Town of Charlton

Planning Board Minutes

And Public Hearing Minutes

784 Charlton Road

Charlton, New York 12019

 

Minutes of Planning Board Meeting – January 22, 2007

 

Chairman Raymond Black called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the John W. Taylor Hall.

 

Present: Raymond Black, Chairman, Mark Hodgkins, Jay Wilkinson, John Kadlecek,  Dawn Szurek, William Keniry, Esq., Planning Board Attorney, Susan York, Planning Board clerk and Kimberly Caron, recording secretary.  Mr. Mitchell joined the meeting at 7:15 p.m.  Mrs. Wood joined the meeting at 7:40 p.m.

 

AGENDA MEETING:

 

Mr. Black stated that there are five of seven Board members present which represents a quorum. 

 

Mr. Black welcomed new Board member Dawn Szurek and new Alternate Mike Armer.

 

Correspondence

 

Mr. Black stated that he has an announcement from the Town Board that the resolution passed for a seven member board.  Mr. Black stated that the Board has two new members. Jay Wilkinson has been assigned to fill in a term for a six year period as opposed to a seven year term.  Mr. Black stated that Dawn Szurek has been appointed for the next seven years.  Mr. Black stated that Mike Armer is the 1st Alternate and the Alternates are appointed annually for one year terms. 

 

Mr. Black thanked all new members and alternates for volunteering.

 

Mr. Black stated that the Town’s fee schedule has been amended to take effect on January 1, 2007.  Mr. Black stated that application fees for subdivisions are $300.00 per lot including lot line adjustments however the Board can waive that if the Board feels that is appropriate.  Mr. Black stated that the lot park fee has been increased to $1,200.00.  Mr. Black stated that the engineering escrow account will still be maintained separately as done in the past. 

 

Mr. Kadlecek inquired if the application fee was per lot and if it was refundable if not all lots applied for were approved.

 

Mr. Black stated that the application fee is non-refundable.

 

Mr. Kadlecek inquired if the park fee was based upon final approval.

 

Mr. Black stated yes.

 

Mrs. Verola stated that there are two applications before the Board that are subject to 2006 fees. 

 

Mr. Black stated that the two applications were Miller/Foss and Cuchelo.

 

Minutes

 

Mr. Black stated that there are two sets of meeting minutes to approve.   Mr. Black stated that the dates were November 20, 2006 and December 11, 2006.  Mr. Black stated that changes were provided by Mrs. York for both the November draft minutes and the December draft minutes.  Mr. Black stated that he has no changes other than the changes provided by Mrs. York to both drafts.  No other changes were submitted for either draft.

 

Public Hearing

 

Miller/Foss (225-1-46.11)

 

Mr. Black stated that there would be a Public Hearing on this matter this evening beginning at 7:45 p.m.

 

Mrs. York stated that there was a shortage of maps.

 

Mr. Black stated that the property is located on the corner of Route 67 and Cook Road.  Mr. Black stated that the parcel is 63 acres being split up into two parcels.  The first parcel surrounds the house and is 5 acres and the second parcel is the remaining 55 acres. 

 

Mr. Black stated that Mr. McNamara has completed engineering review and has provided comments which have been incorporated.

 

Mr. Black stated that the application was referred to the County Planning Board.  The County replied with “no significant County Wide/Inter Community impact“. The letter did contain a comment pertaining to the remaining 55 acres to make sure that access to the larger lot is possible in case there are further subdivisions.  The comment went on further to say that any new driveway cuts onto Route 67 need to go before NYSDOT for a curb cut permit and any proposed new septic system has to be designed by a NYS licensed engineer and certified by the town building inspector.

 

Mr. Black stated that there was an e-mail from Mrs. Miller in which she inquired how long following the subdivision approval does someone who purchases the remaining 55 acre parcel have to wait for any further subdivision plans of their own.

 

Mr. Keniry stated that he does not know of any obligation that they have to wait at all. 

