidelines Manual.’

3. Reasoning: Adopting a separate Design Standards and Guidelines Manual allows the town to modify the materials, specifications, and practices in the manual quickly by resolution of a majority of the Town Board as generally acceptable engineering, construction, and even regulatory standards (such as those from the New York State Department of Health or Environmental Conservation) change. Currently, material and specification changes contained in this Chapter must be changed by amending the local law, including filing it with the State Secretary of State.

J. Chapter 140: Zoning 1. Recommendations

a. A new Zoning Local Law should be written to replace the existing one in order to bring it up to date and in compliance with this comprehensive plan.

b. A site plan review section needs to be added, including procedures, application requirements, and review criteria. This should include a sketch plan phase that is


suggested but not mandatory. Sketch plan submission requirements should be sufficient to provide a general understanding of the project for the Planning Board and allow them to enter into informal discussions with the applicant.

c. Policy statements and design guidelines need to be added to reflect and enhance neighborhood character. This is especially important for commercial uses in the heavily traveled tourism corridors of State Rt 14 and 14A, and along the lakeshore. The design guidelines should require architecture echoing or complimentary to the predominant 19th century architecture prevalent in the town.

d. Regulation of industry and commercial uses, as well as other uses, should be tied to performance criteria—to mitigate the impact on adjacent properties—rather than just on the number of employees or type of business as the current zoning does.

e. The town should establish dimensional and appearance standards for residential construction to eliminate unsightly homes and build neighborhood character. It is not the goal of the Town to prohibit singlewide mobile homes on individual lots, but to maintain the character of neighborhoods where such homes would be incompatible. Within the confines of the County Agricultural District, the use of mobile homes or any type to provide housing for agricultural workers is protected by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, and cannot be prohibited. The location, screening, and appearance of such housing, including a requirement for site plan review, can be controlled by the Town and should be to protect community character. For non-agricultural related housing, standards for 4 on 12 or 3 on 12 roof pitch, the appearance of a full perimeter masonry foundation, and horizontal siding can be established for all homes to meet. These are vitally important in some of the lakefront areas where a small, oblong rectangular, flat roof, one story structure would not be compatible with the neighborhood character.

f. The RR Resort Residential District should remain but be renamed as a mixed-use district, but include more performance standards to foster harmony between the uses. Additional standards should be added to foster more pedestrian activity and safety in this district.

g. The uses allowed in the Commercial district should be carefully reviewed to eliminate competition with the commercial districts within the village. A different mix of commercial uses should be allowed in the commercial area along State Rt 14 as opposed to other areas of the town because it is relatively remote from the Village of Penn Yan, and will not directly compete with commercial enterprises there. The scale of the commercial uses on State Rt 14 should still be controlled to serve the local and tourist population. It is important to allow wineries and their associated food and craft businesses, the sale of agricultural products, and even small hotels and bed and breakfast uses in the Town as these are all tourism based industries, support tourism, and don’t generally compete with Village businesses.

h. Commercial uses along the State Rt 14A corridor should predominantly be geared toward agriculture and tourism. Bulk foods and associated crafts businesses are the closest businesses within the town should be allowed to compete with the large grocery business within the village. Convenience stores should not be allowed.

i. In agricultural zoned areas, the town should allow more agricultural related businesses, especially as accessories to an agricultural operation. These secondary businesses are important to the economic health of the farm, and provide a source of


employment and services especially for the Mennonite members of the community. The town should provide guidelines for the location and appearance of such businesses to ensure protection of agricultural resources and the town’s rural character (such as requiring a wagon manufacturer’s building to look like a barn). Such uses belong in the agricultural district if designed properly, not in a separate industrial district. Care must be exercised also in the type of businesses allowed, but this should be handled through performance standards such as limiting wastewater discharges, standards for truck traffic for delivery, limitations to on-site commercial sales, and noise levels leaving the property. Certain scale uses should be allowed by right, subject to site plan review, and other larger uses by special use permit and site plan review. Small uses contained in residences, such as accounting, needlecraft, internet sales, etc. that do not impact sites and neighborhoods should be allowed accessory uses not subject to any permit review.

j. Multiple residences and elder cottages should be allowed, along with associated family owned agricultural businesses, on a single large agricultural lot. Allowing multiple uses should be tied to whole farm and parcel planning to ensure preservation of agricultural assets and maintenance of rural character, as well as performance standards in regard to runoff, erosion, traffic, and noise.

k. The zoning schedule should be referred to in the text of the zoning code, and the schedule itself expanded to include not only lot size, dimensions and setback requirements, but also permitted principal uses by district.

l. The off street parking schedule in section 29 should be a requirement for uses that are not subject to site plan review, but used as guidelines for the Planning Board’s review. This will provide the Planning Board with flexibility in dealing with site design, sharing facilities, and fostering conservation subdivision practices.

m. The private road standards contained in Section 29 must be reconciled with the standards established in Chapter 114 (Streets and Sidewalks) and those in Chapter 120 Subdivision. Section 29 of zoning requires a 50 ft. private right-of-way, yet chapter 114 requires public roads to be a minimum of 3 rods (49.5 ft wide). Chapter 120 contains varying standards that must be determined by the planning board. All of these standards should be removed to a separate ‘Design Standards and Guidelines Manual,’ which should be referenced by each of these chapters. The pavement width requirements should also be reviewed to be consistent with town paving equipment. Standards for smaller scale rear access lanes, shared driveways, and other conservation subdivision techniques should be added to the Design Standards and Guidelines Manual.

n. Each identified special use in the zoning chapter must be provided with its own unique set of requirements and standards. Special use permit review authority should be transferred to the Planning Board. All special use permits should also be subject to site plan review. It should be at the option of the applicant as to whether to prepare and process both a special use and site plan application at the same time and hold both public hearings simultaneously.

o. Regulation of mining and extraction operations in section 31 should be amended to recognize the current standards for pre-emption by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the State’s Mined Lands Act. Such uses should be subject to issuance of a special use permit. The town is allowed to regulate


extraction operations below 1,000 cubic yards per year. During revision of the zoning law, the town should determine a reasonable standard for the size of operations to be regulated below the 1,000 cubic yard standard.

p. Section 31, Signs, needs to be rewritten in its entirety. The existing section does not differentiate between residential and commercial signs, does not regulate off-premises signs, and does not address temporary signage. Off premises directional signs should be allowed to direct tourists to local businesses, but they should be standardized and coordinated in style and location. This may take administration by the town or possibly coordination through the local chamber of commerce.

q. Existing Appendix I, Performance Standards, needs to be reviewed, revised, and updated. Some of its standards are not legally enforceable on agriculture and other uses. It needs to be referenced in the text of the zoning code, and the standards differentiated by zone and in some cases by type of use. Some of the standards need to be held at the use’s property line as opposed to the zoning district boundary.

2. Reasoning: a. The current zoning local law lacks any provision for site plan review to guide the

planning board in reviewing and approving applications, to provide submission requirements for applicants, or even specifying the process--even though site plans are mentioned as being required for some uses. Informal sketch plan discussions can assist the applicant in crafting a formal site plan application that more closely conforms to zoning requirements, the intent of the comprehensive plan, and is more acceptable to the public. It is often invaluable in identifying problem issues and features of the project that the applicant can put additional thought into in preparation for formal site plan review. Finally, sketch plans allow this discussion to take place before large investments are made in procuring professional services to draw up plans. Applicants are often much more willing to amend plans before they have invested significant money in design services.

b. Many uses are regulated only on the basis of the number of employees, not on the overall impact of the use. For example, a light industrial use is defined as an industry with no more than 4 employees. An automated rendering plant processing 30,000 pounds of meat a day or a metal reclamation plant melting down and processing 300 tons of used computers every day would meet this definition but have a huge impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

c. Flat roof, long rectangular buildings do not fit with the cultural and environmental heritage of the area. This area has a long history of peaked roofed homes and design styles where homes are more nearly square than long rectangular shaped. Greek Revival, Queen Anne, Mansard, Victorian, cobblestone, Cape Cod, and several of the recognized Craftsman styles are much more in keeping with the historic roots of the community. Screening mobile homes used for agricultural residences from public view is important in maintaining rural character, as limiting their use to agricultural residency.

d. The RR Resort Residential District is a mixed-use district that is consistent with modern planning theory in regard to creating and maintaining vibrant functional neighborhoods through mixing of compatible land uses. This often provides employment, services, and recreation opportunities within the neighborhood for


residents and fosters pedestrian activity. This latter point is extremely important given the aging population resident in these areas.

e. The existing uses allowed in the commercial district include any retail or personal service establishment such as hardware stores, food stores, drug stores, clothing stores, eating and drinking establishments…. Most of these uses are not appropriate to be located outside of the Village, and would have a devastating impact on the Village’s commercial district, especially Main St. In the survey responses, residents of the village and the town both highly valued the appearance and character of Main St. in the village and many cited their concern with vacant businesses there. Preventing the ability of retail businesses to convert valuable agricultural or other vacant land in the Town to a new retail use through building of a strip commercial building is important to maintaining both the Town’s rural character and targeting the village as the commercial center. In short, the availability of commercially zoned property that allows uses that compete with the village will saturate the commercial market, drive down land prices, and stall the reinvestment and redevelopment of the Main St. area in the village of Penn Yan. Through limiting commercial development in the Town, the Village business district will benefit which also benefits the Town as Main St. properties also pay Town taxes.

f. The survey of residents and land owners identified the lack of competition in the grocery business as a large concern. The prohibition of additional convenience stores is necessary because: 1) The village of Penn Yan has an abundance of convenience stores (some free

standing and others combined with gasoline sales) presently. Some have closed recently because of the oversaturation of the local market.

2) Convenience stores only stock high volume/high profit margin items (bottled water, specialty drinks, beer, candy, etc.). They do not increase overall commercial sales in an area, they only relocate it. In this case, they take high profit margin sales item business away from local grocery stores and decrease their business base (gross sales and net profit). The result is often devastating for local grocery stores that are left with too large facilities for the amount of business they are doing. This results in higher grocery prices and often business failures. The Village of Penn Yan has recently seen this scenario play out in local grocery store closings.

g. Agriculture supporting industry and even rural scaled industry are important to the local rural population, especially those of the Mennonite and other Old Sect faiths. These can be an important source of local employment and services, and can be compatible with the rural character of the area. They do not belong in industrial districts because of their scale, and especially because of their employees—having 100 horse and buggies enter the Horizon business park during the morning commute every morning would not be compatible with the other businesses located there or with local traffic patterns.

h. Elder cottages, multiple residences for family members, and even family owned businesses should be allowed on single parcels to prevent the subdivision of larger farm parcels and promote better whole farm and whole parcel planning. Mennonite and other Old Sect members desire to keep all generations on the family farm and gainfully employed. As their life spans have increased, there is more need to


accommodate older members of the family by sharing or converting farm houses into 2 family residences, or even detached cottages where 3 generations are living on the same farm. Increased health care has also resulted in larger numbers of children reaching adulthood, and the need to incorporate additional rural industries in rural areas to keep those members without access to farmland gainfully employed.

i. A table of lot sizes, setbacks, and permitted uses by district makes the zoning code much easier to understand for both casual users and town employees and officers (CEO, ZBA, & Planning Board). It should be cross-referenced in the text of the zoning code so that it is a recognized part of the zoning code.

j. Off street parking standards are often set for a medium size facility of its type (offices require 1 space for each 200 square feet of fist floor area, for example). What a business needs in reality can often vary widely with the size of the business. The Planning Board needs flexibility in setting parking requirements for uses that require site plan review, and should be empowered to either increase or decrease the requirement based upon their findings during a site plan review.

k. Road right of way standards and widths should be standardized in one location (the Design Standards and Guidelines Manual. The width of pavement should be standardized to town paving equipment capability. For example, if the town has a 10 ft. wide paver, road pavements should be standardized at 20 feet. Higher capacity roads are not likely to be constructed, so while it doesn’t hurt to have those standards in the Design Standards and Guidelines Manual, a clearer definition of the difference between major streets, minor collector streets, and local streets is needed to guide applicants and the Planning Board. Almost all new road construction will be at the local street level.

l. Special use permits should be administered by the Planning Board to integrate with site plan review. Special Use permit review by the ZBA is not in keeping with their quasi-judicial responsibilities and role the ZBA has in every other duty to which it is assigned. Separating special use permit applications from site plans can be a benefit to the applicant as they can provide a sketch plan with the special permit application and not invest in professionally drawn site plans until they know the special use permit will be granted. Care must be taken to write the special use permit procedures to require a level of site plan information necessary to decide the special use permit application, without requiring a fully developed site plan. This can normally be accomplished by requiring a site plan that conforms to the ‘sketch plan’ phase of site plan review. While it is acceptable to have general procedures and submission requirements that govern all special use applications, the state enabling statute and New York State case law requires each special use to have its own unique set of application requirements (example: a gas station may be required to have a minimum 1 acre lot, and be 500 ft. from a school or hospital), and special standards for the planning board to review (such as finding that the vehicle lights are adequately screened from adjacent residential properties at night).

m. The existing sign section of the local law is inadequate. The photo inventory of the town documented a plethora of off premises signs, many from businesses out side of the Town, as well as temporary signage (many of which are up year-round) that are becoming both unsightly and a nuisance for clear communication at road


intersections on major thoroughfares such as State Rt 14A. In an area where the economy is dependent upon tourism, it is important to establish a local identity. Coordinating signage style and location is one important piece in that identity. Working with businesses and the local chamber of commerce will be important in achieving this goal to the benefit of all businesses and to residents through better aesthetics.

n. Appendix I, Performance Standards, is a unique feature of the Milo Code. It needs to be modernized and updated, but can form a good basis for organization of the code and establishing a methodology for the ZBA to make determinations as to whether specific uses should be allowed in a district (as the list of permitted uses normally includes the phrase, “or similar uses as determined by the ZBA.” It will also assist the Planning Board in determining whether certain uses subject to site plan review are meeting the goals of the zoning code (and thus of the Comprehensive Plan), and provide them with a basis for requiring plan modifications.

Draft: June 15, 2009 Page XII-1

XII. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

This Comprehensive Plan makes several recommendations in regard to the adoption of new or revised local laws. The following schedule for the development and adoption of those local laws was developed specifying the length of time needed to develop such local laws or modifications of existing local laws, and the list is in priority order (meaning the most important is listed first).

1. Develop and adopt a new Zoning Local Law: 18 months. The Planning Board should work with a planning consultant to recommend a new Zoning Local Law to the Town Board for adoption.

2. Creation and adoption of Design Standards and Guidelines Manual: 9 months. The Town should work with staff and engineers to develop a unified manual for water, sewer, road, and other infrastructure improvements required for development or replacement of existing infrastructure. a. Upon adoption of the Design Standards and Guidelines Manual, the following local

laws can be updated to remove specification information and refer to the manual instead: 1.) Chapter 110: SEWERS 2.) Chapter 136: Water

b. Upon adoption of the Design Standards and Guidelines Manual, Chapter 114: Streets and Sidewalks should be deleted.

3. Develop and adopt new subdivision regulations: 1 year. The Planning Board should work with a planning consultant to recommend new subdivision regulations to the Town Board for adoption by local law

4. Adoption of Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Local Law: 6 months. Very good models exist that can be readily adapted to the needs of the Town.

5. Adoption of Rental registration local law: 3 months. This is a simple local law not intended to regulate rentals units, but to provide information to the town on ownership so that information can be distributed to owners and they can be contacted when repairs or operational problem occur.

6. Revision of junkyard law: 3 months. The Key elements of the existing local law should be transferred to the new zoning local law, leaving this local law to be modified to just require annual registration, inspection, and provision of information to the town.

7. Update Chapter 130: Vehicles, Outdoor Storage Of: 2 months. After the new Zoning Local Law is adopted, this law needs to have its definitions updated for consistency with the zoning.

Draft: June 15, 2009 Page XIII-1

XIII. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This chapter of the Comprehensive Plan is a short summary of the recommendations made in the remainder of the plan. It does not present the process, supporting data, or reasoning for the recommendations made in the plan, only the recommendations made in the plan. It is intended, along with Chapter XII Implementation Schedule, to be able to be published separately as a short guidebook to the plan and the actions the town should take to implement it. Recommendations are organized here in accordance with topic, especially in regard to a local laws or policy that must be created or modified to implement the recommendations. Thus, their organization is significantly different that what is presented in the body of the Comprehensive Plan. Agriculture

1. County Agriculture District: a. Request the following changes to the County Agricultural district at the next 8-year

review by Yates County scheduled for 2009 – 2010: (1) Recommend removal of residential property fronting on Seneca Lake and the

hamlet of Himrod from the County Agricultural District. See Map 19 on the next page.

(2) Recommend that other Town owned property, such as the Town gravel mine and former landfill, should also be removed from the County Agricultural District.

b. Areas that are active agriculture should remain within the County Agricultural District

2. Within Zoning, the Town should define an ‘Enhanced Agriculture Zone’ where Agriculture is the preferred use with the intent of preserving both the agricultural soil resources and rural character of the Town. a. Residential housing density in this area should average about 1 house for every 40

to 50 acres. This should be controlled not by requiring large lot sizes, but by specifying that only lots of 50 acres or more can be subdivided for uses other than agriculture.

b. Lots under 40 or 50 acres should not be allowed to be subdivided. One residential unit may be permitted on such a lot. Additional housing units providing housing for the owners and/or agricultural workers shall be allowed.

c. Lots of 80-100 acres may have only one lot for residential purposes divided from the parent parcel.

d. Lots of more than 80-100 acres may have 1 residential subdivision lot for the first 40-50 acres, and one additional residential unit for each unit of 40-50 acres of the lot over 80-100 acres.

e. The Boundaries of the Enhanced Agriculture District should conform to those shown in Map 22.

f. Agriculture should be the primary principal use within the district. Setbacks of homes, tree plantings, and other amenities associated with residential land uses should be set at levels that enhance adjoining agricultural uses. (1) Large shade trees should be set back a sufficient distance from property lines to

ensure that they do not impact field crops.


MAP 19: Recommended Changes to County Agricultural District


(2) Pools should be setback from property lines and located so that dust and debris from harvesting activities does not impact them. During the application for construction of a pool in such areas, non farmers should be notified of the potential impact by adjacent agricultural activities such as harvesting, and they should be required to sign an acknowledgement that the residential owner bears the responsibility of any damage or inconvenience resulting from normal agricultural activities on such pool or the use thereof.

g. Multiple residences should be allowed on single parcels with a site plan review by the Planning Board to ensure that properties can be subdivided in the future in a conforming manner.

h. Auxiliary businesses related to agriculture should be permitted. These uses should (1) Provide a service to agriculture. (2) Sell agricultural products or crafts produced on the premises. (3) Ancillary sales of products not produced on site, but related to the main

business should be allowed as long as it is not the primary portion of the business. For example, a farm implement repair shop should be able to sell lubricants, or a quilt shop selling cloth and thread.

(4) Have primarily employees that are the owners or the immediate family of the owners of the related agricultural business. A limit of 4 employees shall not be family members.

(5) Be ancillary to an agricultural use of the property. (6) Be limited in size to a 2,500 square foot building. (7) Design standards for such uses should be established to ensure that the

character of the buildings used protects the rural character of the area. These should emphasize ‘farm like’ buildings, including gambrel roofs, wood siding, and a rustic appearance.

3. Within Zoning, the Town should define a ‘Hillside Agriculture Zone’ where Agriculture, especially, vineyards, is mixed with other compatible uses in an effort to maintain the special character of the rural areas overlooking Keuka and Seneca Lake. a. The boundaries of the Hillside Agriculture District should conform roughly to the

boundaries shown in Map 22 on the following page. b. The district should allow a mix of vineyards and other agricultural, winery, and

scattered (low density) single-family residential uses. Wineries and other tourism based businesses should be allowed but widely scattered in Hillside Agriculture areas.

c. Wine production should be allowed as part of winery sales businesses. d. Wineries should be allowed to host special events, such as wedding receptions,

inside as long as the number of vehicles and noise is confined to the property (is not disruptive to the neighborhood).

e. Bed and breakfasts, inns, and spas, should also be allowed in this area. Bed & breakfast operations should require owners be occupants and have no more than 4 bedrooms for rent, and inns and spas should have no more than 20. All should be designed to reflect the rural character of the area, including reflecting the Town’s predominate mid to late 19th century architectural style. Special attention should also be paid to the appearance of the property from the public road right-of-way, including screening of the parking area and minimizing the massing of the building


MAP 22: Proposed Agricultural Zoning in the Town of Milo


form, to protect the town’s rural character. A visual assessment should be required as part of the zoning review and environmental assessment to ensure the proposed development does not interfere with significant views and does not negatively impact the character of the town as viewed from surrounding areas.

f. Alert residents in this district of the special needs of both vineyard operations as an agricultural use and of wineries for tourist attraction, sales, and special event hosting.

g. Clear standards should be established for; (1) The density and lot sizes for residential development. (2) Public access to wineries. (3) Special events hosting, such as live music, festivals, and party hosting (such as,

but not limited to wedding receptions). h. Residential housing density in this area should average about 1 house for every 20

to 25 acres. This should be controlled not by requiring large lot sizes, but by specifying that only lots of 40 acres or more can be subdivided for uses other than agriculture.

i. Lots under 40 acres should not be allowed to be subdivided. One residential unit can be developed on such lots.

j. Lots of 40 acres may have only one lot for residential purposes divided from it. k. Lots of more than 40 acres may have 1 residential subdivision lot for the first 40

acres, and one additional residential unit for each unit of 20 acres of the lot over 40 acres.

l. The rules established for additional residences for farm owners and farm workers as described under the “Enhanced Agriculture” recommendations above should also apply to this district.

m. Erosion control plans should be required for new construction disturbing more than 1,500 square feet of surface area.

n. Site plan review by the Planning Board should be required for non-agricultural related activities disturbing more than ½ acre, and for non-agricultural activities disturbing more than 800 sq. ft. within 20 feet of a permanent or intermittent stream draining directly to Keuka or Seneca Lake.

4. Whole parcel planning with an eye to preserving the agricultural viability of fields and agricultural operations should be required as part of subdivision and site plan review for new residential and farm building construction.

Communication

1. Publicize land use training programs for municipal staff and board members. 2. Support ongoing public education/outreach programs about lake water quality. 3. Create a directory of resources that are common to the municipalities that will encourage

greater intermunicipal coordination. 4. Participate in an annual watershed-wide “conference” among local officials and board

members to discuss land use issues, trade information, network, review the current status of major development projects, and serve as a “clearing house” of information about land use issues in the watershed.


5. Provide information (in the form of brochures, flyers, and Internet resources) about water quality protection to residents and landowners. Cooperate with other municipalities and regional agencies for the development of the materials.

6. Publicize the availability of the revised Keuka Lake Book, which includes Best Management Practices (BMP) for homeowners in the watershed.

7. Cooperate with other municipalities and agencies to develop a series of educational publications (brochures/flyers/pamphlets) about sustainable development issues for the public. Make these publications available to residents.

Design Standards and Guidelines Manual

1. The Town should hire an engineer to update all its design standards and guidelines, and incorporate them into a single published manual approved by resolution of the Town Board. This will make updating easier.

2. The following chapters of the town code should be revised to reference the Design Standards & Guidelines Manual:

a. Chapter 110: Sewers b. Chapter 114: Streets and Sidewalks.

(1) This Chapter should be eliminated and its contents revised and incorporated into the Design Standards and Guidelines Manual.

(2) The design standards for streets should include provision for concrete gutters, ditches, pedestrian crossings, sidewalks, trails, and storm water management (pipes, inlets, the alignment of new streets, intersections, driveway access, etc). The town should engage an engineer and perform a comprehensive review of the materials and construction standards it needs to promulgate in its new Design Standards and Guidelines Manual. Much of this information can be borrowed from similar manuals adopted by other municipalities.

(3) § 10 of chapter 114 states that erosion control is required for subdivisions. This standard needs to be moved to the Subdivision Regulations and also added to site plan requirements in the zoning code. The Design Standards and Guidelines Manual should reference and require compliance with the state’s stormwater regulations, and compliance with a new town erosion and sedimentation control local law.

c. The site plan provisions of the zoning local law should reference and require conformance to the Design Standards and Guidelines Manual of the Town of Milo.

d. The subdivision regulations should reference and require conformance to the Design Standards and Guidelines Manual of the Town of Milo.

e. Chapter 136: Water f. Zoning

(1) Include design guidelines for maintaining neighborhood character. The guidelines should require complimentary architecture for tourism commercial areas, businesses in all districts, rural buildings for businesses in agricultural areas, and for wineries, spas & inns. The design guidelines should require architecture echoing or complimentary to the predominant 19th century architecture prevalent in the town. The character of the architecture and site design must reflect the Town’s rural character. Natural siding, sloped roofs, requiring the use of architectural styles based upon or echoing the predominant


late 19th century architectural styles prevalent in the area, and the avoidance of recognizable ‘corporate architectural styles (like McDonald’s famous golden arches) should be established as design standards.

(2) Existing Appendix I, Performance Standards, needs to be reviewed, revised, and updated. Some of its standards are not legally enforceable on agriculture and other uses. It needs to be referenced in the text of the zoning code, and the standards differentiated by zone and in some cases by type of use. Some of the standards need to be held at the use’s property line as opposed to the zoning district boundary.

3. Standards for smaller scale rear access lanes, shared driveways, and other conservation subdivision techniques should be added

4. The Geometry and structural standards for new roads in Chapter 114 should take into account emergency vehicle access.

5. Outdoor lighting a. The town should implement a standard for outdoor lighting that is sufficient for

security and minimizes light spillage onto adjacent properties, public and private roads, and to the sky. This standard should apply to all land uses, especially those in close proximity to or within the higher density residential areas of the town. A reasonable standard should be developed especially for the higher density areas of the town, such as the lakeshore and hamlet areas.

b. Consideration of light fixture placement, fixture design, and spillage on adjacent property should be part of every site plan review for energy efficiency, the character of residential neighborhoods, and the safety of drivers.

Erosion Control

1. The Town should adopt a soil erosion and sedimentation control local law to protect the quality of our surface waters. These requirements should require implementation of erosion control measures when the area disturbed is as little as 800 square feet within ¼ mile of the lake shore or adjacent to surface streams. These regulations should provide for filing periodic inspection of erosion control measures with the town, as well as providing surety to the town both for the erosion control measures and the maintenance of them throughout the construction cycle.

2. The town should review its standards for lot coverage in the near lakeshore area, and provide incentives for providing on site detention, retention, and recharge of ground aquifers, and discourage direct discharge into the lakes or adjacent streams. These standards should apply not only to new construction, but any time a building permit, special use permit, or site plan approval is necessary—especially for a major rebuild or expansion.

3. Submit proposed development projects to County Soil and Water Conservation Districts for review and comment prior to approval.

4. Potentially include a requirement that calls for selectively removing non-native plant species from slopes that are being built on and replacing them with native species.

5. Require selective removal of non-native plant species from steep slopes that are being built on and replacing them with native species.

6. Protect watercourses by requiring setbacks from streams and gullies that feed into the lake. No construction or significant disturbance of soils and/or vegetation would be


allowed within the 50-foot wide area. This leaves a “buffer” in place to help prevent pollutants from running into the watercourse.

7. Enact municipal stormwater management regulations to reduce stormwater runoff. 8. Consider the location of existing and proposed roadways and roadway access

(driveways) when reviewing and permitting new development. Transportation infrastructure can be challenging to design and build, especially when building on slopes where erosion and drainage issues are special concerns. Local zoning, site plan, and subdivision laws should ensure that private roads and driveways are built to minimize slope disturbance, provide sufficient space for drainage infrastructure, be well marked and easy to see, and be at safe intervals from intersections and other driveways.

Flood Damage Prevention

1. The Town should consider adding a paragraph D. to §16 that adds the following requirements to variances issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals:

a. No obstruction in the floodway shall be allowed that impacts the volume and rate of flood flows within the floodway.

b. At the very least cut and fill grading must be balanced within the limits of Zone AD (commonly referred to as the 100-year floodplain). Preferably, grading plans should have more cut than fill within Zone AD to ensure that any construction does not decrease the storage capacity for water in Zone AD nor raise flood levels within Zone AD.

Hamlets

1. The Town should investigate grants for infrastructure and community development to provide improvements and amenities to the hamlets in Town. This should include things such as sidewalks, parks, walking trails, as well as utility services (the latter only if there is an identified need and it makes financial sense).

Intermunicipal Cooperation

1. The Town should investigate the establishment of a joint Planning Board and a joint Zoning Board of Appeals with the Village of Penn Yan.

2. Work with the Village of Penn Yan and with other municipalities to develop a joint composting/yard debris facility.

Junkyards

1. The Town needs to replace this local law with one adapted from the current model junkyard ordinance published by the New York State Department of State, Office of Local Government Assistance. This will address:

a. Establishing a firm time frame for compliance by existing junkyards, instead of depending upon a variance procedure to be reviewed by the Town Board.

b. Coordinate the location limitations for junkyards in this chapter with provisions contained in the Zoning Local Law.

c. Establish a well-defined variance process with guidelines to assist in the decision making process.

d. Provide an up to date definition of junk and junkyard.


2. Coordinate the new Junkyard Local law with Zoning. The Town should consider adding a “Salvage” District to the Zoning Local Law and map to include property where junkyards already are located. If the Town has no active salvage yards, they should consider creating a Salvage District as a floating zone so that new junkyards require a rezoning for that use.

3. Make all junkyards subject to site plan review by the Planning Board Keuka Lake Level Control

1. The Town should communicate to KLOC that Keuka Lake levels should more consistently meet the guide curve, especially during the fall. Lower fall lake levels will provide residents with an opportunity to perform maintenance on seawalls, docks, and shorelines.

2. The Town should communicate with KLOC that its lake level management should more closely follow the guide curve to reduce the threat of a catastrophic flood event.

Municipal (Public) Water Issues

1. The town should seek ways to extend municipal water service along State Rt 14A from the village line to the area near Mac’s Dairy Bar business. a. Care must be exercised in limiting the boundaries and capabilities of the water

district so that water service cannot be extended to agricultural areas creating opportunities for new high density residential or other incompatible development that would disrupt the rural character.

b. During any consideration to extend municipal water service, the Town should carefully explain the link between the provision of municipal service and development.

2. Extension of water to the Second Milo area to the bulk food business should be considered only if grant funds can be identified to make the cost reasonable, if local land owners and residents report issues with drinking water quality, and if restrictions are placed on the water district preventing future non-agricultural connections to the district in the area from the intersection of Old Route 14A south to the hamlet of Second Milo.

Noise Local Law

1. The Town should develop a comprehensive noise local law with different standards throughout the Town that reflect both the density of residential development in that area and the proximity of denser residential areas.

2. Careful attention should be paid to establishing easily identifiable standards so that violations may be easily identified making enforcement simpler.

3. Reasonable accommodation must be made for outdoor functions at local wineries and the country club that are in close proximity to high density residential lake front areas, while also protecting local resident’s right to peace and quiet.

4. Construction and agricultural operations should not create elevated noise levels in residential areas between the hours of 9 PM and 7 AM. Any such requirements will not apply to generally acceptable agricultural practices occurring within the limits of a County Agricultural District, as those are defined by the New York State Department of Agriculture and are protected by the state’s various 'Right to Farm' Laws.


5. Within the residential areas of the town, noise levels should not be allowed to exceed reasonable nationally recognized standards. Thus, different standards should be established for day, evening, and night time periods to reflect the normal human activity pattern.

6. Standards developed for existing commercial businesses in commercial districts, including the Lakefront Commercial neighborhood shown on the future land use plan herein, should be carefully crafted and exemptions noted in the local law to ensure that existing uses and practices can continue to operate.

Open Burning/ Lawn Debris

1. The Town should adopt a local law to prohibit open burning: a. In and in close proximity to it’s densely populated residential areas. b. In close proximity to the village of Penn Yan. c. In close proximity to the County airport. d. Where it would create a nuisance to vehicular transportation.

2. The Town should consider working with the County Soil and Water Conservation District to provide residents with locations to deliver leaves and other yard debris to local farmers for plowing into the soil. The Town should cooperate in this endeavor with the village of Penn Yan to provide the village with a new means to dispose of yard debris.

3. The Town should regulate detached wood boilers and furnaces. a. They should be required to be located a reasonable distance, such as 250 feet, from

adjacent residences. b. They should be prohibited in dense residential areas such as the lakefront and in the

hamlets of Milo Center and Second Milo. c. Where outdoor boilers and furnaces are installed with chimneys at least 2 feet

higher than the highest point of all buildings within 250 feet, they should be allowed to be closer than 250 feet from adjacent residences.

d. Burning of solid waste (garbage) should be prohibited. e. Fuel used in detached, outdoor wood boilers and furnaces must conform to

manufacture’s recommendations, such as wood, wood pellets, and grain derived products (for example corn).

Property maintenance

1. The town should enforce the property maintenance provisions of the current New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code.

Registration of Rental Properties

1. The Town should adopt a local law requiring a business license to rent residential property.

2. Owners of residential rental property should be required to register their contact information with the town. This will provide the town with verified contact information to resolve any issue that may develop with the rental property.

3. Provide the Town with a method to revoke the right to rent where property condition, behavior of tenants, violation of town laws and/or ordinances, and/or violation of state codes exist for an unreasonable period of time.


4. Provide landowners with rental property copies of important local laws, such as noise ordinances, that the town may require to be posted or provided to renters.

5. Require the landowner to provide all renters with the town recognized street address for the property that agrees with local 9-1-1 records.

6. Require landowners of rental property to display properly sized and located house numbers on the rental property, including any unit numbers to provide better field identification for emergency service providers (police, fire, and emergency medical services).

Subdivision Regulations

1. Adopt new Subdivision Regulations in compliance with this Comprehensive Plan. 2. Revise the subdivision review criteria to incorporate protections for Scenic Views and

Vistas (see Map 7 on the following page). 3. Seek out advice and input from state agencies when reviewing proposed development

projects that have the potential to severely impact natural resources, state highways, and local historic/cultural resources.

4. When creating building lots, a subdivider should pay attention to the location of sensitive environmental features such as wetlands, steep slopes, and mature native tree stands and ensure that there will be sufficient space within each lot to build while not disturbing these features.

5. Require an assessment of water supply and treatment capabilities as a component of the review of proposed development projects. The Planning Board should consider the sources of the water supply (typically public water lines, wells, or Keuka Lake) and should also consider how wastewater from the development will be treated (typically public sewer lines or septic systems). The reviewing board should ensure that water supply and treatment are properly addressed before approving any proposed development project.

6. Include provisions in Subdivision laws that, in designated locations, support the creation of small building lots for hamlet developments. While small building lots may be inappropriate in rural areas, they are necessary in village/hamlet areas because they encourage a greater density of development.

7. All property line changes should be included in the definition of subdivision and be subject to some level of review as follows: a. Administrative Review (the subdivision plat must still be signed by Planning Board

Chairman after CEO’s certification that all zoning dimensional requirements have been met). These should consist of:

(1) Subdivisions resulting in lots of 10 acres or more for agricultural purposes. (2) The recombination of two or more parcels into a single parcel that does not result

in any violation of the zoning code. (3) Lot line adjustments between adjoining property owners that do not result in the

creation of new lots nor create any conditions that do not comply with zoning requirements (such as creating lots without sufficient frontage).

(4) Lot line adjustments that remedy pre-existing non-conforming lots, as long as no new non-conformities are created as a result.


(5) Other subdivisions as the town may define that are so minor in nature that they will not impact adjacent property or the general health, safety, and welfare of the community.

b. Minor Subdivision: This should include up to 4 lots from a parent parcel existing at the time of adoption of the new subdivision regulations as long as no extension of public utilities or roads are involved. The process for a minor subdivision should include a public hearing before the Planning Board, an environmental review conducted pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, a standard set of submission requirements, and a vote by resolution to approve, approve with modifications, or deny for reasons the application for subdivision.

c. Major Subdivision: This should include all other subdivisions (thus anything more than 4 lots or involving extension of public utilities or roads). The major subdivision should have additional submission requirements and include both a preliminary and a final approval process with a public hearing at each. The Planning Board should have the authority to waive the second public hearing if the subdivision application is not controversial and the final subdivision applications complies with the preliminary subdivision application as approved by the Planning Board (including any modifications).

8. A single, simple time frame for all applications should be established, based upon the statutory time frames (62 days from application to public hearing, 62 days after the public hearing until board decision). A statement should be included that the subdivision review time frames are suspended until the environmental review process is completed, and another that they may be suspended by mutual consent of the applicant and the board.

9. The sketch plan process should be encouraged, but no vote nor should any written recommendations be made beyond the recording of the discussion in the minutes of the Planning Board. Sketch plans should be informal working sessions and the results not binding on either party.

10. Subdivision designs should be required to: a. Respond to topography b. Protect significant local views, historic resources, and site features, including

preservation of views of Keuka and Seneca Lake c. Protect and leave undisturbed trees and other natural ground cover d. Comply with the state and any town soil erosion, sedimentation, and/or stormwater

control local law; with the goal to minimize erosion and nutrient flow from the site during and after construction to the maximum extent practical

e. Respect or improve existing community and neighborhood character f. Document energy conservation measures and other efficiencies in design and

construction g. Preserve adjacent property values h. Provide a buffer to any adjacent agricultural land and operators i. Provide a significant amount of open space to preserve the rural character of the

town


MAP 7: Significant Views


11. Major subdivisions should incorporate recreational facilities appropriate to the target population. This can vary with the size of the development from simple sidewalks or trails to ball fields and other active recreation activities. Minor subdivisions should contribute facilities or payments to the town in lieu of the provision of recreational facilities or land. The town may only use such fees for the acquisition, maintenance, or enhancement of existing recreation facilities.

12. The town should require a certain percentage of every subdivision to be preserved as open space to preserve the rural character of the town. This can be accomplished through dedication, homeowners’ association ownership, development easements, and similar tools.

13. The Planning Board should be given the explicit duty of voting on whether an application before it is complete to initiate the time clock for the review period.

14. The Planning Board should be given authority to accept or require clustered or ‘conservation’ subdivision designs in order to maximize property values, reduce development and maintenance costs, and preserve open space and rural character. As part of this authority, the Planning Board should be authorized to permit reductions in required lot sizes, lot widths, and lot depths in order to create efficient conservation subdivisions. In no case should the number of lots allowed in a conservation subdivision exceed the number that would be allowed in a conventional subdivision design.

15. The letter of compliance process described in §19 should be deleted. The approval of a final subdivision plat which shows the field location of corner pins for each lot, along with agency design approvals is sufficient for Planning Board action. The final plat should contain a statement that any variation from this plat shall render approval null and void. The subdivision regulations must require recording of the approved signed plat within 6 months of the approval action by the Planning Board. At this point it is not legal for any realtor, attorney, owner, or party to sell a lot that does not comply with the approved subdivision. Finally, the subdivision regulations should include a statement that the CEO may not issue a building, occupancy, or compliance permit for any proposed or completed improvements for any property that is shown on a final subdivision plat approved by the Planning Board where such lot does not comply with said approved plan as recorded in the office of the County Clerk.

16. The town should require percolation tests be conducted that show acceptable percolation rates for the construction of on-site septic disposal system, or the design of alternative means of sewage disposal be submitted with every application for subdivision. These should be attached to or shown on the final subdivision plat and if approved by the Planning Board, filed with the County Clerk as part of the subdivision map filing. Subdivisions for agricultural use should not be subject to this requirement, but the plan should be stamped that the agricultural lot has not been certified by the town as suitable for any use other than agriculture.

17. The Town should require a well or other source of potable water be specified on the application for final subdivision plat approval. If approved by the Planning Board, this information should be required to be filed with the subdivision map at the office of the County Clerk. Subdivisions for agricultural use should not be subject to this requirement, but the plan should be stamped that the agricultural lot has not been certified by the town as suitable for any use other than agriculture.


Vehicles, Outdoor Storage Of (Existing Chapter 130 of the Town Municipal Code) 1. The definitions in this local law need to be made consistent with those of chapter 98

Junkyards, and the Zoning Local Law.

Waste Water Issues 1. The Town should adopt local laws requiring inspection of septic systems upon sale. 2. The Town should work with the County and Village of Penn Yan to investigate creation

of county sewer districts to serve the near shore area around Keuka Lake. 3. The Town should work with the village to extend municipal sewer service to the

industrial properties on and near the County airport and the commercial strip along State Rt 14A from the southerly village boundary to Friendly Chrysler Jeep property.

4. Cooperative efforts between the Village, the Town, and the County to identify grants for infrastructure improvements should be made both for the extension of sewer line and for improvements to the village treatment plant.

5. Continue to promote effective municipal and private wastewater management practices through the KWIC in the Keuka Lake Watershed.

6. Chapter 110 of the Town Code should reference a separate ‘Design Standards and Guidelines Manual,’ and require compliance to the latest version adopted by resolution of the Town Board.

7. Chapter 134: Wastewater Management a. Keep this local law updated in coordination with other municipalities within the

Keuka Lake & Seneca Lake watersheds. Zoning

1. Adopt a New Zoning Local Law incorporating the intent of this comprehensive plan. 2. See Agriculture Section for changes pursuant to agriculture.

a. Zoning in Agricultural areas should allow a mix of ancillary and primary businesses as long as the rural character of the area is preserved.

b. Home occupation businesses such as but not limited to lawyers, real estate agents, or certified public accountants, should be allowed by right. These should be defined as having no more than two non-resident employees and located in an existing residence or occupying less than 500 square feet in an existing or separate out-building. A site plan submission showing adequate parking, public road access and signage, should be required, and processed through an administrative review process by the Code Enforcement Officer. The town should provide a simple checklist for the Code Enforcement Officer to use in performing the administrative site plan review. Further, the zoning law should allow the Code Enforcement Officer the authority to refer the application to the Planning Board for site plan review where there is any question or concern over the application meeting the requirements of the checklist or if there are any other issues regarding the application not covered by the checklist. Formal review of the site plan by the Planning Board should be required any time the application involves a non-conforming lot, structure, or any variances. Home based businesses should be allowed on the same parcel as the residence and/or farm.

c. Small Agricultural related businesses and services limited to 1,000 square feet in area and no more than 4 non-resident employees should be allowed with a Site Plan


Review by the Planning Board. Agricultural businesses and services are things such as, but not limited to, agricultural seed sales, welding, farm implement repair, and small farm equipment sales involving 10 or fewer full size tractors or the equivalent. This type of business is not intended to include things like lawn tractor sales to the general public. Small Agricultural related businesses should be located mostly in existing buildings on the same property as the residence or agricultural buildings whenever possible. Small shops selling primarily products produced on the premises, including agricultural products, should also be included in the definition of small agricultural related businesses. They are distinct from roadside stands due to their size, location in a permanent structure, and/or year-round existence.

d. Larger businesses and industry should be allowed by special use permit and require a site plan review by the Planning Board. These are businesses that are larger than 1,000 square feet, but no more than 5,000 sq. ft. in size, and/or involve more than 4 employees. Performance standards should be clearly spelled out in the zoning law to ensure minimal impact on neighbors, surface & ground water, traffic, scenic views & vistas, and neighborhood character.

e. Whole parcel plans should be required for all such land uses to ensure that the business does not occupy prime agricultural soils, and is located in a manner that does not interfere with the agricultural use of the property or adjacent property.

f. Design standards for all uses should be clearly stated and mandate maintenance of the rural character. Small Agricultural related businesses and larger businesses, especially manufacturing buildings, should look like a barn or be hidden from view from the public right-of-way with landscape plantings. The pictures on the following page show examples of buildings with agricultural character. Uses that require a special use permit should be reviewed to ensure they are located outside of scenic view sheds or are designed to reduce visibility and impact on rural character from both the buildings and any parking lots or storage areas.

g. Retail sales should be limited to businesses that cater to agriculture, or to the sale of craft, agricultural, food, or similar items produced or manufactured on the premises.

h. Roadside stands should be an allowed use of right, with clear standards for access, parking, size, and signage established. All signage must be on the premises. The majority of sales must be of items produced on the premises. All roadside stands should require the submission of a site plan to the town. Road side stands, defined as those with up to 200 sq. ft. of display area and having up to 4 off street parking spaces, should be allowed with an administrative site plan review by the Code Enforcement Officer, to ensure the location, parking, visibility (especially site distance from the access point along the public right-of-way), and other dimensional requirements established in zoning are met. Businesses that have a sales area of more than 200 sq. ft. are not considered a roadside stand.

i. Multiple residences and elder cottages should be allowed, along with associated family owned agricultural businesses, on a single large agricultural lot. Allowing multiple uses should be tied to whole farm and parcel planning to ensure preservation of agricultural assets and maintenance of rural character, as well as performance standards in regard to runoff, erosion, traffic, and noise

3. Lakefront Commercial


a. Zoning should allow a mix of residences and water related businesses such as lakefront restaurants, marinas, boat launches, campgrounds, hotels, and motel businesses in the areas of the town near Keuka and Seneca lakes where such mixes currently exist.

b. Allow businesses the ability to expand as long as they don’t negatively impact adjacent residential properties and neighborhoods.

c. Use performance measures, such as traffic levels, noise levels, and impacts on lake views to determine the suitability of proposed expansions of existing businesses or construction of new businesses. This can be accomplished through requiring site plan review for construction and/or changes of use in this zoning district.

d. Allow multiple uses on a single lot, as long as access, parking, and utilities are adequate.

