 |
|
****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 – February 19, 2007
Acting Chairman Constance Wood called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the John W. Taylor Hall.
Present: Constance Wood, Acting Chairman, Mark Hodgkins, Jay Wilkinson, John Kadlecek, Dawn Szurek, Bethany Schumann-McGhee, Esq., Acting Planning Board Attorney, Susan York, Planning Board clerk and Kimberly Caron, recording secretary. Mr. Mitchell joined the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
AGENDA MEETING:
Mrs. Wood stated that there are six of seven Board members present which represents a quorum.
Minutes
Mrs. Wood stated that the minutes from the January 22, 2007 meeting would need to be approved. Mrs. Wood stated that changes had been presented by Mrs. York. Mrs. York made a correction to a change she had previously provided. Mrs. Wood provided a correction. Mr. Kadlecek also provided a correction.
Public Hearing
Payton/Todd (235-1-67.1)
Mrs. Wood stated that there would be a Public Hearing on this matter this evening beginning at 7:45 p.m. with discussions following.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that Marv Schorr raised wetland’s issues in his letter of February 5, 2007. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 1.
The Board reviewed the letter and discussed its content.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that the wetland disturbance would be minor.
Mrs. Wood asked Mr. LaFountain how much land could be disturbed with Army Corp of Engineers.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he did not know. Mr. LaFountain stated that he did not think it would be an issue. Mr. LaFountain stated that he will require DEC wetlands delineation before a building permit would be issued.
Sargent/Cetnar (223-1-24& 223-1-9)
Mrs. York stated that the maps have the road listed as Ridge Road and the correct name is Rocky Ridge Road.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the road frontage was not continuous.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the Zoning Ordinance definition stated that it has to be continuous.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that there can be no further subdivision without ZBA approval.
Mrs. Wood stated that this matter is a lot line change.
Mr. Kadlecek asked if the applicant would need ZBA approval for the driveway.
Mrs. Wood stated yes.
Mr. LaFountain stated that since this is not a legal lot on Rocky Ridge Road the address would be Old 67 for the 911 application.
Markham (236-1-122)
Mrs. Wood stated that there is a lengthy response letter from the town engineer.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board cannot create lots that are not buildable.
Mrs. Wood suggested referring this matter to Mr. Keniry for review once he is back.
Pre-application conferences
Gutto (225-1-66.1)
Mrs. Wood stated that this application poses a lot of questions. Mrs. Wood stated that it looks like there is not enough frontage.
Kilochowski/Durst (237-1-1.1)
Mrs. Wood stated that this is a subdivision on Peaceable Street. Mrs. Wood stated that there are some driveway issues.
Nigriny/Durst (247-1-50.12)
Mrs. Wood stated that this was a ZBA turndown. Mrs. Wood stated that the applicants need to fill in the pond before proceeding.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that they may need a DEC permit to fill in the pond.
Reports
Mrs. Wood stated that there would be standard reports.
Mrs. Wood stated that she had a status update on the Deer Run subdivisions.
The Board had further small group discussions pertaining to the Sargent/Cetnar Lot Line change.
The meeting was closed at 7:30 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
Opened at 7:35 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mrs. Wood stated that there is a quorum of six members. Mrs. Wood stated that Mr. Black was away and she would be the acting chairman.
Minutes
Mrs. Wood asked for a motion to approve the draft of the January 22, 2007 minutes.
Mr. Kadlecek made the motion to approve the January 22, 2007 draft minutes with changes incorporated. Ms. Szurek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Sargent/Cetnar (223-1-24 & 223-1-9)
Mr. Sargent appeared before the board.
Mrs. Wood stated that this is a lot line change. Mrs. Wood stated that the Board had a complete application.
Mrs. Wood stated that the concern is that the parcel with the proposed house location has inadequate frontage.
Mr. Sargent stated that he was aware of that.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he was under the impression that the driveway was going to come out on Old State.
Mr. Sargent stated that it originally was but that would make the driveway 900 plus feet.
Mr. LaFountain stated that when applying for a building permit, he cannot issue a 911 address on a short frontage lot. Mr. LaFountain stated that Mr. Sargent would have to go to the ZBA for the driveway.
