NEW SCOTLAND — A re-zoning battle has started in New Scotland.

Two contradicting re-zoning requests for the same parcels of land are now before the town board at the same time — one from a housing developer, and another in the form of a citizens’ petition, organized by the Northeast Neighborhood Association.

The developer wants a high-density project while the association wants lower density than what is currently allowed by the existing zoning designation.

The Garrison Development Group, last Wednesday Nov. 16, submitted a planned-unit development re-zone request to the town for a 282-unit housing project named Kensington Woods, on 267 acres of land bisected by Hilton Road.

Houses are expected to range in price from $300,000 to over $1 million.

Earlier in the fall, these developers submitted a similar land plan as a cluster development, which would not require a re-zone. However, the applicant was informed by town officials that the proposal was too dense to qualify for clustering.

New Scotland’s zoning administrator, Paul Cantlin, previously told The Enterprise that, in this case, the applicant would have to reduce its project to 240 units to qualify for a cluster.

Clustering allows developers to crowd houses together on smaller individual lots, and, as a result, create more open space. But, the total number of units for all the acreage combined cannot be more than what’s permitted by the existing zoning, Cantlin had said.

Garrison Development has slightly modified its housing proposal, but more so, changed its route of seeking approval and is now requesting a re-zone in the form of a planned-unit-development.

A planned-unit development is a zoning change in a particular area to allow for a varied development based on a detailed plan.

New Scotland’s zoning ordinance says some of the purposes of a PUD are to encourage development that will result in: a choice in the types of living units available to the public; open space and recreation areas; a pattern of development that preserves unique natural features; an efficient use of land, resulting in smaller networks of streets; an environment in harmony with surrounding development; and a more desirable environment than what would be possible through regular zoning regulations.
Lansing Engineering, on behalf of Garrison, wrote in the application that it is requesting the town consider the planned-unit development "to allow for the use of creative architectural and planning concepts consistent with the spirit and intent of the Town of New Scotland Zoning Law."
This plan, the application narrative reads, "provides varied housing units to address different lifestyles and housing choices." It also recognizes the rural character of the area as viewed from adjacent roadways, the designers claim.
"The PUD plan utilizes the existing topography and natural features...providing a varied terrain and more attractive, more natural landscape than conventional development would offer," the developers argue.

The New York Sate Legislative Commission on Rural Resources says that, often, planned-unit development provisions give towns more authority over a developer’s land plan than they normally would have using traditional lot-by-lot zoning.

Garrison’s Plan

Louis L. Masullo of the Garrison Development Group is the applicant, Mary-Beth Slevin is the attorney representing the developer, Lansing Engineering has drawn up the sketch plans, and the land is owned by members of the Donato family and by Purdy’s Tall Timbers LLC.

The proposal for Kensington Woods now has 206 buildings hosting 282 residential units on 267 acres of land.

One-hundred-and-fourteen acres of the 267 are reserved for green space.

In the mix are 152 townhouse-like units, which the application describes as twin home, two-family units with building lots of 20,000 square feet, but with 9,000 square feet per unit.
One hundred of these units are called "villa" lots and are what the applicants are calling moderately priced. The other 52 condos, called "carriage" lots are considered higher-end.
Kensington Woods is also offering two types of single-family homes: 86 single-family homes at the "executive" level, with 15,000 square feet per lot. And, 43-single family homes on Estate Lots offering 40,000 square feet per lot.

In town, there is already an unrelated, but not far away, planned-unit development proposed by Amedore Homes and Gordon Development Company for 74 acres on Route 85 next to the old Saab dealership. This PUD was submitted to the town last year and is currently in the process of being reviewed.

These developers are proposing senior townhouses and condos, space reserved for commercial businesses, and self storage facilities. Here, a re-zone request would be required because the area of land in question is currently zoned commercial and industrial, not residential.

Citizens’ request

The Kensington Woods PUD has yet to come before any of the town’s review boards. But, in the meantime, a citizens petition, signed by 170 residents, is currently before the town board. The citizens have requested a rezone of the northeast quadrant of town to change the minimum lot size requirement to two acres, or about 87,000 square feet.

The petition was circulated by the Northeast Neighborhood Association and presented to the town board in October.

The town board immediately limited the scope of the petitioners’ request and is now only considering re-zoning the medium-density-residential zone that is north of and touches the abandoned D&H Railroad bed.

The Kensington Woods project, if approved, would occupy a little less than half of this MDR zone. A Medium Density Residential zone allows 22,000-square-foot lots.

