No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-22 - CPC Town of Ulysses Comprehensive Plan Committee August 22, 2006 Approved with Corrections 09/26/06 Present: Heather Filiberto, David Kerness, Roxanne Marino , Sue Poelvoorde, Sue Ritter, Robert Weatherby, John Wertis Absent : Robert Brown, Darien Simon, Elizabeth Thomas, Jennifer Wapinski-Moordian, David Tyler, Debbie Watkins Ms . Poelvoorde called the meeting to order at 7 : 15 pm . She stated she is still trying to gel in her mind what they are looking to get out of the survey and develop the questions from that vs . drafting the questions and going forward. Ms . Filiberto stated as she read through the compilation of information there was a lot of information that the Comprehensive Plan would not have a lot of influence on. Ms . Poelvoorde asked what kind of things are they looking for, do they feel they should repeat a question about the value of residents place on elements in the town. This would offer a consistency from the last survey. Mr. Kerness stated he had done some work on this, when he started reading the list of possible questions his reaction was nobody is going to read this . He distributed copies he had brought of a draft of a revised survey. He stated numbers 7 , 9, and 11 are asking what is important to them-that is the purpose of the survey. Then he looked at it deeper and realized it was confusing because it was all over the board . He reviewed the information the Board chartered them to do, he realized he could take the three questions and group them together, i . e. economic base. He noticed he could do this and get a sense of what is important, he felt this is what they needed . The questions 16-36 are demographic data that is available on the Census data. He noted there should be a cross reference to the data they received, he inserted where the people live and feels it could come close to the demographic cross reference they need . The other thing is strip out 7 , 9, 11 they do not need them; 16-36 they need something simpler to replace them, the other notion he had is 2 -3 pages otherwise having taken surveys he tends to put them aside . He loved questions 5 , 12 , 13 , & 15 ; but two things struck him- isn ' t it their job to define those things, is it possible to do two surveys . If the preponderance of people is to make more farmland, then send a second survey focused on questions related to do this . If you look at questions 5 , 12 , 13 , and 15 they really are focused on items and how to solve a problem if there is a problem. He will admit on 7 , 9 , and 11 he felt the questions could be reduced, overall he thought these questions had everything they needed, to coordinate them, strip them down they could get the 2-3 pages of questions in the same format and relative importance, using checks, circles . He appreciated there was a lot of work put into the document that was graciously put together. (Copy of the draft as sent by Mr. Kerness . ) Draft Survey Comments 1 . Questions 7 , 9 and 11 are excellent and should stand as the foundation of the questionnaire . Suggest grouping the questions and subdividing as follows : Residential 1 . Relatively Unimportant 2 .Somewhat important 3 . Moderately important 4 .Very Important 5.Extremely important 6. N/A Commercial 1 .Relatively Unimportant 2 .Somewhat important 3 .Moderately important 4 .Very Important 5.Extremely important 6. N/A Environment 1 .Relatively Unimportant 2.Somewhat important 3 .Moderately important 4.Very Important 5 .Extremely important 6. N/A Public Safety & Services 1 .Relatively Unimportant 2 . Somewhat important 3 . Moderately important 4 .Very Important 5 .Extremely important 6. N/A Comprehensive Plan Meeting 2 08/22/2006 - Educational facilities/School System Private Services I .Relatively Unimportant 2.Somewhat important 3 .Moderately important 4.Very Important 5 .Extremely important 6. N/A Economic Base l .Relatively Unimportant 2 .Somewhat important 3 .Moderately important 4 .Very Important 5 .Extremely important 6. N/A - Job Opportunities • For example Job Opportunity would fall under Economic Base, Educational facilities/school system would fall under Public Safety and Services, and so on . 2. Question 16 through 36 is data for Ulysses that is already available in the 2000 Census. The questionnaire will need a question to cross reference to that data. A suggested format: Where do you live? Trumansburg Lake shore Farm Hamlet Other Owner Occupied Renter 3 . Survey needs to be a maximum of 2-3 pages . 4. Questions 5 , 12 , 13 & 15 are good questions but we may want to think about them as follow- up questions . 5. Added questions for 7, 9 and 11 : Clean lake water - Truck traffic on Route 89 - Truck traffic on Route 96 Mr. Wertis asked if they would take the headings he listed and insert questions related to the headings . Mr. Kerness stated he would, he went back to the Board charter and tried to combine them. He has no qualms on reanalyzing the breakdown. He did this because he felt the questions were too random, he is not criticizing the questions or format realizing Ms . Simon put them down from the different surveys as a draft to review. Ms . Ritter stated Ms . Simon indicated she had selected the questions she liked from the other Town ' s surveys, the members had asked her to compile this list and share it. Mr. Kerness stated he if they like the questions he would try to define so the people know what they are answering. Ms . Poelvoorde stated she noticed on some of the comments that came back on the Village survey was the whole tax issue. She wondered if they might in the introductory paragraph state they know it is number one on everyone ' s issues