JosephSeman_LinkingRuralBrownfieldsToCommunityRevitalization

1

Cover page photograph is “Old Chappel Hill”, photographed by S. Brawell. Photo was retrieved on

April 19, 2015 from http://www.freeimages.com/photo/826763.

Cover Photo Credit

Abstract

Abstract

When traveling through rural America

many resorts, local gas stations, stores,

and factories that once stabilized the

local economic base have been left un-

occupied. These structures tend to be

located relatively close to village and

town centers, leading new develop-

ment to push outward rather than in-

vesting on the redevelopment of these

once thriving sites. Over time these

sites have been left to deteriorate and

become perceived environmental haz-

ards to the owners, broader commu-

nity and developers. These centrally

located sites are leaving development

gaps within the urbanized confines of

these towns, ultimately decentralizing

the already rural population even fur-

ther. In order to cluster development

and create high enough densities to

attract jobs and public transportation

outlets to surrounding towns, these

sites must be addressed and utilized

with the public interest in mind.

This paper explores the feasibility of

using an area-wide brownfield remedi-

ation approach that utilizes both land

trusts and a land bank. Rather than

addressing these sites individually,

an area-wide approach provides an

opportunity to systematically consid-

er the challenges related to multiple

brownfields and incorporate site-spe-

cific assessment and cleanup into larg-

er community revitalization efforts.

Greene County, New York is used in

this paper as a case example of an

aging rural industrial economy that is

auto-dependent and highly decentral-

ized with high vacancy rates and con-

cern over community disinvestment.

The results of this paper show that an

area-wide approach that utilizes a land

bank/land trust partnership with over-

sight and coordination provided by

Greene County would greatly benefit

the community by addressing vacant,

underutilized, delinquent, and/or con-

taminated properties from their initial

identification through the final uses.

Table of Content

Sections Figures

Maps

Introduction

Geography

History

Current Demographic

Land Use

Planning Document Analysis

Greene County Comprehensive Economic Development Plan

Greene County Housing Action Plan Durham Valley Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan

The Town of Durham Draft Comprehensive Plan

Case Study

New York State Environmental Remediation Programs

Survey

Site Histories

Planning Tools

Land banks

Land Trusts

Regulatory Oversight and Coordination

Conclusion

Work Cited

Appendix A

Percentage of Employer Establishments by Industry

Total Revenue of Employer Establishments by Industry

Percent of Durham’s Employed Residents by Occupation

Per Capita Income

Median Household Income

Durham, New York Land Use in 2006 and 2011

Greene County, New York Land Use in 2006 and 2011

Redevelopment of Superfund Sites

Superfund Sites Tax Status

Brownfields Area-Wide Program Framework

Greene County and Durham’s Location Within New York State

Topographic Map of Greene County

Durham, New York Land Use in 2006 and 2011

Greene County, New York Land Use in 2006 and 2011

Locations of Scenic Byway Designated Roads in Durham and Greene County

Map of Remediation Sites within Durham and Greene County

1

4

6

9

13

19

21

23

27

30

31

35

38

43

44

46

48

51

53

58

10

10

11

12

12

15

17

34

34

49

4

5

16

18

26

35

Table of Content

1

Introduction

2

1 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2006). Anatomy of Brownfield Redevelopment. U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency. Washington D.C. Retrieved on March 15, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview/anat_bf_re-dev_101106.pdf

2 Unite States Government Accountability Office (2004). Brownfield Redevelopment:Stakeholders Report. U.S. General Ac-counting Office. 441 G St, NW Washington, DC 20548 : U.S.

Federal, state and local initiatives have emerged in the United States over the last decade in order to address the

increasing number of ‘brownfield’ properties in both urban and rural areas. These initiatives are based on the

belief that the social and financial benefits of redevelopment will exceed the costs imposed by the interventions.

Furthering local sustainability objectives and reducing growth pressures in undeveloped areas are a few of

the benefits these initiatives look to provide. Unfortunately, while these initiatives have strengthened the

redevelopment process in urban areas, there has been difficulty in adequately communicating these goals to

rural America.

While brownfields are generally considered to be large abandoned industrial sites, they can actually be

any underutilized or potentially contaminated site. These types of brownfields can be found in many rural

communities, often in the form of abandoned buildings or rubble-strewn fields. The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) defines brownfields as “real properties, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse

of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or

contaminant” 1.

A lack of awareness and understanding regarding brownfields is pervasive in rural America. Potential

participants, including local government, public entities, for-profit businesses, educational institutions, and

the non-profit sector, forgo redeveloping brownfields often due to perceived liability issues. For fear that they

will have to shoulder the financial burden of cleaning up brownfields in their area, many developers choose to

utilize the abundant open space available to them in the country, rather than risk redeveloping. While private

developers and public agencies in urban areas can use brownfield redevelopment as a tool for managing urban

growth, the rural developer’s ability to constantly move on to open space creates significant difficulty in regards

to the rural redevelopment incentives.

The U.S. General Accounting Office found in a 2004 report that there are between 450,000 and one million

brownfields sites nationally 2. The redevelopment of brownfields holds promise as an essential component

of economic development strategies for rural communities. Many of these communities are finding a lack of

developable space for industrial locations and expansions within their boundaries. Other communities are

increasingly concerned about preserving green space and in many cases these brownfields sites are in the

middle of, or stifling ongoing revitalization efforts.

3

In a 2001 report, the National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) Research Foundation identified

four key obstacles in rural brownfield redevelopment 3.

• Remote and rural geographic location often inhibits economic growth, making it difficult

to recruit new and/or retain existing businesses and difficult to justify funding brownfields

redevelopment;

• Costs associated with brownfields cleanup and redevelopment often far exceed costs of

developing abundant green space;

• Absence of funds necessary to recruit expertise required to manage a brownfields

redevelopment project;

• Lack of formal self-help network of other rural development practitioners involved in

brownfields redevelopment to share experiences and exchange information;

There is an additional challenge facing rural planning and economic development organizations which NADO

does not address. The resistance to change, the desire for local residents to maintain the delineation between

the country and the city. Traditional economic development strategy rests heavily on business recruitment and

marketing. Support for entrepreneurship is a factor as well, but a distant third. This approach doesn’t work well

for small rural communities. Why not? Rural America has distinct characteristics that make it unique from other

populations. Its traditional markers of identity, the grocery store, the post office, the local police department.

However, these local institutions are dropping away in many rural communities. When the factory closes or the

school shuts its doors because of declining enrollment rates, a town may need to find new strategies in order to

stay economically viable.

This paper will look to identify opportunities where strategic area-wide brownfield identification and

remediation could help in stabilizing decentralized and economically depressed rural towns. Greene County,

New York will be used as a case example of a declining rural economy with scattered development that is

searching for ways to revitalize its stock of aging and decentralized communities. This paper will review the

economic development history of Greene County, focusing specifically on the Town of Durham as it is the focal

point of the case study; current planning documents to identify the goals and strategies that are shaping Greene

County’s economic development and land use patterns; and a study of alternative area-wide approaches Greene

County could employ to link vacant, delinquent, and brownfield properties to community revitalization efforts.

3 National Association of Development Organizations Research Foundation. (2001). Reclaiming Rural America’s Brown-fields:Alternatives to Abandoned Property. Washington D.C. Retrieved on March 18, 2015 from http://wrdc.usu.edu/files/publi-cations/publication/pub__818940.pdf

4

Geography

4 Bureau, U.S. (2015). American Fact Finder. Retrieved on February 25, 2015 from factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

Greene County is located in southeast central New York State, just west of the Hudson River and south of

Albany, the state capitol. The County is approximately 647 square miles or 1.4% of New York’s total land area 4.

The northern and eastern regions of Greene County are mostly low-lying flatlands, the lowest elevation is at sea

level which can be found along the Hudson River while the southern and western areas rise sharply into the

Catskill Mountains. The Town of Durham can be found within Greene County, located about twenty-four miles

northwest of the village of Catskill and about thirty miles southwest of Albany. Durham is approximately 49

square miles (approximately 0.1% of New York’s total land area), or 31,000 acres that slope to the northeast out

of the Catskill mountains to the basin of the Esopus Creek, which is more commonly referred to as the Catskill

Creek. Within the Town of Durham there are ten identifiable hamlets: Cornwallville; Durso Corner; Durham;

East Durham; East Windham; Hervey Street; Oak Hill; Sunside; South Durham; and West Durham.

LegendDurham, New York

Greene County, New York

State Boundary to Shoreline, Greatly Simplified

¯ 0 50 10025 Miles

The Location of Greene County and the Town of Durham within New York StateMap of Greene County and Durham’s Location

Within New York State

5

5 Greene County, N. Y. (2014). Catskill Streams. Catskill Streams. Retrieved on March 25, 2015 from http://catskillstreams.org/

The Catskill Creek is the County’s largest tributary, it flows down the center-line of the valley, southeastward

through Preston Hollow and Cooksburg in the Town of Rensselaerville (Albany County), through Oak Hill and

East Durham in the Town of Durham. The upper Catskill Creek is approximately 26 miles in length (330 miles

in length when including its tributaries) and its watershed covers a 192 square mile area in the South-central

Catskill mountain region 5. The foothills of the Catskills spread across the western end of the Town of Durham

rising from the Catskill Creek. The highest elevation is found near the northwest corner on Mt. Pisgah at 2,912

feet. The typical elevations in the settled parts of the town, however, are between 380 and 840 feet: East Durham

is at 510 feet, Durham hamlet: 840, and the lowest elevation of 380 feet is found where the Catskill Creek exits

the town south of East Durham.

The Geography of the town has played a paramount role in Durham’s early development and evolution in the

region. Some of the earliest recorded settlement in what is now Durham can be attributed to the abundance of

fertile farming land, forests, and mineral deposits, that can be found nestled between the Catskill Mountains and

the Catskill Creek.

¯0 8 164 Miles

Topography of Greene County, New York

Digitized Elevation Contour Lines

Digitized Elevation Contour LinesData Source: The New York State Department of Environmnetal Conservation's (NYSDEC) internal data selector. Data Retreived on March 9, 2015.

Topographic Map of Greene County

6

6 Brace, H. (1884). History of Greene County New York with Biographical Sketches of Prominent Men. New York: J.B. Beers and Co.

7 Hasenkopf, S. (2014, 4 18). The Towns- A Timeline. Retrieved on March 15, 2015 from http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nygreen2/townships_timeline.htm

8 Frisbie, R. (1996). The Towns of Greene County. Retrieved on March 14, 2015 from http://www.hopefarm.com/greenny2.htm

History

European history in Greene County began in September, 1609 when Henry Hudson and the crew of the Half

Moon first sailed up the Mohicanituk (Hudson River), working for the Dutch East India Company in search of

China and the Indies. On September 15th the Half Moon landed on the shores of present day Catskill, New York

(approximately 20 miles from Durham). Hudson had traded with several Algonquian tribes, mainly obtaining

furs. His voyage was used to establish Dutch claims to the region which were realized in 1610 when the Dutch

initially began trading with the local native tribes. In 1614 a permanent trading post was established in Albany

and the remainder of the 17th century in Greene County saw little development beyond these initial Native

American trading posts along the Hudson River.

Prior to 1800 settlement was virtually restricted to the towns along the Hudson River, with scattered homesteads

in the interior. The west side of the Hudson River from Sawyer’s Creek (now Saugerties Creek) north to Saratoga,

including present day Durham, was under the jurisdiction of Albany County. Present day Durham was found to

belong to Colonel Richard Maitland, a British officer that received a patent for the land from King George III, of

England 6. The first documented visit to the Durham area was by Eliab Youmans who had been commissioned to

survey the Maitland patents in 1767. The patents were the first official parceling out of the largely unclaimed land

and were the precursors to settlement. The first official settlement in Durham was made in the hamlet of Oak

Hill by respected Dutch engineers Lucas Dewitt, John Plank, and Hendrick Plank, all of whom were previously

residing in Ulster County 6. Mr. Dewitt was credited with building the first mill in Durham, which allowed early

settlers to grind their wheat and corn locally rather than traveling to Catskill.

On March 24th, 1772 Coxsackie was formed as a district, dividing present day Greene County into two

districts 7. By 1776 the Revolutionary war was underway, and a massacre of a local family in Shingle Kill (10

miles from Durham) by roaming Native Americans caused the initial settlers of Durham to abandon their

settlement and return to the safety of Ulster County. At the end of the Revolutionary war the original settlers

returned to their properties in Oak Hill along with a new influx of settlers to “New Durham” or the present day

Village of Durham from Durham, Connecticut.

According to the journal entries of Eliah W. Baldwin, “shortly after the termination of the war of the Revolution,

they (Eliha’s parents) immigrated to Greene County, beyond the Hudson river, in New York, where, with six other

American families and two Dutch families, they settled the Town of New Durham in the wilderness” 8. A difficult

winter in 1784 caused many of the pioneers to return to Connecticut, only to return to New Durham in the spring

of 1785, bringing with them more families. These families settled the Hamlets of East Durham, and Durham due

7

to overpopulation of Oak Hill, which by this point contained two meeting houses, at least one school house, a

blacksmith shop, a store, and public roads 8.

The 1800s was a period in which the upstate New York region was developing localized industries and trade

routes. Durham had an early advantage of having fertile farming land, an auspicious location and desired

resources. Durham’s rapid settlement and economic development created a need for new roads to connect to

neighboring communities, as well as ports to encourage the development of western Greene County. New York

State was obliged to aid in the development of its transportation networks, turnpikes were initially built to allow

for ease of movement, to regulate road building standards, and to alleviate public investment by allowing the

roads to be owned and maintained by private companies. In a study of the New York turnpike movement in

1806 by Benjamin Dewitt, son of initial Durham settler Lucas Dewitt, 67 turnpike road companies and 21 bridge

companies were identified. On April 1, 1800 the New York State Legislature approved the charter that created the

Susquehanna Turnpike Road Company, and after five years of construction the turnpike was completed 9.

The importance of the Susquehanna Turnpike as a transportation route to the west declined significantly with

the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825. As well-built as the turnpike may have been, water remained a more

comfortable and efficient means of transportation in the early part of the nineteenth century. In the late 1800s

Durham and many pre-Civil War rural manufacturing communities alike were faced with the reality that they

would no longer be able to compete in the emerging national market. The advantages of water power that had

been the basis for Durham’s industrial growth was no longer sufficient in keeping local firms competitive with

larger and more progressive competitors elsewhere. As firms closed manufacturing labor left town, migrating to

larger cities, or westward to find opportunities in emerging industrial markets. This impacted the local market

for agricultural goods and farmers began cultivating more land in order to compete in a larger regional market.

