 |
|
****JavaScript based drop down DHTML menu generated by NavStudio. (OpenCube Inc. - http://www.opencube.com)****
|
|
|
|
|
Town of Charlton Planning Board Minutes And Public Hearing Minutes 784 Charlton Road Charlton, New York 12019
Minutes of Planning Board Meeting – May 21, 2007
Acting Chairman Constance Wood called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the John W. Taylor Hall.
Present: Constance Wood, Acting Chairman, Mark Hodgkins, Jay Wilkinson, John Kadlecek, Dawn Szurek, Mike Armer, William Keniry, Esq., Planning Board Attorney, Mike McNamara, Town Engineer, Susan York, Planning Board clerk and Kimberly Caron, recording secretary.
AGENDA MEETING:
Mrs. Wood stated that there are six of seven Board members present which represents a quorum.
Minutes
Mrs. Wood stated that the minutes from the April 16, 2007 meeting would need to be approved. Mrs. Wood stated that changes had been presented by Mrs. York. Mrs. Wood reviewed her changes with the Board.
Markham (236-1-122)
Mrs. Wood stated that Mr. Markham has provided the DEC maps from 2004. Mrs. Wood stated that the Board would need to decide what to do with the DEC delineation with regard to the existing map from 2007.
Mr. Armer stated that the 2004 wetlands delineation expires June 30, 2007.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the Board had requested that the building envelope be shown, the setbacks to be shown and the perc test information be included in order to determine if it is a buildable lot.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board would need to make a decision if the 2004 DEC delineation is sufficient as it does not match the subdivision map provided.
Mr. McNamara confirmed that it did not match. Mr. Markham stated that he had the property re-delineated today.
Nigriny/Durst (247-1-50.12)
Mrs. Wood stated that there would be a Public Hearing on this matter at 7:45 p.m. with discussions to follow.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that there were ECC issues to discuss.
Amendment to Approved Subdivision
Capital Realty/Deer Run (256.5-1-multiple parcels)
Mrs. Wood stated that Mr. McNamara was there to provide an update to this matter.
Reports
Mrs. Wood stated that there would be standard reports.
Comprehensive Plan Report
Mrs. Wood stated that there would be a Public Hearing on June 11, 2007.
Correspondence
Mrs. York inquired how many members would rather receive the minutes and Planning Board documents by mail rather than by e-mail to reduce the usage of personal printers and paper.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that if it is more than three pages he would like to receive it by mail.
Ms. Szurek stated that if it is over five pages she would like to receive it by mail.
Mr. Kadlecek stated to use judgment when deciding to mail or e-mail.
Mr. Hodgkins suggested sending the minutes to Mrs. York to review and then forward them to the other Board members with her changes incorporated.
Mrs. York stated that Mrs. Caron would e-mail the first draft of the minutes to her and then she would send everyone the draft with her changes in bold. Mrs. York stated that she would continue to e-mail the members that want copies on their hard-drives.
Town Board Liaison
Mrs. Verola stated that she had an update on the Storm Water Management issue. Mrs. Verola stated that the suggested changes provided by the Planning Board were being reviewed by Mr. McNamara, Mr. Keniry and Mr. VanVranken.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that there had been some discussion of a meeting with all principals involved. Mr. Kadlecek inquired if that was still happening.
Mrs. Verola stated yes.
The meeting was closed at 7:25 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
Opened at 7:30 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mrs. Wood stated that there is a quorum of six members. Mrs. Wood stated that Mr. Black was away and she would be the acting chairman.
Minutes
Mrs. Wood asked for a motion to approve the draft of the April 16, 2007 minutes.
Mr. Kadlecek made the motion to approve the April, 2007 draft minutes with changes incorporated. Ms. Szurek seconded the motion. Mrs. Wood abstained from the vote. All were in favor.
Markham (236-1-122)
Mr. Markham appeared before the Board.
Mr. Markham stated that the wetlands in question were delineated today by Lucia Herold from DEC. Mr. Markham stated that the tags had been re-hung. Mr. Markham stated that the DEC delineation from today is the same as the one from 2004. Mr. Markham stated that his survey is more accurate.
Mrs. Wood stated that they do not quite match.
Mr. Markham stated that he was waiting for paperwork from DEC. Mr. Markham stated that he was unsure if it would include a redefined map.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board has to go by the DEC delineation.
Mr. Markham stated that the surveyor did a large map. Mr. Markham stated that he believes that DEC does a rough map using the flags where the surveyor is doing physical measurements.
Mrs. Wood asked if DEC had given any indication of when Mr. Markham would hear from them.
Mr. Markham responded yes, that it would be placed in the mail tomorrow.
Mr. Markham stated that he has his percolation test scheduled for roughly two weeks.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board needs to see the most recent DEC map accurately depicted on the next set of maps with the building envelope and the setbacks and the percolation test information.
Mr. Markham agreed.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board would see him again in June.
Mr. McNamara stated that the DEC wetlands with the 100 foot setback on the subdivision map may put the septic system in the wetlands which would require a permit.
Mr. Markham stated that he was aware of that.
Mr. McNamara inquired if there was an issue with the existing lot being non-compliant.
Mr. Markham stated that Mr. Black already reviewed that and there was no issue.
