BETHLEHEM—Another lengthy Town Board meeting, held on Tuesday, Nov. 22, was primarily devoted to discussion of proposed changes to town zoning law, as the town’s Director of Economic Planning and Development Robert Leslie returned to present an updated proposal based on questions, concerns and suggestions posed by town residents and members of the board.
No vote took place that evening, but a number of concerns were addressed. In fact, Leslie and Town Planner Jeff Lipnicky returned with responses to each and every one of the issues raised by residents during a public hearing on the matter (scroll down for full responses). As members were wrapping up discussion of various aspects of the proposed amendments, however, Board member David VanLuven brought up the issue of “community character.”
“The standard that we’re using,” he said, “is the number of housing units, in terms of density. And, we’re using that as a proxy for remaining within community character to a certain extent, it seems to me.” In talking with community residents, he said that he found that they’re often less concerned with numbers of units than with the overall physical size or appearance of the project. VanLuven cited a proposed project at 224 Delaware Ave., where the developer is seeking to build a 16-unit apartment complex in the middle of a neighborhood of single-family homes.
“When we really started talking,” he said, “it became clear that it didn’t matter if it was 16 small units or six large units. It’s not the number of units, it’s the size of the building relative to the rest of the neighborhood.” Keeping in mind that economic development is desirable, VAnLuven asked what “approaches” the town could take to help ensure preservation of community character—and how to even define it.
“I think we have the tools in our zoning law now,” responded Leslie. “Specifically in the site plan design criteria, that gives the Planning Board the ability to listen to residents.” Holding public hearings is always a discretionary option the board has, he said, as well as the power to require additional setbacks, landscaping and other buffering to screen buildings. The board can even weigh in on the architectural character of proposed buildings. “We certainly have all those tools at our disposal any time a project comes before the Planning Board. So I’m not necessarily confident that there’s a new approach that we need to take, I just think it’s the continued practice of the Planning Board listening to the public, understanding their concerns and coming up with ways to minimize those impacts.”

“Do you typically get a lot of public comments at Planning Board meetings,” asked Board member Julie Sasso. She wondered if, perhaps, residents weren’t made aware of projects early enough to feel that their reactions were of any consequence. “I feel like people think that things are happening behind their back,” she explained, “because they’re not aware of it and it seems like we’re trying to sneak things past people.” Short of going door-to-door, Sasso asked if there was any way to ensure that those who want to be engaged were able to be reached in a timely manner.
“First we have to find who wants to be engaged,” said Leslie, before noting that some other municipalities require signs to be posted on properties under development, alerting neighbors to proposed projects and public hearings regarding the site. Currently, he said, attendance at public meetings is primarily a result of social media efforts and conversations between neighbors.
“I know the town is on Facebook,” said Sasso. After learning the Planning Board does not post notifications of proposed projects or meeting agendas on the town’s Facebook page, she said, “That might be something simple. I’m just trying to think of other, creative ways of trying to get them involved without it being an onerous task.”

Agreeing with Sasso, VanLuven said, “People feel powerless, because usually when they find out a project is going on, it’s really late in the process and usually too late for their input to be considered in a meaningful way.
“I hear it a lot,” he said a moment later. “People are really feeling powerless right now.”
“Any social media announcement, someone would have to actively sign up to be on Facebook,” said Leslie. “I’m just saying if there are opportunities for us to easily increase our dissemination of information, maybe this is something we can do to help alleviate this feeling that people have that they’re not able to participate.
“I understand that it’s structured so that people can participate; we have a very clear method for participation,” she added. “And I’m not saying that we change the method of participation. I’m just suggesting that maybe we can make people a little more aware of that method.”
“We have the advanced website, which has Notify Me,” pointed out Supervisor John Clarkson, “which is very helpful for people who sign up that are interested in it. Frankly, our Facebook section—the website automatically posts to our Facebook site—has not been a big success and I can’t say why.

“Notification—always important,” he continued. “I think we do it. We don’t do a lot it except in special cases, as legally required, and in some other cases like Wemple Corners, for example. I think we did a very large mailing to get people out, far beyond any legal requirement.” Noting that certain projects tend to generate more interest than others, he pointed out that a project proposed for the old Mangia site has already garnered plenty of public response before even making it before the Planning Board.
“I’m not sure that there’s one answer or an easy answer,” said Clarkson, expressing interest in Leslie’s comment about posting signs.
Ultimately, he said, regarding the proposed zoning changes, “We’re hearing about a lot of other things from people as they’re looking at this, because they have other things on their mind and that’s good. They’re things that I would like to look at.” That being said, he expressed reluctance to allow newly raised concerns to interfere with process on things that have been “duly identified and worked on for quite a long time.”