 

Mr. Black stated that the Public Hearing was supposed to have occurred last Monday but was delayed due to inclement weather.  There was a new Public Hearing notice issued.  Mr. Black thanked Mr. Keniry for taking care of that.  Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York contacted all of the people who were sent a postcard and notified them of the change.

 

Mr. Black asked if there were any issues seen by anyone else.

 

Mr. Black stated that it appears to be a straight-forward subdivision.  Mr. Black stated that he asked Mr. Miller at the last meeting to consider incorporating all of the Route 67 road frontage with the house.  Mr. Black stated that Mr. Miller acknowledged that as a legitimate request but no statement as to his intentions has been made.  Mr. Black stated that he would again ask Mr. Miller.  Mr. Black stated that the reason for the request was for the concern of having more driveway cuts onto Route 67.

 

Mr. Black stated that he would like Mr. Mitchell to take the lead on this subdivision.

 

Mr. Mitchell stated that he has reviewed this subdivision and does not see any major issues.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the pond setback is questionable.

 

Mr. Black stated that at the December 11^th meeting, the Board requested several things from the applicant: incorporation of the engineering comments and the dimension from the pond to the northern property line.

 

Subdivision Applications

 

Cuchelo (235-1-33.1)

 

Mr. Black stated that this application has been before the Board for quite some time.  Mr. Black stated that from the date of the public hearing the Board’s action has actually exceeded the 62 day requirement but because of the cancellation of the meeting, Mr. Black stated that he spoke to Ms. Cuchelo representative (Guy Mitchell) and agreed to come to tonight.  Mr. Black stated that the Board has to act tonight or to extend and if there is any reason to extend, the Board would need Mr. Mitchell’s agreement to do so.

 

Mr. Black stated that there has been a significant amount of work done in the last month by Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Kadlecek and Mrs. Wood looking into some of the water course protection and storm water issues associated with this subdivision.  Mr. Black stated that they met with different individuals within the County and the State.  Mr. Black stated that he met with Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Kadlecek to review some of the findings.  Mr. Black stated that the long and the short of the research and the decisions so far is that the Board has reached a point of comfort with the current status of the application as it is with the current stream course protection, i.e. DEC wetlands protection and flood plain control laws are adequate for this subdivision.

 

Mr. Kadlecek inquired if the Board had approved the Environmental Impact Statement.

 

Mrs. York stated there was a negative declaration on November 20, 2006.

 

Mr. Black stated that he has that listed as declared as an unlisted SEQRA action with a negative SEQRA declaration.

 

Mr. Black stated that there are new laws coming into effect for storm water management.  The essence of the law is to control construction activities so that if subdivision construction activities, during the period of construction where the land is warped and made more vulnerable to erosion, that there are appropriate controls taken to prevent damage to the land.  Also in the event that the construction or work that is done changes the lay of the land, that storm water runoff and storm water management are not affected as a result of the construction activity.  The potential threshold that makes these laws come into effect is if the potential for any given subdivision has the potential to exceed more than one acre of land where there can be construction activity.  As a result of the Board’s review of the Cuchelo Subdivision, Mr. Kadlecek did some calculations and came up with the findings that a normal house footprint (construction activity), the normal area of a septic system disturbance as a result of putting in a septic system and a normal driveway, when you hit about four lots you can reach one acre in total disturbance.  This subdivision in particular, with the one driveway being quite long, we hit that threshold.  On that basis there were discussions on how to enact that law.  In this case there are two options available: one is you could request that before approval for the subdivision that the plan for the storm water runoff is submitted as part of the subdivision approval process or two as the individual construction activities occur on the individual lots, each one has to have its own.  Mr. Black stated that since this subdivision does not have the direct plans necessarily to build houses, and if they were to be built we wouldn’t know necessarily where they were going to be located, it would be very difficult to ask for a plan at this point for storm water management because there is not enough knowledge.  Mr. Black stated that the Board would like to alert the system that we have tripped this limit.  Mr. Black stated that he asked Mr. Keniry and Mr. McNamara to review this.  The recommendation was to add a note to the drawing reading:

 

“No building permits shall be issued until such time as the landowner has fully complied with all state and local storm water pollution prevention requirements, including but not limited to SPDES General Permit for Storm water Discharges for Construction Activity (GP-02-01)”.

