|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STEERING COMMITTEE MINUTES
June 6, 2005
Present: Nan Stolzenburg, Rick Smith, Jenna Smith, Gary Vanderhorst, Sally Ellms, Steve Caine, Dean Durst, Jim Leupold, Lynda Battenhausen, Midge Dube, Marv Schorr, Dot Mitchell, Guy Mitchell. Steve went over a checklist for considering objectives and strategies as a reminder for the group to consider when making their decisions to either accept or reject strategies. The checklist is as follows: 1. Have you reviewed the Vision Statement, survey results and Goals before making judgments? 2. Do you understand the terminology? 3. Have you talked to others that have a different perspective than you? 4. Have you checked out our section of the website to get further background on the subject? 5. How great an effort do you think the proposal will have on achieving the objective and goal? Can you do without it, or is it essential? 6. Is this the only objective or strategy that can achieve the objective or are there others? How critical is the strategy to achieving the objective and goal? 7. Have you thought about, not only the immediate consequence of accepting or rejecting a proposed strategy, but also what might happen after several years, and even how the second order consequence might cause additional changes in the future? In other words, have you not only thought about the initial consequence but also the second and third order of consequences of your decision might be? 8. Have you weighed your individual interests against the interest of the rest of Charlton citizens, and struck a balance you feel right about? 9. Do you like the general concept of a proposed strategy or objective, but feel it must be modified to be acceptable? How would it be written for you to believe it is acceptable? 10. Can you list pros and cons for selecting or rejecting or modifying a proposed strategy? Which outweighs which? 11. Others…
Before asking Nan to begin, Steve wanted to correct a statement made at last weeks meeting that the majority of the townspeople were against using town money to preserve open space. Steve looked at question #11 on the survey which said “would you be in favor of pursuing the following should funding be required”? The different possible answers for each listed were – percent no, percent yes using grant money, percent yes using existing town funds, percent yes even if it requires additional taxes. The response to the question was 9% said no to using town money. Twenty-nine percent said yes, even using grant money. Forty-two percent said yes using existing town/county money. This ranks second behind number one, which was protecting working farms and farmlands, and number three was build a new town hall. Twenty-one percent said yes, even if it required additional taxes. This ranked second behind one under additional taxes, protect sensitive environmental sites. It was ahead of number three, which was protecting working farms and farmland. When you are protecting working farms and farmland and sensitive environment sites, you are normally protecting open space as a by-product. Most of those voting haven’t had the opportunity to learn that many times it is smarter for citizens to pay a smaller increase of taxes in the short run to preserve open space, so that in the long run they don’t have to pay an even greater amount of taxes if open land is developed. Jim Leupold asked that if people were willing to pay money toward open land, would it will stay in perpetuity. Nan said that’s the way it’s supposed to work, but no one knows if it’s been tested for generations. If it’s a permanent easement, it should be permanently protected. Goal 4:Open spaces exist to protect the environment, provide recreational benefits and to maintain the unique character of the town. 4.1: Create a map that shows open spaces. Nan said over time you would look at this map and identify the critical open spaces in the town that might want to target various programs. Rather than arbitrarily pick a piece of land and say you want it for open space, we should have criteria so everyone knows what open space in Charlton is. The same holds true for visual resources. You need to know what they are and where they are. The subcommittee potentially rejected this strategy because they felt that the GIS will show open space as it exists now. Otherwise they felt that it would impede homeowner’s rights. Nan said this is simply a tool to identify open spaces in Charlton and give an idea of where they are so over time you can apply a variety of programs. Nan said you can’t protect open space if you don’t know what and where it is. The second strategy of 4.1 was to identify and conserve a green infrastructure that includes a network of open, natural areas to create trail corridors and greenways between public open spaces to provide recreational and educational benefits. The subcommittee had the same concerns. Nan thought that maybe the subcommittee felt that this was like an eminent domain; that once these places were identified, the town would go in and take that land for park land. That’s not what Nan meant. To clarify, Nan said it’s when opportunities arise through funding or voluntary action by landowners. If a piece of private land could be a good link between a park and another area, the town could provide funding, or the landowner could be willing to work with the town to set the piece aside as a trail or link to join important green spaces together. Nan recognizes the concerns of the committee to not impede on landowners right, but these things would not take place unless the landowner was willing to participate in some form. Steve said he believes the parcels that the townspeople believe are most valuable need to be identified so if money is available to preserve them, priorities have been established.
