To: The Town of Ballston Town Board and the consultant team lead by MJ Engineering and Land Surveying at envisionballston@gmail.com
Re: Comprehensive Plan Update and Zoning
On behalf of the
residents of the Town of Ballston that have taken the time to voice their
opinion during Public Hearings (prior to the covid-19 pandemic), we request
that you please include these 70 comments in your records and consideration for
the Envision Ballston Comprehensive Plan Update.
Although these comments
are already on record with the Town of Ballston, the purpose of this 26-page
summarizing document is to ensure that these comments have not been overlooked
by new board members or by the consultant team hired by the Town of
Ballston.
Some of you may not have
been involved before the covid-19 pandemic and not able to see the crowded
meeting room full of residents and did not hear the loud applause of support
when a person really spoke from their heart.
Today, you are in the midst of trying to obtain public engagement while some are too afraid to leave their home. We hope this list of 70 public comments introduces town residents wishes to those who were not watching the public hearing and serves as a reminder of resident’s desires/wishes/preferences to all who have been present and involved.
The following comments were made on the record during a Town of Ballston Public Hearing held on March 12, 2019
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 tweaks and iron out the issues." It may falter an argument in many people’s 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 timeline.
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.
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 submitted her whole
document to the Town Board.
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.
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.
Mrs. Kulokowski's
prepared a written comment which has much more detail and filed it with the
town. This above is what she said during
the time allowed.
-----¨-----
5. 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.
-----¨-----
6. 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, it’s 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 level, 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 board’s 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.
-----¨-----
7. 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)
-----¨-----
8. 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)
-----¨-----
9. 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” on the corner of Jenkins Rd and Scotchbush Rd
10. 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.
-----¨-----
11. 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.
-----¨-----
12. 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).
-----¨-----
13. 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)
14. 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.
-----¨-----
15. 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
-----¨-----
16. 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.
-----¨-----
17. 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)
-----¨-----
18. 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)
-----¨-----
19. 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)
20. 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.
-----¨-----
21. The letter below was sent to the Town of Ballston on March 21, 2019 By David W. Christensen
I don't think commercial development or dense apartment complexes are a good
fit for Middleline Rd. or Kingsley Rd. either, but I'll focus mainly on
Middleline.
On balance, Rt. 50 seems a better fit for such development and is probably a
natural evolution.
Residential two (2) acre lots for the rest of it sounds good to me.
Zoning ordinances were originally implemented for a reason -to preserve the character of a community by preventing unmanaged development. Residents apparently thought that was a good idea at the time -and is what attracted me to the town.
If I didn't care much about high density & high traffic, I may have moved to somewhere like Clifton Park.
If the current residents of the town no longer feel as I do about the topic -if it came up for a vote and was carried, I'd be disappointed, but I would find a way to accept it and move forward.
The town government, as is, doesn't work that way. We have a small
handful of elected officials who admirably give their time to weigh these
issues and decide -based upon, (I would like to think) the collective will of
the people who voice their opinion.
As well as the populace at large, it is, I think, a safe assumption that there are a small handful of landowners and developers who have been whispering 'sweet somethings' in their ear.
I fully understand there may well be a handful of landowners situated in a place where they could cash out of their holdings and walk away.
Couple that with the likelihood of a small handful of developers who already have options on some of that land and, perhaps even, financing in place and blueprints in their hands.
It puts the board in a sensitive position. It is not possible to keep everyone happy. Not even close.
The board's allegiance, I think, should be for the good of the many.
Why?
It seems like a lofty
goal.
Anyone who lives in this
town and needs more talking points -things to ponder . . . reasons why it might
not be such a hot idea to give the proposed zoning the green light, -here are a
couple that come off the top of my head. There are probably more:
In case you hadn't thought of this, it goes much further than whether or not a PUDD will be allowed to re-characterize Middleline Rd., (as an example of just one spot on the map).
If the proposal is passed, in less than 20 years our esteemed elected officials' names will be long forgotten while town residents will still be subjected to the lingering negatives that come along with 'Clifton Park type' development.
If these proposed zoning changes are accepted for the benefit of a small handful of landowners and pathological developers, you should expect to see these four (4) lingering negatives come your way:
• 1. Apartment glut
Pathological developers, in my mind, are those who would build a hotel in the middle of the Sahara Desert -if they could get the financing. At some point it morphs into the embryo of a slum.