Mr. Sargent stated that the tax map listed it as 200 feet but when he had it surveyed it only came out to be 175 feet. Mr. Sargent stated that where they proposed the driveway would be over 900 feet and that was too long.
Mr. Kadlecek asked how long would the driveway be if it came out on Rocky Ridge Road.
Mr. Sargent stated about 450 feet. Mr. Sargent stated that it would not exceed 500 feet and he is aware of the requirements for driveways over 500 feet.
Mr. Wilkinson asked if the standard notes and a signature line were required on the drawing.
Mrs. Wood responded yes. Mrs. Wood asked Mrs. York to provide the language to Mr. Sargent. Mrs. York provided the language to Mr. Sargent.
Mrs. Wood asked Mr. Sargent is he wanted to put the standard notes on the drawing and come back next month for approval or if he wanted conditional approval.
Mr. Sargent stated that he would like conditional approval.
Mrs. York asked if the application needed to be referred to Saratoga County.
Mrs. Wood stated that the property is not located on a State Road.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the
prop
Mrs. Wood stated that there would be no referral.
Mr. Mitchell made the motion to accept the application as a complete application and designate the Planning Board as lead agency status for the proposed action and it is an unlisted action under SEQRA with a negative impact declaration relative to environmental impact for the Sargent/Cetnar Lot Line change. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. Roll call vote was taken. Mr. Mitchell - aye Mr. Kadlecek - aye Mrs. Wood - aye Mr. Wilkinson - aye Ms. Szurek - aye Mr. Hodgkins - aye All were in favor. Motion was carried.
Mr. Mitchell made the motion to approve the lot line change classifying the Resolution as 2007-03 and authorizing the chairman to sign the mylars with the contingency of the standard notes being added to the mylars. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. Roll call vote was taken. Mr. Mitchell - aye Mr. Kadlecek - aye Mrs. Wood - aye Mr. Wilkinson - aye Ms. Szurek - aye Mr. Hodgkins - aye All were in favor. Motion was carried.
Resolution 2007-03 was passed
PUBLIC HEARING (7:50 p.m.)
Payton/Todd (235-1-67.1)
Mrs. Wood explained the Public Hearing process.
Mrs. Wood acknowledged the public hearing notice from the Daily Gazette.
Mr. Keith Payton provided revised maps together with a write up from Mr. Barth.
Mr. Keith Payton and Mr. Mathew Payton presented the following plan:
Parcel is located on Sacandaga Road; it is approximately 42 acres; Plan is to subdivide off a 7 acre parcel for Mathew Payton and family;
Mrs. Wood opened the hearing to the floor. \ Mr. Barth, 1239 Sacandaga Road, stated that it was initially a seven acre lot that was deeded off to a relative of the people who owned the property. The property was used for pasture. Later years it was bought by Mr. Schweizer.
Mr. Barth asked it this was just a subdivision.
Mrs. Wood responded yes, the plan was to break off 7 acres to build a house.
Mr. Barth stated that he gave the Payton’s a sketch that he drew. He is concerned with the slope of the terrain to the water supply. Mr. Barth stated that it would have to have a built up septic system. Mr. Barth stated that it all slopes towards his water supply. Mr. Barth stated that he has two exterior wells and one well in the cellar and the water runs right to it. Mr. Barth stated that it is important that the septic system does not hurt that supply.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board is aware of that and has already been informed that it would require a built up system.
Mrs. Wood asked Mr. Payton to point out the proposed septic system location on the drawing.
Mr. Mathew Payton stated that the engineer stated that the best place to put the septic system is up in this corner.
Mrs. Wood inquired if the engineer moved the proposed septic location from the previous map.
Mr. Keith Payton stated that when the engineer went to the property he felt it would be better to put it in the corner.
Mr. Barth stated that with the bedrock, you can’t get into the ground and it has to be raised up and filled in all around it.
Mrs. Wood stated that the proposed septic system on the map the Board has now is not where the engineer wants it. Mrs. Wood asked if it would be 200 feet from Mr. Barth’s well.
