 |
|
****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 – June 19, 2006
Chairman Ray Black called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the John W. Taylor Hall.
Present: Ray Black, Chairman, John Kadlecek, Constance Wood, Mark Hodgkins, Jay Wilkinson, William Keniry, Town Attorney and Susan York, Planning Board clerk. Christopher Mitchell joined the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
AGENDA MEETING:
Mr. Black opened the meeting thanking Mr. Kadlecek for chairing last month’s meeting.
Mr. Black advised that five of the six board members are present therefore we have a quorum.
Minutes
Mr. Black advised that the draft of the May 15, 2006 minutes need to be approved. Mr. Black stated that he has briefly read through the draft.
Mrs. York has already provided changes to the draft. There is a question pertaining to a comment made by Mr. Mitchell. Once Mr. Mitchell arrives the Board can ascertain the correct wording of the comment.
Grabo/Davidson (246-3-61.1)
Mr. Black advised that there would be a Public Hearing on this matter at 7:45 p.m. tonight.
Mr. Black advised that he received a telephone call from a resident on Dawson Road voicing their concern that this is a major subdivision. Mr. Black expects the resident to appear tonight to state their opinion.
Mr. Black stated that this subdivision is classified as a major subdivision due to the amount of activity on the parcel within the past fifteen years.
Mrs. Wood stated that there has been some concern pertaining to the amount of activity on the Glenville Town line.
Mr. Black stated that it is not germane to discuss the amount of activity on the Glenville Town line as the Public Hearing is for property located in Charlton. Mr. Black stated that Mr. Grabo will be present for the Public Hearing and he can choose to address that issue if he wants to.
Mr. Wilkinson inquired if revised maps have been presented.
Mr. Black stated that there were two issues with this subdivision from the last meeting. The first issue pertained to the mean lot width amount and the other issue pertained to the acreage amount. Mr. Black advised that he has spoken to Mr. McNamara. According to Mr. McNamara, it is normal for the acreage to show up + on the drawing. Mr. Black further advised that Mr. McNamara did the calculations for the acreage and the mean lot width. According to Mr. McNamara, the parcel is in excess of 2 acres and the mean lot width meets Charlton’s requirements.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the applicant’s were going to provide the Board with a finalized map to review before the Public Hearing showing the subdivision as proposed.
Mr. Black reviewed the file. The last map that the applicant’s provided is dated April 28, 2006.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Keniry sent notice to the Town of Glenville citing the Public Hearing information. Mr. Black advised that he does not have a copy of the notice from the Daily Gazette.
Mr. Keniry stated that he has received a fax copy of the notice from the Daily Gazette, which will serve as sufficient proof.
Mr. Black stated that the response from the County Planning Board was that there is no significant countywide or community impact.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is in a position to act on this subdivision. The Board has already taken lead agency status. Mr. Black advised that the Board has to go through SEQRA completing the long form for the major subdivision.
Mr. Black recommended that the Board take action on this application on the basis that there is no impact relative to SEQRA and complete the form answering “no” to all 20 questions.
Kenyon/VanGuilder (223.00-1-11.11)
Mr. Black stated that this application has been held up pending septic system issues pertaining to slopes, soil conditions and depth to bedrock. Mr. Black stated that the Board has received a revised map showing the three new lots that are being created with the septic system locations, which meets the standoff required from the wetlands, showing the expansion area in addition to the fundamental area. The engineering details associated with the raised bed system have the certification that those are the septic systems that can be put on the property.
Mr. Black stated that there is a letter from Michael McNamara dated June 16, 2006 stating that all of his comments and changes requested in the May 11, 2006 letter have been addressed. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 1.
Mr. Wilkinson advised that per Mr. McNamara’s May 11, 2006 letter, note #2 was to be removed from the drawing. The revised map still has note #2.
Mr. Black read note #2 on the drawing. Mr. Black stated that the note was changed to reflect more accurate information instead of being removed.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. McNamara’s June 16, 2006 letter states that a permit will be required from NYS DEC for lots 2 and 3 in order to place fill within the 100 foot wetland setback. Mr. Black stated that he interprets the drawing to show that the fill located in the tapered area is entirely outside the wetlands buffer.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is in a position to approve this subdivision. The Board has already taken lead agency status. Mr. Black advised that the Board has to go through SEQRA completing the long form for the major subdivision.
Mr. Black recommended that the Board take action on this application on the basis that there is no impact relative to SEQRA and complete the form answering “no” to all 20 questions.
Pre-Application Conferences
Cook/VanGuilder (225-1-39.3 & 235-1-39.111)
Mr. Black stated that the property is located on Cook Road. Mr. Black stated that sometime last year the proposed purchaser of the parcel had a pre-application conference to subdivide to create two new housing lots. The Board gave the applicant opinions. The original purchaser of the property decided not to purchase. Mr. Cook is now representing himself to make a lot line change.
Mr. Black reviewed the proposed drawings with the Board.
Mr. Black stated that there are two lots involved in this subdivision. Mr. Black stated that one lot is approximately 9 acres and the second lot is landlocked. Mr. Black stated that the tax map indicates that there are already two lots in existence. Mr. Black showed the Board the location of the existing house.
