Regarding IZ incentive zoning procedural errors for German Brothers Marina Dear Town Board members:  Below is the important part of the NY State enabling law (TWN 261-b) that allows the town to create Incentive Zoning regulations: image0.jpeg Where is the documentation of any discussion, or proof of a determination by the TB, regarding including the RLD as a district in which Incentive Zoning should be allowed, and verifying that it will be compatible with the development otherwise permitted in the RLD? The words “such incentives” in this section of TWN 261-b would include “changes of USE”, which is one of the permitted incentives listed in the town’s Incentive Zoning code. Where was it discussed and determined that a change of use of a parcel in the RLD would be compatible with the current “development otherwise permitted” (single family residential, public parks, public safety facilities)? For that matter, although not a directly listed requirement, there is another “effect of any potential incentives”. Where was it discussed and determined that a change of use of a parcel in the RLD would be compatible with the RLD’s purpose statement? (The purpose of the RLD Residential Lake District is to allow limited residential uses that protect the quality of Canandaigua Lake and the surrounding natural topography, including the shoreline, ridgelines, and scenic vistas of this unique and environmentally sensitive area.) The “effect” is that this change in the IZ code puts it in direct conflict with the RLDs purpose statement. As suggested by our Town Attorney, Chris Nadler, I have reviewed all of the resolutions (and TB meeting minutes) regarding Incentive Zoning from when the inclusion of the RLD and other additional zones was put forward and approved in the new IZ code in 2022, and additionally, any subsequent minutes and resolutions re: IZ since then, and I can find nothing indicating that the required discussions ever took place, or that the required determinations were ever made, or that TWN 261-b was followed as required by law. Another redo of IZ is appropriate, and frankly, required.

Regarding IZ Incentive zoning procedural errors for German Brothers Marina : Dear Town Board members:  Below is the important part of the NY State enabling law (TWN 261-b) that allows the town to create Incentive Zoning regulations: Each zoning district in which incentives or bonuses may be awarded under this section shall be designated in the town zoning ordinance or local law and shall be incorporated in any map adopted in connection with such zoning ordinance or local law or amendment thereto. Each zoning district in which incentives or bonuses may be authorized shall have been found by the town board, after evaluating the effects of any potential incentives which are possible by virtue of the provision of community amenities, to contain adequate resources, environmental quality and public facilities, including adequate transportation, water supply, waste disposal and fire protection. Further, the town board shall, in designating such districts, determine that there will be no significant environmentally damaging consequences and that such incentives or bonuses are compatible with the development otherwise permitted A generic environmental impact statement pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR 617.15 shall be prepared by the town board for any zoning district in which the granting of incentives or bonuses have a significant effect on the environment before any such district is designated, and such statement shall be supplemented from time to time by the town board if there are material changes in circumstances that may result in significant adverse impacts. Any zoning ordinance or local law enacted pursuant to this section shall provide that any applicant for incentives or bonuses shall pay a proportionate share of the cost of preparing such environmental impact statement, and that such charge shall be added to any site-specific charge made pursuant to the provisions of section 8-0109 of the environmental conservation law. The town board shall set forth the procedure by which incentives may be provided to specific lands. Where is the documentation of any discussion, or proof of a determination by the TB, regarding including the RLD as a district in which Incentive Zoning should be allowed, and verifying that it will be compatible with the development otherwise permitted in the RLD? The words “such incentives” in this section of TWN 261-b would include “changes of USE”, which is one of the permitted incentives listed in the town’s Incentive Zoning code. Where was it discussed and determined that a change of use of a parcel in the RLD would be compatible with the current “development otherwise permitted” (single family residential, public parks, public safety facilities)? For that matter, although not a directly listed requirement, there is another “effect of any potential incentives”. Where was it discussed and determined that a change of use of a parcel in the RLD would be compatible with the RLD’s purpose statement? (The purpose of the RLD Residential Lake District is to allow limited residential uses that protect the quality of Canandaigua Lake and the surrounding natural topography, including the shoreline, ridgelines, and scenic vistas of this unique and environmentally sensitive area.) The “effect” is that this change in the IZ code puts it in direct conflict with the RLDs purpose statement. As suggested by our Town Attorney, Chris Nadler, I have reviewed all of the resolutions (and TB meeting minutes) regarding Incentive Zoning from when the inclusion of the RLD and other additional zones was put forward and approved in the new IZ code in 2022, and additionally, any subsequent minutes and resolutions re: IZ since then, and I can find nothing indicating that the required discussions ever took place, or that the required determinations were ever made, or that TWN 261-b was followed as required by law. Another redo of IZ is appropriate, and frankly, required.

