a not-for-profit corporation   
PO Box 424     Kinderhook NY 12106    518-758-2646     

 
ABOUT KNGG MEMBERSHIP CURRENT ISSUES ANNEXATION/SUBDIVISION ENEWS KNGG MEETINGS
& EVENTS GOOD GROWTH OTHER MEETINGS
& EVENTS LAFARGE CEMENT PLANT Media PAST ISSUES Home Page
 
 
CURRENT ISSUES
ZONING CODE CHANGES
FOR
TOWN OF KINDERHOOK
APPROVED! August 8, 2005

INTRODUCTION

 

A VISION for KINDERHOOK

We must preserve and maintain the Town of Kinderhook’s unique historic, agricultural, and rural character.  We must guide growth to meet the economic, social, and recreational needs of all residents, while controlling the location of commercial development and ensuring that the design and architecture reflects the Town’s heritage.  We must foster a unified community tied together with roadways, sidewalks, biking, and hiking paths, while maintaining the ambiance of a small rural town with a uniqueness that is Kinderhook. 

 

The Comprehensive Plan

Town of Kinderhook NY

KNGG POSITION:

There are items in the “New” Town Code that are inconsistent with the ambitious vision quoted above.  As we need to bring the code into harmony with this plan’s vision, groundwork is being laid with the implementation of the Corridor Study Committee, The Historic Preservation Committee and with changes to the Town Code as suggested by the Planning Board to the Town Board. 

August 10, 2005

 

TOWN BOARD APPROVES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING CODE CHANGES

On August 8th, after a three year struggle against the Widewaters application, with a moratorium proposal in May of 2004, numerable hearings and an Article 78 Action against the Town ZBA, KNGG has won the most important battle in its 3.25 years of existence. The Town Board approved the change in the Comprehensive Plan that would now prohibit commercial buildings from being built larger than 40,000 square feet.

 On the same evening it approved a change to the Town Zoning Code which would also prohibit construction of buildings larger than 40,000 square feet.

 There is also a provision in the law that restricts one 40,000 square foot maximum building to a five acre plot. We are told that there are only three such commercial sites available in Kinderhook.
This is landmark legislation for our area. The Town Board has acted wisely. But do not take it for granted. Yes, we now have the tool to protect Kinderhook from overdevelopment and sprawl. However it is up to the Planning Board to enforce and act in the spirit of the code. More importantly, it's the ZBA's responsibility not to hand out variances to those asking for more than 40,000 square feet.

And most important of all, it is up to you to keep your eye on what your elected and appointed officials are doing. KNGG needs your help in monitoring these boards. None of this would have happened if we were not out there watching and listening. KNGG needs your help as a volunteer and KNGG needs your financial help too. Let's keep KNGG strong!

I wish to thank everyone for all your help. Thanks to all the volunteers that attended hearings, who spent hours making phone calls and working on mass mailings.  Thank you for your donations which keep us operational. Thanks to the Town Board members who took the time to study this situation thoroughly and for having the courage to move forward. Thanks to all our members who helped make this monumental decision possible. Let's keep the momentum going.

Allen Schaefer, President

Register-Star Friday April 1, 2005

(In the following Register-Star article, we found that some clarifications are needed.  The red print is not that of the reporter, but was added by KNGG.)

Planning Board reviews legal 'wish list' with Town Board

By Joe Prout

KINDERHOOK -- The town Planning Board reviewed a number of concerns they have about the town code with members of the Town Board. The following is a quick look at the issues discussed:

Conservation Subdivision Law

The Planning Board wants to require any parcel with 12 acres or more to use conservation subdivision requirements when a landowner proposes dividing the land. Doing so would require at least half the parcel be preserved as open space.

One house could be built on the preserved area and the remaining acreage can benefit from being divided into smaller-than-normal lot sizes.

The Town Board will have to determine how it wants to treat undevelopable land for areas like ponds or ravines where houses can't easily be built. Allowing undevelopable land in the calculation potentially reduces the amount of preserved open flat space.

Some version of this law will likely pass.  The Planning Board members suggest that developers have been willing to use the regulations because they cluster buildings and require fewer roads to be built, which reduce costs.  Often the same number of houses can be built, thanks to the smaller lot size allowance.

