Video of PUBLIC HEARING March 12, 2019

Town of Ballston Town Wide Public Hearing
Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 6:00pm
RESIDENTS LINED UP TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST ZONING CHANGES

The parking lot was full at town hall on Tuesday March 12th with overflow parking on the snow covered lawn. 
Residents received this postcard in mail with only ten days to read through dozens of pages of zoning changes since the last public hearing.

Written comments will be accepted by the Town Board until March 22, 2019

Write or email your comments to the town board members by Friday, March 22nd:

Email addresses:

tszczepaniak@townofballstonny.org, kstewart@townofballstonny.org, jantoski@townofballstonny.org, wgoslin@townofballstonny.org, ccurtiss@townofballstonny.org, cgumienny@townofballstonny.org

The Town Board will vote on this on April 30, 2019.

Video courtesy of town resident,  Kevin Draina

The Supervisor read off the list of names on the sign up sheet, Peter Solberg was first on the list to speak at the public hearing.  Peter is running for Ballston Town Council this year.

1.     Peter Solberg, Charlton Rd.

“I’ll try and be brief, I’ve been struggling with what to say and how to articulate my thoughts.  My list of issues is extensive, I’ve spent countless hours of reviewing, documenting and sharing my concerns with others here.  I request that this document and my prepared speech is added to the minutes.  I yield my exhaustive list of issues and gaps  to the remainder of residents here in this forum.  Regarding the overall process and readiness of this legislation, it’s just not ready.  It really isn’t.  It’s riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions that would confuse residents, officials and developers, expose weaknesses and would result in a degrading township.

I have high confidence that based on the comments of several board members that this zoning will be approved, regardless of public comments here tonight. Comments such as "we need to get this zoning approved, and work on the tweeks and iron out the issues." It may falter an argument in many peoples minds.  It does foster a feeling of hope that we will obtain pristine zoning language, acceptance that it is not.  However, the dedicated individuals who sat by hopelessly with no voice, no seat at the table for ten months, have feelings of animosity and frustration.  We have individuals across the town and outside who continually discuss these issues.  In fact, our professional town planner Nan Stolzenberg, has been guiding our town planner through the process by dictating specific tasks and giving explicit orders which were not followed.  Nan has personally provided her guidance and perspective the board, and has repeatedly been ignored.

I felt it prudent to investigate the evolution of this legislation outside of the public meeting notes and the revision history to ensure that the changes proposed today reflect that of the residents in this town.  I FOILED detailed change laws of the zoning from the time in which the public hearing closed last, to when it was submitted in the county.  With the assistance of the interviewing the ZBA members and representatives of Ag and Markets, I give you my perspective of that time line.

After all the public hearing workshops, comments were gathered and formulated into a comprehensive list of updating list of updated revisions, once completed and reviewed, primary stakeholders for the final review.  Once complete, the process of instituting the amendments must begin.

First, the proposed zoning should be provided and reviewed by the Zoning Board.  This is noted in our current town law as being required before the public hearing.  This was not done.  Once reviewed by the Zoning Board, the amendment should be provided to Ag & Markets for final review of the TDR.  Again, this was not done.

Before sending the zoning to the county for review, there should be a public hearing. This allows for modification before county review.  This obviously wasn’t done.

-Mr. Solberg was stopped at the 3 minute timer and submitted his whole document to the Town Board. We requested a copy of that and you can read it  HERE

2.     Kelly Jasinski, Middleline Rd

 I would like to encourage any residents present to make themselves heard.  If your point has been addressed, please stand up and say it again, or say that you agree with what was said.  The Town Board needs to know the depth of our concerns.

Town Board Members:

This has been a lengthy process that I am sure all of you would like to conclude.  However, in spite of the time it has taken to get to this point, approving this zoning would be a serious mistake.  This document needs to be corrected NOW.  Please listen to our comments and make the needed adjustments.