By 1845, only seventy five years after Durham’s initial settlement had begun, farming comprised about 88% of the

total acreage in the town. In 1875, the farms tended to be large, typically over fifty acres, with almost half ranging

in size from 100 to 500 acres. “The population (of Durham) had dropped from a peak of approximately 3,000 in

1830, to only 1,200 in 1900” 10.

Industry and agriculture were no longer reliable sources of income or employment for the residents of Durham

and surrounding towns alike. Towards the latter half of the 19th century, needing to find their market niche,

the Catskill region began to capitalize on New York City’s emerging middle class by facilitating tourism as their

neighbors in Windham had been doing since the 1870’s with the Grand View Mountain House and the Summit

House. Many of these middle class families were from economically advancing ethnic, immigrant groups in

New York City, and they tended to remain in ethnically distinct tourist areas. East Durham became the center

of Irish Catskills. Initially, many farmers began to supplement their income by opening extra rooms to guests.

Boarding houses became a business of increasing importance to the Town’s economy, a business which to this

day supplements seasonal income for farmers.

8 Frisbie, R. (1996). The Towns of Greene County. Retrieved on March 14, 2015 from http://www.hopefarm.com/greenny2.htm

9 Odess, J. (NA). The Susquehanna Turnpike. Delaware County: Delaware County Historical Association. Retrieved March 14, 2015 from http://www.dcha-ny.org/turnpike.pdf

10 Brace, H. (1884). History of Greene County New York with Biographical Sketches of Prominent Men. New York: J.B. Beers and Co.

8

In the 1920’s, an entertainment-based tourism market arose from the success of the Durham’s boarding houses.

Many resort–type boarding houses began to open in East Durham specifically targeting Irish clientele. The Fern

Cliff House opened in the 1920’s, with the Shamrock House and Erin’s Melody following in the 1930’s. Durham

realized it had found its niche in the early to mid-1900’s. The town had painted shamrocks along Route 145

(Susquehanna turnpike), and in ironic fashion this once Dutch and English settlement had constructed an Irish

cultural centre to connect “their history” with Irish tourists.

With Durham relying heavily on tourism, the evolution of transportation availability and affordability to the

middle class has dictated the health of Durham’s economy since the 1950’s. After World War II, major changes

to the middle class affected the way in which the population needed to travel. Many immigrants and lower

class Americans who returned from the war were now able to relocate to newly constructed suburbs for a

better quality of life for their families. Car sales began to increase to accommodate the needs for fathers to

commute to their jobs in the cities, and then back to their homes in the suburbs at night. . With the need for

a National network of roads becoming increasingly imminent, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the

National Interstate and Defense Highways Act in law on June 29, 1965. This authorized 25 billion dollars for

the construction of 41,000 miles of Interstate Highway Systems over an initial 10 year period. This included the

construction of the New York State Thruway which had interchanges in Catskill and Coxsackie, both of which

are less than a 25 minute commute to Durham by automobile.

In conjunction with the completion of the New York State thruway, the peak period of Irish tourism in East

Durham was in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Durham capitalized on the automotive independence and ease of travel

that was provided to the middle class, specifically the Irish population. To place the economic opportunity in

perspective, in 2012 New York State had the second highest Irish-American population with approximately

2.5 million resident, of which 2.04 million resided in the New York Metropolitan area. East Durham has held

an annual Irish Arts and Entertainment festival which, according to Irish Central LLC, ranks as the third most

popular Irish festival (not including parades) in the country behind the Great Irish Fair of New York and the

New Jersey Irish Festival 11. As tourism stabilized the economy, Durham experienced development in seasonal

industries, service sector employment, and secondary or seasonal housing construction. At this point, Durham

had made the choice to heavily invest in one course of action, tourism. Foregoing a diversified economic strategy

in order to capitalize on their new advantage of being a rural vacationing retreat in the Catskill Mountains, less

than three hours from the Irish hotbeds of Boston and New York City.

Throughout the 20th century Durham’s economy developed on the premise that auto-dependent tourism would

sustain jobs in the summer and skiing would supplement the economy in the winter. The last quarter of the 20th

century saw the emergence of the middle class vacationing by jet in a new global tourism market. This began to

replace the romanticized 1950’s “summer retreat to the Catskill’s” that had once stabilized the flailing Upstate

New York economy, this shift caused employment to trickle out of Durham as tourists did the same. Resorts

were forced to close, squashing small businesses and bringing economic ruin to many communities including

Durham.

11 Economics, T. (2010). Greene County Tourism Economic Impact Analysis and Strategic Goals . Tourism Economics. 303 W Lancaster Ave. Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087. Retrieved on March 15, 2015 from “http://greenegovernment.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Tourism Economic-Impact-Analysis-Strategic-Goals-102610.pdf”

9


Current Demographics

According to the 2010 Census Greene County had a population of 49,221 (52.5% male and 90.5% White) while

Durham’s population was 2,725 persons or 5.5% of the Greene’s total population (47.9% male and 99.9% white) 4.

The median age of Durham’s population is 40.9 years while the county as a whole has an average age of 44 years.

From 2007-2011 the population of Greene County over the age of 25 had a high school graduation rate of 84.8%

(New York State: 84.6%) while only 18.6% of the population had attained a bachelor’s degree or higher (New York

State: 32.5%), Durham’s statistics mirrored the County’s percentages 4. In 2010 Greene County had a housing

stock of 29,159 units (Durham: 1,738), 10,748 or 36.9% of which were vacant (Durham: 42.8%) as compared to a

10.8% vacancy rate for New York State.

As of 2007 Greene County’s economy consisted of 1,171 employer establishments, the top three industries being

retail trade with 206 establishments (17.6% of all establishments); accommodations and food service with 195

establishments (16.6% of all establishments); and health care and social assistance with 88 establishments (7.5%

of all establishments) 4.

In 2007 Greene County’s employer establishments had a total revenue of $1,852,809 (as a calculation of

employer value of sales, shipments, receipts, revenue, and business done). The top industries were retail trade

with $622,994 (33.6% of all revenue); manufacturing with $591,094 (31.9% of all revenue); wholesale trade with

$232,247 (12.5% of all revenue); and accommodation and food services with $90,600 (4.9% of all revenue).

10

17.6%

16.6%

7.5%

58%

17%

5%

34%

32%

13%

Total Revenue of Employer Establishments by Industry

Percentage of Employer Establishments by Industry

Retail Trade

Manufacturing

Other EmployerEstablishment Revenue

Wholesale Trade

Accommodations and Food Service

Other Employer Establishments

Retail Trade

Accommodations and Food Service

Health Care and Social Assistance

34% $622,994

32% $591,094

17% $315,874

13%

$232,247

5%

$90,600

58% 682

17.6% 206

16.6% 195

7.5%88

11

The statistics for the town of Durham are not as clearly identifiable because many of its residents travel to

neighboring towns for work. From 2008-2012 Durham had 2,120 residents that were 16 years of age or above,

out of those only 1,019 were in the labor force, and out of those residents only 933 were employed. Out of the

933 employed residents only 17.3 % (161 persons) had a commuting time to work of under 10 minutes, with the

community’s mean commuting time to work being 27.3 minutes (only 9 residents used public transportation to

commute to work) 4. 23.6% of Durham’s population is under the poverty threshold with 113 persons being under

50% of the poverty level.

The top employment industries for the residents of Durham are service occupations (205 persons); sales

and office occupations (176 persons, 125 of which are sales occupations); and production, transportation, and

material moving occupations (121 persons) 4.

The median household income of Durham is $47,031 (Greene County: $47,539, New York State: $57,683) with the

per capita income being $21,170 (Greene County: $23,842, New York State: $32,104) 4.

To summarize the current conditions of Durham, the town has a relatively large land area for its population

which has led to decentralization and automobile reliance. The percent of males in Durham is more than half

of the total population, which is almost entirely white and coincidentally has an historic track record of voting

republican (ex. Presidential election; 2000: 54.4% voted republican, 2004: 58% voted republican, 2008: 55%

voted republican, 2012: 54.4% voted republican) 12. The average age of the population is slightly younger than the

county as a whole, however, the post high school educational attainment is dangerously low in comparison with

Greene County and New York State averages. This contributes to the abundance of service, retail, healthcare

and manufacturing jobs in Durham and its neighboring communities. The low level of educational attainment

also contributes to the high unemployment rate and a poverty rate of nearly 25%, which in turn at least partially

contributes to the 42.8% vacancy rate among housing units in Durham.

17.6%

16.6%

7.5%

58%

Percent of Durham’s Employed Residents by Occupation

All Other Employed Residents

Service Occupations

Sales and Office Occupations

Production, Transportation, and Material Moving

Occupations

46% 431

22% 205

19% 176

13%121


12 Leip, D. (2014). David Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections . Retrieved on March 18, 2015 from http://uselectionatlas.org

12

Per Capita Income

Median Household Income

Per Capita Income of Durham

Per Capita Income of Greene County

Per Capita Income of New York State

Median Household Income of Durham

Median Household Income of Greene County

Median Household Income of New York State

$21,170

$23,842

$32,104

$47,031

$47,539

$57,683

13

Land Use

A brief land use classification was conducted on Greene County and the Town of Durham in order to achieve

an understanding of current land use patterns, the landscape of natural resources, and to set the stage for

the following section which will review the pertinent planning documents of Greene County and the Town of

Durham. The 2006 and 2011 National Land Cover Database (NLCD 2011) datasets were used for the analysis.

NLCD 2006 and 2011 are based on a decision-tree classification of Landsat satellite data. There were 15

individual land classifications assigned to the study areas, including: open water; developed, open space;

developed, low intensity; developed, medium intensity; developed, high intensity; barren land; deciduous

forest; evergreen forest; mixed forest; shrub/scrub; grassland/herbaceous; pasture/hay; cultivated crops; woody

wetlands; and emergent herbaceous wetlands.

The results from the land use classification solidify the rural nature of Greene County with only 13% of the

county and 7% of Durham classified as being developed land. In 2011 at the county level the most prevalent land

use was evergreen forests which accounted for 23% of Greene’s land cover; mixed forests accounted for 22% of

Greene’s land cover; and both deciduous forests and pasture/hay each accounted for 11% of Greene’s land cover.

The Town of Durham presented a slightly different composition than that of the county as a whole. Durham’s

most prevalent land uses were deciduous forests which accounted for 55% of the overall land cover; evergreen

forests accounted for 13% of Durham’s land cover; and pasture/hay accounted for 11% of Durham’s land cover.

Durham is slightly more forested and rural in nature than that of the Greene County as a whole, but most of

the development in Greene County is located in the historic river towns along the Hudson. Durham represents

a large portion of the county that remains rural in nature, with land use patterns that dictate a decentralized

population.

Next the changes from the 2006 NLCD to the 2011 NLCD were compared in order to see the development and

land use patterns in the County over a five year period. Over that time frame, Greene County as a whole lost 43%

of its wooded wetlands while increasing its barren land by 1%, deciduous forests by 10% and evergreen forests

by 18%. Over the same period of time, Durham lost 50% of its wooded wetlands and 12.5% of its mixed forests.

However, the Town of Durham did increase its deciduous forests by 4%, evergreen forests by 8%, and shrub/

scrubs by 1%.

The following section will review pertinent planning documents released during this time frame. The percent

of developed land remained the same for both the county and the town over this five year stretch. This fact is

telling and should be kept in mind while reviewing the goals, objectives and strategies within the identified

plans in the following section.

14

Detailed Land Use Charts

15

6+1+53+12+8+11+3+6 6+1+55+13+7+1+11+3+31%

3% 3% 3%1% 1%

53% 55%12%13%

8%7%

11%11%

6% 6% 6%

2006 Change2011

Durham, New York

Land Use in 2006 and 2011

Open Water

Developed, Open Space

Developed, Low Intensity

Developed, Medium Intensity

Developed, High Intensity

Barren land

Deciduous Forest

Evergreen Forest

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/Herbaceous

Pasture/Hay

Cultivated Crops

Woody Wetlands

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands

0%

6%

1%

0%

0%

0%

53%

12%

8%

0%

0%

11%

3%

6%

0%

0%

6%

1%

0%

0%

0%

55%

13%

7%

1%

0%

11%

3%

3%

0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

+2

+1

-1

+1

0

0

0

-3

0

20112006

16

¯0 2.5 51.25 Miles

2006 Land Use Classifications of Durham, New York

Data Source: The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) internal data selector. Data Retreived on March 9, 2015.

Land ClassificationsOpen WaterDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityDeveloped, Medium IntensityDeveloped, High IntensityBarren LandDeciduous ForestEvergreen Forest Mixed Forest Shrub/ScrubGrassland/HerbaceousPasture/HayCultivated CropsWoody WetlandsEmergent Herbaceous Wetlands¯

0 2.5 51.25 Miles



Land ClassificationsOpen WaterDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityDeveloped, Medium IntensityDeveloped, High IntensityBarren LandDeciduous ForestEvergreen ForestMixed ForestShrub/ScrubGrassland/HerbaceousPasture/HayCultivated CropsWoody WetlandsEmergent Herbaceous Wetlands

¯0 2.5 51.25 Miles



Land ClassificationsOpen WaterDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityDeveloped, Medium IntensityDeveloped, High IntensityBarren LandDeciduous ForestEvergreen Forest Mixed Forest Shrub/ScrubGrassland/HerbaceousPasture/HayCultivated CropsWoody WetlandsEmergent Herbaceous Wetlands

¯0 2.5 51.25 Miles



Land ClassificationsOpen WaterDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityDeveloped, Medium IntensityDeveloped, High IntensityBarren LandDeciduous ForestEvergreen Forest Mixed Forest Shrub/ScrubGrassland/HerbaceousPasture/HayCultivated CropsWoody WetlandsEmergent Herbaceous Wetlands

Durham, New York Land Use in 2006

Durham, New York Land Use in 2011

17

1+3+10+2+1+10+19+22+1+1+11+5+141+3+10+2+1+1+11+23+22+1+1+11+5+81%

1%

1%

1%

1% 1%3% 3%

5%

5%14%8%

11%

11%

10%11%

22%

22%19%

23%

10% 10%2% 2%

1% 1%1%

2006 Change2011

Greene County, New York

Land Use in 2006 and 2011

Open Water

Developed, Open Space

Developed, Low Intensity

Developed, Medium Intensity

Developed, High Intensity

Barren land

Deciduous Forest

Evergreen Forest

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/Herbaceous

Pasture/Hay

Cultivated Crops

Woody Wetlands

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands

3%

10%

2%

1%

0%

0%

10%

19%

22%

1%

1%

11%

5%

14%

1%

3%

10%

2%

1%

0%

1%

11%

23%

22%

1%

1%

11%

5%

8%

1%

0

0

0

0

0

+1

+1

+4

0

0

0

0

0

-6

0

2006 2011

18

Greene County, New York Land Use in 2006

Greene County, New York Land Use in 2011

¯0 8 164 Miles

2006 Land Use Classifications of Greene County, New York


Land ClassificationsOpen WaterDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityDeveloped, Medium Intensity Developed, High IntensityBarren LandDeciduous ForestEvergreen ForestMixed Forest Shrub/ScrubGrassland/Herbaceous Pasture/HayCultivated CropsWoody WetlandsEmergent Herbaceous Wetlands

¯0 7.5 153.75 Miles



Land ClassificationsOpen WaterDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityDeveloped, Medium IntensityDeveloped, High IntensityBarren LandDeciduous ForestEvergreen ForestMixed ForestSgrun/ScrubGrassland/HerbaceousPasture/HayCultivated CropsWoody WetlandsEmergent Herbaceous Wetlands

¯0 8 164 Miles




¯0 8 164 Miles




19

Planning Document Analysis

Pertinent planning documents from

Greene County and Durham were

reviewed as part of an initial assess-

ment. In total, six plans were reviewed

including the Greene County Compre-

hensive Economic Development Plan

(2007); the Greene County Housing

Action Plan (2008); the Greene County

Water Dependent Use Inventory Analy-

sis (2008); the Greene County Tourism

Trails Plan (2014); the Durham Valley

Scenic Byway Corridor Management

Plan (2011); and the Town of Durham

Draft Comprehensive Plan (2006).

