 |
|
****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 – November 20, 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, Mark Hodgkins, Jay Wilkinson, John Kadlecek, Christopher Mitchell, William Keniry, Esq., Planning Board Attorney, Susan York, Planning Board clerk and Kimberly Caron, recording secretary.
AGENDA MEETING:
Mr. Black stated that there are five of six Board members present which represents a quorum.
Minutes
Mr. Black stated that there are two sets of meeting minutes to approve. Mr. Black stated that there were not enough members present at the October meeting that were at the September meeting to carry a vote. Mr. Black stated that the September draft minutes need to be approved. Mr. Black stated that the changes provided by Mrs. York and himself had already been reviewed by the Board.
Mr. Black stated that the October draft of the minutes would also need to be approved. Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York has provided changes to the minutes. Mr. Black stated that he has a typographical error that needed to be corrected.
Public Hearing
Cuchelo (235-1-33.1)
Mr. Black stated that there would be a Public Hearing on this matter this evening beginning at 7:45 p.m.
Subdivision Applications
Casey 237-1-17.1
Mr. Black stated that there was an Amendment to this subdivision pertaining to the relocation of Lot #4’s driveway cut.
Upon discussion and review of the subdivision map, the Board realized that the Agenda cited the wrong subdivision. The Agenda has been revised, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Attachment 1.
Wodtke/Sikora (226-1-20)
Mr. and Mrs. McDonald have requested an Amendment to this subdivision to relocate the Lot #4 driveway cut.
Mr. Mitchell stated that this lot is located on a dead end road at the crest of a hill. The Board had held up approval because of driveway placement.
Mrs. York stated that she has spoken to Ron Gavin and he prefers the revised location.
Mr. Black stated that in order to act on this Amendment, the Board would need to add the proposed sketch with a new Resolution that approves a change in the driveway cut at Sweetman Road from the southern most to the northern most location. Mr. Black stated that instead of having a new drawing done, the sketch could be attached with a new Resolution.
Mr. Keniry stated that there are two things for practical consideration, which the Board has adequately covered. Mr. Keniry stated that the first consideration pertains to whether or not the alteration is significant or substantial that would necessitate a Public Hearing. Mr. Keniry stated that he feels that the Board has resolved that issue without having to come to that conclusion. Mr. Keniry stated that the second consideration is do you require the applicant to produce another mylar since it is required to be filed with the County Clerk. Mr. Keniry stated that no one is altering any of the exterior lot lines or changing the configuration of the subdivision.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if a copy of the Resolution should be sent to the County.
Mr. Keniry stated that the Board could do that as a matter of indexing.
Mrs. York stated that the current Resolution on the subdivision is 2005-15.
Cuchelo (235-1-33.1)
Mr. Black stated that at the last meeting the Board asked Mr. McNamara to conduct a review on the sight distances, the potential for loading of the culvert and the wetlands situations. Mr. Black stated that Mr. McNamara provided an overview of his concerns with a concise set of recommendations dated October 26, 2006. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 2.
Mr. Black stated that if the recommendations are implemented the subdivision would meet the requirements.
Mr. Black asked for feedback from the Board.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if there was any possibility of placing a deed restriction on further construction within a certain number of feet from the stream.
Mr. Black stated that the approval from the County Planning Board notes that the Alplaus transverses the property line and should be protected through a no cut buffer which should be indicated on the subdivision plan. Mr. Black stated that the County did request that a map note be made that no pesticides, herbicides or other harmful chemicals will be used for lawn maintenance within the buffer zone.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that placing the information on the subdivision map is one thing, having it where it will be seen more easily, like on the deed, may be more appropriate.
Mr. Keniry stated that it could be done. Mr. Keniry stated that it is appropriate to speak to the applicant about that.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the number of feet would need to be known before having further discussions.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the standard is 100 foot setback from wetland.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that it could be more.
Mr. Black inquired if there were any other issues.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that Mr. McNamara suggested having a qualified transportation engineer look at the traffic situation with the driveway of lot #3. Mr. Wilkinson stated that the Board has the opinion of Mr. McNamara but an engineer may have a better idea of where to place the driveway.