K. Buffers between Farm and Non-Farm Uses, and Protection of Agricultural Lands

The exact buffer requirement shall be determined at the discretion of the Planning Board at the time of project review.

A vote was taken by our board Resolution 17-223 at the October 24th, 2017 Board Meeting with a recommendation of 150 – 500  foot sliding buffer.  We have a responsibility to our farms, and their neighbors to maintain and promote good neighbor practices.  Our farms need to be able to ‘change hats’ so to speak with the industry, and a MINIMUM buffer zone of 150 feet recognizes that dairy may change to pork, or goats, or crops that are sprayed depending on what is economically feasible to sustain agricultural practice.  Further the move towards Conservation Easements REQUIRE that those parcels continue to be farmed, or remain undeveloped with the potential to farm in the future.  Leaving the buffer at the discretion of the Planning Board is irresponsible and should be dictated for easier enforcement.  The Planning Board should reserve the right to INCREASE that buffer if it is deemed necessary. Hence the 150 – 500 foot sliding buffer should remain as voted on and recommended to our planner in Resolution 17-223.

Further……The written statement of right to farm needs to be written into the deeds and building permits of ALL properties developed adjacent to existing active farm operations and any conservation easement property whether that property is active or not, and NOT just those of a minor subdivision as indicated in K. (2) above.

TDR

(Ms. Jasinski showed a TDR MAP to the Board and the residents in the room.)

I have noted that several parcels on the most recent revision of the TDR Map have been developed since the original map was presented, are in the process of getting approval, are in litigation for water extensions into the AG district or are actual businesses that I really do not see leaving the area anytime soon. 

Due to time constraints, I stopped labeling parcels when I hit Saunders road.

I have concluded that there is little chance of TDR being successful because we have built out a fair majority of the parcels in town that would give density to conserving parcels in the sending areas.  I do not feel that the Citizens in the Hamlet areas, where PUDD’s are NOT allowed in the proposed zoning, would support the density of Traditional Neighborhood Design to allow TDR to be successful. 

At this time two parcels that are sending parcels are potentially being developed as residential, and not conserved.  Spinney and Katz Middleline Road.  In the almost three years since TDR was presented to the public, and this town board started working updating our zoning the rest of the world has not stood by and waited for us to get this all sorted out.  I need not continue.

There are sending parcels along route 67 West of the village.  Route 67 here runs through the heart of Ag District 2.  Milton on the North side has 5-acre minimum lot size that was implemented in 2001 with some really fair language.  With water extensions being an issue into the Ag district, and our town putting sending parcels there, along with the rural zoning on both sides, this in NO PLACE FOR PUDD’s or even TND for that matter.Moving on To Business Highway District 1 and Rural Highway Transition

I find it odd that there are two separate districts with ALL the same regulations and requirements, just a slightly different description.  There is no way to uphold the distinction that was originally envisioned when they were created without separate identifying qualifications and specifications.

The criteria for these two districts read as an extension of Mixed-Use District, and in fact there is much that is ‘cut and pasted’ from that area.  So essentially all three districts are the same.  Please see below for typos and inconsistencies in those areas.  These are just a few examples.

If you continue to allow PUDD’s in this area than you will lose your commercial piece along route 50.  Actually, you already have lost a huge part of it, as evidenced by the TDR map.

My recommendation to this Board is to put a hold on applications for development until the language and intent of this document can be such that our comprehensive plan is upheld.  In fact, if this had been done three years ago, TDR would have the ability to be an effective tool.  Phrases such as ‘at the discretion of the Planning Board’ need to be removed and set with guidelines.  They just invite litigation.  Typos missed in editing need to be cleared.  Some serious revisions on what development tools are most appropriate for what remains of our route 50 corridor and the conservation of the rural character of our town, need to be addressed. 

