|
|
|
|
|
|
Town of Charlton Planning Board Minutes And Public Hearing Minutes 784 Charlton Road Charlton, New York 12019
Minutes of Planning Board Meeting – August 21, 2006
Chairman Raymond Black called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the John W. Taylor Hall.
Present: Raymond Black, Chairman, Constance Wood, John Kadlecek, Mark Hodgkins, Jay Wilkinson, William Keniry, Town Attorney, Susan York, Planning Board clerk and Kimberly Caron, recording secretary.
AGENDA MEETING:
Mr. Black opened the meeting informing the Board members that Chris Mitchell would not be present for the meeting. Mr. Black further advised that Mr. Mitchell would be recusing himself from the Casey Subdivision and the Cuchelo Subdivision.
Mrs. Wood inquired as to why Mr. Mitchell intended to recuse himself from those two matters.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Mitchell has farming arrangements and a specific interest in the property involved in the Casey subdivision. Mr. Black stated that Mr. Mitchell would be recusing himself from the Cuchelo subdivision for personal matters.
Mr. Black advised that there is a quorum and any vote would require a majority of 4 votes.
Minutes
Mrs. Wood advised that she had some minor changes to the draft of the minutes. Mrs. Wood cited changes to pages 9 and 14. Mrs. York also provided changes, which have already been incorporated.
Casey (237.00-1-17.1 & 17.2)
Mr. Black stated that there is a Public Hearing on this matter this evening.
Mr. Black stated that comments from the Saratoga County Planning Board have been received. They approve of the subdivision subject to obtaining a DPW permit and have suggested that the applicant consider clustering the homes to preserve the wetland area.
Mr. Black stated that he has reviewed the drawings to see if there was any way to cluster the homes. The only way would be to move and get away from the wetlands, which would be down in this area here. The applicant’s objective was to keep as much land as possible.
Mr. Black stated that application is complete. Mr. Black stated that unless there is an issue presented at the Public Hearing that the Board is not aware of, the Board could take approval action tonight.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has taken lead agency for SEQRA and classified the action as an unlisted action at the last meeting.
Mr. Black stated that the resolution to be taken tonight would be for SEQRA with no impact, a negative impact declaration relative to environmental impact and for approval of the subdivision with authorization for the chair to sign the mylars.
Mr. Black stated that Michael McNamara has reviewed this application. Mr. McNamara’s most recent letter, dated July 28, 2006, stated that all of the items in the comments from the July 11, 2006 letter have been satisfactorily addressed. A copy of the July 28, 2006 letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 1.
Cook/VanGuilder (225-1-39.3 & 235-1-39.111)
Mr. Black stated that this is a preliminary application for a lot line change. Mr. Black stated that since the intended purpose is to create a building parcel, the Board requested engineering review. Mr. McNamara has reviewed the application. Mr. McNamara sent a letter dated August 16, 2006 stating that he had no comments. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 2.
Mrs. Wood stated that Mr. Cook has not given Mr. Rabideau written permission to act on his behalf. Mrs. York stated that she would ask Mr. Rabideau.
Mr. Black stated that the application is complete. Mr. Black stated that the ZBA did approve the application for an area variance. The minutes from the ZBA hearing have been provided to the Board members. Mr. Black stated that on the basis that a thorough Public Hearing was held with the ZBA, the Board should consider waiving the Public Hearing for the Planning Board.
Mr. Black stated that the Board had a concern for the driveway easement. That has been fixed by making two independent accesses to Cook Road.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that there is a hill north of it and that by moving this driveway off of where it is further north, it may create an issue for the existing lot of whether it meets code. The driveway is now further north closer to the crest of the hill.
Mr. Black stated that the Board was also concerned for a vegetation buffer because of the plan to put a house behind a house. They are putting a 60-foot vegetation buffer in that they intend to maintain.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that they also serpentined the driveway.
Mr. Black stated that the Board could take action tonight. Mr. Black stated that sight distance may be an issue.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Board should know the sight distance information.
Mr. Black stated that the Board could ask Mr. Rabideau to validate that he has adequate sight distance for the 45 miles per hour speed limit.
ZBA Referral
Cuchelo (235-1-33.1)
Mr. Black stated that at the last meeting, there was an interpretation from Mr. McNamara on a difference of opinion. Mr. Black stated that he was under the impression that 200 feet and 2 acres was the requirement, which is true, however the definition of frontage requires that it be continuous.
Mr. Black apologized for the misunderstanding.
Mr. Black stated that the Board needed to put together input for the ZBA before the hearing.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Kadlecek, Mr. Wilkinson, Mrs. Wood, himself and Mr. Hodgkins have toured the property.
Zoning Report
Mr. Black stated that Mr. LaFountain was present and would provide a report.
Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Hodgkins stated that there is nothing to report.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that he had several things to add to this section.
Mr. Black stated that there is a new director of Planning for Saratoga County and his name is Jason Kemper. Mr. Kemper would like to meet with the Board.
Mr. Black stated that item “a” on the agenda pertains to the Code of Ethics distribution from Mr. Keniry.
Mr. Black stated that he would like to add item “b” Jason Kemper and combine that with Mike Valentine and the request for a meeting with him.
Mr. Black stated that item “c” is the 2007 proposed budget. Mrs. York prepared a draft based on the 2006 budget. Mr. Black asked Mrs. York to provide the board members with a copy to discuss during the business meeting.
Mr. Black stated that item “d” would be information pertaining to fill systems.
Mrs. Wood added that the New York Planning Federation is having a conference in October. Mrs. Wood stated that in order to get the reduced rate, registration must be sent in before the next Planning Board meeting.
The meeting was closed at 7:25 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 on the back table.
Minutes
Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York and Mrs. Wood have provided changes and comments.
Mr. Keniry provided changes to the minutes. Mr. Black reviewed the changes. Mr. Keniry stated that the changes pertained to his discussion of percolation tests. Mr. Black passed along the changes for the Board members to review. Mr. Black stated that once all members had reviewed the changes, the Board would revisit this item.
