|
Town Board Minutes |
Planning Board Minutes |
Zoning Board Minutes |
REPORT
ON TOWN OF
1.
How would you
rate the quality of the following public services?
Responses % Excellent % Satisfactory % Poor
1-Road Maintenance 440 40.0 52.5 7.5
2-Snow Removal 422 59.5 38.1 2.4
3-Ambulance 301
35.9 59.1 5.0
4-Police 312 28.2 64.7 7.1
5-Fire 317
36.9 60.6 2.5
6-911 206 30.4 63.6 6.0
applicable grants:
even if local property taxes had to be increased, would you like to see trash
collection provided
as a public service in Jewett?
Responses % Yes % No % Maybe
446 17.9 58.8 23.3
3. Whereas the Town of
applicable grants:
even if local property taxes had to be increased, which of the following
recreational facilities,
added or expanded, would you want to see implemented in our town?
Actual
Responses % Yes % No % Maybe
1- Community Center 414 28.0 51.9 20.1
2- Picnic Area 398 27.6 55.3 17.1
3- Ball Field 403
24.1 58.6 17.3
4- Park ( walking
paths, benches, etc.) 408 33.0 50.3 16.7
5- Basketball Court 397
20.9 61.7 17.4
6-Ice Skating Rink 413 32.5 51.3 16.2
4. Would you be interested in attending or volunteering
for any of the following?
Actual
Responses % Attend %
Volunteer
1-
2- Meet the Candidate Day 132 86.4 13.6
3- Town Wide Clean-up Day 171 61.0 39.0
4- Town Wide Garage Sale 200 80.5 19.5
5-
Actual
Responses % Yes % No
358 40.8 59.2
6. If you answered Yes to Question 5, do you
think these regulations are sufficient to guide
future land use
and development?
Actual
Responses % Yes % No
145 73.8 26.2
7. Providing (it) they can be incorporated
without negatively affecting the rural & natural
character of the
Town, how do you feel about the following types of future development?
Actual
Responses % Encouraged % Allowed
% Discouraged
1- Tourism 435 58.3 30.7 11.0
2- Arts & Culture 434 66.1 29.0 4.9
3- Light Industry 403 25.8 28.3 45.9
4-
Second Home Ownership 433
54.0 40.9 5.1
5- Small Retail/Service Business
426 48.0 38.0 14.0
6- Home Occupation 410 41.4 49.3 9.3
7- Senior Citizen/ Retirement 432 41.2 44.9 13.9
Housing
8- Businesses that preserve 416 60.0 33.7 6.3
Agricultural Land & Idle Farm
Buildings
Actual
Responses % More % Same % Less
1- Commercial signs/lights 425 40.5 47.3 12.2
2- Excessive Noise 420 46.2 42.4 11.4
3- Home Occupations 389 17 70.7 12.1
4- Commercial Development 407 44.2 37.1 18.7
5- Timber Harvesting 420 36.7 43.3 20.0
6- Excessive Debris/Junk 436 66.5 15.8 17.7
9. Should the Town consider regulating rental
properties with regard to the following?
Actual
Responses % Yes % No % Maybe
1- Occupancy Limits 442 62.7 22.6 14.7
2- Parking Requirements 433 58.9 22.6 18.5
3- Trash 437 70.0 14.4 17.7
Actual %
% %
Responses Very Important
Important Not Important
1- Drinking Water Quality 456 90.6 8.1 1.3
2- Stream Water Quality 441 82.6 16.3 1.1
3- Stream Erosion & 445 72.1 24.7 3.2
Sedimentation
4- Forest Lands 450 76.7 21.3 2.0
5- Scenic Views 450 76.9 21.1 2.0
6- Farmland 444 62.6 33.3 4.1
7- Open Space 438 63.7 31.3 5.0
8- Historic Buildings 433 64.2 28.9 6.9
9- Compatibility of Buildings 439 64.9 26.9 8.2
with
Rural/Small Town
Character
Summary
of Comments to questions 1,3, & 7, and narrative
questions 11 & 12
Question
1: ROADS- most comments concerned
poor condition or maintenance of County roads,
which
the respondents apparently were unaware are not a Town respon-
sibility.
SNOW REMOVAL- 1 complaint
of damaged mailbox; 1 of declining quality of re-
moval; 18 respondents not here during winter, and therefore
don't
know about quality of service.
AMBULANCE- 3 complained of
slow response; 2 praised excellent response; 1
complaint
that ambulance crew was unable to find FIRE #; 1 complaint
that personnel were not well trained; and 48 don't know.
POLICE- 1 opinion that the Town is a speed trap;
51 have no experience,
therefore have no opinion.
FIRE- 46 don't know or haven't used.
911-
52 don't know or haven't used; 1 feels it is not effective.
