By Adam Iverson
Driving through Bemus Point in August you may have noticed a sign where Main Street meets Lakeside Drive that directed to you to a website. That website is bemuspointny.org and there you will find a list of “Quick Links”, the top of which is “Take the Zoning Code Update Survey”. This survey is part of a Smart Growth program that is run by NY State. The following is some information you should know:
Smart Growth Grants: Opportunity or Trojan Horse?
This year the Village of Bemus Point accepted money from New York’s Smart Growth program. These
planning grants are pitched as a way to help communities modernize zoning codes, improve livability,
and align with long-term goals such as sustainability, housing diversity, and climate resiliency.
On the surface, it sounds like free money for improvements many municipalities could never afford on
their own. But beneath the appealing language lie risks that deserve closer attention before residents
and officials celebrate.
The Promise of Smart Growth
According to state officials, the Smart Growth Community Planning and Zoning Program is designed
to help small municipalities pay for costly planning and zoning updates, encourage walkability and
revitalized downtowns, promote a wider mix of housing options—including affordable and senior
housing—and improve access to state and federal infrastructure funding by aligning local codes with
statewide priorities.
For towns strapped for resources, these grants offer planning expertise that might otherwise be out of
reach, and can open the door to additional funding streams.
The Risks Beneath the Surface
Yet critics point out that accepting this money comes with long-term strings attached. Once Smart
Growth priorities are written into a comprehensive plan or zoning code, they become legally binding.
Under New York Village Law §7-722(11) and the landmark case Udell v. Haas (21 N.Y.2d 463
[1968]), all land-use decisions and zoning regulations must be consistent with the adopted plan. That
means a decision made today can restrict what future boards are able to do, even forcing them to accept
projects that may be unpopular with residents. Rolling back state-aligned language is possible, but only
through a lengthy and expensive process that mirrors the original adoption steps.
Another concern is cost. Most villages do not employ in-house planners or attorneys capable of
meeting Smart Growth requirements. That means reliance on outside consultants—often at rates far
higher than the grant covers. While the state provides seed money, local taxpayers frequently end up
paying the difference. If towns are forced to borrow to cover obligations or defend lawsuits, those costs
ultimately translate into higher taxes for residents. Updates are also required periodically, creating
ongoing and mandatory expenses.
There is also the risk of litigation. Once terms like “equity” or “diverse housing” are codified into a
community’s plan, developers and advocacy groups can use that language to challenge local decisions.
If a project is denied, the village’s own comprehensive plan may be cited in court as evidence that
officials acted inconsistently. Even if the town ultimately prevails, defending these lawsuits can be
costly.
Finally, there is no clear exit clause. Unlike some programs where funding can be declined midstream,
communities that accept Smart Growth grants may be required to repay funds or risk losing eligibility
for unrelated state support if they attempt to withdraw. More importantly, zoning changes adopted
during the process remain in force regardless of whether a town continues participating.
How It Gets Enacted
The steps are straightforward but consequential. First, a village board passes a resolution to prepare or
amend its comprehensive plan (§7-722[2]). Next comes the drafting stage—often consultant-driven
when grant money is involved. Environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act (ECL Article 8) and referrals to the county planning board (General Municipal Law §239-m)
follow, along with at least one public hearing (§7-722[6]). If the board adopts the plan (§7-722[7]),
state law requires that future zoning be consistent with it. Amendments to zoning laws (§7-706, §7-
708) then bring local regulations into alignment, effectively locking the town into the new framework.
Why It Matters
At heart, this debate is about local control. For generations, towns and villages in New York have held
the authority to decide how land is used within their borders. By accepting Smart Growth funding,
communities voluntarily align their rules with Albany’s priorities. Those priorities are not inherently
bad—sustainability and housing diversity have merit—but once codified at the state’s urging, they can
be enforced in court or through funding leverage. That leaves towns with little room to adapt on their
own terms.
The Bottom Line
Smart Growth grants come with real benefits: professional planning assistance, potential access to
infrastructure dollars, and the chance to update outdated codes. But they also carry significant risks:
loss of flexibility, high long-term costs, and exposure to lawsuits.
The key question is whether the short-term gains outweigh the long-term obligations. A town that
enters too quickly could find itself locked into policies that are expensive to maintain, legally risky to
resist, and difficult to reverse.
“Free money” always sounds appealing, but in municipal law, it rarely comes without strings. New
York is already one of the most heavily regulated states in the country. Do communities really want to
give Albany even more power over their daily lives?