MARCH 12, 2019
ZONING - SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN BOARD BY PETER SOLBERG
I have been
struggling with what to say and how to articulate my thoughts. My list of issues is extensive. I have spent countless hours reviewing, documenting,
and sharing my concerns with others here.
I request that this document which includes my prepared speech be added
to the meeting minutes. Aside from Farm-worker Housing in which I promised
I would discuss for certain members of the community who unfortunately are
absent I yield my exhaustive list of issues and gaps to the remainder of the
residents here in this forum.
In the subsection related to Farm Worker
Housing
·
138-67
subsection A specifies that mobile homes specifically for farm worker housing
must reside on land within the Ag District.
This is contrary to Ag & Market’s designations for Farm Worker
Housing. As stated in Ag & Market
Law 305-a, to be eligible for farm structures in which housing falls under, one
must be considered a farm and farm operation.
Ag & Markets will protect a farmers rights under 305-a however being
a farm’s first community and having adopted “right to farm” law, it should be
considered that farm worker housing be afforded to all active farm operations
within the allowable use areas.
·
A
6-month period for removal of single wide farm worker housing seems unreasonable. As described in Ag & Market
recommendations, a period of 3 years should be stated. This allows for unforeseen farm business
events such as death in the family, transitional periods, and seasonal housing
needs. The statement following the 6
month period seems vague and not concise.
The statement “or no longer
needed” must be clarified further.
·
There
is no consideration for mixed-use farm buildings, which are quite popular for
equine operations. Often an equine
caretaker resides above stables or arena to reduce the costs of building such a
facility. Special consideration should
be made to allow for such a building regardless of a residence. If the building were to transition to a
non-agricultural use, the certificate of occupancy can be removed and building
code enforcement can inspect the facility periodically.
Returning to
the overall process and readiness, this legislation is just not ready. It
really isn’t. It’s riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions that will
confuse the residents, officials and developers, expose weaknesses, and result
in a degraded township.
I have a
high confidence that based on comments from several board members that this
zoning will be approved regardless
of the public comments brought forth tonight.
Comments such as “We need to get
this zoning approved and work on the tweaks to iron out the issues.” may
hold an argument in many people’s minds.
It does foster a feeling of hope that we will obtain pristine zoning
language and acceptance that this is not it.
However, the dedicated individuals who sat by hopelessly with no voice,
no seat at the table for the last 10 months have feeling of animosity and
frustration. We’ve had individuals
across the town and outside who have continually discussed these issues. In fact, our professional and credentialed town planner, Nan
Stolzenburg has been guiding our town planner through the process by dictating specific
tasks with explicit order, which were not followed. Nan has personally provided her guidance and
perspective to the board and has been repeatedly ignored.
I felt it
prudent to investigate the evolution of this legislation outside of public
meeting notes and revision history to ensure that in fact the changes proposed
today reflect that of the residents in this town. I foiled a detailed change log of the zoning
from the time in which the public hearings closed last year until it was submitted
to the county for approval. With the
assistance in interviewing current Zoning Board members and representatives
from Ag & Markets, I give you my perspective of that timeline.
After all
public hearings and workshops, comments are gathered and formulated into a
comprehensive list of updates and revisions.
Once complete it is reviewed with primary stakeholders for final
review. Once complete, the process of
instituting the amendments must begin.
First, the proposed
zoning should be provided to and reviewed by the Zoning Board. This is noted in our current town law as
being required BEFORE public hearing.
138-96 Amendments authorized; procedures.
The
Town Board may, from time to time, on its own motion or on petition or on
recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals, after public notice and hearing,
amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal this chapter, pursuant to the
provisions of the Town Law applicable thereto. Every such proposed amendment
shall be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals for report prior to public
hearing thereon.
This was not
done.
Once
reviewed by the Zoning Board, the amendment to be provided to Ag & Markets
for final review of the TDR. This would
ensure that the 25k grant stipulations would be fulfilled. This was not done.
Before
sending the zoning to the county for review, there be a public hearing. This would allow modification before county
review. This was obviously not
done.
Now we are
where we are. The county approved it;
the Zoning Board has not reviewed or approved it. Ag & Markets still has not seen the
final TDR. This is why I believe all
issues that come to the attention to the board will fall on deaf ears.
I am
saddened by the poor execution and vague transparency that this zoning
processes has followed. I am not here
to name names or point fingers but to state that this legislation albeit may be
better than what we currently have, but is far from ready, riddled with
inconsistencies, and is not reflective of the residents, or extensive plans and
strategies adopted by the town.
Zoning
Issues (As Written)
TDR
·
Voluntary
for both sending and receiving. Should
be voluntary for sending, mandatory for receiving.
·
Receiving
overlaps with PUDD and Senior Living Districts. Thus they are on direct
conflict. One or the other…
·
Receiving
lots have limited town resources such as water and sewer. Additionally they exhibit wetland, which
makes it unsuitable for additional density.
PUDD & Senior Living Districts
·
There
are MANY inconsistencies both in language, documents, and even in the town
board meeting minutes that state that PUDD’s are allowed only on Rt. 50. This is untrue. The document states that the allowable
locations are on both Rt. 50 and Rt. 67.
·
Likewise,
the workshop notes state that the Senior Living District should also be on Rt
67.
·
It’s
interesting to note that there are no Health Care Facilities allowed on the
Rural Highway Transition however the Senior Living Districts are.
