Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Illustrating
SMART GROWTH
'
-as
<5,-
, >>"v
: -ift
ft
!.
f 7
Attl
33!!
."v. .
" Jm? V' i j* '
: ,i?
*J
<
? v.
" J.
--MSB
B?
SEbi
m
.. v..- ""
". ,1
"i
.<
"2 -
- -
1
=1 \
. "
.
v. -:'
. >"- "
*. v r.
. v
"
_ -
iz"
_ _
r".
v.-.'.'
.
:1
. . -
:V. :
..
. -
-:
m TffiinS%5vM%%y7'Ut7?S&Bjg
=.
-j
"'K'
A;c- A\
':: A'A.^HA
AA/'vA A'-A-:-
- - >/ -- -
-.^v.v --- .
.; Av A- -.-. V
.:* '
ggg
-.; \ .
f!
5
S5S
{aF:1.
V"?
;1.!:i:s1 av
jj
Acknowledgements
This RPA report was prepared by Regional Plan
Association and our project partners, with gener
ous funding from the Orange County Planning
Department. RPA wishes to thank the Orange
County Planning Department's stafffor their
Project Staff
Village ofWashingtonville
Orange County Department of Planning
Metro-North Railroad
NYSDOT Region 8
New York State Thruway Authority
Orange County Citizens Foundation
Patrick Condon,
James Taylor Chair in Landscape and
Livable Environments, University of
British Columbia
Harry Dodson,
Principal, Dodson Associates
Peter Flinker,
Legislator
Christine Falzone, Coach USA
Art Felberman, Village ofKiryasJoel
Charlie Finnerty, Town of Monroe Planning
Board
site: www.rpa.org
~\
Contents
&@iitie Summary
Business As Usual
10
fi
Breen Infrastructure
14
BrowtSi Management
Monroe Village
4m
21
|SS ii.ic
21
ling Sxtenslon
WashlngtonvllBe
21
Riryas Joel
'5s
ihHafou
23
23
24
Conservation Suhdlvlsloits
25
Southwest Monroe
gmpBennentation fools
Regional Seal
26
Municipal Scale
27
Site Level
Reference Materials
32
Executive Summary
The towns and villages ofSoutheast
future generations.
V~
%r
mm
J
T
\.S? "a#
I
Business As Usual
h*
"Mi
is
->
V;
C, J 4 ^ %
.5 ST
ifS
k#
*' 4^
'u
Si
a
IS
vn-n
S":
"A
&S
is
'
u&sB
yxl
" V
. .
vi5Lat;K:.4f:f
4gti
fflfcL
^
--
M"
*"*u
'
i?** ^S':;f4
v:
^ A1 ' ' :S
>4
, V
'
15?
14
v -
^f. 11
JO
~ j
. "*
11|p
Ca- /
im
<f
^V
a;.
C4f "
firs? 4
I .fN
^
4ft
*- 4? ^
!*!
r:
-> rd
infrastructure.
Green Infrastructure
r
Grey Infrastructure
+
N
Growth Management
~T'yL~
vV*.
:.X;;
&
* *
' :
V i-
t-
"m
0 .
m
m
X.;!
i.y
Xl
,..iW
Ik
X
W-
'*
//
\ ).
'Jb%
y
-
t ("
"i
!
.1
A'
J V
"N
Route 208.
nity configuration,
alleviation.
The primary goals of diis study were to both demon
. ;
II
l
ma
V,
'
It is important to note that the drawings and
diagrams presented in this report are primarily
-\
SfefftSs:
PHI
TfSSSKT-Sg-TS
Hfesi
MxtotiBm
Study Area
** ' I f"
ISWwsM^^
Rr
\
"N
ijz -a^-.-. s~
' a
'' mmmz
as
P*
I|Ifcffl
vr
/Lj
ASt
;:;
i:-"^
i.
i#"
H!
"Slip-'
Village ofHarriman.
V-'
tSBSlgllSf
<4
M\
' VV^*
f'il'ViSLft I<,N1 " * /' ^
>' - '1,
t
t
if
sf
-%
Ira*-''
1
-
v.,-**.
fg
FfggpgPi
V ~
&Iv5r- ..
