The Town of Rochester Town board held a public hearing on proposed Local Law G of 2024, establishing a Community Preservation Fund and creating a Community Preservation Fund Advisory Board at 6:40pm at the Harold Lipton Community Center, 15 Tobacco Road Accord, New York 12404.

PRESENT:

Councilwoman Renee Ciardi Councilwoman Charlotte Smiseth
Town Supervisor Erin Enouen Town Clerk Kathleen Gundberg
Town Attorney Marylou Christiana

ABSENT:

Councilman Michael Coleman Councilwoman Emily Dindial

Supervisor Enouen opened the public hearing and led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

SALLY ROY: I support this law and wish to see it on the November ballot.

BARBARA LAWRENCE: I support proposed local law G, H & I and submitted written letter of support.

ANKA ANGELO: I support this movement.

HANS FETSCHERIZ: I fully support the proposed local laws; they will help enhance the community.

JEAN LERNER: thank you to the Town Board and committee for this huge undertaking. This will help with preserving farmland.

MIKE SWEETSER: I work with the Orange Co. land trust, and we work with local land trusts and this has been very successful. I am currently the Town of Warwick Supervisor and this law passed in 2006. In the past 18 years this plan has become wildly successful. We currently have 38 working farms who remain on the tax roll. 4 parcels have become parks, this is critical for lands with watershed. It doesn’t dimmish value or stop the sale of homes. This allows our community to be competitive in grants.

BECKY COLLINS-BROOKS: I am a former member of the
Zoning Board, the Planning Board, and more recently a resigned member of the Community Preservation Committee that is proposing the plan currently before you.
This past Sunday the last public information session was held to address questions brought by the community to the Community Preservation Committee regarding this ballot initiative. It came to my attention that my name was brought up during that meeting, and it was stated that I resigned because I didn’t have the time to participate. While it is true that my time was tight during the time frame the committee was organizing itself (l am a farmer, and it was the beginning of spring) it is incorrect that I resigned due to this fact. I feel the need to publicly correct the record. First, I resigned after serving on the committee for nearly three weeks, not the one week stated at the information session. In those three weeks I used my time to educate myself on my role, the impacts on the community from several different perspectives, and the process of putting together the plan you have before you now. I took my responsibility to the committee, but more importantly, to this board and our town, very seriously. I understood that given the complexities of this project, merely one month to write the proposal, elicit community understanding and support, receive Board approval, and then place it on the ballot for November by the August deadline, was simply too tight a time frame. I contacted several of you on this Board to let you know. I expressed this concern in the CPC meetings, where I was forcefully overridden. I felt that this was a consultant-driven process, NOT a community-driven one. This is an idea that will permanently alter this town, and I could not, in good conscience, move forward on this committee with a steam-roller mindset. THAT is the reason I resigned, and my resignation letter said as much. I cannot support the process this proposal has followed to get to your desk tonight, because this has moved too quickly for every party concerned: the committee, the Town Board (you), and most important of all, the community who are appropriately concerned and who will be the ones directly impacted by this initiative.
I have been made aware, from members of the community who have attended the information sessions, that many questions were asked of the Community Preservation
Committee for which few concrete answers were forthcoming. It should be of enormous concern to you, as our town leaders, why these critically important questions don’t have answers before you add it to the ballot in November, The unknowns deserve attention, and should be addressed before this proposal moves forward. These are not “hypotheticals” – they are intelligent and thought-provoking questions for which the community deserves concrete solutions. This takes time. When I questioned the tight time frame in meetings of the committee, I was told that the reason it was so important to push forward with this initiative is that this is a presidential election year, and voter turnout is high during presidential elections. My sense was that there was time pressure to push this forward to grab yes votes, rather than making sure it’s well-thought-out. The portion of the process in which I participated was rushed, on a timeline that did not honor the gravity of this project. It’s also important for you, as a town board, to fully understand the long-term ramifications of a project of this magnitude, which will enable you to put protections in place for those who might be harmed by this initiative. If there isn’t public trust in a process, the end *never* justifies the means.
I in no way mean this in a derogatory manner toward my former committee members. I have enormous respect for each of them as individuals. There are, however, critically important questions still to be answered. It appears that the CPC prefers to present only the “rose-colored glasses” version, instead of a more realistic version, in order to sway public opinion. In my experience it better serves the public interest to address all the sides of an issue, not merely the ones people will agree with, and then let them make up their own minds. Instead of trying to convince, why not instead set out to inform?
I would like to point out that as leaders, you have been dealing with a substantial amount of upheaval in recent months, including the resignation of our previous town supervisor. This is a huge project requiring a great deal of prescience and forethought. In order to give this project the scrutiny the community deserves, it seems logical and thoughtful to give yourselves more time to make a plan that honors the spirit of this project’s intent, while also respecting the voices of the community who have concerns.
Lastly, as a farmer on land that has been identified as one of those that qualifies as a proposed conservable tract, I think there’s a gap in understanding of the finances of conservation easements. We went through the process of a conservation easement with a well-known conservation organization several years ago. Preserving our property as open space forever means a great deal to us. However, it is also our one greatest asset. We don’t have lucrative 401 K’s, or investment accounts. We have our land. When all was said and done, when we went through the whole process, what we would have walked away with was a pittance for the development rights, and it would’ve been insanity for us to sign those away. It is a known fact that land conservancies seldom make farmers whole: instead, they are a way for the wealthy to transform their land holdings into tax shelters, thus giving them one more way to accumulate wealth. Regarding the luxury tax itself: it appears to us it has the potential to impact the value of our land in a most detrimental way. From a transactional standpoint, it may be said that the buyer of a property will pay this tax. This tax will be taken into consideration in the negotiations, and the purchase price offered will most likely be lowered in order to account for the added expense. Anyone with half a mind for finance understands this. So then who, at the end of the real estate transaction, will actually be paying the tax? On paper it may look like the buyer, but it will be the seller who ultimately pays in the end, when the tax is deducted from the list price of a property. The proposed percentage of the tax also seems out of line with the demographics of this community. I understand in theory what you are trying to do, but from the most practical standpoint, the concept behind the project is flawed. You will hurt the very people you use every day as a sales point for this town, and who protect the rural nature of this township, the last real holdouts of country life: the farmers who own the largest parcels of land. I am not asking you to vote no: I am asking you to slow down. Please reconsider pushing this through so quickly, please delay your vote with the goal of placing this initiative on the ballot in
2025 rather than this November. Our community deserves for this proposed tax and its accompanying fund management to be implemented in the most careful and proper way possible. Thank you so much. 

MATT DECKER: Works for open space institute, This plan gives the town an opportunity to help with land conservation and land protection with out funding it through tax base. I want to echo the Town of Warwick Supervisor on public grant sources and programs that can help with supporting this initiative. There are also protection mechanisms when it comes to preserving affordable housing, there are models available to review.

KEN STEPHENS: as a member of the housing committee I believe we submitted a letter for the record. I acknowledge the hard work that has gone into this plan, the pace of the process hope to have enough checks and balances and there is ample opportunities to change the law along the way.

BOB ANDERBERG: I hear the concern of worry of the increase of taxes but the adoption of this will help keep the taxes down. I don’t see the reason to hold this up, let the voters determine the process. I appreciate the comments but want to let the public know that OSI has successfully protected over 18,000 acres, 28 farms several right in our Town and the farmers felt they were adequately compensated. Thank you to the residents, thank you to the Town Board and Congratulations to the new Town Board member Renee Ciardi.

BARBARA RUBIN: I am a long time resident of the Town and urge the Town Board to adopt and pass these proposed local laws. I would like to see it on the ballot this fall, this is a time for democracy and this plan will benefit all. This will help preserve the quality of life in the Town of Rochester. I see a number of homes sold for over $ 600,00.00 in Town and people are paying full price.

GERRY FORNINO: Congratulations to Renee for joining the Town Board. I attended all the information sessions, even the Town meeting where this was discussed and believe Erin was at all of them and there were a lot of questions brought up at the meeting that were not answered so I feel the board needs to slow down this process. We are talking about preserving and conserving land.

PETER NELSON: I sat on the Community Preservation Committee and feel this was not rushed in judgement. The process was intense, and we met on a weekly basis. It is clear and we utilized mechanisms that will work. We tried to answer a great deal of questions at the information session however it hard to answer projected questions of what would happen in this case or that case. We cannot answer questions of what future committees and future Town boards will do and we can’t speak hypothetical. This has nothing to do with the proposed zoning changes, frankly it never came up. We identified as much as possible and tried to do this with great openness. The first information session was recorded the others were because we were trying to make a strong effort to reach all areas of town. In my opinion this is not rushed and push for it to go to referendum for all the town to vote.

ED STERRIT: I attended all the info session, and I am against it. It is not in the best interest of the Town. Grants are still tax dollars, and I don’t think our government should be buying land.

CLAYTON HAUGEN: I’ve been a resident since day one. I agree with bringing this to a vote but there are still questions that we need to work on before we move this forward. I am not saying I’m against it but slow it down. Does the ZBA have to be involved in any of the oversight of properties purchased? On a conservation standpoint I am an avid hunter will I be given the same rights to use the land to hunt as someone who is looking to walk the land? I ask you to put it on hold until next year, lets get answers to property value increases and 1.5 % by the purchaser is high and will increase the property value. Let’s get answers before we pass the unknown because it sounds like the right thing to do.

ART FRIEDMAN: I’ve been a resident for over 30 years and in business for many years.
I would say with my business hat this this a wonderful report, follow up in about a year. I think it is deeply flawed, there are pieces that are not fully developed and no financial analysis. What are the goals? Better slow down and answer the questions first. This plan is a road map and not a good road map.

