|
|
|
|
|
|
DRAFT MINUTES, Public Hearing to hear input on proposed Local Law #2 of the Year 2005, A Local Law Reducing the Membership on the Planning Board from Seven to Five to take effect upon the next Two Expirations of Member Terms, held at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 at the Town Hall.
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Councilman Grattidge Councilman Lippiello Councilman Mitchell Councilman Verola
The legal notice appeared in The Daily Gazette on Saturday, December 17, 2005.
The meeting was called to order by Councilman Grattidge. The Town Clerk read the legal notice. Town Attorney Robert Van Vranken read the proposed local law.
Councilman Grattidge stated that the Town received four letters regarding the proposed local law. He read into the minutes the following letter from Eileen Stone.
December 27, 2005 To: Charlton Town Board From: Eileen Stone Re: December 27, 2005 Public Hearing Regarding the Proposed Reduction to Charlton Planning Board Members from Seven to Five Dear Charlton Town Board, Thank you for holding a public hearing regarding the proposed reduction of the membership size of the Charlton Planning Board from 7 members to 5 members. I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting in person due to my travel schedule. However, I would like to take the opportunity to provide you with my concerns regarding your proposal to reduce the membership size of the current Planning Board. I understand that due to recent resignation of two current Planning Board members; Steve Caine and Deborah Herrin, the town board is obligated to fill these vacancies since existing Charlton’s town laws designate the Planning Board to be composed of 7 members. However, in order not to fill these 2 vacancies the town board would have to establish a new local law establishing a 5 member Planning Board. At the December 12th Board Meeting, the town board explained in one sentence its rationale for reducing the Planning Board from 7 to 5 members. To summarize, the town board said a 5 member Planning Board will be more efficient and the Chair of the Planning Board supports this change. Where is the efficiency gain? I do not see it. The 7 member Planning Board is efficient in reviewing, processing and decision-making. A 7 member Planning Board is not unwieldy and large. As a resident of Charlton very interested in the well being of this town and one who regularly attends Planning Board meetings, I strongly feel it is not in the best interest of the Town of Charlton nor in the best interest of the Planning Board to reduce its membership size to 5 people. Reducing the Planning Board membership will only make the work of the Planning Board members more challenging. Based on my attendance to Planning Board meetings and speaking with Planning Board members, I have witnessed the current 7 member Charlton Planning Board working extremely hard and efficiently to review, process and make decisions regarding a rising number of subdivision applications. We all know the Planning Board’s workload has increased significantly over the last two years. This is evident for example in the 7 new homes that have been constructed or are under construction on Lakehill/Stage Rd over the last year and a half and Planning Board meetings that can run from 7:00 pm to midnight. The Planning Board is having to address more complex subdivision issues as developers are proposing an increasing number of multi-lot subdivisions of 3 or more houses. Also the Planning Board is reviewing a proposed 23 housing subdivision on Swaggertown Road. The Planning Board is dealing with increasing encroachment on wetlands, modified/raised septic systems, trying to think about preserving open space, extremely long proposed 500-600 foot driveways, placement of driveways and safety of children waiting for the school bus with ever increasing cars on the road. By reducing the Planning Board to 5 members you will do the following; Ø Eliminate the opportunity for 2 Charlton residents to participate and contribute in Planning Board decisions; Ø Impose ever increasing workload on a smaller number of Planning Board members, this would actually increase workload and stress for existing members; Ø Eliminate the brainpower and creative decision making of 2 people that could help the Planning Board with ever increasing complex development issues. If the Town Board truly wants to help the Planning Board, take the time to talk to each of the current Planning Board members (including the two members that recently resigned) and ask them what they need to make the Planning Board function at a higher level. You might hear from Planning Board members that they need more “planning board tools and training” to support them in their review, process and decision-making in the face of increasing and more complex subdivision applications. You might hear they need more specific zoning regulations in Charlton to better address the location and size of proposed housing developments, length of driveways and conserving open space and beautiful views in Charlton. Please take the time to talk with these hard working people. They selflessly volunteer their time to benefit us all in Charlton. I encourage you to keep the Planning Board at 7 members and to seek 2 new Charlton residents to fill the vacated Planning Board seats. There is no benefit to the town by experimenting with a 5 member Planning Board. Respectfully Yours, Eileen Stone 724 Charlton Road
Councilman Grattidge read a letter from Larry Benton, Director of the Saratoga County Planning Board. Larry stated that, “Town Law Section 271 allows towns the option of establishing its Planning Board at either five or seven members. The issue of quorums was the basis of the County Planning Board’s strong advocacy of the alternate member’s provision which was added to Section 271. A town today, with a five member board and two alternates, has the same overall number of members as a constituted seven member board but has the advantage of only needing three of the seven members to conduct business. The County Planning Board doesn’t advocate one board size over another, as there is no standard answer regarding which is “best”. Each town is unique and should make its decision based on local input and a consensus on what will work most effectively in their community.”
