1. 1

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 1
Introduction

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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.
Legend
Durham, 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

10. 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 Lines
Data 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

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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”

14. 9
4 Bureau, U.S. (2015). American Fact Finder. Retrieved on February 25, 2015 from factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/
index.xhtml
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).

15. 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 Employer
Establishment 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

16. 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
4 Bureau, U.S. (2015). American Fact Finder. Retrieved on February 25, 2015 from factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/
index.xhtml
12 Leip, D. (2014). David Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections . Retrieved on March 18, 2015 from http://uselectionatlas.org

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 14
Detailed Land Use Charts

20. 15
6+1+53+12+8+11+3+66+1+55+13+7+1+11+3+3
1%
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

21. 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 Classifications
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 2.5 51.25 Miles
2011 Land Use Classifications
of Durham, New York
Land Classifications
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
¯
0 2.5 51.25 Miles
2006 Land Use Classifications
of Durham, New York
Data Source:
The New York State Department of Environ
Conservation's (NYSDEC) internal data se
Data Retreived on March 9, 2015.
Land Classifications
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 2.5 51.25 Miles
2006 Land Use Classifications
of Durham, New York
Durham, New York Land Use in 2006
Durham, New York Land Use in 2011

22. 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

23. 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
Data Source:
The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation's (NYSDEC) internal data selector.
Data Retreived on March 9, 2015.
Land Classifications
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 7.5 153.75 Miles
2011 Land Use Classifications
of Greene County, New York
Data Source:
The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation's (NYSDEC) internal data selector.
Data Retreived on March 9, 2015.
Land Classifications
Open Water
Developed, Open Space
Developed, Low Intensity
Developed, Medium Intensity
Developed, High Intensity
Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Sgrun/Scrub
Grassland/Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
Cultivated Crops
Woody Wetlands
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
¯
0 8 164 Miles
2006 Land Use Classifications
of Greene County, New York
Data Source:
The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation's (NYSDEC) internal data selector.
Data Retreived on March 9, 2015.
Land Classifications
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 8 164 Miles
2006 Land Use Classifications
of Greene County, New York

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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;

28. 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
Greene County Department of Planning and Economic
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 more
adequate 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

29. 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
Greene County Department of Planning and Economic
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

30. 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

31. 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 Designation
Scenic Byway Designation
Roads
The Town Of Durham
Locations of Scenic Byway Designated Roads
in Durham and Greene County

32. 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

33. 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

34. 29

35. 30
Case Study

36. 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
.

37. 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.

38. 33
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
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.

39. 34
5+75+1+5+5+9
57+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
24 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
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
.