Regarding German Brothers Marina: Dear Town Board members: I am frustrated that German Brothers keeps getting special treatment because of the misunderstanding that they are offering the magic commodity of “public access” which is specifically mentioned as a “need” in the Comprehensive Plan. The only real public access that GBM ever offered is a few feet for a kayak launch, period. Do you consider the Lake House or Sutter’s Marina “public access”? They are not. They are commercial businesses in a commercially zoned area that happens to be on the lake. Onanda Park is public access. The Schoolhouse swim beach is public access. Kershaw Park is public access. The boat ramp at the top of the lake as well as the DEC boat ramp at Woodville are public access. The 8 or 9 so called “public” boat slips that GBM offered were so that people already on the lake, already having lake access, could come in and dock their boats for a maximum of 2 hours so that they could spend their money at the restaurant/Marina for a meal or boating supplies. That is not “public access”, that is boat parking for their customers. I am frustrated that the TB doesn’t understand why GBM was/is insisting on being granted “commercial” zoning rather than a special use permit. I am frustrated that it is assumed that just because GBM purchased Putt Moore’s adjacent residential property it would be OK, and not a big deal, to include that property in the Marina plans thereby magically converting a conforming residential property into a commercial property. This was specifically called out by Kevin Olvany when he gave his presentation to the TB, but never mentioned or discussed by any TB member after that. I am frustrated that GBM is being offered the special treatment of being given the opportunity to reapply before 1 year. The bogus excuse given was that a mistake that was made by not submitting to the OCPB justifies allowing a new submission early. That mistake didn’t affect GBM’s submission at all. Who decides if any new submission is “substantially different”, and what criteria are used to determine that it is substantially different? Please give specifics. (Now I sound like John Casey.) I am extremely frustrated that there was no mention of the excellent, well reasoned letter submitted by CLWA specifically requesting that the TB omit the RLD from any new Incentive Zoning law. I am frustrated that the TB doesn’t understand that “public parks” (true public access) and “public safety facilities” are specifIcally allowed principal uses in the RLD, therefore they don’t need to leave the RLD in Incentive Zoning. I am also frustrated that GBM was given special treatment and allowed on the TB agenda, and even had a public hearing opened BEFORE there was even a completed application submitted for the project. That should never happen again. It wasted everyone’s time while GBM was feeling out the Town for what they could get away with. I look forward to seeing an accounting of all of the chargebacks to GBM for the Town Attorney’s time and expenses, as well as any other chargebacks attributable to any other outside professionals necessitated by the GBM IZ fiasco at the second TB meeting in April. Very disappointed in our Town Board,