Councilwoman Dindial arrives(7:30pm)

RICK JONES: I love this town and think there have been some great comments made tonight. I wish I was able to attend some of the info sessions. I have been on the planning board for a few years and there are a lot of projects coming through that are making it harder and more difficult to change. Some projects are inappropriate for the area and this plan can solve an number of things conservation, zoning and preservation plans and affordable housing can be done with the passing of this law too. This law allows for affordable housing for our seniors, and we need to find the good balance between homes and commercial development. Possibly the IDA can help with affordable housing as well.

JOHN HAYES: this is a bold, ambitious and comprehensive plan. There has been a lot of work put into this and this town is being faced with development now so I urge to move forward and put it to the voters.

JAMES FARRELL: I watch every town meeting and was very disappointed that all three info sessions were not covered. We paid $ 22,000.00 for this study we could at least pay for a camera and speakers. I am a father of 3 and being able to watch the video from home helps with our schedules.

ZORIAN PINSKY: I was checking on the website and the devil is in the details. The section referring to making payments needs to be a clearer explanation. Many parts of the documents are unclear, and we need to clarify everything.

RICH TAYLOR: I found the plan to be informative and suggest they move on the adoption quickly.

HOLD PUBLIC HEARING OPEN FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Resolution # 220-2024

Motion: Councilwoman Smiseth
Second: Councilwoman Ciardi

The Town of Rochester Town Board held the public hearing open for written comments until 3:30pm on July 16, 2024.

Public hearing ended at 7:45pm.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

KATHLEEN A GUNDBERG
TOWN CLERK

The Town of Rochester Town board held a public hearing on proposed Local Law H of 2024, Local Law H of 2024, Adopting a Community Preservation Plan at 7:45pm at the Harold Lipton Community Center, 15 Tobacco Road Accord, New York 12404.

PRESENT:

Councilwoman Renee Ciardi Councilwoman Emily Dindial Councilwoman Charlotte Smiseth Town Supervisor Erin Enouen
Town Clerk Kathleen Gundberg Town Attorney Marylou Christiana

ABSENT:

Councilman Michael Coleman

PUBLIC COMMENT:

SAY ROY: I look forward to us talking this through, we have months to discuss any concerns. Every Journey begins with first step. We can’t wait a year, my vote is yes!

BARBARA LAWRENCE: I support this going to referendum, I have lived in land sprawl and I like living here. (letter on file)

MICHAEL CALLAN: I have concerns with overuse of land and cost especially regarding future values of property and revenue streams. We need more time.

ROBERT GARRETT: I’ve been to a couple of the info session meetings, and I hear the conversations on both sides. If this won’t take place until January or February of next year what is another few months if we wait until November 2025. It is hurry up the process and then wait so let’s take our time do it right, the committee worked hard on this plan and ask the Town Board to take their time.

Bob Anderberg: I agree with Rick’s comments. We have a tidal wave of development coming our way, turn this over to the voters to decide.

Barbara Rubin: I ask you adopt the plan; we are not moving too fast in fact it feels like we are almost too late.

Troy Dunn: I wasn’t going to say much because I like to come to the meeting informed and educate myself, however I didn’t even know about this until yesterday. There are things I could have done better to stay notified but what could the Town Board have done better as well? Did you think to reach out to large landowners to sit on this committee ? a lot more needs to be done to reach the public. Regarding the plan, usually when we are doing a plan, we have to identify the problem and identify the solution. What is the problem and what is the solution with this? In order for this to be successful it needs to be vetted to the public more and we need to slow this down so we can all look at it, why the rush? No one’s life is in danger. We need more diverse group to sit in on the conversation, the smartest leader sits at the table with people that don’t agree.

PETER NELSON: regarding the plan each Town has done something different with their plan, it’s not a copycat template and this is a great plan. There has been a lot of outreach from the adhoc committee and utilization of plans the Town currently has.

KEN STEPHENS: Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There is substance, communication and 1 year from now there will be complaints. I suggest we move forward with the plan presented, we still have months to learn and allow the community as a whole to decide. This is democracy at it’s finest. I was to express my appreciation that the Board has taken this on. I do think a member from the housing committee should be appointed to the Advisory Board.

Clayton Haugen: I agree with Troy that the prior planning of members to the committee should have been done because this suggests poor performance. We’ve has past boards implement solar fields on Town Land and look how that was handled in Ellenville. The Town gave the state land and in turn the state no longer used it for agricultural purposes and it became a solar field. I ask you wait so we can discover the proper path. I think we are taking on too much now and once property is taken over by the Town then what? The voice of the people is limited to the board who will appoint the members of this committee.

ED STERRIT: I attended all three meeting and there is an issue with page 16, item # 2 regarding the list of properties. I’m not seeing a list of properties.

RICHARD MILLER: I have had no problem getting the information off the website. I think all points of view are being heard and we know the experience of other towns having success is important to know and I strongly support this plan.

GERRY FORNINO: read an article from June 2024 Blue stone press regarding the judge to make a decision whether the Town of Marbletown sell a firehouse. The Town Supervisor is quoted saying, “ The Town doesn’t have the resources to support another Town owned building”. They are admitting that they don’t have the resources to support this yet they will buy more land and they are leaving it to the judge to decide.

PETER NELSON: discussed the sale of the North Marbletown Firehouse: it was property given to the Town a completely separate issue.

HOLD PUBLIC HEARING OPEN FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Resolution # 221-2024

Motion: Councilwoman Smiseth
Second: Councilwoman Ciardi

The Town of Rochester Town Board held the public hearing open for written comments until 3:30pm on July 16, 2024.

Public hearing ended at 8:25pm.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

KATHLEEN A GUNDBERG
TOWN CLERK

The Town of Rochester Town board held a public hearing on proposed Local Law I of 2024, Local Law I of 2024, Imposing a Real Estate Transfer Tax at 8:25pm at the Harold Lipton Community Center, 15 Tobacco Road Accord, New York 12404.

PRESENT:

Councilwoman Renee Ciardi Councilwoman Emily Dindial Councilwoman Charlotte Smiseth Town Supervisor Erin Enouen
Town Clerk Kathleen Gundberg Town Attorney Marylou Christiana

ABSENT:

Councilman Michael Coleman

PUBLIC COMMENT:

SALLY ROY: I support this.

JEAN LERNER: I grew up in long island. I remember the last dairy farm leaving the area and moved up here to buy an existing house because everything is subdivision subdivision subdivision. We are losing water every day We are already behind schedule and we need to move forward, maybe we can work on ways to better communicate.

ART FRIEDMAN: if you don’t have a road map how did you come up with the 1.5% seems high to me.

TONY SPANO: I would like to applaud the team for putting this together. I am concerned about the transfer tax. Currently the buyer already pays a .4% transfer tax and an additional .4 % real estate tax. This proposal shows 1.5% what made you come to the conclusion to make this 1.5 %? The interest rates are already high. I ask that you reconsider the additional tax on this and find a creative way to come up with this funding. We need to consider the inflation prices, and if we impose a tax on sale of homes in the Town it can take some time before that is recuperated. There needs to be some sustainability and we can’t rely on sale of homes to fuel this properly; does it need to be fueled at all? I believe farmers should have been involved in this process. The money collected it shows only 10 % can be used? What is the rest going towards then? Who are we hiring? Conservation police?

CHRISTIE DEBOER: I am honored to have been a part of this plan. These funds created are allowing us to preserve our heritage with the amount of development coming to our Town. I believe this is the best plan in Ulster County.

BOB ANDERBERG: I am strongly supportive of the 1.5% tax. And urge the Board to move forward.
PETER NELSON: 10 % of the funds received can go toward maintenance of the properties, the tax will support this and will provide another resource for the Town.

Several residents stated this is a tax on the purchaser not the resident. This is not a cost to the taxpayer, and it helps protect our lands.

TIM YEATTs: I disagree with the statement that this is not a tax on the resident, because I am a resident and a renter, and this tax would fall on me if I was to buy a home in Town.

CARLY: I’m sitting here absorbing everything…I want to offer myself as an
informational resource to the board and to any resident who wants to
reach out to me. I work for scenic Hudson and have worked on the past four CPFs that have passed in the last couple of years. This is a great mechanism that many communities don’t have this choice.

RICK JONES: We have massive subdivisions coming to our town that will affect us all.

GERRY FORNINO: this tax is not only affecting the purchaser. My neighbor had to negotiate the price to agree to split the tax on the sale of the house, so he lost money. The tax is a tax once it exists.

TROY DUNN: How is this funded? Like most things it will be funded on the backs of the taxpayer and on local government funded through the landowner. When you start playing with their land you start playing with their bank account. Lets get creative on funding, there may be a more receptive way to fund this idea. It is too easy and lazy to put back on the tax bill.

HOLD PUBLIC HEARING OPEN FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Resolution # 223-2024

Motion: Councilwoman Smiseth
Second: Supervisor Enouen

The Town of Rochester Town Board held the public hearing open for written comments until 3:30pm on July 16, 2024.

Public hearing ended at 9:04pm.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

KATHLEEN A GUNDBERG
TOWN CLERK

WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED:

Timothy Yeatts: I am opposed to all three of the new local laws proposed as part of the community preservation plan. I appreciate all the work that has gone into the current plan, but this project has been too rushed. I do not see how you can vote on a law when the answers to most of the questions asked during the information sessions is we don’t know and I can’t
answer that.

My biggest question is what is the need? I think these projects are a great for other heavily developed communities such as on Long Island and in Westchester county, but we live in an already rural environment with the Catskills and Minnewaska already preserved so I do not see a need for giving government money to farmers and landowners for land that is
highly likely to stay in that state already.
We can achieve many of the goals in the plan with our already existing zoning regulations and by providing information and encouraging willing landowners to enroll in a conservation easement on their own with a local land trust without ever having to involve the town.
One of my biggest concerns with this plan is the possibility for corruption. It was stated that no one on the board will benefit, but Accord is a small town where everybody know everybody so I do not see how we can give money in a way that does not at least appear corrupt.

