 |
|
****JavaScript based drop down DHTML menu generated by NavStudio. (OpenCube Inc. - http://www.opencube.com)****
|
|
|
|
|
Town of Charlton Planning Board Minutes And Public Hearing Minutes 784 Charlton Road Charlton, New York 12019
Minutes of Planning Board Meeting – May 15, 2006
Acting Chairman John Kadlecek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the John W. Taylor Hall.
Present: John Kadlecek, Acting Chairman, Jay Wilkinson, Mark Hodgkins, Gary Vanderhorst, William Keniry, Town Attorney and Susan York, Planning Board clerk. Christopher Mitchell joined the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Constance Wood joined the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
AGENDA MEETING: Acting Chairman Kadlecek opened the meeting with the review of the April 17, 2006 minutes. Mr. Kadlecek inquired if there were any additional changes to the minutes other than the changes provided by Mr. Black and Mrs. York. Mr. Wilkinson inquired as to a comment on page 13. Mrs. Caron will listen to the tape for accuracy.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that there has been an amendment to the Municipal Town Law that requires notification to the neighboring municipality if the project is within 500 feet of the neighboring town.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired of Mr. Keniry who the Planning Board has to send notification to and how much information needs to be included.
Mr. Keniry stated that he will review the amendment and advise.
Kenyon/VanGuilder (223.00-1-11.11)
Mr. Kadlecek stated that there would be a Public Hearing on the Kenyon application. Mr. McNamara, Environmental Design Partnership, LLP, has provided written response on the septic systems dated May 11, 2006. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 1. There were numerous changes requested in the letter. We will request a status update from the applicants.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that Planning Board has already taken lead agency status. The applicants completed the long form Environmental Impact Statement. We need to complete Part II. Mr. Kadlecek stated that he would like to complete the form at next months meeting. The Board was in agreement. Mr. Kadlecek stated that the County has replied and they have no significant impact.
Mrs. York stated that the applicants still owe their engineering escrow for all of the septic design work. The total due at this point is $1,200.00. Mrs. York stated that there is a letter requesting the money. Mrs. York stated that Mr. McNamara will contact the applicants if more money is owed after the final review.
DeNooyer/VanGuilder (235-1-44 & 235-1-67.2)
Mr. Kadlecek stated that with this application there is an issue with wetland delineation. We have not received any new information.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the applicants were asked to show the location of the well on Lot 1 and the location of perc tests together with the results.
Grabo/Davidson (246-3-61.1)
Mr. Kadlecek stated that we have received their application, a copy of the deed, full environmental impact statement has been submitted and they have paid the subdivision fee.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Board should take lead agency status.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the lot shrinks in size in the back. It looks like it is 200 feet wide in the front. At the widest is goes out to 220 feet. Mr. Kadlecek showed the Board the parcel on the map. Mr. Kadlecek stated that it becomes less than 200 feet at the west end of the proposed septic, then goes to 175 feet in the back.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if the Board members had any issues.
Mr. Hodgkins inquired as to the mean.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that we do not have that information and will request it from the applicants.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the surveyor could provide that information.
Mrs. York inquired if the application needed to be referred to the Town of Glenville. Mrs. York stated that the parts they are cutting out of the parcel do not border Glenville but the whole parcel does.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that Glenville should be notified.
Mr. Keniry stated that on the map presented it is clearly shown that the “mother” parcel has the Town and County line running through it. Mr. Keniry stated that he has not scaled the map to see if it is 500 feet or more from the subdivision line to the County line.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that if this segment here (showing on map) is listed as 200 feet and it is several times that to the County line, the 500 feet issue for this line is not presented. However, since this is the property that is being affected, we should notify the Town of Glenville.
Mr. Keniry suggested that the Board refer this to the County Planning Board and give the Town of Glenville notice and the opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired as to how notice is given to the Town.
Mr. Keniry stated that he generally sends the Town a notice indicating that the application has been filed.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired as to how much information is given in the notice.