MM 1
K
vit-
I "
'
M-ii
S|;
'w
' ip
,It
s'
sk
Mi
Ml
y.
?=%, .
Business
s Usual
soft sites. The division across the study area and the
is in jeopardy oftransformation to
|iiff
.
:&
gp'" .
- 'i
f
low-density sprawl.
- ). I
' V.
HvsA
: :
81
W"
y * . -
;-v;y: -
>
\M
f i, i
'IibS
institutions, residential
households, or industrial
M
This region enjoys ahuge swath of
rj-, ; .. -
tit-Bill*
!S3l
JL
II
rriiiififfc
m
i
l,
a*
iitp-'i
im
jMhS
V"- :
of commercial buildings,
n/
if
!
"!. --
*
Developed land consists
eUtt
3b>
H.
r
a
T.
%
rsuV.. .
i-/LM
&
T
S
I
.
sans
Ifif
aar
tAtfljL^WLJtMlllli irgYM
i
?
%-
_i'
r&
ft
'j-
\5
;v^f*
#*:al
Oi
.-*
....
_v
' !n 1
' K->
'
<-
*
R3
si
wm
if
5;
h*
y^juh
>M
X
**%
ifi
::f-
TP
J *
#F
t.kV>
V.
'WW
w.;
ffaa.RrBti
i
r> -si
'
'
SH
MM
<t i,
?/
h ;.. ..
m
1
fa
wtefe&vse?
ri
m
v*
nn
~ .J
|5
JBSsi
tS1"
-WSSSM
Route 32.
"%s
e.
4
MM
4.
>! fv
lif
&
:W(
m
s
-y
w.
*#
f vL
f-'
.fr"""'
prjslllsj^rti
pTOwaxvwi
BSBT^TS
SI
VI
a-v
*' v
.#: __
BHhHHI
Sit^~"5
" '
m.
'
u
a
m
m
MS
<;A
r u-,;
j:
m &?
'<St. 'r.\:
4M
Z&KfiW
US!
PQV : ' *
-
ji
m.
a
'-v .
zT:
e
sr
i n
m *
Hi
mm
7i
Si
1
tfa
*s
"H -
HR
a
m
S|.
~ i
wm
wm.
ft
mswaMmsm
i
j
i$l
flooding in all municipalities by covering the region's watcrsheds with impermeable surfaces.
<
Is!
N-jg$Si -T
jr
ft
>,T
ili
-
slillSllllfil
tm
SI
/jpfeMTT
ij$l&
ft
Is
/
<
adB J '
?k
w^r\
SllUffBpSSp
''"La
gmft
re |V
Wm
rS
M
f!
JL
V.
?
J*
USES.
III
"
..
til
i#;
, mmmmmmmmmsm
r
Mif
,
'/.
i- .
aafii
sMillisSs!
if
F
r*
!>li
f
i
f
.
"
x>
our roads.
V.
-~r
-s:
" .? '
sgs.
^r
.V'-4
*
i+
I"
- 1
S- "
-~f
:ipl
llel
I ..
^
it.
5^
I '* V
JIS
- -dig
^f|i
0$%i&in
_ .*
"Wr
\
mSm'*
iflf~SE
I 3tii
"f
!
!
<-*.
*'
u'k*; -
~S
I
5,
September- 19
5^:;v;\:r:^n}nB:Ropepllon
PqyldCb.urch';; Commissioner of the Orange Count/ Planning Commission will give the opening
'
'
President
ji'o'ff
e opp ortunlly
September-20
Mint-bus tour of SEOC to get the visiting experts acquainted with the region
if:#
l'4p
Working lunch
IX^er lunch, the workshop participants will familiarize themselves with the "business as usual"
-5
Working Session #1
The primary goat of this session will be to come up with a development alternative to the "business as usual" trend that
Improves regional mobility, open space, and overall quality of ilfe, A series of maps and graphics wiH be produced that
convey the architectural build out alternative offering more connectivity In the street pattern, continuity In the open space
ibid oul that was completed by Regional Plan Association this spring. They will begin tocrifcjue the trend development pattern and brainstorm on alternatives.
system, and reinforces the existing communities and their character. Several indicators will be examined to measure the
alternative's performance against the "business as usual" trend {e.g. congestion at key intersections) to be sure that the
-I
- 3
Urban Design and regulatory recommendations will be presented to the SEOC task force Including all visuals and implemen
tation strategies developed during the workshop.
