The River Reporter Online - Letters to the Editor

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The River Reporter welcomes letters on all subjects from its readers. They must be signed and include the correspondent's phone number. The correspondent's name and town will appear at the bottom of each letter; titles and affiliations will not, unless the correspondent is writing on behalf of a group.

Letters are printed as they are received, or at the discretion of the editor, and without correction to grammar or spelling. It is requested they be limited to 500 words; correspondents may be asked to cut longer letters. Deadline is 1:00 p.m. on Monday.

We were very pleased to see a listing of eating establishments in Sullivan and Pike Counties included in The Upper Delaware Magazine recently published by TRR. However, we were appalled at the significant omissions in the list. Among them, in Barryville, were: Tre Alberi, a north Italian restaurant and TRR’s Award Winner for Best Gourmet Restaurant in 2001, The Carriage House, on par with Tre Alberi, with an Austro-Hungarian slant to its cuisine and The Bridge Restaurant with fine cuisine and a loyal following. In Eldred, Irene’s Diner was not listed.

This leads us to believe that there are many other significant omissions in the list. This is primarily the fault of The Sullivan County Visitors Association, who provided TRR with this list. But some of the fault also goes to TRR for not checking its source.

We would like to suggest that readers who are aware of other omissions, phone the Sullivan County Visitors Association at 845/794-3000, ext. 5010 or reach them at their web site, www.scva.com and make them aware of the disservice they are doing to many fine restaurants in the area as well as the visitors who will be reading the list and relying on it.

Once again, the Tusten Town Board will address the issue of allowing up to 3,000 square feet of retail or restaurant space in the Residential (R-1) district of Tusten Township (70 percent of the township). No other restrictions were mentioned, so we have to assume that convenience stores, Wendy’s, McDonalds, or even a small strip mall, would be OK, subject to site plan review.

To me, that means that whoever wants to put a business in can legally do so, subject to fulfilling some requirements of the planning board. So, if you objected to having this business next door to you, you would have to hire a lawyer... and you would probably lose, because the business would have the zoning law on their side.

The term “retail” is extremely vague…does that include a gas station? Do you want to live near any business that is open late into the night? What about bars? Are they included in “Eating and Drinking Establishments?” Once the door is opened, how do you close it? How much money would it cost? Zoning law is written with the foreknowledge that it will be legally challenged. Who will be writing the change? What will be allowed? What will be excluded? Do we as citizens get to review the final language?

At the last meeting on this issue, many examples were given by the board members, siting Mom and Pop businesses that used to exist back in the 50’s, and 60’s, little ice creams stands, etc. Many examples were given, that were located on the property of the owner, which everyone at the meeting had no objection to.

So I suggest expanding the existing zoning category of “Home-Based Business” so such places could once again exist in R-1, the safeguard being that the owner of the business would have to live on the property, and there would have to be compliance with signage, and safety rules, and, yes, site plan review. Maybe you have an idea you would like to propose. What about simply expanding the boundaries of the present business district?

I am still mystified as to why the town board, in the face of opposition by 40 or 50 people, is pursuing this drastic action. It seems like they are creating a problem that doesn’t exist. If you live in R-1, and care about the impact of a 3,000 square foot business next to you (and how big would the parking lot be?), if you are concerned about what this would do to the value and marketability of your home, come to the public hearing, on May 13, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., at the Tusten Town Hall.

The now existing Honesdale sewage treatment plant, without any semblance of any doubt, will have to be expanded or even replaced with the local populace forced to submit to the cost. Especially now, with the continuing taxing of the locals for any proclaimed reason.

How, I wonder, did the township supervisors, the Honesdale Chamber of Commerce and their leaning adherents, have themselves overtaken to adhere the once remaining pristine aspect of the local environs to have the proposed Convention Center, a cartel to be ensconced with others, off Route 6 and above the Wal-Mart mall area.

The local controlling jurisdictions have let real estate grow beyond the capacity of their treatment plant. With the issue of sewage treatment, particularly sensitive in many cases where ground water is the source of drinking water.

Any sewage treatment plant discharging into a water source should be under a ban on hookups. And the treated sewage service should be handled as a high priority utility, prior to any large developments.

In these times, more so than before, we need to end uncertainty when dealing with the polluting of the Lackawaxen River with the treated sewage output. Once and for all, along its entire length to the Delaware River.

Did the developers take under proper consideration before building their projects, if the sewage treatment facility could handle the sewage from them?

It has to be remembered. All developers only speak for their self-interest and they do not speak, shadowy in most of the cases, for the public good.

It is imperative now to unify community forces before the projects develop! Should be enjoined and to be continued where they will have an unwanted effect on the controversial controlling factions. Composed of a little group of willful people representing no opinion but their own, to blatantly render helpless the righteously concerned. And by having people accept their real doings without any thorough explanations by being told half-truths instead of the strict truths.

Why are the locals denied rightful self-determination? Any judgment highly disagreeable to a substantial portion of the populace is a bad decision in any democratically run society.