Cook/VanGuilder(225-1-39.3 & 235-1-39.111)
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Rabideau has provided the affidavit Mr. Cook signed authorizing Mr. Rabideau to speak on his behalf.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is in receipt of the ZBA approval for an area variance. The Board also discussed that due to the subdivision being exempt and the ZBA holding a full Public Hearing, waiving the Public Hearing at the Planning Board level. The Board did not waive engineering details and Mr. McNamara has no comments (Attachment 2).
Mr. Black stated that the Board’s request for a vegetation buffer has been incorporated by keeping the existing vegetation, a 60-foot band.
Mr. Black stated that in response to the Board’s concern about the driveway easement, the driveway has been serpentined and the two driveways have been separated.
Mr. Black stated that the Board’s remaining concern pertained to sight distance. Mr. Black stated that just north of this lot is a knoll of a hill and the Board is not certain of the relative sight distance. Mr. Black stated that in moving the driveway from the existing house 200 feet north, raises the question of whether the driveway is to close to the knoll and if there is adequate sight distance for access.
Mr. Rabideau inquired if Mr. Black was referring to the existing driveway.
Mr. Black stated the second driveway.
Mr. Rabideau stated that he could see 800 feet both ways for the relocated driveway.
Mr. Black inquired as to the sight distance for the other driveway.
Mr. Rabideau said it is somewhat limited to the north. You could see to the south where the existing driveway is now. It is somewhat limited.
Mr. Black stated that the proposed driveway is being moved to where the old driveway was.
Mr. Hodgkins inquired if they went far enough north with the other driveway to get the sight from the top of the knoll.
Mr. Rabideau stated that you could see both ways plus it minimized the impact of coming through the stonewall leaving the bigger trees for a buffer.
Mr. Black inquired if the moved driveway for the existing house is actually located on top of the knoll.
Mr. Rabideau stated that was correct.
Mr. Black inquired if the driveway access for the proposed house was almost in the same position as the old one.
Mr. Rabideau stated that was correct. Mr. Rabideau summarized that the new position for the driveway of the old house is actually better and that, although the driveway for the new lot has some limitation on sight distance to the north, it is located about where the current driveway is today.
Mr. Black stated that the drawings have the note pertaining to the length of the driveways over 500 feet with the appropriate weight bearing capacities and the turnaround. Mr. Black inquired if the turnaround was located in the front of the house as shown on the drawing.
Mr. Rabideau stated that was correct.
Mr. Black inquired if the Board would like to have further discussion on the driveway issue.
Mrs. Wood inquired if the application should be referred to the County.
Mr. Black stated that since the property is located within 500 feet of a working farm County approval would be necessary.
Mr. Black stated that the Board could approve the subdivision contingent upon County approval.
Mr. Rabideau inquired as to when the County meeting would take place.
Mrs. Wood stated that the County met on the 17th of August and the next meeting would be on the third Thursday of September.
Mr. Black stated that the Board might be able to get the County Planner, Michael Valentine, to act outside of the regular County Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Black asked for a motion to accept the application as presented complete and that the Board take lead agency status for the purposes of SEQRA. Mr. Wilkinson so moved. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black asked for a motion that the proposed action is an unlisted action under SEQRA with a negative impact declaration relative to environmental impact and for the chairman to sign the mylars contingent upon receiving county planning board approval. Mrs. Wood so moved. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Rabideau inquired if he could prepare the mylars now.
Mr. Black stated that it would be at his own risk to do so now before receiving County approval.
Mr. Rabideau inquired if there were any park fees due.
Mrs. Black responded no.
PUBLIC HEARING (7:45)
Mr. Black addressed the public and explained the process for the public hearing. Mr. Black asked that each person who addresses the Board state their name and address.
Mr. Black read the announcement notice from the Daily Gazette.
Casey (237.00-1-17.1 & 17.2)
Mrs. Casey posted the proposed drawing.
Mrs. Casey presented the following plan:
-mother parcel is located at 282 Sweetman Road -subdivide 21 acres off of 70-acre parcel -propose putting in 3 seven-acre lots – all meet zoning regulations -all proposed lots have sufficient frontage and setbacks -perc tests have been completed -wetlands are located in back of the lots and have been delineated -propose that the first two lots to the South share the pre-existing entrance way and then have split driveways -3rd lot will have it own entrance way
Kristin Short, 292 Sweetman Road, inquired as to how much road frontage each of the lots have.
Mrs. Casey stated that 2 lots on each end have 311 feet and the middle lot has 377 feet for a total of 999 total feet of frontage. Mrs. Casey stated that the Town requires 200 feet for each lot. Mrs. Casey stated that they wanted to have more than that so that there was some distance between the property and the house they live in. Mrs. Casey stated that the lots also meet the regulations for keeping horses. Mrs. Casey stated that they plan to keep the back portion of the property. It has a lot of wildlife, firewood and swampland. They would like to make sure that it always stays wild.
Eric Soennichsen, 349 Sweetman Road, inquired if the boundary to the South was the Bowen property.
Mrs. Casey responded yes, Bowen is here and this is Laird.
Mr. Soennichsen inquired if you are coming down the hill, up above, that’s where those lots are going to be.
Mrs. Casey stated that they are going to be right on it, there is a stonewall between the Bowen’s, there is a hayfield and there is a cornfield. Mrs. Casey stated that there is more of a hill on this end.
Fred Heumann, 355 Sweetman Road, stated that during the proposed plan the possibility of having horses was mentioned, there is road frontage to do that but do the designated wetlands present a problem.
Mrs. Casey stated that there is room in the front for someone who wanted to do that. Mrs. Casey stated that the problem with the wetlands issue is that this is a low spot so that part there would not be good to use for anything. Mrs. Casey stated that there is a part back here , which is not wetland. Mrs. Casey stated that she did not know if a barn could be built over a wetland area or if fencing could be put over a wetland area.
Mr. Heumann stated that the zoning requirements require a certain number of acres for one animal.