There will likely be high vacancy rates (if there isn't already) among the many apartment complexes within a five (5) mile radius of Ballston Center -leading to some of them falling into disrepair, becoming unsightly properties and/or being foreclosed upon.
It's a downward spiral. The various properties race toward the
bottom as they compete with continually lower rents. The lower rents
attract a different demographic that you may not want to live next door to.
The above scenario would be accelerated if the Malta chip plant gets placed in
mothballs -which some feel isn't that much of a stretch.
[SIDEBAR] How about this idea? ** A moratorium on apartment complexes for 3-5 years to let the dust settle.**
• 2. More Schools Needed
Bond issues will be floated to pay for more schools and expand existing schools and facilities. All those apartments bring in lots of young families with kids. Translation: higher taxes.
• 3. Sewer and Water Districts
More bonds will need to be issued for developing water and sewer systems up and down our roads. Whether you want/need them or not, you'll share the cost in the form of higher taxes.
• 4. Wider Roads and more traffic signals
Think Clifton Park.
A four-lane Rt. 50 or a four-lane Middleline Rd. is not much of a stretch of the imagination.
Also, developers like to deed roads to towns after they are developed. I can see an increase in the expense of road maintenance and snowplowing. More trucks, personnel, equipment, salt, sand. Translation: higher taxes.
Our elected officials are feeling the heat from all sides.
They are not 'all-knowing' and do not always make the right decisions regardless of who they are.
A case in point:
Approximately 45 Years ago, the same type of good people serving on the council in Schenectady, NY thought it was a great idea to demolish the old historically relevant train station (which in my eyes looked like a mini Grand Central Station).
Yes, it was in disrepair but could have been fixed. It was torn down
in the spirit of the then current wisdom of 'urban development' and replaced
with a plain vanilla glass and steel structure that was, itself, replaced
recently with a new building -looking strikingly like the old historic
original.
You would be hard-pressed to find someone who was around at the time that thinks it was a good idea to demolish the old train station.
So, what's the point? [Parts 1, 2, 3]
Elected officials are
under pressure.
They do not always make
the right decision.
The people of the town will be living with the consequences of their decision long after their names are forgotten.
• A Better Way
The possible exception to that thought could be this: if they dig in their heels (to a lot of fanfare) and seek to improve the town zoning in ways meant to preserve -and, enhance the town's character.
Those types of changes more often lead to remembrances and celebrations of those who usher in such policy.
Instead of floating bonds to build schools and water/sewer districts -how about floating bonds to buy up and preserve open space?
There are ways to do this. A particularly robust example of this is
on the island of Nantucket, Mass.
https://www.nantucketlandbank.org/about/
There is a tax levied (a point or 2 of the purchase price) on every exchange of
real estate, the proceeds of which go into the Land Bank for just that -to buy
up and preserve open space. That land bank has been a huge success
out there, by any measure.
I trust the elected officials will do their
homework and be fully aware of which side of history they would prefer to be
remembered.
David W. Christensen
The above letter was
submitted to the Town of Ballston as a written statement for the public hearing
on proposed zoning.
Dave has lived on Charlton Road in Ballston since 2003
-----¨-----
22. The next letter was submitted to Ballston Neighbors United to publish on their Blog by Joan Pott
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.
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, Hop City Road
-
Joan Pott is a long-time resident of Ballston, Past Chair of the Farmland
Protection and Preservation Committee
-----¨-----
A Public Hearing was held on a Proposed
Local Law of the Town of Ballston “Amending the Town Code Chapter 138 Zoning
and Chapter 104 Subdivision of Land” by the Town Board of the Town of Ballston
on November 7, 2019
Here are some comments from residents:
23. Dave
Pierce of 110 Lake Road
“ One, I hope this public hearing will not
close tonight because of all the comments that are in the document that haven’t
been given to the public for them to comment on during the public hearing; we
can’t comment on something we have not seen. Two, I thought, (this has been a 3
year process), the discussion all along has been inclusive with all the members
of the Planning Board and all members of the Zoning Board for their input into
the document we have in place, and that as it goes forward to the final vote,
that they are happy and ecstatic with the new document coming out because
they’re the ones who have been limited, all the years I’ve been coming to those
meetings and how to deal with the growth that the town is facing, how to deal
with projects that are invasive on agriculture lands, on wetlands, on our
nature beauty in our Town. If they don’t have the document the way they want it
going into the future, their hands will be tied the next 10 years. It’s been 13
years since the last one. I certainly hope that the Zoning Board and the Planning
Board are all on board and made all the comments they wanted to make to this
document, they are the ones who have to work with it. I would like to see a
final draft posted on the Town’s website so that the public can read what the
real zoning is going to be because all comments on the website are being
amended and changed and I don’t know how you have a public hearing without
seeing the final document.”