The town board forwarded the petition to the planning board, for its opinion.

The planning board responded quickly by unanimously recommending the elected officials not re-zone to reduced density.

A number of planning board members stated that they considered this area of town to be suitable for development because of the topography, soil, and water availability.

The old Tall Timbers site has an existing well that can pump 400 gallons a minute for 72 hours.

The citizens’ re-zone request is now back before the town board, which will make the final decision.

At this month’s town board meeting, the council members asked the town engineer for an estimate on the cost of an environmental assessment — the next step in the process of re-zoning review, which would have to be paid for by the town.

Supervisor Ed Clark told The Enterprise Monday that he would also like an estimate on how much it would cost the town to defend itself if land-owners challenged the board decision with a lawsuit.

Town attorney Michael Mackey also introduced another legal concept at the town board meeting. According to New York State Town Law if the owners of at least 20 percent of the land in the MDR in question to be rezoned, sign a petition against the rezoning, then a supermajority of the board, is required for it to pass. In New Scotland that means four out of five council members rather than the usual three, for the re-zone to pass.
So, if large land-owners — the Donatos, the Genovesis, and Robert Cook — sign a petition against rezoning, that would be about 50 percent of the land owners of the MDR acreage in question, and this would "trigger super-majority requirements," Mackey said.

Councilman Richard Reilly said that he would like to continue with the process that the board has started. He would like the board to do the State Environmental Quality Review and hold public hearings.

Zoning town-wide

Councilmen Scott Houghtaling said that, with the review of the zoning in the northeast quadrant, he would like to, at the same time, look at the industrial zone that is directly south of the MDR in question, and north of the commercial zone on Route 85.

Mackey said, if the town board wants to review the industrial zone, it would have to forward that request on to the planning board for a recommendation as well.

Houghtaling said that he would like to give up that industrial zone because it is no longer practical with the railroad gone.

The board should review the zoning issues across town when looking at re-zoning, Houghtaling said.

The town board is the lead agency for the association’s re-zone request.

Mackey said that rezoning does require a full environmental assessment.

Town engineer R. Mark Dempf said that he is not sure the board realizes what it is getting itself into. The state-required review includes a lot of detail, he said, such as looking at traffic patterns.

Some members of the audience at the town board meeting said that they didn’t want their tax dollars to go to something they didn’t support.

Houghtaling said, when he was on the town board during the 1994 zoning changes, which created the medium-density-residential, the two-acre-residential, and light-industrial zones, the board made a number of significant zoning changes all at one time using the 1994 comprehensive plan as a guide.

At that time, Houghtaling said, the board didn’t pay an engineer to do an environmental review — the only cost the town incurred was the cost of printing new zoning maps, he said.

Mackey said that the comprehensive plan, at the time, provided that data for the rezoning, but, for a re-zone today, environmental review is required by the state.

An audience member suggested that the town board hold public-information meetings about the re-zone to gain feedback before spending money on the reviews.
Houghtaling said that the board should look at zoning in the entire town all at one time, getting every zone up to date just as the board did in 1994 and 1995 when it updated and reviewed all the special uses allowed in each zone. He went on, "Every zone should be get looked at together," he said.

Houghtaling said, with the planning board against re-zoning to less density, in this specific MDR, he would like to take a look at the industrial zone.

The real question now should be how can the board incorporate everything they have received over the last three years, said Houghtaling. The board could set up another committee, he said not very enthusiastically.
Clark said that he was not comfortable with the planning board’s recommendation since it was done "somewhat in a vacuum" and the recommendation was "dependent entirely on a 12-year-old comprehensive plan," which was authored by some people on the planning board who are extremely protective of it.
A comprehensive plan update is "very, very past overdue," Clark said.

Clark said he would like the petitioners to have the opportunity to address the board since they were not given that opportunity at the planning board.
"By all means," Clark said, "both sides should come." Anyone can come before the town board and present their case for or against, he said.

Clark said he would also like to revisit the recommendations made by the Residents’ Planning Advisory Committee while looking at updating the comprehensive plan.

Clark said that he does want to do a zoning review town wide, as Houghtaling suggested and update the comprehensive plan as he campaigned for in the fall election. But, Clark said, he doesn’t want to wait to decide on the association’s petition until the town has a new comprehensive plan in place for this quadrant.

He said he would like the board to look into avenues for resolving the petition, and formulate a process for this.

The town board, unlike planning boards, do not have to work within a certain time frame, Mackey said.