 

Mr. Black stated that the addition of the note would create an alert to the building inspector.  Mr. Black stated that the requirement could be met by either the person who owns the lot now or by the person who buys the lot.

 

Mr. Kadlecek inquired how is it established who will be funding the engineering.  Mr. Kadlecek stated that one recommendation from DEC was that the owner at the time of the subdivision was responsible for this but it doesn’t have to be that way.

 

Mr. Black stated that the building inspector has to be satisfied that the intent of the storm water management requirements has been satisfied. 

 

Mr. McNamara stated that the best way for the Town of Charlton is at the issuance of the permit, you know it all has been taken care of.

 

Mr. Black stated that under Correspondence, General Discussions, he would like to discuss that the Town of Charlton, by January of 2008, has to have in place laws that set these storm water management requirements into Town Law.  Mr. Black stated that at this point we do not have that.  Mr. Black stated that these laws would then provide the necessary guidance as to how the Board does this and what responsibilities different agencies have.  Mr. Black stated that he has asked Mr. Keniry to start doing some research on how the Board might do that town wide.  Mr. Black stated that he would like the Planning Board to create the framework to present to the Town Board.

 

Mr. Kadlecek stated that he has a copy of the publication “Storm water Management Guidance Manual for Local Officials” that he would like to give to Mrs. Verola for the Town Board.

 

Mr. Keniry asked if it was the September 2004 publication.

 

Mr. Kadlecek stated yes.

 

Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board will proceed as lead to create the basic framework on the basis of providing a recommendation for the Town Board’s consideration.  Mr. Black stated that he would like to have the recommendations completed in the Spring.

 

Mr. Black stated that on the Cuchelo subdivision the Board’s final action is to deal with the storm water management issue by adding the note to the drawing.

 

Mr. Hodgkins asked if the note meant no grading until that has been done.

 

Mr. Black stated no construction activities that require a building permit.

 

Mr. Keniry stated that the law does not differentiate or discriminate in terms of its application to either a commercial project or a realty subdivision.  There are different rules, however in terms of the spirit and the intent of the law.  It is intended to apply to this type of activity and it contemplates or considers the actions of a contractor on the site in the aggregate, it looks at the totality of the disturbance.  The other side of it is this it may give you some comfort to some extent in that the enforcement is not just dumped on the Town, the enforcement action fortunately occurs as a result of a phone call to the DEC.  The wise applicant makes their phone call to the DEC and makes the application now and gets it behind the applicant in as early on in the process as possible by filing a Notice of Intention.  That puts the burden on the DEC to respond within a certain number of days and there is a somewhat accelerated process in terms of the DEC’s intent to try to deal with this in a manner unlike what we dealt with 10 or 15 years ago when there would be 80,000 of these applications throughout the state coming in.  This is intended to be a more streamlined process because they are working under how to describe in a master plan for addressing storm water.

 

Mr. McNamara stated that most of the construction permits are issued within 5 days.  

 

Mr. Mitchell asked is there were any guidelines on a realty subdivision.

 

Mr. McNamara stated that since it is a construction permit that the disturbance has to be simultaneous.  If you did half an acre and stabilized it and then went and did another half an acre you would never hit that one acre threshold.  Mr. McNamara stated that for further clarification, he contacted DEC and procedurally what they are doing is if the plan involves more than one acre of disturbance it requires Notice of Intent permit.  The way they suggested doing it is each individual lot owner, when they are ready to build, would get their own permit.

