The Comprehensive Planning Committee of the Town of Otsego held a public meeting on the 20th day of June, 2007 at the Town Building, Fly Creek, NY at 7:00 PM


Members of the Committee:

Tom Breiten

AlvinWalker

Jonathan Bass (not present)

Paul Lord

Anita Weber (not present)

Bill Kitchen

John Phillips (not present)

Jim Ainslie (not present)

Anne Geddes-Atwell


Paul Lord called the meeting to order. He explained that this is the second of a series of meetings. The purpose of this meeting is to solicit input from residents regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan.


Lord explained that the proposed Comprehensive Plan has three parts. A vision statement, a set of goals and strategies. The vision statement is meant to set the stage for the Town’s future direction. The statement is based on public input through workshops, focus groups, and surveys. The first 9 goals out of 14 goals were taken out of the current Town’s Master Plan. Public input confirmed the 1987 goals were still valid to meet the long-range needs of the community. Five additional goals were added to meet the desired future conditions in the Town. Strategies listed in the document are only recommendations as to how to achieve the goals.


Lord opened the floor for comments:


Paul Poulos of Wiley Town asked what, in your estimation, are the substantial changes are in this vision plan as opposed to the Master Plan that the Town is currently using.


Lord explained that the point of a Comprehensive Plan is to set out a basic road map for the Town Board to follow in trying to address each of the goals mentioned in the plan. There is a lot of work still to be done. The Comprehensive Plan is only the first step.


Rochelle Semel of Wiley Town asked was there a previous vision plan or set of goals or is this all new? What, if any, of those previous goals were accomplished in the past? Can you give some idea what is going to happen in the future?


Lord explained that the Town currently has a Master Plan that was adopted back in 1987 and that has a vision statement and a set of 9 goals which are all reiterated in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Some of the goals are open ended. You can look to the existing law and see how some of them have been addressed in the existing law. For example, the Master Plan suggests the Town seek co-operation from other Towns within the county. There have been various instances where the Town has worked very closely with neighboring towns.


Carl Wenner of Oaksville said he thinks the proposal is garbage. No number of people in a survey or otherwise, should be used as an excuse to take away land owners rights or any other rights for that matter. Just because the number people in the Village out-number those that live in the country. It’s called “Tyranney of the Majority”. Basically you are saying “We vote and you don’t have the right to do what you want with your property any more.” Wenner has a serious issue with anyone on the Town Board that votes for this plan. What percentage of the population is needed to take the rights away from another person? He wants freedom to do what everybody in this country has been able to do have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Wenner wants the right to do what he needs to do for the benefit of his family on his property. If somebody doesn’t like that they can try to buy the property. You are trying to take away the rights of land owners by a simple majority. Supporting this plan is Un-American and Un-Constitutional.


Bill Kitchen explained that what the committee has done is interpret the desires, wants and needs of the vast majority of people in this town.


Wenner argued that it isn’t right that if enough people get together they can take away his right to use his property. That is in direct conflict of the Constitution


Jim Murry of State Highway 205 stated that last year at a public meeting introducing the idea of Conservation Subdivisions an example given that of 180 acres, 90 acres would immediately be removed and not allowed to be built upon.


Lord replied that that was a separate proposal: not part of the Comprehensive Plan. Not part of it now and not likely to be a part of it any time in the future.


Murry went on to state that currently if someone had 180 acres under the current law, with the 3 acre minimum, they would be allow 60 plots and under the conservation subdivision proposal that same person with 180 acres would only be allowed 18. Right now we have 3 acre zoning. What is the committee going to recommend for a minimum acreage?


Lord answered there are mentioned a number of specific strategies that talk to development. Clustering and Conservation Subdivision would be encouraged but optional.


Murry stated that he came from Long Island on the north shore. There was 2 and 4 acre zoning. Homes had to be screened by trees so that when you looked from the harbor to the hills all you saw were trees.

The point being 3 or 5 acre minimum is not bad as long as you keep all the trees.


Town Supervisor Tom Breiten stated that there are tax incentives in this town for people that have open space and wood lots. The State offers a farm land exemption and woodlot exemptions.


Michaels pointed out that when referring to the Conservation Subdivision, only once is it referred to as optional. He felt that whenever conservation subdivision is mentioned in the proposal it should also mention that it is optional. Michaels felt “view sheds” need to be defined. He also commented that he was not in favor of creating neighborhoods as Adrian Kuzminski suggested at the last public meeting. Michaels felt that creating more hamlets further diversifies and makes the Town more compartmentalized. He felt it doesn’t bring communities together as a whole. Michaels said the existing hamlet should be expanded upon.


Ester Nelson of Wiley Town stated that she sympathizes with Carl Wenner and understands why he doesn’t want his property rights taken away but feels neighboring residents need protection too. She encouraged the committee, as well as the Town Board, to increase the minimum set backs required for buildings in RA-1 and RA-2. The 30 ft. minimum will alter the sense of a rural neighborhood. She suggested a 90-100ft. set back.


Bill Michaels stated that he would like the Short Term Rental Law that was proposed a few years ago and never adopted be re-introduced. There were only two controversial points, owner occupied and resident requirement.


Lord read correspondence from Vivian and Peter Clark who appreciate everyone’s efforts on the Comprehensive Planning Committee. The following issues they think still need attention:


Jim Murry asked how much of the current Master Plan is carried over into the proposed Comprehensive Plan.


Lord stated that the first 9 strategies and part of the vision statement are the same in both documents.


Murry suggested that it might be nice if wording that already exists in the current Master Plan was in italics so people could see what already exists and what is being introduced.


Paul Poulos referred to the first goal mentioned in the proposed plan “Protect property values and maintain reasonable tax rates.” If your property is assessed more, your taxes are more.


Breiten stated that the Town of Otsego has the lowest tax rate in the County. The way it works is peoples tax assessment goes up, the tax base then also goes up. Assuming the Towns budget stays the same as the year before the tax rate per thousand will go down and taxes then will stay the same.


MOTION by Anne Geddes-Atwell, seconded by Paul Lord to schedule a Public Hearing for July 9th, 2007 at 7:00 PM at the Town Building in Fly Creek.


MOTION CARRIED: All members of the Comprehensive Planning Committee present voted aye.


Lord thanked everyone for their comments.


Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM.



Respectfully submitted,


Pamela Deane

Town Clerk