COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

STEERING COMMITTEE

MINUTES

 

November 29, 2004

 

 

Present:  Nan Stolzenburg, Rick Smith, Jenna Smith, Dave Wood, Al LaRue, Gary Vanderhorst, Dawn Szurek, Dave Adams, Steve Caine, Christy Schrader, Maria McCulloch, Jim Leupold, Deborah Herrin, Andrea Herrin, Lynda Battenhausen, Bill Heilman, Midge Dube, Marv Schorr, Dot Mitchell, Guy Mitchell.

 

Meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M. by Steve Caine.  The Minutes from the October 4, 2004 meeting were approved as written.

 

Steve began the meeting by going over the agenda.  Nan was first on the agenda.  She stated the committee would first go over the Vision Statement and then the Goals.  She asked each committee member to state their approvals, disapprovals or changes to the Vision Statement.  One suggested change Nan made to the Vision Statement, which was based on the comment sheets filled out from the workshop, was to add the word “controlled” to the sentence “We have managed residential and controlled business growth in a way…”   Gary Vanderhorst began by saying his concern is what the standards are going to be for commercial areas.  Nan said that at this point, the committee is trying to make the Vision Statement convey a general direction and an ultimate scenario of what the town would like to see happen.  Nan stated that a lot of people stated they would like to control business growth.  The details of how to control business growth will come out in the Goal statement and eventually in the Objectives and Strategies.  Gary said he is comfortable with the Vision Statement as it stands.  Dave Wood had some of the same concerns, feeling that the word controlled sounds more like forced.  Dave stated that if you take out the word controlled, you still have the word managed in the sentence.  Nan said that’s how it was worded before, and she felt that from the workshop, people felt it wasn’t addressing business growth enough.  Christy Schrader said that 31 people agreed with the Vision Statement, while only one disagreed and three agreed somewhat.  Nan said that even though people agreed with the Statement, there were a lot of comments.  She said if controlled is too strong of a word, it can be changed.  Deborah Herrin said the word controlled could mean a variety of things such as design control, sign control, location control, traffic control, etc.  Steve Caine likes the Vision Statement and isn’t concerned about the word control.  Deborah Herrin agreed with Steve.  Jim Leupold stated he thinks the committee should look at it as two different sentences.  If you take out “controlled business growth”, then it’s saying “We have managed residential growth in a way that has retained….”, and/or “We have managed controlled business growth in a way that retains our essential rural and historic character”…  He said there are two sentences being put together, so we’re managing both residential growth and controlled business growth.  Those are the two things that are being managed.  Jim said the sentence could also be changed to read “We have managed and controlled residential and business growth.”  Jenna Smith said she felt the word controlled should be moved up with the word managed.  Andrea Herrin agreed with Jenna and feels the word controlled needs to be moved in the sentence.  Lynda Battenhausen liked the Vision Statement as it is.  Midge Dube said it was okay.  Marv Schorr liked the idea of stating the town isn’t going to allow business to grow in a helter skelter way.  Marv suggested saying, “We have managed residential growth and have controlled business growth…” , which makes them two separate ideas.  He feels it’s important to be able to control business growth by where it goes and how it develops.  Dave Adams likes the Vision Statement as it is.  He would not like to see controlled taken out.  He feels it’s important that there be a distinction between residential and business.  Al LaRue agreed with what Marv said.  Nan said that there was a consensus to have the word controlled added in, but it was a matter of placement in the sentence.  After discussion it was decided to have the sentence read “We have managed residential growth and have controlled business growth…”  A vote was taken to approve the Vision Statement with the new change.  By a show of hands, all were in favor of the Vision Statement.

 

Nan suggested going around the room in the same manner to approve, disapprove, change or delete the Goals.  Nan said she combined similar categories into similar goals and now the committee needs to refine each one. 

 

Goal 1:

• Dave Adams stated that Nan did a good job combining the goals.  He suggested combining Goals 2 and 4, stating that they were very similar.  He also said he preferred the old Goal 16 as opposed to the new Goal 11 because he doesn’t like “horse riding trails” in it.  

• Marv Schorr said Nan did a great job combining the Goals and had no comments.

• Midge Dube said it looks good and had no suggestions.

• Lynda Battenhausen had no comments.

