|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STEERING COMMITTEE MINUTES
May 31, 2005
Present: Nan Stolzenburg, Rick Smith, Jenna Smith, Al LaRue, Dawn Szurek, Dave Adams, Steve Caine, Christy Schrader, Maria McCulloch, Jim Leupold, Deborah Herrin, Lynda Battenhausen, Marv Schorr, Dot Mitchell, Guy Mitchell.
Steve opened the meeting by announcing handouts that were available and making sure everyone had an agenda for the meeting. The minutes of May 2, 2005 were approved as written. Steve asked Nan to go over the subcommittee responses to the next Goal, which was Goal 3.
Goal 3: The first Goal Nan went over was 3.1.1, Maintain the policy of considering lands to be subject to flooding to be uninhabitable. The subcommittee felt that the current subdivision regulations should be changed to be consistent with the zoning and existing town laws based on FEMA regulations. Nan said the purpose of the floodplain regulations is protection of property. If your property is mapped in a floodplain, FEMA regs state that the building has to be raised up above the flood stage. Our current policy for subdivisions is that it considers those lands to be uninhabitable. Nan feels lands that are subject to flooding should have more regulations than simply putting a building up out of harms way, and our current subdivision considers floodplain land as uninhabitable, which Nan feels is excellent. From an environmental perspective, floodplains are not suitable places for a lot of development. Nan’s understanding of the subcommittee is that they want to strictly use FEMA regulations, which allows buildings to be built above the floodplain, and they do not prohibit building in a floodplain. She disagrees with this and asked for more rationale from the subcommittee.
The next item discussed was 3.1.3a which is where soil permeability is minimal, or where lot sizes are small, require driveways to be constructed of pervious materials (concrete pavers or crushed stone). The subcommittee wondered how this would be regulated. Nan said it would be difficult to regulate, but other places have done it and there are models for doing this if the town wanted to go this route.
Next item was 3.1.3b: establishing a maximum impervious surface ratio for new development. An impervious surface ratio is the amount of land covered in impervious surfaces in relationship to the whole. This would include rooftops, sidewalks, driveways, anything that doesn’t allow water to soak in is impervious. A lot of communities use an impervious surface ratio to get at how much of a parcel is allowed to be impervious. It’s designed to have as low of an impact development as possible as far as run off, sedimentation and erosion. The subcommittee felt that this is already controlled by existing laws. Nan said our zoning has what is called “maximum percentage of lot occupancy”. She suggested reviewing the lot percentages to make sure they are appropriate percentages for what the town wants to accomplish. Nan suggested that maybe the recommendation should be written to review the maximum lot occupancy percentage instead of establish a maximum impervious surface ratio. Al LaRue asked Dave Adams if the percentage of lot occupancy means within the building area and does not include driveways? Dave said that is correct. Nan said the committee needs to determine what the goal is for having this lot occupancy, what is it trying to accomplish vs. a similar type of thing for impervious surfaces that doesn’t allow, for example, more than one third of the lot to be covered in impervious surfaces.
3.1.3d Utilize clustering or conservation subdivision design to keep floodplains and highly erodible areas free from development. Nan said this was discussed before and reminded the committee that clustering is different that conservation subdivision. Clustering may or may not work depending on the environmental conditions of the site. The idea is to allow development to occur but to strategically place the houses in the best location on the parcel.
3.1.3e Apply setback standards from streams to protect waterways from erosion and water quality degradation due to runoff caused by development. A typical setback is 100 feet but can vary due to slope. The subcommittee said this is already controlled by DEC regulations. Nan said DEC regulations cover regulated streams but not streams that are not protected. The town can be more stringent than DEC if they want. Something could be put in the subdivision law or site plan review that insures that the Planning Board reviews the location of the actual building in relationship to the stream to make sure it doesn’t negatively impact the natural function of the stream.
3.1.4 Provide educational materials to all who seek a building permit for construction a new home. The subcommittee asked how to evaluate without seeing what would be in the educational material; how it would be funded; what is in the list; and who would develop the list? Nan said DEC supplies a list from their storm water regulations that shows the resource and how it can be protected and what are best management practices. This information could be readily available to new homeowners. Since Charlton doesn’t have thousands of buildings going up each year, Nan didn’t feel it would be a burden for the building department to photocopy this information and giving to anyone coming in for a building permit for a new home.