-----¨-----
24. Steve
Merchant of 357 Charlton Road and a ZBA member
“If you look at your sheets that were handed
out, I attached the FLPP survey that was done, when we made that plan, 88% of
the respondents strongly agree or agree that promoting and encouraging local
agriculture and farm viability is necessary to the rural parts of the Town to
maintain it. To Kelly, I was at the Town Board meeting the night when we were
talking about the 150-foot buffers with a sliding scale, I thought that was a
done deal and when we saw it had been removed, we said where did it go? I asked
C.T. Male at one of our meetings; he said the Town Board removed it. It’s right
in the minutes. I don’t know where it is, but it should be there. I am trying
to be positive about it. It should be there. It’s to protect the homes as well
as the farmland, it works both ways. The other thing in my comment is that a
lot of the statements in the proposal were changed, and I don’t know why,
they’re worded differently, for what reason we have no idea, there’s a ton of
them. I feel there is a lot of work that needs to be done here yet, so I think
we just need to stay with the process.”
-----¨-----
25. Mike
Lesniak, Chairman of the ZBA
“First of all I am going to agree with what
Steve Merchant said. That 150’, Kelly, was in there, it was in the zoning book
we had, I know it because I went through it. It was 150 feet minimum and it was
at the discretion of the Planning Board to increase that if they saw fit. A
couple of other things: Mr. Koenig referred to a lot of prudent things that he
skipped over; I’ll admit there are other minor things as well but some of these
minor things should never have been missed. One of them was the discrepancy
between Business Highway District 1 and 2. That was the original – it was
changed to Business District Highway 1 and Business Highway Rural Transition;
however, they may sound minor but if you go into the Figures of 4 and 5 it is
still referred to it as Business Highway District 1 and 2. That is an
inconsistency, things like this should have been picked up very easily. I know
Mr. Koenig mentioned he will go over the tables again. I will read the summary:
Our current zoning is flawed. However, the proposed Zoning Code is as flawed or
perhaps even more so. The above listed concerns consist of major and some minor
areas. These are not items that can be simply tweaked after voting to adopt the
new proposed Zoning Code; therefore, the ZBA does not recommend a vote to adopt
this proposed new Zoning Code at this time. The ZBA recommends that the
concerns, items, and inconsistencies identified herein be addressed and
resolved prior to voting to adopt the new proposed zoning. With that I will
sign off.”
-----¨-----
26. Ben
Zadronzny of 136 Charlton Road
“We heard from thousands of people on Tuesday
they don’t want what’s contained in the new zoning changes from what limited
information that most of them don’t have. With a new Supervisor and Board
member coming to the Board, in just weeks, I feel that it will be disrespectful
and wrong to have a vote on this very important topic to begin with. I think
you should wait until the new team comes in to place has a chance to evaluate
what you have and to weigh in; they were talking to a lot of residents and those
residents made them very, very aware of what their wishes are. I understand
that PUDDs are still a part of this which is spot zoning and gives any Board
the ability to implement spot zoning – break the rules, change what shouldn’t
be. That has been going on far too long and we need to stop it and I would like
you not to vote on this until the new team is in place. Thank you.”
-----¨-----
27. Bill
Shaw of Everson Way
“I was
going to say what the last two speakers said so I will just reinforce that
without going into it again. I would also like to comment on there was
something called the redlined issue and the blue line issue that was never made
very clear to the public what was going on. There is word going around that the
Town Board adopted some changes to the zoning over the course of this year and
it never came up in front of the Zoning Board which is supposed to happen
according to State regulations as far as we know. Also, it seems to me watching
some cases come before the Zoning Board, a lot of the stuff comes from them
should actually come from the Zoning Board. It seems like all they are doing
here is shuffling stuff that’s minor, easy cases to people on the Zoning Board
and the Planning Board’s taken over some of the functions of the Zoning Board. I
don’t think that is right. Every time you guys do something vague in the
zoning, the buffer will be determined by somebody, that makes the Zoning
Board’s job harder because then you have more cases of people saying oh we
didn’t know and all this other stuff or when stuff gets adopted that these
issues of who’s jurisdiction is who and also make the guidelines more clear so
that so many people don’t have to come to the Zoning Board and get surprised
that that is already decided by the Planning Board”.
