|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STEERING COMMITTEE MINUTES
JUNE 16, 2005
Present: Rick Smith, Jenna Smith, Christy Schrader, Nan Stolzenburg, Maria McCulloch, Steve Caine, Al LaRue, Deborah Herrin, Doug Flynn, Dean Durst, Marv Schorr, Peggy Gaines, Dave Wood, Dave Adams, Lynda Battenhausen, Jim Leupold, Guy Mitchell.
The minutes for May 31 and June 6 had not yet been approved. Steve asked for any corrections to the May 31st minutes. Dave Adams said he had a problem with the minutes. He doesn’t feel that notes should be added into the minutes after the meeting. The minutes should solely reflect the discussions that went on at the meeting. Dave feels if something was brought up at the meeting which needs to be discussed further, he thinks it should be done at the next meeting. Dave made a motion to have the note deleted from the May 31st meeting, and with that correction Dave made a motion to have the minutes approved. Steve explained why he put the note in the minutes. The question was about preserving open space and using town funds. The minutes reflect that Dave said the majority of people when asked if they wanted to spend town money to preserve open space said no. Steve felt the statement needed clarification and that’s why he put in the note. Dave said that should say increase taxes. Dave said he believes he said increase taxes and that if the tape shows otherwise, then he misspoke. What he intended to say was that the majority of the people were not in favor of increasing town taxes to buy open space. Steve agreed that the minutes could reflect the change but felt it was important to keep the note in the minutes. Steve said he believes by having the sentence that says the majority of people are not in favor of increasing town taxes to preserve open space, it sounds like a question was asked that said if you want to preserve open space, are you willing to increase taxes, yes or no, and it sounds like 51% said no. Dave Adams said he would like to make the correction to the minutes that he suggested and delete the note, and then he would like to discuss the topic at the beginning of this meeting and put whatever is appropriate into the minutes of this meeting. Christy Schrader suggested that the minutes should be presented as they occurred, and then if someone wishes to include a note or make a change to the minutes before they are approved, that’s how it should be done. The minutes can be amended at the next meeting, but not beforehand. Steve agreed with that and also said he doesn’t want there to be a hard and fast rule that there can never be a note added to the minutes. Dave Adams said the significance of the percentages, the 9% no vote from people who didn’t want to do anything, is that 91% of the people in town want to do something to protect open space. The majority of them do not want to see increased town taxes in order to do that. The challenge to the committee is to find ways to protect open space that doesn’t require increasing town taxes and to adopt the appropriate strategies that will do that. Steve said this question can be viewed in many different ways. He feels having the question with all the percentages presented allows others to interpret it themselves and is the correct way to handle this. Dave Adams said he believe the question is very clear when it asks if you’d be willing to have your town taxes increased to purchase open space. Only 21% of the people said yes, which means that 79% said no. Nan said people answered in other places on this question to which Dave replied that the other questions didn’t involve increasing town taxes. They did involve spending money, but not increasing town taxes. Nan said that a certain percentage answered that they would be willing to use existing town funds. Steve suggested that Chris go back to the tape and insert exactly what Dave said. Steve said he would like to include an explanatory note stating that this was question #11 on the survey and that only 9% said no, the majority wanted to use some other form of funding. 41% said use existing town or county money, and 21% said if required, additional town taxes. The group decided that nothing should be added to the minutes that wasn’t specifically discussed at the meeting. Notes or anything else could be brought up at the next meeting. Steve suggested not putting the DRAFT minutes on the website. It was agreed to only put minutes on the website after they’ve been approved. After Dave’s comment that says the “majority of people, when asked if they wanted to spend town money, town taxes, to preserve open space said no,” Steve said he would like to put in an explanatory note that says, NOTE: This was question #11 on the survey. Only 9% said no, 29% said yes using only grant money, 41% said to use existing town or county funds, and 21% said if necessary, additional taxes. Everyone agreed.
To the Committee: I listened to the tape of May 31st and following is the clarification of what Dave Adams said, and the note that Steve asked to follow Dave’s comment: “The majority of people, when asked do they want to spend town money, town taxes, on preserving open space, said no.” (Note: This was question #11 on the survey. Only 9% said no, 41% said to use existing town or county funds, 29% said yes using only grant money, and 21% said if necessary, additional taxes).
