DOCSLIB.ORG

C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L a N Town of Burns Village of Canaseraga

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L a N Town of Burns Village of Canaseraga 2014 C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n Town of Burns Village of Canaseraga Prepared by: The Burns Comprehensive Planning Board In Cooperation with the Boards of: Town of Burns Village of Canaseraga Town and Village Hall Canaseraga, New York 14822 October 2014 Table of Contents I. Comprehensive Planning Process ....................................................................................................... 1 A. Overall Mission ............................................................................................................................... 1 B. Comprehensive Planning Process ................................................................................................... 1 II. Town of Burns and Village of Canaseraga Background ..................................................................... 2 A. History ............................................................................................................................................ 3 B. Natural and Man-Made Resources .................................................................................................. 6 1. Geography: .................................................................................................................................. 6 2. State Forests .............................................................................................................................. 11 3. Recreation and Parks ................................................................................................................. 11 4. Historical Places ........................................................................................................................ 14 C. State of the Town and Village ....................................................................................................... 16 1. Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 16 2. Education .................................................................................................................................. 18 3. Town and Village Laws ............................................................................................................ 20 III. Town and Village Government ..................................................................................................... 21 A. Overview....................................................................................................................................... 21 B. Public Forum Comments and Direction ........................................................................................ 21 IV. Planning Issues ............................................................................................................................. 23 A. Existing Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 23 B. Proposed Land Use Controls ......................................................................................................... 26 C. Agriculture .................................................................................................................................... 27 V. Development ..................................................................................................................................... 29 A. Areas of Development .................................................................................................................. 29 1. Four-Corner Historic Buildings ................................................................................................. 29 2. Canaseraga Jail .......................................................................................................................... 29 3. State Route 70 Corridor ............................................................................................................ 29 B. The Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 29 1. Development Goals ................................................................................................................... 29 2. Development Objectives ........................................................................................................... 29 3. Development Strategies ............................................................................................................ 29 VI. Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................. 31 ii A. Aspects of Infrastructure ............................................................................................................... 31 1. Water ........................................................................................................................................ 31 2. Municipal Sewer ....................................................................................................................... 31 3. Energy ....................................................................................................................................... 31 4. Cable/ Internet/Telephone ......................................................................................................... 32 5. Solid Waste ............................................................................................................................... 32 6. Transit Services ......................................................................................................................... 32 7. Railroad Service ........................................................................................................................ 33 8. Highway Service ....................................................................................................................... 33 B. The Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 36 1. Infrastructure Goals ................................................................................................................... 36 2. Infrastructure Objectives ........................................................................................................... 36 3. Infrastructure Strategies ............................................................................................................ 36 VII. Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... 37 A. Overview....................................................................................................................................... 37 B. The Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 38 1. Historic and Cultural Resources Goals ...................................................................................... 38 2. Historic and Cultural Resources Objectives .............................................................................. 38 3. Historic and Cultural Resources Strategies ............................................................................... 38 VIII. Community Pride .......................................................................................................................... 40 A. Overview....................................................................................................................................... 40 B. The Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 40 1. Community Pride Goals ............................................................................................................ 40 2. Community Pride Objectives .................................................................................................... 40 3. Community Pride Strategies ...................................................................................................... 40 IX. Housing ......................................................................................................................................... 42 A. Overview....................................................................................................................................... 42 B. The Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 44 1. Housing Goal ............................................................................................................................ 44 2. Housing Objectives ................................................................................................................... 44 3. Housing Strategies .................................................................................................................... 44 X. Health and Public Safety ................................................................................................................... 45 iii A. Overview....................................................................................................................................... 45 B. The Plan .......................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Municipal Pension Reporting Program (Formerly Perc) Harrisburg 17120
    March 2021 A Summary of 2018 Municipal Pension Plan Data Based on the January 1, 2019, Actuarial Valuation Reports Submitted Pursuant to Act 205 of 1984 & 2017 County Pension Plan Data Based on the January 1, 2018, Actuarial Valuation Reports Submitted Pursuant to Act 293 of 1972 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL PENSION REPORTING PROGRAM (FORMERLY PERC) HARRISBURG 17120 March 2021 Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly and Governor Wolf: Pursuant to Act 100 of 2016, the Department of the Auditor General took over responsibility for collection and biennial reporting of the commonwealth’s municipal pension plans status. I am pleased to submit the Municipal Pension Reporting Program’s (formerly the Public Employee Retirement Commission) biennial report on the status of the commonwealth’s local government pension plans for your review and information. Similar to prior years, my department will be providing additional analysis of this data in early 2021. Pennsylvania’s pension plans for local government employees in total represent one of the largest retirement systems in the nation. Currently, there are more than 3,300 local government pension plans in Pennsylvania and the number continues to grow. Unfortunately, the struggle to properly fund the plans also continues to grow. Many municipalities face financial hardships as well as the reality of more retired members drawing from pension plans than active members contributing to the plans. This status report provides a snapshot of the condition of local government pension plans throughout the commonwealth. Reported data shows that 98 percent of the pension plans in Pennsylvania are considered small (fewer than 100 members).
