Ballston Spa ZAC reviews phase‑2 zoning draft; ADUs, PDD and public outreach debated

The Ballston Spa Zoning Advisory Committee reviewed a second draft of a proposed rewrite of the village zoning code on a Zoom meeting where consultant Chris Kushel of Fisher and Associates presented changes and invited detailed comment.

Kushel said the draft follows the village Comprehensive Plan’s land‑use map, splits the single existing R‑1 residential district into multiple residential districts, and reorganizes and simplifies definitions and the table of uses. “If you can have the comments by the end of this month, that gives us about two weeks before I head out of country,” Kushel told the committee, outlining a timeline to prepare material for a public workshop in March.

The draft makes modest changes to dimensional standards intended to reduce nonconformities by reflecting existing lot sizes, Kushel said, and renames the central business district to “downtown.” He said design standards in the draft apply to new development, not to properties in the village’s historic district, which remains a placeholder pending further input from the Historic District Commission.

Why this matters: the rewrite would recast where uses and development standards apply across the village, affect homeowners’ options for added units, and set the rules the village will use to review new projects for years.

On accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, Kushel described policy choices the village must make: whether ADUs are limited to single‑family lots, whether detached ADUs are allowed, and whether ADUs should be limited in size. “One of the questions is do you want to restrict the type of ADU in some way?” Kushel said. He noted the draft includes a proposed 1,000‑square‑foot cap and a one‑bedroom limit as examples for discussion, and that communities also use smaller caps (for example, 800 square feet) or percentage‑based limits of the principal dwelling.

Committee members raised owner‑occupancy and long‑term use concerns. A member asked how the village could prevent an ADU from becoming an additional rental long term; Kushel said a common regulatory tool is an owner‑occupancy requirement for the principal unit and other limits tied to approval. “It’s always going to be associated with the owner,” Kushel said. He added that the ZAC can choose whether ADUs are allowed by right where they meet standards or require discretionary review.

Planned development district and other use standards drew sustained comment. Kushel said the draft tightens PDD language, adds a minimum PDD size, and added a residential cluster development option to allow cottage‑style clustered housing on larger parcels. He said the PDD can be removed later if the village board prefers.

Self‑storage facilities were discussed repeatedly. Several committee members said they want to prohibit new climate‑controlled self‑storage facilities within village limits; Kushel marked that preference for the draft. Sign regulation updates were replaced in the draft to follow recent legal precedents, which Kushel cautioned are sensitive to First Amendment considerations.

Outreach and timeline: committee members debated when to post the working draft for public review. Some members urged posting early (February 14/15 was proposed) with a Google form to collect structured public comments; others worried posting a working draft too early would confuse residents and preferred the document be posted nearer the March 20 public workshop. Kushel said he prefers public posting if the committee wants it but that scheduling is the committee’s decision. The committee agreed to prepare a Google form to gather comments and to discuss public outreach at the next meeting. Kushel said he would aim to incorporate ZAC comments and turn the draft around within about two weeks if the committee provides comments promptly.

Historic District Commission language: Kushel said the draft currently holds a placeholder for historic‑district rules pending specific language from the commission. John Cromie, identified as chair of the Historic District Commission, asked that the commission’s proposed language be circulated and explained to the ZAC; the group agreed to review that material at the next meeting.

Next steps: the ZAC set a follow‑up meeting in early February to prepare outreach and refine draft comments; members proposed posting a draft and accompanying Google form for public input before the March 20 public workshop, subject to the committee’s final decision on timing and content.

Ending: Kushel and the ZAC emphasized that the rewrite is intended as a framework — not a finalized code — and that the committee should use the Google Doc comment method and the planned public workshop to refine policy choices such as ADU limits, PDD language and short‑term rental rules.