The Towne Crier
November 29 - December 5, 2006
Volume 16, Issue 48

COMMENTARY Editorial

The Attraction of a Moratorium on Development

Many towns in Sullivan County have considered the establishment of moratoria on development recently. To longtime observers of the economics of the county, it's an interesting turn of events.

For many years, the common desire was more development - of houses and commercial sites. The county was starved for the kind of activity that would keep a planning board busy.

Now that this sort of activity is at the doorstep, towns as large as Liberty and as small as Fremont Center are wrestling with the issue of whether to curtail development while cautionary steps to preserve and protect the rural character and the natural resources of these areas are fully considered.

The Town of Rockland - dealing with development pressure, concerns about nearby development (such as that which is proposed "upstream" in Liberty) and also with a keen eye turned toward issues of flooding and storm water - has for now, cooled its jets on the idea of a moratorium. Nonetheless, this town is poised to make some changes to the laws and regulations that are already in place.

Taking a cue from the Town of Rockland, here are a few key suggestions (beyond the many that deal with storm water) that have come from the recent discussion of a moratorium in Rockland. Town consultants and county planners, in a written analysis, agree that the town could:

• Conduct additional public outreach in conjunction with comprehensive plan adoption,
• Conduct background studies with respect to natural resources and demographics,
• Re-examine densities for all zoning districts,
• Create positive incentives for use conservation subdivision techniques,
• Create financial incentives (e.g., tax credits) for storm water flow reductions in conjunction with both existing and new development,
• Develop an adjusted tract area formula and/or buildable care standard to reduce density in cases of land with severe natural constraints,
• Address other issues identified during public outreach as the Comprehensive Plan is updated,

• Develop model land use regulations with respect to some of the major issues.

This alone should be a mantra for every town in this county at this time.

But above all else, it's important to keep in mind the number one myth that drives far too much of the discussion surrounding development.

The myth is this: Build and your taxes will go down.

The reality is very often very different. Open space and farmland costs less per acre in government services and taxes than any other type of development.

Sullivan County's own 2020 plan backs this up. In general, this report by the Sullivan County Division of Planning and Community Development shows that residential land usage costs about 2-3 times as much as commercial, agricultural and open space land usage.

In general, it costs more to support residential and commercial development than that type of development pays back in taxes.

The reason is simple: open space and vacant land do not need roads, schools, or building inspectors.

So, the report recommends: Attention needs to be paid to the rate of commercial development because increasing commercial development over time can lead to greater demands for services and more residential development.

This is why many people are celebrating the move to preserve land here in the county - both open space and farm land.

All of that is not to say that moratorium is the way to go. Indeed, it is a town-by-town decision that should be based on some serious "soul searching," especially when that soul is the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations of the town in question. It's not a decision that should be lightly made, but the mere fact that moratorium has surfaced in such deep discussion in so many of our towns should serve as a clear signpost for the delicate turning point the county has reached.