An experienced professional planner from out of house needs to be brought in to direct this process, and the start should probably be the zoning from the last public presentation.  The zoning should have been completed with the same planner from its inception.  Our zoning is our town’s heartbeat, and no expense should be spared in getting it right. 

In all honesty I have spent hours on this, more than a college research project, and there is SO MUCH MORE that needs to be addressed, even if it is just language!
                                     

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

-Kelly Jasinski was stopped at the 3 minute timer and is planning on submitting her whole document to the Town Board. We requested a copy of that.

3.     Susan Robbiano, Kingsley Rd 

The proposed Zoning Changes designate Kingsley Road to be in the “Mixed Use-South” area, and that area is listed as allowing 25,000 sq. ft. buildings.

As you know, Kingsley Road is primarily residential, with the exception of Burnt Hills Hardware store, and the small building that houses a handful of small businesses and apartments.

What I don’t understand is why this zoning isn’t recognizing the fact that Kingsley Road is the most historic road in the hamlet of Burnt Hills? 

·      On the corner of Kingsley and Lakehill is where, in the early 1800’s there was a grocery store, a polling place and a post office.  It WAS the Town Center. 

·      Falconer Farm is on that corner, it dates to 1796. 

·      Kingsley Inn is there, too, it dates to 1795.

·      My house is a few properties south of there on Kingsley and dates to the early 1800’s.  It has a 6 foot deep beautiful brick-lined cistern, among other fascinating historical artifacts. 

·      In 1918, The Neptune Fire Dept. was in the building where Mr. Breen’s law office is now on Kingsley.

·      Burnt Hills Baptist Church is next to my house and dates to 1839. The bricks that the church and my house were built with were made at High Mill, which is where Kristal Inn and the Pig ‘n Whistle used to be.

·      All of the homes on Kingsley date to around the same time period. 

·      Twenty years ago I asked Katherine Briaddy, the town historian, for a historic marker for my house and she told me that ALL of the homes on Kingsley are historic.

Why isn’t this Town Board focused on creating a Historic District for Kingsley Road, right on down to Fo’ Castle Farm?  Historic Districts are constricted by design guidelines that control changes to the properties included in the district.  Local commissions adopt specific guidelines for how that district is to look. 

The new zoning should include guidelines like this for Kingsley Rd.

The Town of Ballston has this natural resource here…Kingsley Road… it needs to be cherished, protected, and proudly displayed. 

But instead, the Town Board is supporting 25,000 sq. ft. buildings on Kingsley Road. 

Which brings me to the traffic problem.  Traffic is already so bad on Kingsley that it takes forever to get across the street to get to our mailboxes.

When I brought this up at a recent Town Board meeting, Mr. Goslin and Mr. Szczepaniak agreed with me that putting 25000 sq ft buildings on Kingsley had to be looked into….they said I had a good point.      Yet, the final draft still shows 25000 sq ft buildings. 

Now imagine what traffic would be like with even one 25,000 sq ft. business added to the traffic mess we already have?

This makes me wonder what Mr. Sczcepaniak’s  ultimate plan is for Kingsley.  Is it to have the residents in the historic homes get fed up with the 25,000 sq ft businesses and the traffic that…. and move out---? 

Is Mr. Sczcepaniak’s long-term plan to then demo those historic homes so more commercial businesses can be built on Kingsley Road?  Because that is what will ultimately happen if 25,000 sq ft buildings are allowed there.

Mr. Sczcepaniak, Mr. Goslin and Ms. Stewart:  I understand you all are in favor of building in the town of Ballston to increase the sales tax kickback that Ballston receives from Saratoga County, and that that kickback increases with increased numbers of assessed property values.  But this zoning proposal to build 25.000 sq. ft buildings on Kingsley Road is wrong and shows disrespect for a towns treasure. 

What needs to be done:

1.     Kingsley Road needs to be REMOVED from the Mixed Use South designation.  Simply end Mixed Use South out on Rt. 50 and keep Kingsley Road out of it.

