Santosh Krinsky
262 877 9396
October 6, 2004
Randall Smart Growth Committee
Randall and
Written Responses to Interview Questions
I have put a substantial amount of thought into the interview questions and have developed the following written responses, which I am submitting to you for inclusion in the review of the residents’ comments to the Interview Process. Please treat these written responses as my formal statement on the concerns raised in those questions:
The low density residential nature of the community and the open space and peace and quiet of the area. Good community for raising children and the fact that there was no heavy industry or any polluting industry in the area.
We have been here for quite some time and have built our life here.
The same qualities that led us to come here are causing us to stay here. We would be very concerned if anything were to occur to destroy either the quiet, residential and rural character of our town, or the peace and quiet.
The problems of growth are essentially several fold.
CONCLUSION: Given the existing limitations of the roads and the schools it would be consistent to allow the community to have some time to absorb the growth it is already experiencing through the “built in” growth factors without adding the complications, costs and dangers of unrestrained A-1 agricultural land conversion and housing development. Certainly the community should also avoid any “non conforming” uses so that any development that takes place fits clearly with the rural/low to mid-density residential nature of the existing community, and that is also clearly what the residents of this community have said in their response to the survey questionnaires. This would mean that absolutely out of the question in this area would be things like proposed heavy industrial uses or, for instance, open pit mining activities.
Basically, I believe that there has been very little serious planning done and much of the development has occurred on a “case by case” basis without looking either at the big picture or the community infrastructure. I have witnessed some major developments go before the town board that were being approved without any consideration whatsoever as to the impact on the infrastructure such as the schools, and there is no coordinating body or mechanism to ensure that this is actually ever accomplished. Until this is in place, there is a very serious danger that we can fall into the position of destroying the character and value of our community through unrestrained development where we lose the ability to maintain the quality and availability of our infrastructure and where we begin to burden our existing residents with more and more costs to finance the development that is destroying their community! This is obviously both unfair and will breed resentment.
The land use plan as developed for the “smart growth” group originally set aside quite extensive parts of the community for remaining A-1 Agricultural and I appreciated that very much. The decision to ABANDON that plan and start the map with a clean slate appears to be driven by pressure and money coming from big developers who want to “get rich quick” by converting the open space that has been RESERVED and has received preferential tax treatment for decades into high density residential communities which have a serious impact on the infrastructure, thereby both destroying the community’s main positive characteristics while burdening the existing residents with added costs to finance it. Further, it appears that the Town Board is even willing to entertain things like enormous open pit mines in our community which does not fit any of the land use planning or conforming use patterns anywhere in the town, and that is a very disturbing factor, and will probably lead to expensive litigation as existing residents fight to preserve the rural/low-density residential character of the community and prevent polluting, noise creating non-conforming activities from totally destroying the area we live in. And of course, we residents will then have to finance the legal fees of “our representatives” on the Town Boards who entertain these non-conforming uses, in direct contradiction to the express wishes of the residents and voters of this community and in direct contradiction to the platforms on which these “representatives” have run for office! This direction is therefore very distressing and should be reviewed, clarified and stopped before we all waste a lot of time, energy and money on something that should not even get to “first base”.
a. Housing
i. Single Family Detached more (current characteristic)
ii. duplexes less
iii. townhouses less
iv. condominiums less
v. apartments less
vi mixed types less
vii. seniors more (serious need for our long-term aging community members)
b. Retail Development
i. neighborhood commercial more (current characteristic)
ii. downtown retail: more (current characteristic)
iii. big box NONE. Kills local businesses and increases traffic
c. Other Commercial development:
i. business office/professional use more (good support for the population, low pollution, high support value of service
ii. non-professional services more (good support for the population, low pollution, high service support value)
d. Light Manufacturing/Assembly: VERY LITTLE. It would clearly depend on WHERE it was to be located, how much would be brought in, and what type of work it is. The problem is that the community has a very clear characteristic as a rural/residential community and bringing in these types of activities could dramatically affect certain characteristics such as traffic and noise and air pollution from truck traffic, bring congestion, destroy roads infrastructure, etc.