Mr. Keith Payton stated that the proposed septic system would be 400 feet from the property line to the well.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he has looked at the area for the septic field and it is 100 feet by 100 feet. Mr. LaFountain stated that the area to be used for the septic system meets all requirements for the size of the field and the distance to Mr. Barth’s water supply.
Mr. Barth asked if Mr. LaFountain knew where his water supply was located.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the proposed septic would be located 300 feet to 400 feet away. Mr. LaFountain stated that the engineer will be required to map it out.
Mr. Kadlecek made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Payton/Todd (235-1-67.1) Discussions
Mrs. Wood stated that there is a comment letter from Marv Schorr dated February 5, 2007. (Attachment 1).
Mrs. Wood stated that Mr. LaFountain stated that before a building permit can be granted, the wetlands are going to have to be delineated because in order to get the driveway the wetlands have to be traversed.
Mr. Keith Payton stated that he contacted AEOC and the person he spoke with said that as long as they are disturbing less than a tenth of an acre they should be able to build a driveway. Mr. Payton stated that the surveyor figured it out to be one one hundredth of an acre.
Mrs. Wood stated that the wetlands will need to be delineated.
Mr. LaFountain stated that before the building permit can be issued there must be a statement from DEC or ACOE stating that the driveway meets their requirements.
Mr. Barth asked if the proposed driveway was going to cut along the stonewall. Mr. Barth stated that if it doesn’t, it has to provide a culvert because the water runs to Sacandaga Road, it runs northeast to the road.
Mrs. Wood stated that it is probably going to require a culvert. Mrs. Wood asked the Paytons it they were planning on a culvert.
Mr. Keith Payton and Mr. Mathew Payton responded yes.
Mr. Barth stated that an ideal driveway would be along the stonewall. There is does not hurt the wetland.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Payton’s are only proposing to cross a small area in the wetlands.
Mr. Kadlecek asked how long the proposed driveway would be.
Mr. Mathew Payton stated that he has not decided where to put the house. Mr. Payton stated that if they do a walkout basement than it would be roughly 450 feet. Mr. Payton stated that if he goes with what is proposed then roughly 600 feet. Mr. Payton stated that he is aware of the regulations for long driveways.
Mr. Kadlecek asked if that would bring the septic uphill.
Mr. Mathew Payton stated that there would be a pumping station for the septic system.
Mrs. Wood asked for revised maps showing the septic system where it is proposed and the building envelope for where the proposed house is going to be so that the maps are more correct.
Mr. Wilkinson asked for test pit information to be included on the revised maps.
Mr. Mathew Payton stated that the information is in the notes.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the notes give the results. It does not show the test pits, the number of test pits and the results.
Mr. Keith Payton stated that they could include the information.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the test pits were done last fall to move this process through the winter time. Mr. LaFountain stated that the purpose was just to make sure they had enough soil to qualify for a built up system. Mr. LaFountain stated that the Paytons know they need to provide soil profiles and whatever the engineer requires to execute the system. Mr. LaFountain stated that he has gone over what needs to be done before the issuance of a permit with the Paytons. Mr. LaFountain stated that now it perks 1 inch in 30 minutes.
Mr. Keith Payton asked if the Board wanted all test pits shown.
Mr. Kadlecek stated no as it is going to be in another place when the tests are done in the Spring.
Mr. Mitchell stated that could be approved when the building permit is approved.
Mr. LaFountain stated that by that time the system will have already been designed. Mr. LaFountain stated that if the Board wants actual locations it will have to wait until Spring.
Mrs. Wood stated that number 3 on the drawing states that the building permit is contingent upon the engineered system meeting all specifications.
Mrs. Wood asked the Board if the test pit locations on the current drawing should be left on.
The Board discussed and decided to leave on.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Board needs to see the footprints for the house and the septic.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board is concerned about the house location because of the length of the driveway and the wetlands. Mrs. Wood stated that the Board would like to see it on this map.
Mr. Mathew Payton stated that he has not yet made the decision of where he wants to put the house.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the house location is not an issue at this point. Mr. LaFountain stated that the issue is the septic location.
Mrs. Wood asked for any additional comments.