Mr. Keniry stated that he notifies the Town that there is a map filed in the official files in the Town of Charlton and anyone that is interested can respond.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Board will be scheduling a Public Hearing on this application for next month and requested Mr. Keniry send the Town of Glenville a copy of the notice published in the Gazette.
Mrs. York stated that the applicants owe $500.00 for engineering escrow.
Mrs. York cautioned the Planning Board members that the Grabo/Davidson full environmental impact form was received with scrambled pages, which she meant to fix before distribution. Each member will want to put their copy in page number order before the next meeting.
Correspondence
Mr. Keniry stated that he has reviewed the amendment to the General Municipal Law. Mr. Keniry stated that the Planning Board is currently complying with the amendment by virtue of the Board’s compliance with the existing sections when the Board utilizes the County Planning Board. Mr. Keniry stated that when the Board gives notice to the County Planning Board with respect to certain applications, there will be a new requirement in those instances to also give notice to adjacent municipalities.
Mr. Keniry stated that Michael Valentine who is a member of the County Planning Board staff has contacted him. Mr. Valentine has advised that the County Planning Board is willing to have another training workshop for the Town Planning Board. Mr. Valentine requested that if the Planning Board is interested, to provide possible dates for the training session. Mr. Keniry stated that Mr. Valentine is willing to accept topics that the Planning Board requests.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that he would advise Mr. Black and the Board could discuss at next month’s meeting.
Mr. Keniry also stated that, regarding the May 15th attendance of Planning Board members, a tie vote on an application is a NO vote, but a simple majority can approve minutes, meaning that 3 people who attended the 4/17/06 meeting can approve the minutes for that month.
The meeting was closed at 7:25 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
Opened at 7:30 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Kadlecek advised that there were copies of the Agenda located on the back table.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that there is a Public Hearing at 7:45 on the Kenyon application. There are also three applications to discuss.
Minutes
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the April 17, 2006 meeting minutes need to be approved.
Mr. Kadlecek asked for a motion to approve. Mr. Hodgkins made the motion to approve the April 17, 2006 Planning Board Meeting Minutes. Mr. Wilkinson seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Comprehensive Plan Report
Mr. Hodgkins advised that the Comprehensive Planning Steering Committee had a meeting on May 1st. The committee invited the Planning Board and the Town Board to attend that meeting.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that the committee read the letter from the Planning Board at the meeting. Mr. Hodgkins stated that the committee is in a weeding out process in order to make the document more readable to present to the consultant for the addition of the boilerplate language.
Dave Adams and Marv Schorr, members of the Committee, were present for discussion pertaining to the Planning Board’s letter.
Mr. Schorr stated that the committee has discussed all of the planning board’s comments, in general.
Mr. Schorr stated that one of the Planning Board’s comments pertained to regulations. The committee has tried not to deal with regulations, as it is not within the committee’s charter. Once the proposal has been accepted by the Town Board, then that sets the pattern for then developing the regulations implemented by the various boards and committees.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if new committees would be set up to do that.
Mr. Adams stated that the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee would be addressing how to implement the comprehensive plan by changes to the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Adams stated that once the Town accepts the comprehensive plan, certain changes must be made to implement what the comprehensive plan says.
Mr. Adams stated that the first item in the letter dealt with authority to modify applications beyond zoning requirements, citing sight distances, speed considerations and driveway cuts. Mr. Adams stated that this is something that the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee would handle as it is within the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that sometimes the Planning Board reviews an application where it is known that there are going to be some problems that are going to be imposed upon neighbors and there is nothing much we can do. It would be nice if in the wordage of the comprehensive plan that there would be something that would give some guidance to the Planning Board so that we could work with an applicant to try to eliminate some of these things even if it is not covered directly by the zoning law. Mr. Kadlecek stated that for an example there are some instances where sight distances meet the state requirements but we know that traffic moves fast and you really cant see that if a school bus was there it would be too late. We would like to be able to reduce the number of lots so that you would not have the road cuts in the wrong places.