Steve asked if there were any additions or corrections to the June 6th minutes. Deborah Herrin said that on the first page, “either accept or reject goals” needs to be changed to read “either accept or reject strategies”. The minutes were passed with the correction.
The meeting was turned over to Nan and she began on Goal 8.
Goal 8: Quality public infrastructure is ecologically sound and does not in itself induce growth and development.
8.1: Continue to utilize on-site systems for waste treatment rather than public sewers. Educate landowners and recognize that septic systems must be maintained in order to be effective. Also recognize and educate landowners that septic systems are the number one non-point source of water pollution in New York. Nan was confused with the comments she received from the subcommittee. Nan said the subcommittee said there was no way to enforce this requirement. Nan said that there is a law called Local Law #2 of 1975, a local law relating the maintenance of sanitary conditions or sewage disposal systems in the town of Charlton. Nan said it is good to have this law but since septic systems can fail, she gave ways to enhance the existing law. She suggested making sure there is a requirement for inspection, replacement when the inlet or outlet baffles are deteriorating, reporting malfunctions and reporting of problems from septage haulers. These are in place in other communities to ensure a tight functioning of the septic systems. The current law basically waits for something to fail before something happens. What Nan has recommended would stop it before it fails. Nan said part of this is to educate landowners what their responsibility is in maintaining a septic system. Nan feels this is an issue and will get the group more information on the subject. Nan said an alternative is instead of having a sewer district, to have a management district. This would mean instead of having a sewer district takes care of the treatment of the waste, you would have an on-site septic district that would take care of inspecting and maintaining septic systems that are failing. Doug Flynn asked who would pay for this. Nan said if it was done through a district then the landowners would pay for it. This is preventative maintenance.
8.2: Explore the need for alternate types of waste treatment systems to serve the town instead of public sewers. Consider all available water treatment options including decentralized management systems, constructed wetlands, small package plants, biological treatments, and other technologies that are available for its infrastructure needs. Nan encourages everyone to look into the EPA’s manuals, booklets and brochures that they have on this type of management. She will send along a link to their site.
8.3: To ensure that growth matches infrastructure, consider initiating an Adequate Public Facilities regulation. This means that development can’t occur until there are adequate public facilities in place. Adequate public facilities must be in place before the growth. The public facilities would have to be defined in the local law, but typically they are roads, sewers, water, schools, and other facilities that serve the development. There would have to be proof that there is currently, or will be at the time of the actual development, an adequate supply of water, sewers, road capacity, etc. It’s a way to make sure growth doesn’t out pace the ability of the community to provide services for the growth.
8.4: Promote compact development to avoid unnecessary extension of water lines. Nan said any extension of public services, such as sewer and water, is a conduit for growth. In a community that wants to preserve open space and protect farms, unplanned expansion of water lines is not planning for growth. One of the most important things to pay attention to in rural areas is where the water lines are. That will be where the growth will follow. Planning for the location for the water lines is important for the town. Marv Schorr said that the storage capacity in Charlton limits the extension of the water district. The state requires 24 hours of storage capacity and the town is at that limit. Nan said just because the town is at their capacity for storing water now, doesn’t mean that we’ll have the same capacity later on. Nan said the southern part of town has undeveloped space to build and she said it has the potential in the future to have water. Nan’s suggestion is to have the plan make a policy statement about where the water lines are going to be. She suggested limiting the water line to the RA area and said the committee should give careful consideration to this strategy. Dave Adams asked what other mechanism can be used for this besides putting it into the Plan. Nan said she doesn’t think zoning is the appropriate place for this. An official map is a document that is adopted by the town and it identifies future locations for infrastructure, roads, parks, utility lines, etc. It’s a preplanning of where all of these things are. You could have an official map for water lines. Dean Durst said that to control growth we have cluster housing concepts, lot sizes, and sewer issues. Rather than limit the public utilities on a map, all the other concepts discussed will automatically control the growth based on the parcel size, clustering concept, etc. What he doesn’t want to see happen is to preclude the landowner the opportunity if he had developable property. Nan doesn’t believe this committee will meet the goals of the plan or have the Charlton everyone wants to keep if we allow water lines to be extended whenever someone wants the water lines to be extended. Nan said whatever is decided, the plan should have a recommendation in it that forces the town to evaluate the implications to grow. Meeting the goals and vision of this plan, if a request were to come before the board to be decided on for an extension of water lines, they can’t just look at the engineering and the cost. When any kind of infrastructure is expanded they must evaluate the impact on what you want the town to be. Nan feels this needs to be a component of this plan. Marv Schorr said he agrees with Nan but wondered if SEQR doesn’t require you to look at the impact of a water line extension? Nan said you could make SEQR work that way if you wanted to, but most of the time it doesn’t. Steve