Before ending the meeting, the board agreed that it would be best to vote on the raft of changes before the end of the year, when a new board member will be taking his seat. As the next meeting on Dec. 14 will be the last time the board meets in 2016, Clarkson asked, “Do we feel that we have enough information to vote on this at the next session?”
“Probably,” said VanLuven, who mentioned that he needed time to review changes proposed for Rural Industrial Light Districts.
“Given how this was put on the agenda so close to the meeting date,” he added, “I would encourage all the people watching on TV to reach out to us with additional comments and input since they weren’t able to do it tonight.” (Video of the full town board meeting, with discussion of zoning change updates, can be found on the town website’s meeting portal.)
“We will be posting an updated draft in accord with the discussion tonight,” said Clarkson, who said he thought Leslie would be able to have it ready sometime this week. Residents are encouraged to look at the zoning proposal and reach out to board members, by phone or email, with any questions or concerns.
Planning Dept. responses to concerns raised by residents regarding proposed changes to zoning law
Re: Rural Light Industrial District (RLI) Regulations | Residential Subdivisions
Community comments
- Proposed regulations remove multi-family and other residential uses as an option in the RLI Districts, and make it difficult to develop one- and two-family. These uses are currently permitted by-right.
- When the RLI became a district under the Comprehensive Plan, it stated minor residential subdivisions were permitted, specific light industrial uses were permitted, all rural uses were permitted except for major residential subdivisions.
Planning Dept. response
“The above statement is generally correct. The Comprehensive Plan does in fact state that minor residential subdivisions should be permitted in the Rural Light Industrial District. However, it is important to note that in the Comprehensive Plan’s discussion of residential uses, in both the Rural and RLI zones, the emphasis of the discussion is on “low-density residential” use. In the Rural District, for example, the Plan recommends a density of one dwelling unit per two acres for major subdivisions.
For the RLI District the Plan recommends that such subdivisions not be allowed. Although the Plan speaks of mixed-use and flexibility, it is clear and obvious that in the RLI District there is a concern about potential land use conflicts with non-residential uses and that residential use should be limited.
Nowhere in the discussion of either the Rural or RLI Districts is multi-family, three- or four-family, or even two family dwellings mentioned. The idea of low density and limited residential use is further supported by the Plans proposed definition of “minor subdivision”. The Plan recommends that in both Districts “a minor subdivision be defined as one that results in the creation of four (4) or fewer lots (not including the original parent parcel) over a 10-year period.” For the RLI District, this is essentially the extent of the residential recommendation. The recommendation is consistent with the idea of low density residential use and acknowledges there are inherent land use conflicts between residential and light industrial uses. The amendments contained in the proposed zoning revisions do not represent a significant departure from the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends four or fewer residential lots over a ten year period. The proposed zoning amendments would actually allow more residential use than what is recommended ion the Comprehensive Plan.”
Re: RLI Regulations | Intent of the District
Community Comments
- Chairman’s letter says the intent of the amendment is to limit residential use consistent with the commercial/ industrial intent of these districts as expressed in the Comp Plan
- Having attended all the meetings the intent of RLI was not to limit development in these areas, the intent was to allow all uses listed in rural as well as additional light industrial uses
- It was designed to promote flexibility, not to restrict it
- Having attended the Comprehensive Plan, RLI was zoned to allow flexibility of what could be done in the district
- Light industrial is supposed to be flexible but your taking things away. You’re going to see people selling the land. Sometimes a farmer has to sell a piece of land and that’s why we fought for land divisions
Planning Dept. response
“The notion that the RLI District is not intended as an industrial district is incorrect. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the district as one that would “allow minor residential subdivision activities … all other uses permitted in the Rural Area … with the addition of traditional light industrial activities including, but not limited to warehousing, minor assembly operations, some manufacturing, and research facilities”. While the Plan recommends that rural uses be allowed in these areas, as indicated in the above response, residential use is seen as a low-density, low-intensity subordinate use—“a minor subdivision be[ing] defined as one that results in the creation of four (4) or fewer lots (not including the original parent parcel) over a 10-year period.” Again, there is no mention in the Plan of two-, three-, four- or multi-family development in these rural light industrial areas. While the Plan does suggest “mixed-use” and “flexibility”, it is clear that this flexibility is intended to have limits.
In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Law also makes it clear that the RLI is intended for light industrial purposes. The Zoning Law identifies the RLI district as areas “deemed appropriate for light … industrial uses.” Although the Zoning Law acknowledges that within the RLI “these areas presently include some limited residential uses” it identifies the “the dominant uses as manufacturing, assembly, processing and transportation related” and states that “[T]the purpose of these districts is to encourage the development of light … industrial uses that require trucking or rail transportation to move goods and materials.” No mention is made of the idea that the purpose of the district is to promote, encourage or allow residential uses residential use should be promoted area.”
