Averill Road Case To Be Heard
Next Thursday
By DARLA M. YOUNGS
WAMPSVILLE
On Thursday, March 23, Madison County Supreme Court Justice Hon. Patrick J. O’Sullivan issued a temporary restraining order preventing Templeton Foundation or its agents from any further on-site work at the foundation’s property on Averill Road in the Village of Cooperstown.
An order to show cause is a court order or the demand of a judge requiring a party to justify or explain why the court should or should not grant a motion or a relief, according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. For example, if a party requests a restraining order from a judge, the judge may need more information.
The parties requesting the TRO in the Averill Road case—the plaintiffs/petitioners—are neighboring property owners Michael Swatling and Carolyn O’Brien, whose attorney, Douglas H. Zamelis, has filed complaints twice now against the Village of Cooperstown Board of Trustees, the Village of Cooperstown Zoning Enforcement Officer, and Templeton Foundation—the defendants/respondents.
The first suit, filed on January 18, contended that the Cooperstown Board of Trustees had applied an incorrect standard when analyzing the project’s environmental impact under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The trustees had approved a special permit for the project on January 5 for development of a project to house Bassett Hospital employees.
“Upon further review by the contractor of the project, the plan which the village approved exceeded the 2.5-acre threshold,” said village attorney Martin Tillapaugh at the time.
There was no point continuing the litigation, Tillapaugh explained. Counsel for the village, the plaintiffs and the Templeton Foundation stipulated that the litigation would be discontinued, but with the right of Templeton to reapply.
In the weeks that followed, heavy equipment arrived at the project site after which, according to attorney Zamelis, “our aerial photography confirmed Templeton had cleared the project’s entire footprint, including the road to the proposed water tower, without a proper environmental review or special permit.”
When questioned, Village of Cooperstown Mayor Ellen Tillapaugh said the Templeton Foundation had applied for and received a curb cut permit from the village for that property.
“Private parties can apply for permits for various actions, which the project engineer has done for the curb cut, for instance,” Tillapaugh said.
The mayor also said that Zoning Enforcement Officer Jackson DuBois had confirmed that fewer than 30 percent of the viable trees are being cut down, in keeping with the tree code, and pointed out that there are white pine trees on the property with a disease that is denuding them of needles.
“Diseased trees are not included in the tree code,” Tillapaugh said.
In an e-mail correspondence received on Sunday, March 19, Templeton Foundation’s attorney, Matthew E. Hamlin of Persun & Hamlin, P.C. in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, wrote: “In my opinion the limited site work undertaken by my client Templeton Foundation in furtherance of the geotechnical testing of the involved parcel complies with all applicable local and state laws and regulations.”
Zamelis officially filed the second petition with the Madison County Supreme Court on behalf of his clients on March 19, including photographs of the work being done on the Averill Road site, stating that “the commencement of construction of the project by Templeton Foundation is in violation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act…Environmental Conservation Law Article 8 and the Special Permit requirements of the Village of Cooperstown Zoning Law.” It has also been reported that New York State Department of Environmental Conservation staff visited the site on Friday, March 24.
Fast forward to today, as both plaintiffs and defendants await their day in court.
Justice O’Sullivan ordered in his ruling on behalf of the plaintiffs that the defendants “show cause and all the papers upon which it is granted” no later than Monday, March 27 and have “responding papers” to Zamelis by Monday, April 3.
The case is set to be heard at 3 p.m. on Thursday, April 6 at the Madison County Courthouse, 138 North Court Street, Wampsville.
With so much land surrounding the Village of Cooperstown, why is it necessary to cram a large multiple housing unit on a narrow dead-end street on a steep hill in this small village? The only way in and out of there is through a few streets, steep, with curves, no shoulder, no guard rail, and blind intersections that lead to an already busy intersection ( in front of Bruce Hall lumber yard), or out onto the dangerous “S” curves leading out of the village to the North. With snow or heavy rain traversing this hill could turn from dangerous to deadly. There will surely be a great deal of foot traffic to add to the problem as well. I have to wonder who is benefitting financially from this apparently illegal venture.
With so much land surrounding the Village of Cooperstown, why is it necessary to cram a large multiple housing unit on a narrow dead-end street on a steep hill in this small village? The only way in and out of there is through a few streets, steep, with curves, no shoulder, no guard rail, and blind intersections that lead to an already busy intersection ( in front of Bruce Hall lumber yard), or out onto the dangerous “S” curves leading out of the village to the North. With snow or heavy rain traversing this hill could turn from dangerous to deadly. There will surely be a great deal of foot traffic to add to the problem as well. I have to wonder who is benefitting financially from this apparently illegal venture.
I have been to the site. It is strange to see the equivalent of 10 football fields cleared of old growth trees. Who is profiting from that? Apparantly no environmental impact study was done. Water runoff is already a problem on that hill. Also, the current sewer system which currently serves about a dozen houses… is that adequate? Obviously there was no traffic study done as it is impossible to envision the few steep narrow streets serving that dead-end street being safe any time of year, let alone during the winter. Again, who is profiting from this? Perhaps these individuals will be in their large homes, on their boats, or on vacations, while this neighborhood, village, and town are suffering from this apparantly illegal venture.
I have been to the site. It is strange to see the equivalent of 10 football fields cleared of old growth trees. Who is profiting from that? Apparantly no environmental impact study was done. Water runoff is already a problem on that hill. Also, the current sewer system which currently serves about a dozen houses… is that adequate? Obviously there was no traffic study done as it is impossible to envision the few steep narrow streets serving that dead-end street being safe any time of year, let alone during the winter. Again, who is profiting from this? Perhaps these individuals will be in their large homes, on their boats, or on vacations, while this neighborhood, village, and town are suffering from this apparantly illegal venture.
Who is making these decisions? Why not put apartments next to the hospital since those are the people that need housing? There is a large, unattractive parking lot and a sewage plant there now. A one minute walk to work would certainly appeal to hospital employees, and perhaps alleviate village parking spots from being gobbled up by these workers. There is lots of flat land nearby as well, including on Brooklyn Ave. A location near stores, on flat land, with access to a county or state road would be appealing as well. Do you remember not long ago when 5 houses by the hospital at the end of Walnut Street were knocked down to put in a tiny parking lot? Who is making these decisions? The same people who think it’s a good idea to put a large housing unit on a narrow dead-end street on a hill.
Who is making these decisions? Why not put apartments next to the hospital since those are the people that need housing? There is a large, unattractive parking lot and a sewage plant there now. A one minute walk to work would certainly appeal to hospital employees, and perhaps alleviate village parking spots from being gobbled up by these workers. There is lots of flat land nearby as well, including on Brooklyn Ave. A location near stores, on flat land, with access to a county or state road would be appealing as well. Do you remember not long ago when 5 houses by the hospital at the end of Walnut Street were knocked down to put in a tiny parking lot? Who is making these decisions? The same people who think it’s a good idea to put a large housing unit on a narrow dead-end street on a hill.