Caine said he was on the water study committee and all they could look at was the current capacity. They all said they had to wait until we had a comprehensive plan because we have to know where to control the density in town and where development is most practical to occur. They realized they couldn’t make recommendations on where the lines went or where to build up until they had an overlay of the whole town and what it’s suppose to look like. Dave Adams stated that the Town Board and the town itself has not pushed for expanding water lines to promote development. In fact, he says he thinks it’s been the opposite philosophy. Most discussions of expanding the water district currently are associated with possible developments close by the water district. If someone was proposing a development 2-3 miles away from the water district and went to the Town Board to bring water there, he doesn’t believe it would get a favorable reaction. Dave said he’s looking for a mechanism to put some push behind that concept and asked how that can be done. Nan agreed and said part of it is putting it in the comprehensive plan. She said if it is put in the comprehensive plan, they adopt it and it becomes policy and they are supposed to look at policy when making decisions. Steve Caine said there is a legal aspect to this as well. For example, if a developer came in and said he was going to pay to have five miles of pipe put in up in the north end of town, and there’s no reason mechanically or economically to turn them down. The Town Board can be arbitrary and capricious by saying no, and they could lose a lawsuit. That’s why there should be a plan that shows that the people want to maintain infrastructure that fits the overall layout they want for the town. Nan said she feels an official map with language in the comprehensive plan is what we should have. Dean Durst still contends that the balance in the zoning would handle that. Guy Mitchell said if you don’t allow water in certain areas, you won’t be able to cluster houses. Nan said clustering isn’t the only thing we’re talking about. The other technique of conservation subdivision is not necessarily a clustering technique.
8.6: Utilize a Capital Improvement Plan showing the proposed expansion, upgrading, maintenance and financing of infrastructure projects. A Capital Improvement Plan covers any kind of capital improvement such as the roads, buildings, sidewalks, etc. A Capital Improvement Plan is usually a five year plan identifying the infrastructure needs and planning for staff, equipment and how you are going to pay for it. The comment from the subcommittee was we don’t want to encourage more infrastructure growth. Steve said he believes that the people who objected to this thought that having a Capital Improvement Plan meant increase of infrastructure. Steve said he believes there’s a misunderstanding of what the Capital Improvement Plan is. Nan said that Capital Improvement Plan is not expanding infrastructure, it’s a way to have a better way to have a handle on your infrastructure. Dave Adams said the characteristic of the town is that it’s very frugal in how it spends money. One area where there has been planning is the highway department. The superintendent submits to the Town Board his plans for the future taking into account the aging of equipment and need for replacement. Dave feels a lot of the committee members are struggling with this idea because there simply aren’t a lot of things on the plate. The Capital Improvement Plan is tied to the Comprehensive Plan. It was noted that all departments do their capital budgeting separately and there is not a process that consolidates all the information to give the Town Board a coherent overall perspective. Marv Schorr said the Town has been using a Capital Improvement Plan wherever there’s a capital need shown, such as the constable’s vehicles, highway department equipment, and the town hall. There’s nothing where there is a capital need shown where we’re not already doing that. He doesn’t see anything wrong with formalizing it and putting it in the Comprehensive Plan.
8.9: Require a fiscal impact analysis for projects. (All projects? Some projects? Major ones only?) A fiscal impact analysis is requested or required of a development to determine what the impacts are of that project on the tax base of the community. It is often overlooked when projects go through a review. Knowing that the idea of a high level residential development costs the community because you are servicing them with new roads, new public services, etc., and a fiscal impact analysis will show the impact of a certain development on the tax base. The impact analysis is usually done on large projects and the developer pays when the application is before the Board. It is usually part of a SEQR analysis. Deborah Herrin asked Nan if Planning Boards are asked to look at the impact on the fiscal health of the town as a part of SEQR, or do they have to be given that authority. Nan said there is something on the long environmental assessment for that asks if this will have any impact on public services such as police, fire, school, etc. How that question gets answered is through a fiscal impact analysis. The Planning Boards are authorized to ask those questions, but Nan finds that most Planning Boards think it won’t have any impact, but have no basis for that decision. Nan said she would rather have a developer come in and know ahead of time that he will have to do an impact analysis study under certain circumstances. Deborah asked what size subdivision Nan would consider to be big enough to warrant the town to ask for an impact study? Nan said she can’t answer the question without thinking about it. She did say that another way of knowing when to do a fiscal impact analysis is when you know the level at which the tax base will be impacted. Nan said she will give Deborah’s question more thought and get back to the committee. Steve Caine said he felt this was a good point because the town tends to have minor subdivisions and the whole town could be built out with minor subdivisions and have a lot of tax implications. Nan said a town-wide impact study would give us the cumulative impact of smaller subdivisions would be. Nan said the group may want to change this one to be town-wide study instead of a project by project basis.