Mr. Black stated that he understands the concern and feels that the Board should discuss the matter further.
Mrs. Wood inquired if there were updated maps.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that he has updated maps with him.
Pre-Application Conferences
Mr. Black stated that there are two pre-application conferences on the Agenda.
Sargent/Cetner (223-1-24 & 223-1-9)
Mr. Black stated that this is a straightforward lot line adjustment combining two parcels into one.
Mrs. York stated that the applicant might already live on the property but wants to build a new home.
Miller/Foss (225-1-46.11)
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Miller is present tonight.
Mr. Black stated that this subdivision is more complicated.
Mr. Keniry inquired if a cluster plan was included in the plan.
Mr. Black stated that he does not have a cluster plan submitted.
ZBA Referral
None
Zoning Report
Mr. Black stated that Mr. LaFountain would provide a report.
Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Hodgkins stated that there is no report.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that he would like to add three things to this section.
Mr. Black stated that he would like to add information from Mr. Durst on the Nigriny subdivision on Sweetman Road where it borders Jenkins Road. Mr. Black stated that there was a ZBA hearing and disapproval. Mr. Black stated that there is still a desire to subdivide and there are some negotiations going on with the ZBA on how to proceed there. Mr. Black stated that he wanted to provide an update.
Mr. Black stated that there are two training opportunities at the end of November. One is on November 28th and one is on November 30th. Mr. Black stated that attendance would be needed at both.
Mr. Black stated that in December there is not normally a meeting. Mr. Black proposed having a workshop on several topics. Mr. Black stated that there have been several discussions on the number of members, standard drawing notes and their wording and driveway locations. Mr. Black stated that he has spoken to Mr. McNamara and he would support that. Mr. Keniry stated that he would also support that.
The Board discussed dates and times and proposed meeting on December 11th at 7:00 p.m. at the schoolhouse.
Mr. Black stated that the training session on November 30, 2006 would be from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and located on W. High Street. Mr. Black stated that it is a Planning Board and Zoning Board chair meeting.
Mr. Black stated that the training session on November 28, 2006 would be from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and located at the Saratoga Hotel. The training pertains to comprehensive planning and Planning Board and ZBA and the relationship between them.
The meeting was closed at 7:25 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
Opened at 7:30 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Black stated that there is a quorum of six members.
Mr. Mitchell recused himself from discussions of the Cuchelo subdivision.
Minutes
Mr. Black stated that the Board has already discussed the changes to the draft of the September minutes provided by Mrs. York and Mr. Black.
Mrs. Wood made a motion to approve the draft of the September minutes with corrections added. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York has provided changes to the draft of the October minutes. Mr. Black stated that he had a typographical error to be corrected.
Mr. Kadlecek made a motion to approve the draft of the October minutes with corrections added. Mr. Wilkinson seconded the motion. All were in favor. Mrs. Wood abstained from the vote.
Subdivision Applications
Wodtke/Sikora (226-1-20)
Mr. McDonald approached the Board.
Mr. McDonald stated that the proposed driveway is located on the southern end of the property. Mr. McDonald stated that there is a hillcrest on the northern end of it creating a blind spot when pulling out of the driveway. Mr. McDonald proposed moving the driveway to the northern end of the property the same distance from the property line. Mr. McDonald stated that from that location it would place them on the top of the hill so that they could see from both directions.
Mr. Black stated that the highway superintendent has looked at this proposal and is in favor of the new location.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he is also in favor of the new location.
Mr. Black stated that since the change does not effect the boundaries, having new mylars drawn up would not be necessary. Mr. Black stated that the Board is proposing to use the sketch provided by Mr. McDonald and attach a new Resolution approving the location change.
Mr. Black made a motion for a new Resolution 2006-12 to relocate the approved driveway location from the southernmost location on Lot #4 to the northernmost location on Lot #4. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. Mr. Wilkinson - aye Mrs. Wood – aye Mr. Black – aye Mr. Mitchell – aye Mr. Hodgkins – aye Motion was carried.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if the resolution stated how far from the property line the Board would like the driveway to be.
Mrs. York stated that the narrative specified 10 feet.
Mr. Mitchell stated that Mr. McDonald was keeping the same setbacks.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that it was 10 feet on the south end and it looks like it is to be the same on the north end.