Mrs. Wood stated that she thought it was grand-fathered.
Mr. McNamara inquired if a
variance was needed. Mr. Keniry stated that Mr. Black did have some discussions on that issue. Mr. Keniry stated that he does not know Mr. Black’s plan or intention but the issue was raised early on in the process.
Mr. McNamara stated that worst case scenario Mr. Markham would need a variance from ZBA.
Mrs. Wood reviewed Mr. Black’s notes, but found nothing written on this subject.
Mr. Keniry stated that his recollection was that Mr. Black asked the length of time that the structure had been there and the answer was 200 years plus. Mr. Keniry stated that there was some indication of not aggravating a non-conforming condition and that the new lot would be a conforming lot. Mr. Keniry stated that the applicant is not creating a non-conforming condition.
The Board agreed to see Mr. Markham next month.
PUBLIC HEARING (7:45 p.m.)
Nigriny/Durst (247-1-50.12)
Mrs. Wood stated that the notice for this Public Hearing was published in the Daily Gazette on May 10, 2007.
Mr. Durst presented the following plan:
-subdivision on the corner of Sweetman Road and Jenkins Road; -subdivide the lot with the existing house leaving it on 2.69 acres; -new lot would consist of 2.59 acres with the pond; -the pond would not be affected at all; inflow and outflow will remain as is -existing lot would no longer be able to support horses; -new lot confirms to all setback requirements; -septic and neighboring well locations are all noted on the drawing; -the soil percs OK for a conventional septic system; .the depth of the water table is acceptable.
Mrs. Wood explained the Public Hearing process.
Mrs. Wood opened the Public Hearing to the floor.
John Sleeter 130 Jenkins Road: I am the longest resident on that road at this meeting. There is one thing wrong, the seasonal creek runs year round.The location of the well is not located on the map. There are no numeric dimensions on that map, where is it, is it 6 feet, twenty-five feet or at ten yards?
Mr. Durst: 15 feet.
Mr. Sleeter: That was one dimension. Where are the other dimensions?
Mr. Durst: From the setback from the septic system is the creek or the bank.
Mr. Sleeter: Where is it from the road? It has to be located from the road also. The other one is the driveway.
Mr. Durst: As long as its on the building lot its behind the driveway setback design issue. And it shows that on the map.
Mr. Sleeter: I would question that whether that is an issue. It has to be so many feet away from the road and I am not sure but I had that situation on mine. You have to be so many feet back from the road because of salt conditions and so on. The other concern is the dimension for the boundary line of the property for the driveway. What about snow removal for the next owner of that house? Is it right up against it, is it five feet twenty-five feet, what is it? There is no dimension showing me how close to that driveway it is. The next people who own that house have got to remove the snow. Where is it going to go? Just pointing out that it should be noted where it is.
Mr. Durst tried to respond.
Mr. Sleeter: I am addressing the board now. We have a master plan for Charlton, we have a proposed master plan, comprehensive plan, in doing that we are looking at situations like that I believe, where we are subdividing pieces of property. Now there are pieces of property on Jenkins Road down by that corner almost 90% of them can be subdivided like that if this goes through. Do we want that in Charlton? These little parcels of land divided up, divided up, divided up. We would become a Clifton Park on Jenkins Road because of this. We have a law, ordinance that tells us how many acres we needed to do this, you met that criteria? I am asking the Board here. Is it the intent of that ordinance to do what this is, breaking it down? I hope everyone of you have gone there and looked at this property and walked the street. If you can’t walk the property but look at it, physically look at it. What you are looking at tonight, I hope you have done that as you look in the front yard of this house, the next owner is going to be looking out the window of their living room looking over somebody else’s property. Is that what we are really trying to have in Charlton here, that you are going to be looking over somebody else’s property to look out your front windows? Again it comes back to the intent of this ordinance that we have established years ago about subdividing and parceling out property because somebody got a whim to divide their property. You have got to look at how our town is going to look dividing land here and there. I have concerns about that. How its going to appear for the next owner. This owner is not going to stay here. She has tried to sell the house several times. She likes to have horses but probably not going to stay here if the horses are not going to be available so I’m worried about the next owner. So I wish you would consider those factors in your decision tonight.
Barbara Merchant, 12 Sweetman Road: We are the first neighbor on Sweetman Road, and may I ask the Board to accept a petition?
Mrs. Wood responded yes. Mrs. Wood asked Mrs. Merchant to read the petition into the minutes.
