Readers of The Chronicle-Express saw this story first on Jan. 26.


Village officials are still discussing proposed regulations for development along the Keuka Outlet waterfront, following a back-and-forth between the village board and the village planning board over one point.

That point is whether private property owners should be required to give an easement for a public pathway or for a walkway along the Keuka marsh.

At the Jan. 18 Village Board meeting, Trustee Wayne Davidson explained that the village planning board disagrees with an amendment to the proposed code limiting easements to the south side of the Keuka Outlet.

Following a public hearing in December, the village board agreed to send a proposed law to the Yates County Planning Board for review, while encouraging the planning board to amend the portion of the law requiring the pathway easement. The village board’s December action was spawned by comments from one property owner, Anne Gunn, whose family’s property lies near the Keuka marsh.

Village officials are working to establish the zoning regulations before Yates County sells the former Penn Yan Marine property to a developer.

After hearing the planning board disagreed with the amendment, Trustee Wayne Davidson, chairman of the village Planning and Development committee, invited Gunn to meet with the committee. She hasn’t been able to do so yet, but Davidson will stay in touch with her, he says.

He noted that tax map documents appear to show that Gunn’s family’s property is a sufficient distance from the marsh, so the regulation may not apply to it.
However, Attorney Ed Brockman said, “The way the proposed law is drafted, it requires anyone who proposes any counstruction in the waterfront district to give up an easement (for a public pathway) .

Saying his concern is that the law could cause additional problems in the future, Brockman provided new wording for the proposed law for board members to review before the Feb. 15 village board meeting, when another public hearing on the proposed zoning regulations will be held.

The new language would make it clear that the pathway requirement would not apply to single family residences where any improvement to the property does not change the use of the property.

“In this day and age, you have to have a permit to do almost anything,” Brockman told the board, explaining why he thinks the single family properties should be handled differently.
Davidson will contact Yates County Planning Department to explain there are could be changes to the proposed law.

The Yates County Planning Board’s role will be to review the village’s law and determine if there is any countywide implication. The county board does not have any authority to approve or disapprove the law.