4.2.7 Work with and encourage landowners to grant and maintain trail easements across their properties. The subcommittee felt this should be left to clubs, otherwise felt it was intrusive. Nan said if there are clubs that are doing this and can help meet these goals that’s great. Dean Durst said he believes what a lot of landowners worry about is the liability issue. Nan said NYS has addressed the liability issue for those who open their land for recreational use. She feels with some research we would find a lot of information on how to deal with the issue and protect landowners. NY Conservation Association is a group who help communities locate trails and greenways, fund them, and set up a mechanism for these issues to be dealt with. Nan said rather than object the strategy, maybe it needs to be recognized that landowner liability is an issue and should be researched and taken care of before something can happen. Guy Mitchell said he believes landowners are afraid of going to court because it costs money to prove your innocence. Nan sees the function of the comprehensive plan as offering the town long term options and ideas that the town can take advantage of, and knowing the pros and cons of them. Steve Caine told the committee that trails was one of the high items the townspeople would like to have. Gary Vanderhorst said most people don’t know what the problems are in implementing things such as trails and/or parks. Steve said his opinion is that if 80%-90% of the people want trails, then the committee should address it and the people should know in the end why it can’t be done if it’s not feasible. Gary said that he allows the Charlton Snowmobile Club to ride the length of his property and he gets a certificate of insurance for a six month period, but stated that if he leaves the certificate of insurance open for longer than six months, anyone is then entitled to be on the trail. Midge Dube said that the locale of the people who answered the survey stating they would like trails needs to be looked at. Steve said if there are things in the survey that the townspeople want and these things have issues, instead of immediately rejecting the idea, the issues should be studied to see if there is a way to handle the issue and if there’s not, then it can’t be done. Marv Schorr never thought of the plan in the respect that there may be things the people want that may have problems associated with them. Nan said one of the things the committee will eventually have to decide when writing up the plan is whether they want to use words like, “consider, think about, study, require, the town will”, etc. Some words may be politically correct, but on the practical side, a plan that is written in a way that states explicitly the things that need to happen in the first year, and give direction and are specific, is a plan that has a better chance of being implemented over time. It was noted that specific language doesn’t necessarily mean you are trying to force some issue down people’s throat. Describing a process of fact gathering and decision making can be very specific and direct yet still call for judgments to be made after all the facts are known.
4.2.8 Inform landowners about the values, benefits and opportunities of preservation and provide technical assistance, preservation incentives and keep landowners informed of preservation programs. The subcommittee said, “see other strategies”. Nan said she thinks the subcommittee meant that this was already addressed in other places.
4.2.9 Create a Critical Environmental Area under SEQRA. The town would need to identify those areas they consider a critical environmental area. The subcommittee stated that this was too subjective. Nan strongly disagrees and said this is an environmental tool. The process that is set up through SEQRA is not subjective. A critical environmental area (CEA) has boundaries that are drawn around a specific resource. All a critical environmental area does is red flag the Planning Board and the ZBA that there is something critical there and that the environmental review should be done very carefully. A CEA says that the community has identified a certain area as being critical and the reasons are specified. When SEQRA is done there is a question that asks if the area is in or adjacent to a CEA. Nan said that up to 1995-1996, a CEA forced it to be a Type I action through SEQRA which meant doing the long form. The law has been changed. A CEA is not a Type I action anymore. Steve asked what criteria the town would use for critical. Nan said it depends on the resource. It could be something critical to water supplies, rare habitat, etc. Marv Schorr stated that before 1995 the county told the towns in the county that they wanted to put together a list of CEA’s in each town. Charlton chose not to put anything on the list because the town was concerned that this automatically made any action in the area a Class I SEQRA action. It hasn’t been revisited since. Steve said the number one thing in the survey that the townspeople wanted to spend tax money on was protection of sensitive areas.