 

Mr. Keniry stated that in this instance, in September of 2006 the DEC published some guidance on it that went on to say they have established the one acre threshold and also require a permit on construction activities disturbing less than one acre if they are part of a larger common plan of development or sale with a planned disturbance of equal to or greater than one acre.

 

Mr. Kadlecek stated that lot 4 may have special consideration because of the long driveway and how much they clear for a yard.

 

Payton/Todd (235-1-67.1)

 

Mr. Black stated that this is a preliminary application.  Mr. Black stated that he does not see any particular issues on this application.

 

Galway Referral

 

Douglas E. Cath (213-1-71.1)

 

Mr. Black stated that this is a Subdivision on McConchie Road

 

Reports

 

Mr. Black stated that there would be standard reports.

 

Correspondence

 

Mr. Black stated that there are upcoming training opportunities.

 

The meeting was closed at 7:40 p.m.

 

BUSINESS MEETING

 

Opened at 7:40 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

Mr. Black stated that there is a quorum of seven members. 

 

Mr. Mitchell recused himself from discussions of the Cuchelo subdivision.

 

Ms. Szurek recused herself from discussions of the Cuchelo subdivision.

 

Minutes

 

Mr. Black asked for a motion to approve both sets of meeting minutes.

 

Mr. Hodgkins made the motion to approve the November 20, 2006 draft minutes and the December 11, 2006 draft minutes with Mrs. York’s changes incorporated on both drafts.  Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  Ms. Szurek abstained from the vote. 

 

Mr. Black thanked Mrs. Wood, Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Kadlecek for all work and research done on the Cuchelo subdivision.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

 

Miller/Foss (225-1-46.11)

 

Mr. Black stated that the Public Hearing for this application was originally scheduled for January 15, 2007 but was cancelled due to inclement weather.  Mr. Black stated that the Public Hearing notice was reposted in the Daily Gazette courtesy of Mr. Keniry.  Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York telephoned all of the neighboring property owners and informed them of the change in date.

 

Mr. Black explained the Public Hearing process.

 

Mr. Miller presented the following plan:

 

            Parcel is located on the corner of Cook Road and Route 67; it is a corner lot of approximately 60 acres;

            Plan is to subdivide the house and surrounding buildings onto a five acre parcel to sell off as one piece and the remaining 55 acres will be sold as one piece.

 

Mr. Black asked Mr. Miller to point out where the road boundaries were located and where the property extents were located.

 

Mr. Miller pointed out Cook Road and Route 67, showing the house location and the fenced in pond as well as a building and a garage.  Mr. Miller stated that there is also a fenced in pool area.  Mr. Miller also showed the area used as lawn.  Mr. Miller stated that the rest of the property extends down Cook Road.  There is a lot of frontage on 67.

 

Mr. Black opened the hearing to the floor.

 

Ms. Szurek stated that she has read over the previous months meeting minutes and is up to speed on the application.

 

Mr. Black made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:49 p.m.  Mrs. Wood seconded the motion.  All were in favor. 

 

Subdivision Applications

 

Miller/Foss (225-1-46.11)

 

Mr. Black stated that at last months meeting the Board requested that the drawing be modified to include engineering comments.  Mr. Black requested a new drawing.

 

Mr. McNamara stated that he has received a revised drawing with a revision date of December 8, 2006 which includes all of his comments.

 

Mr. Black located the revised drawing.

 

Mr. McNamara reiterated that all of his comments were addressed on the new drawing.  Mr. McNamara stated that the pond setback from the north property line was not on the drawing.

 

Mr. Miller stated that he would have that added.

 

Mr. Black stated that the actual dimension would need to be shown.

 

Mr. McNamara stated that the setback appears to be 50 feet but it is not on the drawing.

 

Mr. Black stated that the application was referred to the County Planning Board.  By letter dated December 28, 2006, the County responded with “No significant  County Wide/Inter Community impact”.