-----¨-----
28. Peter
Solberg of 166 Charlton Road
“We
missed an “s” in our existing zoning and that “s” was at the end of an
abbreviation and it was interpreted by both our Town attorneys and also the
developer’s attorneys that even though it was referenced in an appendix that
clearly stated that 1417 Saratoga Road was supposed to be a PUDD and those on
the Planning Board believed that it should be a PUDD and it won’t because it
will continue on as a major subdivision and that is an “s” . One “s”, on an
abbreviation in a grid, and to say that inconsistencies are not important,
critical in this type of legislation, is inaccurate. Zoning is supposed to be a
guide as to how to develop this Town and it should be clearly understood, it
shouldn’t be confusing, and should not have any type of conflicts between grids
or diagrams or different documents and every time there is it opens up
liability to the Town. It’s frustrating to the developers and frustrating to
the residents and so I would take all of those discrepancies as critical issues
that when exposed in a Planning Board scenario open ourselves up to liability
in that either party can do an Article 78. The only thing the Town can do is
eat that issue. I believe that the Zoning Board has been removed from a lot of the
critical aspects of adopting the new code and replaced with the Planning Board
which is not a governing body. The Zoning Board is a governing body within
Municipal Law and the Planning Board is not. I’ll stick to this and say that
this is a flawed piece of legislation that should not go in and those that will
be coming into office are committed to correcting it and having it align with
what the residents have asked for in the public comment which has been somewhat
diluted. Thank you.”
-----¨-----
29. Ruth
Osterlitz of 3 Magnolia Lane
“Dr.
Pierce stated everything I wanted to say in the beginning but after hearing
Peter talk, I decided what I really wanted to say is there’s your showstopper,
Supervisor. Your comment of no showstoppers really offended me because zoning
is the most important document in our Town and you have a showstopper.
-----¨-----
30. Paul
Simpson of Westside Drive
” It sounds that the various agencies that needed to approve the format of the zoning change, it is very possible that they had different versions than what the final version will be. I didn’t have any confidence when the Supervisor talked the other night, one of the last meetings, with red line and blue line, no one at the meeting could identify what they were looking at. They all talked about different versions. It wouldn’t surprise me to find that Saratoga County Planning Board and Ag and Markets approved something entirely different that is being discussed. It will be interesting to find out what they actually approved”
Sadly, the proposed zoning was approved by an outgoing board on December 10, 2019.
-----¨-----
The next
public comments are examples of how developers are finding loopholes in our
zoning and comments from residents reinforcing the desire to stop these big
projects.
Below are two projects as examples, the first project is still before the Planning Board and the second project has been approved despite public opposition. The following comments were made on the record at the public hearing portions of Town of Ballston Planning Board Meetings:
JANUARY 29, 2020
RE: 1417 Saratoga
Road - Public Hearing Continued
1417 Saratoga Rd. Tax
ID# 228-1-48.32, 228-1-2.1 and 228-1-48.112
The applicant proposes
to construct a mixed-use development
Proposed are two 6,000SF mixed commercial buildings, a 15,000 SF building, a 2,000 SF building, and two 3-story buildings proposed and are residential/multi-family with attached garages.
31. Scott Draina, Outlet
Road
Simply I think that the size
and the scope of this project does not fit the rural character of this
town. This applicant is only being heard because of something that I
have mentioned before and is worth mentioned. They believe that they
have found a loophole in our zoning with a spelling grammatical error in a
table that allows them to be here as a subdivision when this project really
belongs as a Planning Unit Development or design and we should be making them
follow a PUDD design and not allow them to continue as a major subdivision.
-----¨-----
32. Ruth Osterlitz,
Magnolia Lane
This is the Planning Board for the whole town, and I want to remind you that this planning for the whole town. I believe this project is too big for this town. There is a letter on record from the Supervisor of this town stating his concerns over the size of this project also. I understand that the applicant does not live here, and he may not know, and I am not sure when you were last on the property, but the vacant lot is not vacant anymore, that there is a gas station there. I want to point out that I am not comfortable with the traffic report. I believe that this report is thorough, and it is about this particular area and like I said, this is the town planning board and it effects the whole town. In the 2016 Regional Traffic Study showed that the intersection close to this proposed development at Brookline and Route 67 is reaching capacity and relatively minor changes in the traffic volume have the potential to create a noticeable difference. That was 4 years ago and predates 40 residential units on Mourningkill Road, 36 residential units at Kasey Pass not to mention the apartment building down the road at Peak Point you have mentioned earlier. I would like to ask the board to keep this tabled and that you keep the public hearing open.