Mrs. York stated that the County has not yet responded. Mrs. York stated that she had asked for this application to be considered under the County’s MOU and that they put it on their agenda which was last Thursday. Mrs. York stated that the letter has not come and she was not able to reach them today since it is a holiday.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board could not approve this tonight as it is on a New York State road and the County has to approve.
Mrs. Wood stated that other than hearing from the County, we have a complete application.
Mr. Kadlecek asked if a decision had been made relative to the wetlands.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the wetlands need to be delineated and if it is less than a tenth of an acre disturbance then the results need to be sent to ACOE and they can decide.
Mr. Keith Payton asked if they could start the driveway. Mr. Keith Payton stated that he received information that the permit cost would increase after March 15, 2007.
Mr. Mitchell stated that there should not be a problem if the delineation is done and the information is sent to ACOE before the 15th.
Mrs. Wood stated that this application will be on the agenda for next month. Mrs. Wood stated that County approval is needed to proceed.
Mrs. Wood reviewed the revisions to the drawing for next month. Mrs. Wood asked for the drawings to include the proposed house location.
Mr. Wilkinson suggested using the same note from the Cuchelo drawing pertaining to the long driveway.
Mr. LaFountain provided the Paytons with the long driveway note.
Mr. Keith Payton stated that they will have the proposed septic location changed, the proposed location of the house and the note for the driveway on their drawings for the next meeting.
Mrs. York asked if the revised drawings would need to be sent to Mr. McNamara.
Mrs. Wood responded yes.
Mr. Keith Payton asked if the Board wanted the revised drawings before the next meeting.
Mrs. Wood responded yes.
Mr. Keith Payton asked that if Mr. Black had any additional comments if he could let them know before they have the drawings revised.
Mr. Mitchell stated that they should wait for County approval before revising drawings.
Mr. Kadlecek asked Mrs. York to contact Mr. Black to see if there were any additional comments.
Mr. LaFountain asked if there was an escrow account for engineering.
Mrs. York stated that $500.00 had been paid.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the septic system design is going to have to be approved by Mr. McNamara before a building permit would be issued. Mr. LaFountain stated that if they have the septic system designed now and have it reviewed by Mr. McNamara it would save them from setting up another escrow account.
Markham (236-1-122)
Mr. Markham appeared before the Board.
Mrs. Wood stated that there is a lengthy letter from Mr. McNamara dated February 16, 2007. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 2. Mrs. Wood stated that the letter brought up many concerns.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board would like to review the letter with the Planning Board Attorney, Bill Keniry, Esq. before proceeding any further. Mrs. Wood stated that this matter would be moved to the March Agenda.
Mr. Mitchell asked for the proposed house location.
Mr. Markham stated that he has no plans for a house at this time.
Mr. Mitchell asked if the front area of the property was more than 2 acres without crossing the wetlands.
Mr. Markham responded yes, and that he has also spoken to DEC and knows that permits are required in order to disturb wetlands.
Mrs. York stated that the engineering escrow needed to be paid.
Mr. Markham stated that he would provide a check.
Mrs. York asked if this needed to be referred to the County.
Mrs. Wood responded to wait.
Mrs. Wood stated that discussions would be postponed until the March meeting.
Mr. Markham paid the $500.00 engineering escrow.
Pre-application Conferences
Gutto (225-1-66.1)
Mr. Gutto appeared before the Board.
The Board reviewed the drawings.
Mr. Gutto stated that the existing house sits on the entire parcel of 54.02 acres. Mr. Gutto stated that he would like to split off 24 acres and leave 30 acres with the existing house. The house already has access on Division Street and has no access to the house on Route 67. Mr. Gutto stated that he discovered that the surveyor did not leave 400 feet of frontage on Route 67 only 395.56 feet.
Mrs. Wood asked how he figured out that number.
Mr. Gutto stated that he took his tax map to the County and they showed him what numbers to add together and the ending number would be 395.56.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board is referring him to the ZBA.
Mr. Gutto stated that he came to the Planning Board to get denied so that he could go before the ZBA.
Mr. Kadlecek asked if the driveway was going to be over 500 feet.
Mr. Gutto stated that all of the driveways would be less than 500 feet.
Kilochowski/Durst (237-1-1.1)
Mr. Durst appeared before the Board.