It was stated many times in the meetings that people are complaining about the community changing but in my experience the complaints have never been about losing land, it is about the type of people moving into the area. Accord has historically been a rural town and all the plans you have presented seem to favor the new wealthy residents over
the lifelong residents.
I ask the town board to table this for now so we can get real answers to the many valid questions that were asked, and we can see how neighboring towns plans such as Marbletown play out. After a few years we can revisit when there is better answers and we can see how the plan plays out locally. I see no rush to jump into a program that may become a major headache in the future.

Beatrice Haugen Depuy: For this evening’s public hearing, I am seeking clarification on
specific points regarding the following:
Local Law H of 2024, a local law adopting a Community Preservation Plan
for the purpose of preserving natural, scenic, historic, and open space resources within
the Town. Local Law I of 2024, imposing a 1.5 percent Real Estate Transfer Tax on
the conveyance of interests in real property in the Town, with the revenues derived
from this tax to be deposited in the Town of Rochester Community […]
Will properties purchased for preservation, be sold to other government
entities or private investors, such as the New York State, Federal, or Private Interest Groups? What conditions are in this new law to prevent this?
What say does the Town have if the property were resold?
Will the property be forever maintained forever in the preserved state?
Can the Town purchase properties for historical preservation under this new law? If not, can this be made a condition of the new law? I believe this “PROPOSAL” for these new laws is being pushed to “LAW” and REFERENDUM” before all aspects and possibilities can be taken into account. The Committee studying this has taken many questions that it
could not answer.
I know the Town Board may wish to get this issue off of its plate, but please do not make a hasty decision at the possible expense of the Town’s future.

Jennifer Pettit: As a newer resident of the Town of Rochester, I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for establishing a Community Preservation Fund (CPF) and placing it on the November 2024 ballot. I have been working with The Esopus Roundout Land Conservation on a Conservation Easement of 47.8 forested acres of my farm. As Our town has a rich history and unique character that must be preserved for Future generations, both for agricultural land preservation, and open spaces.

The Community Preservation Fund is a crucial step toward safeguarding our natural landscapes, historic sites, and scenic views. (Over the years,) I have seen firsthand how development pressures have threatened the very essence of what makes Rochester special. The CPF, funded by a modest real estate transfer tax, will provide the necessary resources to protect open spaces, farmlands, and water resources that are vital to our community’s well-being.
By approving the CPF, we can ensure that our town remains a place where people want to live, work, and visit. Protecting our environment and historic landmarks not only enhances our quality of life but also boosts local tourism and strengthens our economy. I urge you to take this
important step and give our community the tools it needs to preserve our heritage.
Thank you for your consideration.

Julie Goldscheid: As a long time resident of the Town of Rochester, I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for establishing a Community Preservation Fund (CPF) and placing it on the November 2024 ballot. Our town has a rich history and unique character that must be preserved for future generations. The Community Preservation Fund is a crucial step toward safeguarding our natural landscapes, historic sites, and scenic views. Over the years, I have seen firsthand how development pressures have threatened the very essence of what makes Rochester special. The CPF, funded by a modest real estate transfer tax, will provide the necessary resources to protect open spaces, farmlands, and water resources that are vital to our community’s well-being.

By approving the CPF, we can ensure that our town remains a place where people want to live, work, and visit. Protecting our environment and historic landmarks not only enhances our quality of life but also boosts local tourism and strengthens our economy. I urge you to take this important step and give our community the tools it needs to preserve our heritage.

Sally Roy: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for establishing a Community Preservation Fund (CPF) and placing it on the November 2024 ballot. With this new initiative we can work to preserve the rich history and unique character of our town for generations to come.
The Community Preservation Fund gives us the opportunity and means to safeguard our natural landscapes, historic sites, and scenic views. Development pressures continue to threaten what makes Rochester special and a CPF, funded by a modest real estate transfer tax, will provide the necessary resources to protect open spaces, farmlands, and water resources that are vital to our community’s well-being.
By approving the CPF, we can ensure that our town remains a place where people want to
live, work, and visit. Protecting our environment and historic landmarks not only enhances
our quality of life but also boosts local tourism and strengthens our economy. I urge you to take this important step and give our community the tools it needs to preserve our heritage. Please approve the CPF for the 2024 ballot.
Dana Fulmer: As a long-time resident of the Town of Rochester, I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for establishing a Community Preservation Fund (CPF) and placing it on the November 2024 ballot. Our town has a rich history and unique character that must be preserved for future generations.
The Community Preservation Fund is a crucial step toward safeguarding our natural landscapes, historic sites, and scenic views. Over the years, I have seen firsthand how development pressures have threatened the very essence of what makes Rochester special. I also have noted that our town provides fewer and more meager community resources than other nearby towns do, and would like to see this changed. The CPF, funded by a modest real estate transfer tax, will provide the necessary resources to protect open spaces, farmlands, and water resources that are vital to our community’s well-being.
By approving the CPF, we can ensure that our town remains a place where people want to live, work, and visit. Protecting our environment and historic landmarks not only enhances our quality of life but also boosts local tourism and strengthens our economy. I urge you to take this important step and give our community the tools it needs to preserve our heritage.
Marc Grasso: Please accept this into the record regards to the Community Preservation Fund.
Information from the Ulster County Board of Realtors reflects that the Town of Rochester has seen 53 residential transactions of over $500,000 in contractual sales in the last 12 months. This equates to $52,011,764. Zero land parcels changed hands in this pricing category, while 1 commercial/multifamily (Veritas Villa) changed hands for $5,050,000.
I recognize the need for community preservation, and I feel there is a need for this to exist in our community, but I feel the proposal of 1.5% is extremely high and should be recalculated and reduced.
With the amount reflected above, this would equate that $52,011,764 * 1.5% = $780,176 would be received by the town in a calendar year and that is not what this was designed to do. With the housing crisis as the immediate concern, I feel we should reduce this fee to 0.5% leaving room for another 0.5% to be placed in reserve for housing, and calculating this total as a 1% community preservation/housing fund with a cap for 5 years. Then, this will be re-evaluated then and identified if still needed, reduced or increased based on town board input from the community.
Keep in mind, this does not reflect past sales of the Hudson Valley Resort and Pine Grove Dude Ranch, which combined sales exceeded $25 Million dollars which would be over $375K towards this fund alone. That is too much and should be recalculated accordingly.
Lastly, with an upcoming Board of Assessment Revaluation coming in 2025 of existing homes and land, taxes in our community are going to be driven up as home values have risen significantly which will increase our assessed values. I think that we should take an additional year to re-calculate our valuations, and study property churn prior to accepting a community preservation fund with the maximum percentage allowed proposed.

Jeannett & Lestor Cohen: As 24 year residents of the Town of Rochester, we are writing to express our enthusiastic support for establishing a Community Preservation Fund (CPF) and placing it on the November 2024 ballot. Our town has a rich history and unique character that must be preserved for future generations.
The Community Preservation Fund is a crucial step toward safeguarding our natural landscapes, historic sites, and scenic views. We have seen firsthand how development pressures have threatened the very essence of what makes Rochester special. The CPF, funded by a modest real estate transfer tax, will provide the necessary resources to protect open spaces, farmlands, and water resources that are vital to our community’s well-being.
By approving the CPF, we can ensure that our town remains a place where people want to live, work, and visit. Protecting our environment and historic landmarks not only enhances our quality of life but also boosts local tourism and strengthens our economy. I urge you to take this important step and give our community the tools it needs to preserve our heritage.

Elisabeth Harris & James Humphreys: As a 6 year resident of the Town of Rochester, we are writing to express enthusiastic support for establishing a Community Preservation Fund (CPF) and placing it on the November 2024 ballot. Our town has a rich history and unique character that must be preserved for future generations. The Community Preservation Fund is a crucial step toward safeguarding our natural landscapes, historic sites, and scenic views. We have seen firsthand how development pressures have threatened the very essence of what makes Rochester special. The CPF, funded by a modest real estate transfer tax, will provide the necessary resources to protect open spaces, farmlands, and water resources that are vital to our community’s well-being. It’s an exciting and promising opportunity that benefits all!
By approving the CPF, we can ensure that our town remains a place where people want to live, work, and visit. Protecting our environment and historic landmarks not only enhances our quality of life but also boosts local tourism and strengthens our economy. We urge you to take this important step and give our community the tools it needs to preserve our heritage.

Gregory Purnhagen: I have been a resident of Rochester for nearly twenty years. Over the past two decades, I’ve seen a lot of changes both along Route 209 and along the many backroads I’ve come to know while traveling about the area. I am writing to express my total support for establishing a CPF and putting it on the the ballot this November. Our town has many unique charms and a heritage that should be preserved for future generations.

Establishing a Community Preservation Fund would be a crucial step towards preserving and safeguarding our natural landscapes, historic areas and scenic views. Since first moving to the area, I have seen how the pressures of development have often threatened the very essence of what makes Rochester special. A CPF, funded by a modest real estate transfer tax could be an effective way to provide funding to protect open lands, farmland and water resources that are all vital to our community’s well-being. I also support initiatives and programs that allow new businesses to open, adding the economic vitality of the community.

Allowing a Community Preservation Fund to be created will make our town a place people want to live, visit and work. Environmental protection is a keystone to an overall maintenance of the quality of life. I urge you to support the implementation of a CPF to benefit our community and its economy.

Carla Koslowsky & William Lee: As long-time residents of the Town of Rochester, we are writing to express my enthusiastic support for establishing a Community Preservation Fund (CPF) and placing it on the November 2024 ballot. Our town has a rich history and unique character that must be preserved for future generations.

The Community Preservation Fund is a crucial step toward safeguarding our natural landscapes, historic sites, and scenic views. Over the years, I have seen firsthand how development pressures have threatened the very essence of what makes Rochester special. The CPF, funded by a modest real estate transfer tax, will provide the necessary resources to protect open spaces, farmlands, and water resources that are vital to our community’s well-being.

By approving the CPF, we can ensure that our town remains a place where people want to live, work, and visit. Protecting our environment and historic landmarks not only enhances our quality of life but also boosts local tourism and strengthens our economy. I urge you to take this important step and give our community the tools it needs to preserve our heritage.

