 |
|
****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 – April 16, 2007
Chairman Raymond Black called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the John W. Taylor Hall.
Present: Raymond Black, Chairman, Jay Wilkinson, John Kadlecek, Mark Hodgkins, Mike Armer, Dawn Szurek, William Keniry, Esq., Planning Board Attorney and Kimberly Caron, recording secretary. Mr. Mitchell joined the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
AGENDA MEETING:
Mr. Black stated that there are six of seven Board members present which represents a quorum. Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York was ill and would not be attending the meeting. Mr. Black stated that Mrs. Wood would also not be attending the meeting.
Minutes
Mr. Black stated that the minutes from the March 19, 2007 meeting would need to be approved. Mr. Black stated that changes had been presented by Mrs. York. Mr. Black reviewed the changes provided by Mrs. York. No other Board members provided any changes.
Schermerhorn (247-1-33.2)
Mr. Black stated that there is a revised drawing which includes the 15 foot rear setback and the 10 foot each side setback. Mr. Black stated that the Board would still have to take lead agency for SEQRA and then approve this.
Ellms (237-1-33)
Mr. Black stated that there would be a Public Hearing tonight. Mr. Black stated that it appears to be straight forward unless there are issues presented at the Public Hearing. Mr. Black stated that the Board has not received proof of a 45 minute percolation rate. Mr. Black suggested approving the subdivision contingent upon receiving the less than 45 minute percolation satisfactorily completed.
Mr. Armer inquired how that was done.
Mr. Black stated that the reason for the less than 45 minute perk is just to show that the property is percable and that you could even design an engineered system if you needed to. Mr. Black stated that to actually show where it is taken on the map, all the Board needs is documentation that it was actually done. Mr. Black stated that the standard drawing notes were on the drawing stating “prior to any building permit you have to have an acceptable septic system design“.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has two choices to: have the Public Hearing tonight and then wait to take action until the information has been received and take action at the very next meeting after that or the Board could approve contingent upon receiving the information.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that there is no procedure for getting that information to come back to the Board.
Mr. Black stated that the evidence would go into the file folder. Mr. Black stated that he would not sign the Mylar until the information has been received.
Mr. Wilkinson inquired as to the time frame to receive the information.
Mr. Black stated that from the time of the Public Hearing, the Board has 62 days to take final action. Mr. Black stated that if the Board approves with contingency then there is no clock at that point unless it goes inactive for six months and then the Board could declare it null and void.
Mr. Keniry stated that was true and that the actual section of State Law states that “the owner shall file in the office of the County Clerk or register such approved final plat (mylar) or section of such plat within 62 days from the date of final approval or such approval shall expire”. Mr. Keniry stated that would be sixty two days from today if the Board approved tonight.
Mr. Keniry stated that the Board has 62 days from the date of the Public Hearing to act.
Mr. Black stated that was correct unless the parties agree to extend that period of time.
Markham (236-1-122)
Mr. Black stated that the Board has not received a new drawing. Mr. Black stated that the Board has concerns with the wetlands and the ability to get a house on the parcel. The Board requested some proof of the delineation that was done by DEC. Mr. Black the Board received a letter from Casey Holzworth of NYSDEC dated March 30, 2007. Mr. Black stated that the letter stated that he does not have a detailed map that was done back in 2004 when the delineation was completed but thinks that he remembers it the way Mr. Markham has shown it on his drawing.
Ms. Szurek stated that the letter also states that the delineation completed in 2004 expires June 30, 2007.
Mr. Black stated that unless Mr. Markham can provide the July 7, 2004 letter and the map it included for the Board to validate then he will have to have it delineated again.
Mr. Black stated that the issue is does the lot have to be for the purposes of putting a house. Mr. Black stated that it could be a wood lot. Mr. Black stated that the reason that the Board was concerned about the wetlands is because Mr. Markham stated that someday he may potentially build a house there. Mr. Black stated that the Board has to see if that can actually be done.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Markham may not want to have it delineated again. Mr. Black stated that all he would have to do is show the 45 minute percolation rate and that allows the property to be subdivided. Mr. Black stated that the Board has a weak validation of the wetland delineation.
Ms. Szurek inquired if the Board is responsible for creating a lot that can not be built on.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the building inspector would deal with that.
Mr. Hodgkins inquired about the well.
Mr. Black stated that if the subdivision is to create a parcel the Board knows can’t be built on is the Board doing the right thing for the Town. Mr. Black stated that on a parcel this size and shape the answer is no. Mr. Black stated that may be the basis for disapproval. Mr. Black stated that may not legally hold up as the lot meets the subdivision requirements.