 

Mr. Black stated that the letter did contain a comment pertaining to the remaining 55 acres to make sure that access to the larger lot is possible in case there are further subdivisions.  The comment went on further to say that any new driveway cuts onto Route 67 need to go before NYSDOT for a curb cut permit and any proposed new septic system has to be designed by a NYS licensed engineer and certified by the town building inspector.

 

Mr. Black stated that regarding the issue of potential access and driveway access, the intent is to minimize potential for future problems.  Mr. Black stated that he had asked Mr. Miller to consider including more of Route 67’s road frontage to be added to the parcel with the house.

 

Mr. Miller stated that they had thought about it and, in talking to interested parties in the land, neither party is talking about further subdivision.  Mr. Miller stated that both parties have indicated that they do not want to subdivide further.  Mr. Miller stated that there is plenty of access on Cook Road.

 

Mr. Black stated that he received an e-mail from Mrs. Miller asking how long the buyer of the 55 acre parcel would have to wait for their own plans for the property.  Mr. Black stated that the Board knows of no time period once the subdivision is approved.

 

Mr. Miller stated that the interested parties they are speaking to now do not intend to subdivide further.  Mr. Miller stated that they had another interested party that had asked that question.  Mr. Miller stated that was no longer a concern.

 

Mr. Black stated that the only remaining issue is the dimension from the pond to the north lot line.

 

Mr. Black asked how much of the remaining 55 acres was being farmed.

 

Mr. Miller showed Mr. Black on the drawing.

 

Mr. Mitchell stated that Mrs. Wood noticed that the existing septic system is not noted on the drawing.

 

Mr. Miller stated that the septic is located on the Cook Road side of the house.

 

Mrs. Wood asked if it was close to the house.

 

Mr. Miller stated yes, it is between the house and Cook Road.

 

Mr. Black stated that the Board requires the dimension from the north property line to the pond be shown and the location of the existing septic be shown on the drawing.

 

Mr. Black asked if the Board should take action tonight or wait for the pond setback dimension.

 

Both Mr. McNamara and Mr. Mitchell stated that they believe that the setback is more than 50 feet.

 

Mr. Miller stated that he does have two parties interested in the property and both parties have stated that they are not interested in subdividing further.  Mr. Miller stated that he would appreciate Board approval tonight to move on with the land sale.

 

Mr. Keniry stated that the Board took lead agency for SEQRA in December.

 

Mrs. Wood inquired about restricting driveway access to Cook Road only.

 

Mr. McNamara stated that a simple note could be added to the drawing.  Mr. McNamara stated that the note would read that no further driveway cuts will be permitted on Route 67.

 

Mr. Black asked Mr. Keniry if the restriction was added that no further access to Route 67 is permissible, if the land were sold and five years from now a new owner does not agree and wants to put access to something onto that road, how do they achieve that?

 

Mr. Keniry stated that if the new owner is before the Board as an applicant they might have some ability to exercise some control. 

 

Mr. Black asked Mr. Keniry if the Board could impose such a condition.

 

Mr. Keniry stated that the Board could impose that condition with the consent of the applicant.

 

Mr. Miller stated that he does not want the restriction.

 

Mr. McNamara stated that if it is a single driveway onto Route 67 DOT can tackle the problem of sight distance.

 

Mr. LaFountain pulled out a map from a previous subdivision on Route 67 and Division Street where the driveway was mandated to Division Street.

 

Mr. Black stated that the Board needs to do a SEQRA determination and resolution for approval action with two contingencies.  Mr. Black stated that the first contingency is showing the dimension from the pond to the north property line and the second contingency is the location of the existing septic system be annotated on the drawing.

 

Mr. Wilkinson stated that there is no standard note indicating no building permit without a curb cut.

 

Mr. Black stated that a third contingency would need to be added to the approval adding the standard curb cut note to the drawing.  Mr. Black stated that the language would be provided to Mr. Miller.

 

Mrs. Wood made the motion to classify the action as an unlisted action for SEQRA with a negative declaration relative to SEQRA.  Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion.  Roll Call Vote was taken.