Mr. Black stated that the applicant’s proposal is to reduce the acerage of the parcel with the existing house to 2 ¼ acres and to add acerage to the land locked parcel to give this second parcel road frontage in order to create a building lot. This lot line change would result in one very large lot to allow for a second house back further behind the existing house. Mr. Black stated that the proposal is not creating more lots it is reconfiguring existing lots to put in another house.
Mr. Black stated that the Board cannot act without ZBA approval. The parcel does not have enough frontage. The parcel meets the mean lot width and meets the acreage requirement.
Mr. Black stated that the issues that the Board will face would be associated with the right of way and the existing driveway as it crosses now. Sight distance and speed will also have to be looked into.
Mr. Black suggested that a new driveway be built to get away from the right of way issue.
Mr. Black stated that the Board would refer this application to the Zoning Board of Appeals and provide input to the ZBA.
Mr. Black stated that there are some wetlands located on the property in the back. The Board will ask for those to be shown.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the drawing from the first application in 2005 shows all of the wetlands.
Casey (237-1-17.1)
Mr. Black stated that the property is located on Sweetman Road, south of Route 67 and Lasher Road. Mr. Black stated that the proposal is to subdivide 20-acres off of a 90-acre parcel into three 6-7-acre parcels for building lots.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board could suggest a cluster subdivision.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that he has some items to add to the agenda.
The meeting was closed at 7:30 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
Opened at 7:30 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Black advised that there were copies of the Agenda located on the back table.
Minutes
Mr. Black stated that the May 15, 2006 meeting minutes would need to be approved.
Mr. Kadlecek made the motion to approve the May 15, 2006 meeting minutes conditional upon clarification of Mr. Mitchell’s statement on page 5. Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion. All were in favor.
At the end of the business meeting, Mr. Mitchell clarified his statement from page 5 of the minutes.
Mr. Black advised that there is a Public Hearing at 7:45 on the Grabo/Davidson application.
Kenyon/VanGuilder (223-1-11.11)
Mr. Rabideau approached the Board.
Mr. Black advised that the Board has received the maps showing the raised septic systems and the septic system design and all appears to be fine.
Mr. Black stated that there is a letter from Michael McNamara dated June 16, 2006 (Attachment 1).
Mr. Black stated that there is an implication in Mr. McNamara’s letter is that the septic system for Lots 2 & 3 would require a DEC permit for fill within the 100-foot buffer. Mr. Black stated that in reading the master plan it appears that even the area of the fill is outside the buffer. Mr. Black stated that the Board does not understand Mr. McNamara’s comment and has not been able to speak to Mr. McNamara for clarification.
Mr. Black reviewed the drawings with Mr. Rabideau.
Mr. Rabideau stated that it appears that the designed system is bigger this way and that way (showing on drawing). Mr. Rabideau stated that the question had been raised pertaining to the expansion area so the initial septic system is here and this was added space (showing on drawing). Mr. Rabideau stated that this is for Lot 3.
Mr. Rabideau stated that they are still waiting for DEC to come out and verify the wetlands corridor. Mr. Rabideau stated that there is a question of who has jurisdiction. Mr. Rabideau showed Mr. Black the stream corridor that acts as a break.
Mr. Black stated that at this point we are still waiting on more DEC delineation.
Mr. Rabideau stated that we are waiting for verification from DEC. Mr. Rabideau stated that the area he flagged was wetlands but he is unsure who has jurisdiction.
Mr. Black advised Mr. Rabideau that if the Board were to approve now that it would be contingent upon DEC delineation of the actual wetland boundary and if there is an encumbrance of the septic system within the 100-foot buffer, a permit would be required.
Mr. Black stated that if the Board approves the application conditional and DEC finds that the wetlands are actually bigger and refuse to issue a permit, the Board faces the problem of a lot created that has no function.
Mr. Rabideau stated that he is confident in the line. Mr. Rabideau stated that with DEC, if it becomes within the 100-foot adjacent area, they are not going to build in the expansion area. Mr. Rabideau stated that the septic was designed to function properly without the expansion area.
Mr. Black inquired if it would be prudent to have the approval in advance for the expansion area in order to know if they can meet the expansion requirement.
Mr. Black advised that this matter has to be tabled until after the Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING (7:45)
Grabo/Davidson (246-3-61.1)
Mr. Black addressed the public and explained the process for the public hearing. Mr. Black asked that each person who addresses the Board to state their name and address.
Mr. Black advised that the Board has notified the Town of Glenville that there is a Public Hearing tonight on this matter because the property does border on the Town of Glenville. Mr. Black inquired if there were any residents from the Town of Glenville present. Numerous people raised their hands.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has also notified the Glenville Town Board. Mr. Black inquired if there was anyone from the Glenville Town Board present. No one raised their hand.
Mr. Black stated that the Public Hearing notice was posted in the Daily Gazette.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has provided the plan to the Saratoga County Planning Board. Mr. Black advised that the County’s response was that this application has no significant countywide or community impact.
Mr. Black stated that this subdivision has been classified as a major subdivision. The actual subdivision proposed is the creation of one single building lot. The reason it is classified as a major subdivision is because the Board counts all activity on an original parcel over a 15-year period. If five or more lots are created over a 15-year period, the subdivision is classified as a major subdivision.