2.     Recognize, Respect and then Capitalize on the history of Burnt Hills former Town Center on Kingsley and Lakehill by PASSING A RESOLUTION that recognizes a task force to create a Historic District on Kingsley Road all the way down to Fo Castle Farms.

Planning a Historic District will affect and interest a wide range of citizens including elected officials, the business community, the media and many others.  

The community will love you for it, it will be your gift to the Town of Ballston and your personal legacy that will be a positive legacy that is documented in the history books.

4.     Nancy Kulokowski, Devils Lane:

We own property on Devils Lane, and we have attended all but one of the Town Board meetings including regular and agenda meetings since May of 2017.  Our purpose was to follow the zoning revisions and the town boards management.  Now that the zoning revisions are coming down to the wire, we have reached some conclusions.  In the new zoning regulations, we have noticed that there are contradictions and conflicts that cause holes in the zoning.

We are concerned that the holes make the new zoning easy to manipulate and render decisions that were never intended.  The original author of the revisions was Nan Stolzenberg.  But in January of 2018 a 2nd town planner joined the towns administration.  Then we heard less from Nan while we listened to the new planners’ opinions that were different and often contrary to Nan.  At many town board meetings during the interim, the town board supervisor has consistently advised the attendees at the meeting that both town planners were working together.

Unfortunately, since the summer of 2018, the Supervisor has provided no details to explain Nan’s contributions.  The board would do well to contract with the original author of the zoning revisions, Nan Stolzenberg to fix the problems that were subsequently imposed on her work.  Agriculture is a component of Ballston zoning.  Ballston has identified itself as a Farms First community.  So, it could be expected to practice farm friendly zoning like many of its neighboring towns.  Farm friendly would include the family farm.  Farm friendly zoning would not put impossible hurdles in front of the dedicated and dependable family members that need to help on the family farm.  Nor would it cause a horse farm, constructed on one property to be operated on two properties.  In the town zoning there is a one use per lot code, it does not distinguish between residential one or two acre lots different from farming 100-200 acre lots.  They are both one lot.  Too late farming is one use per lot is an oxymoron.  One use per lot expects a farmer who is managing a farm on 50, 100, or 300 acres or more, and the farm is built with numerous outbuildings often with livestock and substantial equipment and family or hired help.  (cut off with 3-minute timer)
I’m going to email my comments to the town board, to the two planners and to the Farmland Protective Committee. 

BNU has requested a copy of Mrs. Kulokowski's full prepared comment and you can read it HERE.

5.     Karen Welch, Ballston Avenue:

When I got to the end of the whole document which was 85 pages, I was alarmed at the numbers at 75%, 50%, if all of those residences were filled in, what it would look like and it didn’t look like a town and the village area that we were talking about.  It looked like maybe some of these discrepancies or loopholes were different projects?  So I just wanted to bring that to the attention, what kind of numbers are you really talking about? 

6.     Morgan Ruthman, Middleline Road:

I actually sent a memo earlier to the Town Clerk, so that can be disseminated, to the town board, thanks for the opportunity, a couple of brief comments.  One was the aging criteria for senior housing district, its defined differently in two different sections of article 9 so I felt there could be clarification there 55, 62 so that should be clarified ----and then open space, green space and site disturbance.  The memo contains more technical analysis but there’s just some areas where I think it could be clarified to make sure the use is  (?)consistent.

7.     Steve Walsh, Kingsley Road:

I have both a residence and a business on Kingsley Road.  I think the Kingsley Road corridor has to be split out from the Rt. 50 corridor zoning by a means that’s definable.  Right now they’re basically the same and I think they need to be different.  Mostly it’s because the traffic situation with the schools and the traffic coming down Kingsley .  It just has to have something defined different so that growth can be regulated in that area if people have different plans to do different things with either the commercial or residences, thank you.

