VILLAGE OF ALTAMONT
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
October 16, 2007
Mayor James M. Gaughan E. Guy Roemer, Attorney
Trustee William F. Aylward Jean La Crosse, Clerk
Trustee Kerry Dineen Members of Planning and Zoning Boards
Trustee Christine Marshall Approximately 10 guests
Trustee Dean Whalen
Mayor Gaughan opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.
For the purposes of these minutes, Trustee Dean Whalen has graciously agreed to allow the following summary to be recorded into Board Minutes for the October 16, 2007 workshop meeting.
Village of Altamont
Proposed Zoning Local Law #5
Synopsis of Review of Issues and “Leanings” by the Village Board
October 16, 2007 Board Workshop Meeting
The meeting was opened by the clarification that this was an opportunity for the public to hear the Board discuss openly the key issues identified during the initial public hearing process, but that, at this point they were requested to remain as an audience at this time to allow an expeditious dialog between Board members . The Mayor clarified that the public hearing process is still open however and that the findings/direction of this meeting will be made available to the public prior to the next Board meeting to allow the public an opportunity to absorb this an bring farther comments to the continued public Hearing to be held on November 6th.
The mayor identified the key issues as: 1)The potential restrictiveness of the proposed Historic Overlay District (HOD); 2) Concern over the appropriateness of the proposed R10M and R20M districts, which allow multifamily housing types within; 3) Clarification/potential misunderstandings of the proposed Planned Unit Development District (PUD) currently designated as “Fair” zone; 4) Process going forward, including addressing any other items identified by other Board members and the typos/corrections previously submitted.
1) Historic Overlay District (HOD)
Thoughts: Trustee Aylward questioned as to intent of the section and whether the Committee had any research or reference on the financial impacts of such a district as noted in some comments by the public. He farther commented that the Board must be cautious that the document “serves the public, not impose on the public”. The trustees continued the dialogs to whether the section, as written, was therefore too restrictive in general or at least in specific paragraphs/requirements.
One suggestion, made by Trustee Dineen was that there is merit in guidelines or requirements within a historic area, but these are too restrictive, specifically to existing homes, and perhaps it might be appropriate to limit regulations like these only to new structures (residences or commercial on vacant property or rebuilding after a fire) and additions only.
Trustee Whalen indicated that was an intriguing idea that should be pursued farther.
Trustee Marshall noted that given the level of comment, it might still be an option just to strike the section entirely.
Leanings: The section, as written is inappropriate as too restrictive given public and Board comments. The Board is leaning toward softening the section to be perhaps only a guideline or only having requirements for new construction, not maintenance, however there is still a feeling that removing the section in its entirety should be taken.
2) Zoning Changes to create new R20M and R10M districts (the R20M from a portion of a current R20, the R10M from a portion of a current R15)
Thoughts: The primary concern, as expressed by a couple of public comments, was whether the change to allow multiple-family in these two areas was appropriate and consistent with the nature of the established neighborhood. One comment felt it could devalue the land and one pointed out those current owners didn’t expect at the time of purchase that this might change. Trustee Whalen indicated this was done to address a tenet of the Comp. Plan to continue the tradition in the village of a variety of housing types/price range and to reinforce the subdivision clustering concepts of the Subdivision Law. Trustee Dineen noted that having walked around recently on this issue, she felt there was, surprisingly as she hadn’t looked into before, a very good number of apartments, duplexes and town homes along
with the traditional single-family.
Leanings: The Board is leaning toward eliminating the “M” designation in both (but that the R10 would stay as R10 for that area, not return to R15). It should be noted that in doing that, the zoning charts starting on page 25 should therefore be closely looked at to determine if adjustments to the R10 and R20 districts should be made.
3) Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Thoughts: Although there wasn’t much public comment on this section, Trustee Whalen indicated that the Committee was remiss in not clarifying farther the intent of this section in a Purpose Statement, which was one of the earlier written comments received. This may have lead to mis-understanding this section.
Leanings: The Board, through the village planner, will prepare a Purpose Statement which will clarify the intent that the Village is creating this district only as a protective measure on the outside chance the Fair operates differently then current policy or undesirably, dissolves.
4) Additional Items
Thoughts: As noted, the previously received written comments on typos and corrections to grammar are already being processed by the planner to run parallel with the decisions necessary on the above items. One other additional item was noted by trustee Whalen, based on a public comment, that the Board should consider that comment which recommended that instead of the traditional method of requiring Special Use permit for most commercial uses in any district, that they consider an alternate method, used in Colonie for example, that identifies specific allowable uses in each district with a very limited list of special uses in each district. This was suggested as perhaps a method to encourage business, which does address one of the goals identified in the Comp. Plan. However, by removing the requirement, the Village Board is concerned that Planning Board may not have input on the design, layout features, etc. of the proposed business which could result in an undesirable outcome.
This is really just a choice one way or the other, but he suggested should be considered.
Leanings: The Board is not leaning one way or another on the suggestion at this time.
5) Next Steps
As noted above, the Board has prepared this document to be published in the Village designated newspaper and made available at Village hall and the Village webpage prior to the next Village Board meeting on November 6th. In the interim, the Board continues to research and mull over the issues before it. Given the level of proposed change, a vote on this Zoning Law will now not take place any earlier then the Board’s December meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Dean Whalen, Committee Chair
The only Public Comment was given by Troy Miller when stating that 1/3 acre would be large enough for a senior housing project.
Trustee Aylward made a motion seconded by Trustee Dineen and carried to adjourn at 8.30 pm.
The Public Hearing on enacting Local Law # 5, Village Zoning Law 2007, will continue on Tuesday, November 6, 2007 at 7:45 pm in the Altamont Justice Courtroom.
Respectfully,
Jean La Crosse
Clerk
| 