Mr. Black looked in the zoning ordinance for specifics. Mr. Black stated that there was nothing specific noted in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Black stated to leave it as said in the motion.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that he would like to add a topic to the list for the workshop on December 11th. Mr. Black stated that if the Board is approving a specific location of a driveway then there should be some way of indicating so. Mr. Black stated that there should be some standard words to differentiate between showing the location for the sake of showing it and what the Planning Board specifically approved.
PUBLIC HEARING (7:45 p.m.)
Cuchelo (235-1-33.1)
Mr. Chris Mitchell recused himself from the Public Hearing.
Mr. Black explained the Public Hearing process.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Guy Mitchell is representing Ms. Cuchelo and will provide a plan. Mr. Black stated that he would open the floor. Mr. Black asked that anyone who addresses the Board state their name and address.
Mr. Black read the Public Hearing notice from the Schenectady Gazette dated November 10, 2006.
Mr. Guy Mitchell provided revised maps dated November 2, 2006.
Mr. Guy Mitchell presented the following plan:
-proposed 4 lot subdivision -lots are large lots being between 21 acres and 16 acres -soil types and perc tests have been completed and have all passed -combined a couple driveways for less driveway cuts -there was an issue with wetlands on Lot 4 – the driveway has been moved so it does not come near the wetlands area; the contact with the wetland area is a very small area
Mr. Black asked Mr. Mitchell to explain the road frontage for Lot 4 and the ZBA findings.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that on Lot 4 there was only 133 feet of road frontage. Mr. Mitchell stated that they went before the ZBA and ZBA granted approval with that frontage. Mr. Mitchell stated that there is a variance. Mr. Mitchell stated that the rest of the lots have over 200 feet of frontage.
Larry Bascom,1289 Eastern Avenue, inquired as to how long the driveway is for Lot #4.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that it is a little over 800 feet.
Mr. Bascom inquired as to how the fire department would get in there.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that since it is a long driveway, it has to be within the specifications for a turnaround and passing area.
Mr. Bascom inquired if it had been reviewed by the Fire Department.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that this is what they asked for for long driveways.
Mr. Black stated that when a driveway is over 500 feet long, the Board requires that driveway be made such that a 50,000 pound vehicle can pass over it and that the driveway have a turnaround within 100 feet of the building. Mr. Black stated that it is required that the driveway has passing capabilities within it. Mr. Black stated that the specifications are noted on the drawing and the town engineer has reviewed the drawing.
Mr. Bascom asked if the Board remembered when Dave Swizer built his house and there was objection to the length of the driveway. He was wondering what the length of driveway specifics are.
Mr. Black stated that 500 feet is the length that the Board requires the specifications.
Mr. Bascom stated that he wanted to make sure that there isn’t run off that goes into the tributary to the Alplaus.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board has not reached a resolution on the deliberations on that portion of the plan. Mr. Black read the letter from the County Planning Board dated October 24, 2006. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 3. Mr. Black stated that the County required a no cut buffer and map note. Mr. Black stated that the issue is still on the table and will be dealt with under deliberations.
Mr. Bascom stated that he believes that whenever driveways of this length are being built it should be a practice of this town to review it with the Fire District.
Mr. Black asked Mrs. York to add that suggestion to the list of topics for the workshop on December 11th.
Mr. Kadlecek made a motion to close the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Wilkinson seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Cuchelo Deliberations (235-1-33.1)
Mr. Black stated that the revised drawing appears to include the changes that Mr. McNamara requested.
Mr. Black stated that comment #1 required moving the Lot #3 driveway to the southern extent of the lot. Mr. Black stated that was done. Mr. Black stated that there is a note that says the driveway of Lot #3 is required to be in this location.
Mr. Black stated that comment #2 required adding a note to the plan in the vicinity of the Lot #4 driveway entrance stating that the driveway should be within 70 feet of the north property line to ensure that it is not changed during a building permit application. Mr. Black stated that the note was on the drawing.
