Town of Ballston Candidates Respond to Smart Growth Ballston
2019 Platform Dateline: Ballston, June 11, 2019
Smart Growth Ballston (SGB) asked the candidates running for
Ballston Town Supervisor and Town Board for their positions on policies for
encouraging “smart growth”* in Ballston. SGB would like to thank the candidates
for providing their positions on these policies, and for the evident time and
energy they put into their responses. SGB believes smart growth is one of the
most important issues facing Ballston at this pivotal time in its history. SGB
urges voters to consider the candidates’ positions below when deciding who will
best protect and promote Ballston’s rural and small town quality of life.
In order to facilitate comparison, and to fit within the
limited format of a newspaper article, SGB devised a score sheet. Readers are
strongly encouraged to read the candidates’ full responses below so they can
draw their own conclusions. Scoring is inherently a subjective exercise, and
small differences are not necessarily significant. For the scores below, the
SGB steering committee conducted independent ratings and the scores presented
are the pooled consensus. Though the absolute scores can be debated, we believe
the scores reflect the relative dispositions of the candidates towards the
smart growth agenda outlined below.
Candidates were scored according to the following formula:
In favor of the policy = +1
(Total potential range of scores is -5 to +5. Actual range is -1 to +4.5)
advocated for a sidewalk plan from his seat on the Board.
All three Board candidates have incorporated some smart growth goals into their
approach to development.
Based on candidates’ responses, and, for incumbent
candidates, their voting record, Smart Growth Ballston endorses the three
Republican primary challengers over the Republican Party-endorsed incumbents.
Mr. Szczepaniak’s team has promoted development that is not congruent with the
Comprehensive Plan’s emphasis on maintaining Ballston’s small town/rural
character, which is the preference of the majority of residents. In addition to
not adequately respecting his constituents’ smart growth preferences, Mr.
Szczpaniak’s approach has not paid sufficient attention to matching development
with the limits of the Town’s existing infrastructure, including street
congestion in the northern district, and water supply in the agricultural
district. The old ‘trust us’ approach has not worked. It is time for new leadership.
Candidates’ Responses, with Scores
Policy 1. Eliminate all PUDD zoning in the town of Ballston. In the
mixed use districts, zoning should only allow village-scale, mixed-use
development in the commercial centers that is visually and functionally
consistent with the existing historic village and hamlet in Ballston.
Town Supervisor Candidates
Tim Szczepaniak, Current Town Supervisor: The town of
Ballston is comprised of numerous villages and hamlets. It is prudent on the
part of the town board to recognize each unique part of our town and especially
when considering projects to keep the visual and functional components of said
areas of town before making any decisions. We are in the process of eliminating
Planned Unit Developments, except in business zones. As we always have, we
would thoroughly vet any proposal before the town board and strongly support
public input, through public comment periods, meetings or workshops to solicit
community feedback. We are one of the only town board’s in Saratoga County –
and the Capital Region – that has had referendums to let our citizens choose
their own destiny when it comes to their town. This truly is how democracy is
supposed to work. -0.5
Eric Connolly, Supervisor Candidate: As a group we have
previously agreed that an immediate moratorium on all PUDDs is of utmost
importance. A moratorium is the first step towards complete elimination. It is
time to get specific on what we are looking for in terms of development and
development style. The Town Comprehensive plan outlines some specifics on
building design/style, but I believe we would benefit by adding to these
guidelines. +1
Town Board Candidates, Alphabetically
Chuck Curtiss, Incumbent Candidate: I believe PUDDs need to
be eliminated, including those in the commercial area as well. PUDDs are a tool
used and often abused by developers to do whatever they want and to legally get
away with it. But in my opinion, it is not a tool that can be
used to the Town's advantage. Our goal should be a more
consistent, visually functional appearance - keeping with the small-town feel.
With the PUDDs gone, we close a loop-hole which is counterproductive to our
goals. +1
Bill Goslin, Incumbent Candidate: I feel it is time to
eliminate all PUDD zoning. We should
perhaps consider a provision that could allow for some variance for an
application that can show a community benefit like a “sports dome.” The concept
of PUDD trumping existing zoning needs to go away.
I am also in favor of an immediate ban on large apartment
complexes. These are fast becoming the breeding ground for crime and drug
addiction. Maximum 6 units per building. I am also in favor of eliminating 3
story buildings in North Zoning (unless there is a way to compliment Ballston
architecture). I believe that local residents in the area should decide what
the northern zone should look like, which I believe should complement the
village. +1
Peter Solberg, Board Member Candidate: Remove PUDD's and
Senior Living Districts. These concepts of ad-hoc zoning dilute the
effectiveness of the TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) and can be
detrimental to the prosperity of the town as determined by only 3 people
(majority on the Town Board). I support a moratorium on day 1 on all Major
Subdivisions, PUDD, Senior Living Districts, and Commercial over a threshold.
