 |
|
****JavaScript based drop down DHTML menu generated by NavStudio. (OpenCube Inc. - http://www.opencube.com)****
|
|
|
|
|
Town of Charlton Planning Board Minutes 784 Charlton Road Charlton, New York 12019
Minutes of Planning Board Meeting – March 19, 2007
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, Jay Wilkinson, John Kadlecek, Mike Armor, Dawn Szurek, William Keniry, Esq., Planning Board Attorney, Susan York, Planning Board clerk and Kimberly Caron, recording secretary. Mr. Mitchell joined the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Hodgkins joined the meeting at 9:15.
AGENDA MEETING:
Mr. Black stated that there are six of seven Board members present which represents a quorum.
Minutes
Mr. Black stated that the minutes from the February 19, 2007 meeting would need to be approved. Mr. Black stated that changes had been presented by Mrs. York. Mrs. Wood provided two corrections. Mr. Wilkinson also provided corrections.
Payton/Todd (235-1-67.1)
Mr. Black stated that a new drawing has been received and the house location and the septic location has been shown.
Mr. Black stated that we have received County approval. The letter from the County stated that a curb cut application was needed from DOT.
Mr. Black stated that the date on the latest map is handwritten in as 03/13/07. The revision block lists it as 03/06/07.
Mr. Black stated that the latest house location is the third proposed location. Mr. Black inquired if the Board wanted the location prescribed.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the Board asked the applicants to finalize a definite location for the building envelope.
Mr. Black inquired if the drawing should contain a note that the Board is approving a specific house location.
Mr. LaFountain stated that there is not any reason for specifics for the house location as long as it meets the setback requirements.
Markham (236-1-122)
Mr. Black stated that the engineering review and the environmental conservation review were quite lengthy.
Mr. Black stated that the summary of the reviews indicates that the lot created with the house does not have the required frontage setback from the road. Mr. Black stated that was a pre-existing condition.
Mr. Black stated that the more significant issue pertains to the wetlands. Mr. Black stated that when Mr. McNamara reviewed the wetlands, his information implies that the wetlands are much more substantial on the lot that does not have a house on it. Mr. Black stated that the impact is substantial enough that Mr. McNamara suspects that there may not be the possibility of placing a house on the lot without being permitted to do so by the DEC.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is in a position where any subdivision on that property is the Board’s obligation to be sure that the land can be used as a building lot. Mr. Black stated that any building will represent an environmental impact because of the wetlands. Mr. Black stated that the building may actually go inside the wetlands. Mr. Black stated that a full EIS form would be required.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is also in a position where we cannot move forward without further details and delineation. Mr. Black stated that the Board could accept it as a preliminary application and then require that prior to any further movement on it that the Board has to have a field delineation conducted and the compliance with the requirements of the full EIS form. Mr. Black stated that there would be no Public Hearing until that information was received.
Mr. Black stated that if the purpose is not to create a building lot then need not necessarily do it now. Mr. Black stated that a conditional approval could be granted contingent that any further action would require site delineation, permitting, etc.
Mrs. Wood stated that would be creating a non-buildable lot.
Mr. Black stated that there is no requirement that a subdivision necessarily create a buildable lot.
Mr. Kadlecek stated non-conforming lot.
Mr. Black stated that a non-conforming lot is very different from a non-buildable lot in that subdivision can create a non-buildable lot but it can not create a non-conforming lot.
Ellms (237-1-33)
Mr. Black stated that this is a straight-forward subdivision with the exception of the impact to the existing tree farm on the new lot and the road.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Public Hearing could not be waived as it is located in the AG district.
Mr. Keniry stated that when the property is in the AG district and has an active farm next to it the Board cannot waive the Public Hearing.
Mr. Black stated that there may be wetlands.
Schermerhorn (247-1-33.2)
Mr. Black stated that this is a lot line change correcting a past oversight.
Nigriny/Durst (247-1-50.12)
Mr. Black stated that the Environmental Conservation Commission’s report stated that there is a flowing stream into a man-made pond and that the stream flows into a Class C trout stream and nearby wetlands. Mr. Black stated that this subdivision represents a significant environmental impact and a full EIS form would be required. Mr. Black stated that before the Board could accept it as a complete application, a full wetlands delineation and the associated permitting from the DEC would be required.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that Mr. Durst had stated that he was filling in the pond as his own initiative. Mr. Kadlecek inquired if he could do that.