Environmental Protection – Specifically
Water
·
Within
the watershed overlay district, there are contrary statements about density
clauses may create confusion. It is
stated that the only method in obtaining increased density from the underlying
zone is via TDR. However PUDD and
Senior Living Districts are allowable within the Watershed Overlay District.
Sidewalks
·
There
is language within the new code that supports sidewalks for new
development. I encourage this practice,
as it will provide safe community involvement.
However instituting such as practice will be destructive. Rather, I would suggest a program be made to
plan a sidewalk system within each hamlet and require developers to fund the
program. Preference will be given to
the developer on the location of the sidewalk construction but then allows for
continuity in the construction, specification, plan, and execution. We don’t want a discontinuity of concrete
sprawl in the town. Additionally this
does not address shared sidewalks or town owned and maintained sidewalks.
Zoning
Missing (Should be)
PUDD & Senior Living Districts
·
The
concept of a PUDD or Senior Living District had their time here in
Ballston. They were a concept that
allowed for special circumstance that would bring forth an exceptional
opportunity for the town and its residents.
It would allow for crafting restrictive zoning laws within a small area
to allow for such an opportunity to be successful. Unfortunately many developers have utilized
this concept across the capital district as a way to circumvent zoning laws to
build their empire of townhouses, apartments, duplexes, and single-family
homes. With the requested density the
need for public water and sewer becomes a necessity.
·
Although
this zoning amendment does reduce the allowable area to create a PUDD or Senior
Living District, it does not eliminate it.
Many of the areas in which we choose to promote “smart” development are
in alignment with the PUDD and Senior Living District allowable areas. This diminishes the TDR concept
altogether. To strengthen our “smart”
development mission in keeping rural character we should abolish these
loopholes.
Environmental Protection – Specifically
Water
·
There
is no federal wetland buffer specified in the watershed overlay or frankly
anywhere in zoning. This gap has been
remediated in numerous townships across the county. DEC has clear delineation of buffers for
septic, well, and buildings. However
there is no enforcement of federal wetland buffers in state code. It is the responsibility of the township to
intact via zoning or ordinance.
·
Wetlands
move. It’s a fact and known to occur as
land topologies shift during building, erosion, and changing weather
patterns. It is recommended that prior
SEQR assessments for multi-phased projects be reopened in all site plan
reviews. Type 1 designations should be
mandatory when any site plan is proposed in the watershed overlay district.
General
·
To protect farmland
o A farmland protection committee member
or designate should be afforded an active (not alternate) member of all boards
and committees. This includes but not
limited to: Sewer and water, Parks and recreation, Ethics, Planning, and
Zoning. This was noted in the Farmland
Protection and Preservation Plan. It
has not be upheld.
o Reinforce no lateral connections for
public water for any water districts.
The referendum was passed in 2004 however there seems to be some
interpretation that needs to be clarified and rectified. Regardless of water district, there will be
no water laterals approved for non-agricultural use within the Agricultural District. Notice that the word “limited” is
removed.
o If any applicable construction takes
place within or crossing Agricultural District land, the building department
will mandate that construction guidelines provided by Agriculture and Markets
be followed.
o Farm buffers between development and
active farm operations should be at least 500 feet.
·
To promote our parks and recreational
areas
o The town should plan and mandate an
interconnected parks and recreational area that meets the needs of our
residents and promotes the rural community that we enjoy. Development that intersects these planned
trail systems will be included in site plan reviewed and maintained by the
developers, HOA, or township. These
park interconnects include Jenkins, Anchor Diamond Park, and Fireman’s Grove.
·
To promote businesses along the Rt. 50
corridor
o We should have clear direction on water
and sewer service for the entire corridor.
If sewer is not an option due to costs, the town, BPA, and county
Chamber of Commerce do an investigational effort to seek non-traditional
commercial septic solutions with grant programs or public ownership
options. Providing a healthy business
community is good for the entire township.
o We should have guidance on allowable
visual appearance of storefronts. It
should be prescriptive and reflect our intended rural character.
·
Signage
o To restore rural character in our Rt 50
corridor, we should eliminate the billboard ordinance and grandfather the
existing billboards. If and when these
existing billboards are decommissioned due to safety, weather, or change of
ownership the billboards will lose their zoning approval.
o To reduce light pollution in the rural
zone, guidance should be given on reduced lighting during midnight and 5
am. This includes the LED billboards
that are now present on Rt. 50.
o We should be serious and enforce the
sign laws. Far too many times I drive
down Rt. 50 and see excessive lighting on most all of the signs both from
private and government related entities.
·
Initiation, Planning, and Execution – A
matter of timeliness and adherence
o Extensions on planning board approvals
must be capped at two. If a third
extension is requested, the entire process should be restarted.
o Public notice must be made without
exception before a public hearing on all boards. Delay or removal of agenda items does not
constitute negation of public notification for subsequent presentations. If an agenda item is delayed or removed and
then re-added at a later date, an additional public notice must be sent. The costs incurred by the additional mailing
will be the responsibility of the requestor.
o When a building permit is obtained,
there should be a stipulation of stages and timeliness to reach set forth. For large projects, proof of funding must be
made available to ensure that the project will complete. This proof is to be
validated periodically and provided to the building department.
o When a building is damaged beyond repair
where it has become unsafe, the town should mandate a timeframe and
specification of site waste removal to return the land to a buildable
form.
You can watch a video recording of the public hearing here.
No comments:
Post a Comment