These documents were selected be-

cause they create the framework for

current planning efforts in Greene

County and Durham. Four of the plans

will be looked at in further detail, while

the Greene County Water Dependent

Use Inventory Analysis and the Greene

County Tourism Trails Plan did not

prove to have a large enough impact on

current planning goals and initiatives.

20

Appendix A contains a cross matrix of goals from the six reviewed plans. This was used

to identify current goals that are applicable to multiple plans, creating a hierarchy of

priorities throughout the county. Six goals were found to be in common throughout the

six plans, they were:

• Preserve the Rural Character of Durham/Greene County.

• Protect environmental quality, including the drinking water quantity and quality,

the clean air, and the clean streams and creeks. Protect against noise pollution

and urban stress, and also protect against light pollution so as to maintain

visibility of the stars at night.

• Maintain pleasant aesthetic character. Reduce and protect against community

eyesores such as junk yards, dilapidated structures, abandoned buildings,

abandoned automobiles, and broken or worn signage.

• Encourage municipalities to adopt sound development principles.

• Continue to work with local municipalities with public facilities expansions.

• Improve the quality of life in Greene County by upgrading and expanding

community services, facilities, and amenities.

21

Greene County Comprehensive Economic Development Plan

13 Greene County Economic Development Corporation (2007). Greene County Comprehensive Economic Development Plan. Document Retrieved February 18, 2015 from http://www.greenegovernment.com/departments/planning-economic-development

The Greene County Comprehensive Economic

Development Plan was published in 2007 by the

Greene County Department of Planning and Economic

Development (GCPED). The purpose of the plan is to

improve the quality of life for Greene County residents by

implementing a strategy that fosters and guides growth

while balancing tax rates and the desire to preserve the

environmental and community characteristics residents

cherish. The plan was made to be used as an initial

assessment of the current economic conditions in Greene

County, while also outlining goals and strategies to be

used in order to achieve desired future conditions in the

county.

Participants in the planning process included the Greene

County Industrial Development Authority (GCIDA); the

Greene County Chamber of Commerce; the Greene County

AICP; Empire State Development; the Hudson River Valley

Greenway Conservancy; the Greene County Legislature;

a Steering Committee comprised of local Stakeholders; a

Tourism Subcommittee comprised of local Stakeholders;

a Planning and Infrastructure Subcommittee comprised

of Local and State Stakeholders; Camoin Associates

Economic Development consultanting firm; Moran, Stahl

& Boyer LLC consultanting firm; Saratoga Associates

consulting firm; E.M. Pemrick & Company consulting

firm; and public input garnered through community

workshops and public surveys.

The goals of the plan were intended to provide specific direction for the development of strategies and actions.

A three phase planning process was conducted, using the outlined goals to guide both planning officials and

participants. Phase I was a resource assessment which included the collection and interpretation of economic

and demographic data from Greene County. Also included in the resource assessment phase were resident,

business owner, and visitor surveys; public workshops; and stakeholder interviews. Phase II involved creating

policy approaches and strategies that the county could employ to address its shortcomings. In Phase III, a vision

was developed for the County’s economic future which outlined goals, objectives, and actions that would allow

the county to achieve its vision.

Goals13

Determine the mix of commercial, industrial, residential and open space land use that would create a long-term stable tax base; Expand recreational opportunities and

facilities to serve residents and their children.

Develop programs that could better help existing businesses grow; Identify industries

in which Greene County had a competitive

advantage in attracting new businesses.

Broaden and enhance programs that would support a tourism industry renaissance; Identify appropriate sites for future

commercial and industrial development.

Support telecommunication infrastructure investments necessary to support the needs of County businesses; Identify projects and

programs that warrant federal, state and

local investment that would lead to better

employment opportunities, especially for

young people.

22

13 Greene County Economic Development Corporation (2007). Greene County Comprehensive Economic Development Plan. Document Retrieved February 18, 2015 from http://www.greenegovernment.com/departments/planning-economic-development

Key findings from the resource assessment conducted

during Phase I of the planning process show that 40% of

Greene County’s jobs are government and tourism related.

A large portion of Greene County residents work outside

the county, causing local industry to hire from outside

the county as well. Business owners note the quality and

quantity of the County’s workforce as a problem, while

higher education graduates note the limited amount of

suitable job opportunities as a problem. Small businesses,

both microenterprises and self-employed, play a vital

role in the Greene County economy, citing the low cost of

doing business and quality of life as reasons for locating in

the county.

The strategies outlined to achieve the desired vision of

the plan can be found within the Greene County Planning

Goals Matrix in Appendix A. In summary, the strategies

focus on developing a balanced, diverse, year round

economy; generating long term revenue growth in the

tourism industry; preserving and enhancing the physical

and environmental characteristics in Greene County;

developing a skilled and educated workforce; upgrading

and expanding upon community services, facilities, and

amenities; developing a steady supply of commercial land;

and supporting infrastructure improvements to meet the

development needs of the county.

122 actions were formed based on the goals and objectives

of the plan. As part of the implementation plan, each action

was assigned a time frame, ongoing (already in place and/

or continuing); short-term (less than two years); mid-term

(2-5 years); or long term (5 years or more). Additionally

each action was assigned to a lead agency; given a list of

potential public and/or private partners; and given a list of

potential funding sources for implementation, including

local, state, federal, private, foundations, etc. Indicators

were also assigned to each of the main goals in order to

identify ongoing progress through an annual progress

report which is published with the approval of the Greene

County Legislature. To date no subsequent plans have

been made and/ or published by the GCPED.

Key Findings13

Government is the largest employer in Greene County, accounting for 30% of all jobs; Tourism remains a critical part of the

Greene County economy comprising roughly

10% of all jobs.

Greene County is missing much of its core service base that is needed to attract businesses and residents; A large percent

of Greene County residents work outside the

county, suggesting sufficient job opportunities

are not available locally.

Greene County has a limited number of jobs for graduates of two-and four-year colleges to allow children to “come home” after completing their education; Some Greene

County Industries rely on workers from other

counties to fill jobs;

Small businesses play a vital role in the Greene County economy; Most companies

that locate in Greene County have a personal

or family connection, or value its location and

relatively low cost of doing business;

Greene County has an increasing number of self-employed professionals, artists, and writers drawn to the area’s natural beauty and quality of life; The quality of labor is a

major concern of Greene County employers;

The quantity of labor is also an issue for local businesses;

23

Greene County Housing Action Plan

Housing was identified as an important part in developing

Greene County’s Comprehensive Economic Development

Plan, spurring a closer examination of housing in

the county. The Greene County Housing Action Plan

was published in 2008 by River Street Planning and

Development with funds provided by the New York State

Division of Housing and Community Renewal, and the

Greene County Legislature. The plan was created to

examine the housing climate in Greene County, broaden

the understanding of the components of a healthy

housing mix for all stakeholders, and to provide decision-

makers with programmatic and regulatory responses to

these issues. The plan was made to be used as an initial

assessment of the current Housing conditions in Greene

County, while also outlining goals and actions to be

used in order to achieve desired future conditions in the

county.

Participants in the planning process included the

Greene County Legislature; Catskill Mountain Housing;

the Hunter Foundation; the Town of Hunter Planning

Board; the Greene County Department for the Aging; the


Development; the New York State Division of Housing &

Community Renewal; local Stakeholder; and Rivetr Street

Planning and Development consulting firm.

The goal of the plan was to educate Greene County’s internal and external audiences of the issues related to

housing and how housing impacts the County’s economic health. The Housing Plan is comprised of stand-alone

documents which the Department of Planning and Economic Development will use to present information to

potential developers, housing Stakeholders, and partners. Documents prepared as part of the final deliverables

of the Housing Plan include an educational power point; a summary of current housing conditions in Greene

County; a summary of appropriate zoning techniques; a guide for municipalities to use in order to annually

examine their housing conditions; a detailed cost of service analysis; and a detailed fiscal impact analysis.

Goals14

Provide an ample supply of housing for all phases of a family’s life; Continue to

work with the Department for the Aging on

implementing their recommendations from

the Senior Housing Study.

Mitigate or eliminate barriers to affordable and workforce housing initiatives through a program of public education and support advocacy; Encourage Greene County

municipalities to adopt land management

tools that create opportunities for affordable

and workforce housing;

Continue to expand or improve infrastructure to facilitate moreadequate housing;

14 River Street Planning and Development (2008). Greene County Housing Action Plan: A Plan for Housing. Document Retrieved February 18, 2015, from http://greenegovernment.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FINALGreeneCountyHousingActionPlankthedits1.pdf

24

Key findings from the housing market analysis show that

Greene County has a growing population, with one-third

of households having incomes below 60% of the median

income, and nearly one-third having incomes above 120%

of the median income. Most Greene County communities

lack general community services and adequate

infrastructure to attract development. Median 2007 prices

of homes sold in the County were affordable to 14 of the

22 industries that were targeted in the Comprehensive

Economic Development Plan. Average rental prices

were also found to be higher than Fair Market Rents as

identified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD).

The strategies outlined to achieve the desired vision of

the plan can be found within the Greene County Planning

Goals Matrix in Appendix B. In summary, the strategies

focus on educating stakeholders and municipalities

on housing in their communities; improve residential

development and encourage mixed use development

in the towns and hamlets; improve public facilities

and infrastructure; and develop sound planning and

development principals.

41 actions were formed based on the goals and strategies

of the plan. The 41 implementation actions were

designed to guide county leaders and other stakeholders

in facilitating the accomplishment of each outlined

strategy. There were no specific timeframes, lead

agencies, or indicators of success attached to any of the 41

implementation actions. The document does identify a list

of both State and Federally funded programs to be utilized

in the future. Implementation of the plan was left to the


Development, with involvement from local municipalities

and key stakeholders.

Implementation Strategies14

Identify and improve residential development within the village and town centers; Continue to encourage the

development of mixed income home and

rental projects;

In partnership with both county organizations and non-profit housing organizations promote housing rehabilitation and homeownership programs; Encourage employer sponsored

worker housing initiatives;

Identify specific senior housing developments that will assist with the increasing senior population in Greene County; Provide opportunities for seniors to

continue to age in place;

Provide assistance to local municipalities to mitigate and eliminate barriers for housing; Undertake a public education campaign to

raise public official and citizen awareness

about the importance of housing choice and

representing a complete life-cycle of housing;

Encourage municipalities to adopt sound development principles; Continue to work

with local municipalities with public facilities

expansions;

14 River Street Planning and Development (2008). Greene County Housing Action Plan: A Plan for Housing. Document Retrieved February 18, 2015, from http://greenegovernment.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FINALGreeneCountyHousingActionPlankthedits1.pdf

25

The Durham Valley Scenic Byway Corridor Management

Plan was prepared in 2011 by ERO Resources consulting

firm as part of the New York State Scenic Byways Program.

The project was funded by a grant from the Federal

Highway Administration and matching funds from the

Durham Valley Land Trust. The purpose of the plan is

to serve as a resource management guide and presents

strategies to conserve and interpret the Byway’s diverse

resources, as well as to promote tourism and economic

development.

Participants in the planning process included the

Durham Valley Scenic Byway Coordinating Committee;

the Hudson River Valley Greenway; the Greene County

Department of Economic Development, Tourism and

Planning; the Town of Durham; the Town of Durham

Historic Preservation Commission; the Durham Valley

Land Trust; the Association for the Preservation of the

Durham Valley; Durham Valley Planners, Inc.; the Durham

Center Museum; the Open Space Institute; the Catskill

Center for Conservation and Development; ERO Resources

Corporation consulting firm; Stakeholders that included

the New York State Department of Transportation, the New

York State Historic Preservation Office and the Cornell

University Cooperative Extension; and public input

garnered through community meetings.

The goals of the plan were intended to provide specific

direction for the development of management strategies

that will protect the Scenic Byway’s intrinsic qualities. The

planning process consisted of initial research of the 21

miles of State designated Scenic Byway that runs through

Durham, as well as stakeholder interviews and two public

meetings. The Durham Valley Scenic Byway Coordinating

Committee is comprised of local residents who were cited

as contributing greatly to the formation of the goals and

vision of the plan.

Goals15

Maintain community support and Involvement; Protect, conserve, and enhance

Scenic Byway Corridor resources.

Develop collaborative strategies to protect and conserve the scenic, natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources of the Scenic Byway Corridor; Enhance the

visitor experience through interpretation and

educational opportunities.

Develop collaborative strategies that Encourage visitors to enjoy the unique qualities of the corridor while staying in the communities surrounding the Scenic Byway Corridor; Promote the Scenic Byway

consistent with community goals and resource

protection needs.