Goal 9: The Town has quality, aesthetically pleasing, and safe roads and pathways for vehicular traffic, walking and biking.
9.1 through 9.1.5: Develop and utilize “context sensitive design” standards for new roads built in Charlton. Nan said the first thing the subcommittee said was they wanted to review local road standards rather than amend then. Nan asked what they mean by review. If they want to review and make changes where necessary that’s good. But to just review doesn’t sound like anything will be done. Dave Adams said he took it to mean that there was too much to look at and for the subcommittee to handle. He feels this is a task that should be taken on once the plan is in place. He agrees with the wording “of reviewing and modifying as necessary”. Nan said she has no problem with doing edits and combining the first few together.
9.1.6 New roads should use vegetative material as buffers, preserve, enhance, and create animal habitats where possible, use innovative technology to create permanent soil erosions solutions, strive to design soil erosion measures for zero run off conditions, and use innovative practices and products to ensure the establishment of temporary and/or permanent ground cover of areas that have been denuded due to road construction or maintenance. Nan said she wasn’t sure why the subcommittee took some things out of this one and isn’t sure what the edits will accomplish. Nan said when a word such as “consider” is used as opposed to shall or will in the plan, it makes it substantially weaker. The words used in the plan will set the tone for what the town wants to accomplish. Steve Caine said that this plan will be a recommendation to the Town Board and that the choice of words the committee uses in the plan will convey the importance of how the committee feels about these goals. Nan said when the final plan is adopted and the wording the in the plan is “the Town shall do…”, they know they “shall” do whatever it says. Dave Adams commented that he feels he doesn’t have enough depth of understanding of some of these things that he could tell the Town Board that “you shall do this”. He thinks what we should be doing is say something like a review committee shall be established to review these documents and make recommendations to the Town Board as to their implementation. Nan said a plan that gives direction will be easier for the Town Board to implement. If the plan gives direction and it is adopted, everyone will know what the future changes and direction will be. If you say “consider”, when the plan is adopted what that will mean that you will have to go back and do the planning again. By using weaker words you are delaying the public controversy and discussion to another time. Nan feels the town is better off to have those discussions and make the decisions so that the plan is as directed as it can be. Nan gave the example of the Town of Galway whose plan was written in a way that it gave a bunch of ideas without specific direction, and now they have to go back and re-write the zoning and have the same discussions again. Their plan wasn’t specific enough.
9.1.7: Local road construction projects on new locations, or upgrades to existing roads should be designed to avoid historic or environmental resources. This may mean avoiding disturbance of specific sites and structures in the historic districts or other areas where the presence of the road is disturbing to the historic land use and development pattern. The subcommittee stated that this is already required by New York State to make sure road construction is designed to avoid historic or environmental resources. Nan isn’t sure that means local roads.
9.2.2: Rural road standards for new highways could be modified to provide adequate paved shoulders as part of the typical required cross section. Nan said the subcommittees comment to this was rural roads are no longer rural and apparent once shoulders are paved. Nan agrees and thinks if there is a specific route or location that the town wants bikes and bike paths, that it be allowed. She doesn’t think every rural road should have paved shoulders, but there might be location that is an important route where a lot of people bike and the town could work to help in that area with new roads having paved shoulders.