Mr. Adams stated that there are two places where this could be considered. It could be added under items in zoning that are going to be reviewed or it could possibly go under subdivision regulations.
Mr. Schorr stated that another item in the Planning Board letter pertained to shared septic systems. Mr. Schorr inquired if that was a misprint.
Mr. Mitchell stated that in other areas they allow shared drainage systems that are managed and controlled systems. Each house has their own septic tank but share the same drainage area.
Mr. Schorr stated that next item pertained to land preservation and odd shaped lots. The Comprehensive Plan Committee has spent a lot of time looking at preservation of land especially farms. That issue is addressed in the final version of strategies in the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Schorr stated that the next item pertained to town owned property and PUD’s. Mr. Schorr stated that he assumed that comment pertained to who is going to own the land when you have a PUD or conservation design where you are allowing clustering to provide a lot of open space. Mr. Schorr stated that the Town Board’s position is that the Town does not want to own that kind of land. It would probably be owned by a civic association, which will not be up to the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that we do not have a good mechanism in place now for land conservancy.
Mr. Schorr stated that when cluster designs have been considered in Charlton, the concern has always been who is going to own the open land.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if the committee would be making recommendations to the next group.
Mr. Schorr stated that the comprehensive plan steering committee would not make recommendations.
Mr. Schorr stated that the next item pertained to commercial land. Mr. Schorr stated that the committee does not want to specifically identify possible future commercial sites. They do not want to do that because once that is done, that is where commercial development is going to occur and the general feeling has been let it occur where it makes sense to occur.
Mr. Adams stated that they prefer to leave it through the special use permit process rather than beginning the process of commercial zoning. Mr. Adams stated that roughly 2/3 of the people who responded to the survey did not want commercial development.
Mr. Schorr stated that the next item pertained to farmland and identifying tax incentives for rented lands. Mr. Schorr stated that the committee has addressed those kind of things but not specifically to identify the tax incentives themselves. The comprehensive plan committee is recommending that there be things like tax incentives to encourage farmers to continue to farm the land.
Mr. Schorr stated that the rest of the comments pertain to the regulatory power that the committee does not have.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that the minutes given to the Planning Board summarize the meeting the committee had on May 1st.
Mr. Kadlecek thanked Mr. Adams and Mr. Schorr for their input.
PUBLIC HEARING (7:45)
Mr. Kadlecek addressed the public and explained the process for the public hearing. Mr. Kadlecek asked that each person who addresses the Board to state their name and address.
Mr. Kadlecek read the announcement notice dated April 27, 2006 from the Daily Gazette.
Kenyon/VanGuilder (223-1-11.11)
Duane Rabideau from Gilbert Van Guilder Land Surveyor, PLLC presented the following plan.
-subdivide 23-acre parcel of land at the corner of Jersey Hill Road and Rocky Ridge Road into 4 residential lots -lot 1 would consist of 15 acres and hold the existing structures -lot 2 would consist of 3 acres for proposed house -lot 3 would consist of 3 acres for proposed house -lot 4 would consist of 2.1 acres for proposed house -each lot would be for a single-family residence -each lot would have on site septic systems and wells -wetlands have been delineated -100 foot buffer
Mr. Rabideau stated that due to rocky lot conditions on the parcel, the Planning Board Requested additional topography, test pits and perc tests for pre-engineered septic systems here (showed on drawing). The engineer has designed the systems to work.
Mr. Michael McNamara, Environmental Design Partnership, LLP, conducted the engineering review and has responded by letter dated May 11, 2006. A copy is annexed hereto as Attachment 1. The letter requested certain minor modifications that need to be done in order to meet the Town of Charlton standards.
Mr. Kadlecek opened the hearing to the public.
Bruce Wright, 6 Rocky Ridge Road, stated that he had purchased a piece of the Kenyon property, which is a 2-acre lot. He stated that he does not mind the subdivision at all. Mr. Wright inquired if the piece of property was all one unit.
Mr. Rabideau responded yes, until Planning Board approval.