Mr. Black stated that the pond is not classified as wetlands. Mr. Black stated that the ECC’s letter stated that the stream was a flowing year round stream.
Mr. Keniry stated that in the local regulations there is a provision that states that upon filing the application for the subdivision approval it is incumbent upon the applicant and the owner to refrain from any disturbances or activities while on the subject parcel.
Mr. Black stated that once it comes to the Board we are in the mix with the applicant and the DEC.
ZBA Referral
Gutto (225-1-66.1)
Mr. Black stated that at last month’s meeting, the Board referred the applicant to the ZBA. Mr. Black stated that the ZBA has asked for a recommendation.
Mr. Black stated that the map has the existing lot as having 120 feet of road frontage on Division Street and 361 feet of road frontage on Route 67.
Mrs. Wood stated that Mr. Gutto stated that the County Tax office told him that he had 395 feet of road frontage on Route 67.
Mr. Black stated that this is a minor variance as it is only 5 feet short.
Mr. Black stated that there are issues with putting a driveway cut onto Route 67. Mr. Black stated that the Board has tried to keep driveway cuts off of Route 67 as it is a dangerous area for a driveway due to traffic and speed. Mr. Black stated that the only option for this lot is to put a driveway onto Route 67.
Mr. Black stated that the applicant could make the new lot conforming and keep the lot with the house as the sub-standard lot because it has an existing driveway and would be unlikely to change.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board could recommend having the parcel resurveyed by someone else.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the wetlands seem to be missing in the middle of the drawing.
Mr. Black stated that he believes the wetlands are all of this area here and if you follow that inside the dashed line are the wetlands. Mr. Black stated that a crossing permit may be required.
Mr. Black stated that the ZBA hearing is April 10th.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Board could point out the wetlands as a potential concern.
Mrs. Wood added that as part of the prior subdivision of this land, the wetland delineation was not required because the land was to be agricultural in purpose.
Reports
Mr. Black stated that there would be standard reports.
The meeting was closed at 7:35 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
Opened at 7:36 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Minutes
Mr. Black asked for a motion to approve the draft of the February 19, 2007 minutes with corrections incorporated.
Mrs. Wood made the motion to approve the February 19, 2007 draft minutes with changes incorporated. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. Mr. Black abstained from the vote. Mr. Armer abstained from the vote. All remaining Board members were in favor.
Payton/Todd (235-1-67.1)
Mr. Keith Payton and Mr. Mathew Payton approached the Board.
Mr. Black stated that there is a new drawing.
Mr. Keith Payton stated that the septic change was in response to Mr. Barth’s well to be more than 200 feet away and to make Mr. Barth more comfortable.
Mr. Mathew Payton stated that the house was moved up to enable a walkout basement as the embankment made it nice for that.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has received County approval with the notice that a curb cut permit would need to be obtained from NYS DOT.
Mr. Black inquired if the Board wanted to hold to the proposed location for the septic system.
Mrs. Wood stated that the Payton’s indicated that there were some discussions with the engineer that this was a really good location.
Mr. Black stated that the drawing note requires that prior to the issuance of a building permit there needs to be a licensed professional engineer stamp. Mr. Black inquired if the Board should add a note adjacent to this box changing the word “approximate” location to “approved” location for the septic.
Mr. Mitchell stated that it is up to Mr. LaFountain and the engineer.
Mr. Black stated that all issues have been addressed and asked for an approval motion.
Mr. Keniry stated that SEQRA had not been done.
Mr. Black stated that on January 22, 2007 the Board took lead agency.
Mrs. Wood made the motion to classify the action as an unlisted action with a negative declaration relative to SEQRA. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. The Board reviewed the SEQRA form and answered all questions. Roll call vote was taken. Mr. Armer - aye Mr. Black - aye Mr. Mitchell - aye Mrs. Wood - aye Ms. Szurek - aye Mr. Wilkinson - aye Motion carried.
Mrs. Wood made the motion to approve the application as Resolution 2007-04 and authorize the chair to sign the mylars. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Roll call vote was taken. Mr. Armer - aye Mr. Mitchell - aye Mrs. Wood - aye Ms. Szurek - aye Mr. Wilkinson - aye Mr. Black - aye Motion carried.
Resolution 2007-04 was made.