Suzanne Voight, 122 Dawson Road, inquired which of the five lots the hearing is on.
Mr. Black posted the map for all to see. Mr. Black stated that 2 lots were created in the field that is south of the driveway where no activity has occurred yet to do any construction or building. Two more lots were created between the driveway and Mrs. Hauenstein’s property. The 5th lot is south of the existing house and driveway.
Mr. Grabo presented the following plan: -selling Mr. and Mrs. Davidson one 2-acre lot with 200 feet of frontage on the south side of Shippe’s property. -Mrs. Davidson already owns these two (showing on drawing) -no other future plans for remainder of mother parcel
Mr. Black opened the floor to the public.
Suzanne Voight, inquired how much road frontage is left on Mr. Grabo’s property after proposed lot is subdivided.
Mr. Grabo stated that it leaves him 375 feet of frontage.
Mrs. Voight inquired if that was before the next lot starts.
Mr. Grabo responded yes.
Mrs. Voight inquired how much land Mr. Grabo has left back there.
Mr. Grabo stated that he is left with 60+ acres.
Mrs. Voight inquired if they were land locking that.
Mr. Grabo responded yes.
Mr. Black interjected no, it is not landlocked. It has 375 feet of road frontage.
Mrs. Voight stated that is not enough for two lots.
Mr. Black responded correct.
Sue Blond, Dawson Road, stated that the concern is that they are going to put a road in back there and at some point build a development back there.
Mr. Grabo stated that he has no plans for that.
Mrs. Blond stated that another landowner on Dawson Road with land that borders that is also thinking of doing the same thing and the residents are afraid that there is going to be a development back there.
Mrs. Davidson stated that there is a possibility of that but it is someone else’s land not this land.
Mrs. Blond stated that it is very wet back there.
Mrs. Davidson stated that that is the Dawson Road property not this property. It has nothing to do with this property.
Mr. Davidson stated that the road frontage that Mr. Grabo is retaining gives him access to the rest of the property. The two-acre parcel is the one that is the subject of the public hearing.
Mr. Grabo stated that his other land is in the Town of Glenville, Schenectady County.
Mr. Black stated that he appreciates and understands the concerns being expressed for future development. It is not the intent of this Planning Board to get involved in speculating on what might happen in the future. That is up to the landowner, Mr. Grabo. Mr. Black stated that the concerns have been registered. Mr. Grabo has provided his view as of this moment. Mr. Black stated that we will table that discussion as it is not the subject of this public hearing. The subject of this public hearing is about concerns associated with the 2-acre parcel of land.
Mrs. Voight stated that during discussions from the original subdivision of the Davidson two lots and the other lots on the other side of Mr. Grabo’s driveway with the surveyor present, the public was worried about all of these subdivisions at that time, too. Mrs. Voight requested that the Board review the minutes because from her recollection, the surveyor stated that he would concede that this lot is not be divided into two because it was not percable. Only one house could go on that site because it is not percable for two sites. Mrs. Voight stated that because of that she is wondering why this is classified as a major subdivision because she thought it was agreed that Mr. Grabo only got three lots on that night.
Mrs. Davidson stated that Mrs. Voight’s recollection was correct.
Mr. Grabo stated that the original lot that came from his property went to Doherty’s. It was a 15-acre parcel.
Mrs. Voight inquired if that is where the other lot came from and if the one out front of Doherty’s is still one lot.
Mr. Grabo responded yes.
Gerry Wawrzniak, 599 Dawson Road, inquired as to the classification.
Mr. Davidson stated that the area is classified as residential/agricultural.
Mr. Wawrzniak inquired as to the Town specifications for lot sizes.
Mr. Black responded 2-acres of land size, 200 foot road frontage and a mean lot width of 200 feet, meaning if it varies in dimensions the mean has to be at least 200 feet.
Mr. Black inquired if there were any more comments or questions from the public.
Mr. Kadlecek made a motion to close the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Grabo/Davidson (246-3-61.1)
Mr. Grabo and Mr. Davidson approached the Board.
Mr. Black stated that the Board had raised the issue relative to the mean lot width and the 2-acre label. Mr. Black stated that the Town engineer has reviewed the survey map. Mr. McNamara calculated the mean lot width at 200 feet and the parcel does exceed 2-acres. The Board’s concerns have been satisfied.
Mr. Black stated that normally on a survey map of this type, the Board requires that it be listed as located in the Residential Agricultural District and that the requirements be listed. Mr. Black requested that these be added to the map.
Mr. Davidson inquired if the surveyor needed to create a new map.
Mr. Black stated a revision would need to be created. Mr. Black stated that the surveyor can contact him if he has any questions.
Mr. Black stated that the standard notes are on the map. Mr. Black stated that the water well must be in place before a building permit will be issued.
Mrs. Davidson stated that the well is in.
Mr. Black stated that the septic system design would need to be approved before the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that one of Mr. McNamara’s comments from the letter of May 10, 2006 stated that a note should be added to the plan specifying that a driveway permit from the Town of Charlton Highway Department will need to be obtained. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 2.
