COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

STEERING COMMITTEE

MINUTES

 

February 6, 2006

 

 

 

A workshop of the Comprehensive Planning Steering Committee was held this date at the Town Hall.  The meeting was held with the Town Board, the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals.  They were given copies of the Goals, Objectives and Strategies that the committee has worked on to date in the hopes of gaining input and suggestions from the other Boards.

 

Those present were Dave Wood (CPSC), Lynda Battenhausen (CPSC), Guy Mitchell (CPSC), Sally Ellms (CPSC), Chip Ellms (ZBA), Deborah Herrin (Resident), Ray Black (PB), Bruce Gardner (TB), Alan Grattidge (TB), Audrey Ketchum (ZBA), Maggie Schmidt (ZBA), Nilda Burke (ZBA), Dave Adams (CPSC), Marv Schorr (CPSC & ECC), Maria McCulloch (CPSC), Chris Nelson (Secretary CPSC & ZBA), Dave Haight (NYS Director of American Farmland Trust), Susan York (Clerk, PB), Connie Wood (PB), Mary Hadlecek, John Hadlecek (PB), Mark Hodgkins (PB), Dean Durst (CPSC), Doug Flynn (CPSC), Jay Wilkinson (PB), John Tasse (Technology Commission), Sandy Verola (TB), Jim Leupold (CPSC), Dawn Szurek (CPSC), Midge Dube (CPSC), Rick Smith (CPSC), Dot Mitchell (Resident), Eileen Stone (Resident), Laura Linder (Historical Society), Chris Mitchell (Resident). 

 

Dave Adams noted that he rewrote Strategy 1 under 1.1.  Copies were distributed. 

 

Dave Wood gave a brief overview of how the committee has worked and gotten to where they have today with the Comprehensive Plan.  It began with a town wide survey.  From the survey, and with the help of the consultant, Nan Stoltzenburg, Goals were developed for the town.  Under the Goals were Objectives that the committee wanted to accomplish and then Strategies, which are ways to meet the Goals and Objectives.  The Goals have been narrowed down from 19 to ten, although with comments and other input Dave has received in the last month, it may be condensed more.  Dave said that the survey indicated that Town residents felt the most important item was keeping the active farms and the open space.  Another item people felt strongly about was keeping the Hamlet.  Dave told the group that the County is working on a Plan for the County which is focused on the open space aspect.  The town can look at the County’s plan which may give the town ideas how to preserve the open spaces. 

 

Dave spoke with Larry Benton of the County Planning Office after the January CPSC meeting that Larry attended.  Larry said that he felt there are still too many Goals.  Larry suggests modifying the Planned Unit Development so it would be used in the larger divisions of land which could have a mixed use.  Larry also feels there is a lot of merit in clustering and conservation groupings of houses in large subdivisions.  He suggested using these tools to get the benefits we’re looking for.  He suggests requiring these alternatives be considered in the early stage of design of developments and then decide whether to continue or not before much money is spent.  Larry agrees with the planning and training tools and adequate time to train.  He suggests the committee include with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan to the Town Board, how to put the Plan into effect.  He also pointed out the benefit of a tax incentive program that Clifton Park has with their easement program.  A similar program could be put in place for Charlton’s Ag district.  There is a tax benefit granted depending on the  number of years the owner commits to keeping the land as open space or in farming and the longer the commitment, the larger the benefit.  One of the Goals talks about sharing information through the internet, Larry suggested providing that through their new system at the County level.  It is called the interactive ARC IMS.  Topo maps and aerial photos will be available to us at the county level.  Larry mentioned the experience they’ve had with the purchase of development rights at the county level.  There have been three or four successful bids for county development rights being sold.  He said the County Planning Board has spent a lot of time on this.  Currently this is not in the draft of the Charlton Comprehensive Plan but maybe there should be some discussion to see if it should go into the Plan.  Larry suggests consolidating the Plan more so that it’s easier to adopt. 

 

Deborah Herrin asked the committee to reconsider putting a requirement in the Plan for site plan review for special exceptions.  There was discussion regarding this and Nilda Burke said that the Planning Board gives an advisory opinion to the Zoning Board before the case is heard.  She said to her recollection the ZBA has never had a formal site plan review and the ZBA doesn’t get many special exception cases. 