Mr. Kadlecek - aye

Mr. Wilkinson - aye

Mrs. Wood – aye

Mr. Black – aye

Mr. Mitchell – aye

Mr. Hodgkins – aye

Ms. Szurek - aye

Motion was carried.

 

Mrs. Wood made the motion to approve the subdivision application as Resolution 2007-01 and authorize the chairman to sign the mylars with the condition that the new maps indicate the location of the existing septic system, annotate the distance of the pond to the north property line be 50 feet in excess or adjusted to make the minimum of 50 feet from the pond to the property line and the addition of a curb cut note.  Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion.  Roll Call Vote was taken.

Mr. Kadlecek - aye

Mr. Wilkinson - aye

Mrs. Wood – aye

Mr. Black – aye

Mr. Mitchell – aye

Mr. Hodgkins – aye

Ms. Szurek - aye

Motion was carried.

 

Mr. Black informed Mr. Miller of the number of mylars needed for signature.  Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York would provide the filing regulations with the County to Mr. Miller.  Mr. Black stated that once all fees are paid and the revised drawings are received, they will be signed.

 

Mrs. York stated that the park fee is set at the 2006 rate.

 

Cuchelo (235-1-33.1)

 

Mr. Chris Mitchell and Ms. Szurek recused themselves from the discussions.

 

Mr. Black stated that the Board would like a note added to the drawing and then the Board would be satisfied that the proposed plan meets all regulations.

 

Mr. Black made the motion to approve the subdivision application revision plat November 2, 2006 with all changes included to date as Resolution 2007-02 conditional upon the addition of a note to the drawing stating that “No building permits shall be issued until such time as the landowner has fully complied with all state and local storm water pollution prevention requirements, including but not limited to SPDES General Permit for Storm water Discharges for Construction Activity (GP-02-01)” and a revision to Note #4 changing DOT to DEC and once revised, authorize the chairman to sign the mylars.  Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion.  Roll Call Vote was taken.

Mr. Kadlecek - aye

Mr. Wilkinson - aye

Mrs. Wood – aye

Mr. Black – aye

Mr. Hodgkins – aye

Motion was carried.

 

Mr. Black informed Mr. Mitchell of the number of mylars needed for signature.  Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York would provide the filing regulations with the County to Mr. Mitchell.  Mr. Black stated that once all fees are paid and the revised drawings are received, they will be signed.

 

Payton/Todd (235-1-67.1)

 

Mr. Black stated that there was a pre-application conference for this matter in December.  The Board requested survey maps to be done showing topography, perk test results and locations, well location, wetlands and buffer, site location map and existing site features. 

 

Mr. Black stated that an application with maps has been received with all of the Boards requirements included with the exception of the wetlands buffer.  Mr. Black stated that the short form EIS, the neighboring property owners, the ag data and the deed have also been received.  Mr. Black stated that we have a complete application.

 

Mrs. York stated that there is also an affidavit from Matt Payton to represent Keith Payton at any point.

 

Mr. Black asked for any comments from the Board.

 

Mr. Keniry asked if this application had been referred to the County.

 

Mr. Black stated no.

 

Mrs. York stated that now that there is a complete application she is authorized to send it to the County.

 

Mrs. York asked if the application needed to be referred to anyone else.

 

Mr. Black asked Mr. Payton how long the driveway was going to be.

 

Mr. Payton stated approximately 700 feet including the turnaround.

 

Mr. Black stated that as a courtesy, Mrs. York could send it to the Fire Commissioner.

 

Mr. Wilkinson stated that Note #4 on the drawing, the curb cut note, has the wording reversed.

 

The Board reviewed Note #4 and discussed.

 

Mr. Wilkinson stated that the note on the Cuchelo map was worded opposite from the note on the Payton/Todd drawing.

 

Mr. Black asked Mr. LaFountain to review.

 

Mr. Black asked Mr. Payton to have the drawing revised to reflect the wording in the Cuchelo map.  Mrs. York provided Mr. Payton a copy of the wording from the Cuchelo map.