Upgrade and maintain roads and facilities for the safety of visitors, residents, wildlife, and livestock; Ensure appropriate access to

support the various Scenic Byway uses.

Design and build interpretive sites to enhance visitor’s knowledge, appreciation, and enjoyment; Preserve historic character,

structures, and landscapes.

Develop an integrated highway signage program;

15 ERO Resources Corporation (2011). Durham Valley Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan. Unpublished plan prepared on behalf of Durham Valley Scenic Byway Coordinating Committee. ERO Resources, Denver, Colorado.

Durham Valley Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan

26

Key issues identified from the public meetings include a need for locations along the Scenic Byway where

people can pull off and recreate; bicycle safety and the notion of widened shoulders for bikers; promotion of

the Byway has been inadequate; and there is a lack of knowledge in the community regarding the various grant

opportunities and sources that are available.

59 management actions were formed based on the goals and objectives of the plan. Actions were presented

in 6 categories, including intrinsic qualities and stewardship; transportation; signage; tourism and economic

development; marketing, promotion, and education; and wayfinding and resource interpretation. The Scenic

Byway Coordinating Committee will conduct an impact assessment of the Scenic Byway designation on the

Scenic Byway Corridor and local community every three years. While the document references to a five year

implementation strategy located in “Appendix F”, the content of this section was not incorporated into the

final draft. There were no specific timeframes, lead agencies, or indicators of success attached to any of the

59 management actions. The document does identify potential partners and a list of both State and Federally

funded programs to be utilized in the future.

¯ 0 8 164 Miles

Road Network of Green County, New York

Roads and Scenic Byway DesignationScenic Byway Designation

Roads

The Town Of Durham

Locations of Scenic Byway Designated Roads

in Durham and Greene County

27

The Town of Durham Draft Comprehensive Plan

The Town of Durham Draft Comprehensive Plan was

published in 2006 by the Town of Durham, New York.

Facing budgetary constraints during the most recent

recession, the Town of Durham had suspended their

efforts to complete their first comprehensive plan to date.

The 2006 draft comprehensive plan contains a Phase I

assessment, which includes a SWOT analysis and a set

of draft goals. The purpose of the plan was to create a

vision detailing where the people of Durham would like

to see their town in the future, and to identify goals and

strategies that will guide them to that vision. While the

plan is not complete it does offer both initial research

on the socio-economic demographics of the town, and

valuable insight into the policy priorities the town may

take in the future to realize their vision.

Participants in the planning process were comprised of

the Town Board of Durham; the Greene County Planning

and Economic Development Corporation (GCPED); the

Cairo-Durham Central School District; local Stakeholders;

and public input garnered through community

workshops, surveys and focus groups. The goals of the

plan were intended to provide specific direction for the

development of strategies and actions.

Goals16

Preserve the rural character of the Town of

Durham; Protect farms, open spaces, scenic

views, natural resources, and waterways

Preserve the town’s historic character,

structures, and landscapes; Link the town’s

natural areas and hamlets together through

use of greenways, bicycle and walking paths,

and hiking and cross-country ski trails;

Protect environmental quality throughout the

town; Maintain the town’s pleasant aesthetic

character;

Promote and enhance business signage that

is consistent with the beautification goals of

the town; Encourage home improvements

through tax incentives;

Create an environment conducive to attracting

year-round professional jobs; Promote

and support infrastructure improvements

necessary for home businesses and

telecommuters both within and outside the

hamlets;

Promote business development within the

hamlets, especially Main Street development

along the Route 145 corridor of East Durham;

Promote establishment of tourist and service-

oriented businesses;

16 Durham, T.O. (2006). The Town of Durham Draft Comprehensive Plan. Document Retrieved February 20, 2015, from http://www.planningbetterplaces.com/client_files/durham/Durham%20profile%20with%20edits4.pdf

28

A three phase planning process was scheduled, with only

Phase I, the resource assessment, being completed. Phase

I was a resource assessment which included the collection

and interpretation of economic and demographic data

from the Town of Durham. Also included in the resource

assessment phase were resident and business owner

surveys; a community workshop; stakeholder focus

groups; and a SWOT analysis.

Findings from the SWOT analysis conducted during

Phase I of the planning process was presented in full, and

were lengthy. To summarize, the strengths of the town

included the school district; aesthetic and rural character;

location; existing businesses and opportunity to attract

new businesses to the area; a newly formed land trust;

existing services and community functions; and a rich

history. Weaknesses included non-profit organizations

buying large swaths of land; lack of activities; economic

decline; declining aesthetic appeal of many properties;

lack of zoning and growth controls; diversity of housing

options; affordability of housing for segments of the

community; and the lack of a uniformed marketing

vision. Opportunities included enhancing infrastructure;

expand on key industries; purchase land, buy or receive

conservation easements; use clustering to preserve open

space; grant writing; and more effective land use laws.

The threats portion of the SWAT analysis identified major

threats as high property tax rates; lack of higher paying

jobs; unrestrained development; lack of housing and

affordable housing; and a lack of leadership to get things

done 16.

No subsequent phases of the Town of Durham

Comprehensive plan have been made and/ or published

by the Town of Durham. The information provided in

the Phase I portion of the plan will help guide the proper

policy implementation regarding brownfield identification

and remediation within subsequent portions of this study.

Goals Continued

Implementation Strategies16

Encourage establishment of medical, legal, financial, and technological service providers; Establish a town community center

that will offer a broad range of services and

activities for all age;

Encourage development of senior housing; Provide for an effective local government

that fosters a sense of community and civic

participation;

Identify and improve residential development within the village and town centers; Continue to encourage the

development of mixed income home and

rental projects;

In partnership with both county organizations and non-profit housing organizations promote housing rehabilitation and homeownership programs; Encourage employer sponsored

worker housing initiatives;

Identify specific senior housing developments that will assist with the increasing senior population in Greene County; Provide opportunities for seniors to

continue to age in place;

Provide assistance to local municipalities to mitigate and eliminate barriers for housing; Undertake a public education campaign to

raise public official and citizen awareness

about the importance of housing choice and

representing a complete life-cycle of housing;

Encourage municipalities to adopt sound development principles; Continue to work

with local municipalities with public facilities

expansions;

16 Durham, T.O. (2006). The Town of Durham Draft Comprehensive Plan. Document Retrieved February 20, 2015, from http://www.planningbetterplaces.com/client_files/durham/Durham%20profile%20with%20edits4.pdf

29

30

Case Study

31

17 DiNapoli, Thomas P. (2013), 1.Brownfield Restoration in New York State: Program Review and Options. Office of the State Comptroller. 110 State Street, Albany, New York 12236. Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/environmental/brownfields_restoration13.pdf

18 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (2006).6 NYCRR Part 375: Environmental Remediation Programs. NYS Division of Environmental Remediation. 625 Broadway #7, Albany NY 12207.

19 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012).State Funding Programs New York’s Clean Water/Clean Air bond Act. Unites States Environmental Protection Agency. 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20460. Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/fund_ny.cfm

New York State Environmental Remediation Programs

Over the past two and a half decades the New York State government has explored policies to promote the

redevelopment of brownfield sites which they define as “abandoned properties where prior industrial or

other use has left the site contaminated with toxic substances” 17. New York State has implemented four major

initiatives in this time frame to turn vacant brownfield sites into productive, environmentally safe properties.

NYS environmental remediation programs are detailed in Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and

Regulations (NYCRR) Part 375, subparts 375-1 to 375-4 and 375-6 14. The four programs include the Voluntary

Cleanup Program (VCP), the Environmental Restoration Program (ERP), the Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP),

and the State Superfund Program (SSFP).

The VCP was established in 1994 and administered by the NYS DEC. Initially the program was designed to

enhance the private sector cleanup of brownfields by enabling parties to remediate sites using private rather

than public funds, and to reduce the development pressures of greenfield sites. Under the program volunteers

perform remedial activities pursuant to one or more of the NYS DEC’s approved work plans. The volunteer

agrees to remediate the site to a level which is protective of the public health and the environment for the

present or intended use of the property. Investigation and remediation is carried out under the oversight of

the DEC and the NYS Department of Health (NYS DOH) and the volunteer pays the State’s oversight cost. Once

remediation of a site is complete the DEC issues a letter declaring that the DEC agrees that the volunteer has met

their obligations and that, barring and event triggering a reopener, the DEC does not contemplate further action

will need to be taken on the site 14. The VCP accepted applicants until 2003, and 212 sites have been remediated

through the program 17. The VCP has been criticized for not offering direct financial incentives, but is attractive

in that it offered participants limited liability protection, cleanup standards based on the proposed future use of

the site, and a streamlined process for remediation.

As a result of the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act of 1996, NYS devoted $1.75 billion to protect the State’s

environment 19. As part of the 1996 Bond Act, New York approved $200 million to be used for the development

of the State’s ERP. Under the ERP NYS provides grants to municipalities to reimburse up to 90 percent of on-

site eligible costs and 100% of off-site eligible costs for site investigation and remediation activities. Once the

property is remediated the municipality the site resides in, and all successors in title, lessees, and lenders are

released from remedial liability for hazardous substances that were on the property prior to the grant 18.

32

To date, the ERP has remediated 68 sites at an average State cost per site of $779,176 17. Applicants have not been

approved through the ERP since 2008, the DEC sites that program funds are fully obligated 20.

In 2003, NYS enacted the Brownfields/Superfund Act, in which the BCP was established. The BCP was

established to encourage persons to voluntarily remediate brownfield sites for reuse and redevelopment.

The BCP offers parties limited liability protection, an expedited process to identify a cleanup remedy, and

soil cleanup objectives based on the proposed use of the site 21. Additionally, a taxpayer who has entered into

a Brownfield Cleanup Agreement (BCA) may be eligible for refundable tax credits of 10 to 22 percent of the

site cleanup and redevelopment costs. The incentives created by the BCP encourage not only cleanup, but

redevelopment, by providing larger incentives for redevelopment than cleanup. This model was intended to

offer communities will get a broader benefit of revitalization while also avoiding the negative externalities that

have been associated with greenfield development. As of 2014, Brownfield Redevelopment Credits have enabled

developers to claim tax credits worth approximately $1.2 billion, with average site costs totaling $9.4 million 21. Tax credit reports produced by the Department of Taxation and Finance, the Office of the State Comptroller

projects a potential outstanding tax credit liability to the State of $3.3 billion for the 389 sites currently enrolled

in the BCP 22.

NYS originally enacted the Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Law (IHWDSL) in 1979, which was contained

in Article 27, Title 13 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law (ECL). Title 13 served as one of the models

for the comparable 1980 federal program, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA) 23. Two amendments to the IHWDSL occurred in 1982 and 1985 respectively, and together

with subsequent provisions of the Public Health Law, this framework has provided the statutory framework

for NY’s SSFP. One paramount difference between the BCP and the SSFP is the priority these programs

place on linking remediation with a targeted end-use for the site. Unlike the SSFP, the BCP places priority on

coordinating remediation efforts with the development and future use of the site. A 2014 report released by the

New York Developers Brownfield Alliance found that a “cleanup without an associated project, as evident in

the new statistics on the Superfund Program where only cleanups occur, reveals sites that remain vacant and

underutilized” 20.

17 DiNapoli, Thomas P. (2013).Brownfield Restoration in New York State: Program Review and Options. Office of the State Comptroller. 110 State Street, Albany, New York 12236. Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/environmental/brownfields_restoration13.pdf

20 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (2015). Environmental Restoration Program. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. 625 Broadway #7, Albany NY 12207. Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8444.html

21 Hall, Tyler (2014). New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program. Syracuse University. 900 South Crouse Avenue Syracuse, NY 13244. Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/classes/PAI735/studentpapers/2014/Hall.pdf 22 Biblow, Charlotte A. (2015). Brownfields Cleanup Program at a Crossroads. The New York Law Journal. Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202716346554/Brownfields-Cleanup-Program-at-a-Crossroads

23 Amoroso, Frank L. et al. (2006). New York Environmental Law Handbook. Government Institutes, an Imprint of The Scarecrow Press, Inc. PO Box 317 Oxford OX2 9RU.

33


Additionally the 2014 report released by the New York Developers Brownfield Alliance included a study of the

development status and tax roll implications of federally registered Superfund sites in NYS. Out of the 209

federal superfund sites in NYS, 74 % or 155 of the sites are registered under the SSFP, which designates them as

Superfund sites by NYS 20. In regards to site development, sites were designated under one of six categories;

“NO”, meaning no development has occurred on the site; “YES”, meaning some development has occurred

on the site; “PN” (probably not), meaning is looks as though and/or is highly likely that a site has not been

developed and research was not able to determine this with total certainty; “REM”, meaning the site is not yet

in remediation; “Unclear”, meaning it was unclear if development has occurred at the site; and “NA”, meaning

the site cannot really be developed. Regarding tax status, the Superfund sites were placed into one of four

categories; “YES”, meaning the site is on a tax roll; “NO”, meaning the site is owned by a municipal, county, state,

or federal government and is tax exempt; “N/A”, meaning the site is a river, lake, canal, groundwater plume, etc.;

and “Unable to Locate”, meaning information on the site could not be found with complete certainty.

34

5+75+1+5+5+957+27+10+6

9%

5%

5%1%

5%

27%

9% 6%

75%

57%

Superfund Sites Tax Status

Redevelopment of Superfund Sites

Yes

No

N/A

Unable to Locate

Yes

No

N/A

Probably Not

Not In Remediation

Unclear

57% 120

27% 57

9% 19

6%13

5% 10

75% 156

1% 5

9%18

5%10

5%10


Results show that 75% of the sites were not developed, and

when combined with the “Probany Not” sites, the figure could

be as high as 88% of the sites. A more staggering statistic is

that only 5% of sites can be classified as developed with total

certainty 24.

Results show that 15% of the sites were categorized as either “N/A”

or “Unable to Locate”. Of the remaining 177 sites (or 85% of the

original 209 sites), 68% of those sites were identified as being on a

current tax roll, while 32% were listed as tax exempt properties 24.

35

While this information provides the locations of brownfield sites that have been contractually agreed upon to

be remediated, it does not offer insight regarding; sites that have not been identified; sites that have not been

contractually agreed upon to be remediated; or sites that may fall outside of the EPA’s definition of a brownfield

which once again is defined as, “real properties, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be

complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant” 1. In

order to gauge the magnitude of unidentified properties and the impact they may have on a rural communities

1 United States Environemtnal Protection Agency (2006). Anatomy of Brownfield Redevelopment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agecy. Washington D.C. Retrieved on March 15, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview/anat_bf_redev_101106.pdf

Survey

One goal of this paper is to identify the major contributors to the lack of brownfield redevelopment in rural

communities, in part by investigating sites that have and have not been remediated. The NYS DEC maintains

the records of registered contaminated sites that are currently going through, or have already gone through the

remediation process.

