June 2019 Smart Growth Ballston Report

SMART GROWTH BALLSTON REPORT

In its entirety released by Smart Growth Ballston

June 2019

REPORT:

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 asked their opinions on the following positions:

Within one year of assuming office -

1. Eliminate all Planned Unit Development District (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.
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 will exceed the 60,000 sq. ft. size cap in the Town of Ballston.
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 the current parks and rec fee).
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.
5. 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?

Candidates were scored according to the following formula: In favor of the policy = +1

CANDIDATES TOTAL SMART GROWTH SCORES

(Total potential range of scores is -5 to +5. Actual range is -1 to +4.5)

Favorably open to it, but not committed to the specifics as presented = +0.5 Non-committal = 0

Tending to opposition = -0.5 Opposed = -1

CANDIDATES TOTAL SMART GROWTH SCORES

(Total potential range of scores is -5 to +5. Actual range is -1 to +4.5)

Conclusion: In the Republican primary race for Town Supervisor, Mr. Connolly appears to be significantly more amenable to the proposed smart growth policies than incumbent Supervisor Mr. Szczepaniak. Rather than put proposed smart growth policies into law to address development in a uniform and comprehensive manner in the Town of Ballston, Mr. Szczepaniak’s general approach, as reflected in his comments below, is to ask residents to trust the Town Board to make case by case decisions on development projects as they arise.

Smart Growth Ballston would argue that this approach has resulted in the approval of projects that were clearly contrary to the preferences of Ballston residents as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan, such as the Rossi/Walmart Planned Unit Development District (PUDD), and the Katz PUDD. This piecemeal approach also increases the risk that the Town will be sued by developers and other entities who feel that the Board is acting capriciously, and not in accordance with the law, as has occurred with NYS Ag. and Markets, and with Dolomite.

In the Republican primary for Town Board, the scoring was closer. Both incumbents and challengers agree with imposing lower size caps, eliminating all PUDD zoning, and promoting pedestrian-friendly streets. These are significant commitments moving forward for whomever should get elected.

In addition to responses on the above policy proposals, primary voters should consider Board candidates’ positions on issues that have come before the Board. Mr. Goslin believes the proposed new zoning should be approved and then further revised. Mr. Szczepaniak’s interest in revising zoning beyond the current proposal is unclear. Connolly, Curtiss and Solberg all believe the proposed zoning should not be passed, there should be a moratorium on major development, and the process should start anew.

Mr. Goslin voted for the Katz PUDD, which has resulted in a pending lawsuit by NYS Ag. and Markets, while Mr. Curtiss voted against. Mr. Solberg says he is also against the Katz PUDD. Mr. Goslin has

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

Grow Smart Maine: http://growsmartmaine.org/10_principles_of_smart_growth