BARBARA LIVINGSTON NACKMAN
THE JOURNAL NEWS
Original publication: Feb. 25, 2001

CARMEL — As Carmel officials tried to extend a six-month building
moratorium this week, Councilman Tim Wilson worked against them, attempting
to reopen the door to residential development.

Wilson, who has announced that he will not seek re-election this year, deferred a
vote involving the moratorium at Wednesday night's Town Board meeting.

The rest of the board was prepared to vote on setting a public hearing date on
extending the moratorium, but were stymied by Wilson.

"My concern from day one has always been that the moratorium won't
accomplish anything but generate lawsuits against the town," Wilson said last
week.

The building ban was enacted Sept. 20 and expires March 25. It was instituted
to halt construction while officials review the town's revised master plan and
consider increasing the minimum residential building lot to 3 acres.

Because of Wilson's deferral, the board will have to vote at its next meeting,
March 7, to hold a public hearing on March 21. The board then plans to vote on
whether to extend the moratorium for another six months. If Wilson asks for
another deferral, however, the moratorium would expire before the board could
vote on extending it. Its next meeting is not until April.

To avoid that scenario, Councilman Robert Ravallo called for a special meeting
on March 22, the day after the public hearing and three days before the March
25 deadline.

"What I did was make a motion to add an additional meeting to our calendar to
prevent an interruption of the moratorium," said Ravallo, adding that efforts to
extend the ban should not have been left to the last moment.

Resident Gerald Ravnitzky, who favors 3-acre zoning to slow down residential
growth, said that Wilson's action "would leave a window of opportunity for every
developer in town to submit plans under the old regulations and subvert the intent
of the moratorium."

In stalling the board's continuation of the moratorium, Wilson agreed that he
intended to allow developers an opportunity to submit plans under current zoning
regulations.

"Six months ago I voted 'no' on the moratorium because I felt the town would
end up being sued in the long run. And I still believe that," said Wilson, who
argues that developers should not be deprived of their property rights by a
building moratorium.

To date, the town has not been sued over the moratorium.

The building ban, said Supervisor Frank Del Campo, gives the town time to
consider how to revise current zoning codes to conform with plans for its future
growth.

By extending the moratorium, the town is actually protecting itself against
lawsuits, Del Campo said, by carefully considering the ramifications of zoning
changes before enacting them.

"The revision of the zoning code will last for years," he said. "I'd rather be on the
side of caution, prudence and preciseness."

Carl Albano, who owns property he would like to develop, contends that the
town's best interests would be served by allowing property owners to build on
their parcels. The town should consider different zoning regulations for different
parts of town, he said, noting that property within town water and sewer districts
can handle denser development.