Hunting on town owned property; Pleasant Meadows

[Lee Chowaniec]

A town resident appeared at the Lancaster Town Board work session Monday evening to request the Board un-post the Pleasant Meadows “no trespassing” signage that would allow bow hunting on the town owned property; property that was conveyed to it by Marrano Marc Equity when the subdivision site plan was approved.

Supervisor Giza stated that the conveyed/conserved 30+ acre wetland property was posted to keep people out of harm’s way. “If anyone went in there and got hurt, at least we could say that we did our best to warn people to stay out of there. At least we are saying that you should not go in there for any reason. Of course others say it stops everyone basically from hunting there and even the people that want to walk there. I wouldn’t care if anyone walked there, but hunting is a different situation.”

The resident declared he believed the land should be un-posted and replaced with signage that states that firearms are not permitted on the property. He added that he saw no reason why people could not bow hunt on the property. His understanding is that the land was posted because a few Pleasant Meadows homeowners whose property doesn’t even abut the conserved wetland area complained about the hunting taking place. “There is more than enough land for hunters to meet the required DEC regulation of not shooting within 500 feet of a dwelling.”

The resident claims he has hunted the site for years without complaints coming from the Stony Brook subdivision residents and that he is welcomed to access the site from several locations.

Councilman John Abraham affirmed that the site in question was posted not because of people walking the property, but because of the hunting taking place and the fear of an accidental injury.

“But the petitioner wants bow hunting permitted,” interjected Supervisor Giza.

The resident declared that he had not personally heard of anyone ever getting hit by an arrow, or heard of one being reported. He stated that he uses a tree stand and shoots down at a deer from a distance of 30-40 yards – well within the 500 foot DEC hunting requirement.

Abraham was perplexed as how the property should be signed. “No trespassing means that no one is allowed on the property. Should it be signed no hunting, there will be no hunting of any kind.”

The resident then declared that if hunting were not allowed the deer would proliferate and that the town would be experiencing deer overpopulation issues like other towns. “We will then be paying the police to come in the middle of the night to shoot the deer; and, with bow hunting there s no noise.”

Abraham then asked whether the town had allowed hunting on town owned property in the past. “We never disallowed it,” was the answer given.

At this point, Supervisor Giza presented examples of how even no trespassing signs posted on private property did not dissuade hunters from coming onto properties in camouflage and on ATV’s; hunters who even shot up barns. “It is almost impossible to stop illegal hunting. You need an Army with helicopters and even then the illegal hunters know the escape routes and leave in a hurry before apprehension. There are good hunters and the other kind that spoil it for everyone. And some of these guys don’t care where they fire. The town is not anti hunting, but we have to protect the town taxpayers. We have to make every effort to show people that we don’t allow hunting on town property because we don’t want to put people in harm’s way."

Abraham interjected that his issue is with the confines of the area and that hunting will take place close to residences.

The resident again stated that there is more than enough room to stick to the DEC hunting regulations for bow hunters. He declared that he has been a police officer for 20 years and knows about firearms and ballistics. “This site is not too small for hunting, and by allowing bow hunting the residents will not be exposed to gunshot noise or other firearm worries. To post town property and not let anyone use it is wrong.”

The Board decided it needed to do more research before giving an answer to the petitioner – like what other municipalities do under like conditions.

Comment

It may help the reader to backtrack to this former post.
http://www.speakupwny.com/article_2258.shtml

[therising]

Lee - you do a good job of coming up with interesting topics.


Anyway, where, exactly, is this property?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lee - you do a good job of coming up with interesting topics.

Anyway, where, exactly, is this property?

Thank you. Not being a hunter, I have no dog in this race.

The Pleasant Meadows subdivision sits between Pleasant View Drive and Walden Avenue (one mile in distance) and directly east of Lancaster High School and directly west of the Stony Brook subdivision.

[4248]

Deer Car collisions Pleasantview and Walden support that position. Our Town Board continues to approve developers bull dozing of our green space and wetlands.

Deer and other wildlife, fish and endangered/rare birds are routinely disturbed and up routed. Our Controlling Town Board Leaders have been routinely/repeatedly reminded of that fact yearly for the past 20+ years.

