About BNU

March 12, 2019 Peter Solberg's Document to the Board PUBLIC HEARING

PUBLIC HEARING
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

Popular Posts