|
|
|
|
|
|
Town of Charlton Planning Board Minutes 784 Charlton Road Charlton, New York 12019
Minutes of Planning Board Meeting – April 17, 2006
Chairman Ray Black called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. at the John W. Taylor Hall.
Present: Ray Black, Chairman, Constance Wood, Jay Wilkinson, Mark Hodgkins, John Kadlecek, Christopher Mitchell, William Keniry, Town Attorney and Susan York, Planning Board clerk.
AGENDA MEETING: Chairman Black opened the meeting advising the Board that he would like to amend tonight’s Agenda. Mr. Black stated that he would like to make, under item number 6. ZBA Referrals, letter “a” Barnes application for area variance letter “b” and add agenda item “a” Lent horse boarding operation.
Mr. Black stated that there are two meeting minutes to approve. Mr. Black stated that he has reviewed the February minutes. Mrs. Caron has received comments and has already incorporated any requested changes.
Mr. Black stated that he has a few minor editorial changes to the March minutes. Mr. Black provided his changes to Mrs. Caron. Mrs. Wood also provided minor changes to the minutes. Mr. Keniry advised that he had some minor changes to some wording. Mr. Black incorporated Mr. Keniry’s changes into his changes and gave them to Mrs. Caron. Mr. Wilkinson advised of a spelling error.
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1, 41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3)
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Keniry wrote a letter to Mr. Durst. Mr. Keniry stated that he has received no response, however, Mr. Durst’s attorney is present tonight to give a response.
DeNooyer/Van Guilder (235-1-44 & 235-1-67.2)
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board felt that there were potential issues with percolation. We have received a revised map. The revised map shows a number of test pits and percolation tests in terms of location. Mr. Black stated that there is no indication of any results. Mr. Black is unsure if anyone will be speaking on behalf of Mr. DeNooyer tonight. Mr. Black stated that if data was taken it was not noted on the map.
Kenyon/Van Guilder (223-1-11.11)
Mr. Black stated that there is an issue with the identification of wetlands. Mr. Black stated that this has been done, the delineation and the setbacks. Mr. Black stated that everything seems to be in order with the exception that Mr. McNamara suggested that the location of the well on Lot 2 be moved slightly to avoid the need for a DEC permit. A new drawing has been provided showing the well has been moved.
Mr. Black stated that the Board also requested some checks to bedrock and some percolation tests, which have been done. Mr. Black stated that regarding the soil observations on the lots, percolation rates and test pit were done, but we do not know where the test pits were located. The assumption is that it was within the proposed septic area but we do not know that for a fact. Mr. Black stated that with the exception of needing the location, there are no other issues.
Mr. Black stated that we are in a position to accept this application as a preliminary complete application and schedule a Public Hearing.
Mrs. York inquired if there was any reason to refer this application to the County. Mrs. Wood stated that it is located within the Agricultural District.
Mr. Keniry read the regulations. Mr. Keniry suggested that the Board send it to the County. Mr. Black agreed.
Fitzgerald (246-3-92)
Mr. Black stated that this is a lot line change on Saddlebrook Lane. Mr. Black stated that the applicant’s incorrectly named themselves as the property owners where in actuality the property is owned by the Halbigs.
Mr. Black stated that we now have copies of the deeds.
Mrs. York inquired if initialing a change to the application would suffice. Mr. Black stated that would be fine as we have the affidavit indicating that the property owners, the Halbigs, agree with the lot line change.
Cuchelo (235-1-33.1)
Mr. Black stated that this is a pre-application conference.
Mrs. Wood stated that the drawing does not indicate where this property is located. Mr. Black stated that we would request further definition.
ZBA Referral
a. Lent Mr. Black stated that this is a special use permit. We have not yet responded to Galway. There is a Public Hearing scheduled in Galway. We need to draft a response to the referral. Mr. Black stated that we will make the distinction based upon the representation that the actual horse boarding operation is not using the Town of Charlton land. Mr. Mitchell interjected that the distinction should be on the approach because this is a seasonal road. Mr. Black stated that Mr. Keniry’s research shows that access is not part of the jurisdiction only the use of the property. As long as the boarding operation is not involved with the Town of Charlton land, than the operation does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Town of Charlton. Therefore, no special use permit is required. Mr. Black stated that provided that remains true, than we have no jurisdiction. However, should a horse show up in that field than by definition the boarding operation is now utilizing the Town of Charlton land.
Mr. Mitchell stated that we can state our concern and have them address them if they will. Mr. Mitchell stated our major concern should be the access because that is going to be the impact on the people in Charlton.
Mr. Black requested Mr. Keniry draft a letter to be addressed later in the Business Meeting.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that there is a proposed Fee Schedule for the Town. The Town Liaison, Sandy Verola is not here tonight. Mr. Black believes that the schedule is to be passed at the next month’s meeting. Mr. Black stated that he would like the Board to discuss their input.
Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York has revised the Subdivision Application Instructions. At the last meeting, it was requested that the Board members review the changes and modifications for discussion at tonight’s meeting.
Mr. Black stated that he has drafted a letter to Mr. Wood pertaining to the Comprehensive Planning Committee. Mr. Black requested the Board members review.
Mr. Black stated that the change to the Agenda was to add Lent under ZBA referrals.
The meeting was closed at 7:34 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
Opened at 7:35 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Minutes
Mr. Black stated that there are two sets of meeting minutes to approve.
Mr. Black stated that the February meeting minutes were not approved last meeting because we did not have a represented quorum of votes who had actually been at the meeting. It was deferred to this month. All of the comments were addressed and incorporated by Mrs. Caron into those meeting minutes.
Mr. Black asked for a motion to approve. Mr. Mitchell made the motion to approve the February 20, 2006 Planning Board Meeting Minutes. Mr. Wilkinson seconded the motion. All were in favor. Mr. Hodgkins abstained from the vote as he did not attend the February 20, 2006 meeting.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has already reviewed the comments to the March meeting minutes during the agenda meeting.
Mr. Black asked for a motion to approve based on the incorporation of the comments. Mr. Wilkinson made the motion to approve the March 20, 2006 Planning Board Meeting Minutes with comments incorporated. Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion. All were in favor. Mrs. Wood and Mr. Kadlecek abstained from the vote as they did not attend the March 20, 2006 meeting.
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1, 41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3)
Mr. Durst was present for the meeting. Mr. Durst referred his response to Mr. Keniry’s letter to his attorney David Pentkowski, Esq.
Mr. Pentkowski responded on behalf of Mr. Durst. Mr. Pentkowski stated that they cannot move forward at this time with the Planning Board because the Town Board has refused to schedule a Public Hearing on the extension of the Water District. Mr. Pentkowski stated that it is their position that if would be unfair to them and unfair to the Board to ask the Board to act on an application where it is not known what the water source is. They have had several discussions with Mr. Tabner and Mr. VanVranken and it appears that there is a stale mate that is going to have to be addressed. It is probably going to take place by an Article 78 Proceeding against the Town Board to act on the water application. Mr. Pentkowski requested that the Planning Board hold the current application, as it is, until they can get some determination on the water application.
Mr. Black stated that the letter Mr. Keniry drafted at the Board’s request was not to pressure the applicant into action. Mr. Black stated that the Board has carried the application on the Agenda each month for three months. The Board’s normal process is that with three months of inactivity, it is assumed that the application is inactive and we do not continue to carry it as an agenda item. Mr. Black stated that if it is inactive for a period of six months, then the Board questions whether or not it is still being pursued actively. If the Board does not receive any new information, then the application is null and void. Mr. Black stated that the Board’s desire is to make sure of the current situation regarding the applicant’s intent.
Mr. Black requested that Mr. Pentkowski summarize his verbal response given at this meeting tonight into a letter to the Planning Board. Mr. Black stated upon receipt of the letter, we will drop the application from the Agenda with the understanding that in six months the Board will revisit this application and request a status. Mr. Black inquired if Mr. Keniry had any objections. Mr. Keniry stated that the applicant is requesting that the application be held until there is some determination from the Town Board. The understanding will be that for purposes of the Town Laws that there will be no default approval.
Mr. Pentkowski stated that they understand that this is at their request. They do not want to start over so they request the Planning Board hold the application.
Mr. Black stated that the Board’s position is that if the Planning Board approved the application that it would be conditional upon the Town Board approval of the water extension. Mr. Black stated that the Board understands the desire not to invest in the engineering reviewing without more assurance regarding water availability. From the Board’s standpoint, if the subdivision was pursued and approved prior to Town Board approval of the water district extension, the approval would be conditional on Town Board approval of the extension.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if a date should be set for review of this application.
Mr. Keniry stated that he does not believe there is an easy way to fix a date.
Mr. Mitchell requested that the applicant’s provide the Board with a status update in three to six months.
Mr. Black stated that the Board would not carry this application on the agenda as an active agenda item unless we hear different from the applicants.
Mr. Pentkowski stated that they will provide the Board with a response within three months.
Mr. Black stated that from the Board’s standpoint the application has progressed well, the including development of a conservation design. The Board’s issue is that we cannot move forward until we receive engineering details.