3.1.10 Consider adopting an erosion and sediment control law (stand alone or in concert with zoning and subdivision) that provides more detail than currently exists. Nan wasn’t sure what the subcommittee wanted to do with this. Christy Schrader said they needed more information on what currently exists. Nan said DEC has changed their storm water and erosion standards. She said everyone who has zoning and subdivision regulations relating to storm water and erosion are now out of sync with what DEC requires. Nan said we need to either reference the new regulations or we need to bring our own language up to par with what DEC has. She said we can either reference the DEC laws or be specific and list the DEC requirements. With the on-going DEC changes, it may be better to simply make reference to the DEC requirements.
3.1.12 Amend zoning to require site plan review whenever a special exception permit is sought. (Currently the wording is that it “may” take place). Nan said that special exception permits and site plan permits do two different things. If we want to make our special exception permit process stringent, we should be requiring site plan review for those uses. The definition of a special exception permit is a permitted use subject to conditions that certain aspects of it make it less compatible in the neighborhood. Nan said having a special exception permit doesn’t mean you don’t want it. If you require a special exception permit, you are allowing it. A special exception use focuses on the use. A site plan looks at how that use functions on the site. If you don’t have the site plan aspect, Nan feels we’re missing the ability to review that use. She recommends that all of our uses that require a special exception have a site plan review. Dave Adams said that the subcommittee felt that every application for a special exception permit that comes in is of such a nature that it can’t be dealt with more expeditiously. Perhaps it’s not necessary in every case, but the way its written may be too permissive. Also, Nan said if timing is an issue, it can be included that site place review and special use permit are done concurrently. If you have a Planning Board that does site plan review that could make it more cumbersome. The ZBA and Planning Board should both start the application concurrently, or take away the authority from the ZBA to do special exception permits and put it back with the Planning Board.
3.2.1-2a, b, c Direct development away from ecologically sensitive lands, maintain wildlife habitat diversity and reduce the size of the area to be disturbed during future development. a) - Nan agreed as long as the language elevates the review of wildlife and wildlife habitats and ecological functioning. These are items that typically aren’t given a lot of attention. b) - Also she suggested that whenever SEQR is done, impacts of development on wildlife and wildlife habitats be evaluated. c) – was previously discussed. d) – Nan said a percentage of a parcel should remain as open space. Nan said most of these items are in our zoning, but wonders if it’s clear enough and will it accomplish what we want?
3.2.3 Provide education and technical assistance/information for wildlife habitat and ecological site restoration and/or protection to landowners through the Town’s Environmental Committee. If the ECC is willing to take on this effort, Nan agrees. She was wondering if the Town Board set the agenda for the ECC or does the ECC set their own agenda? Marv Schorr said they currently don’t have the expertise on the committee to do this unless they can get the information elsewhere. Marv also stated that the Planning Board is not required to seek the advice of the ECC. Nan said it could be put in our comprehensive plan that the Planning Board has to seek the advice of the ECC on every subdivision. That’s something the committee should think about.
3.2.4 Provide applicants with information on the resources of their property (available through the GIS maps produced for this plan) and a checklist of standards that will be used in reviewing applications. The subcommittee felt that this wasn’t needed. Nan said when this plan is completed there will be a lot of resources that would be easily accessible to landowners. If the landowner can learn more about their property by looking at the maps, Nan feels it should be available to them. All the large scale paper maps that the town will have can be made smaller for handout purposes. If there is a computer available for the Planning Board to use, Don could download a free version of Arc Explorer and get it operational for us. Nan said she isn’t sure why the subcommittee feels this isn’t needed. A computer could be available at the town hall for the public to use and the town could even charge a fee for the use of the computer.
3.2.5 Offer density bonuses to landowners and developers if they protect core wildlife areas and sensitive ecological areas. A density bonus is where you offer a landowner a density bonus because they have something of value to the community on their property. If the landowners property allows for 5 house sites, the town could give them 7 house sites if they protect the area of value. If the committee decides to allow density bonuses, the zoning will have to outline under what conditions the bonus will be given, criteria for how much of a bonus to give, do an environmental review and have a public hearing. Nan didn’t understand the subcommittees comment on why they rejected this. The committee said it should be considered for possible revision of subdivision regulations to allow reduced density. Nan said a density bonus gives you more density, not reduced density.
3.2.6 Consider using an environmental control formula to determine sustainable densities on a parcel by parcel basis for developments over 20 acres in size (or some other criteria). The subcommittee didn’t have a comment on this one. Nan said this was discussed before – gross and net density. Nan said you use an environmental control formula to determine the net density.