4. The hamlets of Second Milo, Milo Center, and Himrod should be zoned Hamlet Residential, reflecting their character and mixed land uses. a. Allow the creation or redevelopment of small building lots for hamlet

developments. Small building lots are necessary in village/hamlet areas because they encourage a greater density of development.

b. Include provisions that support the development of street and pedestrian-oriented buildings.

c. Require buildings and infrastructure to be laid out in a traditional village pattern with traditional design features.

5. Encourage the use of “Cluster Development” practices in rural areas. 6. The zoning schedule should be referred to in the text of the zoning code, and the

schedule itself expanded to include not only lot size, dimensions and setback requirements, but also permitted principal uses by district.

7. The off street parking schedule in section 29 should be a requirement for uses that are not subject to site plan review, but used as guidelines for the Planning Board’s review. This will provide the Planning Board with flexibility in dealing with site design, sharing facilities, and fostering conservation subdivision practices.

8. Other non-agricultural areas of the town remote from the lakefront should be zoned as rural/conservation areas with low residential density permitted.

9. Site plan review b. A site plan review section needs to be added, including procedures, application

requirements, and review criteria. c. Include a sketch plan phase that is suggested but not mandatory. Sketch plan

submission requirements should be sufficient to provide a general understanding of the project for the Planning Board and allow them to enter into informal discussions with the applicant.

d. Include criteria to incorporate protections for Scenic Views and Vistas (see Map 7). e. Policy statements need to be added to reflect and enhance neighborhood character.

This is especially important for commercial uses in the heavily traveled tourism corridors of State Rt 14 and 14A, and along the lakeshore. Include reference to the Design Standards and Guidelines Manual.

f. The town should require site plan review by the Planning Board for new construction and even minor construction in the denser residential areas of the town, near the lakeshore, and in the hamlets.


g. Development of commercial and industrial properties should require site plan review by the Planning Board.

h. Include environmental considerations as a component of Site Plan approvals. Site Plan review laws should be written to require developers to integrate environmental considerations, such as geology, topography, soil characteristics, vegetation, micro-climate, surface drainage, erosion, ground water, wetlands, and flood hazard areas, into proposed site plans. Furthermore, such regulations should require the reviewing board to consider the environmental impacts on those resources when reviewing proposed site plans

10. Lot coverage a. Lot coverage standards need to be reduced and the definition of coverage needs to

include the entire ‘footprint’ of the roof area of the principal and all accessory buildings (not just the area inside the foundation of the primary building), and impervious paved areas in the lake front and near lake areas to ensure the area doesn’t become too densely developed and impact the lake through increased run off and the character of the area.

b. Lot coverage standards need to be applied to all portions of a lot where it is bisected by public or private right-of-ways.

11. The height of new or remodeled buildings needs to be regulated based upon the size of the lot, especially the width of the lot.

12. Residents should have the right to rebuild existing homes, even relocating them on the lot, without variances where the size (floor area and height) of the new or reconstructed home does not exceed that of the existing home and where any relocation of the building causes the home to be located more to the center of the lot and improves any existing, non conforming, setbacks.

13. Section 31, Signs, needs to be rewritten in its entirety. The existing section does not differentiate between residential and commercial signs, does not regulate off-premises signs, and does not address temporary signage. Off premises directional signs should be allowed to direct tourists to local businesses, but they should be standardized and coordinated in style and location. This may take administration by the town or possibly coordination through the local chamber of commerce.

14. Existing Appendix I, Performance Standards, needs to be reviewed, revised, and updated. Some of its standards are not legally enforceable on agriculture and other uses. It needs to be referenced in the text of the zoning code, and the standards differentiated by zone and in some cases by type of use. Some of the standards need to be held at the use’s property line as opposed to the zoning district boundary.

15. Excavation and Top Soil Removal a. The Town should revise and update its existing local law, Town Code chapter 140-

31(1) (2), relating to the extraction of stone, sand, and gravel. Changes in regard to ongoing inspection, the posting of security instruments to ensure compliance with required improvements and other conditions, including reclamation plans, and the removal of abandoned equipment, are obvious areas that need to be addressed. Consideration should be given to placing reasonable requirements on existing operators as well as for new operations.

b. Regulation of mining and extraction operations in section 31 should be amended to recognize the current standards for pre-emption by the New York State Department


of Environmental Conservation and the State’s Mined Lands Act. Such uses should be subject to issuance of a special use permit. The town is allowed to regulate extraction operations below 1,000 cubic yards per year. During revision of the zoning law, the town should determine a reasonable standard for the size of operations to be regulated below the 1,000 cubic yard standard

c. The town should consider prohibiting new surface excavation operations in areas where scenic views and vistas have been identified.

16. Steep Slopes a. The Town should establish a Steep Slope Overlay District to establish special

density, erosion control, and stormwater management requirements for uses in this district. This should encompass all areas in the town with steep slopes and in proximity to streams draining directly to and areas within 500 feet of Seneca or Keuka Lakes.

b. The Town should require site plan review, including submission of an erosion control plan for non-agricultural disturbance of ground cover of as little as 800 square feet in these areas.

c. The Town should require treatment of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces prior to discharge from the site.

17. Regulation of Signs a. The Town needs to adopt a comprehensive new sign regulation within its zoning

local law to standardize the location, appearance, and type of signage allowed in the Town.

b. The new regulation should also address the removal of disused, outmoded, and non-conforming signs. A reasonable amount of time should be established before mandatory removal of signs made non-conforming by the new zoning law, in order to allow amortization of the sign owner’s investment. Existing signs advertising businesses in the Lakefront Commercial area shown on the Future Land Use Map herein, that are permitted by the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) should be grandfathered, meaning they would be exempt from any requirement for removal. Grandfathering of such signs should expire if at any time the sign involved does not have a valid permit from DOT.

c. Standards for size, location, and appearance of business signs should be established based upon local speed limits.

d. Interior illuminated signs should be either forbidden or the intensity of the lighting strictly regulated.

e. Flashing, moving, and otherwise distracting signs should be prohibited, as they can become a distraction for drivers and thus a safety issue.

f. The town should establish rules for temporary signs, including those for occasional events such as garage sales, special business events, etc. This is not the same as requiring a permit for such signs. Such temporary signs should be allowed a specified length of time to be displayed during the calendar year. This will allow the town to require removal of non-conforming signage.

g. Rules must be established for if and under what circumstances off premises business signs will be allowed.


h. The town should consider creation of unified business district, resort, or winery area signage on main roads to direct tourists and other interested customers to the areas where businesses are clustered.

18. Townhouses and Multi-Family Dwellings a. Townhouses, apartments, and similar multifamily dwellings should not generally be

allowed within the Town. b. Adequate provision must be made for the conversion of existing, large housing to be

converted into multifamily use (apartments) where on-site water and waste-water disposal systems are adequate to support the use. Such conversions can preserve existing large residences that may otherwise be cost prohibitive for single occupancy.

19. Tourist overlay businesses a. Tourist based businesses such as rural dining, especially family restaurants and

higher end establishments catering to tourism, need to be allowed in tourist overlay districts located as shown on Map 26 on the following page.

b. The size of such businesses and restaurants should be no more than 3,000 square feet or a capacity to serve no more than one hundred patrons.

c. The character of the architecture must reflect the Town’s rural character. Natural siding, sloped roofs, requiring the use of architectural styles based upon or echoing the predominant late 19th century architectural styles prevalent in the area, and the avoidance of recognizable ‘corporate architectural styles (like McDonald’s famous golden arches) should be established as design standards.

d. Outside of the hamlets of Second Milo and Himrod, density should remain low to ensure the rural character of the area.

e. While driveways should be clearly visible, parking must be required to be visually screened from the public right-of-way and adjoining properties.

20. Encourage the use of “Green Building” techniques. a. For example, “green” developments may use native vegetation for surrounding

landscaping instead of non-native species, reduce the “heat island” effect through the use of certain materials on roofs and paved surfaces, and reduce or eliminate stormwater runoff from the site.

b. Zoning laws should not discourage the residential development of permitted and commonly accepted alternative energy solutions, to the degree that such solutions do not infringe on the quality of life of neighbors and other residents. Examples include alternative energy infrastructure such as solar panels, small-scale wind turbines, geothermal heating systems, combined heat and power generating systems, and other innovative green energy systems.

21. Each identified special use in the zoning chapter must be provided with its own unique set of requirements and standards. Special use permit review authority should be transferred to the Planning Board. All special use permits should also be subject to site plan review. It should be at the option of the applicant as to whether to prepare and submit both a special use and site plan application at the same time and hold both public hearings simultaneously.


Map 26: Tourism Commercial Overlay Areas


22. Regulation of industry and commercial uses, as well as other uses, should be tied to performance criteria—to mitigate the impact on adjacent properties—rather than just on the number of employees or type of business as the current zoning does.

23. The town should establish dimensional and appearance standards for residential construction to eliminate unsightly homes and build neighborhood character. It is not the goal of the Town to prohibit singlewide mobile homes on individual lots, but to maintain the character of neighborhoods where such homes would be incompatible. Within the confines of the County Agricultural District, the use of mobile homes or any type to provide housing for agricultural workers is protected by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, and cannot be prohibited. The location, screening, and appearance of such housing, including a requirement for site plan review, can be controlled by the Town and should be to protect community character. For non-agricultural related housing, standards for 4 on 12 or 3 on 12 roof pitch, the appearance of a full perimeter masonry foundation, and horizontal siding can be established for all homes to meet. These are vitally important in some of the lakefront areas where a small, oblong rectangular, flat roof, one story structure would not be compatible with the neighborhood character.

24. The uses allowed in the Commercial district should be carefully reviewed to eliminate competition with the commercial districts within the village. A different mix of commercial uses should be allowed in the commercial area along State Rt 14 as opposed to other areas of the town because it is relatively remote from the Village of Penn Yan, and will not directly compete with commercial enterprises there. The scale of the commercial uses on State Rt 14 should still be controlled to serve the local and tourist population. It is important to allow wineries and their associated food and craft businesses, the sale of agricultural products, and even small hotels and bed and breakfast uses in the Town as these are all tourism based industries, support tourism, and don’t generally compete with Village businesses.

25. Commercial uses along the State Rt 14A corridor should be geared mostly toward agriculture and tourism. Bulk foods and associated crafts businesses are the closest businesses within the town should be allowed to compete with the large grocery business within the village. Convenience stores should not be allowed.

26. Adopt a new Zoning Map complying with the Future Land Use Map (Map 25 on the following page).


Map 25: Future Land Use Plan

A-1

APPENDIX A

PARTICIPANTS

.

A-2

During the course of the preparation of this document, many elected officials, residents appointed to serve on the Milo Comprehensive Plan Committee, and members of the community volunteered their time to make this document a reality. In addition, several business owners spent a considerable amount of time with the Town’s planning consultants giving individual interviews to assist in the economic development section of this plan.. The Town of Milo will be a better place in the future due to their efforts. Milo Town Board Mr. John P. Socha, Supervisor 2008- Mr. Norman A. Snow, Supervisor 2006-2007 Mr. P. Earle Gleason, Councilman Mr. Carroll D. Graves, Councilman Mr. Dale G. Hallings, Councilman Mr. Arden G.Sorensen Jr., Councilman Comprehensive Plan Committee Members Alan Doan, Chair Harold Chidsey 2006-2007 Gary Hauss Russell Hunt Doug Martini Kevin North John Socha 2006-2007 Allen Sorensen Agriculture SubCommittee Harry Lewis Howard Hoover Leon Hoover Russell Hunt Dale Hallings Lake SubCommittee Carol Worth Jeff Ripley Jim Wilson Mary Worth Dyke Smith Howard Levant Roger Mckamey Julie Engel Tim Dunn Bill Laffin

A-3

Land Use SubCommittee Carol Worth Jim Wilson Julie Engel Tim Dunn Roger McKamey Bill Laffin

B-1

APPENDIX B

TABLE OF LAND USE CODES

The table on the following page contains the three digit land use codes promulgated by the New York State Office of Real Property Services (ORPS). The Town Assessor must, by law, assign a single land use code from this list to each tax parcel in the town. This land use data is used to prepare land use maps and in other analyses presented in this comprehensive plan. The table of land use codes has been organized in the categories used to produce Map 8: Current Land Use. The table is followed by a list of each land use category from Map 8 with a list of each land use code used and its description. The table does not list all land use codes and descriptions promulgated by ORPS; only land use codes actually assigned to a parcels in Yates County are listed.

B-2

TABLE OF LAND USE CODES FROM REAL PROPERTY TAX RECORDS (Codes from Appendix B of the Assessor’s Manual, New York State Office of Real Property

Services, 4/3/2003)

LAND USE CODE DESCRIPTIONS 1. FOREST AND OPEN SPACE

Wild, Forested, Conservation Lands And Public Parks (900’s): 910 - Private Wild and Forest Lands except for Private Hunting, 920 - Private Hunting and Fishing Clubs, 930 - State Owned Forest Lands, 932 - State Owned Land Other Than Forest Preserve Covered Under Section 532-b, c, d, e, f, or g of the Real Property Tax Law, 941 - State Owned Reforested Land Taxable Under Sections 534 and 536 of the Real Property Tax Law, 960 - Public Parks, 961 - State Owned Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Other Multiple Uses, 963 - City/Town/Village Public Parks and Recreation Areas, 970 - Other Wild or Conservation Lands, 971 - Wetlands, Either Privately or Governmentally Owned, Subject to Specific Restrictions as to Use.

2. INFRASTRUCTURE

Public Services (800’s): 821 - Flood Control, 822 - Water Supply, 830 – Communication, 831 - Telephone, 833 – Radio, 835 - Community Antenna Television

# Land Use Map Category (Map 8) Real Property Tax Codes Used 1. Forest & Open Space 900, 910, 920, 930, 932, 941, 960, 961, 963, 970, 9712. Infrastructure 821, 822, 830, 831, 833, 835, 837, 840, 841, 842,

843, 844, 852, 853, 869, 871, 872, 873, 875, 882, 8833 Industrial 710, 720 4. Community Facilities 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 620, 632, 633, 640,

641, 642, 650, 651, 652, 653, 661, 662, 682, 691, 692, 694, 695

5. Recreation & Entertainment 515, 522, 530, 531, 534, 541, 550, 552, 553, 560, 570, 581, 582, 590, 591, 592, 593, 681

6. Commercial 400, 415, 417, 418, 421, 422, 423, 425, 426, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 438, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 447, 448, 449, 450, 452, 453, 454, 461, 462, 464, 465, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486

7. Multi-family and Mobile Home Parks 410, 411, 416 8. Vacant Land 300, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 316, 320, 321, 322,

323, 330, 331, 340 9. Residential 200, 210, 220, 230, 240, 241, 242, 250, 260, 270,

271, 280, 281 10. Agricultural 100, 105, 110, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 120, 130,

140, 151, 152, 160, 170

B-3

CATV Facility, 837 - Cellular Telephone Towers, 840 - Transportation, 841 - Motor Vehicle, 842 – Ceiling Railroad, 843 – Nonceiling Railroad, 844 - Air, 845 - Water, 852 – Landfills and Dumps, 853 - Sewage Treatment and Water Pollution Control, 869 - Television, 871 - Electric and Gas Facilities, 872 – Electric Substation, 873 - Gas Measuring and Regulation Station, 875 - Electric Power Generation Facility - Fossil Fuel, 882 - Electric Transmission Improvement, 883 - Gas Transmission Improvement.

3. INDUSTRIAL

Industrial (700’s): 710 - Manufacturing and Processing, 720 - Mining and Quarrying.

4. COMMUNITY SERVICE

Community Services (600’s): 610 - Education, 611 - libraries, 612 – schools (general, elementary, and secondary), 613 - Colleges and Universities, 614 - Special Schools and Institutions Used for the physically or mentally impaired, 615 - Other Educational Facilities, 620 - religious, 632 – Benevolent and Moral Associations, 633 - Homes for the Aged, 640 - Health, 641 - Hospitals, 642 - All Other Health Facilities, 650 –Government, 651 – Highway Garage, 652 – Office Building, 653 – Parking Lots, 661 - Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine and Coast Guard, Installations, Radar, etc., 662 - Police and Fire Protection , Electrical Signal Equipment and Other Facilities for Fire, Police, Civil Defense, etc, 682 - Recreational Facilities-Nature trails, bike paths, etc., 691 - Professional Associations, 692 Roads, Streets, Highways and Parkways, Express or Otherwise (if listed) Including Adjoining Land, 694 - Animal Welfare Shelters, 695 - Cemeteries.

5. RECREATION & ENTERTAINMENT

Recreation and Entertainment (500’s): 515 - Radio, T.V. and Motion Picture Studios, 522 – Racetracks, 530 – Amusement Facilities, 531 – Fairgrounds, 534 – Social Organizations, 541 – Bowling Centers, 550 – Outdoor Sports Activities, 552 - Public Golf Courses, 553 - Private Golf Country Clubs, 560 – Improved Beaches, 570 – Marinas, 581 – Camps, 582 – Camping Facilities, 590 – Parks, 591 - Playgrounds, 592 – Athletic Fields, 593 – Picnic Grounds.

Community Services (600’s): 681 - Cultural Facilities.

6. COMMERCIAL

Commercial (400’s): 400 – Commercial, 415 - Motel, 417 - Camps, Cottages, Bungalows, 418 - Inns, Lodges, Boarding and Rooming Houses, Tourist Homes, Fraternity and Sorority Houses, 421 - Restaurants, 422 - Diners and Luncheonettes, 423 - Snack Bars, Drive-Ins, Ice Cream Bars, 425 - Bar, 426 - Fast Food Franchises, 430 - Motor Vehicle Services, 431 – Auto Dealers - Sales and Service, 432 - Service and Gas Stations, 433 - Auto Body, Tire Shops, Other Related Auto Sales, 434 - Automatic Car Wash, 438 – Parking Lot, 440 - Storage, Warehouse and Distribution Facilities, 441 - Fuel Storage and Distribution Facilities, 442 - Mini Warehouse (Self Service Storage), 443 - Grain and Feed Elevators, Mixers, Sales Outlets, 444 - Lumber Yards, Sawmills,

B-4

447 - Trucking Terminals, 448 - Piers, Wharves, Docks and Related Facilities, 449 - Other Storage, Warehouse and Distribution Facilities, 450 – Retail Services, 452 - Area or Neighborhood Shopping Centers, 453 - Large Retail Outlets, 454 - Large Retail Food Stores, 461 - Standard Bank/Single Occupant, 462 - Drive-In Branch Bank, 464 – Office Building, 465 – Professional Building, 470 - Miscellaneous Services, 471 - Funeral Homes, 472 - Dog Kennels, Veterinary Clinics, 473 - Greenhouses, 474 - Billboards, 475 - Junkyards, 480 - Multiple Use or Multipurpose, 481 - Downtown Row Type (with common wall), 482 - Downtown Row Type (detached), 483 - Converted Residence, 484 - One Story Small Structure, 485 - One Story Small Structure - Multi occupant, 486 – Minimart.

7. MULTI-FAMILY AND MOBILE HOME PARKS

Commercial (400’s): 410 - Living Accommodations, 411 - Apartments, 416 - Mobile Home Parks (trailer parks, trailer courts.

8. VACANT LAND

Vacant Land (300’s): 300 – Vacant land, 310 - Residential, 311 - Residential Vacant Land, 312 - Residential Land Including a Small Improvement (not used for living accommodations), 313 – Waterfront Vacant Lots, 314 - Rural Vacant Lots of 10 Acres or Less, 316 - Waterfront Land Including a Small Improvement (not used for living accommodations), 320 - Rural, 321 - Abandoned Agricultural Land, 322 - Residential Vacant Land Over 10 Acres, 323 - Other Rural Vacant Lands, 330 - Vacant Land Located in Commercial Areas, 331 - Commercial Vacant with minor improvements, 340 - Vacant Land Located in Industrial Areas.

9. RESIDENTIAL

Residential (200’s): 210 - One Family Year-Round Residence, 220 – Two Family Year-Round Residence , 230 - Three Family Year-Round Residence, 240 - Rural Residence with Acreage, 241 - Primarily residential, also used in agricultural production, 242 - Recreational use, 250 - Estate, 260 – Seasonal Residences, 270 – Mobile Home, 271 – Multiple Mobile Homes, 280 - Residential - Multi-Purpose / Multi-Structure, 281 - Multiple Residences.

10. AGRICULTURE

Agricultural (100’s): 100 - Agriculture, 105 - Agricultural Vacant Land (Productive), part of operating farm, 110 - Livestock and Products, 112 - Dairy Products: milk, butter and cheese, 113 - Cattle, Calves, Hogs, 114 – Sheep and Wool, 116 - Other Livestock: donkeys, goats, 117 – Horse Farms, 120 – Field Crops, 130 - Truck Crops - Mucklands, 140 - Truck Crops - Not Mucklands, 151 - Apples, Pears, Peaches, Cherries, etc., 152 - Vineyards, 160 – Other Fruits, 170 - Nursery and Greenhouse.

Page C-1

APPENDIX C

SURVEY INSTRUMENT The document in this appendix was printed and mailed to every resident and landowner of property within the Town of Milo, including those within the limits of the portion of the Village of Penn Yan contained within the Town of Milo. A total of 3,461 surveys were distributed, and 775, representing about 22.4 percent, were returned. From the approximately 2,211 distributed to residents and landowners in the Village of Penn Yan (including those sent to all multi-family residences), 393 responses were received, comprising about 17.8 percent. From the 1,250 surveys distributed to residents of the Town of Milo outside the Village of Penn Yan, 321 responses were received, comprising about 25.7 percent. Return postage was affixed to each survey to encourage return of the survey. The number of responses comprises a statistically significant sample from which meaningful analyses can be made. Of the 775 survey responses, 52.05 percent were from residents or business owners within the Village of Penn Yan, 42.52 percent were from residents or business owners of the Town of Milo outside of the Village of Penn Yan. On 41 responses comprising 5.43 percent of respondents did not answer question 1 or they indicated multiple answers that did not allow positive identification whether the respondent was from the Village or the portion of the Town of Milo outside the Village.

Page C-2

Town of Milo 137 Main St. Penn Yan, NY 14527

NAME ADDRESS TOWN, STATE ZIP

Dear recipient, As you may be aware, the Town of Milo is currently working on updating its comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan will provide a blueprint for the future of our Town, guiding future zoning and town policies toward development, character, investment in infrastructure, and many other matters. To help make the plan reflect the will of residents and landowners, the Town needs your input. Your opinions are important in determining what the Town of Milo will be like in the future, and that our local laws don’t allow the kind of development that residents do not want (such as the ongoing townhouse project debate in the Town of Torrey). Please take a few minutes to complete this survey. If there is more than one adult (age 18 & over), in your household that wishes to complete this survey, please use different color inks to indicate different answers from different adult household members. Once the survey is completed, please reverse the fold, tape it closed, and drop it into a mailbox. The results will be compiled by our hired consultant and all answers will be treated confidentially. Thank you for taking the time to invest in the future of our Town! Sincerely, The Town of Milo Comprehensive Plan Committee

U.S. Postage Paid Yates County ARC Permit No.

Page C-3

For Questions 1-4 please circle the letter of the best response. Circle more than 1 answer where appropriate 1. Please indicate the neighborhood you live in or your business or property is located in

A. Village of Penn Yan B. Keuka Lake Shore C. Seneca Lake Shore D. Milo Center E. Second Milo F. Himrod G. Rural/Agriculture areas of Town H. Reside outside Town of Milo

2. Do you: A. Own property in and live in the Town of

Milo (including the village of Penn Yan) B. Own property in Milo, but live elsewhere C. Rent property as permanent residence in

Milo D. Rent property for vacation use in Milo E. Rent property for agricultural use in Milo F. Own a business in Milo (including the

village of Penn Yan) G. None of the above

3. I have lived in my current residence:

A. Less than 1 year B. 1-5 years C. Between 5 and 10 years D. Between 10 and 20 years E. Between 20 and 30 years F. Between 30 and 50 years G. More than 50 years H. All my life.

4. My age is:

A. Less than 18 years B. 18-20 years C. Between 20 and 30 years D. Between 30 and 40 years E. Between 40 and 50 years F. Between 50 and 60 years G. Between 50 and 70 years H. Between 70 and 80 years I. Between 80 and 90 years J. Over 90 years

5. In the past the Town has invested in making infrastructure improvements in the Horizon Business Park in order to promote economic development. Should the Town:

A. Stop such practices. B. Look for additional opportunities to invest

in economic development C. Only invest where the Town will recoup its

investment within 10 years from increases in the value of such property,

D. Invest even if the Town may never recoup its investment if a significant number of new jobs are created.

E. I am unsure.

6. If you live in the town of Milo, please indicate which of the following factors are reasons that you live in the Town, and state the importance of that issue from 0 to 5, with 0 having no importance, 1 being of very little importance and 5 being of great importance.

Factor Rank 1-5 A. Family lives in area B. Grew up here C. Cost of housing/property D. Rural atmosphere of Town E. Local job market F. Good agricultural land G. Proximity to Finger Lakes H. Scenic Beauty of area I. Low Density Residential Areas J. Services available in Penn Yan K. Good retirement area

L.Business opportunities in Town of Milo

M. Business opportunities in Penn Yan

N.Business opportunities in Yates County

O. Quality of Schools P. Low crime rate Q. Other (specify):

Page C-4

Please place an ‘X’ in the column corresponding to your rating of each municipal service:

Place an ‘X’ in the column indicating how satisfied you are with the overall value of services for the tax rate charged by each of the following taxing jurisdictions (the tax rate from 2007 for each $1,000 in taxable assessment is specified in parenthesis after each jurisdiction)

# Question

Ver

y S

atis

fied

S

atis

fied

Neu

tral

Dis

sati

sfie

d V

ery

D

issa

tisf

ied

No

Exp

erie

nce

7. Courtesy of Town Code Enforcement Officer 8. Performance of Town Code Enforcement Officer 9. Courtesy of Milo Town Clerk & Clerical Staff 10. Performance of Milo Town Clerk & Clerical Staff 11. Service from the Himrod Fire Department 12. Service from Penn Yan Fire Department 13. Performance of your Local Ambulance Service 14. Performance of Local Law Enforcement on land

15. Performance of Local Law Enforcement on Keuka & Seneca Lakes

16. Town of Milo Planning Board: Courtesy in treating applicants & the public

17. Town of Milo Planning Board: Performance of duties

18. Town of Milo Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA): Courtesy in treating applicants & the public.

19. Town of Milo ZBA: Performance of duties. 20. Performance of Municipal Water Service 21. Performance of Municipal Sewer Service 22. Performance of Penn Yan School District 23. Performance of Dundee School District 24. Milo Town Board: Courtesy in treating the public

25. Quality of County Road Maintenance (Chubb Hollow, Second Milo, Himrod, City Hill, and Leach Roads

26. Quality of State Road Maintenance (Routes 54, 14A, & 14) 27. Road Maintenance of Village of Penn Yan roads 28. Milo Town Road maintenance (all other roads in Milo)

# Question

Ver

y S

atis

fied

S

atis

fied

Neu

tral

Dis

sati

sfie

d V

ery

D

issa

tisf

ied

No

Exp

erie

nce

29. Yates County Tax Rate ($6.45) 30. Village of Penn Yan Tax Rate ($18.62) 31. Town of Milo ($1.23 inside village $2.40 outside village 32. Himrod Fire District ($0.89) 33. Penn Yan Fire District ($0.44) 34. Penn Yan Public Library District ($0.39)

Page C-5

Please rate the importance of each of the following by placing an ‘X’ in the column that corresponds with your opinion:

Please indicate your opinion on each of the following statements by placing and ‘X’ in the appropriate column:

# Issue

Ver

y Im

port

ant

Impo

rtan

t

Neu

tral

Uni

mpo

rtan

t

Ver

y U

nim

port

ant

No

Ex p

erie

nce

35. Protection of water quality of Keuka Lake 36. Protection of water quality of Seneca Lake

37. Regulation of stormwater runoff and soil erosion from new development through mandatory use of erosion control measures

38. The use of lawn pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers should be regulated to protect water quality

39. The rural character of the Town should be maintained

40. Agricultural areas of the Town should be protected from incompatible development

41. Night time exterior light levels are a concern in my neighborhood

# Issue S

tron

gly

Agr

ee

Agr

ee

Neu

tral

Dis

agre

e

Str

ongl

y D

isa g

ree

No

Opi

nion

42. Open burning of yard debris (leaves, limbs, etc.) should be prohibited in the residential areas of the town

43.

The Town should develop a composting location, possibly in cooperation with Penn Yan and other towns where residents can deposit yard waste for mulching and chipping, and where residents can pick up wood chips

44. The Town should pursue and even fine property owners to clean up ‘junkyard’ type conditions on private property.

45. Large scale retail sales businesses belong in the Village of Penn Yan

46. More commercial development should occur on State Rt 14A outside of the Village of Penn Yan

47. The rural character of State Rt 14A is important to the image of the Town of Milo

48. More commercial development should occur on State Rt 14

49. The rural character of State Rt 14 is important to the image of the Town of Milo

50. More recreational facilities are needed for youth 51. More recreational facilities are needed for senior citizens

Page C-6

Please rate the importance of each of the following by placing an ‘X’ in the column that corresponds with your opinion:

# Question

Str

ongl

y A

gree

A

gree

Neu

tral

Dis

agre

e S

tron

gly

Dis

agre

e D

on’t

kno

w

52. Water and sewer districts should be expanded to encourage new development in the Town

53. Upkeep of private property is a problem in my neighborhood 54. Upkeep of private property elsewhere in the Town is a concern 55. Zoning around the airport should encourage industrial development

56. Small scale businesses in rural areas should be limited in size to protect the Town’s rural character

57. Tourism is an important industry in the Town 58. Large businesses belong in the Village of Penn Yan

59. The Village of Penn Yan should continue to expand by annexing adjacent property in the Town of Milo

60. Townhouses, apartments, or other high density residential development should be allowed on the lake front.

61. Townhouses, apartments, or other high density residential development should ONLY be allowed in the Village of Penn Yan

62. Retail opportunities in the area are adequate 63. Additional grocery stores are needed in the area 64. Additional clothing stores are needed in the area

65. The behavior of seasonal residents along the lakeshore is a concern because of traffic and/or noise

66. Noise is a problem in my neighborhood 67. Domestic pets are a problem in my neighborhood

68. Odors from agricultural operations are a problem regularly in my neighborhood

69. Odors from industry are a problem regularly in my neighborhood

70.

Mobile homes (those brought to a site on a metal frame and wheels which stays attached to the structure as opposed to a manufactured home which is placed on a slab or basement) should be allowed on individual lots

71. The appearance of businesses in the rural areas of the town should reflect the Town’s rural character.

72. Wind Farms (multiple large windmills) should not be allowed in the Town

73. Adult entertainment businesses should not be allowed in the Town

74. More education is needed about the impact of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides on lake water quality.

75. The Town needs more senior citizen housing 76. Public Access on Keuka Lake is adequate 77. Public Access on Seneca Lake is adequate

Page C-7

78. What is your favorite view in the Town? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 79. What is your least favorite view in the Town? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 80. What is the greatest issue facing the Town of Milo? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 81. Do you have any other comments the Town should consider in developing its comprehensive plan? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Page D - 1

APPENDIX D

SURVEY ANALYSIS

SURVEY ANALYSIS – Qualitative Analysis Of Responses

Page D - 2

METHODOLOGY: The Town’s planning consultant analyzed the survey responses from Town of Milo residents and landowners. First, each returned survey was given a unique identification number (id), and that id number was entered into a Microsoft Access data base along with the corresponding survey responses. The numbering allowed quality control checks to occur after data input by referring back to the corresponding survey number. Responses to questions 1 through 5 were entered into the database simply as the letter of the multiple-choice response (A, B, C…. for example). A value of –1 was assigned where no response was indicated. Responses to questions 6A-6Q were given the numerical rank chosen by the respondent (1-5). Where respondents wrote in a zero, zero was entered. Where the answer was left blank, a value of –1 was entered. Responses to questions 7 through 34 were assigned a numerical value as follows: 5: Very Satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neutral, 2: Unsatisfied, 1: Satisfied, 0: No Experience. Where the question was not answered, a value of –1 was assigned. Reponses to questions 35 through 41 were assigned a numerical value as follows: 5: Very Important, 4: Important, 3: Neutral, 2: Unimportant, 1: Very Unimportant, 0: No Experience. Where the question was not answered, a value of –1 was assigned. Responses to questions 42 through 77 were entered as follows: 5: Strongly Agree, 4: Agree, 3: Neutral, 2: Disagree, 1: Strongly Disagree, 0: No Experience. Where the question was not answered, a value of –1 was assigned. Written responses were typed in as submitted, with question marks (??) inserted where the text was illegible. Comments that were written onto the survey next to the multiple choice questions were also recorded as text, with the question number and the comment entered into the database. The database was then searched for out-of-range data for each question (incorrect letters for questions 1 – 5, incorrect numbers for questions 6 - 77). Where such out-of-range data existed, the id number of the survey involved allowed the submitted survey to be proofed against database and the data corrected where necessary. An additional 10% (78) of the surveys where then randomly chosen and the database proofed against the original for quality control purposes. These 78 surveys represented 7,332 data entries (there were 93 multiple choice answers plus the survey id number entered for each survey), not including the written responses. Of this 7,332 data entries sampled, no errors were found. The responses to the written questions were divided up between respondents indicating they were a resident or landowner within the Village of Penn Yan, those from the Town of Milo outside of the Village of Penn Yan, those that indicated both a Penn Yan origination and one from within the Town (for example: some surveys chose response A & F, which would indicate the Village of Penn Yan and Himrod), and those that did not answer question 1 so their origin was unknown. For each of these categories, the written responses were exported to a Microsoft Word compatible file format and spell checked to pick up any data entry or respondent grammatical errors. Proper names, such as those of various local businesses, were not corrected although they were checked to ensure that what was typed into the database accurately reflected the submitted survey response. Many of the conclusions drawn from the written responses are mentioned in the discussion of the analysis of other related multiple-choice questions. For example, the number of people indicating that feral cats were a problem in their neighborhood in their response to question 81 is discussed as part of the analysis of the responses to question 67 (Domestic pets are a problem in my neighborhood). Analysis of the multiple choice responses was done by importing the Access database into Microsoft FoxPro. This allowed separate analysis to be run for each question for all returned surveys, surveys returned from the portion of the Village of Penn Yan within the Town of Milo, and for surveys returned from outside of the Village of Penn Yan in the Town of Milo. This allowed the


Page D - 3

Comprehensive Plan Committee the ability to determine if opinions on certain issues varied widely between village and town residents and landowners. It also enabled certain questions, such as Question 66 (Noise is a problem in my neighborhood) to be analyzed by neighborhood, and other questions to be analyzed by age of the respondent. The results of the analyses of the multiple-choice questions are presented in tables for each question. The total number of respondents that chose each of the possible answers is shown (such as answer ‘A’ was chosen by 18 respondents), and then some statistical analyses are provided in the table. For questions 1 through 5, the total responses for each alternative answer and the percent of the total responses are provided. For question 6, the number of respondents for each rank (-1 through 5) for each answer (A through Q) is provided, along with the total ranking each answer above a ‘0’ response. In addition to the number of respondents selecting each answer (-1 through 5) for questions 7 through 77, the numerical average of the responses (1 to 5) is given. It is important to note that while the number of ‘0’ and ‘–1’ responses is reported, these values were NOT used in calculating the numerical average. Using this approach, an average above 3 is positive, 3.00 is neutral, and below 3 is negative for each question. A column labeled ‘Indicator’ is also presented documenting how much above or below neutral (or 3) the average score for the responses to each question are (positive numbers indicate a positive response, negative numbers a negative response). The Indicator field ranges from –2 to 2, with zero being a neutral response. The Indicator field analysis provides a method of compensating for the strength of the responses (agree vs. strongly agree, for example). With an Indicator analysis it is possible to have a positive Indicator value even where most people responded negatively to a question. This is possible, for example, where respondents indicating opposition were not strongly opposed and most respondents in favor where strongly in favor. The utility of the Indicator Field value allows a quick identification of issues where there may be a very opinionated minority. Finally, the number of positive responses, negative responses, and undecided (being the total of the neutral, no opinion, and no answer responses) are tabulated for each question. These three numbers quickly identify whether a statement is supported by the public or not, but also how many respondents remain undecided. A question can, for example, have a very positive ranking but not many respondents felt strongly enough to indicate support or opposition. Such a result may indicate the need for the town to provide more information for residents to voice an opinion. ANALYSIS: In the following text, the original question (or the topic of that question) is italicized followed by a qualitative analysis of the responses to that question in normal (non-italicized) text. Where the term ‘Penn Yan’ appears, the analysis is referring to the responses from the portion of the Village within the Town of Milo. Where the word ‘Town’ appears, it is referring to the portion of the Town of Milo outside of the Village of Penn Yan. All other references not qualified by the word ‘Town’ or the phrase ‘Penn Yan’ refer to the analysis of all returned surveys. Following this qualitative analysis, the sets of tables depicting the numerical analysis are provided. These are followed by the actual written responses submitted. Question 1: Please indicate the neighborhood you live in or your business or property is located in: Survey responses were received from throughout the town, with just over half of the responses coming from resident & landowners in the Village of Penn Yan. About 5% of the surveys returned did not specify their location or were from people that resided outside of the Town but owned land, a residence, or business in the Town or Penn Yan.


Page D - 4

Question 2: Ownership: This question asked whether people owned, rented, resided in the town, operated a business, or just owned or worded agricultural land. Just under 14% reported that they owned land in the town, including the village, but their permanent residence was elsewhere. A little over 70% of respondents owned their homes, and only about 5% rented their permanent residence. About 5% were business owners, and about 5% did not answer this question or selected ‘none of the above.’ Question 3: I have lived in my current residence (number of years): The responses to this length of residency question were interesting. About 36% claimed to have lived in the Town more than 20 years. This figure was only marginally higher for the Town outside Penn Yan, where about 38% claimed residency for more than 20 years. Question 4: My age is: People less than 30 years of age represented only about 2.5% of all survey responses and only 1% for the Town. This is likely the result of two factors: First, the demographic analysis of the Town shows that the 18 to 30 year age group is small in the Town reflecting that many young people leave the area to seek education and employment elsewhere (outside of the County), yet many move back to the area after a varying number of years. Second, this age group has young families, new careers, and active lifestyles that keep them busy so that few took the time to respond to the survey. The fact that this age group made up 3% of responses within Penn Yan can be accounted for by the greater percentage of young adults in the Village as compared with the Town due to the availability of rental properties in the village, especially multi family dwellings. Question 5: In the past the Town has invested in making infrastructure improvements in the Horizon Business Park in order to promote economic development. Should the Town….: This question offered a variety of responses asking if the town should continue, stop, or delimit future investment to attract, support, or encourage business. Less than 5% thought the town should stop, about 7% didn’t answer, nearly 20% were unsure, and 68% supported one of the responses directing the town to continue or expand such investment practices. Support for continuing such investment was only marginally less for responses from the Town versus Penn Yan. Question 6: This question asked about people’s reasons for living in the Town: The Scenic beauty of the area was the most chosen and highest rated response, followed by the low crime rate, the rural atmosphere of the Town, proximity to the Finger Lakes, and low-density housing. These rankings were identical for the separate analysis of responses from Penn Yan and the Town (although the ‘rural atmosphere of the town’ and ‘proximity to the Finger Lakes’ each received the same number of responses from Town respondents). The answer, ‘family living in the area’ was also ranked very highly. The local job market was the least mentioned reason. Question 7-34 asked whether people were satisfied with various officers, boards, services, and taxing jurisdictions: Town staff members were generally well rated. For local boards, questions were asked concerning the courtesy they showed the public versus how competently they performed. While there are no glaring negative ratings, some of the local boards, such as the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, would normally be expected to be more positively rated. This can be addressed in a number of ways. For example, time should be taken at the outset of every meeting to explain procedures, the opportunities and times when public comment is appropriate, the way public hearings will be conducted, and the rules under which the board has to make decisions. This last item is critically important. The public often misunderstands the basis upon which these boards must legally base their decision—that they cannot turn down an


Page D - 5

application when it meets certain legal requirements even if the majority of citizens are vehemently opposed. While citizens may not be any happier with the result, they will leave such meetings with a sense that the board was competent in its actions and, “understood what they were doing.” Another factor that stands out in this series of questions is the concern that many respondents had regarding local property taxes, especially those of the Village of Penn Yan and Yates County. While few people express pleasure in paying taxes, these two taxing entities where rated very negatively. The Yates County tax rate is especially curious, since it is actually lower than that of several surrounding Counties, including Steuben, Seneca, and Wayne, and is only a few cents higher than neighboring Ontario. The tax rate in Penn Yan received the most negative ranking in this series of questions. At the same time, maintenance of Village roads received the second lowest rating in this series of questions, and elicited many negative comments written next to this question as well as comments in response to questions 80 and 81. Penn Yan respondents ranked the Village tax rate and road maintenance more negatively than Town respondents. Town respondents gave the Town’s tax rate a negative ranking where Penn Yan respondents gave it a positive one. Many of the written responses referred to real property taxes as a concern. Many of those responses indicated a major misunderstanding of the scope of services the Town and/or the Village provide, what services are provided by various levels of government, and the ways in which local governments currently cooperate to save money. The lack of understanding on this issue, and on others mentioned later in this analysis, indicates that Town government should consider doing more to communicate with its citizens. One of the most glaring misunderstandings of respondents is that general town taxes neither pay for infrastructure services (sewer & water services or lighting districts, for example), nor the expansion of those services to serve residents. Questions 35 – 38 attempted to assess the level of support for protecting the water quality of Seneca and Keuka lakes, including imposition of regulations on lawn chemicals and storm water runoff and erosion: All of the questions, including regulating storm water runoff and erosion control, were almost universally supported by respondents. These results validate the recommendations of the Lakefront and Land Use subcommittees concerning the need for site plan review for near lake development, reducing the density of development on steep slope areas, and requiring stormwater and erosion control measures for development in these areas. Somewhat surprisingly, respondents even strongly supported regulation of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides in regard to improving lake water quality. Questions 39 – 40 assessed support for agricultural land uses and preserving the rural character of the town: These statements were universally strongly supported. People want agricultural operations to be protected from incompatible development. This supports the Town Agriculture Committee’s recommendations to zone the agricultural areas of the town for agriculture first, and residences allowed at a low density in areas where they do not disrupt the agricultural use of the valuable and important soil resources of the town. The Town’s rural character is very important to its residents. Question 41: Night time exterior light levels are a concern in my neighborhood: While a majority did not agree with this statement, a significant number within the village did. This question was analyzed by neighborhood within the Town, and the only area where more respondents agreed than disagreed was in the Seneca Lakeshore area. Respondents from the Keuka Lakeshore area were split, with the average response being almost neutral. While not a clear majority, this does indicate that this issue is increasing in importance and should be addressed by the Town. Since site plan


Page D - 6

review has been recommended for development in these areas. The town should include exterior lighting guidelines and requirements as part of site plan requirements, and generally require that lighting levels not exceed levels needed for security, that fixtures should direct light down toward the ground, and that spillage on adjacent properties be avoided to the maximum extent practical. Exterior lighting levels do not appear to be a concern in other neighborhoods of the Town. Question 42: Open burning of yard debris (leaves, limbs, etc.) should be prohibited in the residential areas of the town: This concept received stronger support from Penn Yan respondents than those from the Town, but was supported in each. This question was also analyzed by respondents’ neighborhood. While stronger support was evident in denser populated areas such as the Seneca and Keuka lakeshore, no area was significantly against the idea. The town should be aware that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is currently contemplating new regulations concerning outdoor burning. The Town should monitor DEC’s progress toward promulgating such regulations, and if the state does not adopt such regulations, the Town should work with its municipal attorney to develop local laws to address the situation in the neighborhoods where residents cite it as an issue. Question 43: The Town should develop a composting location, possibly in cooperation with Penn Yan and other towns where residents can deposit yard waste for mulching and chipping, and where residents can pick up wood chips: This concept was universally strongly supported and should be pursued by the Town, hopefully in cooperation with the Village of Penn Yan. Question 44: The Town should pursue and even fine property owners to clean up ‘junkyard’ type conditions on private property: This statement was universally and strongly supported. The Town should consider being much more proactive in regard to this issue. The New York State Department of State, Office of Local Government Assistance, publishes a primer on this topic to guide local governments in reviewing their existing local laws and crafting new ones to correctly and efficiently regulate junkyards and waste. The current New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code also grants Code Enforcement Officers wide authority to order the clean up of such properties through orders to maintain. Finally, some of the properties inventoried in this comprehensive plan pose health risks in regard to the harboring of vermin (rodents) and providing areas for mosquito breeding. The Town Board has the authority to sit as a Board of Health and order cleanup of such properties upon serving of due notice. This avenue should be explored if other attempts to remedy fail. The Town should first ensure that it has a fine and fee structure in place so that it can recoup the cost of staff time and, if necessary, clean up of properties where such extreme action becomes necessary. Question 45: Large scale retail sales businesses belong in the Village of Penn Yan: Respondents generally agreed with this statement by a more than 2 to 1 margin, with Penn Yan respondents supporting it more strongly than Town respondents. As discussed in the business section, it is important for the Town and the Village to limit the size and opportunities for large retailers to compete with local merchants in order to ensure the economic health of the small local merchants such as those on Main Street. There were a rather large number of undecided responses to this question, which points to the need for the Town to carefully explain its rationale for limiting the size of commercial enterprises outside of the village. Question 46: More commercial development should occur on State Rt 14A outside of the Village of Penn Yan: Respondents generally supported this statement. The area as one heads south on State