This project is still before the Planning Board
-----¨-----
These next public comments on record with the Town of Ballston is in reference to a Conservation Subdivision called Preserve at Summerhill. This is an example of a project that no neighbors wanted, and the developers again used a loop hole in our zoning. These are just a portion of comments on this project that was sadly approved recently by the Planning Board.
Preserve at Summerhill
Scotch Bush Rd & Jenkins Rd - Major Subdivision-30 lots
This is a cluster subdivision on 47 mostly wooded acres that include wetlands and streams on approximately 16.36 acres of that parcel.
Preserve
at Summerhill
Discussion
of note during meeting amongst Planning Board Members and Town Attorney:
Mr. Pasquale: “Who would own the conservation
area?”
Mr. Lansing: “Each individual lot would be
deed restricted. So, all the lots that go out to the outer limits of the
property, but just about every single property would have a deed restricted
area where that will be.”
Ms. Matias: Who is going to enforce that these
conservation areas are left alone? How are you going to know? Someone could
just clear it up?
Mr. Chauvin, Esq: If no one complains to the town, the town won’t know if someone cuts down conservation area.
Preserve
at Summerhill
The Public hearing was started on this project on December 19, 2018 and residents in the neighborhood spoke up:
33. Tom Russell, Acorn Dr
spoke about how managing sewage around wetlands and preventing leach fields from infiltrating properties nearby that still have wells is a big concern, it’s a lot of sewage
34. Jim Schultz, Scotchbush Rd
he sent a letter on this to Sophia. 15 properties were left without access to water on Jenkins. 5 of those have shallow wells. The water is poorly drained, he puts a stick in it and water comes up. Density of this project is a big concern because of the nature of the soil, streams and wetlands.
35. Bernie Kuczek, Scotchbush Rd
He was there when water testing was done. Water was pouring out. Everyday it smells like sewer there now because of the wetlands.
36. Stephen Merchant, Charlton Rd
Wildlife and greenspace, where is it all going
to go? Is it in the ag district? (answer was no). It is disgusting to build
that many houses there, you’re turning it into a Clifton Park.
37. Mark Osterlitz, Magnolia Lane
The developers are lying when they call this a Preserve. Just tell the truth. This is not a preserve.
38. Nancy Heath, Scotchbush Rd
Safety concern. Scotchbush has been raised up several times. Theres no room for walkers. Also, all developments need two ways out, not one, right?
39. Tom Ogle, Jenkins Rd
There is a creek on Scotchbush, where does it go? It’s an unnamed creek. No one knew the answer.
40. Olga Stryjski, Silver Lane
I lived here since 1968. Recently a tree died from the wetlands. Concerned about septics. Hers is the only one that is ok. The people around her have septic problems because of the wet soil. And there is deer and turkeys here. Where are they going to go?
41. Tom Stackey, Silver Lane
Its beyond wet. Its poorly drained soil. Re: connections, doesn’t want connections. Likes his dead-end street, its safe for kids.
42. Jill Delucia, Jenkins Rd
I grew up in Bh, it was mostly farmland. Now its unrecognizable. Traffic by Middle School is such that she’s afraid for the kids. Traffic is horrendous, too much traffic. Very very wet. She sloshed thru it with her dog when her dog ran away and she chased it.
43. Lisa Ashdown, Jenkins Rd
Likes the privacy and the nature. Naming it a preserve is wrong, it’s not a preserve, it’s the opposite.
44. Mike Lesniak, Jenkins Rd
Soil is not conducive for this.
45. Michelle Ogle, Jenkins Rd
Traffic has to go somewhere, right? Forest Road is difficult now. There’s no good way to get out.
46. Jim Clevenstine, Acorn Dr
This is not staying with the character of the neighborhood, and the sewage concerns are huge.
47. Peter Solberg, Charlton Rd
The creek goes NW to SE and saturates the entire lower section. Suggests using the 5% Parks and Rec Fee for connection across Scotchbush to property that the school just sold on Jenkins.
48. Steve Walsh, Kingsley Rd
My in-laws live on Scotchbush, too much traffic, they can’t get out of their driveway.