Regarding German Brothers Marina : Dear Town Board members: I am frustrated that German Brothers keeps getting special treatment because of the misunderstanding that they are offering the magic commodity of “public access” which is specifically mentioned as a “need” in the Comprehensive Plan. The only real public access that GBM ever offered is a few feet for a kayak launch, period. Do you consider the Lake House or Sutter’s Marina “public access”? They are not. They are commercial businesses in a commercially zoned area that happens to be on the lake. Onanda Park is public access. The Schoolhouse swim beach is public access. Kershaw Park is public access. The boat ramp at the top of the lake as well as the DEC boat ramp at Woodville are public access. The 8 or 9 so called “public” boat slips that GBM offered were so that people already on the lake, already having lake access, could come in and dock their boats for a maximum of 2 hours so that they could spend their money at the restaurant/Marina for a meal or boating supplies. That is not “public access”, that is boat parking for their customers. I am frustrated that the TB doesn’t understand why GBM was/is insisting on being granted “commercial” zoning rather than a special use permit. I am frustrated that it is assumed that just because GBM purchased Putt Moore’s adjacent residential property it would be OK, and not a big deal, to include that property in the Marina plans thereby magically converting a conforming residential property into a commercial property. This was specifically called out by Kevin Olvany when he gave his presentation to the TB, but never mentioned or discussed by any TB member after that. I am frustrated that GBM is being offered the special treatment of being given the opportunity to reapply before 1 year. The bogus excuse given was that a mistake that was made by not submitting to the OCPB justifies allowing a new submission early. That mistake didn’t affect GBM’s submission at all. Who decides if any new submission is “substantially different”, and what criteria are used to determine that it is substantially different? Please give specifics. (Now I sound like John Casey.) I am extremely frustrated that there was no mention of the excellent, well reasoned letter submitted by CLWA specifically requesting that the TB omit the RLD from any new Incentive Zoning law. I am frustrated that the TB doesn’t understand that “public parks” (true public access) and “public safety facilities” are specifIcally allowed principal uses in the RLD, therefore they don’t need to leave the RLD in Incentive Zoning. I am also frustrated that GBM was given special treatment and allowed on the TB agenda, and even had a public hearing opened BEFORE there was even a completed application submitted for the project. That should never happen again. It wasted everyone’s time while GBM was feeling out the Town for what they could get away with. I look forward to seeing an accounting of all of the chargebacks to GBM for the Town Attorney’s time and expenses, as well as any other chargebacks attributable to any other outside professionals necessitated by the GBM IZ fiasco at the second TB meeting in April. Very disappointed in our Town Board,

Attn: Town Board and Ordinance Committee Re: Incentive Zoning The Canandaigua Lake Watershed Association has reviewed the Town of Canandaigua's legislation seeking to apply its Incentive Zoning district to all districts in the town including the Residential Lake District. We are concerned that applying Incentive Zoning to this district will negatively impact the water quality of Canandaigua Lake. The purpose of the town's incentive zoning ordinance is to allow increased dwelling unit density and changes in lot area requirements and dimensional requirements as well as changes in use. The purpose of the Residential Lake District is to "allow limited residential uses that protect the shoreline, ridgelines, and scenic vistas of this unique area". We feel this Incentive Zoning ordinance is in direct conflict with the fundamental purpose of the Residential Lake District and not in keeping with the Compreensive Plan's fundamental goal for the Town of Canandaigua which is "protection and enhancement of its natural, agricultural, rural, historic and recreational resources." We believe the current intensity of development along the lake shore and on adjacent slope is already at or beyond the intensity that allows for long term health of the lake. We urge that you omit the Residential Lake District from the Town's Incentive Zoning expansion.