Page D - 7

Rt 14A exiting the Village is characterized by larger scale commercial developments (a bowling alley, NYS Department of Transportation grounds, the Horizon business park, and an auto dealership). These uses do not generally compete with small retail enterprises found in the village’s business district. Residents of both the Town and Penn Yan apparently feel the area near the village on State Rt 14A is appropriate for these and additional uses. Heading away from the village, the landscape quickly becomes dominated by agriculture. Smaller scale businesses catering to the agricultural community, produce and handicrafts, wineries and other tourist based businesses would be compatible with the rural character and agricultural uses, and provide business opportunities reflecting the importance of tourism to the local economy. At the same time, the Town needs to be extremely careful that this corridor is not over developed to the detriment of either agriculture or its rural scenic quality, as it is an important tourist corridor. Town respondents seem to appreciate this, as they were somewhat less supportive of this statement than Penn Yan respondents. Question 47: The rural character of State Rt 14A is important to the image of the Town of Milo: While this statement was supported by a 4 to 1 margin by Town respondents, it was supported by a nearly 5 to 1 ratio by Penn Yan respondents. This is probably due to the fact that many Town residents live in and are more familiar with even more rural areas of the Town, while Penn Yan residents are more likely to be familiar with this heavily traveled road. In any event, the responses from both areas indicates wide acceptance of the importance of this road and the rural character it provides to the town. This endorsement lends credence to the proposals of the Agriculture Committee for limiting the types and areas available for commercial development in this corridor. The Town must balance this with the need for tourist based businesses. The character and type of businesses allowed, and their appearance, should be established by careful design guidelines to preserve the corridor’s rural character and tourist appeal. Question 48: More commercial development should occur on State Rt 14: Responses agreeing with this statement outnumbered those disagreeing 65% to 35%, although nearly half of all responses (347 out of 775) were blank, no opinion, or neutral responses. This lukewarm response was likely due to a number of factors, including the concern many written responses to question 79 mentioned about the character of the existing commercial development in this corridor, the unspecified nature of the proposed commercial development, and the relative unfamiliarity of this road for many respondents because of its distance from the Village of Penn Yan. Given the opinions expressed on the importance of tourism and preserving the rural character in this area, it is safe to assume that additional commercial development aimed at tourists and designed to preserve the rural character would be supported. Question 49: The rural character of State Rt 14 is important to the image of the Town of Milo: This statement was supported by more than 3 to 1 by all respondents, with those from the Town being more than 4 to 1 in support. As mentioned in the analysis of question 48, this part of the Town is the farthest from the Village of Penn Yan and possibly not as familiar to village residents. The overwhelming support of this statement indicates that the Town needs to think about the appearance and character of both existing and proposed development in this corridor. As was mentioned previously, a number of written responses mentioned the negative character of some of the existing gas station and adjacent uses in this corridor. Question 50: More recreational facilities are needed for youth: This statement was supported by a 4 to 1 margin overall, 3 to 1 margin in Town responses, and nearly 6 to 1 in Penn Yan responses. While only about 25% of the responses from Penn Yan were neutral or undecided, about 1/3 of all


Page D - 8

Town responses were. This indicates that any proposal to develop facilities should be done in cooperation with the Village of Penn Yan where support is the strongest, and that a large block of Town residents would have to be convinced that any proposal is in the Town’s best interest. This question was also analyzed by the age of the respondent. Interestingly, the strong support that this question received was evident for each age group, although respondents under age 50 were slightly more supportive. Recreational facilities for youth tend to focus on more intense physical activity than facilities for adults and seniors. While parks and ball fields and similar types of facilities are often municipally funded, other funding avenues are also available. For example, Town Law allows the Town to require set aside of a percentage of each subdivision for recreational use, which may be either dedicated to the Town or maintained by a homeowners’ association. Where single lots or other circumstances make dedication of land for recreational uses impractical (this does not mean financially undesirable by the developer), the Town can collect a recreation fee instead. Such fees must be placed in a separate account and can be used only for recreational purposes (buying recreation land or equipment, or maintaining existing parks, for example). Many towns across the state designate a recreation fee be paid per lot or dwelling unit, although the statute merely states that the amount of the fee must be equivalent to the value of the property required to be set aside for recreational uses (for example if 10% of all subdivision land was required to be recreation space, then 10% of the value of a single lot would reasonably be required to be donated to the town’s recreation fund). The advantage of enacting a recreation fee lies not only in the facilities it can provide new residents, but it also levels the playing field between developers proposing larger, multi lot developments with those proposing single lot subdivisions (it recognizes that a single lot within a 5 or 10 lot subdivision has just as much impact on the need for recreational facilities as a single lot developed on existing road frontage by itself). This is the only real impact fee the State of New York allows municipalities to collect. See also the analysis of Question 51 below. Question 51: More recreational facilities are needed for senior citizens: This statement also received broad support from all respondents to an extent almost equal to the strength of support for recreational facilities for youth (question 50). Support was stronger from Penn Yan respondents, with the Town having nearly as many respondents expressing a neutral answer than a supportive answer (136 supportive to 101 neutral). Responses to this question were also analyzed by age of the respondent, with support being evident from all age groups. Interestingly, respondents less than 40 years old were slightly less supportive than those from 40 to 80, and people in the 80 – 90 year old range were the least supportive of any group. Clearly respondents over age 40 are looking for additional recreational facilities and related services, while people over 80 are to a lesser extent. The decreased support evident in the over 80 age group can be explained by the range of health that generally characterizes this group--healthy people over age 80 are more active and still desire engaging in recreational activities, while the less health are generally less active and do not engage in as many activities outside their dwelling. It is also interesting to note that generally those respondents over age 40 were more supportive of facilities for youth (question 50) than those people under age 40 were supportive of facilities for senior citizens. Overall, there is a fairly clear consensus that additional senior facilities and/or recreational opportunities are desired, although the large number of Town respondents voicing an undecided opinion would have to be convinced. The Town should keep in mind that recreational facilities need not be municipally funded. The Town should work with the village of Penn Yan to solicit ideas on the types of activities older residents desire, and work to ensure that local land use laws accommodate those uses. Passive recreation, such as trails or sidewalks, can be mandated as part of the facilities developers and homebuilders are required to install when new developments are


Page D - 9

reviewed, and grants are available for trail development from various state and federal programs administered by the New York State Dept. of Transportation and the Genesee Transportation Council. Recreational impact fees can also be used to fund such resources (see discussion on Question 50 above). Other recreational opportunities are also important for seniors, such as movie theaters, social clubs, and civic organizations. In many rural communities these needs are met in the adult population through Fire Departments and church organizations, but these become less successful as people reach senior citizen age for two reasons. First, most of these organizations tend toward evening events to attract the largest attendance (especially since they are supported by working age volunteers). This is the time of day when senior citizens don’t want to drive and generally want to be at home resting. Second, most seniors are not working and are seeking daytime activities. The Town and Village of Penn Yan do have many facility resources available to serve youth and senior citizens. There is a very good library in the Village that provides numerous programs, and there are various meeting spaces in several churches and other civic organizations that would be willing to allow various activities to occur. At the present time there is, however, no volunteer or paid group or individual charged with organizing activities, volunteers, transportation, or disseminating information. This is something that the municipalities could, and should address, which could be accomplished at very little cost. Recreation directors and programs, especially given the demographics of both municipalities, need to be year-round and aimed at more than just youth summer athletic programs. Finally, the responses for questions 50 and 51 show there is generally support for more recreational activities. At the same time, many of the written responses noted the poor upkeep of existing parks, mentioned that youth required more than just recreational activities, and were concerned about raising real property taxes for just about any reason. When combined, these responses indicate a need for organizing volunteers to address community facilities. There is no reason why experienced older adults, either through civic organizations such as the Penn Yan Rotary or Lions club, or through Town and Village coordinators, couldn’t lend their expertise in organizing, teaching, and supervising youth in some of these clean up and related maintenance efforts—again at very little cost to taxpayers. Some of the most impressive and effective examples of such volunteer efforts developed these programs in cooperation with local school districts. For example, the Village of Saranac in the Adirondacks, organized such a program where the school district started sending students to perform community volunteer work instead of detention. The Saranac community maintenance program also involves the local court system, so that community service is a viable alternative sentence. To ensure that no stigma is associated with any child or adult providing volunteer services, civic organizations in general and various student groups are also required to provide volunteer service. The Saranac program has led to a dramatic decline in local vandalism to the point where it is nearly non-existent; parks are well maintained, street plantings expanded, and a new river walk trail constructed. Question 52: Water and sewer districts should be expanded to encourage new development in the Town: This was one question where Village and Town respondents had a different opinion. The statement was supported at a nearly 3 to one ratio overall but Town respondents were nearly neutral. This is a real quandary for the Town—if new development is kept to a low density for rural character concerns, that density will either make sewer & water district expansion economically unfeasible, or will jeopardize the long term fiscal health of the district. On the other hand, if the town zones for the more dense development sufficient to support utility districts, the density will be


Page D - 10

above a level compatible with the preserving the Town’s rural character. The Town must also realize that denser development often leads to a desire for more services, and thus more municipal expenses. The recognition of this quandary may explain the dichotomy of opinion among Town respondents. Another factor may also be the desire of respondents for municipal utilities to serve their own residences and businesses. The solution to this quandary is careful consideration of any proposed infrastructure expansion. Any expansion must occur in an area that does not have wide visibility so that the resulting denser development does not impact the perception of the Town’s rural character. It should also be done as near as possible to existing property served by the utilities in order to minimize the amount of vacant land that may suddenly become prime for development. The areas of the town where existing dense development already exists and where in Town the future land use plan proposes such development be allowed in the future (along State Rt 14A and Old Bath Rd south immediately adjacent to the Village, near shore areas, and the hamlet of Himrod, for example) should be the only areas where utility extensions an service should be allowed. Second, Question 53: Upkeep of private property is a problem in my neighborhood: Generally respondents did not agree with this statement by a 2 to 1 margin (negative responses to positive responses), though Town respondents were much more negative than Penn Yan responses. A very large minority of Village residents did agree with this statement, with the indicator being just barely negative (–0.10). The responses to this question were analyzed by neighborhood. Respondents from the Milo Center area were the only neighborhood group that had a positive indicator to this question, meaning that most respondents were concerned about property maintenance in their neighborhood. Many of the written responses to question 79 (least favorite view) mentioned the Outlet Trail and the Mays Mills Road area of the town as being concerns for property maintenance as well. Taken together, the town should focus resources on mandating clean up of property in these areas and where warranted, consider seeking community development, state representative member item, and other funding through organizations such as Bishop Sheen Housing Authority, to provide funds and loans for property owners to improve properties in need of repair. Question 54: Upkeep of private property elsewhere in the Town is a concern: This question received strongly positive responses over all, though Village of Penn Yan respondents were more positive than respondents from the Town. The written responses to the question 79, “What are your least favorite views in the Town” overwhelmingly mentioned Liberty St. (especially around the school), Lake St. (especially near the old Beverage Baron property), the Mays Mills/Eaves Rd. area and Keuka Outlet (including the section in the Village from Keuka Lake to Main St. Outside of the village, the Town should recognize the mandate that this and question 44 (concerning pursuing and even fining landowners of ‘junkyard’ type properties) and question 53 charge the Town; namely that residents desire to see poorly maintained properties addressed. A variety of avenues exist to address this concern, as discussed in the analysis of question 44 herein. It is important to note that respondent concerns are not about issues such as hedge trimming, or whether lawns are manicured to a high aesthetic value. Instead, people focused their comments on properties that are in a very poor state of repair and/or constituted potential health risks due to the amount of garbage and junk. Question 55: Zoning around the airport should encourage industrial development: This statement was supported at nearly a 3 to 1 ration in the Town and a 5 to 1 ration in the Village. While strongly supported, the Town should not take this as a license to zone large areas of currently productive agriculture for industrial use. A small amount of industrial zoning near the airport should be established where public utilities exist or can reasonably be extended to serve without


Page D - 11

providing opportunity for additional adjacent residential, commercial, or industrial development. The types of industries allowed and related matters are discussed in the business section of this Comprehensive Plan document. Question 56: Small scale businesses in rural areas should be limited in size to protect the Town’s rural character: This statement was supported by Town respondents at not quite a 2 to 1 ratio, but Penn Yan respondents were nearly neutral in their response. Town residents, it seems, are more willing to accept limiting the overall size of a business because of the impact large businesses may have on the rural character. This question was intended to gauge support for limiting tourism businesses as well as the business one normally associates with and make up the fabric of the rural areas of the countryside, such as farm stands, welding shops, green house type plant sales operations, and similar home and family businesses. Town residents clearly understand that rural businesses need to be kept to a family type scale that allows for economic health of the area while protecting and even enhancing the rural character of the town. Turning State Rt 14A or State Rt 14 corridor into a commercial strip from one end of the Town to the other, would greatly impact the Town’s character and local residents’ perception and enjoyment of the town. A reasonable amount of tourist and/or agriculturally oriented businesses need to be allowed as a mix to the uses in that area. The small scale of businesses will also help insure that they are owned and operated by local residents as opposed to large regional or national corporations. It is well proven that local ownership of these types of businesses provides more jobs and economic health to a region that when the ownership is not local and profits are shipped out of the Community. Question 57: Tourism is an important industry in the Town: This is one of the strongest supported questions in the entire survey. The Town needs to ensure that appropriate zoning is in place to allow and in fact encourage tourist type uses at an appropriate scale. At the same time, the number and character of these uses in rural areas needs to comply with guidelines that ensure a rural character. When these uses are in proximity to residential areas, traffic and noise need to be addressed to minimize impacts on adjacent uses. Question 58: Large businesses belong in the Village of Penn Yan: Over all this statement was supported by a little less than a 2 to 1 margin, with weak agreement from Town respondents and about 2 to 1 support from Village respondents. Village respondents are used to going to facilities such as Friendly Chrysler Dodge & Jeep or the County airport that are large and outside of the Village limits, though close enough that many Village respondents think of them as lying within the Village limits. Many Village respondents also cited the Wind Mill as an asset, which is located south of the Town of Milo municipal limits, but nonetheless, represents a large retail use outside of the Village limits. The conclusions that can be drawn from these responses is that there is a need for some larger scale facilities outside the village, but that their character, their number, and their type need to be very carefully determined so that they don’t disrupt the Town’s rural character nor the health of the downtown Penn Yan business district. Recommendations from the business section have been made that relate to this delicate balance of businesses that should be allowed in the Town versus within the Village. Question 59: The Village of Penn Yan should continue to expand by annexing adjacent property in the Town of Milo: Overall this statement was weekly supported, with Penn Yan respondents giving almost 3 to 1 support, but down Town respondents opposed by nearly 2 to 1. The Town response may be due to the misunderstanding that even as the village expands, the property remains also in the Town of Milo and subject to Town taxation. At the same time, respondents may be looking at


Page D - 12

the differentially higher town tax rate outside the village, which would only rise if more property is placed in the Village. Finally, many Town respondents are involved in agriculture, and don’t want to see the Village annex any more good agricultural land (a common comment in many written responses from Town respondents) and have it developed. Thus, the Town should review future annexation requests by the Village very carefully, and not approve those that irrevocably convert important agricultural soil and land. The Town should review the impact of the existing or proposed land use on town facilities, such as roads, to ensure that town tax revenues will be sufficient to cover their impact. On the other hand, annexations that support industry, commercial uses, and are a source of employment, should be positively considered where appropriate. Question 60: Townhouses, apartments, or other high density residential development should be allowed on the lakefront: Nearly 2 to 1 respondents opposed this statement, with Town respondents being nearly 3 to 1 in opposition. This supports the lakefront subcommittee’s recommendation to prohibit multi-family development from the lakeshore and near lakeshore area. Question 61: Townhouses, apartments, or other high density residential development should ONLY be allowed in the Village of Penn Yan: Town residents weekly supported this statement and Penn Yan respondents opposed it, although it would seem to be a natural fit (higher density development with high property values). This lack of Village respondent support may be because many people misunderstand Townhouse development. Townhouses are an architectural style, rather than an ownership pattern; a townhouse being a dwelling, usually more than one story, having its own exterior entry (sometimes even an individual garage), independent utilities, and common walls with adjacent structures on either side. They can be owned or rented individually. Studies have shown that townhouses appreciate in value and in appearance faster than single family detached housing because of the typically small yard space that accompanies them (people have less to maintain, both from a structure and a yard, and so tend to be able to dress up the appearance of such units in a short amount of time). Unfortunately, when people hear the word ‘townhouse’ they think apartment and high density and have a negative reaction. While such uses would be disruptive to the rural character of the Town, they probably have a place in the village. The most successful townhouse developments are where units are individually owned and they are constructed around an amenity. They succeed because they provide proximity and access for many more residents to a physical asset, such as recreational trail, a view, or a waterfront area, than lower density development such as single family detached residences. The amenity helps increase the townhouses’ value, and the dense development means there are less linear feet of roads, sewers, water lines, etc. for the municipality to maintain per dwelling—bringing the cost of municipal services down. Areas within the Village along the Keuka Outlet seem ideal for such development, and have been recommended in the Village’s waterfront redevelopment plan. The responses to this survey question from Village respondents does indicate, however, that much education on this topic needs to be done by the Village to gain acceptance for the concept. Question 62: Retail opportunities in the area are adequate: This question elicited one of the strongest negative responses in the survey. Many respondents wrote comments next to this question and in response to question 81 (any other comments you wish to share), especially in regard to the need for more (or any) clothing stores. Penn Yan respondents were more negative than those from the Town, but not dramatically. Question 63: Additional grocery stores are needed in the area: Overall, and consistently by Town and Village respondents, this statement was supported by just under a 2 to 1 ratio. While people


Page D - 13

desire more choices, the preponderance of new convenience stores in the village (mostly associated with gasoline service stations) undermines the ability of a new larger scale grocer to operate successfully, at least without putting one or more of the others out of business. The Town should not allow such convenience store uses, at least in close proximity to the village, which would further dilute the market. This is a prime example of coordination that should occur between the village and the town in regard to commercial retail development. Question 64: Additional clothing stores are needed in the area: This statement had universal support with very few respondents indicating a negative response. This seems to be a critical need for the area. This was echoed in many written responses to question 81. People do not, however, appreciate that neither the Village nor the Town can dictate the type of clothing store that moves into an area. Many respondents voiced their displeasure at the planned Peebles Dept. store moving into the Lake St. Plaza. Question 65: The behavior of seasonal residents along the lakeshore is a concern because of traffic and/or noise: Town respondents weakly disagreed with this statement, while Penn Yan respondents agreed by almost a 2 to 1 margin. It is likely that this disparity is due to the traffic impacts on State Rt 14A within the village in the summer time. The responses to this question were analyzed by neighborhood. Interestingly, both Seneca and Keuka shoreline area respondents disagreed with this statement while respondents from other neighborhoods generally strongly supported this statement. This dichotomy is probably due to the fact that near shore respondents include the seasonal residents; so this group doesn’t have an issue with their own behavior. Year-round residents, however, seem to have issues with the behavior of seasonal residents. Several answers to question 81 showed concern about the behavior of seasonal residents. These results lend support to the recommendations by the Lakefront SubCommittee for the town to consider banning open burning, adopting a simple noise ordinance, requiring landlord registration, and similar controls for the lakefront zoning areas, although these are not likely to be popular with some of the seasonal residents. Question 66: Noise is a problem in my neighborhood: Universally respondents disagreed with this statement, regardless of being within Penn Yan, the Town, or any of the Town’s neighborhoods. There were individual exceptions, with many people noting in question 81 the noise from parties at the wineries near the Keuka Lakeshore area and the occasional lakefront renter or seasonal resident. The conclusion here is that a simple noise ordinance that does not interfere with agriculture and most business operations and is aimed at addressing those few instances where seasonal residents create problems will address the problems while not negatively impacting everyone else. For the most part, protecting the existing low level of noise in the community should be the focus of any noise ordinance, which should be aimed at the dense residential areas of the town (lakefront), as opposed to placing unreasonable restrictions universally throughout the town. The recommendation of the Lakefront Committee concerning outdoor music and parties at area wineries is consistent with this approach. Question 67: Domestic pets are a problem in my neighborhood: The response to this question was overwhelmingly negative in the Town by a 5 to 1 margin meaning pets are generally not a problem. Within Penn Yan, the response was negative by a nearly 2 to 1 margin. A significant number of hand written comments from Penn Yan respondents mentioned issues with feral cats. Typically, feral cats are only an issue where there are vermin available as a food supply, which probably echoes the concern of Penn Yan respondents concerning poorly maintained properties within the


Page D - 14

village. Feral cats can also be an issue where residents feed their own cats in locations where feral cats can gain access, or where well meaning residents leave food out as a sympathetic gesture. These issues can usually be addressed through education, rather than leash laws or licensing of felines. Question 68: Odors from agricultural operations are a problem regularly in my neighborhood: Respondents over all and those from both the Town and Penn Yan disagreed with this statement by about a 3 to 1 margin. Responses were analyzed by neighborhood within the Town, and responses were negative for every neighborhood. The area with the largest number of positive responses was the Keuka lakeshore area, where about one quarter of respondents agreed with this statement. Even though several dairy operations with their associated land disposal of manure are located in close proximity, generally vineyards separate them and the generally western winds also keep odors generated from within the town away from these areas. The separation of dairy operations from Seneca lakeshore areas by vineyards also helps to keep odors from being a problem in that neighborhood. In addition, credit is due the agricultural operators as well, since they must be taking care to ensure that land spreading of manure is not done on weekends or holidays where there is likely to be a lot of outdoor activity in the near lakeshore area, and they also get the manure covered expeditiously when it is spread. There were some written responses to question 81 and comments written in the margin of surveys that noted there was an occasional problem. Because of the high density of the lakeshore area, the town should state that it considers odor control for agricultural operations in proximity to these areas to be of special concern. This will alert the permitted authors of waste management plans for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO’s) to stress odor control in their plans. At the present time, agricultural odors do not seem to be a major issue within the town. Individual owners next to certain agricultural uses, such as swine farms, do have legitimate concerns. These issues can only be addressed by New York State Ag and Markets, which has jurisdiction over agricultural practices within the confines of County agricultural districts. Question 69: Odors from industry are a problem regularly in my neighborhood: Responses to this question were overwhelmingly negative. The town should include performance standards in any zoning for industrial use to ensure that the existing positive conditions continue, and that the property values as well as quality of life for residents adjacent to any areas zoned industrial, remain so pleasant to residents. Question 70: Mobile homes (those brought to a site on a metal frame and wheels which stays attached to the structure as opposed to a manufactured home which is placed on a slab or basement) should be allowed on individual lots: This question was opposed by Town respondents by more than a 2 to 1 margin, and Penn Yan respondents by slightly less than 2 to 1. While about 1/3 of all respondents were neutral, just under 20% from the town were. Clearly, the majority of town residents do not want to see mobile homes on individually owned lots. Ample affordable housing opportunities exist in the Village to support the need. Question 71: The appearance of businesses in the rural areas of the town should reflect the Town’s rural character: This statement was overwhelmingly supported by 8 to 1 by Penn Yan respondents, and 9 to1 in Town respondents. Clearly, residents overwhelmingly support the concept that businesses in the rural areas of the town must have an appearance that maintains the rural character. The development of design standards for construction of such rural commercial uses, and limiting the size of such uses as discussed in the business section of this document.


Page D - 15

Question 72: Wind Farms (multiple large windmills) should not be allowed in the Town: Surprisingly, respondents disagreed strongly with this statement. Town respondents disagreed nearly 3 to 1, with about 13% being neutral, and Penn Yan respondents were about 2.5 to 1 against (with 15% neutral). Given the strong response to the questions in this survey about the need to preserve the rural character and agriculture, it seems that most respondents do not believe that wind farms are contrary to the area’s rural character. This issue will be, as it is in most communities, a polarizing one. Before the Town takes the responses to this question as a mandate to permit wind farms in the town, additional work should be performed on this issue. Graphics depicting the appearance of 300 ft. tall windmills located in various places in the Town should be done and public response gauged when the Town works on revising its zoning in response to this comprehensive plan. Question 73: Adult entertainment businesses should not be allowed in the Town: The statement was overwhelmingly supported. The town should enact a law severely restricting or possibly even prohibiting such uses if there are areas within the village where they are permitted (which would provide a reasonable accommodation in the community for such uses). Question 74: More education is needed about the impact of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides on lake water quality: This statement was universally supported. If the town follows the recommendation to update its web site and to establish a newsletter, information on this subject should be included. The Town can obtain guidance on this issue from both the County Soil and Water Conservation District and Cornell Cooperative Extension. Question 75: The Town needs more senior citizen housing: Overall this statement was supported by a nearly 6 to 1 ration, with support slightly less at 5 to 1 in the town and slightly higher in the village. This result is not surprising given the age demographic in the community. Senior citizens generally are looking for small homes with less outdoor area to maintain, and with access to sidewalks and other walking opportunities with services located nearby. There are not a lot of locations within the town where utilities are available to support such senior citizen housing. While services are more readily available within the Village, the additional Village taxes challenge the establishment of affordable senior housing. This can be mitigated by senior citizen exemptions and other tax abatement techniques. The Town should consider establishing a floating zone with infrastructure and amenity requirements when it revises its zoning so that it is prepared to respond and properly evaluate requests from the private sector to develop senior citizen housing where it is supported by local infrastructure. Question 76: Public Access on Keuka Lake is adequate: This statement was strongly supported. Many written responses to question 81 noted that it was more a question of upkeep and quality of the existing access than of needing additional access. Many of the written responses to question 81 indicated that some town residents were unaware of the access points to Keuka Lake available within the Village. This is information the town should make available to its residents. Question 77: Public Access on Seneca Lake is adequate: While this statement was strongly supported, it was clear from many of the written comments to question 81 that many respondents were unaware of the access point on Seneca Lake under the ownership of the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. The Town needs to get this type of information to its residents.


Page D - 16

Question 78: What is your favorite view in the Town: The photo inventory of the town in Appendix E seems to have captured the views identified by respondents as favorites. The most telling conclusion taken from responses to this question is the fact that many village and town residents do not have a clear idea of the geographic boundaries of the Town of Milo. Signage needs to be improved in the field, and information placed on the town web site. The town should also consider a map as part of its logo for a future newsletter so that people become more aware of the geography of the town they reside and/or own property in. Question 79: What is your least favorite view in the Town: The vast majority of responses referred to rundown and ‘junkyard like’ residential properties in the Village and in the Town. The area around the school on Liberty St., Lake Street near Liberty St, the old Beverage Baron location, the empty stores on Main St., along the outlet near the former Penn Yan Marine manufacturing and Knapp & Schlappi Lumber store, and the Mays Mills area were mentioned most as being of concern. Surprisingly, the new County Courthouse area also drew a lot of criticism, more because of the perception of expense than of aesthetic concern. Question 80: What is the greatest issue facing the Town of Milo: Other than taxes and providing affordable services, there were few issues identified that weren’t covered by the survey. Several survey responses stated that the Town should prohibit additional puppy mills. Puppy mills are not considered an agricultural operation and are not protected by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets within the boundaries of a County Agricultural District. Question 81: Do you have any other comments the Town should consider in developing its comprehensive plan: Again other than taxes and providing affordable services, there were few issues identified that weren’t covered by the survey. Most respondents took the opportunity to expand upon their reasons for answering questions a certain way. As with question 80, there were several responses recommending a prohibition against puppy mills. REMAINDER OF APPENDIX D: The next section of this Appendix presents a tabular, numerical, analysis of the survey responses. Pages D17 - D24 report the data for all returned surveys regardless of origin. Pages D25 – D32 report the data for responses returned from residents Town outside of the Village of Penn Yan, and those that owned land or a business there. Pages D33 – D40 present the data on responses from residents of the portion of the Village of Penn Yan in the Town of Milo and those that owned land or a business therein. Pages D41 – D51 present the data on those questions where the responses for each separate neighborhood or age group were analyzed. Page D52 presents the ‘Other’ reasons for living in the area that people wrote in response to question 6Q from Town residents, landowners, or business owners. Pages D53 – D81 present the written responses to questions 78 to 81, as well as all the handwritten comments written next to multiple choice questions, from Town residents, landowners, or business owners. Pages D82 – D112 present the written responses from Village residents, landowners, and business owners. Pages D113 – D114 are the written responses from surveys that indicated both Village and Town residency, ownership. Pages D115 – D116 are the written responses for surveys with an unknown origin (where question 1 was not answered).

SURVEY ANALYSIS – ALL RETURNED SURVEYS

Page D - 17

Q1

Please indicate the neighborhood you live in or your business or property is

located in

# %

-1 No Answer 29 3.84%A Village of Penn Yan 393 52.05%

A B Village of Penn Yan & Keuka Lakeshore

4 0.53%

A D Village of Penn Yan & Milo Center 2 0.26%

A F Village of Penn Yan & Himrod 1 0.13%

A G Village of Penn Yan & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town

5 0.66%

B Keuka Lakeshore 97 12.85%B D Keuka Lakeshore & Milo Center 1 0.13%

B E Keuka Lakeshore & Second Milo 2 0.26%

B G Keuka Lakeshore & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town

4 0.53%

B H Keuka Lakeshore & Reside outside Town of Milo

1 0.13%

C Seneca Lakeshore 26 3.44%C F Seneca Lakeshore & Himrod 13 1.72%

C G Seneca Lakeshore & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town

1 0.13%

D Milo Center 15 1.99%

D G Milo Center & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town

3 0.40%

E Second Milo 32 4.24%

E G Second Milo & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town

3 0.40%

F Himrod 49 6.49%

F G Himrod & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town

3 0.40%

G Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 60 7.95%

G H Rural/Agricultural areas of Town & Reside outside Town of Milo

1 0.13%

H Reside outside Town of Milo 8 1.06%I Just outside Village of Penn Yan 2 0.26%

Total: 755 100.00%

Q2 (Ownership Specifics) Do You: # %

-1 No Answer 26 3.44%

A Own Property & Live in Town of Milo (including Village)

516 68.34%

A B

Own Property & Live in Town of Milo (including Village) & Own property in Milo, but live elsewhere

9 1.19%

A DOwn Property & Live in Town of Milo (including Village) & Rent property for vacation use in Milo

1 0.13%

A EOwn Property & Live in Town of Milo (including Village) & Rent property for agricultural use in Milo

3 0.40%

A FOwn Property & Live in Town of Milo (including Village) & Own a business in Milo (including Village)

25 3.31%

A GOwn Property & Live in Town of Milo (including Village) & None of the above

2 0.26%

B Own property in Milo, but live elsewhere

102 13.51%

B C

Own property in Milo, but live elsewhere & Rent property as permanent residence in Milo & Rent property as permanent residence in Milo

1 0.13%

B DOwn property in Milo, but live elsewhere & Rent property for vacation use in Milo

2 0.26%

B FOwn property in Milo, but live elsewhere & Own a business in Milo (including Village)

6 0.79%

B G Own property in Milo, but live elsewhere & None of the above

1 0.13%

C Rent property as permanent residence in Milo

37 4.90%

D Rent property for vacation use in Milo

0 0.00%

E Rent property for agricultural use in Milo

1 0.13%

F Own a business in Milo (including Village)

9 1.19%

G None of the above 14 1.85%

Total: 755 100.00%


Page D - 18

Q3 (Length of Residency) I have

lived in my current residence: # %

-1 No Answer 35 4.64%A Less than 1 year 17 2.25%B 1-5 years 138 18.28%C Between 5 and 10 yrs. 142 18.81%D Between 10 and 20 yrs. 144 19.07%E Between 20 and 30 yrs. 98 12.98%F Between 30 and 50 yrs. 121 16.03%G More than 50 yrs. 44 5.83%H All my life 16 2.12%

Total: 755 100.00%

Q4 ( Age) My age is: # %

-1 No Answer 30 3.97%A Less than 18 yrs 0 0.00%B 18-20 1 0.13%C 20-30 16 2.12%D 30-40 45 5.96%E 40-50 93 12.32%F 50--60 163 21.59%G 60-70 210 27.81%H 70-80 129 17.09%I 80-90 61 8.08%J Over 90 7 0.93%

Total: 755 100.00%

Q5

In the past the Town has invested in making infrastructure improvements in the Horizon Business Park in order to promote economic development.

Should the Town:

# %

-1 No Answer 52 6.89%A Stop such practices. 35 4.64%

B Look for additional opportunities to invest in economic development

251 33.25%

C Only invest where the Town will recoup its investment within 10 yrs. From increases in the value of such property

190 25.17%

D Invest even if the Town may never recoup its investment if a significant number of jobs are created.

81 10.73%

E I am unsure 146 19.34%

755 100.00%


Page D - 19

Q6 Rank Factors for why you live in Milo

(5 = high to 1 = low) 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1

Average Rank

Total Ranked

1 - 5

Total Surveys

A Family lives in area 233 48 79 19 38 136 202 4.00 417 755B Grew Up Here 173 50 51 14 36 193 238 3.96 324 755C Cost of housing/property 104 76 123 52 50 86 264 3.33 405 755D Rural atmosphere of Town 211 113 97 44 30 44 216 3.87 495 755E Local job market 59 22 50 53 72 206 293 2.78 256 755F Good Agricultural land 89 56 71 35 52 182 270 3.31 303 755G Proximity to Finger Lakes 229 88 79 38 30 69 222 3.97 464 755H Scenic Beauty of area 321 110 72 26 21 34 171 4.24 550 755I Low Density Residential Areas 158 99 116 40 31 62 249 3.70 444 755J Services available in Penn Yan 93 65 127 78 63 77 252 3.11 426 755K Good retirement area 146 96 95 49 47 90 232 3.57 433 755L Business opportunities in Town of Milo 28 21 72 65 73 206 290 2.48 259 755M Business opportunities in Penn Yan 35 24 62 63 80 204 287 2.51 264 755N Business opportunities in Yates County 36 24 67 67 77 195 289 2.54 271 755O Quality of Schools 92 89 99 31 44 135 265 3.43 355 755P Low crime rate 254 131 81 30 17 29 213 4.12 513 755

Q Other 45 7 8 1 6 56 632 4.25 67 755


Page D - 20

# Text Very

Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

No Experience

No Answer

Average IndicatorTotal

Surveys

Total Satisfied or better

Total Dissatisfied

or worse

Total Neutral, No Opinion, No

answer

Q7 Courtesy of Town Code Enforcement Officer 103 188 106 31 16 260 51 3.75 0.75 755 291 47 417

Q8 Performance of Town Code Enforcement Officer 86 176 124 30 25 262 52 3.61 0.61 755 262 55 438

Q9 Courtesy of Milo Town Clerk & Clerical Staff 335 257 52 6 1 57 47 4.41 1.41 755 592 7 156

Q10 Performance of Milo Town Clerk & Clerical Staff 309 251 52 6 2 80 55 4.39 1.39 755 560 8 187

Q11 Service from the Himrod Fire Department 76 69 58 0 1 462 89 4.07 1.07 755 145 1 609

Q12 Service from Penn Yan Fire Department 202 143 48 3 2 304 53 4.36 1.36 755 345 5 405

Q13 Performance of your Local Ambulance Service 248 168 54 12 4 227 42 4.33 1.33 755 416 16 323

Q14 Performance of Local Law Enforcement on land 149 245 96 33 22 153 57 3.86 0.86 755 394 55 306

Q15 Performance of Local Law Enforcement on Keuka & Seneca Lakes 79 165 104 18 11 329 49 3.75 0.75 755 244 29 482

Q16 Town of Milo Planning Board: Courtesy in treating applicants & the public

51 126 127 17 15 365 54 3.54 0.54 755 177 32 546

Q17 Town of Milo Planning Board: Performance of duties 43 122 150 34 14 330 62 3.40 0.40 755 165 48 542

Q18 Town of Milo Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA): Courtesy in treating applicants & the public.

36 114 129 21 16 380 59 3.42 0.42 755 150 37 568

Q19 Town of Milo ZBA: Performance of duties. 37 106 132 28 19 359 74 3.35 0.35 755 143 47 565

Q20 Performance of Municipal Water Service 124 272 95 21 17 172 54 3.88 0.88 755 396 38 321

Q21 Performance of Municipal Sewer Service 119 268 103 21 15 181 48 3.87 0.87 755 387 36 332

Q22 Performance of Penn Yan School District 77 223 122 68 45 168 52 3.41 0.41 755 300 113 342

Q23 Performance of Dundee School District 21 64 80 10 1 492 87 3.53 0.53 755 85 11 659

Q24 Milo Town Board: Courtesy in treating the public 54 155 141 28 7 314 56 3.57 0.57 755 209 35 511

Q25 Quality of County Road Maintenance (Chubb Hollow, Second Milo, Himrod, City Hill, and Leach Roads

68 270 139 35 15 162 66 3.65 0.65 755 338 50 367


Page D - 21

# Text Very


Very Dissatisfied

No Experience

No Answer


Surveys


Total Dissatisfied

or worse


answer

Q26 Quality of State Road Maintenance (Routes 54, 14A, & 14) 80 284 116 105 95 27 48 3.22 0.22 755 364 200 191

Q27 Road Maintenance of Village of Penn Yan roads 37 162 117 200 166 29 44 2.57 -0.43 755 199 366 190

Q28 Milo Town Road maintenance (all other roads in Milo) 72 296 171 79 48 31 58 3.40 0.40 755 368 127 260

Q29 Yates County Tax Rate ($6.45) 21 176 213 140 100 40 65 2.81 -0.19 755 197 240 318Q30 Village of Penn Yan Tax Rate ($18.62) 11 82 153 136 102 191 80 2.51 -0.49 755 93 238 424

Q31 Town of Milo ($1.23 inside village $2.40 outside village) 28 210 228 100 78 55 56 3.02 0.02 755 238 178 339

Q32 Himrod Fire District ($0.89) 27 98 126 10 16 380 98 3.40 0.40 755 125 26 604Q33 Penn Yan Fire District ($0.44) 90 252 159 14 25 137 78 3.68 0.68 755 342 39 374Q34 Penn Yan Public Library District ($0.39) 76 232 191 55 44 86 71 3.40 0.40 755 308 99 348

# Text Very

Impor-tant

Impor-tant

NeutralUnimpor-

tant

Very Unimpor-

tant No Opinion

No Answer


Surveys

Total Important or More

Total Unimpor-

tant or less


answer

Q35 Protection of water quality of Keuka Lake 493 156 32 3 1 31 39 4.66 1.66 755 649 4 102

Q36 Protection of water quality of Seneca Lake 407 139 55 4 1 99 50 4.56 1.56 755 546 5 204

Q37

Regulation of stormwater runoff and soil erosion from new development through mandatory use of erosion control measures

424 188 54 5 5 38 41 4.51 1.51 755 612 10 133

Q38 The use of lawn pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers should be regulated to protect water quality

375 195 96 22 8 21 38 4.30 1.30 755 570 30 155

Q39 The rural character of the Town should be maintained 344 222 91 24 11 16 47 4.25 1.25 755 566 35 154

Q40 Agricultural areas of the Town should be protected from incompatible development

341 206 114 22 16 14 42 4.19 1.19 755 547 38 170

Q41 Night time exterior light levels are a concern in my neighborhood 91 134 204 84 62 133 47 3.19 0.19 755 225 146 384


Page D - 22

# Text Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

No OpinionNo

Answer Average Indicator

Total Surveys

Total Important or more

Total Unimpor-

tant or less


answer

Q42 Open burning of yard debris (leaves, limbs, etc.) should be prohibited in the residential areas of the town

214 208 123 85 56 32 37 3.64 0.64 755 422 141 192

Q43


286 298 80 21 10 25 35 4.19 1.19 755 584 31 140

Q44 The Town should pursue and even fine property owners to clean up 'junkyard' type conditions on private property.

403 199 64 22 21 8 38 4.33 1.33 755 602 43 110

Q45 Large scale retail sales businesses belong in the Village of Penn Yan 157 206 172 108 43 22 47 3.48 0.48 755 363 151 241

Q46 More commercial development should occur on State Rt 14A outside of the Village of Penn Yan

99 247 193 96 46 33 41 3.38 0.38 755 346 142 267

Q47 The rural character of State Rt 14A is important to the image of the Town of Milo

134 247 214 70 19 28 43 3.60 0.60 755 381 89 285

Q48 More commercial development should occur on State Rt 14 76 190 257 98 44 39 51 3.23 0.23 755 266 142 347

Q49 The rural character of State Rt 14 is important to the image of the Town of Milo

123 208 245 73 17 38 51 3.52 0.52 755 331 90 334

Q50 More recreational facilities are needed for youth 184 211 172 72 29 43 44 3.67 0.67 755 395 101 259

Q51 More recreational facilities are needed for senior citizens 160 209 198 68 25 50 45 3.62 0.62 755 369 93 293

Q52 Water and sewer districts should be expanded to encourage new development in the Town

96 234 207 76 39 58 45 3.42 0.42 755 330 115 310

Q53 Upkeep of private property is a problem in my neighborhood 83 98 134 258 112 29 41 2.68 -0.32 755 181 370 204

Q54 Upkeep of private property elsewhere in the Town is a concern 158 251 168 59 23 48 48 3.70 0.70 755 409 82 264

Q55 Zoning around the airport should encourage industrial development 106 278 170 59 36 52 54 3.55 0.55 755 384 95 276


Page D - 23



No OpinionNo


Total Surveys


Total Unimpor-

tant or less


answer

Q56 Small scale businesses in rural areas should be limited in size to protect the Town's rural character

72 220 188 146 57 26 46 3.15 0.15 755 292 203 260

Q57 Tourism is an important industry in the Town 401 244 49 11 8 12 30 4.43 1.43 755 645 19 91

Q58 Large businesses belong in the Village of Penn Yan 114 181 216 136 32 27 49 3.31 0.31 755 295 168 292

Q59 The Village of Penn Yan should continue to expand by annexing adjacent property in the Town of Milo

74 150 235 112 59 84 41 3.11 0.11 755 224 171 360

Q60 Townhouses, apartments, or other high-density residential development should be allowed on the lakefront.

71 127 109 172 214 34 28 2.52 -0.48 755 198 386 171

Q61

Townhouses, apartments, or other high density residential development should ONLY be allowed in the Village of Penn Yan

55 161 175 198 96 37 33 2.83 -0.17 755 216 294 245

Q62 Retail opportunities in the area are adequate 19 66 103 275 226 25 41 2.10 -0.90 755 85 501 169

Q63 Additional grocery stores are needed in the area 150 215 128 153 58 15 36 3.35 0.35 755 365 211 179

Q64 Additional clothing stores are needed in the area 329 279 71 21 13 8 34 4.25 1.25 755 608 34 113

Q65 The behavior of seasonal residents along the lakeshore is a concern because of traffic and/or noise

108 139 194 136 56 89 33 3.17 0.17 755 247 192 316

Q66 Noise is a problem in my neighborhood 37 53 159 307 130 30 39 2.36 -0.64 755 90 437 228

Q67 Domestic pets are a problem in my neighborhood 62 80 141 268 131 34 39 2.52 -0.48 755 142 399 214

Q68 Odors from agricultural operations are a problem regularly in my neighborhood

35 98 164 263 124 33 38 2.50 -0.50 755 133 387 235

Q69 Odors from industry are a problem regularly in my neighborhood 6 14 129 334 166 66 40 2.01 -0.99 755 20 500 235

Q70


48 120 167 167 178 41 34 2.55 -0.45 755 168 345 242


Page D - 24



No OpinionNo


Total Surveys


Total Unimpor-

tant or less


answer

Q71 The appearance of businesses in the rural areas of the town should reflect the Town's rural character.