list. What the survey is for is to try to focus on other areas that the town can work on. In doing so , hopefully the governmental units will work towards that. Sometimes, everyone jumps on this issue and she would like to recognize this is a major issue for everyone and not have survey answers focused on taxes to every questions . This type of issue was evident in the last survey with the school taxes . Ms . Marino stated she thought this was reasonable. In reality local government has little control over the school taxes, the school tax is 80% and the only tool the government has involvement in is the assessment on the properties . She stated one potential reason she would like to see the income question left in for 2006, the information is useful when applying for grants . This actual number could be used to see if they qualify for the grants ; she felt it would be a viable tool if it would not turn people off from answering the question. Mr. Kerness stated his motivation was to reduce the format. Ms . Poelvoorde stated the last survey was 11 x 17 but the survey was not really that long. It was her belief that is why they had such a successful return on the surveys. Comprehensive Plan Meeting 3 08/22/2006 Ms . Filiberto stated they are revising the way census data is maintained; the American Community Survey is the new thing-they put out county level data this year, and she believes in 2008 the town data should be out. After that they will be updated every three years . Ms . Ritter stated she noted in the Trumansburg survey the population appears to be really well educated with higher incomes . She thought this interesting and wondered if this really is indicative or did they miss a population in the community. Mr. Kerness stated he lives on the lake and a friend of his figured it out that only two people on the lake should get the survey compared to the number of houses on the lake . There are different ways to manage a survey; he did not realize it was a mass mailing that would be done. Ms . Poelvoorde stated that is why the demographic data can be helpful in evaluating the results . That is why the short, simple format is better; people will reply to them. Ms . Marino asked what they would do if they felt they had not had responses from a specific area. Ms. Poelvoorde replied they could try to initiate focus groups for the areas they felt they were lacking in. She stated if they use the closest intersection question that would help to narrow down the geographical area they are lacking. From this they can usually tell the income level i . e . the income level for residences by the lake would be higher vs . an intersection somewhere else in the town . Mr. Wertis stated taking a look at where people live vs . their income may not be an accurate measure . He considers Searsburg Road a very diverse group . He does not see looking at intersections as a tool for measuring economic standards . Ms . Poelvoorde stated if they correlate the intersections back to the census block, if it is the lakeshore the incomes are higher, in a census block it is not a diversified group . They will not know if the diversified group answered the survey if they do not have an income and education question on the survey. Mr. Kerness stated what they should do is set the questions together, he went through the data and asked himself if they question would give him the answer he wanted. Would it be accurate, that is debatable. Ms . Marino stated the where you live question with the income range is really helpful data to have . Mr. Weatherby noted on the Village survey the response indicates the Village is getting worse. The members agreed it was not a great question as there is no response as to why. Ms . Filiberto stated she thought the topics hit the main items they would want to try to find out. Ms . Poelvoorde agreed and expressed her thanks to Mr. Kerness for drafting this . Ms . Ritter stated in driving around Ulysses she has noticed more and more really interesting and historical buildings . She wondered if that would fit into any of the categories, is there something the town could do to help preserve these buildings . Ms . Filiberto stated a question to ask is if it is important to the community. Ms . Marino stated the comprehensive plan is the guiding document for the zoning. The Town had once case where a Development District came in for approval, the criteria were pretty rigid for having it be allowed. It had to conform and reasons had to be articulated Comprehensive Plan Meeting 4 08/22/2006 reasons why this particular one was the Flo-Tech Project, the barn was the focus and it was strong using this context. So she felt it does fit into the comprehensive plan. Ms. Filiberto asked if water quality would fit under environment. Ms. Ritter stated it could probably fit under environment. Ms . Poelvoorde stated in the last survey they had a question about historic structures . Ms. Filiberto stated she had liked question one of the earlier Town of Ulysses survey, and thought when reviewing the survey this is the question they should retain as a benchmark. She felt it encompassed the topics they wanted, there are additional topics needed but as stated before it would be a good benchmark. Mr. Kerness stated he could take the old survey the Town had used and revise it; he felt he could have two or three questions that are addressing different issues as well as who is responding and achieve the results they need. He stated he would like to suggest a couple of members meet with him so they can "scrub" the document. He inquired when the next meeting would be . Mr. Wertis asked logistically why they are meeting at the library. The Town Hall