 

Bruce Gardner asked for some background and logic for the Planned Unit Development concept.  Dave Adams stated that the character of the land in Charlton is variable and uncertain as far as the availability of water from wells and the ability of the land to handle septic systems.  Due to this fact the committee felt it wasn’t a good idea to arbitrarily allow a reduction in the current lot size of two acres.  A minimum of two acres may be needed to provide sufficient area to recharge a well and for relocating septic systems.  However, as the survey showed, there is a strong desire from residents to maintain open space.  One of the ways to do this is through cluster development.  This takes a large parcel of land and allows the developer to put the same number of houses as allowed by normal zoning, in a greater density arrangement than would be allowed by normal zoning, which leaves the remainder of the parcel open space.  This is where PUD comes in.  Without thorough evaluation it would be dangerous to allow development on less than two acre lots.  A PUD would allow for maintaining open space and, like a conservation subdivision, it can preserve environmental features and protect sensitive areas.  The developer would be able to put houses closer together.  The soil characteristics of the land to be developed would have to allow for less than two acre lots.  Studies would have to be done on the soil conditions showing that clustering would work on a particular parcel.  This expense would be born by the developer.  A mixed use development could also be considered which would have residences along with some commercial activities.  The PUD process would be set up by first going to the Town Board.  They in turn would refer it to the Planning or Zoning Boards.  They would retain final approval of the project.  Regulations would have to be developed in the Zoning Ordinance if a PUD was included in the Comprehensive Plan.  A PUD is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for a specific parcel of land.  A PUD is more likely to be used in a larger development than smaller and more likely to be used where mixed use is suggested.  Larry Benton from County Planning said the likelihood of having something like that in Charlton would be less because of our soils.

 

John Tasse said he thinks the Goals as presented are good.  He asked if the intent of the committee is to submit the plan to the Town Board?  Dave Wood said the committee is looking for input or requests of information they would like include in the draft.  Dave told John the next thing to happen will be for the committee to assemble tonight’s comments and make any necessary changes to the Goals and Strategies.  Then the consultant will write the text of the actual Plan and then it will be presented at a public information meeting(s).   After that, any changes arising out of the public meeting(s) will be made and the Plan will then finally go to the Town Board who will have to have a Public Hearing before the Plan can be adopted.  Dave told the group that the list of 10 Goals is what the committee is focusing on, but there are nine additional goals that had been considered and put aside for possible consideration in a future review to the Plan. 

 

Ray Black said he believes the first 10 Goals as shown are good.  He also stated that he believes there is a relationship between the planned development areas and the desire for public space.  He believes the hiking and walking trails are an important part of the Plan.  He asked if the Town has a plan for public spaces, public parks or interconnected lands; where it would be in the town and what the Town wants to own.  Dave Wood stated that he knows that liability seems to be an issue and that it’s being addressed so that it’s less of a risk for a municipality to own.  Alan Grattidge said that if it’s passive land, no improvements, no trails, etc., there is less liability. 

 

Nilda Burke agrees that the 10 Goals are on the right track as all the people on Boards and committees are familiar with open space, PUD’s, etc., but in presenting the Plan to the community, she believes there will be a lot of people who aren’t familiar with the concepts.  To be able to make intelligent comments at the Public Hearing, or to keep from repeating the same comments over and over again, she suggests an education portion at the beginning of the Hearing explaining some of these items. 

 

Alan Grattidge told the group that there is a meeting called “planning a future for farms in Rensselaer, Saratoga and Washington County”.  This is a one day conference about local planning and agriculture being held March 22, 2006 at the Town of Easton in Washington County.  Alan said one of the things that bothers him about clustering is that people don’t seem to get along with their neighbors as well as in the past.

 

Marv Schorr stated that the committee has been sensitive to making sure that individual property rights aren’t infringed upon.  A landowner can do whatever he wants with his land and Marv feels that to preserve open land, the town has to find a way to make it attractive for a farmer not to sell his land to a developer, but to keep it as open space. 

 

It was suggested by several people that education is necessary before presenting the Comprehensive Plan to the public.  Workshops and website links were suggested as ways to inform the public.  Dave Adams told the group that the consultant would be involved in the education process of the Comprehensive Plan as well.