Mrs. Merchant read the petition: To: Planning Board, Town of Charlton Re: Petition against development at Jenkins and Sweetman Roads From: Concerned neighbors of proposed development Dated: May 2007 We the undersigned firmly regard the approval of any proposal to build a house on the subdivided property at the intersection of Jenkins and Sweetman Roads to be neither appropriate nor in the best interest of the Town of Charlton as any construction at said site would: Violate the rural, agricultural, aesthetic and historic spirit of the existing area Disregard established regulatory and non-regulatory land use programs and policies for development in Charlton Ignore Charlton’s stated goal to remain a community wherein future agricultural, residential and business development is consistent with the unique character and setting of Charlton Adversely affect neighboring property values Negatively impact nearby wetlands and wells Be shoehorned into too small a space, which would negatively impact the existing open space aesthetic of the community
Mrs. Merchant: If you have been to visit the property on the corner it clearly defines the entire neighborhood. It established the character of the neighborhood. It is one of the gems in Charlton that I think we are all very proud to live next to. All of our neighbors. I think just to dissolve this very narrow, awkwardly carved out piece of property would be a tragic mistake and a tremendous detriment to not only the immediate neighborhood but to all of Charlton. We’ve been here before and with much of the same people fighting the cause to stop this development and personally I’m wondering how much of the public’s time will be occupied with this if this does not come to a resolution this evening. I am wondering how many times this can be slightly adjusted and then readdressed again. I think that we are all pretty unanimous in our strong belief that we have to preserve this little corner of Charlton. So I appeal to all of you on the Board to please vote in our favor and take into consideration our needs all of these neighbors are here to stay in this neighborhood and we have such a vested interest there some of us have our life savings tied up in our homes and we intend to really try to protect that.
Tom Letendre 22 Sweetman Road: My concern is an environmental one with the runoff. What’s going to happen to the trout stream that is a tributary to the (inaudible) creek which is a tributary to the Alplaus? And my other concern is the acreage. You are saying its 2.59?
Mr. Durst: 2.59
Mr. Letendre: That pond is not land, that’s water. If I could buy a lot out on Lake George I could say I have 32 square miles of lot?
Mr. Durst: If there is a pond in the middle of the lake than yeah it would be.
Mr. Letendre: I disagree. You can’t own the water in the State of New York. A creek is not a pond. That was dug, not spring fed. This is a part of a creek that comes into a wide opening flowing across the street into the (inaudible). It is a dug pond, it is not spring fed.
Mr. Durst: That was a man made pond.
Mr. Durst and Mr. Letendre spoke at the same time making inaudible information.
Mr. Letendre: (approached Board with photos that showed flooding conditions) The amount of land that flows through here, this is a pretty mild stream right here, this is the trickle of water I believe they talked about.
Mr. Durst: That it is a seasonal stream.
Mr. Letendre: It is not a seasonal stream.
Mr. Durst: Depending on when you took the photograph you could have gone down Swaggertown, you could have gone down numerous streets in this village and the town and seen water.
Mr. Letendre: Where does it come from?
Mr. Durst: I’m saying generally, I could give you photos of Swaggertown Road, where there are four or five houses with front roads and back roads….
Mr. Letendre: I’ve lived there my entire life, I know where it comes from and I know how this area is all year round.
No identification: Does that make it right though, just because other people are flooding out?
Mr. Durst: I’m not saying that, I am saying seasonally you are going to have some issues. When we set the location for the house, we go by engineering guidelines, we set the lower level of the foundation for footing drains to ensure a dry basement, we pitch grades away from the house to ensure that the house does not get flooded.
Mr. Letendre: I’m concerned about environmentally, fertilizer getting into that water ruining the trout stream.
Mrs. Wood asked for dates on the pictures provided by Mr. Letendre.
Mr. Letendre: They were taken in March.
Mrs. Wood asked if it was March of 2007.
Mr. Letendre: Yes.
Mr. Letendre: I believe there was a (inaudible) when Guy Mitchell split a lot, lot number 3, that they added another setback from the creek because they were concerned about environmental issues of tributaries to the Alplaus.
Mr. Durst: There is a 100 foot setback (inaudible)
Mr. Letendre: Was there something about 300 feet?
Mrs. Wood stated that it was discussed.
Karen Quaal 137 Jenkins Road: My house is directly across from the proposed subdivision, not only do I live across but I live downstream. There’s the creek that goes through and feeds the pond and exits from the pond goes under Jenkins Road and then goes directly into my property. I have some concerns about drainage issues and any change in the topography of the land is going to impact drainage because that is a very wet area. It will affect my septic system and it will affect my well so of course I am concerned. Another point with regard to the spirit of this (inaudible), if you visited this property you realize how large this pond is, artificial or natural, this pond takes up a lot of volume and they use that volume to count as their minimum acreage and it seems like it doesn’t make sense. That’s not the spirit of the zoning laws in Charlton. We have almost seven acres (inaudible) I’m not about to subdivide that even though I have the acreage for it. So I’m really concerned about the drainage issues and anything that might change with regard to building a house on that property.
Ronald Hartmann, 126 Jenkins Road: If this were to act as a precedent on a go forward basis, there are at least five other houses, other homes, within ½ mile. Now those six more miles could be split up if the owners desired.
Ted Glowa, 26 Sweetman Road: I got one question. If you look at that piece of land and we talked about having a (inaudible) type drain coming from the footing (inaudible) how high is this house going to be out of the ground is it going to really fit?
Mr. Durst: Its an eight foot foundation so (inaudible) we shoot grades before we put a foundation in then my initial (inaudible) would be probably about 4 - 4 ½ down to the footing level then fill around the house from that footing.
Mr. Glowa: And you’ll be able to pitch that and everything’s flowing to the stream?
Mr. Durst: By NYS building codes what we have (inaudible)has to have a grade that pitches away from the house and has to be 8 inches within 10 feet all around the house.
Mr. Glowa: So there wouldn’t be a footing drain, you would drain the…
Mr. Durst: There’s a footing drain.