The Town Board supported multiple requests from conservation agencies to assist with farms selling their development rights, which makes the land forever dedicated to agriculture.  As it exists now, the current conservation sub division law requires the preserved land be forever wild or to have an existing agricultural use continued.  Unless there’s tremendous uproar from owners of large parcels, this proposal will likely pass.

Lighting

The Planning Board wants (commercial) property owners to only use down-style lighting. Such lights shine directly downward, and the source of the light cannot be seen except when directly beneath the fixture.

The board encountered two problems it wants the Town Board to address. Over time, landowners have added lights to their properties without amending their site plans with the Planning Board. The new lights did not match the desired style.

Also, approved businesses proposed before the new town code was adopted won’t be regulated unless they come before the Planning Board with Plans for renovations.  The Planning Board wants the town to have the ability to force an upgrade.

The Planning Board is against light intrusion onto neighboring parcels.  The members feel that lights with visible bulbs draw attention and can shine into the eyes of motorists when the fixtures are too close to the road.  The Village of Kinderhook is dealing with the same issue.

The Town Board is considering this proposal, and may draft language that allows for a compliance period before it forces fixture replacement.  The only immediate drawback discussed was the associated replacement costs to the owners of the lights in question. 

It was pointed out by some Planning Board members that in many cases it would mean just turning the fixture or replacing bulbs to a lower wattage.

Town Houses
The Planning Board wants the Town Board to change the town code so that town houses are specifically considered multi-family dwellings. Currently, they are considered attached single-family units. Multi-family dwellings have different regulations including limitations on where they can be located in town.

The Town Board wanted more information about the issue before it would say what it was looking to propose.

Certificates of Occupancy
The Planning Board is looking for a way to have the town Building Department issue temporary certificates of occupancy. This provides a tool that allows businesses (the tenant) to start operation while the owners (of the property) address outstanding construction issues the Planning Board wants finished. If the outstanding issue wasn't finished by the end of the temporary period, the business would lose its certificate and be forced to close. The Town Board would review a draft proposal at an up coming regular meeting.

Roof pitch
Town Board member Mary Kramarchyk wants to know whether a project like the Widewaters Shopping Center could have been built using the architectural guidelines in the town code. If not, Kramarchyk wants the guidelines redone.

The Widewaters project, located at the intersection of Routes 9 and 9H, requested a variance from the code so the largest building could have a flat roof. The company argued that, due to its proposed building configuration, there was no way to construct a structure that would be allowable by the town code. The developer argued that matching required roof designs in the code would violate the maximum height requirement for buildings.

The Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals would eventually approve the flat roof proposal.
(Refer to Article 78 on this KNGG web site)

Kramarchyk said she didn’t want this issue to come up again if another developer proposes a big building. Planning Board Member Don Gaylord pointed out that the town’s Comprehensive Plan calls for architecture to match pre-existing (c. 1940), and there are other historic buildings in town with flat roofs (of that period.) However other Planning Board members pointed out that examples of buildings with pitched roofs and gabled roofs outnumbered the flat roofs.

The Town Board may reduce the maximum square footage allowable (for commercial) structures, which could make the existing architectural (roof design) standards work. The current 80,000 square-foot max was designed (instituted) to allow for another grocery store to be built in town, to provide competition with an existing grocer. Since there would two grocery stores, the need for competition is reduced.

It’s not clear yet how the Town Board will address this matter, but the members discussed changing a portion of the Comprehensive Plan and Town Code Actions. 

March 30, 2005

TOWN BOARD & PLANNING BOARD MEET TO DISCUSS ADOPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO TOWN CODE
The Town Board is the body that can make and change the laws. Parts of the zoning code may be changed by resolution.   Other parts may only be changed after a public hearing.   And possibly another part of the code may be amended only after the Comprehensive Plan is changed to the same.

The Planning Board’s role is to oversee, review and approve or deny project applications. These are the people that come in contact with the code most frequently.   They determine if the developer’s project plans meet code requirements. In some instances they have found conflicting language, lack of definition, lack of clarification, etc.   The Planning Board approached the Town Board with recommendations to amend the code in order to give them more authority by clarification, etc.   This is the third such meeting and it looks like the boards are near to the amendments becoming law.