143 341 157 38 21 22 33 3.78 0.78 755 484 59 212

Q72 Wind Farms (multiple large windmills) should not be allowed in the Town 79 72 112 187 225 45 35 2.40 -0.60 755 151 412 192

Q73 Adult entertainment businesses should not be allowed in the Town 405 139 93 36 38 17 27 4.18 1.18 755 544 74 137

Q74 More education is needed about the impact of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides on lake water quality.

269 305 93 27 9 22 30 4.14 1.14 755 574 36 145

Q75 The Town needs more senior citizen housing 145 229 208 43 14 83 33 3.70 0.70 755 374 57 324

Q76 Public Access on Keuka Lake is adequate 76 303 127 100 42 72 35 3.42 0.42 755 379 142 234

Q77 Public Access on Seneca Lake is adequate 47 174 137 90 31 229 47 3.24 0.24 755 221 121 413

SURVEY ANALYSIS – TOWN ONLY RETURNED SURVEYS

Page D - 25

Q1


located in

# %



0 0.00%




0 0.00%




4 1.25%


1 0.31%



1 0.31%



3 0.93%



3 0.93%

F Himrod 49 15.26%


3 0.93%



1 0.31%


Total: 321 100%


-1 No Answer 0 0.00%


208 64.80%

A B


6 1.87%


0 0.00%

A E Own Property & Live in Town of Milo (including Village) & Rent property for agricultural use in Milo

3 0.93%

A F Own Property & Live in Town of Milo (including Village) & Own a business in Milo (including Village)

15 4.67%


1 0.31%


76 23.68%

B C


0 0.00%


2 0.62%


0 0.00%


1 0.31%


2 0.62%


0 0.00%


0 0.00%


2 0.62%


Total: 321 100%


Page D - 26




Total: 321 100%



Total: 321 100%

Q5


Should the Town:

# %



85 26.48%


103 32.09%


28 8.72%

E I am unsure 68 21.18%Total: 321 100%


Page D - 27


(5 = high to 1 = low) 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1

Average Rank

Total Ranked

1 - 5

Total Surveys


Q Other 19 1 3 0 0 18 280 4.70 23 321


Page D - 28

# Text Very


Very Dissatisfied

No Experience

No Answer


Surveys


Total Dissatisfied

or worse


answer











26 71 57 13 9 133 12 3.52 0.52 321 97 22 202



13 63 63 15 10 141 16 3.33 0.33 321 76 25 220








43 159 49 16 4 36 14 3.82 0.82 321 202 20 99


Page D - 29

# Text Very


Very Dissatisfied

No Experience

No Answer


Surveys


Total Dissatisfied

or worse


answer

Q26 Quality of State Road Maintenance (Routes 54, 14A, & 14) 50 167 42 29 19 7 7 3.65 0.65 321 217 48 56



Q29 Yates County Tax Rate ($6.45) 7 69 82 69 57 8 29 2.65 -0.35 321 76 126 119Q30 Village of Penn Yan Tax Rate ($18.62) 2 16 47 25 26 159 46 2.51 -0.49 321 18 51 252

Q31 Town of Milo ($1.23 inside village $2.40 outside village) 11 78 93 55 55 12 17 2.78 -0.22 321 89 110 122


# Text Very

Impor-tant

Impor-tant

NeutralUnimpor-

tant

Very Unimpor-

tant No Opinion

No Answer


Surveys


Total Unimpor-

tant or less


answer



Q37


192 81 25 4 2 11 6 4.50 1.50 321 273 6 42


149 88 52 10 5 9 8 4.20 1.20 321 237 15 69



162 90 47 6 5 4 7 4.28 1.28 321 252 11 58

Q41 Night time exterior light levels are a concern in my neighborhood 30 37 75 46 33 89 11 2.93 -0.07 321 67 79 175


Page D - 30



No OpinionNo


Total Surveys


Total Unimpor-

tant or less


answer


56 80 71 54 31 23 6 3.26 0.26 321 136 85 100

Q43


107 132 46 11 7 14 4 4.06 1.06 321 239 18 64


154 97 31 16 12 5 6 4.18 1.18 321 251 28 42



32 112 79 52 27 13 6 3.23 0.23 321 144 79 98


72 99 92 37 5 9 7 3.64 0.64 321 171 42 108



70 88 103 33 4 14 9 3.63 0.63 321 158 37 126




39 72 95 42 25 34 14 3.21 0.21 321 111 67 143





Page D - 31



No OpinionNo


Total Surveys


Total Unimpor-

tant or less


answer


31 111 69 64 19 10 17 3.24 0.24 321 142 83 96




16 44 96 69 36 46 14 2.75 -0.25 321 60 105 156


21 45 38 78 116 15 8 2.25 -0.75 321 66 194 61

Q61


38 99 69 66 24 15 10 3.21 0.21 321 137 90 94





26 54 85 71 32 44 9 2.89 -0.11 321 80 103 138




16 46 69 116 57 4 13 2.50 -0.50 321 62 173 86


Q70


22 53 64 76 89 9 8 2.48 -0.52 321 75 165 81


Page D - 32



No OpinionNo


Total Surveys


Total Unimpor-

tant or less


answer


71 148 59 14 10 7 12 3.85 0.85 321 219 24 78




113 127 47 12 3 9 10 4.11 1.11 321 240 15 66




SURVEY ANALYSIS – VILLAGE OF PENN YAN ONLY RETURNED SURVEYS

Page D - 33

Q1


located in

# %



4 1.02%




0 0.00%




0 0.00%


0 0.00%



0 0.00%



0 0.00%



0 0.00%

F Himrod 0 0.00%


0 0.00%



0 0.00%


Total: 393 100.00%


-1 No Answer 1 0.25%


304 77.35%

A B


3 0.76%


1 0.25%

A E Own Property & Live in Town of Milo (including Village) & Rent property for agricultural use in Milo

0 0.00%

A F Own Property & Live in Town of Milo (including Village) & Own a business in Milo (including Village)

6 1.53%


1 0.25%


21 5.34%

B C


1 0.25%


2 0.51%


3 0.76%


0 0.00%


35 8.91%


0 0.00%


0 0.00%


6 1.53%


Total: 393 100.00%


Page D - 34




Total: 393 100.00%



Total: 393 100.00%

Q5


Should the Town:

# %



159 40.46%


84 21.37%


51 12.98%

E I am unsure 76 19.34%Total: 393 100.00%


Page D - 35


(5 = high to 1 = low) 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1

Average Rank

Total Ranked

1 - 5

Total Surveys


Q Other 26 6 5 1 6 36 313 4.02 44 393


Page D - 36

# Text Very


Very Dissatisfied

No Experience

No Answer


Surveys


Total Dissatisfied

or worse


answer











24 48 70 4 5 219 23 3.54 0.54 393 72 9 312



22 44 65 6 5 227 24 3.51 0.51 393 66 11 316








22 100 88 19 11 120 33 3.43 0.43 393 122 30 241


Page D - 37

# Text Very


Very Dissatisfied

No Experience

No Answer


Surveys


Total Dissatisfied

or worse


answer

Q26 Quality of State Road Maintenance (Routes 54, 14A, & 14) 28 108 72 69 75 19 22 2.84 -0.16 393 136 144 113



Q29 Yates County Tax Rate ($6.45 ) 14 98 127 66 40 31 17 2.94 -0.06 393 112 106 175Q30 Village of Penn Yan Tax Rate ($18.62) 9 63 98 108 71 29 15 2.52 -0.48 393 72 179 142

Q31 Town of Milo ($1.23 inside village $2.40 outside village) 17 119 130 43 22 42 20 3.20 0.20 393 136 65 192


# Text Very

Impor-tant

Impor-tant

NeutralUnimpor-

tant

Very Unimpor-

tant No Opinion

No Answer


Surveys


Total Unimpor-

tant or less


answer



Q37


224 96 27 1 3 25 17 4.53 1.53 393 320 4 69


216 101 43 7 3 10 13 4.41 1.41 393 317 10 66



170 109 61 16 10 9 18 4.13 1.13 393 279 26 88

Q41 Night time exterior light levels are a concern in my neighborhood 61 94 123 33 26 39 17 3.39 0.39 393 155 59 179


Page D - 38



No OpinionNo


Total Surveys


Total Unimpor-

tant or less


answer


147 125 48 29 22 8 14 3.93 0.93 393 272 51 70

Q43


169 157 30 10 3 10 14 4.30 1.30 393 326 13 54


240 93 31 6 7 2 14 4.47 1.47 393 333 13 47



67 128 105 40 16 19 18 3.53 0.53 393 195 56 142


55 143 115 30 13 18 19 3.55 0.55 393 198 43 152



49 114 131 38 13 23 25 3.43 0.43 393 163 51 179




50 154 97 32 9 21 30 3.60 0.60 393 204 41 148





Page D - 39



No OpinionNo


Total Surveys


Total Unimpor-

tant or less


answer


35 104 106 75 33 15 25 3.09 0.09 393 139 108 146




54 101 122 41 14 37 24 3.42 0.42 393 155 55 183


48 72 63 90 83 18 19 2.75 -0.25 393 120 173 100

Q61


11 55 94 124 67 21 21 2.48 -0.52 393 66 191 136





75 80 98 58 20 40 22 3.40 0.40 393 155 78 160




16 47 85 135 61 26 23 2.48 -0.52 393 63 196 134


Q70


23 57 96 85 79 30 23 2.59 -0.41 393 80 164 149


Page D - 40



No OpinionNo


Total Surveys


Total Unimpor-

tant or less


answer


67 180 85 22 9 13 17 3.75 0.75 393 247 31 115




140 164 42 12 6 11 18 4.15 1.15 393 304 18 71




SURVEY ANALYSIS – BY NEIGHBORHOOD AND AGE OF RESPONDENT

Page D - 41

Question 1 (Neighborhood) Question 41 (Night time exterior light levels are a concern in my neighborhood)

Letter Answer Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral DisagreeStrongly Disagree

No Opinion

No Answer

TOTAL Average Indicator

-1 No Answer 0 2 4 2 1 2 18 29 2.78 -0.22A Village of Penn Yan 61 93 125 34 26 36 18 393 3.38 0.38

A B Village of Penn Yan & Keuka Lakeshore 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 4 4.00 1.00A D Village of Penn Yan & Milo Center 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 2.00 -1.00A F Village of Penn Yan & Himrod 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.00 1.00

A G Village of Penn Yan & Rural/Agricultural areas of

Town 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 5 1.33 -1.67

B Keuka Lakeshore 12 17 21 13 15 16 3 97 2.97 -0.03B D Keuka Lakeshore & Milo Center 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3.00 0.00B E Keuka Lakeshore & Second Milo 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 3.50 0.50

B G Keuka Lakeshore & Rural/Agricultural areas of

Town 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 2.00 -1.00

B H Keuka Lakeshore & Reside outside Town of Milo 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2.00 -1.00

C Seneca Lakeshore 8 2 8 2 2 3 1 26 3.55 0.55C F Seneca Lakeshore & Himrod 1 1 5 1 1 4 0 13 3.00 0.00

C G Seneca Lakeshore & Rural/Agricultural areas of

Town 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3.00 0.00

D Milo Center 0 1 3 3 0 6 2 15 2.71 -0.29D G Milo Center & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 1.33 -1.67

E Second Milo 1 5 9 1 3 11 2 32 3.00 0.00E G Second Milo & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 4.00 1.00F Himrod 5 1 13 9 3 17 2 50 2.87 -0.13

F G Himrod & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2.00 -1.00G Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 2 6 9 11 5 27 0 60 2.67 -0.33

G H Rural/Agricultural areas of Town & Reside outside

Town of Milo 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2.00 -1.00

H Reside outside Town of Milo 1 2 3 0 0 1 1 8 3.67 0.67I Just outside Village of Penn Yan 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1.00 -2.00

TOTAL SURVEYS: 755 3.19 0.19


Page D - 42

Question 1 (Neighborhood) Question 42 (Open burning of yard debris (leaves, limbs, etc.) should be prohibited in the

residential areas of the town)


Agree Neutral DisagreeStrongly Disagree

No Opinion

No Answer


-1 No Answer 5 1 2 1 2 1 17 29 3.55 0.55A Village of Penn Yan 146 125 48 30 22 8 14 393 3.92 0.92

A B Village of Penn Yan & Keuka Lakeshore 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 4.75 1.75A D Village of Penn Yan & Milo Center 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.50 1.50A F Village of Penn Yan & Himrod 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.00 2.00


Town 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 5 3.40 0.40

B Keuka Lakeshore 20 24 14 18 14 4 2 96 3.20 0.20B D Keuka Lakeshore & Milo Center 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 3.00 0.00B E Keuka Lakeshore & Second Milo 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 3.00 0.00


Town 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 4 3.00 0.00

B H Keuka Lakeshore & Reside outside Town of Milo 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.00 1.00



Town 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.00 -2.00

D Milo Center 3 1 5 2 0 3 1 15 3.45 0.45D G Milo Center & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 4.00 1.00

E Second Milo 7 5 9 4 4 1 2 32 3.24 0.24E G Second Milo & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 3.33 0.33F Himrod 5 13 12 11 5 4 0 50 3.04 0.04

F G Himrod & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.50 1.50G Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 7 15 19 7 4 8 0 60 3.27 0.27


Town of Milo 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2.00 -1.00

H Reside outside Town of Milo 2 3 1 2 0 0 0 8 3.63 0.63I Just outside Village of Penn Yan 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.50 1.50



Page D - 43

Question 1 (Neighborhood) Question 44 (The Town should pursue and even fine property owners to clean up

‘junkyard’ type conditions on private property.)



No Opinion

No Answer



A B Village of Penn Yan & Keuka Lakeshore 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 4.75 1.75A D Village of Penn Yan & Milo Center 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.50 1.50A F Village of Penn Yan & Himrod 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.00 1.00


Town 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 5 3.40 0.40



Town 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 3.67 0.67




Town 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2.00 -1.00

D Milo Center 6 3 1 3 0 1 1 15 3.92 0.92D G Milo Center & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 2.33 -0.67

E Second Milo 10 13 4 1 2 1 1 32 3.93 0.93E G Second Milo & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 4.00 1.00F Himrod 23 12 7 2 4 2 0 50 4.00 1.00



Town of Milo 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.00 1.00




Page D - 44

Question 4 (Age) Question 50 (More recreational facilities are needed for youth)



No Opinion

No Answer


-1 No Answer 3 3 2 1 1 2 18 30 3.60 0.60A Less than 18 yrs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -B 18-20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.00 2.00C 20-30 5 4 3 3 0 1 0 16 3.73 0.73D 30-40 18 13 4 2 3 5 0 45 4.03 1.03E 40-50 33 26 17 9 3 2 3 93 3.88 0.88F 50--60 39 43 43 15 11 7 5 163 3.56 0.56G 60-70 47 60 55 25 5 14 4 210 3.62 0.62H 70-80 27 40 32 12 2 8 8 129 3.69 0.69I 80-90 8 22 14 5 3 4 5 61 3.52 0.52J Over 90 3 0 2 0 1 0 1 7 3.67 0.67


Question 4 (Age) Question 51 (More recreational facilities are needed for senior citizens)



No Opinion

No Answer


-1 No Answer 3 3 3 1 1 1 18 30 3.55 0.55A Less than 18 yrs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -B 18-20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.00 2.00C 20-30 3 4 5 3 0 1 0 16 3.47 0.47D 30-40 8 12 9 6 3 7 0 45 3.42 0.42E 40-50 26 24 21 11 4 4 3 93 3.66 0.66F 50--60 35 48 52 9 6 8 5 163 3.65 0.65G 60-70 49 62 54 20 4 16 5 210 3.70 0.70H 70-80 27 39 33 12 4 6 8 129 3.63 0.63I 80-90 7 16 17 6 3 7 5 61 3.37 0.37J Over 90 1 1 4 0 0 0 1 7 3.50 0.50



Page D - 45

Question 1 (Neighborhood) Question 53 (Upkeep of private property is a problem in my neighborhood)



No Opinion

No Answer


-1 No Answer 4 1 7 6 5 2 4 29 2.70 -0.30A Village of Penn Yan 54 61 76 117 44 14 27 393 2.90 -0.10

A B Village of Penn Yan & Keuka Lakeshore 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 3.00 0.00A D Village of Penn Yan & Milo Center 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 3.00 0.00A F Village of Penn Yan & Himrod 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2.00 -1.00


Town 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 5 2.33 -0.67

B Keuka Lakeshore 2 6 8 44 30 2 5 97 1.96 -1.04B D Keuka Lakeshore & Milo Center 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2.00 -1.00B E Keuka Lakeshore & Second Milo 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2.00 -1.00


Town 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 4 2.33 -0.67


C Seneca Lakeshore 3 3 1 11 4 3 1 26 2.55 -0.45C F Seneca Lakeshore & Himrod 0 1 4 6 2 0 0 13 2.31 -0.69


Town 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.00 -2.00


E Second Milo 2 3 9 10 6 1 1 32 2.50 -0.50E G Second Milo & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 1.67 -1.33F Himrod 6 9 13 17 4 1 0 50 2.92 -0.08



Town of Milo 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2.00 -1.00


TOTAL SURVEYS: 755 2.68 -0.32


Page D - 46

Question 1 (Neighborhood) Question 60 (Townhouses, apartments, or other high density residential development

should be allowed on the lake front.)



No Opinion

No Answer



A B Village of Penn Yan & Keuka Lakeshore 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 3.50 0.50A D Village of Penn Yan & Milo Center 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2.50 -0.50A F Village of Penn Yan & Himrod 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.00 -2.00


Town 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 5 2.60 -0.40



Town 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 4 2.00 -1.00




Town 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.00 2.00



F G Himrod & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 3.00 0.00G Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 3 9 11 21 13 3 0 60 2.44 -0.56


Town of Milo 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2.00 -1.00

H Reside outside Town of Milo 1 0 4 0 3 0 0 8 2.50 -0.50I Just outside Village of Penn Yan 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 3.00 0.00



Page D - 47

Question 1 (Neighborhood) Question 61 (Townhouses, apartments, or other high density residential development

should ONLY be allowed in the Village of Penn Yan)



No Opinion

No Answer


-1 No Answer 5 4 9 5 3 1 2 29 3.12 0.12A Village of Penn Yan 11 55 93 124 68 21 21 393 2.48 -0.52

A B Village of Penn Yan & Keuka Lakeshore 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 2.50 -0.50A D Village of Penn Yan & Milo Center 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 3.50 0.50A F Village of Penn Yan & Himrod 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.00 1.00


Town 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 3.00 0.00



Town 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 4 3.75 0.75




Town 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.00 -2.00

D Milo Center 1 6 3 3 1 0 1 15 3.21 0.21D G Milo Center & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 3.00 0.00

E Second Milo 1 9 7 8 5 2 0 32 2.77 -0.23E G Second Milo & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 4.00 1.00F Himrod 3 13 17 6 6 5 0 50 3.02 0.02



Town of Milo 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2.00 -1.00




Page D - 48

Question 1 (Neighborhood) Question 65 (The behavior of seasonal residents along the lakeshore is a concern

because of traffic and/or noise)



No Opinion

No Answer



A B Village of Penn Yan & Keuka Lakeshore 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 4 3.00 0.00A D Village of Penn Yan & Milo Center 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2.50 -0.50A F Village of Penn Yan & Himrod 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 - -


Town 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 5 3.00 0.00

B Keuka Lakeshore 8 13 24 28 18 1 5 97 2.62 -0.38B D Keuka Lakeshore & Milo Center 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.00 1.00B E Keuka Lakeshore & Second Milo 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2.00 -1.00


Town 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 5.00 2.00




Town 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3.00 0.00


E Second Milo 0 11 6 5 2 7 1 32 3.08 0.08E G Second Milo & Rural/Agricultural areas of Town 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 3.00 0.00F Himrod 2 5 16 9 4 14 0 50 2.78 -0.22



Town of Milo 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 - -

H Reside outside Town of Milo 0 1 5 1 1 0 0 8 2.75 -0.25I Just outside Village of Penn Yan 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 3.00 0.00



Page D - 49

Question 1 (Neighborhood) Question 66 (Noise is a problem in my neighborhood)



No Opinion

No Answer



A B Village of Penn Yan & Keuka Lakeshore 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 2.50 -0.50A D Village of Penn Yan & Milo Center 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2.50 -0.50A F Village of Penn Yan & Himrod 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 - -


Town 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 5 2.00 -1.00

B Keuka Lakeshore 4 5 10 48 24 1 6 98 2.09 -0.91B D Keuka Lakeshore & Milo Center 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3.00 0.00B E Keuka Lakeshore & Second Milo 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2.00 -1.00


Town 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 2.67 -0.33




Town 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3.00 0.00





Town of Milo 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 - -

H Reside outside Town of Milo 0 0 2 3 1 1 1 8 2.17 -0.83I Just outside Village of Penn Yan 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2.00 -1.00



Page D - 50

Question 1 (Neighborhood) Question 67 (Domestic pets are a problem in my neighborhood)



No Opinion

No Answer



A B Village of Penn Yan & Keuka Lakeshore 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 2.50 -0.50A D Village of Penn Yan & Milo Center 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2.50 -0.50A F Village of Penn Yan & Himrod 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 - -


Town 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 5 2.25 -0.75



Town 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 1.50 -1.50




Town 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.00 -2.00





Town of Milo 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 - -




Page D - 51

Question 1 (Neighborhood) Question 67 (Domestic pets are a problem in my neighborhood)



No Opinion

No Answer


B Keuka Lakeshore 9 17 16 29 18 0 8 97 2.66 -0.34B D Keuka Lakeshore & Milo Center 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2.00 -1.00B E Keuka Lakeshore & Second Milo 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 3.50 0.50


Town 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 1.50 -1.50




Town 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.00 -2.00





Town of Milo 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 - -



Written Survey Responses From Town Respondents (Outside Village of Penn Yan)

Page D - 52

Question 6Q: Other (reason for living here) Rank Reason stated:

5 Personal Safety 5 Taught here for 33 years, own my home and stayed. 0 Lower the damn taxes 5 No crime, lots of space, friendly people. 5 Keuka Lake 3 Own my home. 5 Own cottage on Seneca Lake 5 Small Town Local People 5 People - A place to live 5 Keuka Lake 5 Close to job 5 Winery/tourism 3 Change of seasons 3 Lake Front 5 Rural Character 5 Location in midst of shopping sites. 0 Work here 5 Old home & historic barn. 5 People 4 Glenn Baptist Church 5 Glenn Baptist Church 5 Recreation opportunities. 5 Good farming area. 5 Many friends. 5 I am employed here.


Page D - 53

Answers to Question 78: What is your favorite View

Keuka Lake All views of Keuka Lake are gorgeous. All views of Keuka Lake are gorgeous. Also the Mennonite farms, except for the pig farm. Flying up Old Bath Rd so you can see both lakes. From East Bluff looking east and vineyards and lake. East Lake Rd. from my porch at 406 East Lake Rd. Downtown, particularly if restored, downtown Penn Yan. No opinion Ball Hall from any direction. Keuka Lake The view of the lake from my front port (795 Middle Rd.) especially at sunset. Looking at the Lake from Sisson Road. Keuka Lake Keuka Outlet. The lake. Looking over Keuka Lake. The view from my deck of Keuka Lake (108 Rt 54). Looking west from Bath Road to the Lake & Bluff. Keuka Lake from my front porch (463A East Lake Rd.) The view from Keuka Spring Winery The lake The hillsides surrounding the lake - the sunsets and of course the Lake Keuka. View of Keuka College & the Bluff from the east side of the lake. Also - from Keuka Spring. Village Boat launch looking down the lake. Also Main St. from Post Office looking toward residential area - away from business district. The Lake looking west from my deck Town of Milo Office staff has been Very helpful. Keuka Lake Keuka Lake. 1. The park next to Morgan Marine. 2. The top of the hill above the hospital on 14A driving south. Coming south on 14A, north of Penn Yan The lake front on 54A Keuka Lake View of the Outlet from a point on the East Lake Rd. The view down the lake from Esperanza. Milo doesn't have a form. Lake - looking west across lake at college / Main St. Penn Yan. Driving on 14A from Benton to Penn Yan. Looking west while driving down Sisson Road. Old East Lake Rd. looking out over Keuka Lake. Views from South bound Rt 14A past Friendly Dodge. Old East Lake Rd. looking out over Keuka Lake. Views from south bound Rt 14A past Friendly Dodge. Keuka Lake The storefronts could be more inviting. Flowers, etc. Some have this and it's lovely. (Most do not). Awnings etc. More curb appeal. From Hayes Auction Barn Area Looking down the lake from the Bluff.


Page D - 54

Over looking Keuka Lake. BEAUTIFUL NATURAL SCENERY ALONG Keuka Lake shoreline and along rural roads. The lakes & small farms! Mennonite horse and carriage along our roads! Coming down Second Milo Rd overlooking lake. Looking south over Keuka Lake (east branch) toward the Bluff. Keuka Lake from the shoreline. Falls on Outlet Trail, Main Street. Any lake view property. Look out any window! Park From the top of any hill overlooking the Lake. From Rt 14 at City Hill Rd. looking north along Seneca Lake. Seneca Lake Rt 54 traveling west from Dresden looking south Vineyards + lakes Seneca Lake, from the Showboat dock. Top of Chubb Hollow toward Seneca Lake. The Seneca Lakefront! Looking east on Randall Crossing Rd. Anywhere you can see the lakes. Lake From my front porch (5549 Route 54) The view from my front deck of Seneca Lake (222 Rapalee Rd). Do not know. Seneca Lake, Keuka Lake Between having the Town's of Himrod, Milo, and Penn Yan, I'm not even sure where Milo is or why it exists. The lake view is nice (Seneca). Too many to list Different lake views. Seneca Lake on Plum Point Rd., Rapalee Rd, & Leach Rd. Seneca Lake from most anywhere. Himrod Road approaching Penn Yan - lovely rural scene. What does this have to do with anything???? Well-kept farms. 1. Looking out the window at Sarrasin's Restaurant and seeing ducks on the water and boaters. 2. Walking the outlet trail and seeing the falls. Watching the deer-birds-groundhogs foxes & horse drawn buggies - from my porch (2579 Himrod Rd.) Driving south on Bath Rd. between 54 & Second Milo Rd. - looking down lake. Downtown Penn Yan & any view of the lake. 14A SOUTH FROM Wind Mill. Keuka Lake, Bluff Point, Farms, vineyards Red Jacket Park's Lake View. Approaching the village of Penn Yan from the south on 14A. 1. Rt 14A top of Milo hill north of the Wind Mill. 2. The Bluff. Keuka Lake. Rolling hills, vineyards, & lake views. Main Street Keuka Lake from Sarrancinies. Lake Oh my! Many - heading into the Village from 14A, County House Rd. and adjacent areas, I could go on and


Page D - 55

on. Have you seen the view from homes on Glenora Rd? Marvelous.

My own property (2223 Baker Rd.) Keuka lake/Bluff Point/surrounding vineyards & farmland. Looking down on the village from Rt 364. Looking down on the village from 14A heading north Farmland overlooking the valleys and lakes. The beauty of our farm lands in the town of milo. Entering village via Bath Rd. (or) Hill near Wigwam Camp Grounds Keuka Lake From my very own house at 3006 Bath Road. The overlooks of both Seneca and Keuka Lakes Coming down Rice Hill Rd. Coming down Rice Hill Rd. The view of Seneca Lake The view from the highest points in town of the lakes or just the beauty of the area in general. There is none As you approach from E. Main - The corner of the outlet and Birkett Mills. Acres of vineyards looking toward Seneca Lake. ? Seneca Lake and the farm country. Over looking Seneca Lake from Crest of Severne Road. Going down County House Road at night. Scenery The view of the lakes from hilltops. View of Lake from Knapp & Schlappi From my house (3468 Himrod Rd.) View of Seneca Lake Downtown looks great. Country Side. There is no picturesque view anywhere in the Town of Penn Yan. Along Rt 14 G. Fullagar Road looking toward Lake. Traveling north on 14 - top- of the hill by City Hill Rd. The view from the top of East Main St. Any high elevation road overlooking either lake or agriculture areas. Countryside From our house 3315 Chubb Hollow Rd. The new trees on Main St. - beautiful. Looking south from Hays Auction Barn. Rural view and Lake views Seneca Lake View of and from the Old Legion site (Lake St). This should remain a green area. From Fullagar Road looking west toward Keuka College. Keuka Lake Don't have one. Outlet Trail The rural, open land, farms, local crops to buy - Windmill. View of Keuka Lake from west side (e.g. Bath Road)


Page D - 56

We live in a beautiful area. The lakes, wineries, beautiful agricultural farms with planted fields Looking at the hills across from the lake. View of town from top of south hill on 14A N/C On 14A top of the where Baker Rd. crosses, facing Penn Yan View of lake from this residence From the air. Problem is, you can see everyone's junk piles. Lake & hills. From my yard to the fields & woods (3641 Old Bath Rd.) My back yard from my enclosed porch as I grab a nap. (2340 Sisson Rd.). Bluff point Lakes Agricultural areas. Keuka Lake looking west from roads like Fullagar. Rural views of our lakes, Please keep them that way. Thank You! Keuka Lake Outlet Falls Coming down the hill from Marbles especially at night. The Academy and turf field. In an airplane overlooking P.Y. View of the Bluff from hills on east side of lake. Looking at the lake from the Old Bath Rd. The Lakes The Lake from Sarrasan's deck. I LIKE THE WAY THE Town is. Any lake view Views of Keuka Lake Views from my home on Seneca Lake. Views between Keuka & Seneca Lake (The Outlet). Looking over Keuka Lake from Penn Yan Airport. The rural country atmosphere. Sundown at Red Jacket Park. The trees on Main St. Across Lake Keuka toward Bluff from my residence (92 State Rt 54- East Lake Rd). Overlooking Keuka Lake from the Keuka Springs Winery on Rt. 54. Out my window! (Seneca Lake shoreline area). Neat, clean, well cared for farms with the lakes in the background. The view from my house (2615 McElwee Rd.). My home and its surroundings, which I hope will stay as they are for a long, long time (179 State Rt 54 East Lake Rd). From Penn Yan Airport to the West. On Rt 14A at the top of the hill coming towards Penn Yan from the south. Village Hall/Church Dundee, N.Y. Any view that encompasses a view of a lake (Keuka &/or Seneca) and surrounding agriculture in patchwork design. Seneca Lake from State Rt 14 The Mill area. West of Penn Yan on Sherman Hollow. Farmland and the lakes. Old Bath Road - south of airport - with views of farmland and lake. Lake & untouched hills. The lake.


Page D - 57

Down Main St. A wonderful small town look. Route 14 north bound overlooking Dresden Bay area. The view from our own windows (610 East Lake Rd). From Esperanza. Main Street - keep it old. The view from my kitchen windows - open fields - corner of the lake, farming equipment, bicycles & horses going by - 1453 Milo Center Rd. Our lake & farm view from our place (1453 Milo Center Rd.). The view of the farmland as seen from 14A entering P.Y. from the north. Lake views from the east side. Looking down from hilltop & seeing Keuka Lake and village of Penn Yan. Rt 14 at City Hill Road Looking North. Produce stands; herds of dairy cows grazing on pasture. Seems like whatever direction you take you see rolling farmland & lakes. Keuka toward Branchport. Severn Road Off my deck! From my home on 54A. The Bluff, looking west from East Lake Rd. View of Keuka College during a sunset on the lake. By Serrasini's. Farmland. We really like the view of the lake from our house (2540 Old Bath Rd.) and the airport area. View from Bath Rd. over looking Keuka Lake. Coming into town on Route 364 at night. Coming into town on Rt 364 at night. View of the Bluff. View from Second Milo Rd. North of Old Bath Rd. View of the Lake looking south from our lake house towards Hammondsport. View from Esperanza. Looking in the valley coming down Pre-Emption Road. Views of Keuka Lake and the Minnesota Rover (Outlet). Standing on the bridge next to Birkett Mills. Just the beautiful area wherever you look around driving into Penn Yan. The beautiful rolling hills & farms. Overlooking Keuka Lake. Upper Clinton St. Agricultural land. Keuka Lake. Our little cabin on the lake (3583 Vineyard Rd.), the beauty of the rolling hills, vineyards. Countryside. Keuka Lake. Keuka Spring Winery to Lake. There are so many beautiful areas. Some include the Village, farms & fields, and of course the lake. The whole is a great place. Keuka Lake. Outlet Trail. Keuka Lake. Outlet Trail Looking at our pond from our porch (3782 Route 14A) so beautiful. View from Esperanza. Driving along Crystal Valley Rd. Driving around Keuka Lake. Seneca Lake. The view from our deck looking west across the east branch of Keuka Lake.


Page D - 58

The Bath Road from Lakeside Country Club to Willow Grove Hill. N/A

Answers to Question 79: What is your least favorite View

The junk houses on Rt 54 in the village. Run down areas of Penn Yan The old Beverage Baron. The old Beverage Baron property. The CAFO (pigs) in Milo. The smell at times makes me angry at all times - hence not liking the view. Abandoned house trailers on Lands @ Milo Center. All of the signs on Old Bath Road and Route 54. It was Lake St, but the empty junk houses are gone! Empty Stores More Business - reduce taxes. Decaying buildings various places downtown Penn Yan. No opinion. The new Dunkin Doughnuts which cut down the big gorgeous tree where they are they could have worked around it. Poor condition of houses on 14A north of County Office building. Condemned houses going out 54A - next to old Beverage Baron. Some of the properties that look like junkyards and scrap yards. Vacant buildings on Seneca St. between Main & Liberty. Junk and unkempt property Run down homes along 14A as you enter the village from the North. Side of Morgan Marine view of the barge near Saracin's, the side of Knapp & Schlappi's near the trailer park across from Red Jacket. Fairgrounds. Whole area is a mess. 4 corner intersection of Liberty (Brown) & Lake St The area bordered by Elm St, 14A, the lake inlet/outlet and railroad tracks. The ramshackle houses on Rt 14A My tax Bill Run-down and often vacant properties. None The buildings across from Birkett Mills. ? The view of the outlet on 54A toward the lake--need to be cleaned up. The blocking of the views of the Lake as a result of heavy brush and trees maintained by Lakeside residents on the Lakeshore. The area seen when at the public boat launch in Penn Yan. The half fallen down buildings are unsightly. Same as above: Milo doesn’t have a form. Run down houses 14A and 54. No comment Any place where cars, trucks, boats, etc. are allowed to park for long periods of time. Doesn't enhance tourism in my view. Unregulated sign pollution of: permanent signs on Lake Street - McDonald's, Lake St. Plaza, Gas Stations Real Estate Office, etc. Temporary signs all over - so much visual pollution! The plethora of signs that advertise businesses or services. The old Beverage Baron. Empty stores & Birkett Mill warehouse. The disrepair and poor appearance of houses coming into town on Liberty St and Lake St. Several streets have houses with junk cluttered in the yards. Why allow this to ruin a beautiful town e.g. just


Page D - 59

east of Seneca St et. al.

Boat launch in village. Falling down buildings. Should have been torn down 20 years ago. Unkempt properties in the village & surrounding town. Empty run down buildings and empty retail stores in downtown Penn Yan. Run down Bldgs on canal by boat launch. Run down houses/farms everywhere. The most disturbing is along Liberty St, since this is often the first or only impression visitors get. McDonalds, Dunkin Donuts, Family Dollar, Pizza Hut, Walgreen’s. McDonald's, Dunkin Doughnuts, family Dollar, Pizza Hut, Walgreen’s. Run down homes - trash in yards, etc. None "Run down Residences" Watching the rude tourists come back and then decide to move here. Liberty & Lake Streets in Penn Yan. Slum neighborhoods Trash around homes Unkempt property, junk, etc. Long Bow Trailer Park - should come under more code restrictions. It is a serious detriment to the town. Some renters keep up their property; others are eyesores. The intersection of 14A and Lake St. Can't think of any. Overlook at Rt 14 rest area - no view. The trailer parks The Seneca Lake Tire buildings and its surrounding area - the mess! ? Lakefront properties cluttered with too many sheds, boathouses, travel trailers and golf carts. N/A Junkyard on Rt 14 (may not be town of Milo) near yellow barn going south just before Glenora. Penn Yan from Himrod Rd. No Problem! Properties that are not maintained (Junk Heaps, dilapidated structures, etc.) Why? If I tell you what it is, are you going to buy it and clean it up? Junk in our area. Road maintenance. Bed tax - it will keep tourists away. The new Court House - knowing what it cost taxpayers. 54 between 14A and Bath Rd. (don't even know if this is in the town, but very sad @ old Shur-fine and demolished houses across street.). That dumpy looking house on the Outlet Rd just east of Penn Yan on the left. Cows, sheep and lots of trash! Yuk! NA Empty storefronts on Main St. Penn Yan Parking for Penn Yan Academy Students Seneca Street homes. No comment. I don't have one. Lake Street N/A Old houses that need to be torn down - old mobile homes & junk in yards. The trailer park


Page D - 60

That old building on corner of Liberty & Water. Sloppy homes Seneca St. "The Dump" (Dead Cars) on Bath Rd next to my property. Uninhabited residential & commercial building on the Main Streets of Penn Yan. Empty store fronts on Main St. Empty store fronts Crowded housing along the roads All the development around the lake. We're losing our beauty of the lake. Ugly buildings along Lake St. Brown St. corner. Ugly for Best Western guests Development on Bath Rd (drew a frown face) Seneca Lake Tire Seneca Lake Tire and Junk. Private property with junk & debris around the property and house. To see old fallen down buildings or properties that are just plain unkempt by owners or others. Judge's position should be terminated In Himrod - The "Vacant" salt mine. "Seneca Tire" Property on Tr. 14 in Himrod. Homes with junk in yards (rural) Trash around homes. East end of Elm St. Don’t have a least favorite. Unfriendly People The empty run down buildings including the salt mines. The empty bldg on South St. Himrod. Old Concrete building across from Mobil Station on 14A in Town. Salt Plant towers. North side of canal, between Main & Liberty Empty lot across from Best Western. People not keeping yards neat & tidy - The boat launch site is terrible. Eyesore buildings fallen down, some in the water - it really looks Bad!!! Why would anyone want to visit, tat being their fist impression or their last. The homes on the Outlet road. Especially at the bottom of the hill. Junk on people's property Seneca Lake Tire and properties owned by Sorce Family. Abandoned & run-down houses. Abandoned salt mines. None All the junk on Outlet Road and Ridge Rd., May's Mills to City Hill. Morton Salt. Homes not being kept up in repairs. Junk cars and trucks in Milo Center. The old Beverage Barron. From Birkett Mills to Moose Salt mine towers Junk yard type private properties Lake St., the outlet - looks awful - could be beautiful if properly developed. Closed and empty stores on Main Street. Empty store fronts Don't have one. - Potholes on all the roads that are impossible to miss. - Broken docks by the parks. The commercializing on Townsend/Stiles Rd. It is a mess when it rains - should be stockade fenced to hide. Too many gas, banks, taxes and too many of them - and more coming - If I have to cut down so should your


Page D - 61

spending. ….

Junk cars & trash piled up on porches, and places that have puppy mills. Airport and other development outside the village Area along outlet trail between Townsend Road and Village boundary. N/C The view of the Outlet where the 14A/Liberty St bridge crosses, looking east down the Outlet. Lake Street. Businesses that don't do landscaping. The airport The trashy appearance of the Lake Outlet & Carey's, debris, garbage in water. # 1 The mess in Mays Mills. Unlicensed Vehicles Deserted business like Ira Wyman gas station on Clinton St & North Ave. Houses that appear to be a health hazard, e.g. many broken windows while still being inhabited. Salt plant towers on Severne Rd. Big industry Around Liberty Street Bridge. Seneca Street Anywhere unkempt, trashy looking property is. I don't mind old house, but there is no reason for garbage and trash in the yard. Dangerous piers by inlet. Lake St./Liberty St China King, Pizza Hut & whatever is now in the old Pudgies. The upkeep of homes. The view of the broken docks, Carey's, Roto-salt from Indian Pines & boat launch area. Seeing that Fancy Court House. I don't see how PY needs that Court House and why doesn't the Town of Milo have their court busy in there instead of Main St. 1. Upkeep of houses/property. 2. Takes months for state/town to fix road maintenance problems. Old buildings along the Outlet - as seen from the outlet trail through the village. These valuable locations are going to waste. Junkyards on private property - Rt. 14 & Severne. Houses along by Carey Retail Store. Need Improvement. Stupid Rite-Aid Building. Area between Lake St. and outlet. The old Beverage Baron site. My home. The unkempt properties and junkyard residences. Corner of 14A and 54. Salt mine property vacant, overgrown, & falling down. The pig farm on Second Milo Rd., not that it looks so bad but knowing that it is there, menacing us all. South Street plus junk & trash around houses. Dogs & cats running loose with a leash law in effect in town. Along Seneca St. from Main St. to the railroad tracks. Raceway Unlicensed vehicles & junk on properties. Houses leading up to Town Hall. No comment. Junkyard type conditions on private property. ? Everything looks okay for now. ?


Page D - 62

Water Street buildings torn down. Empty buildings near Cam's. Center of Himrod. Mobile homes across from Red Jacket Park; go carts across from cemetery. Dollar store/ Aldi's / Drug stores. Beverage Baron abandoned building. Houses on Liberty St. near school. String at homes along street by high school and county offices. Corner of Brown & Lake St. County buildings - represent over spending. The outlet trail where Ridge Road crosses the Keuka Lake outlet. New housing on good farmland. The torn up earth from the new gas pipeline. Don't really have one. Himrod. Some of the streets in Penn Yan. Lake Street Plaza area & area opposite. Too many McMansions allowed on the lake. Since when is the lake made for rich people only? 2 Empty/vacant gas stations (both at entrances into P.Y.) Old mobile homes. The old buildings along side of the channel between Liberty ad Main Streets on Water St. State Highway Barns and Industrial Park going into Penn Yan on 14A. Directly behind public parking lot & the Wagner Restaurant. N/A Poorly maintained houses & trailers. All the unkempt and falling down houses in the village. Outlet Trail from Liberty Street Bridge to Cherry Street. This section is lettered with trash and brush. Not only is this unsightly, but it could present a personal security and safety risk. Coming into town on People that are allowed to have trash and unused vehicles sitting in their yards. Trashing the neighborhood for other homeowners who care how their place looks. ? Liberty street and Lake Street. Courthouse & cost. I am not sure. N/A Some of the garbage behind our property, but we have talked to the owner & it will be taken care of by him & us.Rt 14A from the hospital (Soldiers & Sailors) into town. Former Beverage Barron & neighboring lots. There are buildings here and there that are falling down. Vacant Stores. The view of too many properties with junk vehicles, etc. which are never moved or removed. Empty stores! Unsightly houses. Houses sprouting up on good farmland. Derelict buildings along the outlet. Liberty St. and the four corners of Lake & Liberty Streets. N/A


Page D - 63

Written Answers to Question 80: What are the biggest issues facing the Town of Milo?

Keep Taxes Down - High property taxes make it extremely difficult for retired individuals to maintain a property on the lake (with limited retirement income). Preservation of water quality and scenic aspects of Keuka Lake, without crippling agriculture. New Construction. Total tax levy. We need to be very careful to avoid increasing taxes beyond inflation, and should work to reduce or hold them level. Need to consolidate services with other government groups to reduce taxes and costs. Control development on steep slopes. Need to consolidate services with other government groups to reduce taxes and costs. Control development on steep slopes. Economy Jobs, taxes. Runaway spending of governments and schools. A general lack of understanding of how to maintain/restore the wealth of historic buildings. Unreasonable assessments on lake property. Encouraging growth to balance tax base against cost of services. Combining need for small town rural feel with demand of people who live on lake. Tax, water and sewer rates. Maintaining services while keeping taxes reasonable. TAXES! Taxation - Allowing those that have lake frontage to be able to keep their property. Don't tax us out! Taxes & housing. - Development on the lake front needs to be more regulated. - Traffic on 4 corners of Liberty & Brown and Liberty & Elm. Taxes Taxing the people on the lake so that they cannot longer live their dream of retiring in your community. Controlling your spending!! Taxes & people losing/selling their homes because they can't afford to keep them. 1. Maintaining or improving services without increasing property tax burden. 2. Increasing year round job opportunities. 3. Increasing quality retail & grocery/dining options. Control taxes to prevent people on limited incomes from having to move out. Higher cost - higher taxes - older folks have to sell - very sad. Taxes are way too high for the value received - compare to NC, SC, GA and FL America/NYS Debt levels. 1. Keeping taxes down. 2. Freeze employment Lack of business tax base leads to crushing taxes on lakefront property and a steady progression of long time residents being driven off the lake. Ultimately Milo will be like two separate towns - one wealthy, those who can afford lakefront, and the Taxes Rising Taxes. A further development of water and sewage systems so that all Lake side residents have access to these facilities, not just a few. Large-scale development on the lake, and along the hillsides over looking the lake. Continuing to feel that you can keep raising taxes when people's salaries don't go up. Need to trim back the budget! High property taxes. At the moment - The Plaza & Lake Street. You're making progress.