• Andrea Herrin didn’t see anything she thought needed to be changed.

• Jenna Smith agreed with Andrea.

• Jim Leupold suggested changing the word “it” to “our town” in …”will guide development in Charlton to ensure that our town remains…”

• Deborah Herrin had a comment about Goal 11.  She would like to see it read, “Open spaces, parks, biking, walking and horse riding trails are linked for active and passive recreation.”  Jenna Smith said by restructuring the sentence, (inaudible).  Deborah suggested putting “Opportunities such as open spaces, parks, biking, walking and hiking trails are linked for active and passive recreation.” 

• Dave Wood felt the goals were good.  He had a comment about Goal 2, “While respecting landowners rights,…” and questioned exactly what that means.  (Christy Schrader’s comments were inaudible.)  Nan said that respecting landowners rights could be defined in the Objectives under that particular Goal.  Dave also questioned the meaning of the word “availability”  in Goal 3.  Under Goal 4, “Open spaces exist to protect the environment…”  he reads that to mean that open spaces protect the environment and wonders what is meant by that, and also, to make recreational uses for all?  Nan said that maybe combining Goal 2 and 4 may solve some of that problem.  Goal 7, Dave feels that sentence is trying to be more things to more people than he interprets it.  Goal 8, “…the cultural and economic activities”, Dave wondered if that would be exclusive to the Hamlet.  He feels the Hamlet should be a primary, but should it be exclusive?  Nan said she doesn’t think it was meant to be exclusive and that by using the word primary in the Goal, it would indicate that the Hamlet is the main one but there are others.  Goal 9 “…ecologically sound…”, Dave said the first thing he thinks of is public infrastructure and water and sewer.  How do you have a public infrastructure that does not induce growth and development?  Goal 10, aesthetically pleasing roads could mean trees on both sides with no sun on the road and no salt and having slippery conditions in the winter.  Goal 11, he too is concerned about the horse trails.  He states horse trails are risky for landowners. 

• Christy Schrader feels Goal 2 and 4 should be combined, and in Goal 3 she questions the word “availability”. 

• Gary Vanderhorst stated that in Goal 2, “…landowners rights, the town’s rural vistas…”  should be addressed in some way.  He doesn’t understand how the town’s rural vistas can respect landowners rights.  How do you respect the landowners rights and still keep the vistas?  Nan said these are vistas from the roads.  Maybe it should be clarified that they are public views from public places. 

• Guy Mitchell has concerns about Goal 2 and protecting landowners rights.  Guy stated that the town is to protect individuals rights.  He feels the committee has to be very careful to protect the people and not take away their rights.

• Dawn Szurek stated that the old Goal 2 had the word agricultural in it,  “…residential and agricultural community…” , and in the new Goal 2, the word agricultural has disappeared.  Nan said it was taken out because she felt it was a repeat of the Vision Statement.  Dawn said that in Goal 1, just saying …”The town’s rural, historic and aesthetic character…”, changes what Charlton is.  She said that rural and agricultural are different.  Others agreed and it was decided to put agricultural back into Goal 1.  It will read, ...”The town’s rural, agricultural, historic and aesthetic character…”. 

 

Nan said that no one had any specific comments on the new Goals 5, 6, 12, 13, 14 & 15, and she asked for a vote to accept them as written.  She began with Goal 5.  A show of hands approved the Goal.  All were in favor.

Goal 6.  A show of hands approved the Goal.  All were in favor.

Goal 12.  A show of hands approved the Goal.  All were in favor.

Goal 13.  A show of hands approved the Goal.  All were in favor.

Goal 14 was skipped, and there were comments on the wording of Goal 15, so voting on those were tabled until there was more discussion.  Nan suggested taking one Goal at a time and making changes to each and then voting on them. 

 

Goal 1:  The word “agricultural” will be added in the first and second sentences, and the word “it” will be changed to read “our town”.  Goal 1 will read: “The town’s rural, agricultural, historic and aesthetic character are protected and enhanced.  Regulatory and non-regulatory land use programs and policies will guide development in Charlton to ensure that our town remains a quality community, and where future residential, agricultural, and business development is consistent with the unique, character, environment, and culture of Charlton.”  A show of hands approved the Goal with the changes.  All were in favor.