8.     Carl Thurnau, Woodside Drive:

I had planned for 5 minutes so I’ll take out some of the comments here.  I’ll make 3 or 4 comments and will submit the rest in writing.  Allowing higher density development is of great concern to me, its always a red light to me.  As I’ve stated many times previously, both to the town board and the planning board, Ballston is a two lane road networked town.  

Traffic is already reaching an intolerable levels, driven by PUDDs and the apartment complexes.  To the point where motorists are being driven to side roads parallel to route 50, and more to come on that. The traffic on Goode St. and Scotchbush is a different topic.  

Conservation sub-division design needs to be reviewed.  My early concern is that this approach will increase density, that’s another bad word for me.  Density.  More to come on that in my writing.  The issue on the boards limits on the Burnt Hills – Ballston Lake hamlets needs to be formalized, so far it’s not.  PUDD acceptance in the Routes 50 and 67 corridors is bothersome to me, how large will they be allowed to be?  I am sorry that the proposal was not presented in legislative style, the side by side approach that allows one to easily compare existing vs. proposed wording.  Based on the sheer volume of the proposal I urgently the board extend the written comment period to 60 days to accommodate the vast number of pages that need review.  We have other things to do besides read that book.  I will submit written comments, thank you. 

9.     Polly Windels, Middleline Rd

Well I am supporting of most of the comments that I’ve heard tonight concerning this mess of a zoning proposal.

I would like to comment on an issue that is very much connected and speaks to the towns lie on being a Farms First town.

As early as September of 2016 Ag and Markets sent warnings to the town of Ballston for violating the laws concerning the extension of water co laterals into the agricultural district. These warnings went on and on until March of 2017 when the Dept. of Ag and Markets sued the town of Ballston because the town of Ballston basically gave them the brush off.  Since then, we have been fighting that lawsuit.  And not only is our town attorney participating, we’re also paying additional fees to Mr. James Walsh for fighting the Dept of Ag and Markets.  If we allow Ag and Markets to win, we would have a legal, legitimate to deny the encroachment of developers in the Ag district because we cannot be made to violate the law.  And as long as we are paying lawyers to fight Ag and Markets, I personally believe you can kiss off any attempt of this town board to slow the development of our land.  (APPLAUSE)

10. Mark Dunn:

Just a couple of brief comments.

I think years ago the residents of the majority spoke that they did not want little lots, they want this to be rural.  They’re not looking for a third acre developments, PUDDs and all of this stuff.

The other thing is, along with the development I think the majority of the town was proposed sewers, most of that got voted down, from what my take is anyways.  We’re not looking for all of this development.

We want a rural, friendly town, sure you have to have some development for taxes but this seems way over the top to me.  Thank you.  (APPLAUSE)

11.     Olga Stryjski, Silver Lane:

When I signed in, I didn’t mean to speak but I will.  I lived on Silver Lane for 50 years, and I was here for other meetings and I would like the piece in the back of me not to be developed.  There’s water there, we have animals, we have deer, we have turkeys, we have all the animals, and it really is only a few acres, so that’s my say, I hope it stays the way it is.

-Mrs. Stryjski is referring to the 30 lot major subdivision named “Preserve at Summerhill” that Charlie Morris wants to develop on the corner of Jenkins Rd and Scotchbush Rd

12.     Marcy Albano, Randall Rd:

I’ll be brief, a lot of this has been covered.   When we moved here in 1988, the thing that impressed us the most about the town of Ballston is its rural setting, we chose to pick this. We live in an area where there are 4 houses divided on twelve acres.  We like it.  It’s killing me to see all of these small developments coming in and when they talked about putting apartment houses on Goode St., it makes no sense to me whatsoever.  So, that’s all I have to say.

