117- Law of Utilities, Utility of Law

The RUPCO project argues that it belongs in the hamlet sewer district because of the following section of town law:

Hamlet District (§ 245-21 — § 245-36)

Properties divided by District boundary. 

Those properties which are now divided by the District boundary line shall be considered to be wholly served by the District

Fair enough on the citation, however the map appears to show that no section of the property in question is in the district. 

Either way, there is a separate town law for water.  Where exactly in the water law does it say that if a property is divided by the water district boundary, it is wholly served by the water district?

I can't find that section.  Can you?  Please help me out.

In a letter to the Department of Environmental Conservation, RUPCO's attorney, Michael Moriello argues that according to  "the plain

meaning of Town of Woodstock Local

Law #3 of 2005."

What plain meaning is that?

Here is a paragraph that says that anybody can apply to be a water customer, and the Town Board may decide yes or no:

Regulations and requirements. 

A. 

Any person or corporation located within the Town of Woodstock may make application to the Town Board for hookup to the municipal water supply. The application shall be accompanied by a bond in such sum as shall be fixed by the Town Board in consultation with the Highway Superintendent and the Water/Sewer Superintendent, with one or more sureties acceptable to the Board, on the condition that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of this chapter; shall pay to the District all fees, penalties or other charges required hereby in consequence of the work undertaken; shall restore openings made in streets, roads, lanes and other public places and pavement thereon and therein to the same standard of condition as before the work commenced; and shall keep and maintain the same in such condition for a period of one year after the work has been completed and, in case of failure so to do, shall pay to the District the cost of putting the same in such condition. The Town Board may, at its discretion, grant or deny such application. The Town Board may, at any time, revoke such permission so given.

Here is another paragraph saying that all uses must be applied for.  It is interesting to note that in RUPCO's application for Woodstock Commons, NO outdoor water use is estimated. The maintenance building water demand is only 15 gallons per day. I don't quite believe that.  Do you?

D. 

Applications for introduction of water to any premises or for the use of water shall be made upon a form furnished by the District for such purpose and shall be signed by the owner of the premises or said owner's duly authorized agent. Such application shall contain a statement of all uses for which water is desired. If usage beyond that stated in the application occurs or, in the opinion of the Town Board in consultation with the Water/Sewer Superintendent, exceeds the supply available, water service may be discontinued. Application for additional uses may be made at any time and a permit may be granted therefor subject to the best interests of the District as a whole.

The above section clearly puts the interests of the water district as a whole above the unapplied for (hence unapproved) water uses of the new customer.

More broadly, here is the water law's 

Statutory authority. 

This chapter is enacted in accordance with Articles 9 and 12 of the Town Law of the State of New York, the Municipal Home Rule Law, § 10 of the New York Statute of Local Governments, and other legislative authority of the State of New York, which grant the Town Board of the Town of Woodstock the authority to enact local laws for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare of the people of the Town.

Looks like the water laws were enacted to promote the health, safety and welfare of the people of the Town.

RUPCO has forgotten that "the people of the town" do not include their buildings' residents.   Their buildings are not here yet, and neither are their people.  They have forgotten that there are a lot of people of the town right NOW who did not have enough water last summer, who probably do not have enough water pressure to fight fires now, and that it is entirely within the Town Board's authority to limit the NUMBER of "the people of the town" so that there is enough water and enough water pressure to go around. 

116- Not So Fast...

The judge threw out the town of Woodstock's motion to dismiss my Article 78 petition against the town/planning board for accepting the RUPCO/Woodstock Commons Findings Statement.  He ordered me to refile, and name two additional parties in the lawsuit, by first week of January.  The two additional parties are RUPCO and EVK Realty.

Drayton Grant, Woodstock's lawyer, caused a delay of at least four months by trying to have the petition thrown out as a result of attempting to trick me into giving her an extension.  I believe that her trickery will prove to be more ill-fated still.  We'll see.

More later.

115- On Notice, the sequel

After last week's water district user meeting, and the people interviewed in Woodstock Times about the town's duty to provide fire safety, I thought a more detailed notice of defect was called for. So I wrote a narrative of 8 pages, which is about 3000 words, then attached 52 pages of documents illustrating and explaining the problem, so that there can be no further misunderstanding or shirking of responsibility. 

While I was at it, I put Woodstock on notice for having approved an unsafe, too narrow, too winding, too flat road for the traffic that RUPCO's project seeks to and estimates that it will generate.  I included several pages of supporting documentation, for a total of 14 pages.

I filed both notices of defect with the Woodstock town clerk's office this morning.  Merry Christmas.

114- Ferguson Causeway

You know Ferguson Brook, that tiny little brook over which RUPCO wants to build a modest bridge to Woodstock Commons. I walked by there yesterday at sunset, and today after sunrise, and although the photo and video are not the best, I am sure you can appreciate that this brook is now a standing body of water in several places, and probably not a place where pedestrians would choose to walk through to get to their affordable housing further up the swampland.  I for one only have boots that rise to mid-calf. Perhaps RUPCO will offer hip boots with each new apartment rental. 

This is a photo looking across Ferguson "Brook" where the bridge is supposed to span it. 

Here is a video of the brook/swamp this morning, about 15 hours after the rain stopped.

113- Water District Member Meeting Concerning RUPCO

Last night's water district user meeting drew a solid attendance.  The evening was roughly divided into my presentation of the water pressure problem in the district, and Jerry Washington's excellent projection presentation (he used a projector, but his voice projected well also) of the water and sewer district map and physical particulars.

For now, I share with you my presentation. I stayed up late last night dividing it into segments that will fit on youtube, and now here are embedded.  Later on, I will include the latter part of the presentation. Enjoy the show.