    [Show full text]
  • I Ntegrated C Ommunity S Ustainability P
    I ntegrated C ommunity ustainability S P lan GUIDE ICSP Options and Content Requirements April 2009 Department of Municipal Affairs Newfoundland and Labrador 1 ICSP OPTIONS As identified in the ICSP Framework, municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador have 3 main options to choose from when developing an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP). They are: 1. Municipal Plan ICSP – is the most costly and in-depth approach but would provide the plan with legislative authority. 2. Stand-Alone ICSP – is a possibly costly option but it gives the municipality complete control over the goals and objectives. 3. Collaborative ICSP – is the most cost effective option and has the added benefit of guaranteeing that where appropriate partners are working toward common goals. This guide is divided into three sections to provide specific details for each of the three ICSP options available. Note that the guide outlines the required content of an ICSP but it does not provide a step-by-step process . The specifics of the process must be developed by each municipality to address their individual situation. For the purposes of this guide the term “municipality” will include Inuit Community Governments. KEY COMPONENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL ICSP The ICSP is designed to be a comprehensive planning document that is constantly referred to and updated as necessary to keep it relevant and useful. By following the Ten Steps outlined in the Framework along with the specific aspects outlined in the appropriate section of this ICSP Guide, municipalities should be able to develop effective and efficient plans. Every ICSP, regardless of the option, should contain the following vital components : • Public participation in the decision making process.
    [Show full text]
  • Lan"). the Plan Contains a Tax Increment Provision and Will Govem the Operation and Adminishation of the District
    Ordinances of City of Billings, Montana. ORDINANCE NO. 08-5484 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE MODIFICATION OF THE SOUTH BILLINGS BOULEVARD URBAN RENEWAL AREA; AND ADOPTING A MODIFIED URBAN RENEWAL PLAN, INCLUDING A TAX INCREMENT PROVISION. Recitals: V/HEREAS, this Council on November 24,2008, conducted a public hearing on a proposal to modify an urban renewal area on specified property (as hereinafter defined, the "Property'') to be designated "The South Billings Boulevard Urban Renewal Area", and to adopt a modified urban renewal plan, as authorized by Montana Code Annotated, Title 7, Chapter 15, Parts 42 and 43, as amended (the "Act"). WHEREAS, the Property is depicted on the attached Exhibit A and legally described on the attached Exhibit B (each of which is hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof). WHEREAS, opporfunities have been presented to the City that make it desirable for the City to consider an-urUan renewal project wìthin the District cónsisting of the acquisition of ceriain vacant or blighted properties, demolishing the blighted structures thereon, improving such properties with, landscaping, utilities, and other similar improvements, assembling such properties, and making the properties so improved available for private redevelopment in accordance with the Act. WHEREAS, an urban renewal plan entitled the South Billings Boulevard Urban Renewal Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit C (which is hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof) (the '?lan"). The Plan contains a tax increment provision and will govem the operation and adminishation of the District. WHEREAS, the Plan has been reviewed and approved by the Yellowstone County Planning Board, as evidenced by the Board meeting minutes of November 12,2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Protected Area Management Plan
    Karkloof Nature Reserve KwaZulu-Natal South Africa Protected Area Management Plan Prepared by Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife Protected Area Management Planning Unit with support from Dr Richard Lechmere-Oertel (Biodiversity Planning & Management) Citation Karkloof Nature Reserve: Management Plan. Version 1.0 (2011), Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Pietermaritzburg. Photos for cover page courtesy of Kevin McCann and Di Martin. AUTHORISATION This Protected Area Management Plan for Karkloof Nature Reserve is recommended by the Karkloof Nature Reserve Co-Management Committee, consisting of three members each from the Karkloof Landowners Association and Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife according to the Co-Management Agreement and the Nature Reserve Planning Committee: Karkloof Landowners Association Thomas Hancock Thomas Hancock Children’s Family Trust Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife Andy Blackmore Acting manager land use Planning Magda Goosen Protected Area Management Planner Irene Hatton Acting Coordinator Protected Area Management Planning Bill Howells Biodiversity Conservation Co-ordinator East uKhahlamba Athol Marchant Regional Ecologist East uKhahlamba Philemon Mahlaba District Conservation Officer Ann van Eyssen Ecotourism Coordinator West KARKLOOF N AT U RE RESERVE I PRO T EC T ED A REA MA N AG EMEN T PLA N KARKLOOF N AT U RE RESERVE II PRO T EC T ED A REA MA N AG EMEN T PLA N KARKLOOF N AT U RE RESERVE IV PRO T EC T ED A REA MA N AG EMEN T PLA N TABLE OF CONTENTS AUTHORISATION .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Migration Process from I-Lan County to Taipei City By