49. Resident, lives on Scotchbush
can the schools handle that increase in students, aren’t the classrooms at a max?
50. Tamara Russell, Acorn Dr
Wants to be able to walk her dog in her neighborhood, chose to move here 3 years ago because did not want a Clifton Park.
51. Mark Osterlitz, Magnolia Lane
You need to seriously consider this because you would be building in wetlands, the town currently is dealing with serious problems in Carpenter Acres because the town allowed development on wetlands.
52. Scott Draina, Outlet Rd
Trails and sidewalks can give people places to go. It’s very wet there. When bringing water in where there are septics it’s going to raise the water level higher. Maybe there’s an option of fewer homes?
53. Sue Robbiano, Kingsley Rd
It takes 12-14 minutes at this time to drive from Kingsley to the corner of Lake Hill and Rt. 50, just to get to the red light, during the hours of 430-615pm. Even though this is only 29 houses, this is too many cars. This board needs to start listening to us when we tell you we have too many people moving into this area, we have no roads.
54. Nancy Heath, Scotchbush
The ticks are terrible there
55. Carl Thurnau, Woodside Drive
Horrendous traffic. All you have is a two lane road.
56. Jim DAuria, Jenkins
Traffic is awful. People are cutting thru the Morris Ford dealership just to get around the traffic. It’s a circus
57. Kathleen Keeney, Scotchbush Rd.
Has a shallow well. The soil can’t handle that sewage. It already takes her 20 minutes to get to I-87.
Preserve at Summerhill
Comment of note at the April 24, 2019 Planning Board Meeting:
Kathryn Serra of CT Male, the town's engineer told Mr. Lansing that this plan is lacking any sort of detail to the board to even be able to ascertain if 29 new homes actually fit on this piece of property. The storm water management basin was moved to a different location that was deemed conceptually better than the previous location but the issue she takes with the new location is that it is on a hill of a 16-foot elevation drop. She really wonders how they will get the storm water retention that they require. She has asked for a preliminary grading plan. Same thing for the septics, she understands that that assessments were done and asked they please provide that information since a lot of the public comments have to do with the concern for septics. She stated that is used to seeing engineering plans with this level of detail, but she is not convinced this will work. The property is large, the property is low and wet, the applicant is stating that they are building on the high part with good soil and she would like to see those reports. "I know you are looking for a nod of approval tonight but from an engineering standpoint I cannot tell the board or the public that 29 houses even fit here." The town engineer then asked them to please do due diligence in order for the board to act to move this project forward.
Preserve
at Summerhill
At the July 31, 2019 Planning Board
Meeting Chairman VanVorst stated that he and Ms. Muschott will be recusing
themselves for the Preserve at Summerhill application.
The following public comments where made on July 31, 2019:
58. Eric
Connolly, Lancaster Court
stated
it’s the street that they are going to be tearing out the boulevard because of
plowing issues. Mr. Connolly looked over all the documents with were FOILED.
Mr. Connolly asked if there was a past precedent for allowing more than
21-homes on a cul-de-sac by constructing a boulevard at the entry; it seems
like a way to circumvent zoning in order to increase density consider the
Town’s zoning says 21 to a cul-de-sac and by adding those boulevards you can
squeak in another 8, has that been done before.
Ms. Serra
stated yes the past precedent is why this is being used.
Mr.
Connolly stated regarding #5 of the Latest submission addressing CT male’s
comments – “The location of the existing wells on the Kuczek and Robision
parcels have been included on the plans and the corresponding minimum well
separation distances to wastewater disposal systems have been included on Sheet
WDP-1. The well location on the Kuczek parcel is approximately and based on
aerial photographs. The actual location is currently being confirmed with the property
owner and will be provided once confirmed.” Mr. Connolly asked has the well
location for the Kuczek property been confirmed to be properly setback from any
proposed septic’s; at the time they typed the document, the location was not
confirmed.
Ms. Serra
stated they are in the process of coordinating with the land owner, which at
this point, is considered conceptual and feels it’s acceptable. If the project
progresses, it would have to be confirmed.
Mr.
Connolly stated lastly, there has been talk with the neighbors of how wet that
land is and know that before permits are issued, a second set of perc tests is
going to be required and there was a representative from NYSDOH present at the
first perc test; will a representative be present at the second set of perc
tests?
Ms. Serra stated yes, that is mandatory.