Matthew Dell: As a resident, business owner, and homeowner in the Town of Rochester, and as a member of the Town Agricultural Committee, I would like to express my support for the proposed Community Preservation Plan, Community Preservation Fund and related Real Estate Transfer Tax.
I believe there is an urgent need to protect wildlife and wild spaces in our town and region, and the proposed CPF will enable our town to do so through a tax on high-value real estate transactions. The size and scope of the tax will only affect high-income purchasers of real estate; it will not make it harder for anyone to sell their property or have any additional costs for sellers. Therefore I only see a net benefit for the town – more money to protect our natural areas.
Please support the CPF and allow our residents to vote on this important matter.

Holden Burr: As a resident of Accord, I am writing to express my support for establishing a Community Preservation Fund (CPF) and placing it on the November 2024 ballot.
I moved to Accord in the summer of 2017 because it reminded me of the great mix of wild nature and farmland where I grew up in rural Missouri. My own homeland in Missouri has been devastated by development and over use of pesticides to the point that one cannot drink the water nor safely forage wild plants. For the sake of our own safety and well being, and that of generations to come, it would be wonderful to establish the CPF so that we may protect our natural landscapes and waters.
Richard Miller: I am writing to expressed my support for the passage of Local Laws G, H and I establishing a Community Preservation Fund, a CPF Plan, and imposing a 1.5% real estate tax to raise funds for the aforementioned fund.
I believe that this is a timely proposal, which should go forward and be on the ballot this November. A number of other communities in Ulster and Dutchess Counties have created similar funds, and they have proven to be successful in preserving land in the communities, and popular with the citizenry.
Moreover. I support these proposals because I think it will be good for the town of Rochester, will attract more people who want to live in areas that have preserved lands, and will enhance the value and beauty of our community.
Thank you for your attention to this.

Bob Anderberg: This e-mail is to express my strong support for Local Laws G, H and I of 2024, establishing a Community Preservation Fund; creating a Community Preservation Fund Advisory Board; adopting the Community Preservation Plan; and imposing a 1.5% real estate transfer tax on certain sales of residential real property.
I have lived in the area for 54 years. (After living in the towns of Gardiner and Marbletown, I moved to the Town of Rochester 43 years ago.) My son and daughter-in-law run a farm market on Route 209, and I have three granddaughters in the Rondout Valley school district. Adoption of the Community Preservation Act is important to me – but more importantly to them.
The town I lived in before coming to Ulster County as a child (Mt. Sinai, Suffolk County, Long Island) was a wonderful place to grow up. Much like Accord, it was a rural and bucolic farm community that was beautiful beyond compare. Farms as far as the eye could see – mainly potato, duck and peach farms.
But today you would not recognize this town. It is wall to wall houses and commercial development, and when development arrived in earnest in the mid-1960’s real estate taxes literally went through the roof.
My vision for the Town of Rochester – and what I hope my grandchildren will grow up to see – is a landscape of preserved farms and forests with compatible commercial and residential growth, especially in its hamlets.
My favorite example locally is the Davis (Arrowhead) Farm – 360 acres of visually beautiful farmland located on Route 209 south of Accord. This farm could have hosted hundreds of homes, despoiling important community views and requiring costly town services. But instead it was protected by a conservation easement acquired by the Open Space Institute, and is today permanent open space that continues to be farmed by a collective. It is – and will remain – private property on the tax rolls, but no longer available for unsightly and overlarge residential subdivision.
The Community Preservation Act is a tool – one of several — that will allow future town boards to deal with situations like the Davis Farm. I do not see any reason to delay the adoption of these local laws. The developers are not waiting, and neither should we. While good questions have been raised about the implementation of the CPF and how its monies will be expended, we should let the voters of the town determine at referendum in November what their vision for the future of the town is.
I would also like to give my sincere thanks to the residents of this town who have worked hard to bring us to this point and explain the Community Preservation Fund. In particular I applaud Peter Nelson, who somehow found time to do this while also serving as Chief of the Accord Fire Department. My sincere thanks also to the members of the town board who are so invested in the future of our town.
Thank you for letting me submit this letter of support. While I work for a conservation organization (Open Space Institute) deeply involved in the preservation of open space in the Town of Rochester and elsewhere in New York, this letter is submitted solely in my capacity as resident of the town.

Barbara Rubin: This e-mail is to express my strong support for Local Laws G, H and I of 2024, establishing a Community Preservation Fund; creating a Community Preservation Fund Advisory Board; adopting the Community Preservation Plan; and imposing a 1.5% real estate transfer tax on certain sales of residential real property.
I have lived in the area for 54 years. (After living in the towns of Gardiner and Marbletown, I moved to the Town of Rochester 43 years ago.) My son and daughter-in-law run a farm market on Route 209, and I have three granddaughters in the Rondout Valley school district. Adoption of the Community Preservation Act is important to me – but more importantly to them.

The town I lived in before coming to Ulster County as a child (Mt. Sinai, Suffolk County, Long Island) was a wonderful place to grow up. Much like Accord, it was a rural and bucolic farm community that was beautiful beyond compare. Farms as far as the eye could see – mainly potato, duck and peach farms.
But today you would not recognize this town. It is wall to wall houses and commercial development, and when development arrived in earnest in the mid-1960’s real estate taxes literally went through the roof.
My vision for the Town of Rochester – and what I hope my grandchildren will grow up to see – is a landscape of preserved farms and forests with compatible commercial and residential growth, especially in its hamlets.
My favorite example locally is the Davis (Arrowhead) Farm – 360 acres of visually beautiful farmland located on Route 209 south of Accord. This farm could have hosted hundreds of homes, despoiling important community views and requiring costly town services. But instead it was protected by a conservation easement acquired by the Open Space Institute, and is today permanent open space that continues to be farmed by a collective. It is – and will remain – private property on the tax rolls, but no longer available for unsightly and overlarge residential subdivision.
The Community Preservation Act is a tool – one of several — that will allow future town boards to deal with situations like the Davis Farm. I do not see any reason to delay the adoption of these local laws. The developers are not waiting, and neither should we. While good questions have been raised about the implementation of the CPF and how its monies will be expended, we should let the voters of the town determine at referendum in November what their vision for the future of the town is.
I would also like to give my sincere thanks to the residents of this town who have worked hard to bring us to this point and explain the Community Preservation Fund. In particular I applaud Peter Nelson, who somehow found time to do this while also serving as Chief of the Accord Fire Department. My sincere thanks also to the members of the town board who are so invested in the future of our town.
Thank you for letting me submit this letter of support. While I work for a conservation organization (Open Space Institute) deeply involved in the preservation of open space in the Town of Rochester and elsewhere in New York, this letter is submitted solely in my capacity as resident of the town.

Jean Lerner: I strongly urge the Town to adopt this plan. The experience of our neighboring towns shows how successful this program can be for preserving our local farm lands at virtually no taxpayer expense. It’s a win-win.

Larry Dewitt: Thank you for the privilege of serving on the Town’s initial Community Preservation Advisory Committee. It was an excellent, productive committee, with the very best leadership (Peter Nelson, Chairman and our consultant Ted Fink). I learned a lot both from the research we did on Rochester community preservation planning and from the three public information sessions that we held. I see my official service to the Town on this Committee now phasing out. We were mandated to establish a Draft Community Preservation Plan, and to advise the Board and the public on what we recommend regarding the Town establishing a Community Preservation Fund and an associated Real Estate Transfer Tax.

Our job was to recommend the broad outlines of a plan and design. If accepted and approved, the next stage, if there is voter approval on November 5, 2024, is to get to work on the details. Much of the frustration voiced at our public sessions was directed towards the lack of details. I believe the level of detail provided has been appropriate to this stage of development.

My comments below are my own views, probably very largely supported by the CPP Committee, but I do not here represent that Committee:

Property Tax impacts. Both the “logic of small numbers” and the research data indicate that there will be negligible property tax effects. The concern is that by buying land and taking it off the tax rolls, the remaining taxpayers will have to cover for this loss. That thinking in principle is correct, but the numbers involved are incredibly small. In discussions with the Town Assessor on this specific point, he noted that if the RETT were to collect $500,000 in one year (the approximate amount a 1.5% RETT would have yielded in 2023 with a Town median exemption level), and a half of it was used to buy real estate rather than development rights or easements (most Towns with CPPs have used the great majority of their revenue for easements and development right—keeping those lands on the rolls), there would be a negligible and “difficult to discern” impact on the Town taxes that anyone pays.
The best major research study of the impact of land conservation on property taxes was a largescale statistical study of more than 1400 towns and cities in New England for the years 1990 to 2015. Among the study’s conclusions is “We find that on average, new land protection has had small impacts on property tax rates that do not last over time…this translates to an annual property tax bill increase of just $0.72 – $0.92 per $100,000 of property value….” The authors go on to say “On the other hand, land protection can create amenity value which may boost surrounding property values…and increase collected revenue as assessments are adjusted….
Other Economic and Town Development Benefits. The above referenced study goes on to say, “land protection can also have positive impacts on local employment outcomes and economic growth, potentially increasing other revenue sources”. That report provides an excellent summary of various studies researched over the years by others which conclude that there are very high probabilities of desirable economic growth from the conservation of land alone. Beyond that, we have heard from many of the towns that have established CPP/RETT programs that they have been able to attract about a dollar of outside funding as a match for every dollar they have invested in community preservation via this program.
Timing. If the CPP Program is not approved now, I think it very likely it will be approved next year. And that would be a big, wasted opportunity and an inefficient use of everyone’s resources. We would miss forever the approximately $500,000 we could collect from the RETT. We would have to reproduce, and in some significant measure simply repeat, all these meetings and discussions and arguments of which there have been enough already. The purpose of the current stage of development has always been to design a general framework that the Town Board and a majority of the Town voters feel is solid enough to support the next, detailed development of a strategy—which will itself have even further public input and discussion—so we can start to address priority needs and to preserve what has always been great! Let’s not delay—let’s get going!
Affordable Housing. The Red Hook RUPCO project seems to have gained everyone’s attention and for good reason: engaging in serious community preservation is an integral part, with other values, of serious community development—of which housing is an essential part. We may be preserving the past and the present, but this is all about improving the future of Rochester and the environs around us. A high priority for a future Community Preservation Advisory Commission, if this program is approved by the voters, must be to seek “community preservation” in ways that mesh with and enhance other goals in our comprehensive plan. Affordable housing is clearly one of them.
Community. I close with several observations about the Rochester Community. I participated in the two presentations of the CPP to the Town Board, as well as all three of the Public Information sessions, and innumerable meetings of this preliminary Advisory Committee. For me the most poignant moment of all of this was at the very end of the last Public Info session, when a person who has lived here most of her life and has contributed greatly to the Town said something to the effect of our spending a lot of time talking about “preservation” and “conservation” but maybe not enough about the “community” part. When asked for elaboration on this point she spread both hands out wide to her sides, indicating the volatile disagreements in the room that had just transpired…again…and I understood her to say, “We are too divided—we need to do something about bringing ourselves together or closer, to be a real community”. I agree with that. I believe in this Town. I believe in my neighbors, including the ones I don’t agree with that often. We can do so much better. We must. There are no magic answers—only hard work. A constant focus of this Community Preservation Program, if approved, must be on improving the Community part as it develops strategies, selects projects and seeks co-funding.