Mrs. Wood stated that the requirement is three acres for one horse.
Mrs. Casey stated that there is a good area in front.
Mrs. Wood stated that all kinds of farming cannot be done on wetlands. Mrs. Wood stated that there are a lot of restrictions with regards to wetlands.
Mr. Black asked Mr. LaFountain if he was familiar with wetlands issues and fences.
Mr. LaFountain responded no.
Mrs. Wood stated that you can get permits to cross wetlands to access fields.
Margaret Davenport, 305 Sweetman Road, stated that her impression of the front field on Sweetman Road is that it is very wet. Ms. Davenpost inquired if there were perc tests.
Mrs. Casey stated that this is wet here, there is a low spot here and there are hills in back here that perked well. Mrs. Casey stated that here they also had a good perc and there is also a hill that would catch some of that. Mrs. Casey stated that this one did not perc quite as well but still did very well; it would need a modified system.
Mr. Soennichsen inquired if more subdivisions were planned for this property.
Mrs. Casey responded no. Mrs. Casey stated that they have spoken to the Mitchell’s and they prefer that the Casey’s keep the land since they work the field.
Mr. Black inquired as to which field the Mitchell’s farm.
Mrs. Casey stated that the Mitchell’s farm all over. Mrs. Casey showed various areas all over the property that are leased to the Mitchell’s. Mrs. Casey stated that the Mitchell’s farm over 20 acres of the remaining land.
Mr. Black inquired as to the Mitchell’s preference.
Mrs. Casey stated that during discussions with the Mitchell’s they seemed pleased that the subdivision was going to be to the south because that is not a great field and there are privacy issues.
Mr. Casey stated that the field produces a very low grade corn.
Mr. Guy Mitchell, Eastline Road, stated that the field is the least productive of the rest of the fields. The field is ideal for subdividing.
Mr. Black inquired if Mr. Mitchell had worked that field.
Mr. Mitchell responded yes.
Mr. Black inquired if Mr. Mitchell was aware of any problems pertaining to adequate perc.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the field has a gravel bank in the back and it looks flat but there are places where you could put a house and have perc. It looks very small but there is a large area there. Mr. Mitchell stated that as far as horses go, he’s sure you could find 3 acres for a horse.
Mr. Soennichsen inquired if the wells were going to be driven or shallow.
Mrs. Casey stated that the wells have to be drilled.
Mr. Soennichsen inquired how deep the wells had to be.
Mrs. Casey did not know.
Mr. Black stated that there is a standard wells note on the drawings that the Board requires stating: “all building permits for dwellings units shall be contingent upon the construction of a water well with adequate flow capacity and acceptable potability in accordance with the State of New York Department of Health”.
Mr. Black stated that before a building permit can be issued a well has to be put in and be verified adequate.
Mr. Soennichsen inquired as to how many wells you can drill into the aquifer before something starts happening.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has asked that question on many occasions. Mr. Black stated that the answers the Board received are less than certain but in experience, what the County and State Department advises is that when you maintain lots at a two acre minimum size and start putting wells that far apart they have not had problems. The problems occur when you get closer together than that then they start to become more of an issue.
Mr. Heumann stated that he has lived across from the field for a long time and in thinking about houses being there, he is more in favor of maintaining open space. Mr. Heumann inquired if the applicants had given any thought to moving the houses to the other side of the wetlands.
Mrs. Casey stated that they did look into that as the Board did recommend that in the beginning. When the DEC came out to delineate the wetlands it was discussed with them and they said that they would not allow a permit to cross the wetlands because there was so much area in the front that was usable.
Mr. Casey stated that there is also a gas line back there.
Dorothy Dawson, 365 Sweetman Road, stated that her driveway is across from the proposed double driveway. There is a hill north of there and it is difficult to see there.
Mr. Black inquired if Mrs. Dawson had issues with her driveway.
Mrs. Dawson responded yes, sometimes. Mrs. Dawson stated that the property is a lovely piece of property people walk there, ride their bikes, and there are wildflowers. Mrs. Dawson stated that she really has a hard time with the green space; it is a beautiful field and once that field is taken away you are going to end up with more traffic, lights and pollution. Mrs. Dawson stated that she is annoyed about it.
Mrs. Casey apologized to Mrs. Dawson, stating that the property only now has the wildflowers.
Mrs. Dawson inquired how far back the houses are going to go.
Mrs. Casey stated that this is 500 feet so about 250 feet.
Mrs. Dawson inquired if the lots were going to be sold individually or are these homes people are building themselves or are these homes you are having built for people.
Mrs. Casey stated that they are not building the homes but they have not yet contacted anyone so she does not know what is going to happen.
Mrs. Dawson stated that the house to the north next to the existing house is farther north.
Mrs. Casey stated that parcel was more difficult lot to perc. Mrs. Casey stated that their intention at this point is to keep this lot as long as possible and sell these lots first.
Mrs. Dawson inquired if there was going to be a 4th lot. Mrs. Casey responded no, then it would be classified as a major subdivision. Mrs. Casey stated that this area is wetter and they don’t know what a purchaser would do.
Mrs. Dawson stated that she came from an area with three horse farms. Now two of them are developments and the other is a strip mall. Mrs. Dawson stated that she really hopes there is a lot of consideration because she knows what happens with the traffic and the lights.
Mrs. Casey stated that they are only putting in three houses.
Mrs. Dawson stated that three houses are three houses.
Mr. Casey stated that they understand that people are upset but there was an offer on the house before they purchased it with the offer being $20,000.00 higher than the highest offer without even seeing the property. Mr. Casey stated that you could imagine what their purpose was.
Mrs. Casey stated that the property has the potential to be divided up into a lot more lots but they are not doing that. Mrs. Casey stated that she tried to do nice lots of a good size so that there would be no congestion.
Mrs. Short stated that she appreciates the fact that the Casey’s have put some thought into consideration, putting in lots that would accommodate horses. Mrs. Short asked Mrs. Casey to show where the delineation is and where the forest or trees are.