 

Mr. Black stated that the standard drawing notes would need to be modified.

 

Mr. Black stated that we have a complete application.  Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York would send the application to the County [and the Fire Commissioner].  At a later point in time, in the meeting, Mr. Mitchell explained that the Fire Commissioner desired notification of long driveways to come from the 911 application process.  Mr. Black stated that Note #4 needs to be revised.

 

Mr. Black stated that the existing well was located within the wetlands.  Mr. Black asked Mr. McNamara if that was an issue.

 

Mr. McNamara stated that he was unaware of any issues that would present.

 

Mr. Black stated that the driveway crosses the wetlands in a small section, less than a tenth of an acre.  Mr. Black stated that a 100 foot buffer should be added to the wetlands.

 

Mr. McNamara stated that it is labeled as the Army Corp of Engineers.  Mr. McNamara stated that with the Army Corp of Engineers, no buffer is needed as it is based on site conditions.

 

Mr. Mitchell raised a concern with the width of the driveway stating that the passing area should be around 18 feet.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the width requirement is not in the data given.

 

Mr. Black stated that Mr. McNamara has completed his review of the drawing.  Mr. McNamara provided comments by letter dated January 17, 2007.  A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 1.

 

Mr. Black stated that there were two comments.  One comment pertained to the wording of note #3 being modified to add the phrase “Where non-conventional systems such as alternative systems, shallow systems and built-up systems are planned, the individual plans are to be approved by the New York State Department of Health and …”.  Mr. Black stated that the second comment requested that the perk test information also needs to be added to the drawing.

 

Mrs. York questioned the title of the drawing.

 

Mr. Black stated that the title of the drawing is “Subdivisions of the lands of Elenora Lucas Schweizer Trust”.  Mr. Black stated a more appropriate title would be “Subdivision of the lands of Payton”.

 

Mr. Payton stated that the surveyor stated that it was titled that way because that is the way they look things up.

 

Mr. Black asked Mr. LaFountain if he had a preference.

 

Mr. LaFountain stated no.

 

Mr. Black asked Mr. Payton to retitle the drawing as the “Subdivision of the lands of Payton” and leave reference to the Schweizer Trust on the site plan.

 

Mrs. Wood made the motion to declare the Planning Board as lead agency for SEQRA.  Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion.   All were in favor.

 

Mrs. Wood made the motion to schedule the Public Hearing for February 19, 2007 at 7:45 p.m.  Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion.  All were in favor.

 

Mrs. York provided Mr. Payton with the instructions for notification of the Public Hearing.

 

Mr. Payton asked if he should apply for the driveway permit now.

 

Mr. Black stated that a curb cut permit is needed first and without approval there can be no building permit.

 

Galway Referral

 

Mr. Black stated that this is a 9 acre subdivision request to subdivide into two lots.  It borders the Town of Charlton.

 

Mr. Black stated that the Board has acknowledged the subdivision and has no comment.  Mrs. York was asked to draft a reply to the Galway Planning Board.

 

Zoning Administrator Report

 

Mr. LaFountain provided reports for November 2006 and December 2006.  The Board reviewed the reports with Mr. LaFountain.

 

Mr. Mitchell advised the Board of his findings from conversations with the local Fire Commissioners regarding long driveways.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the main issues pertained to the passing area, culverts, regulations for driveways under 500 feet and

notification of all driveway lengths upon completion for 911 purposes.

 

Mr. Mitchell said that Ron Gavin suggested using the driveway application process to notify the fire departments of long driveways.  Mr. Mitchell also said that the Planning Board should notify the Fire and Highway Departments for major subdivisions only, by sending maps and Public Hearing notifications.

 

Mr. Black asked Mr. Mitchell to write up his findings with specific modifications to the  process in order for the Planning Board to discuss it and forward the findings and suggestions to the Town Board.