####### #############

###########

##############

#############

##############

###############

#########################################

###########

#########

################

#########################

##########

########

#########

#########

#################

############

######

#############################################

###############

##########

############

###########################

##############

#############

############################################################################

##########

#########################

##########

################

##########

#############

########################

######

######################

###########

############## ##########

###########

#############

###############

############

######

#######################################

############

###############

#########

########################

################

##############

##########

##########

####################################

################

###########

############################################

#########

###########

##################

##########################

#########

############

##############################################################################

###############

####################

###############

###########

##############

################

######################

#################

#######################

##################

################## #################

#############

#########

############

#############

#########

###############################

########

#############

#############

##################################

##############

##############

############

################

#########################

##############

#############

########################################################

##############

############

#####

###########################

##############

#############

################################################################################

##############

##########################

#############

#############

############

################

#####################

###########

#####################

########

############ ############

##########

##########

########

###############

#################

################################

#############

####################

#########

####################

##########

#########

#############

###########

################################

##########

###############

###################################################

#########

###############

#######

##############################

###########

#######

#####################################################################################

##############

######################

#############

#######

###############

#############

##############

###########

#########################

##########

########## ##################

###########

############

#################

##########

###########

#####################################

############

############

###########

######################

###########

################

###################

############

###########################

###########

#######

##################################################

################

##################

#################

###################

#########

##########

####################################################################

############

###########################

##################

############

#################

#######

###############################

#############

#####################

#################

########## #####

###############

############

##########

###########

###########

################################

###############

############

##############

#########################

#############

#########

###################

#######

###########################

#####

#################

#########################################################

############

###########

###############

####################

#############

#############

################################################################

#############

#################################

############

#################

#######

#############

##################################

############

##########################

############

############### ##############

###############

###############

############

############

#########

################################################

###########

########

##################

#####################

###########

#################

#######

##############

##############

##############

######################

########################################################

###########

###########

#############

########################

###############

##################

########################################################################

############

#################

########

#############

#############

############

#################################

###############

###############################

##########

############# ##########

#############

##############

############

############

#####################

#####################################

#################

##########

#########

###########################

##############

############

##########

####################

####################

#################

########

#####################################

#############

###########

############

################

##############

#############

#######################################################################

#########

############################

##########

##########

###########

#########

###################

##############

#############################

#############

¯0 8 164 Miles

Location of Remediation Sites and Borders in Greene County, New York


#

Remediation SitesRemediation Site Borders

####### #############

###########

##############

#############

##############

###############

#########################################

###########

#########

################

#########################

##########

########

#########

#########

#################

############

######

#############################################

###############

##########

############

###########################

##############

#############

############################################################################

##########

#########################

##########

################

##########

#############

########################

######

######################

###########

############## ##########

###########

#############

###############

############

######

#######################################

############

###############

#########

########################

################

##############

##########

##########

####################################

################

###########

############################################

#########

###########

##################

##########################

#########

############

##############################################################################

###############

####################

###############

###########

##############

################

######################

#################

#######################

##################

################## #################

#############

#########

############

#############

#########

###############################

########

#############

#############

##################################

##############

##############

############

################

#########################

##############

#############

########################################################

##############

############

#####

###########################

##############

#############

################################################################################

##############

##########################

#############

#############

############

################

#####################

###########

#####################

########

############ ############

##########

##########

########

###############

#################

################################

#############

####################

#########

####################

##########

#########

#############

###########

################################

##########

###############

###################################################

#########

###############

#######

##############################

###########

#######

#####################################################################################

##############

######################

#############

#######

###############

#############

##############

###########

#########################

##########

########## ##################

###########

############

#################

##########

###########

#####################################

############

############

###########

######################

###########

################

###################

############

###########################

###########

#######

##################################################

################

##################

#################

###################

#########

##########

####################################################################

############

###########################

##################

############

#################

#######

###############################

#############

#####################

#################

########## #####

###############

############

##########

###########

###########

################################

###############

############

##############

#########################

#############

#########

###################

#######

###########################

#####

#################

#########################################################

############

###########

###############

####################

#############

#############

################################################################

#############

#################################

############

#################

#######

#############

##################################

############

##########################

############

############### ##############

###############

###############

############

############

#########

################################################

###########

########

##################

#####################

###########

#################

#######

##############

##############

##############

######################

########################################################

###########

###########

#############

########################

###############

##################

########################################################################

############

#################

########

#############

#############

############

#################################

###############

###############################

##########

############# ##########

#############

##############

############

############

#####################

#####################################

#################

##########

#########

###########################

##############

############

##########

####################

####################

#################

########

#####################################

#############

###########

############

################

##############

#############

#######################################################################

#########

############################

##########

##########

###########

#########

###################

##############

#############################

#############

¯0 8 164 Miles



#


####### #############

###########

##############

#############

##############

###############

#########################################

###########

#########

################

#########################

##########

########

#########

#########

#################

############

######

#############################################

###############

##########

############

###########################

##############

#############

############################################################################

##########

#########################

##########

################

##########

#############

########################

######

######################

###########

############## ##########

###########

#############

###############

############

######

#######################################

############

###############

#########

########################

################

##############

##########

##########

####################################

################

###########

############################################

#########

###########

##################

##########################

#########

############

##############################################################################

###############

####################

###############

###########

##############

################

######################

#################

#######################

##################

################## #################

#############

#########

############

#############

#########

###############################

########

#############

#############

##################################

##############

##############

############

################

#########################

##############

#############

########################################################

##############

############

#####

###########################

##############

#############

################################################################################

##############

##########################

#############

#############

############

################

#####################

###########

#####################

########

############ ############

##########

##########

########

###############

#################

################################

#############

####################

#########

####################

##########

#########

#############

###########

################################

##########

###############

###################################################

#########

###############

#######

##############################

###########

#######

#####################################################################################

##############

######################

#############

#######

###############

#############

##############

###########

#########################

##########

########## ##################

###########

############

#################

##########

###########

#####################################

############

############

###########

######################

###########

################

###################

############

###########################

###########

#######

##################################################

################

##################

#################

###################

#########

##########

####################################################################

############

###########################

##################

############

#################

#######

###############################

#############

#####################

#################

########## #####

###############

############

##########

###########

###########

################################

###############

############

##############

#########################

#############

#########

###################

#######

###########################

#####

#################

#########################################################

############

###########

###############

####################

#############

#############

################################################################

#############

#################################

############

#################

#######

#############

##################################

############

##########################

############

############### ##############

###############

###############

############

############

#########

################################################

###########

########

##################

#####################

###########

#################

#######

##############

##############

##############

######################

########################################################

###########

###########

#############

########################

###############

##################

########################################################################

############

#################

########

#############

#############

############

#################################

###############

###############################

##########

############# ##########

#############

##############

############

############

#####################

#####################################

#################

##########

#########

###########################

##############

############

##########

####################

####################

#################

########

#####################################

#############

###########

############

################

##############

#############

#######################################################################

#########

############################

##########

##########

###########

#########

###################

##############

#############################

#############

¯0 8 164 Miles



#


Map of Remediation Sites within Durham and Greene County

36

25 Alker, Sandra V.J. (2000), 49. The Definition of Brownfield. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Volume 43 Issue. Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cjep20/43/1#.VSl_KvnF98E


a survey was conducted on residents of East Durham. The first goal of the survey was to identify, through the

resident’s responses, sites that have not been identified as a brownfield but could potentially be redeveloped

back to use through identification and remediation efforts. The second goal of the survey was to identify what

knowledge (if any) residents had regarding brownfields.

In the Fall of 2013, surveys were distributed to friends, family and acquaintances from East Durham. These

people do not have a direct interest on environmental issues, brownfields, or community planning. What they do

have is knowledge of the local area and a passion for the survival of their community. The survey was comprised

of two questions and began by asking respondents for their name, age and hometown. Question one asked the

respondents “what is a brownfield”.

Question two was broken into two parts, the respondents were asked to read two different definitions of

brownfields and list local sites that they believe apply to each definition (the same site can be listed for both).

The first definition of a brownfield was the standard definition employed by the EPA. While this is the standard

definition of a brownfield, a second definition that was presented in volume 43, issue 1 of the Journal of

Environmental Planning and Management was used as part of the survey, which states “A brownfield site is

any land or premises which has previously been used or developed and is not currently fully in use, although

it may be partially occupied or utilized. It may also be vacant, derelict or contaminated” 25. This definition is

important for two reasons. First, it explains that these sites may be in partial use, allowing time for preventative

measures to be taken in order to stop the site’s continual decline. Second, this definition broadens the meaning

of a brownfield in a way that expands upon the environmental impact a brownfield has on a community to also

include the economic challenges. Regardless of whether or not a site has real or perceived contamination, it

remains a developed property that is no longer serving a viable function within its community.

According to the 2010 Census, East Durham had a population of 1,097 residents 4. My goal was to obtain

feedback from 4% of the population, or 44 residents in order to identify untreated sites and extrapolate the level

of knowledge the community has on brownfields. The surveys were sent via email, through the use of social

media sites, and handed out in person when the opportunity presented itself. Initially, 70 surveys were sent out,

and within 2 weeks 33 were filled out and returned. A follow up email was sent to the remainder of the survey

recipients which resulted in an additional 14 surveys being returned, totaling 47 completed surveys from Greene

County residents that live within 10 miles of East Durham.

The average age of the participants who completed the survey was 35.6 years, with the oldest being 77 and

the youngest being 23. For the first question, “What is a Brownfield site”, 29 out of 47 respondents (or 61.7%)

were able to give general definitions of a brownfield site. For the second question, respondents on average

listed 2.29 sites per person with 28 people listing two sites or less when faced with the EPA’s definition of a

brownfield. After reviewing responses given for the first definition, the two most frequent responses were

Becker Electronics Manufacturing Plant (BEM) in East Durham, NY and the property formerly occupied by the

American Thermostat Company (ATC) which is located in the neighboring town of South Cairo, NY. Both of these

sites have been identified as brownfield Superfund sites and have been remediated through the NY SSFP.

37

When presented with the second definition of a brownfield, respondents on average listed 4.02 sites per person

with only 17 respondents listing two sites or fewer. In response to this definition respondents broadened their

results from primarily focusing on industrial sites to include more vacant and/or abandoned structures such

as barns and houses. There was an increase in responses that addressed the abundant stock of underutilized

properties in the area, including former automotive businesses (i.e. auto repair shops, used car lots, automotive

parts junkyards) and former resorts that in many cases are still owner occupied. The most frequent responses

after the second definition were still BEM and ATC. The third and fourth most common responses were the

Shannon View Inn (SVI) and what was formerly known as Star Synthetic Manufacturing (SSM), both of which

are located in close proximity to East Durham’s town center.

Investigating sites that have/have not been remediated will aid in identify major contributors to the lack of

brownfield redevelopment in rural communities. The following section of this paper will present the site

histories of BEM, ATC, SVI, and SSM. The site histories of BEM and ATC will provide insight into factors that

have led to the identification and remediation of these rural brownfield sites. On the other hand, neither SVI nor

SSM have posed a threat to the health of local residents or as an economic opportunity for local investors, so

they remain vacant, continually depreciating surrounding property values and the Town’s economic potential.

The site histories of SVI and SSM will aid in determining past uses of these properties and reasoning (if any) that

they have been identified as vacant, underutilized, and possibly contaminated properties by survey respondents.

38

Site Histories

Becker Electronics Manufacturing Corporation (BEM) is a 13 acre property located on Route 145 in East Durham,

NY, approximately 1.3 miles from East Durham’s town center. BEM was in operation from January 29th, 1953

until 1982, assembling and painting wooden stereo speaker cabinets. It was difficult to frame a complete history

of the site for several reasons. First, complete documents for BEM from the EPA and the NYS DEC are not

available online. Second, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (historical and current maps of U.S. cities and towns

that were initially created to estimate fire insurance liabilities) were not available from either the NYS Library

or the Library of Congress. Lastly, after making formal requests, information relating to the cleanup was not

released from the EPA Region 2 offices, the DEC Region 4 offices, Greene County Planning and Economic

Development, the office of the Greene County Clerk, or from the Michael J. Quill Irish Cultural and Sports Centre

(current owners of BEM). The following information is not from an official EPA Record of Decision (ROD) or site

evaluation, but from various sources that help illustrate the history of BEM.

In 1998’s Practitioner’s Guide to Litigation Insurance Coverage Actions, Second Edition, BEM is used as an

environmental example in the chapter entitled “The Court Must Determine What Laws Govern”. Becker

Electronics MFG. Corp. v. Granite State Ins. Co., “allegations of continuous disposal of waste solvents for a period

of approximately twenty years were not sudden and accidental” 26. BEM was found to have withheld information

from their insurance company in regards to the illegal dumping of contaminants on their property. The ruling

went in the favor of Granite State Insurance CO., “[n]or can this court conclude that allegations of continuous

disposal of waste solvents for a period of approximately twenty years ... constitutes a ‘sudden and accidental’

exception to the pollution exclusion” 27.

According the article “Becker cleanup at and end” by Kyle Adams of the Greene County News from March 21,

2013, “the site was identified as a State Superfund Program site — which deals with the disposal of inactive

hazardous waste — after a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation study in 1996 found a

“significant new source area of contamination at the site”, hazardous chemicals from BEM had “compromised

the groundwater at the site and contaminated several private drinking water wells” 28. BEM also appears on a

2005 DEC document entitled “List of Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites With Pre-2003 Remedial Decisions Where

Disposal of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Occurred”, site code 420007 29.

26 Oshinsky, Jerold and Howard, Theodore A. (1998), 474. Practitioner’s Guide to Litigating Insurance Coverage Actions (Second Edition). Aspen Publishers. 103 John F Jennedy Parkway Short Hills, NJ

27 636 So. 2d 700, 37 ERC 1006 (Fla. 1993). Dimmitt Chevrolet, Inc. V. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Company. Case Briefs LLC. Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-epstein/the-institution-of-insurance/dimmitt-chevrolet-inc-v-southeastern-fidelity-insurance-corp/

28 Adams, K. (2013). Becker cleanup at an end?. The Daily Mail, Greene County, NY. Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/registerstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/a/65/a65f7dc0-8b9c-11e2-8ef0-0019bb2963f4/51400b2cdab8c.pdf.pdf

29 Conservation, T.D. (2005). List of Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites With Pre-2003 Remedial Decisions. Department of Environemtnal Conservation. Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/vaporlist.pdf

39

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons are hydrocarbon molecules where one or more hydrogen atoms have been replaced

by chlorine, one way they are used is in the production of PVC pipes, pesticides, solvents, and rubber synthetic

products. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons are very hazardous. Some have been used as anesthetics in the past,

but were found to be too toxic. “All of them dissolve the fatty layer of the skin and can cause dermatitis” 30.