Barry Turner: As a resident of the Town of Rochester, and a long time landowner (my grandfather bought the property I live on 100 yrs ago) I am writing to express my support for establishing a Community Preservation Fund (CPF) and placing it on the November 2024 ballot.
The Community Preservation Fund is a crucial step toward safeguarding our open spaces which are more important than ever. We are all aware of the population boom taking place in our area. I view it as a mixed blessing. Increased development to accommodate the increasing population will not be stopped. Therefore setting aside more open spaces is critical to the quality of life of our communities.
By approving the CPF, we can ensure that our town remains a place where people want to live, work, and visit. Protecting our environment and historic landmarks not only enhances our quality of life but also boosts local tourism and strengthens our economy. I urge you to take this important step and give our community the tools it needs to preserve our heritage.

Wendy Hollender: I am a resident of Accord and have lived here for 15 years. I am in favor of the proposed Community Preservation Fund. I think preserving our environment is important and this proposal will help tremendously.

Penny Damaskos: As a (long-time) resident of the Town of Rochester, I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for establishing a Community Preservation Fund (CPF) and placing it on the November 2024 ballot. Our town has a rich history and unique character that must be preserved for future generations.
The Community Preservation Fund is a crucial step toward safeguarding our natural landscapes, historic sites, and scenic views. (Over the years,) I have seen firsthand how development pressures have threatened the very essence of what makes Rochester special. The CPF, funded by a modest real estate transfer tax, will provide the necessary resources to protect open spaces, farmlands, and water resources that are vital to our community’s well-being.
By approving the CPF, we can ensure that our town remains a place where people want to live, work, and visit. Protecting our environment and historic landmarks not only enhances our quality of life but also boosts local tourism and strengthens our economy. I urge you to take this important step and give our community the tools it needs to preserve our heritage.

Nicole & Paul Quinn: As a (long-time) resident of the Town of Rochester, I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for establishing a Community Preservation Fund (CPF) and placing it on the November 2024 ballot. Our town has a rich history and unique character that must be preserved for future generations.
The Community Preservation Fund is a crucial step toward safeguarding our natural landscapes, historic sites, and scenic views. (Over the years,) I have seen firsthand how development pressures have threatened the very essence of what makes Rochester special. The CPF, funded by a modest real estate transfer tax, will provide the necessary resources to protect open spaces, farmlands, and water resources that are vital to our community’s well-being.
By approving the CPF, we can ensure that our town remains a place where people want to live, work, and visit. Protecting our environment and historic landmarks not only enhances our quality of life but also boosts local tourism and strengthens our economy. I urge you to take this important step and give our community the tools it needs to preserve our heritage.

John Hayes: As a resident of Rochester I would like to strongly urge the Town to adopt this plan. Like so many others, my wife and I established residency to enjoy the bucolic nature of our town. The rural character is what makes Rochester the town we love. Preserving selected open spaces and forested lands would preserve them to remain undeveloped. CPP’s have been adopted by the neighboring towns of Gardiner, New Paltz, Marbletown and others. In recent days we have seen a large increase in homebuilding like never before. It then stands to reason that we protect certain tracts of land from future development.

Robert Clements: On behalf of the Board of Directors of Friends of the Shawangunks, I am writing to strongly urge the Town Board of the Town of Rochester to pass Local Laws G, H & I to put the Community Preservation Plan before the voters in the fall.
Development of rural communities in Ulster County is at an all time high. But people enjoy living in the Town of Rochester for its natural beauty and open spaces. By adopting the CPP the Town of Rochester will be able to help maintain its bucolic character.
The surrounding townships of Gardiner, New Paltz, Marbletown and others have all adopted their own similar CPP plans with successful results.
Please pass Local Laws G, H & I so that the residents of Rochester be able to vote on this proposal this November.

Barbara Lawrence: I am writing to express my support for the passage of Local Laws G, H and I which are to be considered tonight by the Board.
As a born and raised Accordian—and a current resident. I want to commend the board for its foresight in offering a mechanism to further the preservation of our most valuable resources.
Together these local laws will:
• Enable farmers to continue to grow the fresh local food we love, while if they choose, pay them for the development rights to their land.
• Protect the watershed
• Help keep our air clean
• Protect habitat for indigenous plants and animals
• Increase property values for land in proximity to preserved parcels
When people hear where we live, they invariably say how lucky we are to live where it is so beautiful. They are right. I want the people who live here in generations to come to be able to say the same thing. To the extent that these laws help the town focus development, we will save tax dollars and at the same time protect what makes the Town so desirable. We are not making any more land, let’s not pave paradise.
Finally, I am only one voice, so I also commend the board for putting these laws up for a referendum this fall. It is a general election; we can expect a large turn-out which makes this a good time to move forward. Ask the people of the Town if they agree that we should offer our residents the opportunity to preserve our heritage.

Mike Baden: I apologize for being unable to attend the meeting. I would like to comment on the Town of Rochester Community Preservation Plan. In reading the document and studying the mapping, I believe I am uniquely qualified to present comment, as I was literally either a member of the committees and boards who presented the studies and reports or the author of the reports utilized as background information for this report., except the 1969 Comprehensive Plan.
First, I would like to thank the five members of the committee and the consultants for their amazing effort in drafting an informative, well thought-out, and organized plan. Given the time crunch of the project the work is thankless and without dedication to the town and your work, this project would not be where it is today.
I suspect there are people who view this as yet another land tax, but I propose this should be thought of as a sales tax, not a land tax. The same people who may be in opposition to this community preservation plan are likely to be the same people who are concerned the town is changing. This program will allow the Town to preserve the important properties of the Town and keep them from being developed. The Town cannot continue to rely on not-for-profit agencies to do the work, and this program will accomplish this saving of valuable ecological, historical, recreational, waterway, and scenic properties. The Town needs to take responsibility for its own land preservation, and this is a fair and equitable way to accomplish this. No land will be taken without the agreement of the owners. The plan places significant public interest protections on the land. The loss of a few properties from the tax rolls is pennies on the dollar and but a blip on the total assessed value to the Town, nearing one billion at last check.
Regarding the specifics of the report, I am somewhat surprise by the relatively small number of historic priority parcels identified, including nothing in the National Register of Historic Places District of Accord. I believe there are many other properties which should merit either high or medium priority, given the abundance of properties listed in the Historic Preservation Committee’s reports and the number of properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
In reviewing the other maps, I believe the committee has done an exceptionally excellent job of prioritizing the various categories.
A word about technical concerns of the report. In viewing the online version, it appears a number of pages which are figures have part of the figures cut off on the right side of the pages. This may simply be an issue with conversion to an online format but should be reviewed to be certain important data is not lost.
Finally, I have a question which appears unanswered in the report. The Town, as the enabling NYS legislation proposes utilizing the median sale price in the Town of Rochester as the exemption amount utilized in the calculation of the inherent tax imposed. I see this in other municipalities also such as New Paltz, Gardiner, and Marbletown. However, in reviewing the form used by the County Clerk in recording and deriving the amount of tax per transaction, it appears the exemption base amount being utilized by the County Clerk is the median Ulster County sale price, not the municipality. This could produce a significant difference in tax imposed (up to over $400) on transactions. I think this needs to be clarified and the voters of the referendum need to know exactly which median sales price is being utilized, Town or County. This will be a crucial factor to the voters, I believe.
I thank the Board and the Committee again for moving this forward and believe this legislation will achieve the results desired by residents. I urge adoption of the legislation and placement on the November 2024 ballot for consideration.

