A double-standard for development

By Howard Appell,
Livingston County News Commentary

When the Livingston County Planning Board gave its blessing to the Lima village/town Master Plan Thursday, it set a double-standard. In essence, the board said that it’s okay for any community in this county to ban big box retail stores, just so long as that community isn’t Geneseo.

Does the county planning board member who thought the board should “take the [Lima] plan as presented” because Lima citizens “had given a lot of time and thought” to their plan think any less effort went into the Geneseo plan? The county planning board turned down Geneseo’s plan because it felt the village doesn’t have the right to deny Livingston County the sales tax revenue a big box store can produce — and that’s fair. But somehow the planning board feels that it’s perfectly okay for Lima to deny county residents more sales tax revenue.

Make no mistake about it. A big box store on the Monroe-Livingston county line would be a bonanza, drawing unrealized revenue out of Monroe County — in fair trade for the thousands of dollars Henrietta and Rochester has taken from Livingston County over the years.

The notion that Geneseo’s proposed zoning would downgrade the commercial status of the Route 20A corridor is untrue. The proposed, new “Mixed” category accepts both existing and new retail stores, while allowing other uses to exist on vacant lots and lots where demolition has taken place.

On June 18 of last year, the county planning board wrote to the Village of Geneseo, explaining why it had disapproved its Master Plan. This letter cites Livingston County’s “vital interest” in Geneseo, the county’s “need for commerce and industry” and the importance of in-county shopping opportunities, especially for senior and lower income citizens.

Are we to think the county does not have a “vital interest” in Lima? That the “need for commerce and industry” has somehow ceased? That Lima’s senior and low income citizens somehow do not need local shopping opportunities?

In May and June, the county planning board meticulously critiqued the survey, which was the basis for the Geneseo Master Plan. Last week, no such scrutiny was applied to the Lima survey. In fact, the topic never even came up.

Robert Yull, the Village of Geneseo rep on the County planning Board, argues that the Lima approval is acceptible because anti-big box sentiment prevailed in Lima’s town election. His point is interesting, but flawed. Courts have ruled time and time again that planning boards should not be swayed by perceived public opinion.

If you are a Geneseo resident, county-level inconsistency should be of concern to you, whether your persuasion is for big boxes or against big boxes. For those against, it confirms your worst nightmare — that Geneseo is being systematically targeted to receive big retail development and all the traffic congestion that implies. If you are for big boxes, you should be concerned that the county is giving such substance to your opponents’ arguments.

It’s almost as if the county planning board is attempting to claim the same kind of jurisdictional power which the U.S. Congress has over the District of Columbia — with the implication that Geneseo’s elected village and town boards are somehow inadequate and inept at administering their community; that 26 strangers appointed by the Board of Supervisors can do a better job governing Geneseo.

Conclusion: Livingston County should be more careful about treating Geneseo as a “special case.” This applies to both slaps and perks.

This commentary appeared in the Jan. 17 issue of the Livingston County News and is reprinted here courtesy of Johnson Newspaper Corporation

The Planning Board Must Remain Independent

By John Zmich

It’s been an honor and a privilege to be a member of the Geneseo Town Planning Board for the last fourteen years. It’s a unique and important part of local government and it’s been my pleasure to serve with many talented and thoughtful individuals who believe in the importance of serving their community.

As has been well documented on this web site, the past few years of my service have been marked by acrimony and contention, as members of the town board have sought to manipulate the planning board and the larger planning and zoning processes in favor of Newman Development Group’s Lowe’s proposal.

There are a number of safeguards designed to protect the independence of town planning boards. Two examples are the seven-year terms for planning board members and the rules and customs that limit contact between town board and planning board members regarding any projects before the planning board.

These safeguards are important because they insure that planning board members will do the people’s work of enforcing the town’s zoning regulations without political interference. A planning board member’s job is not to decide what businesses come into town but rather to meticulously examine an application and see that the applicant follows the letter and intent of the law.

Up until recently, planning board members in Geneseo have traditionally been reappointed. Beginning with the town board’s failure to reappoint Craig MacCauley and my removal as chair last year and now with my removal from the board this year, the town board has taken an aggressive stand to remove all differences of opinion on the board regarding a single issue (Lowe’s).

I was fired (not reappointed) and replaced with a vocal Lowe’s supporter at the recommendation of the newly elected supervisor without so much as a word of explanation. I hope this lack of professionalism and common courtesy does not become a hallmark of his tenure in office. This kind of personnel shuffling for a specific agenda is a scary reminder of how easily the process can be subverted and the independence of the planning board destroyed.

While I was serving on the planning board, I felt it was inappropriate for me to comment publicly on the “Battle of the Boards”. Now that I have been “liberated” from these constraints, I feel it is my duty to speak out about what has really been going on.

It has been suggested that civility has been a casualty of this entire Lowe’s controversy. If so, the former supervisor bears the responsibility for the climate that was created. In his rush to put the interests of a large out-of-town developer before the interests of the town, he continually tried to vilify those who held a different opinion.

In his most recent interview in this paper there were numerous examples of a complete disconnect between what the former supervisor says and what actually happened. I am particularly offended by his hostile remarks about members of the community who have participated in the process in an open and honorable way.

I know for a fact that no offer to “debate and resolve differences” was ever made to me. His continued cynical and mean-spirited attacks on the many conscientious citizens engaged in the Master Plan process is an example of how he deals with those who hold a different opinion.

In addition, throughout our consideration of the Lowe’s issue, there were constant baseless threats of litigation designed to intimidate or mislead planning board members and the general public regarding the real issues.

Members of the town planning board are charged with helping create a vision of what our community should look like. The careful examination of an application by the planning board, particularly one so large, precedent-setting, and at odds with our existing zoning, is not akin to “staring at our navels for the next five years.” This kind of language is an example of how the former supervisor attempted to denigrate the legal responsibility of the planning board.

I recognize that economic development doesn’t come easy in upstate New York. However, I disagree with the former supervisor’s claim that “light industrial and office development are pie in the sky.” In reality, the new Empire Zone in Geneseo, which was just awarded in 2006, has never been given a fair opportunity to work. Further, I don’t believe transforming the town into a super-sized retail plaza is the way to achieve economic prosperity and maintain what we all love about Geneseo. Surely we are capable of imagining and achieving a brighter future for ourselves and our children.

The next few years in Geneseo are critical. We only get one chance to protect our town from inappropriate development. If you haven’t been involved in this issue, I urge you to do so. Attend meetings, study the issues and hold our local officials accountable. The last few years have shown me how easily we can lose what we have.

I value the many friends I’ve made over the past 14 years, even the ones I might disagree with on a particular issue. I plan to stay involved and support efforts to bring real economic opportunity and jobs to our community, and most importantly, to help keep the planning board independent.