Mrs. Davidson stated that they will add the note. Mrs. Davidson stated that the septic engineer has been to the property and performed a perc test, which was ok.
Mr. Black stated that due to the major subdivision classification there is a requirement to fill out the long form for SEQRA. The applicants have already completed the long form.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has already proposed ourselves as lead agency and to date no environmental concerns have been raised. The feedback from the Town cited no specific concerns associated with this lot that are over and above what has already been addressed.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is in a position to act on this application. Mr. Black stated that the Board will need to take action on SEQRA and take action on approval of the lot. The approval would be contingent upon 2 conditions calling for notes to be added to the survey map: 1) Residential/Agricultural lot requirements 2) A driveway permit from the Town of Charlton will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. LaFountain made the comment that this lot is not sized for horses.
Mr. Black asked for a motion to declare this subdivision to have no negative impact in the 20 categories according to the SEQRA long form. Mr. Kadlecek made the motion. Mr. Wilkinson seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black asked for a motion to approve the subdivision with two contingencies, add to map the Residential Agricultural requirements from the Zoning Requirements and add to the map a note associated with a driveway permit stating that prior to the issuance of a building permit, a driveway permit would be required from the Town of Charlton. Mr. Kadlecek made the motion. Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mrs. Wood made the motion classifying the resolution as 2006-08 and authorizing the chairman to sign the mylars. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mrs. York provided the filing instructions to Mrs. Davidson.
Kenyon/VanGuilder (223-1-11.11)
Mr. Rabideau approached the Board.
Mr. Kadlecek made the suggestion of adding a note on the mylar should expansion of the septic system be needed, a DEC permit would be required if they go into the 100 foot buffer.
Mr. Rabideau stated that in Charlton, the systems are way above state level. They start big and then the automatic 50% expansion is huge again.
Mrs. Wood stated that it gives the buyer notification of “buyer beware”.
Mr. Black stated that the Board would like the addition of a note on the main drawing that indicates that installation and/or expansion of septic systems may require DEC delineation of the wetlands in associated buffer and a permit may be required.
Mr. Rabideau stated that he understands what the Board is after.
Mr. LaFountain inquired as to the Board’s concern.
Mr. Black showed Mr. LaFountain on the drawing and explained. Mr. Black stated that Mr. Rabideau made the wetlands delineation himself but he is not recognized by DEC as an authority to do wetland delineations in lieu of DEC making the determination. They are seeking to get the DEC to actually classify it. Since it is actually a stream corridor and not really “marsh land” the belief is that this (showing on drawing) may actually go away. The existing septic designs which they have laid in come very close to the setback so what the Board is suggesting is depending on the actual final specific locations of the expansion areas it may require a permit.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is requesting that a note be added to the drawing that states the contingency of a potential violation may happen and a permit may be required.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if the perc test results were good.
Mr. Black stated that the detailed engineering designs are for each parcel with the results listed.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is in a position to approve the subdivision. This subdivision is classified as a major subdivision requiring the long form SEQRA to be completed. Mr. Black stated that there is no environmental impact.
Mr. Black asked for a motion to declare that there is no negative environmental impact on all 20 categories of the long form, approve the subdivision contingent on the addition of the note and authorize the chairman to sign the mylars.
Mr. Wilkinson made the motion declaring no negative environmental impact on all 20 categories of the SEQRA long form. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mrs. Wood made the motion to approve the subdivision contingent upon the addition of a note to the map stating DEC approval for wetlands buffer impact and approving Resolution 2006-09 and authorize the chairman to sign the mylars. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mrs. Wood made an amendment to the first motion classifying the subdivision as an unlisted action under SEQRA. Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mrs. York advised Mr. Rabideau that the park fee is due.
Cook/VanGuilder (225-1-39.3 & 235-1-39.111)
Mr. Rabideau approached the Board.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board’s understanding of the applicant’s intent is that there is currently two lots, one represented by the dotted line and one landlocked parcel represented by this (showing on drawing).
Mr. Rabideau responded that was correct.
Mr. Black stated that the proposal is in essence not to create a new lot but to redo the lines such that you still have two lots but one of them is 2 ¼ acres that surrounds the existing house and it has been done in such a way that meets the setback requirements and then create a second lot that uses all of the remaining property as one lot.
Mr. Rabideau responded correct.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board has two issues. The first issue is that it does not meet the zoning requirements for the residential agricultural district in town since this is less than 200 feet of frontage. That would require going before the ZBA for an area variance.
The second issue is that the existing driveway to the house crosses onto what would be the new lot. The Board is desiring to minimize the accesses onto roads where there are sight distance issues or where there are speed issues or traffic or safety issues. In this particular case, it is not the Board ‘s belief that there is a traffic issue or a sight issue. The concept of having right of way and the potential issues in the future is not desirable to the Board. It would be preferential to the Board to see this driveway redone such that each lot has its own driveway and we do not get into the right of way issue.
Mr. Black stated that if ZBA grants the area variance, the Board would be interested in the location or the proposed location of where the house would be placed such that there isn’t an infringement here (showing on drawing).
Mr. Black inquired if Mr. Rabideau has an aerial picture of the area.