Resource Team
?
?
?
V.I
alternative.
5-7
t C*?
September-21
the "smart growth" alternative. The mast important element ot the plan
produced at this workshop is that if be Implementabte. The team will exan
ine stale of the arl zoning techniques and other elements of the planning
tod box to enabfe and encourage Implementation of the "smart growth"
8-5
Working Session #2
The goals of the second session are twofold: to continue to produce graphic
material thai depict ihe alternative generated on day one, and to deter
development.
Patrick Condon. James Taylor Chair in landscape and livable Environments at the University of British Columbia
Harry Dodson. Principal of Dodson Associates landscape Architects and Urban Planners
Peter Flinker, Principal of Dodson Associates Landscape Architects and Urban PI anners
David Kooris, Associate Planner of Regional Design at Regional Plan Association
Robert lane. Director of Regional Design
John Nolon. Professor of Law Counsel af pace IInlversity Land U:>e Law Center
Joel Rgsseji, Principal of Joel Russell Associates L and Use Low an d Planning Consultants
if
RigBM^PISnteBjelMlDB
I
;
Green Infrastructure
The most fundamental tenet of regional planning
is to listen to what the natural landscape has
to say. Cities, towns, and villages had a strong
"\
4*
III
tKS.
Still
I
lis?
tfeoflb caM
<s"*
^"TiIjiiiIITT m
fc
m.sm
V.
rRidgelines, hilltops,
1 v
yr-'i
mm-
f
:2a
y ;
V.
- /V
A%
Ks
"P"
*1
' .-j
if
M
)/:-
Sit
F *
3<
n||
JM
*2
liy
ten
<\t
life
JteF
ft
l/
-r
aprgsi
'
"V.V *
Ifelj
f/
County.
yr
kv
<
#!t
..j?*
!'
klfh Ste
jr tml
S'
Mr
IW$k
w:
S2
aJU. \
s.
$3 >
&
>
ii
-c^n
jr
iVs?' i
s, y
#
ifh;:l
Rffj
't ,
/
t.
/
*
TM
, m r
ESI
..
Si?
llsllSf
Sip8
Jtem
/ fr"
$1
pif:
a-"'
>
7x.
itfiipiis
P^:\l
$ 11
Sln
/*
/
r/i,
i?.. .^ins
SI:
:y-i
IT,;;-?
W-
#-
>> a
"^iS
I
v.
aj
*\
Grey Infrastructur
to the north, and the Town of Monroe has used
' '
"\
wss^m
; - i Ltiji"n*iiii us auHTbcilhsuhci^L
iiiVl-1.'
J "
p
4*
rJW U
jgjL jft
tWtt jjttt
vl
Mj
lljygyjgj
Mm
4&
iniw
Mm
1.3m, %Sttt
Jf
While there are very few primary northsouth routes bisecting the study area,
these are but one level of a robust road
hierarchy. The barrier to using alternative
routes is not the fact that they don't exist,
but rather the fact that they are prohibi
tively narrow or winding to accommo date
large amounts of traffic. Balance must
be emphasized between upgrading the
road network and maintaining the rural
ry-
\ w*
,T'"-
/.
\f\
l\
c J "
sf
Jf
Z-
/' /
Jt
K2,
y l
/ I
-ryy
fs r
/ ?
. //
,,y
\-
/V
\
,X
^
wX
/
V
I
/ >
{X
//
XV
*0"
1\
my
r. (1
\y^"
?
k?
/J
.ii1..^
/
/
. \
V/
nJS
/
y
L5
7.