Councilman Grattidge read a letter from Ray Black, Planning Board Chairman. Ray stated there are three considerations: Representation of the Town, Conduct of Planning Board Business and Membership Turnover.
Representation of the Town – A seven-member board increases Town representation. All major districts can be represented by five members and this number seems to work well on the ZBA. I see no distinct difference from this perspective for the Planning Board.
Conduct of Planning Board Business – Ensuring a quorum is present for meetings is not likely to change provided the availability of alternate members remains unchanged. Increased numbers generally increase ideas. On the contrary, more points of view can lead to chaotic discussions which become difficult to focus. Fewer members may improve efficiency.
Membership “Turnover” – Assuming members of a seven-member board serve seven year terms versus five year terms for a five-member board, sourcing requirements for new members remains the same, one per year. A five-year commitment versus a seven year commitment may be more attractive thereby easing the ability to attract new members. On the contrary, it has been my experience that a one to two year learning curve is required on the Planning Board. Assuming a two-year learning curve, a five member board will house three experienced members versus five on a seven-member board. It is not clear how this experience factor will affect Planning Board deliberations.
Ray states, “ I do not anticipate a negative impact of a membership reduction and, in fact, do anticipate a potential increase in efficiency. However, lacking experience with fewer than seven members leaves a question in my mind. Therefore, I support the reduction from seven to six members for 2006 and suggest that a review of the situation be conducted late in the year prior to a future reduction to a five-member board.”
Steve Caine – 763 Charlton Road – Said he had no intention of ever resigning from the Planning Board nor did he send in a letter of resignation. He said his term was up December 31, 2005. Steve read the following letter into the minutes.
Public Hearing Comments on Reducing the Planning Board from Seven Members Dec 27, 2005
Steven Caine 763 Charlton Road, Charlton
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I have had the privilege to serve the community for a term as a member of the Planning Board. My stake in this issue and for commenting tonight is that I believe it would be in the best interest of the Town and its citizens to maintain the Planning Board at seven primary members. From reading the Dec 12 minutes I see that the reasoning behind this proposal is the belief that, and I Quote: “five persons would be able to work through cases and paperwork more efficiently than a seven person board. (It goes on to say.) Councilman Grattidge received a good response from the Chairman of the Planning Board.”
I’d quickly note, I wish the entire Planning Board was given the opportunity to provide you a position on this matter, not just our excellent Chairman in letter he drafted himself at the request of the Town Board. It is most common for Chairman Black to seek the views of the entire Planning Board on serious matters like this. Many of the members have a vast level of experience –more than Chairman Black and myself -- and I am sure could have provided some insightful comments.
Although it is always good to seek “enhanced efficiencies,” I believe when doing so; it is wise to consider all of the organizational factors at play into the output of a group. An equal if not more important factor is the quality of the work accomplished, and in the case of the Planning Board, this must be considered in the context of a significantly increasing workload.
As you know, during the past year or so the number of cases the Planning Board had to process significantly increased. Arguably, an estimate would be twice the number of cases we used to do. Additionally, we are now facing increasingly more challenging cases as road frontages are filling up and applicants are trying to process more complex subdivisions. We have on several occasions worked a bit past midnight – “had two day meetings.” That said, I believe, and I think others on the board would agree, that the efficiency of the Planning Board has improved substantially as has the quality of its work during this period of increased work. If you were able to isolate each case recently processed and compare it to a past similar case, most would agree, recent ones are handled in a much more efficient manner. And, I think others would agree, that the depth of understanding within the board of planning principles and options and the quality of the dialogue and cooperation to resolve complex issues are continually improving.
What I am saying is, that as the workload of the Planning Board has been going up so has the efficiency of the process, and so has the quality of its work. The increase in total time required to process all the recent work is a byproduct of the increased number and complexity of cases that are presented, not an unreasonable length of time that’s required to process each individual case. Nor is it cause by inefficiencies caused by too many board members. If you reduced the number of Board members, it is my considered judgment, that in itself it would not attain meaningful improvements in the output of the group, quite the contrary.
Although a goal to improve efficiency is admirable, I submit, that if you change a well thought out law and reduce the Planning Board from seven, the risk of reducing the quality of the board’s work is significantly greater than the potential benefits of increased efficiencies, and in the end, keeping the board at seven is better for the town.
I need to describe what I think quality and efficiency are in this discussion, what measures I have seen taken to improve them, and then lastly, as one who has been on the inside of the Planning Board process, make some points as to the consequences of how reducing the board’s size would hurt. Quality: As I see it, quality in the case of the Planning Board, is doing the best possible job of ensuring the health, safety and general welfare of the applicant and the community at large are preserved, and town zoning laws are observed while being as fair, open and helpful to an applicant as possible. This process should be free of political influence and grounded on the law and fact-based, logical conclusions that have been derived from objectively evaluating all relevant issues and perspectives concerning the case.