Mr. Rabideau provided copies to the Board.
Mr. Rabideau stated that the picture was from the Saratoga County GIS. The way the lines are set up now is as they are now and they want a lot line adjustment to get where the house and the garage and improvements are down to 2-acres and then have road frontage for the rear. Mr. Rabideau stated that he has walked the site and saw that the house would be up in this general area here (showing on drawing).
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if the proposed building lot would be behind the existing house.
Mr. Rabideau responded yes.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the long driveway would require the new town ordinance.
Mr. Rabideau stated that the driveway would be between 500 feet – 600 feet.
Mr. Black stated that this is a situation where you are going to have a house directly behind another house and normally most people like to consider the backyard of their own home their own private space. Mr. Black stated that he would like to see some kind of minimum requirement that is a condition of the property owner that the certain amount of vegetation and buffer be maintained such that the condition is always private space to them.
Mr. Rabideau stated that they could place a no cut buffer preservation. Mr. Rabideau stated that due to the fact that this area is wet here (showing on drawing) but as you go back or and this way it does come up.
Mr. Black stated that the Board reviewed the map from August of 2005 noting a significant amount of wetlands on the property. Mr. Black stated that the wetlands are not within the area they are proposing to build but because of the fact that there are significant wetlands on the property the Board will want to see the wetlands shown and delineated on the subdivision map. Mr. Black stated that the Board wants the potential buyer to know that there are wetlands and that a wetlands permit may be required.
Mr. Wilkinson inquired if contour lines should be added to the drawing.
Mr. Black responded that the Board typically requires that if there are potential issues with well and septic separations.
Mr. Rabideau stated that they could show the limited area of contours. Mr. Rabideau stated that they will redesign the drawing to show both lots.
Mr. Rabideau inquired if a boundary survey is required on the entire piece because they have done a survey and defined these lines (showing on drawing) to create this lot. Mr. Rabideau inquired if it could be schematic to satisfy boards requirements.
Mr. Black stated that this application is considered a lot line change. It can be classified as an exempt subdivision and the Board can waive some of the requirements. Mr. Black stated that in this case due to intended purpose to create a building lot, the board will not waive the public hearing or the engineering review. Mr. Black stated that for the purposes of the County, they need to know the details and surveyed out specifically of the change in the lot line. Since that is all within what has already been surveyed, that is adequate. We need an official survey for the part that you have done, not what is not being affected.
Mr. Rabideau stated that they will show schematically with inset showing the wetland issues.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if it would be a struggle to re-route the existing driveway.
Mr. Rabideau stated that he is not sure.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if the Board is requiring the map to have the proposed location of the septic, test pits and perc test results.
Mr. Black responded no due to the lot size being 40+ acres.
Mr. LaFountain drew the Board’s attention to page 17 of the Zoning Requirements book.
Mr. Black read page 17. Mr. Black stated that if the Board had reason to believe that the percolation requirement could not be met, then the Board would require it. Mr. Black inquired if Mr. LaFountain believed that the percolation requirement could not be met.
Mr. LaFountain responded that he had no idea.
Mrs. Wood stated that the purpose is not to create a new lot rather a lot line change.
Mr. Black stated that if there is reason to believe that the percolation rate requirement cannot be met, the Board will take it into advisement.
Mrs. York inquired if Mr. Cook was aware of any DEC delineations on the property.
Mr. Rabideau stated that the map indicates that the wetlands were downloaded off of the website.
Mrs. York stated that David Bach had arrangements for DEC to go out in October of 2005. Mrs. York inquired if that was ever done.
Mr. Rabideau responded that he was not certain.
Mr. Black summarized the Board’s position. Mr. Black stated that this is considered as favorable since they are not really creating a new lot, just providing access to an existing one by changing lot lines around. The lots are large for single building units. Mr. Black stated that it does not meet the existing zoning requirements because of the road frontage so the Board is referring the applicants to the ZBA. If ZBA approval is granted, the Board will treat it as an exempt subdivision, a lot line change, but would not waive public hearing or engineering review because the intent is to create a building lot so we would do a full sight plan review type activity. Mr. Black stated that since there is a public hearing with ZBA the Board may be willing to waive the pubic hearing. The Board’s concerns are associated with the driveway and the right of way and the maintenance of the vegetation buffer due to the intent to put one house directly behind another.
Mr. Hodgkins suggested putting a serpentine, not straight driveway.
Mrs. Maggie Schmidt, ZBA Chairperson, inquired as to what the acreage label of 44.1 is referring to.
Mr. Rabideau stated that that was the original lot size for the one here (showing on drawing). Mr. Rabideau stated that is the total area after adding this portion to this lot (showing on drawing).
Mrs. Schmidt inquired as to where they would put the house.
Mr. Rabideau showed Mrs. Schmidt on the drawing.
Mrs. Schmidt stated that the ZBA would hear the application for an area variance in July.
Mr. Rabideau stated that they will revisit the driveway issue.
DeNooyer/Van Guilder (235-1-44 & 235-1-67.2)
Mr. Rabideau provided revised maps. Pre-application Conferences
Casey (237-1-17.1)
Mrs. Julia Casey approached the Board and provided a revised drawing.