    Evaluation of the Migration Process from I-Lan County to Taipei City by Shu-Chun Chang Submitted in the Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Ph.D Degree Development Planning Unit University College London University of London UCL March 2000 ProQuest Number: 10631511 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10631511 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 ABSTRACT The dominant conceptual view of migration is a model of migration based on factors of push and pull; the former drives people away from their place of origin and the latter pulls them toward somewhere else. This study aims, through an examination of rural-urban migration from I-Lan county to Taipei city in Taiwan, to test this conceptual understanding of the migration process. Accordingly, it considers how the migratory process takes place and assesses its inpact on both rural and urban change as well as on the processes of economic development and urbanisation. Its general objective is to clarify the dominant view of push-pull factors being the cause of urban migration in developing countries and in Taiwan in particular.
    [Show full text]
  • Study on Airport Ownership and Management and the Ground Handling Market in Selected Non-European Union (EU) Countries
    Study on airport DG MOVE, European ownership and Commission management and the ground handling market in selected non-EU countries Final Report Our ref: 22907301 June 2016 Client ref: MOVE/E1/SER/2015- 247-3 Study on airport DG MOVE, European ownership and Commission management and the ground handling market in selected non-EU countries Final Report Our ref: 22907301 June 2016 Client ref: MOVE/E1/SER/2015- 247-3 Prepared by: Prepared for: Steer Davies Gleave DG MOVE, European Commission 28-32 Upper Ground DM 28 - 0/110 London SE1 9PD Avenue de Bourget, 1 B-1049 Brussels (Evere) Belgium +44 20 7910 5000 www.steerdaviesgleave.com Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this material for DG MOVE, European Commission. This material may only be used within the context and scope for which Steer Davies Gleave has prepared it and may not be relied upon in part or whole by any third party or be used for any other purpose. Any person choosing to use any part of this material without the express and written permission of Steer Davies Gleave shall be deemed to confirm their agreement to indemnify Steer Davies Gleave for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this material using professional practices and procedures using information available to it at the time and as such any new information could alter the validity of the results and conclusions made. The information and views set out in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Region Airport Authority Capital Region International Airport
    CAPITAL REGION AIRPORT AUTHORITY CAPITAL REGION INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT INVITATION TO BID PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CARGO APRON EXPANSION – PHASE 1 BID DUE DATE: June 22, 2018 BID TIME: 10:00 a.m. PLANS AVAILABLE: May 25, 2018 Sealed bids will be received by the Capital Region Airport Authority , at the Community Room until 10:00 a.m. (local time), on the bid date, at which time and place all bids will be publicly opened and read aloud. ANY BID RECEIVED AFTER THE SPECIFIED TIME WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. The proposed Work includes the following: Approximately 30,310 square yards of new Portland Cement concrete (PCC) airfield pavement, drainage improvements, taxiway edge lighting and guidance signage improvements, installation of high-mast lighting, pavement markings, and restoration. Bidder Qualifications Prime Bidder must be prequalified with MDOT. The net classification required for this project is 5800 B (Concrete Pavement), or 5800 Ea (Grading, Drainage Structures and Aggregate Construction). If the prime bidder is not prequalified in either classifications (B and Ea), then it must use a prequalified contractor for the classification(s) for which it is not prequalified. In addition, this project includes Designated Item classifications L (Electrical Construction) and Cb (Hot Mix Asphalt/Bituminous Paving). If the prime bidder is not prequalified in these Designated Item classifications, then it must use subcontractors that are prequalified in classifications L and Cb. These subcontractors must be designated prior to award of the contract to the confirmed low bidder. There is a Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) participation goal of 5.72% for this project. A Pre-Bid Conference for this project will be held on June 6, 2018, at 10:00 a.m .