has the copier, dry erase board as well as the laptop and the equipment they need. Ms . Marino stated it was a different location, the equipment could be brought here. Ms. Poelvoorde stated the next meeting would be September 26`h . They had reserved the library through September. Ms. Marino stated she liked the idea of what type of commercial development people would like to see. She hears two totally different sides of things, anything that lowers taxes vs . no big box stores they live here to avoid that type of business . She would like to get a sense of what people really want. Another area is agriculture-do they just like the green space because it is pastoral, or do you value because it is working agriculture. It would worth the time to get this information especially for land management or targeting what they could especially for conservation easements, purchasing lands, provide funds to help achieve these goals. Ms. Poelvoorde stated this would be an area people that deal in agriculture could focus on if this comes back as a high interest area. Mr. Kerness stated he would like to be outspoken but they are a bedroom community for Ithaca and Lansing. The statistics show the amount of time to get to work is indicative of this . In discussing agricultural protection he wonders if the general population thinks this is important . Ms . Ritter stated that is the question, what does agricultural mean to the people, the green space or growing corn . They need to develop a question to determine this. Ms. Filiberto commented another area of determination, is would people be willing to pay taxes to have the conservation easements, purchase of land etc . to ensure the agricultural areas stay a part of our Town. Mr. Weatherby stated in the Village survey it states green space. That term is very broad . It could be woods, a golf course, a hay field, he truly never understands . It gets a big response but he wonders what are people thinking, it may not be agricultural . Mr. Wertis stated maybe they could use the term open space with brackets undeveloped meaning unconstructed, it might be easier to assess. Ms . Marino stated this is a huge discussion and a difficult one to get a handle on. If this is an area this may be a good area for a focus group to be developed to differentiate the perspectives the town wants . Comprehensive Plan Meeting 5 08/22/2006 Ms . Poelvoorde stated it is back to the question if they value it are they willing to support it financially. Mr. Weatherby stated he did not think people should have to support it financially but understand there is going to be odors in the air and mud on the roads occasionally. You either survive in the business being a good business man or you don ' t. Ms. Ritter stated Groton ' s survey had specific questions regarding right to farming and had very pointed questions regarding farming and the industry aspects . Mr. Kerness stated doing this will make the survey 100 pages long. Ms . Marino stated they could make it simpler by breaking the questions into brackets . She has spent 100 ' s of hours at zoning meetings discussing agriculture . Mr. Weatherby stated it can be simplified by is it important, if yes a few more questions . Ms . Filiberto stated generally they just want to know if farming is important as a viable economic engine for farmers or important to have farmland as green space . If farming is important to people then it would be important for the Comprehensive Plan . Then promoting resources towards agriculture . Once they know what the major things are then they can get into more of the detail . A lengthy discussion followed regarding the other surveys , how to summarize the data from the surveys and the procedure to take from the survey on addressing high interest areas using focus groups . A discussion regarding if the survey would be sent to Village residents as well as Town residents resulted in the need to send them to the Village due to involvement in the government, taxes, etc . Making sure they can pull the geographic location was determined to be a viable term in evaluating the date Town vs . Village via different colored surveys, etc . The question was broached regarding who would pull the statistical data from the surveys, it was mentioned the Cornell group had provided pricing for this survey. They would review the survey and correct it to get the information the survey is being used for. The desire is to keep it simple to get a good response, yet they want to get the information they need. Mr. Kerness, Mr. Wertis, Ms . Filiberto agreed to meet to compile the next draft of the survey using the format for preparation at the next meeting . They will contact Ms . Simon to involve her in the next step of this process as she started the initial draft and would appreciate her assistance . The funds have been provided for a professional to assist the committee with the comprehensive plan . The idea of instead of having a planner, pay the members a specific amount for tasks they take on. There are planners on the committee, it was discussed as they determine the funds available and as they are used i . e . if they use the Cornell Group to do the survey, tabulation, results it may be an option . Ms. Marino stated the budget year is coming up for review for 2007 ; it is worth thinking about what this committee may need for that budget year. She can present this information for the committee . They start discussions in October so if information could be provided by then it would be beneficial . Ms. Filiberto stated she could probably find out what amount of hours other Town ' s have used to compile Comprehensive Plans . She could provide a rough estimate