4.2.10 Ensure that Ag and Markets laws are followed for notice of intent, etc. The subcommittee said existing laws already exist. Nan’s question was, is the Planning Board and the ZBA paying attention to the law. She stated that most Planning Boards don’t know what the Ag and Markets laws are for the ag district. This law is to protect farmers and it’s the obligation of the Planning Board to ensure there is no negative impact on farming. Nan said the Ag and Markets law is not a Right to Farm law. When an action comes before the Planning Board that is within 500’ of an ag district, the Planning Board has to do “note of intent” and make sure that their action doesn’t negatively impact farming in that ag district. Nan said the Right to Farm law is stating that if you’re in the ag district and doing acceptable agricultural practices, you won’t be stopped. The notice of intent and letting other landowners know and evaluate whether a non-farm use is going to impact a farm use, is the Ag and Markets law. Ag and Markets relates to non-ag uses and their potential negative impact on farming. During the focus groups with the farmers a major issue for them was the affect of non-farmers on continuing farm practices and a good portion of the town is in an ag district.
At this point, Jim Leupold stated while he feels these discussions are good, the committee is using up Nan’s time going over and validating the strategies that everyone agrees on. His suggestion is to send the committee back to look at the Goals, and unless there is something that stands out to be very critical and an explanation from Nan is needed, to move on. Steve said he feels it’s important to hear all that Nan has to say and others on the committee agreed. 4.2.15 Utilize large lot zoning. 4.2.16 De-emphasize minimum lot size. Nan said this should be one or the other. The subcommittee rejected #15, large lot zoning. Nan said large lot zoning uses up all the land and it also forces people to buy large lots which often times isn’t affordable. This does not do a good job of meeting any of the Goals. Nan said this is an option that a lot of communities do, but it is not a preferred technique. She agrees with the subcommittee to reject this one. Nan said #16 is a better, and the subcommittee liked it. When lot sizes are separated from density, you give yourself the opportunity to do creative site design.
4.2.17 Utilize performance zoning. This was discussed at the previous week’s meeting when discussing impervious surface ratio and open space ratio. The subcommittee stated that these are burdensome to administer. Nan doesn’t see it as burdensome. She stated that in our current zoning we already have minimum lot size, minimum frontage, lot occupancy total, etc. It would simply be another line item in the zoning that would state what the open space ratio is. Nan said performance zoning specifically applies to an impervious surface ratio and open space ratio. Performance zoning is very common in commercial development. It is not a soil-based performance standard.
4.2.19 Create open space overlay district. Nan wasn’t sure, but thought that the subcommittee felt that it was impinging on people’s rights. Nan explained an overlay district. As an example, she said let’s look at our ag zone and for example, keep everything in our zoning the way we have it. She suggested looking at our ag zone and keep everything in our zoning that we currently have. If we have an open space overlay district in the ag zone, you would draw a line around them and then they would become an overlay district. In the open space overlay you wouldn’t change the density that is in the zoning, but because it’s in the overlay district and we want to protect open space, we would, as an example, require major subdivisions to be done as a conservation subdivision design. There could also be a performance standard in the overlay district. For example, stating that every subdivision has to be designed to preserve 50% of the parcel as open space. Overlay zones are usually always used for some environmental protection.
Goal 5: The Town promotes activities that enhance community pride and citizen involvement. The subcommittee offered some rewording. Nan didn’t disagree with anything the subcommittee said on this Goal. Nan had a comment on 5.11 which was participate in the Arbor Day Foundations’ Tree City USA program. The subcommittee stated they would like to modify it. Guy Mitchell said the idea was to get someone in the community to put before the community what activities are going on. Guy said Charlton has similar things going on and the community gets notification, but he feels the town could do a better job of promoting the programs they already have.
Goal 6: All community facilities and programs are readily accessible and open to all residents. Nan felt the comments the subcommittee made to all of these were fine.
Goal 7: The Hamlet serves as a primary focus for Town government, cultural and economic activities. 7.1 Delineate a hamlet zoning district that includes the current historic district boundaries and other adjacent, more dense and built-up areas and include some lands for future growth around it. The subcommittee said they needed further explanation. Nan said other than the Historic District, the town may not have sufficient dedicated zoning or an identified zoning boundary around the Hamlet. The way that the zoning works with the R, R/A, and A zoning, is that over time it will make no distinction with the Hamlet. The only distinction, other than “use” we have is the boundary in the Historic District. Nan said one of the things the townspeople like the most about Charlton is the character of the Hamlet. As time goes by, except for the Historic District block, as the town builds out it will all be developed in the same way. We need to identify the Hamlet area. Nan suggests instead of drawing a line around the current Hamlet, allow for room to grow. She said to identify the Hamlet, add some ag land around it and then allow it to grow up as a Hamlet. Nan felt one of the most troubling aspects of the zoning is that we have very little distinction from one area to another which could be a recipe for uniformity throughout town. She feels we will lose the character of Charlton if we allow it to be uniform. Nan doesn’t feel our current zoning will preserve Charlton in the future unless we have a Hamlet Zone. Gary Vanderhorst couldn’t remember what the subcommittee said about Hamlet growth. Steve reminded him that the subcommittee thought the Hamlet should be allowed to grow, but that there should only be one Hamlet in the town.
