DELMAR- At Bethlehem\u2019s town board\u2019s September 9 meeting, Director of Planning Robert Leslie presented a revised zoning proposal that aims to restore the town\u2019s residential areas to their current density parameters.<\/p>\n
Leslie said the proposal responds to months of hearing resident concerns about traffic congestion, community character, and the environment. But both residents and board members were angered by what one resident called the \u201cFriday night news dump,\u201d when the revision was not published until late on the eve of the three-day Labor Day weekend, leaving little time for review.<\/p>\n
Board member Maureen Cunningham said the proposal did not represent the entire board. She believes only one board member had an opportunity to provide input.<\/p>\n
Cunningham said while she had a meeting with Town Supervisor David VanLuven and Leslie on August 27, she was given only an overview and not asked for input, just her reaction. She said the details were unclear. She did not see the proposal or supporting explanatory materials before they were published with the meeting agenda on September 4.<\/p>\n
Process questioned<\/p>\n
Both residents and board members sparred with VanLuven over the process. Cunningham and board member David DeCancio questioned why they had not received the latest proposal until late last week. In an interview, VanLuven said Cunningham was given a copy two weeks ago, and DeCancio was given a copy a week ago. DeCancio and Cunningham disputed that.<\/p>\n
DeCancio said he first saw the proposal on September 4 at 10:30 a.m.<\/p>\n
Not only had Cunningham not seen the proposal, but she also added that she does not know who worked on it or was consulted. She criticized the proposal for being \u201cflushed\u201d out despite VanLuven announcing in early July that the process would be \u201con pause\u201d over the summer.<\/p>\n
Cunningham said she felt left out of the process and called it \u201cdisappointing.\u201d<\/p>\n
In response, VanLuven lashed out at board members for not responding when a \u201ccall was put out\u201d to town board members to work to address issues. He said only Schnurr responded and had been working with him and Leslie to address concerns raised by residents.<\/p>\n
In a written statement, Cunningham said several attempts had been made to meet to discuss the proposal from mid-July on, but due to scheduling conflicts, did not happen until August 27. She said she had not even seen the accompanying fact sheet until she got up from the podium during the September 9 board meeting to grab it from the back of the room. From a review of the details in the accompanying materials, Cunningham realized some details were not made clear to her at the August 27 meeting, highlighting the need for more time to process the full proposal,<\/p>\n
VanLuven chided the board members, saying the board needs to make decisions at some point and town board members can’t just say they don\u2019t like something. \u201cA pause does not mean stop,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Schnurr tried to get the meeting back on track, reflecting that residents speaking at the meeting made clear there is more work to be done. \u201cI don\u2019t know how much more there is,\u201d Schnurr said, but assured the town that \u201ceveryone means well.\u201d<\/p>\n
In a written statement, DeCancio said, \u201cIt is understandable that he [VanLuven] is frustrated after again facing strong opposition to a proposal he developed and released after 5 p.m. on the Friday of Labor Day weekend. However, frustration does not excuse attacks on board members for questioning an unvetted proposal \u2014 that is accountability. True leadership is demonstrated through transparency, respect, and grace, not anger.\u201d<\/p>\n
Like board members, residents also complained that the 400-page proposal was \u201cdropped\u201d on the eve of Labor Day weekend. Glenmont resident Colleen Scott, who spoke during the meeting\u2019s public comment period, also objected to the public comment period being held before Leslie gave his presentation. She said this avoided questions probing what the presentation communicated.<\/p>\n
DeCancio said residents have a right to be upset. VanLuven countered that board meeting agendas are always published the Friday before the next meeting. He said staff needs time to pull together all the materials. He said issuing the agenda earlier shortens staff time to provide information, which might require them to submit updates or delay decision-making on items for another two weeks. VanLuven acknowledged no legal impediment to adding to the board agenda after publication,<\/p>\n
DeCancio said the Supervisor continues to re-write history and play by his own rules. He disputed, as VanLuven insists, that the purpose of the $65,000 traffic study authorized by the board at its last meeting is to help remedy current traffic issues on Feura Bush Road. DeCancio said the traffic study is intended as a data point to help determine road capacity in face of potential higher residential density. Cunningham concurred that was her understanding.<\/p>\n
DeCancio said the new proposal is a step in the right direction, but the next step must both bring people to the table for more discussion and conduct additional comprehensive studies on infrastructure capacity. Glenmont resident Barbara Silber agreed, particularly for the revised proposal\u2019s allowance of 6-unit multi-family buildings in conservation subdivisions for developments of 10 acres or more. \u201cWe need studies to know what the town can handle,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
Several residents also again called for more infrastructure-related studies.<\/p>\n
VanLuven disagrees. \u201cIt has taken the town almost a full year to review this proposal since it was submitted by the planning board. It has not been rushed, but very carefully considered by all four board members and me, and we listened to the concerns.\u201d<\/p>\n
VanLuven urged that the time has come, after a public hearing, to vote. \u201cThere are so many things the zoning code needs and that are not in place and it will start hurting us,\u201d he said<\/p>\n
What is now proposed<\/p>\n
\u201cWe listened to the residents\u2019 concerns of the proposed LDR zoning district and what was coming through was concerns about the rate and type of change that would have been mandated in it,\u201d VanLuven said in an interview. \u201cHe called those concerns \u201cfully understandable.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSo we set aside the revised proposal and are keeping things largely as they are now, with some improvements like developers not getting credit for unbuildable lands,\u201d VanLuven said.<\/p>\n
