Long Island Still Needs Regional Planning

The following was published in the 7/24/11 edition of Newsday, on Page A39. The online version can be seen here:

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/letters/letter-li-still-needs-regional-planning-1.3047992

My name is Rich Murdocco, and I am writing concerning the July 16th editorial entitled "Better for LI to Grow Together".

Newsday's editorial calling for more calling upon policymakers and the private sector to think regionally should be commended. However, it is important for the future regional effort to not get caught up in the political or special interest milieu that weighed the LIRPC down. What once was a group detached from (and many times ran counter to) the political realities of the time, was turned into a group that is a shell of what it used to be, and is vulnerable to outsider interests and agendas.

Planners, and the plans that they produce must conform to the economic and, unfortunately, political realities of the time. This conformism must take place within the final plan's implementation phase, and not during the crafting of the initial plan.

Regional planning, which is contingent upon the cooperation and financial support from both Counties, is essential for Long Island’s future growth. Long Island’s concerns are not confined to village, town or county lines. We, as Long Islanders, must realize that as flawed as the Regional Planning Council’s approach was, there must be an entity to conduct the very important work of regional planning on Long Island. The fact that, to quote Mr. Rick Brand's 6/25 column “After 46 years, regional planning on Long Island is near death" is something that Long Islanders should be concerned about.

If the LIRPC does go under, we should press our elected officials for a new regional entity, separate from political and special interests, to continue the original mission of the Long Island Regional Planning Board. Too much is at stake to not think about Long Island’s “bigger picture”.

Thank you,

Rich Murdocco

1-631-560-1450

Setauket, NY

The Brookhaven Town Board Public Hearing on Sandy Hills

On July 19th, 2011, I read a statement advocating for sound environmental planning for the Sandy Hills proposal, a 135 multifamily development proposed for a 39.3 acre parcel. The proposal is in a state-designated Special Groundwater Protection Area (SPGA), and the Suffolk County Planning Commission has rejected the merits of the proposal's planning merits in it's staff analysis, despite the Commission's approval of the project. Here is the North Shore Sun's recap of the meeting: http://northshoresun.timesreview.com/2011/07/14426/live-updates-brookhaven-town-board-meeting-3/

The North Shore Sun also quoted me for their July 20th story on the issue, which can be found here:

But representatives from the Long Island Pine Barrens Society described the plan as “flawed” and said it “exhibits poor planning principles.”

Richard Murdocco, who addressed the Town Board on behalf of Pine Barrens Society executive director Richard Amper, said the land should be preserved since it is located in the compatible growth area of the Pine Barrens and has been recommended for open space acquisition by the town’s Carmans River Study Group.

“This proposed intensification of land use in a sensitive and threatened watershed is an action that is in direct contrast with the town’s recent preservation efforts,” Mr. Murdocco said, referring to the town’s Carmans River Watershed Protection & Management Plan. That report is in the process of being finalized.


http://northshoresun.timesreview.com/2011/07/14531/brookhaven-town-board-approves-sandy-hills-project/

The text of the statement read can be found below the picture:

7/19/11

Re: Public Hearing #4 Sandy Hills LLC Change of Zone

My name is Richard Murdocco, and I am speaking on behalf of Richard Amper, Executive Director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society.

Sandy Hills is a proposal that is flawed and exhibits poor planning principles. The parcel is located in the Compatible Growth Area of the Pine Barrens, and is in a designated Special Groundwater Protection Area.

Intensifying the land use on this thirty-nine point three (39.3) acre parcel well-beyond what is currently allowed as-of-right must be justified. What are the tangible public benefits of granting the developer such an increase above as-of-right yield? The public must accrue true benefits that go beyond mere impact fees that will result if this proposal is built.  “Workforce” housing is a term that is without meaning, so the suggestion that this counts as a substantive public benefit is ridiculous. Is the applicant proposing $250,000 workforce housing, or is it workforce housing that is priced at $500,000?

 The Suffolk County Water Authority, in letter from July of 2008, had stated that the increase in density in relation to the proposed number of Pine Barrens Credits is an “insult to the TDR program.” The Suffolk County Planning Commission, in its 2007 review of the proposal, had issues with the proposed sewage plant in a Special Groundwater Protection Area and the lack of Pine Barrens Credits slated to be redeemed in exchange for the increase of density.

The Sandy Hills proposal was the subject of extensive litigation, resulting in this reconsideration.

In the staff analysis of Sandy Hills by the Suffolk County Planning Commission, it was highlighted that the proposed yield is to be 135 residential units. This is a difference of 102 units, or the as-of-right yield is approximately 25% of the proposed yield. The Commission had stated that “the Proposal provides no substantial public benefit to the community impacted by this increase in density”. Further, the Suffolk County Planning staff has said that the applicant shall retire 19 Pine Barrens Credits to achieve the requested density. In contrast to this recommendation, 3 credits are proposed to be retired by the developer. In closing their document, the Suffolk County Planning staff has stated that “…the approval of the proposed plan would simply be a ‘density grab’ and serve to further exacerbate the ramifications of unplanned and uncoordinated suburban sprawl.”

The Sandy Hills project relies on the Middle Country Road Land Use Plan, which has been severely criticized by Long Island planners for being not comprehensive in its analysis of traffic and environmental impacts along the corridor. The project is not located downtown, is not near public transit and does not constitute “Smart Growth.”