V/r
-v
Mlrit
--j-aljajgfeH|ujc|a1rl
/Ml
I
Pf
/
/
pitted
T>
lpSr
Ik:!: fS1:
rj
fM
J
r "
%
!
fflj
Growth Management
We overlay the green and grey infrastructure systems
to identify the landscapes most appropriate for
development or preservation. Because ofa variety
offactors including ecological value and amount of
existing infrastructure, not all developable parcels are
created equal. Parcels proximate to centers have ac
A
-e-rpp:
mRP
* - !*
m
>
' 1;
, A-
inn
lliillBii'
if I i
wt>oi'Hjic.,lly*s"cn\lti\^"afras;ai'uji:^
unr
i
Ki
. hipithiig (Uv.:lqjnfiitwiih;iVrbcin.vnpi:>
llr A?
Vtllage Centers
Existing Residential
:[
pM
-iiii- Ii
Village Residential
i
Open Space
wan
Banmmwuttu
ljg
MB
j | jL*
IHIMHUII
yiiiwiiiia)
'
'
"j
'
V.
y'iSP
1 W'rift
us
ivgfjj
7k
A
* /!/
/
-X
1
!fSf
" V G a'
,1
ii
"aSsr.
&
figp
Ji
USB
J
\
ml
$sr/
MBS
f-
1$
\ f
\ "i
^Sj
i?
/ _
J-SS
ij
MSII
V
f
im
Lwii
Wr
izm
a
8 j
&
' <#Sk-a
4
'TOO. :
}/*
YTF.
MOD
UBH
established neighborhoods, we recommend formbased zoning and design guidelines to control the
massing and feel of any future development,
Conservation Subdivision
Opportunities for New Village-Scale Cen
ters
quality oflife.
ilKll
~
P
1
<-
Li
"
&
<v
' .if
&yS
agggg^
L"#:
-'.
I&
/N
saga
Wfil
*4 '
* :S:>
1 mi ii i I
K>*
/'I
</'!'
il
**s
r-
I /M't
jttfcK
"\
;VI
M-.l
nil ll li
pi
Ivf;' i!
_ ''
pv
4:
rsurrn:.ndiiigl.ieigiiu;.,hooils" l! priipotidi t
!
p
5'
." .V ;jis
-WF
up
VN>
Mk
dsssi:
'Si The best opportunity for infill is on the block bounded by Lake Street
Safe JaHKmi
"*
JJS" "
. &'%P! if
&
1
1.^
' a consolidated municipal parking deck. These buildings would have re-
.'pgV'iywt S tail on the ground floor along both Lake Street and Millpond Parkway
2p |IS
and condominiums and rental units above. As you travel north along
m
,
jti;
j\\-
IP
\y'i;
of the lakes, The properties along 17M fronting the lakes can take
much greater advantage of their views and proximity to both the
ill
mi
fe!'A?iiS80a|| i|, these locations, parking must be placed behind the buildings to
TS1
i
v.
e;
m
-a
ffli )
-\
VILLAGE EXTENSION
*"
it ti
t
"
L.
&
i
" '
it
o3;
jj
4 v
* >
%
'
IWIIIIMB
II > (it
tt^'ti
cm
>
if
TPS
w.tro.w*imu;
u t
IblH
Si
jS
't
'".''i.otfghoU ,f|ifs\cpoi
K-rr j
II
Si
.-'= L^^^i4Al;Er2r^^s8Lv.l1
loj. - _ -
V-*U
4!
I'
Bfe5
i&v
Hove c tV
*a
Rli
1V(S
mi
:k&, U>\L
/ /-
<>
tv
r../>
"
sasi
'fi
m
m Sfff.V-'.
SWvi
As
mas
- :-i
7V*
: 'I
L -1
m.
-Vs.
a
stormwatcr management:, flood protection, and p^V',^ - - -.xsyMfigs
. *
j^'W) "
2^-s
k
kg
m
v
pi
mam
. lI>. t
zm
jggjSii
S"
,*
'
ha
^
f
// s
7 y^M
^ Cv
7
i
im
I'M
mm
N
mM
Mi
VILLAGE-SCALE CENTERS
m
swr?
m
b- - f
I "V i"i
r *
VS5SP!S%'
m i
|_
1"
r
'
LSL tl
J
:t3?'
p,.".,
r^ii. *
I "&
rhn
Kit
j
!