 

Goal 2:  The suggestions and comments were to combine Goal 2 and 4, the lack of definition of landowner rights, and to add “from public spaces” as a definition of the scenic views.   The Goal in part will read:  “…the town’s rural vistas and scenic views from public spaces are identified, protected, and enhanced for the enjoyment of all.”   After discussion it was decided not to combine Goal 2 and 4. 

A show of hands approved the Goal with the changes.  All were in favor.

 

Goal 3:  Referring to groundwater, there was discussion about the word “availability” being used.  After considerable discussion, it was decided to leave the Goal worded as is because it can be more defined in the Objectives.   A show of hands approved the Goal as is.  Dave Wood “softly opposed”.

 

Goal 4:   It was suggested taking out “…vistas, in order to maintain…”.  Goal 4 will read: “Open spaces exist to protect the environment, provide recreational benefits, and to maintain the unique character of the town.”  A show of hands approved the Goal with the changes.  All were in favor.

 

Goal 7:  Nan said this Goal could be included as an Objective under Goal 1.  After discussion it was agreed to delete Goal 7 and include it as an Objective under Goal 1.  A show of hands approved to delete Goal 7 and include it as an Objective under Goal 1.  All were in favor.

 

Goal 8:  “The Hamlet serves as a focus for town government…”, will be changed to add the word primary and will read, “The Hamlet serves as the primary focus for town government, cultural and economic activities.”  A show of hands approved the change.  All were in favor.

 

Goal 9:  There was a question to what “ecologically sound” referred to.  There was also discussion on taking out the word “quality” at the beginning of the sentence.   After considerable discussion it was decided to keep the word “quality” in and leave “ecologically sound” in as well.  A show of hands approved Goal 9.  All were in favor.

 

Goal 10:  The question was brought up as to what was meant by “aesthetically pleasing”.  It was suggested that a tree lined road might not necessarily be a safe road.  After discussion it was agreed to keep Goal 10 as is.  A show of hands approved Goal 10 as is.  All were in favor.

 

Goal 11:  There was concern and discussion about horse riding trails.  Most of the committee members felt that horse riding trails were a huge liability for landowners.  After discussion it was decided to take out “horse riding trails”.  The second sentence of Goal 11 would read:  “Opportunities such as open spaces, parks, biking and walking trails are linked for active and passive recreational use.”   It was also suggested that the old Goal 16 was better than the new Goal 11.  Goal 16 was more inclusive.  It read:  “Parks, open spaces, walking and biking trails, and diverse programs provide high quality, active and passive recreation, and opportunities for educational and cultural development exist for all ages.”  After discussion is was decided to delete new Goal 11 and keep old Goal 16 and remove the word exist from Goal 16.  A show of hands approved deleting Goal 11, and keeping old Goal 16 with removing the word exist.  All were in favor.

 

Goal 15:  It was suggested to take out the words well-maintained from the sentence.  After discussion is was decided to leave in well-maintained.  A show of hands approved keeping Goal 15 as is.  Dawn Szurek opposed. 

 

Marv Schorr told the committee that one of the good things that has come out of forming a senior group is that the town has become eligible for a grant for a van, and it will be available next year. 

 

Deborah Herrin reported that she spoke with some well drillers and gathered well logs and got a GIS guide done.  There are about 35 well logs that were filed with the county.  Not many of them got 5 gallons a minute or more.  The majority of the logs were not very productive.  The well drillers told Deborah that there were places in the town where there was no water and other places where there was good water.  They also found out by looking at the soils that a good portion of the town has what’s called hard pan and shale.  Deborah said that the Planning Board has had several cases where subdivisions are going in and neighbors are concerned about the impact of these new homes on their water quantity.  The laws of the town protect the new homes going in but there is nothing to protect the existing homeowner’s wells.  Deborah said the Planning Board decided to ask the town engineer for some guidance.  If the committee agrees, she felt it would be helpful to share with the town engineer the maps and information the committee has gathered to date.  The town engineer may be able to give an interpretation of what all the information means in terms of how we might be able to protect the ground water in the town.  Dave Adams said that to address the concerns the Planning Board has on whether new wells will affect existing wells, and what criteria to put into place to guard against that, he had suggested at an earlier meeting to meet with Sam Gowen, the head of Alpha Geoscience for about two hours.  He will charge us $100/hour (less than his normal rate) and has agreed to meet with members of the committee for a couple of hours.  If the committee agrees to meet with Sam, Dave suggests that those meeting with him work up questions prior to the meeting.  Dave reminded the committee that there is no guarantee that meeting with Sam will give the committee information they can use. 