Peter Nelson: I am writing not only as the Chair of the Community Preservation Plan Committee, but
also as a long-time resident of the Town of Rochester to express my utmost and
enthusiastic support for establishing a Community Preservation Fund (CPF), adopting
the Community Preservation Plan (CPP), establishing a Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT)
and putting the proposed laws forward in a public referendum on November 5th, 2024.
I am truly grateful for being asked to be a part of this dedicated committee and I have
had the great privilege of researching the long history of efforts in the Town of
Rochester to identify what makes this such a great place to live. It has been a wonderful
experience and I have learned a lot about our town’s lengthy legacy of maintaining the
beauty, environmental values, farming and history that makes the Town of Rochester
unique.
The Community Preservation Plan presented to the Town Board is an important
document that represents a continuity and culmination of 55 years of hard work,
copious fact finding and the purest of intentions done by many residents, former board
members, committees and knowledgeable consultants in the decades before this current
CPP committee was formed. All the work done over the decades were efforts to keep
the Town of Rochester a vibrant community. The work done by this committee, along
with planner Ted Fink and GIS mapper Rick Lederer Barnes was thorough, intensive
and broad based using 52 individual data points to identify vast criteria to be
considered in future considerations using CPF funds.
The areas of protection that are highlighted in this proposed CPP (Clean Water,
Farming, Wildlife, Scenic Beauty, Outdoor Recreation and Historic Places) align with
and resonate closely with values outlined in the first 1969 Comprehensive Plan, the 2006
Comprehensive Plan, the Natural Heritage Plan, the Open Space Inventory, the
Groundwater Protection Plan, the Historic Resources Reconnaissance Plan, the Scenic
Byway Plan and many other town documents. This legacy of values was important to
our predecessors and remain important today.
Our town has a rich history, beautiful vistas, important natural resources including
pristine waterbodies, fertile soils and biodiversity that must be preserved for future
generations. The Community Preservation Fund is a crucial step toward safeguarding
our natural landscapes, historic sites, and scenic views. Over the many years I have
lived here, I have seen firsthand how increasing development pressures have
threatened and continue to threaten the very essence of what makes Rochester special.
This has accelerated in the past few years and the CPF is a valuable tool to address these
challenges.
Importantly, the CPF does not burden existing property owners with a new tax and will
be funded by a modest real estate transfer tax paid by the buyer of a property that will
provide the necessary resources in a dedicated fund to be used only towards properties
that are outlined in the Community Preservation Plan. The proposed RETT exemption
threshold set below the median price of residential sales in the Town of Rochester
protects lower end properties in the market and will benefit first time home buyers.
The entire process is based on the necessity for a willing seller, so if someone does not
want to sell property or the development rights to their land that is the end of the story.
The CPF gives the town and residents another powerful tool to use for sensible growth.
I often hear from people in the town lamenting the loss of farmland and changes to the
character of the area that we love and the quality of life that drew us here. Without
adding to the town budget, raising property taxes or adding any new taxes on existing
residents, the CPF will be a way to protect the resources we value and provide
significant benefits to the entire town going forward. Once the CPF is established the
town will be eligible to apply for state, federal and private grant funding which will
expand this fund resource even further.
Some have claimed that we already have enough open space and farms and do not need
to protect the natural resources further, but I could not disagree more. These resources
are absolutely precious and we cannot abandon the efforts to preserve them and
disregard the work of those citizens who recognized the importance of clean water,
farms, biodiversity, recreation, views and historical sites over the years. Above all we
must protect clean water and the precious soils in the Town of Rochester farmland for
future generations. Once farmland is taken up for other uses, it is gone as farmland
forever.
While the CPF funds cannot legally be used towards creating affordable housing, the
CPF can be used creatively to collaborate with housing programs and advocates to
work towards preserving open spaces while crafting sensible locations for affordable
housing projects. A good example of this type of innovation is currently being done in
the town of Red Hook on the Cookingham Farm project. Important farmland was
conserved using CPF funds while acreage was carved out for an affordable housing site.
That project will certainly be a model for other communities going forward while
statewide housing legislation is still in process.
It is important to remember that any proposals made in the future will be considered by
an future un-compensated volunteer committee formed of town residents that will
present to future Town Boards. All proposed projects will be subject to public hearing
with input from all the residents in the towns so everyone will have a say in any project
put forth. The Community Preservation Plan must be updated not less than once every
five years to reflect changes in the intervening years.
By approving the CPF, we can ensure that our town remains a place where people want
to live, work, and visit. Protecting our environment, open spaces and historic
landmarks not only enhances our quality of life but also boosts local tourism and
strengthens our economy.
I urge you to take this important step forward and give our community the tools it
needs to preserve our heritage. If the Town Board votes to pass these laws it will put
this matter forward to a public referendum in November when the entire town makes
the decision. That is the ultimate expression of democracy.
Thank you for your consideration and thank you again for asking me to be a part of this
committee.

Deborah Martin: My husband, Robert and I are both residents of the town of Rochester. My husband has lived here over 76 years and I have lived here 38 years. In my shorter period of time as a resident I have seen so much change change. My husband on the other hand has this beautiful area, metamorphic size from a beautiful rural farming, community, into a bordering on suburban community. Don’t get me wrong, this is still a beautiful place to live, and and because it is, many people want to live here. As we get older, we understand and accept that things change, but it is also so important that we maintain the beauty that attracts so many to our beautiful town.

Alana Blum: I am writing to express my concern about the CPF and correlated legislation. I am writing on behalf of myself, though I did help edit and sign the statement with my fellow Housing Committee members that was submitted last week and I do stand by that letter as well.

There is a lot of information to consider for this law and not enough time to consider it carefully especially if one is not an expert in preservation/conservation initiatives. Yes, you have populated the advisory committee with knowledgable residents on the matters at hand as well as having a paid consultant who has gone through this process many times with other towns. Yet, some questions are not being adequately answered. I for one have posed a question about the legal viability of a property owner who wishes to sell developments rights via funds from the CPF, whether they may also allow for cluster housing development on the same lot (by use of other funding source) or if that lot would need to be subdivided first. I have yet to get an answer. Maybe it’s a simple answer, maybe it’s a complicated answer either way it will affect how I would personally vote on this legislation and I believe it is something that should be considered by this board in the language of the law that is put to referendum.

The overtures about the compatibility of efforts to achieve housing and preservation and examples cited have not gotten into specifics. Now is the time for specifics- not after this is voted on. Responses I have gotten to my particular question have been vague and divert to Red Hook being the shining beacon of what can be done when conservation and housing initiatives’ stars align. Yet we (as a housing committee) are not intimate with the details of that project (yet)- perhaps there are policy precedents that are applicable and viable for Rochester that we should emulate, but we will not know before you vote to put this to referendum. More time is needed.

I have perused the mapping that was generated for this proposal- I wish I had time to look harder. It seems to be that prime parcels identified for purposes of conservation are also ones that have potential to be prime for cluster small lot or medium density (with cluster siting) housing development, ones that are close to transportation corridors and/or don’t require a lot of tree excavation or geographical feature mitigation (just a few criteria for facilitating housing). The CP advisory board has expressed interest in working with the Housing Committee to assure our missions are simpatico. Some correspondence and conversations have been had but not until after the draft legislation was presented. Would any feedback we have now or coming weeks have potential to be incorporated into the draft law? It seems not if this board needs to vote to put on ballot by early August.

Another concern I have is that the requested Transfer tax % seems high. We do not know if or how much a pending Housing Fund bill will allow for. Currently it is drafted at 0.5% max. but it is still in it’s infancy. There are other mechanisms currently available for farm and open space conservation that can be utilized in tandem with a more modest % for a CPF. It has been stated over and over that the tax will be applied only on the amount above median town price of any house sale and so it won’t affect current property owners. What about those who are local residents trying to become property owners? Those that are young (or even no so young) local earners for which a house priced in the median bracket remains a stretch? The housing inventory continues to be strained so median often times ends up being the high end for many and the low end of more affluent house hunters (hence the characterization that the tax % being applied to sales above median won’t stop people from buying) but in some cases it will. Placing additional obstacles in place for first time or modest/local earners who seek to root themselves here (even from adjacent towns) and who do not have bargaining power in price negotiation that more affluent buyers have, is troubling and I think a lower % should be considered.

Conserving land and natural resources is important indeed. I have a hard time believing that this is partisan concern/goal. Yet there is such a push to get on the 2024 ballot. Can any other reason be provided why rushing to get it on 2024 ballot is so critical other than knowing there historically is higher voter turnout and in our town higher turnout historically means the same party is more successful with outcomes? Is there legislations in pipeline on the state or federal level that would prevent some form of this legislation to be properly enacted the following year? Maybe I have missed hearing that. Why not let people continue to ask questions for another 6 months and garner the responses that are warranted on this impactful and important law.
Lea Mazzei & Debra Tobin- Gray: just wanted to write to show my support for the proposed Community Preservation Fund. It is so important to keep this land wild in any capacity. I care deeply for this area and want to preserve as much as possible, especially now that so much new development has been happening. I hope you’ll take my opinion into consideration and also my mother’s (who absolutely does NOT email) as we both support this proposal and hope it comes to fruition.

Patrica Murphy: Thank you for taking up this important issue. Our town’s precious open space is disappearing and I am writing to ask you to act urgently and enact Local Laws G, H and I.
I have lived in Accord for 22 years and in the Hudson Valley for 40 years. My husband and I were attracted to the town because of its rural character, which I now feel is threatened. Open space offers a multitude of benefits, providing habitat and protecting our watershed. Permanently preserved open space also protects property values and holds down our taxes, which is very important to me.
By asking the people who are purchasing expensive properties to pay a bit more to protect the very aspects of the town that attracted them is a very sensible approach.
I look forward to voting yes on the referendum in the fall.

Ira Stern: I attended the first public hearing regarding the Community Preservation Fund but regrettably had to leave after one hour. It was helpful to listen to the discussion and I would like to submit these comments as part of the public hearings on Local Laws G,H, and I (2024) assuming the public hearing on this important opportunity was kept open for additional input.

My home and property is on Towpath Rd. (along the Rondout Creek) in Accord, and is protected by a conservation easement that my wife and I donated to the Rondout-Esopus Land Conservancy in 1987. Land preservation has been extremely gratifying for us and an important tool for our collective community future, which includes nature.

I have had a 40 year career as an environmental planner, including leading land preservation programs, and am a professor in City and Regional Planning at Pratt Institute and have read the CPP.