One of the most toxic chlorinated hydrocarbons is carbon tetrachloride (Carbon tetrachloride is related to the

compound Tetrachloroethylene which was present in the wells neighboring American Thermostat), “it can be

absorbed through the skin and exposure to small amounts can cause severe liver and kidney damage, exposure

to larger amounts can cause unconsciousness and death, especially if alcoholic beverages are ingested” 30.

In 1996 a Remedial Action Plan was developed, which included installing carbon filtering systems to protect

the drinking water sources and remove contaminants. In 1999, further remedial actions were taken, including

capping a debris pile; demolishing a chemical storage building; removing contaminated soil; and installing an

air stripper. The original 2005 DEC document that placed Chlorinated Hydrocarbons on BEM’s site was created

as part of a study for evaluating soil vapor intrusion at remedial sites in New York. Vapor intrusion refers to the

process by which volatile chemicals move from a subsurface source into the indoor air of overlying or adjacent

buildings. The subsurface source can either be contaminated groundwater or contaminated soil which releases

vapors into the pore spaces in the soil 31. In 2006 the NYS DEC published a program policy for Evaluating Soil

Vapor Intrusion at Remedial Sites in New York, its outline policy being “soil vapor intrusion pathways will be

evaluated at all contaminated sites in New York. This includes sites that are currently being reviewed under one

of the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) remedial programs which include sites that are

reviewed in the future as well as sites where remedial decisions have already been made” 32. Evaluation priority

for past sites was placed upon those sites where CVOCs (chlorinated volatile organic compounds) were disposed

of or detected in soil or groundwater.

As of January, 2013 the EPA has deemed BMT’s Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Status to be complete. Recently,

the site has been determined to contain hot spots, stated Durham Town Supervisor William Carr Jr. to the

Greene County News. The site is currently approved for restricted uses, and serves as a warehouse for Tip Top

Furniture. Tip Top Furniture owner and local resident Kenneth Dudley currently owns the property through the

Michael J. Quill Irish Cultural and Sports Centre. On the topic of BMT’s potential, Kenneth Dudley stated that “he

would be open to various uses, including retail” 28.

The American Thermostat Company (ATC) is located on route 23B in South Cairo, New York, approximately ten

miles southeast of East Durham. ATC covers about eight acres of land and was in operation from 1954 to 1985

assembling thermostats for small appliances. Additions were made to the original structure from the mid 1950’s

30 McCann, Michael P. (1994). Health Hazards of Solvents. Health Hazards Manual for Artists, 4th edition. Lyons and Burford. Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.uic.edu/sph/glakes/harts1/HARTS_library/solventhazards.txt

31 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (2013). Division of Environmental Remediation 2012/2013 Annual Report. NYS Division of Environmental Remediation. 625 Broadway #7, Albany NY 12207. Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/derannualreport.pdf

32 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (2006). Strategy For Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion at Remedial Sites in New York. NYS Division of Environmental Remediation. 625 Broadway #7, Albany NY 12207. Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/der13.pdf

28 Adams, K. (2013). Becker cleanup at an end?. The Daily Mail, Greene County, NY. Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/registerstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/a/65/a65f7dc0-8b9c-11e2-8ef0-0019bb2963f4/51400b2cdab8c.pdf.pdf

40

through 1981 in order to meet increased production demands. In March 1981 a local resident observed two ATC

employees dumping solvents on plant property, this triggered investigations into the company’s waste handling

practices by the NYS DEC and the New York State Attorney General’s Office. An investigation yielded proof that

workers had been pouring waste organic solvents down drains attached to an abandoned septic system for a

number of years, while also dumping solvents and sludges onto the parking lot. According to the toxicological

review, surrounding residential wells showed the presence of Trichloroethlene (TCE) and Tetrachloroethylene

(PCE).

TCE is a nonflammable, colorless liquid used mainly as a solvent to remove grease from metal parts, but is

also an ingredient in adhesives and paint removers. PCE is a manufactured chemical that is used for metal-

degreasing and to make other chemicals that can be found in some consumer products. “Drinking small

amounts of trichloroethylene for long periods may cause liver and kidney damage, impaired immune system

function, and impaired fetal development in pregnant women”, “Drinking large amounts of trichloroethylene

may cause nausea, liver damage, unconsciousness, impaired heart function, or death” 33. The consumption of

PCE as a liquid can cause “developmental (effects during periods when organs are developing), Neurological

(Nervous System), and Respiratory (From the Nose to the Lungs) failure, these effects are primarily seen in

infants. According to the EPA, “Because of its relatively low aqueous solubility, it is not likely that volatilized

tetrachloroethylene will enter surface or rain water. However, it has been detected in drinking water, ground

water, and surface water. Most of this contamination is probably due to release in water following industrial use” 33.

In May 1981 NYS issued an advisory to approximately 5,000 residents living within 3 miles of the site, advising

them not to drink or cook with their well water. In 1983 under a consent order from NYS, ATC installed and

periodically monitored carbon filters on contaminated residential wells while also providing bottled drinking

water to affected residents. In May 1985 ATC was forced to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and ceased compliance

with the consent order. Owners of ATC and shareholders of the ARMO Reality Corporation (ARMO leased

the South Cairo property to ATC), David and Harry Moskowitz, were sued by their insurers for inadequate

notification and liability fraud; by South Cairo community members for endangering the health of local

residents; and by NYS for violations of federal CERCLA laws 34.

In August 1985, NYS requested that The EPA sample other private wells near the site; provide bottled water and

carbon filtration systems where necessary; and take over the maintenance of the water treatment systems at

the originally affected homes. In addition to undertaking the work requested by the State, the EPA also installed

three air stripping systems at the site. A system of seven extraction and reinjection wells, and a soil vacuum

extraction system were installed at the site in 1989 for the purpose of accelerating the treatment of the ground

water 35.In November 1987 the EPA completed a focused feasibility study that identified 13 potential remedial

alternatives. A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in 1988, identifying the selected alternative of extending

33 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Toxicological Review of Tetrachloroethylene (Perchlororthylene). U.S Environemntal Protection Agency. Washington D.C.. Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0106tr.pdf

34 936 F. 2d 1420 (1991). State of New York v. Amro Realty Corporation. Legal, Inc.. Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.leagle.com/decision/19901577745FSupp832_11455.xml/STATE%20OF%20NEW%20YORK%20v.%20AMRO%20REALTY%20CORP.

35 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2014). American Thermostat Company Five Year Review. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/americanthermostat/

41

the existing Catskill water district pipeline to the affected residents of South Cairo. A second ROD was signed

in 1990, selecting a cleanup remedy for the site itself. The decontamination of the building was completed

in December 1992, the soil cleanup was completed in December 1996 and the construction of the ground

water extraction and treatment system was completed in August 1998. In October 2008, the State assumed

responsibility for its operation and maintenance. Under Superfund, the EPA conducts reviews every five years

to ensure that the implemented clean up at sites are functioning as intended and continue to be protective of

human health and the environment 35. The property is currently privately owned, and unoccupied.

Star Synthetic Manufacturing (SSM) is located on Route 67A in East Durham, NY, approximately 1.2 miles from

East Durham’s town center. SSM was established in 1949 and is classified as a Yarn Spinning Mill by the North

American Industry Classification System (NAICS Code 313111) 36. SSM is approximately 22,600 square feet and

was formerly owned and operated by George and Lieselotte Stengel. While numbers vary from source to source,

at SSM’s peak, the company employed approximately 21 employees with an annual revenue ranging from $3.5 to

$4.9 million.

SSM can be more broadly classified within the Textile Mills sector, which is defines as “companies that

transform a basic fiber (natural or synthetic) into a product that is further manufactured into a useable items.

The main processes in this sector include preparation and spinning of fiber, knitting or weaving of fabric, and

the finishing of the textile” 37. SSM was known for producing high quality twine cord, macramé cord, hemp

twine, and leather cord. While no official contract or point of sale document was located, SSM was known for

producing rope for NASA in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Tracey Martin of the Regional Foodbank on Liedelotte Stengel,

“of the many knitted creations she made for me, including a pillow made with some of the fiber made in the

factory, that’s our claim to fame; our rope was chosen by NASA to go to the moon” 38.

SSM is currently owned by Keith Ridges, but has not been a fully functional textile mill in more than twenty

years. It is difficult to speculate about the existence of potential contamination on SSM’s site. The process and

potential waste/emissions that result from the production of synthetic rope and leather products greatly change

based on the types of materials, equipment, and spinning methods that are used in the production process. This

site would be recommended as a candidate for further investigation.

The Shannon View Inn (SVI) is located on Route 145 in the heart of East Durham, NY and is presently vacant. In

the past, it was a tavern with rooms that also had residential cottages on its perimeter. SVI was operated, and is

still owned by local resident and musician Mathew M. Talty. Like many local bars, hotels, and resorts, Talty was

forced to close SVI due to a decrease in tourism which many local establishments relied upon.

35 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2014). American Thermostat Company Five Year Review. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/americanthermostat/

36 New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (2012). NAICS Codes for Principal Business Activity for New York State Tax Purposes. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/publications/general/pub910.pdf

37 NAICS Association (2015). NAICS Codes Descriptions. NAICS Association. Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://www.naics.com/naics-code-description/?code=313110

38 Cunningham, A.J. (2014). Lieselotte L.”Charlotte” Stengel:Condolences. A.J. Cunningham Funerals Home Inc. Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://ajcunninghamfh.com/tribute/details/310/Lieselotte_Stengel/condolences.html

42

In March of 2008 owner Mathew Talty submitted a site plan application (SPR08-03) to the Durham Town

Board for review and approval. On April 1st 2008 the Durham Town Board reviewed the plan which proposed

a rehabilitation of the site, Mr. Talty “would like to remove the unsafe part of the structure and convert the

remaining building into sixteen apartments. He has proposed to do this in two phases, eight apartments at a

time” 39. All of the apartments were planned to be one-bedroom with handicap accessible apartments on the first

floor and fire escapes in the back for the second floor. At the time Talty was working with government agencies

to receive the proper permits and licenses which were not outlined in the Minutes from the meeting. It was

recommended that the board bring in an outside engineer to represent them in the review of the application,

Talty would be responsible for the costs of the engineer. On June 17, 2008 the Town Board of Durham “reviewed

the construction plans from the Shannon View Apartments Site Plan Application and set a public hearing for

July 1 at 7:00” 39. On July 1st, 2008 Matthew Talty reviewed the project with the Town Board of Durham. All

five board members approved the plans with the knowledge that “water approval was still pending from the

Department of Health on the existing well and suggested filtration system” 39.

The July 1st, 2008 Durham Town Board meeting was the last one in which Mr.Talty or the Shannon View Inn

were a topic of discussion. As of April, 2015 there has been no demolition or development of structures on the

property. Mr.Talty was not able to be reached regarding where SVI was in the rehabilitation process. I spoke

with local resident and neighboring business owner John Quirk, who was initially excited about the business

he would acquire with an apartment complex being developed next to his general store. He was aware of the

project, but did not have any knowledge on its current status, or the factors that halted the rehabilitation process.

The Durham Town Board documents presented three plausible hindrances in the rehabilitation of SVI; one

being the removal of “the unsafe part of the structure”; the second being the additional costs (minimal in

comparison to the overall project) of an engineer to review the plans; and the third, and most likely scenario

being the Department of Health’s approval of the existing wells and filtration system. No current plans for

development or rehabilitation of SVI have been made available to the public. This site would be recommended as

a candidate for further investigation.

Residents who responded to the survey demonstrated a vague, but present knowledge of what constituted a

brownfield. While they were able to identify brownfields in their community, they lacked the understanding of

why these sites were harming the community, and lacked confidence that they will be remediated/developed in

the near future. In the case of ATC an EPA official stated that “The residents that have shown the most interest

and concern about the site are mostly those residents with contaminated wells” 40. Both ATC and BEM were

identified and addressed as a result of an imminent health threat to the community, not necessarily because they

were “brownfields”. SVI and SSM provided examples of sites that have remained unoccupied and unused. They

have not posed a documented health threat to the public, nor have they attracted local investment. Unless these

sites present a serious health threat or a distinct economic opportunity, factors such as strained economies,

limited municipal capacity, sparse brownfield experience, and lack of incentive for development will continue to

prolong rural communities from addressing centrally located sites like SVI and SSM.

39 Kohrs, Chris (2008). Minutes of the workshop of the Town Board of the Town of Durham. A.J. The Town Board of Durham, NY. Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://www.durhamny.com/departments/town-clerk/town-board-minutes/2008/131-apr-01-2008-tb-minutes/file.html

40 United States Environmental Protesction Agency, Region 2 (1983). EPA Superfund Record of Decision: American Thermostat Company. U.S. Environmental Protection Agecy Region 2. Retreived on April 13, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/0201350c.pdf

43

Planning Tools

The growing inventory of

tax-fore-closed and underutilized

properties in economically distressed

areas is reducing tax revenues, placing

additional strains on the delivery

of public services and destabilizing

neighborhoods. When multiple

brownfield sites are concentrated in

a specific area, they are connected

not just by proximity, but also often

by environmental conditions and

infrastructure, which together limit

the environmental health, and

economic and social prosperity of

their surroundings. Rather than

addressing brownfield sites one by

one, an area-wide approach provides

an opportunity to systematically

consider the challenges related to

multiple brownfields and incorporate

site-specific assessment and cleanup

into larger community revitalization

efforts. An area-wide planning process

enables a community to develop a

shared vision for revitalization within

the project area, strategize the best way

to implement that vision, and more

efficiently remediate and

reuse brownfield sites to help

reverse disinvestment 41.

After reviewing the socio-economic

characteristics of Greene County;

planning goals and initiatives of

Greene County; surveyed responses

and site history of identified sites

within and around the Town of

Durham; and NYS policy and

programs, this paper will recommend

a three tool area-wide brownfield

remediation approach to aid in

stabilizing decentralized and

economically depressed rural towns

within Greene County. The proposed

area-wide approach will be comprised

of a land bank, land trusts, and

regulatory oversight/coordination.