Mrs. Casey stated that the wetlands delineation is scheduled for next Tuesday.
The Board reviewed the revised drawing.
Mrs. Casey stated that the deep perc tests have been done and she has the report.
Mr. Black stated that the purpose of the pre-application conference is to get the Board’s opinion and to clarify the applicant’s intent. Mr. Black stated that this is a straightforward subdivision. It appears to meet all of the regulations.
Mr. Black stated that one potential issue the Board sees with this subdivision is taking a large field that is available for farming and turning it into a building lot. There is a lot of concern with preserving open space.
Mr. Black inquired if there was a way to create lots in a certain way to preserve the field.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the field is wet in the front of the property. Mr. Mitchell stated that he does have some suggestions.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the main problem would be the crossing. You would need to obtain a permit for the crossing down here in the wetlands (showing on drawing).
Mr. Black inquired if Mr. Mitchell could explain his suggestions more clearly.
Mr. Mitchell stated that there is a ¾ acre field in the back here, there is a wet area here and there is a large stand of woods here (showing on drawing). The land is a lot higher and nicer and more suitable for building in the back. This area here (showing on drawing) has more of a gravel base and goes back to the power lines. Mr. Mitchell stated that this area back here (showing on drawing) is more dry because of the timber that has been harvested off of it before there was anything else there. Mr. Mitchell stated that he has worked that field. Mr. Mitchell stated that the only reason they no longer work the field is because they cannot get in with the equipment.
Mr. Mitchell stated that he has suggested to the Casey’s to use the frontage here (showing on drawing) and put a house in the corner and a house back in the backfield. The lot placement would be better for houses, although you would have a long driveway. This would preserve the dry spot and have less slack from the neighbors. This is a standard bowling alley lot and this is what we are trying to get away from.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Mitchell’s suggestion would have each lot at less than 200 feet.
Mr. Mitchell stated that one might have 200 feet and the other might share 200 feet.
Mr. Black stated that there are three lots proposed.
Mr. Mitchell stated that he is suggesting to leave the frontage up here (showing on drawing) or relax the frontage here (showing on drawing) to put in a modified cluster and have them share the 200 feet here (showing on drawing) for a driveway so that each one has a right of way or they could share the driveways.
Mrs. Casey stated that she wanted to use the same curb cut here (showing in drawing).
Mr. Mitchell stated that you could use the same curb cut here (showing on drawing) and then run a driveway all the way back which could possibly give you another lot for building. Mr. Mitchell stated that would require a permit to cross.
Mrs. Casey stated that she would like to retain the last piece (showing on drawing) pending on how well the other lots sold. Mrs. Casey stated that the piece has a pond and is the wettest of the three.
Mr. Black stated that the suggestion being made is to try to retain the field in tact and trade off road front to push them back further.
Mrs. Casey stated that would require permits and could take a long time.
Mr. Mitchell stated that a crossing permit could be obtained fairly easy.
Mr. Black clarified that the Board is making suggestions not requirements. It is known that there are encumbrances from here back (showing on drawing) so the building has to be up front. It is known that there are water issues potentially here and here (showing on drawing) so the Board will require septic verification, perc verification, etc.
Mrs. Casey stated that those tests have been done already.
Mr. Black stated that for purposes of the normal process, the layout is fine in terms of regulations. The Board is trying to see if there could be some kind of trade off to preserve open space.
Mrs. Casey stated that she would like to keep the parcel that is wet for the wildlife and firewood.
Mr. Mitchell stated that he is concerned that a Public Hearing on this subdivision would bring a lot of objection from neighboring residents.
Mrs. Casey stated that she is concerned with the cost of the long driveways and the crossing permits.
Mr. Black stated that access is an expensive proposition. Mr. Black stated that the purpose of relaxation is to maintain open space and stop further subdivision.
Mr. Black stated that the proposed lots are large and meet the zoning requirements as proposed. The Comprehensive Planning Committee has voiced the concept of open space especially for farming. Mr. Black stated that the Board is trying to see if it is possible to keep farmland for that purpose.
Mr. Mitchell stated that after the wetlands delineation there may be more creative ways to maintain open space.
Mr. Black stated that the wetlands delineation is next week and based upon the information obtained there may be options available to create more desirable lots and preserve open space. Mr. Black stated that the proposal as presented is fine, the Board is just opening the door to other options to preserve open space and still serve the applicant’s needs.
Mr. Black advised Mrs. Casey that the application fees may be changing in the near future. A new proposed fee schedule has been presented and needs to be approved by the Town Board.
Mr. Black advised that the application could be presented now and changes and/or suggestions that the Board has made can happen within the process.
Mrs. York advised Mrs. Casey that she would be in Town Hall tomorrow from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. if she would like to present her application.
Zoning Report
Mr. Dave LaFountain, Zoning Administrator, provided a copy of the June 2006 activities to the Board. The Board reviewed the report with Mr. LaFountain.
Mr. LaFountain had a suggestion pertaining to the percolation tests. Mr. LaFountain stated that in order to be able to subdivide, a lot has to have a 45-minute percolation rate. Mr. LaFountain suggested that the Board require that for every building lot a minimum test be performed.