Mr. Durst stated that the plan was to take the 62 acre parcel and divide it into 4 lots each consisting of 6 to 7 acres with the major parcel consisting of roughly 30 acres.
Mrs. Wood stated that the plan was creative but could not be done with the current zoning.
Mr. Durst asked why.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board is not in favor of shared driveways at this point.
Mr. Durst asked what the Zoning Ordinance said about shared driveways.
Mr. LaFountain stated nothing.
Mrs. Wood stated that in the past there has been problems with shared driveways.
The Board looked in the Subdivision Regulations for information on shared driveways.
The Board discussed various variations of the driveway configurations with Mr. Durst.
Mr. Durst suggested checking with Mr. Keniry pertaining to the maintenance of shared driveways.
Mr. Kadlecek suggested pairing the driveways so that they come down individually and join at the street.
Mr. Durst asked if the Board would rather see multiple paired driveways instead of one loop going through.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that would avoid the problem for the people who have to share the maintenance.
Mr. Durst stated that he would be leaving the vegetation buffer all along Peaceable Street so that from the road you would never see it.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that he is uncomfortable with shared driveways.
Ms. Szurek asked where the school busses go for picking up.
Mr. Durst stated at the end of the driveway.
Mrs. Wood stated that she thinks the law is that elementary children must be received by an adult.
Mrs. Wood stated that she also has concerns with shared driveways.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Planning Board discourages shared driveways.
Mr. Durst asked if the Board was discouraging shared driveways and encouraging paired driveways.
Mr. Kadlecek responded yes.
Mr. Durst suggested pairing driveways on Lots D and E and pairing driveways on Lots B and C and leaving Lot A with its own driveway.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that paired driveways are their own driveways on their own property running parallel with each other and come together at the street.
Mr. Durst stated that would make them more visible from the street. Mr. Durst stated that one of the reasons he went with the proposed route was that it would be invisible from the street.
Mr. Durst stated that to get the driveways out to Peaceable Street he would have to get a disturbance permit. Mr. Durst stated that he would rather have the driveways almost double wide at the lot line and bring the driveways right back and then have only one driveway coming back here then split up.
Mr. Durst stated that the house placement was good. He needs to do perk tests and test pits.
Mr. Durst stated that the mean width for the houses is 300 except for this one that has 278 feet continuous on this side and another 60 feet on this side.
Mr. Durst asked how the 300 feet frontage for horses is interpreted, or is it average lot width.
Mrs. Wood stated that it was average lot width and thinks it is there.
Mr. Wilkinson looked up the information. Mr. Wilkinson stated that it does not state continuous. Mr. Wilkinson stated that it says minimum lot width, it does not say continuous.
Mrs. Wood asked Mrs. Bethany Schumann-McGhee to verify that with Mr. Keniry and have him define house lot regulations.
Mr. LaFountain stated that a minimum lot width of 300 feet and 3 acres is the requirement for horses.
Mr. Durst stated that he will come back with in with preliminary drawings with paired driveways with one surface and splitting once past the wet area.
Mrs. Wood stated that the wetlands also needed to be delineated.
Mr. Durst stated that it would be done. Mr. Durst stated that the wetlands are ACOE. Mr. Durst stated that he would come before the Board next month with a preliminary application.
Nigriny/Durst (247-1-50.12)
Mr. Durst appeared before the Board.
Mr. Durst stated that the plan was to lower the water level of the pond and fill it in. Mr. Durst stated that the shaded area on the drawing would be filled in.
Mrs. Wood asked what approval was needed to fill in the pond.
Mr. LaFountain stated that was a question for the ZBA.
Mr. Durst stated that they would be filling in approximately 25 feet from the proposed lot line.
Mr. Kadlecek asked if this property was part of a major subdivision within the past 15 years.
Mr. Durst responded no.
Mrs. Wood suggested tracing past subdivisions on the land.
Mr. Durst stated that he would contact the ACOE to see what approvals were necessary.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board could not proceed with the subdivision until the pond is filled in.
Mr. Durst stated that he was looking for approval contingent upon filling in the pond.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that before Mr. Black could sign the mylars the contingency would have to be met.