           

13.     John Comie, Bath St. Ballston Spa, NY:

I thought I was signing in also, but I can’t refuse a microphone.  We also own land on the very northern edge of the town of Ballston.  Our family has been selling that off, and I dare anyone that could see that it has been sold off because it still looks rural. It’s in the area just past Middleline Road and that’s in our mind the the beginning of the rural area.  On 67 towards Amsterdam.  Hopefully it will stay that way.  But what I wanted to say is I’m glad to see everyone here, and I hope if you’re not speaking, that you put in written comments, because what you come up with here in the Town of Ballston we will probably end up following in the town of Milton.  If the town of Ballston goes over the cliff, so will Milton.

14.     Kathy Wilcox, Nolan Rd:

I know the PUDD will only be on 50 and 67 in this now, but I’m not even in favor of that.  The PUDD is a way to skirt around zoning and it’s just going to lead to more apartments and more developments that quite frankly most of us don’t want.  (APPLAUSE).

15.     Eric Connolly, Lancaster Court:

Just a side note, you might consider putting an easel with a microphone just so that people don’t have to hold their notes and the mike.  (laughter).  So anyway, I’ve spent the last five or six days studying TDR’s in particular, I’m familiar with PUDDS from living in the Stonebridge PUDD and having lots of issues with the Stonebridge PUDD.

It seems to me that these two zoning solutions are at odds with each other.  That TDR’s, if set up right, and they’re not easily set up, and they probably do take a credentialed town planner to set them up properly.  But if set up right, there’s a long track record clear across the country of them working really well to protect farm and ag land.  And according to our town Comprehensive Plan, that’s a major goal of ours.  So, they tend to be farm and business friendly because you set up the senders, and then receiving zones can be very much pin-pointed where the town would like to see development occur.

So, by including PUDDS along Rt. 50 and along Rt. 67, really agricultural area, you’re basically circumventing and giving TDR’s no chance of success whatsoever.  Because if I’m a developer, and I have a choice to purchase TDR rights or to work with the town to negotiate a PUDD, I’m coming to you guys all day.  Why would I buy TDR rights when I can negotiate a very specific PUDD to meet my needs and not the town’s needs?  So, that’s the major point that I want to make.

I did speak with Nan on the way over here, and she did firmly recommend to this board that we do not do PUDDS if we’re going TDR.  That they will interfere with TDR’s being successful at preserving farm and ag land.  (LOUD APPLAUSE)

16. Ruth Osterlitz, Magnolia Lane:

As our town’s Comprehensive Plan states the location of senior housing should be in hamlet area and remain part of the community and closer to services, which becomes particularly important as driving ability becomes limited. It should also be closer to emergency services.

The Spinney Group PUDD is not in line with the Comprehensive Plan. The town allowing the senior living section of the zoning to be adjusted to allow aspects of the Spinney group’s sketch plan in the town’s new zoning is shameful. 

I find particularly disturbing that you allowed a non-resident developer who has nothing but profit to gain to be intimately involved in workshops and the re-writing of zoning to suit only their own needs. I am referencing the Spinney Group PUDD Senior housing consisting of 264 apartments in the Agriculture District on Middleline Road.

Quoting the Supervisor “He has been involved in all the zoning workshops”

Quoting Goslin “I am never been more in favor of a project.”

Thank you Council Curtiss and Council Antoski for voting against sending the Spinney PUDD to the Planning board.  It is unfortunate, the other three do not follow the Comprehensive Plan.

The supervisor stated at the last board meeting that the town is done with apartments, we have enough.  I trust that means he will vote no on the Spinney PUDD when it comes before the board and keep his word.

I would like PUDD to be removed from zoning.  I am not confident that the current board majority has the discretion to use it properly.

17.  Ben Baskin, Ballston Ave.: 

I share the feeling of a lot of people here that there’s a little too much emphasis on development and not enough on preservation.

I live in the north near the Mixed Use District, I’ve experienced worrying about the PUDDs that have been approved or considered up there, I think the 90,000 guideline that’s been in there a long time, you can think of it as 7 times the CVS building size, it’s still too big in the guideline, because it’s part of the PUDD, it’s not meanful because, well anyway, you guys can vote for whatever you want, so  I would recommend taking out the PUDD , it’s sort of a wild west exception to zoning, and putting in more specifics, and keeping the square footage smaller.