Re: RLI Regulations | Lack of Water and Sewer
Community comments
- No water and sewer.
- Lack water and sewer is a restriction already.
- You don’t have the infrastructure to support a lot of development.
- There is no reference to proposed large projects or pressures to develop these areas, particularly since there is no water or sewer
Planning Dept. response
“A review of utility mapping indicates large portions of the RLI are within reasonable proximity and accessible to public water. For the most part sanitary sewers are more remote. However, it should be noted that water and sanitary sewer service have expanded incrementally in Town. The typical process is that a landowner/developer will construct a subdivision (or other project) near services and extend water and sewer to the far property line. This makes services now available to the next property owner. In some instances where development has been large enough to finance infrastructure improvements, intervening parcels have been skipped. The result is that areas once thought inaccessible to utilities now have service.”
Re: RLI Regulations | RLI as Transition Area
Community comments
- The land lies between residential and industrial, a transition area from one to the other and therefore it should be allowed more flexibility rather than less.
Planning Dept. response
“Although there is much vacant land within the RLI, the Rural Light Industrial District is not a transition area. It is an industrial zoning district that currently allows residential use. Permitted uses in the RLI include but are not limited to, airports, animal hospitals, beverage bottling, distribution and warehousing facilities, broadcasting facilities, cold storage facilities, commercial bakeries, commercial recreation facilities, contractor’s yards and storage facilities, distribution centers, fabrication shops, farm equipment sales, rental and repair businesses, food processing facilities, heavy equipment sales and repair, grain storage, processing, and distribution facilities, industrial parks, kennels, research and development labs, medical labs, dry-cleaning facilities, lumber yards, lumber mills, manufacturing facilities related to computers, electronics, instruments, appliances and similar goods, manufacturing of goods and products from processed materials, printing and publishing, mining and mineral extraction, motor vehicle sales, repair and service businesses, including auto body repair, packaging facilities, transportation terminals, public utilities, solar energy collection and distribution facilities, trucking and fuel delivery businesses, wholesale businesses, warehouses, self-storage facilities, et cetera.”
Re: RLI Regulations | Limits Options for Property Owners
Community comments
- By proposing the regulations, the town is taking away too many options for the property owners
- Proposal stifles choices for landowners in these rural parts of town where there are different lifestyles and where multigenerational families living together is not unusual
- Town needs to realize there are large landowners in that area that need the flexibility
- Multi-family is more economically viable than a single family / to take care of / to heat / etc.
- Most of the land in the RLI area is in agricultural use. If you take anything more away from the farmers they are going to be selling it.
Planning Dept. response
“All zoning districts have limits on the scope of activities that are permitted. There still remains a wide range of land uses permitted in the RLI, including the ability to construct low density one- and two-family homes.”
Re: RLI Regulations | Land Division
Community comments
- If you do a land division in light industrial and take five acres and put a house on it, and then “five years from now my son says dad I want to move in can I move next to you, I can’t do it on those five acres because I’m only allowed to do one land division on that parcel I split off, now I would have to take another parcel and do a land division for him.”
Planning Dept. response
“Under the proposed RLI amendment a landowner would be able to subdivide out one lot per year from the original parcel – the parcel existing on the date of adoption of the code changes. Lots that are subdivided out from the original parcel could not be further subdivided.”
Re: Town Zoning Exemption
Community comments
- Speaker does not agree with Town exempting itself from the Zoning Law / believes it should apply to everyone including the Town government
- Finds Town exemption to its own zoning highly questionable
- Zoning law is for checks and balances / what makes a Town project any less important that a project proposed by a resident
- Speaker proposes to delete section dealing with public projects and improvements / wants this section of the code to remain as is
- The amendment would give Town Board exclusive jurisdiction over Town projects. They would not subject to the zoning code. Speaker believes the ZBA should continue to have oversight on these projects. The Planning Board should also be involved in the process.
- Speaker has issue with exempting Town from its zoning code. / Indicates if it’s fit for the public then the Town should also abide by the Zoning
Planning Dept. response
“The reason for proposing the exemption is to reduce the time frame and expense for review of Town sponsored projects and also the repetitiveness of review. However, this does not mean that such projects will undergo less scrutiny than if the Code applied to Town projects. Whether or not the Town is exempt, Town sponsored projects must obtain approval from the Town Board.”
Re: Planned Hamlet District | Overuse of Floating Zones
Community comments
- Resident indicates that overuse of floating zone is contrary to sound planning because it upsets expectations of how property should be used; can run havoc on the overall planning scheme; seem to favor developers over local interest; problematic because they can land without notice over a large area of Town. The speaker cited Delmar Point and Hamden Woods as examples.
