Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210472 Final Draft of the Unfied Development Ordinance (UDO) Public Comment To: Mark Torpey,Chair,and all members of the Saratoga Springs Planning Board From: Tom Denny Re: UDO review Date: June 3,2021 Thank you for taking on this important task of reviewing the draft UDO. I would encourage you to use this opportunity to maximum effect by digging deeply into the UDO and recommending any and all revisions that you feel would improve the current draft. You on the Planning Board have deep experience that gives you a unique perspective into the challenges that the City faces in devising zoning regulations that can produce wise and sustainable development. I would like to highlight four areas of the current draft that I feel could be improved. 1. Uses in the Greenbelt(Rural Residential zoning). The current draft UDO perpetuates some existing RR uses that I feel are inappropriate,including marina, greenhouse-nursery, and campgrounds among others. The argument seems to be that these are currently allowed, so let's allow them in the future. In my view,rather than simply continuing an existing use,the UDO should test each potential use against the RR vision described in Section 3.1.A: "The RR Rural Residential District is intended to accommodate low density residential development and agricultural uses in a manner that helps to preserve open space and Saratoga Springs' rural character areas. Low densities within the RR District are also designed to accommodate specific features of the rural areas of the community,such as prime soils,limiting topography/steep slopes, and a lack of public infrastructure." Several of the uses allowed in the draft do not fit this governing standard and should be eliminated as future options,even if they have been allowed to date. For example,in the description of Uses in Section 8.4,a marina is envisioned as a large commercial activity with considerable infrastructure,the greenhouse/nursery as a Hewitt's-like commercial business(rather than a rural propagation center such as Balet's), and the campground as a dense seasonal neighborhood with considerable public infrastructure. In my view,none of these stand up to the test of Section 3.1.A. Although one solution would be to create far more restrictive descriptions,I think it better to remove these uses and any others that don't match the RR vision. 2. Section 15.8 (10%Open Space Preservation and Recreation Land Requirement)–Although the current draft 15.8 is an improvement over the second draft,I believe that it still falls short of its full potential for protecting open space and natural resources for the public good. The two main flaws in the current draft are (1)that it places the burden on the Planning Board to make the case for the 10% and(2)that its focus is still rather narrowly on parks and recreation,rather than open space and natural resource protection. In my view,the UDO goal here should be to strengthen the current Subdivision Regulations, Appendix H,Article 2.R, so that the Planning board has a powerful tool to protect resources and open space throughout the city. The burden for delineating the resources should fall to the developer(not the PB),who should be required to present an analysis of the assets on the site (Conservation Analysis Lite). Based on that,the Planning Board could mandate preservation of 10% of the land—to preserve mature trees,to set aside additional buffers for water quality protection,to create common or private open space,to preserve a scenic resource,to increase pervious surfaces,as well as,of course,to establish a playground or recreational space. Here are some specific recommended changes(these recommendations would likely require adjustments to Article 9.3 as well): • 15.8–Rename this section: "Open Space Conservation,Natural Resource Protection, and Recreation Land Requirement" • General: Some language still retains the emphasis on"parks and recreation"from version 2. Wherever possible,broaden the language to give the PB the greatest latitude to preserve open space,protect natural resources, and increase recreational opportunities. • 15.8.A.1 —Do not require the Planning Board to make a major case. Revert to the language of the current Subdivision Regs,App. H.2.R.1: "Required offer of usable land. The owner shall offer" ....10%of the subdivision tract. • 15.8.A.2—Replace with: "The owner must provide an analysis of the parcel(s)best opportunities for open space conservation,natural resource protection, and recreational use."The burden here should be on the developer,not the Planning Board. Delete all reference to the Planning Board. I would imagine that the Planning Board has little or no capacity to conduct a substantive review of the local demographic trends around a particular parcel. • 15.8.B.1 —revise the end: "...equal in size to at least 10%of the subject parcel(s) for open space conservation,natural resource protection,or use as recreational land" • I believe the restriction Class A land for recreation and Class B land for recreation and open space needlessly limits the Planning Board's flexibility and diminishes the potential power of Section 15.8. 15.8.B.1 already empowers the Planning Board to require any combination of the two land types,which is the kind of flexibility desired. I would rewrite 15.8.B.1 as follows: a. Class A Type Usable Land refers to developable land generally devoid of wetlands,drainage courses,steep slopes, and the like. b. Class B Type Usable Land refers to land not suitable generally for development except for passive open space. c. The Planning Board may specify which lands,if any,within the development plan must be dedicated to parkland, and which lands must be conserved for their open space value or for the protection of natural resources,including water, mature trees, scenic resources, and habitat, among others. d. The Planning Board may seek recommendations from the City Recreation Commission and from the Open Space Advisory Committee regarding the best lands for conservation or recreational use. • 15.8.0—Revise the first sentence to eliminate all narrow reference to the PB making a proper case for parkland: "In the event the Planning Board makes a finding that the proposed site development plan presents a proper case for requiring a park or parks suitably located for playgrounds or other recreational purposes,but determines that a suitable park or parks of adequate size to meet the requirement cannot be properly located on the site,or that the site is not desirable to provide passive open space or natural resource protection,on such site plan,the Planning Board may shall require a sum of money in lieu thereof to be established by the legislative body. The fee is required... • Section 15.8.F,which clarifies that management responsibility need not fall to the City is a critically important. 3. Section 13.7-Particularly as it relates to timber harvesting,clear cutting and logging. The Natural Resource Inventory documented how important these forested assets are to our water quality,to climate change resilience,as habitat, and as scenic resources. It also included recommendations for strengthening protection of our mature trees and forested areas,citing laws in Albany and Clifton Park as local examples of stronger protections. The vulnerability of our environmentally precious forested areas has been highlighted by the recent uproar in a neighboring town about the deforestation of a large agricultural property to make way for a John Witt development. In light of this,the UDO should strengthen Section 13.7. • Section 13.7.A—Purpose: "This section is intended to protect the City's natural environment by minimizing the adverse effects which land disturbance Gite preparation and associated construction activities.may have on our soil,water,and vegetative resources. Land disturbance often results from,but is not limited to, site preparation and associated construction activities." • Section 13.7.B —Revise the final sentence: "If the land disturbance activity permit is associated with a subdivision or site plan review application,the Planning Board shall,to the extent practicable,coordinate review of the land disturbance activity permit and the associated land use application." • Section 13.7.C.3.a—This is a critical provision because the agricultural use was the loophole used in the clear-cutting case mentioned above. Revise: "Agricultural activities directly related to the production of crops or livestock. This exemption does not include timber harvesting,whether for sale or not,or tree removal in forested sections of an agricultural property." • Several features should be added to strengthen this section. I will do some more research for models in other towns. • The permit application should require public notice (recommended by the NRI,p. 249). • The UDO should spell out clear criteria upon which the Planning Board can deny a permit for excessive tree removal or forest clearing(which should not be defined as total removal). • Timber harvesting and clearing a forested area with no associated construction project should be prohibited within the city limits. (Albany defines clearing as 50% removal over a five-year period.) 4. Put procedures in place that require that the Sustainability officer be consulted on every project in the Greenbelt(CDD). The knowledge and perspective of this officer could add a layer of expert opinion regarding the impacts of any and all projects in the CDD. There is at least one example in which the City engineer,I believe, approved construction within a conservation easement,because the sustainability officer's expertise was not consulted. Thank you for all your hard work and for your consideration of my views.