There’s just too much, in general, in the United States, there’s just too much commercial space. We don’t need so much, we don’t need as much development as is zoned for here and the people who live here now are going to see a decline in their quality of life as that gets built in.  And you all know about the traffic, and the roads are almost failing now.  Especially in the north area, so thank you for thinking about that.  (Applause)

18. Frank Rossi, Jr. Ballston Spa, NY:

I am not so much going to be attacking points in the zoning in and of itself, but a real issue as an attorney, and Debb and Matt I would hope you would agree with me to a certain extent. I’d like to say to the board.  Nan Stolzenberg is hired by the town of Ballston for all residents and all land owners in the town of Ballston.  It sounds very much like during these comments that she’s been speaking out of turn in a way the goes around the board, and sort of identifies with individuals instead of the entirety of the township.  That’s not proper. That’s not appropriate. She’s being paid by entirety by the tax payers by the town of Ballston, hired by the town of Ballston, this needs to be reviewed. I will ask you Debb and Matt to review that fact. I think it is way out of bounds.  Especially when its coming at a cost to the reputation of a town employee like Sophia. Sophia works hard, I know that personally. She’s not a yes man to developers, she’s not a yes man to anybody. She is somebody that actually takes the time to look at everything in front of her. She takes the boards ideas.  So those of you who are Monday morning quarter-backing the situation, coming in here, I would tell you at 10 more meetings at where the flow is coming from and to.  Stop picking on Sophia for what she’s doing, she’s doing her job.  At the end of the day. And for Nan to subvert she’s doing and make her look like the fall guy for what she is doing is B.S, it really is.  Last thing, just because we’re at public meetings doesn’t mean you can’t have manners at least one of you out there thanked me for giving you the microphone. I don’t work here. Just remember, we’re neighbors at the end of the day whether we agree or disagree. yes we are, yes we are, thank you very much. 

19. Ben Zadrozny, Charlton Rd:

I am a lifelong resident of Ballston and it’s a shame what’s happening in our town.  I know quite a few people, our neighbors who are most, most unhappy.  I am sure their feelings were heard by some of you at the table today.  Why is it okay to give the Spinney group sewers and water in the AG district?  Why is it ok?  Why is that ok?  It isn’t okay.  None of our neighbors feel it’s okay.  We don’t want apartments. Senior living is how they begin, regular apartments is how they end up, which we have had enough traffic, enough infrastructure, enough cost.  Living here has become a silly expense.  I want to thank the candidates for stepping up, we have some candidates, that’s a good thing.

We did not pledge allegiance to that flag today, and I find you all shameful for not enforcing that.  So, I’d like to spend my last minutes standing up and pledging allegiance to that flag.  (the room stands and starts to recite the pledge of allegiance).  The Supervisor interrupts the residents and says we will do that at the regular board meeting.  Ben says he wasn’t there for it, and he came early.  Everyone sits down.

20. Mary Hogan, Middleline Rd.:

We moved to Ballston 19 years ago and built our home on 8 acres.  When we purchased our property, we had to sign and agree to with the town board that we would not further sub-divide our property.    8 acres is certainly well outside the limit of sub-division.  We’ve gone down to smaller lots than that.

We received a notice back in, I think October, that our neighbor was going to be sub-dividing a 19-acre parcel with an existing home. When we purchased, we purchased from that original property owner which was his grandmother.  In doing so, we went to the zoning board and we presented our case.  We felt that 19 acres divided into 4 lots would be excessive.