DeNooyer/VanGuilder (235-1-44 & 235-1-67.2)
Mr. VanGuilder approached the Board.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has received the new drawings indicating the test pits and percolation tests. The map does not show the results for those tests.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that the soils data has been indicated on the engineer’s drawings that were prepared by ABD. Mr. DeNooyer retained the firm. The test pit data indicated that they did a deep test pit. They encountered ground water at 66”. They encountered no bedrock to 66”. That was the total depth of their hole. They did encounter mottling at 38”. Mr. Brian Keeny is recommending a shallow absorption trench system. Mr. VanGuilder stated that the percolation rate ranged from 19 minutes to 20 minutes, which is acceptable.
Mr. Black asked Mr. LaFountain to look at the results. Mr. LaFountain asked how deep the test pits were.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that he assumed it was 12” to determine the 12” of usable soil. That is not indicated on the plan but that would be standard procedure.
Mr. LaFountain stated that this would need to be referred to Mr. McNamara for septic design.
Mr. Black requested that Mr. VanGuilder show the Board the road frontage on the drawings for the 5-acre lot. Mr. VanGuilder stated that it was 200 feet of road frontage, which meets the Town requirement. Mr. VanGuilder stated that there is a note on the plan that says that prior to any construction back here (showing on drawing) a building permit is required. Mr. VanGuilder stated that the note is in this list of conditions. Mr. VanGuilder stated that is it currently a vacant lot.
Mrs. Wood inquired if there was an existing well on the property.
Mr. DeNooyer stated that there is an existing well located in the back of the property where he would like to build a house.
Mr. Black inquired if the existing well was indicated as proposed on the drawings. Mr. VanGuilder stated that the actual location of the existing well is farther away from the proposed location.
Mrs. Wood inquired if they intended to put another well in. Mr. VanGuilder stated that this is an error on the drawing and would be corrected.
Mr. LaFountain inquired how many houses they are proposing to build on the five acres. Mr. VanGuilder stated one house on the five-acre parcel and one house on the remaining 75-acre parcel.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if the applicant is looking to get approval for two building lots. Mr. Black stated that was correct.
Mr. LaFountain inquired as to how many feet of frontage there is. Mr. Black stated the frontage on Lot 1 is 200 feet and the frontage on Lot 1a is 338 feet.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if there were wetlands on the property.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that there were DEC regulated wetlands located in the back of the property.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if the wetlands had been delineated.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that the wetlands had not been delineated. Mr. VanGuilder stated that there is also an existing pond on the site but no DEC wetlands in the lower end of the property as shown on the drawing.
Mr. Black reviewed the notes from the January meeting. There was concern about the ability to obtain adequate percolation rates. The percolation rate is less than 45 minutes. The proof is needed for both lots.
There was also concern about well and septic locations. We now have the locations for one lot.
Mr. DeNooyer stated that he has had a percolation test done on the second lot. Mr. DeNooyer stated that he had the test done before he purchased the property. Mr. DeNooyer stated that he does not have that information with him but he could get the information for the board. The test was performed back where the house is.
Mr. Black stated that the concern was up near the road and less so as it cut further back. The concern was that this (showing on drawing) was the more constrained area (the 75 acre parcel).
Mr. Black stated that there are three specific things the Board requires: 1 indicate the perc test results at these test points on the drawing; 2 indicate the precise location of the well as opposed to the proposed since it actually exists; and 3 add percolation test information, if available, from the data when the land was purchased.
Mrs. Wood inquired if it was being specified that a shallow trench was required on Lot 1.
Mr. Black stated that our standard note covers that issue and the drawing also says that prior to the issuance of a building permit a licensed professional engineer has to certify it.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if the land contained a substantial wet area here (showing on drawing).
Mr. VanGuilder stated that south of that field (showing on drawing) is pretty wet.
Mr. DeNooyer showed the board on the drawing where the water drains.
Mr. Durst stated that there is a 10’ elevation drop from the back stonewall. Mr. Durst also stated that the percolation tests were done on the highest spot on the land and the proposed house is farther back.
Mr. LaFountain recommended that the wetlands be delineated on the drawing.
Mr. DeNooyer stated that he had DEC and ENCON on the land before he purchased it.
Mr. Durst stated that the five-acre parcel has no vegetation associated with wetlands.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if Mr. VanGuilder had this clearly marked in the field. Mr. VanGuilder stated that is was marked by stonewalls.
Mr. Black stated that the wetlands map shows this area (showing on drawing). There are no wetlands at the road. There is some small amount further south of this where this continues around.
Mr. Mitchell inquired as to the distance between the existing well and the proposed well.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that it would be a minimum of 200 feet because of downgrading.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if it would be 200 feet away from the septic.
Mr. VanGuilder stated yes.
Mr. Mitchell stated that tests results should be reviewed by engineering.
Mr. Durst stated that is does not have to go before engineering review until a they apply for a building permit.