Mr. Black stated that comment #3 requested graphically adding the 100 foot setback line to the DEC wetlands shown along the stream corridor and adding a note in the vicinity that stated the need to obtain a DEC adjacent area disturbance permit prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Black stated that the 100-foot setback had been added. Mr. Black stated that the note for the wetlands was also there.
Mr. Black stated that comment #4 requested to revise the combined driveways for Lot #1 and Lot #2 meeting within the Highway right of way. Mr. Black stated that was done.
Mr. Black stated that comment #5 requested revising the water and sanitary notes located at the bottom of the plan and the driveway permit note listed as Note #2 to be consistent with the town’s wording. Mr. Black stated that was done.
Mrs. Wood suggested that Mr. McNamara review the revised map.
Mr. Black stated that the Board would send him a copy to verify that his changes had been incorporated.
Mr. Guy Mitchell provided a copy to be sent to Mr. McNamara.
Mr. Black stated there were two remaining issues. Mr. Black stated that the first issue is should additional review of the driveway location for Lot #3 be done and the second issue is how to address the County suggestion of providing a buffer zone to the Alplaus Creek.
Mrs. Wood inquired if the County addressed driveway runoff.
Mr. Black stated that the 100-year flood plain was noted on the driveway, which is one element of a potential buffer. Mr. Black stated that the question is do we add additional buffer to that. Mr. Black stated that if we moved another 100 feet off the flood plain that would force the house on Lot #4 further south. Mr. Black stated that there was already a 50-foot building setback. Mr. Black stated that there is a natural knoll there and would put the house in an unfavorable position.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if a stonewall could be used as a buffer zone.
Mr. Black stated that the stonewall could be used as a buffer zone or potentially the western most contour line is the first one to east to the stonewall which indicates the start of the drop off.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that the 100-year flood plain is quite a ways off.
Mr. Black stated that if this was a septic system and a well and we had a downhill slope from the septic system to the well we would require 200 feet. So if we specify 200 feet from the stream itself the guess is that is roughly a lot different than where that 600 feet elevation line is. Mr. Black stated that the buffer zone is a no cut buffer, which indicates that you cannot cut within that, and specifies that potentially harmful chemicals cannot be used.
Mrs. Wood asked , why not cut? There should be reasonable cutting to prevent fires.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that the Board does not have the authority to say no cut. It is Ms. Cuchelo’s property and she could clear-cut it if she wanted.
Mrs. Wood stated that the area had been cut fairly recently and all of the trees had been dumped in the creek.
Mr. Black stated that the question is do we impose a restriction to preclude that from happening in the future.
Mrs. Wood suggested doing proper foresting techniques which is as soon as you get dead wood in there that could cause a fire, you need to remove it.
Mr. Black inquired about vegetation that might be considered wetland vegetation along the stream like the cattails.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that building structures within the buffer should be prohibited, but how do we regulate sound forestry practices?
Mr. Black made the suggestion of going back to the County Planning Board to work out the details of what their suggestion is. Mr. Black stated that the Board could state that we would like to limit it to improvements to the land, what is the buffer and why, how is it identified and why and that our interpretation is that we want to limit its use to not making improvements such as trying to turn it into lawn or trying to build a structure.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that is covered by law now with the 100-year flood plain.
Mr. Black stated that it might be that the 100-foot flood plain is appropriate. Mr. Black stated that if that is what the County agrees to that might be the appropriate buffer and then the Planning Board would add a note near the flood plain line that indicates what restrictions apply to that.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that he would like to see the restrictions in the deed.
Mr. Black stated that he would agree.
Mr. Keniry stated that the deed is more known to the prospective purchasers and that most people do not check the subdivision maps.
Mr. Black stated that the resolution is to engage the County Planning Office to establish what the appropriate setback should be and what the appropriate wording for the definition of activities within that setback and bring it to the January 2007 meeting.
Mr. Black inquired if there were any further issues.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that page 8 of the subdivision application and review guide states that if we are going to make a cut on a State or County Highway, the Planning Board has to forward a copy of the final map to them with those driveway cuts on it.
Mr. Black reviewed a copy of the application and review guide. Mr. Black stated that was an error as the County Planning Board does not approve the driveway cuts. Mr. Black stated that the State Highway Department approves the cuts.
Mr. Black stated that the curb cut note is on the drawing.
