COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

STEERING COMMITTEE

 

AUGUST 2, 2004

 

Present:  Nan Stolzenburg, Don Meltz, Rick Smith, Jenna Smith, Dave Wood, Al LaRue, Gary Vanderhorst, Dawn Szurek, Dave Adams, Steve Caine, Dean Durst, Christy Schrader, Len Wessell, Doug Flynn, Maria McCulloch, Jim Leupold, Deborah Herrin, Andrea Herrin, Lynda Battenhausen, Midge Dube, Marv Schorr, Dot Mitchell, Guy Mitchell.

 

Steve Caine opened the meeting at 7:05.  The Minutes for July 1, 2004 and July 27, 2004 were approved as written. 

 

Nan Stoltzenburg told the committee that she neglected to include the second part of question #6, which asked if residents would be willing to pay tax dollars to pay for public water.  The overall results were 21½% said they would be willing to pay tax dollars to pay for public water, and 38% said they wouldn’t.  She will break it down to see how the private well water and public well water residents answered the question.  Nan briefly discussed the memo she emailed to the committee members regarding the survey responses related to water issues.  She tried to present it in the same format that the survey was written, and she tried to pull out the most useful information.  Nan asked the committee if there was other information they would like to get out of the survey that isn’t captured in what she sent everyone.  She can do different charts and graphs if the committee wishes.  She said she doesn’t know how in depth the committee wants to go.  Steve Caine said he would like to see a more accurate picture for senior citizen services and asked the group how they feel about it.  He said that the survey has 0 years to 81+ all lumped together answering questions about senior citizens, and he was wondering how residents 66 and older would answer questions related to senior services.  Steve said that under senior services on the survey, 75% responded they are satisfied with it.  Christy Schrader commented on question 12 on page 2, senior housing/assisted living.  It states that 36% have some interest, 9% strong interest, 23% no interest.  Steve, and others agreed, that it would be good to know how seniors feel.  Nan said she would go through each question and if it relates to senior services pull out the information and get answers from those respondents 66 and above.  Nan asked if the committee had other needs from the survey or other graphics.  Jim Leupold asked how the data was collected.  Nan said it is on a big spreadsheet.  Jim suggested the possibility of Nan emailing the spreadsheet to everyone on the committee and they, in turn, can extrapolate data on their own and get their own analysis.  Maria McCulloch said she would take the spreadsheet and do up the data on seniors and send it to Nan.  Nan’s concern with sending the spreadsheet data to everyone is that different people will be manipulating the data in different ways, and the information they get may not be accurate.  Nan will send the database to those who expressed interest, which were Jim Leupold, Maria McCulloch and Marv Schorr.  Nan asked the committee to review the information she sent to them and if there is a certain area or question they would like to see in a graph, let her know and she will make a graph.  She said her next job with the survey is to summarize it into a narrative form. 

 

Don Meltz presented the data on the Build Out Analysis.  He stated there are different types of build out analysis that can be done.  One is a historical build out where the parcel data is looked at and what year each building was built.  There is site specific build out that looks at detailed information for specific parcels such as where buildings can be located and all the infrastructure.  There are regional type build outs that look at broad categories of soil types and topography. The analysis that Don used is a zoning build out.  They used the town zoning to analyze where the current zoning will lead in the future.  It will show how many residential uses will be allowed under the current zoning, the current residential and environmental uses in the town, environmental constraints, what zoning allows for density on particular lots, and identify different areas that can accommodate new building sites.  The first map Don showed was a Tax Parcel Data.  It showed roads, water features, wetlands, different soils and topography.  Each parcel has information attached to it that gives info such as property owner, property class, and year building was built.  Taking all those parcels, he added new fields to the spreadsheet to develop a build out analysis.  Don showed the existing residential uses in the town.  Each green dot on the map showed the center of the parcel and not where the house is.  He identified 1,517 existing residential uses in the town.  The zoning map designates what the potential build out is of each parcel.  Next, Don identified buildable lots.  If the parcel is smaller than four acres, according to zoning regs, it can’t be subdivided into an area to accommodate another home, so he removed it from the potential buildable area of the town.  Don took the aerial photos of the town and took parcels out that were up to eight acres in size and removed them because you could see that a road wouldn’t be able to go in.  He then identified environmental constraints in the town.  It had a 100’ buffer around all water features, streams, and the latest wetlands maps.  Steep sloped areas were removed from the build out.  Don said he also looked at the soils data and the regulations on septic systems for the town.  After gathering all the information, he combined them into a layer that showed areas that probably should not be built on.  The purpose of this information is to apply the current zoning to see what the end result of our current zoning will be.  Nan stated that this is a conservative estimate.  The final computation used was to take the remaining buildable area, multiply it by 0.85 (because 15% was subtracted out for new roads, etc.), then divide it by the zoning density which is two acres per building unit, and subtract any existing residential uses. The number of building areas in the town, after already built areas and environmental constrained areas were subtracted, is 3,662 new residential units.  Adding those to the current number of homes, the total is 5,105 for the current build out with the current zoning regulations.  At the end of the build out the total population would be 13,988.  Steve Caine noted that if there was any wetland on the two-acre parcels, for his calculation Don considered it non-buildable.  If you can meet the 100’ buffer and still have a building envelop, the planning board will allow a house to be built, so Steve was reiterating that it was a conservative estimate.  Dean Durst asked Don if he took into consideration the lots that are surrounded by wetlands and can’t get a road through? He said if Don did this you could cut the number in half.  Dean feels the numbers are overstated by at least double.  He said he has 18 acres and was only allowed to disturb ¼ acre for a driveway.  He said there is a lot more to look at than a driveway and a 100’ buffer.  Don said it’s not impossible to put a road through a wetland area.  Marv Schorr said DEC claims you can offset wetland usage, but it’s a very difficult process to go through and he thinks what Dean is suggesting needs to be looked at. 