Mrs. Casey stated that there is a line here and there is forest.
Mrs. Short stated that there is really not a lot of space there to have horses.
Mrs. Casey stated that there is a clear area back here. It looks smaller on the drawing but when you get out there, there is room.
Mrs. Short stated that she respects the Mitchell’s opinion on this and their opinion to keep their area free of housing is commendable. Mrs. Short stated that you also have to think about the residential houses, as there are a lot more of them. The other thing is that this view is a beautiful view. Mrs. Short stated that a survey went out to the town asking for opinions on places to preserve in the Town. This is one of the most beautiful places to look at up the hill. It is really a beautiful field and maybe it can’t be used for corn. Mrs. Short stated that she thinks in all probability it could be used for a hayfield, which is getting harder and harder to come by. Mrs. Short stated that this area is zoned as agricultural and unfortunately it is turning more and more into a residential area and once it becomes residential we can’t go back to agricultural. Mrs. Short stated that she prefers to see it subdivided off as one full 20-acre lot.
Mr. Black stated that the Board appreciates the Townspeople’s opinions. Mr. Black stated that the Town is going through a comprehensive plan process trying to develop a view for what the people want the town to be like in the future. Mr. Black stated that as that process develops so will come the townspeople’s desires and then recommendations for changes in the zoning requirements for subdivision to preserve open space differently or to make lots larger or make certain areas off limits. Mr. Black stated that at this time we do have individual landowner rights as long as they are in abidance with the laws which require 2 acres minimum and 200 feet of frontage to subdivide. Mr. Black stated that what we have before us is something that is far greater than two acres as it is on average 7 acres apiece and much larger than 200 feet. From the Board’s standpoint, with all due respect to the opinions of what is nice to look at and keep wild, as long as it is within the requirements of the zoning requirements and we do not have issues with wetlands than it is beyond the purview of this board to impose types of conditions that are being suggested.
Mrs. Heumann stated that she has lived on Sweetman Road for over 30 years. Mrs. Heumann stated that they knew that the Casey’s were from the area and wanted to raise their children here. Mrs. Heumann stated that she has the feeling that this land was purchased and at the time of the purchase the Casey’s knew that they were going to sell property off. Mrs. Heumann stated that the rest of the residents are burdened with that by having these houses in front of them and it makes her very unhappy.
Mrs. Casey stated that it could have been a lot worse.
Mrs. Heumann stated that people come and purchase these properties, then there are financial issues and they probably can’t afford all of it so they think they will come and sell part of the lot.
Mr. Black stated as a general note, in his opinion, his time in Charlton working on the zoning Board of Appeals and working on the Planning Board he is seeing the subdivision process increasingly common. The Town is desirable because of its characteristics and the way it looks. Land is selling for a lot of money now. Mr. Black stated that with the farming that he does, there is no way that he could afford to purchase land at the prices that it is going for now and afford to buy it to farm it. Mr. Black stated that he anticipates what we are seeing happening will increase with time. The only thing that could potentially stop it is when it gets to the point that where the allowances and requirements of our zoning are fulfilled, in other words a house every 200 feet. Mr. Black stated that if you have desires that you would like it to be other than that, then he suggests getting very actively involved in the comprehensive planning process and speaking your mind openly and be willing to vote for changes or try to push for changes if you want to change that. Mr. Black stated that as it stands right now it is not hard to envision where things might go in time.
Mrs. Dawson inquired how to get involved in the planning process other than attending town meetings and letting people know what they are doing.
Mr. Black suggested contacting members of the comprehensive Plan committee and ask them that question directly. The chairman is Dave Wood.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that a draft was supposed to be to the Town boards already and then to the public. The consultant has the document now.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if Lot B, the center lot, the requirement of minimum lot width of 300 feet for horses, has the engineer calculated the mean width of this parcel.
Mrs. Casey responded no.
Mr. LaFountain stated that Lot C would require a built up septic system based on the depth of the ground and there may be more area required than shown on the drawing regarding the side yard setback.
Mr. Kadlecek made the motion to close the Public Hearing. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The Public Hearing closed at 8:22 p.m.
Casey (237.00-1-17.1 & 17.2)
Mr. Black stated that most of the concerns from the Public Hearing pertain to the general desire not to have houses in this area.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. LaFountain raised two points. Mr. Black stated that the first point pertained to the perc test results showing that Lot C would require a shallow absorption trench system since it does not have ground water clearance.
Mrs. Wood inquired if the dots on the drawing indicate where the perc tests were taken.
Mrs. Casey stated that the circle in the center is the deep perc where they dug for the ground water and then in between, which is in the center, there were two percs done in the squares indicated on the map. Perc tests were done in each lot.
Mr. LaFountain stated that for Lot C there appears to be 3 feet of separation between ground water and septic, and at least 5 feet are needed.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if the drain field size needed to be enlarged.
Mr. LaFountain stated that it has to be built up.
Mr. Black stated that in his opinion, the proposed house location, the proposed septic area and the proposed well are generally proposed. Mr. Black stated that we have the perc tests results and we know that a built up system may be required. Mr. Black stated that it looks like there is plenty of area to be able to handle it. Mr. Black stated that he does not feel that we need to have an engineered septic design done on that nor do we need to show precisely where. With seven acres there is plenty of room to work with.
Mr. Black stated that the other point raised by Mr. LaFountain was the lot width requirement for a horse. Mr. Black stated that the requirement for a horse is 300 feet and 3 acres.
Mrs. Casey stated that when she calculated what she thought was the mean width she used 500 feet x 377 feet and came up with 3 acres. Mrs. Casey stated that even if it does not average 300 all the way back, which it might, the front part has that.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that the required frontage for a horse is 300 feet.
Mr. Black read from the Zoning Ordinance: private dwelling in AG district requires 300 feet minimum lot width and minimum 3 acres. Mr. Black stated that the definition for lot width says the mean width of a lot substantially perpendicular to the lot depth.
Mr. Black clarified that Mr. LaFountain’s question is that if you actually calculate the mean width does it meet the regulations.