40. 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
Data Source:
The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation's (NYSDEC) internal data selector.
Data Retreived on March 9, 2015.
#
Remediation Sites
Remediation Site Borders
####### #############
###########
##############
#############
##############
###############
##############
###########################
###########
#########
################
#########################
##########
########
#########
#########
#################
############
######
#############################################
###############
##########
############
###########################
##############
#############
############################################################################
##########
#########################
##########
################
##########
#############
############
############
######
######################
###########
############## ##########
###########
#############
###############
############
######
################
#######################
############
###############
#########
########################
################
##############
##########
##########
####################################
################
###########
############################################
#########
###########
##################
##########################
#########
############
##############################################################################
###############
####################
###############
###########
##############
################
############
##########
#################
#######################
##################
################## #################
#############
#########
############
#############
#########
########
#######################
########
#############
#############
##################################
##############
##############
############
################
#########################
##############
#############
########################################################
##############
############
#####
###########################
##############
#############
################################################################################
##############
##########################
#############
#############
############
################
##########
###########
###########
#####################
########
############ ############
##########
##########
########
###############
#################
######
##########################
#############
####################
#########
####################
##########
#########
#############
###########
################################
##########
###############
###################################################
#########
###############
#######
##############################
###########
#######
#####################################################################################
##############
######################
#############
#######
###############
#############
#########
#####
###########
#########################
##########
########## ##################
###########
############
#################
##########
###########
#############
########################
############
############
###########
######################
###########
################
###################
############
###########################
###########
#######
##################################################
################
##################
#################
###################
#########
##########
####################################################################
############
###########################
##################
############
#################
#######
################
###############
#############
#####################
#################
########## #####
###############
############
##########
###########
###########
#############
###################
###############
############
##############
#########################
#############
#########
###################
#######
###########################
#####
#################
#########################################################
############
###########
###############
####################
#############
#############
################################################################
#############
#################################
############
#################
#######
#############
#################
#################
############
##########################
############
############### ##############
###############
###############
############
############
#########
##############
##################################
###########
########
##################
#####################
###########
#################
#######
##############
##############
##############
######################
########################################################
###########
###########
#############
########################
###############
##################
########################################################################
############
#################
########
#############
#############
############
#############
####################
###############
###############################
##########
############# ##########
#############
##############
############
############
#####################
###############
######################
#################
##########
#########
###########################
##############
############
##########
####################
####################
#################
########
#####################################
#############
###########
############
################
##############
#############
#######################################################################
#########
############################
##########
##########
###########
#########
##########
#########
##############
#############################
#############
¯
0 8 164 Miles
Location of Remediation Sites and
Borders in Greene County, New York
Data Source:
The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation's (NYSDEC) internal data selector.
Data Retreived on March 9, 2015.
#
Remediation Sites
Remediation Site Borders##############
##############
###############
##############
###########################
###########
#########
################
#########################
##########
########
#########
#########
#################
############
######
#############################################
###############
##########
############
###########################
##############
#############
############################################################################
##########
#########################
##########
################
##########
#############
############
############
######
######################
###########
#############
############
######
################
#######################
############
###############
#########
########################
################
##############
##########
##########
####################################
################
###########
############################################
#########
###########
##################
##########################
#########
############
##############################################################################
###############
####################
###############
###########
##############
################
############
##########
#################
#######################
##################
#########
#############
#########
########
#######################
########
#############
#############
##################################
##############
##############
############
################
#########################
##############
#############
########################################################
##############
############
#####
###########################
##############
#############
################################################################################
##############
##########################
#############
#############
############
################
##########
###########
###########
#####################
########
##########
###############
#################
######
##########################
#############
####################
#########
####################
##########
#########
#############
###########
################################
##########
###############
###################################################
#########
###############
#######
##############################
###########
#######
#####################################################################################
##############
######################
#############
#######
###############
#############
#########
#####
###########
#########################
##########
############
##########
###########
#############
########################
############
############
###########
######################
###########
################
###################
############
###########################
###########
#######
##################################################
################
##################
#################
###################
#########
##########
####################################################################
############
###########################
##################
############
#################
#######
################
###############
#############
#####################
#################
############
###########
###########
#############
###################
###############
############
##############
#########################
#############
#########
###################
#######
###########################
#####
#################
#########################################################
############
###########
###############
####################
#############
#############
################################################################
#############
#################################
############
#################
#######
#############
#################
#################
############
##########################
############
###############
############
#########
##############
##################################
###########
########
##################
#####################
###########
#################
#######
##############
##############
##############
######################
########################################################
###########
###########
#############
########################
###############
##################
########################################################################
############
#################
########
#############
#############
############
#############
####################
###############
###############################
##########
##############
############
#####################
###############
######################
#################
##########
#########
###########################
##############
############
##########
####################
####################
#################
########
#####################################
#############
###########
############
################
##############
#############
#######################################################################
#########
############################
##########
##########
###########
#########
##########
#########
##############
#############################
#############
Data Source:
The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation's (NYSDEC) internal data selector.
Data Retreived on March 9, 2015.
Map of Remediation Sites within Durham and Greene County

41. 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
4 Bureau, U.S. (2015). American Fact Finder. Retrieved on February 25, 2015 from factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/
index.xhtml
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.

42. 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.

43. 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