COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
STEERING COMMITTEE
MINUTES
May 2, 2005
Present: Nan
Stolzenburg, David Wood, Gary Vanderhorst, Dave Adams, Sally Ellms, Steve
Caine, Dean Durst, Christy Schrader, Doug Flynn, Deborah Herrin, Andrea Herrin,
Lynda Battenhausen, Midge Dube, Marv Schorr, Dot Mitchell, Guy Mitchell.
Note: Throughout the tape, I
could not hear Deborah Herrin, Guy Mitchell, Gary Vanderhorst, Christy
Schrader, Dean Durst and Dave Wood. Too
soft spoken for the mic to pick up.
The meeting was called to order
at 7:05 by Steve
Caine. The Minutes from the March
meeting were approved as written.
Steve gave accolades to the
subcommittees on the time and dedication they have given in working through the
goals and strategies.
As a recap, a group of goals
strategies based surveys and visions of the towns people was developed and Nan took those goals and came up with strategies geared
to help the town obtain the goals. The
subcommittees evaluated the strategies.
Any questions on, modifications of, or rejections of strategies would be
discussed with Nan and the committee would discuss with Nan
her rationale behind her recommendations.
After discussions between Nan and the
committee, the subcommittees will meet again and make final decisions. Steve turned the discussion over to Nan.
Nan
limited her comments only to the areas the subcommittees had questions or
comments about. Nan
suggested that in the next round the subcommittees try to go back to the actual
goal and see how the strategies relate to the goal and ask if they have offered
the town a way to reach that particular goal.
Nan said she will be offering her
opinion and explanations, and is not trying to debate or convince the committee
one way or the other. Nan
said she will start with goal 1 and continue through all of them.
Goal 1: (Amend zoning and subdivision ordinances)
1.1.1
Nan
said several groups asked for a better explanation of a PUD (Planned Unit
Development). She said there are
different kinds of PUD’s, but basically they are a method that is in zoning
that allows large lots, seven to 10 acres and larger. The land can be developed as a unit, meaning
there will be more flexibility in developing the parcel as a unit. They can be single family housing and
multi-family housing, or a mix of housing and commercial. Some communities chose a location for a PUD
and map it, or some communities authorize someone to use a PUD but don’t map
it. That way if it doesn’t fit into the
zoning laws, some creative uses can be done and it can be made into a PUD. The benefit is that they are always done in a
flexible and creative design that you don’t normally get out of strict
zoning. PUD’s can be used to gain open
space and can be a negotiation with the landowner. The town, developer and landowner work
together. A PUD provides leverage with
developers and room for negotiating incentives for the development of a better
project. Dave Adams asked if a PUD could
be used to implement clustering and conservation subdivisions. Nan said it
could be, and that could be one of the standards in the criteria used for what
the town wants to see happen. Nan said a PUD can be in the zoning ordinance stating
when and how it will be used, and what is expected to get out of it, but it
doesn’t have to be mapped until someone comes forward with an idea to use
it. By state law, if you don’t map a
PUD, then it goes before the Planning Board for an advisory opinion, but it’s
the Town Board who allows it to be mapped.
1.1.2
Many groups asked for a better
explanation of transfer of development rights and if it is feasible to have in
Charlton. Nan
said this is a very complex tool. The
state is interested in the transfer of development rights and may have a
program to help facilitate it, and over time, may be a viable tool for the
town. The transfer of development rights
is when development rights are transferred from one parcel in a sending area to
another parcel in a receiving area. Nan said its difficult to come up with a value of how
much the rights are. Down state there
are entities called “development banks” that are a go between for the money
from the receiving area to the sending area.
Nan feels it’s not feasible at this
time, but does recommend leaving it in as a future possibility to consider. There was more discussion between the
committee and Nan on understanding this
topic.
1.1.4
Nan
explained the difference between clustering and a conservation
subdivision. In clustering, all the
allowed houses are clustered in one spot on the parcel and the rest of the
parcel is open. In a conservation
subdivision, the environmental features are identified, areas that are to be
preserved. Then the houses are located
in such a way that they have a visual access to the preserved part of the
property. The last step in a
conservation subdivision is the lot lines.
What the town currently does is squeeze in as many parcels that can fit
in the overall parcel. In a conservation
subdivision, you put in the number of homes allowed and the lot lines are variable.
Nan
said that typically, clustering is not done with the same kind of open space
and environmental protection that a conservation subdivision is done. There was more discussion on conservation
subdivisions and different ideas to achieve same.