Mrs. Casey inquired who calculates the mean width.
Mr. Black stated that the surveyor could do it. Mr. Black stated that Lot B may preclude horses.
Mrs. Casey stated that when she calculated the numbers she thought it was sufficient for horses.
Mr. Black stated that once the surveyor makes the calculation, if the lot is not sufficient for horses, Mrs. Casey could go to the ZBA.
Mr. Guy Mitchell inquired why the lots were narrowed.
Mrs. Casey responded that she was trying to make them all 7 acres.
Mrs. Wood stated that the note on the map says “that all building permits for dwelling units shall be contingent upon the construction of a water well with adequate flow capacity…”. Mrs. Wood stated that during the Public Hearing Mrs. Casey mentioned that she was going to make the sales contingent upon the people finding water.
Mrs. Casey responded that she thought she had to do it that way.
Mrs. Wood stated that she thinks that is fair.
Mr. Black inquired if Mrs. Wood had a concern with the note as written.
Mrs. Wood stated that she feels that for building lots the sale of the lot should be contingent upon the ability to find water.
Mr. Black stated that he would like to stick to the usual note used for subdivisions. Mr. Black stated that the sale of the lot is intended for a building lot but it could be for a wooded lot or for farming although it is intended for building.
Mrs. Casey stated that she would put it on the record that she will make the sales of the lots contingent upon the buyer finding water.
Mrs. Wood stated that she has a personal feeling for the unsuspecting people moving out of cities who are used to public water and public sewer.
Mr. Black stated that a smart buyer would put a contingency that they have to find water. Mr. Black stated that the note as written on the drawing is adequate for him.
Mrs. Wood stated that she just wanted Mrs. Casey to reiterate that so it was on the record.
Mr. Black stated that this has gone to the county and has been approved. Mr. Black stated that he wanted to clarify the issue of obtaining a crossing permit. Mr. Black stated that according to Mrs. Casey, DEC stated that since there is adequate room in the front of the wetlands that they would not allow a permit to cross and put houses back there.
Mrs. Casey stated that she had an excerpt from DEC website and gave it to Mr. Black
Mr. Black read the paragraph aloud: “for example, if your objective is to gain access to a piece of your property to build a house and you plan to build a road through wetland to get to the property, is this the only option available? Can you build a house on another site that won’t require such actions? Are there non-wetland portions of the same property available that do not require crossing a wetland or its adjacent area”? Mr. Black stated that DEC indicates on their website that is some of the considerations. Mr. Black stated that engineering review has been completed by Mike McNamara, who indicates that all of his initial engineering review comments have been incorporated (Attachment 1). Mr. Black stated that the Board has taken lead SEQRA agency. Mr. Black asked for a motion that the proposed action is an unlisted action under SEQRA with a negative impact declaration relative to environmental impact. Mr. Wilkinson so moved. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. All were in favor. Mr. Black asked for a motion to approve the subdivision and authorize the chair to sign the mylars. Mrs. Wood so moved. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. Mr. Black asked if there was any discussion. Mr. LaFountain inquired as to the action pertaining to the mean width.
Mr. Black stated that the application is approved as it is and the applicant has been advised that a mean calculation that comes up less than 300 feet may not allow horses. Mr. Black stated that the lots meet the regulations for subdivision. Mr. Wilkinson inquired if it would be good for the Board to have that calculation in case this comes up again some time in the future.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Wilkinson’s suggestion is that the mean width calculation be done with a note added to the map stating what it is. Mr. Black stated that it was Mrs. Casey’s decision to have the mean width added to the map. Mr. Black stated that there is a motion on the floor to approve Resolution 2006-11 and a second. Mr. Black inquired if there was any further discussion. Mr. Black asked for a roll call vote: Mr. Hodgkins is in favor. Mr. Black is in favor. Mrs. Wood is in favor. Mr. Wilkinson is in favor. Mr. Kadlecek is in favor.
Mr. Black stated that he would be authorized to sign the mylars once the engineering escrow has been paid and the park fees have been paid.
Mrs. Casey inquired if the park fees were still $600.00.
Mr. Black responded yes.
Mr. Black stated that his records reflect that there is $500.00 in the escrow account and the application fee. The park fee is due.
Mrs. York provided Mrs. Casey with a copy of the County letter, the filing instructions and a copy of the application for a driveway.
Minutes
Mr. Black inquired if the Board members had reviewed Mr. Keniry’s changes.
Mr. Black asked for a motion to approve the meeting minutes from July 17, 2006 as amended by Mrs. York, Mrs. Wood and Mr. Keniry. Mrs. Wood so moved. Mr. Kadlecek seconded. All were in favor. Mr. Black abstained from the vote, as he was not present for the July meeting. ZBA Referrals
Cuchelo (235.00-1-33.1)
Mr. Black inquired if the Board members had a copy of the new map. The Board responded no. Mr. Black provided his copy of the map for the Board to review.
Mr. Black stated that at the pre-application conference it was discussed that the 133 feet as indicated could not be approved without ZBA approval. There was some discussion as to whether or not if you had this plus the delta an additional 70 feet roughly here would it meet it. Mr. Black’s understanding at the time was that it would. It has been pointed out since by engineering review that it is not in accordance with our code so our original application which had these each being 200 feet and in addition to this lot containing an additional roughly 70 feet we couldn’t approve which is what causes it to go back to ZBA. You have chosen to go back to the original drawing. Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Kadlecek, Mr. Black and Mrs. Wood have walked this property through most of this area to where it gets very dense and then across and back out again. There was some concern early on as to whether or not there was any wetlands indication and the wetlands are indicated here. Mr. Black stated that as he walked through here it is clearly laid out with survey tape and you can see where the property lines were. Mr. Black stated that his observation was that there were no issues with wetlands. There clearly is a seasonal stream corridor down through here, it is not officially on the DEC map but it clearly is by visitation.