Planning Dept. response
“Although the PHD is a floating zone, in order to be designated on land it must be approved by the Town Board. At present there are no PHD’s in Town and no supporting information has been presented to suggest that the zoning designation would be overused. To obtain a PHD designation would require a zoning map amendment. This involves a specific process as laid out in the proposed amendment, and would include SEQR review, Planning Board referral, review and recommendation, and a public hearing on the amendment. This process would provide opportunity for public input. It should be noted that ultimately the decision of rezoning to a PHD entails a discretionary decision by the Town Board. As such, the Town Board retains a significant amount of control and leverage in shaping the PHD project, or in the event it is not in the best interest of the Town, in denying the rezoning. (Note: Delmar Pointe is a Planned Development District. Hamden Woods is not.)”
Re: Planned Hamlet District | Existing Development along New Scotland Road
Community comments
- In reference to the Planned Hamlet District, resident indicates that building along New Scotland “is a disaster” and “does not fit the community.”
- Reference is made to the Citizens Guide to Planning and the New Scotland Hamlet Plan. The speaker indicates these documents speak about architectural style and details, public gathering space, small residential lots, green space, et cetera. Speaker defies anybody to go there and find any of those items. The speaker indicates the Tech Park is empty. The Town has a shopping center in the technology park, apartment complex, a second apartment complex in a three story building that is right up to the roadway, no trees, no setback, sidewalks that go nowhere, three roundabouts that are terrible for people. The speaker indicates it’s a mess, you think you’re in Latham, to use the hamlet as a guide is a big mistake.
Planning Dept. response
“The above comments represent the speaker’s opinion about existing development in the New Scotland Road corridor. However, existing development in the New Scotland Road corridor was not proposed, reviewed, approved or developed under the proposed PHD regulations. The proposed regulations contain specific guidelines for development in areas that are rezoned to PHD. They are not based on existing development in the corridor.”
Re: Planned Hamlet District | 15 percent Commercial Floor Area Requirement
Community comments
- The PHD contains a mandatory requirement that 15% of gross floor area be devoted to commercial use. However, other components of the PHD regulations have built in flexibility that allows the Town Board to vary the requirements. The speaker believes this flexibility should also be extended to the 15% commercial requirement. The speaker indicates this would allow his proposed project on New Scotland Road to have the best outcome.
Planning Dept. response
“This requirement is important if the goal of the PHD is to truly create a “hamlet” area, which is made up of mixed uses both residential and commercial. The commercial use requirement creates the opportunity for “activity” within the hamlet area – commercial uses could include restaurants, retail shops, offices, etc.”
Re: Conservation Subdivisions | 50 percent Contiguous Open Space Requirement
Community comments
- The speaker indicates that the change in the 50 percent contiguous open space requirement would allow the Planning Board to alter this if they want. The speaker indicates the Town should not allow the Planning Board to do this. If there is a waiver to the requirement it should be with approval of the Town Board not the Planning Board. Planning Board is not an elected body. There is no accountability to the public from Planning Board whereas the Town Board must run for office.
Planning Dept. response
“The amendment would allow the Planning Board limited flexibility to modify the 50 percent contiguous open space requirement in the conservation subdivision regulations. The Planning Board’s ability to waive the requirement is limited to two specific circumstances: (1) where it finds that due to the configuration of the property, there are physical or institutional constraints that inhibit attainment of said 50 percent requirement; or, (2) where it finds that implementation of the 50 percent requirement would result in a substantial reduction in the amount of land area that would otherwise be preserved as open space. In both instances the Planning Board must make a finding that the condition exists. In no instance can the total amount of open space be less than that which is required.”
Re: Maximum Density
Community comments
- Page 8, item 25 talks about maximum density. It does not say whether Planning Board has a right to tell someone they cannot go to the maximum. There needs to be something in there to clarify this.
Planning Dept. response
“The proposed densities cited in the code revisions are maximum densities. The Planning Board through its site plan, subdivision and SEQR review authority has the ability to require plan modifications that would reduce density below the maximum. Typically, this might occur in instances where development at maximum densities would have adverse impacts on the environment or surrounding properties.”
Re: Applicability to Active Development Projects
Community comments
- Page 62, item 16, talks about applicability to active applications. Why isn’t there an end date? Should have to have your approval/construction by a certain time or you lose your grandfathering.
Planning Dept. response
“As currently proposed there is no expiration date on the grandfathering provision. If the Board so wishes, a provision can be added to the Code amendments requiring that for active projects all Planning Board approvals must be obtained within one to two years of adoption or the exemption (grandfathering clause) expires.”
The full conversation between the Planning Department and Town Board can be viewed here. Zoning discussion begins 33 minutes into meeting.