Dear GCC board,

At last nights Rosendale town board meeting, the Rosendale town Attorney Shannon Lafrance met with the attorney representing an adjoining land owner to discuss access to said neighbors property. Apparently the parcel has been deemed landlocked with no access by the town, because of the sale to OSI. This parcel has been in their family for over 200 years and has always had access. The MPNA respectfully requests that since you were instrumental in OSI acquiring that parcel, you also voice you concern over this kind of conduct to OSI, the Rosendale Town Board, and to the Mohonk Preserve who will be acquiring said parcel. Thank You

The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association

I am not on the GCC board, but read this request with some interest. I am not sure why the GCC would be involved in the access issue of another land owner unless it was in the best interests of increasing climber access to a property. There does not appear to have been any unfair or unlawful intent by the GCC nor the court ruling to allow climbing access to said Waterworks property, even if the outcome was to cut off another property. With a many decades old access trail along the base of the Near Trapps suddenly cut off, when it clearly had no impact on the remaining property nor liability, I don't think the climbing community would be very quick to jump on board for you. That said, I do not begrudge anyone doing what they want with their own property, but I would not have gone in that direction personally.

Thank you for at last posting some new information - news, no less...

I for one will consider your request as an individual (I'm not a GCC person), though I'd appreciate more clarity on the complaint - is there no easement of necessity etc.

Tradjunkie,

I will post documents from the Waterworks Parcel as soon as we scan them. There is some interesting information surrounding the sale of this parcel.

Thanks,

The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association

I thought I might summarize what I said before. Lifting the ban on trail access along the base of the Near Trapps would go a long way toward gaining climber sympathy and support for the access issues your other property owner has since the sale of the Waterworks property.

I'm curious - how did this landowner access their land prior to the recent sale? Wasn't it landlocked before? It's not like any roads were closed.

And I'm with tradjunkie on this one. As an individual, I would write a letter to the relevant municipal authority urging accommodation in exchange for say, a letter granting me and my climbing partners transgress permission to those closed x feet of trail at the Nears.

Really. First you (not YOU personally, but other concerned landowners with the same problem that are clearly at the very least, acquaintances) close a common access trail across one of their properties to climbers and now you want OUR help ?

That takes some big nads man.

I respect the owner's right to close their property to access and I have respected that closure from day one, but no way are you getting my help to support you after that action.

I also don't get the point. How did the parcel become "landlocked" after the transfer ? New survey ?

Timbo,

Sorry to hear that you can't see the difference between Kent's apparent issue and that of the MPNA. Do you not support the Mohonk Preserve because Skytop is closed?

on a more on topic note:

We will try and get documents related to the Waterworks Parcel and this particular neighbors access issue up this week. Just curious as to why none of the GCC board members have responded?

I have seen nothing that separates Kent from the MPNA. Kent is a preserve neighbor, as far as I can tell he has (at the least) a loose association with the MPNA, and like it or not, as a self-decreed spokesperson for local landowners, Kent has
turned most climbers against local landowners by claiming to speak for them and then closing access.




The Mohonk Preserve had nothing to do with closing Skytop. That was done by the Mohonk Mountain House, which is neither owned by, controlled by, or affiliated with the Preserve. More importantly, the Preserve did not SUPPORT the Skytop closure as far as I know.

I assume you are drawing a comparison to Kent's closure and your organization. The difference here is that other local landowners SUPPORTED Kent in his access closure and Kent has affiliation with your organization (unless you tell me otherwise), which I assume also supported Kent's closure (again, unless you say otherwise).

TS

Tradjunkie,

Here is what was said at the Rosendale Town board mtg.......

Thanks,

The Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association

http://townofrosendale.com/TBmin2010.cfm

TOWN OF ROSENDALE
TOWN BOARD MEETING
JUNE 9, 2010

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 pm by Supervisor McDonough at the Rosendale Community Center with the Pledge to the Flag.
PRESENT: Councilman Robert Gallagher
Councilwoman Manna Jo Greene
Councilman Kenneth Hassett
Councilman Richard Minissali
Supervisor Patrick McDonough
ALSO PRESENT: Fred Greitzer, Planning Board and ZRC; Terry Johnson, Water/Sewer Superintendent; Perry Soule, Acting Police Chief; Jack Synder, W/S commissioner.
Under Public Comments:
Frank Drake of Morgan-Keator Farm located on Hillcrest Lane off Mountain Rd. wanted to set up an appointment to meet with the Town Board about access to his property. Supervisor McDonough said he would meet with Mr. Drake to talk it over. Karl Wick asked if Mr. Drake wants to meet with the whole board why is the Supervisor talking about a separate meeting between the two of them. Supervisor McDonough said he sometimes meets with people to see if he can help without getting the whole board together. Fred Greitzer suggested that maybe Billy Liggans could be included with the Supervisor and Mr. Drake. Someone had asked what the problem was exactly. Supervisor McDonough stated that Mr. Drake's property was now land locked.