59. Carl
Thurneau, Woodside Drive
stated he is not privy to all the details of the project, but would just like to suggest to the Board that the Board be very careful in reviewing this project because of all of the interest in it; particularly as it parallels with what kind of problems we have at Carpenter’s Acres. Mr. Thurneau stated the upper part of the project is fine and dandy, the lower part of the project is in trouble particularly on this project where you are going to Page 10 of 22 Town of Ballston Planning Board July 31, 2019 have public water brought in addition to the water that’s already there. Mr. Thurneau recommends the Board carefully look at that situation.
60. Scott
Draina, Outlet Road
stated he had a question about the name and finds it ironic while he is driving around in Town with all these new developments that are called “Preserve” and is just wondering, where the preserve in this development is. Mr. Draina stated he drives by the Timber Creek Preserve and wondered what was preserved there and what is preserved here besides the swamp that could not be built on anyway. Mr. Draina stated he is just wondering when people are choosing names for these developments, what they are thinking they are preserving.
61. Jim
Schultz, Scotchbush Road
stated he just wanted to express his disappointment and have sent numerous letters, have been to the meetings and the feeling that the residents have is that the Board is certainly developer friendly and taxpayer unfriendly. Mr. Schultz stated their water levels are in jeopardy; there is no doubt that it will have an impact on the water levels on all our properties and so the one point that we have been taking about was the density of houses - if you are going to bring that much water in with 30 houses, in that area that already has so much water, that it puts the rest of us in jeopardy.
62. Olga
Stryjski, Silver Lane
stated she has lived there for 50 years and lost a Maple Tree and this past summer, have had water levels up where we could not even fill or use out lower backyard. Ms. Stryjski stated she is paying taxes for it and can’t use it. We were very lucky when we put in the new septic system and was told the State comes in an inspects and had told us that we had good soil for percolation, but other neighbors have put septic systems in where they have had to spend an extra five or ten thousand dollars to bring in more good dirt for percolation and is afraid all this stuff is going to run into the creeks and are going to ruin this piece of property, you have a lot of other land around that is able to withstand. The people that buy these houses in about ten years will be sorry and “I really don’t have a long time to go and really don’t care”, but everybody else they are just afraid to say something – I’ve been there 50 years and know that piece of property; there are deer and other animals there now and is a preserve now – people will be sorry and have been paying taxes all my life and raised three children and love Burnt Hills.
63. Nancy
Heath, Scotchbush Road
stated she has lived here for 53 years and since this is almost particularly in my backyard, have had an awful lot of problems with going out in the woods in the winter, cross-country skiing or just taking a hike and does not do it anymore because the ticks are so severe in this whole area. Ms. Heath stated there are three individual bodies of water that flow through this area and when here kids were younger used to boat and fish and is worried that her home with its shallow well in the cellar and several of the neighbor’s homes in that area have the shallow dug wells in their basements. Ms. Health stated the wells have been wonderful, but what is going to happen when we might have more and more run-off from septic systems in this whole area; is that going to affect the ground level water.
64. Eric
Connolly, Lancaster Court
asked if
anyone from the Planning Board walked this property – been on it or looked it
carefully; maps are great, but is just curious.
Mr.
DiPasquale stated he is familiar with the property, but have not physically
walked it.
No one from the Planning Board has walked the property.
Preserve
at Summerhill
A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of Ballston on Tuesday evening, August 27, 2019 on an extension of a waterline within the Town of Ballston Consolidated Water District #1 to include parcel 256.-1-7, 87 Jenkins Road (Preserve at Summerhill); said parcel is adjacent to the existing Water District.
65. Nancy
Heath of Scotchbush Road
concerned
about the wetland area behind her house. All the houses to the west and east
have dug wells in the basements. She is concerned with the groundwater level
that she may have septic issues. What will happen to their wells? Would she be
included in the loop?
Supervisor Szczepaniak stated that her home would not be included.
66. Peter
Solberg of Charlton Road
one item that is not shown on the map is the federal wetlands. Army Corps. of Engineers is involved with this. He showed the Board on the map where these federal wetlands are. The septic systems would be placed near the wetland boundaries. It is a very wet area.
Preserve at Summerhill
Comments of note at the October 30, 2019 Meeting
67. Scott
Draina, 10 Outlet Road
§138-8.3
TND Traditional Neighborhood Design.
A. For
all subdivisions proposed in the Hamlet Residential Districts, the standards
set forth in §104-14 of Chapter 104 (Subdivision of Land) of the Town Code
shall apply.