County Rd. 16 Residents strongly feel that German Brothers Marina should be removed from this area permanently . In addition, the incentive zoning should not be granted causing further safety concerns, pollution due to run off, and harm to the lake as noted by the excellent comprehensive presentation given by Kevin Olvany last week. By doubling Peter Briu’s slips and income, it’s clear he doesn’t care about the lake or community only his profits. Peter Bruu is putting the lake and community in jeopardy setting a dangerous precedent and putting over 70,000 residents’ water source in danger of pollution, additional fish die offs, increased benzene, and other chemicals into the lake. We can see with blue green algae, lake foam, gas on top of the water coming from the German Bothers Marina due to regular spills( as noted by first hand experience by Oksana Fuller and other neighbors), The lake is under a tremendous amount of stress currently and it’s not like it once was as stated by the RIT professor presentation. Just Imagine what it look like if this incentive zoning was approved. How much can the lake take while providing an invaluable resource of drinking water to so many residents. A major point I’d like to get across is the fact that just because they (German Brothers LLC) purchased Putt Moore’s property which is adjacent to the current pre-existing, non-conforming marina, doesn’t make it right or a “given” that they should be allowed to take a conforming residential parcel in the RLD which under current zoning which is allowed to have one single residential dock and turn it into a commercial property with 50 boat slips and 4 moorings. How is that right? Could I or anyone else in the RLD buy the lot next to my property and through Incentive Zoning, which is proposed for the entire RLD, and a little sleight of hand with lot lines be allowed to put in 50 boat slips and 4 moorings? Seems ridiculous ! Note: Skaneateles lake only allows around 30-40 boats maximum on their launch ramps and limited slips which has maintained the exceptional water quality ratings and clarity of all the finger lakes. Why should we sacrifice our lake for one person, (Peter Bruu & partner) to increase their financial gains? It doesn’t make sense! Does it? If the lake is all we have, why should we destroy it ? Originally, the German brothers area is intended to be RLD, residential Lake District only. It should have never been allowed but continues to operate today which is a detriment to area and huge safety concern. Peter Bruu and his superficial consultant GW are Going after the true “Money Grab” that offers little benefit to residents or the town while wanting $5,000 per slip X 150 equating to $750,000-$1,000,000 to line their pockets. These slips will be leased or sold to RSM -Mancini and Peter Bruu is long gone leaving a true mess for everyone to deal with. Many residents on west lake rd. , (County Rd 16), know that German Brothers Marina is operating under a special use permit that needs to be renewed it is not commercial and it is located in the heart of a RLD residential area that has caused safety concerns since the 1970’s. If Putt Moore’s lot is sold to the RSM corporation , owner of Arnold Johnson’s lot, currently for sale, this would allow RSM to add his own 100 slips to service the 62 lot subdivision. Let’s not forget that RSM -Mancini is working closely with Peter Bruu to make this project work. The ultimate solution is to never renew the special use permit for German Brothers Marina in a RLD and have it transitioned back to a RLD Residential area. Peter Bruu revealed through these many meetings that he only wants the revenue from the 150 boat slips ASAP. He also wants STR- VRBO operations , 2 Putt Moore rentals (house & garage) and 8 cabins which also can be sold. He doesn’t need or want to be on County Rd. 16 At All. He wants to operate a boat club and 10 party boat rentals. How many boats will be added for the boat club like Seager Marine? Where will all of these 500+cars park with only 115 spaces being planned. Sounds interesting doesn’t it ? He wants only to be approved for his slips to make money and have the slips for RSM. What about a traffic survey ?A traffic survey should be completed by the county during peak season )June -Sept). Recently a Neighbor noted a Low Season tally of 2,000 cars Daily 30% contractor vehicles. High season we are seeing 5,000 , trucks , contractor vehicles and construction vehicles daily. People Can’t imagine the danger of having people going across county road 16 at the German Brothers location to constantly access slips, coffee shop , ice cream , restaurant, boat club rentals , party boat rentals , kayak and SUP rentals. Then imagine the traffic impact when the 62 RSM homes are being built until they are occupied. Each home with 2-3 cars and 1 golf cart Each to access their boat slip. Peter Bruu also revealed that he will be relocating his operation to the North Road for his service, sales And storage facilities. So why does he need lake access from County Rd 16. The fact is he doesn’t ! He can operate the Marina as Seager Marine, Marks marine, and others do by using the public boat launch at red jacket park. There is no need to constantly drive boats and trailers from North road back and forth to German brothers on county rd 16. Dry stores also will be traveling on this route. The latest dry store number was 75. Revocation of the current special use permit for German Brothers and not approving the incentive zoning is the best solution for the Health of the lake, water quality, boat density & vehicle traffic safety, and overall safety of the community. Thank you for your time. Concerned County Road 16 Property Owners

Dear Town Officials - This “negotiation” offer from GBM is laughable. German Brothers LLC isn’t even offering to give the 30 X 60 piece of land to the town ... just a permanent easement to that land! Yes, we all understand why they are doing that…. to preserve their lake frontage so that they could build the maximum number of boat slips and moorings. Why would we want to help them to maximize number of slips and moorings, when the number of proposed boat slips and moorings, and additional boat traffic on Canandaigua Lake is the top concern that most residents and the watershed management personnel fear regarding the proposed plans negative effect on the health and safety of the lake? The applicants are offering the Town very little to nothing. Except for the kayak launch, it is not even additional lake access for residents, because those boats that would come into the "public slips" (for a stated max of 2 hours) are obviously already on the lake , so they must already have access. Additionally, if you have a public restaurant on the lake you would want to have, and need, public dock space so that customers could come in from the lakeside to spend money in your restaurant and ship’s store. They are not doing the town any favors. In exchange for this little to nothing, they want the town to make major changes to the zoning in a residential zone and allow a commercial business, and additionally they want the Town to pay for any maintenance and repairs on the 30 X 60 easement area, pay for their insurance and indemnify them 100% on the easement parcel, and give them an 80% break in tax assessment. WHAT ARE THEY SMOKING?!!! That's like Tops Market saying, "We want the Town to give us some things for us to allow the public to park in our parking lot and spend money in our store. Give us an 80% tax break on our parking lot land, do all the maintenance and repairs on the parking lot, oh and also pay for all the insurance covering our parking lot." Then, on top of all the games they are trying to play with lot lines in this residential area to maximize their business and number of boats and boating customers they can profit from, they have the nerve to call the town’s request a “money grab”??? REALLY??? Again, it’s a ridiculous plan that is only good for German Brothers LLC, and this nonsense should be stopped now! As far as the congestion, mess and traffic hazard of all the boats, trailers and cars parked along both sides of Co. Rd. 16 …. they shouldn’t have poked the bear. That disaster waiting to happen has been going on for far too long, and should be, and could be, stopped in conjunction with Ontario County (because it’s a County road) regardless of any other changes or approvals at the property. It’s a matter of public safety. Co. Rd. 16 Residents