9.2.4: Consider requiring new subdivisions in the Hamlet to have sidewalks on at least one side of the road. The subcommittee felt that this would be expensive and there would be no provision for expansion yet. Nan didn’t understand what the subcommittee meant by no provision for expansion yet. Nan said it needs to be decided if the people want sidewalks in the existing Hamlet or any new sections of the Hamlet. Steve Caine said that it was discussed previously having a potential area where the Hamlet could expand and if that happened, there could be sidewalks. Deborah Herrin asked if the areas where the Hamlet could expanded would be a part of the official map. Nan said the infrastructure for the Hamlet would be on the official map but the Hamlet expansion would be in the zoning. Dave Adams asked what is meant by new roads accessing residences. Does that mean within a development? Nan said yes, in a development. Dave said the way the streets are constructed now in the more dense residential areas in town, without sidewalks, doesn’t present a problem. Nan said the community must decide whether they want to plan for sidewalks in the Hamlet.
9.2.5: Explore the desire and need for a pedestrian system of sidewalks and paths along Charlton Road in the Historic District and in any newly designed hamlet. Explore funding methods and consider a phased approach to implement priority sidewalks in certain locations. Nan said this is along the same lines at 9.2.4.
9.2.6 & 9.2.7 Decreasing speeds and the detrimental effects of traffic on rural roads by retaining their existing features that tend to slow traffic speeds. Institute traffic access management and traffic calming for new development. Nan agreed that these two could be included as part of 9.2.1. The subcommittee said to either move these to objective #1 or they are already included in objective #1.
9.2.8: As local roads are updated and resurfaced, transition them to 20’ paved road widths with additional area clearly delineated for biker and walkers. Also consider places where development of a separate bike/walk path would be feasible during road reconstruction. The subcommittee stated that it’s already 20’. Nan said 20’ is good. The issue is to find safe ways for bikers and walkers to be on the road. These things need to be considered in our road standards. The subcommittee stated that bike paths are preferred. Old railroad beds and power lines have potential for bike paths.
Goal 10: Transportation assistance is available for senior citizens and those with special needs.
Nan said the subcommittees didn’t have any comments about this one.
Goal 11: Town government is effective, responsive, and innovative.
The subcommittee felt that some of these were costly and time consuming. Nan doesn’t feel these need any explanations from her. 11.1.2: Consider having the Town Board do an annual written report to the citizens that summarizes a years worth of efforts or work accomplished. Nan said she isn’t talking about an expensive report, but a informal typed summary of what was accomplished during the year and she doesn’t feel it’s time consuming or costly and can be taken from the minutes of the Town Board. Nan feels any way that can inform the people what the town government is doing is good.
11.1.3: Hold an annual Town Meeting, widely advertised and open to the public. This is a way for the Town Board to annually do a SWOT and keep policies, plans, and programs up to date. The subcommittee said that people with agendas set the tone and invite conflict. Nan said that’s what a community meeting is about and that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it. She disagrees with some of the reasons why these were rejected. She feels that open government and debate, if it occurs, is healthy.
11.2: Increase the effectiveness of the local government officials and boards. 11.2.4: The Planning Board and ZBA should be required to prepare an annual report to the Town Board on issues, problems, administrative needs related to the zoning, site plan and subdivision laws and the Town Board should annually make changes to these local laws as recommended by the planning Board or ZBA so that these documents are useful and up to date. The subcommittee said the master plan will override the need for this. Nan thinks her recommendation is an important recommendation, and that the master plan does not directly provide annual reports. Typically the Planning Board does its work and they know what the problems are and what is needed and the tools they have that don’t work. By going to the Town Board once a year and telling them the issues they are facing and ask the Board to work on them, is a way to keep the problems from escalating over time. The same holds for the ZBA. Nan said this isn’t an overwhelming task. The Planning Board would jot items down over the course of the year and once a year sit with the Town Board and discuss them.
11.2.6: Consider purchasing a computer for use by the Planning Board to use the GIS maps during project review and to track project review activities. Nan said the Planning Board is the group that looks at maps and parcels and needs this data. As part of this comprehensive plan, Nan has created all the maps and data that is needed. All the GIS data is free and the information could be used by every one in the town. Marv said a new technology committee was working on this issue.
Steve said the next Goal regarding farmland protection and active farms being economically viable is substantial. He doesn’t believe the committee could get through it all this evening. It was agreed to do it at the next meeting.
John Kelly, the Charlton webmaster, is going to be building the voting system for the committee free of charge. Nan will be sending him the cryptic strategies and when completed, members will vote from their computers. Those who don’t have computers will be given a hard copy.
The next will be July 5, 2005, location to be determined.
|
|
|