Jumping to the end of the meeting, Supervisor Doug McGivney announced that Councilwoman Mary Kramarchyk wanted to discuss something which was not on the agenda. Kramarchyk suggested they discuss removing the restrictions on commercial roof design from the code. She said that this had caused the Widewaters project unnecessary delay.

KNGG understands that had Widewaters complied with the code, there wouldn’t have been any delay or problems in the approval process. KNGG also understands that had the ZBA done its job, the Town, Widewaters and KNGG wouldn’t be in litigation today. (See Article 78 on this web site.)

None-the-less, Ms Kramarchyk pursued her suggestion, that if approved, would give the go ahead for big box flat top roofs. She said she believed this would be a way to get our code in tune with the Comprehensive Plan.

At this point Councilman Francis Vecellio explained that if the Town reduced the maximum permitted square footage from 80,000 sq. feet to 40,000 sq. feet, there would be no need to contradict the comprehensive Plan. Mr.Vecellio explained that the 80,000 number appears in the Comprehensive Plan so another large supermarket could come in for purposes of competition and that this was meant to be a temporary measure. “As long as this has been accomplished, there is no reason why we shouldn’t go to 40,000.”

Ms Kramarchyk thought this to be unnecessary because of what Wal-Mart has been doing to overcome the max footage restrictions by building two 40,000 Sq. ft. buildings next to each other.

Supervisor McGivney stated that the code could be reworded to prevent this sort of thing. Kramarckyk agreed with the 40,000 sq. ft. maximum concept. Vecellio added, “It’s not the vision of Kinderhook to have large big boxes up and down our corridor.”

Town attorney Ed McConville was asked by Supervisor McGivney to determine if State Law required the Town to change the maximum permitted square feet in the Comprehensive Plan before the code could be changed.   If so, this will be put into motion.  Then a resolution will be made by the Town Board to call a hearing for changing the code to 40,000 sq. feet. Once the hearing is over, the Town Board will vote.  

Below is a copy of tonight’s agenda that lists other issues covered. It was agreed that most of what is listed below has been accepted to be on the next Town Board agenda for a resolution to put it to a public hearing. Once the hearing is over the Town Board will vote.
 

TOWN OF KINDERHOOK PLANNING BOARD
PO Box P
Niverville NY 12130 

 SUGGESTED CODE REVISIONS

To: Supervisor Douglas K. McGivney
From: Edwin R. Simonsen, Chairman
Date: December 27, 2004
Updated January 27, 2005
Subject: Suggested Code revisions

     Please recall our discussions with the Town Board regarding suggested Code changes. We have discussed these modifications/referrals at our December meetings and unanimously recommend these changes to the Town Board.

Conservation Subdivisions

     The remaining open spaces in our town are being subdivided at a remarkable rate. Our experience with developers indicates that if a significant proportion of the shrinking open space is to be preserved, adjustments must occur in our Code. The purpose of these changes are to more adequately comply with the Comprehensive Plan in the preservation of agricultural land, open space, vistas, and mature wood lots. These are some suggestions.

Page 63-2. Section 63-2. Change last sentence for “Conservation Easement” to read, Conservation Subdivisions are required on any parcel of land in the Town of Kinderhook zoned for residential use which is equal to or greater than 12 acres. Change the last sentence for “Conservation Subdivision” to read, For any parcel equal to or more than 12 acres in area, conservation subdivisions are mandatory.

Page 63-21. Section 63-19 D (1). Add the following: Land that is not able to be developed including, but not limited to steep slopes or wetlands, may not be used as part of the calculation for land to be preserved.

Page 63-22. Section 63-19 E. Delete the sentence, “Preserved open space may be included as a portion of one or more lots.”

Number of copies submitted-Site visits

     The recent site visits by Planning Board Members has demonstrated the value of this approach. To guarantee the availability of sufficient copies for Board members to conduct these visits perhaps the number of copies submitted should be increased from 7 to 10. Additionally, the suggestion was made to modify the application forms for subdivisions, site plan review, and special use permits to include language which grants permission from the applicant for site visits by Planning Board Members.

Page 63-6. Change section 63-5 B to read, Ten copies of the preliminary plat etc.


Page 63-7. Change section 63-6 B to read, Ten copies of the preliminary plat etc.