Mr. Wright stated that he would say that he approves of the subdivision at this point. Mr. Wright stated that he does not see any particular problem with that.
Mr. Kadlecek closed the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Kenyon/VanGuilder (223-1-11.11)
Mr. Rabideau paid the $1,200.00 engineering escrow.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that this application was referred to Saratoga County for review. We received a letter stating that at their meeting on April 20, 2006, their decision was no significant countywide or community impact.
Mr. Kadlecek asked Mr. Rabideau to review the engineering letter of May 11, 2006 (Attachment 1).
Mr. McNamara’s requests were as follows:
Subdivision Plan: Adding detailed topo and a benchmark to the subdivision map so that the proposed grading and system elevations could be constructed as designed. Advising the removal of note #2 on the subdivision plan and replacing it with a reference to the septic system design plans.
Septic System Plans, General Comments: Submitting a stamped copy of the septic system plans with the final subdivision mylars to be kept on file with the Town Clerk in order to document the Planning Board’s subdivision review. Revising “Property Line to Toe of Fill” to reflect Charlton’s specific requirements on build up systems. Revising each of the raised systems to meet Charlton’s Zoning Requirements. Greater separation distances between the bottom of the drain field and seasonably high groundwater and rock conditions in accordance with Charlton’s Ordinance. Specification of the required separation distances on the Raised System Cross Section details. Graphics corrections – adding a USGS or tax map overlay to the site location maps and correcting the scales for both the disposal system site plan and overall parcel site plan details.
Lot 2 Septic System Plan: Revising the profile detail on sheet #2 to match the specific elevations of the Lot 2 plan. Showing the 100-foot wetland setback line on the site plan in order to ensure that the proposed improvements do not encroach on the buffer. Labeling the property line and the building envelope. Specifying the pump model on detail #6 on sheet 2. Correcting the volume between the pump-on and pump-off levels as it does not match the proposed dosing volume.
Lot 3 Septic System Plan: Revising the profile detail on sheet #2 to match the specific elevations of the Lot 3 plan. Showing more of the lot on the site plan so that the home and septic system can be field staked as designed. Showing the 100-foot wetland setback line on the site plan in order to ensure that the proposed improvements do not encroach.
Lot 4 Septic System Plan: Revising the proposed septic system for this lot to comply with Charlton’s Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Rabideau stated that he has spoken with Lansing Engineering, P.C. Mr. Rabideau stated that the items in the letter from Mr. McNamara are minor due to the more stringent Town regulations than the State regulations.
Mr. Rabideau stated that they are moving the septic system on lot 4 farther to the east away from property lines because of the sideward restrictions that Charlton has for them. Mr. Rabideau inquired of the engineer if there were any modifications that will not make the systems work and he responded no, that the systems are engineered to work.
Mr. Rabideau stated that pertaining to the comment to tie in the septic designs specifically to our map, the systems are pre-engineered so that the person buying any of these lots knows that the systems have already been pre-engineered so they do not have to duplicate the work.
Mr. Rabideau stated that they need to get the tie in from Mr. McNamara’s work and Mr. McNamara has to refer to their map and they should refer to Mr. McNamara’s map.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the engineer’s letter suggests moving a few things, which are all map details. Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Planning Board would wait until the changes were completed to proceed.
Mr. Rabideau inquired if final approval could be granted tonight contingent upon the changes as they are administrative.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that he recommends waiting to see the engineers sign off.
Mr. Kadlecek polled the Board.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he agrees to wait for the finalized map. Mr. Mitchell stated that he agrees to wait for the finalized map. Mr. Hodgkins stated that he agrees to wait for the finalized map.
Mr. Rabideau stated that time is of the essence.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that we have to go through the second half of the long environmental form when the comments are addressed and we have revised maps.
Mr. Rabideau stated that he would have the revised maps to the Board within one week.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Planning Board will proceed once the revised maps have been received.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if the Planning Board is requesting well locations and water verification, ie. Proof of water.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that it is in the note on the map.