Page D - 64

Not enough thought given to planning - Economy is very bad but people think they can spend money for anything. Instead of thinking big, think small - economize. Lack of professional expertise & guidance in the following areas: Planning Board, Zoning Board, Code Enforcement, and/or supervision of that Dept. & lack of competency. Pro Active Code Enforcement. User Friendly web page for constituents to access. The clouds of billowing smoke from burning leaves & garbage. Creating interactive web page. Making taxes reasonable & assessments for residents who live here year around aren't forced to sell to outsiders. Bringing in business & industry carefully. Taxes!! 1. Water & land pollution protection. 2. Traffic through the town. 3. Job opportunities for the residents. Rising taxes on property. Development of Outlet and surrounding properties for everyone's use. Taxes Balancing increasing residential and business (hopefully) activity (and zoning conflicts) with the preservation of our beautiful natural rural setting. Controlling development along the lake to maintain scenic beauty of the natural resource. High Taxes. Improving the aesthetics & increasing available shopping, restaurants, etc. to increase tourism. Excessive taxation without representation, zoning. Loss of Birkett Mill on Main St. Keeping taxes reasonable so older folks aren't forced to sell. Taxes are too high. Seasonal residents feel that the Town is trying to "stick it to them." Have the money before you buy! The "Jones" will do well whether we keep up with them or not. Focusing on positive controlled growth. Control of development and its effect upon the environment. Holding the line on property taxes. Taxes Taxes Controlled spending. Increased revenue sources other than real estate taxes. Growing the tax base and maintaining tourism/agriculture in the town. Pollution of Seneca Lake due to agriculture and zebra mussels. Over development Property taxes - particularly on seasonal properties that make use of a few or no town services, i.e.: schools, water, sewers, street lights, etc. Lake maintenance. Also keeping taxes under control. Why have the lake taxes gone out of sight! Sustaining its farm like qualities while not becoming Canandaigua/Lake Tahoe -. Taxes. Don't want a water district. Lowering property taxes - gone down anywhere else but town of Milo raising them. Special tax not for Senior citizens who live around property for better than 50 years. High Lakefront residential property assessments, and taxes with no services provided. Zoning laws not being followed and Enforced. The continued increase in assessments and therefore taxes which eventually causes people to move out. Soon only the very rich will be able to stay. May that's your goal? Water & Sewer in all areas of town. Code enforcement Taxes & assessments Too new here to have opinion. Soil erosion and the contamination of Lakes from run off. Removal of hedgerows should be regulated (by permit only)! Economic development (including job opportunities) while retaining the beauty of the area. People who moved into the town who came from larger towns or suburbs that want to make this town like theirs with more regulations and ordinances, especially when they sit on boards (zoning, town & county).


Page D - 65

Not know. No t to allow any more puppy mills in Yates County. Not to allow any more pig farms. Not to develop farmland because we need farmers to grow food for us and future generations. High taxes. Road repair. Balancing the needs of year - round residents with those of seasonal residents and tourists. Please resist pressure to re-make this area into someone's fantasy. Affordable Ag land and housing v. important. No opinion School tax Equipping future generations to manage the political, business and moral landscape of the township. Teaching our youth Life skills Teaching our youth life skills. Not enough businesses with above average pay scale. I've been out of the main stream so long I don't really know. Taxes Maintaining infrastructure without also raising taxes beyond citizen's ability to afford. Old mobile homes being stored on private lots - junkyards contaminating soil. Moved here only 3 years ago, but I've seen very little job opportunities. Senior citizens and taxes - it’s getting hard for us to keep our homes! Are you trying to get rid of us? Need a department store at a level of senior citizens and farm trade incomes. Fold picking on farmers about natural farm country fresh air. Welfare, lack of jobs…And why, when businesses come into the Town, do they hire people to work from outside Yates County? - Misuse of taxpayer dollars. - Expand water supply to keep up with Department of Health regulations for small businesses. Loss of agriculture land to development Funding/taxes to fulfill responsibilities Having all of these city people coming here for our country side to get out of city and then not wanting to deal with country living or smell that go with rural living, & wanting Zoning to match where they came from Having all of these city people coming here for our countryside to get out of city and then not wanting to deal with country living or smell that go with rural living. More business needed to add jobs and pay taxes. Keeping its rural appearance buy yet move into the future in providing jobs, retail sales, housing, and limited development. Keeping the taxes affordable so people can live here into retirement. Taxes. To make it so the younger people stay and not move away. Inadequate ZBA members, law enforcement not enforcing codes, junkyards & dogs The cleanup of unsightly properties. The Cleanup of unsightly properties. Inflation Reasonable control of growth. Increasing tax burden. Lack of industry Himrod water district is greatest issue that our household faces. Bringing in more high-end retailers like Skaneateles & Canandaigua. Tax base that relies on high valued lake frontage and services. Crosswalks on Main St. (Not the greatest, but a big concern) Don't know TAXES!!!


Page D - 66

Road repair Having to depend on tourism for income. Too many tax-free properties. Leaving people alone to live their lives Difference of opinion between residents of Seneca Lake area & Keuka Lake area. - Should have a separate zoning border. None Serving the taxpayers while keeping tax base as low as possible. Dog Kennels. Keep it rural. Children on streets after 11:00 (only one issue). Maintaining views and rural character of area. Providing services at the lowest cost. Maintaining public services and controlling property taxes. Maintenance of infrastructure. Improving appearance of village - set a "style" code for future development. Taxes - fair taxes - lakeside values regardless of seasonal or not. Puppy mills Unknown. ROADS! Same as all the towns, taxes & assessments. Everyone wants everything, but it is the ones who pay for the ones who cannot pay. Don't Know!! To have the area grow but not get overrun by "crass materialist philistines,” like it has been in what used to be many rural parts of Florida. Taxes Assessments & Taxes. The ability to allow growth and increase economic input. Keeping the population here. Taxes are too high. Folks from the City moving here and wanting it to be like where they came from. Keep services up and taxes down as much as possible. Maintain the roads as cost of oil and fuel are getting expensive. Hiring an aggressive Zoning Officer. Taxes Liberal spending on Court House, Schools, and Libraries. High level of taxes. Constant Reassessment To many very expensive homes being built. Where do these people get the money to buy them and then loose them? Roads Extremely poor roads in the Village of P.Y. Keeping taxes in line so that we can afford to live here. The cost of taxes. Runaway local taxes. Too Many drug stores. Unappealing appearances of new buildings, in example: Aldi. Affordable housing for elderly. The stench of liquid manure. Taxes. State/Gov't mandates Do Not Know. High Taxes to Lake front Residents. Town Taxes way to High!! Need to reduce overhead & lower Taxes. Over development. Speeding Cornwell to Blu nose down Outlet Road. Conditions in General & no public transportation.


Page D - 67

Maintenance of infrastructure. The high taxes lakefront owners are forced to pay. Developments - as in condos, puppy mills, high taxes. High taxes - People who are forced to sell their property because of high taxes. Encouraging growth and tourism without changing the rural character of the area. Maintaining agriculture & rural atmosphere wile allowing growth for business & industry. Over population/development Lowering taxes & road repairs + speed limit too high in town should be 30 mph, instead of 40 mph & no one other than State Police ever check it. It's unsafe to even walk to the post office for your mail. Its like a race track up & down the road & no Keeping taxes low. Expanding the tax base while controlling undesirable development such as large-scale hog feeding and Wal-Mart. Taxation and lack of essential services at a reasonable cost for lake0owned property. Maintaining rural charm, but maintaining a progressive future. The Himrod water/sewer project (expansion) seemed to be an expensive undertaking that would benefit a small number of lakeshore owners. I have pent a lot already on my well & sulfur guard system. I don't want to spend more because I would have to pay ? Taxes! Too high. Road conditions, no room for more traffic. Rising real property taxes. Stagnation. Development to keep our youth in the area. No comment. Wind Farms - we need them. High taxes driving out middle class cottage owners. Safe drinking water. Town should have access to free treated water for drinking and cooking. Restrictive zoning. Encourage planned growth. Over building, lack of zoning enforcement, excessive taxes. High taxes forcing residents to sell!! Economy; high taxes. Drop the IDA issue and cater to the rich lake folk. High taxes - repair of Route 54A. High taxes. The economy. Escalating assessments of cottages on Keuka Lake, it is forcing people to sell their homes. Over development of lake property. Over taxation for average fixed income, low income - which is what % of population? Too much spending & taxing. If you want to keep the town rural and keep people here, including retirees, then living has to be affordable for fixed income people. Not sure. How to maintain services without taxing people. Lack of middle-income employment. Public utility expansion. Protecting the quality of lakeside life - with pure water and single-family detached homes. Taxes are way too high on seasonal cottages owned by working class citizens. Taxes are too HIGH! No businesses for job opportunities! Out of control expenses - If need be consolidate with other towns for efficiency/expense REDUCTION.


Page D - 68

High taxes. I don't know but I would not like to see any townhouses or apartment complexes outside of the village. Growth of lake development and the infrastructure of Penn Yan's water, sewer, and road systems. High taxes that own lake property - detrimental to existing owners. Development of CAFO's & high-rise condos (high density) on lakeshore. Weeds depreciate value of lake property. Zoning. Decent paying jobs. Development of the Keuka Lake Outlet at the site of the former Penn Yan Marine Manufacturing Co. Don' know except why do they have to use that dirt to salt roadways in winter. Why can't they just use salt? That black stuff makes a mess of vehicles & hard on Tires! Sewer/water availability. Excessive cost and ineffectiveness of the infrastructure. The Town should be folded into Yates County to reduce cost and improve effectiveness. Don't know. Taxes! High tax. Stimulating commercial development without burdening taxpayers. Long range foresight in the development of the waterfront along the Outlet that keeps the development for Public use. Work on a plan to insure our woods and fields do not become overgrown crowded residential areas. Taxes. People are being taxed out of the County - No more taxes - Need to stabilize tax base. No more new programs. Comprehensive plan to protect from overdevelopment. Bring taxes down. Consolidate services with other towns. Exorbitant property taxes. Bring taxes down. Preserve & protect Keuka Lake. Urban encroachment on good cropland. Need retail sales to return to PY to regain sales tax revenue. Development and code enforcement. TAXES/New Development.

Written Answers to Question 81: Other Comments

You don't want the tourist trade to have cars or enjoy themselves!?! Leaf and brush pick-up for all residents of Milo County. Find a way to use the old salt mine - Commercial Development? Industrial Development? Need better sign control. I hate to see the charm of Keuka disappear with the "Too big for the lot" stone "Castles" taking over the lakeshore. Let's be sane and protect the lake. Penn Yan has a treasure trove of pre-civil war historic homes and commercial buildings, and lake cottages. Education for homeowners and business owners on how to maintain, enhance, and restore these would be the best investment the town could make. They are deteriorating and especially along Main St. it could be gorgeous (not Main - but the street where the P & C and schools are). Good work. Please don't ruin the area by putting up multi-unit housing, hotels, etc… along the lakefront. Zoning needs to be flexible to allow for compatible and necessary land development. Mixed housing should be permitted but at a slow pace. Most housing hurts the tax base. Shared services should be incorporated where ever possible. I like the idea of townhouses on the outlet channel. After you develop the plan "DO IT." Why did the Town have to hire a consultant to tabulate the results?


Page D - 69

Duplicate Law enforcement - Is there really a need for the village to have a police Dept. when the Sheriff's office is located within the village? We need to develop a plan to entice more primary health care physicians to locate here. The waiting time to be taken on as a new patient at either Pre-Emption Family Medicine or Main Street Family Health is Months! (Check it out) #1 Regulate key hole developments. #2 Regulate hillside development and require proper septic systems. 1. Senior condo's with & without lake views. 2. The Route 54 Gateway into town needs to be cleaned up & made inviting. We don't need another drug store! You changed our address from 320 to 313 yet you don't seem to be able to get it right (it's not 312). The address changes were a complete fiasco and not well thought out. Residents were not notified in writing & given an opportunity to comment. Utilities were not properly notified. Cable still has our old address & wont change it unless they hear from you! 1. People who maintain homes/cottages on the lake need to be able to vote and have a say in the community. 2. Control spending - it appears that the town/village can & spend the taxpayers' money fast enough. 3. Seasonal people spend a lot of money on these people. You don't need a dollar store on every corner. 4. Finally - It has been my lifetime goal to retire on the lake. Please don't disappoint me by taxing me out!! This Survey is a Great Start!! 1. Main St. in Penn Yan should be upgraded with improved building facades and streetscapes. 2. Economic development a priority for increased jobs, business tax base and better shopping - food, clothing - in town. 3. Lake shore in the village is a missed opportunity to greatly enhance the village, recreational and scenic views for residents and tourism. 4. Improved enforcement of speed on lower lake roads - these are high pedestrian and bicycle traffic areas with little or no speed control. 5. Improve the inequity of the tax burden falling too heavily on the shoulders of lake front property owners. My only gripe is your property taxes are way TOO HIGH! Thank you for the survey. Sincerely, L. Pauline PeckAvoid Large housing on commercial development that would have an impact on our existing infrastructure. If the National trend of lower property value happens for the Town of Milo…. You need a plan for operations with lower assessments and lower taxes?? John. W. Kelley Work hard to share services with over-lapping and adjacent legislative districts and encourage fiscal responsibility in those districts. Current fiscal management is driving development and residents away. Make Penn Yan/Milo more of a "destination" for tourists to visit. This could increase tax revenue, create jobs, and increase property values. Going forward.. Cost considerations will be significant in any plan. By who and how will it be paid for? Could the bonds fail? I will not own Municipal bonds in America. Do not invest in areas that will create future expenses (or employment) by the Town to maintain. Other, lower middle income due to lake of economic opportunities. That's a "Them versus us" kind of culture that is unhealthy and uncomfortable. Economic Development is essential. Wineries & tourists aren't sufficient. Jack Show should NOT Retire! Best there ever was!!! Thank you for finally giving us an opportunity for input on the comprehensive Plan for the town of Milo. We have (lake residence) have paid thousands & thousands of dollars in taxes for improvement to the community. Ex: schools, police dept., fire dept., government bldgs, water system, sewage system, administrative positions, & other projects! This community was established with regular working (salt of the earth) people of N.Y. Yes, progress is important but please do not allow townhouse projects. Put a moratorium on permanent docks, size of houses, any structure that interferes with the views of the lake: ex: Walls, fences, sheds, boathouses, etc. Keep the lake clean, protect the environment, control farming businesses by making sure hazardous waste are not entering the water. Again I say hold down taxes. Yes we will pay our fair share. But enough of the taxes. This is a rural area, and we need to maintain that look and feel. Certainly, we need to improve basic services like public water, sewers, etc., but we will never be able to attract large industries in manufacturing, primarily because where the Town of Milo is located. We need to have a stringent comprehensive plan on the books to maintain the rural integrity of this area. This plan should not allow large-scale development like condos on the lake. Also the threat to our neighboring hillsides is severe, with significant “growth” taking place. We need to preserve the water quality of the lake by limiting pesticides/fertilizers. Taxation is a big big issue in NYS. Everyone feels that they can "feed at the trough," because the people on the lake don't have the right to vote (non-residents). Just remember when you increase taxes everyone gets an increase proportionately. Need to find a way to reduce budget. Secondly, you are slowly pushing out middle


Page D - 70

class families out of the area because of taxes. Part of the lake's charm is it's middle class appeal. This place is becoming like Canandaigua (people w/ $$$$). Water and sewer district expansions should be paid for by new developments. The Town of Milo and beyond should be annexed by the Village of Penn Yan. I believe that a business appearance is important, but the town has to be careful not to over regulate. Keep open for input - Questionnaire a good start. No more Drug stores! Have a plan that will benefit the most people not just a select few. Just an example - the backside of the envelope should have been blank. 1. Regulation of structure size relative to buildable lot are (in plain language - No "McMansions on postage stamp sized lots"). This is happening a lot on the lake share on Keuka. 2. Pro-Active code enforcement NOT initiated by written complaint from a resident. There is no code enforcement now; there is only building inspection being done on new construction. 2. No more political appointees on boards. Get people from the community who have expertise/experience in the types of matters the Board handles (i.e.: Architects, Realtor, Real Estate Appraiser, Contractor, Engineer, Land Use Planner, etc.). Pro Active Code Enforcement. Ordinances for noise, burning, excessive Light. Yates County Sheriff's Marine Division issues very few citations and skews their complaint numbers high by doing data checks. Loud exhaust - boats - jet skis have the run of the lake. Sheriff's Office gives lip service to noise, speeding car complaints and rarely responds to audible burglar alarms on seasonal cottages. Rather the call non-resident owner and tell them they'll meet them when they (non-resident) respond. Need some other source of taxation besides the lakers and tourist. Making a quality of life statement around the lake and its shores. Biking, picnic, benches, eateries, shops. Reface or restore old buildings & warehouses, etc. We need retail stores and not more dollar stores or pharmacies, need more park like areas. It would be very cost effective to shop close to home for most of our needs. As it is we travel to Geneva, Canandaigua, Roch. For clothes, items for home, gifts, etc. We use approximately $60 gas money per week traveling. Shur-Fine is never an option. Dollar Stores, etc. enough! The town needs to encourage a physical fitness "large size" gym Co. like Gold's Gym to set up a gym in the town to meet the needs of old & young & to reduce obesity of Town residents rather than wait years for a community center to get adequate funding. Realize that this is an agricultural/rural area. We need to preserve and protect the Lake and the nearby hillsides. There is too much building. Runoff from the cleared land on the hills is threatening the lake now. Pesticides used by lake residents must be curtailed. Also, the Town of Milo must ban outdoor burning & open up a landfill like the Town of Wayne. Due to rising property taxes, local lake residents are beginning to sell their property to out of town and out of state property owners. This is not good. Over taxing lake front properties for development. There is NO need for the multi-layered government that exist in Yates Co. Consolidation of services and elimination of layers of government should be done NOW. The existing system is a waste of taxpayer money! I am concerned with the overlapping of government services, with its expensive costs - especially the town and the Village. There is a lack of sharing services. The natural beauty of small farms and scenic lake views are a natural resource to this and future generations. This area used to be called the land of "Bread and Wine" referring to beautiful golden wheat fields blending with bountiful vineyards along the shores of our lakes. Lets retain some of that beauty for future generations to see!Taxes need to be reduced. Too much tax money is "not" kept for local use. Should offer 1% loans to homeowners to improve. The canal area should be developed. Bed tax is a bad idea. People need to rent their property to help pay taxes. Will hurt tourism. Hotels Yes, private property NO. Shared services with other towns to save $$. High gas prices reduce unneeded travel on lake as well as roads. Too great a tax burden is placed on lakeshore property owners. Many are senior citizens who are seeing rising health care costs & diminishing investment returns in the current economic state. Referendum votes are held when many owners are away for the winter & services are denied to others: i.e.: Town refuses to take over & maintain roads, but doesn't hesitate to tax lakeshore owners for things they neither want nor use. Town changed street names & addresses last year, but never had changes made in national GPS database – now no one can find us – including fire & ambulance – the alleged reason the changes were made! Follow through!! Control "Look & feel' of rural area. Benchmark to Freeport, Maine. Plant Trees along roads. My experience with the town has been very favorable - zoning, fire, etc. Think about promoting taxable construction in the area to build the tax base.


Page D - 71

I'm so upset about Yates County allowing the minorities to make use the New Puppy Mill capitol of the State of New York. Is tourism and Mennonite money worth loosing humane compassion towards animals? Property Availability - Mennonites or vacation homes - what about anyone else? Along the lake shore there is uncontrolled development. i.e.: property owners who feel free to build/expand with no compunction about the effect upon the environment. Shale beaches should not be replaced by heavily fertilized and pesticided lawns. Further, open burning should be banned along the lakeshore. Lake water quality is of the utmost importance. Runoff from development and agriculture has already affected the lakes seen in increased waterweeds & loss of wildlife. The town of Milo has historically not provided any youth recreation opportunities, preferring to leave it to the villages and County. Milo needs to share the expense of parks, playgrounds, & programs. We don't need any big box stores, but should support local merchants: Long/Morgan. Pay as you go! For some reason Keuka Lake and its surrounding area seems to get the lions share of concern and protection while Seneca Lake area is equally deserving. Living on the lake has limited benefits in regards to our high taxes. Snow plowing is overdone. Cinders are a hazard to the lake. The dust from cinder could be considered a hazard to individuals as time goes by. Cinders ruin the paint on cars and filter into homes. It needs to be changed especially on our lake road. Consider more areas for retail development to benefit the tourism industry and the needs of both local residents and the lakefront owners, many of whom have greater "disposable" income. Consider shared services if not already (with Yates County or neighboring towns). Please reinvestigate a municipal water system for the town, and eventually a sewer system. 1. Wind farms would ruin the character and attraction of the towns. We are strongly opposed. 2. Paving roads with oil and stone is hard for bicycling and less safe for driving than asphalt. No wind farms - A small convenience store is needed on Rt 14 now that the one at 14 and 54 has closed - this includes gasoline. 2. A marina with a gas dock is also needed. There is no place for boaters to fuel up on Seneca lake from Geneva to Watkins Glen. Make sure the voters agree before spending our money. Who paid (or will pay) for the "engineering" of the proposed Himrod Water Expansion that the voters did not have a chance to vote on, and, in fact didn't even know about it! If population gets larger (Seneca Lake) water may be worth considering. With all the money people have put into leach fields I don't see sewer as a need, except for the people who are now using the "55 gallon barrel" approach and dump into the lake. Clean & easily obtained potable water should be the right of all citizens of Milo. All proposals by the Town should be available to the public to vote on and not decided by a few people. The results are preplanned by the Town and at that time presented to the public. Let's all work together as residents of the Town of Milo. 1. Who are living on the 80's retirement income and want to keep their house will be forced to sell. 2. More handicap parking on Main St - I am handicap - walking a problem - cannot shop on Main St as I cannot park close enough to walk. My biggest grip is the telephone book for area - Dundee is sensible and ?/Geneva does not list County business. So many times I have tried to find plumber, electrician, painter etc. If you don't know the people's name you are out of luck. In the 13 years we have been here trying to find help keeping on line someone is a problem. Rates are high - workmanship is good in some people, terrible in others. Have had better luck hiring people from Schuyler County or Elmira. Need clothing store, shoe store, cannot buy towels, curtains, & bedding, in Penn Yan. Residential lake front properties are being assessed much higher than commercial lakefront in the same neighborhood. Commercial is not at true full market value. Mobile homes are not assessed even close to sales prices in lake front parks. Zoning laws are not being followed and enforced, much worse since 2001. Property owners are not being notified of variance requests within 500 feet. Businesses should not be allowed loud outdoor entertainment that is disruptive and offensive to neighborhood. Too many unlicensed vehicles on roads (Golf carts etc.). As long as you keep raising assessments, the town should adopt a policy where they would guarantee to purchase that property at the assessed value once you have forced the homeowner to sell because he can no longer afford the taxes. Roads, traffic, compatibility of tourism, wine industry, agriculture & residential development.


Page D - 72

Truck Traffic on Rt 14 very dangerous with all wine traffic. Limit usage by diverting to 14A. The following two issues might discourage people wanting to retire or stay in this area: 1. High-speed boats (cigar type) have become a serious noise problem. Conversation in our homes has become impossible when they are on Seneca Lake. 2. Visitors leaving wineries driving erratically has now become a very serious problem in this area too. DUI enforcement necessary. Listening to the citizens and communicating with them on a regular basis. It is my understanding hat there were subcommittees formed to meet about these issues and I'm concerned that these larger groups haven’t met in quite some time. A survey shouldn't be used to replace the opinions of those who actual were concerned enough to show up at meetings. It seem like the town spends too much time trying to regulate things that aren't problems and that people aren’t complaining about. Although the issues in this survey might be important, they are not important enough to justify the type of significant regulation some people on the Town boards seem to be pushing for. Board members should remember that they are supposed to represent the people in the town – not just their own interests. - Stop wasting taxpayers (hard-earned $) - Stop plowing & sanding - salting bare roads! - Stop the school district's wasteful agenda! - Fix the roads? - I'd like to see the results. None. 1. I would object to creating the Horizon Business Park but now that it is there, make the most of it w/ businesses that enhance other assets, esp. ag. Alternative energy manufacturing for local use. 2. Farming practices should be compatible with current neighbors - right to farm does not equal right to do anything regardless of impact. Leave the industrial animal confinement model behind - encourage more progressive and profitable practices. Thanks for the opportunity to provide input. Exclude Puppy Mills from entire area- In general I am happy with the area. Thank you! Stop urban sprawl. Make it easier and more attractive for small to large business, both industrial, retail, & manufacturing. No good jobs are available without these businesses. Work faster and more efficiently to approve business growth. Expand the water district to more rural businesses - including the windmill. Keep the area safe for our children- no adult 'entertainment' businesses. While lines on all road edges. Make better use of empty business buildings. Penn Yan street repair. Keep Soldiers & Sailors Hospital open, serving, labs, etc. Better interaction with our Mennonite neighbors. I sometimes wonder how long there can be farms sold and divided into 2 or 3 parts and 30 or 40 cows put on each. Many times 1 to 2 acres per cow. Where is the waste going to go? There should be a way to dispose of hazardous waste materials. N/A The highway department needs to clean out ditches more frequently. Assessor needs to be more available & responsive. Special attention for seniors (phones, utilities, snow plowing for ambulance entry). I think the town needs shops for our basic needs like shoes and clothing. At this point we have to go to Geneva or Bath for those necessities. Taxes took too big a step this year when no improvements were made. A small Wal-Mart or store you can buy clothing & shoes. Notice! I'm a Dairy Farmer up to my neck in debt. :) No more Drug Stores! If businesses come in - they need to maintain the appearance of that property. I.e. China Buffet - yuck…. Why allow companies to be taxed different for yrs.? And they need to hire people in Yates County to work in business set here in Yates. Lets see..come on in - set up shop - we wont tax you State ok locally for 6 yrs or better and you can hire anyone outside our County!! This is a huge problem and does NOTHING for our local economy on many levels! - Work closer with telecommunication companies to expand access to rural communities - providing DSL/high speed internet. - Speed up the process to allow more commercial business in the area/hold special meetings with planning board if necessary to make approvals / changes faster and more efficiently. - With the new Community Center coming soon, the library does not need the elaborate expansion they proposed/ maybe remodel / would be smarter to save taxes. Continue to focus on agriculture and tourism. What we like most about Penn Yan area is not having so much development. We like small town living. We know we need jobs but seems Rochester is now Canandaigua & it’s creeping our way. We like things the way they are and do not believe residential and commercial development should be encouraged. It does not seem


Page D - 73

to be helping with taxes, maybe making them worse. And not helping to preserve the beauty of the area. What we like most about Penn Yan area is not having so much development. We like small town living. We know we need jobs but seems Rochester is now Canandaigua & it’s creeping our way. Close down the Puppy Mills. They make Yates County look real bad. They are not needed. Area on Liberty ST - south of Aldi's - would be a perfect location for an eatery. What about Ponderosa, Wendy's Friendly's type of restaurant? McDonald's the only …….Travelers need a choice. Bring jobs into the area. Stores such as clothing and good grocery stores. Hold down cost as looking into other fuels. Bring them into the area for all to use. Not at this time. Get rid of Judges position in Town of Milo, waste of money & times - give to Penn Yan Courts. Tractor Trailers can't make it bridge "No Signs" constantly backing up & rerouting- Please call 243-5356 re: T&T turn around. 1. C.O. should be meet in person. 2. Dog warden needs to enforce leash law. 3. Harrison & PY-Himrod Rd needs to be changed - danger exiting & entering. 4. Signs need to be place for tractor & trailers stating, "Bridge is too low." No. No comments made. Himrod needs a playground to accommodate the large number of children. There is currently nothing for them to do in the town during brakes, vacations, and after school. Streets in Pen Yan definitely need improvement. I feel the town of Milo not allowing mobile homes on individual lots is inappropriate. There are very nice mobile homes out there and provide a economical means for some people to own their own home. If the home is HUD approved it should be allowed! Build a pedestrian pier on the lakefront like Skaneateles. -Railroads should be strengthened - supported across NYS & U.S. - Shared services - how can towns and county share services - i.e.: highway dept. - do we need 9 town highways & 1 county. - Town assessor or county wide. - Justice: do we need co – town & village. Probably others with multiple levels. - Businesses that make Milo & Yates a destination and then leave. - Sales tax shared between county and town. - "Green" incentive for property owners - incentives for environmental stewardship - agriculture, business, homeowner. – Renewable energy projects. Law enforcement officers who come to Yates County for training sessions should obey the rules of the road like everyone else. So far this week, I have been tailgated, cut off, and passed in a no-passing zone. Seen many travel well over the speed limit, run stop signs. Are they an exception from the rules of the road? No Our taxes are too high - You are completely out of control! Taxes are forcing people out of their homes, especially Sr. citizens. It's a crime when people cannot afford to live in their own homes any longer. Pick up of yard debris in Town of Milo. Not just in town of PY We need an ordinance controlling loud music and profanity over loudspeakers. Let more fast food chains come in. Don't just have a McDonalds. Utilize some of the vacant properties instead of annexing property for new structures. Tourism & Agriculture drive this area. Protect & expand them. Drop taxes and bed taxes for inhabitants of community. Need to keep local people and tourists spending their money locally. Haven't had a decent department store or clothing store here in decades. Keep it Country! Compared to the Town of Torrey Plan - Your plan is more complete for the whole town - nice job. It is hard to cover all aspects of a large town such as Milo, but you have done a great job. Consider any zoning problems over the last 10 years are small and forgotten. Torrey has never clarified front yard and back yard on the lake. Simple problem to solve. Nice job people. Change speed limit on Stiles Road to 35 m.p.h. Availability to the lake for residents not living on Keuka or Seneca Lake. The Outlet trail is a hidden asset for Yates County - local and tourists. Don't commercialize it. Develop PUD plan. Untreated storm sewer in outlet. Outlet trail is nice, no more blacktop which breaks up, Public notice of when water gates get opened to draw in greater use via kayakers and hikers. Incentives to draw business back to Main street. Town and villages should work together more - both have qualified individuals. The Town of Milo Court - Village


Page D - 74

of Penn Yan Court - why 2 - pay one person to perform all the duties - they are all ready getting benefits and good pay? Don not allow puppy mills!!! No puppy mills or large scale kennels (whatever you want to call them). Yes we need to stop trying to turn the small Village of Penn Yan into a Big "High" Dollar City. Don't focus on tourist and their money and focus on the people who live here and their needs. Leave the individual property owners alone as long as they deep property clean & Neat. When an individual or group purchase businesses (Mobile)(Shur-Fine) They should have backing or an account to keep them going for 10 + Yrs. Now we have 3+ vacant businesses - or bldgs. Why should the landowner or home owner pay the brunt of taxes - Businesses should pay their fair share - Also town should pay their fair share for electric Why should We? What do we get for our taxes here at Lot 9 - We get show plowing on Townsend Rd. That’s it! No sewers, No water, No street lighting, no law patrols, but we still have to pay the taxes. That Villagers get - all that we do not - What’s Fair????? And I know its not going to stop. Taxes Taxes Taxes. How about the Town cutting back - Not on Services – (We get none anyhow) But on other things - What? Reduce wages, benefits, we had to. Please keep it rural! Keep it a rural area and do not law the rural residents to death with rules and regulations. Keep taxes low and the land overlooking Keuka Lake will develop soon and the number of houses should be controlled. No! On #60, how has the Bristol Harbor condo/town-houses (or whatever there is there now) worked out? I'm aware of the problems in Torrey, but have no problem with lake front development --e.g. the New Glen Harbor Hotel in Watkins, aforementioned Bristol Harbor. Could anything be learned from these? Thanks for the stamp! Keep it simple & fair to all. I believe the tourists visiting our area should be able to enjoy the natural beauty of this area without seeing 6 junk cars, 2 boats and multiple piles of trash, etc. in several yards in this area. Broken down farm equipment, falling down buildings should go. Freeze wages during this energy crisis. No but would be willing to provide additional input if asked about specific issues. Slow controlled growth is a positive goal. Consolidating like services with other levels of government is a must to help put a lid on increased property taxes. Save the farmers and the farms!! When improvement is needed only spend what you have yearly. Do a job only on the financing you have from year to year. Do not drive any more people from this area by taxing them. Go and get the rich not middle class or poor. Have more government audits done. Stop spending more than you have. Then raising the Happy taxes that make people move out of the area or State. People are struggling now to make ends meet. Give us a break. - Encourage Wind Farms. - Prevent puppy mills from forming or expanding. - Protecting the lake. - Prevent high density housing by lake & overlooking of lake. Attractive entrances into town from all directions, i.e.: Rt 54N: "Our lake heaters are on" sign at Red Jacket Park. Why? Trees/ shrubs. Think like a Visitor and what's attractive? The village's bone structure of 19th century buildings is attractive…….preserve and restore them. Think Hammondsport! Our greatest asset is Keuka Lake. Cherish it! Developing housing for the elderly. Small shopping areas not including $1.00 stores. Yes: Property upkeep in Penn Yan village. Property upkeep on Mays Hill Rd. near Ridge Rd. and outlet trail area. Liquid manure smell. Horse dumpings on roads and at Aldi's, etc. The Town should not let any more puppy mills in Yates Co. I am real do not like the Puppy Mills and the dog kennels. Services should be extended around lake. Exterior lights should be made to cut back by 1/2 after 10 PM +/-. Limit variances on lakeside property, i.e. - Houses are being rebuilt with very little setback from their neighbor or taking up entire lot. 1. Fairer distribution of taxes - throughout Town of Milo. 2. Discontinue Room Tax on lake front residents. 3. Protection of the Lake, Water Purity & Scenic. 4. Improvement of Recycle Centers.


Page D - 75

Keep the housing plan and zoning intact, i.e.: Not a piece here and there. Avoid sanitary sewer extensions. Need benches on Main St. Public Transit! Youth Activity Center. Continue encouragement of influx of commercial and environmentally clean manufacturing enterprises. Do what you can to eliminate this ridiculous and unfair occupancy tax I am forced to charge renters for the 5 weeks in the summer that I rent my cottage. My taxes have increased over 50% over the past 2 years to over $15,500.00 for property and school taxes. This is outrageous! I though Jesse James was dead. Obviously he's alive and well in Yates County. Come up with a plan where retired people are left alone tax wise and let the out-of-towners who pay three times of what a place is worth manage these high taxes. Lakeshore residences should have more town services due to the increased taxes that we pay (i.e.: water, sewer, etc.). Areas of Milo that are considered part of the wine trail should be required to maintain properties (not allowed to have junkyard conditions) - Residential and Commercial. Thank you for this opportunity to express our input. Work with adjoining towns to have continuity of development & zoning. Remember that this is not a densely populated city area that requires severe regulations. Connect severe regulations to Resort Residential areas and ALLOW farm areas to be less regulated. Why do I still have septic, no Public water, & no fire hydrant? I have paid lots of taxes and yet no services. Camp Cory is too loud - turn down the PA system!!! Some planes using the airport (private planes) are too loud - one in particular should be banned! Let's ban jet skis. Please do not change my address again! 80 continued: place to get off the side of the road. Concentrate on increasing the tax base. Prevent key-hole developments along the lakeshore. Avoid large residential developments except within the village. Strict code enforcement to assure fair assessments by being proactive in finding violators and by diligently verifying that actual construction does not exceed the limits imposed by the building permit. Not all owners of lakefront property (such as myself) are either wealthy or have inherited the property. It is a shame to see people who have had cottages for years being forced to sell them due to increasing taxes and assessments. It is also a shame that there is a "mindset" that town boards feel they can tax these properties because people will not want to lose the property. I don't get sewage/water/regular home services, etc., and I'm not complaining that I don't have them. I'm happy with my well and septic. I resent like hell that my taxes continue to escalate. MY children/grand children will never get to enjoy the cottage or inherit it. They can’t afford it. 80 Overflow: regardless of whether I hook up to the Himrod system or not. 81: I does seem the project proposed in Torrey is out of character for the area (townhouses). I would guard against this in Milo. Just received notice of re-assessment since raised in 2007. My understanding is this will be a yearly event. Definitely not happy about this. We lived on a private road, maintained by property owners, with no availability of public utilities nor cable and we can look forward to assessments increasing every year???? Priority tax base away from lake areas. - Need to extend utilities for housing & economic development areas. - Agriculture preservation. * - Outlet development - housing & commercial - this is a good place for townhouses & higher density, small shop, boardwalk, restaurants, etc. - More recreational opportunities. 1. No wind farms. 2. No hog farms. 3. Encourage clean, healthy farming, & light industry. Listen to its citizens. Cable should be available to more residents. Fine people shooting off fireworks creating dangerous fire hazards and injuries. It is understandable on 4th of July and Labor Day, but it is too frequent where my cottage is located. Also unleashed dogs are a problem on East Lake Rd. Private roads - zoning needs to be looked at and specific language giving town power to shut down road to local vehicles & pedestrian traffic needs to be removed! I guess I'm not clear how the Town of Milo impacts us. Being an owner on Keuka Lake east side 5 miles out of Penn Yan for 36 years. We have seen lots of changes. We were happy to get water & sewer but to see all the 'tear downs' replaced with mansions that look out of place is very sad. The dramatic increase in taxes. The inequity of assessments is frustrating & frightening & may force us to give up the cottage that our children & grandchildren love. I feel that the voice of the people is never heard up there. Increase retail business; lower tax rates.


Page D - 76

Develop the water and we will all prosper. Good farmland shouldn't be bought up for industry - land in Italy Hill & Barrington are marginal quality for farming - factories could be built there. Learning in our school is good - but there is a lack of discipline with the students in school. Our legislators should fix up buildings we have & not keep spending money for expensive buildings we can do without. We do not need a bed tax or more taxes stuck on every thing we do or have. Tourists will come to a place where they aren't taxed to death. Our zoning laws are way out of proportion for an area the size of the town of Milo – outside of village. Exorbitant taxation on lake front property. One day it will all be owned by the super rich. The Zoning Board of Appeals needs "teeth." Caving in to the variances requested by the builders of McMansions destroy the beauty of the lakefront. "Teeth" in town ordinances to ensure that people keep up house repair - roofing, paint - slumlords make a mockery of the town. 1. Land is a RESOURCE that once is developed - you will never have the raw resources again - it’s a time that land is a vanishing resource. If development is going to happen it should be done CAREFULLY, not looking solely with greed in mind. Do country and townspeople have a vote in what businesses come to town - i.e. Walgreens in a small town with several drug stores already - and now what percentage is Walgreen’s utilized? Empty store front n Main St. - and a clothing store that is closing - not there for 3 years – high end and many local people were unable to shop there. Why wasn’t a Target or a Kohl’s department store considered versus a Peebles? Not a true department store – and 1 in Geneva. And why do you think people shop out of town. Wal-Mart, Outlet Mall. And people will continue to shop there – despite gas prices – because more stores will be price conscious. 55 jobs were promised from the airport expansion – need honest manufacturing and industries. Closing the Airport. It exists for only a privileged few and has not that, I have seen, brought in one new business. It was a waste of taxpayers’ money and grants are the taxpayers' money. Give the land back to the farmers; they will make better use of it. I'll use this space to say that in my opinion the Town of Milo should reconstruct and reopen the Milo Mills Rd bridge for traffic, even at the expense of taxpayers. That is a road that would get a lot of horse and buggy traffic, with all the local Mennonites, thus sparing them a trip through Penn Yan (just an opinion). I bought property here because of the rural character of the area, the cleanliness of the lake, the lack of townhouses & large hotels in the area, and the lack of large businesses. I think the town should do all it can do to protect that atmosphere. No. Strong ordinance to ban "Keyholing " of lakefront properties, & ban on condos/other multifamily housing in lakefront areas. Don't think the cottage people can afford all the huge municipal buildings that seem built for a city the size of Rochester! Now 2008 (at the tail end of 2007) increase of 20% tax assessments during a slow economy is an outrageous move! Keep it up and you will have a tax revolt! Allow lake view development. More support of new businesses wanting to come in - Why are businesses only staying 3 years. Or less in P.Y.? Could it be the Village doesn't get behind them?? Yes!!! This NEVER changes! Why does everyone move away? Why is this a welfare county? All I ever hear around here is how to increase taxes/fees. Someone needs to focus on reducing the expense base/more efficient operations, even if there is a reduction in services. Keep town government out of as many projects as possible! There are numerous initiatives, such as the Community Center and Keuka Comfort Care, initially described as "private." Then we hear they are appealing to various governments for grants. This is yet another factor in the escalating taxes. We, among many of our neighbors, wonder if we can afford to continue living in the area in particular and NYS in general. A need to regulate manure storage. If all the town cares about is increased taxes so it can pay for things that really aren't needed and that tax revenue is raised unfairly on Lake residents, Milo, Penn Yan, & the state as a whole can forget about ANYBODY headed this way to live. Other states& municipalities are begging residents to move to their location - incentives - tax breaks, etc. The message in NY in general & Milo/Penn Yan in particular, is you're only welcome if you're willing to pay our outrageous taxes. I grew up in Penn Yan, enjoyed my youth here very much. Spent my summers mostly at our public parks. I remember a much different picture of our parks than we have now. Red Jacket had a level sloping beach with a sand bottom to it. Now it has stones which have been put there. It has mud in it water and the benches are


Page D - 77

falling ever due to age. I think its time to restore our parks. Some about Indian Pines. Also, something should be done to address the problem with the geese and ducks at the parks. You can’t even sit on the grass cause of droppings. Need to curb development outside of Penn Yan area. Over salting of secondary roads, could save money just by lowering speed limits and salting hills, intersections and curves. Don't agree that Peebles is a "good fit" FOR PY - TOO EXPENSIVE FOR THIS AREA - Only the wealthiest of customers will shop there. Young families/Mennonites/people w/ transportation problems / elderly living on a fixed income/single moms & so on. Something comparable to a Wise Buys or Big Lots, etc., would have been more practical. Too many teens congregating on streets, sidewalks & outside public buildings! Bars - As a woman, if I have to walk down the sidewalk to get to a business (such as Pickney’s) past a bar w/ men drinking & smoking on the sidewalk – I take my $’s outside Yates County. We should strive to keep lakefront property axes at a level where long term owners with average income can afford to stay and not be forced out by high taxes. Mega mansion owners do not truly support the local economy because they are there only a short period of time. Continued disproportionate share of taxes between lake owners & other residents will lead to more long time lake home owners having to sell their property. This could lead to loss of rural character of lakeshore. Lakeshore owners get very little services from the town or county for the very high taxes paid. Stimulate appropriate type of growth in the area. I'd like to see adult education offered at the high school in the evening. The opportunity to make Penn Yan a "Lake George" instead of a welfare appearing community. Controlled development. Keuka Lake Outlet development needs to be carefully planned to ensure that green space is preserved. Infrastructure improved to include underground power lines and updated sewer and water lines. Control storm water runoff from hillside and lakeside housing construction to preclude adding sediment into lakes. Lakeshore values have escalated, but the Keuka Lake bottom at the north end of the east branch continues to fill with polluting nutrient loaded sediment (8"-10" deep) that supports the growth of heavy weeds. Lakeshore property values should be commensurate with the quality of the lake where the said property is located. Walking and biking trails (off road) for all age groups is needed to promote fitness and well being. The Town of Geneva told homeowners to either clean up their property or they fined them for each unlicensed vehicle that sits in their yard or around their property. It's a bad reflection on the beautiful countryside to see around peoples homes look like junkyards! Get the damn thing done. You've been working on the thing for over 18 months. Focus on what the town needs to do to improve enforcement. Nothing in this plan will improve the town without effective enforcement of all codes and initiatives. This is a current problem and one that badly needs to be addressed. Don't know. I am very unhappy (as are my neighbors) regarding the rapid increase in property assessments and taxes on my property. My real estate taxes have doubled since I retired here in 2001. They were $7,700 then and will be over $15,000 next year. My mortgage payment jumped $868.00 per month to cover the increased taxes. FYI I will vote no on any tax increase proposal I can be - school, library or whatever. I have been told that challenging these increase(s) is a waste of time. You should know that my long term plans to stay in the area have now changed. I also believe they have changed dramatically for others in Milo that live on the lake. FYI, I have heard some very insensitive comments from local legislature members regarding the need for such increases. WE love the area, but this approach to tax increase(s) is, in my opinion, unfair and poorly implemented. If it continues we will be leaving the area. W.J. Schrouder. This is our second season on Seneca Lake. Our cabin is off of Hall Road (3583 Vineyard Rd.). We appreciate the convenience of the Sunoco Station on Rt 14. It is unfortunate that one can't charge gas there anymore. Finding gas stations in the area is somewhat of a hassle. The Sunoco Station provides excellent automotive & boat/motor repair service. It would be nice if there were more restaurants on Rt 14 & lakeside. We do go to Rainbow Cove & the Showboat. It would be great to have more variety nearby. Thank you! Not at this time. 1. Provide safe biking/walking paths along Rt 54. 2. Development of the North end of the Lake (Keuka) must be a priority. 3. Development of green space and uniform attractive architecture of buildings in town is very important. 4. The Planning Board MUST decide what the town's long-term aspiration is: Skaneateles, Canandaigua, Geneva, Bath??? Keeping this area a rural area but still trying to develop some industries-has to be a balancing act.


