Town of Otsego Planning Board
Minutes – November 18, 2008
A special meeting (workshop) of the Town of Otsego Planning Board was held on this date and convened approximately 7:30 PM. Members present were Paul Lord (Chairman), Donna Borgstrom (Vice-Chairman), John Phillips, Doug Greene, Joe Galati, and Steve Purcell. Town Board members Bill Michaels and Anne Geddes-Atwell, Planning Board Attorney Jim Ferrari, and Planning Board Clerk Bill Deane were also present (Deane arrived at 7:37, after completing his duties for the concurrent Zoning Board of Appeals meeting). Member Wes Ciampo and Zoning Enforcement Officer John Stucin were absent.
Lord distributed copies of the November/December 2008 issue of Talk of the Towns&Topics. The Board continued the discussion of potential Land Use Law revisions, as assigned during earlier meetings.
Lord presented his draft of potential revisions regarding tree removal and leaning trees in the lakeshore district (Section 4.04). These had been rejected again by the Town Board, and Lord asked Michaels and Geddes-Atwell what their concerns with the wording were. After discussion, Lord said he would redraft the revision based on their input and that of Attorney Ferrari.
Members discussed the potential revision regarding “extended stay facility.” The discussion had started based on a proposal submitted on August 5 by Bassett Healthcare/Templeton Foundation representative Russ Tilley, who was present at the Board’s invitation. Templeton wants to install a 24-unit complex for medical students, who would use it for three months at a time, on a 1.83-acre lot (which they do not currently own) in the GB-2 district. Tilley said each unit would be 700 to 900 square feet in area, totaling about 20,000 square feet of building space in a one- or two-story complex, and Templeton would hope to have it complete by September, 2009. He said that, since Templeton is a not-for-profit organization, the project would not add to the Town’s tax rolls. After considerable discussion, the consensus was that there was insufficient information or justification to rewrite the law to accommodate this project. Lord encouraged Tilley to continue exploring alternate ideas.
Michaels distributed a handout with his potential revisions regarding adult housing facilities. This included proposed definitions of “adult housing facility,” “active adult housing,” “adult retirement communities,” “assisted living facilities,” and “congregate care and skilled nursing facility,” each designed for people “age 50 years and older.” Deane asked why an age limit would not be necessary for a skilled nursing facility, as residents must be medically-eligible regardless of age. The consensus of the Board was to include these as special permitted uses in the RA-1, RA-2, GB-1, GB-2, and hamlet residential districts. Lord said that the “special requirements” in Section 2.02 should be made more specific, to avoid the problems the current vague language caused during the “baseball camp debacle” of several years ago. He said he would work on that, but asked the other members to think about it as well. Lord asked Borgstrom to determine where to fit the proposed additions into the Land Use Law.
Phillips discussed the definitions of “home offices/home occupations.” He commented on the contradictory language on pages 24-26 of the law. He thinks the law should allow for retail operations of products made on-site, and that the 500-square-foot maximum space be increased. Phillips will continue to work on this topic, submitting a list of proposed changes for the next meeting.
Purcell discussed “principal building per lot” in Section 3.04 on page 16 of the Land Use Law. He distributed copies of his proposed revisions to paragraphs 1 and 4 of that section. After discussion, the paragraphs were amended to read as follow:
There shall be only one principle building per lot, except that, where a sufficiently large parcel exists an additional principle building may be established, with provision the structure has an identifiable land area which satisfies the lot area, frontage, and setback requirements of the regulations of the district in which it is located. Construction of subsequent principal buildings requires site plan review.
The identifiable land area associated with each principle building shall be sufficient to provide independent water supply and sewage system in accordance with the requirements of Section 3.02, or the plat must reference a binding contractual agreement presented to the Planning Board as legal promissory of those requirements.
Lord asked the members to mull this over before it was presented to the Town Board.
Purcell said he hadn’t done much with the potential Land Use Law revision regarding the definition of “multiple family dwellings.” He wondered why the law needed to be changed, and what the definition of “transient” was. After discussion, the consensus was to put this revision aside for now.
Greene discussed the definition of “private road,” and distributed copies of the current law and his proposed changes. Greene said that he would propose to amend the street standards in the Town’s Subdivision Regulations, since new roads typically apply only to subdivisions or developments. He said that he could sketch cross-section drawings of proposed street standards, which could be reviewed by Town Engineer Wayne Bunn. Lord asked members to review Greene’s handout and be prepared to discuss it in the future.
Lord distributed a copy of his potential Land Use Law revision regarding Section 4.02, adding the following paragraph:
No construction or excavating (including that for driveways) shall be performed on any slope in excess of 15% or, in other circumstances particularly susceptible to erosion until a site plan, including…
Board members wondered if 15% was too low a standard. Lord will continue to tinker with this.
Deane distributed copies of a tentative agenda for the December 2 Planning Board meeting. He said he would e-mail a final version.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Deane
Planning Board Clerk