DeNooyer/VanGuilder (235-1-44 & 235-1-67.2)
Mr. Rabideau approached the Board.
Mr. Rabideau stated that the Planning Board requested DEC verification of on site wetlands. Mr. Rabideau stated that he has numerous calls into DEC for this job and 13 other jobs. They have not received a return phone call for any job.
Mr. Rabideau inquired if the Planning Board could issue a contingent approval since the DEC wetlands in question are back on Lot 2, which is the large lot in the back. The proposal is to cut out the front lot. None of the new maps say anything about DEC wetlands in the front of the parcel.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the signature could not be done until a response was received.
Mr. Durst stated that the discussions at the last meeting were to verify where the wetlands were located prior to the issuance of a building permit. In the absence of any DEC wetlands on the website map, their request is to move ahead with it and let the building department handle the DEC wetlands verification. Mr. Durst stated that way they could move ahead with water well drilling contingencies simultaneous to verification of wetlands.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the Planning Board requested the verification of wetlands because of the findings from the Public Hearing.
Mr. Durst stated that there is not a just cause to say it is right adjacent to this or extends into this.
Mr. Mitchell stated that it was a question of a delineation to see if there is anything in question.
Mr. Kadlecek called into question Mr. Keniry’s letter of February 13, 2006 in which the no default approval was extended to May 31, 2006. Mr. Kadlecek inquired as to what would happen if the Board were to continue on.
Mr. Keniry stated that is a question for the applicant. Mr. Keniry stated that the applicant has been 100% cooperative through the process. The applicant was constrained by weather and that was the difficulty that the applicant did not cause. Mr. Keniry stated that the origin of the letter was to establish certainty in terms of the relationship between the applicant and the Board.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if another clock starts running on May 31st.
Mr. Rabideau stated that they felt that May 31st would be plenty of time to address the issues of perc tests and septic. Mr. Rabideau stated that DEC wetland delineation was not an issue when the letter was written.
Mr. Keniry stated that for purposes of a default approval, he does not think that would be applicable here. Mr. Keniry stated that the issue is whether or not Mr. LaFountain feels comfortable with the contingency.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that Mr. Black’s request from the last meeting was to show the exact location of the well on Lot 1 and to the location and data of the perc tests.
Mr. Rabideau stated that was done last month.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the only thing the Board is waiting on is the DEC wetlands delineation.
Mr. LaFountain stated that there is a line on the permit application inquiring if there are any DEC wetlands on the parcel. If the applicant answers yes then the application goes no further until DEC has delineated the wetlands. The building department will make sure that the question is answered and the appropriate action is taken.
Mr. LaFountain stated that his concern is that if a piece of property is subdivided that has wetlands on it and someone comes along and dissolves the piece that does not have any of the wetlands on it the next guy who ends up with that piece is going to have the issues.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the contingency is not upon the subdivision it is upon the building department and the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. LaFountain stated that they will issue a building permit if DEC has done the delineation of the wetlands. Mr. LaFountain stated that his concern is that if you subdivide a piece of property that has wetlands into two parcels, now one has wetlands and the other does not. They can get a permit for the parcel that doesn’t have wetlands but what happens to the parcel that does have wetlands.
Mr. Keniry stated that the subdivision might have to be re-subdivided or otherwise amend a previously subdivided parcel. Mr. Keniry stated that from the applicant’s perspective the subdivision is the legal prerequisite to allow them to proceed with some other party since the purpose of the subdivision is to provide for a conveyance.
Mr. Mitchell stated that there are no delineated wetlands on this parcel and the Board is trying to clear itself as far as the Public Hearing information.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that he is ok with the contingent approval because the contingency is in Mr. LaFountain’s control. Mr. Rabideau stated that the DEC wetlands in question are located on the larger parcel owned by the person who wants to subdivide. The 5-acre parcel does not have DEC wetlands on it.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that per the last meeting there were three things that needed to be addressed. The last map the Board received is dated April 12, 2006. The requested changes were from the meeting after those maps were done.