The formation of the community preservation fund, adoption of a plan, and the creation of a committee are all positive steps for our town and a good option afforded to towns in NY State. The decision by referendum means that all voters will have a say in the creation of this tool.
• (“greatest hits”) and further a scattershot approach. Purchasing a property with a high score may or may not help us achieve any specific resource priorities.
• the weighting of the data layers is a very important part of the methodology and heavily influences the results of the analysis. As presented in the report, it seems to favor protecting the Shawangunk Mountain Scenic Byway and makes special mention of the views from Skytop and elsewhere on the Ridge. I enjoy these amazing parks and views myself, but not sure the residents of the Town of Rochester should be prioritizing that for our taxpayer funds and may wish instead to prioritize views from local roads that we all enjoy, for example. There could be potential for synergy here (protecting a farm that is important for the viewshed of both local roads and the SMSB) and the decision support tool (data layers in GIS) could be used to refine the priorities.
• the weighting should be subject to more public participation (not sure what the process has been so far, apologies) – we have the full set of data points and the community will be the most knowledgeable in identifying what is important. This can be done by the advisory committee through a workshop before expenditures commence. This would be a good way to involve people and give them a role in the administration of the Fund.
• the CPP is a good quantitative report that condenses other plans (like the Master Plan), includes current data, and is a great start. However, the Plan would benefit from adding a more qualitative section in its next iteration, especially in regard to community priorities and a strategy for the Fund. Given that the Fund can’t do everything (less likely to protect a large aquifer than multiple iconic local views), the report should be subject to more community input on priorities (weighting) and which resource priorities we want to tackle as a town given anticipated needs and resources.
The pressure on the land and water resources of the Town of Rochester is enormous and we need proactive tools like a real estate transfer tax to protect community-identified aspects of our town.

I understand why people feel this has been rushed – but poor timing may not be a good enough reason to wait another year to be proactive in the face of unprecedented development pressure.
Most of the concerns I heard expressed at the public hearing can be ameliorated by refining the CPP by the new advisory committee and for the town board to be realistic and clear about what we can and should accomplish with the Fund.

I support a real estate transfer tax conceptually and agree that it is complicated. Since many people expressed agitation at the quick pace of putting this all together (understandably so), the Town Board should consider the following in this regard:
• provide financial forecasts of revenue and expenditures expected on an annual basis through the CPF. Give people an idea of how much land could we protect in any given year based on the past sales trends and forecasts. The report does not mention these factors and would help create common expectations.
• give examples of how the tax would work for people at various property and income levels (clarify if the tax applies to the full purchase price or the amount above the median) since there is confusion (myself included).
The Community Preservation Plan itself is a valuable document for the Town, especially since it provides a comprehensive accounting of previous and related preservation plans and ordinances. Preservation is a clear value in all these reports and provides a strong basis for a fund.

However, the CPP in its current form is a very broad-brush look at the conservation values found throughout the town. This Plan should be considered (and emphasized as) a beginning; not a definitive guide to using the Fund. The process, of course, includes the formation of an advisory board and their first order of business would presumably be to refine the criteria and data used to create the maps and for the Town Board to set goals and priorities. Some items to reconsider are as follows, in my opinion:
• as a result of having extensive conservation resources in our town, and a number of important “resource categories”, we can’t protect everything. The Fund will be somewhat limited so we as a town need to be realistic about what we want to accomplish. Do we need a new park? Is there an iconic view that we all benefit from? Should we protect our farms? The CPP does not answer these questions, yet.
• using 50 data points (some weighted) across six categories showing “highest” score is certainly one way to do this. But without knowing what we want to focus on, these composite scores favor properties that have more criteria than others

Terri Ritter: As a long time resident of the town of Rochester, I believe that the natural beauty of our area is one of its greatest assets. It is one of the reasons residents chose to live here. People travel from all over to our area to enjoy the outdoors.
It’s my understanding that there are three pieces of open space legislation (G, H, and I) being considered by the town board. The creation of a Community Preservation Fund would go a long way towards protecting clean water, agriculture, biodiversity, scenic beauty, historic sites, and recreation.
I urge you to pass all three pieces of legislation to protect our beautiful community, and look forward to voting in favor of the referendum in November.

James Farrell: I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the current referendum of our Community Preservation Fund (CPF). While the CPF aims to preserve the agricultural heritage of our town by acquiring development rights to farmland, it has become evident that this approach is insufficient in addressing the real needs of our farming community.
Farmers in our town are facing significant financial challenges, from rising operational costs to
fluctuating market prices. While preserving farmland is essential, the CPF does not provide the
direct financial support that farmers need to sustain their businesses. As a result, we are
witnessing an increasing number of farmers struggling to maintain their livelihoods, despite their
land being protected from development.
The preservation of farmland is undoubtedly important, but without the farmers, the land
remains unused and unproductive. Therefore, I propose that we re-evaluate our current use of
the CPF and consider creating a fund specifically designed to support farmers directly. This new
fund could provide funds to all farmers that provide food to our community or low-interest loans
for equipment, infrastructure improvements, and other operational costs. Additionally, it could
offer financial assistance during times of economic hardship, such as poor harvests or market
downturns.
Supporting farmers directly would not only ensure the continued agricultural use of the land but
also contribute to the economic vitality of our town. By investing in the farmers themselves, we
can foster a more resilient and sustainable agricultural community.
I am also concerned that there are so many unanswered questions regarding the CPF. How
does the fund get used if no property is ever purchased? How do we, as a town, vote on what is
being done with the properties? How do we ensure the farmland remains farmland and isn’t
converted into fields full of solar panels? How do we end this program once it’s started and not
working? These are just some of the critical questions that need clear answers to ensure
transparency and accountability in the management of the CPF.
Furthermore, I do not support any of the money that comes into the CPF being used to support
any kind of low-income housing. It is not the responsibility of the town’s taxpayers to fund such
initiatives through the CPF. The focus of this fund should remain on preserving our agricultural
heritage and supporting our local farmers.
I urge the Town Board to consider this proposal and initiate discussions with local farmers,
agricultural experts, and community members to develop a comprehensive plan that addresses
the needs of our farming community. Together, we can create a more effective and supportive
system that preserves both our farmland and the farmers who work it.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this
matter further and work towards a solution that benefits our entire community.

James Braun: I have been a resident of the town of Rochester since 1990 and I believe that open space is an important effort and any legislation supporting its preservation is key. I’d like to request that all three pieces of the legislation – g,h and i – be passed by the Town Board. Also, I’d like to request that the referendum be put on the ballot for November elections. I look forward to voting affirmatively on the referendum this November. Thank you for your time and support.

Henry Rich: I wanted to voice my support for the local law to establish a Town of Rochester Community Preservation Fund.

As stated by the law, one of the most unique features of the Town of Rochester is its extraordinary environmental richness, biodiversity, and historic quality. This fund would allow the town to directly purchase parcels of strategic importance to the town, which might be potential development sites, and put them exclusively toward the public benefit for current and future residents. In recent decades many farms have been aggressively subdivided and historic buildings in all hamlets throughout the Town of Rochester have fallen down. Once these farms and buildings are gone, they are gone forever. This law would go a long way toward preserving the town’s heritage for current and future generations.

The revenue for these purchases needs to come from somewhere. This law is progressive in 3 ways: the fee applies to home owners, not renters, so many of the lowest income residents in Town of Rochester will not be affected; it applies to buyers not sellers, so for residents whose entire retirement is tied up in property, they will not pay the fee; most importantly, it only applies to properties over $447,000, the median home value, so purchasers in the bottom 50% of values will not be affected. The revenue for these purchases in the public interest; this law has been thoughtfully constructed to raise money from those who can most afford it while benefitting all.

While more housing is important to address the housing crisis, this law goes a way toward making sure the Town of Rochester preserves its rural character and historic hamlets. Preserving green space is critical for maintaining wildlife corridors, ensuring pollinator habitats, and maintaining biodiversity. In the coming years and decades as temperatures warm and coastlines become less livable, more and more people from within the United States will be moving North, first slowly, but potentially quickly by 2035. This migration will create incredible pressure to develop the Catskills to the point of suburban sprawl. Many neighboring towns currently have these laws. Passing this law now will ensure the Town of Rochester’s history as well as its future for decades to come.

If there were ever a law that benefits literally everyone in the community, save maybe for real estate brokers, it is this law. It will strengthen the town’s identity, community, and natural heritage. Thank you for proposing something so forward looking and community minded, I look forward to hopefully voting on it in November.

Ben Ganon: As an advocate for clean water, I am writing to express my strong support for the Community Preservation Fund (CPF) and its inclusion on the November 2024 ballot.
Clean water is essential for the health and well-being of our community. The CPF will provide much-needed funding to protect our water resources, including rivers, streams, and aquifers. By preserving open spaces and natural landscapes, we can ensure that our water sources remain clean and abundant.
The CPF is a proactive approach to safeguarding our water quality from pollution and overuse. It is an investment in our community’s health, economic stability, and environmental sustainability. By supporting the CPF, we can take meaningful steps to protect our water resources and maintain a high quality of life for all residents.
I urge you to support the CPF and allow our community to vote on this crucial initiative. Clean water is a fundamental right, and we must do everything in our power to preserve it for future generations.
Having worked within local government for the last 5 years and the last decade in the conservation field, I have seen the success of similar programs in municipalities first-hand. Community Preservation Funds serve much-needed resources back to municipal governments and the general public to preserve special places and retain the essential community character we all know and love about our area.