When Supervisor Giza was selling Pleasant Meadows project to the residents he said -

"Lancaster Supervisor Robert Giza has informed the public on several occasions that NYS regulated Wetland LA-16, as well as the mitigation wetlands, would be conveyed to the town and some day the LA-16 Wetland would become a park. That would presuppose that roads, parking areas and shelters would be constructed to convert the wetland into a public park. Such use would further despoil the value and function of the wetland.

DEC Response:

During the SEQR review and decision-making process that this process has undergone, it was stated that a 42-acre area (which contains the majority of Wetland LA-16) would be conveyed to the Town of Lancaster. As stated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) developed for this project, this conveyance was to be for the purpose of creating a “park/passive recreational area”.

It is this Departments opinion that the comment mentioning the potential amenities, such as construction of roads, parking areas and shelters may be unfounded." quote from Lee's article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our Town Supervisor and the Town Board under his leadership has on many occasions tried to stop hunting in Lancaster. They have continually misrepresented what developers intentions are during the approval phase of many projects.

Promised soccer fields don't materialize, promised "Public Spaces" aren't built or funded by developers, Grave sites aren't protected and maintained as promised.(Grave stones disappear, we wouldn't want prospective buyers to be scared off - or to find out there's a grave yard next to their property? ! ? )

I believe the hunters should consult the DEC (Dont let the Towns Controlling Members misinform you - again!). Find out if the Town can block public use of Town owned property - taxpayers are the actual owners - not the Town Board.

Hunters should write letters to:
Supervisor Bob Giza
21 Central Ave.
Lancaster, NY 14086

Once they change the rules - freedoms are lost.

[therising]

Lee - I know where Pleasant Meadows is, I meant, where, precisely, is this piece of Town-owned land?
How close to the street? to homes?

Gorja - I may have to assign you this task.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lee - I know where Pleasant Meadows is, I meant, where, precisely, is this piece of Town-owned land?
How close to the street? to homes?

Gorja - I may have to assign you this task.

I don't do maps but I can tell you that there are homes in the Pleasant Meadows and Stony Brook subdivisions that abut the wetland and homes along Newberry Lane and Traceway streets that abut the wetland.

At this time I am unsure as whether the wetland is within 500 feet of Walden Avenue.

Gorja, help us with a map.

[gorja]

Is this another map overlay issue or are all those streets built in the wetand?

OOPs typo, should be "Pleasant" not "Pleasnat"

[mikenold]

I want to hunt there too! Bow only. If anyone hears that this will be a reality please post!

[therising]

Why should the rights of hunters supersede the rights of dog-walkers, hikers, mountain-bikers, children, etc?

Using the "I'm a taxpayer, therefore, I own it" theory, then I, as a taxpayer, would be extremely pissed off if I wasn't allowed on my property, just because a few guys want to hunt there.

[mikenold]

Why should the rights of hunters supersede the rights of dog-walkers, hikers, mountain-bikers, children, etc?

Using the "I'm a taxpayer, therefore, I own it" theory, then I, as a taxpayer, would be extremely pissed off if I wasn't allowed on my property, just because a few guys want to hunt there.

It is town property, not someones private property

[therising]

It is town property, not someones private property

Exactly.
So, again, what makes you think that a handful of hunters should be able to hunt there - and prevent the other 34,900 citizens from walking their dogs there, hiking there, etc........

Yes, I made up the 34,900, but so what. You get the point.

[mikenold]

Exactly.
So, again, what makes you think that a handful of hunters should be able to hunt there - and prevent the other 34,900 citizens from walking their dogs there, hiking there, etc........

Yes, I made up the 34,900, but so what. You get the point.

I would not shoot a bow at anything but deer.

[FisherRd]

You get the point.

I get your point, and I'd counter with "The bow hunting season is limited to a couple weeks of the year, so the other 48-50 weeks are the dog walkers".
Besides, you can still walk your dog during bow season. I personally wouldn't, but you could technically do it. You'd most likely have an aggrivated hunter though.

[Lee Chowaniec]

I do have a dog in this race

Nope, I am not a hunter; nor am I anti hunting. However, when reading the Lancaster Bee today I discovered I do have a say about the position the town is in considering a hunter’s petition to reconsider un-posting the 50-acre passive park/recreation area that was conveyed to the town by Marc Marrano Equity several years ago.

The Bee stated the resident asked for compromise. I never heard that term used nor did I hear the resident plea for hunting that included shotgun. His plea was to have the no trespass posting removed and in it’s place some signage that would allow residents to walk the site and would also allow for bow hunting; some sort of signage that would say “no firearms allowed.”

