|
September
6, 2005
Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing
Ross Williams, Turkey Hill Road
Many people have asked me what the point is in coming to these
hearings ... The 3 town board members in control will do what
they want regardless of what is said here. While that
appears to be the case, nevertheless, I want to be on record
regarding what has been done to the plan that was so thoughtfully
prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Board.
I have 5 points to make, and I will try to be brief.
1) You claim to have made only one significant
change to the plan. You have, in fact, removed
not only recommendations made on the hamlets, but also
the limits on development across the town.
2) You have also removed all meaningful analysis related
to growth and development. You took out all discussion
of population projections, density, taxes, and the impacts
on school taxes of fast rising school age populations and
of second home owners. You took out discussion of the
development pressures we are experiencing. You have removed
the basis for responsible land use controls to keep Milan
rural.
3) Similarly, the change to the RSO eliminates
all analysis of its impact. When a build-out analysis
is completed, it is clear that the impact of the change you
made will be to permit Milan's population to triple, abandoning
the goal of keeping Milan rural.
4) But perhaps the most damaging to the plan
is the removal of all discussion which supports the elimination
of the FLI zone and LI uses, including gravel mining.
The plan now says nothing about the controversy in town and
all the reasons to change the law and ban mining ... the dust,
the traffic, the noise, our environment. While the recommendation
to eliminate the floating zone remains, the plan does not
recommend that mining be eliminated. With this plan,
if mining is eliminated as a valid use, there will be nothing
underpinning the change, making it vulnerable to legal challenge.
One suspects this is a deliberate strategy by the GOP, Jim
Jeffreys and mine owner Rocco Mancini, chair and vice-chair
of the Republican party.
5) Elimination of the PGA and PPD concepts
takes out the tools to manage the certain to come development
in ways that support the current hamlet district law -- traditional
neighborhoods, multifamily housing, and town policy to encourage
central water and septic. These are not new -- they
were passed by George Campbell and Russ Balletto in
1994 and 2001. This modified plan eliminates any new
mechanisms to provide senior housing in Milan and to expand
the availability of affordable housing for moderate income
families.
In summary, the plan has been gutted in many
and significant ways, from elimination of virtually all meaningful
analysis, to removing discussion of critical issues to the
people of Milan. Its recommendations will no longer keep Milan
rural, protect its rural residential character or provide
affordable and senior housing.
The net result of all of this is that while you left the goals
of the plan the same, you eliminated the solutions, and weakened
the ability of the town to control its own destiny with respect
to growth and mining. It is now a pro-development plan.
|
|
September 10, 2005
Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing
Ross Williams, Turkey Hill Road
I have participated now in 6 public hearings on the Comp. Plan.
I have listened to the people of Milan -- they overwhelmingly
support the Comp. Plan Board's recommendations.
A number of citizens do raise some issues and have some questions,
and that's to be expected in a process as sweeping as the development
of a new comprehensive plan.
Some raise questions and are upset about the proposal for priority
growth areas. This is not be a surprise, given the level
of rhetoric. PGAs are a modern and core zoning concept
that has been the policy of our County for two decades;
it is found in the land use planning of our neighboring communities,
specifically in Rhinebeck's new plan and Red Hook's land use
proposals. Priority growth areas are designed to give
a community more say in how they grow. Rather than rip
them out of the plan and prevent new concepts from being considered
in Milan, the Town Board should involve our citizens to craft
workable regulations to benefit the community. Priority
growth areas should be reinstated in Milan's comprehensive plan.
People raise other questions on how the Rural Space Overlay
will be implemented. Rather than sacrifice the goal of
keeping Milan rural, the town board should reach out to the
community to create a flexible RSO district in our zoning code,
one that will both keep Milan rural and address residents' issues.
With the community's input and assistance, I believe that creative
solutions will be found, to --
Accommodate the legitimate desire of current residents to be
able to subdivide for their children, and to
Consider special circumstances and provide some additional flexibility
in cases such as those where pre-existing lots already have
multiple dwelling units.
So I would ask the Town Board to restore the RSO options that
were prepared by the CPB to the plan. Add the 30 acre option
you propose with the analysis to support its impact. Then,
after the plan is adopted, the community can work out these
details in new legislation.
The PGA's and RSO should not be discarded without substantial
analysis to support that Milan can otherwise protect its rural
residential character and meet its needs for affordable and
senior housing. By eliminating options, the Board seeks
to limit Milan's solutions, rather than expand them, and you
do so in contradiction of the expressed interests of our citizens.
Before concluding, I would like to highlight a significant concern
about this modified plan.
Please, do not take this as political rhetoric. It is
too important to our town.
As I understand it, the validity of a comprehensive plan, when
tested in the courts, stands on two things -- first, the clear
documentation of public sentiment and involvement underlying
the plan's goals, and, second, the careful analysis by the preparing
body of the impact proposed actions will have. The
modified plan as it now stands, lacks both.
I ask the town board to reintroduce the analyses eliminated
from the CPB's report. For the changes you propose, I
also urge you to document the public support for them and an
analysis of their impact. The report prepared by the CPB
is supported by the required documentation of public involvement
and by appropriate analysis. The burden you have is to
demonstrate evidence similar to that already provided in the
four appendices to the CPB's report. Without these underpinnings,
the town will stand exposed to law suits from all quarters whenever
developers or commercial interests with deep pockets decide
to take on the town in court so they can do what they want.
It is my view, that you must take the time to do this job properly,
now that you have taken it upon yourselves to craft your own
version of a comprehensive plan for Milan.
Thank you.
|
|