Mr. Durst stated that the April 12th map is the last map.
The Board reviewed the map and discussed it.
Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. Rabideau to show the Board the test sites on the April 12th map.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the three requests the board made at the last meeting were to show the perc test results at the test points on the drawing. Mr. Wilkinson stated that the test pits are on the drawing but the results are not.
Mr. Rabideau stated that the results are on the engineering (ABD) drawing.
Mr. Rabideau stated that the existing and proposed wells are shown.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the test pit information from when the property was purchased was also to be provided.
Mrs. York stated that she has not received any new information or maps since the last meeting.
Mr. Rabideau stated that the precise location of the wells has been done. They still need to obtain the test pit information from when the property was purchased.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Planning Board will take action next month when all of the information requested is received, except for DEC delineation.
Mr. Durst inquired that if they have an updated DEC map that shows where the wetlands are located, why can’t they go by that.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that some people suggest that those maps may be in error. It is the Planning Board’s job to make sure the wetlands are located.
Mr. Durst stated that Mr. Rabideau could delineate the wetlands.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that DEC would not recognize Mr. Rabideau’s delineation.
Mr. Keniry stated that the Planning Board could rely on Mr. Rabideau’s delineation but Mr. Rabideau is not a permitting agency.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that when the revised maps are provided the Board could re-visit the issue of contingent approval.
Mr. Kadlecek polled the Board.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that if all of the information is received by next months meeting, he is ok with conditional approval.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that he is ok with approving the subdivision now with the contingency of receiving the revised maps and the wetlands delineation.
Mr. Vanderhorst stated that in the past the Board has issued conditional approval, he is ok with doing it now.
Mr. Mitchell stated that he is ok with approving now.
Mrs. Wood arrived at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Kadlecek apprised Mrs. Wood of the discussions on this application.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the approval contingencies would be: - no building permit until a ground survey by DEC to verify enough room for house, well, and septic - updated map with data requested - data from when purchased land
Mrs. Wood stated that she has no objection to conditional approval.
Mr. Kadlecek asked for a motion for the Planning Board to take lead agency status.
Mr. Wilkinson made a motion that the Planning Board be designated as lead agency status and the proposed action is an unlisted action under SEQRA with a negative impact declaration relative to environmental impact for the DeNooyer/VanGuilder Subdivision on Sacandaga Road. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Kadlecek asked for a motion to approve the subdivision application with conditions.
Mr. Wilkinson made a motion to approve the DeNooyer/VanGuilder Subdivision application with the following contingencies: Indicate that the perc test results at those test points that appear on the drawing be included; Indicate the precise location of the well as opposed to the location of the proposed well; Indicate perc test information from data when the land was purchased; and No building permit will be issued until a ground survey has been completed on both lots by DEC delineating the wetlands to verify that there is enough room for house, well and septic.
Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Mitchell made the motion for the Planning Board to authorize the chairman to sign the mylars with the contingencies. Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Resolution 2006-07 was made
Grabo/Davidson (246-3-61.1)
Mr. Grabo and Mrs. Davidson approached the Board.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the application was received on April 28, 206. The deed was received on May 5, 2006. The subdivision fee of $100.00 was paid on April 28, 2006. The full Environmental Impact Statement form was received on April 28, 2006.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Planning Board has to refer this application to Saratoga County for their approval because the original property is partly located in Glenville. The Town of Glenville will be notified by Mr. Keniry of the existence of the application and the existence of the public hearing.
Mrs. Davidson inquired if notifying Glenville would hold up the process.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that it will not hold up the process. The Planning Board has to notify the Town of Glenville. Mr. Kadlecek stated that they could choose not to respond.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if the applicants had the information pertaining to the average mean width of the property front to back.
Mrs. Davidson stated that she does not know that information. Mrs. Davidson stated that she would contact the surveyor to obtain the information.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the drawing has the parcel labeled as 2 acres + or – and to remove the “+ or –“ from the map in that less than 2 acres is not an option.
