ZBA decision not consistent
In March of 2007, the ZBA approved a Use Variance Permit for a mining gravel and soil operation in our Route 205/23 and West Oneonta RA-40 (Residential Agricultural) Zone. Recently Judge Dowd ruled the operation could move forward. This case sets precedence for the entire town of Oneonta, putting all town properties at risk.
The ZBA determined 735 State Highway 205, 22.83 Oneonta acres, 1,293 feet of road frontage, could not be developed for any of the permitted uses: residential housing (one-family, two-family, three- and four-family dwellings), agricultural uses, a camp or campground, a kennel or boarding house, or a subdivision overlooking the golf course, and that none of these uses would provide the absentee owner a reasonable return.
The ZBA determined the property to be unique even though most properties along Route 205 on the same side have the same characteristics as this property.
Furthermore, the ZBA believes this operation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, though a newly renovated golf course sits directly across from the site and neighboring properties shall be affected by declining property values.
The ZBA believes the owner has financial hardship even though the owner inherited the property (assessed full market value $101,536). The Planning Board is now faced with formulating appropriate mine operation restrictions under a Special Use Permit.
The town of Oneonta website, Section IV 103-13, defines a RA District. Section 103-72 lists noxious/offensive prohibited uses. Chapter 103, Article 1 defines non-conforming use. Learn about the town laws. Is the ZBA's approval of this use consistent with the laws created by the town board to protect residents?
Recently two other low-impact small businesses were denied in this same RA-40 Zone, yet the ZBA approved this high-impact commercial/industrial operation. Where is the consistency in decision-making by the ZBA?
Bonnie Jones
Oneonta
Other thoughts on patriotism
After reading Tom Sears' column of May 13, may I suggest several alternative definitions and thoughts on patriotism.
Theodore Roosevelt said: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public."
Samuel Johnson quipped: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." (To which Ambrose Bierce famously added, "With all due respect"¦ I beg to submit that it is the first.")
August Bebel: "In time of war the loudest patriots are the greatest profiteers."
George Bernard Shaw: "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."
Bertrand Russell: "Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons."
My personal favorite is from an 1847 speech made in Syracuse, titled, "Love of God, Love of Man, Love of Country." Abolitionist Frederick Douglass, a former slave, said: "I make no pretension to patriotism. So long as my voice can be heard on this or the other side of the Atlantic, I will hold up America to the lightning scorn of moral indignation. In doing this, I shall feel myself discharging the duty of a true patriot; for he is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins. It is righteousness that exalteth a nation while sin is a reproach to any people."
The looting of Iraqi oil violates the Geneva Convention but continuing the occupation, by our government deserves our "moral indignation."
Karen O'Leary
Delhi
Good column on patriotism
Thank you, Tom Sears, for your great column on patriotism in the May 13 issue of The Daily Star. You really put the truth-hating, "blame America first" liberal creeps in their place.
Thanks again, and keep up the good work.
John Forman
Oneonta
Print this story
E-mail this story
