Comments for Town of Washington News http://www.washingtonny.org/news News from the Town of Washington Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:11:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on Comprehensive Plan DRAFT Vision Statement – Call for Comments by eve propp http://www.washingtonny.org/news/?p=130&cpage=1#comment-42 eve propp Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:11:35 +0000 http://www.washingtonny.org/news/?p=130#comment-42 The draft vision statement is very brief but not to any EXACT point. What does HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE mean? What does CAREFULLY managed development mean? Who will be doing the managing? What is a VIBRANT business? I can think of some we might not want. Look & feel to one may be different to another. What is a STRONG relationship? I envision much confusion from this statement. The draft vision statement is very brief but not to any EXACT point. What does HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE mean? What does CAREFULLY managed development mean? Who will be doing the managing? What is a VIBRANT business? I can think of some we might not want. Look & feel to one may be different to another. What is a STRONG relationship?
I envision much confusion from this statement.

]]> Comment on Comprehensive Plan DRAFT Vision Statement – Call for Comments by mary http://www.washingtonny.org/news/?p=130&cpage=1#comment-26 mary Fri, 06 Aug 2010 15:26:54 +0000 http://www.washingtonny.org/news/?p=130#comment-26 Submitted by Howard Schuman It is inappropriate at this time to be asking for comments about your draft visioning statement, which was supposed to be the original topic of the May 22 public meeting but was never discussed in open forum. Regarding the content and wording, you are for all practical purposes asking the general public to operate in a vacuum, without any explanation by yourselves as to what you believe the statement implies. Are you suggesting by your language in the comment form that if people do not respond to it in one of the several ways that you suggested, that it signals their tacit acceptance of your draft visioning statement and there will be no "revisions to the statement as appropriate" and that there will be no future, widely advertised, public meetings, similar to the May 22 meeting in order to discuss it? The vision statement should reflect the general consensus of the community at large. Housing issues and increased business and commercial development as well as creation of additional hamlets have placed at the bottom of community priorities. The final vision statement should reflect that. Regarding the May 22 meeting, the term "diversity of housing" had been added to the previously published list of goals without prior notice being given to the public. This along with the Comprehensive Plan Committee's failure to define what they mean by the term makes it a difficult item for people to comment on effectively. Furthermore, there is a difference between what a community envisions for itself and a list of items that may be looked at at some point as part of the comprehensive plan process. It is clear that diversity of housing is not a widely held community vision. While it may be something that is looked at in some point as part of the overall process it does not belong in the vision statement. It should be removed. Howard Schuman Submitted by Howard Schuman

It is inappropriate at this time to be asking for comments about your draft visioning statement, which was supposed to be the original topic of the May 22 public meeting but was never discussed in open forum. Regarding the content and wording, you are for all practical purposes asking the general public to operate in a vacuum, without any explanation by yourselves as to what you believe the statement implies.

Are you suggesting by your language in the comment form that if people do not respond to it in one of the several ways that you suggested, that it signals their tacit acceptance of your draft visioning statement and there will be no “revisions to the statement as appropriate” and that there will be no future, widely advertised, public meetings, similar to the May 22 meeting in order to discuss it?

The vision statement should reflect the general consensus of the community at large. Housing issues and increased business and commercial development as well as creation of additional hamlets have placed at the bottom of community priorities. The final vision statement should reflect that.

Regarding the May 22 meeting, the term “diversity of housing” had been added to the previously published list of goals without prior notice being given to the public. This along with the Comprehensive Plan Committee’s failure to define what they mean by the term makes it a difficult item for people to comment on effectively.

Furthermore, there is a difference between what a community envisions for itself and a list of items that may be looked at at some point as part of the comprehensive plan process. It is clear that diversity of housing is not a widely held community vision. While it may be something that is looked at in some point as part of the overall process it does not belong in the vision statement. It should be removed.