Page D - 78

Do zero based budgeting. Bring taxes down. Protect from steep slope development. Preserve and protect the lake. It is time for a junk vehicle law - one that also regulates junk farm vehicles and trash piles. Strongly regulate uphill development & that around the lake. Bring taxes down - people are moving away. I think it’s important to protect our farmland from random urban development. Lot coverage and building height restrictions on East Lake Road are antique and need to be revised now that water and sewer are in. These restrictions need to be relaxed. I think you need to think about how Penn Yan should look. I know the village has its own gov't., etc. but if it is located in the Town of Milo, please exert some influence and stop building drug stores, parking lots, & gas stations. The town used to be beautiful. ENFORCE EXISTING CODES! Storm water runoff & water drainage in general is a major concern due to the hillside developments. Please enforce to code drainage issues. We still are suffering from runoff above us on the hill. Surveys should include deadline for submission. Submitted by a Commercial business.

Comments on Specific Questions (Written on survey)

Q1: Across street, no frontage. Q1: Near Himrod. Q1: Between Second Milo and village. Q1: Just outside village. Q1: Also own a business in the village of Penn Yan. Q1: Near airport. Q1: We live in Milo for 6 mos. And in Florida for 6 mos. Q1: Baker Rd. Q2: Retire there in couple of years, now seasonal. Q2: Summer resident (June - September). Q2: Own a Seasonal Cottage on Seneca Lake. Q2: Live in Milo a minimum of 1 week per month. Q2: Lakeshore cottage used 3 months per year. Q3: I live in Elmira, NY. I am the daughter of Clarence F. Peck, Sr. to whom this survey is addressed. He left me the cottage he built on Seneca Lake and I now let my younger relatives enjoy it in the summer although I pay the taxes. Q3: Owned the land since 1949, summer Cottage 1950-1995, built new house in 1995-1996. Q3: I have owned my current residence between 10 and 20 years, but it’s been in the family more than 50 years. Q3: Owned property here since1973. Q3: Wife lived here between 30 & 50 years. Q3: Owned between 30 & 50 years. Q3: Spent summers here for more than 50 years. Q3: Owned property for 34 years, lived there between 10 & 20 years. Q3: Owned my property for more than 50 years. Q4: I do not charge them any rent Q4: G: 3 daughters, I: mother (life time use) Q4: Summers (between 50 & 70 years). Q5: Where is the park? Q5: New York State is unfriendly to businesses. It is why business is leaving NYS…. Q5: If living wages are available. Q5: Should be country.


Page D - 79

Q5: Get the average job to pay above minimum wage. The business owners reap the $ while employees struggle. Q5: Utilize existing locations & buildings first. Q5: More support of New Businesses!!! Q6C: Are you kidding? Q6E: What job market? Q6E: Disgusting. Q6E: What market? Q6E: NOT! -10. Q6K: Except for high taxes!! Q6K: Was until you raised taxes. Q6K: Taxes. Q6K: Except for taxes. Q6J: HA! Q6J: ?! Q6N: NONE! -10. Q6P: Huh! Q6P: ? Q6Q: Disadvantages: poor low income, no advancement, good jobs go to friends. Q7: In regard to former Code Enforcement Officer. Q7: No experience with new one. Traded one trooper for another. Q8: Have not met with new Code Officer. Q9 &10: (Except for one person). Q18: Personally. Q19: By observation & attendance. Q19: ? Q20: Taste of Municipal water is horrible. Q20: Expansion project in Himrod not good. Q20: Has too much help. Q21: Has too much help. Q24: Past meetings. Q25: Potholes. Q25: Better roads than in P.Y. Q26: 54A Q26: Route 54 has too many potholes. Q27: North Main St.!!! Q28: No tar & stone! Q29: Too High. Q29-34: NYS DEBT LEVELS WILL CAUSE SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN THE NEAR FUTURE, 5-10 YRS. I'D ADVISE LESS GOV'T - ATTRITION ETC. So much so I'm thinking about moving. Q29-34: The amount/% of real business’s making real products relative to service industries and government in NYS is unsupportable and totally out of control. It will fail soon! Q29-34: Taxes too HIGH! Q30: Too High. Q33: Late too high in ag. area. Q37: Why allow it at al? Q74: just forbid it. Q38: or eliminated. Q38: And Golf Course. Q38: How would that be done?


Page D - 80

Q39: (cancer). Q39: Too vague. Q39: If you call junk cars & trash character….NO. Q40: Too vague. Q40: Including wineries. Q41: Too Much light or too little? Waste of Power? Or? Q41: Too much Q41: Not a problem for us. Q41: Rural. Q42: Dry material burns fine – wet stuff is just stupid? Q42: In village. Q43: and compost. Q43: Cost of chipping? Q43: Is there one at Indian Pines? Q45: Not Wal-Mart size, Peebles good. Q45: Hasn't this already been asked? Q46: (cancer). Q46: Towards Dundee. Q46: Space is available in the Keuka Business park. Why aren’t those places utilized to maximum capacity? Q46: Some commercial. Q46: It depends. Q46-49: The key is to have a balance. Q48: gas station especially. Q48: Space is available in the Keuka Business park. Why aren’t those places utilized to maximum capacity? Q48: Some commercial. Q50: I think they could go help farmers. Q50: If you mean parks, I strongly agree. Q50: Our obligation as a town is to educate our children, not entertain them. The sums spent on athletics in P.Y. are out of proportion to community resources. Q50 & 51: YCRR. Q51: If you mean parks, I strongly agree. Q51: "Silver sneakers” regulation indoor swimming for Senior Citizens. Q51: If it is a public swimming pool! Q52: & Lower seasonal rates. Q52: But not on farmland. Q52: When needed. Q53: Public focus needed. Q54: Public focus needed. Q55: Public focus needed. Q58: not all. Q58: Wal-Mart? Q58: Any businesses belong in the Village of Penn Yan. Q59: Would have to know where first. Q60: If sewage is properly handled. Q62: Some. Q62: Service. Q62: Depends on type. Q62: Except for dept. store. Q63: Shur Fine?


Page D - 81

Q63: Service. Q63: 1 More. Q63: Need one good one. Q63: Save-A-Lot! Q64: Service. Q65: (SPEED) YES! Q65: Problem with behavior on the 4th of July! Number 65 is not very well thought out - these are the folks keeping your town & schools alive. Reword the question! Most of your questions say - We don't want growth or change - just your tax money. Q65: Not the behavior, just traffic & noise. Q65: renters only. Q65: Rental Property is problematic. Q65: Lake users, seasonal or local! Q66: Racing up & down road of Himrod -Penn Yan Rd., don't go the speed - They Fly-- Q66: Not at the time. Q66: Airport Noise. Q66: Rental Property is problematic. Q66: Rarely. Q67: Feral cat problem. Q67: No one enforces leash law!!!!! Q67: Cats. Q67: Rarely. Q68: Several times each year (Pigs) Q68: Sometimes can smell fertilizer. Q68: (not regularly) Q68: Agriculture is needed here – an ulterior motive here? Land zoned agriculture, residential – persons who build should already know what that entitles –do one’s homework. What is town’s plan – are you going towards ultimate tourism recreation development. You have a large percentage of farms already here and upcoming Mennonite farmers here to stay. Q68: Occasionally. Q68: But expected. Q69: What industry? Q70: Limit the number of Trailers. Q72: Agree - but only in proper areas. Q72: Ridiculous – Alternative methods are needed. Q72: Possibly in fields far from lakes and main roads. Q72: Believe in it - concerned about effect on values. Q74: Not just farmers.. Q75: (Village) Q75: Not subsidized. Q75: Handicap housing. Q76: Need fee for usage.

Written Survey Responses From Penn Yan Village Respondents

Page D - 82

Question 6Q: Other (reason for living here) Rank Reason stated:

4 4 Marriage relocation 4 Proximity to Colleges 2 High crime rate. 5 High taxes -1 Have lived here 5 Bought business in Penn Yan 5 Recreational 5 Close to job 5 Husband's work in 1956 5 1 3 Friendly 5 Environmentally aware 5 Good rate on electricity 1 Only rental available when needed turned out VERY 5 My job (vs. the "market") 3 Good place to raise family 5 Good environment for raising children 5 0 No reason 5 Protection/Friendly 5 Taxes 5 Retired from work here 5 Is a caring & friendly community 4 Fresh water in abundance 1 Home prior to retirement. Felt established, no 4 College near by 5 5 Near my job 5 Zoning regulations 5 Zoning regulations 5 3 Electric Rates 4 Good weather (4 seasons) 5 More young family appeal. 5 My 13 year old wants to finish school here. 3 Friendly people, community efforts as a whole. 5 3 Friendly People. 5 Work relocation. 5 5 People


Page D - 83


Main St. in the Village On 14A going south into the Village around Stape Rd. The old County Courthouse Esperanza and the Bluff Coming into town from Benton Center on Rout 14A. The Lake from Red Jacket Park. Any view of the Lakes. Looking across the lake from the Old Bath Rd. by the airport and looking south. Keuka Lake from Red Jacket Park. Of Keuka Lake. Coming in from the South. ? Maple trees on residential streets - "rural" flavor of downtown. Overlooking Keuka Lake from the Old Bath Rd. Seneca Lake sunrises. Farm fields. Flowering trees. Main St & my property at 128A Garfield I don't have one Leaving it. Indian Pines - looking up the lake. There is none. Keuka Lake. Lowering of Property taxes. Looking at our beautiful Lake from empty lot on Lake St, near Knapp and Schlappi Lumber. Looking north over the village from 14A Going up to any hill and looking down to the large area of water. At night when coming down Rt 14A from Geneva, all the lights and how pretty it looks. Keuka Lake from James Road. The view of Keuka Lake from Indian pines Park. Keuka Lake from Old Bath Rd. Lakes & tourist - low crime. The Outlet Trail. Anywhere I can see Keuka Lake. Keuka Lake The school system - Clinton St. - Hillcrest, Orchard Lane, Sunset, Crescent Drive. Any good view of the lake. Lake views and also hills surrounding. Birkett Mills Main St. Keuka College, Keuka Lake from Coates Road or above. Houses on East Main from Bridge to Cider Mill. Houses on Main and North Main from post Office to 14A. Where I live. Coming into town on 14A Top of Barrington Hill looking at or trying to see both lakes. Lake Keuka Lake Main Street with the Red Bud trees in bloom.


Page D - 84

Keuka Lake views. BLUFF Point. Courthouse. Main Street at & during Christmas. Rt 14 Wine stops, vineyards, & Lake View of Lake from East Lake Rd. Driving into town from Guyanoga Road intersection. The new athletic field. The view of the trees when in bloom. Lilacs trees. Smells great. Everything is green and Beautiful. The Lake and agriculture. Coming down off Benton Hill & views of Lake Along the Outlet Rod (the waterfalls) Downtown Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter The view coming down into town - north & south - on 14A. Also old storefronts. Lake view and hillsides. Outlet Trail Overlooking the vineyards, farms, & lake from a hilltop. The Lake The 1st green from Lakeside Country Club. The outlet from Bridge, Main St, by Birkett Mills. Around the Courtyard and Court House. Mini park - New village Offices. Of the lake @ Indian Pines Park Seeing good people smiling and or saying Hello and having stores and drug stores easy access. Keuka Lake from Old Bath Rod. Area. Keuka Lake The great views of our lake and countryside. Right down east Elm Street from our house (316 East Elm) The view of Keuka Lake from the East Lake Road and the West Lake Road. Water falls on Outlet Trail. Keuka Lake Trees on Main Street, and decorations at Christmas. Driving down Main St. and observing the new trees planted 0 a big improvement. The highest point on Milo Center Road. Down town Penn Yan in the Spring when the trees are in bloom. From Sarasins over the lake. Looking out over the village & lake from any of our many hills. Coming from Geneva on 14A nearing Penn Yan - the sky - the hills - beautiful My favorite view is from my own backyard! Birkett Mills from south east corner of the bank. Keuka Lake views from all sides of the lake. Court House is not a favorite. Saint Michael's from P & C parking lot. Clinton Street (upper) Flowering trees on Main St in blossom. Snowing on Star Shine evenings. Music on Court House lawn in summer under the beautiful old trees with cool breeze blowing. The view at the top of the hill 54A (Marbles) Arriving in PY on 14 A (Either way) Main St at night. Beautiful Farms Looking down the Outlet Trail. Upper Main St. looking east


Page D - 85

Coming into town on NYS 14A at top of hill looking at village & lake. The view of the valley as you come down 14A especially in the evening. Coming into town on 364 Views of the Lakes from the Hill tops Seeing entire village from Rt 14A coming into town from County Road. Coming into Town North Ave corner fabulous panorama Indian Pine Lake or Park. James Road overlooking the lake and hills. Keuka Lake and surrounding farmland. The lake lights sparkling at night as you approach from the area nearby. I Like the view of Keuka Lake from old Bath Rd. The bluff Lakeside Country Club - looking West Coming down County House Road - you can see all the way to the airport. Lake. Too bad no locals can afford to rent a cottage for a week though. Keuka Lake County House Rd by Sands Rd. intersection. Lake view World War Display I enjoy our town's sense of community and the helpfulness of neighbors and appointed authorities. Or do you mean aesthetically pleasing view? I love to watch the sunset over Keuka in the summer. The people and the lake. The "Outlet Trail" from Keuka Lake to Seneca Lake. Looking down lake from Indian Pines & walking up Outlet - New Court house & Village office buildings - make the Town look prosperous. Main St. from Chapel north - beautiful East Main St. Keuka Lake & Seneca Lakes Many spots along the outlet, Main St. Downtown. The lake The end of Keuka Lake by Sarrasins when the 2 barges are not there. The parks on the Lake - and No Bed Tax 0 it's enough for tourists to pay for gas to even come here. Bed tax 0 makes it discouraging. Top of County House Road. View of Keuka Lake from Indian pines and Red Jacket parks. Keuka Lake & Seneca Lake Outlet/Birkett Mills Area. Indian Pines & Red Jacket along the lake. Any view of the lake. Old Bath Road. The waterfalls along the Outlet Trail. Any area of Seneca Lake Views that overlook Keuka Lake High over Route 54 from Old Bath Rd. Keuka/Seneca Lakes Lake, Outlet Trail They're all fairly nice, especially the waterfront areas. Looking across south to north from 14A on Hill. Every season is beautiful. From Lakeside Country Club overlooking Keuka Lake. The lake The Lake.


Page D - 86

Coming into the village from the north. Rural areas Rural areas The lake. The lake from on the hills. Keuka Lake from Old Bath Rd. From 14A (Marbles) overlooking the Village. North Main & East Main Court House & County Buildings Keuka Lake Red Jacket Park. The lake - the hills. The water fall on the Outlet Trail You drive on some of the streets and flowers and trees are in bloom and its nice to say, hey I live here but. Churches San Hall Rd looking at Keuka Lake. Kids Little League park The outlet or vineyards down to lake. Airport 1. From my living room! (413 North Ave). 2. The Courthouse (old one) and Courtyard! 3. English friends said after a 10,000 trip of US in motor home - that coming into P.Y on Clinton was prettiest view of whole trip? The view from Indian pines looking out across the lake. Keuka Lake. Back of courthouse up North Main Street. Keuka Lake Keuka Lake from the Bluff Looking down Main Street at night. Lakeview Cemetery - the way it is maintained 0 especially the veteran’s section. Over looking the Village from the Old County House Rd. The lake. Looking out onto the lake. Down town. I have none. Coming from Benton Rt 14A into Penn Yan down the hill. The lake, Outlet Trail The lake from the Old Bath Rd. The "old" County Courthouse and its lawn. The view down the lake from Red Jacket Park. This year it was Main St. with the beautiful flowering trees. They are a big asset! County House Road near Wagers Farm Anywhere I can see the lake. The lake The outlet trail. Junk looking homes At night coming into town either way on 14A - the lights are pretty. Of Keuka Lake & Seneca Lake from highest viewing points. Driving down into the village with views of the lake. View of Seneca Lake. ? From home (413 North Ave.) Main Street


Page D - 87

Tree lined Clinton St. (Sans Potholes) entering Village. The Lake The high point of the Old Bath Road looking south over grape vineyards, a log house, and the lake. Just south of Elena & Leslie Church property. Looking up & down on Main St. North on 14A from the top of the hill. The view from the parks over looking the lake and from Old Bath Rd. as well as 54A towards Branchport. View of the Lake from the hills Coming into P.Y. by airport (Old Bath Rd) overlooking Keuka Lake. Entering the town from any direction. Keuka Lake Park. MAIN St. Lake views along Rte 54. Lake views from the golf course. My back yard due to our sweat to make it the most appealing place in the county. View from corner of Stiles & Per-emption. View from 14A toward Penn Yan from Dundee. View from 4A toward Penn Yan from Dundee Scenes from the Outlet Trail looking at the water. Keuka Lake Keuka Lake My own house (314 Clinton St). No opinion Keuka Lake. Looking down the lake toward bluff. Coming down the 14A hill into town. My home (206 Florence Ave) The trees right now on Main Street are so pretty. Most favorite view besides my own flowers would be my brother’s place over looking Seneca Lake in Himrod on the Hall Rd. The Lake. County House Rd. over Village. Benton Hill over Village. West Main Street at turn-off across from Marble’s Cars. 14A from Mac's Ice Cream. East Lake Road & West Lake Road along Keuka Lake. Coming down the hill from Sherman Hollow Rd. to Liberty St near S.S. Hospital. Also coming down the hill on Rt 14A from the North & viewing the Village of P.Y. down below. Keuka Lake. There is one!? What jobs there are, the wage is too low. Need higher paying jobs. Views from Red Jacket Park. Lake view from the two swimming parks. Looking south over the town on 14A. The pretty trees - Keuka Lake - the well kept up houses. Yates County Courthouse area. The lake and surrounding countryside. Don't have one. Village Park by Courthouse. View from Indian Pines Park looking south. View of Keuka Lake. People who keep the houses and yards with the flowers and trees. Any hilltop with a view of farms & fields & wooded areas. My favorite view in the town is the town all lit up at Christmas time.


Page D - 88

Quiet appeal. Lake Keuka. Keuka Lake. The lake. My home - my husband and I work hard to keep our home and property looking as good as we can make it look and we love our home. I don't have one. My back yard (149 Linden St.) - minus the run down Knofo house next door. North & South on 14A. Main St. The view from the state park on Keuka Lake. Across Keuka Lake. The sight of more jobs coming to the area. Outlet trail & Boat launch. From Rt 364, coming down hill into village, offers a good view of part of Town of Milo. Looking south near south end of Pre-Emption Road - hills & sky looking south down 54 south of Penn Yan - lake in winter, bluff. Being on a hill and seeing the lake and also the view of the village at night. Looking down the lake from Indian Pines. Bluff Point. North & east dirve & view of Keuka Lake. Coming down Sand Hill Road. Coming into town on 14A from south & seeing Village & Keuka Lake & rolling hills. Historic homes on Main Street. Entire Town at night on Rte 14A from north starting down hill to the hospital. Views of Keuka Lake, historic Main Street, and beautiful homes on N. Main St - Main Street. From the top of 14A North as I pass Marble's and can see the whole village. View of PY from top of hill on 14A - about Marble’s Auto. Overlook @ Esperanza Mansion. Driving south on 14A from Benton into town. Beautiful overview. Also - any place with a lake view - Red Jacket, Indian Pines. The outlet Trail is very nice - w/ some clean up & maintenance to the paved area it could be even better. I walk w/ a bag & always arrive home w? It's full of garbage. The Outlet Trail. Noting in town. Most beautiful view is up at Esperanza Mansion overlooking the Bluff! Coming down Clinton St. with all the pretty homes. Down Main Street with the trees blooming and hanging baskets. Old courthouse & lawn. Coming down County House Road. Outlet Trail and any views of the lake. Keuka Lake. My backyard (418 Court St.) Any place where Keuka Lake is involved - beautiful! Main Street - north side. Coming down on 14A coming toward hospital. Either of the Lakes. Coming down 14A into Village at night. Keuka Lake and coming from Dundee toward Penn Yan above baker Rd. - It's breath taking.


Page D - 89


Liberty St as you enter Penn Yan, it's terrible! All the misc. rubbish in the village shopping dist., most of all the cigarette butts in front & back of bars. Chapel St. Road, Beverage Baron--old building. Don't have one. Coming into town from Dresden on 54 The Dumping Station Run down streets and houses. Johnson, Sheppard, & Benham Street- very depressed. Looking down within its boundaries. Liberty/Lake Street - long lines of vehicles. Commercial buildings on Benham St. Elm Street housing from Birkett Mills to Cornwell. Garbage on side of roads. Junk cars - Homes not taken care of - Route 14 needs to be taken care of in summer, mowing, etc.!! The view off my back porch of the junk at 242 Elm St. Certain houses on Seneca St, Main St. between Court and Middle school, East Elm St. They are an eyesore and need to be cleaned up or torn down. Crappy houses 4 corners at late night - people standing around doing nothing. Our big new Court House. We are not a city! None Higher taxes with nothing to show for it! Corner of Brown and Lake: old Beverage Barron building. Looking east down Seneca St. from Main St. Do not have any All the welfare recipients buying junk on their food stamps or buying $90 worth of fresh lobster on food stamps. Houses that look like Junkyards. Trash along outlet trail. Wouldn't even know where to start! I don't really have one. ? "Junkyard" living. Liberty St from hospital to Lake St., although I believe it is getting better - It surely does not give a good impression to those driving through or coming to visit. Trash and old cars in yards. Trash and old cars in yards, and run down buildings. The junk along the nature trail Seneca Street Empty store fronts main St. Houses on Liberty from Hospital to St. Marks. Seneca Street from Main to the yellow house at Pat's Memorial Garden & Moose Club. Dwellings with rubbish in yards - Don't have a least favorite since 3 or 4 houses came down on Lake St. Area around Lake Street Plaza. The new buildings with poor parking - Courthouse, Village of Penn Yan offices. Liberty Street housing near schools are not kept up in repair. Don't have one.


Page D - 90

Back side of Down town. Marcianda's trucking area. The Appleton Dump? Salt Tower in Himrod. Homes with junk & rubbish all around it. View east from parking lot. Empty stores on Main and Elm Streets. Yates County Court House. Didn't need it. Nobody benefits from it, except Falvey. The plaza in Penn Yan - and the Shur Fine - it's an eyesore. The rundown houses throughout the town. The kids hanging around on the street corners @ night. Empty Stores I don't have one Liberty St. housing from PYMS to hospital Non-consolidation of services. Driving down Liberty Street. Empty stores on Main Street. Poorly maintained property Old Beverage Baron on Lake St. The old warehouse on Benham Street. The Penn Yan boat factory. The area around the old Beverage Baron. The two homes across the street from me on Seneca Street (152 & 155) Liberty St. - coming into Penn Yan from the north is very sad! That is the first thing many people see coming here from 14A, and the empty retail stores on Main St. Under the Liberty St bridge - garbage, graffiti, junk in water. N/A Look at debris in the outlet and bridges. Old fallen down houses that need to be torn down. I like it all. Water Street and Lake Street in Penn Yan. Also Liberty Street. We have the nice hospital, Middle school, Court House and County buildings, but homes are not kept up. The transfer station Lake St in Penn Yan. Penn Yan streets - Empty buildings in dilapidated repair. Are people letting this happen so their taxes wont go up more? I paid $5,399.91 Local taxes in 2007 and I get this. The vacant salt mine towers in Himrod. By the outlet by town (village) The unfinished project to the old wine cellar on the corner of Liberty & Lake streets. The old buildings down Main St - old is ok - Just fix up. The dilapidated houses on the main roads like the one across the street from us, with sagging roof and the clapboards falling off. South bank across from boat launch Court House - House on Elm Street - Seneca Street ugly. Empty buildings on Water Street (Carey's) Junk, kids toys, trash & cars parked on front lawns. Liberty Street. Fridays traffic in July & August mid day. But they bring money so you’ll put up with it. I try to get all shopping done by Thursday noon in summer. The houses along Liberty St coming into Town. Water St off Liberty Fox Mill Road - rubbish They all look good to me - 320 Elm St. - Seneca Street (south side) -- Main St on village court nite!!!


Page D - 91

Poor quality houses South end of Main Street with many unoccupied buildings. Liberty Street by the Middle school All of the roads that are in very poor condition 5 pint corner near Moose Club or the old building on Benham St. Lake St building on lake St tour now. The old winery on Liberty and Water St. which has never been completed. It was the 3 old houses on Lake Street Looking at all the debris in the channel My next door neighbor's "home" Lake Street Plaza to the corner of 14A. Brown Street, Liberty Street. The old sewage treatment Plant at the bottom of Cherry St. I really do not have one. The abandoned house in back of me on Liberty St. It should be torn down. I'm sick of looking at it through my kitchen window. Plus village homes that look run down & dumpy. Empty buildings in Penn Yan Seneca St from RR Tracks - Mill Houses that have junk in the front yard Empty Stores on Main Street My least favorite view is all the empty stores on Main Street. We really need a clothing retailer and possibly a Target type store. The junkyards around town. Some of the homes & lots & trailer trash that surrounds mobile homes. Along Outlet Rd. Milo. Don't have on- Unkempt houses and lawn. Sewage Plant overflow running into Keuka Lake Outlet. Liberty in large part and the intersection of Liberty, Brown, & Lake. Red Jacket Trailer Park area. Liberty Street houses. Many Main roads in and out of the village are "Run Down Apartments" that are not being taken care of. The old beverage Baron across from Best Western should be demolished 0 it's an eyesore 0 get rid of it. While walking Boat Launch, Indian Pine, Red Jacket --- The garbage build up… the broken fences; the lack of weed trimming,… These are fixable by staff (especially in Summer) that are already hired. Little league park - the swamp area Village - too many empty stores. Need to hire someone to address issue of making Main St. more attractive & inviting. The outlet Trail is a disgrace! The Keuka Street Boat launch needs docks maintained - Bumpers replaced. There is no view from places for viewing are now not viewable because of trees growing. Basically trees grow and look0outs should be chosen better. Some people's yards - "junk yards" Village Court on Main Street, P.Y. Empty buildings - no longer used and left to run down. Nice homes that have to live alongside a place that looks like a dump. Outlet Rd. near Mays Mills. The entrance to the Town via Rt 54A. Town barns, window shop - need decorative 'Welcome to P.Y. signs,' too.Some streets and neighborhoods could use some sprucing up. The building on North Water St. needs to be cleaned up & refaced. It doesn't look good for people out of town to see. Slum houses in the village (by the Middle Scholl). Messy yards in the Village (North Ave). Across the street from the Court House.


Page D - 92

Public beaches are not clean or cared for. Public beaches are not clean or cared for. I used to enjoy Indian Pines, but with the geese & duck taking over, it’s hard to walk around up there. Some of the Outlet Trail. Seneca St, P.Y. Mobil station - Top of Clinton & Cornwell St.. Store at corner of North Ave & Liberty. Down town area looks depressed Bad sidewalks. Run down houses 414 Liberty St. Trash around houses. Junk cars. Some parts of Seneca St. When you drive on Seneca St & Hamilton St it's a disgrace. Landlords as owners should be told to clean up or receive a fine. I don't have any. Water St in Penn Yan PY Boat Company. The rundown buildings. Unkempt homes - trash in yards - Dogs tied up & ignored. Lake St Liberty St - from Court House to North Ave - and North Ave from Main St to Benham St. Keuka Estates Trailer Park - its scummy looking and detracts from the view of the lake at Red Jacket. Penn Yan Boat site should be prime residential land. Corner of Brown up Lake Street to Plaza. Housing on Seneca St. The County Building. Even though beautiful, isn't there better ways to use our money!! Old Beverage Baron on corner of Lake & 54A. The run down look of Water Street! Seneca St. - West end. None. Yards not mowed. Cracked sidewalks. Lake St. is very dumpy looking. The outlet from Keuka Lake to Bridge on Main St. Liberty St houses - not a good indication of our town as visitors enter via 14A Vacant houses and other unkempt houses. Seneca Street Outlet trail garbage. Garbage at parks. Morton Salt area The County Court House Outlet Trail looks like a trash dump. The houses around the school on 14A Houses that are not kept up. Garbage & trash scattered around property. Slum lord housing, drug dealers, jobs leaving town. Seneca Street (Main to RR) old buildings. Clean up Outlet (tires) Of treatment plant from Himrod Rd. Some of the streets have housing problems of not keeping their homes in good condition. Don't know ? Old buildings not being used. Seneca St.


Page D - 93

Shepard St and area around Yates ARC Building (implement some green space). Landfill The crappy homes & properties just outside the village along the Outlet trail. McKinley apt. complex. View of the front of 112 Clinton Street Seneca Street. Houses across from Middle school. Some of the buildings that are deteriorating such as the Knapp Hotel, the building across the street. Most of all the Maiden lane buildings (the Arcade Building is Gross!! Along with the adjacent building) The Beverage Baron building on corner of Lake St. & Brown St. Birkett Mills needs painting. Seneca St. Junk in the front yards. I like them all! Un-maintained houses. Run-down housing on Liberty St. The vacant storefronts on Main St, the debris that remains in door yards in the town and village. Junk vehicles in back yards in Village. The new municipal & County buildings, totally overdone & unnecessary. The back of Carey's Lumber The back of Carey's Lumber. The bank on the Outlet Trail that is covered with metal debris. Liberty St & run down homes in village of PY ? Sloppy yards in the village. No opinion All the junk around a lot of houses in town & lots reported & not enforced. Also people not mowing lawns & cleaning up leaves in the fall. Let the inmates do this work & put it on their taxes. Private properties not maintained - lawns not mowed & peeling paint; trash, etc. sitting in lawns. Parts of Seneca St. Seneca Street, Wagner & Water Streets - the ugly bridges. Now that some of the old beat up houses are being torn down looks better. Coming down Liberty Street. If I was a visitor I'd keep going right out of town. The Plaza Streets - run down homes - yards full of junk - Lake St. Since I don't drive, don't believe I have noticed anything too offensive. Best Western in the rural Village of Penn Yan. Empty storefronts. Do not have one. Anything that spoils the beauty of our town. The empty stores on Main Street. Liberty Street has too many run down houses. None. Elm Street. My least favorite view in the town is all of the junk piled around people's houses and the run down apartment buildings! Fences. House not up to curb appeal. Seneca St. between red light and railroad tracks. The empty storefronts on MAIN Street, empty lot on Wagner Street & the old Beverage Barron area. The mess next door to us and across the street.


Page D - 94

Upper Liberty Street (14A) from the hospital south to South Ave. Terrible run down houses & unkempt properties. Places in town where the house and yards look worse than a junkyard due to laziness or neglect. Run down businesses & houses - my neighbors. Liberty St. The view of outlet water from Main Street small bridge. Clark Houses's house at 106 Stark Ave, village of Penn Yan. All the junky apartments on Main Street. Abandoned houses that should be torn down and junk in yards. Lake Street - both sides south of Liberty St. Himrod (all). The empty stores on Main Street. Looking over at Champlin Ave. from parking lot behind Long's, etc. Also the whole lower block of Main St. including Seneca St. to the street (? Name next to Trombley's). Park areas in town. The view along the river of the river & the town along the river. The Four Corners lf Lake & Brown (Hotel & P????? Properties are fine.) Run down houses on Liberty Street. Liberty Street& also Brown St. area - 3 houses across from Best Western. Liberty St from North Ave. to Elm. Seneca Street - looks so run down and vacant store fronts on Main St. Empty store fronts downtown. The old PY Boats complex along the outlet (I walk a lot!). Old run down houses on Liberty Street around school area. Lack of trees along Liberty St. It's bare & houses look run down. Also up Brown St! Trees would soften the aesthetic view. The potholes & general condition of the Road. Also the Apt. Bldg across the street is riddled w/ trash, old vehicles, & generally unkempt. The railroad mess by Morgan's Grocery. Not sure. Junk & old cars on property around town. Lake St. Seneca St. Unkempt houses and unkempt commercial buildings. Outlet between Liberty St. & Main St. Condition of parking lots. Empty buildings. Marchonda Trucking - JUNKYARD on property in the middle of town. Eyesore for neighbors bordering property.Coming into town on Liberty Street. Main Street where there are many empty storefronts & on north end of Liberty Street, there are many empty, run-down houses - an eyesore of entrance to town. Appleton's Recycling/Trash Center. Keuka Lake was so beautiful - now trees obscure that view. Coming into Penn Yan from Benton on 14A: The condition of some of the homes is not a good impression.


Page D - 95


Dilapidated housing Not having the funds to maintain both the village and the town. Yeah, try to make this a better town. No. Taxes-cost of municipal services-infrastructure Poor people. Homeless people. Hungry people. Keeping taxes at a reasonable level. Economics of its residents is poor and it affects their quality of life (housing, clothing & retail). Providing adequate services to its residents at a reasonable cost. Contentious question - What group forces an issue to greatness in the town of Milo? The incumbent or the constituent? Being very careful about commercial sprawl outside village limits. Keeping the rural aspects. Protecting environment and keeping area vital for business. Run down property, knowing that residents can't afford to fix up their property - Limited funds. Bringing development 0 stores 0 work places in 0 keeping taxes down. Taxes People say, "Support the local economy." We can't do that without proper stores. Infrastructure! Tourism dollars that supposedly helps us but doesn't as far as I'm concerned. Spending - people can only pay so much with the costs of everything going higher. Don't need to push people from the area. The way things are run in the Town and Village. Don't know Over regulation and high taxes. Water Quality and Roads. Lack of Industry. Taxes, unemployment. Taxes are to high for services provided. Keeping taxes low. Financial collapse - take vacant houses and fix them so there are more places for people who have lived here a long time can find decent housing. Road repair - Main St. Not enough Retail stores. Restaurants open on Sunday. Rising property taxes along with general cost of living inflation. 1. Taxes. 2. Employment. Penn Yan Village streets - the condition of 70% of the side streets are unacceptable - never seen worse! Economy & lower income families trying to make something of themselves. Empty storefronts in downtown Penn Yan Library expansion - Doesn't need to be so expensive. Keeping taxes down for senior citizens Making taxes and facilities senior friendly. The water quality I don't know. Balance your budget and get out of any debt. Start a savings account. More consideration given to modest income tax payers - not welfare - Roads in Village of Penn Yan.


Page D - 96

Put Welfare clients to work. Too much fraud going unnoticed. Proper assessment of lake property. Taxes. Taxes increasing The street repairs Taxes Lack of manufacturing, industrial for tax base and employment. Increasing taxes, Need for new stores-something comparable to the old Ames Store. Taxes (slavery) Raise taxes (inflation) Food Prices go up. Farmers can't survive. Forced to sell or they loose Farm. No Food, No Family or Child should go without Food or Be Denied. Not sure. (Jobs) Keeping taxes down & keeping streets repaired. I don't know Honesty to residents. Taxes. Consolidation of services - Re Highway, Police, Water, sewer. Keep spending down. Keeping our heads above water - as to taxes, expenses and such - so many on limited income. High quality industrial jobs are needed. Roads Activity Centers for all ages. Drinking water quality. Taxes, employment, economic development Bringing downtown to life. Sell of drugs - in town and around the school. Bringing retail or manufacturing business here to help lighten the tax burden on the existing property owners, as with the village & county - same issue! Lack of activities for youth & adults. Lack of jobs 0 boredom & depression. All there is - is bars & bowling = (alcohol) N/A Not jobs to keep people in the area. The exorbitant property taxes Taxes. Not sure Complete corporation. Employment and we are very much in need of a department store that carries a variety of merchandise. Consolidation with neighboring towns to eliminate itself 0 duplication, duplication, duplication. Be an example and the fist to let go and stop being territorial. Streets repaired and we need to encourage Big Business Retailers to bring people to our area to shop. Fixing streets and getting more businesses to open. We need retail clothing and shoe stores. Maintain rural character. Lack of industry - not just the Town of Milo but the area. Yates County, all county towns and villages. We need industry that pays in excess of $15.00 per hour to provide growth. The lack of support from residents to further growth of industry and housing in this area, thereby reducing the tax burden on us all. Need better paying jobs Over planning without the finances to carry through. Taxes Keeping a decent level of services in an environmentally sensitive way while not raising taxes. Taxes, roads


Page D - 97

Do not really know Lack of good paying jobs in area. High taxes No Jobs Getting people to keep their properties in good repair. There should be twice a year pick up of appliances & large items that people don't dispose of. Fixing the roads. Having business fix up outside areas. ? Rising taxes. Need more jobs - Taxes Make a rural living experience affordable despite property values on the lake. 1. Providing services while keeping taxes low. 2. Encouraging expansion of industry. Keeping the integrity of the visual and physical resources 0 trees, hills, blue lakes, well kept vineyards and farms and people who care for each other. Economic development - jobs! Property taxes becoming unaffordable ? Lakes The limited services we receive for the taxes we pay. Streets for example, are in terrible condition!!!!! Bring in new revenue into town & clean up along the Outlet Trail. Expansion Not enough shopping or family restaurants Managing & capitalizing on tourism Development & Infrastructure The disrespect of law enforcement for individual civil rights, and the inequities in enforcement between the village and the county. Seeming total lack of checks & balances, particularly for PY PD. High taxes. Jobs, road conditions Not enough good paying jobs Condition of Village Streets Not enough jobs for our kids The greatest issue is encouraging economic growth while maintaining our rural atmosphere. I believe with some effort, people will travel to Penn Yan to shop instead of leaving PY to shop. Roads. Getting a good working sewage system, "Puppy mills,” Hog farms - Kennels, dogs barking. Growth - blending our quaintness with the necessity for change & growth. Taxes, infrastructure There's no place to buy a last minute birthday for children or any retail items. There's no competition except fro drug stores. Nice How there is only 3 lines to Answer here0 so short & Sweet. Hello - WE DUMP RAW SEAGE INTO THE OUTLET!!!! A lot of these questions deal with cleaning up this or fixing this eyesore, etc., etc. How can the Town & Village of Penn Yan bring so many Condition of the roads. It is killing cars, seriously. Developing the town to meet present & future needs without losing the charm & quaintness of area. How do you get the biggest "BANG" for your dollars take time AND RESEARCH. The lakefront between Sarrison's and old boat factory - extend the park - save for our own village people. Quality of water, the salvation of the Hospital; Improvement of Emergency Services especially as our town swells to 12-15 thousand in the summer. Employment - everyone has to leave to find better paying jobs. Keeping taxes down but bringing in business. Really need a retail-clothing store. Very important. Increasing the tax base to lower property taxes.


Page D - 98

Parks are less enjoyable because of many geese droppings. Cannot enjoy walking there or children playing in the grass. Growth Lack of employment. More businesses. Taxes continue to rise. I'm a senior citizen. Windmills appearing on the landscape. Poorly built modular houses. Our lack of an affordable dept. store. Peebles is too high priced for the majority of residents. Getting road & street repaired. The lack of forward thinking, visions for the future and those who put up road blocks for the future of area or environs. Housing. I really believe that all landowners in the town of Milo should be treated equally!! No one should be denied privileges that others enjoy. Personalities should not enter into decisions made by the town. Keeping taxes down. Keeping taxes down. We need Lower taxes. The lack of good paying jobs due to the decrease of factories in area. Urban sprawl Taxes. Lack of Jobs. Taxes Need a department store - like Target, Wal-Mart, etc. Gangs of teenagers. So many young pregnant girls. Loud music (cars). Taxes, Nowhere to buy clothes, you have to go to Geneva or Watkins Glen (why). A lot of people are elderly and don't have transportation or any one to take them I don't know. Too many houses built along Keuka Lake shoreline. Safety for children No department store - & Bob Hawley. Rural enhancement Keeping expenses and taxes down while still providing decent services - not extravagant! Finding a way for the new lakeside resort & development project to pass & go through. It would be beneficial to bring in economic impact to Penn Yan. Consolidating government functions: road, sewage, water, etc. Taxes. Need a department store that all residents can afford to shop at that carries all kinds of merchandise so we don't have to travel. ? Utilities & taxes going up. No opportunity for young people. More businesses to bring in more or keep more tax dollars here. Streets Sewers, water mains. Road repair - infrastructure. All streets & roads. Too may buildings & offices being built instead of fixing up the original ones or using ones already here and letting them just go unused. Not enough factories for people to work. Re-paving streets. Settling issues concerning Plaza traffic. Repairing the streets and sidewalks. No opinion Gas prices, pollution Maintaining a healthy balance between development (increased tax base) and "rural character" - natural beauty.Keeping CAFO's out - Correcting our sewer system and more storm drains are needed, at least in the part of town where I live -Our


Page D - 99

land floods easily! (Sunset Lane area).

Taxes!! We desperately need a large retailer like "Target, K-mart, Wal-Mart, etc." I am sick of having to drive to Geneva or Canandaigua to shop. The same for groceries. Jobs. Making sure Penn Yan is vibrant year round and not just in the summer. More industry would provide year round jobs and really help our community. Cost of water & sewer/electricity. Poverty rate, education (lack), lack of motivation by youth. Too much truck traffic through village of PY to treatment plant I think the greatest issue in this area is the need for employment opportunities. Also we need shopping availability - i.e. Clothing, shoes, household needs, etc. Don’t' know Orderly Development while "holding the line" on taxes. Traffic & parking Infrastructure Streets after water & sewer. Aging water & sewer lines; deteriorating streets and roads. Taxes going up faster than pensions. Using the millions of dollars of tax revenue from the Lake front properties to maintain the roads. Roads need to be the showcase of the Town. Perfect roads & drainage. Road upkeep!!! Needs vs. costs. Old water & sewer pipes. Industrial development, lack of places for middle class people to live and employment, lack of grocery stores and clothing. A 24-hour drugstore one out of 5. Attracting new businesses without changing the rural setting. Taxation I do not know High taxes. I don't know In my neighborhood - water lines. Redevelopment of Penn Yan Marine property. Cut the waste in Govt.! Combine towns, Village, & Co. expenditures and combine all levels of govt. to eliminate duplication of services to the sediment of taxpayers. Business development properly regulated. Get rid of the drugs - watch out your windows you can see the deals all the time - Getting public involvement in Town government decisions. Getting public involvement in Town government decisions Job opportunities and pay scale do not match increase taxes (property taxes too high for income) Water, sewer, and property taxes are too high. A very old infrastructure in Penn Yan. To increase commercial businesses to step up in town to offer more jobs. Jobs Aging population. I really wouldn't know. I don't know if it’s the greatest issue but we need to find recreation or place for young adults to go besides the bars. Retirement again - nothing for them to do - we need to stop the drugs, smoking, & drinking. Not enough jobs - Not enough Retail Stores (Wal-Mart - Target). NO place to shop for multiple items without


Page D - 100

going to 3 or 4 different stores. TAXES are way to high for what we don't have!

High Taxes - Reduce duplication of Services. Reduce Spending. No place to shop & have people buy in town! Can't say No enough industry. Look at the facts: 62% of adults age 25-55 that live in the village work out of town. Keeping taxes Low. Keeping taxes down. To keep spending under control. Maintaining the rural character while attracting businesses. I do not know. Decline in youth staying and working locally. The many different areas - Town, Village, Lake, farms, small businesses, wineries, tourism. Not enough business. We need a better all-purpose store (Wal-Mart). How to contain budget increases and still pay for all of the illustrious ideas! Building a tax base while maintaining healthy rural nature/character of town. The greatest issue facing the Town of Milo is the lack of good jobs. People are being forced to work out of town & many people are moving away. Nothing for children and young adults. Older residents not friendly to new families. Streets, roads & urban sprawl. Taxes and lack of businesses. One of the greatest issues I feel is providing the best education and school by keeping it up to date for the students but to also keep taxes as low as we can. The people who live and work in Penn Yan do not make big money nor do they get big raises each Insuring that zoning laws make sense. Our streets are in terrible condition. Taxes, no industries. The increase of traffic for tourist season & lack of cultural diversity/racism in town. Getting village residents to believe they are getting any services from Town of Milo for their tax dollars. Crime, job growth, school districts. Nepotism - Appointing Halling's son to the Planning Board. Getting people more involved in government, community spirit. Wind Turbines. Getting businesses on Main Street. Taxes - school, property, town & village are too high for services received. Why do we need both town & village gov't? Suggest serious consideration of combining to decrease taxes & cut down on duplication. See Lundine report. Growth opportunities. Uncontrolled growth & high taxes due to automatic raises in government & stagnant wages for the general population. Keeping taxes down, and utilities down. High village taxes. Taxes - using the money appropriately. Taxes are high enough - so use what money you have effectively. Jobs #1. Using your resources wisely. Coordination w/ village and other townships to maximize services & minimize waste! Improving the Library. Don't know. Rise of taxes on property - eventually it will take a toll on purchases of homes or new homes. COLA going up deters 1st time buyers, such as myself to be more reluctant. Consolidating services w/ the County to save money. Also need something like Wal-Mart which is open 7 days - all hours. Retaining its young professionals, lake of quality jobs, & no real tax base. If Penn Yan truly wants to be a tourist town - clean it up! Or get businesses & still retain the local charm ala Canandaigua. Keeping up the work.