Mr. Black stated that the issue in assuming that this 133 feet is consistent all the way back. Mr. Black stated that this is narrower here than here. In order to have a house location is has to have a 100 foot minimum side yard set back, 40 foot on one side minimum and 100 feet total. That would limit the house to 33 feet wide, which forces the house to move back. Mr. Black stated that one of the concerns was is there sufficient buffer to the existing house here. This is all wooded, there is a field here and there is another patch of woods and then the field that goes around the house there is actually a barn behind the house. Mr. Black stated that his opinion is that there is really no buffer issue associated with the location of this house and this house. Mr. Black stated that the Board is not creating a situation where there is one house behind another house. Just as the lines show, there is a knoll right there, right where they show the house.
Mrs. Wood inquired if there were any woods separating from some of the backs of the houses.
Mr. Black stated yes, that there are woods all the way in here and then there is a field and another patch of woods in here. This area in here appears to be by guesstimate 30-40 years of wooded growth. It is not mature forest but it is certainly forest and very dense and thick.
Mrs. Wood stated that it is more like 60 years of growth.
Mr. Black stated that there is a lot of clearing to be done to put a house in here.
Mr. Black stated that if it is going to have four lots, rather than adding an additional 60 feet or 70 feet here and straining these even narrower, it makes these lots wider and that could be an advantage.
Mr. Black stated that the Board looked at the property from the standpoint of sight distance. Mr. Kadlecek did some timing. In this area here, where this driveway is, we found the minimum sight distance with normal road speed was about 6 seconds from the time you could first see the car traveling south on 147 until it was to you.
Mr. Black stated that if you were standing here, this was the worst place for sight. This area was fine and this area was fine. Mr. Black stated that the sight distances are located here on the drawing. Mr. Black stated that they appear to be fairly accurate.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that if you came to the road and looked right or left the roof of the car would just appear at the crest of the hill but you would not observe that as you are looking right or left and at that moment there will actually be less time.
Mr. Black stated that he does not know what the required sight distances are and if 600 feet is adequate for the speed limit of this road.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that they did it and the engineer did it and it meets all of the requirements.
Mrs. Wood stated that when a traffic study was done on this road the speed limit was not what was the problem.
Mr. Black stated that he was at the property at around 6:30 p.m. and was not personally uncomfortable with the location of the driveway.
Mrs. Wood stated that it is a very speedy road and that should be taken into consideration.
Mr. Black asked for any other observations.
Mrs. Wood stated that the property was unwalkable in the back.
Mr. Black stated that the Board received a letter from Saratoga PLAN. Mrs. York gave Ms. Cuchelo a copy of the letter. Mr. Black stated that the letter points out that this land here is now in conservancy under their protection and they are suggesting that we try to see if we can get more of this corridor into the conservancy. Mr. Black suggested that Ms. Cuchelo contact them directly in that there might be funds available to Michelle. The Board will not follow up with PLAN.
Mrs. Wood stated that the ZBA Public Hearing conflicts with the use of the building for Primary Election.
Mr. Black inquired if Ms. Cuchelo had received the April and July meeting minute tapes.
Mrs. Cuchelo responded yes.
Mr. Black stated that when the ZBA deliberates they have five factors they use. 1. What other benefit can be achieved by any other feasible means? In this case the benefit is one additional lot. It would not be feasible to purchasing property from Mr. Ziegler or the back of each of these or dividing it off differently there.
Mrs. Wood inquired what is the total frontage from here to here.
Mr. Mitchell responded 697 feet.
Mr. Black stated that he does not see a marker. Mr. Black stated that the map is wrong. Mr. Black stated that he could not make it out from the drawing.
2. Are there any undesirable changes in the neighborhood character or the nearby properties? The Board feels that there will be complaints. 3. Is the request substantial? Mr. Black stated yes, that the variance is 70 feet out of 200 feet. 4. Whether it will have adverse physical or environmental effects. The Board feels no. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. The Board feels yes, it is the applicant’s desire to do this.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is to provide input to the ZBA before the Public Hearing takes place.
Mr. Black stated this is a substantial variation deviation that does requires a long driveway to gain access to it with very stringent requirements and this particular lot has sight distance issues. The sight distance issues associated with these lots will need to be dealt with by the Planning Board no matter what. Whether ZBA approves or not theses three lots are going to stay as they are.
Mr. Black stated that there are potential issues with this particular lot #4. There are house location issues, the house needs to be pushed back which requires the long driveway and heavy traffic requirement. That will make for an expensive driveway. There are no wetlands issues or environmental issues.
Mr. Black stated that, from the Planning Board standpoint, he does not see sight distance issues with the driveway location, the house will have to be relocated back because of the minimum lot width, there are no buffer issues and there will be a heavy driveway requirement.
Mrs. Wood stated that she is concerned with the 133 feet as it is a huge deviation from 200 feet.
Mr. Black stated that it comes down to whether or not there is a benefit to the town versus the benefit to the applicant. Mr. Black stated that he believes that these houses are going to impact the rural character and the clearing that will be necessary to build a house. Slightly over 200 feet of space will definitely change the character. The house will not be visible at all. There will be a straight linear driveway seemingly going nowhere.
Mr. Black stated that maintaining rural character with the addition of this lot and this house will not make much of an impact.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the Zoning Ordinance provides for ZBA to hear a case with 60 feet. Mr. LaFountain stated that 133 feet is better than 60 feet.
Mr. Black stated that he agrees with Mr. Kadlecek regarding obtaining more information pertaining to sight distances. Mr. Black stated that he does not see a reason why Planning Board could not approve if ZBA approves.
Mr. Black inquired of the Board if ZBA approves this variance are there other issues that the Planning Board would have to deal with.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the comment was made that it is a substantial change and it is self-imposed. If the proposed plan was reduced to 3 lots then there would be no issue. If reduced to three lots then the issues go away. There will still be access where would of put the 4th lot. The issue of sight distance for lot 3 would go way.
Mr. Black inquired if Mr. Kadlecek meant if these two were one.