Page 81-61. Change section 81-27 B to read, A plan for the proposed development of a site shall be submitted along with ten copies of the required plan etc.

Page 81-84. Change section 81-47 B to read, All applications for zoning permits shall be accompanied by ten copies of a plot plan etc.

Lighting-New Sites

     One of our many concerns in the review of commercial site plans is lighting. Typically we look to see that there is no spillage of light to neighboring properties or roadways. In particular we require that the source of light only be visible from the site under review. Driving past many commercial sites in our Town at night one can see numerous sources of light on poles and buildings which are very distracting and potentially dangerous. The following Code revisions are suggested.

Page 81-86. Change section 81-47 C (1) a. Add a [14] Lighting plan showing type, location, and intensity of lights.

Page 81-87. Change section 81-47 C (2). Add a (k) Lighting. Light fixtures should be fully shielded to eliminate glare and off site light. Light intensity shall not exceed an average of 2 footcandles and the light sources shall produce clear white light. Lighting fixtures should be traditional in design. There shall be no uplighting. Parking lot lights shall not exceed 20 feet in total height. Only minimal lighting shall be allowed 11/2 hours after closing.

Lighting-All inclusive

     The above recommended Code changes regarding lighting provide regulations for new commercial projects. What follows attempts to address any changes to lighting at existing commercial sites.

Page 81-82. Section 81-36. Add as follows: Lighting A. Applicability and purpose. The Town of Kinderhook encourages the use of responsible non-intrusive lighting on commercial sites. B. Standards (1). Light shall not shine off site.  (2). Light shall not shine on public roadways. (3) Light sources shall not be visible from off site. (4) Light fixtures shall be fully shielded to eliminate glare and off site light.

Design Standards

     In our review of the proposed townhouses and ultimately the two family dwellings, the question of design standards was raised. With townhouses it would appear they do apply since we determined that they were multifamily dwellings. In the case of two family dwellings they do not appear to apply. If we feel that they should apply what follows is a suggested Code change.


Page 81-77. Section 81-31 B. Revise first sentence to read, Design standards shall be required for all new commercial, townhouses, two family dwellings, and multifamily construction within the Town of Kinderhook.

CO Issuance-PB input

     At the November and December Planning Board meetings we discussed revisions of Section 35-5 F concerning the issuance of a CO (Certificate of Occupancy) for “completed” commercial sites. In order to assure project compliance we are requesting Code modifications which provides for PB review of a “completed” commercial project prior to the issuance of a CO.  Attached is the proposed language change to 35-5 F entitled “Duties and powers of Building Official”.

CO Issuance/Conditional

     Please recall that at the joint meeting we discussed the question of the duration of a “temporary” CO. The thought at the time was that it would be desirable to have the ability to issue COs for less than 6 months when there are outstanding unfulfilled conditions. The present thinking is to create a new designation referred to below as “conditional CO”.

     Page 35-5. Section 35-10 B. Add the following, A conditional certificate of occupancy may be issued if the building or structure or a portion thereof is sufficiently complete that it may be put to the use for which it was intended. A conditional certificate of occupancy shall expire three (3) months from the date of issuance.

Telecommunication Towers *

     The Town Board has retained the services of Monroe Telecom Associates to review and make recommendations regarding Code language changes concerning telecommunication towers. At our December 16th meeting we discussed your (Town Board) verbal request of us to review two documents provided by Monroe to your Board. One was titled an “Interim Resolution” while the other is a ‘Local Ordinance Regulating the Siting of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities”.To the best of my recollection none of our Board members had copies of the “Interim Resolution” while some did have copies of the model ordinance. Despite the absence of a formal referral and necessary documents the members did discuss that of which they were aware. We offer the following preliminary comments. No votes were taken on these comments.

     1. We respectfully request a formal referral with all pertinent documentation.     
     2. The document appears to be “cookie cutter” in content
     3. The document is overly voluminous.
     4. The Code language suggested is readily available from other communities
     5. The process described removes this Planning Board from the reviewing process. Is that the Town Boards intent?
     6. Under our present Code, the Planning Board may hire experienced consultants paid for by the applicant, as it sees fit to assist the Board in its determination.
 

 

*   *   *