 

Dave Adams told the committee that the zoning ordinance isn’t cast in concrete.  If it did start to happen that the town was growing too rapidly and there were adverse consequences, the town could put a building moratorium into effect and make changes as necessary.   Nan said the point of the build out analysis is that it gives an idea of what could be allowed under the town’s current zoning.  The committee needs to decide if this is the direction they want to go in.  Nan stated that it’s easy to say it won’t happen in this town.  She cited an example of after 9/11 in NYC, Greene County and the Catskill area saw a huge insurgence of subdivision activity of people buying land to get out of the city.  It was a 25%-30% increase of lots being subdivided, which could not be anticipated.  The committee should be asking themselves if they want to take the chance that this sort of thing can happen to Charlton.  Jim Leupold asked if it was correct that the master plan was developed back in the early 1970’s?  Dave Adams said a draft was prepared.  Jim asked if from that draft there were zoning laws developed?  Dave Adams said that is incorrect.  Dave said there was nothing of significance that was taken out of the 701 draft plan that was put into the zoning ordinance.  Jim asked when the last time was that changes were made to the zoning laws?  Marv Schorr said it’s done all the time and Dave Adams said it is an ongoing process.  Marv told Jim he is currently chairing a committee to go over the entire zoning ordinance to see what parts of it need to be brought up to date.  It’s a living document. 

 

Jim Leupold asked Nan to describe the benefits of doing a potential ground water study.  Nan said the purpose of the study is to gain more knowledge.  The comprehensive plan is based on information, and understanding as much about the town, their residents, and where they want to go.  The water study came about through the data gathering process showing us that this is an area we don’t know a lot about.  Nan told the committee that the water study will not give data showing how many gallons per minute will come from a particular location.  But what it will do is give critical location that the town should pay attention to such as recharge areas and other environmentally protected areas.  How do you plan for land use if you don’t know where the water goes into the ground, and how the land use will affect ground water?  Nan said if Charlton had public water coming from a reservoir that protected quality and consumption, she wouldn’t suggest Charlton do a ground water study.  Nan believes that since there are a lot of residents in Charlton who have private wells, the ground water study will give us information to know whether or not the town’s subdivision regulations and density levels are appropriate.  The information could help the town decide if they need to set different policies to protect places that currently aren’t covered in the zoning or site plan review.  Christy Schrader asked if Step 1 would answer these questions, which was “summarize available information with regards to soil, superficial and bedrock geology from existing GIS data geology study and well logs,” asked of Alpha Geoscience and Sterling Environmental.  Nan feels it’s important to have someone who is qualified take the body of knowledge that exists, along with information from local well drillers and builders. 