 

Steve asked if anyone on the committee had any objections to giving the town engineer maps and information that has been gathered to date.  No one objected and it was agreed to give the information to him.  After some discussion it was agreed upon to meet with Sam Gowen, if the Town Board authorized the expenditure of funds to do so.  Dave Adams stated he would like to be the person to organize the questions people would like to ask. Steve said he did not see a problem with that as long as anyone who has a question is able to ask it.  It  was also suggested that the maps and the data the committee had be shared with Sam before the meeting.  A vote was taken to support a request of the Town Board to fund this meeting with a small, yet to be defined group, and allow the whole committee to draw up questions before hand.  A show of hands approved the decision.  Steve will talk to Supervisor Acunto about requesting the funding.

 

Nan explained the next step in the planning process and what needs to be accomplished.  She said the committee needs to come to an agreement on the Objectives and Strategies for each Goal.  To do this, she said she would create a laundry list of Objectives and Strategies and a rationale for each and then ask each committee member to give her feedback after that.  She would then tabulate the information provided by committee members and then distribute the list of proposed Goals, Objectives, Strategies and rationale and committee member comments to the entire group.  After getting organized, the entire committee will split into smaller groups, with each one covering several Goals, to go over the details and fine tune them to work towards consensus on Objectives, Strategies and rationale.   After an amount of time to be determined at a later date, the smaller groups will report back to the whole committee.  Nan asked the committee if they want her to give them all the information at once, or give them the information as she gets each Goal completed.  It was agreed that she will give the committee the information as she completes each Goal.  It was decided to meet January 3^rd for an organizational meeting and to divide the committee into smaller groups.  Nan will have all the information and the responses from each member compiled and back to the committee on the Objectives, Strategies and rationale before the February 7^th meeting. 

 

“Privilege of the Floor” was next on the agenda.  Chris Martindale was at the meeting and said she would like to join the group if possible.  She clarified a small point discussed earlier about water rights and said that it’s a legal concept. Information could be found under riparian rights if someone wanted to do some legal research.  Steve said he would speak to Chris after the meeting to discuss what the committee is all about.

 

Dave Adams said that he has concerns over written communication.  He stated that he has seen several communications about the committee’s work in print in September and October.  One article was in the Gazette and a quote from the article was “1970 Zoning was based on a draft plan which was never approved”.  Dave stated this was incorrect.  Dave was part of every change to the zoning ordinance that occurred from 1970 to early 1990.  He and Jack Ahern did a complete review of the ordinance making revisions.  The 701 Draft was not a basis for the review and revision.  He said the 701 Draft may have contributed to ideas that were considered in the strengthening of the requirements for an individual special permit uses. 

 

Of more concern to Dave was information on the town newsletter, the town website and a package of information Steve sent to the committee that dealt with “sprawl”.  Dave took the “sprawl” to refer to residential areas such as where Dave lives and/or homes built along the road.  He feels that the information he saw and the information Steve gave the committee is biased toward a particular agenda.  All the information Dave mentioned makes a big point of the build out analysis.  He finds the prominent use of the build out analysis and written statements that the public would expect to voice the views of the committee disturbing.  Dave said that the build out analysis is simply an exercise as to what could happen with the current Zoning.  He strongly objects to public statements being made as statements from the committee when such statements don’t represent the views of the majority of the committee.  Dave proposed a resolution for the committee to consider.  Resolved that no written communication for public consumption be issued by any member of the committee or by the committee’s consultant unless approved by an affirmative vote by the majority of this committee.  Vote should be taken during the meeting of the committee unless it is of an urgent situation which would be determined by one of the Co-Chairs.  The vote can be taken by email of committee members.  Approval requires an affirmative email response from at least 13 committee members.  In verbal statements to the public, each committee member and the committee’s consultant should clearly indicate that their statements represent their own views unless they are certain their statements reflect the view formerly adopted by the committee.  Dave also feels the committee should consider whether an individual committee member should request assistance from the consultant.  He doesn’t feel this is an effective use of the consultant’s time. 