Page D - 101

The streets, they are a mess!! Having a store like the old Ames store with all kinds of variety. Expanding along the outlet and job opportunities. Keeping downtown alive with business. Empty downtown stores - No major retail stores. We need to go out of Penn Yan for many purchases. We want to buy locally when possible. We need something like a Target store. Taxes. Everyone has to keep spending down - individuals in their daily living have to make changes & the town, village, county, & schools should also. Truck traffic past 10 p.m. Increasing water & sewage increasing rates. Securing jobs (Businesses) for non-farming families. Old water & sewer line pipes.


We don't need another drug store 1. Sharing taxes with Yates County. 2. The new 4% bed tax. We feel that the money going to tourism will not benefit the shop in the village. Very little is done by the Chamber to promote the village historical district as you can see--but a lot about the wineries and B&B's. It's been along time in coming. How much do you think they promote our Village and we are going to share County's 4% bed tax with them and the county can't support the Village by sharing? Play the lottery and hope for the best! We need some decent family restaurants. Better enforcement of the speed limit on Route 54 (Clinton St.) n the village of Penn Yan. It would be great to have sidewalks throughout the village of Penn Yan. Inform the towns people of who is developing the comprehensive plan - philosophy - reasoning - pricing - etc. Control of large-scale animal farms, especially pig farms, due to pollution and odors. Keep it simple - keep it rural flavor, but enough to allow for progress of newer businesses which benefit both the dweller and the tourist. Safety: More signs put up in construction areas. Flagmen need to be placed away from direct construction area. This will give more time to slow down. They are too close. Keep good people on the Board! Due to the lack of building lots in the village, I think the zone laws should be eased a little to help people to build houses on less the conforming lots. No. Need business to keep young people here. More medical. More things to help keep young people here. Bring in jobs and stores and other fast food beside McDonalds and Pizza Places (not bars). Let the people who live here have the say of what we need not the Town & village board. We pay taxes let us say yes or not the board members. Bring in a small Wal-Mart, not a Peebles. Don't know of any. Lower taxes decrease regulations, cut spending encourage private enterprise. Owners around town would be more encouraged to maintain and/or fix up their properties if they were given tax breaks instead of being re-assessed for higher taxes. Encourage new development, both commercial and residential. There is so much riff-raff that roam the streets in Penn Yan at night. They bring their kids in to P & C at 2 or 3 and to use WIC Checks? Kids should be in bed at night, not at the store. Clean up the Knapp Hotel which is downtown and find a way to keep small businesses in down town Penn Yan. Let's clean up Penn Yan and make it look better and get rid of the riff raff. Plan should maximize protection of the Outlet trail while developing it as a recreational asset for residents and as a draw for tourists. Maintaining rural character is important and if commercial/industrial growth is


Page D - 102

experienced it should be concentrated in specific areas. I wish I could think of something but I cannot right now. Penn Yan is a wonderful town in which to reside which speaks well for the Town of Milo! No more puppy farms - regulating waste from dogs. - Very bad for farmland. Puppy farms are a huge concern. Also waste from such businesses - and allowing those farms to grow and sell produce. Build a roller skating rink a recreation hall for kids & try to get mostly volunteers to keep our kids off the street. A dance hall even if you had to use DJ's. Encourage the Library to come up with another, affordable, plan to expand. No 1. Consolidation of law enforcement services within the Village. 2. More economical and logical use of County Office Buildings by Town and Village and citizens. No Bed Tax. Star Program is hurting poor people's housing. Why should they have to ay more for housing and gas & electric: Spend more wisely. Quit building new and fill up the empty stores on Main St. - Do not need any more banks & drugstores - We are overrun with them. Encourage small town rural development on Main Street. Promote restoration of downtown Historic district. Encourage retail development on Main St. instead of office space; gift shops, coffee shops, antique shops, retail wine shops, art galleries. Make downtown a destination. Shovel downtown sidewalks from my taxes. Promote small New England village Sturbridge Village appearance adds charm and charisma to downtown. We need something here to keep young families here. Job opportunities with better than minimum wages. Better control of the tax situation. "Stop Wasteful Spending" - be value Providers "Not value Destroyers" - Provide value to the people and the visitors from other states that visit this area. Don't just pick & chose what businesses should be in the area of Milo or Penn Yan. Suggestion - Equal opportunity, more Businesses and you'll be a value Provider. Thank You. Bill Pitcher I hate the fact that we have so many empty storefronts on our beautiful Main Street. No Bring in more tourism through one of our natural resources - Keuka Lake. Develop by Sarasin's & right into downtown. Make our waterway unique for boaters. Bring in new business - as many as we can get - so many people graduate from PY & leave. Make this a place where you NEVER want to leave….. Even though there are problems associated with industrial development it is needed. People need a place to work that pays a living wage. If you cannot support your family why bother to stay in the area. People with skills leave and those without stay in the area. People with skills leave and those without stay because they can't compete in a higher priced economy like Rochester. The result is a median wage that is continuing to decrease. I'm proud of the painting, gardening, and general up keep of most of our downtown. Library does need enlarging (though at a more reasonable price, maybe!) No, thank you for giving residents the chance to share their opinions. License cats - Have cat owners pay a fine for letting their cats run loose. Enforce a leash law for cats. Have some good clothing stores. Encourage businesses for the downtown area. ? Good Luck - it would be nice to see the various separate entities try to consolidate services, - inside the village limits we have village - town & county & state road crews & village-town & county courts 0 is that really necessary? Indoor sports center, arcade, billiard, a large book store, boat rentals, community swimming pool, activities to support wine tourists/and lake use. Should allow a person in Jail wanting to get married be able to get a license. Just for a Marriage License a person in Jail. I think clerks that can get together and decide on people right to making their own rules is very wrong. I would like the use of "Jake" brakes banned in the Village limits. We can't afford any more million dollar projects especially just because our politicians want them. Yes, we need at least one department store. Something similar to K-Mart or Wal-Mart. We have to leave town to just get simple things. We desperately need something here. We definitely do not need Peebles!!! You should take considering advice from the most people you can.


Page D - 103

Housing for those of us who fall between low income and high income. In other words, how about some affordable condo's for middle income retired citizens. We cannot continue to operate as we do - our whole county could operate as 1 or 2 towns - not 9. Will you include fostering neighbors and neighborhoods to know each other and work together to serve children and the elderly? Not knowing and helping your neighbors is a huge problem for any community. I don't want it to happen in ours. Deborah Y. Flood. I moved here 3 years ago and all I have heard is provide more money for tourism. We have added a bed tax and spent $ 15,000 to prevent a tour boat from coming to the area. The tour boat would bring in tourism! What is wrong with this picture? Perhaps I'm stupid! Another item - the tax money that provided the $15000 could have been used to repair roads and streets that would have made the area more appealing to tourist. The county, the towns and village should be ashamed they spent the money to prevent tourist attractions. My tax money. Jack Logan Several questions in the survey pointed toward limiting property rights. This country and this area were built on individual freedoms being exercised. It would be inconsistent with our history and our culture to limit personal freedoms because one group is discomforted by the "odor" or the way a property "looks". To limit development in rural areas to "protect our rural character" (question 56) is to doom our area to ever-higher taxes and even less reason for the young people of our community to stay here. We need business and industry to generate jobs, provide for commerce, and to make Yates County a destination location again. Development = more tax revenue. Commercial development = more tax revenue & jobs. We need a department store!!! Like our former Ames!!! Enforce the speed limit on Liberty St - I'm up early and the trucks at 5 AM do 45 - 60 mph daily - where are the police! - Look into hybrid streetlights that can use solar energy when there's enough sun. - Put solar panels on the roofs of the schools and other public buildings to reduce the energy bills. - Reduce school bus usage and costs by having students living less than a mile from school walk there and back. - Pass and/or enforce a law that people walking their dogs pick up after them. Village roads are in bad shape - spend money on better quality roads not fancy trucks. Brush should be picked up year around! Had to look at brush pile all winter and Christmas season on our street because it was only leaves. Horrible site. Lady on Chestnut Street leaves brush in roadway to stick out in road to cause problems. Barking dogs is constant on Walnut and same on Florence. Too many cats too. Not at this time. There should be a limit on how many greenhouses and lawn mower businesses on Rt 14A. It starting to look bad. Would like to see something done to area across from cemetery (Town Trucks, etc.) Bad use of area & waterway. I believe on of the biggest mistakes being made in the Village of PY is prohibiting the planting of new trees next to the road. That decision will drastically change the look of the village streets and within 25 -50 years will be realized as a huge mistake. Imagine looking down Main St. to a street stripped of trees. Just go to neighboring villages to see how this decision has changed the look of the town. Trees are also beneficial for the environment. This decision is going to ruin the look of the community. Communities that have left an impression on me have been lovely tree lined streets. The trees planted downtown are a big plus. Please reconsider this decision – There must be a couple species that would be acceptable for curb planting. 50 yrs from now, our leaders will wonder what we were thinking and plant trees again for the beauty of the village. No- Provision to aid Penn Yan Public Library's expansion - Down sizing the Court House (A little late) Sharing of some of the many new facilities we are building every time we turn around. -- New Court House, schools, library, Tow Offices, etc. What about a comprehensive plan in that area. I am concerned that insiders and outsiders see our resources as advantageous for exploitation. In other words, they want to use their land, money and influence to increase their wealth without regard to keeping the beauty of the area intact or for the concerns of the people caring for each other that call Town of Milo home. None Already said too much, but with Archie Scranton having been my Uncle, I wanted to answer some of your questions - Lived here since 1942. One department store is needed - to be arriving I hear? 1. Water front at the North end of Keuka. 2. Community Center. The village of Penn Yan needs to be brought into the 21st century on matters of constitutional rights. In matters


Page D - 104

concerning citizens, the sheriff's dept. is leaps and bounds ahead of the village police dept. Further, the district attorney acts as though winning cases is more important than being right or wrong. Comparatively speaking, Justice Dan Hibbard is wholly unprofessional in his role. In "backwards Georgia" system of law enforcement is in no way conducive to growth in the town or the village. The local “Good old boy” network needs to be done away with. No. Update the flood maps. These are dated from 1981, and I have to pay flood insurance. The map is inaccurate & needs to be updated. FEMA would come in & do this many residents on Keuka St are angry over this!! The creek in issue flows east of the high school. It will never flood on my side of the street!! My house has been in the family for 85 years. There's sentimental reasons I bought this. It’s killing me financially to pay flood insurance, and I may need to move. I'm not alone on this. Need to encourage good paying job creation so people can continue to live in Yates County - with high gas people will have to move closer to their jobs. Water clean up in P.Y. Park near Brirkett Mills. It smells like bad/soap detergent near the bridge for the outlet trail. We should allow more ????? Like Wendy’s and Arbys to have business in Penn Yan I feel the community center is of utmost importance. Our town really needs a facility of this kind. Many people move to our area, volunteer for planning boards, etc. & then proceed to stymie our current industries or limit growth - It is a very difficult job to try to have people reach a consensus for what we should do. Doing surveys of this nature are excellent in hearing the voices of the community. Thanks!! Some type of public transportation - Cats are a big problem. They roam wherever & ruin flower beds with their waste. Educated minds together to consider new lakefront development = when the current sewage treatment system is in no way adequate? The town must responsibly take an active role in working with the village, IDA, and whatever state & Federal $$ we can get & improve & expand the sewage treatment plant to support the grand ideas of development in the future. 1. Offer tax break incentives for village property owners who verify sump pumps are not in public lines. 2. Offer reasonable & affordable solutions on case-by-case basis to homeowners to put sump/eaves drains into storm drains. 3. Dig the lines from sidewalk to storm drain & install an “entrance” into storm drains. – Stop sending taxpayers nasty grams about sump drains into public sewer & be a part of the solution. * Town of Milo office staff are Excellent, respectful, deserve a day off & a heartfelt thanks. Thank You. – Mr. Taxpayer. Fix the roads for pity's sake! Fix the roads and bring business into our area and no bed tax! Utilize the trail better - better upkeep & care is needed. Even some minor development on trail. There seems to be a huge amount of unpaid taxes every year by the same people. I would guess that if the people were made to pay these debts it would help the year's budget process for the both the Town of Milo and Village of Penn Yan. Included a newspaper article on why people should spend their economic stimulus check money in local stores, not in national chains like Wal-Mart for goods made in China. Coming down Liberty St ('tourists) from Hospital houses are an eyesore - need paint and upkeep -. Put up flags up & down Main Street - liven it up- or bunting on buildings - make it look cheerful lift up spirits - more flower tubs -. Music sounds - downtown on Fridays and Saturdays. Welcome mats in front of stores - Make people feel good about our town. This town should consider cleaning and keeping up the parks, Little league fields and playgrounds that our village owns. Consideration should be given to stocking the stream a couple of times each year from fish hatchery in Bath… Kids should be able to learn to fish and swim in this town as we try to promote life long skills. The town could even ask for donations… to help fund stocking. Beaches cleaned each morning… bathrooms cleaned to promote tourism. Keep the community rural. Time for this area to start adopting new business practices and allow for more industry, department stores, restaurants, etc. to develop in this area. We are moving into an age where we need to get up to speed with other areas. Residence in this area cannot afford to work here nor buy merchandise locally. We are as a rule spending our paychecks outside of the county because of high prices rather than giving this county our sales tax dollars. It is my belief that only a handful of residents reap any benefits (or profits). Other townships also provide yearly or bi curbside rubbish (other than leaves/brush) pickup which would certainly reduce blight, illegal


Page D - 105

dumping, and abandonment of such items that are costly/inconvenient to dispose of. An incentive for businesses & restaurants to make their places more attractive - i.e.: Chinese Restaurant on corner of Lake & Liberty. I am embarrassed about our parks - they are a disgrace & unsanitary for our children & adults to use. The Bathrooms are horrible! Make a visit to Hammondsport & take a look at their restrooms & park. Give YC residents using boat launch (Keuka St) a pass to launch free, all others pay fee (to help cost of maintenance). Could pay a retiree to collect fees! There is lots of confusion during busy season of how & where to park. Also, need designated handicapped parking area at launch. We need a department store like Target. A place where local people can buy clothes, etc. that they can afford. I don't think Peebles will make it because their merchandise is too expensive. We don't need another Wal-Mart. Any clothing store in Penn Yan has gone under because we are a low-income community. Village of Penn Yan in need of face-lift. Businesses already here should be helped to stay here. Truck traffic in Village causing streets to become full of holes should be diverted away from town. Town of Milo should help defray village costs, such as infrastructure. Townhouses/condo's would add to the tax base. Snowbirds would like the convenience & safety of leaving them 6 months per year. Folks are getting older & don't want the upkeep of a home or cottage. Sell them a condo - then sell their cottage. You just doubled the population/tax payers. For Taxes paid in the Village - trash pickup would be nice with leaf & brush pick-up. Adding on jail or new one. Let's live by the Keuka Lake waterfront and consider using nature's gifts of water and wind for energy. How about expanding our resources for the tourists, and your major industries. Give zone/building Inspector more power to force landlords to "Keep Up" the outside appearance of rental properties. More consideration should be given to pedestrians. It is very difficult to cross the streets at the intersection of Liberty & Elm. There's no way for Elementary School kids to walk to school or home from school. Bicycle stands! The person that owns the Plaza should be made to fix up the broken spots where you walk. Look how bad it is in front of the Laundromat, and some areas near it. As a business owner, the taxes make running and/or having a business extremely difficult. Employment taxes make having employees nearly impossible. Need more retail stores ex. Target, K-Mart with everything you need that is less expensive. Perhaps a variety of stores on the channel like "Boardwalk on the Beach" in Myrtle Beach. More sharing with village & county to save tax dollars. No puppy mills! No. We live across from the Outlet playground on lake street. The music that gets played there is so loud that my children can't sleep & I can't sleep. Now I thought we had a noise ordinance but maybe I was wrong. Also stray cats - they are all over. They drive us crazy meowing, urinating on our lawn furniture. Please do something. No. Find more safe play areas or buildings for our children Channel Development Sorry this is such a mess. Survey poorly designed! This page should not have been left open for "viewing"!!! Should definitely outlaw Puppy Mills. They are a disgrace when so many dogs already are homeless and/or neglected. 3 dogs chased 4 deer thru my yard 2 weeks ago - out of sight & back again! Aren't there leash laws?! Also low taxation! I got nowhere with Assessment Board just because I purchased my newer ranch 2 years ago making my assessment much greater than any neighbors - and some with really lovely homes. I just can’t help but complain. I sold my home of 54 years w/ 30 ft. of lakefront for more than I paid here and my taxes there were $1,000 less!! Mainly due to Village taxes ??????? high!!!! I am 79 – No Pension –small S.S. We are pleased in general with the direction that our zoning board and legislature are going. We are dismayed at how shamefully childish and inappropriate way the mayor has acted. He needs to put aside his personal agenda and vendettas and do what he is elected to do - what the people want! We don't want him taking his position to his head. He is the mayor - not the king sovereign or the President. It is very frightening to think he views himself and his friends as above the law. Penn Yan needs a leader who is standing for US not apart from US dictating his wants. The mayor needs to grow up & do his job!


Page D - 106

Penn Yan Boat site should be prime residential land. Get a retail store that will be a benefit to everyone. It will create jobs and bring sales taxes back into our county instead of residents travel into other counties to shop. We also need some kind of public transportation especially for the elderly and residents that do not have a license or cannot afford a car let alone gas to get to and from work or shopping areas. Being a renter in village allows monthly media info. Between agriculture appearance in town and more shopping opportunities in village with help with accessibility to stores. Public offices should be living locally - not just residents. Apply also to store owners - Long supported by local population. Town houses do not fit country atmosphere. Why are taxpayers paying Town of Milo Clerk to do sports work? Signing up of players, etc. Use of office, (cleaning, etc.) phone. Conflict of interest with husband & wife?? No. Please make people clean up their yards - debris, junk, old cars! The village needs a real dry goods (retail) store in which to shop. One with a large selection of clothing (not leftovers or seconds), appliances, electronics *computer, software, televisions, etc.), dishes, and other necessities that are available. I don't want to go into a store and look at just a few toasters, microwaves, or televisions, etc. for sale. BUT a whole shelf of them. Have you looked at the selection that is available at the Wal-Mart in Watkins Glen or Canandaigua--there are multiples to look at and choose from. I am tired of going to Canandaigua and Watkins Glen to shop at the Wal-Mart stores there. But they don’t mind taking my sales tax dollars that would be better kept in Yates County. And other counties don’t mind taking the tax dollars of other residents either. We could use a shoe store—back again to Ontario County. Same as these counties won’t mind getting my economic stimulus check money. You want people to spend locally. Well where are you supposed to spend it. Have you looked at the number of actual retail stores that are on Main Street?? There certainly aren’t very many of them. Something needs to be done to keep more sales tax dollars spent locally. Water Quality - Since new treatment plant was built - water not the same. Toilets much dirtier with more dirty discolor in the tanks. Calcium type build up in electric water heaters. I can show you. I am a plumber and have seen these changes. You have to fix the services under ground before you fix the streets which are embarrassing to say the least. We desperately need a Dept. store like Target - etc. Cannot buy clothes, shoes, etc. with any type of choice here in PY. Something should be on the books to prevent purchase of businesses and then to let them die as so many have done in the past few years. Quit spending our tax money unwisely. You need to keep the streets and roads up all the time in excellent condition and not like they are now! Don't be building these big buildings we don't need (like the Court House) and then have no parking places in this town. This town never considers parking when building places. You need to consider all the elderly we have here and have a place for them to shop (a dept. store badly) and with gas prices going up too we need places to shop here. We need to get some employment coming into town. You need to have a few days a year when residents can get rid of junk around their houses (in & out) and you go and pick it up for us. Other towns do this so can we!! Do things to keep this town neat and clean but don’t spend money like we’re rich people have when things can be done reasonable & maybe even create some jobs!No more new costly buildings or expansions. Is this being done by the Village also? Need to work together to balance needs and expectations. Downtown parking is a problem which effects everyone. Set aside vacant and bordering PY village for expansion of village - where ever possible in your planning progress. Definite need for more affordable senior housing. GET YOUR MINDS OUT OF THE DARK AGES!!! We need more jobs Here…Gas is too expensive for most people to travel for minimum or slightly higher pay. Youths need more incentives to stay other than they can live free or cheap here. Town curfew. Make new road from sewage plant up to Himrod Rd. and order all honey wagons to use same or other sewage from Yates Co. from delivery to present sewage plant. Keep school, village, & real estate taxes lower. Consider and promote the benefits of our airport in developing the area. Work cooperatively with other governing bodies to share services, eliminate duplication where possible. Meet with Chamber of Commerce officials in an effort to brainstorm and share ideas to promote tourism and develop business strategies. Less building - more preventative work on existing works.


Page D - 107

Let's be the first town in the area to capitalize on the constant wind throughout the township. Let's allow energy producing Wind Farms to bring the residents of Milo lower electrical rates. Only allow Wind Farm if it will reduce our electric rates, or reduce our taxes permanently!! I would like to see small business in the empty business area on Main St. I don't like seeing empty windows or business. Would like to have a healthy food store in town. Please fix the roads on Main St., 54A, and 14A. Would like a site that residents can put yard waste at any time! There is too much drama as far as the meetings with Mr. Marchonda and the police Chief that shouldn't be the police Chief Gene Mitchell. Along with Robert Marley. They need to focus on what needs to be focused on, and to these three it is not open-minded. They thought Mr. Dailey is bad they should watch Gene Mitchell… Complete the development of the former Penn Yan Boats area. A place where teenagers can go and hang out with their friends in one of the abandoned buildings. No. Just keep it clean, beautiful and friendly. No- I have lived in PY my whole life and would never live anywhere else - we need to maintain our small town charm. I feel more events such as and like Cruise night, blues fest, etc. are great and should continue to expand. I realize this is more for the Village than the Town but we don't need any more drug/convenience stores or dollar discount stores. The entire waterfront of Keuka Lake from Sarrasins to the Main Street area needs to be reworked, and the Outlet Trail should be beefed up. There is no reason why this area can't be like the Canandaigua Lake waterfront in Canandaigua. When Public Hearings are presented - Be sure the public is presented with useful information to contribute to a correct future action. Past hearings have been held without information and the cause was ram-rodded thru without public consideration or contribution And the newspaper slides along with your wishes. "Leave no stone unturned" n developing a comprehensive plan. We need to provide for a swimming facility for youth in the village. Tourism seems to affect the prices we pay at the grocery store and they never return to lower prices at the end of the season. Fix roads in Village. They are a disaster. Village taxes are terrible (way to high). Town taxes OK. Try to encourage development. As a survey should be anonymous - and you should be concerned with personal identifiable information. There's no opportunity for kids - they need to get out of NY. Need to rid town of pigeons, starlings, & crows. No more ??? Retail stores unless like K-Mart where people truly can go to a department store and AFFORD to buy clothes & necessities. Small towns need to stay small towns. People can move if they don't like it -. The historic district sucks - you can't do anything like vinyl side your house to make it last. Make them change their policies. Alternate Energy Alternate Energy Residents should be allowed to build a house with less than the required 850 sq. ft. Many people use the lake property only for summer and a large home is not necessary. Something must be done soon to actually reduce property taxes! Some sort of technical training, if it were available I would keep to draw industries. No on will plan a facility in a place where there are no usable staff. Have an open mind about all issues! We don't need the Pricey Peebles store, there are too many Senior Citizens in Yates County. We can't afford their prices. Why wasn't there a survey sent to all the residents before someone made the decision on their own. WE all pay taxes, but we don't have anything to say. Also why can't we have a family type Restaurant, like Applebee’s or Peppers in Canandaigua or even a Burger King? I understand Applebee’s wanted to come here but they said it was a tourist town. How about all of us that live here year round. WE just don't eat out or go out of town to eat. The people of Yates County don't have much to say even though we pay these high taxes. We can't swim in the lakes due to pollution. Our parks aren't sanitary for anyone to use. We need a swimming pool in village of P.Y. or something for exercise. Outlet trail is nice to walk but beer cans, old clothes, and exercise equipment along trail not in use anymore. We do have the exercise building but as far as I know it's individual equipment, not group activities. The streets in Village of P.Y. are awful.


Page D - 108

More big business for more jobs. More shopping stores (Big ones). No Bed Tax. Lower Taxes would be helpful. No bed tax. Keep taxes reasonable so that elderly people can continue to live in their homes. No. The country appeal is gone once big businesses develop rural areas. Eco-friendly practices & businesses should be encouraged. Protect resources - be good stewards. We need to keep people in PY! We need industry so they spend money here and also can work here. The lines drawn in and around town of where livestock is allowed. Some residents have horses, one has many, yet I am a taxpayer the same as them, own enough land, but have to pay to keep my two horses at a farm out of town. We should all have the same rights! Under no circumstance should a Wal-Mart be allowed! If it has any puppy mills put on restrictions & not allow any more. The Beverage Baron is a problem on Ogden Street. The beer trucks and other delivery trucks cause many traffic problems. They need to have another way to receive their deliveries. Let's be realistic. Many of our residents are living on "fixed" incomes. What is the reason for the "Comprehensive Plan? Once it is developed - what next? Figure out how to moderate property assessments & taxes for people who are seniors or are on fixed incomes. Give credit for well-maintained property/landscapes without hiking taxes. Encourage neighborhood/block cleanup/improvement fairs with prizes/awards/recognition for most improved neighborhood/property. Don't worry about the best areas but encourage the marginal ones & publicize improvements in print media. Have neighborhood yard sales/plant exchanges/talent shows/etc. Maintain folksy atmosphere of Windmill and small wineries. Discourage box stores/warehouse/Wal-Mart etc. Keep it simple. Many people are concerned about all of the large expansions. People who've lived in this town all of their lives love it because it is very small. Everyone knows everyone and now it seems there are larger & larger buildings that look like they belong on every corner. Another concern is taxes. Many young people I graduated with have moved away because of climbing taxes and lack of good paying jobs. More housing for young families. Safe house. Better communication between town and village for all residents. More different restaurants - in town or close by. No more Pizza-subs chinese shops. No more gas station. Remember the little guy and that we are all in it together. Instead of being so interested in the Historical District of P.Y. I wish the village would make sure that all the dumpy looking places would be made to clean their act up. All it does for those of us who keep our properties kept up and looking nice is to lower the value. There seems to be a dump at least 1 or sometimes more on every street. Coming in on Liberty or Brown St. it’s not a very good advertisement for the Village of Penn Yan. If we are going to be a "Tourist Area" the future development should be geared toward making it look like a "Tourist Area." We need a decent "Family" type restaurant. Yes. Cut some village employees from DPW and municipal. Have the ones they keep start learning to work for the wages, benefits, and retirement they get. If they don't want to work there are people that would for pay & benefits they get. The money they save could help replace water, sewer lines and repair the streets. Lets fix our streets! Fix up downtown. More business. More Industry. Another motel in P.Y. I believe it's possible to develop our town without losing the character. We need more "culture" businesses - coffee houses, etc. And we need more retail businesses - one more fast food restaurant, a Wegmans/gorcery store, but NO MORE DRUG STORES. Public transportation is a concern as well. We should have reliable & affordable transportation to Geneva, Dundee, Dresden, and to Keuka College. N/A. Get more good paying jobs into the Penn Yan area. Crack down on illegal drug use. Other issues - The town of Milo is becoming over zoned. It is hard to keep the rural character with all the strict land use regulations. Dog Kennels (puppy mills), CAFO's. I am very concerned about the lakefront development and the impact it will have on the wildlife, fish & habitat. Red Jacket & Indian Pines Parks as well as the outlet trail are the only public places residents have access to all of Keuka Lake (at least that are accessible & free). Of course they all could be improved. But should remain public property & not made into homes, residences & businesses. To develop these potential gems is shortsighted & unconscionable to the public but more so to the wildlife, fish and Keuka Lake itself. Control the number of pets in a household - Unfortunately my neighbor has 3+ large dogs roaming at will and


Page D - 109

without leashes most of the time!! Their property is not maintained properly. I know you want to increase your tax base, but you destroy the natural small town beauty; as far as I am concerned, you're last my reason to vacation there. The study & plan that has already started needs to be finalized concerning public transpiration routes between PY, Geneva, Canandaigua, Dundee, and Keuka Park. I know for a fact that the groundwork has been done. We also need to start charging non-residents for use of the boat-launching site. I have it on good knowledge that we are the ONLY place in the area that you can launch for free. It would create jobs, help pay for maintenance of the area. We also need to have limb preventative maintenance more than once a year. Maybe even create a compost station where residents can take debris, have it chipped, etc. Even buy or get mulch for free. Support small businesses so they can have stores on Main St. filled. Also, turn the boat-manufacturing site into a museum. Use the Keuka water access to take visitors out on Keuka Lake. Could be a potential moneymaker for the town's tourism. Promote this area more! Would like to see our village grow more. I don't think we can stand still. Nothing ever stays the same and growth, prudent growth, keeps our town healthy and will make it a place people can work and live. We need to get people jobs they can earn a decent living wage. Our school needs to continue to acquire land at existing site & have a master plan for expansion. Restoration of the outlet area where P.Y. Boats complex is located should be #1 - in new comprehensive Development plans!!! Consider age of water pipes under ground and tackle the oldest to repair before a rupture occurs, again to cause more cost in repair of piping, roads and water loss. Suggest we figure out how traffic cold flow more smoothly from Memorial Day through Labor Day. Tourists are great but traffic flow down Elm, Liberty, & Lake is horrid. This survey was a great start. The town & people need to better communicate. I see too many good working class people leaving & too many non-working people taking their place. At this pace we will no longer have the tourists draw or business appeal (see Village of Lyons). Give people incentives to clean up their community & personal property - Some do it out of pride. Many, however, don't care how their community looks. No. Speed up the development plan along the outlet. Develop more water with townhouses and a place to dock your boat. Townhouses on the outlet, if done right, would sell. Also shops and restaurants along outlet would do well. Any type of incentives for the downtown business owners to help keep their storefronts attractive and fill empty stores. Keep the roads and village streets in better repair. We need to keep up a good appearance for Tourism. 1. Do more to maintain things so that things don't get too run down and cost taxpayers so much money to repair. We desperately need a decent clothing store so we don't have to travel several miles to obtain needs. 2. Annex Indian Pines into the Village - They get village utilities, but pay no Village tax! This would ease the tax load on all residents. Over all you all are doing a good job and are to be commended for asking for input. Continue to develop more for tourists. Some time ago there was some publicity concerning a development along the outlet near the village. It's been obvious for many years that tourism was the largest industry Penn Yan and the township could hope to have. I would like to see that to continue, it has a good start but more could be done.

Comments on Specific Questions (Written on survey)

Q1: Business & home at 228 East Elm St. Q1: East Lake Rd. address P.Y. Q1: Own 2 Village Properties. Q2: Have life use of property. Q2: Rent in village of Penn Yan. Q2: Live elsewhere 6 months of year.


Page D - 110

Q3: Bought 1st property in PY Village in 1997, & still own it. Q3: Owned business between 5 and 10 years Q3: Done business at my current address. Previous address was also in village, additional 7 yrs. Q4: Did not answer because this is a not for profit business. Q3: Lived here in the 70's as well. Q3: Family has owned for years (I've lived there between 20 & 30 years)! Q5: The cost of services water services etc is never covered by taxes collected. Q5: Answer D: YES!!! Q5: Well paying jobs! Q6: I own rental property in Milo but live elsewhere. Q6A: No. Q6B: Moved here in 1949. Q6B: No. Q6C: Tax increases in whatever form may be forcing us to leave. Q6E: Retired. Q6E: Is none. Q6E: Moved to PY in 1967 to work at hospital, don't work there now. Q6J: What services? Q6J: Is none. Q6J: Lack of. Q6K: Costly! Q6L: Need more. Q6L: ? Q6M: ? Q6N: ?

Q6O: Left public schools and put our children in private school. Q6O: Was not satisfied with school, had no choice: working in P.Y. & raising 4 children. Q6P: Excellent. Q6P: It's getting worse. Q6P: My son's bike was stolen right off our porch - value over $450 Q6Q: 1. Lighted sidewalk walking. 2. Outlet trail: horses, bicycles, and walkers. 3. Keuka pool open to public. 4. New fitness center (& current). 5. Local Hospital. Q6Q: good choice. Convenient to all business - including Lake St. Q6Q: reason to move. Q6Q: I see the potential of the Village - with an influx of businesses as well as attractions for tourists/visitors for people of all ages. This could be a great town. 6Q: town/growth relationship. Q6A-Q: All important issues for residents/taxpayers. Q6A-Q: I don't think I would live in P.Y. if I had the money to move elsewhere. Q6A-6Q: None of these really apply to me Q7&8: He's a fraud, a Burden on Society. Q29-34: We're getting back into slavery from Village, State, County, & Country. Q15: Must continue….Need Emergency plan for boat/airplane. Q19: ?

Q20: Too expensive. Q20: Has too much help. Q21: too expensive. Q21: Has too much help. Q22: Terrible taxes, too high. Arrogant employees.


Page D - 111

Q22: Have to limit spending! Q22: For Tax Rate. Q25-28: Too many potholes Q26: 54A-Very dissatisfied. Q26-28: roads are in pretty bad shape. Q27: Main St between Baptist Church & Post Office is a big mess. Q27: Piss poor! Q27: Roads & streets need help! Q27: Horrendous. Q27: Lots of Pot Holes!!! Q27: Terrible!! Q29: Budget out of control! Q29-30: Taxes go up a lot faster than our incomes. SS goes up 2 or 3%, and taxes, gas etc much faster. It’s hard to deal with. Q29-34: Because I rent. Q29-34: No Answer as a renter. Q29-34: I wouldn't know how to make a judgment about this - sorry. Q29 - 34: Not happy with tax rate but not familiar with services or value. Q30: roads. Q30: Roads & streets (down arrow). Q31: Not necessary. Q34: Sorry capital project voted down! Q41: School but its ok. Q41: Current ok. Q41: This seems to be a Yes or No question! Q44: Need better definition. Q45: Not a Peebles. Q45: Need one of these: Wal-Mart - Target - K-Mart. Q46: That depends. Q50: We really need that Community Center !! It would not only provide recreation for youth through adults, but bring them together :) Q50: Clean existing facilities. Q50: school is enough. Q51: Any would be good. Q51: Any would be good. Q52: Not unless costs will come down. Q52: Upgraded first. Q53: 2 Houses. Q53-55: My Property - my Freedom to live Free and be Happy. Constitutional Right! Q54: Especially 154 Cornwell St. Q56: Let businesses grow. Q56: ? Q57: Parks need to be open & clean. Q57: AMEN!! Q59: Indian Pines. Q60: Lake development is ok if many factors considered, example: not too high, not too many. Strong Hall apartments are fine, for instance. Q63: Wal-Mart. Q64: Target Type. Q69: What industry?


Page D - 112

Q64: Not Peebles. Q65: Let them have fun. Q67: Cats! Q67: Dogs bark. Q67: Barking dogs! Q67: Cats are a problem. Q67: CATS! Q67: Pooping in yard. Q67: (cats). Q67: The neighbor's dog goes in our yard. Q67: Cats! Q67: Cats. Q67: Cats!!! Q67: Cats. Q68: Sometimes. Q70: No way - Look at Dundee - too many. Q70: Outside the village of Penn Yan. Q70: Anywhere Q70: Not in Village - Rural OK. Q70: Not in Village - Rural OK. Q71: So many already - looks shabby. Q72: Bring in wind farms. Q72: Put out in the country - outside P.Y. Q72: They should INVEST in Wind Farms. Q74: Also research. Q75: Other than HUD. Q75: Like Walnut Hill. Q75: Area where PY boats was located could be developed into an area for local residents - such as Canandaigua & Skaneateles. Q75: (non subsidized). Q76: Public areas Dirty. Q76: Public areas Dirty.

Written Survey Responses From Survey Respondents Claiming Village & Town Neighborhoods

Page D - 113


None. North Main St. Main St. from Fair Grounds to YCRR & East Lake Rd. The Lake. Keuka Lake (Birkett Mills) kidding - have a bias. Outlet Trail. Any of the residences where the owners (rich or poor) do the best they can with what they have to make their homes and grounds attractive, neat and orderly. Looking down the lake from Sarassins's The lake and surrounding countryside. Any view of the hills around the lake.

Answers to Question 79: What is your least favorite View None. Liberty Street - (The Main access to Penn Yan) Village Court. Liberty St. from North Ave. to Lake St. Houses with junk in yards that should be disposed of. Town barns, Elm St. Old Beverage Baron corner. Any of the pockets of littered, unsightly residential areas where there seems to be no regard for others, no personal pride, laziness and no concern for local ordinances that are not enforced. The empty stores on Main Street. The spreading die-off of trees from salt run-off.

Written Answers to Question 80: What are the biggest issues facing the Town of Milo? Go by the Constitution. Roads & water - sewer problems. Intergovernmental cooperation & consolidation. Unsure. Need for jobs - possibly obtained by manufacturing - small - medium in size. Road repair, parking. Wasted tax dollars, extravagance, partisan officials. Taxes. The many different areas - Town, Village, Lake, farms, small businesses, wineries, tourism. Salt run-off & management. Sewer around the Lake - should have public sewer before water. Taxes - long term tax reform.

Written Survey Responses From Survey Respondents Claiming Village & Town Neighborhoods

Page D - 114


This survey is a good idea. Follow through with it! No. Try not to make laws or regulations that are very difficult to enforce fairly. Use common Sense! Parking lots need repair. Main Street road repair. Need to have no more right on red. When new businesses want to come to town - lets not have the same ones over and over - examples - same restaurants, gas stations, drug stores - we need a business like K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Target, and Kohl’s. A true, devoted, dedicated, nonpartisan public servant would cut fat without reducing services and find ways to cut taxes while maintaining integrity. Any moron can raise taxes and operate beyond their budget. No dog farms. Keep steel wheeled vehicles off paved roads. Make Mennonite kids wear bike helmets also. Salt is a basic element that just doesn't go away! We can't keep ignoring the problem. Cover salt piles & mixing yards - direct run-off to lined ponds where salt can be reclaimed before we contaminate more wells or the Lake. Quit giving public water without sewer. We probably could have read our own responses to this survey. Will A. Moravec. 747: Several years ago we entertained building a home on our property and hired a CPA to look into the tax side of it. They covered all angles and advised me NOT to build in Yates County. The major problem area was property taxes. At that time they had no faith in the School Board as they were pushing for a new (larger) school with several athletic fields (more than 3). A large bill for a small school system. Which never should have been out to a vote-it should never have gotten that far. They also mentioned that the county was expanding and just completed a monster of a judicial building-which, in their opinion, should have been built on virgin ground-anther big cost for years to come. Since that time you have built a new elegant athletic field and it remains to be seen if man made turf will in fact be cheaper than natural turf. The reason that I am mentioning this to you is you need to keep your costs of all infrastructure (police, school, sports, safety, utilities) in order and not drive both residents and business away by having to substantially increase taxes or look at new ways to increase your revenue to pay your bills.

Comments on Specific Questions (Written on survey) Q27: Potholes.

Written Survey Responses From Surveys where Neighborhood was not Specified

Page D - 115

Answers to Question 78: What is your favorite View Driving along looking at Keuka Lake. Lake & country views. On Briggs & Spicer Rd. From the Parking lot of Keuka Springs Winery and from Red Jacket Park. Roads that look over the lake! There is no good view. Keuka Lake Looking west from state route 54 across Keuka Lake Anywhere overlooking Keuka Lake. ? Top of hill on Milo Center Rd. where you can see Seneca Lake. East Main St. and north on Main St., including business section. The view from our property towards P.Y. lakeside.


The pot holes on East Main St. Penn Yan. The old boat company. What a shame that has not been sold! Houses on Seneca St n some areas. Use to be the houses across from Shur-Fine. The house on 320 East Elm St. Junk in front yards. I have none. Old Beverage Baron. ? Physical view is Main St./PY. Need to fix the appearance of homes. My other least favorite view is the one of people thinking lake property owners are rich and can be taxed more. Don't have one. Empty stores on Main St. Lake St. houses that were just removed. Why did they leave old Beverage Barron store which is an eyesore! Looking at our neighbor's property to our right.


Balancing opposing opinions. Keeping it mostly agriculture. Taxes More scenic housing. More jobs. Keeping taxes down. ? Empty stores on Main St. Helping to maintain water quality in Keuka & Seneca Lakes without making it difficult to live here under unreasonable restrictions. Control expenses - provide quality services keeping affordable taxes. Keeping costs down yet improving the quality of life for the local people. Unfairly increased lake taxes are causing the local fabric to change. Regular families are unable to pay them causing only the rich outsiders to be able to afford lake property. As in all of NYS - taxes are too high for most. I have exemptions, so my taxes are reasonable. Need more businesses to help provide jobs for the unemployed and keep taxes down. The town has to find ways to deal with the mess our right hand neighbor has created on Hewitt's Point.

Written Survey Responses From Surveys where Neighborhood was not Specified

Page D - 116


Don't go overboard on regulations. We need more than "Peebles." No more drug stores. More businesses on Main Street. Allow a clothing store so people don't have to travel to buy clothes. I think the Town & Village need more things for the youth to do. I believe the community Center will be a very good thing if it is run right. I also feel that the bed tax is a good thing. A lot of these cottage owners get good money for a week's stay during the summer months. I know their taxes are high but this may help bring down the taxes. Don't make TOO many rules and regulations so we feel "Big Brother" is here. At least once a year curbside pick up of household junk would be beneficial in upkeep of properties. We need a drop off area for hazardous materials such as old paint and old electronics. We desperately need a department store along the lines of the Ames store. I would also like to see a restaurant like Applebee’s or TGI Fridays. I think there should be fines for not having your yard cleaned up. I think there should be a limit of animals in one household. This includes the Griffin House on Outlet Rd. Ames store. Yes. The Puppy Mills are growing so fast & no one does a thing about it. Mennonites do what ever they want--kids hanging out of wagons - WE have to have car seats. They treat their animals awful. Why don't someone do something. Police Department turns a deaf ear to it. Do not restrict development of housing and/or business (including agriculture) so much that it will be uneconomical to provide housing or jobs. Do not say "No" to development because the "holy" board members do not understand what is involved with the project, instead the town may need to provide expert counsel for the board. Some questions in this survey are ambiguous and difficult to answer as stated. I believe the town should focus on its current residents and possible future residents. Keuka Lake is a huge draw for tourists and the Town and businesses seem to cater to those tourists but forget the people who support it year round. This is a low-income county and if things are not reigned in to a moderate level the locals will be forced to leave. Property taxes are high. I pay village taxes but live on the outskirts. I should get the same services the village homes get but I do not. By bringing in high level housing, it will not make it better for the locals who struggle every day, it will just make prices higher & harder fro locals to live here. Review the constitution and try to incorporate what our forefathers wanted. All plans should be printed and distributed to property owners prior to implementation. Changes that affect change must be presented to communities multiple times to allow for a thorough review. No "steamrolling" of change. This is based on the past changes that were pushed through and have directly impacted the area. Ex: Hotel tax has helped cause a 34% decrease in vacation rentals in Yates County. The thousands made in taxes has been lost 4 fold in lost revenue from businesses. Consider consolidation of duplicate services: 2 assessors, 3 tax billing & collection services. I've lived in 6 states and nowhere else had as much duplication & taxes were lower of course. The state is responsible for most of the high taxes, but we could help ourselves locally. Keep costs down in any new structures so senior citizens can afford them. (Good example: P.Y. Library). Make sure there are rules and regulations on the books that protect all taxpayers in Milo. Re fencing make of old dilapidated docks and concrete barriers. Don't let individuals dictate the way things should be done, especially when their actions are to the detriment of others. Remember * It takes only one bad apple to ruin a bushel.

Comments on Specific Questions (Written on survey) Q1: Store in village, residence in Milo Center. Q35 - 41: The laws in place now are fine.

APPENDIX E PHOTO INVENTORY OF TOWN

This Appendix contains photographs collected in the fall of 2007. It begins with a map showing the location for each photo collection site, the direction the camera was looking when collecting the photo or photos from this location, and an identification number. A table follows the map containing specifics for each photo including approximate address and the reason the photo was taken. This is followed by the actual photos themselves.