Mr. Black stated that there is a requirement in the zoning law that states in order to be able to be subdivided a building lot has to have a 45-minute minimum percolation rate. Mr. Black stated that the suggestion is that the Board require with every application as a minimum that they have satisfied for every individual building lot that they have a percolation that is less than 45 minutes.
Mr. LaFountain responded correct.
Mr. Black stated that we do not require that normally. Mr. Black stated that the Board puts notes on the drawings but have not required that minimum test. Mr. Black inquired if Mr. LaFountain was suggesting that the Board should require that.
Mr. LaFountain responded correct.
Mr. Black stated that would require a change to the subdivision application regulations, which would require going before the Town Board.
Mr. LaFountain stated that it is not a change in the regulation. It is a change on the application.
Mr. Keniry stated that the requirement already exists.
Mr. Alan Grattidge stated that some subdivisions do not require perc tests. If the purpose is for a building envelope then it should be required.
Mr. Keniry read paragraph B on page 17 of the Zoning Requirements aloud. Mr. Keniry stated that he does not see any room for interpretation.
Mr. Black stated that there is a suggestion on the table that the board is not currently living up to the zoning requirements. The requirement is that for every new lot that is going to be created you have to prove that you have less than 45-minute perc rate and if it does not meet the perc rate it is not permitted to be subdivided. That is the requirement of the law. Mr. Black stated that the only way the Board could meet that requirement would be to then require as part of every subdivision, unless the Board decides to waive it, with every subdivision application the Board needs proof of that perc test. Mr. Black stated that in order for the Board to enact that is to pass an official action of the Planning Board to require as part of every subdivision application and authorize Mrs. York to gain that and begin the process of revising the application guidelines.
Mr. Black suggested having Mr. Keniry make an interpretation of the zoning requirements and propose a resolution to be reviewed at next month’s meeting.
Mr. LaFountain passed out the revised building permit application for the board to review. Mr. LaFountain stated that he has revised the application to include some additional questions. The first question added asks the applicant if they have received the required driveway construction permit. The second question added asks the applicant if the parcel has any designated wetlands.
Mr. Black inquired why there were no similar questions for well and septic.
Mr. LaFountain stated that those questions could be found under the building permit section and had not been changed.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if the wells and septics on adjoining properties are always listed.
Mr. Black responded no, the Board has them listed when there may be a potential standoff issue.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if it should be a requirement to list them.
Mr. Black stated that the current subdivision application requires that the applicant provide maps with the existing wells delineated on the property. Mr. Black stated that to require the applicants to list the adjacent properties is above and beyond what the Board needs. Mr. Black stated that if the Board does not see a potential issue there is no need for that to be done.
Mr. Wilkinson inquired how that would protect the Town residents that have lived in Charlton for over 30 years. The reliance is on the professional to make sure that the new wells and/or septic systems going in do not affect the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Black inquired of Mr. LaFountain that when someone comes in for a building permit and wants to put in a septic system, are they required to prove the system they are installing is a legitimate system.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the design comes from a design professional. If the system is conventional then it is reviewed and approved by the zoning administrator but if it is non-conventional the design is sent to Mike McNamara for review.
Mr. Black inquired as to who checks the existing wells.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the zoning office assumes that if a professional designs the system that it is true.
Mr. Keniry stated that Mr. McNamara also relies on the professional’s design. Mr. Keniry stated that Mr. McNamara relies on the information presented to him like the zoning administrator. Mr. Keniry stated that it cannot be expected that the building department is obligated to field check or test every piece of data that is given.
Mr. LaFountain stated that when the project is finished they require a letter from the professional designer that the system was installed to the specifications of the design and to sign off before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board should not assume the responsibility for what engineers are required to do.
Mr. Keniry stated that the Board must rely on the representations of the professional.
Mr. LaFountain stated that when you have a situation where the systems are close to one another, the building department actually field verifies and requires the professional to survey it.
Mr. Kadlecek suggested asking the professionals where the neighboring wells and septics are located.
Comprehensive Plan Report
Mr. Hodgkins stated that be believes the committee has concluded their meetings and will be sending the final recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan on to the consultant to put in the boilerplate language. Mr. Hodgkins stated that the committee has weeded out the different suggestions and now have a document that fits what the Town wants. Mr. Hodgkins stated that once there is a completed draft there would be a Town meeting.
ZBA Referrals
There were no ZBA referrals.
Mrs. Maggie Schmidt was present for discussion with the Board.
Mrs. Schmidt stated that the ZBA has had a Public Hearing on the two houses involved in fires. Both applicants have received permits and approvals. One applicant has until November and the other applicant has one year.
Mrs. Schmidt inquired if the Planning Board would be willing to send a letter to the ZBA advising why an applicant is being referred to them. Mrs. Schmidt stated that the letter would have to go to Mr. LaFountain first so that he could collect the money for the variance.
Mr. Black inquired as to why a letter is needed if there has to be referral for ZBA to take action.
Mrs. Schmidt stated that the ZBA cannot see a case unless it is a denial or a referral from the Planning Board per New York State law.