Mr. Kadlecek stated unless there would be some purpose for the County to comment on the placement of the driveway relative to wetlands area. Mr. Kadlecek stated not their approval but general agreement that this is the best choice for the town.
Mr. Black stated that the Board could ask.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that he has spoken to Jay Janczak at NYS DOT and he suggested that Mr. Mitchell give Mr. Black his telephone number so that he could explain how this would work.
Mr. Black stated that the issue is whether or not the Planning Board feels comfortable with the driveways locations as we currently have them specified on the drawing. Mr. Black stated his point of view is that the Board has covered the ground adequately and the driveway locations are adequate and within the requirements and do not represent a potential hazard.
Mrs. Wood stated that there was some concern raised at the ZBA Public Hearing from the neighbors.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that this is a law enforcement issue not a driveway sight distance issue. Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that it meets the requirements for well over the speed limit.
Mr. Black stated that what the County is asking the Board to do with the buffer is not necessarily clear. Mr. Black stated that his suggestion is to use 100 feet or 200 feet, which is similar to what is used for wells and septic. Mr. Black suggested taking this back to the County. Mr. Black stated that the question becomes do we now do additional work on the driveway locations. Mr. Black stated his opinion is no and feels that the Board has gone over that thoroughly.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that based on the information provided by Mr. McNamara, the information on the drawing is well below the threshold for further study. Mr. Hodgkins feels the issue has been covered.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that he is still uncomfortable.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the Board has not had qualified people look at it. Mr. Wilkinson stated that page two of Mr. McNamara’s October 26, 2006 letter states that it would not be unreasonable for the Board to request that the applicant provide an expert opinion from a qualified Transportation Engineer.
Mr. Guy Mitchell requested that Mr. Black contact Jay Janczak at NYS DOT.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Wilkinson to contact Mr. Jansek and report back his findings to the Board at the January meeting.
Mr. Black inquired of the Board as to the impact in making the applicant wait until January since it has been customary not to hold a meeting in December.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that this is getting to be unreasonable. Mr. Mitchell stated that the Board has talked the issues to death. The people in the field who have reviewed this plan do not have a problem with it. Mr. Mitchell stated that it is an education problem with the Board. Mr. Mitchell requested that the Board vote on this plan tonight. Mr. Mitchell stated that he would like to see a meeting in December.
Mr. Black stated that a vote would not be taken this evening on this plan. Mr. Black stated that the information could be obtained from the County and the calls could be made within a month. Mr. Black stated that the meeting could be held on December 18th.
Mr. Keniry suggested holding the meeting on the same night as the scheduled workshop, December 11th.
Mr. Black stated that would be a good idea.
Mr. Keniry stated that he would prepare the notice for the December 11, 2006 meeting at the School House at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Black stated that he would initiate the conversation with the County. Mr. Black requested that Mrs. Wood also contact the County for the desired information.
Mrs. Wood agreed.
Mr. Black stated that the recommendations to the County from the Planning Board would be no clear cutting within the buffer zone, no property improvements including structures within the buffer zone. Mr. Black stated that the recommendation for a buffer would be 100 foot or 200 foot – a number from the stream.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the front setback line on Lot #4 is 50 feet and should be 60 feet.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Guy Mitchell to change the drawing.
Mr. Black made the motion to classify the proposed action as an unlisted action for purposes of SEQRA. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black made the motion that the proposed action is declared as a negative impact declaration relative to environmental impact. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Pre-Application Conferences
Sargent/Cetnar (223-1-24 & 223-1-9)
Mr. Dave Sargent appeared before the Board.
Mr. Sargent provided a proposed plan for the Board to review. Mr. Sargent stated that the yellow shaded area is 1.29 acres that he owns. Mr. Sargent stated that the pink shaded area is 19 ½ acres, which was one whole lot at one time. Mr. Sargent stated that his proposal is to make both lots into one and build a house. Mr. Sargent stated that there is an existing Agway building located on the 1.29-acre parcel that is used for personal storage.
Mr. Black inquired what would happen to the existing building.
Mr. Sargent stated that he would be leaving it as is and put the house in the back.
Mrs. York inquired if Mr. Sargent lived at #6.
