Ballston Spa residents oppose proposed residency change for planning and zoning boards; trustees postpone action

Ballston Spa — Dozens of residents turned out on June 26 for a public hearing on a proposed local law that would limit reappointment of planning-board and zoning-board members to people who reside in the village (or to specified neighboring towns). Mayor-led remarks and a reading of the draft statute drew sustained public comment, much of it opposed to widening membership beyond village residents.

The proposed text, read aloud by village attorney Carla, would remove language that previously allowed some village officers to reside anywhere in Saratoga County and instead require planning-board and zoning-board members to live within the village or within the towns of Ballston, Milton or Malta. It also contains a retroactive clause that would let current out‑of‑village members complete their existing terms but would bar their reappointment unless they establish village residency.

Why it matters: Planning and zoning boards make decisions that shape neighborhood character, development approvals and long-term land use. Many speakers said those decisions should be made by people who live and pay taxes in the village and argued that opening seats to nonresidents would weaken accountability.

Residents packed the public-comment period. “I’m opposed to the change of residency requirements for the planning board and zoning board of appeals appointees,” said Marilyn Stevenson, a village resident, adding that board members “must be legal residents of the village” and selected on merit. Keith Lewis, who said the proposed change would “dilute the Ballston Spa residents,” warned the measure could invite legal challenges because it retroactively validates past votes by members who later moved outside village limits. Members of the public also urged better outreach and clearer posting of openings so village residents know how to apply.

Not all speakers opposed the draft. Planning-board member Mike McNamara, who moved out of the village but said he retains close ties to the community, acknowledged the value of resident board members but described the law as a tool to retain technical expertise and continuity: “It’s a tool…why wouldn’t you want that option?” he said. Matthew Erklein, whose name arose in the debate, said he pays village taxes and described his change-of-address timing, while expressing conditional support for widening the talent pool.

Board action and next steps: Trustees said they would not vote on the draft law at the meeting. After the public hearing and additional agenda business, trustees moved to table two agenda appointments related to planning-board alternates (items H and I) so the board could solicit a wider applicant pool and reconsider nominations. The board also indicated it would revisit the draft law in a later session; no ordinance was adopted on June 26.

What comes next: Because trustees did not adopt the local law, any substantive rewrite or vote will appear on a future agenda. The board requested clearer outreach and said it will consider revisions that preserve the ability of long-serving members to finish terms while addressing residents’ concerns about accountability.

The public hearing portion of the meeting closed after the trustees recessed to consider next steps; the meeting resumed later for routine business.