Mrs. Davidson stated that she is sure that the parcel is over 2 acres.
Mrs. Davidson advised that the well is in front of the property (showed on map). Mrs. Davidson stated that it is being drilled now.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that it is over 200 feet and there is no issue.
Mr. Hodgkins inquired if a Public Hearing could be scheduled.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the mean width of the property is needed before moving forward with the process.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the perc test information is also needed.
Mrs. Davidson stated that the parcel is over 2 acres, it is just a technicality on the drawing. Mrs. Davidson stated that the road curves, so instead of following the road, it curves this way (showing on map).
Mr. Kadlecek stated that 200 feet is the average width for a property that the Planning Board does not have to do any other considerations about.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if the Board was in agreement to schedule a public hearing and have the applicants bring an adjusted map to the hearing.
Mr. Keniry stated that the law would apply only if there was a substantial change resulting in some prejudice to other homeowners because you are approving a map that is significantly different than that which a public hearing was conducted on.
Mr. Kadlecek asked Mrs. Davidson to obtain the average mean width of the property front to back and the actual acreage as soon as possible. Mr. Kadlecek stated that you want an average of 200 feet with 2 acres.
Mr. Grabo inquired if it is less than 200 feet can they adjust the map.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the map could be adjusted.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Public Hearing will be scheduled for June 19, 2006 at 7:45 p.m.
Mrs. York provided the steps for a Public Hearing. Mrs. York also provided the notification cards for Mrs. Davidson to complete and return 10 days before the Public Hearing. Mrs. York stated that the Glenville neighbors would also need to be notified.
Mr. Grabo paid the $500.00 engineering fee.
Mrs. Davidson stated that the perc tests will be done before the Public Hearing and the information will be placed on the drawing. Mrs. Davidson inquired as to the standard notes for the maps.
Mrs. York stated that the standard notes are included in the application package and also available on the Internet.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the letter from Michael McNamara dated May 10, 2006 requests a note be added to the drawing specifying that a driveway permit from the Town of Charlton Highway Department will need to be obtained.
Mrs. Davidson stated that the note would be added.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion that the Planning Board be designated as lead agency status and the proposed action is an unlisted action under SEQRA for the Grabo/Davidson Subdivision located on Crane Street. Mr. Wilkinson seconded the motion. All were in favor.
ZBA Referrals
There were no ZBA referrals.
Zoning Report
Mr. Dave LaFountain, Zoning Administrator, provided a copy of the April 2006 activities to the Board. The Board reviewed the report with Mr. LaFountain.
Town Board Liaison
Town Board Liaison, Sandy Verola, had no report.
Correspondence
Mr. Kadlecek advised that the Saratoga County Green Infrastructure Plan would be conducting spring public information meetings on May 18th, May 24th, June 1st and June 8th. The time is 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. The location for the June 1st meeting is the Freehold Presbyterian Church.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly A. Caron Recording Secretary May 11, 2006 Attachment 1
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 proposed septic system design plans for Lots 2, 3 and 4 of the proposed four-lot subdivision of Lands of Richard & Priscilla Kenyon. We understand that the Planning Board required these designs in conjunction with your review of the subdivision plan prepared by Gilbert VanGuilder Land Surveyor, PLLC. The three septic system plans are each dated May 1, 2006 and were prepared by Scott Lansing, P.E. of Lansing Engineering, P.C. We offer the following comments for your consideration.
Subdivision Plan:
Septic System Plans, General Comments:
Lot 2 Septic System Plan:
Lot 3 Septic System Plan:
Lot 4 Septic System Plan:
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: Dave LaFountain, Zoning Administrative Officer Scott Lansing, P.E. w/ enclosures – Charlton Zoning Ordinance Duane Rabideau, P.L.S. – GVG Land Surveyor
C:\MY DOCUMENTS\WINWORD\charlton\SUBDIVISIONREVIEWS\KENYONSUBDIVISION_SEPTICSYSTEMREVIEWS.doc
|
|
|
| |