§104-14 Traditional
Neighborhood Design (TND) standards.
A. The
following design standards apply to all subdivisions in the Hamlet Residential
and Ballston Lake Residential Zoning Districts of the Town. This development
must utilize municipal sewer and water services. Extension of municipal sewer
and water services are permitted. This section is divided into design standards
that will be required of any subdivision in the aforesaid districts and shall
be implemented by the applicant and/or required by the Planning Board wherever
feasible; and design standards, density bonuses and other requirements for
major subdivisions or 15 lots or more (or planned unit developments of 15 units
or more) where the applicant wishes to create a traditional neighborhood and/or
the Planning board determines that a traditional neighborhood is warranted. A
planned unit development shall be required for any proposal of more than 100
residential units. An applicant has the option to apply for a planned unit
development for any proposal or less than 100 residential units.
Mr.
Draina asked, why is this not a Traditional Neighborhood Design—am I missing
something because this seems pretty clear. If it does not fall or meet the
criteria of a TND, it could be a PUDD and its neither of those. Mr. Draina
asked why it isn’t either of those and how is this able to continue.
Mr. Chauvin (Attorney for the Town) stated he can give an off-the cuff response; the remainder of the paragraph sited, also says - that it shall be implemented by the applicant and/or requirement of the Planning Board whenever feasible and where the applicant wishes to wishes to create a traditional neighborhood (TND), or the Planning Board determines that it is warranted. Mr. Chauvin stated this is part of the re-zoning and appears to written in a way that says, “you have to do it, but then you may do it and the Planning Board may require it or should require it, but does not Page 4 of 33 Town of Ballston Planning Board October 30, 2019 have to require it; this falls into the same type of issue that we addressed at our last meeting where code, when drafted, has to be construed against the municipality in a least restrictive means for the applicant’s – that’s black letter law.
Mr. Chavuin said, “That is his off-the-cuff response and have not researched the issue yet as presented this evening.”
Preserve
at Summerhill
Comments of note at January 29, 2020 Meeting before the board made final approval on this project:
68. Ruth
Osterlitz, Magnolia Lane
I would like to remind the Board that this is another wetland parcel project and these are the same developers, under a different name, that were responsible for the mess at Stonebridge, which is sure you are all familiar with near wetlands and would like to point out that the Chairman of this Board has had a conflict of interest with this, but now apparently he is still sitting here and is not sure how there is an expiration date on that.
69. Scott Draina, Outlet
Road
I would just like to remind everybody for the record that this is in the Hamlet and that according to the zoning in the hamlet this project should really be a TND and it is being proposed as a conservation subdivision. Pointing to the map here that they populated with all these beautiful green trees is what they are proposing is to conserve is this area here around all the homes (Mr. Draina pointed the wetland area) which is actually swamp land and not beautiful green trees it is wetland and so it is not buildable anyway. I am requesting the board deny this project due to the fact that this project does not belong as a conservation subdivision. In article 10 of our zoning that describes a conservation subdivision, in section 104-28 it says the purpose and intend of a conservation subdivision is to preserve the rural character in the rural district. This is not in a rural district; it is in a hamlet. In section 104-30a says shall apply to major subdivision in a rural zoning district. Again, this is not a rural zoning district, it is in the hamlet. In section 104-30a3 says that the application should provide an conservation analyst which paraphrasing without reading the entire zoning, shall include inventory maps that describe the land to be conserved and show a value of that land to be conserved that the board then has discretion on deciding if that is a value to the town. I am wondering if the board really does feel comfortable providing a value to the swamp land that they are conserving here. I will read section 104-30a3e – it says the board shall deny any applications for subdivisions requiring compliance with this section that does not include a complete conservation analyst sufficient for the board to make its conservation findings. On all of that, I again ask the board to deny this and not give them final approval.
70. Chris Buckley, Kelly
Meadow Road
I agree with the previous speaker. This development does not fit the characteristics of this area of town and I do not think Jenkins Road and Scotch Bush can handle this additional traffic.
Sadly, this project is under construction today.
As the Envision Ballston website informs, the planning process will be a consensus-driven effort and includes public engagement to gather input about the future of Ballston from residents, business owners, property owners and other stakeholders in the community. This 26 page document was respectively submitted to the Town of Ballston via the Envision Ballston email address of EnvisionBallston@gmail.com provided on the Envision Ballston website.
February 4, 2021
end of document
No comments:
Post a Comment