Mr. Kadlecek responded yes the driveways could be paired. Mr. Kadlecek stated that is his recommendation.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Kadlecek point of view is that if you denied the new lot 4 and somehow that lot became part of lot 3 the driveway would still…
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the road cut to lot 3 disappears.
Mr. Black stated that he does not think the Board can say that it does not meet sight distance requirements.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that it is his concern and that it would go away if go to three lots.
Mr. Hodgkins inquired if going to ZBA takes four lots vs. three lots out of our hands.
Mr. Black stated that no matter what the Planning board recommends, the ZBA has independent authority.
Mr. Keniry stated that the Board’s charge is to make a written advisory opinion on the application or appeal.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he agrees with Mrs. Wood and Mr. Kadlecek regarding reducing the plan to three lots eliminating the issue of sight distance. Mr. Wilkinson suggested recommending that to the ZBA.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that if they combine the lots then they do not have to go to ZBA.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that there is a concern with sight distance. Mr. Wilkinson stated that he was there with Mr. Kadlecek and Mrs. Wood and stated that there is a concern on his part for that timing. Although it may meet all the requirements, Mr. Wilkinson stated that he would like to have an engineering review done by the town engineer for a second opinion.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Board does not know anything about meeting the conditions or the laws.
Mrs. Wood stated that there was a study done on 147 and the speed was considerably above 55.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Board in the past has requested input from the school district.
Mr. Black stated that the length of the driveway is about 800 feet.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that it would have to meet the 50,000-pound vehicle requirements.
Mr. Black stated that the Board previously discussed the concept of cluster. Mr. Black stated that if we needed to get four lots in that we somehow use this, since this is where we have adequate sight distance, to come back to two houses and two houses.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that we have a proposal that is going before ZBA.
Mr. Black stated that he was inquiring if there was any alternative to a four-lot subdivision that would be more amenable to the Board.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that at the last public hearing most of the comments were about moving the houses back so they don’t have to necessarily see them or take away from the rural characteristics.
Mr. Black stated that the location of these houses is about 250 feet back. Mr. Black stated that unless you clear it all the way to the road it is going to be buffered.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that personally he likes this one the best because you do not even know it is there.
Ms. Cuchelo stated that she wants to keep all three lots (#1 - #3) and just sell this lot here (#4) and keep the rest. Ms. Cuchelo stated that she does not want to clear it, she loves the pristine nature about it and would like to put one house on the property for herself on this lot and keep the woods.
Mr. Black inquired where.
Ms. Cuchelo showed the Board on the drawing. Ms. Cuchelo stated that her desire is to keep as much of it as she can.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that it would be more desirable if building within the buffer.
Mr. Black summarized the comments the Board would give to the ZBA.
Mr. Black stated that the first comment would be: due to minimum lot width of lot 4, it requires a driveway in excess of 850 feet thereby requiring special driveway construction allowing for a 50,000 pound vehicle and turnaround.
Mr. Black stated that comment two would be: based on site visits there is a concern for the driveway location and sight distance for lot 3.
Mr. Black stated that comment three would be: creation of lot 4 is self- imposed and is a substantial deviation from zoning requirements.
Mr. Black stated that comment four would be: the proposed house on lot 4 will not have an adverse visual impact and maintains the rural appearance of the area.
Mr. Black stated that the comments are just statements of facts.
Mr. Black stated the question is what do we recommend or do we leave it at that or do we add something to it.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that he recommends denying due to self-imposed nature. They could still have three lots.
Mr. Black stated that they could say that the planning Board prefers to see lots 3 and 4 combined.
Mrs. Wood stated that she agrees with Mr. Kadlecek.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he agrees with Mr. Kadlecek and Mrs. Wood.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that he prefers to see the 3 lots moved back but that is not one of the comments.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Board could deal with that at the subdivision level.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that he does not have a problem with the 4 lots as they stand. Mr. Hodgkins stated that he would not deny it based on what he sees there.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that there is a split vote on this issue. Mr. Kadlecek suggested putting the split vote in the comments.
Mr. Black stated that he has no personal problem with the 4 lots. His standpoint is related to the benefit to the town versus the benefit to the applicant. Mr. Black stated that clearly the benefit to the applicant is being able to sell a lot and maintain this open. If we force this combination could still do the same thing just the house has to be down this way further. The benefit to the town to do this is none in particular.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the neighbors will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing.
Mr. Black stated that comment five would be: Planning Board prefers to see lots 3 and 4 combined.
Mr. Black stated that comment six would be: three of five planning board members present recommend denial of the variance.
Mr. Black stated that comment seven would be: two planning board members present do not recommend denial of the variance.
Mrs. Wood raised concern that the comments contradict each other.
Mr. Black stated that prefer and recommend can conflict.
Mr. Hodgkins inquired as to what the ZBA has done historically with this issue.
Mr. Black stated that he has seen several on both sides. Mr. Black stated that one on Sweetman Road where there was 57 acres in back with 60 foot of frontage to be able to put a house back on the 50 acres to build a new house and it was the only way to utilize the back land. In that case because it was 57 acres with a single house and it was a way to utilize back land that was not being used for agriculture it was granted. Then there was one case in the western part of town where there was something very similar. The proposal was to build a 60-foot right of way to come back and create a lot on the side and that was denied on the basis that the means were available to meet zoning.
Mr. Black reviewed the seven comments again with the Board.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that the Board is basing the comments on personal assumptions of sight distance. They have a stamped plan where the engineer reviewed them and he himself reviewed them.
Mr. Black stated that he does not see a note that says that. What he sees is an engineer listed the actual sight distances. Mr. Black stated that he does not see anything that says this is in accordance with. Mr. Black stated that at the public hearing or the ZBA hearing it would be very easy to present the actual sight distances judged by engineering and the requirements for New York State.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that the Board is trying to influence another Board.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is saying that if we had the state requirements here tonight the Board would not have this concern. Mr. Black stated that the Board does not know what they are.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that he is troubled by the Board making assumptions without the facts themselves.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is not making assumptions. Board members visited the site and viewed the cars coming and going and also did some timing.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that all the statement does is make sure that it gets raised at the public hearing or the ZBA. Mr. Kadlecek stated that if the Board did not raise the concern then it would not be addressed.