Mr. Black explained the process for filing the maps.
Mrs. York gave the Payton’s a copy of the filing requirements.
Markham (236-1-122)
Mr. Markham approached the Board.
Mr. Black inquired if the purpose of the subdivision was to create a building lot.
Mr. Markham stated that the property has trails that he walks, he hunts on the property and cuts wood. It is currently used for personal use.
Mr. Black inquired if Mr. Markham may want to sell the lot as a building lot.
Mr. Markham responded that he was not sure what life was going to be. Mr. Markham stated that he has no immediate plans for anything there.
Mr. Black stated that during the engineering review an encumbrance of wetlands was found to be more than shown.
Mr. Markham stated that he had the wetlands delineated years back and that the map drawings were based on the lines that DEC hung flags for.
Mr. Black inquired if the maps as prepared showed the wetlands as delineated.
Mr. Markham responded yes, James Wright did it.
Mr. Black stated that note #1 says that the wetlands shown were flagged by DEC in the summer of 2004 and that the flags were not numbered so the flags on the map are connected to encompass apparent wet areas.
Mr. Markham stated that there was a pond out back on the 10 acre parcel and DEC numbered a few out there but they were not consistent in their numbering of the tags.
Mr. Black inquired that when Mr. White completed the survey he had flags to follow to put the lines.
Mr. Markham responded yes, old apple and pear trees.
Mr. Black stated that if the wetlands actually extended closer to the road, especially with the 100 foot setback, there would be no way to locate a house and meet the setback requirements with the 100 foot buffer.
Mr. Mitchell stated that if the property has already been delineated, then it would be a small footprint but higher.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if there were trees on the property.
Mr. Markham responded yes.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if the trees were located within the wetlands.
Mr. Markham responded yes.
Mr. Black stated that the wetlands need to be delineated to ensure that we could get a footprint of a house. Mr. Black stated that if the wetlands were delineated in the past, what would be adequate would be to get some certification that the delineation that was done is properly represented in the current plans provided to the Planning Board. Mr. Black stated that the Board would like certification from the person who performed the delineation that the wetlands are properly delineated on the current plans.
Mr. Black stated that the Board would like to see that this is the correct delineation and the 100 foot buffer added to that together with the proposed house location with the appropriate setbacks.
Mr. Markham stated that with the 100 foot buffer he knows he has to deal with DEC to do anything.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has a complete application. Mr. Black stated that before the Board could schedule a Public Hearing the Board has to ensure that there is not a potential wetlands issue. Mr. Black stated that once the Board receives the requested information showing that the wetlands are properly delineated the application process can be moved forward.
Mr. Mitchell stated that perk tests would be required.
Mr. Markham inquired if the perk tests needed to be done now.
Mr. Black stated that perk tests are a subdivision requirement for any lot to be subdivided. Mr. Black stated that the tests need to meet the 45 minute perk rate. Mr. Black stated that the perk tests are needed for final approval but not to move forward.
Mr. Black made the motion to accept the application as a complete preliminary application minus the perk tests. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black made the motion for the Planning Board to take lead agency status for the purposes of SEQRA. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Ellms (237-1-33)
Mr. and Mrs. Ellms approached the Board and distributed copies of her revised map.
Mrs. Ellms stated that she had new maps that incorporated the comments from Mike McNamara in his letter of March 6, 2007. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 1.
Mr. Black asked for an explanation of the plan.
Mr. Ellms showed the Board on the drawing where their existing house was located. Mr. Ellms showed the Board the block of land consisting of 65 acres. Mr. Ellms stated that the proposal is to subdivide off approximately 9 acres. Mr. Ellms showed the Board the location of the wetlands.
Mr. Black stated that the revisions to the maps are the location of the wetlands with the setbacks, the 100 foot buffer and the proposed building envelope.
Mr. Black inquired if there were trees planted along the road associated with the tree farm.
Mrs. Ellms stated that the trees do come into the property but will not be a part of the active tree farm.
Mr. Black inquired if the property was sold and there is a portion of the land that is part of the active tree farm the buyers may not agree.
Mrs. Ellms stated that the road is going to be relocated so it will not be within the boundaries of the parcel they want to subdivide off. Mrs. Ellms stated that they will limit the trees to be within the property line of the farm.