 

Laura Linder asked the committee to look at the town to see if there are other areas that the town would like to have preserved historically.  There could be multiple Hamlets that could be considered for the town and she asked that the committee consider that as well.  Laura also asked if there is concern for historic preservation as part of the plan and was told that it is.  Dave Wood said it would be helpful to the committee if a summary could be written up with points to consider.  It was also asked if the committee will be addressing what to do about a historic home that needs to be demolished because the owner can’t afford to upgrade or keep it up.  It was felt that this needs to be addressed in the Plan so that historical homes don’t go by the wayside. 

 

Ray Black suggested the committee consolidate Goal 6 and 10 which has to do with safe roads and pathways.  Thinking ahead, Ray suggested bike trails be implemented.  Dave Wood said that bike trails are part of the county plan.  Ray suggested the committee define what it means to have safe walking and biking trails and put that into the plan.

 

Eileen Stone asked if there was enough money for water lines, i.e., a developer comes in and pays for the construction, is it conceivable that the water district be extended north of Charlton Road and then have one PUD after another?  She doesn’t think the town should just assume there will never be water north of Charlton Road.  Dave Wood told Eileen that one of the biggest things in the town survey was that people do not want to encourage development.  Eileen stated that the availability of water is what will bring in more development and she asked if the Comprehensive Plan can deal with a water line.  Dave said at this time it’s not in the Plan but pointed out that the feeling is to keep the Plan simple at the start.  This is not the last time the Plan will be written.  The committee would like to get a good start and get a good Plan that will allow the Town to have certain benefits that it cannot have without a Plan.  There will be another committee in five years to review and revise the Plan. 

 

Dot Mitchell suggested developing voluntary strategies for preservation of historic buildings and sites.  Also provide information and assistance for applications to the National Historic Register for historic buildings and sites.  Consider tax abatements for historic buildings if the owner agrees to obtain approval from the Historic District Commission for exterior changes.  Extend the historic district to include properties currently outside the historic district, i.e., adjacent properties to the historic district and individual historic buildings throughout the town.  Establish an advisory group of volunteer town residents with expertise in assisting the Historic District Commission as needed including but not limited to attorney, architect, building restoration.  Also enact legislation to protect the burial sites from future development by establishing a buffer zone around them.  Include a map in the Plan showing the historic areas in the town.  Offer tax abatements for farmers if they agree to keep the land as farm land for a certain number of years.  Provide tax abatements for land used by a farmer for farm land, but not owned by the farmer.  Enact legislation allowing agricultural exception on land leased for farm use for fire district tax. 

 

Maggie Schmidt felt that this is a good document.  She suggested eliminating Goal 5.  Why should you restrict it to the historic district if a PUD would allow it?  Maggie also referred to 2.2 and 3.1 where it talks about identifying wildlife areas and other areas to protect open space.  She asked who would be identifying these areas and how would that work?  Dave Adams stated that the idea was that those things would be resolved by subsequent committees to define those areas.  It was suggested that maybe it needs to be decided on how much detail should be identified.  Ray Black feels that wildlife corridors must be identified by an ad hoc committee.

 

Laura Linder told the committee that the public should be made aware that this Comprehensive Plan is a living document and that a committee will continue over time.  She also asked how much thought the town is giving to the section of Charlton’s town line that isn’t ours.  She suggests that the town be aware of what is happening in other towns around us.  We have to watch what’s going on around us so that we can maintain and continue to afford to live in Charlton. 

 

Deborah Herrin mentioned about the commercial use in town and asked if those areas are going to be recognized in the Plan.  Dean Durst said that the only place commercial businesses are precluded is in the Hamlet and that’s where the commercial businesses are. 

 

Nilda Burke said it was her understanding that we have the residential, the RA and the agricultural district.  The rules and regulations for RA and A are exactly the same.  Dave Adams said there is one specific difference; parking large commercial vehicles in driveways.  It is allowed in agriculture area because things are spaced far apart but not in the residential or the RA district.  Nilda would like to see a larger change in the ordinance to distinguish and maintain those agriculture districts to encourage them to be more open space. 

 

Maggie Schmidt stated that if definitions of districts are changed or some eliminated, she believes that eventually the town may have to look at re-districting or modifying the districts. 

 

The workshop was closed at 9:05 P.M.