Mr. Keniry referred the Board back to a previous meeting wherein he gave an example using an example of two brothers. Mr. Keniry suggested the Board go back and review those minutes. Mr. Keniry stated that it is a policy matter for the Planning Board to consider. Mr. Keniry stated that if you have an applicant standing before you that states that their intended purpose for the land is to put a structure on it or use it for residential purposes, the Board still has code enforcement that is going to be a buffer in terms of protection. Mr. Keniry stated that the Board does not act to protect the person who buys the land. Mr. Keniry stated that it is the buyers responsibility to research the land they are buying instead of just going on what the seller tells them. Mr. Keniry stated that the foil is when they go to Dave for a building permit and Dave asks for the perk test results and the buyer is high and dry. Mr. Keniry stated that the other side of it is to some extent is that really the Town’s policy. Mr. Keniry stated that is the policy question that you get back to when you raise it. Mr. Keniry stated that it is a matter of absolutes, is it or isn’t it.
Mr. Black stated the Board should request properly delineated wetlands shown on the map with the 100 foot buffer, show the appropriate building lot lines, show that there are notes on the map that indicate that wetlands are present on the property and permits may be required and proof of acceptable perk.
Mr. Mitchell suggested that the Board come up with a note.
Nigriny/Durst (247-1-50.12)
Mr. Black stated that Mr. McNamara has provided comments in a letter dated April 11, 2007. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 1.
Mr. Black stated that the letter indicated that currently the elevation where the septic system is going to go is slightly higher than the elevation where the house is going to go therefore there may be fill required to get the house high enough so that they can actually get to a septic drain field that way. Mr. Black stated that Mr. McNamara also requested more information indicating the grading plan to do that.
Mr. Armer stated that he drove by there this evening and the stream seemed to be flowing nicely and did not appear to be encompassing the property. Mr. Armer stated that there was about a 10 foot flow.
Mr. Black stated that the Board still has no affidavit that allows Elaine or Dean to speak on behalf of the actual owners of the property. Mr. Black stated that unless that is received tonight, the Board has no basis on which to schedule a Public Hearing or even move forward.
Ms. Szurek inquired who enforces not having horses on the land.
Mr. Black stated that was Mr. LaFountain’s job.
Mr. Keniry stated that this may be a good example of an instance where the Board may want to put a horse restriction on the map. Mr. Keniry stated that a potential buyer driving by now sees horses and that use is being eliminated by the subdivision.
Gutto (225-1-66.1)
Mr. Black stated that there was a pre-application conference 02/07 where the Board referred the applicant to the ZBA. Mr. Black stated that the ZBA has granted a variance. Mr. Black stated that the Board does not have a copy of the drawing that reflects exactly what the plan is.
Mr. LaFountain had a copy of the map presented to the ZBA. Mr. LaFountain showed the map to the Board. Mr. LaFountain stated that Mr. Gutto applied to make this one lot short of 400 feet of frontage and the variance granted was for this 120 feet of right of way to this parcel.
Mr. Black stated that the Board does not have an official map showing this. Mr. Black stated that the Board needs a formal map and a wetlands delineation. Mr. Black stated that upon receipt of those two things the Board can move forward.
Mr. LaFountain stated that DEC has contacted him pertaining to a mining investigation on that property. Mr. LaFountain stated that DEC is sending him the information.
Mr. Black stated that during the time an application is being sought, unless specifically approved, activities that would substantially alter the character of the property are not permitted.
Mr. Keniry inquired if there was a DEC Mining Permit on that property.
Mr. LaFountain responded no.
Kilichowski/Durst (237-1-17.1)
Mr. Black stated that this is an incomplete application. Mr. Black stated that in the process of trying to get this application complete, the Board sent it out for review by Mr. McNamara. Mr. Black stated that there was a potential issue with a purchase agreement and everything went on hold. Mr. Black stated that it is on the agenda for a status update.
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1, 41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3)
Mr. Black stated that there was a package of drawings left at Town Hall. Mr. Black stated that it looks like complete detailed engineering maps. Mr. Black stated that the purpose for placing this on the agenda is to get the intent of the applicant.
Casey (237-1-17.1)
Mr. Black stated that this is an amendment to a subdivision to move the location of the driveway from the northern part of the lot to the southern part of the lot. Mr. Black stated that he went to the property to look at that. Mr. Black stated that he thinks moving the driveway would be an improvement.
Reports
Mr. Black stated that there would be standard reports.