Mr. Ellms indicated where, on the new map, it states that the road will be relocated. Mr. Ellms stated that they will minimize any planting of trees there.
Mr. Black stated that comment two of Mr. McNamara’s letter indicated that the Board should consult with legal counsel for an opinion on the proposed alternative. Mr. Black stated that the proposed alternative is that the current map says to be relocated. Mr. Black asked Mr. Keniry if that was sufficient.
Mr. Keniry stated that the note is sufficient if the applicants commit to that on record.
Mr. Black stated that comment three stated that the well note has the old wording and suggested a change of “all building permits…” to “all lot sales…”. Mr. Black stated that this issue was discussed at a Board workshop and the Board has decided to leave it as “building permits”.
Mr. Black stated that the wording of the well note is more restrictive than the Board’s standard note. Mr. Black stated that the Board is not going to require that to change, but that Mrs. Ellms can go back to using the less restrictive map note of “all building permits…”.
Mr. Black stated that the new map satisfies Mr. McNamara’s comments.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if perk tests had been done.
Mr. Ellms responded no.
Mr. Black asked Mrs. York if the application had been referred to the County.
Mrs. York responded no. Mrs. York stated that the application also needed to be referred to the Town of Ballston as the property is located on the border.
Mr. Black stated that the application is complete and requested two motions.
Mrs. Wood made the motion for the Planning Board to take lead agency status for the purposes of SEQRA. Ms. Szurek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mrs. Wood made the motion to accept the application as a complete application and to schedule the Public Hearing for April 16, 2007 at 7:45 p.m. Ms. Szurek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mrs. York gave Mrs. Ellms the postcards for the Public Hearing notification together with the instructions.
Mr. Keniry stated that he would take care of the newspaper notification.
Mr. Black asked Mrs. York to contact Mrs. Ellms to have the revision date indicated on the drawings.
Schermerhorn (247-1-33.2)
Mr. Schermerhorn appeared before the Board.
Mr. Black stated that this was a subdivision before the Board some time ago. Mr. Black stated that Mr. Schermerhorn requests to include the well house that feeds the original house with water to be on the same parcel.
Mr. Black stated that as this is a lot line change, the Board could waive engineering review and the engineering fee. Mr. Black stated that the Board could also waive the Public Hearing.
Mr. Black stated that there are new drawings before the Board. Mr. Black inquired if there was a driveway on the new lot.
Mr. Schermerhorn responded yes.
Mr. Black inquired how close the driveway was to the new property line.
Mr. Schermerhorn stated that it is a 12 foot wide driveway and that there is 20 feet between the well and spring house and the edge of the driveway. Mr. Schermerhorn stated that there is a 12 foot culvert under the road.
Mr. Black stated that the building is shown as a spring house and that the edge of the driveway might be 10 feet from the edge of the property line.
Mr. Schermerhorn stated no, that the driveway is 12 feet wide and he thinks there is at least 20 feet between the edge of the driveway and the spring house.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the setback requirement for the well is 10 feet from any line. Mr. LaFountain inquired how far from the edge of the property line is the well.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if the columns going to the well house were 20 feet.
Mr. Schermerhorn responded yes.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if the well was closer than 10 feet to the edge of the property line.
Mr. Mitchell stated that you cannot see it from the well house.
Mr. Schermerhorn stated that the back line goes into DEC wetlands. \ Mr. Mitchell stated that the Board is looking for the back line to be 10 feet from the well house.
Mr. Schermerhorn stated that there is a 10 foot tile in there.
Mr. LaFountain stated that it looks too close and should be redrawn to show the dimensions.
Mr. Black inquired as to the use of the well house.
Mr. Schermerhorn stated that the spring is used for gardening.
Mr. Black stated that it is essentially a cistern and assembly to collect water from the spring below the ground.
Mr. Schermerhorn responded yes.
Mr. Black inquired if that constituted it as a well.
Mr. LaFountain stated a well and it needs to be 10 feet from the property line.
Mr. Black stated that there needs to be a 30 foot appendage to meet zoning requirements.
Mr. Mitchell suggested having the drawings redrawn to zoning requirements or to go to ZBA.
Mr. Black stated that 30 foot wide would make it legal. Mr. Black asked Mr. Schermerhorn if that would be an issue.
Mr. Schermerhorn stated that he thinks this is nonsense.