3.3.1 Amend zoning and its use schedule to restrict or prohibit new, non-agricultural land uses which are intensive water uses OR requiring the pump test on adjacent wells. Nan did understand why the first one was rejected. She said from the notes it seems that the subcommittee didn’t want to reject any use and that they’d have to prove they have the water for that use first. Nan doesn’t have a problem with that approach. She said the pump test language from the meeting with Sam Gowan could be used. Dave Adams stated that Sam’s point was not to specify a test, but to make the developer tell us how he has adequate water; to put the burden on the developer.
3.3.3 The town should implement a local well log filing requirement so that the town has information on each new groundwater supply well that is installed. Currently this information is filed with the county. Deborah Herrin said that because Charlton has so many different addresses (Ballston Spa, Ballston Lake, Amsterdam) that a lot of the well information wasn’t in the Charlton file. Nan said this information may be something the town should have so that we don’t have to go to the county and do all that digging to find a specific well log.
3.3.4 The town should develop a local law that gives the town authority to restrict water usage during water emergencies. The subcommittee stated that this is illegal for private wells. Nan stated that she wasn’t clear if this was meant for just public water.
3.3.5 Consider implementing a local well construction permit program. The subcommittee said there are state regulations already in place. Nan’s question to the committee is, have we had any difficulties with anything locally that hasn’t been able to be handled at the state level with construction issues? Deborah Herrin said that when she spoke with the local well drillers, one of the things they brought up was safe containment of abandoned wells and contamination of those wells.
3.3.6 Amend zoning Section 3, Table IV-3 to also included minimum separation distances for wells. The subcommittee said that the requirements for the existing zoning are adequate. Nan asked if the numbers were specifically reviewed by Sam? Dave Adams said they were. He said Sam was concerned that if we make the lot sizes too small and you have a problem with a drain field and have to relocate it, then you would have trouble maintaining the separation distances. He cautioned reducing the size of the lots.
3.3.8 Consider tax assessment reductions for landowners who place conservation easements, use best management practices for forestry or farming in areas known to be critical well contribution locations. The subcommittee said that the whole town is considered a critical recharge area.
3.3.9 Implement erosion and sediment control practices outlined in 3.1 above, including use of erosion and sediment best management practices. The subcommittee said it’s not important to maintain ground water qualities. Dave Adams said that is what Sam Gowan told them. Nan said the town already has erosion and sediment control for surface water.
3.3.10 Conduct a detailed groundwater analysis and inventory that more accurately identifies areas with potential low water yields. Consider implementing a groundwater protection overlay zone that would reduce allowable densities of development to be consistent with potential water yields. The subcommittee said to maintain a minimum 2 acre lot size which will ensure sufficient recharge for wells. Nan said that depending on how a development is laid out and where the wells are, to maintain a 2 acre minimum lot size solely for the wells is limiting. To allow landowners more flexibility to design appropriately for the parcel and environmental conditions, she feels 2 acre lot sizes is limiting. Dave Adams said that if a developer comes in and puts in the effort and can show that something different can be done and prove it, then modifications need to be made to the zoning and subdivision regulations to allow for that option. Otherwise it’s one septic, one well on a 2 acre minimum lot.
3.3.11 Inventory and analyze potential aquifer recharge areas. Nan wondered if this should be rewritten to analyze the influence and contribution of these water bodies to water quantity and quality. She said she understands what Sam said about the whole town being an area recharge, but there could be other contributions to water quantity and quality that aren’t a ground water recharge issue.
3.3.12 Initiate an education program for landowners about groundwater quality and quantity. The subcommittee said not necessary but Nan thinks there are a lot of resources already written that could be copied and included in a packet so that people understand groundwater and where it comes from, etc. She’s unsure why there is a hesitation on the educational programs. Christy said right now there is no town tax and we don’t want a town tax and they would have to hire a full time employee to do these things.
3.3.13 Institute a program that requires periodic inspection and pumping-out septic systems in order to maintain proper functioning. The subcommittee said this is not necessary in Charlton. Nan thinks one of the downfalls of septic systems are we make sure they are designed and built right and inspected before put in and then they are left. A septic system only functions properly if they are maintained properly. Marv Schorr said there are many people who believe that you should never do anything to a septic system that is operating properly. Dave Adams stated that usually if a septic system isn’t operating properly it usually is in the drain field. Nan said she is going on the recommendations of engineers and what the EPA recommends for maintenance of septic systems.