Mr. Sargent stated that is the legal mailing address and it is the yellow shaded lot. Mr. Sargent stated that he physically resides in another home.
Mr. Black stated that this proposal is a standard lot line change. Mr. Black inquired if there were any issues with the existing building in the past.
Mr. Sargent replied no.
Mr. Black stated that the board would need a surveyor’s map of the entire parcel showing the two lots and the lot line with the appropriate annotations of being combined into one, acreage of each and total acreage, etc.
Mr. Black asked the Board if they would like to also see proposed house location, driveway and the like.
Mr. Sargent stated that he is still unsure where he wants to place the house.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if there was a pre-existing well on the property.
Mr. Sargent stated that there is a pre-existing well by the property line on the yellow shaded parcel.
Mr. Black pulled the wetlands map to review the area. Mr. Black stated that there are substantial wetlands across Rocky Ridge Road and they cross the property. Mr. Black stated that the location of the house has to be out of the wetlands area. Mr. Black stated that the drawing would need to show the wetlands delineation, buffers, proposed location of the house and standard notes.
Mrs. York provided Mr. Sargent with a complete copy of the application instructions and forms.
Mr. Black stated that the Board could waive the engineering review and the Public Hearing requirements. Mr. Black stated that the application would have to go to the County Planning Board for review due to its location on Route 67 and in the Ag district.
Mrs. York stated that the Board has the deed and the contract. Mrs. York stated that the Board needs a completed application.
Miller/Foss (225-1-46.11)
Mr. Steve Miller appeared before the Board.
Mr. Miller stated that he resides at 2189 Cook Road. Mr. Miller stated that he owns 60 acres at the corner. He would like to split it and sell the house with 5 acres and do something else with the other 55 acres.
Mr. Miller stated that he would like to get approval for the five-acre subdivision so that he can move forward with selling the house and the buildings around it.
Mr. Black asked if the plan was to break the parcel into two pieces with the 5 acres being lot 1 and the remaining 55 acres lot 2.
Mr. Miller replied yes.
Mr. Black asked if the second parcel would be sold as a whole parcel or, if it could not be sold as a whole parcel, would the applicant come back for a further subdivision.
Mr. Miller replied yes.
Mr. Black stated that the subdivision could be approached in that way. Mr. Black stated that the Board would need a revised survey map showing the parcel as two pieces.
Mr. Miller requested being put on the December agenda. Mr. Miller stated that he thinks he has a map with just the two parcels. Mr. Miller stated that he could possibly have that tomorrow or definitely in time for the December meeting.
Mr. Black stated that the subdivision would be a minor subdivision. Mr. Black stated that this would also be an exempt subdivision. Mr. Black stated that the Board would not waive the engineering review or the Public Hearing. Mr. Black stated that at the December meeting a Public Hearing could be scheduled and the application could be accepted as a complete application.
Mr. Miller stated that he would amend the application to include just 2 parcels as well as to indicate actual intent for the subdivision.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the site plan was missing from the drawing provided.
Mrs. York stated that the standard notes were also missing.
Mr. Black stated that the EIS short form would need to be completed. Mr. Black provided Mr. Miller with the standard notes needed for this subdivision.
Mr. Black pulled the wetlands map for review. Mr. Black stated that there were no wetlands.
Mr. Miller stated that he has a letter from DEC stating there were no wetlands.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. Dave LaFountain, Zoning Administrator, provided a copy of the October 2006 activities to the Board. The Board reviewed the report with Mr. LaFountain.
Comprehensive Plan Report
Mr. Hodgkins stated that he had no report.
Mr. Grattidge stated that the committee is working on a final draft of the plan with the goal of having it done in December. Mr. Grattidge stated that the committee would be having a public informational meeting in February. Mr. Grattidge stated that there was a meeting in November where revisions were made. Mr. Grattidge stated that the committee would be meeting in December to review the revisions.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that the Saratoga County Planning and Zoning Conference would be held on January 24, 2007 at the Saratoga Conference Center. Mr. Black encouraged all members to attend.
Mr. Black stated that the consensus of Board members, regarding the size of the Planning Board, would be discussed under Town Board Liaison.