Mr. Keniry found a provision in the local subdivision regulations (page 32) wherein it stated “where the Planning Board finds that extraordinary and unnecessary hardships may result in the strict compliance with these regulations, they may vary the regulations so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secure provided that such variations will not have the affect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the official master plan or the zoning ordinance if such exists. Where the Planning Board finds that due to the special circumstances of a particular plat the provisions of certain required improvements is not requisite in the interest of the public health, safety and general welfare or is inappropriate because of inadequacy or lack of connecting facilities adjacent or in proximity to the proposed subdivision it may waive such requirements subject to appropriate conditions. In granting variances and modifications, the Planning Board shall require such conditions as willed in its judgment to cure substantially the objectives of the standards or requirements so varied or modified”.
Mr. Keniry stated that the Planning Board has no power to grant variances but the Planning Board can make findings that extraordinary or unnecessary hardships may result in the strict compliance with the regulations and the local rule gives the Planning Board power to vary the regulations so that the standard is substantial justice.
Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. Schermerhorn if this was an undue hardship.
Mr. Schermerhorn responded yes.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that he does not see an unnecessary hardship.
Mr. LaFountain asked Mr. Keniry to re-read the portion pertaining to health issues.
Mr. Keniry re-read the provision.
Mr. LaFountain inquired that if the Board approved the lot line change as is and because it is a water supply and it becomes contaminated, does the Planning Board have responsibility for that.
Mr. Black polled the Board for opinions.
Mr. Black stated that his opinion is that if the Board is going to give the person to whom the water is routed to now so that they own it, then the Board also needs to provide for some kind of maintenance around it Mr. Black stated that without some kind of setback away from the building and around it, it is impossible for whoever owns the well to do any work on it without somehow crossing the boundary line of the property. Mr. Black stated that he does not believe that it is an unnecessary hardship because it was self created to begin with. Mr. Black stated that this is a matter of a minor drawing change. Mr. Black stated that the Board would like to see 30 feet minimum width of this appendage and at least 10 feet from the back of the casing to the depth of this appendage so that the dimensions meet the setback requirements from the casing to the side lot line.
Mr. Armer stated that he agrees with Mr. Black. Mr. Mitchell stated that he agrees with Mr. Black. Mrs. Wood stated that she agrees with Mr. Black. Ms. Szurek stated that she agrees with Mr. Black. Mr. Wilkinson stated that he agrees with Mr. Black. Mr. Kadlecek stated that he agrees with Mr. Black.
Mr. Black stated that the Board agrees with the plan but want to see a larger buffer around the well to approve. Mr. Black stated that the Board needs new drawings.
Mrs. York inquired how many copies the Board would like.
The Board agreed to accept
one drawing and photocopies of the rest. Mr. Black stated that one a new drawing is received then the matter will be placed back on the agenda.
Nigriny/Durst (247-1-50.12)
Mr. Durst appeared before the Board.
Mr. Durst stated that the intention is to subdivide off a two acre lot. Mr. Durst stated that this requires infilling of a portion of the pond that is on the parcel to be subdivided. Mr. Durst stated that the previously denied subdivision plan called for a 15 foot setback to the pond edge and the requirement is 40 feet. Mr. Durst stated that they have filed an application with ACOE for a disturbance permit to modify the pond. Mr. Durst stated that the cross shows what part of the pond they would like to fill in.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if that included the outlet.
Mr. Durst stated that the pond stays at the spillway level and if they reduce the size of the pond, it will maintain a lower level.
Ms. Szurek asked how deep the pond was.
Ms. Nigriny stated that the pond is 8 to 9 feet in the center.
Ms. Szurek asked what percentage of the pond they wanted to fill in.
Mr. Durst stated approximately 30%.
Mr. Black stated that there is a letter from the Charlton Environmental Conservation Commission dated March 15, 2007. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 2. Mr. Black stated that the letter raises many concerns with filling in the pond.
Mr. Black stated that the Board’s opinion is that it would be impossible to not consider the filling in of the pond as having a negative environmental impact. Mr. Black stated that it could be a potentially significant one as it is adding fill and silt to a flowing body of water. Mr. Black stated that the Board could not act on a short form environmental assessment form. Mr. Black stated that the long form would need to be completed.
Mr. Durst stated that in lieu of filling in the pond, they could lower the spillway to regain the area.