    [Show full text]
  • Central Library of Rochester and Monroe County · Historic Serials Collection
    Central Library of Rochester and Monroe County · Historic Serials Collection : Central Library of Rochester and Monroe County · Historic Serials Collection Rochester Public Library Reference Book Not For Circulation Form la Central Library of Rochester and Monroe County · Historic Serials Collection ? llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 3 9077 03099649 3 Central Library of Rochester and Monroe County · Historic Serials Collection PROCEEDINGS OF THE Rochester Academy of Science Central Library of Rochester and Monroe County · Historic Serials Collection PROCEEDINGS u OF THE Rochester Academy of Science hi VOLUME 6 October, 1919, to October, 1929 Rochester, n. y. PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY 1929 Central Library of Rochester and Monroe County · Historic Serials Collection OFFICERS OF THE ACADEMY 1920-1929 L. English, 1920-1921. F. W. C. Meyer, 1922-1925. President, Cogswell Bentley, 1926-1927. (GeorgeWilliam H. Boardman, 1928-1929. Florus R. Baxter, 1920. J. L. Roseboom, 1921. First Vice-president, . John R. Murlin, 1922-1924. H. H. Covell, 1925-1927. |L. E. Jewell, 1928-1929. 'J. L. Roseboom, 1920. John R. Murlin, 1921. H. H. Covell, 1922-1924. Second Vice-president, A. C. Hawkins, 1925-1926. Arthur C. Parker, 1927. C. Messerschmidt, 1928-1929. Secretary, Milroy N. Stewart, 1920-1929. Treasurer, George Wendt, 1920-1929. Librarian, Alice H. Brown, 1920-1929. Corresponding Secretary, William D. Merrell, 1920-1921. COUNCILLORS Elective Florence Beckwith, 1920-1929. William H. Boardman, 1923-1927. Herman' L. Fairchild, 1920-1929. Alfred C. Hawkins, 1923-1925. Warren A. Matthews, 1920-1927. F. W. C. Meyer, 1926-1929. Milton S. Baxter, 1920-1922. William D. Merrell, 1926-1928. Charles C. Zoller, 1920-1922. Arthur C.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Draft Allegany Unit State Forests
    Allegany County UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT Towns of Alfred, Allen, Almond, Amity, Angelica, Belfast, Birdsall, Burns, Caneadea, Centerville, Friendship, Granger, Grove, New Hudson, Rushford, Ward, Wellsville, West Almond, and Willing County of Allegany January, 2016 DIVISION OF LANDS AND FORESTS Bureau of State Land Management, Region 9 2524 County Route 2A Almond, NY 14804 www.dec.ny.gov Allegany County Unit Management Plan A planning unit consisting of 23 State Forests in Allegany County January 2016 Prepared by the Allegany Unit Management Planning Team: Nathaniel Tucker, Senior Forester Chelsea Sheridan, Research Technician Jonathan Cleveland, Forester Trainee I David Paradowski, Regional Forester Justin Thaine, Forest Ranger Robert Stanton, Land Surveyor Julie Goodyear, Assistant Land Surveyor II Emilio Rende, Wildlife Biologist Scott Cornett, Fisheries Biologist Charles Cranston, Environmental Analyst 1 Kurt Roberts, Conservation Operations Supervisor 2 Acknowledgments The Allegany Unit Management Planning Team would like to gratefully acknowledge the efforts of all those who contributed to this plan. We particularly would like to thank the following people for information and review they provided: Ron Abraham, Senior Forester Daniel Shaffer, Forestry Technician III Stephanie Schmid, GIS Specialist Sarah Hoskinson, Natural Resources Planner Nicholas Brown, Forestry Technician II Richard Sylvestro, Forester Trainee 1 Kaytlynn Walters, Forestry Technician Job Lowry, Seasonal Forestry Technician Zane Ueblhear, Seasonal Forestry Technician Jeremy Hurst, Wildlife Biologist Christopher Miller, Mineral Resources Pete Liebig, Forest Ranger New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Lands and Forests Region 9 2524 County Route 2A, Almond, NY 14804 (585) 466-3241 http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/27790.html DEC’s Mission "The quality of our environment is fundamental to our concern for the quality of life.