One point we would like to get across is the fact that just because they (German Brothers LLC) purchased Putt Moore’s property which is adjacent to the current pre-existing, non-conforming marina, doesn’t make it right or a “given” that they should be allowed to take a conforming residential parcel in the RLD which under current zoning is allowed to have one single residential dock and turn it into a commercial property with 50 boat slips and 4 moorings. How is that right? Could I or anyone else in the RLD buy the lot next to my property and through Incentive Zoning, which is proposed for the entire RLD, and a little sleight of hand with lot lines be allowed to put in 50 boat slips and 4 moorings?

This Project is a bad idea! The property should ultimately return to a safer RSD residential Lake District , if the majority of property owners/residents in the area don’t want this , they must speak up and act before it’s too late. The question is : Will 115 spaces for parking be adequate ? Would 500-1000 parking spaces be enough for what is being proposed? (Boat club, boat rentals , VRBO’s, RSM slip owners, slip rentals, restaurant, coffee/ice cream shop, park usage, Think Sutters on west lake road , crazy. Having a few boats and trailers on the side of the road won’t be such a big deal when this get approved.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🎉 *Military Appreciation Day Event Proposal* - Army's request for a military appreciation day at Ous House Park on May 18th. - Initial vision for thousands reduced to 500 attendees with a focus on community involvement. - Discussion on logistics, volunteers, and potential challenges. 08:41 🤔 *Parks Committee Updates and Concerns* - Town manager leaving on January 8th and the impact on the committee. - Motion Junction's proposal for mindfulness signs along the park's sidewalk. - Committee members express concerns about accessibility, design, and placement of the signs. 21:11 🪑 *Approval for Benches at Motion Junction* - Motion Junction's proposal to add benches around the playground. - Committee's approval pending verification of ADA compliance. - Discussion on the importance of choosing quality benches for the park. 23:36 📋 *Future Considerations for Park Development* - Discussion on future phases of park development. - Exploration of decisions regarding field space, Four Seasons building, and long-term vision. - Recognition of Parks and Rec Committee's role in shaping the park's master plan. 24:30 🌳 *Parks Master Plan Discussion* - Planning to revisit the Parks Master Plan in January. - Consideration of fundable items and grants. - Redlined list of the parks master plan to be shared for review. 26:48 🚽 *Facilities Update* - Bathrooms to be open by the end of next week. - Completion of painting and maintenance in the bathrooms. - Bathrooms to remain open throughout the winter. 27:26 🏕️ *Summer Camp Contract Proposal* - Discussion on entering a three-year contract with the YMCA for summer camp. - Proposal expected by the end of the week. - Positive feedback received, consideration of cost and town resident discounts. 30:24 🍔 *Food Truck Wednesdays* - Proposal to explore Food Truck Wednesdays in the park during June, July, and August. - Discussion on frequency, potential local food truck participation. - Consideration of starting in July and reaching out to local businesses. 34:00 💼 *Event Sponsorship and Fee Schedule* - Proposal for event sponsorship at $250, aiming for four sponsors. - Discussion on sponsorship benefits and details to be included. - Consideration of advertising on social media and at events. 37:51 🏞️ *Park Fees Comparison* - Comparison of park cabin rental fees with other local parks. - Discussion on potential adjustments to fees. - Consideration of timing for fee adjustments and impact on existing bookings. 43:05 💰 *Grant Opportunities* - Brief overview of grant opportunities for parks and trails. - Internal and external approaches to grant writing. - Committee's role in supporting grant applications. 46:52 📅 *2024 Planning* - Discussion on annual planning and the role of the chairperson. - Future planning considerations and potential agenda items. - Committee's engagement in the planning process. 47:06 🤝 *Committee Leadership Transition* - Discussion on committee leadership transition. - Recognition of Jamie's interest in taking a leadership role. - Proposal and support for Jamie to continue leading the committee. 48:02 🗓️ *Meeting Schedule Discussion* - Consideration of the committee's meeting schedule. - Agreement to stick to the same schedule of the third Wednesday at 6. - Mention of potential alternate meeting locations and electronic improvements. 48:55 🏡 *Meeting Venue Options* - Discussion on meeting venues, including the Schoolhouse. - Approval for Zoom capability in various locations. - Mention of potential electronic improvements in the 2024 budget. 49:35 🎉 *Christmas Party Announcement* - Invitation to the Christmas party for all committee members. - Details about the party, including date, time, and location. - Mention of the party serving as a farewell to departing members. 50:09 🌐 *General Updates and Announcements* - Brief updates on the senior group, mentioning both loss and gain of members. - General announcements or updates related to committee matters. - Open floor for any additional information or questions. Made with HARPA AI