Mrs. Wood stated that Mr. Keniry stated that was wrong, that the applicant(s) do not need to physically come before the Planning Board.
Mrs. Schmidt stated that the pre-application conference the Board heard tonight could have gone straight to ZBA but the ZBA would not have had to opportunity to hear the Planning Board’s comments. Mrs. Schmidt stated that it makes sense for the application to come to the Planning Board first and then be referred.
Mr. Mitchell stated that if the application went to ZBA first and was denied then the Planning Board would not have to waste time.
Mrs. Schmidt stated that she could attend the Planning Board meetings if she were made aware of the situation ahead of time.
Mr. Black stated that the request does make sense. Mr. Black stated that he would like to rectify the situation without creating another letter.
Mrs. Schmidt stated that since there are not many applications that need a referral she does not feel it would create a problem to generate a letter of referral.
Mr. Black stated that the Board would provide comments in the initial referral letter.
Correspondence
Mr. Keniry has previously provided the board with a checklist and guidelines for the subdivision application process. Mr. Keniry is concerned that the Board is not using them.
Mrs. Wood inquired if Mrs. York could include a copy with the application when it is provided to the Board members.
Mr. Black suggested that instead of having Mrs. York send out a copy with each application, since everyone already has a copy, to use it for each application.
Mr. LaFountain suggested that one person be responsible for maintaining an official copy of the checklist for each application.
Mr. Black suggested that the Board table the issue for now.
Mr. Black stated that the Town Board has asked the Planning Board to take a more active roll in the escrow management of the engineering funds.
Mr. Black stated that there is an application fee paid when the application is filed and the fee covers the administrative process. When the process requires engineering review, there is an escrow account established for the engineer. Mr. McNamara presents an estimate and the amount is collected from the applicant to establish the escrow account.
Mr. Black advised that an issue has come up that in some cases where the escrow estimate has been more than the bill received. Some of the applicant(s) have not been refunded the remaining monies from the escrow account.
Mrs. York has created a spreadsheet for the years 2004 to present with the number of payments due to prior applicants whose matter has been closed.
The Board discussed the issue of how to go forward. The Board does not feel that Mrs. York should have to keep the books since there is a Town Bookkeeper. The Planning Board clerk’s job is to take care of the administrative processes of the Planning Board.
Mr. Black inquired if Mrs. Verola, Town Liaison, had any additional information.
Mrs. Verola stated that she is unaware of any discussions the Town Board has had on this matter.
Mr. Keniry stated that there has been a series of communications at the Town Board level that there was a sense that administrative tasks with maintaining escrow accounts were such that they felt more appropriately handled by the Planning Board level.
Mr. Black stated that he does not feel Mrs. York should have to have that responsibility passed on to her.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if Mrs. York could send notice that the subdivision is closed.
Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York could notify the bookkeeper that the activity on the subdivision has ended once all bills have been received.
Mrs. Wood suggested waiting two billing cycles, 45-60 days, to be sure all bills have been received.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that when the mylar is signed the bookkeeper could be notified.
Mr. Black stated that the Bookkeeper has advised that she would need the planning board authority to refund the applicant(s). Mrs. York will review the information she has already gathered and if a refund is due she will contact the bookkeeper to make the refund.
Mrs. Verola asked Mrs. York for a copy of the spreadsheet.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has received an invitation to the Saratoga Plan. The fee is $40.00 non-refundable by the Town Board as it is not training.
Mr. Black stated that Planning and Zoning Summer School is happening on July 13, 2006 at the Hyde Park FDR Library and on July 27, 2006 at SUNY Geneseo. The cost is $40.00 and the Town Board will reimburse the fee.
Mr. Black stated that Mike Valentine would like to hold a training session for the Planning Board. He will take suggestions from the Board for topics. Mr. Black advised that he would be contacting Mr. Valentine to set up an independent meeting or as part of a planning board meeting and get back to the board.
Mr. Black stated that Marv Schorr has provided some information from 2002 on shared septic systems. Mr. Black asked the board to review the information at home.
Town Board Liaison
Mrs. Sandy Verola stated that the groundbreaking ceremony for the New Town Hall will be taking place on Monday June 26, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. All of the various Boards are invited.
Mr. Kadlecek made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly A. Caron Recording Secretary
May 11, 2006
Mr. Raymond E. Black Attachment 1 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
May 10, 2006 Attachment 2
Mr. Raymond E. Black Planning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: 2 Lot Subdivision - Lands of William & Rosalyn Grabo Tax Map Parcel No. 246.00-3-61.11
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received a proposed two-lot subdivision of lands of William & Rosalyn Grabo located on the west side of Crane Street approximately one-quarter mile south of Dawson Road. The subdivision plan dated April 14, 2006 was prepared by William A. Wiley, P.L.S. The property was the subject of an earlier subdivision in 2004 and, therefore, does not qualify as an “exempt subdivision” according to Charlton’s regulations. A public hearing will be necessary for the project. I reviewed the property on May 9th and offer the following comments for your consideration.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please feel free to call.
Very truly yours,
Michael McNamara, P.E. Cc: Planning Board Members Bill Keniry William A. Wiley, P.L.S. William & Rosalyn Grabo
|
|
|
| |