    [Show full text]
  • The Past and the Prospect of Administrative Division of Georgia
    Miriam Jikia, LL.D.,* doi:10.5937/zrpfni1983163J Associate Professor, прегледни научни рад Faculty of Law and International Relations, Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia UDK: 342.24(479.22) Рад примљен: 28.05.2019. Рад прихваћен: 25.09.2019. THE PAST AND THE PROSPECT OF ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION OF GEORGIA Abstract: Historically speaking, Georgia never had an opportunity to inde- pendently determine the form of country’s administrative division. Due to some factors, including foreign and domestic policies, and socio-economic conditions, it was inevitable to divide the country into certain territorial units; however, Georgia has never been a strictly centralized state. The presented paper discusses the issue of administrative division in legal docu- ments created in independent Georgia. The issue is debated with reference to the first Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Georgia adopted in 1995, and the second amended Constitution adopted in 2004, and the third amended constitution adopted in 2010. The paper also reviews all the amendments of the Georgian Constitution introduced in the past 20 years, which have not brought any significant changes on the issue of adminis- trative division. The author analyses what may be the best administrative division for Georgia by considering two existing regional conflicts, and underlines the positive and negative aspects of Federalism and Unitarism. Key words: Administrative Division of State, Federalism, Autonomous Re- publics. 1. Introduction The administrative division of a country represents a system of political and legal relations between the central government and the governments of the territorial entities. According to the so-called “Doctrineet al., of Three Elements”, the organization of its authority on certain territory is the necessary precondition for the existence of each country (Gonashvili 2017:149).
    [Show full text]
  • George Thomas – 2015 Summit GT Presentation
    Report Card PURPOSE: • Raise public awareness of the overall state of the Genesee River Basin • Provide a basis for conversation about what is important to improve water quality in the Genesee River • Make visible the targets to improve the water quality in, and access to, the Genesee River • Make sure we are making progress on those targets NOTE: No new data collection. 1 Genesee RiverWatch Restoring Our River Work Worth Doing 2 Summit • Overarching goals of the 2014 Summit were: – Begin the process of forging a regional alliance capable of planning and implementing programs that deal with the Genesee River Basin as an integrated system – Develop action plans to address the highest priority pollution reduction projects identified during the Summit – Establish the basis for a Genesee River Basin Improvement Action Plan 3 Genesee River Basin Rochester Embayment Genesee River Action Strategy Area of Concern Watershed Project 2004 Remedial Action Plan 2013 Genesee River Basin Summit 2014 Review New EDC-Fundable Stakeholder/Citizen Studies Projects Issues/Concerns Stakeholder Citizen Genesee River Basin Outreach 9-Element Watershed Plan Genesee River Basin Summit Allows access to funding 2015 for anyone in Basin More Revise Projects Plan • SUNY Brockport Genesee River Basin Study – Basis for our 2014 Summit and DEC’s Nine- Element Plan – Work conducted over a 3-year period to monitor and model the water quality of the entire basin – Published a 7-volume, 700+ page report in late 2013 5 • First Summit was held in February 2014 • 185 attendees
    [Show full text]
  • Genesee River Nine Element Watershed Plan
    Nine Key Element Watershed Plan Assessment Form New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water is responsible for t reviewing and approving watershed plans to ensure the plans meet the Nine Key Elements established by the USEPA. This form is to be completed by NYSDEC staff to ensure each of the Nine Key Elements are addressed in plans that are designated as State Approved Plans. Watershed plan title: Genesee River Basin Nine Element Watershed Plan for Phosphorus and Sediment Pollutant(s) addressed by plan: Phosphorus and Sediment Prepared by: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water Submitted by: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water Addresses watershed with an existing TMDL Update to previously approved plan Reviewer 1: Karen Stainbrook Reviewer 2: Cameron Ross Comments: Watershed plan is approved as a State Approved Nine Key Element Watershed Plan Date Approved: 9/30/2015 Page 1 | 6 Directions to the reviewer For each item on the form, indicate if the item is present. If an item is not applicable, indicate N/A and explain in the comments section. Where possible, indicate the page number or section in the plan where the item is found. It is not necessary for every item on the form to be included in the watershed plan. However, each of the nine key elements must be satisfactorily addressed for the plan to receive approval. The reviewer is directed to the Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters (USEPA Office of Water Nonpoint Source Control Branch, 2008; EPA 841-B-08-002) to assist in determining if each element is adequately addressed.
    [Show full text]