This moratorium would be for 18 months while zoning is repaired and reflects
the Comprehensive Plan, Farmland Protection Plan, and comments made during
public hearings. Excluded from the moratorium are site plan reviews, lot line
adjustments, single family homes, and zoning variance requests. +1
Policy 2: Set a size cap of 40,000 square feet for building
footprint in the Mixed Use North with the possibility of up to 60,000 sq. ft.
with the purchase of Transfer of Development Rights from sending areas. Require
that no commercial retail building exceed the 60,000 sq. ft. size cap in the
Town of Ballston.
Town Supervisor Candidates
Tim S.: The town board has a duty and obligation to consider
projects based on their merit, which most importantly includes the level of
community and town benefit from any given project proposal. As Ballston
continues to become more attractive to residential and commercial developers,
we have a unique opportunity to establish parameters that benefit Ballston the
most, including but not limited to projects that: help grow and maintain our
tax base to ensure Ballston remains town and highway tax-free; create community
partnerships; and create jobs for our town residents, while balancing our
desire to maintain the rural character of the town. -1
Eric C: 40,000 sq. ft. allows for a supermarket but stops a
mega store like Lowes or Walmart from crushing smaller competitors. We need to
protect our small family owned businesses from these giant corporations. We are
100% in favor of a strict TDR system. The challenging part will be to gain a
consensus on specific receiving zones. A TDR system cannot work if it is
voluntary which is what the current leadership is proposing. I would be in
favor of a 60K cap. +1
Town Board Candidates, Alphabetically
Chuck C: I think a square foot maximum of 45,000 is
appropriate for our community. A sliding scale gives a developer a case to
argue the specifics of this maximum. And often, those situations end up in
court. +1
Bill G.: Okay with these limits, unless overruled by a local
committee formed to review northern zoning. +1
Peter S: I would support limiting commercial retail to under
60,000 sq. feet. I do agree that the scale & calculation that results
should be tied to TDR. +1
Policy 3: Require all residential and commercial development to
contribute to a sidewalk/crosswalk fund, based on project size, to be used to
build pedestrian access and connectivity (similar to current parks and rec
fee).
Town Supervisor Candidates
Tim S: The town of Ballston diligently seeks to partner with
developers who will be good and responsible stewards to their neighbors, who
see the bigger picture of giving-back and investing in the community they are
helping shape for our future. Whether dealing with pedestrian access, road
enhancements, beautification of our land, or investment in our parks, the
current town board feels comfortable to continue partnering with developers to
help better and more efficiently connect our town while maintaining its charm.
0
Eric C: We certainly would be in favor of supporting a
walkable community. Our Comprehensive Plan calls for a planting buffer to be
built between the road and the sidewalk. A “build to” line with this type of
sidewalk layout keeps everyone safe and provides a more aesthetically pleasing
feel to future commercial/mixed use development. Having specific required funds
that developers must contribute to just makes sense. I would support this type
of measure. +1
Town Board Candidates, Alphabetically
Chuck C: Yes. There definitely should be a separate,
mandatory fee to fund sidewalks and trail connectivity that developers and
builders pay into. It should be similar to but separate from the current Parks
and Rec fund fee. +1
Bill G: I think the concept is good but illegal (can’t force
someone who will never have sidewalks to pay for yours). The rules around such
a fund are tightly controlled and we barely sneak by with our current fund. I
would support a similar fund for infrastructure (I think that is legal) which
could possibly be used for sidewalks.
I should mention that sidewalks are not cost-prohibitive.
Let's create an immediate sidewalk fund from fund balance. It is not expensive if you create a master plan
and work on it over a number of years. Grants are also available. +1
Peter S: Yes, I would support funds for both sidewalks and
lighting from development of both residential and commercial. The requirements
would be limited to specific districts where the sidewalks and lighting would
reside. A sidewalk district should be made along with a north and south hamlet
sidewalk plan. The district should consider ongoing maintenance and snow
removal
- if that is to be offloaded to residents or placed as a tax
burden. This again, should be open to the public for review. +1
Policy 4: Add additional protections for wildlife - Change zoning
to increase buffers for all streams from 50 to 100 feet. The buffer between
buildings in conservation subdivisions and primary conservation area should be
increased from 100 ft. to 200 ft. Language should be added to require that
trees older than 100 years should be disturbed to the least extent possible.
Town Supervisor Candidates
Tim S. Without seeing any official resolution language, I
could not make an exact commitment. But the spirit of this question I can
wholeheartedly support and would encourage my fellow town board members to do
the same. +0.5
Eric C: I wholeheartedly agree. I would take this a step
further and increase the setback line for all wetlands. In our Town you can
currently build right up to wetlands. No buffer at all! This is what went down
in the development that I live in (Stonebridge) and as a result we have had
significant storm drainage issues for which the Town has no answer. +1
Town Board Candidates, Alphabetically
Chuck C.: Due to more environmental issues like pollution in
all forms, the stream buffers should be a MINIMUM 100'. I believe this a step
in the right direction to save one of our most precious resources-water. The
buffers here really should be a minimum of 200'. In reality that's not much of
a buffer either but it is a step in the right direction. As far as older trees,
yes they should be respected and such. However, they need to be managed.
