Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees discuss schedule and substantive priorities for zoning rewrite; plan special session
Summary
Trustees debated how to schedule a detailed zoning discussion and outlined positions on building size, permitted nonresidential uses in residential zones, and design standards; they agreed to circulate availability and to use a shared document to collect comments ahead of a dedicated meeting.
Trustees of the Village of Ballston Spa discussed scheduling and substantive priorities for a multi-issue zoning rewrite, and agreed to use a scheduling poll and shared document to collect input before holding a focused meeting.
A trustee said attempting to fit zoning into a regular meeting would not allow sufficient time and proposed dedicating a future meeting primarily to zoning matters or scheduling a special meeting. Trustees and staff agreed to circulate a Doodle-style availability poll and to use an Excel spreadsheet already shared among trustees to surface outstanding issues and proposed positions before the meeting.
Why it matters: The zoning update covers rules that shape residential and commercial development, including allowed uses, building size and height limits, and the process by which the planning board may waive zoning standards. Trustees said resolving some issues in writing before a public meeting would shorten public sessions and produce a more focused public debate.
One trustee listed several substantive positions he wants the board to consider: rezoning certain properties (nursing home and county buildings on West High) to "R-2" to allow greater flexibility; limiting the size of multifamily buildings (he suggested an initial proposal of 12 units per building, noting other formulations are possible); placing a 50-foot height limit on buildings and capping the Highway/Gateway district buildings at 50,000 square feet to avoid large "big box" developments; and restricting nonresidential uses in residential zones until design or development standards are adopted.
Trustees also discussed whether the planning board should be permitted to waive provisions in Articles 5 and 7 of the zoning code and, if so, whether waivers should require a public hearing. One trustee argued that any substantial waivers should involve a public hearing to preserve transparency.
Trustees acknowledged the planning board had previously reviewed aspects of the zoning work but said the board-level policy decisions would precede final planning-board review. A trustee asked fellow trustees and staff to add comments to the shared spreadsheet; one trustee said he would provide written comments soon.
Ending: Trustees agreed to circulate availability for a dedicated zoning meeting and to continue collecting written input on the shared spreadsheet before scheduling a multi-hour session focused on zoning.