Mr. Black stated that the only evidence that there may not be wetlands present is the area where the test pits were drawn. Within the area of concern, mottling was not observed until 38” down.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that the issue with having the wetlands delineated by DEC now is that they are understaffed and backlogged for months.
Mr. Black stated that at the last meeting, Mr. Rabideau stated that he has some qualification to delineate DEC wetlands.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that Mr. Rabideau is qualified by experience. They have no agreement with DEC where they will endorse Mr. Rabideau’s delineation. Mr. VanGuilder stated that they could access the DEC website and utilize the map there.
Mr. Black stated that engineering review on other pieces of land had found the website to be inaccurate.
Mr. Black polled the Board members to see if the Board should require the delineation of the wetlands now rather than before a building permit could be obtained. Mrs. Wood stated that she would like to see the delineation done now. Mr. Kadlecek stated that he would like to see the delineation done now. Mr. Mitchell stated that he would like to see the delineation done now. Mr. Wilkinson stated that he would like to see the delineation done now. Mr. Hodgkins stated that he would like to see the delineation done now. Mr. Black stated that the Board requests the delineation of the wetlands be done now.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that he would do everything possible to expedite the process.
Mr. Durst stated that at the Public Hearing the Board requested percolation test be done before proceeding. They have complied with everything the Board has requested. Mr. Durst feels that if it is a condition of approval that DEC flag the wetlands then it will also be available to the people purchasing that they would be aware.
Mr. Black summarized that Mr. Durst’s suggestion is to proceed with the subdivision process and if the process is completed and all conditions are met, with the exception of wetlands delineation, that the approval be granted conditional on getting an acceptable delineation of DEC wetlands.
Mr. Durst stated that was correct.
Mrs. Wood inquired as to the time difference.
Mr. Black stated that it could be months.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that historically DEC does hire summer help.
Mr. Keniry stated that the applicant has until May 31st which is after the May meeting. Mr. Keniry stated that the time frames could be worked out if needed.
Mr. Black stated that in requesting the delineation of the wetlands is to indicate their relationship to proposed construction/improvements.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Board is requesting the delineation in order to know that the usual conditions can be met. Mr. Keniry stated that the initial letter from Mr. McNamara dated November 15, 2005 (Attachment 1) stated that all conditions were addressed except for the percolation rate. The Board reviewed the letter of November 15, 2005. Mrs. Wood inquired if the letter was written before the Public Hearing. Mr. Keniry stated that it was. Mr. Keniry further stated that this has also already been referred to the County and the decision of the County was approved.
Mr. Durst inquired if wetland delineation is mandatory in the subdivision process. Mr. Black stated that wetland delineation is not mandatory. It is at the Board’s discretion based on the situation. Mr. Black stated that the Board has three requests before approval. 1 for Lot 1a, add percolation and test pit results to the drawing; 2 for Lot 1, show the actual location of the well and add the data of the perc tests that were done when the property was purchased; and 3 have DEC perform a delineation on the areas that would be affected by houses, driveways, well and septic.
Kenyon/VanGuilder (223-1-11.11)
Mr. VanGuilder approached the Board.
Mr. VanGuilder provided the Board with a revised map.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that there is a letter from Mr. McNamara dated April 11, 2006 (Attachment 2). One of the comments pertained to the proposed well being shown in the buffer zone. Mr. VanGuilder stated that the proposed well has since been moved out of the buffer area.
Mr. Black stated that the Board had requested drawing modifications to show the wetlands and the 100-foot buffer, which have been done. The Board also requested a long form Environmental Assessment form be completed, which has been done. The Board further requested that percolation tests and deep test information be provided.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that the information is shown over here (showing on drawing).
Mr. Black stated that the Board was unable to reference the data to an actual location.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that they will get the actual location shown on the drawing.
Mr. Black stated that the Board requested that the proposed house, septic and well locations be shown, which has been done.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has a complete copy of the deed.
Mr. Black stated that with the exception of the location of the test pits, all requests have been met.
Mr. Black inquired if the test pits were done on the actual septic locations.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that he could not confirm that. The applicant went out with his own machine and dug the holes. They witnessed the holes and performed the percolation tests. Mr. VanGuilder stated that his firm did not physically locate the test pits. There is one test pit on each lot done in the general area of the lot. Mr. VanGuilder stated that the percolation rates were good, within the 14-minute range.
Mr. LaFountain inquired how deep the test pits were.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that they encountered bedrock at 54”, 36” and 48”.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that Mr. Kenyon said that he had a built up system on this lot (showing on drawing).
Mr. VanGuilder stated that the percolation tests were done at 2 feet.
Mr. Black inquired as to the requirement.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the requirement is 5 feet separation from the bottom of the pipe to the bedrock. That would require a lot of fill.