 

Dave Adams wanted to clear up some misinformation and stated the water district was initiated by the citizens and not the town.  It’s incorrect to say that the town manages the water district.  The water district is managed by the water district commissioners.  Dave reviewed the basic reasons for doing the water study, which is to prevent contamination of the water supply, another is to prevent well interference, another is to determine how much growth is possible and to identify locations that may be pertinent for growth, protect recharge areas, and get more information.   Dave said that the recharge areas for the aquifers in the town of Charlton are the entire land surfaces in the Town of Charlton.  How can that be protected and regulated?  He said there is almost zero likelihood that there is an aquifer in the town similar to the Colonie channel or the Great Flats aquifer.  To prevent contamination from residences, the zoning ordinance has regulations in place for separation of drain fields, septic systems and wells.  Special uses could also cause contamination, but special uses could be evaluated.  More definitive requirements could be put into the subdivision regulations or zoning regulations that would pertain to how the projects are reviewed and approved if needed.  Dave doesn’t feel that a ground water study needs to be done because the regulations are already in place to protect the town. 

 

Midge Dube stated that 1,374 people, or 55.4%, stated in the survey that they were very concerned about water.  The people who have wells are probably the ones who responded to that.  She stated if there is going to be proposed land development on property near to where you live, and you are on the same vein of water, it’s possible that once that development is in, you may go without water.  If that scenario were to happen, she would like to know if her well would be affected.  Midge feels that the committee has a responsibility to the 55.4% of the people who are concerned about water, and she feels they need more data.  Dean Durst said that an issue the water study won’t address is that there isn’t a developer who would put a street in Charlton without having municipal water, and it’s too cost prohibitive to do so.  Doug Flynn reminded the committee that Sterling Environmental and Alpha Geoscience told them that the water study will not answer how much water there is.  Steve Caine understood the companies to say that they can scientifically identify where the recharge areas and the aquifers are, but they can’t determine the capacity of the aquifers.  They have well logs to help them as well.  They said with confidence that they can do this.  They can give a general range of the quantity of water.  If a project were proposed in Charlton, the water study would tell the town where the recharge area and aquifer is so the Planning Board could mandate some type of testing to protect other people in the surrounding area of the project.  Steve commented that on question #10 “how important is it for the Town of Charlton to review the impact of development on the following”, aquifer and aquifer recharge areas was ranked #1 under very important.  They included private and public water.  On question #11, “would you be in favor of pursuing the following should any funding be required”, the No. 1 answer was “to protect sensitive environmental areas.”  Question No. 4, “how important are the following quality of life issues to you and your family”, No. 3 was “environmental quality.”  Steve stated that the objective is to plan for the future.  He said there are 600 + residences in the town on public water and all the rest, approximately 800, have private wells.  Dawn Szurek stated that what this committee does with this information could change property values.  If a landowner’s property is on an aquifer, his land could be more valuable because it would be a good location for a development.  She suggested looking at how this study would be applied before making a decision, and acknowledge that it may affect what some people can or can’t do with their property.  Jim Leupold commented that there is no one document that will show all the data.  Jim is interested in having one document that will give the town all the information they need.  Dawn Szurek asked what the consequences will be if it is found out that a lot of the town’s aquifers are on farmland, tell them they can’t farm?  Dave Wood said in Saratoga County the Ag and Farmland Protection board reviews applications.  The top value grant last year for the purchase of development rights was $3200/acre.  Dave said his dairy farm uses a lot of water and he is concerned about the water.  His farm uses approximately 30,000 gallons of water a day and he is concerned about he quantity.  Gary Vanderhorst said that when he had the greenhouse, he used an average of 15,000 gallons of water a day.  One well he has is down 80’ and gets 10 gallons a minute, and the other well he has is down 280’ and gets two gallons a minute. 

 

Dave Adams said he believes there is some misconception about recharge areas.  The Great Flats Aquifer is recharged primarily by the Mohawk River.  The other areas nearby that contribute are not considered recharge areas.  That is a defined aquifer that has a lot of water in it.  When there isn’t a large defined aquifer, but a number of small aquifers, as in Charlton, that’s a general recharge area that consists of the whole surface of the ground. 

 

Steve Caine asked if any non-committee members wanted to speak.  Howie Eskine is a resident of Charlton and has listened to both sides of the argument of doing a ground water study.  He stated he thinks the committee would be remiss if they assume they know the answers without asking the experts. 

 

Rick Smith stated that he has 8-9 wells on his property.  In 1960 a well was drilled down 16’ and the yield was 30 gallons a minute.  In 1973 another well was drilled about 100’ away from the first one and it was down 45’ and got 30 gallons a minute.  In 1976 the second well went dry.  He has drilled five more wells since, one which yielded 60 gallons a minute and it went dry after two years.  He said he doesn’t have a lot of faith in well drillers when they say they hit a good vein.  This information is based on fact and not on some study that will give him information that “could” be in the ground.  Al LaRue stated that the ground water study could show an area with a lot of water but in two years from now it could be gone. 