of hours, it depends on how much involvement the committee wants to have the professional do . Mr. Kerness stated he had assembled a draft schedule, he noticed things that in the discussion are not on his list. Draft Schedule for CPC Plan Comprehensive Plan Meeting 6 08/22/2006 1 . Survey Draft Sept 06 2 . Sample testing of Survey Oct 06 3 . Survey Mailing Nov 06 4 . Survey Response Nov 06 5 . Survey Analysis Dec 06 - Jan 07 6 . Focus groups to address Survey Jan — March 07 7 . Out line of Comprehensive Plan Report Jan 07 8 . Committee review and critique of focus groups Feb — April 07 Solutions to survey 9 . Preliminary review with Planning Board with May — June 07 Rewrite as recommended 10 . Draft Board submission Aug 07 Critique and rewrite as recommended 11 . Second draft submission to Board Oct 07 12 . Final Report Feb 08 Ms . Marino stated there are a list of 20 some people who want to be involved in focus groups. They did not want to be involved on the committee level but would like to assist with specific focused areas . They discussed not redoing the Comprehensive Plan but revising and updating with more detail than in the current plan. The original was the baby steps now the adolescent steps need to be taken. They could use the history if necessary. Ms . Filiberto stated when evaluating the Town of Lansing ' s Comp Plan stated she was impressed with the plan- great goals, great objectives, nodal development, commercial development, then she pulled the old plan and it was almost word for word the same. Out of 40 pages there were three new goals and five new objectives and maybe four paragraphs were eliminated. It took five years for them to compile this, it was good to begin with. Ms . Poelvoorde stated she was hoping to concentrate on the areas that were weak, i . e. 1_ view sheds-define them, how to use in zoning if not defined. There were other areas that have this same problem it was her hope they could get this done during this round of work on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kerness asked why they could not make recommendations to the zoning in specific areas . Ms . Marino stated the structure of the Comprehensive Plan is the basis of the zoning ordinance. The hamlet of Jacksonville should be developed, nodal development up Route 96, more commercial development near Ithaca are probably specific enough-but it needs to be in the plan to use as a guide. Mr. Kerness asked if the Comprehensive Plan could include an economic analysis for recommendations, do they go that far to let people know if the recommendation will or won ' t cost people anything. Mr. Wertis clarified that if the plan suggests items they could then have it analyzed for cost to present to the public . Ms . Filiberto stated the county did do a fiscal analysis of their Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kerness stated he could think of a lot of items that contractors might be willing to finance if they were told they could develop a specific lot. Ms. Marino stated that is why the Comprehensive Plan is important for development. Mr. Wertis stated he had asked about the process and decision making a long time, he noted it did not show up in the minutes. He is uncomfortable with the decision making Comprehensive Plan Meeting 7 08/22/2006 process, it appears if there is no objection there is a consensus vs . an around the table vote . Ms . Poelvoorde reviewed the business of tonight ' s meeting as follows . Mr. Kerness will expand the draft with Mr. Wertis, Ms. Filiberto, and Ms. Simon revise the draft and bring them back to the group. He will attempt to get it to the members prior to the meetings. The subcommittee will meet on September 7`h, 2006. Ms. Marino needs to have members prepare expenses anticipated for the committee. Mr. Wertis stated he would like to move the meetings to the Town Hall to have equipment available. The copier is there, the books, the tools they use. Ms. Poelvoorde stated they can request the projector for the next meeting since it has been scheduled for the library. The next meeting will be at the library, it will be necessary to obtain the projector for the meeting in September. Mr. Weatherby asked Mr. Kerness if he had a particular issue with truck traffic . Mr. Kerness stated he does especially on Route 89 but has heard concern with Route 96 as well . Ms . Ritter offered this is a huge concern statewide , there are websites dedicated to discussing this problem. The trucks are using the state highways to avoid the Thruway due to the cost of the tolls . Communities are going back to the State requesting them to do something about the cost. We are especially vulnerable due to Seneca Meadows with trucks coming from Pennsylvania, New York City, New Jersey etc . The tolls are substantially higher for a truck vs . a car. Ms . Filiberto stated it was discussed in the Village survey with their using the jake brakes trying to slow down . There is nothing they can do as they are state highways . The minutes from previous meetings were reviewed and approved as noted. May 23rd, 2006 — Organizational meeting, Ms . Marino stated minutes did not need to be approved . June 27th, 2006-Mr. Wertis made a MOTION to Approve with corrections, Ms . Poelvoorde SECONDED, MINUTES APPROVED July 25th, 2006- Ms . Ritter made a MOTION to Approve with corrections, Mr. Weatherby SECONDED, MINUTES APPROVED A discussion of issues regarding a second survey for the Village, especially that this is a separate survey to gather town vs . just the village information is important . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 05 pm . Respectfully submitted, Robin Carlisle Peck Administrative Assistant 10/01 /06