Mr. Black inquired as to the amount of fill that would be required over the pipe.
Mr. LaFountain stated it would be 2 feet.
Mr. Black stated that the issue is the minimum depth to bedrock on Lot 3 is 36”. The lot also has a limited area for movement outside of the wetlands buffer. Lot 2 is also limited in area but the depth to bedrock is much larger there. Mr. Black stated that if the septic area between the well to the proposed septic area is downhill, the 100 foot buffer is adequate but if the septic is raised above ground that would change to 200 feet.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that considering the overall gradient of the land, the septic system just being higher is not the issue, it’s the actual gradient to the well whether or not ground water can run or if there will be surface contamination.
Mr. Black stated that then it depends on how it is graded.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that was correct. Mr. VanGuilder stated that the general slope is towards the wetlands.
Mr. Black stated that in this situation very detailed engineering review will be necessary. The lots are not large enough to allow a lot of relocation. The lots are encumbered either by wetlands or they are the minimum sizes. Mr. Black stated that if the subdivision is made but a building permit cannot be obtained later then it was a subdivision for naught.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if Lots 3 and 4 were combined, how much trouble could be saved.
Mr. Black stated that the issue is with Lot 3.
Mrs. Wood inquired if new percolation tests should be requested.
Mr. Black stated that the Board needs to know the finished grading, how much fill is required and the actual location of the well.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the test pit information is needed.
Mr. Black stated that the Board could request that on Lot 3, showing the actual location of the well, the septic design and final grading plan prior to approval.
Mr. LaFountain stated that instead of trying to mandate where the well is located maybe we need the specific location for the septic system, then the well could be 100 feet or 200 feet from there based on the design. The septic system location is crucial for this design.
Mr. VanGuilder inquired if the Board could schedule a Public Hearing for next month and they will have the information submitted to the board before the meeting.
Mr. Mitchell stated that we would like to see defined the placement of the septic systems in order to know the grade.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that with Land Vantage they actually shot the topography in the areas of the septic systems and they had an engineer design the systems.
Mr. Black inquired if Mr. LaFountain was looking for a design at this point.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he is looking for a design at this point.
Mrs. Wood stated that it is fair to unsuspecting buyers to state the drawbacks.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is requesting specific septic locations, specific septic system design, specific percolation tests results and soil conditions and topographical detail in 2-foot increments up to 100 feet from the septic system on all three lots.
Mr. Hodgkins inquired as to Mr. VanGuilder’s request to schedule a Public Hearing.
Mr. Black stated that he does not believe all of the Board’s requests could be completed within one month.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that it could be done.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that he was ok with scheduling the Public Hearing. Mr. Mitchell also stated that scheduling a Public Hearing was ok with him.
Mr. Black asked for a motion for the Planning Board to take lead agency status for purposes of SEQRA and to accept this application as a complete preliminary application subject to the following conditions: specific septic locations, specific septic system design, specific percolation tests results and soil conditions and topographical detail in 2 foot increments up to 100 feet from the septic system on all three lots and schedule a Public Hearing for May 15, 2006 at 7:45 p.m.
Mrs. Wood made the motion for the Planning Board be designated as lead agency for the purpose of SEQRA. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black made the motion to accept this application as a complete preliminary application subject to the following conditions: specific septic locations, specific septic system design, specific percolation tests results and soil conditions and topographical detail in 2 foot increments up to 100 feet from the septic system on all three lots to be provided to the Board by May 1, 2006 and schedule a Public Hearing for May 15, 2006 at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mrs. York inquired if the application should be referred to the County. Mr. Black responded yes.
Fitzgerald (246-3-92)
Mr. Fitzgerald approached the Board.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board has received everything required. There is an issue with the application is not being completely accurate. The application indicated that Mr. Fitzgerald is the owner of the property wherein the actual owner is Dr. Robert Halbig.
Mrs. York had Mr. Fitzgerald initial the change on the application.
Mr. Black inquired why this lot line change was not done originally.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that it was not until after they dug the well that they found out the existing driveway was located on the Halbig’s property.
Mr. Black stated that with the modified application we have a complete application. The survey map has everything required.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if the Board should review the mylars from the original subdivision to see if there was a reason for this not being done originally.
Mrs. York stated that the folder could not be located.
Mr. Black asked Mr. VanGuilder if the line on the drawing followed the rock wall at the driveway.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that at the end, the rock wall takes a turn and as it came up to the road. When the subdivision was designed it was designed with the straightest lot lines as possible. The rock wall turned away and when they put in the driveway they were using the visual of the rock wall thinking that the property lines followed it all the way. Unfortunately as it neared the road it veered away from it.
Mr. Black stated that he did not feel the need to verify that information by pulling out the mylars from the original subdivision.