 

Mr. Mitchell stated that he would write something up after he spoke to the Commissioner of Charlton.

 

Comprehensive Plan Report

 

Mr. Hodgkins stated that there is a public meeting scheduled for February 28, 2007.

 

Correspondence

 

Mr. Black stated that the Saratoga County Planning and Zoning Conference would be held on January 24, 2007 at the Saratoga Conference Center.  Mr. Black stated that registration begins at 8:00 a.m. and the first session begins at 9:30 a.m. 

 

Mr. Black stated that the changes to the Planning Board and the new fee schedule were addressed at the agenda meeting.

 

Town Board Liaison

 

Mrs. Verola stated that the article she received from Mrs. York would be published and the Comprehensive Plan review will be published in the newsletter with the date, time and location.  Mrs. Verola stated that is would also be on the website.

 

Mr. Black stated that he picked up the new filing regulations for Mrs. York.

 

Mr. Black stated that he gave Mr. Armer and Ms. Szurek the information from the County Planning Board meeting, general information and ways to access GIS.

 

Mr. Black suggested reviewing SEQRA and when to do a negative declaration and make a formal process for the minutes.

 

Mrs. Verola suggested giving Mr. Armer and Ms. Szurek a copy of the checklist prepared by Mr. Keniry.  Mrs. York provided copies to all Board members.

 

Mr. Black stated that he would like to forward the information provided by Mr. Keniry pertaining to storm water management to Blue Neils and invite him to review the information.  Mr. Black asked Mr. Kadlecek to take the lead in reviewing the information provided by Mr. Keniry.

 

Mr. Hodgkins made a motion to adjourn.  Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion.  All were in favor.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

Kimberly A. Caron

Recording Secretary

January 17, 2007                                                                                                                       Attachment 1

 

Mr. Raymond E. Black

Planning Board Chairman

Town of Charlton Town Hall

784 Charlton Road

Charlton, N.Y. 12019

 

Re: Resubdivision of Lot 2 – Elenora Lucas Schweizer Trust

      Tax Map Parcel No. 235.00-1-67.1

 

Dear Chairman Black:

 

We have received a proposed two-lot subdivision of Lot #2 of the Elenora Lucas Schweizer Trust subdivision.  The Charlton Planning Board approved that original application in the spring of 2001. A subsequent subdivision of Lot #1 of that application was also considered in November 2005.  These previous actions effectively make the current proposal a four-lot minor subdivision.

 

The subdivision plan dated December 21, 2006 was prepared by Duane J. Rabideau, P.L.S. of Gilbert VanGuilder Land Surveyor, PLLC.  The property falls within the town’s Agriculture and Residential-Agriculture zoning districts.  Each of the resulting lots will comply with all applicable zoning bulk schedule requirements. I reviewed the property on January 15, 2007 and did not identify any concerns.

 

Although all of the standard town notes are included, the septic system note omits a key phrase.  The full text of the note should read:

 

“Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan prepared by a licensed professional engineer showing the proposed sanitary disposal system, percolation tests, and details shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrative Officer.  The plan should be certified by the design engineer as meeting the requirements of  Appendix 75-A of the New York State Department of Health and the Town of Charlton.  Where non-conventional systems such as alternative systems, shallow systems and built-up systems are planned, the individual plans are to be approved by the New York State Department of Health and the construction, as built, is to be certified by a licensed professional engineer prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.”

 

The drawing also indicates that test pits and percolation tests were performed on the property.  The results of these tests should be added to the plan.

 

Please feel free to call if you have any questions regarding this project. 

 

 

Very truly yours,

 

 

 

Michael McNamara, P.E.

The Environmental Design Partnership

 

Cc:   Planning Board Members

        Bill Keniry

        Keith & Stephanie Payton

        Duane Rabideau, P.L.S.

       

 

C:\MY DOCUMENTS\WINWORD\charlton\SUBDIVISIONREVIEWS\payton_2lotsubd_sacandaga_review.doc