|
The Gardiner town board voted 5-0 last week
to adopt a six-month moratorium that would prohibit subdivisions
of three or more lots and also ban building permits on properties
above 750 feet in elevation.
At
the opening of the public hearing on Gardiner's proposed
moratorium on major subdivisions in its ARR-200 zone, trustee
Matt Bialecki offered some historical perspective. "At the
beginning of the new administration last January, each board
member took responsibility for a specific area of concern,"
he said. "Mine was the zoning advisory committee, charged
with updating the zoning code and bringing it into synch
with the master plan...The zoning work has effectively begun.
The master plan committee adopted a resolution calling for
this moratorium, which the planning board endorsed and passed
on to the town."
In
answer to an audience question, it was explained that the
ARR 200 zone extends from the top of the ridge escarpment
down to North and South Mountain roads, from Tillson Lake
Road in the south to around Sparkling Ridge Road in the
north.
"How
many people are going to be affected by this?" asked resident
and onetime supervisor Marion Kells.
"Everyone in the district will be affected by the subdivision
regulation, but only people who live above the 750 foot
altitude will be affected by the building permit clause...something
like 40 of 50," responded Bialecki.
"If somebody has an approved lot above 750 feet, if it's
already been approved, what's the process then?" resident
Scott Mosher wanted to know. "Will they be charged additional
fees?"
"The
town board will have the ability to modify or vary any provision
of this, in cases of extreme hardship," responded supervisor
Carl Zatz. "There is a $100 filing fee for an appeal, and
the town must be assured that what you want to do won't
adversely affect the application of the law. So to prove
hardship, we'd basically be asking you why you absolutely
need to go forward within the next six months, how your
case is different."
"Hardship
cases consistently refer to irreparable damage," said trustee
Bill Richards.
"You'd
have to prove that six months was causing irreparable harm."
A general murmuring signaled the arrival of resident John
Bradley, who took a seat to the rear as the videographer
swung her camera around to capture his entrance. Bradley's
proposed Awosting Ridge development played a major role
in the momentum gathered by the Save the Ridge organization,
which played a major role in the 2003 elections and led
eventually to the moratorium on the table last Monday night.
"Why
750 feet?" asked a resident.
"The
board has consistently looked at doing the minimum in terms
of disrupting people within the ARR-200, to limit the impact
of this change, but above 750, you're talking about the
Eastern face of the Shawangunks," said Bialecki.
"It's
privately owned," the resident pointed out. "About 50 or
60 people own it -- we might assume that it is protected.
Some of us who bought property up there without these restrictions
might not have put the money in if we knew this would happen.
So 45 or 60 of us pay the price of protecting the view for
everyone else? I'm all for protecting the ridge, but this
doesn't seem fair."
"We
need this six months to figure out the answers to those
questions," said Bialecki, "of how to go about protecting
it in a way that is fair."
"Seven-hundred-fifty feet is actually a higher limit than
has been recommended," said trustee Nadine Lemmon. "The
studies we based this on say five or six hundred feet."
"My
house up there has been in existence for 125 years," said
another resident of the ARR-200 zone. "I'm the third generation
to live there...I'd like to know the altitude of the Mohonk
Preserve's building and their driveway. Also, there is an
impact from the half-million people who visit each year.
Being a lifetime resident you notice things...very few falcons,
fewer rattlers, people digging up the rhododendron...Take
it from a mountain boy. You're looking up at it from the
bottom. Try looking from the top down -- our view has really
changed. And we're paying big taxes. Why are we paying if
we can't have the use of our own private property?"
A
round of applause followed. Zatz responded, "You do have
the use of your land -- you're living on it. This just limits
what you can do for six months, and it's for everyone's
benefit."
"What
you're saying about the ridge, others can say for other
places," said resident Mary Beth Majestic. "Where does it
end?"
"The master plan process is ongoing," said Zatz.
"Well,
I attended these sessions and said 'protect the ridge' along
with everyone else, but I never dreamed you'd come up with
an elevation and say nobody can do anything above it," said
Majestic. "We own 35 acres up there, and it has maybe two
reasonable building lots. The geography will dictate limits
of its own."
"Design guidelines take time to come up with," said Lemmon.