Mr. Black stated that the ZBA and Planning Board Christmas Party would be held on December 13, 2006 at Maggie Schmidt’s home.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board would be having a workshop on December 11, 2006 immediately following a standard Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Black stated that November 30, 2006 would be the County Planning meeting. Mrs. Wood and Mrs. York would be attending for the Board.
Mr. Black stated that November 28, 2006 would be another training session at the Saratoga Hotel and Conference Center. It is a breakfast meeting. The discussion would be on the Comprehensive Plan and its relation to ZBA and Planning Board.
Mr. Black stated that he received information from Mr. Durst on the Nigriny property. There are three things that are being considered to make the pond potentially legal: -since the pond also serves as a fire pond for the Town of Charlton volunteer fire department, granting it a variance for the setback as applied for would be in the best interest; -filling in the man made pond; the natural drainage of the area was dammed to create the pond so they would remove the dam to get rid of the pond; this could be done because it is not part of the DEC wetlands; and -enlarge the pond so it is on the existing lot with the house on it and the proposed lot and let the lot line come through the pond as a condition that currently exists on Featherbed Lane.
Town Board Liaison
Mrs. Verola stated that January 10th would be the cutoff date for the newsletter.
Mr. Black noted the change in contact practices for Mrs. York would now be by appointment only. Mrs. York would write something up for the newsletter.
Mr. Black asked Mrs. Verola to attend the December 11th Planning Board meeting.
On the issue of seven Board members versus five Board members, Mr. Black stated that the consensus is that one member is impartial and everyone else feels that seven Board members is preferred because of more representation of the Town as a whole and more knowledge.
Mrs. Wood stated that, as pertains to quorum, if only five Board members are present than you can only have two absent. If there are seven Board members, three can be absent.
Mr. Grattidge stated that three Board members are needed to conduct business.
Mrs. Wood stated that the alternates help that issue but they can also not be available.
Mr. Black stated that the Board does not want to stay at six.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that there is a learning curve to be on the Board. With five people, if one is new a year you really only have three or four that have the understanding of the process.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that experience is needed to do the job.
Mr. Grattidge stated that the Town Board discussed having active alternates involved in this Board so that there would actually be a seven person Board with the five designated members that if someone does not show up one of the alternates is automatically there to take their place. Mr. Grattidge stated that he was favorable to a five person Board. Mr. Grattidge asked the Board to consider having two active alternates coming to meetings and being fully active in the process.
Mr. Black stated that with five members it is a five-year term and with seven members it is a seven-year term. It is easier to fill the requirements with fewer members and it is a lesser time commitment.
Mrs. Wood stated that the time requirement could lead to someone resigning.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the alternates are generally former Board members and would already be up to speed.
Mr. Grattidge stated that the time it takes to be on the Board could become burdensome. Mr. Grattidge stated that there are a lot of resources available that should be used to the maximum amount.
Mr. Grattidge stated that he would take the Planning Board’s position to the Town Board to discuss at the next Town Board meeting.
Mr. Black asked Mrs. York to start an agenda for the December 11th workshop.
Mr. Black stated that he had some additional topics he would like to add to the agenda for discussion at the workshop on December 11th: -difference between getting regulations in the deed versus getting the requirements in the mylar and when to use each; -how to annotate drawings with standard notes; -rotating lead responsibilities for subdivisions; and -driveway locations.
Mr. Keniry stated that the points that were raised from the Planning Federation Conference by Mrs. York, Mrs. Wood and Mr. Kadlecek should also be a topic of discussion at the workshop. Mr. Keniry also suggested addressing the mystery of SEQRA.