The meeting was closed at 7:42 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
Opened at 7:42 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC HEARING (7:45 p.m.)
Ellms (237-1-33)
Mr. Black explained the Public Hearing process.
Mr. Black stated that the Public Notice was posted on the Daily Gazette on March 20, 2007.
Mr. Black stated that the plan has been reviewed by the Town Engineer and the County Planning Board.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. and Mrs. Ellms were out of town but provided an affidavit for their daughter, Sasha Ellms, to present the plan.
Sasha Ellms and Josh Presseisan presented the following plan:
Ms. Ellms stated that the plan is to build a house next to her parents house. Ms. Ellms showed the proposed location for the driveway. Ms. Ellms stated that the driveway location has been submitted to the highway department.
Mr. Presseisan stated that the plan was to subdivide off of Mrs. Ellms property and hope to build a house here (showing on the drawing).
Mr. Black stated that the County Planning Board review cited no countywide or intercommunity impact. Mr. Black stated that the County Planning Board stated that a permit would be required for access to Charlton Road. Mr. Black stated that the applicants have already applied. Mr. Black stated that the initial engineering review indicated wetland boundaries that need to be shown. Mr. Black stated that the revised drawing shows the wetlands with appropriate setbacks. Mr. Black stated that the drawing indicates the existing farm road from the Ellms property which is part of their tree farm, is going to be relocated and the road will return to grass. Mr. Black stated that they will reconnect the road on their side.
Mr. Schorr stated that the ECC’s primary comment pertained to having the wetlands indicated. Mr. Schorr stated that he endorses Mr. McNamara’s comments.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. McNamara has reviewed the revised drawing and states that all of his comments have been satisfied by letter of April 11, 2007. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 2.
Mr. Black opened the floor.
David Buffer, 278 Sweetman Road, questioned the number of homes going in.
Mr. Presseisan stated one.
Francine Kilichowski, 273 Sweetman Road, asked for the roads to be delineated.
Mr. Presseisan showed the roads on the drawing.
Mr. Black asked Ms. Kilichowski to approach the Board and he showed her the roads on the Board’s map.
Mr. Black made a motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Minutes
Mr. Black asked for a motion to approve the draft of the March 19, 2007 minutes with corrections incorporated.
Mr. Kadlecek made the motion to approve the March 19, 2007 draft minutes with changes incorporated. Mr. Wilkinson seconded the motion. Mr. Hodgkins abstained from the vote. All remaining Board members were in favor.
Schermerhorn (247-1-33.2)
Mr. Black stated that this is a lot line change. Mr. Black stated that Mr. Schermerhorn could not attend the meeting tonight. Mr. Black stated that the Board has received revised maps with the requested changes incorporated. Mr. Black stated that the Board agreed to waive the Public Hearing and engineering review. Mr. Black stated that the Board needs to make a resolution to accept the lot line change as depicted on the drawing.
Mr. Black asked for a motion for lead agency.
Mr. Wilkinson moved that the Planning Board be designated as lead agency status for the purposes of SEQRA and that the proposed action is an unlisted action under SEQRA with a negative impact declaration for the Schermerhorn subdivision on Sweetman Road. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Mitchell made the motion to approve the lot line change on the Schermerhorn property as Resolution 2007-05 as submitted and authorize the chairman to sign the mylars. Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion. Roll Call vote was taken. Mr. Armer - aye Mr. Hodgkins - aye Ms. Szurek - aye Mr. Wilkinson - aye Mr. Mitchell - aye Mr. Kadlecek - aye Mr. Black - aye Motion carried.
Resolution 2007-05 was made
Ellms (237-1-33)
Mr. Black stated that there were no significant comments from the Public Hearing.
Mr. Black stated that the applicants have satisfied engineering and ECC reviews. Mr. Black stated that the Board has taken lead agency for SEQRA and the Board sees no negative environmental impact therefore negative declaration.
Mr. Black stated that it is required at this point, in order to be able to subdivide a piece of property in the Town of Charlton, that you have to prove that you can get percolation tests to be less than 45 minutes. Mr. Black stated that the Board has not yet received those results. Mr. Black stated that the Board cannot actually approve it or finish the process until the information is received.
Mr. Black stated that there are two choices. Mr. Black stated that the Board could approve the subdivision this evening contingent upon getting the percolation test results. Mr. Black stated that approval stands for 62 days before the drawing has to be signed unless the parties agree down the road to extend that or the Board can delay doing anything until an acceptable perk is received.
Mr. Durst stated that his preference would be to approve with contingency.