C.
t loptti n i the i ioj
1 1 h d bi
n pit s u t lu I i pi
i ti nd ui 1 i
I
i
N \ Tc
u
I
i oi
in i il i
ci i It pm
..'.'!V~
\
I I 11 II t 1
li i
ioi it r
x r J ud J
Ik
"Li
n H
i i h tin
il i iru jo' l
i
>
II
t r
1
I
1 1 i) i i d 15
hp
il I _J i I
I
1
t iwds itashidferu essreat
a.i r
fib
h-n
hthE-stnadn USHrlcHtiaTikt
Ttln
1 c { i ol
c r
II hi
( il 1
as 1 it. 1 1
ui1'
-i:-' X
t
Hi
'Jfelfc:
f "%
f,
VHg'
J t
Mfiiifiliji
tt s
r 1 1'
ndi
iflBi
~V*
lil
igtl
i i
tti
ii ( ol
ji u
I t'vt I u'lisc
II
iiiilMSl
sv
t t in t
it
d id li i id (
( a T ftih'T
mm
|
i til
I mil iqh i ii on
tin tv I, it
Ir 'm olt
4.
mm&dM*
\ id t c nl
nij U
1 1
k'ilMifA'S
Hltl
r b
i t nd r
l
l
I It
U t| 1
I
i
' it
tide J p i
il
m
'.7^.
^ Vfi .
A'5f
V Jr
- i
mOSSL
^7^ M
,.|fe
i"
ir c
f am a p i il
AS
t tl d
U I
lot, n r
tl r
i <J ib
l
h>
to unit
"die
ipiiniLncT'T OlJ
I I
k
V
I
iWiWliii|li>nn?h'llii>Mik*ww(*iW*ft<S<rt>W
UUUI
mj
VILLAGE CENTERS
mlmi
'Kyi
"SlIlS
'Jts,
flfM
mm.
CROSSROADS
fxDevelopment in the new village-scale "\
center only takes place on the most
appropriate lands for construction. The
I'
PfP
Hi
fc^gi
S5^
ejtatjg
fiS
52
e kgi
Ol>
JSJiS
?
jS
51P
jfe jgM
PfU.,
,*Wm
&
13
fh
'M'J
m
->V i 3f
r-cxi
J
MffPy The green infrastructure is brought through the newly developed
Si|3jBH areas in the-foim ofparks and green streets in order to make linkages
||j||Sq in the larger green reserve. Residential development is organized
||pPl||| around these green spaces, adding value to each individual unit. A
fajflslll resident of this new development may begin a walk from their front
UESt
CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS
SOUTHWEST MONROE
^Several connections arc made with adjacent^
i:
&
vl1bV!cjsr'Ij^ll;e{U{ljeJi^TccjbrT^ons i,V- r
Utayiliaj hmft's I'ti'cptivc eViernalitcsps much 'is possible-^ ~~~ --* -1, "tV-, , , ,t= -"
;!
fr*"!
!3sSx:;
ofinB
1W
m
HI
l!
kin
I
m
swa
wBSm
iiii
r '
I
ts|
it*
j$ugy
The portions ofthe parcels protected from development and preserved in perpetu
ity link together to form a robust network ofopen spaces. This network includes
streams and wetlands, steep slopes, and ridgelines as well as connecting spaces to
form a complete network of trails and wildlife corridors. Where this network
K,
iT;Jr
'it! 5
SbT|^
/ft
*;
i t*i'
-
&
U
s
y> .
intersects with the developed portions of the site, it continues into public parks and
open spaces, around which the more dense development is organized.
V
Wife
fflj
Inter-Municipal Transfer of
Development Rights
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) is defined by
New York statutes as "the process by which develop
ment rights arc transferred from one lot, parcel, or
area of land in a sending district to another lot, par
cel, or area ofland in one or more receiving districts."
Local municipalities in New York State have author
ity to establish TDR program under chapter 40 of
the Laws of 1989 to protect lands and sites of special
historic, cultural, aesthetic or economic value.