1.1.8
The next strategy Nan discussed was sign regulations. The subcommittee stated that sign regulations
were already covered in current zoning. Nan feels our sign regulations are weak and partial. Not all aspects of signs are covered and it
leaves loopholes. Nan
suggested our regulations state how tall signs can be. Lighting should be
addressed, internal lighting (plastic signs with lights inside to illuminate
the whole sign), or external flood lighting from above or below.
1.2.1a
In building design standards, the
subcommittee said yes to some and no to others.
Under roof pitch and style, Nan stated
that in new commercial development if a pitched or a certain style roof isn’t
specified, it will most likely have a flat roof, which may not fit into the
character of Charlton. Unless a design
is specified, most franchises will use a flat roof. Even though there have not been issues in
Charlton yet, Nan feels if the town wants to be sure that new construction
designs fit into the character of the town, it needs to be specified so
everyone knows what is expected. She
suggests not leaving ourselves open for interpretation.
1.2.1c
On how to handle monotonous
facades or large expanses of windowless walls, Nan agrees that with what the
town currently allows, we’re not likely to get a building that has a large
windowless façade. However, someone
could come to the town with a big facility that they would get a variance on
and there would be nothing in place to address this issue.
1.2.1d
Trademark architecture was asked
to be discussed. Nan
said this is one that if you don’t ask, you never get. Someone will come in with a plan site and
build it to their standards unless the town dictates otherwise. Dunkin Donuts was used as an example. The town wants to create a style and identity
and if a franchise such as Dunkin Donuts comes to town, they will have to build
it and conform the design to fit in with Charlton. The recommendation from Nan
is to prohibit trademark architecture.
1.2.1h
The sidewalk issue – Nan doesn’t think Charlton wants sidewalks and doesn’t
think they necessarily fit in. They
would be appropriate in new hamlets. Nan suggests the committee outline if the town wants
sidewalks, and where they are and are not appropriate. Most communities that have sidewalks have
laws that state who maintains them, who pays if they have to be torn up and
replaced.
1.3.5
Instituting a hamlet zone – Nan said there was a comment which said “we accept growth
within the existing hamlet but are opposed to delineating new areas.” She asked if that meant delineating new areas
outside of the hamlet, a new hamlet, or expanding the hamlet. The committee said it meant delineating a new
hamlet. Nan
said if someone was selling a big piece of land, instead of have a suburban
type development, the infrastructure could be put in and it could be developed
as a hamlet.
Small neighborhood business
development within the hamlet – Nan wasn’t
clear if the subcommittee was rejecting small neighborhood business development
in the hamlet or if they didn’t want to specify a certain spot for it to go
in. The subcommittee said they didn’t
want to specify a certain spot. The
subcommittee was accepting small neighborhood business development in the
hamlet.
Objective 1.4.2
Nan
didn’t understand the comment from the subcommittee which was “we only want to
tie in the existing hamlet overlay district with the expansion of the R
district.” Steve said they meant, bring the R district up to the current hamlet
and not another hamlet. They rejected
other hamlets. The thinking was that if
development occurs it will happen along the water line. Nan asked if
what they mean is that they are okay with expanding the R district provided there
is a hamlet district. Steve said they
would expand in this district and no other.
Nan suggested editing the strategy so
it’s clear what direction the committee wants it to go in.
1.4.7
Establish residential densities
that are sustainable using standards such as open space ratios and floor area
ratios, and de-emphasize controlling density by minimum lot sizes in the RA and
A districts Nan
said that environmental control areas are another way to get at net
density. Performance standards are
typically defined as an open space ratio for residential development or a floor
area ratio for commercial developments.
Open space ratios means the ratio between the amount of land preserved
as open space in comparison to the whole acreage of the lot. If you have an open space ratio of .5 that
means half of the parcel would be in open space. Floor area ratios are the same. How much square footage of space do you have
in relation to the whole parcel?
Environmentally based zoning ordinances pay less attention to minimum
lot size and more attention to how something is performing on that lot. Such as how much open space there is and how
big the building is on the lot. There
are different ways to meeting the goals.
It doesn’t have to be minimum lot size and it doesn’t have to be an
overall density. The environmental
control formula is another way for calculating the density and taking into
account environmental limitations on the site.
You would take into account how much acreage there is of open water,
flood plains, wetlands, steep slopes, etc., and the formula tells you how much
density you get by having those things on your property. Gross density gives you credit for everything
whereas net density takes away limitations to get the density. The committee has to decide what they want to
accomplish for the town. The
environmental control formula and the net density will help calculate a more
sustainable level of development than gross density. These are all tools to use to help reach the
goals rather than just using minimum lot sizes.