Mr. Kadlecek reinforced that the 62 day clock is running.
Mr. Keniry stated that the applicants have to file the mylar within 62 days.
Mr. Durst stated ok.
Mr. Black stated that two motions were needed. Mr. Black stated that the first motion would be for an unlisted action with a negative impact and the second motion would be for approval contingent upon receiving adequate perk test results.
Mr. Wilkinson moved that the Planning Board be designated as lead agency status for the purposes of SEQRA and that the proposed action is an unlisted action under SEQRA with a negative impact declaration for the Ellms subdivision on Charlton Road.. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Mitchell made the motion to approve the Ellms subdivision as Resolution 2007-06 with the contingency of receiving adequate percolation results and authorize the chairman to sign the mylars. Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion. Roll call vote was taken.
Mr. Armer - aye Mr. Hodgkins - aye Ms. Szurek - aye Mr. Wilkinson - aye Mr. Mitchell - aye Mr. Kadlecek - aye Mr. Black - aye Motion carried.
Resolution 2007-06 was made.
Mr. Black reviewed the number of original and copies needed of the mylars with Ms. Ellms.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if the fees had been paid.
Mr. Black stated that the park fee and the engineering escrow needed to be paid. Mr. Black stated that the park fee and engineering escrow would need to be paid and proof of an acceptable percolation rate were needed before he could sign the mylars.
Markham (236-1-122)
Mr. Black stated that based on discussions there is some indication of the wetlands but the Board does not consider that valid.
Mr. Black stated the Board would indicate to Mr. Markham that unless he could provide the July 7, 2004 map showing the wetlands delineated on his map are correct, the Board would like to see on the map, the wetlands delineated and the appropriate building setbacks from the wetlands and from the road and side property lines be shown. Mr. Black stated that the Board would also need to see the percolation information. Mr. Black stated that the Board has accepted this as a preliminary application. Once the requested information has been received the Board could schedule a Public Hearing.
Mr. Black stated that the Board needs: Proof of perk of less than 45 minutes; The wetlands delineated in either the July 7, 2004 map and letter or a new delineation; and show the building envelope setbacks.
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1, 41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3)
Mr. Durst appeared before the Board.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has received several copies of a complete packet of engineered drawings for the 25 lot subdivision on Swaggertown Road. Mr. Black stated that this matter has been on hold for some time. Mr. Black stated that from the Board’s point of view, we will move forward with this subdivision when and if we see some engineering features that were delineated in Mr. McNamara’s letters of last year. Mr. Black stated that he is looking for validation of this assumption that those new drawings represent that.
Mr. Durst stated yes. Mr. Durst stated that he did not know that they were going to be dropped off to Town Hall. Mr. Durst stated that from his conversations with Gary that he was working to the point that they could get those to you so that the Board could move to preliminary approval. Mr. Durst stated that once he has preliminary approval then the Town Board would look at the water situation.
Mr. Black stated that he would pass out the revised drawings to the Board members and send a copy to the town engineer for review. Mr. Black stated that the Board is officially moving forward.
Mr. Durst stated correct.
Nigriny/Durst (247-1-50.12)
Mr. Durst appeared before the Board.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has received new drawings and more engineering comments.
Mr. Black stated that there is still no affidavit from the property owners.
Ms. Nigriny stated that she dropped the affidavit off last month. Ms. Nigriny stated that she dropped the affidavit off three days after the meeting.
Mr. Black stated that he does not have the affidavit. Mr. Black asked if Ms. Nigriny has a copy.
Ms. Nigriny stated that Bob VanVranken, Esq. has a copy.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is lacking the affidavit and lacking perk test results.
Mr. Durst stated that the first test got 7 minutes and the second test got 14 minutes.
Mr. Black asked if the results were on the drawing.
Mr. Durst yes.
Mr. LaFountain asked for the date of the map.
Mr. Keniry stated that it has a submission date of April 2, 2007 and the date on the map is March 30, 2007.
Mr. Black found a copy of the affidavit from Mr. Nigriny. Mr. Black asked for a second affidavit from Mrs. Nigriny to be provided. Mr. Black stated that since there are two property owners that there needed to be two affidavits, one from each owner.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Durst to point out the percolation test information.
Mr. Black stated that the new issue pertains to Mr. McNamara’s notes stating that the elevation of the septic field is higher than where the house is going to be placed. Mr. Black stated that was workable depending upon where the grand flow of the house actually is. Mr. Black stated that there was no indication there to discern that.
