Hoosick Planning Board And ZBA See Issue Differently

by Gary Danforth
The Town of Hoosick Planning Board meeting took place this past Tuesday evening, February 16, inside the Hoosick Falls Armory with Chairman Jim Dunigan calling the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Following the Pledge of Allegiance the minutes of the previous month’s meeting were approved. There were six Board members present, including two new Board members, along with Board Attorney Stan King and Recording Secretary Karen Jennings.
The first action before the Board saw Attorney King explain to members that he had received a copy of a deed to the Holt property, to which the Board had previously approved a boundary line change. King said he would submit same to the landowner’s file.
Then the Board saw Attorney George Holbrook seek to have a client’s simple subdivision declared as such. Holbrook wanted to add a name to the ownership. The party’s action had previously been before the Board, and with everything in order, the Board declared this a simple subdivision.
Next, Chuck Kinney appeared before the Board, accompanied by realtor Rick Tinkham. Kinney was seeking to purchase the old Top Hat property on Route 67 in North Hoosick and expand his car dealership. There are three rental cabins on the property which would remain in that capacity. There would be a car wash facility. The Board, Kinney and Tinkham reviewed Kinney’s short form environmental assessment form (EAF) and found a negative declaration, meaning no adverse environmental impact would result from this change in use of this property from a restaurant to a used car dealership. There would be 15 to 20 cars on the premises. This matter had already been before the Town Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The Planning Board passed a motion to approve the site plan for this project.
Finally, the Board took up the matter of its first referral from the ZBA involving the new special use permit process. At the November 2009 Planning Board meeting King had explained that as far as he knew this was the first case for such a special permit before the ZBA, which was formed in 2009 by Town of Hoosick Board action. The process calls for persons to go before the ZBA to try to resolve their issue. Then that issue is sent to the Planning Board for their input. King went on to say that the ZBA has to follow the legal process whereas the Town has granted the Planning Board the right to waive any part of the process it sees fit. The ZBA, by law, has to hold public hearings on each case before it; the Planning Board can waive a public hearing on any matter it deems it is okay to do. Planning Board members had wondered aloud whether the process for getting matters approved within the township would be lengthened with this process. Also, there had been discussion as to how this process would play itself out. The present case before the ZBA is the first case, and the process is not yet proven. King and other members had wondered whether it would be more prudent to have the ZBA approve site plans for these special use permits and then send the ZBA approved packets to the Planning Board since the Planning Board cannot approve a site plan for a special use permit before the ZBA approves it. Duplicate services by the ZBA and the Planning Board worried Planning Board members who want to speed up the process for Town residents. The ZBA will be sending complete, approved packages to the Planning Board so the Planning Board wondered why have the packages sent before a site plan, public hearing and special use permit had all been approved by the ZBA. At that November meeting Planning Board members were confident that the two boards working together could learn to expedite any process in the interest of Town residents.
The initial case before the Planning Board involved the new Haskins Fuel Service business located just North of the Village of Hoosick Falls on Route 22. King explained to the Planning Board that the ZBA had sent word that a special use permit would be available for this business. King further explained that the Planning Board had 30 days to send a response to the ZBA, if they, indeed, wanted to do so on such matters, though it was not necessary to do so in all cases. King said the ZBA was seeking the Planning Board “advisory opinion” and if the Planning Board did not send such then any matter approved for a special permit use by the ZBA would go forward. The Planning Board saw this property going from residential use to professional office use. The Planning Board said the site plan looked okay according to land use planning law enacted in 2009. The Planning Board said land use law and zoning laws were one in the same, just involving different terminology. The question is whether the use of land is permissible in a particular zone as set forth by land use law. If not, the ZBA will issue a special use permit, which is what seems to have happened in this initial case. Each case will be looked at on its own merit by the ZBA and/or the Planning Board, if necessary. In this case the ZBA said a site plan was not necessary yet the one that was provided seemed okay to the Planning Board.
After reviewing the information sent to them by the ZBA and feeling this use was taking place inside a rural residential area as set forth by land use zoning law, the Planning Board passed a motion to have King communicate with ZBA Chairman Jim Hoag to say that the Planning Board, at least initially, does not feel this special use permit should be allowed to go forward. Ironically, Hoag served on the Planning Board some years before. Before the motion was voted on, Planning Board Member John Cooney recused himself from the vote, as he also owns an oil business and “is in direct competition” with the Haskins’ business. The Planning Board noted that it will have a joint meeting with the ZBA in March to better understand the purpose of each.