1.7.1
The subcommittee asked for
further explanation on what a building envelope is. In a parcel, the building envelope is all of
an area that includes things that are constructed on the lot, such as the
driveway, the house, the septic and other disturbed areas. That is what is contained in a building
envelope. Nan
stated that most of the subdivision laws spend more time discussing lot lines,
when what really matters is where the disturbed areas are going to be on the
lot and where are they in relationship to the next one. Nan suggests
placing more emphasis on the building envelope to reach a variety of
goals. Nan
feels that in many cases there is no reason to have rigid side and rear
setbacks. If there is the correct number
of houses that the land can sustain, what matters is where you put them, not
how much road frontage you have. Large
road frontage spreads everyone out and makes cookie-cutter subdivisions. Nan feels
that a lot of these things give landowners more rights and more flexibility to
create something that works on the land.
A conservation subdivision relaxes all the setbacks and road
frontages. It lays out exactly how these
things would be handled.
Goal 2: (Scenic views and rural
vistas)
2.1.1
Nan
said this was organized in three major sections. One was to do find out and prioritize scenic
resources. The second objective was
looking at non-regulatory things that can be done to protect the
resources. The third objective is regulatory
programs that can accomplish the same.
All of the objectives in 2.1 were rejected by the subcommittee stating
that they felt all development must be carefully evaluated and handled on a
case by case basis. They felt that most
of the entire town can be considered a scenic vista. Nan doesn’t
feel that all places in Charlton are as scenic as other places. They all work together to create the
character of Charlton but some are more important than others. Nan asked
how there can be any kind of program to protect scenic resources if it’s not
known where and what they are? Nan said that the scenic resources haven’t specifically
been defined for Charlton. Nan said the committee has to look at what the towns
people feel are scenic resources. She
feels it’s important to understand what the resources are before making a
decision to protect or not protect them.
Steve wondered if this objective could have been seen as a threat and
could it tag some land less valuable than others. Nan said
someone could interpret it that way but said she’s seen it as a positive
community activity. Steve asked if it
was prioritized what the community felt was of scenic value and which were
valued as better than others, does that affect the value of specific land? Nan said it
depends what is done with the land. Nan said a scenic overlay can be recognized as a value to
the community and then special attention can be paid to the building envelope
to be sure it maintains the scenic view. A density bonus could be given in the
scenic overlay area to maintain what the town is trying to achieve. The flip side of that is a landowner with a
scenic view could market his land stating it has the most scenic view in the
town. Nan
suggested that the subcommittee write a strategy that says the Planning Board,
through subdivision and site plan review, should evaluate the aesthetic
character and the scenic resources of that parcel so that the Planning Board is
given the clear authority to accomplish that.
The current Planning Board might know where all of the resources in the town
are, but will future Planning Boards? Nan stressed that it is important to know what and where
the resources are before they can be protected.
If the subcommittee doesn’t like this objective, they should come
forward with some other mechanism to achieve this goal.
2.2.1
Roadside pull offs – Establishing
education initiatives and developing interpretive tour guides for local roads
and describe the rural landscape for the public. The subcommittee asked who would maintain the
pull offs and it would be an added expense to maintain and could encourage
garbage dumping and other undesirable activities. Nan said
that roadside pull offs do need to be maintained and that this can be done in
conjunction with the landowner or if it’s in a right-of-way, by the highway
department. There wouldn’t be benches or
picnic tables and wouldn’t be very many located in the town. Maintenances issues can be worked out. Nan asked
the subcommittee which part of this strategy they objected to and if there are
other components of this strategy that could be salvaged.
2.2.2
Develop a property owner’s guide
that provides information to people on how to make changes to their property in
keeping with the visual character of the area.
This was rejected by the subcommittee and Nan
asked what was the rationale behind the objection. Nan felt if
there was something that could be handed out to landowners that outlined what
could be done on their property to maintain the scenic character, she doesn’t
see what could be objectionable about that.
2.2.4
Consider protecting critical
viewsheds by purchasing those lands or donated conservation easements. The subcommittee stated that it probably
wouldn’t work in the town. County
landowners trust is available on a voluntary basis. Nan feels
that the town could work with the land trust to make it happen. She said if someone wants to be proactive so
that a landowner voluntarily wants to sell their land she doesn’t see how that
is restrictive.
2.2.7
Consider use of non-binding
agreements. The subcommittee said don’t
do anything awkward to approach landowners to make agreements. Nan said it
maybe awkward but there are many situations where there is a group or
individual who has an idea and walks up and talks to the landowner. Is awkwardness a reason to reject the idea?
2.2.8
Consider use of binding
agreements. The subcommittee stated that
Clifton Park does this by providing incentives
that are linked to the agreement. Nan said to tell her what incentives the committee is
thinking about.
