Bypassing the people

One fact that is easy to ignore, when we hear of the clashes that occur nationally or locally between business interests intent on expansion and residents pushing to protect their homes, is that all of us belong, in one way or another, to both these constituencies simultaneously. We all live somewhere, and we value the quality of life in our neighborhood. Additionally, we are either a part of the business community or rely on someone who is to provide us with the necessities of life. Resolving conflicts that occur with regard to these two essential parts of our identity is—or should be—not so much a matter of reconciling two entirely different groups of people but rather coming to a rational balance of our own individual interests and needs. And attaining a rational balance is generally achieved by dialogue and deliberation.

Zoning ordinances and the procedures that are used to devise, revise and enforce them were created to provide a forum for such deliberation. They employ a number of mechanisms to ensure that everybody affected by decisions that balance business and residential interests get a chance to participate in those decisions. These mechanisms range from the fact that the ordinances themselves are voted on by elected representatives to the fact that landowners are informed when certain types of land use that could threaten quality of life and property values on their own land are proposed and have a chance to voice any objections they may have in a public hearing.

Thus, we are baffled by the proposal recently put before the Town of Liberty’s Town Board by planning board attorney Walter Garigliano, which would bypass the public participation part of the process when it comes to certain types of zoning decisions.

The law, now being considered by the Liberty Town Board, would do away with public hearings, public comment and notification of neighbors in certain cases: those in which an application has been filed for an expansion of a non-conforming use or special use, and the parcel in question has had a previous site-plan review for a separate project. Under this proposed law, non-conforming structures like used-car lots or summer camps could expand by up to 2,500 feet without residential neighbors having any opportunity to comment—or even to be notified about what is going to happen. To get an idea of how much space that is: the average square footage of a house nationwide is 2,500; it’s probably smaller than that in this area, given the lower average income, and for most houses that footage is split between two floors. So we are talking about an expansion equal to the footprint of more than two houses.

We have tried to imagine just what constituency would benefit from such a law. We know that regulations can be frustrating for small businesses. But as noted above, small business owners also wear homeowner hats, and we would venture to guess that they, like any of us, would be surprised and dismayed if they were to wake up one morning to find a junkyard in the neighborhood expanded without their knowing that it was going to happen. Nor is the problem purely about subjective quality of life; dollar value of our properties can go down depending on what else is in the neighborhood. That’s hardly a recipe for a robust tax base, a concern for business owners and homeowners alike.

At the meeting at which the law was put before the town board, the town board’s lawyer said that the reason for the change was that it didn’t seem to make sense to have an additional site review for something small like adding a new window. Fair enough. But an expansion by 2,500 square feet scarcely fits into that innocuous description. At most, it might justify a far more modest law, possibly specifying changes to existing structures rather than massive expansions of them. But in general, we think even in these cases that the public is best served by more scrutiny and input, not less.

So far, this idea for a change in Liberty’s law is only a proposal. Next year is an election year county-wide, which means that the members of the town board will presumably be more sensitive than usual to public opinion. It is up to the residents of the town to let the board members know that this is their town, and they are entitled to be part of the deliberations that balance their various interests. And the case is a reminder to all of us that decisions are being made at planning board and town board meetings that affect our quality of life, and that it behooves us to show up, pay attention and make sure they are made with our input.

(Not a scientific poll)

Last week's results:

Should towns, or the state government and corporations, have more say over land use within the town's borders?

Towns: 88.00%

State and corporations: 12.00%

Don't know: 0.00%

Dr. Punnybone

These Boots Are Made for Walking' (Not!)