An attempt to force a decision regarding the purchase by the town of 206.5 acres of land on East River Road (running parallel to Ransom Road) to a referendum vote apparently failed when a petition fell short of the necessary signatures by the 30- day deadline date. Submission of 66 more names at Monday night’s Town Board meeting, well after the deadline, will be added to 263 already submitted, but still fails to meet the required number, according to Supervisor Peter McMahon. In addition, he said, proper form and procedure in signature witnessing do not meet standards of the petitioning process.

Two members of the Conservation Commission, Tom Burke and Charles Lawrence, have filed a legal objection to the petition which will be reviewed in Supreme Court with a decision to be rendered in 20 days. McMahon told the Record that he feels the petition will be rejected and the town will then go ahead with the purchase based on the unanimous resolution to do so that occurred at the November 1 Town Board meeting. The land purchase, $25fl.fXX~ to preserve as green space 206.5 acres adjacent to River Oaks, is the result of a year’s work of research and land inventorying by the Conservation Commission. The land would be accessible from Ransom and East River Roads, River Oaks Development and, most importantly, it abuts Gun Creek Woods to create one of the largest hardwood forests located near a metropolitan area. Further, it connects already town owned property. Residents, for and against the land purchase, took nearly an hour before the Town Board meeting Monday to voice their concerns. Speaking first in objection to a letter to the editor by Rus Thompson that appeared in the Record last week, William O’Connor disputed litany of Thompson’s facts asserted the town was getting “a fantastic deal.” He- emphasized the land would be available for passive recreation - hiking, horseback riding, cross country skiing, birding, etc.. - and he defended the funding process (see his letter to the editor, page 4).

Thompson spoke regarding the possibility that the land purchase could be illegal based on the fact that the use of Trust and Agency Funds is improper and he reiterated his opinion that the money should be used to rectify inadequate recreation services. He cited that the sledding hill needs to be repaired, a skating rink built and recommended the board table the issue while legalities are being researched.

Mike Sendlbeck suggested putting the land purchase up to a vote during a special election that will take place in February when a replacement for Senator Anthony Nanula will be decided.

Others speaking against the land purchase were Granson Geis who felt the public wasn’t properly informed of the project and thought needs at Veterans Park (a modest center, more fields) should have priority. He suggested that perhaps the town could just buy the back portion of the property which is wooded and exclude the thick brush frontage. Robert Weaver couldn’t figure out why the town had to pay for wetlands that would always be there and should remain on the tax rolls. Better to save money for more valuable waterfront property or put money into Veterans Park, he added. Rev. Kevin Backus, though not against the purchase per Se, said he hoped the town was really clear about what would be the land’s purpose and uses before turning it over to a Land Conservancy.

Chamber President Jack Hugill, critical of the law that restricts the Recreation Dept. from using money that accrues beyond one year, said the Trust and Agency Fund needs to be more flexible to allow accumulated money to benefit meaningful recreation projects. Currently, the town law reads that money collected from developers to offset the burden new homebuilding places on recreation, has to be used by the Recreation Dept. within the year the money is deposited. Often the money available is too little to be useful. After that year, the money reverts to an open space fund designated solely for land’ acquisition. An effort in ‘93’ to change the law to agree with state law that allows money to accumulate without a time restriction for either recreation’ needs or land acquisition failed for a lack of consensus among the three boards involved - the Conservation’ Commission, the Planning Board and Parks and Recreation Board. McMahon said he would like to see the three boards revisit the issue in 2000 and will encourage a more equal distribution of Trust and Agency money.

Speaking in favor of the land buy, Tom Burke asserted the acquisition would prove its value in the future just, like Theodore Roosevelt’s purchase of Yellowstone Park or Seward’s purchase of Alaska. Green space, he said, Is the envy of other communities which have made no provision to preserve land in such a way. Meg Pietras emphasized the balance that was needed between active and passive recreation needs. Jim Tomkins, describing himself as a developer and builder for 27 years, said the town needed to set aside land, should avoid build-out of the. entire Island and warned that 70 percent of wetlands in America have been destroyed. He added, that wetlands are the basis of all life and must be preserved.

Roger Cook said the land buy would not only preserve 40 acres of wetlands, but protect the land around these wetlands, thus ensuring the preservation of ecosystems. He called nature, “a learning laboratory” that teaches us the value of the earth. Asserting that property around the land acquisition would double in value, Joe Steffan complimented the board on their decision to buy the parcel.

The town expects to have a ruling on the petition just before Christmas and should the petition be found invalid as McMahon expects, the land purchase would proceed as decided by resolution.