Anything FURTHER THAN Light Manufacturing/Assembly should NOT be entertained at all. This would include all forms of heavy industry, big retail such as car dealerships, and any kind of mining or heavy production activities. These clearly fall into non-conforming uses and should simply not be permitted whatsoever within the framework of our community.
e. Agricultural/working farms: SAME. I do not believe it is possible to increase agricultural nature in the community, and it is probably very close to the point where any further deterioration of the agricultural base will have serious negative consequences. Some of these consequences include the loss of open space, the increased population density and infrastructure costs discussed above, and the fact that a working farm brings more revenue into the community than it draws in services out, while residential communities tend to increase the costs to the community in relation to the taxes they generate, since they are non productive. For instance, working farms make much lower demand on schools or roads or police services than a similar sized residential development.
Right now the biggest problem is that development is NOT being managed effectively through either long-term planning, inter-agency cooperation and coordination, or through effective ordinances. It is just about an open door for any developer with a plan. Frankly, new development should probably be put on hold until such time as the Smart Growth plan is implemented and then the Boards should be bound to live within the framework provided by the Smart Growth plan. The Smart Growth plan should specifically prohibit creation of “conflicts” of use where two different zones meet each other, and minimize the impact wherever these meeting points occur. It should also use ordinances to ensure that sufficient environmental impact studies are required, bonding for all costs is covered, and impact fees are of a size and nature to ensure that the existing tax base will not be burdened with any costs of the development, and that these fees should go where they are needed, such as to schools, roads, etc. To the extent that a development will cause a school to have to expand, for instance, it should carry the funding with it!
i. Purchase of development rights: it would depend on the circumstances. It could easily turn into a mechanism for people who make claims that their “reserved” agricultural land is worth much more even though they have purchased it as such and gotten tax breaks on it for years. This would be a dangerous slope to go down. The only real exception would be to the extent that the community decided it wanted to have more parks or recreational activities by a clear showing of a large majority of the community and suitable land at a suitable price could be acquired in a suitable location.
ii. Conservation subdivisions: this is the new “buzzword” in many cases put forward by developers to try to convince people that they are doing something beneficial for the community. Once again, it would depend on what is meant by this terminology, and certainly it must be ensured, whatever it is called, that the rural/low-density residential nature of the community be preserved and that all infrastructure costs be met by the new development and not put on the backs of current residents, such as in particular demands for school, police, fire and other services, as well as impact on roads, etc.
iii. Impact fees: yes. These should be extensively used to ensure that infrastructure demands of new development are fully borne by that new development and not by the other taxpayers who gain very little if any benefit of that new development. To date, the current residents have borne the COSTS with school referenda, road building, increased police and fire department costs, etc. and it is unfair that developers can come in, make a lot of money and saddle the residents with lots of future costs. To the extent impact fees are assessed and collected they should not just go to the granting town or village Board, but should be applied where the real costs come up, which includes the schools, the roads, etc.
iv. Subdivision land dedication: In order to preserve some open space it is essential that subdivisions that are permitted include allocations for open space and parks and an ambient quiet atmosphere.
v. Other: Enforcement of Zoning and maintenance of the A-1 Agricultural reserve regions of the town. Reduction of “spot zone change” permissions to very limited and clearly defined exceptions.
YES. The Town and Village are very much “inter-twined” geographically and it does not make sense to duplicate a lot of services or have many services duplicated. We should be looking at creating cooperative districts possibly including municipal services, fire, police, sewer, zoning and planning, wherever it may be feasible and result in a reduction of costs and better management of our entire town/village community as a whole.
a. Parks 5
b. Recreation 4
c. Open Space 5
d. Economic Development Incentives: 1 (contrary to community character to bring in lots of economic development—no need to subsidize business)
e. multi-use recreational trails 5
f. schools 5
g. preservation of ag. Land for farming 5
h. library 5
i. public safety 5
j. fire rescue 5
k. community center 2-3
l. roads and infrastructure 5
m. other
Unfortunately the existing taxpayers have already been severely burdened with ever increasing taxes to pay for the added costs of development that has occurred so far, and it is unfair to burden these taxpayers even further. What would be appropriate however is to restrain growth sufficiently to allow funds to be reallocated more toward the important issues for quality of life and community that are represented by the “5” items in the above question, and to ensure that any development that takes place creates enough impact fees and property tax revenue to ensure that none of these community needs is a burden to the existing taxpayers and is able to create more of the needed infrastructure and improve and enhance it.