 

Christy Schrader said that she had an article that mentioned things that she hadn’t even heard of discussed as a committee, and yet was put out to the public. 

 

Steve Caine said that as for the website, everything that is produced by the committee should go on the website immediately. 

 

Christy mentioned an article that is on the website that bothers her every time she sees it and it mentions something about what is happening in a development in Ballston Spa, and she doesn’t recall the topic being representative of how the committee feels, so why is it on the website?  Steve said he feels it has to be the ability of the Co-Chair to be able to talk to people and be able to put things on the website in a timely fashion. 

 

Dave’s opinion is that if something is going to be put on the website, if it isn’t a position that has been endorsed by the majority of the committee, it should be made clear that what is being presented is strictly the opinion of the person preparing that particular document.  Steve said he agreed with Dave and that he should not be putting personal opinions on the website, and it was never his intention to do so.  Steve said he will not put anything on the website or in the newspaper without saying that it is his position if it isn’t supported by this committee.  He also said he can’t get everyone’s vote every time he wants to put something on the website.  He said he will be very sensitive to ensure if he is just stating his position on a particular topic, he will make sure to state that it’s his opinion and not that of the committee. 

 

Christy said that there was a piece done on Channel 9, and one of the places that was identified as historical was the Corbin property.  Deborah Herrin said that came up in the workshop and she should not have specifically commented on that.  She said it’s a very difficult position to be in where everything you say and how you say it is criticized.  Steve said he is trying to be as open with everyone as possible.  Marv Schorr stated that in regards to the build out analysis, a lot of people came away thinking that this committee was saying that’s what is going to happen in Charlton.  That’s not the case, but Marv said that’s what a lot of people think who aren’t involved in the committee. 

 

Deborah asked Nan to give the committee the background on what happened to Pine Plains, town  similar to Charlton.  (The point to made was that even though citizens may never expect the town to change, it can happen almost overnight).   Nan said that Pine Plains is a rural town with a Hamlet like Charlton.  They have no zoning, but do have subdivision regulation and a form of site plan review.  There are a few big dairy farms and a couple big environmental areas. While they were finishing their comprehensive plan process a developer bought their existing public golf course and 2000 acres around the golf course.  They proposed to put in two golf courses and 957 homes.  Then a new Hamlet proposal came up for a village green which is a mixed use; condo, office building, grocery store, housing complex of 257 units.  This was a town that had a lot of similarities to Charlton.  They have always said no one would ever want to be in Pine Plains because there’s nothing there, except that it has access to the Taconic Parkway which is a road to New York City.  No one knows what the future will be.  All indications are in the future that all rural areas will be experiencing high levels of growth with housing units. 

 

Guy Mitchell said the issue is not the agenda, but how they work as a body. He is not accusing anyone, but said the committee needs to work as a body, and that everyone on the committee represents the committee.  The committee has to work as equals.  Steve and Deborah are the leaders of the group, but everyone has to work together as a group.  Steve said he does not have a preconceived agenda, and he has never tried to represent anything but the group.  Dave Adams said he will accept what Steve said in that he will be sensitive to what he publishes and preface any articles that are not the consensus of the committee as his opinion.  He will withdraw his proposed resolution and allow things to progress along the lines discussed. 

 

Gary Vanderhorst commented that regarding the build out information, the local firehouse is concerned about an influx of 10,000 people and saying they will need a new station.  He feels the committee needs to be very careful how they present figures to the public.  All they see is the bottom line of 10,000 more people.  (Inaudible.  Everyone talking at once).

 

Dot Mitchell, who earlier attended the Town Board agenda meeting, reported that the Town Board brought up the topic of possibly removing the “cluster subdivision provision” from the Town Zoning law.  She said there was even consideration of holding a public meeting about the topic.  The committee’s reaction was immediate and forceful and many voiced the opinion that the Town Board should not take any action of any type on Zoning changes until the work of the Comprehensive Planning Committee is complete. 

 

Next meeting is January 3, 2005, 7:00 P.M. at the Town Hall.

 

Meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M.