To the Editor:
Regarding your article about the most recent Petersburgh Town Board Meeting there seems to be a disconnect between your sensation seeking headline and the body of the story. While Alex Brook’s presentation is a fairly accurate rendering of what happened at the meeting, the headline is not only over the top but also quite misleading.
The fact that we didn’t have a quorum is something that can happen from time to time. The fact that we are between “Code Enforcement Officers” is not an example of town government ineptitude. We a have a highly qualified candidate under consideration and another person interested in the job. The fact that we have a number of people who have not bothered to get building permits is also not an example of “Petersburgh Government in Disarray.” As soon as we have a new Code Enforcement Officer that situation will be taken care of. Just because town attorney, Kevin Engle, stated the obvious regarding the scope and pay of the Code Enforcement Officer’s job, is not an indication that the town board has not already taken this into consideration.
Finally, the dispute between two neighboring residents over unregistered vehicles is not an example of “Petersburgh Government is Disarray.” The fact that a summons using the New York State Property Maintenance Code was improperly executed was if anything, serendipitous. Had that summons gone through we would have opened a hornet’s nest. If the people of Petersburgh thought the proposed zoning law put forth back in 1995 was onerous they should read the Property Maintenance Code. It outlaws such things as tall grass or weeds growing next to your home, peeling paint on your house and fences or out buildings in any state of disrepair. Probably the majority of properties in Petersburgh (or in any rural area for that matter) are in violation of the code.
If we were to enforce the junk vehicle requirement of the code we would be setting a precedent whereby anyone who had a grudge against his neighbor could use the Property Maintenance Code as a bludgeon. Because of that we have proposed using Article 136 of the General Municipal Law. It has the advantage of giving an accused property owner the option of requesting a junkyard license. For that to go through a number of steps have to be followed including a public hearing. This allows all sides to express their opinions before any action is taken. If the license is disallowed (or the property owner does not request one in the first place) then the Code Enforcement Officer can issue a summons. However, using the Property Maintenance Code the property owner is issued a summons without the opportunity of a public vetting of the situation.
Of course the type of public vetting that occurred at our recent meeting is not what we would encourage. On the other hand, it put the issue out there so that people could hear what was going on. This again is not an example of “Petersburgh Government in Disarray.” All town governments face contentious issues from time to time and usually work hard to alleviate them. Screaming (and this what headlines do) that our town government is in disarray is not only unhelpful but also untrue.
Peter Schaaphok
Petersburgh Deputy Supervisor
Editor’s response: Mr. Schaaphok, I agree with you about Alex Brook’s report of the recent Petersburgh Town Board meeting, but I would call it accurate – not “fairly accurate” as you do. In the third line of his story he uses the word disarray to describe the Town government. Disarray is a relatively benign word. The writer of a “screaming” or “sensation seeking” headline probably would have opted for any number of more forceful terms. Rather than take issue with the many assertions in your letter, I’ll let our readers decide for themselves if Brooks’ report describes a government in disarray or not. I believe the facts speak for themselves.