Residents flocked to the Gardiner fire house last week, and presented a petition with 1,100 signatures to the Gardiner town board seeking a moratorium on building projects larger than two lots. But after accepting the petition and listening to comments supporting the idea, the town board simply ignored the matter, with four of the five board members, including town supervisor Jack Hayes, essentially refusing to discuss the matter.
When moratorium discussions have been brought up at town meetings in the recent past, Hayes has said that zoning and master planning changes must be ready to put in place before a moratorium could be effective. The supporters of the moratorium petition presented at the June 3 town board meeting urged the board to set a public hearing for the moratorium proposal. But Hayes said he wanted to send it to the town attorney for input. When councilman Bill Richards said the town board should discuss the matter to provide guidance to the attorney and set a public hearing, the other four board members simply refused to answer. Richard's motion died for lack of a second.
The town is currently studying its zoning laws and master plan, a process which is moving forward with a committee of citizen volunteers and planning board members. The review was suggested by citizens shortly after Hayes took office in January of 2002. There is no deadline for completion, and citizens say the process is moving so slowly that a moratorium is needed before the town becomes a target for subdivision developments.
But officials of the planning board and town board say there are only three major subdivision proposals in the town right now. This fact argues against the need for a moratorium, according to those who oppose it. Moratorium supporters say those three projects alone will have a noticeable effect on Gardiner's quality of life, and believe that the town must act now and put new zoning laws in place to protect the town's assets before they are threatened.
Councilman Paul Colucci has an excavation company that built roads and altered the terrain on one of the subdivisions cited -- the controversial Lighthouse Point subdivision, an eighteen-lot subdivision on the corner of Old Ford Road and Route 208. Colucci's family is also active in the local real estate business.
If a moratorium were imposed, it would have an effect on the Lighthouse project and perhaps on other real estate transactions. Thus, Colucci's participation in the moratorium discussion and process, and perhaps participation by councilman Marc Alexander, who works for Colucci, would seem at odds with state and town ethics laws that require public officials to abstain from matters where they may have business or financial stakes.
The town has been unable to resolve the ethics complaint filed this spring against Colucci and Alexander in connection with the Lighthouse Point project. Colucci has said if he violated any provisions of law in the matter, he did so unknowingly. Alexander has not commented on the matter. Meanwhile, Colucci and Alexander apparently intend to continue participating in matters related to the moratorium.
At the June 3 Gardiner town board meeting where the moratorium petition was presented, only town councilman Richards made any effort to craft a response to the public request for action. He offered several ideas for discussion after hearing the public's overwhelming support for the idea. No one at the meeting spoke against a moratorium.
Hayes has said moratoriums are only useful while in the process of changing laws, without unleashing a rash of last-minute proposals that take advantage of regulations slated for change. State law allows for a six-month moratorium, followed by at least another six months. In fact, there is no limit to the length of a moratorium as long as the practice can be defended as necessary by town officials, according to Kevin Young, an attorney hired by Gardiner to represent the town in matters related to the Awosting Reserve subdivision proposal.
Amy Little, serving as spokesperson for the group Friends of the Shawangunks, noted that Gardiner's master plan is based on 1980 census data that is nearly a quarter-century old. She noted the moratorium idea would only effect proposals larger than two lots, thus allowing families to subdivide their land. In addition, it contains a hardship clause for special cases. She said that despite concerns expressed by developers that a moratorium would hurt the town economy, the towns of Shawangunk, Montgomery and the Village of Warwick have all enacted moratoriums without effecting their economic well being.
Numerous other residents stood to speak in support of a moratorium. When one speaker said it was directly related to the Awosting Reserve proposal, several people said that was not the case. They said the 1,100 signatures were obtained due to deep-seated fears about widespread development changing Gardiner's bucolic character.
After approximately 45 minutes of comments supporting the resolution from the crowd, Hayes simply said, "What we're going to do next is send it to the attorney and he will get back to us."
Richards said it was the duty of the town board to offer guidance to the attorney and not the other way around. He made several suggestions, including using the town's definition of a major subdivision of four lots as the threshold that would face a moratorium, as opposed to the two lots suggested in the petition. Supporters of the moratorium said they expected the town board to modify its suggestions and had no objection to Richard's proposal.
But other town board members said nothing. Hayes simply said, "Going to go on to the next item on the agenda."
http://www.ulsterpublishing.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=91989