Page E-1

Signs Business Views Character Empire

Pipe Recrea

tion Interest Issues Notes Number Road

Page E-2

1E 1 Land and Sea Marina and signage 100A East Lake Rd

2 Camp Corey 199 East Lake Rd 3C 3 Lakeside Country Club and signage 200 East Lake Rd 4 4 Keuka Springs Winery and signage 272 ish East Lake Rd 5 private garage 514 East Lake Rd 6 house 511 East Lake Rd

7 stream rip rap problem

between 524 &

525 East Lake Rd 8 erosion control 557 ish East Lake Rd

9 9 9 Excavation/construction business: Home Occupation 573 East Lake Rd

10 Off premises business sign 576 East Lake Rd 11 View west down Sisson Rd

12 View north west from around 3580 Old Bath Rd

13 Antique Shop and signage 2223 Baker Rd.

14 Off premises business sign Corner Baker Rd. and Old

Bath Rd

15 Off premises business sign Corner Fullager Rd. and

Old Bath Rd. 16 Panorama looking west on Fullager Rd. 17 View looking north west opposite: 3417 Old Bath Rd

18 18 Keuka Welding Shop and signage 3307 Old Bath Rd 19 View southwest from opposite 3307 Old Bath Rd 20 20 Old barn 3002 Old Bath Rd 21 Roadside Produce Stand, about: 2830 Old Bath Rd 22 view southwest from about: 2900 Old Bath Rd 23 New home 2898 Old Bath Rd 24 New home in vineyard, north west of 2898 Old Bath Rd 25 25 Old barn, lakeside Country Club 26 26 New home, no erosion control, about: 2765 Old Bath Rd 27 New homes, looking west from about 2550 Old Bath Rd

28 28 Airport Signage, about 2500 Old Bath Rd 28A Airport Entry Road, about 2500 Old Bath Rd


Pipe Recrea


Page E-3

29 Industrial buildings north of airport entry road, on Old Bath Rd

30 30 Penn Yan Aero businsess, and signage about 2491 Old Bath Rd

31 Furniture/refinisher business, about 2520 Old Bath Rd 32 Penn Yan Flying Club 2487 Old Bath Rd 33 33 Scenic view to northwest, about 2450 Old Bath Rd 33A 33A Scenic view to northwest at 2484 Old Bath Rd

34 34 View north down Old Bath Rd to State Rt 54 intersection

35 35 Monument sign business and signage 113 East Lake Rd

36A View looking southeast entering town from village Kimball Rd

36B Signs entering Town on Kimball Rd 38 new residential development by airport 2205 Kimball Rd 39A View looking South from just east of: 2205 Kimball Rd 39B View looking north west toward: 2205 Kimball Rd 40 Character of east end of Kimball Rd

41 41 Friendly Chrysler Dodge Jeep and signage 2499 State Rt 14A

42 42 Auxillary car display area for Friendly car dealership, west side 2499 State Rt 14A

43 43 Ice Cream and mini golf, and signage 2605 State Rt 14A 44 Off premises business sign, about 2618 State Rt 14A

45 45 Contractor business (A.L. Blades & Sons), and signage 2618 State Rt 14A

46 Off premises business sign, about 2618 State Rt 14A

47D 47 Off premises business sign, and used car dealer (Cooters) about 2650 State Rt 14A

48 Billboard sign, about: 2640 State Rt 14A 49 View west from opposite 2660 State Rt 14A 50 View north from about: 2650 State Rt 14A

51 View northeast from corner State Rt 14A and Old Route 14A

52 Off premises sign, corner State Rt 14A and Old Route 14A

53A& 53 Farm good store and signage 2741 State Rt 14A


Pipe Recrea


Page E-4

B

54 54 View southwest from: 2741 State Rt 14A 55 John Deere lawn mower sales 2822 State Rt 14A

57A 57 In-home hair salon business and signage 2836 State Rt 14A 58 State rest area and picnic grounds on State Rt 14A

59 59 Woodcraft business and signage at 3049 State Rt 14A 60A & E 60 Oak Hill Farm bulk food store at 3173 State Rt 14A

61 Mostly Memories, antique store at 3184 State Rt 14A

62 Off premises business sign on west side of road about: 3310 State Rt 14A

63 veiw west from about 3310 State Rt 14A

64 Off premises business sign on west side of road about: 3500 State Rt 14A

65 Off premises business signs on southwest corner State Rt 14A and Baker Rd.

66 Off premises business sign on southeast corner State Rt 14A and Baker Rd.

67 67 View to northwest from about 1950 Baker Rd 68 68 view north along State Rt 14A from about 3600 State Rt 14A

69 69 Pine Ridge Welding shop and signage at 3643 State Rt 14A 70 70 70 Roadside stand on east side of road at 3607 State Rt 14A

71 71A & B Unknown business at: 3651 State Rt 14A

71C Assembly of God Church, no erosion control at:

72 72 Finger Lakes Produce Auction 3691 State Rt 14A 73 73 Glass Rock & More sales business at 3687 State Rt 14A

74 Off premises business signs on east side of State Rt 14A at Hoyt Rd. intersection

75 75B Realty business and signage at 3688 State Rt 14A

76A 76 Quilt shop on residential parcel and signage 1860 Hoyt Rd

77 Off premises sign at south east corner of Hoyt Rd and Hoyt Rd

78 View northeast from just north of: 3787 Hoyt Rd 79A 79 Pine Hill Greenhouse and signage at: 3664 Hoyt Rd

80 80 Mennonite School at about 1811 Baker Rd


Pipe Recrea


Page E-5

81 Off premises business sign at southwest corner of Hoyt and Baker Rd. 82 View north from just west of: 1812 Baker Rd 83 New Home north side of road about: 1990 Baker Rd

84 84 Panorama west to north west along Baker Rd from about 2160 Baker Rd

85 View west from 3397 Hoyt Rd 86 View north from: 3397 Hoyt Rd

87 View north and south from about: 2025 Second Milo

Rd

88 88, D Contracting business (Cedar Lane Const) and signage at: 2107

Second Milo Rd

88B & C View North and North West from 3422

Second Milo Rd

89 View west from about: 2390 Second Milo

Rd

90 Off premises business sign at southeast corner Second Milo Rd and Old Bath Rd

91 91 Mennonite School at about 2246 Second Milo

Rd

92 Sign just east of Mennonite School at 2246 Second Milo

Rd 93 View north and northwest from about 2950 Hoyt Rd 94 94 View north from about 2812 Hoyt Rd

95 95 95 Contracting business about at: 1874 Himrod Rd

96 96 New home on north side of road, view looking northwest at about: 1900 Himrod Rd

97 Multifamily Development in Village south side and off of Himrod Rd.

98 98 View southwest into County Fairgrounds off Old Rt. 14A

99 Church at: 2015 Kimball Rd. 100 View toward Village on State Rt 14A 101 NYSDOT Garage property at about 2390 State Rt 14A

102 102 Pipeline, lack of erosion control at SE corner Milo Center & Sutherland Rd.

103 103 McElwee Coal, at about 1630 Milo Center

Rd. 104 104 Mennonite School west side of road at 2600 McElwee Rd


Pipe Recrea


Page E-6

about

105 105 Pipeline, lack of erosion control near corner McElwee Rd. and Himrod Rd.

106 Off premises sign north side of Himrod Rd. 1/8 mile east of Milo Mills Rd.

107 107 Off premises sign at northeast corner of Himrod Rd. and Milo Mills Rd. and businesses on Richmond Mills Rd.

108C 108 108A Suburban Propane and Appleton Disposal businesses and signage at: 2300 Milo Mills Rd

109 109 109 Permanent Roadside Stand at: 1799 Himrod Rd

110 Off premises sign on west side of road at about: 2250 Milo Mills Rd

111 111 View looking north on Ridge Rd just north of City Hill Rd. intersection

112 112 112 Entry to Keuka Trail interpretive center on Ridge Rd, signage

114B 114 114 114 Parking area for Outlet trail, south side of Outlet Rd, with signage

115 115 water falls and ruins along Outlet Trail at about: 1485 Outlet Rd

116 116 Lepp's Goat Enterprize buisiness and sign 1500 Outlet Rd

117B 117 Jim Covell & Sons Tree Contracting business and signage at about: 2121 Bell Rd.

118 118 Scenic view south from 1979 Bell Rd.

119 Off Premises business sign on Stiles Rd., opposite PreEmption Rd. intersection

120A 120 120B&C

Hamms Nursery and Greenhouse, signage, at: 2018 Townsend Rd.

121 View to the Southeast from Townsend Rd just south of Stiles Rd. intersection

122A 122 Bob Anderson Drafting home Business and signage at: 2036 Townsend Rd.

123B 123 Horning's Chair Shop business at: 1657 Stiles Rd.

124 124 View of small falls along Outlet Trail, taken from about: 1793 Outlet Rd

125 Entry to Foxs Mill Rd. 126 Residential neighborhood 2168 Foxs Mill Rd. 127 View looking east down Stiles Road at


Pipe Recrea


Page E-7

Village boundary

129 View looking south west down Ridge Rd. from northeast corner of town

130A 130 Home Business and signage at: 2017 Ridge Rd.

131 131 View looking east at entry to Mays Mills Rd.

132 Home on Mays Mills Rd., first house on north side of road

133 133 Views down Eaves Rd. looking east

134 134 property maintenance, looking west from Eaves Rd. at Mays Mills Rd. intersection

135 135

property maintenance, looking south west from Eaves Rd. at property on Mays Mills Rd., address: 2036 Ridge Rd.

136 136 property maintenance, looking west from Mays Mills Rd. at: 2045 Ridge Rd.

137 137 137 view looking north from about: 1369 City Hill Rd. 138 138 view looking northeast at Henderson Rd. and City Hill Rd. intersection

139 139 view looking northwest down abandoned section of Henderson Rd.

140 140

view looking north from house on Henderson Rd (addressed 'Flynn Rd') looking toward: 2265 Henderson Rd.

141 141 View south down Flynn Rd. from City Hill Road intersection

142? 142 142 Commercial building on West side of Road along Railroad. 2592 Flynn Rd.

143 view looking west down rail line just past 2592 Flynn Rd.

144 144 Home carpentry/woodworking business, abandoned former business building at: 1180 Leach Rd.

145? 145 145 potential car repair business fronting on Flynn Rd, house at: 1145 Leach Rd.

146 view to northeast from about 1220 Himrod Rd 147A 147 147B kennel business on residential property at: 1163 Himrod Rd

148 View east from just south of intersection of Himrod Rd. and Flynn Rd. 149 view southeast from just north of: 3094 Himrod Rd

150 view east down Hatmaker Rd. from Himrod Rd. intersection


Pipe Recrea


Page E-8

151B 151 151 151 Pro Hardware Store at southeast corner of Himrod Rd. and Hatmaker Rd. intersection

152B 152 152A Fox Bicycle Den, home business and signage located at: 1104

Briggs & Spicer Rd.

153 153 View southwest at corner of Briggs & Spicer Rd. and Chubb Hollow Rd.

154 154 Mennonite School on north side of road, located approximately: 1300

Briggs & Spicer Rd.

155A,D 155

Siwak Farms, Seedway Sales and signage at 1191

Briggs & Spicer Rd.

156 View looking east down Briggs & Spicer Rd. from about: 1100

Briggs & Spicer Rd.

157 View looking east from intersection of Briggs & Spicer and Himrod Rd.

158 158 Golden Lane Fabrics, business on residential property at: 3252 Himrod Rd

159 View looking east from about: 3280 Himrod Rd

160 View looking east from between 3301 and 3303 Himrod Rd.

161 161 View looking west into Himrod Cemetery about 3450 Himrod Rd

162 162 Views northeast out of Himrod Cemetery

163 View east from entry to Himrod Cemetery

164A 164 164B The Source Landscaping & Construction and signage at: 3518 Norris Rd

165 View east from just south of: 3509 Norris Rd 166 View east from just north of: 3493 Norris Rd

167 View south along rail line at Norris Rd Crossing

168B 168 Martin's Coach Shop, business and residence and signage at: 795 Hatmaker Rd

169 169 Farm use of extra tires at end of Hatmaker Rd at Norris Rd. intersection

170 170 view southwest from Norris Rd. at northern town boundary

171 view southeast down Norris Rd past about 3001 Norris Rd

172B 172A 172 view and signage at parking area along 2969 State Rt 14


Pipe Recrea


Page E-9

State Rt 14, just south of:

173 Off premises sign and view south along State Rt 14 at north town boundary

174 Off premises business sign on southwest corner of intersection of Randall Crossing Rd and State Rt 14

175 View east down Randall Crossing Rd at State Rt 14 intersection

Randall Crossing Rd.

176B 176A Raplee Family Cemetery and signage, south side of Randall Crossing Rd.

177C 177A,

B View east and southeast down Randall Crossing Road, and off premises business sign west of Wood Road intersection

178A 178B Off premises business sign and scenic view looking east and southeast down Randall Crossing Rd at Wood Rd. intersection

179A,B

Signs at corner of Wood Road and Adeline Rd.

180A 180 180 Business sign and views at end of Wood Rd. (Back Achers RV park)

181 181 View south west from Wood Road toward Adeline Rd.

182D 182 182A,B,

C Views east toward Miles Winery, signage at: 168

Randall Crossing Rd.

183A 183B 183B Views at end of Roenke Rd., signage

184 184 View looking south west toward: 353 Randall

Crossing Rd.

185A 185 Roadside stand on east side of road and new business building at: 3101 State Rt 14

186 Off premises business sign on east side of road south of 3101 State Rt 14

187 Off premises business signs at corner of State Rt 14 and Rapalee Rd. 188 Views east down Rapalee Road just east of State Rt 14 intersection

189A 189 Raven Ridge business and signage at: 268 Rapalee Rd.

190 Off premises business sign on south side of road, opposite about 212 Rapalee Rd.

191 View east from about: 212 Rapalee Rd. 192 Residence on north side of road: 256 Rapalee Rd.

193 View north by northeast down Ross Point Rd, just north of Rapalee Rd. intersection

194 Signage at Seneca Drums mobile home park, just south of Rapalee Rd. intersection on east side of North Plum Point Rd.


Pipe Recrea


Page E-10

195 195 View looking southeast just south of Rapalee Rd. intersction on North Plum Point Rd.

196A 196 196B Stephan Webster Notary Public home business and signage at: 3372 Plum Point Rd

197 197 View and signage looking southeast from about: 3372 Plum Point Rd

198 View looking northeast showing screening from about: 3400 Plum Point Rd

199 View looking southeast from about: 3400 Plum Point Rd

200 200 Showboat Motel and Restaurant, signage at about: 3430

North Plum Point Rd.

201 201 Showboat Restaurant and signage at about: 3430


202A 202 Rainbow Cove Motel & Restaurant, signage at: 3482


301 301 Abandoned use, north side of road just east of the McElwee Rd intersection near: 1556

Milo Center Rd.

302 302 View to Seneca Lake from just west of 1556 Milo Center

Rd. 303 Mobile home demolition business at: 2925 Swarthout Rd 304 unkempt property at about: 1668 Baker Rd 305 305? Trail (?) at about: 1700 Baker Rd

306 View south down Sutherland Rd. into Town of Barrington

307 Potential nursery/greenhouse type sales business at: 3810

Chubb Hollow Rd.

308 View south west from just north of: 3810 Chubb Hollow

Rd.

309 Cemetery on east side of road, about at: 3731 Chubb Hollow

Rd.

310B 310 PB & J Daycare home business and signage located at: 3663

Chubb Hollow Rd.

311 311 311 Home excavation business, placing of fill and debris at: 1309 Rice Hill Rd.

312 312 View looking south down Lewis Rd. just south of the Rice Hill Rd. intersection

313

Views through woods into former Town landfill, taken from Lewis Rd, property located at about: 1159 Rice Hill Rd.


Pipe Recrea


Page E-11

314 Views looking east down Rice Hill Rd. just east of the Lewis Rd. intersection

315 315 Stone and concrete pillars on east side of road, located about: 3823 Houk Rd

316 316 Views looking east down Rice Hill Rd. from near 896 Rice Hill Rd.

317

Himrod Conservation Club property, north side of road opposite Philip Morehouse's gravel pit at about: 800 Rice Hill Rd.

318 318 Fabrication shop on residential property located at: 920 Rice Hill Rd.

319 319 View into Philip Morehouse's gravel pit on south side of Rice Hill Rd.

320 View into Town of Milo gravel pit on south side of Rice Hill Rd.

321 321 321 321 Abandoned grain elevator located at 732 South St.

322 322 322

Eagle Hotel located at south west corner of intersection of Rice Hill Rd. and Himrod-Lakemont Rd.

Himrod-Lakemont Rd.

323 323 National Brands Store and Post Office and signage located at: 3619

Himrod-Lakemont Rd.

324 lack of erosion control along road around (views east and west): 3548 Himrod Rd

325 View southeast from about: 3370 Himrod Rd

326 326 view southeast down Himrod Rd. from about 3454 Himrod Rd

327 327 Off premises business sign at about 243 Plum Point Rd 328A 328 Long Bow Mobile home park and signage 240 Plum Point Rd

329 329 view east down Plum Point Rd. from around: 192 Plum Point Rd

330 Business sign on east side of Plum Point Rd at corner of North Plum Point Rd.

331

Property maintenance and character behind Rainbow Cove Motel & Restaurant, looking east from about: 192 Plum Point Rd

332 Off premises business sign on east side of State Rt. 14, at: 3671 State Rt 14

333B 333 Heron Hill Winery and signage at: 3586 State Rt 14 334A 334 334 Sunoco Station business, off premises 3612 State Rt 14


Pipe Recrea


Page E-12

business signage at:

334D Off premises business signs at corner of State Rt 14 and Rapalee Rd. 3612 State Rt 14

335 Off premises business signs on southeast corner of State Rt 14 and Hall Rd.

336 view east from about: 420 Hall Rd

337 337 Puppy's Den business and signage located at: 430 Hall Rd

338 338 View east from about: 354 Hall Rd

339 339 339 Four Chimneys Winery Business, scenic view, signage at: 211 Hall Rd

340 Off premises business sign at about: 3514 South Plum

Point Rd

341 View to north east from about: 3499 South Plum

Point Rd

342 342A View south east down Rt 14 and business at: 3700 State Rt 14

343A Off premises business sign on east side of State Rt. 14, about 200 ft. south of the Severne Rd. intersection

343B Off premises business and recreation sign at northeast corner of State Rt 14 and Severne Rd. intersection

344 344 Residential property maintenance at: 371 Severne Rd. 345 345 View north east from about: 340 Severne Rd.

346 View east down Severne Rd from 2/3 of the way down from State Rt. 14

347D 347 347 Views and signage at DEC boat launch at end of Severne Rd.

348 348 View north by northeast from about: 310 Severne Rd.

349 349 Off premises business sign on east side of road at about: 3849 State Rt 14

350 350 RV park/campground located at: 445 Severne Rd.

351 351 351 Former Morton Salt Mine located at about: 640 Severne Rd.

352 352 Railroad siding (storage) area south of Severne Rd.

353 View to northeast from just north of: 3817 Himrod-

Lakemont Rd.


Pipe Recrea


Page E-13

354 Taken at Photo 89, looking South East: Property Maintenance Issue, about: 2363

Second Milo Rd

355 Vehicular storage, north side of Sisson Rd, across from house at: 2283 Sisson Rd.

Page E-14

1A: Marina at 100A State Rt 54, looking south 1B: Marina looking south west

1C: Moorings 1E: Marina looking west, road frontage

Page E-15

1G: Marina Entry Drive 1H: Marina looking northt

Camp Corey at 199 State Rt 54 2A: Camp Corey entry road

Page E-16

2B: Camp Corey Facilities 2C: Camp Corey Facilities

2D: Camp Corey Facilities 2E: Camp Corey Facilities

Page E-17

2F: Camp Corey open field 2G: Camp Corey Cabins and Basketball Courts

2H: New Admin Building at Camp Corey 3: Lakeside Country Club at 200 State Rt 54

Page E-18

3A: Lakeside Golf course 3C: Lakeside CC: Main building

3D: Lakeside CC Utility Building 4: Keuka Springs Winery entrance: 272? State Rt 54

Page E-19

4A: Keuka Springs Winery entrance and signage 4B: Keuka Springs Winery building

5: Garage at 514 East Lake Rd 6: Sign on home at 511 East Lake Rd.

Page E-20

6A: Home at 511 East Lake Rd. 7: Drainage Ditch between 524 & 525 East Lake Rd.

8A: Site erosion about 557 East Lake Rd (east side) 9: Home Occupation in auxiliary structure at 573 East Lake Rd.

Page E-21

9A: Site erosion at 573 East Lake Rd. 9B: Site erosion at 573 East Lake Rd

9C: Home at 573 East Lake Rd. 10: Off premises business sign at 576 East Lake Rd.

Page E-22

10A: Sign at 576 East Lake Rd. Business is outside of the Town 11: View West down Sisson Rd.

12: View north west from around 3580 Old Bath Rd 13: Business sign at 2223 Baker Rd.

Page E-23

13A Barn/business at 2223 Baker Rd. 13: Home/business at 2223 Baker Rd.

14: Off premises business sign at Baker & Old Bath Rd. 15: Off premises business sign at Fullagar and Old Bath Rds.

Page E-24

16: View west down Fullagar Rd. 16A: View northwest from Fullagar Rd.

17: View north west from 3417 Old Bath Rd. 18: Business sign opposite 3307 Old Bath Rd.

Page E-25

18A: Business next to residence at 3307 Old Bath Rd. 18B: 3307 Old Bath Rd.

19: View southwest from opposite 3307 Old Bath Rd. 20: Historic Barn at 3002 Old Bath Rd.

Page E-26

20A: Historic Barn at 3002 Old Bath Rd. 21: Road side stand at about 2830 Old Bath Rd.

22: View looking South West from about 2900 Old Bath Rd. 22B: View looking South West from about 2900 Old Bath Rd.

Page E-27

22C: View looking South West from about 2900 Old Bath Rd. 23: New home at 2898 Old Bath Rd.

24: New home in vineyard North West of about 2898 Old. Bath 25: Old barn at Country Club, Old Bath Rd.

Page E-28

26: New home, no erosion control, at 2765 Old Bath Rd. 27B: New home at 2765 Old Bath Rd.

27: New homes looking West from 2550 Old Bath Rd. 28: Airport signage, about 2500 Old Bath Rd.

Page E-29

28A: Airport entry road looking east, about 2500 Old Bath Rd. 29: Industrial buildings just north of airport entry road

30: Penn Yan Aero business, 2491 Old Bath Rd. 31: Furniture refinishing business at 2520 Old Bath Rd.

Page E-30

32: Penn Yan Flying Club at 2487 Old Bath Rd. 33: View to North West from about 2450 Old Bath Rd.

33A: View to North West from 2484 Old Bath Rd. 34: View north on Old Bath Rd. to State Rt 54 intersection

Page E-31

35: Lighted sign, Monument sales business at 113 East Lake Rd. 35A:Lighted sign, Monument sales business at 113 East Lake Rd.

35B: Monument sales business at 113 East Lake Rd. 35C: Monument sales business at 113 East Lake Rd.

Page E-32

35D: Monument sales business at 113 East Lake Rd. 36A: View south east on Kimball Rd leaving village

36B: View south east on Kimball Rd leaving village-signage 38: Newer home at 2205 Kimball Rd., next to airport

Page E-33

39A: View south from just east of 2205 Kimball Rd. 39B: Looking north west toward 2205 Kimball Rd.

40: East end of Kimball Rd. 41: Friendly Chrysler Dodge Jeep Car Dealership 2499 Rt 14A

Page E-34

42: Auxiliary car display across street from Friendly Chrysler 43A: Ice Cream & Miniature Golf at 2605 State Rt 14A

43B: Ice Cream & Miniature Golf at 2605 State Rt 14A 44: Off premises signage at 2618 State Rt 14A

Page E-35

45A: Signage at 2618 State Rt 14A 45B: on-premises sign at 2618 State Rt 14A

45C: Building & character at 2618 State Rt 14A 45D: Building at 2618 State Rt 14A

Page E-36

46: Off premises signage at 2618 State Rt 14A 47B: Businesses at 2650 State Rt 14A

47C: Cooters car sales at 2650 State Rt 14A 47D: Off premises signage at 2650 State Rt 14A

Page E-37

48: Billboard at about 2640 State Rt 14A 49: View West from 2660 State Rt 14A

50: View north from about 2650 State Rt 14A 51: View North East from State Rt 14A & Old State Rt 14A int.

Page E-38

52: Off premises business sign at State Rt 14A and Old 14A int. 53A: Farm stand sign at 2741 State Rt 14A

53B: Second farm stand sign at 2741 State Rt 14A 53C: Farm stand at 2741 State Rt 14A

Page E-39

53D: Farm stand sign 2 at 2741 Rt 14A looking North 54: View South West from 2741 State Rt 14A

55: Unsigned lawn tractor sales business at 2822 State Rt 14A 57A: Home business signage at 2836 State Rt 14A

Page E-40

57B: Home with hair salon business at 2836 State Rt 14A 58: State rest area and picnic grounds on State Rt 14A

59A: Wood craft business and signage at 3049 State Rt 14A 59B: Wood craft business and signage at 3049 State Rt 14A

Page E-41

60A: On premises signage at 3173 State Rt 14A 60B: Retail sales business at 3173 State Rt 14A

60C: Second building at 3173 State Rt 14A 60D: Close up of main building at 3173 State Rt 14A

Page E-42

60E: Signage on West side of road at 3173 State Rt 14A 61A: Antique sales/home at 3184 State Rt 14A

62: Off premises business sign at about 3310 State Rt 14A 63: View North West from about 3310 State Rt 14A

Page E-43

64: Off premises business sign at about 3500 State Rt 14A 65: Off premises business signs SWcorner State Rt 14A & Baker

66: Off premises business signs SEcorner State Rt 14A & Baker 67A: View North West from about 1950 Baker Rd.

Page E-44

67B: View North by North West from about 1950 Baker Rd. 67C: View West by North West from about 1950 Baker Rd.

68A: View North from about 3600 State Rt 14A 68B: View North by North East from about 3600 State Rt 14A

Page E-45

68C: View North East from about 3600 State Rt 14A 69A: Pine Ridge Welding shop at 3643 State Rt 14A

69B: Signage: Pine Ridge Welding shop at 3643 State Rt 14A 70: Road side stand about 3607 State Rt 14A

Page E-46

71A: Commercial building at 3651 State Rt 14A 71B: Home at 3651 State Rt 14A

71C: Assembly of God construction site, no erosion control 72: Business signs at 3691 State Rt 14A, looking South East

Page E-47

72B: Business signs at 3691 State Rt 14A looking North 72C: Commercial building at 3691 State Rt 14A

72D: Commercial building at 3691 State Rt 14A 73: Home business signage at 3687 State Rt 14A

Page E-48

73B: Home business at 3687 State Rt 14A 74: Off premises business sign SE corner State Rt 14A & Hoyt

75: Business sign at 3688 State Rt 14A 75B: Business at 3688 State Rt 14A

Page E-49

76A: Home and home business signage at 1860 Hoyt Rd. 76B: Detached commercial sales building at 1860 Hoyt Rd.

76C: Unique advertising at 1860 Hoyt Rd. 77: Off premises business sign SE corner Hoyt & Hoyt Rd.

Page E-50

78: View North East from just North of 3787 Hoyt Rd. 79A: On site advertising sign at 3664 Hoyt Rd.

79B: 3664 Hoyt Rd. on farm business site 80: Mennonite School about 1811 Baker Rd.

Page E-51

81: Off premises business sign at SW corner Hoyt & Baker Rds. 82: View North from just west of 1812 Baker Rd.

83: New home with view at about 1990 Baker Rd. 83B: New home at about 1990 Baker Rd., no erosion control

Page E-52

84: View West from about 2160 Baker Rd. 84B: View North West from about 2160 Baker Rd.

84C: View North from about 2160 Baker Rd. 85: View West from 3397 Hoyt Rd.

Page E-53

86: View North from 3397 Hoyt Rd. 87Southh: View South from about 2025 Second Milo Rd.

87Norh: View North from about 2025 Second Milo Rd. 88: View West of contracting business at 2107 Second Milo Rd.

Page E-54

88B: View West at 3422 Second Milo Rd. 88C: View North West at 3422 Second Milo Rd.

88D: Business sign at 2107 Second Milo Rd. (also residence) 88E: Commercial building at 2107 Second Milo Rd.

Page E-55

89: View West from about 2390 Second Milo Rd. 90:Off premises business sign SE corner 2nd Milo & Old Bath.

91: Mennonite school at about 2246 Second Milo Rd. 92: Off premises road side stand sign just east of 2246 2nd Milo

Page E-56

92B: Off premises road side stand sign on 2nd Milo Rd. 93N: View North from about 2950 Hoyt Rd.

93NWB: View North West from about 2950 Hoyt Rd. 94: View North from about 2812 Hoyt Rd.

Page E-57

95: Contracting business at about 1874 Himrod Rd. 96: New Home at about 1900 Himrod Rd.

97: New Multifamily housing at edge of village off Himrod Rd. 97C: New Multifamily housing at edge of village off Himrod

Page E-58

98: View of Fairgrounds off Himrod Rd looking SW 99: Church at 2015 Kimball Rd.

100: View North into Village on State Rt 14A 101: NYS DOT Property about 2390 State Rt 14A, looking NW

Page E-59

101A: NYS DOT about 2390 State Rt 14A, looking SW 101B: NYS DOT Bldg about 2390 State Rt 14A, looking SW

101C: NYS DOT out-buildings 2390 State Rt 14A, lookingS 102: Empire Pipeline SE corner Milo Center & Sutherland Rd.

Page E-60

102B: Erosion control Empire Pipeline 102C: Empire Pipeline, no erosion control, looking North

102D: Empire Pipeline off Second Milo Rd., looking North 103: Business next to residence, about 1630 Milo Center Rd.

Page E-61

104: Mennonite School at about 2600 McElwee Rd. 105: Empire Pipeline erosion control new McElwee & Himrod.

105B: Empire Pipeline erosion control new McElwee & Himrod. 105C: Empire Pipeline erosion control new McElwee & Himrod.

Page E-62

106:Off premises Road stand sign, Himrod Rd East of Milo Mills 107: Signage NE corner Himrod and Milo Mills Rd.

108: Looking SW at 2300 Milo Mills Rd businesses 108 B: Commercial buildings at 2300 Milo Mills Rd.

Page E-63

108C: Signage at 2300 Milo Mills Rd. 108D: Buildings at 2300 Milo Mills Rd.

108E: Buildings at 2300 Milo Mills Rd. 109: Road side stand at 1799 Himrod Rd.

Page E-64

110: Off premises road stand sign about 2250 Milo Mills Rd. 111: View North on Ridge Road just north of City Hill Rd.

112: Entry to Keuka Trail interpretive Center from Ridge Rd. 112B: Entry to Keuka Trail interpretive Center from Ridge Rd.

Page E-65

114: Parking area for Keuka Trail on Outlet Rd. 114B: Signage at Outlet Rd. parking area on Keuka Trail

115: Seneca Mills Falls on Keuka Outlet, about 1485 Outlet Rd. 115B: ruins at Seneca Mills Falls on Keuka Outlet

Page E-66

115D: Seneca Mills Falls from Outlet Rd. 116: Farm business sign at 1500 Outlet Rd.

117: Tree surgeon business at 2121 Bell Rd. 117B: Business signage at 2121 Bell Rd.

Page E-67

117C: Tree surgeon business at 2121 Bell Rd. 118: View South from 1979 Bell Rd.

118: View South West from 1979 Bell Rd. 119: Off premises business sign at corner Stiles & Pre-Emption

Page E-68

120: Business sign just north of 2018 Townsend Rd. 120B: Outdoor storage at business at 2018 Townsend Rd.

120C: Entry Road for business at 2018 Townsend Rd. 121: View South East from Townsend Rd just South of Stiles

Page E-69

122: Home business sign at 2036 Townsend Rd. 122B: Residence with home business at 2036 Townsend Rd.

123: Horning’s Chair shop at 1657 Stiles Rd. 123B: Business Signage at 1657 Stiles Rd.

Page E-70

124: Water Falls into Outlet from about 1793 Outlet Rd. 125: Signage on Fox Mills Rd. near Outlet Rd. intersection

125B: Signage near bridge over outlet on Fox Mills Rd. 125C: Row of signs along Fox Mills Rd.

Page E-71

127: View looking East down Stiles Rd. at Town boundary 129: View South West down Ridge Road into Town of Milo

130A: Home business signage at 2017 Ridge Rd. 130B: Home with appliance repair business at 2017 Ridge Rd.

Page E-72

131: View looking East down Mays Mills Rd. from Ridge Rd. 132: First home on North side of Mays Mills Rd. from Ridge Rd

133A: View east down Eaves Rd. from Mays Mills intersection. 133B: Buildings on South side of Eaves Rd., looking East

Page E-73

133C: Buildings on North side of Eaves Rd., looking East 134: View looking West from Eaves at Mays Mills intersection

135: View looking South West from corner Eaves & Mays Mills 136A: Property at 2045 Ridge Rd, taken from Mays Mills Rd.

Page E-74

136B: Property at 2045 Ridge Rd, taken from Mays Mills Rd. 137A: View looking North West from about 1369 City Hill Rd.

137B: View looking North from about 1369 City Hill Rd. 137C: View looking North East from about 1369 City Hill Rd.

Page E-75

138: Looking North at corner City Hill Rd. and Henderson Rd. 139: View NW down abandoned portion of Henderson Rd.

140: View North from 2265 Henderson Rd. 141: View South at corner Henderson and City Hill Rds.

Page E-76

142: Building at 2592 Flynn Rd. along Railroad 143B: View north west down RR just south of 2592 Flynn Rd.

144A: Former accessory commercial building at 1180 Leach Rd. 144B: New commercial building behind house at 1180 Leach

Page E-77

145:Accessory commercial building on Flynn at 1145 Leach Rd.? 146: View North East from about 1220 Himrod Rd.

147A: Accessory kennel business at 1163 Himrod Rd. 147B: Residence and accessory business at 1163 Himrod Rd.

Page E-78

148: View East from just south of corner of Himrod and Flynn 149: View South East from just north of 3094 Himrod Rd.

150: View East down Hatmaker Rd. from Himrod Rd. 151A: Pro Hardware business at SE corner Himrod & Hatmaker

Page E-79

151B: Pro Hardware business at SE corner Himrod & Hatmaker 151C: Storage and outbuildings at Pro Hardware

152A: Home and auxiliary business at 1104 Briggs & Spicer Rd. 152B: Signage at 1104 Briggs & Spicer Rd.

Page E-80

152C: Accessory bicycle business at 1104 Briggs & Spicer Rd. 153A: View SW @ Briggs & Spicer Rd. & Chubb Hollow Rd.

153B: View SW @ Briggs & Spicer & Chubb Hollow Rd. 154: Mennonite School at about 1300 Briggs & Spicer Rd.

Page E-81

155A: On premises business sign at 1191 Briggs & Spicer Rd.. 155B: Farm Sign at 1191 Briggs & Spicer Rd.

155C: Home at 1191 Briggs & Spicer Rd. 155D: Character of area at 1191 Briggs & Spicer Rd.

Page E-82

156: View East from about 1000 Briggs & Spicer Rd. 157: View East at corner Briggs & Spicer Rd. and Himrod Rd.

158: Accessory fabric business at 3252 Himrod Rd. 159: View East from about 3280 Himrod Rd.

Page E-83

160: View South East from between 3301 & 3303 Himrod Rd. 161: Himrod Cemetery at about 3450 Himrod Rd.

162A: View North East from Himrod Cemetery 162B: View North East from Himrod Cemetery

Page E-84

163: View East from entry drive to Himrod Cemetery @ 3250 164A: On premises business sign at 3518 Norris Rd.

164B: House & business at 3518 Norris Rd. 165: View East from just south of 3509 Norris Rd.

Page E-85

166: View East from just north of 3493 Norris Rd. 167:Rail crossing looking South @ intersection of Norris Rd.

168A: Martin's Coach Shop at 795 Hatmaker Rd. 168B: Business signage at 795 Hatmaker Rd.

Page E-86

169: Tires on bunker silo on Norris Rd. just north of Hatmaker 170: View South West from Norris Rd. at north town boundary

171: View South East from about 3001 Norris Rd. 172A: View East from DOT parking area on State Rt 14.

Page E-87

172B: Historic Marker at parking area on State Rt 14. 173: Off premises business sign on Rt 14 at north town boundary

174:Off premises business sign SW Rt 14 & Randall Crossing 175: View East down Randall Crossing at corner Rt 14.

Page E-88

176A: Raplee Cemetery on East side of Randall Crossing Rd. 176B: Signage at Raplee Cemetery, Randall Crossing Rd.

177A: View East down Randall Crossing Rd. 177B: Off premises business sign on Randall Crossing Rd.

Page E-89

177C: Off premises business sign on Randall Crossing Rd. 178A: Miles winery sign on Randall Crossing Rd. at Wood int.

178B: View East by SE from Randall Crossing & Wood Rd. 179A: Signage on NE corner Randall Crossing & Wood Rds.

Page E-90

179B: Signage at NE corner Wood and Adeline Rd. 180A: View at North end of Wood Rd.

180C: View North East of Back Achers RV park, N end Wood 180D: View North at end of Wood Rd.

Page E-91

181: View South East from Wood Rd. toward Adeline Rd. 182A: Miles Winery signage, 168 Randall Crossing Rd.

182B: Barns at Miles Winery, 168 Randall Crossing Rd. 182C: View East at entry drive to 168 Randall Crossing Rd.

Page E-92

182D: View East at entry drive to 168 Randall Crossing Rd. 183A: Private road Sign on Roenke Rd.

183B: Queens Landing off Roenke Rd. 184: View looking SW at 353 Randall Crossing Rd.

Page E-93

185A: Road side stand and signage at 3101 State Rt 14 185B: New commercial building at 3101 State Rt 14

186: Off premises business sign South of 3101 Rt 14 on East. 187: Off premises business signs NW corner Rt 14 & Rapalee

Page E-94

188A: View East down Rapalee Rd. just east of Rt 14 188B: View SE just east of Rt 14 on Rapalee Rd.

189A: On premises business sign at 268 Rapalee (Raven Ridge) 189B: Raven Ridge entry drive at 268 Rapalee Rd.

Page E-95

190: Off premises business sign opposite 212 Rapalee Rd. 191: View east from 212 Rapalee Rd.

192: Residence at 256 Rapalee Rd. 193: View NE from Ross PT Rd, just North of Rapalee int.

Page E-96

194: Seneca Drums sign on North Plum PT Rd. 195: View SE from N Plum PT Rd just south of Rapalee int.

196A: Home business sign at 3372 North Plum Point Rd. 196B: Residence w/ home business at 3372 N Plum PT Rd.

Page E-97

197A: View S by SE from 3372 N. Plum Point Rd. 197B: View SE from 3372 N. Plum Point Rd.

198: Screening of moorings at about 3400 N. Plum Pt. Rd. 199: View SE from 3400 N. Plum Pt. Rd.

Page E-98

200A: Business on east side at 3430 N. Plum Pt. Rd. (Showboat) 200B: Showboat Motel Office, 3430 N. Plum Pt. Rd.

201A: Showboat restaurant at 3430 N. Plum Pt. Rd. 201B: Residence on Showboat property at 3430 N Plum Pt. Rd.

Page E-99

202A: Signage Rainbow Cove at 3482 N Plum Pt Rd. 202B: Buildings at Rainbow Cove, 3482 N Plum Pt Rd.

202C: Buildings at Rainbow Cove, 3482 N Plum Pt Rd. 301: Abandoned use about 1556 Milo Center Rd.

Page E-100

302: View NE to Seneca Lake from about 1556 Milo Center Rd. 303A: Mobile home demolition business at 2925 Swarthout Rd.

303B: Mobile home demolition business at 2925 Swarthout Rd. 304A: Unkempt property at 1668 Baker Rd.

Page E-101

304B: Unkempt property at 1668 Baker Rd. 304C: Umkempt property at 1668 Baker Rd.

305: Signage and trail at about 1700 Baker Rd. (North side Rd.) 306: View South down Sutherland Rd. into Town of Barrington

Page E-102

307: Home, farm, potential greenhouse at 3810 Chubb Hollow 308: View SW from just north of 3810 Chubb Hollow Rd.

309B: Cemetery at about 3731 Chubb Hollow Rd. 310A: Residence with home business at 3663 Chubb Hollow

Page E-103

310B: Business signage at 3663 Chubb Hollow Rd.--Daycare 311: Business and dumping at 1309 Rice Hill Rd.

312: View South down Lewis Rd. just south of Rice Hill int. 313A: View east toward former land fill from Lewis Rd.

Page E-104

314A: View East down Rice Hill Rd. just East of Lewis Rd. int. 314B: View East down Rice Hill Rd, 1/8 mile east of Lewis Rd.

314C: View East down Rice Hill Rd. ¼ mile east of Lewis Rd. 315A: Masonry piers at about 3823 Houk Rd.

Page E-105

315B: Masonry piers at about 3823 Houk Rd. 316: View East from about 896 Rice Hill Rd.

317A: Himrod Conservation Club at about 800 Rice Hill Rd. 318: Fabrication business at 920 Rice Hill Rd.

Page E-106

319A:View into Morehouse's gravel pit, South side Rice Hill Rd. 319B: Close up of Morehouse’s gravel pit

320: View into Town of Milo gravel pit, South side Rice Hill Rd. 321: Grain Elevator on RR, 732 South St. Himrod

Page E-107

322: Eagle Hotel, SW corner Himrod-Lakemont Rd. & Rice Hill 323: Post Office, Store at 3619 Himrod-Lakemont Rd.

324A: No erosion control, South side at 3548 Himrod Rd. 324B: Looking South toward 3548 Himrod Rd. area--erosion

Page E-108

325: View SE from Plum Point Rd. (just east of Rt 14 int. 326: View ENE from Plum Point Rd., 1,500 ft. E of Rt 14 int.

327: Off premises business sign at 243 Plum Point Rd. 328A: Long Bow Mobile Home Park, 240 Plum Point Rd.

Page E-109

328B: Long Bow Mobile Home Park, 240 Plum Point Rd. 329: View East from 192 Plum Point Rd.

330: Business sign just east of corner Plum Point & N. Plum Pt. 331: Storage building behind Rainbow Cove

Page E-110

332: Off premises business sign at about 3671 State Rt 14. 333A: Heron Hill Winery at 3586 State Rt 14

333B: Heron Hill Winery signage at 3586 State Rt 14. 334A: Gas station at 3612 State Rt 14.

Page E-111

334B: Gas station island at 3612 State Rt 14 334C: Main building at 3612 State Rt 14

334D: Truck trailer parking/storage area, 3612 State Rt 14 334E: View west toward 3612 State Rt 14

Page E-112

335:Off premises business signs at NE corner of Rt 14 & Rapalee 336: View East from about 420 Hall Rd.

337: Business? at 430 Hall Rd. 338: View East from about 354 Hall Rd.

Page E-113

339: 4 Chimneys Winery at 211 Hall Rd. 340: Off premises business sign at about 3514 S. Plum Pt Rd.

341: View NE from about 3499 South Plum Point Rd. 342A: View South toward business at 3700 State Rt 14

Page E-114

342B: Business at 3700 State Rt 14 342C: Business at 3700 State Rt 14, looking East

342D: Outdoor storage at 3700 State Rt 14 343A: Off premises bus. sign, E of Rt 14, 200’ S of Severne Rd

Page E-115

343B: Recreation & business signs, NE 14 & Severne Rd 344A: Property maintenance at 371 Severne Rd.

344B: Property maintenance at 371 Severne Rd. 344C: Property maintenance at 371 Severne Rd.

Page E-116

345: View NE from about 340 Severne Rd. 346: View East from 2/3 distance down hill from Rt 14

347A. View SW from NYS DEC boat launch site, Severne Rd. 347B: View E by NE from NYSDEC boat launch, Severne Rd.

Page E-117

347C: View East from NYS boat launch, Severne Rd. 347D: Signage at NYSDEC boat launch, Severne Rd.

347E: View South from NYSDEC boat launch, Severne Rd. 347F: View North from NYSDEC boat launch, Severne Rd.

Page E-118

348A: View North by NE from about 310 Severne Rd. 348B: View North East from about 310 Severne Rd.

349: Off premises bus. sign, East side Rt 14 at Town boundary 350A: Private RV campground, at 445 Severne Rd.

Page E-119

350B: Private RV campground at 445 Severne Rd. 351A: View NW toward former Morton Salt Mine, Severne Rd.

351B: Entry buildings at former Morton Salt, Severne Rd. 351C: Buildings at former Morton Salt, Severne Rd.

Page E-120

351D: Buildings at former Morton Salt, Severne Rd. 352: View south at RR crossing on Severne Rd.

353: View North East from about 3817 Himrod-Lakemont Rd. 355: Property maintenance, approx 2363 Second Milo Rd.

Page E-121

355: Outdoor Storage, North Side Sisson Rd. across from 2283

THE TOWN OF MILO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2009

Documents

Transcript of THE TOWN OF MILO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2009