Furthermore, the Sandy Hills parcel has been identified by the Carmans River Watershed Protection and Management Plan as a property that “should be considered for acquisition” due to its location in the heart of the river’s groundwater contributing area. This proposed intensification of land use in a sensitive and threatened watershed is an action that is in direct contrast with the Town’s recent preservation efforts. The parcel goes well above the specified zoning and density requirements as outlined in Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary code. Couple this with the parcel’s location directly in the Carmans River watershed, and one can easily see the detrimental impacts to the environment.

It is at this time that the Pine Barrens Society is presenting Protest Petitions under New York State town law Section 265, and Sections 239-M and 239-N of the general municipal law. Regardless of the Town attorney’s opinion to the contrary, Brookhaven local law may not supersede, nor invalidate, state protections against rezonings opposed by more than 20% of the adjacent neighbors. While obtaining these protest signatures, residents of communities adjacent to the Sandy Hills Property expressed disdain at the idea of development, when there are so many new unoccupied and foreclosed units in the vicinity.  We also request a period for written comments on the Sandy Hills proposal be open for 15 days.

With so many indications, from such a variety of sources, that this project is wrong for Brookhaven, it would be counter-intuitive for the Town to approve it.

Defining What Exactly is a Community Benefit in Development Proposals

The following is my unedited article for the NYMuniBlog that was published on 7/12/11:

Defining What Exactly is a Community Benefit in Development Proposals

By Rich Murdocco

The Town of Southampton’s efforts to amend §330-245 in the Town Code is an instance where the municipal government’s heart is in the right place, but in practice the changes are lacking the necessary teeth to truly define the concept of “community benefits”. If Southampton can clearly define what exactly a community benefit is, the amendments to their code have the potential to be groundbreaking.

As the Town Board goes about amending the code to further define the notion of community benefits, it must be remembered that both local government and the public has to benefit substantially from any rezoning action that increases in density that goes beyond as-of-right yield.  It is a municipal government’s job to ensure that the public accrues substantial and tangible benefits from development that go beyond impact fees or mitigation measures. By definition, an impact fee is a fee that is implemented by a local government on a new or proposed development to help assist or pay for a portion of the costs that the new development may cause with public services to the new development within the United States.[1] Mitigation measures are defined as an action that can be planned or taken to alleviate (mitigate) an adverse environmental impact.[2]

A codified and standardized approach to public benefits would be beneficial to developers as well. Letting developers know what is expected of them during the creation of site plans would reduce development costs and potentially curb community opposition to projects, all while ensuring strict adherence to site plan design standards.

If these changes are implemented, the environmental and economic costs as a result of any density increases granted should be more than offset by the public benefits gained.

Currently, the scope of Southampton’s codification of community benefits only falls to the development of a Planned Development District (PDD). The scope can be widened if the definitions of community benefits outlined in §330-245 also apply to commercial, as well as standard residential subdivisions. If the Community Benefits are standardized, government, as well as the public, would greatly benefit from any density granted town and project wide. This has the potential for the economic and environmental benefits of expanding the scope to be seen in any development project across the Town of Southampton, and eventually to other towns on Long Island.

Southampton is currently looking to define advancing the goals of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan as a community benefit. It must be realized that adherence to a comprehensive plan is not a trade-off for community benefits. A plan is drafted to assess the needs of a community, as well as outline and control the future growth and growth trends of an area. All project proposals are supposed to follow the comprehensive plan, so consideration on whether or not a project is in accordance with said plan is redundant. Merely following a plan is not enough to justify the potential reduction of accrued community benefits.

Another aspect of defining community benefits that the Town must consider is cost to the developer. Currently, the notion of “how much is enough” is ambiguous, and would benefit from standardization. For example, the consideration of “cost to the applicant of providing the community benefit” needs to have a series of other figures to compare to, in order to get a sense of scale of costs. For example, if a project cost is X, and the demanded community benefit costs X +1000, than the municipal government is being unreasonable with it’s expectations. However, if project cost is X, and the community benefit being proposed by government is 1/5^th of X, consideration of the benefit should be taken.

The ability for a developer to enhance the site plan for the sole purpose of making it more attractive to the market is not a community benefit worth trading density increases over. Municipal governments must realize that market-driven decisions often times do not benefit the public. A true benefit is dedicated open space, or infrastructure improvements unrelated to traffic or wastewater impacts caused by the new development.

For effective policy and planning, there has to be a standardized definition of the term “affordable housing”. Relative to total market-rate yield, the amount of the affordable units should be taken into account due to the need for affordable units across Long Island, and the ratio of market-rate to affordable units should be adjusted.

In closing, the Southampton proposed amendments are a step in the right direction. As an intellectual exercise, the amendments to the Southampton town code are strong indicators of Southampton’s intent on creating a standardized approach to the notion of “community benefits”. If the Southampton amends their code in a way that is serves both the applicant and residents, Southampton can set a positive policy and planning precedent that other Long Island towns may follow. 

---

[1] Land Use Planning and Development Regulatory Law. Julian C. Juergensmeyer, and Thomas E. Roberts. 2003. 351-373

[2] Boston Logan Airport Noise Study, FAA, Massachusetts Port Authority, Logan Airport Community Advisory Committee, Boston Technical Advisory Committee