Mr. Black stated that was what the long form is about. Mr. Black stated that the long form talks about the potential actions and the litigation strategies to make sure the actions are safe and meet the requirements. Mr. Black stated that the form also makes sure that the necessary permitting is obtained and validation of that.
Mr. Black stated that the Board can accept the application as a preliminary application but cannot move forward to schedule a Public Hearing or move this process forward until such time as a long form environmental assessment form has been completed and the necessary permits received.
Mr. Durst inquired about when Mrs. Wood filled in her pond.
Mrs. Wood stated that they drained their pond and reconfigured the drainage. Mrs. Wood stated that their pond was not as big.
Mr. Mitchell stated that Mrs. Wood’s pond was not on a feeder stream.
Mr. Durst stated that ACOE will look at it and look at the situation of filling it versus draining it.
Mr. Black stated that if the long form environmental assessment form is filled out it will get you into what you plan to do and how do you protect the natural resources. Mr. Black stated that if the ACOE responds positively to that knowing what the plans are then you have documentation to agree.
Mr. Durst inquired if the Board wanted the long form environmental assessment form and the ACOE permit.
Mr. Black responded yes.
Mr. Durst stated ok.
Mr. Keniry suggested making a copy of the application for the permit and submitting them together.
Mr. Mitchell suggested cutting the setback and give it to the setback on the pond and pull more land off of the rest of the parcel.
Ms. Nigriny stated that she could give the pond to the property and cut the line across.
Mr. Black stated that would be a more preferred layout.
Ms. Nigriny stated that rather than filling in this side of the pond to adjust the line so they meet the 40 foot setback on this side of the pond, she could redraw the boundary line to put the pond on the new parcel.
Mr. Black stated that the Board would be ok with that.
Mr. Black stated that the Board needs a Power of Attorney from Ms. Nigriny’s parents allowing Mr. Durst to act on their behalf as the deed to the property is in their names.
Mr. Black stated that there are three actions the Board could take: -accepting the application as complete; -taking lead agency; and -scheduling a Public Hearing.
Mr. Black asked for Board opinion.
Mrs. Wood stated that she would like to see the new map before scheduling a Public Hearing. Mr. Wilkinson stated that he agrees with Mrs. Wood.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if the long form for SEQRA was still needed.
Mr. Black stated that with the revised drawing, the short form would be acceptable. Mr. Black stated that the Board already has the short form completed.
Mrs. York stated that the short form needs to be revised.
Mr. Black stated that the Board would wait to make any motions next month when the revised drawings have been received and all deficiencies have been satisfied.
Ms. Barbara Merchant, 12 Sweetman Road, approached the Board and inquired about an environmental impact assessment for the wetlands which look like, from the building lot, are going to be impacted.
Mr. Durst stated that the wetlands on the property are federal wetlands.
Mr. Black stated that issue has been taken into account and at this point, the Board’s assessment is that there are wetlands on a lot of parcels throughout the town. Mr. Black stated that the Board’s issue is whether or not that wetlands could potentially impose a constriction or a restriction on the ability to actually locate or build a house. Mr. Black stated that was not an issue on this parcel. Mr. Black stated that the issue has always been associated with the pond and the plan’s ability to meet the setback requirements. Mr. Black stated that the decision was made tonight, rather than to fill in the pond, to make it meet the setback requirements to include the pond with the other parcel so that the pond remains in tact with no change at all.
Ms. Merchant inquired about the septic.
Mr. Black stated that the requirements can be met as the septic will go up towards the road. Mr. Black stated that the proposed location is on the drawing and has been checked.
Mr. Armer stated that the septic does meet the 200 foot setback requirements. Mr. Armer showed Ms. Merchant on the drawing.
Ms. Merchant stated that her concern was for the neighbors.
Mr. Armer stated that the applicants are moving the boundary and the pond will remain as is.
Mr. Durst stated that the wetlands are federal wetlands and are along the edge of the stream going in.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the septic field has to be 25 foot minimum to the ditch. Mr. LaFountain requested that this be more readable on the drawing. Mr. LaFountain stated that at the ZBA hearing there were issues pertaining to the sideyard setback for the existing horse barn.
Mr. Durst stated that was not part of this application.
Mr. Keniry inquired if it was 100 feet compliant.
Mr. LaFountain responded no, that was a pre-existing condition.