2.2.10
Designating local roads as
“scenic”. The subcommittee said they
don’t want to encourage traffic and take away privacy of the people who live in
the area. Nan’s
response is that she understands the concern and thinks it something to
consider, but a lot of people who live on scenic roads use it as a source of
pride. If there was a scenic road
program, the landowners should be involved in the designations so that what
concerns they have come up, the committee can address. This should not be done outside of the people
who live on the particular street. If
the committee thinks there is value to having a local designation as scenic,
the landowners should be talked to about what they like and don’t like.
2.3.1
Establish a viewshed or scenic
corridor overlay district. This was rejected
by the subcommittee but no rationale was given.
2.3.1a
Sign controls. One subcommittee said yes to sign controls
while another group said no.
2.3.1b
Landscape regulations – in
certain areas screening may be desired and in other places a long view with no
vegetation to inhibit viewing. Consider
implementing landscape requirements for all commercial developments, major
subdivisions and other residential development in critical view areas. Nan said
the subcommittee said they would accept only if reworded. She isn’t clear what the group meant by
rewording and asked them to rewrite the edit.
She said the group said to change the words to say “vegetation and
natural features of the property.” The
subcommittee said they want to keep natural vegetation. She asked the group to rewrite and put in
more detail of what they want to accomplish.
2.3.1f:
Slope protection standards. No rationale was given and asked the group to
revisit it. She suggests they use the
maps that were given to see the slopes.
The group may want to reconsider but use a different percentage other
that 15%.
2.2.1h:
Stream corridor protection. Consider establishing building setbacks from
streams that do not have FEMA floodplain protections. The subcommittee said “the town is covered by
already extensive wetlands maps.” Nan said wetlands are protected in streams that have
either a floodplain or they are a DEC regulated stream. Nan said she
is looking for other streams or smaller tributaries that aren’t protected by
either of these mechanisms. Marv said
the farming community was concerned about a stream protection ordinance that
the town would have. The general feeling
is that there is already stream protection from DEC, FEMA and the Corp of
Engineers. Steve asked if there are a
lot of streams in our area that aren’t protected. Marv said that in Charlton there may be some
drainage ditches that aren’t streams that aren’t protected but whatever streams
the town has are already protected. If
the committee doesn’t feel this strategy is needed, it can be taken out.
2.2.6:
Hillside/ridgeline overlay. Consider establishing a hillside/ridgeline
overlay zone to specify standards that will allow development but protects
fragile environments and the views of them.
Nan said there wasn’t any rationale was
given. Nan
said an overlay can be as restrictive or non-restrictive as the town
wants. It could be an area where density
bonuses are offered. Overlays do have an
important role because they are oriented toward environmental features. If the committee feels that these areas
should be protected in some manner, the committee should target the tools to
those areas and an overlay is an effective tool. Steve stated that right now the Planning
Board doesn’t have the macro picture of these things. As every subdivision comes up they look at
the subdivision in isolation. They don’t
have visuals. If they had non-regulatory
overlays that just gave the Planning Board a picture to work with, it would
help. Nan
said there are two parts to thinking about overlays. Is the concept attractive and what do you do
with the overlay?
2.2.10a,b,c:
Mandatory use of clustering or
conservation subdivision design techniques.
Nan offered several ways they could be
utilized. Nan
agrees with the re-write and she also agrees that mandatory use of these
techniques might not be what Charlton wants but they could be included as an
option which will give the Planning Board the ability to evaluate subdivisions
on a case by case basis. The
conservation subdivision technique gives a lot more flexibility to reach the
environmental and open space goals. Nan said that a landowner might hire a surveyor to lay
out a subdivision for them. This could
just be a sketch phase to discuss the subdivision. Nan feels
that the idea of how clustering is applied in conservation subdivisions needs
to be discussed. Are they going to be
targeted to a certain area? Is it going
to be left as a technique that will be evaluated on a case by case basis? Is it going to be mandated in a certain
area?
Steve pointed out that Nan was at the end of Goal 2 and it would be a good
stopping place. Tentative dates were
given to meet again. Those tentative
dates are May 31st, the scheduled meeting on June 6th,
and Wednesday, June 15th. Steve
said maybe the committee can strive to be finished with this phase by the end
of June and then go back into the subcommittees for their final considerations
and decisions. Steve will get an email
out to the committee with definite dates for upcoming meetings. Nan gave the
members a copy of her notes in response to the sub-committees. Dave Adams suggested the committee look those
over and identify where further clarification is needed and bring it up to Nan at the next meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:25.