"We might decide not to allow shiny roofs, regulate driveway
grades...We're not saying no building above 750 feet ever."
"And you'll never say that?" called out several people at
once.
"If
you go too far and take away all productive use of someone's
property, it becomes a 'taking' and there has to be compensation
for it," said attorney David Brennan of Young and Sommers,
who has been consulting with the town on zoning issues.
"The
provisions of the moratorium do not in any way determine
what will happen after it's over," pointed out resident
Kathy Hudson, herself an attorney. "The town is not locked
in to anything; it's a blank slate. And whatever does get
done is subject to the same process of public hearings and
so forth. Remember, too, this moratorium would be in effect
from October till March -- it'll be the dead of winter anyway."
"What is going to occur over that six months?" asked former
supervisor Jack Hayes. "Is the town board going to accomplish
something?"
"Significant protection to the most fragile aspects of that
zone," said Bialecki.
"We're
going to come up with a zoning law," said Lemmon.
"Isn't
there a regulation that you have to state what's going to
be accomplished? I believe it has to be fairly specific,"
said Hayes.
"The
goal is to look at the law and see what needs to change,"
said Lemmon.
"We are benefiting from the experience of other towns...We
have done our homework and got all our ducks in a row,"
said Zatz.
A
Dusinberre Road resident rose briefly to say that she fully
supported the moratorium, and trustee Fred Fischer observed
that although there might be a hardship to some for a six-month
period, the end result could benefit the town as a whole.
"Zoning
law has existed for decades, and it does restrict your land
use," observed resident David Strauss. "This won't ultimately
restrict you completely, just direct that use -- tell you
where to build and how high, what color your roof can be.
And six months is a relatively short time."
Discussion continued, with Save the Ridge leader Patty Parmalee
requesting that the board offer reassurance that individual
legislation on the ARR-200 zone would be forthcoming in
advance of the "whole zoning package," and an attorney for
an ARR-200 landowner raising concerns about possible extensions
of the moratorium and wanting the board to define more specifically
what might constitute and exception "so that property owners
will know what they can propose without doing any damage."
The hearing closed, and board members each expressed their
feeling that the moratorium was necessary. "Minnewaska is
the crown jewel in the state park system," said Bialecki.
"It's a national treasure, and we cannot afford anything
but the most careful attention. Two or three houses in the
wrong place would be a huge shame."
"What
we're calling hardships," said Zatz, "will be few and far
between."
The
resolution passed, 5-0, and most of the audience left the
church hall. This reporter was unable to resist asking John
Bradley if he's expected to ignite such a firestorm of controversy
with his original proposal.
"Not really," said Bradley. "I've done so many things around
here, mostly very quietly, since the 1950s. I've spent a
long time up there and I have my own view of what ought
to be done. And I've done good things, not just for the
town but for the environment."
Bradley says none of it has gotten personal for him. "I
like these guys (town trustees.) A couple of them are pilots,
I'm a pilot -- that's like a fraternity. And I believe they
are trying to do the right thing for the town, but a moratorium
right now is a strategic mistake and a waste of time. Once
they've really done all the homework and gotten informed
input, that would be the time for a moratorium...They almost
made a huge mistake 20 years ago when the Tillson Lake project
was on the table -- changing the law in the middle of a
project -- and I saved them from a huge lawsuit.
"I
live up there at 1,200 feet, have ever since I was a college
sophomore. Actually I used to live 1,800 feet up. I've done
amazing things up there...My regret is that I stepped out
of the picture on this and gave it to the team (development
firm Chaffin Light), and they got seriously out of touch.
I told them to work with local people -- they went and hired
counsel from Duchess and Westchester. I spent a whole lot
of money with them and they basically did nothing right."
Parmalee dismisses the concerns of landowners as needless.
"They can build down lower on their property; there's no
need to build up so high," she says. "Tonight, the board
did what they were elected to do. There should not be any
houses up there."
Parmalee
worries that people will think it's all over, when in fact
Bradley has not abandoned the idea of some type of development.
"People come up to me and say, 'The ridge is safe now, right?'
I tell them we can't look at it that way. This fight's far
from over. Don't throw away those lawn signs."
© 2004 Ulster Publishing, Inc.
|