The following sections of this paper

will identify each of these tools, and

highlight specific examples of how

each tool is currently being used in

brownfield remediation. In addition

the following sections will highlight

how Greene County could use each of

these tools to complement one another

in order to address brownfields at the

county level.

41 United States Environemtnal Protection Agency (2014). Brownfields: Area-Wide Planning Pilots. U.S. Environmental Protection Agecy. Washington D.C.. Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pdfs/EPA_OBLR_AWP_Report_v4_508.pdf

44

A land bank is a governmental or nonprofit authority created to acquire, maintain, and stabilize vacant,

abandoned, and tax-delinquent properties while working with other entities to promote the productive reuse of

the property 42. The traditional function of a land bank is the ability to streamline tax foreclosure proceedings

and clear title to property that reverted to public ownership 43. This function allows communities to plan for the

reuse of properties that previously were difficult to acquire and redevelop, and to protect neighborhoods from

the blight and decline associated with tax-foreclosed or underutilized properties. Some properties acquired

through a traditional land bank may be contaminated, these properties need to be assessed and contamination

needs to be cleaned up before the property can be reused. Because many of these brownfield sites are located

in areas with depressed property values, the cost of remediation and redevelopment can be greater than the

expected resale value. When dealing with brownfield sites, traditional land banks may select only the most

marketable sites for remediation and redevelopment. Private and public developers’ avoidance of the lowest

market value parcels typically excludes disadvantaged neighborhoods from programs aimed at redeveloping

brownfields and creates the potential for widening the existing inequalities between disadvantaged and better-

off neighborhoods.

Most land banks will hold onto a property from 3-5 years, and will consider their work to be done once

properties have been returned to private ownership 44. What happens to these lands and buildings later on is

typically outside of the land bank’s regulatory reach. Affordability is left to the marketplace; upkeep is left to

the new owners; and occupancy is dependent upon the owners’ ability to meet monthly mortgage payments.

The future use of the property is usually beyond the scope of the land banks mission. Mixed-income housing

or mixed-use development may have been the original plan for a parcel of land released from the land banks

inventory; and the project might actually have been built. Years later, however, if the neighborhood improves

and real estate values rise, lower incomes and lower uses are likely to be squeezed out 44.

In the past, local governments have been reluctant to acquire the title to contaminated properties because of

concerns over legal liability and financial implications. A national study in the year 2000 produced only eight

examples of land banks that had the organizational structure to address brownfield redevelopment, with only

the Louisville/Jefferson County Landbank actually focusing on brownfield redevelopment 45. However, it is

42 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011). Land Revitalization Fact Sheet (Land Banking). EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC 20460. Retrieved on March 31, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/landrevitalization/download/fs_land_banking.pdf

43 Cleveland, Ohio Department of Economic Development (2005). Best Practices in Land Bank Operation. The Great Lakes Environmental Finance Center and Cleveland State University. Retrieved on March 31, 2015 from http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/conplan/foreclosure/pdf/bplbopsbest.pdf

44 Davis, John Emmeus (2012). The Untapped Potential of Land Bank/Land Trust Partnerships. Shelter Force Weekly. Retrieved on March 28, 2015 from http://www.housingalliancepa.org/sites/default/files/resources/Land_Bank-Land_Trust.pdf

45 Leigh, Nancy Green (2000). Promoting More Equitable Brownfield Redevelopment: Promising Approaches for Land Banks and Other Community Land Development Entities. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Land Banks

45

46 METRO (2012). Regional Brownfield Scoping Project: Final Report. Maul Foster & Alongi Inc. 2001 NW 19th Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97209.

47 Ashton, David (2015).Port of Portland Testimony in Support of HB 2734. House Committee on Rural Communities, Land Use and Water: Public Hearing on HB 2734.

48 CenterState CEO (2014).New York State Land Banks: Combating Blight and Vacancy in New York Communities. CenterState CEO. Retrieved on March 28, 2015 from http://app.albanycounty.com/landbank/pdf/2014_NYS_Land_Banks_report.pdf

becoming more common for municipalities to create land banks with the intention and capabilities of acquiring

these properties as part of a larger redevelopment effort.

In 2012 Portland, Oregon’s Metro Brownfields Scoping Project identified a public land bank as a powerful tool

in brownfield redevelopment and community revitalization. Portland METRO identified that a land bank would

need initial capitalization in order to acquire a portfolio of properties and for early financial support, but should

achieve financial self-sufficiency within the first five to ten years of operation 46. METRO also notes that setting

up a land bank to acquire contaminated brownfields would shield a local government’s general fund from

otherwise potentially open-ended and expensive liabilities associated with contamination 47.

In 2011, NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the NYS Land Bank Act into law. The act authorizes the initial

creation of up to ten land banks throughout the state, with priority given to counties with high vacancy and

tax foreclosure rates 48. A three year assessment was released in 2014, showing the progress of the 9 existing

land banks in the state. The Suffolk County land bank had requested and received funds for Phase I and Phase

II environmental assessments for brownfields as part of a larger redevelopment effort. Additionally, the

Chautauqua County land bank, the Newburgh land bank, and the Broome County land bank have all utilized

outlets of funding in order to address brownfield properties in accordance with NYS law and regulation.

46

44 Davis, John Emmeus (2012). The Untapped Potential of Land Bank/Land Trust Partnerships. Shelter Force Weekly. Retrieved on March 28, 2015 from http://www.housingalliancepa.org/sites/default/files/resources/Land_Bank-Land_Trust.pdf

49 Whitaker, Stephen and Fitzpatrick, Thomas J (2012). The Impact of Vacant, Tax-Delinquent, and Foreclosed Property on Sales Prices of Neighboring Homes. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. 1455 E 6th St, Cleveland, OH 044114. Retrieved on March 28, 2015 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1935510

50 Davis, John Emmeus (2007). Starting A Community Land Trust (Organizational and Operational Choices). Burlington Associates in Community Development. P.O. Box 994 Burlington, Vermont 05402. Retrieved on March 28, 2015 from http://community-wealth.org/content/starting-community-land-trust-organizational-and-operational-choices

Brownfield sites tend to remain reserved by the owner in fear that development or sale of the land will unearth

real contamination rather than perceived contamination. Property owners will pay yearly property tax on a

parcel of land to ensure no further costs accumulate as a byproduct of triggering remediation. These properties

tend to be exempt from the foreclosure process, but still deemed as vacant. Vacancy is closely related to

foreclosure, but distinct in important ways. A home that has been foreclosed upon will be vacant immediately

after the foreclosure but the vacancy may be temporary, as the property is auctioned off to a new owner, or

to a bank, or to an investor who usually try to find a new owner. Vacancy is distinct from foreclosure in that a

property is vacant when it is not being occupied, which is not a result of foreclosure in the vast majority of

cases 44. Land banks can be used to addressed foreclosures, however, vacant properties that have not entered

into the foreclosure process tend to be outside of a land banks regulatory reach.

The following statistics show the impact that vacant, foreclosed and/or delinquent property can have on

surrounding property values 49:

• A vacant or delinquent property can lower property values within 500 feet by 2.1% ;

• A vacant and delinquent property can lower property values by 2.7%;

• A foreclosed (not delinquent or vacant) can lower property values by 3.9%;

• A foreclosed and vacant or delinquent property can lower property values by 6.1% ;

• A foreclosed, vacant and delinquent property can lower property values by 9.4%;

Community land trusts are a tool being used to address these properties. Land trusts are nonprofit corporations

created and controlled by local residents. Lands acquired by a community land trust through a gift or by

purchase are retained by the land trust forever. Because of their non-profit status, gifts or donations to land

trusts are tax-deductible which provides incentives for landowners to donate the property. Any buildings

already on the land or later constructed on the land are sold off and the owners of these buildings gain exclusive

use of the underlying land through a long-term ground lease. The lease will usually include restrictions over

the use and resale of all buildings, granting the land trust a lasting right to regulate how these buildings are

operated, owned, improved, and conveyed 50.

In 2007 the Center for Public Environmental Oversight (CPEO) noted that communities have repeatedly stated

that they want to initiate, influence, and in some cases, act as a developers for brownfield projects in their

Land Trusts

47

neighborhoods. Traditionally, community land trusts have not been active in acquiring brownfield sites for fear

of liability 51. However, there have been an increasing number of cases in which community land trusts have

initiated in brownfield acquisition and remediation in order to spur clustered development and investment in

struggling neighborhoods while maintaining affordability.

In 1995 the Sawmill Community Land Trust (SCLT) of Albuquerque, New Mexico, lobbied the city to purchase

and release a centrally located 27 acre brownfield site for the purpose of creating affordable housing, improving

the economy, and preserving the environment and local culture. The property was eventually purchased by the

city and the redevelopment plan was awarded to the SCLT 52. A more aggressive approach of a community land

trust can be found within the neighborhoods of Roxbury and North Dorchester, Massachusetts. In 1988 a small

group of residents from the Dudley Street neighborhood of Boston created a comprehensive redevelopment

plan for their blighted neighborhood, and formed the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative. Shortly after they

formed a community land trust, Dudley Neighbors Incorporated (DNI), to address the abundant stock of vacant

housing in the area. What makes DNI unique is that they are the only community-based nonprofit organization

in the country to have been granted eminent domain in order to address these properties 53.

Finally, Scenic Hudson provides a local example of a land trust that has been actively engaged in brownfield

redevelopment. Through grants and donations, Scenic Hudson analyzes Hudson River cities to assess the

potential reuse of brownfield properties as an economic stimulant and greenspace preservation technique. In

addition, Scenic Hudson provides professional staff and access to resources for establishing new parklands; use

pedestrian and conservation easements to reduce property acquisition costs; and have helped form additional

partnerships with non-profits, municipalities and state agencies in order to address brownfield properties in

these communities 45.

51 Hersh, Robert (2007). Cleaning up Brownfields through Community Land Trusts. Center for Public Environmental Oversight. Retrieved on April 14, 2015 from http://cpeo.org/pubs/CLT.pdf

52 Albuquerque Affordable Housing Coalition (2015). About Sawmill Community Land Trust. Albuquerque Affordable Housing Coalition. PO Box 27612 Albuquerque NM, 87125-7612. Retrieved on April 14, 2015 from http://www.albuquerqueaffordablehousingcoalition.org/images/Sawmill_CLT_History_CLT_model.pdf

53 Harper, David (2012). The Community Land Trusts: Affordable Access To Land And Housing. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. P.O. Box 30030, 00100 Nairobi GPO Kenya.

45 Leigh, Nancy Green (2000). Promoting More Equitable Brownfield Redevelopment: Promising Approaches for Land Banks and Other Community Land Development Entities. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

48

54 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2010). Brownfields Area-Wide Planning Pilot Program. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC 20460. Retrieved on March 28, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/grants/epa-oswer-oblr-10-05.pdf

55 Wernstedt, Kris, Heberle, Lauren, Alberini, Anna, and Meyer, Peter (2004). The Brownfields Phenomenon: Much Ado about Something or the Timing of the Shrewd? Resources for the Future. 1616 P Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036. Retrieved on March 29, 2015 from http://www.rff.org/documents/rff-dp-04-46.pdf

Regulatory oversight/coordination is the final and most influential aspect of the highlighted three tool area-wide

brownfield remediation approach. The Greene County Department of Planning and Economic Development

(GCPED) would be recommended as the lead agency that coordinates an area-wide planning initiative, capital

funding and grant applications, as well as the agency that provides oversight to the proposed land bank/land

trust partnership throughout the county.

In 2010 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded grant funding to 23 recipients

including five non-profit organizations, one tribe, one regional planning council and 16 local governments 54. The grants were awarded through the Brownfield Area-Wide Planning (BF AWP) pilot program, the goal

of which was to enable a community to develop a shared vision for the revitalization within the project area,

strategize the best way to implement that vision, and more efficiently remediate and reuse brownfield sites to

help reverse disinvestment 54. An area-wide brownfields approach allows for the opportunity to achieve greater

project efficiencies and economies of scale. This would apply to both infrastructure costs occurred during

redevelopment and risk-sharing opportunities spread among multiple sites during the remediation process.

Financing brownfield redevelopment is a task of its own, with most financing from banks and private

investment usually being limited to large projects, established borrowers, and projects with high rates of return.

There is a financing gap when it comes to low-to-no market value properties, a gap which can be filed through

public sector programs, but often fall to the wayside as rural counties have limited means and staff to acquire

these funding opportunities.

Local governments have used a variety of tools to encourage private investment in redevelopment such as Tax

Increment Financing (TIF) and tax abatements. However, undertaking the redevelopment of multiple small

brownfield properties in a coordinated fashion can be financially attractive for both the public and for private

developers. For the public, the cumulative effects of redeveloping multiple properties can increase property

values, tax revenues, and other community benefits over an entire neighborhood. For private developers,

increases in property values over a neighborhood may increase the expected market price for new housing to

a high enough level that a developer will take on a new project. Assuming there are not sufficiently high market

rates, anticipated public benefits may justify subsidies that reduce investment risks and provide the developer

with an acceptable rate of return 55.

Regulatory Oversight and Coordination

49

56 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Brownfields Area-Wide Planning Program Fact Sheet. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC 20460. Retrieved on April 15, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/grant_info/AWP-factsheet-July-2012.pdf

Additionally, an area-wide approach would give brownfield identification, remediation, and redevelopment a

comprehensive and integrated planning framework. The core elements of the EPA’s BF AWP program create

a framework that GCPED could use to facilitate coordination and oversight among existing organizations,

stakeholders, and local communities. The main elements of the BF AWP include 56:

• Collecting information and identifying community priorities related to brownfields cleanup and

near-and long-term revitalization;

• Evaluating existing environmental conditions, local market potential, and needed

infrastructure improvements;

• Developing strategies for brownfields site cleanup and reuse;

• Identifying resources or leveraging opportunities to help implement the plans, including specific

strategies for public and private sector investments and improvements necessary to help with

cleanup and area revitalization.

Community Engagement

Partnerships

Brownfield Site Prioritzation

Brownfields Area-Wide Plan with Implementation Strategies

Existing Conditions

Infrastructure Analysis

Market Study

Implementation

50

Finally, GCPED would be recommended to provide direct oversight and coordination among the proposed land

bank/land trust partnership. Greene County does not have a land bank program, however, the county does have

three non-profit land trusts including the Greene land trust; the Catskill Center land trust; and the Durham

Valley land trust. Coordination between the recommended land bank and any existing or newly formed land

trusts is a key component of the proposed area-wide brownfield remediation approach.