Mr. Glowa: OK. How high up is that footing going to have to be in order to have someplace to drain the fill? I mean the land slopes from the road down to the creek.
Mr. Durst: Right and in the back the roads go back, and again we are not creating additional runoff. We are not creating anything except what we are doing is when you have a footing drain on a house you have a foundation and when (inaudible) you maintain a drain where any runoff from the roof and surrounding area around house goes to the footing drain, (inaudible) and run down from there. That’s ground water. That’s no different than if it hit ground and ran on its own.
Mr. Glowa: My point would be your already making the step and you pass the problem, you have to bring in truck load after truckload after truckload of dirt in order to get a foundation out of the back
Mr. Durst: It’s 4 foot down to the footing, then you typically would need probably 16-18 inches of foundation out, so 36 loads of ground fill would probably be about the average number for this.
Mr. Glowa: So 36 loads of fill then?
Mr. Durst: (inaudible)
Mr. Glowa: What’s going to be in the fill. You don’t really know what you are bringing into this lot that’s going to run off into the creek
Mr. Durst: We don’t bring any (inaudible) materials in, it comes from local gravel and sand pits.
Mr. Glowa: You are changing the basic landscape of the area. I mean it’s not just putting a house on a piece of land that it fit you’re working really hard to try to make this thing (inaudible).
Mr. Durst: Well it naturally wouldn’t. I think once you see when it’s in, the grades, the (inaudible) to the house the grades around the house (inaudible) and see where the landscape is, its going to look just like any house.
Mr. Glowa: So how much pitch down do you think the garage is going to be?
Mr. Durst: (inaudible) That was built on a stream.
Mr. Sleeter: That is not a stream, it was a swamp area.
Many of the people attending the Public Hearing began to speak at once.
Mrs. Quaal: Anything you disturb on your side of the street could have an (inaudible).
Mr. Durst: We are not adding runoff to anything and if you’re concerned about emptying into your septic system, the family of four average consumption is 200 gallons of water a day so a) 200 gallons of water a day additional draw from one well isn’t going to (inaudible) affect anybody’s water supply in the neighborhood b) 200 gallons a day of water is negligible and especially if you are working at this impasse that we have from the stream and the pond of 100 feet then a septic system in that end no way shape or form will affect you across the street.
Mrs. Quall: Well you say that except when the horses came there was a negative impact on people on the other side of the road just by having horses there and laying in manure, we have shallow wells and this affects our wells.
Ms. Nigriny: You guys want to keep the property rural. You complain that I have horses there. You complained when I want do something with my property. The reality of it is nothing is going to make you people happy. And as far as the next person that may live in my house, and you don’t know if I’m going to move, you have no idea. For you to say to everyone that I’m going to sell my home immediately after this happens you’re making accusations you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t even speak to me. I haven’t talked to you in over a year
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board does not want to get into this kind of argument. Mrs. Wood stated that the Board is looking for the public’s input tonight to help the Board to make a decision.
Mrs. Nigriny: I understand
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board is looking for public input, that is why we are having a Public Hearing. Mrs. Wood stated that it is time for the public to talk.
Mr. Sleeter: When those horses came, Mr. Edgar, he talked to this Board or to the Town complaining about the horses and the manure (inaudible) and how this property affected his property and Mr. Edgar has moved on and can’t speak for himself but those horses did have an affect on the surrounding neighborhood. It is in the documents that Mr. Edgar has come to the Town and you all check those documents that Mr. Edgar did have a situation with the horse manure.
Mrs. Wood asked for an approximate time span of when that might if occurred.
Mr. Sleeter: It was within the last few years. Mr. (inaudible) can also verify that.
Mr. Grattidge: They came to the ZBA when they were in for a variance that is what came up as part of that.
Mr. Durst: Do you remember when that barn went up the one that the horses are currently in?
Mr. Letendre: I would guess, that’s really not a barn, that was a horse pen, it was put up in about 1971.
Mr. Durst: Was there a house behind there at that point?
Mr. Letendre: No there wasn’t.
Mr. Durst: Who owned that property at that point?
Mr. Letendre: Mr. Garrison.
Mr. Durst: My point is that was a pre-existing barn everybody’s been complaining about the property was subsequently subdivided people built a house behind an existing barn and then complain about the barn.
Many of the people attending the Public Hearing began to speak at once.
Mrs. Merchant: We really can’t use our deck. Every time we go out onto our deck the horse waste is so potent and strong that we just don’t use it. We don’t sit out there, we don’t keep furniture out there anymore. So you know, the point that I am making is that yes the intentions might be good at this moment but the reality is sometimes it is quite different than the initial intentions.
Mrs. Quaal: I didn’t mean to bring up the horse, that is a different issue. The only point I was trying to make is very small changes on one side of the street have an negative impact on houses on the other side.
Kevin Johnson, 34 Sweetman Road: Can I ask a question before (inaudible)? They are subdividing this property and they sent out a notice stating that they wanted to subdivide and there was a Town meeting to discuss the subdivision of the property. What reason is there for this meeting if the property satisfied the requirements of the Town for a building lot?
Mrs. Wood stated that the reason for our Public Hearing is to get literally input because those of us who sit on the Board aren’t neighbors to the property or haven’t owned the property and so we don’t really know fully everything there is to know about a piece of property so this is a way to get input so that we have a better understanding.