As of now, no one is allowed on the site and that contradicts the town’s promise to conserve this land and to use it as a passive park.

When Councilmember John Abraham asked whether the town allows hunting on town owned property, it was the resident that answered that the town did not disallow it. Ever Board members stated they would look into the matter and see what other towns do.

To my knowledge, no other municipality private land owner posts “only bow hunting allowed.” I believe that would be discriminatory to shotgun hunters, especially here where there 50 acres available to hunt; locations well beyond the DEC 500 foot regulation.

Should the town decide to post a “no hunting allowed” sign on this town owned parcel of land, others will have voice in demanding the same consideration on town lands that abut private houses – like the 60+ acres of property that abuts Transit Boulevard (my neighbors) and Penora Street homes; and were the town owns property and paper streets.

When the Queens Way house was shot (next to Penora Woods, south of William Street) hunting was discontinued because there was no location in the woods that was outside the 500 foot DEC regulation for shooting toward dwellings. AT the Pleasant Meadows site and the one off Penora/Transit Road/Transit Boulevard there are over 50 acres.

And now that the town declared they would shut the bike path down during hunting season, it leads one to believe they don’t want hunting on town property for fear of individual harm, yet hunting takes place on town property in the one case.

You can’t have I both ways. Either hunting is allowed on town property or not. If it is and the hunting is restricted to bow only when there is ample room to hunt safely under DEC regulations, why should that not be considered discriminatory?

The issue of posting the Pleasant Meadows site becomes even more muddied by the fact that there are at least 60 acres of undeveloped land around the site and one would definitely have problems distinguishing boundary lines.
And considering the complaining parties property do not abut the site in question, why are they being told, “You should have known better.” Is the town’s primary reason to disallow hunting for safety reasons or to keep themselves out of harm’s way – liability litigation?

Have a go at it Speakup members.

[shortstuff]

I do have a dog in this race

Nope, I am not a hunter; nor am I anti hunting. However, when reading the Lancaster Bee today I discovered I do have a say about the position the town is in considering a hunter’s petition to reconsider un-posting the 50-acre passive park/recreation area that was conveyed to the town by Marc Marrano Equity several years ago.

The Bee stated the resident asked for compromise. I never heard that term used nor did I hear the resident plea for hunting that included shotgun. His plea was to have the no trespass posting removed and in it’s place some signage that would allow residents to walk the site and would also allow for bow hunting; some sort of signage that would say “no firearms allowed.”

As of now, no one is allowed on the site and that contradicts the town’s promise to conserve this land and to use it as a passive park.

When Councilmember John Abraham asked whether the town allows hunting on town owned property, it was the resident that answered that the town did not disallow it. Ever Board members stated they would look into the matter and see what other towns do.

To my knowledge, no other municipality private land owner posts “only bow hunting allowed.” I believe that would be discriminatory to shotgun hunters, especially here where there 50 acres available to hunt; locations well beyond the DEC 500 foot regulation.

Should the town decide to post a “no hunting allowed” sign on this town owned parcel of land, others will have voice in demanding the same consideration on town lands that abut private houses – like the 60+ acres of property that abuts Transit Boulevard (my neighbors) and Penora Street homes; and were the town owns property and paper streets.

When the Queens Way house was shot (next to Penora Woods, south of William Street) hunting was discontinued because there was no location in the woods that was outside the 500 foot DEC regulation for shooting toward dwellings. AT the Pleasant Meadows site and the one off Penora/Transit Road/Transit Boulevard there are over 50 acres.

And now that the town declared they would shut the bike path down during hunting season, it leads one to believe they don’t want hunting on town property for fear of individual harm, yet hunting takes place on town property in the one case.

You can’t have I both ways. Either hunting is allowed on town property or not. If it is and the hunting is restricted to bow only when there is ample room to hunt safely under DEC regulations, why should that not be considered discriminatory?

The issue of posting the Pleasant Meadows site becomes even more muddied by the fact that there are at least 60 acres of undeveloped land around the site and one would definitely have problems distinguishing boundary lines.
And considering the complaining parties property do not abut the site in question, why are they being told, “You should have known better.” Is the town’s primary reason to disallow hunting for safety reasons or to keep themselves out of harm’s way – liability litigation?

Have a go at it Speakup members.

Liability litigation. I think this is too ambiguous. I agree Lee, you can't have it both ways.