Steve recapped a discussion from the last meeting. The decision was made by a vote to continue the education process through all the strategies. A voting system would then be set up on the Town website that only the committee would have access to. John Kelly is doing this for us free of charge. The committee members would vote to accept, reject, or discuss the strategy further. This will be done without going back into the subcommittees. Steve said initially we talked about having the cryptic description of the strategy, then what the subcommittee thought about it, and then a yes or no. He asked the committee if they felt there was value to having what the subcommittee initially thought on each strategy. A lot of the committee have stated that they feel differently now about certain strategies after hearing Nan’s point of view. Lynda Battenhausen thought it might be more confusing. Guy Mitchell didn’t feel it would be of value because things are being modified as the strategies are thought through. Jim Leupold said he thinks what is important is the fact that a lot of committee members aren’t present for the benefit of the discussions and Nan’s expertise. Steve said he believes that after listening to the rationale of the strategies, people are developing an understanding that they may not have had when they went into the subcommittees. He questioned if members aren’t fully educated on this, are they being as fair to the town and being honest with what the charter is. Steve said that if someone isn’t familiar about a particular topic because they weren’t able to make all the meetings and have the benefit of the discussions, maybe they shouldn’t vote on that particular topic. Guy Mitchell stated that just because someone wasn’t at a meeting to hear certain discussions doesn’t mean they don’t have an opinion about the topic. He said them would have to be their private decision. Nan said a column can be added on the voting page that says “abstain”. The page can have “yes, no, more discussion and abstain.” Steve said he understands everyone has other responsibilities and conflicts, and this is not intended to make anyone who couldn’t be at all the meetings feel guilty. It’s just that many have commented that once they understood Nan’s rationale they change their mind. So, those that haven’t had the opportunity to get the full perspective on a topic should have the opportunity, in all fairness to themselves and the town, not to vote. Marv Schorr stated that he video taped the last two meetings and no one called to borrow the tapes. Dean Durst agrees with Steve and feels that if someone feels they aren’t up to par with a certain topic because they weren’t able to be in on the discussion, they should have the option to abstain if they wish. The committee agreed to have an “abstain” line in the voting process. It was made clear that this system would be secret ballot and no one would know how people voted, or if they abstained. Steve then described several options the committee might consider. Steve said Dave Adams suggested having a key percentage of 75% during the voting. Option #1 is, if 75% of the votes are yes, the committee would accept the strategy. However, even if 75% say yes and someone strongly disagrees and states his or her reasons why they disagree, then there can be more discussion and it can be voted upon again, if the majority are willing to open up the topic for further discussion and a vote. If 75% say no, it would be the same process as above. Option #2 is, have no percentage parameters during the voting, tabulate the results and discuss what seems logical. Dean Durst feels having the 75%-25% is a good idea. Marv Schorr said the idea of having the 75/25 is to eliminate further discussion on those and move on to the ones that need more debate. Anything that doesn’t come into the 75/25 will be discussed. In other words, if a vote is 60/40 it will be discussed. Everyone feels doing this percentage will save time. Anything that isn’t eliminated with the 75/25 will be discussed and voted upon at the meetings. Steve asked for a show of hands to accept or reject Option #1. It was a unanimous vote to accept Option #1 for the voting process. Nan said she will take the strategy without the explanations and put it on the website for voting. She asked the group if she should put up the original strategy or use the modified strategy that the subcommittee had. Marv Schorr said he thinks the voting should be on the original strategy. Everyone is aware of the questions that were raised by the subcommittees, agreements and disagreements, and everyone has the benefit of Nan’s explanations. Nan said we have to trust that everyone has read the subcommittee’s comments, read her comments, read the minutes and are up to speed.
The next meeting will be Thursday, June 16th, at the one room school house on Maple Avenue. Chris has a conflict on that date but will supply the tape recorder.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
|
|
|