Mr. Johnson: So based on our testimony whether we are in favor or opposed to it, that will sway you to allow this person to subdivide their property even though it satisfies the requirements of the zoning laws?
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board is bound to follow the Zoning Law and those are the strictures that we live within.
Mr. Johnson: But the Zoning Laws state 2 acres and 200 feet of road frontage right?
Mrs. Wood stated correct.
Mr. Johnson: So I’m not sure that what we’re trying to do here is futile but I do have concerns with it and I live upstream from it and I would like to point out that this stream does run year round. It runs right through my property so whether it exits the pond in August it doesn’t mean that the stream isn’t running its evaporating or whatever but it does still run and also upstream of the pond does flood. It is much wider than it is on this map that I just looked at. My next concern is that we are trying to preserve the rural integrity of the area it seems to me that they are trying to shoehorn a house in where really is doesn’t fit and I do think that you are going to have problems with water in the basement because no matter how high you put this house up out of the ground I don’t think you’re going to see daylight with the perimeter drained around your footing. That’s just my own personal belief by looking at the property without seeing it through a (inaudible). I want to point out that there are requirements for a building lot and when I moved into my house there was only one other house on the street between my house and the Nigriny’s and now there are three more and I’ve been there since 1996 and the people who live next to me they bought the house, there property with a house on it, with the intentions of putting a horse farm on it and then ended up selling a lot off of that property to the Glowa’s and they (inaudible) a building lot that satisfied requirements but what we are trying to have protection against is people coming in and randomly creating building lots when what we are trying to do is keep the houses spread out and the house that they put in on that property was 26 acres when the Glowa’s house went up that took 10 acres away from that piece of property. Then they came to us and they wanted to buy road frontage from us so that they could put a house out in front of us and what I’m worried about is how many people coming in with good intentions but creating an environment that nobody likes and then leaving. I’m not saying that’s what’s going to happen here I just want protection from it that’s all.
Mr. Glowa: The point is that we all could get together and make three more lots out of our properties and sell them for a profit but that’s not really the intent the lots. It would be drawn funny, you’d have 60 feet over here and 50 feet over here and 100 feet over here that gives me a couple lots that meet the requirements but that’s not what the rural community is right there. (inaudible) basically bring the standard rectangular building lots that are level and flat without large amounts of fill coming in to them and I just think that no matter what we do, I’m sure we could build a house almost anywhere nowadays, but I think to change the whole slope and structure of the land is going to make a major change to the way it looks and how it borders its neighbors I mean (inaudible) you have them come to the edge of their lawn where they are mowing and looking up a six foot hill to where they have brought fill in those are the kind of impacts that. The Zoning Board doesn’t really cover because they have a few pictures of a flat surface that meet all the requirements but (inaudible). I think it is more of a visual impact on how you stick a house on this lot but I’m sure you’ve done your (inaudible) with this whatever the rules and regulations on those are but I think there is more to it than that. And I also have to say that all of this used to belong to Doc Garrison and if he could of changed it into a lot he would.
Mr. Durst: I would just like to follow up briefly with the comment it is not 6 foot we are talking about probably bringing in 3 foot of fill up around the house and the existing grade. The average amount so its not going to be sticking up 6 feet up in the ground. We are talking about more like 4 feet maybe 3 feet (inaudible). My present comment would be there seem to be about 6 or 7 of you opposed to this project so in your enthusiasm in maintaining that park like (inaudible) on the corner my suggestion would be to offer to buy the lot and you could make a park out of it and I don’t think there would be any problem in doing that. We would set our pricing ok here’s the lot price here’s probably what I would of made on the house sounds good then you could take a boat out on the pond a gazebo whatever you want and you could have (inaudible) park.
Mr. Glowa: I don’t think any of us are looking for a park.
Mr. Durst: All I’m saying is that everything we have done here is in full conformance with the existing zoning ordinance for a building lot. (inaudible) I could sympathize with you wanting to be the last person to move into the Town of Charlton in a neighborhood, everybody does I see it year after year after year you live on a subdivided lot most people don’t subdivide lots that weren’t there when you built (inaudible) people are against it they didn’t want (inaudible) on the land and that just (inaudible) that’s why the Town (inaudible) are working towards that end. It’s a process that has been going on for three years its heading that way it’s not done yet but its heading towards (inaudible).
Mr. Glowa: Then we just have to trust that our Board up there understands where the Town is going and what the grand plan is here and they see fit to make the right decision based on where the Town is going to be in six months to a year not just sneak something through today cause they can.
Mr. Durst: Its not sneaking, this has been in the works like I said for three years and there has been other projects that have come up before the Planning Board recently that if you went by what the ultimate goal is they might be vindictive but now they are planning by what the current Town regulations are.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board is constrained by the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Sleeter, 130 Jenkins Road: Is it normal procedure to go ahead and have a contingency sale of the property before this approval is made? I was told that there is a contingency on this property (inaudible) of sale already set and no matter upon how this Board votes tonight matters on whether the sale is made. Is this normal?