.
j
.
.
{ .
't.
~rli.it
voiVvxfivt'"j')r:t-;bntTi- Vi f'hi;.r-C.bjro--T?'rr:stip
_ . - 1
' ---.1993 put foriliJegiuariqniJi'u stated tluse.ofe.gi ~ c.
" I' ~~~ """
' --"JdiirwiilhrfenfftiW
: w_L ~ -7 c _,.rth;-.-yiSprr
-ikL^dnorderuop-isei vr\tb!"-tEm;i!iitig-C:bii --Aj!
r"T
;
Si "| '"...it -1ri:-"s"r"
-rT;>fv>VK.- m'llwX.iimi-Vl'rn i.ilL;
infra-Municipal Transfer of
Development Rights
for preservation.
be reduced.
from development in perpetuity while a new mixeduse town center could be created at the Harriman
Growth Areas
ML1K
fl/Cti
;>
TO!r
>
V--7''
river
>
/nth
\
'N.
Tr
"ngt/ftoKH
SlVKiTPNWU' :
7.
'/
L
7ZZT
VEQPQTCP
>&
5V
'''
3^
IfltEY
I'M1
t Y (lii 'i
'Ji'' t"c-J
"X
'
CK2aiJtoJlknttt.Aa
iRHB
ChwttvSfwriwAw
A'-.:
,v
.-5-^
ItWEN
mUmmm&mJm
A*
VVtarlhxEtt
f\J TowihlpDousiiay
lit*
A/ Jhd.Hifpswy
A/ Riiirwd
ED
~\
conservation areas.
&M" f .
:j
gggBggggigj
I
I
i
!
"\
Preservation Areas
Conservation Easements/
resources.
Agricultural Preservation
tax roll.
mu
harmful development.
contamination.
vantage points.
i Business As Usual
Existing Conditions
is
K (// &
<t .
SS# jfej*
giMsi!
3fl
#
&r?T:
e* j
-t
Vi
-"*V
t*
# r
itli.
IS
** % 1
l .V i / * "T-
.i
.. \ '-** - .'- . ]
<
r.CV
..
_ t
..
..,.'r4::
<
Instead of four distinct subdivisions with no connectivity between one another, this example fom Northeast Blooming Grove demonstrates how the develop
ment within each parcel can be clustered away from the wedands, river corridors, and ridgelines. The resulting open spaces add up to a robust green infrastruc
ture network. The interconnected street newtork provides several ingress and egress opportunities as well as a parallel alternative to Mountain Lodge Rd.
V
J
aa
VV
K&
--.^-.vyy
r- W<r
*}
i J V*
ms
"
m
\lhi\
ft*
mi
&
5m,/
:: '4
*1
TJM
WAS
;
. , -U '
yJ .
m
1Sj
i*
i a
I'J-M
C
Through a combination ofTranfcr of Development Righrs and Conservation Subdivision Design, this example from South Blooming Grove demonstrates
how development can be shifted from ecologically and aesthetically valuable Schunemunk Mountain to the Rural Crossroads at the intersection of Clove Rd,
and Route 208. litis example also shows how individual conservation subdivisions can incrementally implement a bypass road parallel to Route 208.
The intersection oFRoute 94 and Farmingdalc Rd. presents a perfect opportunity for a new hamlet center in the Rural Crossroads II district, This example
-<
depicts one possible layout that creates a mixed-use, walkable node ringed by lower density neighborhoods and infiltrated by a robust park and open space
network. Transfer ofDevelopment Rights allows for this hamlet center to be coupled with the preservation of large swaths ofwestern Blooming Grove.
kt?
mr
fH
- ,7*
*, k * ,#
**
>
'
r**
'MziM
Is'--; ,
^81
&'
* i'F
"
JSL-,r^l
ipSf M
a ^
h
v.
""V7i?L
IHl
r
s,
'
mm
r W4 '
> <'
t .