Mr. Durst stated that he made sure there was adequate pitch. Mr. Durst stated that it is not a huge grading difference it is only one to two feet. Mr. Durst stated that 90% of the time they shoot grids on top of the foundation calculating that your first floor plumbing is high enough for a gravity build for septic tank and leach field. If you do a basement septic system more often than not that solves the problem. Mr. Durst stated that this particular house would not be set up for a basement system. Mr. Durst stated that if we put this house 5 foot into the ground we still have adequate pitch for the septic system.
Mr. Black noted that Mr. Armer drove by the property this evening.
Mr. Armer stated that he saw the stream flowing nicely and flowing as it should.
Mr. Black noted the downslope pitch to the seasonal stream is 100 foot from the septic system edge. Mr. Black inquired if that was an issue.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if Mr. McNamara commented on it.
Mr. Black responded no.
Mr. LaFountain stated that it is not a severe slope.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. McNamara‘s comment applied to a curtain drain shown on the septic system plan that would not be acceptable. Mr. Black stated that it was on a letter dated December 7, 2005 comment #5. Mr. Black read the comment.
Mr. Durst stated that there is no final septic design. Mr. Durst stated that he is not privy to that design. Mr. Durst stated that this is a young couple three bedroom home.
Mr. Black read from Mr. McNamara’s letter referring to a separate septic design for Lot 1.
Mr. Durst stated that is a non-issue in regards to this. Mr. Durst stated that he is recreating a new septic system design.
Mr. LaFountain stated that in regards to the question about the 100 foot, he does not have a problem with it but the Board should ask Mr. McNamara.
Mr. Black stated that 100 foot is an adequate separation distance, it is required to be at least 100 feet, unless it is downgrad and then it has to be 200 feet. Mr. Black stated that he has a hard time differentiating between a flowing water environment which is going to carry whatever might flow to it downstream to a water well. Mr. Black inquired if it would be prudent to somehow to require a burming situation in the process of providing the septic system design so that downgrade is eliminated.
Mr. Durst asked to what point.
Mr. Black stated so that there is some kind of a berm between the septic system and that stream.
Mr. Durst inquired with perks of 7 and 14 minutes.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he had no problem with it.
Mr. Black stated that there are currently horses on the property. Mr. Black stated that once this subdivision is approved neither lot is adequate for horses. Mr. Black stated that this is a change in the existing use for the lot. Mr. Black stated that the Board would like indicated via a drawing note the change in status. Mr. Black stated that once approved the horses have to go.
Mr. Durst stated that the horses have to go before the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Black stated no, once approved it is a legal lot but not three acres. Mr. Black stated that there may not be building for years and the horses would still be there. Mr. Black stated that upon approval they need to go.
Ms. Nigriny asked for a time frame.
Mr. Black stated that the next step in the subdivision process is to approve this as a preliminary application and schedule a Public Hearing which would occur at next month’s meeting. Mr. Black stated that there would be no approval tonight. Mr. Black stated that assuming that no major issues would be raised at the Public Hearing, the Board could approve at next months meeting. Mr. Black stated then, once approved it would be conditional upon the horses being removed before he would sign the mylars.
Ms. Nigriny stated that she understood that, she just did not want to move the horses before she had to.
Mr. Black stated that the Board would like to see “horse barn” on the map labeled as “storage building”.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has two drawing changes. One is to change “horse barn” to “storage building” and the other is to add a note to the drawing indicating that the existing lot 2 was allowed for horses and is no longer allowed for horses.
Mr. Black asked for a new SEQRA form since the plan has changed. Mr. Black stated that the short form would be acceptable.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has a complete preliminary application. Mr. Black stated that the Board needs to take lead agency status for SEQRA and schedule a Public Hearing.
Mr. Black made the motion that the Planning Board be designated as lead agency status for the purposes of SEQRA for the Nigriny/Durst subdivision on Sweetman & Jenkins Road. Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Mitchell made the motion to accept the application as a complete application and to schedule the Public Hearing for May 21, 2007 at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black stated that there is a requirement that the Planning Board needs to get notice into the Daily Gazette of the Public Hearing. Mr. Black stated that Mr. Keniry does that. Mr. Black stated that all neighboring land owners need to be notified of the Public Hearing by the applicant with postcards. Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York would create a list and get it to Ms. Nigriny. Mr. Black told Ms. Nigriny that she could get the postcards from the clerk and they would need to be mailed 10 days before the Public Hearing.
Gutto (225-1-66.1)
Mr. Gutto approached the Board.
Mr. Black stated that this is a pre-application conference. Mr. Black stated that the Board does not have a formal complete subdivision application or an engineered drawing showing the lots as approved by the ZBA.