The revised proposal removes the prior draft\u2019s LDR district, which residents decried as increasing density, traffic, and changing the town\u2019s character and replaces it with a \u201cNeighborhood Residential\u201d (NR) district, which is described as maintaining the existing development patterns of the current zoning.<\/p>\n
As defined, the new NR would include residential housing types such as single-family detached homes with no more than two units per structure and two-family dwellings. The minimum lot size and dwelling units per acre would be retained for all residential housing types: three dwelling units\/acre, with a minimum lot size of .33 acres.<\/p>\n
Leslie said the main difference between the new proposal and current zoning is that lots of 10 or more acres require a conservation subdivision. For those parcels, Leslie said at least 25% unconstrained\/buildable land must be preserved as open space. While not required, conservation subdivisions may permit multi-family units with up to six units per building,but those units cannot represent more than 33% of the total.<\/p>\n
Leslie also explained that additional density guardrails come through caps on incentive zoning and keeping the prior proposal’s 100-foot transitional buffer for multifamily units adjacent to single-family homes.<\/p>\n
Affordable middle market removed as goal<\/p>\n
The revised proposal also removes the reference to increasing affordable middle-market housing and multifamily dwelling units as an allowed residential use in the newly classified NR district.<\/p>\n
Three residents, all of whom live in single-family homes in Delmar and are in favor of the originally proposed higher-density model include library trustee Laura DiBetta voiced their opposition to cutting the density allowances. They called the NR district an \u201covercorrection\u201d and advocated for the higher-density model, whose very nomenclature as \u201clower density\u201d was challenged.<\/p>\n
In an interview, VanLuven explained that during the review process, the town recognized it can incentivize attainability, but not affordability.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe can\u2019t make builders build less expensive housing,\u201d VanLuven said. \u201cThe only time that happens is when a developer gets a lot of State money to close the gap in profit capture.\u201d He said the town is now talking about \u201cattainability\u201d rather than \u201caffordability.\u201d<\/p>\n
By attainability, VanLuven said he means the opportunity to buy or rent different kinds of housing, like single-family homes, two-family homes or apartments.<\/p>\n
Leslie said that smart growth can still be accomplished through the zoning proposal because it would allow for two-family homes in the NR, which are currently not permitted. He said other zoning tools in the proposed amendments, like allowing accessory dwelling units and providing for mixed-density residential areas on Route 85, Blessing Road, and in other more commercial areas, also provide housing diversity consistent with the town\u2019s comprehensive plan.<\/p>\n
To those dissatisfied that the town has not sufficiently retreated from the higher-density proposal, VanLuven said he hopes they stay engaged in the process and share their views. Regardless, he feels the town is moving in a more positive direction. He also said it would be helpful to hear from people about items they approve.<\/p>\n
Questions remain<\/p>\n
Many residents thanked the town for moving away from the LDR district, but said questions remain. Delmar resident William Sharp pointed to a provision that, as written, exempts developers who currently have projects in the pipeline if the town\u2019s planning board has issued either a Negative Declaration or accepted a draft environmental Impact statement under State SEQRA law from any site plan or subdivision review process.<\/p>\n
Leslie later said that was not the intention. The intention was to grandfather projects in the pipeline under current zoning requirements, not to exempt them from oversight. Board member Tom Schnurr said the town should review the language.<\/p>\n
Others questioned allowing six units per building in a conservation subdivision and asked for more information. Glenmont resident Michelle Grossman asked how the proposed NR district would preserve land if six-unit buildings could abut her home.<\/p>\n
Some concerns were raised about the type of buildings that could be built with six units, potentially creating garden apartments that are out of character with the neighborhoods. Another resident raised concerns that six-unit dwellings in areas without public transportation could isolate families without cars.<\/p>\n
Sharp also returned during the public comment period to previously raised concerns about two other districts\u2019 permissible density under the proposal. He noted that the commercial multi-use district allows 25 units per acre and the mixed density residential district allows 17 units per acre. He called these \u201cextremely high base densities\u201d that do not even account for incentive bonuses. Sharp advocated eliminating them or at least reducing allowable units by 5 to alleviate traffic that would be generated in those districts along Route 9W, Delaware and Cherry Avenues, New Scotland Road, Route 85 and Meads Lane.<\/p>\n
Schedule up for grabs<\/p>\n
Leslie had proposed the town board voting on the zoning amendments at the board\u2019s December 9 meeting after a public hearing on October 28. That schedule was sidelined for now and no calendar is set.<\/p>\n
Just before the meeting\u2019s conclusion, VanLuven asked if there was any new business, and Cunningham piped up, \u201cChange the agenda, make it come out earlier.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"DELMAR- At Bethlehem\u2019s town board\u2019s September 9 meeting, Director of Planning Robert Leslie presented a revised zoning proposal…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":285562,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[153,155,154,524,744,139],"class_list":["post-285561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-bethlehem","tag-bethlehem","tag-bethlehem-headlines","tag-bethlehem-news","tag-community","tag-government","tag-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/285561","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=285561"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/285561\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/285562"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=285561"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=285561"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=285561"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}