Mr. Durst stated that he would obtain any necessary permits to grade and fill in the pond and then come back to the Board to subdivide.
Mr. Mitchell stated that he thinks the ACOE will be contingent upon going into a navigable waterway.
Mr. Durst stated that he will call Soil and Water Conservation for their input.
Mr. Durst asked if the subdivision fee had to be paid since they have already paid two previous subdivision fees.
Mrs. Wood responded yes.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. LaFountain provided a report for January 2007. The Board reviewed the report with Mr. LaFountain.
Comprehensive Plan Report
Mr. Hodgkins stated that there is a public meeting scheduled for February 28, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Freehold Presbyterian Church. Mr. Hodgkins stated that the information was also listed in the Town newsletter.
Correspondence
Mrs. Wood stated that there is a workshop series pertaining to planning a future for farms. The dates are February 27th, March 15th and March 28th.
Mrs. Wood stated that she had a status update on the Deer Run subdivision. Mrs. Wood stated that this is the development on Crooked Street. Mrs. Wood stated that in December 1993 the Planning Board approved Phase I of that subdivision which included 24 houses. The approval was a staged approval contingent upon the Town Board approving water. The Town Board did not approve the water and the parties went to court. Mrs. Wood stated that it has been in court for a long time. Finally, the court’s decision was that the Town Board has to grant water to this subdivision. Once approval was granted they went back to the old plans. Mrs. Wood stated that there have been changes in the law. Mrs. Wood stated that Storm Water Management was a major issue as well as water pipe issues were major. Mrs. Wood stated that they had a design at one point to provide a storage tank for the water. Mrs. Wood stated that there have been some agreements between the Town, Mr. McNamara and Mr. Keniry and the decision was made that the Town’s existing water tower can accommodate these houses. That meant that they had to readjust the maps so enough was deeded to the Town for the road as well as the burying of the water lines and the storm sewers. Mrs. Wood stated that all of this has been done. Mrs. Wood stated that the right of way has been increased. The Town is satisfied with it. Mrs. Wood stated that this will be coming back to the Planning Board to present the current plan and the Planning Board will ok the changes. Mrs. Wood stated that this is still Phase I. Mrs. Wood stated that they will have to come back before the Board to apply for Phase II and Phase III. Mrs. Wood stated that the issues with the land has gone into a homeowner association and the Town will not take ownership.
Town Board Liaison
Mrs. Verola stated that she had no report.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly A. Caron Recording Secretary
Attachment 1
Ray Black, Chairman February 5, 2007 Town of Charlton Planning Board 1410 Division Street Charlton, NY 12019 Subject: Payton Subdivision Application
The subject application from Keith and Stephanie Payton to subdivide a parcel on Sacandaga Road into two lots was reviewed by the Charlton Environmental Conservation Commission, as requested by the Planning Board, at its January 30, 2007 meeting. One of the lots has an Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) designated wetland that would be crossed by a proposed new driveway.
The Planning Board asked the ECC to review plans for subdividing this land, on the west side of Sacandaga Road, just north of Charlton Road, into two lots, one on the north side with an existing residence and the second on the south side with a new, proposed residence. An Army Corp of Engineers designated wetland area on the lot with the new residence would need to be crossed by a driveway from the road front on Sacandaga Road to the proposed residence. The locations of existing buildings are not shown on the map provided with the application and, further, it is not clear if the existing well shown in the wetland is the well that would serve the new residence. The existing well appears to be located just off Sacandaga Road, on the east front of the lot, quite far from the proposed location of the residence.
Because of the difficulty in obtaining ACOE approval for disturbing wetlands, the ECC discussion centered around whether it would be necessary to cross the wetland if the boundary between the two properties were drawn slightly north of the proposed boundary so that the driveway could avoid the wetland. This boundary change would not need to be extended from Sacandaga Road on the east, to the western edge of the property on the north, which is already slightly pie-shaped, but only far enough in from Sacandaga Road for the driveway to avoid the wetland. The ECC recommends that this be proposed. If that is not agreeable to the owner of the land, then the ECC recommends that the application should not be granted until a method for mitigating the disturbance of the wetland is agreed upon by the ACOE. The ACOE should be contacted by the owner to determine if offsets (construction of a new wetland with acreage greater than the disturbed, existing wetland) would be acceptable as a means of mitigating the wetland disturbance, or if the ACOE would require some other mitigation method. Even if, for some reason, the ACOE is not concerned with the disturbance of the wetland, the ECC believes that Charlton should not condone this action, and should require mitigation, either by moving the boundary as suggested, or by requiring an offset.