100% bad idea this plan will create a huge mess more than can be imagined , think sutters/seagers marina on West lake road with 195 potential slips/moorings 65 will be granted to Mancini as an annual option for homeowners. Mancini will help fund the new buildings covering the proposed $1.6M Further detriment/demise of the lake with usage and run off and algae blooms. Butler rd and Onanda park are never full or utilized very often. Let’s see the data and a survey. Once German Brothers relocates to the North Road they can utilize the public launch ramp at the north end just like Seagers and other Marinas and traffic/ parking issues will be resolved. Leave it a residential property with all the restrictions of an RLD lot. High financial benefit to German brothers and Mancini but little benefit to the community. What a great presentation from the RIT environmental professor stating it’s not the lake it once was.

Well thought out plan. Public access is the most important part of this proposal. Getting the trailers off the road is also huge. Hopefully the NIMBY's don't ruin another much needed public access!

This is a bad idea overall in a residential area and in no way helps the traffic on West lake Rd. There will always be boats parked on the side of the road at the marina until the town makes the section "no parking". Removing all the trees and vegetation on the hillside and paving it over is a disaster, that will further contribute to the decline of the beautiful lake. Leave it a residential property with all the restrictions of an RLD lot!

Do you take all them quarters home with you at night?

The town has a Facebook page, but you deleted yours. Why?

How's that lawsuit going clown?

"PromoSM" 😑

"Open and transparent". That's hilarious. Open and transparent corruption. If one of your employees openly utilizes her personal cell phone, at her work place, during working hours, and in regard to an incident which has to do with her work, then it is an official record. This is not even a difficult call. The law is clear. I hope the people of Canandaigua enjoy paying the judgment which will be imposed as a result of the lawsuit you're going to lose.

Understand that you will not get the final decision on this matter! You all can try cover this up.... SEE YOU ALL IN NYS SUPREME COURT 😂

This isn't going to end well for you. Why not try upholding those words you mouthed to the flag without actually meaning them? How much simpler would it be if you just followed the law and the constitution?

What a bunch of weasels, you know she deleted it and are now covering up. This won't end well for you

Oh dear! Lawsuit on it's way ...

Enjoy your lawsuit.

Real

ｐｒｏｍｏｓｍ 🌷

cex3d vyn.fyi

OmG! Your board looks up information to accurately review permits! But they approve them without an answer that complies (42:51)! Why?

Comment from another ZBA member in NY: Regarding the re-hearing, if your Board disaccociated variances into separate votes, then you might not even need to have this discussion. It sounds like you might have denied the lot variance, but approved the other, thus the change to remove the driveway would have been transparent and the Code Officer could issue a building permit because the lot coverage denial would have become moot. End of story. We issue individual variance resolutions regardless of how many are requested in an application. You may find it helps.

Looking forward to the town's acquisition of this property.

Hey there. Bill L. here. Good to see all the faces again. Thanks all for your work you continue to do for the town.

Great video, thank you!