Mrs. Wood inquired as to who did the original survey.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that his firm did the original survey.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Keniry if County review could be waived.
Mr. Keniry stared that it should not be waived. The Board could waive the Public Hearing. The Board should send the application to the County and act accordingly after the County Planning Board responds.
Mr. Black stated that if the property is located within 500 feet of a farm operation or within the Agricultural District it has to be referred to the County. Mr. Black does not believe that this property falls within that regulation.
Mr. Black stated that we have a complete application. This application is an exempt subdivision as it is a lot line change. Engineering review can be waived. County referral can be waived. The application fee can also be waived.
Mr. Black asked for a motion for the Planning Board to take lead agency status and the proposed action is an unlisted action under SEQRA with a negative impact declaration relative to environmental impact.
Mrs. Wood made the motion. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black declared that the Planning Board has a complete application classified as an exempt lot line change, waive engineering review, waive a Public Hearing and waive the application fee and declare this application is not subject to County jurisdiction. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to accept the lot line change with the exemptions as a complete application and authorize the chairman to sign the mylars. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Resolution 2006-06 was made.
Cuchelo (235-1-33.1) Pre-application conference
Ms. Michelle Cuchelo and Mr. Guy Mitchell approached the Board.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is confused at to the location and intent for the property.
Ms. Cuchelo stated that the property is located on Sacandaga Road. This is Eastern Avenue right here (showing on drawing) and this is Sacandaga Road heading towards Route 67.
Mr. LaFountain pulled the map for the Board to review.
Ms. Cuchelo stated that parcel was 847 feet and all wooded. She would like to subdivide four lots. The Alplaus creek runs through the property.
Mr. Black stated that according to the Wetlands map, the wetlands envelope the stream and come back here (showing on map) but does not come back into this area.
Mrs. Wood stated, that from past experience, the area is very wet.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that the property here (showing on drawing) is high and the natural flow goes right into that property. Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that a ditch was dug on Ms. Cuchelo’s property and it stops in the hill.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board can approve lots that are authorized by the Town. The Board cannot approve non-conforming lots, only the ZBA can say it is ok to have a non-conforming lot.
Mr. Black stated that in order to have a lot in the Town of Charlton, you have to have two acres and a minimum of 200 feet of frontage per lot.
Mr. Black stated that in looking at the road frontage on this drawing, being 697 feet and 150 feet, that is enough for four lots. Mr. Black stated that for this lot (showing on drawing) the only way it can have 200 feet of road frontage it to have 150 feet there and 50 feet on this side (showing on drawing). Mr. Black stated that in order to place a house you have to meet minimum set back requirements which are 40 feet on one side, 100 feet total to the property line. With 150 feet it will probably not be possible especially with the slopes on this land to get the house in to this region (showing on drawing) and meet setbacks. That would probably require pushing the house back into this region (showing on drawing).
Mr. Black stated that, based upon reviewing the wetlands map, the Planning Board would want to know where the wetlands are located.
Mr. Black stated that, based upon the drawing provided, the driveways for the proposed houses would be quite long. There is a new town ordinance requiring specific regulations for long driveways.
Mr. Black stated that the lots as shown on the drawing, this lot (showing on drawing) could not be accepted because there is not 200 feet of frontage.
Mr. Black suggested condensing the subdivision to three lots or change the layout of the four lots.
Mr. Black stated that wetlands would be a concern as the wetlands map implies that the property has wetlands encumbered on the property.
Mr. Black stated that the Board feels that subdivisions with houses behind houses is not desirable to the existing homeowners. The Board feels that it is not an acceptable layout.
Mr. Black stated that if they want to leave the drawing as is, they would have to go to the ZBA. The ZBA would have to say it is ok for the creation of such a lot.
Mr. Mitchell inquired as to the average acreage of each parcel.
Ms. Cuchelo stated that the average acreage would be 19 acres.
Mr. Black inquired if the applicant’s intent was to build a house on each lot.
Ms. Cuchelo responded that was her intent. Ms. Cuchelo showed the Board on the map where she intended to build each house.
Mr. Mitchell stated that there is a lot of terrain, a conservation subdivision could be considered.
Mr. Black inquired if Ms. Cuchelo knew what a conservation design subdivision was.
Ms. Cuchelo stated that she did not.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Mitchell to explain.
Mr. Mitchell explained that a conservation subdivision is a subdivision where you ease the zoning requirements to put in more houses or to reconfigure the design to save space for better use of the land. Mr. Mitchell cited an example would be a short driveway cul-de-sac.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that Ms. Cuchelo’s property is high and dry. The low spot is on the other people’s property. There is a 3 to 4 foot rise off of the road. Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that if they have the mean width to put a house back here (showing on drawing) they would just need ZBA approval first.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board could not accept the application for the four lots. The Planning Board could accept these three (showing on drawing). This lot as a stand-alone lot (showing on drawing) and this configuration is not acceptable without a ZBA authority to do so. Mr. Black stated that the ZBA would ask for Planning Board opinion. Mr. Black stated that the application as is would require a location of a house back behind this house and therefore a long driveway that has to meet very stringent requirements.
