Town of Otsego

Comprehensive Planning Committee Meeting Minutes

Monday, July 17, 2006

The meeting commenced at 7:15pm. Those in attendance were Tom Breiten, Town Supervisor; Anne Geddes-Atwell, Town Board Member; Jonathan Bass, Planning Board Chairman; Paul Lord, Planning Board Member and Anita Weber, Planning Committee Member.

The Committee members commenced discussion on the materials consultant, Nan Stolzenburg sent entitled, Land Use Recommendations to Implement Goals along with maps of proposed zoning districts (seven in all).

One committee member questioned whether the use of the “Transect” zoning was the best approach for the Town. This led to discussion among members as to the reasons why the areas of densest development area surrounded by the areas of least development benefits the Town in several ways. One of which would be to preserve open space. There would also be an economic benefit to the Town when it comes to providing public services. Another benefit of this ‘bulls-eye’ concept would be that it promotes the concept of neighborhoods and community identity.

Concern was expressed by the committee over the idea that the Lake Shore was recommended to be designated as an area of densest development. Several factors were mentioned by members as to why this may not be a good plan for the Town. Reasons included the potential for soil erosion and runoff, septic problems, removal of vegetation and congestion.

It was generally agreed upon that the use of overlays would be a useful tool in guiding growth and development. Several overlays that the Committee wants to add to those already mentioned in Nan’s recommendations were:

Historic overlays, specifically Glimmerglass and Fly Creek areas;

Soil overlays;

Wetland proximity overlays, with the possibility of acquifer/recharge overlay;

Wildlife/Habitat overlays, information can be gathered from OCCA’s Natural Resource Inventory and Bird Atlas, 2000.

A viewshed overlay would be initiated, but committee felt a final draft may take up to 6 months.

The committee added several changes to the section on De-Emphasize Use of Minimum Lot Size as follows:

Do away with section about 1 acre density and minimum lot size. The committee felt it was not in the best interests of the Town to reduce lots to ½ or even 1 acre.

Tom Breiten mentioned that the 2 main goals central to the discussion on subdivision regulations were both

whether residential values are being protected and whether residential values are being preserved for the long term. In order to achieve these goals, the committee recommends maintaining the idea of average density and leaving the minimum lot size at 5 acres to allow for a reasonable amount of clustering.

One question the committee asks of Nan is whether it is possible to determine how many acres there are in the R1 district/ Hamlets and what that build out might be.

For the R1 district, the committee suggest maintaining a 5 acre density without a ½ acre minimum.

In general, members were in agreement for incorporating the idea of conservation subdivisions into the new land use regulations. A 2 acre minimum housing lot size was recommended with this approach allowing for clustered housing and a large percentage of open space.

Developers using the conservation subdivision method on larger parcels would follow Town guidelines as well as a 4 step approach:

1. Identify all potential conservation areas including all lands that are unbuildable and require protection.

2. Locate the individual housing sites allowing for each unit to have a view of the preserved open space.

3. Design Street Alignments and Open space trails by which each housing unit will be connected. Streets are to be designed in such a way that they connect to future developable properties.

4. Draw lot lines.

Preliminary discussion was initiated on the idea of funding the maintenance of open space areas in a conservation subdivision. Committee members agreed in concept to a separate escrow fund managed by either the Town or a Land Trust entity. Creation of the funds can happen when the developer obtains density bonuses that allow for the additional monies to be set aside for the fund. Only the interest is used from that fund to maintain open space and trails. This idea will be explored in more depth by finding out about other conservation subdivisions currently in existence.

The recommendations by the committee for setting residential densities for zoning districts were:

Lake Shore density at 1 dwelling per 10 acres with a 3 acre minimum lot size;

RA density at 1 dwelling per 10 acres with a 5 acre minimum lot size.

Another question came up for Nan pertaining to the Hamlet Residential district and whether the densities recommended take into consideration municipal water and sewer facilities? And was it possible for the RA district to have a more restrictive overlay.

Other requirements that the committee deemed important were to have developers prove well and septic capacity. The Town may consider deep hole septic system in poor soils or buildable lots may not be allowed in shallow soils that are 12 inches or less. Fill will not be acceptable to raise the grade more than 1 foot.

One committee member expressed an interest about the Pierstown community and how new land use regulations would affect them.

Tom Breiten said he’d be contacting Kathy Daniels at the New York Planning Federation to see if she could assist the Town in writing the new land use subdivision regulations.

The meeting adjourned at 8:30pm.

Next meeting will be on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 at 7pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Anita Weber