 

Gary Vanderhorst asked Nan how extensive the plans have to be for the towns?  He asked if Berne did a water study.  Nan said Berne did not do a comprehensive plan.  Broadalbin did not do a water study.  She stated that some do and some don’t.  Gary asked if it would prove to be a detriment if they didn’t do the water study.  Nan said in other towns the water hasn’t been a concern.  She said if it were up to her, she would include a water study in all of the comprehensive plans because it gives more complete information on the community.  Nan said that site plan review could be changed to include well tests for everyone, but with a water study the town would have more specific information, and a restriction would only have to be applied to certain areas.  Don Meltz said he agrees to some extent with Dave Adams that the whole area of Charlton is a recharge area for aquifers in the town, but he stated it’s not uniform.  The soils and bedrock are different in areas of the town and the topography and stream flows are different.  Once the water hits the ground, what it does after that depends on what the soil is in the area.  He said that the ground water study will identify those variations in the town which will lead to land use regulations.  Dean Durst stated that Saratoga County Soil & Water already has maps showing the different types of soils in the town.  Don said that the County maps show a one dimension of what is there but the water study will give a third dimension, such as how deep the soil is in different places, how deep the water is and what the water quality is. 

 

Marv Schorr said he doesn’t have the confidence that the correct questions are being asked.  He stated that everyone has a different idea of what an aquifer is and don’t know what is meant by recharge area.  It can be the whole town, but there can be variations.  Marv said he is reluctant to spend money on a ground water study until he gets a better feel for what the questions are.  He also stated that the committee may be asking the right questions, but he doesn’t have confidence that they are.  Christy Schrader also said she’s isn’t sure they are asking the right questions because they jumped from the questionnaire to this ground water study, and she feels they should be questioning the residents more on their concerns. 

 

Deborah Herrin stated that she and Steve didn’t know all the things that would be needed to put together a comprehensive plan.  By doing the community profiles and gathering information, they found the recent study that was done for the Saratoga watershed, that they had some serious environmental risks and weaknesses they felt were in a small corner of town.  Deborah said that Charlton isn’t included in most of the studies the county does, or if they are, it’s just a piece of Charlton and not the whole town.  She stated that we have a lot of maps with a lot of information and a water study would give the town more knowledge about the water in the town.  She feels now is the time to do this study as opposed to years down the road when there is a problem and the town is forced to do a water study.  It will cost less to do it now than later. 

 

Nan said that when the questions first arose about water, she suggested contacting two consultants and asking them three questions.  What research studies or tests would need to be done to find out where the water is, how much there is, and where the water comes from.  Marv Schorr commented that if those are the three basic questions, some committee members heard different answers than others from the consultants as to whether you could get those answers.  What Marv heard was that they weren’t necessarily going to get the answers they wanted.  Nan said she heard them say we weren’t going to get the level of detail of those answers.  Marv stated that without drilling wells you won’t get detailed quantities.  Deborah said that if the water study was done, the town would have ranges and then it could be supplemented with well drilling that the town could require in those areas.  Steve said that Marv pinpointed what the consultants said, which was they could find the aquifers and find the recharge areas, but can’t guarantee quality answers on the quantity.  Steve said that if we don’t do this water study, we’ll never know if we asked the right questions.  He said the committee needed to decide whether to recommend to the town board that a water study be done as part of the comprehensive plan.  Steve made a motion that the Comprehensive Planning Steering Committee recommends to the town board that they do a ground water study in time to put it into the comprehensive plan.  The motion was seconded by Deborah Herrin.  A roll call vote was taken.  The results were 12 no votes; 9 yes votes; 3 abstentions. 

 

Nan said that the next step is to pull the survey information together into narrative form and develop a vision statement.  She asked if the committee wanted her to pull the information together and offer them the boundary of a vision statement that the committee can then review and edit, or if the committee wants to begin from scratch and do it themselves.  Everyone felt that Nan should give them a rough draft for them to work with.  Nan passed out results of the community image survey for review by the committee. 

 

Steve Caine opened the meeting to “privilege of the floor”.  There were no comments from the floor.

 

The next week will be on Labor Day, September 6, 2004. 

 

Meeting ended at 9:25 P.M.