Mr. Black stated that the concern with the driveways is that Sacandaga Road is a very busy road. The desire would be to minimize the number of curb cuts. Mr. Black suggested bringing the lot line down close so that the houses are located such that the driveways all-converging with one access. This lot (showing on drawing) could be allowed to be less than 200 feet of frontage out here to create an advantage to access on the road.
Mr. LaFountain stated that going south on Sacandaga Road there is very limited site distance.
Mr. Black stated that the Board would be concerned with the allowed speed on the road and site distance for driveway locations. Mr. Black stated that there are specifications for how much site distance you have to have for that speed.
Mr. Guy Mitchell inquired if this issue would have to go before ZBA as well.
Mr. Black stated that if you want to subdivide using the drawing provided that you would want to go to ZBA for all issues before coming before the Planning Board.
Ms. Cuchelo inquired if two of the driveways met, would that be accepted.
Mr. Black stated that we try to avoid having shared driveways where it is the same piece of property but two people share one driveway. The idea would be to have the driveways come together at the point of the road right of way but not necessarily to be common.
Mr. Black advised Ms. Cuchelo that she could have a new plan drawn and come back to the Planning Board.
Mr. Guy Mitchell inquired if they could be referred to the ZBA here.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board is referring them to the ZBA now if they plan to use the drawing presented tonight. The Planning Board does not accept the current plan as drawn.
At the end, Mr. Black showed Ms. Cuchelo another plan for consideration that would meet zoning ordinance. Frontage for lot 4 could be the original 150’ plus an additional 97’ further south. Lots 1-3 would have 200 feet of frontage each, lots 1 & 2 could share 1 driveway cut, and lots 3 & 4 could share a cut. ZBA Referrals
a. Lent
Mr. Black stated that the board has discussed the need for a letter to the Town of Galway Planning Board advising them that if the boarding operation conducts business on the land located in the Town of Charlton a special use permit would be required from the Town of Charlton.
Mr. Keniry has drafted a proposed letter on behalf of the Planning Board. Mr. Keniry stated that the letter will thank the Galway Planning Board for the opportunity to comment on this matter. The letter should also reflect that the Charlton Planning Board understands that the project of the boarding operation as proposed involves real property only located in Galway. Mr. Keniry will state the Board’s comments are directed with respect to land located within the Town of Charlton and are as follows: -use must at all times be consistent with the Town of Charlton Zoning Ordinance; -the conclusion of the Town of Charlton Planning Board is based on the applicants representations that: a. the current use of the real property located in the Town of Charlton is zoned Agricultural; b. that the current use will not change in a manner that is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance; c. in the event that there is a change of use of the real property located in the Town of Charlton, the applicant will file all the applications that are required by the Town of Charlton; d. the Board understands that the intent is to avoid a code enforcement or a zoning officer inspection and a finding of a condition of non-compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Lastly, in this event, the Town of Charlton will not require an application to be filed in the Town of Charlton in connection with the activities proposed and intended to occur in the Town of Galway.
Mr. Mitchell suggested adding language pertaining to the issue of the seasonal road. Mr. Mitchell suggested advising the applicants that the current road provides marginal access and no improvements are or will be planned unless there is a change in the Town of Charlton.
Mr. Keniry stated that the letter would be drafted tomorrow and e-mailed to Mr. Black for approval.
Mr. Black stated that he would try to attend the Public Hearing in Galway.
b. Barnes
Mr. Black stated that this is an area variance on Division Street. The driveway is already in place and the culvert pipes are also in place. The area has been cleared out for the house. Mr. Black stated that there is a raised fill for a raised septic system also in place. There are also large drainage pipes sticking out of the ground. Mr. Black stated that he also noticed that the property has substantial standing water.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he stopped the process because they did not meet the combined setback requirements. There is 45 feet on one side for a combined total of 100 feet. Mr. LaFountain stated that the applicants do have DEC permits.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board’s comment is that we have no comment.
Zoning Report
Mr. Dave LaFountain, Zoning Administrator, provided a copy of the March 2006 activities to the Board. A copy of the report is annexed hereto as Attachment 3. The Board reviewed the report with Mr. LaFountain.
Comprehensive Plan Report
Mr. Hodgkins advised the Board that Dave Wood, Chairman of the Comprehensive Plan Committee has invited the Planning Board to attend their next meeting on May 1, 2006.