Mr. Durst: Yes it is and it is (inaudible)
Mrs. Quaal: Maybe I live on a subdivided lot from Mr. Garrison we were all (inaudible) two or three years we are all on a subdivided lot and made a public statement when that lot came up and that lot came up and that lot came up because it was a normal piece of land that could support the subdivision. This piece of land, whether or not it meets all the criteria, if you look at this piece of land the way it is laid out is not ok for land that should have a house on it. (inaudible) This doesn’t make sense.
Mr. Johnson: I agree with her although I know it is really not that relevant but if you look at the houses on this stretch of road, there is a good thousand or more feet between each house except for maybe Jenkins Road, but (inaudible) I live on Sweetman and there is at least a thousand feet between each house and this is going to create a situation where there are three houses in the first quarter mile of the road.
Mrs. Quaal: Is there such a thing as a deed contingency? I don’t know the legal terms, if a house is built and if there are some damage on the other side because of changing water tables or damage to our wells or septic systems (inaudible) that there is some recourse here?
Mrs. Wood stated that she is not personally aware and referred the question to Mr. Keniry.
Mr. Keniry stated that would have to be some type of private right of action that you might have depending on the particular circumstances.
Julian Merchant, 12 Sweetman Road: I live in the house adjacent to the lot subject for proposal. You know a lot of things look good on paper but I can attest to that all these people here are part of the community for the long run and I think moving into this that they knew that they could see their golden years pass by here and see their children (inaudible) and take over where they left off and I think that by looking at it this proposal its trying to turn Charlton into a Clifton Park type area. It’s a slippery slope. I mean if you pass this today like people said before me there’s tons of potential lots that people can build houses on and I think that may be legal to do so but I think its wrong for the community and people who are in this for the long run.
Mrs. Wood commented that the Board was pleased to hear from a young member of the community.
Mr. Glowa: Can we table this until after the Comprehensive Plan is done.
Mrs. Wood stated that there is a Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan on June 11, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Grattidge stated that the proposed plan is available on the website or at the Town Clerk.
Mrs. Wood asked the Board for thoughts on postponing the closing of the Public Hearing until next month in order to allow for the submission of data from the neighboring property owners that would help the Board in making a decision.
Mr. Durst: I question that.
Mrs. Wood stated that there were significant issues raised about water and the Board needs to investigate that.
Mr. Durst: Based on what?
Mrs. Wood stated that there was a letter from the Charlton Environmental Conservation Commission has raised some issues and at this point the Board really needs to adjourn the Public Hearing part of this.
Mr. Keniry stated that if it is the Board’s intention to keep the Public Hearing open then the Board would need to adjourn it to a specific date and time.
Mr. Durst: If there is no additional questions from the public what basis do you continue a Public Hearing?
Mr. Keniry stated that the Board wants to continue to take proof. Mr. Keniry stated that the Board may want to collect reports from professionals.
Mr. Durst: They were given the opportunity tonight to present those issues.
Mr. Keniry stated or at an adjourned hearing at its new date and time. Mr. Keniry stated that the Board’s decision is completely founded in the law.
Mrs. Wood stated that June 18, 2007 is the next meeting and the Board will hold a continuation of this Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Mr. Durst: So in keeping with the standard submittal deadlines the information would have to be submitted 10 days in advance of that or reviewed by the Town Engineer and/or us?
Mrs. Wood stated that anything that comes in would have to be written or they could say something orally, but the Board is looking for written. Mrs. Wood stated that there may be people who were unable to attend this Public Hearing, this would give them the opportunity to come in.
Mr. Durst: Are we going to address some of these issues when the Pubic Hearing closes with Mr. McNamara and ….
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board would continue discussing it but was going to adjourn the Public Hearing but the Board does have some issues to discuss.
Mr. Durst: OK
Mr. Wilkinson made a motion to adjourn the Public Hearing on the Nigriny Subdivision until June 18, 2007 at 7:45 p.m. The Board discussed having the time for the Public Hearing set for later in the evening.
Mr. Keniry stated that the applicant wants time to respond. Mr. Keniry suggested allowing the submission up to the close of the Public Hearing and then the Board should give the applicant the opportunity to respond.
Mr. Durst: I see a group of people who have heard that there is a contingent sale upon that lot, so what there intent right now is to push back as far as possible. I can respond right away to those photographs and I can probably by tomorrow have an exact date that was taken and arbitrarily show you other photographs within this very Town that look the same. There are rainfall anomalies, frost conditions (inaudible). My standpoint is that we’re postponed a month because of those photographs and that is completely arbitrary. Because those were taken with frost in the ground and we had three inches of rain.
Mr. Keniry stated that it is the pleasure of the Board to adjourn the Public Hearing until next month.
Mr. Durst: I’m just pointing out that that’s your whole basis looking at those photographs that if you think back into the springtime, Mr. Armer drove by and gave his observations at the last meeting that drainage was fine after extremely heavy rainfall and I think everyone was a witness to that statement. There was a heavy spring rain, yet the stream and pond handled it just fine. So my stance right now is that I don’t see a basis for continuing this Public Hearing for thirty more days based on that.
Mrs. Wood stated that isn’t the only concern of the Board, the Board also has concerns from a letter received.
Mr. Durst: From?
Mrs. Wood stated that the letter was received from the Environmental Conservation Commission.