Efficiency: As I see it, efficiency is a supporting element of quality. Efficiency in my mind, is maintaining the highest desired level of quality with minimum expenditure of resources – time, money, people, equipment, supplies etc. The end we seek is not to get through a process as rapidly as possible, like a Planning Board meeting, but rather, to thoroughly analyze a subdivision application and make well-reasoned, quality decisions as smoothly and accurately as possible, in the shortest possible time.
Under what I consider to be the excellent leadership of Ray Black and the hard work of others, I believe the Planning Board has made significant strides in both of these areas. First, with the support of the Town Board, Sue York was hired. She has done a magnificent job in helping new applicants understand the process, and work through the maze of bureaucratic steps required. Her record keeping, correspondence and information distribution have all helped the efficiency and quality of Planning Board processes. She has even streamlined some of the processes and created new ones that enhance the flow of information and increase the knowledge and understanding of both applicants and board members, alike. The entire Planning Board has been exposed to increased levels of training from the state planning association, county and local experts. Our very professional engineer and lawyer have a done a superb job of training the board, systemizing and regularizing their inputs and in ensuring board members understand the engineering and legal framework within which it must conduct its business.
Why do I see reducing the size of the Planning Board an unnecessary risk to the quality of its work, and in the end, disadvantageous for the town?
- Reducing the group size likely will reduce the depth and breadth of the collective Planning Board knowledge and experience base and the understanding of the issues involved when decisions for the town are being made during a meeting. It is reasonable to expect “Primary” board members to be more current than “Alternates” on issues and planning concepts because of recurrent training and exposure. With a smaller board, “Primary Board member” absences may increase the likelihood that “Alternates” will more often make up a bigger percentage of the board when decisions are being made. Like any group of volunteers, some are very busy and do not have as much time as others to prepare for meetings. By maintaining a seven person board, there is a greater chance some members have had adequate preparation time for meetings, and the chance for more thoughtful dialogue and accurate decisions increases. - Reducing the number of good brains trying to work an issue reduces the possibilities of a member coming up with a breakthrough idea that resolves a challenging issue. It seems more and more often, as the number of subdivision applications increase, and more significantly, as the nature of the subdivisions increase in complexity, that the final decisions and course of action have been determined by the board conducting an exploratory discussion from which the issues are bounded, then narrowed, until someone, because of the exchange, comes up with the idea that best meets the requirements of the town and the desires of the applicant. The smaller you make the board the harder and less likely it will be to consistently formulate the best solution to complex planning issues. - Reducing the size of the Planning Board will make it more difficult and reduce the likelihood that townspeople feel the composition of the Planning Board somewhat represents the demographics and geographic interests of the town. All the current members of the Planning Board are excellent choices and good people with impeccable character and substantial capabilities. There is no question about that. However, all six current members reside north of Charlton Road. Four of them are large land owners and farm. The two others live on Peaceable Street on substantial properties. - The more Charlton citizens that are on the Planning Board or had Planning Board experience, the better it is for the town. A major issue in our town is growth and how it is managed. The more citizens that participate in community planning and the more they communicate with others, the more likely Charlton is to grow the way the majority of the townspeople want it to.
You have a great team on the Planning Board and the quality and efficiency of the group’s work improves daily. These volunteers are carrying an increasingly heavy load. Each of them is lifting about all you can reasonably ask of them. Please seriously consider not reducing their numbers and threatening the quality of the work they can reasonably produce. Thank you for your time and consideration.
John Tasse – 431 Sweetman Road – John made the following comments:
John Tasse’s Comments on the Charlton Local Law to Reduce Planning Board Members from 7 to 5, at the Public Hearing, 12/27/05.
As a former member of the planning board for 12 years, I would like to make the following comments and observations on this plan.
Maggie Schmidt, Chairman of ZBA – 1326 Sacandaga Road – Regarding a quorum, we have never had a problem. She does not feel that would be an issue with the Planning Board, especially if you have two alternates. If the alternates attend training sessions and are prepared as other members are, they would be on a learning curve and should have an understanding of what the issues are. Regarding three members making a decision, if they are prepared, three members can make a good decision based on the information given to them. Experience with the ZBA shows that it works.
Chris Mitchell, Planning Board Member – 389 Sweetman Road – Feels we should stay with a seven member board for their opinions. The Planning Board has been talking about breaking up into groups for subdivisions that need more attention. He believes ensuring a quorum during the summer could be a problem with vacations, etc.
Councilman Grattidge stated that it is easier to make a quorum with a five-member board because you need three instead of four.
Chris Mitchell – Handling larger subdivisions would be easier with more people to delegate.
After everyone had the opportunity to speak who wished, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Gail Hanchar Town Clerk
|
|
|
| |