To the editor:
The following letter was sent to Superintendent Dubik and the Cazenovia School Board objecting to their declaration that the installation of four 70-foot-tall light towers at the Fenner Fields is only a Type II Action which requires no further review or additional community input when, in fact, these lights radically devalue the surrounding rural lands, and the lights are but the first step toward greater and irreversible changes:
Dear Superintendent Dubik and Board,
At the July 13 Board of Education meeting, the installation of four 70-foot-tall light towers and an on-site electric generator at the Fenner Fields Complex was declared to be a Type II Action requiring no further review under SEQRA, and no additional community input.
I attended the meeting, and introduced myself from the floor as the head of the Cazenovia Restoration Corporation, owner of property on three sides of the Fenner Field Complex. As the head of the foundation which owns a neighboring property and as an active Cazenovia preservationist, I raised several significant objections to this being declared a Type II Action. Regrettably, the draft minutes of the July 13 Board of Education Meeting do not correctly identify me as head of the CRC, or accurately note my objections.
This letter is written so that you may correct this oversight and revise the summary descriptions of my remarks, herein outlined, in your final July 13 minutes.
As you may recall, I objected to installing the lights without fully informing the public for several reasons:
The introduction of tall light towers would significantly change the rural character of the area and negatively impact the market values of the surrounding properties.
A highly lit athletic complex on Fenner Road is not compatible with the uses specified in the joint Village/Town Comprehensive Plan which drew a line along the western boundary of the property Cazenovia Restoration Corporation purchased from CPF. West of the line was designated for future annexation by the village and for commercial and dense housing development. East of the line was to remain rural and agricultural. Your complex is east of that line in an area zoned for rural/agricultural use.