Town Board Liaison
Town Board Liaison, Sandy Verola, was not in attendance.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that the Board created input for the Comprehensive Plan Committee in the form of an outline. Mr. Black stated that he has re-written the outline as a draft letter to Mr. Wood with a list of considerations and four specific recommendations.
Mr. Black passed out the draft letter for the Board to review. The Board had some discussion. The Board will review the draft letter and provide any changes or comments to Mr. Black by Wednesday evening.
Mr. Black advised the Board that there is a proposed revised fee schedule. Mr. Black stated that it would be going before the Town Board for approval at their next meeting. The Board reviewed the fee schedule. Mr. Black will state that the Board’s reactions were positive.
Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York has made some revisions to the subdivision application instructions. Mr. Black stated that two of the major changes were to the fee structure and informing the applicant that the Planning Board now has a clerk to explain the details.
Mr. Black stated that since he has not been able to review the entire document that this issue be tabled until the next meeting.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to adjourn. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly A. Caron Recording Secretary
November 15, 2005 Attachment 1
Mr. Raymond E. Black Planning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: DeNooyer Resubdivision of Lot 1, Elenora Lucas Schweizer Trust Tax Map Parcel Nos. 235.00-1-44 & 67.2
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received a proposed two-lot subdivision of Lot #1 of the Elenora Lucas Schweizer Trust subdivision. The Charlton Planning Board approved that original application in the spring of 2001. The earlier action effectively makes the current proposal a three-lot minor subdivision. The 80± acre parcel is located on the west side of N.Y.S. Route 147 approximately one half mile south of the intersection with Eastern Avenue. The subdivision plan dated October 14, 2005 was prepared by Duane Rabideau, P.L.S. of Gilbert VanGuilder Land Surveyor, PLLC. The property falls within the town’s Agriculture and Residential-Agriculture zoning district. I reviewed the property on November 14, 2005 and offer the following comments for your consideration.
1. Frontage for Lot #1 is met at the Route 147 right of way after which, the lot gradually narrows to a width of 100 feet. Beyond the rear line of Lot #1A, lot width immediately increases to several hundred feet. Although the lot configuration is unusual, it does appear to comply with zoning requirements.
2. The driveway for Lot #1 is more than 2,000 feet long. The town is in the process of adopting a new ordinance related to long driveways and, by practice, has already been implementing these requirements. Drives of this length are to be a minimum of 12 feet wide and be accessible to a 50,000 pound, thirty foot long vehicle. Provisions for turning such a vehicle must be constructed within 100 feet of any structure. Since the driveway for Lot #1 has already been constructed, we suggest adding the following note to the plan.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot #1, a licensed professional engineer must certify that the existing driveway is capable of supporting a 50,000 pound vehicle and that an adequate turnaround for a vehicle of 30 foot length will be located within 100 feet of any proposed structure. The plans submitted for a building permit must show the proposed turnaround and specify a minimum driveway width of 12 feet.
3. An existing pond occupies Lot #1 south of the driveway and roughly 400 feet east of where the proposed house location is shown. The pond should be added to the plan, as it would be relevant to a septic system design if the house were sited differently than proposed.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please feel free to call.
Very truly yours,
Michael McNamara, P.E. The Environmental Design Partnership
C:\MY DOCUMENTS\WINWORD\charlton\denooyer_subdreview.doc
Cc: Planning Board Members Bill Keniry Duane Rabideau, P.L.S.
April 11, 2006 Attachment 2
Mr. Raymond E. Black Planning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: Four lot subdivision - Lands of Richard & Priscilla Kenyon Tax Map Parcel No. 223.00-1-11.11
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received a revised subdivision map for the above referenced project with a revision date of March 29, 2006 as prepared by Duane Rabideau, P.L.S. of Gilbert VanGuilder Land Surveyor, PLLC. This drawing reflects changes in response to our comment letter of March 15, 2006.
The plan now indicates a wetland boundary and associated 100 foot setback. As shown, the wetlands will allow construction of single family homes on each lot without the need for any disturbance permits. A proposed well is shown on lot #2 within the 100 foot setback. Though water wells for single residences do not require a permit when installed in the wetland setback, DEC does require notification and must issue a “letter of permission.” We recommend that the well simply be moved to the west to fall outside the setback area. As a practical matter, a note should also be added to the plan referencing that the wetlands are NYS DEC jurisdictional wetlands and giving the date and firm that performed the delineation.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please feel free to call.
Very truly yours,
Michael McNamara, P.E. The Environmental Design Partnership C:\MY DOCUMENTS\WINWORD\charlton\kenyon_rockyridge_subdreview2.doc
Cc: Planning Board Members Bill Keniry Gilbert VanGuilder, P.L.S.
|
|
|
| |