Mr. Keniry stated that he thinks the Board has a tremendous amount of latitude. Mr. Keniry stated that the Board should consider from the applicant’s perspective the fact that they have the consideration of a contingent sale. Mr. Keniry stated that the applicant has an absolute right to respond to any comment that’s made by any member of the public and certainly to respond to any questions raised by the Board. Mr. Keniry stated that if you try to utilize a submission deadline other than the Pubic Hearing it makes it difficult for the general public to comply with something of that nature. Mr. Keniry stated that the Board should receive all materials up to the close of the Public Hearing.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that he is trying to get a sense of what is fair to the applicant and also what the public might expect as far as the time.
Mr. Keniry stated that his sense is that the members of the public have the opportunity to submit until such time as the Board closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that he is trying to get a proper closing time.
Mr. Keniry stated that it depends on the evidence that is produced and that the Board has to consider.
Mrs. Wood inquired if the Board was to receive evidence, have time to review it and then have the Public Hearing after reviewing the evidence.
Mr. Keniry stated that the Public Hearing time should be set at 7:45 p.m. and receive materials within the context of the Public Hearing and if some materials are received in advance, that is fine too.
Ms. Szurek seconded the motion made by Mr. Wilkinson to adjourn the Nigriny Subdivision until June 18, 2007 at 7:45 p.m.
Ron Hartmann, 126 Jenkins Road: What is the square footage of the proposed house?
Mr. Durst: 2,000 square foot.
Mr. Hartmann: Can I get a copy of the minutes?
Mrs. Durst: They are online.
Mrs. York stated that they are online once approved. Mrs. York stated that a draft is supposed to be available to the public within two weeks of the meeting.
Mrs. Caron stated that she would do her best to have them done within two weeks.
Mr. Grattidge stated that a FOIL could be requested from the Town Clerk.
Roll call vote was taken for the motion on the floor: Mr. Hodgkins - aye Mr. Armer - aye Mrs. Wood aye Mr. Kadlecek - aye Ms. Szurek - aye Mr. Wilkinson - aye Motion was carried.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he would like some more information. Mr. LaFountain stated that this map indicates that this is a non-classified stream in that area and he thinks that it is a classified stream. Mr. LaFountain believes that south of Charlton Road where the tributaries connect on Sweetman Road the more south it becomes classified. Mr. LaFountan inquired if that was something that Mr. McNamara could contact DEC and find out.
Mr. Durst: Actually, John Gay had correspondence with DEC on that issue.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he would like Mr. McNamara to look into that. Mr. LaFountain stated that the other comment is that it shows 100 foot setback from the septic to that stream line then it shows 100 foot setback from the septic to the pond and there isn’t any real indication of where that measurement runs to.
Mr. Armer stated 2 feet from the center line of the 4 foot stream.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he would like to see the actual width there and where the measurements come from.
Mrs. Wood clarified that Mr. LaFountain is looking for the actual width of the stream.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if that was something that could be surveyed.
Mr. McNamara stated that it was not something that he would verify. Mr. McNamara inquired if it merits locating it again as it was located towards the end of the year 2005 and streams have the tendency to move somewhat and it is a very tight lot. If the stream was classified as opposed to non-classified the Board could ask DEC to give an opinion.
Mr. Armer inquired if the setback from the septic to the ditch was 25 feet.
Mr. LaFountain stated yes.
Mr. Armer stated that the map actually says 25 foot minimum preferred, but it is actually required?
Mr. McNamara stated that was actually one of the comments back when he had them do the septic, they never dropped that from the map. Mr. McNamara stated that it is very tight but it does fit.
Mr. LaFountain stated that there is also a note that says 5 foot high wood fence.
Mr. Durst stated that was existing.
Ms. Szurek inquired how close to the stream would the digging be.
Mr. Durst stated that they would be working within a 30 foot perimeter of actual foundation.
The Board had several small group discussions.
Ms. Szurek inquired if that was ok to work within that close to the stream. Ms. Szurek questioned if they had to be 100 feet away.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board needs information from DEC.
Mr. Armer inquired if the new owner wanted to mow the other side of the pond would they have to go down the side of the highway to mow.
Ms. Nigriny stated that they could drive over the spillway around the front and the Town mows in front of the fence line.
Mr. Armer inquired if there was an 18 inch culvert under the existing ground.
Ms. Nigriny stated yes, it is underneath and there is no grass there.
Mr. Wilkinson brought up the issue of the ECC letter of March 15, 2007 regarding plans for protecting the stream.
Mr. Durst stated that he did not have a copy of that letter.
Mrs. Wood provided a copy to Mr. Durst.
Mr. Armer referred to the paragraph wherein it referred to the original plan that was before Mr. Durst’s involvement.
Ms. Nigriny stated that she had not seen a copy of that letter.
Mrs. Wood provided a copy to Ms. Nigriny.
Mr. Durst stated that the letter was subsequent to the March meeting where there was a different proposal. Mr. Durst stated that the letter refers to the original proposal of filling in the pond. Mr. Durst stated that since the subdivision was changed it should be a non-action. Mr. Durst stated that last month the Board reviewed modifying the SEQRA form but the SEQRA now does not involve a disturbance of the stream or pond.
Mr. Wilkinson disagreed that the comment referred to the proposal of filling in the pond and the Board agreed that, instead, the letter was referring to the original subdivision application from 2005.