Mr. Gutto stated that there are changes in the application. Mr. Gutto stated that page two changed to conform to that map.
Mr. Black stated that a marked up drawing is not an official subdivision map.
Mr. Gutto stated yes, he knows that changes need to be made. Mr. Gutto stated that page two of the subdivision application where is asks for the purpose, the size of the lots has changed, the road frontage has changed, the narrative has changed and the AG data statement has changed.
Mr. Black stated that the Board needs an official fileable map in order to move forward. Mr. Black stated that the map needs to show this subdivision indicating the number of lots and the official lines.
Mr. Gutto stated that the federal wetlands delineation has been done.
Mr. Black stated that the original subdivision did not have complete wetlands delineation.
Mr. Gutto stated that the delineation has been completed to where actual points. Mr. Gutto stated that he has another map showing that. Mr. Gutto stated that this was the final configuration of this subdivision map as it was approved at that point in time with the exception of what is going on in this lot.
Mr. Black inquired where does the wetland connect across the property.
Mr. Gutto stated that it does not connect across the property, it goes this way. Mr. Gutto showed the actual delineation of the federal wetlands.
Mr. Black stated that is what the Board wants to see, the completion of the wetlands delineation.
Mr. Schorr stated that the wetlands do not have to be connected to be contiguous.
Mr. Gutto stated that there is a note on the drawing in regard to that. It was shown on the original map with the delineation.
Mr. Black stated that the Board wants to see the perk test locations from the previous subdivision.
Mr. Gutto stated that he will try to find them. Mr. Gutto stated that none of the lots were over 11 minutes on all four lots.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if the map Mr. Gutto was holding had the full wetlands delineation.
Mr. Gutto stated that the map showed the points of the delineation when it was originally done. Mr. Gutto stated that all of the numbers are continuous in this section of delineation. Mr. Gutto showed where the wet area was.
The Board had some separate group discussions.
Mr. Black sated that he would like to collect all of the applications and the drawings for Mrs. York to review. Mr. Black stated that when the Board receives the new drawings then the application would be complete. Mr. Black stated that when the Board has the percolation test results then the Board could move forward in the process and put it on the agenda.
Mr. Black reviewed what the Board was requesting: Showing the building envelope; Wetlands delineation; Note on no further subdivision; and percolation test results and locations.
Mr. Gutto clarified that the note the Board was requesting is that none of the lots can be further subdivided.
Mr. Black stated yes.
Mr. Black stated that the property is also in Kathryn Gutto’s name and the Board has a letter in the application package from Mrs. Gutto stating that it is ok for Mr. Gutto to speak for her.
Mr. Black stated that it is not the purview of this Board but the Board was informed that there is some kind of activity or potential mining activity pertaining to the pond.
Mr. Gutto stated that there is a pond that he has a permit for that is located here and Mr. LaFountain has all of the information regarding that.
Mr. Black stated that once the Board has a complete application and starts the process, any significant alteration of the property that hasn’t been identified at the submittal is not permitted. Mr. Black stated that the Board wants to make sure that what we are approving is not changing in the process of approving.
Mr. Gutto stated that the boundaries of the pond are not changing the only thing that is changing is that ľ of the pond is dug 8 feet deep.
Mr. Black stated that it would be worth while to show the pond on the drawings.
Mr. Gutto stated that was fine.
Kilichowski/Durst (237-1-1.1)
Mr. Durst approached the Board.
Mr. Durst stated that it is on hold.
Mr. Black stated that an application package was received by the Board but was incomplete. The Board started the process anyway. Mr. Black stated that the Board was notified of a potential issue and the matter was placed on hold. Mr. Black inquired if the matter would be likely to continue or to take off the agenda.
Ms. Nigriny stated yes, please take off the agenda until the Board hears from her.
Mr. Black stated that the application fee was paid and some work was done on the matter. Mr. Black stated that he is not authorized to refund any monies. Mr. Black stated that if the applicant is withdrawing completely, he could request from the Town Board to retain the fee for one lot and refund the remainder.
Mrs. Verola stated that made sense.
Mr. Black inquired if Ms. Nigriny was withdrawing completely or may come back.
Ms. Nigriny stated that she is withdrawing completely. Ms. Nigriny inquired if the Board needed anything in writing.
Mr. Keniry stated that since the applicant was withdrawing in person that it would not be required to withdraw in writing.
Casey (237-1-17.1)
Deborah Herrin approached the Board on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Casey. Mr. Black stated that an e-mail was provided to the Board from Mrs. Casey authorizing Mrs. Herrin to speak on their behalf.