Mr. Black stated that if the Board requires the horse barn to be moved the Board would be imposing a hardship.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if the Board is requiring the variance now.
Ms. Nigriny stated that town attorney Bob VanVranken, Esq. said that the barn was a non-issue.
Mr. Durst stated that when the horse barn becomes a storage building, it would then meet the required 5 foot setback for storage buildings.
Mr. Black stated that for next month’s meeting the Board needed to see a new drawing with the changes discussed tonight, the revised SEQRA form and the affidavit from Ms. Nigriny’s parents.
ZBA Referral
Gutto (225-1-66.1)
Mr. Black stated that the Board needed to provide comments to the ZBA before their hearing on this matter.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Grattidge had asked Mrs. York to review the minutes from the original subdivision to see if anything pertained to that lot. Mr. Black stated that there was no indication of any contingency on that lot.
Mr. Black stated that there was a minor deviation, 5 feet less than the requirements, which is not a major variance.
Mr. Black stated that there are two concerns that the Board has. Mr. Black stated that one concern pertained to the wetlands. Mr. Black stated that the wetlands may actually encumber the house and/or driveway placement and need to be addressed. Mr. Black stated that the second concern pertained to the driveway onto Route 67. Mr. Black stated that the Board’s desire is to avoid individual/new access to Route 67 due to speed and traffic concerns.
Mr. Black stated that the Board could not use those concerns to recommend denial. Mr. Black stated that the Board could say that the variance is not substantial and that the wetlands may have some encumbrance as part of the subdivision process. Mr. Black stated that the Board could further say that the wetlands are not delineated and may affect the placement of the house and/or driveway.
Mr. Schorr stated that the ECC is going to make the comment pertaining to the wetlands.
Mr. Black stated that the Board could recommend that if the applicant wanted to incorporate more property with the new lot it would not affect the driveway. The plan could be to make the new lot include up to all of the road frontage on Route 67 in order to satisfy any unknown wetland issues and the ZBA could then approve the pre-existing road frontage with the driveway cut on Division Street to be the only road frontage for the parcel with the existing house.
Mr. LaFountain inquired how wide lot 10 was.
Mr. Black responded that he did not know.
Mr. Black stated that he and Mrs. York would draft a letter to the ZBA for Board review.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. LaFountain provided a report for February 2007. The Board reviewed the report with Mr. LaFountain.
Comprehensive Plan Report
Mr. Hodgkins stated that the public meeting on February 28, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Freehold Presbyterian Church went well.
Mr. Schorr stated that a couple of changes were made, wording changes, and the draft has now gone to the Town Board for review. Mr. Schorr stated that he believes that there was general public acceptance. Mr. Schorr stated that questions were raised pertaining to PUD’s and if they will actually work in Charlton. Mr. Schorr stated that the Town Board has to hold a hearing within 60 days from receipt of the draft.
Mr. Black inquired about the purpose of the Public Hearing.
Mr. Keniry stated that the plan has to be accepted and adopted.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that Local Law #1 of 2007 NYS Fire Prevention Building Code changes were given out to the Board members for informational purposes.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the law when the building code took effect, each town had to have a local law to accept the building code. Mr. LaFountain stated that this law accepts responsibility for enforcing the new law.
Mr. Black stated that there is a status report on the proposed Storm Water Law. Mr. Black stated that Mrs. Wood, Mr. Kadlecek and Mr. Wilkinson met with Marv Schorr to discuss this issue.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that they are generally following the state sample law and modifying it where it is in the general interest of Charlton. Mr. Kadlecek stated that they are obtaining laws that are already adopted by similar size communities that have some good ideas. Mr. Kadlecek stated that some are now in a draft form but not yet ready. Mr. Kadlecek stated that they met with Mr. Schorr as he is the towns representative to the County Storm Water working group.
Mr. Black inquired when they would have something for the Board.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that parts will be done by next month.
Mr. Black suggested having a workshop to review the information.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that he would let the Board know when they are ready.
Mr. Black stated that there is a one day course on March 29, 2007 on Foundations of Onsite Wastewater Treatment at 4H Cooperative Extension Auditorium in Ballston Spa 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board website contents have been maintained by a website coordinator, who maintains the Planning Board web page per input from Mrs. York. Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York has been maintaining the Planning Board’s information going back to 2004 and he proposed that we keep two years documents, meaning that at the end of 2007 we can delete 2006 and start adding 2008.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the website should contain information two years back.