Mr. Durst stated that he thinks they are looking for silt fencing to be installed and that is normal protocol when they work along the stream area. Mr. Durst stated that the Board could note that any work within 50 feet of the stream shall be protected by silt fencing.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the corner of the house is about 50 feet from the centerline of the stream, if you are driving equipment within 30 feet of the house that is only a only a foot or so above the stream center line according to the elevation tables. How far away do you need to be to project that stream? Is there enough room so that you can protect that stream not just the center line of it but the distances that it might widen out?
Mr. Durst stated that the closest quarters he would ever think about working in, between the excavation process and grading, was a minimum of 20 feet from the foundation.
Mr. Kadlecek questioned if they could silt fence that adequately.
Mr. Durst responded yes.
Mr. Kadlecek questioned if they would be responsible for putting all the new vegetation coverings.
Mr. Durst responded yes.
Mr. McNamara stated that it is not unreasonable to show those measurements on the plan. Mr. McNamara suggested doubling the measurements for erosion control and disturbance perimeter.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if Mr. McNamara could review that for the Board.
Mr. McNamara responded yes.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the Board would need input from Mr. Schorr of the ECC on the meaning of the paragraph in question.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he could provide the Board with a copy of the ZBA file from 2005.
Mrs. Wood asked Mr. Durst to be sure the note about the lot no longer being able to have horses is on the plan.
Mr. Durst stated that the note was added as note #10.
The Public Hearing for this matter will continue on June 18, 2007 at 7:45 p.m.
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1, 41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3)
Mrs. Wood stated that there would not be any discussions on this agenda item this evening because there is an escrow that is outstanding.
Capital Realty/Deer Run (256.5-1-multiple parcels)
Mrs. Wood stated that she asked Mr. McNamara to provide a brief status of this matter.
Mr. McNamara stated that Phase I of this subdivision was approved in 1993. Phase I consists of the first 25 of 49 homes. This is a three Phase project. Phase I is all of the lots with a number (showing on map). The lots are less than one acre. One lot will not be issued a building permit. ACOE found wetlands on the property and denied the permit. There are 25 lots but only 24 are buildable. The approval was contingent upon public water. After receiving subdivision approval they did not get public water approval but waited until 2002. The Town Board held several hearings and denied the water district in May 2003. They sued the Town and prevailed. The Town appealed and they won again. The water district was created. During the hearing process, Mr. McNamara’s firm was asked to review the subdivision plans that had never been reviewed by his firm before. Mr. McNamara found several items that needed to be changed to reflect today’s regulations and ordinances. In October 2006, Mr. Keniry, Mr. VanVranken and Mr. McNamara went to the Town Board and suggested a committee be formed to meet with the developer to review the issues. The committee shared their concerns. New plans were submitted.
Mr. McNamara highlighted the problems found with the old plans. Mr. McNamara did a comparison of the old plans to the new plans.
Mr. McNamara stated that the Town of Charlton has a requirement where any field changes have to be approved by the Planning Board. Mr. McNamara stated that this is not like the usual subdivision where the Board receives it, reviews it then acts on it. Mr. McNamara stated that this was more of an administrative role for the Board.
Mr. McNamara stated that after recommendations from the Town attorneys and the Town engineers, they are asking that the Board authorize them to do the improvements so that the end result is the revised plans rather than the original plans.
Mr. LaFountain inquired who would inspect the process.
Mr. McNamara stated that he expects that the Town Board would hire his firm to do the inspections as part of the applicant’s fees.
Mr. Keniry stated that there is only preliminary approval for Phase I and II.
Mrs. Wood inquired what the Board’s action needed to be.
Mr. Keniry stated that the Board could decline or not decline. Mr. Keniry stated that the Board would make a finding consistent, if it so finds, with this: the Town designated engineer may upon approval of the Planning Board, authorize modifications provided these modifications are within the spirit and intent of the Planning Board’s approval and do not extend to the waiver or substantial alteration of the function of any improvements required by the Board.
Mrs. Wood inquired if they would have to pay the application fee for Phase II and then again for Phase III.
Mr. Grattidge stated that they are already in the process and have already received preliminary approval.
Mrs. Wood asked about park fees.
Mr. Grattidge stated that was part of the original agreement that they would stay at the 1993 rate.
Mr. Hodgkins made the motion to authorize the Town designated engineer to authorize modifications as provided on the maps and other materials submitted tonight and find them to be within the spirit and intent of the prior approvals of the Planning Board and find that there is no waiver or substantial alteration of the function of any improvements. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. Roll call vote was taken: Mr. Hodgkins - aye Mr. Armer - aye Mrs. Wood aye Mr. Kadlecek - aye Ms. Szurek - aye Mr. Wilkinson - aye Motion was carried.
Resolution 2007-08 was made.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. LaFountain provided a report for April 2007. The Board reviewed the report with Mr. LaFountain.
Comprehensive Plan Report
There is a Public Hearing on June 11, 2007 at 7:45 p.m.
Correspondence
The Board discussed this agenda item during the Agenda meeting.
Town Board Liaison
The Board discussed this agenda item during the Agenda meeting.
Mr. Wilkinson made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly A. Caron Recording Secretary
|
|
|
| |