Mrs. Wood stated that she feels that the issue would be raised. There was a terrible accident there quite a few years ago.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that DOT has specs and there have been laws passed.
Mr. Black suggested taking the specs to the public hearing.
Mr. Black stated that the comment letter is his interpretation of what the Board is saying. Mr. Black asked for any further additions to the comments.
Mr. Kadlecek stated to sign and send it.
Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York will draft the letter for the Board’s review.
Mr. Black added a final comment, comment eight: The Planning Board notes that the proposed public hearing date coincides with the Primary Elections.
Mrs. Wood suggested someone call Mrs. Schmidt to advise of the date conflict.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the people who received the cards should also be notified.
Mr. Hodgkins inquired if there was an alternate site.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the alternate site is the little red schoolhouse.
Mr. Black stated that he would try to call Mrs. Schmidt tomorrow.
Ms. Cuchelo stated that she would work on having John Gay get the sight distance information ready for the public hearing.
Mr. Black stated that the sight distances are already listed on the drawing. Mr. Black stated that the question is “what is the requirement’. Mr. Black stated that has to do with the speed limit.
Ms. Cuchelo stated that Mr. Gay did reports.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that they could actually have a four-way intersection there, there is enough time.
Zoning Report
Mr. Dave LaFountain, Zoning Administrator, provided a copy of the July 2006 activities to the Board. The Board reviewed the report with Mr. LaFountain.
Comprehensive Plan Report
There was no comprehensive plan report as there has been no activity. The information is with the consultant.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Keniry has provided information regarding ethics, when to recuse oneself and what the law says. Mr. Black inquired if any Board members had any questions.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Chris Mitchell has decided to recuse himself from both the Cuchelo discussions and the Casey discussions after reading the information provided by Mr. Keniry.
Mr. Black stated that there is a new County Director of Planning named Jason Kemper. Mr. Kemper sent a letter to Mr. Black offering to meet with him and/or the Board to introduce himself and discuss these and other issues. Mr. Black stated that “these issues” are open space, zoning, conservation easements, generic environmental impact statements and geographic information systems.
Mr. Keniry suggested getting dates, times and location from Mr. Kemper before the next meeting to discuss at the September meeting.
Mr. Black stated that he would request dates , times and location from Mr. Kemper. Mr. Black stated that he will also advise that the Board would like a GIS demo.
Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York has prepared a proposed budget for 2007. Mrs. York provided copies for the Board members to review.
Mrs. Wood stated that there may not be enough money set aside for conferences.
After Board discussion, Mr. Black stated that the amount for conferences could be rounded to $150.00 making the number $1,500.00 for the year.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired why, under miscellaneous purchases, the amount is less than half of last year’s figure. Mr. Kadlecek stated that he does not feel that is enough.
Mrs. York stated that the Board does not have the need for purchases. Mrs. York stated that there is a separate category for supplies.
Mr. Black stated that there is a missing camera assigned to the Planning Board. Purchasing an item like a digital camera is something that would go under miscellaneous purchases.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that he remembers the camera, and he believes that it last went to Tom McGovern. He stated that the camera was an old technology instamatic type of camera, like a Polaroid, and the Town should just write it off.
Mr. Black stated that he agrees with Mr. Kadlecek to make miscellaneous purchases back to $300.00, which is the same amount budgeted for this year.
Mr. Black stated that he has two publication, one on rural features and one on Luther Forest technology. Mr. Black stated that he has read through them and copies are available for anyone interested.
Mr. Black stated that he received information from Marv Schorr pertaining to the requirements for sewage facilities.
Mr. Black asked Mrs. York to copy and send the information out to the Board members.
Mrs. York stated that the information has already been provided to the Board members.
Town Board Liaison
Mrs. Sandy Verola gave the reminder that the Town Board would be looking for input as to how it is going with a five-member board. Mrs. Verola stated that in late October the Town Board would like comments from the Planning Board. Mrs. Wood stated that Mrs. York would need a head count for the September Conference so we can make the deadline and get the reduced rate.
Mr. Wilkinson inquired if the Board would again be discussing percolation tests based on the information given from Mr. Keniry. Mr. Wilkinson inquired if it would be going back on the agenda in order for the Board to take a position.
Mr. Black stated that the Board should have further discussions on that matter.
Mr. Wilkinson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly A. Caron Recording Secretary July 28, 2006 Attachment 1
Mr. Raymond E. Black Planning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: 4 Lot Subdivision - Lands of Daniel P & Julia H. Casey Tax Map Parcel No. 237.00-1-17.1 & 17.2
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received a revised plan for the four lot subdivision of lands of Daniel and Julia Casey on Sweetman Road. The plan has a most recent revision date of July 25, 2006. The changes reflected on this drawing satisfactorily address all of the items in our comment letter of July 11, 2006.
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 Daniel & Julia Casey August 16, 2006 Attachment 2
Mr. Raymond E. Black Planning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: Lot Line Adjustment Tax Map Parcel No. 225.00-1-39.3 & 39.111
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received a proposed lot line adjustment of lands of George A. Cook located on the east side of Cook Road approximately three-quarters of a mile north of Eastern Avenue. The plan dated January 16, 2006 was prepared by Duane Rabideau, P.L.S. of Gilbert VanGuilder Land Surveyor, PLLC.
The application proposes to relocate a property line between two separate tax parcels each owned solely by Mr. Cook so that the larger parcel will have frontage along Cook Road. There will be no change to the perimeter boundary of the properties and no net increase of lots. We have reviewed the application material and the proposed home location and have no comments on the matter.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please feel free to call.
Very truly yours,
Michael McNamara, P.E.
C:\MY DOCUMENTS\WINWORD\charlton\SUBDIVISIONREVIEWS\cook_cookroad_lotlineadjustvreview.doc
Cc: Planning Board Members Bill Keniry
|
|
|
| |