Housing Advisory Committee:
The volunteer members of the Town of Rochester Housing Advisory Committee write in
response to the proposed legislation establishing a Community Preservation Fund and creating
a Community Preservation Fund Advisory Board.
The Housing Advisory Board was established in part to, “advise on housing policies and
initiatives, to develop strategies to improve housing options, and to recommend zoning changes
or the adoption of local ordinances that best serve the housing needs of Rochester’s citizens”.
We recognize the importance of protecting our open spaces, farmland and forests. We
understand that under current state law, and as reflected in the proposed local legislation, the
proposed conservation Fund cannot be used to directly fund housing initiatives. However, we
strongly believe that the housing needs of the community should be considered in making
allocations of the conservation fund. The goals of increasing affordable and accessible housing
are not inconsistent with the goals of preserving our local environment – provided the
importance of both sets of goals are included from the outset.
Other Towns and localities have creatively and successfully integrated conservation planning
with meeting housing needs. As aptly put by the Hudson Valley Alliance for Housing and
Conservation:
Healthy communities need both abundant, affordable housing and protected land that
supports clean water, food production, climate resilience, and outdoor access.
https://rpa.org/hudson-valley-affordable-housing-conservation-strategy
Towards that end, we are recommending that the Town Board appoint someone from the
Housing Advisory Committee to serve as a liaison with the Conservation committee and that
someone also be appointed from the Conservation Committee to act as a liaison with the
Housing Committee. This cross fertilization will help complement and enhance both
committees’ objectives. We also recommend that the proposed local law include language that
signifies an intent to integrate housing and conservation planning where possible. The following
suggestions for modifying Local law G are respectfully submitted for your consideration:
1. Add a subsection “H” to § 72-3 Purposes of Fund.
H. The Advisory Board established pursuant to the provisions below and the
Town Board shall consider the need for additional affordable and market rate housing in
making any recommendations for, or approving, purchases of real property, development
rights, or any other expenditures from the Fund, to the extent that such is compatible with
the overall goals of the Community Preservation Project Plan and not inconsistent with
any State laws or regulations.
and,
2. Amend § 72-4 Advisory Board established.
B. Such Board shall consist of seven members who shall be legal residents of the Town
and who shall serve without compensation. No member of the Town Board shall serve on
the Advisory Board. Members initially appointed to the Board shall serve staggered terms
as follows: one member shall be appointed for a term expiring at the end of the municipal
official year in which initially appointed, and the terms of the remaining members shall
expire at the end of each official year thereafter. At the expiration of the term of each
member first appointed, their successor shall be appointed for a term of seven years.
A majority of the members appointed shall have demonstrated experience with conservation
or land-preservation activities. The Town Board shall make a reasonable effort to appoint at
least one active farmer to the Board. The Town Board shall further make a reasonable effort
to appoint at least one member of the Town’s Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
and one or more members of [the] other existing volunteer Town Boards or Commissions.
Respectfully submitted,
Alana Blum
Martha Roberge
Ken Stephens
Claire Wasserman
Elizabeth Zeldin

Becky Collins-Brooks: Please consider the following as an addendum to my public comment which I delivered last evening:

Mr. Anderberg, who neglected to introduce himself as the General Counsel for Open Space Institute, attempted to correct my public statement last evening, however, in his “rebuttal” he omitted crucial facts regarding conservation easements and their benefit to farmers. While it is true that these easements can provide cash-strapped farmers with quick money, the farms he cited as benefitting from conservation easements were poor examples, as I will explain. Domino Farm, on Airport Road, was placed in a conservation easement, providing the Dewitt family with a windfall somewhere in the amount of $2 million. However, this money was a personal donation from wealthy adjacent neighbors who did not want their views or privacy destroyed. It was this family who ultimately conserved the land for that dollar amount, not the land trusts who coordinated the easement, because they made a donation to the land trusts specifically earmarked for the conservation of *only* Domino Farm. The other farm Mr. Anderberg cited as benefitting from a conservation easement was Arrowhead Farm. This farm was sold by the Davis family to a non-profit, who then placed the land in a conservation easement. The easement price would have mattered greatly to Phil Davis and his family (which is likely why the family did not pursue such an easement), however, to the nonprofit running that farm now it mattered far less as it was not a matter of personal finances but rather a part of a non-profit budget. Mr. Anderberg’s “skimming” of the truth in his rebuttal of my comments is typical of land trusts managing parcels of farmland: the “idea” sounds wonderful to those who are on the outside of farming, but to those of us for whom land is our greatest financial asset, it feels like strangers’ hands in our proverbial cookie jar. His statements, directed at me, were condescending and incorrect. I stand firmly behind my statement that land trusts do not reimburse farmers adequately and for the full, fair market value of the development rights on their land. In point of fact, the same day the conservation organization walked our land with an appraiser from Wappingers Falls, they also walked land Jack Schoonmaker wished to preserve. In a conversation with Mr. Schoonmaker after the fact, he told us he’d reached the same conclusion we did: that what the organization was offering to preserve the land was a pittance compared to the actual market value of those rights. We fully understand the math behind the offer, but the appraisals at the outset were (and typically are) far under the actual value of the land. Hence my comments last evening, and my desire to correct Mr. Anderberg now.

Additionally, it is important for you to understand what is happening out west so you understand the implications for us locally. Farmers in western states placed land in conservation easements in good faith: they were told the land would be maintained as open land. The organizations then sold the easements to either the state or federal governments. While it is true that the farmers still technically own the land, the easements in the deeds are owned by the organizations who bought them. It is within the organizations’ rights to not only sell the easements, but to change the wording and intent of them. Subsequently, the land the farmers owned and wished to protect as open farmland became solar installations or wind “farms”. The landowners had no say in this process, nor did they have any financial gain. It was “insult to injury”. Contrary to what is stated by proponents of solar, this land will *never* be farmland again, due to the construction process required, even after removal and “remediation” of the site. In New York State we currently have a “30 By 30” push: to be fully electric-powered by 2030. In particular, our county executive has stated that she would like Ulster County to be at the leading edge of this initiative. It will not be possible to reach this goal without placing large solar installations on our farmland, something the county executive has stated outright (and something I heard with my own ears). Your intent with the Community Preservation Plan might be filled with integrity, however that plan is only as good as the people managing it. Future administrations might not be so integrity-filled. That is why this plan requires additional scrutiny. I am again urging you to take the time to do this right, instead of doing it fast.

As a former member of the committee that drafted this proposal, I request that you take a harder look at the details, to take your time to make it right, and especially to attempt to mitigate any potential harm to the landholders (the farmers) who currently afford this community with its rural character.

Thank you all very much for your forbearance and respectful ear last evening. I know from
personal experience how excruciating public hearings can be. Your patience was admirable.

JAMES WILLIAMS & CAROLE METSGER: My wife and I have been residents of the Town of Rochester for many years, we are writing to present our enthusiastic support for establishing a Community Preservation Fund (CPF) and placing it on the November 2024 ballot. Our town has a rich history and unique character that must be preserved for our, and future generations.
The Community Preservation Fund is a crucial step toward safeguarding our natural landscapes, historic sites, and scenic views. (Over the years,) we have seen firsthand how development pressures have threatened the very essence of what makes Rochester special. The CPF, funded by a modest real estate transfer tax, will provide the necessary resources to protect open spaces, farmlands, and water resources that are vital to our community’s well-being.
By approving the CPF, we can ensure that our town remains a place where people want to live, work, and visit. Protecting our environment and historic landmarks not only enhances our quality of life but also boosts local tourism and strengthens our economy. I urge you to take this important step and give our community the tools it needs to preserve our heritage.
Thank you for your counting our support for this referendum to be on the November 2024′ ballot.

JENNIFER PETTIT: As a newer resident of the Town of Rochester, I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for establishing a Community Preservation Fund (CPF) and placing it on the November 2024 ballot. I have been working with The Esopus Roundout Land Conservation on a Conservation Easment of 47.8 forested acres of my farm. As Our town has a rich history and unique character that must be preserved for Future generations, both for agricultural land preservation, and open spaces.
The Community Preservation Fund is a crucial step toward safeguarding our natural landscapes, historic sites, and scenic views. (Over the years,) I have seen firsthand how development pressures have threatened the very essence of what makes Rochester special. The CPF, funded by a modest real estate transfer tax, will provide the necessary resources to protect open spaces, farmlands, and water resources that are vital to our community’s well-being.
By approving the CPF, we can ensure that our town remains a place where people want to live, work, and visit. Protecting our environment and historic landmarks not only enhances our quality of life but also boosts local tourism and strengthens our economy. I urge you to take this important step and give our community the tools it needé to preserve our heritage. Thank you for your consideration.

ANDREW COLLINS: I moved to Accord in the Town of Rochester two years ago. Even though I rent, I consider this my permanent home and seek to buy a house here in the next few years. As a current resident and future homeowner, 1 1 m asking you to put the Community Preservation Fund (CPF) on the November ballot.
When I first arrived, I was impressed by Accord’s natural beauty and wildlife. I see the CPF as key to preserving our open spaces. This fund will help maintain our town’s character and keep it a great place to live and visit.
I attended an informational session on this issue last week and understand there are concerns about the real estate transfer tax. However, the CPF’s benefits far outweigh the costs, and future property buyers will pay the tax (if the. price is above the median), generating funds from those benefiting from our preserved spaces. And I am happy to be part of this kind of solution for our community by paying this tax in the future.
The open spaces and natural habitats here are unique and offer so many recreational opportunities. The CPF can protect these areas from development, keeping them beautiful and accessible for future generations. This also helps attract visitors, which boosts our local economy.
The CPF can also support our town’s agriculture, a big part of Rochester’s heritage and economy. Many farmers face development pressures that threaten their livelihoods. The CPF can help buy development rights, protect farmland, and support our local economy.
In conclusion, I urge you to vote to put the CPF on the November ballot. This initiative is vital for protecting our town’s natural, agricultural, and historic resources. Thank you for your time.

SHAUN AND RITE HARKINS: My wife and I have lived in the Town of Rochester for 38 years. I am a volunteer fireman and my wife volunteers for the recreation department. We would like to express our enthusiastic support for the Community Preservation Fund (CPF) and it’s placement on the November 2024 ballot.
We relocated from New York City and New Jersey so we could live, play and raise our children among the natural beauty of the area while being close enough to the city for work. Since moving here we have come to appreciate the importance of preserving our open spaces, waterways and historic sites. These elements are not only vital to our environment but also to the character and charm of our town. The CPF offers a sustainable way to fund the conservation of these resources, ensuring that future generations can enjoy the same benefits that drew us here.
The CPF will enable us to proactively protect our town from overdevelopment and preserve the qualities that mal