Residents are calling for the elimination of
PUDDs in Ballston
Within our proposed zoning amendment, there are
2 concepts in strong opposition. Both are known for their unique qualities and
characteristics to bring forth change in 2 very different ways.
The first is a well-known concept called a
Planned Unit Development District or PUDD for short. This is a
method of instituting a separate zoning rule within a township that has very
strict regulations that a development concept cannot fit into. It
is looked at holistically to ensure continuity, value, and alignment with the
comprehensive plan. In theory it is a very nice capability that is
useful when a project is presented that adds significant value to the township
and is appreciated by all residents. The town board has the ability
to create this district with it’s own zoning to appeal to the town, residents,
and developer.
The second concept is also known within the
state and supported by Agriculture and Markets to help save precious farmland
while offsetting the forces of development into designated areas in which the
town and the comprehensive plan intended. It is not designed to
stifle development, rather it is meant to target preservation and
development. This is known as the Transfer of Development Rights.
(TDR). The TDR is driven off the needs of the farmer to either use
their land as a retirement, investment, or expansion. A farmer can
sell his or her development rights, thus applying a deed restriction on the
land to be forever farmland. In return a monetary payment is
given. You may ask, where does that payment come from? The
developer pays for it. When choosing a “receiving” property, the
developer must pay credits towards the chosen density. In short,
the TDR is a method of bartering density credits between farmland and
designated lots that have been chosen by the town.
Now, this is where the opposition
occurs. When you put both concepts together, the incentive to pay
for a TDR receiving lot is diminished. It is much easier and
financially beneficial to opt for a PUDD rather than pay density credits
towards a TDR. That is what we have in this legislation. The PUDD
and other such zoning concepts that are similar such as the Senior Living
District contradict the goals set forth by instituting a TDR. The
question is, are we serious about “smart” development while supporting our cherished
open space? Let’s get rid of PUDD’s and Senior Living
Districts. Our town board dictates what is welcomed and cherished
when selecting these projects. Not you.
- Join your neighbors at the Town Wide Public Hearing on Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 6:00pm at Town Hall and ask that PUDDs be eliminated from our town's zoning.
Please include in a post like this one that it an individual or individuals position and thoughts. Not necessarily facts, but opinions. This resident is not calling for elimination of PUDDs, and as a matter of fact, find them to be useful many times in bringing benefits to a town that might not otherwise be available. Not all PUDDs are approved nor should they be, but many are the right way to approach development.
ReplyDeleteThis is the expert the opinion of Rick Pruetz, FAICP. Rick invented the idea of TDRs. He is on the record saying there should be little to no other development options when going to a TDR zoning plan. PUDDS should not be a "work around" to TDRs. There is no more qualified expert on successfully implementation TDRs than Rick. Check out his site
ReplyDeletehttp://smartpreservation.net/about-rick-pruetz/
- Eric Connolly
PUDDs are just a trick from developers to skirt zoning laws. I live in one approved in 2003. It was supposed to have commercial development and professional offices. None so far, so Ballston is allowing them to build more condos instead. Do ANY of the TOB PUDDs have commercial sites?
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to see the great detail here!. Krushia
ReplyDelete