HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?
Written by Joan Pott
In spite of numerous requests made for Moratorium, the Town Board voted 3 to 2 against, claiming they'd be done with zoning changes before a Public Hearing could be scheduled and held... three years, two supervisors, and a ton of condos, apartments, law suits and counting!
So many changes have been made to the TDR and the zoning code that without Nan preparing a "red letter" version comparing the original draft to the draft being proposed at Public Hearing Tuesday night, 3/12, nobody can really know what is being considered. The sending and receiving area maps do not match the written verbiage. The buffer zone widths between farmland and development, along streams, or square footage for building sizes, do not match what was originally approved. PUDD's were also removed. They are a legal way to change the zoning of a property, and thus its use, in the middle of a zoned district.
The new zoning was planned to eliminate the need for PUDD's. Not so in the version being heard this week! PUDD's benefit no one but developers! That's just a short list of the contradictions that exist.
So, I ask you, "Will we allow history to repeat itself? Or, will we insist the Board bring Nan back to clean up this chaotic mess before the Board votes?
- Joan Pott is a long-time resident of Ballston, Past Chair of the Farmland Protection and Preservation Committee, and a devoted wife, mother & grandmother
In 1985, the Town of Ballston hired the LA Group, a professional planner, to create a Comprehensive Plan / zoning code process. A survey was sent to every adult resident. When the process was almost complete, the Town Board asked the then Town Attorney to write the zoning code instead of allowing the professional to finish the job.
Twenty years later, in 2005, under tremendous pressure from development, the Town hired Saratoga Associates to do another Comprehensive Plan process. Surveys were sent to the residents, and the results were virtually identical to those of the 1985 survey. But, again, instead of allowing the professionals to finish the job, the Town Board allowed a Board member to complete the zoning code, and the package was adopted in 2006.
The Town was only able to work with the poorly-constructed code because of the excellence, knowledge, and dedication of its then-building inspector, Tom Johnson.
Per the residents' desire expressed in the Comp Plan to preserve and protect the rural character of the Town, the Town Board created the Farmland Preservation and Protection Committee. We were then tasked with applying for a NYS Ag&Markets grant, recommending a planner (Élan Associates) and preparing a Farmland Preservation and Protection Plan. That work was completed and adopted in 2014.
Among the steps to protect and preserve the rural character of the town, the FLPP Plan called for creation of a TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) program. Another Ag&Markets $25,000 grant was obtained, Nan Stolzenburg was hired, and a survey pertaining to farmland and open space was conducted. For the third time, the survey results were virtually identical. In the process of reviewing the zoning code with which the FLPP Plan and TDR must dovetail, Nan encountered conflicting, contradictory, and confusing laws; i.e., things such as simple definitions were not consistent throughout the code. Nan brought this to the attention of then-Supervisor Ziegler. She was asked to review and correct the zoning while dovetailing the TDR into it. Workshops were conducted with Town Board, Planning Board, ZBA, FLPP Committee, and Park & Rec Committee representatives, along with the Town and Planning Board Attorneys, the Highway Superintendent, the Building Inspector, and the Town Engineer. What started out as simple "tweaking" of the zoning code morphed. When Tim Szczepaniak became Supervisor, developers and builders and the BH-BL BPA were surprisingly included in the workshops and allowed input in the process. (According to several licensed professional planners, this is absolutely unheard of!). But, Nan persevered and then painstakingly prepared a draft for Public Hearing. Nan took all the comments made at the hearing and those emailed or hard mailed afterward and incorporated them. During this process, Building Inspector Tom Johnson retired, and the Town Board hired three individuals (none credentialed at the time hired) to replace him. Somehow the newly hired, part-time, non-credentialed "Sr. Planner" replaced the professional planner. Oh, the Board claims they are still very much in contact with Nan, but the process has completely unraveled.
The Town was only able to work with the poorly-constructed code because of the excellence, knowledge, and dedication of its then-building inspector, Tom Johnson.
Per the residents' desire expressed in the Comp Plan to preserve and protect the rural character of the Town, the Town Board created the Farmland Preservation and Protection Committee. We were then tasked with applying for a NYS Ag&Markets grant, recommending a planner (Élan Associates) and preparing a Farmland Preservation and Protection Plan. That work was completed and adopted in 2014.
Among the steps to protect and preserve the rural character of the town, the FLPP Plan called for creation of a TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) program. Another Ag&Markets $25,000 grant was obtained, Nan Stolzenburg was hired, and a survey pertaining to farmland and open space was conducted. For the third time, the survey results were virtually identical. In the process of reviewing the zoning code with which the FLPP Plan and TDR must dovetail, Nan encountered conflicting, contradictory, and confusing laws; i.e., things such as simple definitions were not consistent throughout the code. Nan brought this to the attention of then-Supervisor Ziegler. She was asked to review and correct the zoning while dovetailing the TDR into it. Workshops were conducted with Town Board, Planning Board, ZBA, FLPP Committee, and Park & Rec Committee representatives, along with the Town and Planning Board Attorneys, the Highway Superintendent, the Building Inspector, and the Town Engineer. What started out as simple "tweaking" of the zoning code morphed. When Tim Szczepaniak became Supervisor, developers and builders and the BH-BL BPA were surprisingly included in the workshops and allowed input in the process. (According to several licensed professional planners, this is absolutely unheard of!). But, Nan persevered and then painstakingly prepared a draft for Public Hearing. Nan took all the comments made at the hearing and those emailed or hard mailed afterward and incorporated them. During this process, Building Inspector Tom Johnson retired, and the Town Board hired three individuals (none credentialed at the time hired) to replace him. Somehow the newly hired, part-time, non-credentialed "Sr. Planner" replaced the professional planner. Oh, the Board claims they are still very much in contact with Nan, but the process has completely unraveled. In spite of numerous requests made for Moratorium, the Town Board voted 3 to 2 against, claiming they'd be done with zoning changes before a Public Hearing could be scheduled and held... three years, two supervisors, and a ton of condos, apartments, law suits and counting!
So many changes have been made to the TDR and the zoning code that without Nan preparing a "red letter" version comparing the original draft to the draft being proposed at Public Hearing Tuesday night, 3/12, nobody can really know what is being considered. The sending and receiving area maps do not match the written verbiage. The buffer zone widths between farmland and development, along streams, or square footage for building sizes, do not match what was originally approved. PUDD's were also removed. They are a legal way to change the zoning of a property, and thus its use, in the middle of a zoned district.
The new zoning was planned to eliminate the need for PUDD's. Not so in the version being heard this week! PUDD's benefit no one but developers! That's just a short list of the contradictions that exist.
So, I ask you, "Will we allow history to repeat itself? Or, will we insist the Board bring Nan back to clean up this chaotic mess before the Board votes?
I guess it all depends on what the developers want. But do come to the hearing and let your opinion matter.
ReplyDeleteSome board members will try to convince us that these proposed zoning changes take care of the majority of our major zoning issues and that the few incidental issues could not have fit into their "buckets" of changes for this round. The truth is, that fact that they left PUDDs in the zoning was deliberate! It could have been removed as easily as saying to. The public wanted it removed and it was the recommendation of the professional planner to remove it. The loopholes in the proposed zoning are the will of the majority of the board.
ReplyDelete