Town of Otsego
Comprehensive Planning Committee Minutes
August 3, 2006
The Committee meeting commenced about 8:10pm. Those in attendance were Tom Breiten, Town Supervisor; Anne Geddes-Atwell, Town Board Member; Paul Lord, Planning Board Member, Merck Walker, Bill Kitchen and Anita Weber, Planning Committee Members.
Discussion began reviewing a draft of a conservation subdivision law submitted to the Committee by Nan Stolzenburg. Paul Lord expressed concern that some property owners would take advantage of the Town’s current law where they can submit for just a single lot subdivision and not have to indicate the complete plan where future subdivisions would occur as in the case of a conservation subdivision. Single lot splits could disrupt the layout of a conservation subdivision. Committee discussed the requirement of the sketch plan provided by the applicants being a way around this and allowing the property owner or developer to come forward with the best possible plan in subdividing the plat. It was recommended that a checklist be available for the sketch plan to assist those considering subdivisions. This would ensure that applicants were informed and prepared prior to meeting with the Planning Board. Currently, the Town Site Plan Review mentions in detail the necessary requirements that could be incorporated into the conservation subdivision sketch plan as read to the Committee by Paul Lord.
Tom Breiten used an example of a 100 acre parcel was used to show that if it was divided into five 20 acre parcels and someone wanted to subdivide the 20 acre into two 10 acre parcels, conservation subdivision regulations could still be met using the primary and secondary conservation rules. It was mentioned that densities would determine when a subdivision plan is complete.
Tom Breiten felt the two important goals to achieve for sound subdivision regulations are to preserve property values of the property owners and to preserve the investment value for those wanting to subdivide.
Questions from Committee members about the necessity of subdivision fees. Tom indicated that subdivision fees are not meant to be a burden to taxpayers, but they help defray the costs the Town incurs with applicant filing and bookkeeping duties. There is a constant rate increase each year and with home building and land reassessments this helps the Town stay ahead of costs.
One Committee member felt that some property owners misrepresent their real intentions when it comes to subdividing land parcels because the 1st lot spit is inexpensive. At another point in time an owner may come back to apply for a minor subdivision and still later on come again before the Planning Board for a major subdivision, just to put off the fees involved. A way to change this was suggested by having the same fee for all subdivisions. This would also allow the Planning Board to be neutral for all applications by not trying to press the applicant to a commitment they may not be willing to make. Although conservation subdivisions regulations do encourage a complete plan for subdivisions even though the owner is not intending to pursue this all at once.
There was some discussion among members about the long hours the Planning Board members put into the meetings and whether or not there was a benefit to offering an annual stipend for their time. In this case, Board members might be required to take courses to keep them informed of issues that may arise.
Paul Lord and Merck Walker agreed to work on the language of the Fill Requirement for the new subdivision law.
Some discussion took place on the open space found in a conservation subdivision pertaining to the various options of how it can be managed. It was mostly agreed that an HOA (Homeowners Association) would be effective as it has been in other areas of the Town.
Corrections that were recommended for the subdivision conservation draft legislation were:
Page 5, 24 m; should read as follows, “Topography, the contour lines of which shall be at two-foot intervals at the construction site by 50’ and at 10’ intervals elsewhere.
A general large scale map of 10’ is fine for areas in general, but can be 5’ or less in built out areas.
Page 7, 5 3. …” with no side yard less than 10 feet” and no change with setbacks and yard restrictions.
Page 7; there was discussion about the setback between agricultural and residential uses
within the subdivision, but decision was made to keep the 200’ and say … “if practical, but a minimum of 100’ if not.
Page 9; 3.2 change wording from Commissioner of Public Works to Highway Superintendent
Page 10; 7 change Landscapes to Landscape common areas…
Committee recommended definitions for the following:
Page 3 A; Sketch Layout and Sketch Plan
Page 3, Sect. 108-23B design layout
Page 3 Sect 108-23B-1 diagrammatic basis
Page 7, 3.5 ; Fee simple ownership
Page 9, 7.4; Terminal vistas
Page 9 9.5; Reverse curves
Page 9 9.5; Horizontal curve radii
Page 9 11.6: Single loaded streets
The Committee meeting was adjourned at 10pm.
The next Comprehensive Planning Committee meeting will continue work on the draft of the Comprehensive Plan. The date of the next meeting is Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 7pm in the Town Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Anita Weber