Buffers, Code and Boards

It would be nice to know how to provide protection for a lake buffer. I seem to remember 300 feet as a recommended buffer for lakes and streams. Putnam Valley used to have 75 feet. The Chairman of the Zoning Board said that it was enacted to protect the lake. Then, he slashed it to 38 feet. That’s not enough, and of course, the buffer itself has become meaningless. If it can be 38 feet, it can be 2 feet. If the concept is not upheld, then there is no difference. I have been told that the courts won’t uphold the zoning code as far as area variances, that Zoning Board of Appeals have a lot of discretion, that even if there are sloppy inaccuracies in the decision and order, the courts won’t do anything. 

There will be another time when this will matter, when it will happen to someone else, and someone will notice, and it will already be too late.

At the present moment, the boards seem more or less to be upholding the setbacks, but of course, they can grant setback variances too, and in the non-conforming structure that became the source of controversy, there were already setback variances that were granted significant increases. Setback variances can be increased in the code.

The code allows a 20% as of right increase for living area. That law is written with vagueness that should be corrected. Still, there is nothing in the code that uses the terms ‘as of right’ or “footprint” or ‘allowable building envelope’ the way that the boards use them. And there does seem to be some point at which the community’s residents should be able to decide what they want their community to look like, and what kind of protections they want for their waterbodies. and drinking water. There should even be protections for the surface water, stormwater drainage, and drinking water that the community does not understand or know to ask for – protection for public health and welfare. This law should be rescinded, and changed to allow the 20%, but not the 110% increase.

The Town Board knows. It is doubtful that they will do anything. 

The Boards should be appointed to conform to the values of the community. Their role is to protect the community, and that is not happening. Only one board member and the ad hoc member can be changed annually, but don’t expect anything new from this Town Board. Lake protection does not seem to be a high priority, and communication with the community is quite limited. There seems to be one Town Board member, and one Planning Board member who want to protect the lake. They don’t have enough power alone. These are volunteer boards, and it is courtesy to allow them to stay if they wish, but the Boards really need to reflect the Town.

As far as courtesy, the Zoning Board wins. It doesn’t seem that they listen to anything, but they are very nice about it. If someone is ignoring me, I’d prefer that they were kind about it.

It might require outside counsel to find out how to provide legal protection for the lake. I know that local wetland protection can be legislated and enforced. I would imagine that there can be enforceable law to protect an important community asset.