Mr. Black stated that this is a driveway relocation.
Mrs. Herrin stated that the Casey’s would like to move the driveway from Lot A/Lot B boundary line, which is moving the driveway from the north line of Lot A to the south line of Lot B.
Mr. Mitchell stated that he looked at the property and the relocation seems fine.
Mr. Black stated that he also visited the property. Mr. Black stated that he could see past the knoll if he walked to the north to the original site and then the knoll disappears.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the driveway is located on a County Highway and would require a permit.
Mr. Black stated that when the County Planning Board first reviewed this property (8/21/06 letter), they said due to the wetlands, streams and slopes that the Town may want to have the applicant consider clustering the homes using single shared drive off of the County Highway and clustering homes towards the road would provide some protection to the stream corridor and wetland areas and preserve wooded area on the property. Mr. Black stated that if you look at this location there are wetlands above and just below. Mr. Black stated that what they showed was a proposed driveway location that did exactly what the County suggested and they used the existing culvert and showed the proposed driveway locations over that existing culvert. Mr. Black stated that now they are saying take that driveway and move it south going on the other side of this little wetland put in a new culvert and loll it there. Mr. Black stated that from the Board’s standpoint, that is still within the scope of what was approved because it was proposed. Mr. Black stated that the Board should indicate in the minutes that the Board has reviewed the new proposed driveway location at the southernmost end of the lot and that the Board considers that to be acceptable to the conditions as originally approved. Mr. Black stated that the Board does not need a new resolution to authorize a change in the driveway location because the Board never required it.
Mr. Keniry stated that the Board is making a finding that it is indicative that the changed result is in substantial agreement with the County approval. Mr. Keniry stated that the Board should make findings on resolution and note on it.
Mr. Black made the motion for Resolution 2007-07 regarding Lot A of the Casey Subdivision, that in reviewing the proposed driveway location instead of exiting on the northernmost portion of Lot A the driveway would exit the lot onto Sweetman Road on the southernmost extent of the lot and the Planning Board finds the proposed change to be in substantial agreement with the originally approved subdivision plan. The driveway must be on the southernmost extent of the lot within 10 feet of the lot line to avoid a traffic, sight distance issue therefore, if the driveway is moved to the southernmost part it must be within 10 feet of the property and be approved by the County for access to the County Road. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. Roll call vote was taken. Mr. Armer - aye Mr. Hodgkins - aye Ms. Szurek - aye Mr. Wilkinson - aye Mr. Mitchell - aye Mr. Kadlecek - aye Mr. Black - aye Motion carried.
Mr. Wilkinson made the motion on the Casey Subdivision, Lot A Driveway relocation, that the action does not alter the SEQRA determination of negative SEQRA impact. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Resolution 2007-07 was made
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. LaFountain provided a report for March 2007. The Board reviewed the report with Mr. LaFountain.
Comprehensive Plan Report
No report. . Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that there has been a substantial amount of work done by Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Kadlecek, Mrs. Wood and Mr. Schorr looking at the State recommendations for storm water management for the regulations to be added to the Town Law.
Mr. Black stated that they have drafted what would be specific to Charlton. Mr. Black stated that everyone has received a copy.
Mr. Black stated that he would like a review of the draft and any questions anyone has.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the group was given instruction by Mr. Black and by the Town Board Liaison to review the State model sample law to see if there were some changes that seemed appropriate for the Town of Charlton
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the sample law the start of that was done in three parts. Mr. Kadlecek stated that one part is the responsibility of the Towns and the Boards as to how they process the information and what they include, what kind of properties are going to come before this application. Mr. Kadlecek stated that another part was engineering and review. Mr. Kadlecek stated that the third part was the legal implications and the legal process on how things are done.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the group reviewed the first general area which represents the first two articles in the state model law. Mr. Kadlecek stated that the group looked at that and other towns that were similar in size to Charlton. Mr. Kadlecek stated that the group gave a first try on the first two articles of the sample law applicable to Charlton. Mr. Kadlecek stated that the group decided not to go beyond that and work on the engineering requirements, the tests that would have to be done, the legal implications along the way, until they received a recommitment from the Town Board that the general direction in which they were going seemed to be appropriate and then they would be producing something that would be considered later.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the draft provided to the Board is not the final product. Mr. Kadlecek stated that it is an indication of the kind of changes that the group believed would be appropriate for the Town. Mr. Kadlecek stated that the group would like to provide a copy to the Town Board for input that the group is heading in the right direction.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the draft is very similar to the State sample law. Mr. Kadlecek stated that if the Planning Board agrees with the draft then a copy should be reviewed by Mr. Keniry and then to the Town Board for review. Mr. Kadlecek stated that if the Town Board advises the group to move forward, there are many people available to consult with.