Question
3: Other suggestions-
2 for senior citizens amenities
10 for trails- horse, bike,
hiking
9 for public swimming pool
8 for tennis court
1 for golf course
2 for roller rink
2 for skateboard
park
2 for shooting range
1 for playground
1 for campsites
Question 7: Suggestions for light industries and small retail/service
businesses. These are
broken
down into the following broad categories:
FOOD RELATED-101 suggestions to include: fast-food;
restaurants; grocery store;
health food store; markets; and farming and agricultural related,
e.g.
flax oil, honey, herbs, maple sugar.
RETAIL SHOPS /STORES- 112 suggestions
to include: antiques; boutique;
Hardware;
bookstore; general store; auto parts; pharmacy; florist;
art/craft; video; wine & liquor; sports/bike; computer;
cleaning service.
HEALTH CARE- 7 suggestions to include:
doctor; general health care
SERVICES- 25 suggestions to include:
law; insurance; auto/gas; beauty parlor;
stable/equestrian;
gardening; plumbing; building/contracting;
furniture/cabinetmaking; equipment rental; travel agency.
LIGHT INDUSTRY- 23 suggestions to include:
warehouse distribution; tool & die;
re-cycling; bottled water; lumber mill; assembly plant.
RESORT/RECREATION- 22 suggestions to
include: bed & breakfast; RV park; golf
Course; ski area; kids camp; gambling; park;
drive-in; trails; movie
theater,.
OTHER- 1 suggestion for K-Mart, 1
for home
center.
QUALITY
OF LIFE
Question
11:What people LIKE about Jewett- The preponderance
of responses cited the natural
beauty and rural character of the Town, its quietness, cleanliness,
friendliness, and the presence of planning and zoning. Other
aspects
that received mention were: low crime; privacy; trails; forests;
wild
animals; fresh air and water; mountains and views; sporting
opportunities; limited government; low, or reasonable taxes;
resort
and recreational facilities; proximity to, or distance from
Question
12: What people like LEAST about Jewett- in approximate descending order
of
importance (i.e. number of responses); high taxes; junk cars;
roadside
litter; lack of nearby shopping. Other concerns, in no particular
order
were: unleashed dogs; noise (gunfire at night, motorcycles);
lack of
contractors; burning of garbage; poorly maintained properties;
low
quality schools; derelict houses and properties; lack of regulation
regarding timber harvesting.
Additional
Comments- Most additional comments duplicated comments in previous questions.
There
were a number of comments supportive of the Town govern-
ment et al. Other concerns and issues
mentioned included: need for a
Town
newsletter; more publicity for Town events; preservation of the
rural character of the town; permitting of some light industry
; second
homeowners are treated unfairly; no billboards; no 24-hr stores;
no
gambling; permit casinos.
CONCLUSION:
The assignment of the Survey Committee was to create,
mail, compile and tabulate the responses to the survey. It is felt that
whatever conclusions are to be drawn from the tabulated responses are best
left to the appropriate Town activity making use of those results.
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE TOWN OF
In
the interest of encouraging as great a response as possible, the Committee
felt that the
survey would not ask the respondents for their identity nor whether they were
full or part-time residents. Consequently it was not possible to accurately
establish a ratio of full-time to part-time resident responses. A crude estimate
based on post marks on the return envelopes indicated an approximate 50/50
split, but this is neither particularly
accurate nor significant.
We
experienced a return rate of approximately 33%; it is generally understood
that a return rate of 20-25% on this sort of survey is considered good. This
suggests that the survey met the goals set by the Committee: i.e. to ask questions
which we felt addressed real needs and concerns of all taxpayers ( both full-time
and part-time residents) which would
elicit informative responses that would have meaning for Town planners in
guiding the direction of the Town in the future( keeping in mind that the
Town Board intended from the outset that the survey results were meant to
a be a guide, and not an exclusive
determinant for the creation and implementation of policy ).
It
was observed that no single question elicited a response from everyone who
answered the survey, and that with respect to question
4. the response rate was well below that of all other
questions ( excluding question 6. , the answer to which was contingent on
the answer to question 5.).
The
format of the survey was such that the bulk of information sought can be gleaned
from the answers to objective questions alone, however the inclusion of narrative-type
questions, and space for additional comments on the objective questions provided
an opportunity for expanded responses and additional information/concerns/suggestions that would certainly be helpful.
Respectfully
submitted on behalf of the members of the Public Opinion Survey Committee,
who gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Helen Budrock
of the
Martin Conlon
Marilyn Haarklau Co-chair
Thomas Hughes
Paul LaPierre Co-chair
Peter O’Mahoney
Helga Pscherer
Werner Pscherer
Ellen Wolf
Paul
LaPierre
|