By THANE GRAUEL
On Oct. 24, some three dozen entities that own properties in Scotts Corners will decide whether a water district will be formed largely to address the discovery of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as “forever chemicals,” in the business district.
If the plan passes — which will take a majority of those actually showing up to cast ballots — the water district will be created, and the town’s plan to lay pipe down Westchester Avenue to tie into the Aquarion Water System will move forward.
The topic has been debated not only by those in the proposed district, but townwide. How the vote will turn out is anyone’s guess.
“It’s gonna be close,” Pound Ridge Town Supervisor Kevin Hansan told The Recorder on Thursday. “I’m cautiously optimistic.”
He noted that the area has faced water issues for decades, beginning when a spill occurred from a gas station fuel tank. PFAS, he said, was only likely to get worse.
The estimated $11 million cost of the project would be offset by a $7.5 million state grant to address emerging contaminants. The rest would be divided up between the property owners.
Not a typical vote
Town clerk Erin Trostle said it’s not a typical election. Only 36 votes might be cast out of 39 property owners, and the majority of those are corporate entities.
“It’s a paper ballot, and also because most of the voters are actually corporate entities, they have to designate a voting representative and we’re going to have to retain that documentation, and the documentation has to be linked to the vote,” she said.
A check of the water district boundaries against the town’s geographic information system map, which details property details including owners, shows just a handful of owners with individual names — James Suda, Donna Simons, Scott Fernqvist, and Joseph DiPietro. Other parcels with prominent owners belong to the Town of Pound Ridge, the Pound Ridge Fire District and the Pound Ridge Lions Club.
Less recognizable are two parcels owned by limited partnerships; two by corporations; 23 by limited liability corporations; one by a revocable trust; and one by a family trust.
The election for those stakeholders will be held Thursday, Oct. 24, from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., at the Town House, located at 179 Westchester Ave., Pound Ridge. Two election inspectors, one each from the Democratic and Republican parties, will be on hand.
The vote is for property owners in the proposed water district only. It is not a townwide referendum.
But concerns about the proposal and its possible effects have people outside the district concerned as well.
In small towns, villages and hamlets around Westchester, water issues — a limited fresh supply from wells and a lack of sanitary system hookups for wastewater — have limited development. Many like it that way, and fear any tinkering could bring a cascading effect of development and urbanization.
‘So costly to do it on our own’
The PFAS issue was flagged by the Westchester County Department of Health after the well for DiNardo’s Ristorante Italiano tested positive for PFAS. The business turned to the town for help, and eventually the town called in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. A team from the DEC gave an update on its findings so far at Tuesday’s town board meeting.
Jane Salvi, a co-owner of DiNardo’s, is in favor of the water district. She said they’d been working with engineers and the Department of Health, and having tests for two years, and it has been costly.
They have a plan to install a filtration system if the water district isn’t formed. “But it’s probably triple from what the town told us in their projection,” Salvi said.
“So yes, we want to go with the town,” she said. “It’s so costly to do it on your own.”
She said she knew a few other business owners who were in favor of the plan, but hadn’t talked to them lately.
“I understand people’s frustration, if a business is not required to test it,” she said. “But at the end it’s clean water for everyone. So why not? We’re all drinking it.”
‘Using the PFAS scare’
Simons, who runs an organic farm/business at the far southeastern corner of the proposed district, complained to the DEC about getting only one day’s notice before a town public hearing on the matter. She asked the department to reject the district’s creation.
“I’m being forced to fund this project against my will,” she wrote.
“Only two wells in the main part of town were tested for PFAS,” she said. “This equals only 5 percent of the 39 properties in Scotts Corners. The town board stated that they would be testing all of our wells this summer but they never did.”
“My belief is that the town board is using the PFAS scare as a means to their end goal of developing Scotts Corners,” she said.
John McCown, a former candidate for town supervisor, has been vocal with his concerns about the water district creation in Scotts Corners. He has done his own analysis, which questions the town’s estimates of costs, and whether only those in the water district would actually bear them.
“Multiple property owners have expressed serious concerns over the cost, necessity, and efficiency of the project as proposed,” McCown said in a letter to The Recorder (see Page 6).
“My analysis shows that the total annual operating and debt service costs borne by property owners will be more than double the Town’s representation,” he wrote. “Further, even residents outside the district will pay a cost … at minimum the Fire District’s 3% to 7% share, which is passed on via its property tax surcharge.”