COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

STEERING COMMITTEE

MINUTES

March 6, 2006

Present:  Rick Smith, Dave Wood, Al LaRue, Gary Vanderhorst, Dawn Szurek, Sally Ellms, Dean Durst, Doug Flynn, Maria McCulloch, Jim Leupold, Lynda Battenhausen, Marv Schorr, Dot Mitchell, Guy Mitchell.

Meeting was called to order by Dave Wood at 7:10 P.M.   Dave reminded the committee about the meeting regarding open space on March 22^nd in Easton. 

A motion was made by Marv Schorr to approve the minutes with edits from the February meeting, seconded by Doug Flynn.  Motion carried.

At last months meeting Dot Mitchell had raised many good ideas regarding the preservation of the historic buildings and sites.  She wrote them up and gave them to Dave.  They were inserted in the Goals, Objectives and Strategies under Goal 1, Objective 1.3.  Gary Vanderhorst said he thought he saw rural vistas and scenic views were put back into the Goals.  His recollection was that this topic was to be in the section for future consideration the next time the Comprehensive Plan is updated.  After some discussion, it was discovered that it was not in the current Goals, but in the original Goals that are set aside for future consideration and not intended for inclusion into the final Plan. 

Dave Wood said one of the things he thinks the committee should do is to merge like items together to make it easier to follow.  He also wanted to comment on the items that Dave Adams put together and emailed to everyone.  The main point of Dave’s comments was that PUD’s are good and he believes that the conservation subdivision principle is good.   One change Dave inadvertently omitted from the PUD wording was in the mixed/commercial uses, the commercial uses shall be limited to those listed in the Special Use Permit section of the Zoning Ordinance.  He stated that by doing this there is no blank check for any type of commercial use a developer wants to propose.  Marv agreed.  Marv said another comment Dave made was not to have the conservation subdivisions as mandatory unless there is public water available.  Where there is no public water available it would be optional and up to the builder.  Dean Durst stated that without public water it won’t be NYS Health Dept. regulations.  He said you have to have two acre, two hundred foot minimum lots without public water, otherwise you can’t put a well and a septic on the same lot and maintain the separation.  Marv said the thinking behind Dave’s comments is that the survey very strongly indicated a desire on the part of the population for preserving open space.  With two acre lots you won’t be able to do this which is why Dave is now in favor of some form of conservation subdivisions.  There was more discussion on conservation subdivisions and Dean Durst stated he believes the qualifier for any conservation subdivision has to be availability of public water.  If water is not available then you have to go to two acre, two hundred foot frontage.  Lynda Battenhausen referred to Dave’s comment that states “I recommend keeping the PUD concept, even if we move conservation/clustering provisions to a separate place”.  Marv said Dave’s idea was to put conservation subdivisions in a PUD concept, meaning you could have mixed use.  Talking with Larry Benton, Dave came to the conclusion that Larry favors separating the two.  Dave is neutral on that but stated that if the conservation subdivision is separated we should have another section in the Zoning Ordinance and include conservation subdivisions in PUD’s.  Currently there is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance for a PUD or conservation subdivisions.  After much discussion about subdivisions, wells, and water, Dave Wood stated that some towns require that a well be drilled before the lot is developed.  Dave Adams is in favor of idea and that a well be drilled before issuing a building permit.  Marv said the committee may want to consider what Sam Gowen recommended, which was to consider the draw down of the water table by wells on lots next to each other.  For example, if you have ten wells and they are all running at the same time, will you lose water?  The people who are already there may have wells that work, and then you put in two, to five more houses and everyone is pumping water, the people who had water originally may now find themselves without water.  Sam suggested if you have a situation where you’re putting in multiple houses where there is already existing houses, the town requires well tests on adjacent lots to make sure the existing homes won’t lose the water they had.  Dave Adams also suggested adopting Dot Mitchell’s recommendations regarding the historic preservation, which Dave Wood already included in the Goals, Objectives and Strategies. 

Dave Wood talked about the tax abatement program in Clifton Park, which is, the longer you keep your land open, the greater the tax abatement.  The incentive is that the landowner sticks with the preservation for the period of time promised; otherwise they would have to pay back the tax abatement with penalty.  This is basically the way the Ag assessment currently works in the town.  Marv Schorr stated that one suggestion he heard someone make is to offer a tax incentive to those people who lease their land to farmers.  Dave Wood stated that currently, if a farmer rents someone’s land, that landowner gets to take Ag valuation only on the portion that is rented.  Another consideration would be to give the same benefit to the non-farm landowner as the farmer gets.  The farmer gets a tax benefit on their woodland and support land.  If the non-farm landowner received the same benefits, this could ensure that the land would stay farmland.  The difference of the tax affect to the people in the town would be minimal.  There could also be a conservation tax abatement program that would benefit the landowner who doesn’t lease his land to farmers, but doesn’t want to develop the land either.  That could also help to preserve open space.  Marv Schorr stated if this type of program was going to be recommended for Charlton, a study would have to be done to show the affect on the overall tax base and taxes. 

Another item is that with the current law, the farm tax exemption does not apply to the fire district.  Farmers are not exempt on their buildings and believe in paying their fair share, but, farmers believe it’s unfair to be paying the fire tax, the library, and other special district taxes on the open space they own.  The Town of Saratoga does not charge the fire tax to open land.  That is another idea the town could consider. 

Marv doesn’t believe the committee should get into the details of something like this, but can recommend to the town they consider these things.  Marv stated there aren’t a lot of possibilities for preserving open space in Charlton.  The town doesn’t want to own land, but the conservation subdivisions and tax abatement plans are two concepts for preserving open space.  Dean believes that the conservation tax abatement for individual parcels is the best idea.  There was considerable discussion on conservation subdivisions, and open space, trails, etc.