Mr. Schorr stated that he would check with the archive committee for the requirements.
Mr. Keniry stated that there is not an official requirement for the website, but he expects that there will be a law or guidance some time in the future.
Mr. Black suggested keeping two years of history in addition to the current year and at the end of the current year deleting oldest year.
Mr. Black sated that the website now has 2004 to present,. The Board has authorized Mrs. York to delete the 2004 records.
Town Board Liaison
Mrs. Verola was not present.
Mr. Kadlecek made a motion to adjourn. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly A. Caron Recording Secretary
March 6, 2007 Attachment 1
Mr. Raymond E. Black Planning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: Exempt Subdivision \ Lands of Sally Ellms \ Charlton Road Tax Map Parcel No. 237.00-1-33
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received a proposed two-lot subdivision of lands of Sally D. Ellms located on the north side of Charlton Road just east of the Shaddick Road intersection. The subdivision plan dated February 12, 2007 was prepared by John Gay, P.L.S. of Northeast Land Survey & Land Development Consultants, P.C. The application can be categorized as an “Exempt Subdivision” according to Charlton’s Subdivision Regulations. The Planning Board, at its discretion, may waive the public hearing requirement.
The application proposes to subdivide an 8.9 acre lot out of the 65 acre parcel. The proposed new lot does meet all zoning requirements. We reviewed the property on March 5, 2007 and offer the following comments for your consideration.
A curb cut permit from the Saratoga County Department of Public Works will be necessary for the proposed access to Charlton Road prior to any construction. The applicant must provide a copy of this permit to the Town of Charlton as part of any building permit application.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions regarding this project.
Very truly yours,
Michael McNamara, P.E. The Environmental Design Partnership
Cc: Planning Board Members Bill Keniry John G. Gay, PLS Sally Ellms
Ray Black, Chairman March 15, 2007 Town of Charlton Planning Board 1410 Division Street Attachment 2 Charlton, NY 12019 Subject: Nigriny-Durst Pre-Application Conference
The subject project was reviewed by the Charlton Environmental Conservation Commission at its February 27, 2007 meeting, as requested by the Planning Board. The project overview provided by Dean Durst proposes to fill in part of a pond so that setback requirements can be met for a proposed subdivision of the parcel at the corner of Sweetman Road and Jenkins Road into two lots.
The ECC notes that it had previously reviewed plans for subdividing this land and that the application for the variance needed for not meeting setback requirements had been denied by the Charlton Zoning Board of Appeals. The overview from Mr. Durst now proposes to fill in part of a pond on the property so that the existing residence and barn would meet setback requirements on the subdivided property.
Regarding filling-in part of the pond as proposed by Mr. Durst, the ECC questions the stability of the fill area and the impacts of the smaller pond. The pond is fed by a small stream. How would the stream flow affect the stability of the fill and how would runoff and silt be affected by the diminished volume of the pond? The pond currently acts as a reservoir to slow runoff during high flow situations. The culvert under Jenkins Road might not be adequate for increased flow rates resulting from flow from the smaller pond. If the volume of the pond is reduced might the resulting increase in runoff velocity be directed across the roadway (Jenkins Road), thereby undermining the roadbed and causing icing problems in winter? While the pond is manmade it has existed for many years and flows have adjusted for its presence.
In its review of the original application to subdivide the property, the ECC asked that the applicant provide documentation regarding its inquiry to the Army Corp of Engineers regarding any required action to protect the nearby wetland/Class C trout stream, as suggested in the Fax transmission of 12/5/05 from the NY DEC, included with the variance application. Since the variance application was denied, the ECC did not get to see the requested documentation. The subdivision application should be required to include such documentation with a plan for protecting the stream.
The ECC again wishes to note that there have been several recent applications for subdivisions that, if granted, would disturb wetlands and streams. As the ECC’s previous reviews have stated, even if state and federal agencies are not concerned with the disturbance of a specific wetland or stream, the ECC believes that Charlton has an obligation to future owners of such properties and should not condone these actions on properties that may be, at best, marginal building sites. At a minimum, Charlton should require mitigation or offsets for any wetland disturbance. The ECC also believes that protection of Charlton’s watercourses should be a priority in all such reviews.
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
|
|
|
| |