If we can be of any further help on this matter feel free to contact me at 399-4161.
Marvin M. Schorr, Chairman Town of Charlton Environmental Conservation Commission
cc: ECC members D. Salisbury
Attachment 2
February 16, 2007
Mr. Raymond E. Black Planning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: Exempt Subdivision - Lands of Markham – Cook Road Tax Map Parcel No. 236.00-1-122
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received a proposed two-lot subdivision of lands of Stephen P. and Cynthia E. Markham located on the east side of Cook Road approximately 3,000 feet north of Eastern Avenue. The subdivision plan dated April 19, 2005 with a latest revision date of January 29, 2007 was prepared by James White, P.L.S. of Azimuth Surveying & Cartography. The application can be categorized as an “Exempt Subdivision” according to Charlton’s Subdivision Regulations.
This same land parcel was presented to the Charlton Planning Board in June of 2005. At that time, owners Stephen and Cynthia Markham petitioned the board to combine two separate tax parcels of near equal size into a single lot. Our firm was not asked to review that application as it did not result in any additional building lots. Upon review of the 2006 tax maps, we have confirmed that the combination of the lots has taken place and was filed in the Saratoga County Clerk’s Office. The current application requests re-subdivision of the land into the two original parcels. We offer the following comments for your consideration.
Also submitted as part of the application is a letter dated October 10, 2006 to Mr. Markham from Lucia Herald of DEC. A map of the wetlands included with that letter depicts a much different configuration than is shown on the subdivision plan. When transferring the lines from the DEC map to the subdivision, the wetland boundary is significantly closer to Cook Road. The regulated 100 foot setback is not shown on the plan and should be added. It appears that the wetland setback will be very close and may even crosses the 60 foot front line setback leaving almost no building envelope at all on Lot A.
The presumption of all subdivision applications is that a request to construct a home will be made for each lot. In order to ensure that a building permit could be issued for Lot A, we believe it is necessary to have the DEC wetlands field delineated and resurveyed. Delineation of the wetlands would probably not be possible until the spring. It is very likely that a permit from DEC will be necessary to construct the home, a portion of the driveway and possibly the septic system and well. Application for that permit will require depiction of the final location of these features. If issued, the DEC permit will not allow the flexibility for change if field conditions warrant.
Since the “new” lot is so constrained, the subdivision plan should show the proposed septic system and well locations along with the house. Perc tests and test hole data must also be included in order to confirm that the proposed layout is a feasible design. The septic system for the existing home on Lot B and the well and septic for the home to the south on the lands of “Jones” must also be added to the plan to ensure that the required separation distances are met. The “Old Well” on Lot A may have to be abandoned depending on the proposed layout and should be so noted if necessary. In the narrative portion of the subdivision application, Mr. Markham acknowledged that there may be issues regarding the DEC wetlands and that he was willing to “accept the land as is” in order to expedite the process. It is the Planning Board’s discretion as to whether the subdivision should be approved without the more detailed engineering described above. If the Board is inclined to move forward without a final design based on percolation and test pit results, it is recommended that notation of significant limitations be added to the plan. The note should include either a restriction on selling the subdivided lot (if legally possible) or a requirement of disclosure of the inability to obtain a building permit. Notes regarding the need to obtain a DEC permit must also be added. The Planning Board should discuss these options with their legal counsel prior to issuing any approval.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions concerning this project.
Very truly yours,
Michael McNamara, P.E. The Environmental Design Partnership
C:\MY DOCUMENTS\WINWORD\charlton\SUBDIVISIONREVIEWS\markham_cookroad_subdivreview.doc
Cc: Planning Board Members Stephen Markham Bill Keniry
|
|
|
| |