A land bank/land trust partnership in Greene County would allow for the existing land trusts to focus less on

acquiring their next piece of property, and more so on taking care of their existing properties. The newly formed

land bank would be able to support the existing missions of the land trusts, which would directly impact the

common goals found in the planning document review analysis of Greene County earlier in this paper. Rather

than exposing a foreclosed property to public auction, the land bank would be able to either acquire the property

or give first priority to the land trusts. Land trusts would also be able to address the vacant properties, especially

properties that are being withheld from the market over fear of contamination by the owner. The land trusts

would be able to control the future use of the land and maintain the land to ensure vacancy rates decrease, thus

increasing surrounding property values.

Remediating centrally located brownfield sites in order to create anchor projects could also spur interest

and development in the towns and hamlets of Greene County. A land bank/land trust partnership would

alleviate the concerns of land trusts when purchasing or retaining contaminated sites, instead they will be

able to shift their focus to a stewardship role for these newly acquired properties. A land bank would allow for

coordinated development of brownfield and non-brownfield sites, moving past the traditional property-by-

property approach and towards revitalization on an area-wide scale. With coordinated oversight from GCPED,

communities would be able to take advantage of the opportunities provided by brownfields and preserve desired

land uses indefinitely.

51

Conclusion

52

A lack of awareness and understanding regarding brownfields is pervasive in rural America. These commonly

identified, centrally located sites can be found in throughout rural communities, often in the form of abandoned

buildings or rubble-strewn fields. Factors hindering brownfield identification and remediation in rural settings

include remote locations; high costs of redeveloping brownfields as compared to developing greenfields; a lack

of funds and expertise; the absence of a formal self-help network; and the desire to maintain the characteristics

that define rural America.

Greene County, New York, offers an example of an aging rural economy that formed as an early industrial center

for Northeastern production. Over time Greene County has reinvented itself as a tourism destination, leading to

increased automobile reliance and further decentralization of older communities in order to preserve the rural

ideals of the Catskill Region. As tourism numbers have declined, this form of development has led to community

disinvestment; high vacancy rates; a competition for service, sales, and production jobs; and residents without

reliable transportation being cut off from community services and educational opportunities.

By expanding upon the traditional definition of a brownfield, residents of Durham were able to identify several

centrally located, vacant sites, which would be ideal candidates for redevelopment efforts. On an individual basis

these sites offer little incentive for developers’, and have garnered minimal if any attention from community

leaders and stakeholders. Current NYS Environmental Remediation programs have either reached budgetary

deficits or have been unable to enroll new properties in fear of deficits, leaving few if any opportunities for these

sites to be remediated.

To address these sites and opportunities outlined within the planning documents from Greene County and the

Town of Durham, a three tool area-wide brownfield remediation approach was recommended. Rather than

addressing these sites individually, an area-wide approach provides an opportunity to systematically consider

the challenges related to multiple brownfields and incorporate site-specific assessment and cleanup into larger

community revitalization efforts. A land bank/land trust partnership with oversight and coordination provided

by GCPED would greatly benefit the community by addressing vacant, underutilized, delinquent, and/or

contaminated properties from their initial identification through the final use of the property.

Most likely, this approach would not turn aging rural towns into vibrant centers of industry. What this approach

may do is create targeted infill redevelopment and attention. This could aid in the lack of affordable housing,

or cluster development just enough to justify a bus route from these communities to local hubs like Catskill for

job and educational opportunities. The final take away from this study is that rural communities, more so than

their urban counterparts, need to be more creative, more innovative, and ever adapting in order to foster a high

quality of life for their residents while maintaining what gives these communities the identifiable uniqueness

that has spurred many of the obstacles that face them today.

53

Work Cited

636 So. 2d 700, 37 ERC 1006 (Fla. 1993). Dimmitt Chevrolet, Inc. V. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Company. Case Briefs LLC.

Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-epstein/the-institution-of-insurance/dimmitt-chevrolet-inc-v-southeastern-fidelity-insurance-corp/

936 F. 2d 1420 (1991). State of New York v. Amro Realty Corporation. Legal, Inc..Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.leagle.com/decision/19901577745FSupp832_11455.xml/STATE%20OF%20NEW%20YORK%20v.%20AMRO%20REALTY%20CORP.

Adams, K. (2013). Becker cleanup at an end?. The Daily Mail, Greene County, NY. Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/registerstar.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/a/65/a65f7dc0-8b9c-11e2-8ef0-0019bb2963f4/51400b2cdab8c.pdf.pdf

Albuquerque Affordable Housing Coalition (2015). About Sawmill Community Land Trust. Albuquerque Affordable Housing Coalition. PO Box 27612 Albuquerque, NM 87125-7612.

Retrieved on April 14, 2015 from http://www.albuquerqueaffordablehousingcoalition.org/images/Sawmill_CLT_History_CLT_model.pdf

Alker, Sandra V.J. (2000), 49. The Definition of Brownfield. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Volume 43 Issue.

Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cjep20/43/1#.VSl_KvnF98E

Amoroso, Frank L. et al. (2006). New York Environmental Law Handbook. Government Institutes, an Imprint of the Scarecrow Press, Inc. PO Box 317 Oxford OX2 9RU.

Ashton, David (2015). Port of Portland Testimony in Support of HB 2734. House Committee on Rural Communities, Land Use and Water: Public Hearing on HB 2734.

Brace, H. (1884). History of Greene County New York with Biographical Sketches of Prominent Men. New York: J.B. Beers and Co.

Bureau, U.S. (2015). American Fact Finder. Retrieved on February 25, 2015 from factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

Biblow, Charlotte A. (2015). Brownfields Cleanup Program at a Crossroads. The New York Law Journal.

Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202716346554/Brownfields-Cleanup-Program-at-a-Crossroads

CenterState CEO (2014). New York State Land Banks: Combating Blight and Vacancy in New York Communities. CenterState CEO.

Retrieved on March 28, 2015 from http://app.albanycounty.com/landbank/pdf/2014_NYS_Land_Banks_report.pdf

Cleveland, Ohio Department of Economic Development (2005). Best Practices in Land Bank Operation. The Great Lakes Environmental Finance Center and Cleveland State University.

Retrieved on March 31, 2015 from http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/conplan/foreclosure/pdf/bplbopsbest.pdf

54

Conservation, T.D. (2005). List of Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites With Pre-2003 Remedial Decisions. Department of Environmental Conservation.

Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/vaporlist.pdf

Cunningham, A.J. (2014). Lieselotte L.”Charlotte” Stengel:Condolences. A.J. Cunningham Funerals Home Inc.

Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://ajcunninghamfh.com/tribute/details/310/Lieselotte_Stengel/condolences.html

Davis, John Emmeus (2007). Starting A Community Land Trust (Organizational and Operational Choices). Burlington Associates in Community Development. P.O. Box 994 Burlington, Vermont 05402.

Retrieved on March 28, 2015 from http://community-wealth.org/content/starting-community-land-trust-organizational-and-operational-choices

Davis, John Emmeus (2012). The Untapped Potential of Land Bank/Land Trust Partnerships. Shelter Force Weekly.

Retrieved on March 28, 2015 from http://www.housingalliancepa.org/sites/default/files/resources/Land_Bank-Land_Trust.pdf

DiNapoli, Thomas P. (2013). 1.Brownfield Restoration in New York State: Program Review and Options. Office of the State Comptroller. 110 State Street, Albany, New York 12236.

Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/environmental/brownfields_restoration13.pdf

Durham, T.O. (2006). The Town of Durham Draft Comprehensive Plan. Document Retrieved February 20, 2015, from http://www.planningbetterplaces.com/client_files/durham/Durham%20profile%20with%20edits4.pdf

Durham, T. o. (2014). History. The Town of Durham, New York. Retrieved on March 15, 2015 from http://www.durhamny.com/history.html

Economics, T. (2010). Greene County Tourism Economic Impact Analysis and Strategic Goals. Tourism Economics. 303 W Lancaster Ave. Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087.

Retrieved on March 15, 2015 from http://greenegovernment.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Tourism-Economic-Impact-Analysis-Strategic-Goals-102610.pdf

ERO Resources Corporation (2011). Durham Valley Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan. Unpublished plan prepared on behalf of Durham Valley Scenic Byway Coordinating Committee. ERO Resources, Denver, Colorado.

Frisbie, R. (1996). The Towns of Greene County. Retrieved on March 14, 2015 from http://www.hopefarm.com/greenny2.htm

Greene County Economic Development Corporation (2007). Greene County Comprehensive Economic Development Plan. Document

Retrieved February 18, 2015, from http://www.greenegovernment.com/departments/planning-economic-development

Greene County, N. Y. (2014). Catskill Streams. Catskill Streams. Retrieved on March 25, 2015 from http://catskillstreams.org/

Hall, Tyler (2014). New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program. Syracuse University. 900 South Crouse Avenue Syracuse, NY 13244.

Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/classes/PAI735/studentpapers/2014/Hall.pdf

Harper, David (2012). The Community Land Trusts: Affordable Access To Land And Housing.United Nations Human Settlements Programme. P.O. Box 30030, 00100 Nairobi GPO Kenya.

55

Hasenkopf, S. (2014, 4 18). The Towns - A Timeline. Retrieved on March 15, 2015 from http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nygreen2/townships_timeline.htm

Hersh, Robert (2007). Cleaning up Brownfields through Community Land Trusts. Center for Public Environmental Oversight.

Retrieved on April 14, 2015 from http://cpeo.org/pubs/CLT.pdf

Kohrs, Chris (2008). Minutes of the workshop of the Town Board of the Town of Durham. A.J. The Town Board of Durham, NY.

Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://www.durhamny.com/departments/town-clerk/town-board-minutes/2008/131-apr-01-2008-tb-minutes/file.html

Leigh, Nancy Green (2000). Promoting More Equitable Brownfield Redevelopment: Promising Approaches for Land Banks and Other Community Land Development Entities. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Leip, D. (2014). David Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections . Retrieved on March 18, 2015 from http://uselectionatlas.org/

METRO (2012). Regional Brownfield Scoping Project: Final Report. Maul Foster & Alongi Inc. 2001 NW 19th Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97209.

McCann, Michael P. (1994). Health Hazards of Solvents. Health Hazards Manual for Artists, 4th edition. Lyons and Burford.

Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.uic.edu/sph/glakes/harts1/HARTS_library/solventhazards.txt

NAICS Association (2015). NAICS Codes Descriptions. NAICS Association. Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://www.naics.com/naics-code-description/?code=313110

National Association of Development Organizations Research Foundation. (2001). Reclaiming Rural America’s Brownfields:Alternatives to Abandoned Property. Washington D.C.

Retrieved on March 18, 2015 from http://wrdc.usu.edu/files/publications/publication/pub__818940.pdf

New York Developers Brownfield Alliance (2014). 33. New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program. Redevelopment Economics. 2414 Ken Oak Road Baltimore, MD 21209.

NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (2006).6 NYCRR Part 375: Environmental Remediation Programs. NYS Division of Environmental Remediation. 625 Broadway #7 Albany, NY 12207.

NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (2006). Strategy For Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion at Remedial Sites in New York. NYS Division of Environmental Remediation. 625 Broadway #7, Albany NY 12207.

Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/der13.pdf

NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (2013). Division of Environmental Remediation 2012/2013 Annual Report. NYS Division of Environmental Remediation. 625 Broadway #7 Albany, NY 12207.

Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/derannualreport.pdf

NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (2015). Environmental Restoration Program. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. 625 Broadway #7 Albany, NY 12207.

Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8444.html

New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (2012). NAICS Codes for Principal Business Activity for New York State Tax Purposes. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.

Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/publications/general/pub910.pdf

56

Odess, J. (NA). The Susquehanna Turnpike. Delaware County: Delaware County Historical Association. Retrieved March 14, 2015 from http://www.dcha-ny.org/turnpike.pdf

Oshinsky, Jerold and Howard, Theodore A. (1998). 474. Practitioner’s Guide to Litigating Insurance Coverage Actions (Second Edition). Aspen Publishers. 103 John F Jennedy Parkway Short Hills, NJ

River Street Planning and Development (2008). Greene County Housing Action Plan: A Plan for Housing. Document

Retrieved February 18, 2015, from http://greenegovernment.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FINALGreeneCountyHousingActionPlankthedits1.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2006). Anatomy of Brownfield Redevelopment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.

Retrieved on March 15, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview/anat_bf_redev_101106.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Brownfields Area-Wide Planning Program Fact Sheet. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20460.

Retrieved on April 15, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/grant_info/AWP-factsheet-July-2012.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2010). Brownfields Area-Wide Planning Pilot Program. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20460.

Retrieved on March 28, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/grants/epa-oswer-oblr-10-05.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011). Land Revitalization Fact Sheet (Land Banking). EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20460.

Retrieved on March 31, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/landrevitalization/download/fs_land_banking.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012).State Funding Programs New York’s Clean Water/Clean Air bond Act. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20460.

Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/fund_ny.cfm

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Toxicological Review of Tetrachloroethylene (Perchlororthylene). U.S Environemntal Protection Agency. Washington, DC.

Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0106tr.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2014). American Thermostat Company Five Year Review. United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Retrieved on April 11, 2015 from http://epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/americanthermostat/

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2014). Brownfields: Area-Wide Planning Pilots. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington DC.

Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pdfs/EPA_OBLR_AWP_Report_v4_508.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 (1983). EPA Superfund Record of Decision: American Thermostat Company. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2.

Retrieved on April 13, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/0201350c.pdf

United States Government Accountability Office (2004). Brownfield Redevelopment: Stakeholders Report. U.S. General Accounting Office. 441 G St. NW Washington, DC 20548 : U.S.

57

Wernstedt, Kris, Heberle, Lauren, Alberini, Anna, and Meyer, Peter (2004). The Brownfields Phenomenon: Much Ado about Something or the Timing of the Shrewd? Resources for the Future. 1616 P Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036.

Retrieved on March 29, 2015 from http://www.rff.org/documents/rff-dp-04-46.pdf

Whitaker, Stephen and Fitzpatrick, Thomas J (2012). The Impact of Vacant, Tax-Delinquent, and Foreclosed Property on Sales Prices of Neighboring Homes. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. 1455 E 6th St. Cleveland, OH 044114.

Retrieved on March 28, 2015 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1935510

58

Appendix A: Greene County Planning Goals Matrix

59

60

61