District OKs rules for permit holders
By KAYLEIGH KARUTIS, The Leader-HeraldThe Hudson River-Black River Regulating District's decision to pass along its new rules governing permit holders on the Great Sacandaga Lake to the state for final approval moves the three-year process to rewrite the rules one step away from completion.
The Regulating District approved its draft of the rules at a board meeting in Saratoga Springs last week. The rules are now up for review by the state Department of Environmental Conservation, which has no timetable for approving or rejecting them, said Regulating District Executive Director Glenn LaFave.
"They could be approved or the DEC could come back and ask for revisions," he said. "We are optimistic they will finish by the end of the year so the rules can be enacted in 2009."
LaFave said new fees for permit holders will not go into effect until 2010.
The district has been criticized for creating rules that are complicated and confusing, and at times contradictory. One vocal critic, Peter VanAvery of the Batchellerville Bridge Action Committee, recommended at a board meeting last month the board scrap the rules entirely and start anew.
"Since you are so consistent in making your proceedings difficult for the audience to understand, it is clear that you are doing it on purpose because you know the rules will be harmful to us," VanAvery said in a newsletter directed to the district's board.
LaFave said the board has tried to make the rules consistent and more understandable.
One critique leveled at the board has been the role of the executive director as an appeals officer - the individual who
handles permit holders' complaints against the district. Many permit holders in attendance at the August meeting said it was a conflict of interest.
LaFave said that has been changed to make the board's Permit System Committee, of which two of the three members are permit holders, the first entity to oversee permit holders' appeals.
The board also altered a rule pertaining to lake-front permit holders who have footpaths for backlot permit holders running adjacent to their properties. Under the district's draft of the rules, those with footpaths next to their properties would not be responsible for maintaining the paths and would not be held liable if someone is injured on the paths.
The board also explicitly stated the number of backlot permits will be capped once the rules go into effect, LaFave said. He said there now are about 1,900 backlot permits.
The new rules also would change how fees are charged for permit holders. LaFave said the district could not speculate on what the new fees would be.
LaFave said he is optimistic the DEC will approve the rules by December but cautioned there is no guarantee. Once the rules are approved, the Regulating District will conduct a meeting to formally adopt and implement the rules.
|
hawkeye
|
|
|---|---|
|
09-23-08 5:34 PM
|
"The Architect" is obviously unfamiliar with the goals of HRBRRD's rule-revision process. During the summer of 2007, the District held three public input meetings. Executive Director LaFave kicked off each one with a canned presentation. To quote one of his slides: "Permit System Rules should be clear, comprehensive, concise, fair and enforceable." Note the words "clear" and "concise." Over the past three years, he repeatedly said that the rules would be so clear that permit holders could easily interpret them, reducing the amount of time his staff spent answering questions. Great goal ... lousy execution. At the District's September board meeting, Pat Dugan of Edinburg was one of 3 (out of 7) board members who voted against transmitting the rules to DEC. His reason: The rules needed to be shortened and simplified so that permit holders could understand them. Mr. Dugan is one of the three members of the board's Permit System Committee, which is
|
|
Patriot1
|
|
|
09-23-08 4:24 PM
|
"Architect" - Whether or not the public fully "understands" these rules (both on the books and currently proposed) is virtually irrelevant. What is relevant is that HRBRRD is strongly self-motivated in expanding its control and power to the detriment of permit owners and lakeside dwellers, and 150 of those affected have voiced their displeasure. Informal conversations with many more indicate that the vast majority of those around the lake are displeased with HRBRRD. GORR, DEC and APA would be most well advised to short-circuit any potential action by the current HRBRRD board.
|
|
TheArchitect
|
|
|
09-21-08 9:03 AM
|
'Hawkeye', "The average person doesn’t have a clue what these rules mean." is not surprising. The average person does not know what their mortgage, life insurance, car rental agreement, federal and state tax policies are either. If anyone wants to know the meaning, higher a subject matter professional to provide the meaning of the legal construct so that you can understand it. This is not the PTA or the American Legion. This is a legal policy document that has to be sufficiently detailed to stand up against legal arguments. 150 people in Northville not understanding the rules is not surprising.
|
|
Patriot1
|
|
|
09-19-08 11:20 AM
|
Much of the "charter of the district" has by-and-large been increasingly self-defined over the past few years. Therefore, in and of itself, the purview of such a political construct needs to be severely curtailed. Its main thrust in recent years appears to have been bureaucratic expansion rather than "benign oversight". Time long past due for change initiated from Albany.
|
|
hawkeye
|
|
|
09-19-08 9:51 AM
|
In August more than 150 people showed up at Northville Central for a HRBRRD meeting on the proposed rules. Statements were made by 12 attendees, including Mr. Van Avery, Northampton supervisor Linda Kemper, Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward, and the heads of the GSLA and the Town of Day Property Owners Association. To loud applause, all 12 reamed out the District for producing such a bloated and poorly written document. Summed up Supervisor Kemper: "The average person doesn’t have a clue what these rules mean." Is it too much to ask of the high-paid executives of a so-called "public benefit corporation" that they publish their rules in English instead of gibberish?
|
|
Discobulous
|
|
|
09-18-08 9:15 PM
|
Ah, but Ivan, just who are 'the people'?
|
|
TheArchitect
|
|
|
09-18-08 7:26 PM
|
'Patriot1', you have obviously been mislead by Mr. VanAvery. I have no affiliation with the regulating district, but I have taken the time, and have the intellectual agility to understand both the charter of the district and the consequences of the proposed changes. You and Mr. VanAvery's minions want to believe that they actually own the shoreline of the reservoir. They do not, its is owned by the state and consequently, the state has both the right and the responsiblity to regulate these lands for the benefit of the people, not just the permit holders that own land that surrounds the state's land.
|
|
Patriot1
|
|
|
09-18-08 4:09 PM
|
I rise to the defense of Peter VanAvery. His strong interest in the quality of life around Great Sacandaga Lake has prevented some ill-considered programs from being summarily enacted by a skewed, inadequate, incomplete and biased process. Mr. VanAvery truly exemplifies the real concept of "community service". It is quite obvious from the "Architects" previous postings that if he is not actually affiliated in some capacity with HRBRRD, his sympathies lie with the tangential bureaucracies which are aided and abetted by its policies.
|
|
TheArchitect
|
|
|
09-17-08 6:37 PM
|
It is not surprising that Mr. VanAvery finds it difficult to understand the new rules or even the old ones for that matter. If you cannot understand it, find someone does, or better yet hire an attorney who has expertice in that subject area Mr. VanAvery. Hopefully, DEC can move quickly to adopt these new rules given all the effort behind them and the numerous issues that they resolve.
|
|
Forthegood
|
|
|
09-17-08 3:58 PM
|
I appreciate the time and effort of the HRBRRD in reviewing the rules and regulations of the of the Great Sacandaga Lake. We are fortunate to have such a quality of life with access to such a beautiful lake. Let's work together to keep what we have. We may need to pay more but it is worth every dollar. Yes, the District can improve it's operations but let's not take for granted what we have and their efforts to consider our opinions.
|