3.4 Promote environmentally sound management practices for woodlands. The subcommittee felt there aren’t enough woodlands to merit the entire objective. Nan said there are certainly patches of woodlands in Charlton and the committee members would know if there was inappropriate use of woodlands or not being able to maintain the woodlands the town does have. If there isn’t enough woodlands to practice sound management then maybe the woodlands that we do have need to be added to a list of important habitats and carefully looked at from a wildlife perspective. Woodlands are aesthetic, are habitat for wildlife, etc. The area photo will tell where the woodlands are located. Nan stated if there aren’t enough woodlands, then it may need to be a preservation issue. The committee will have to judge that. Nan said the strategies aren’t there for the town to tell a landowner how to manage his woodlands, they are there to educate landowners about best management practices for forestry, and to promote the NYS 480-a tax incentive. The town can require any commercial forestry companies to go through site plan review to get a logging permit, which would protect any erosion or sedimentation issues, see where the logging road goes into the woods and landing areas for logs. Nan said the committee can look at these strategies as being heavy-handed and the town telling people what to do, or look at them as educating people and letting them know what their options are.
Next on the agenda was discussion on the next steps in the process. Nan asked the committee how they want to make decisions about what is and what is not included in the plan and how to proceed. Now that some questions have been answered and we’ve heard different perspectives, does the committee want to send it back to the subcommittees to reconsider, or does the committee want to move as a group and move forward? If topics go back to the subcommittees, Nan asked how would that information be meshed with the overall decision making of the group? What role should the subcommittees have and how will final decisions be made? Nan stated that the last two meetings have been on discussion on items that the subcommittee has questions on or potential rejections. What one subcommittee accepted, someone else might not want. Nan feels it’s taking a long time to get through this part of the plan and asked if there was a better way of approaching this. How does the group want to come to some conclusions as to where this is heading? There was a lot of discussion and suggestions, from voting with secret ballots to each person looking at the strategies and rating them with a yes, no, or needs more discussion. Steve said that John Kelley, the webmaster for Charlton’s website, has software that he could take the strategies and set them up on the site that only the committee could use. The committee could then look at them and vote from the privacy of their home. The software can compile the data and John will do it free. It can be set up with space for comments as well. Then after it’s compiled it would tell if it’s a simply majority, a 2/3 majority, or exactly what the vote is. Christy Schrader asked what we would do if the vote is close? Would it be discussed again? She asked why something would be discussed again if it was already decided not to accept? The committee will need to decide what the percentage number will be for accepting, rejecting or having more discussion on a strategy. Nan asked the committee if they want to go back into the subcommittees for more discussion. Dave Adams said he doesn’t feel comfortable voting without the benefit of the entire group. He also said he’s concerned about is in the committee’s considerations, if they are going back enough and looking at the results they got from the survey. More than 50% of the townspeople returned the surveys and he’s wondering if the committee has looked into how the strategies fit with the survey results. An example was the question about preserving open space and using town funds. The majority of people, when asked if they want to spend town money, town taxes, on preserving open space said no. He said he worries about the committee superceding what the townspeople want. Jim Leupold is concerned that all this time and work the committee has put into the plan will fall by the wayside. He asked who sees that the comprehensive plan will be implemented once the town accepts it? Nan said it will take someone at the Town Board level to say it’s important, and to take the plan and see what the highest priorities are that need to be done in the first year. There was much more discussion on the topic of how to proceed. Steve recapped the discussion by saying that Nan will have her cryptic remarks and the committee will go through them and the strategies and see if anyone has any questions. Then the committee will run through one website vote and at the next meeting the committee will decided what the break points are for the voting to determine what needs more discussion, and which are definitive yes or no answers. Dave Adams said his suggestion is that if 75% or more say yea or nay, it should be accepted and there should be no more discussion on that strategy. Steve asked for a vote on how to proceed next week. Option 1 is to continue with the education process and do one online vote on the website to see where the group stands. Option 2 is to start voting next week on Goal 1, 2, and 3 which they’ve discussed and completed. Option 1 was agreed upon by 8 out of 14 votes.
Deborah Herrin asked what the committee thought about using Founders Day weekend to share with the townspeople what the committee has been doing and where they are heading. The consensus was that it was too late to do that since Founders Day is the upcoming weekend and it was felt that the whole committee should endorse what information would be given out.
Dates for the upcoming meetings were discussed. They are June 6th, June 16th with a backup being June 15th, July 5th, August 1st, September 5th with the alternate being September 6th, and October 3rd.
At this time the committee went into Executive Session. Executive Session was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. |
|
|