He was proposing a driveway that would run between our home and the existing home on the property meaning that we would lose all of the buffer between our home and the existing property, and we would have a driveway fall between two lots of four acres, that are probably 100 feet wide and exceedingly long.  And I sat there with a 3-page document that addressed all the concerns that were in our existing laws that are on the books in the town of Ballston.  After my speech, it happened to be Jeff Cwalinski that was the chair at the time, and after I sat down, he said “any questions?’.  No.  Approved.  No one came to look at our property, no one came to see the impact of our rural area with our black water, our lack of water, our wet lot. 

As a result of that, the only recourse we had was to file an Article 78 to the tune of $15,000 to stop the process. My husband and I agreed that that was unfair, that our rights were not being considered as existing landowners, and so we hired an attorney.  We did not file the Article 78 because there were no guarantees.  So, we had a retainer of $5000 to see if we could extend and somehow come up with our neighbor to form a better buffer.  After that was done it was agreed that we would have a 40 ft.  buffer with no cut. We got the bill from the attorney, it was for $8000, the retainer did not cover that.  It was clear in the town code that we were following the rules, they never looked into it but it cost us $8000 and then we are subject to …if they decide to cut, it would cost us more money to go back and to fight it.  So, my point tonight is, because it’s on the books does not mean it’s being followed.  And just because it’s in the town code, the people on the board have every right to do what they want to do, and then we the taxpayers and citizens are the ones that it comes out of our pocket.  And not everyone has the means to put $8000 but that meant a lot to my husband and I so we sacrificed to say $8000 is worth our quality of life.

So, I implore you to please follow the laws and don’t’ put the burden back on the taxpayers because when we get our 10,11,12,000-dollar tax bill, you want the full amount.  You don’t want us to take out the $8000 that we had to pay because the rules were not followed in the town, and code was broken, and we had to hire an attorney to defend our rights as property owners over the guy next door who had his rights upheld to develop his property. (Applause)

21. Darlene McGraw:

I live in the city of Saratoga Springs yet I spend half my time each week in the village of Ballston Spa in the town of Ballston.  I hope you guys appreciate that I walked from Rt. 50 to come over here, by the way.  I will feed you guys, if I could feed you guys dinner, I would feed you water with PFOA’s in it.  I would feed you asphalt, I’d make you wear clothes out of plastic.  See, people have farms.  Where do you get your food?  Did you ever eat apples, maple syrup, did you ever drink milk?  Well we won’t give that to ya if I had my way.  You guys need to follow your rules and if you’re going to have all of this development, go down to NY City, somewhere else.  I love the farm area, that’s one reason why I love walking in the town.  Nobody said it was safe, because you guys are already overdeveloping, nobody’s saying its safe.  But I love it.  Even the smell of the two skunks that were out on the side of the road when I was coming down here.  So, I hope you guys appreciate it.  (Applause)

22.   Lou Notarangelo, Middleline Road:

All I’m asking is that going forward, please exercise some intelligent design on the approval of any development going forward.  Right now, you have that Blue Heron development over on 67 and Eastline, they’re all empty.  Further up across from the bus depot, you have a three-story building built out on top of the street.  How did that happen?  And then all of those buildings behind it are also still empty.  I’m not against development, but I am asking for some intelligent design for whatever you do approve going forward. Thank you.  (Applause) 

23. Scott Draina, Outlet Road:

I know you asked everybody not to curse but I’m going to curse anyway.

I’m going to say MORATORIUM.

And only because over 5 years ago it was asked of this board to place a moratorium on building to straighten out our zoning.  It’s been five years, and three years working on the zoning that’s here, and we’re still not done with that.  It was supposed to be a quick process, and obviously, I don’t know if three years is quick to you but it’s not very quick to me.  And it seems like from everybody’s comments tonight that what we have is still not right and appropriate, we shouldn’t be pressured to pass what we have just because it’s been three years.  And I just wanted to say moratorium.  And we need it to take the pressure off and get our zoning correct.

Adjourned. 

Ballston Neighbors United is very proud of the community for speaking at the public hearing about the issues that mean most.