Howard Schuman

]]> Comment on Comprehensive Plan DRAFT Vision Statement – Call for Comments by Stephen Kaye http://www.washingtonny.org/news/?p=130&cpage=1#comment-20 Stephen Kaye Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:00:42 +0000 http://www.washingtonny.org/news/?p=130#comment-20 One can not purchase land "for open space" as using public funds for an undefined purpose would not be legitimate. Since no one knows what open space is, it is useless to talk about open space in planning documents. Such vague and undefinable terms are dangerous to use. One can protect farms, forests, critical environmental areas, specific habitats or perhaps specific landscapes of historic or scenic value, but not open space. The Dutchess Land Conservancy does not own land. It can own land, but typically doesn't. It owns easements on land (Conservation Easements). Neither the ownership of land by the Conservancy nor ownership of easements affect the tax status of land for property tax purposes although the assessor may take into account the existence of easements. It is my impression that assessors in the town of Washington have not given consideration to the existence of an easement, although they are authorized to do so. It is time for the Comprehensive Planning Committee to get serious about how it proposes to deal with the land in the countryside. So far there have been vague statements about zoning, hamlets, and things that might be done to "encourage" certain uses in the countryside, but these statements are a long way from being policy formulations. Practically no data has been gathered, so most of the talk is talk in a vacuum. Without good data policy discussions are pointless. What action will be taken to gather data? What maps are on hand? What aerial photographs? What surveys will be prepared to measure what questions? Where, exactly, are the best soils for farming? Who is doing what on those soils? Where are the best landscapes? Where are the best forests? Where the best timber? Where are the most important wildlife habitats? Where are there rare and endangered species? Where are the water resources? What are the present housing densities in the various sectors of the town? What are the subsoil conditions? What is the carrying capacities of the land and soils? What is the capacity of soils for added density in areas already developed? How much water is available in the various sectors of the town? Where are the best farms? The best farmland? Without the answer to some if not most of these questions, aren't we groping in the dark? On housing, we need answers: how many dwelling units are there in the town and in the village. How many are multi-family? How many apartments are there? How many condos? How many auxilliary apartments are there? How many vacancies are there? Numbers for the town and the village are needed. What is the present capacity of the Village water and wastewater systems? What percentage is currently used at various times of the year? What is the present housing supply? What is the present rate of absorption? Without data, we plan in the dark. Let there be light. One can not purchase land “for open space” as using public funds for an undefined purpose would not be legitimate. Since no one knows what open space is, it is useless to talk about open space in planning documents. Such vague and undefinable terms are dangerous to use. One can protect farms, forests, critical environmental areas, specific habitats or perhaps specific landscapes of historic or scenic value, but not open space.

The Dutchess Land Conservancy does not own land. It can own land, but typically doesn’t. It owns easements on land (Conservation Easements). Neither the ownership of land by the Conservancy nor ownership of easements affect the tax status of land for property tax purposes although the assessor may take into account the existence of easements. It is my impression that assessors in the town of Washington have not given consideration to the existence of an easement, although they are authorized to do so.

It is time for the Comprehensive Planning Committee to get serious about how it proposes to deal with the land in the countryside. So far there have been vague statements about zoning, hamlets, and things that might be done to “encourage” certain uses in the countryside, but these statements are a long way from being policy formulations. Practically no data has been gathered, so most of the talk is talk in a vacuum. Without good data policy discussions are pointless.

What action will be taken to gather data? What maps are on hand? What aerial photographs? What surveys will be prepared to measure what questions? Where, exactly, are the best soils for farming? Who is doing what on those soils? Where are the best landscapes? Where are the best forests? Where the best timber? Where are the most important wildlife habitats? Where are there rare and endangered species? Where are the water resources? What are the present housing densities in the various sectors of the town? What are the subsoil conditions? What is the carrying capacities of the land and soils? What is the capacity of soils for added density in areas already developed? How much water is available in the various sectors of the town? Where are the best farms? The best farmland?

Without the answer to some if not most of these questions, aren’t we groping in the dark?

On housing, we need answers: how many dwelling units are there in the town and in the village. How many are multi-family? How many apartments are there? How many condos? How many auxilliary apartments are there? How many vacancies are there? Numbers for the town and the village are needed.
What is the present capacity of the Village water and wastewater systems? What percentage is currently used at various times of the year? What is the present housing supply? What is the present rate of absorption?
Without data, we plan in the dark. Let there be light.

]]>