Mr. Black asked the Board if there were any questions.
Mr. Black asked if the draft was in a position to take to the Town Board for review at an agenda meeting as a work in progress with the understanding that this is where we are heading.
Mrs. Verola asked if Mr. Keniry and Mr. McNamara should also review the draft.
Mr. Black stated that both gentlemen received a copy.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the issues that affect Mr. McNamara are in the next article that has not been visited yet.
Mrs. Verola stated that when the group goes before the Town Board with the plan the Town Board would like to know that the draft has been reviewed by Mr. Keniry.
Mr. Keniry stated that he has not fully studied the draft. Mr. Keniry stated that he was involved earlier in the process but has not been involved since.
Mrs. Verola stated that Bob VanVrnken, Esq. has been working on it also.
Mr. Black stated that if adopted as drafted right now, the way it is drafted with the changes, the Planning Board is almost as the approval agency almost across the board for any action. Mr. Black stated that there is a SMO (Storm Water Management Officer) assigned by the Town Board and that any problems would go before that person.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that if it is a subdivision then whoever has decision making authority has the responsibility to check to see if this should be triggered.
Mr. Black stated that if triggered, the requirement is a separate application that goes to the SMO. Mr. Black inquired why.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Planning Board only acts when they have a responsibility to the subdivision.
Mr. Black stated that it does not read that way.
The Board had various discussions pertaining to the Stormwater management officer.
Mr. Black stated that he agrees that the group is heading in the right direction and would like to try to get a presentation together for the Town Board’s agenda meeting later in the month.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the group is trying to clarify the mechanics of how things would work. Mr. Wilkinson stated that the group also added specific words in spots to suit Charlton.
Mr. Black stated that he will review his comments with Mr. Wilkinson and then send the draft to Mr. Keniry to present to Mr. Vanvranken as work completed to date.
Mr. Keniry suggested Mrs. Verola hand out copies at the Town Board meeting.
Mrs. Verola stated that she will note that the first part has been completed and given to Mr. Keniry for review and has also given a copy to Mr. VanVranken to review.
Mr. Black stated that there is a Capital District workshop on May 7, 2007 at Hudson Valley Community College. Mr. Black stated that if anyone has any interest to contact Mrs. York.
Town Board Liaison
Mrs. Verola asked if there were any additions to the newsletter.
Mr. Black responded no
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Szurek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly A. Caron Recording Secretary
April 11, 2007 Attachment 1
Mr. Raymond E. Black Planning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: Exempt Subdivision - Lands of Nigriny – Sweetman & Jenkins Tax Map Parcel No. 247.00-1-50.12
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received a revised plan for the two-lot subdivision of lands of John and Regina Nigriny located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Sweetman Road and Jenkins Road. The plan is dated October 14, 2005 with a most recent revision date of March 30, 2007. The subdivision was prepared by John G. Gay, P.L.S.(n) of Northeast Land Survey & Land Development Consultants, P.C.
This project was last reviewed by our firm in December of 2005. Also submitted at that time were sheets 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 entitled “Septic System Design, Lot 1, Subdivision of lands of John and Regina Nigriny.” The septic design was prepared in response to a previous comment made in our review letter of November 1, 2005. Subsequent to those submittals, the project was denied two separate area variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals and no further action was pursued by the applicant until this recent submittal. We offer the following comments for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Michael McNamara, P.E. The Environmental Design Partnership
Cc: Planning Board Members John Gay, P.L.S(n) Bill Keniry Dean Durst April 11, 2007 Attachment 2
Mr. Raymond E. BlackPlanning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: Exempt Subdivision \ Lands of Sally Ellms \ Charlton Road Tax Map Parcel No. 237.00-1-33
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received a revised plan for the two lot subdivision of lands of Sally D. Ellms on Charlton Road. The plan remains dated February 12, 2007 with no record of a revision date. The revised plan can be easiy recognized by its depiction of the NYS DEC wetlands. The changes reflected on this drawing satisfactorily address all of the items in our comment letter of March 6, 2007 and we have no further comment.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please feel free to call.
Very truly yours,
Michael McNamara, P.E. The Environmental Design Partnership
Cc: Planning Board Members Bill Keniry Sally Ellms
|
|
|
| |