Diseased and dying trees of any age need to be managed accordingly. When a tree
or trees are harvested it should be mandated that new trees are transplanted in
their place. This is a positive effort in conservation. +1
Bill G: I believe stream buffers have been increased in our proposed
zoning. I would support 100 ft
buffers based on the type of stream. Some “smaller” streams should not require
a 100’ buffer as it could make a parcel unusable. Balance is the key. I should
mention that stream buffers are really designed to protect water quality, the
wildlife protection is a side benefit. +0.5
Peter S: The stream buffers should be expanded to 100 feet
for both DEC and Federal wetlands. Farm buffers should be clearly defined: 500
feet without remediation; Minimum 250 feet with remediation. Remediation
includes berms, old growth trees, and other recommendations from FLPPC, Ag
& Markets, and other such relevant and credible sources. +1
The new proposed zoning allows a
potential 280% increase in
residential units and a 1,014% potential increase in commercial square footage. Do you
think these potential build- out totals should be decreased? If yes, how would
you propose to do so?
Town Supervisor Candidates
Tim S. Ballston is becoming a quickly-coveted town for
residential and commercial development. We have a tremendous amount to offer
families, from exceptional schools, to low taxes, to convenient access to
highways, retail, and greenspace. The current town board works extremely hard
each day to be diligent and thoughtful in our decisions to strike the right
balance with smart growth, both residential and commercial. As a town board we
have worked to prohibit three story buildings in Burnt Hills and are currently
working on new zoning to permanently ban the ugly large apartments which do not
fit the character of our town. Again, current zoning laws allow for those potential
increases, but as mentioned, any project proposal would be up for discussion
and dialogue amongst the town board and town residents. 0
Eric C: I believe that a specific mandatory TDR system will
greatly reduce both of these numbers while preserving Ag District 2 and open
space land. +.5
Town Board Candidates, Alphabetically
Chuck C: When build-out numbers like this, 3-fold and
10-fold come to mind, it just shows how out of control development really is.
To decrease the residential increase, the minimum single-family lot size should
be increased to 4 acre lots. This will slow that down substantially. By
eliminating the PUDDs, putting a cap of 45,000 sq. ft. on all commercial
building, and absolutely no commercial in the rural zone of State Route 50 -
this is the area from Anderson Boat north to Charlton road. This should slow
down and discourage commercial development. +0.5
Bill G: I support your 40K to 60K proposal. I am in favor of
an immediate ban on large apartment complexes. These are fast becoming the
breeding ground for crime and drug addiction.
Max 6 units per building, 1 building per acre. I am also in favor of eliminating 3 story buildings in North Zoning
(unless there is a way to compliment Ballston Village architecture). +0.5
Peter S: As for the development build out percentages, I
believe they are actually low estimates. I am NOT for this volume of
development. I want to create supportive zoning and easement models to
significantly reduce our density. I would like to look at TND's (Traditional
Neighborhood Design) and Conservation Subdivisions and reduce density on those.
I would look
at increased minimum lot size for the rural area, hamlet,
and also in the watershed overlay district. I would like to reduce new home
development significantly while trying to promote revitalization of existing
homes in our community…We should promote uniqueness in our natural assets (open
space, trail systems, lake). +0.5
*What is Smart Growth?
10 Principles of Smart Growth
1.
Mix land uses.
Each
neighborhood has a mixture of homes, retail, business, and recreational
opportunities.
2.
Take advantage of compact neighborhood and green
building design.
Residents
can choose to live, work, shop and play in close proximity. People can easily
access daily activities, and local businesses are supported. Green buildings
and other systems can save both money and the environment in the long run.
3.
Create a range of housing opportunities and choices.
People in
different family types, life stages and income levels can afford a home in the
neighborhood of their choice.
4.
Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a
strong sense of place.
Each
community is unique, vibrant, diverse, and inclusive, with a sense of history.
5.
Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and
critical environmental areas.
Development
respects natural landscape features and has higher aesthetic, environmental,
and financial value. A secure and productive agricultural land base provides
food security, employment, and habitat, and is maintained as an urban
containment boundary.
6.
Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities.
Investments
in infrastructure (such as roads and schools) are used efficiently, and
developments do not take up much new land.
7.
Create walkable neighborhoods.
8.
Provide a variety of transportation choices.
Neighborhoods
are attractive and have safe infrastructure for walking and cycling, in
addition to driving. Public transportation is well-developed.
9.
Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective.
10.
Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in
development decisions.
Adapted
from Smart Growth BC: www.smartgrowth.bc.ca and