' |i|
it
i-
Pi
III
h
, i'
3r^'
ft
ife
T
v
I
"S
k 1
it
x/
0 Organize development around the natural framework ofwetlands and stream corridors
Higher density residential uses front onto the open spaces and parkland
Bring green infrastructure through developed areas as parks and green streets in order to make linkages in the larger green reserve
0 Orient houses towards streets
yjH Create a mixed use and pedestrian friendly "Main Street" at rural crossroads
> f
m~s
Reference Materials
Regional Planning
Marriott, Paul Daniel, 1 998. Saving Historic Roads: Design and Policy Guidelines. New YorkJohn Wiley 8c Sons, Inc.
Growth Centers
American Planning Association, 20D4, Codifying New Urbanism: How to Reform Municipal Land Development Regulations. Chicago. APA.
Arendt, Randall. 1999. Crossroads, Hamlet, Village, Town: Design Characteristics ofTraditional Neighborhoods, Old and New. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 487/488,
Chicago: American Planning Association.
Form Based Codes Institute website: http://wtvw.formbascdcodcs.org/
Burden, Dan, with Michael Wallwork, Ken Sides, Ramon Trias, and Harrison Bright Rue. 2002. Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods. Sacramento: Local Government
Commission, Center for Livable Communities.
Stone, Jeremy, ec al. 2005. Breaking Ground: Planning and Building in Priority Growth Districts; A Guide for Local Leaders. New York: Yale School of Forestry & Environmental
Studies.
Transportation and Land Use
Ewing, Reid. 1997- Transportation & Land Use Innovations: When You Can't Pave Your Way Out ofCongestion. Chicago: Planners Press.
Morris, Marya. 1996, Creating Transit-Supportive Land-Use Regulations. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 468. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Stover, Vergil G., and Frank J. Kocpkc. 1 988. Transportation and Land Development. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Smart Growth
American Planning Association, 1 998. Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. Phases I and II Interim Edition. Chicago:
American Planning Association.
Mantell, Michael A., Stephen F. Harper, and Luther Propst, 1990. Resource Guide for Creating Successful Communities. Washington, DC: Eland Press.
Orange County Planning Department. 2003. Orange County Comprehensive Plan; Strategies for Quality Communities.
Orange County Planning Department. 2004. Orange County Open Space Plan: Quality of Life for Future Generations.
Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program. 1998. The Principles ofSmart Development. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 479. Chicago: American Planning
Association.
James, Franklin J. and Dennis E. Gale. 1997. Zoning For Sale: A Critical Analysis ofTransfer Development Rights Programs. Urban Institute; Land Use Series: Washington, D.C.
National Association ofRealtors website on Transfer ofDevelopment Rights: http://vAmrealcor.org/libweb.nsf/pages/fg804
.
Stuison, Joseph D. 1996, Transferring Development Rights: Purpose, Problems, and Prospects in New York. Pace Law Review, 17.
Toolkits
New York State Department ofState Local Government Handbook website: http://wwNv.dos.state.ny.us/igss/lisc9.html
New York State Hudson River Valley Greenway technical toolkit website: http://www.hudsongreenway.state.ny.us/techassist/toolbox2.htm
Noion, John, et al. 2001. Well Grounded: Using Local Land Use Authority to Achieve Smart Growth. New York. Environmental Lawlnstitute.
Nolon, John and Patricia Salkin. 2006. Land Use in a Nutshell.
Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse website: hctp://www.huduser,org/rbc/whatsnew.asp
Accessory Dwelling Units
LBH
Regional PldflAssociation
4 Irving Place, 7th floor
Stamford, CT 06901
212.253.2727
203.356.0390
732.828.9945
fax 203.356.0390
fax 732.828.9949
ing the ideas put forth in the Third Regional Plan, with
BOARD F
Chairman
DIRECTORS
Robert F. Arning
Robert E. Moritz
Hilary M. Ballon
Peter W.Herman
Laurie Beckelman
Stephen R. Beckwith
Peter H. Nachtwey
Jan Nicholson
Christopher J. Daggett
Bruce P. Nolop
Frank S. Cicero
Kevin J. Pearson
Jill M, Considine
James S. Polshek
Kevin S. Corbett
Richard Ravitch
Alfred A. DelliBovi
Gregg Rechler
Co-Chairman, Connecticut
Nancy R. Douzinas
Thomas L. Rich
Douglas Durst
Claire M. Robinson
Barbara J. Fife
Elizabeth B. Rogers
Co-Chairman, Connecticut
Michael C. Finnegan
Janette Sadik-Khan
Michael P. Mcotti
Timur F, Galen
Stcvan A. Sandberg
Michael Golden
H. Claude Shostal
Susan L, Solomon
Mark B. Goldfus
Robert A. Scott
Maxine Griffith
Luther Tai
President
Kenneth T.Jackson
Sharon C. Taylor
Robert D. Yaro
IraH. Jolles
Karen E. Wagner
Treasurer
Richard A. Kahan
Brendan J. Dugan
Richard D. Kaplan
William M. Yaro
Shirley S. Kenny
Matthew S. Kissnet
Directors Emeriti
Robert Knapp
Roscoe C, Brown
John Z. Kukral
Robert N. Rich
Susan S. Lederman
Richard C, Leone
Charles J. Maikish
Joseph J. Marazitijr.
John L. McGoldrick
fill J
EXHIBIT B
Warren S. Replansky, Esq., 1987 N.Y. Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 70 (1987)
87
21
March 3, 1987
GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, 711, 712.
* 1 A town may not place binding conditions upon its approval of a petition for annexation of property within its limits pursuant
to article 17 of the General Municipal Law. The town may, however, include written objections with its disapproval of the
annexation, which could form the basis for negotiations and compromise between the town and village.
Your letter states that a petition has been filed which seeks the annexation by the Village of Millerton of approximately 39
acres now located in the Town of North East. The owner of the property has filed with the town an application for subdividing
the property and plans to develop the property with approximately 50 houses. The village has its own water company which
supplies water service to the entire village population. The village has taken the position that it will not provide water service
to the proposed subdivision unless the property is annexed into the village.
The town board has a number of concerns about the proposed annexation. The village does not at present have subdivision
regulations, and the town is concerned that the village may not have sufficient control over the proposed subdivision. The town
is also concerned as to whether the village's water supply is adequate. You have asked whether the town has the authority to
approve the proposed annexation subject to certain conditions.
The municipal annexation provisions are found in article 17 of the General Municipal Law. The governing body of each
municipality affected by the annexation has the power to approve or disapprove the annexation, based on its finding as to
whether it is in the "over-all public interest" (General Municipal Law, 711). Article 17 does not provide any mechanism or
authority for the granting of conditional approval.
Under the procedure established by article 1 7, if a municipality concludes that the annexation is not in the overall public interest,
it is to issue a written determination to that effect (id., 71 1 [2][b] ). The determination is to be filed in the offices of the clerks of
the affected municipalities, together with copies of the petition, the notice, testimony and minutes of the proceedings and "the
written objections, if any" (ibid.). In our view, this provision for the inclusion of written objections provides a municipality with
the opportunity to give the reasons for its disapproval of the petition. These written objections may form the basis ofnegotiations
and possibly a compromise between the village and town. There is no mechanism provided for conditional approval, however,
nor can the conditional approval be implied from the statute (see Matter of Marcus v. Baron, 57 NY2d 862 [1982] ). Thus, if
the village is unwilling to meet the objections of the town, it would have to present a revised proposal to the town.
Warren S. Replansky, Esq., 1987 N.Y. Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 70 (1987)
*2 In the event that there is disagreement among the municipalities as to whether the proposed annexation is in the overall
public interest, a municipality favoring annexation can bring a proceeding in the Appellate Division (General Municipal Law,
712). The Appellate Division has the authority to determine, on the law and the facts, whether the proposed annexation is
in the over-all public interest (id., 712[10] ).
We conclude that a town may not place binding conditions upon its approval of a petition for annexation of property within
its limits pursuant to article 17 of the General Municipal Law. The town may, however, include written objections with its
disapproval of the annexation, which could form the basis for negotiations and compromise between the town and village.
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to officers and departments of the State government. This perforce is an
Patrick Barnett-Mulligan
Assistant Attorney General
End of Document