Mr. Black made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly A. Caron Recording Secretary
Town of Charlton Planning Board Agenda for November 20, 2006 Corrected November 21, 2006
7:00 p.m. Agenda Meeting Attachment 1
1. Call to order 2. Ascertain quorum 3. Review/set agenda
7:30 p.m. Business Meeting
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve meeting minutes . . . September 18, 2006 and October 16, 2006
3. Public Hearing a. Cuchelo (235-1-33.1) at 7:45 PM
4. Subdivision applications
a. Cuchelo (235-1-33.1) . . . pre-application conference 04/06, preliminary application to Planning Board 07/06, ZBA Public Hearing 09/06 with a ZBA decision deferred until 10/06, 2nd ZBA meeting 10/06 with decision to approve the area variance for the road frontage of proposed lot #4, continuation in front of the Planning Board 10/06, Public Hearing 11/06 b. Amendment to Wodtke/Sikora ( 226-1-20 ) . . . Resolution 2005-15 . . request from Rebecca & David McDonald to relocate the lot #4 driveway cut
5. Pre-application conferences a. Sargent/Cetner ( 223-1-24 & 223-1-9 ) . . . pre-application conf. 11/06 b. Miller/Foss (225-1-46.11) . . . . pre-application conference 11/06
6. Report by Zoning Administrator a. October, 2006
7 Comprehensive plan report
8. Correspondence a. Sign-up for the 1/24/07 Saratoga County Planning Board Conference b. Consensus by Planning Board as to size for 2007 c. Christmas party at the Schmidt’s on 12/13/06 d. Planning Board Workshop [December 11th 7PM schoolhouse] e. County Planning workshop, Nov 30th, 7-9 PM, Ballston Spa f. Breakfast Conference in Saratoga Springs, Nov 28th g. Nigriny Subdivision recent correspondence
9. Town Board Liaison
10. Adjournment October 26, 2006 Attachment 2
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 Michelle Cuchelo Tax Map Parcel No. 235.00-1-33.1
Dear Chairman Black:
At its meeting on October 16, 2006, the Planning Board requested preparation of a summary letter on issues related to the above referenced application. Specifically the board sought information on the following:
We were given a copy of the most recent plan by the applicant’s representative at the Planning Board meeting. That drawing has a revision date of July 24, 2006. The plans, together with the variance issued by the ZBA on October 10, 2006 have adequately addressed all of the comments made in our letter of July 11th.
Sight Distance:
The plans indicate sight distances measured by the applicant’s consultant for each of the three driveway intersections on Route 147. Of particular concern to the Planning Board was the distance facing north from the driveway of Lot #3. This is, in fact, the worst-case condition for this project and will be the subject of the following discussion. The distance stated on the plans for this case is approximately 700 feet and is limited by the low point in the road at the stream crossing just north of the project limits. We reviewed the property on October 25, 2006 and the sight distance stated was readily verified. Likewise, the southbound distance from Lot #4 was also easy to confirm. The endpoints of each sight distance coincide with identifiable points on the drawing and can simply be scaled to determine their value. All other sight distances were observed and found to be consistent with the lengths shown on the plans. The posted speed limit was also noted as 55 miles per hour. The adequacy of the available sight distance is evaluated by comparison to an industry standard. One common reference is the publication “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” as authored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The pertinent references appear in Exhibit 9-55 for intersection sight distances for left hand turns. Recommended intersection sight distances for left turns are typically about 15% greater than for right hand turns since two lanes are crossed and the time to accelerate is increased. A portion of the table is repeated below:
Design StoppingIntersection Sight Dist. Speed Sight Distancefor passenger cars 55 495 610 60 570 665 65 645 720 70 730 775 75 820 830
For the proposed Lot #3 driveway, the available intersection sight distance to the north would provide for a design speed of roughly 63 mph. Upon first inspection, this result would appear to only marginally satisfy the required sight distance. There are, however, other mitigating factors. Stopping sight distance is another parameter used in the AASHTO reference. This is the distance necessary for a vehicle on the major road to stop once an obstruction is observed. Recommended intersection distances are greater than stopping sight distances in an effort to promote “driver comfort” and avoid the need for a vehicle on Route 147 to slow down for an entry vehicle from a private driveway. The true measure of safety however, is the stopping sight distance. For the Lot #3 driveway, the available stopping sight distance correlates to a vehicle speed of 68 mph.
There are also additional mitigating factors related to this case such as the fact that the proposal is for a private driveway instead of a public road and that the sight distance is limited by only a brief disappearance of vehicles as they pass through the low point. Further elaboration on the matter is beyond the expertise of our firm. The conclusion of our evaluation is that the proposal does meet the required standards. However, if so inclined, it would not seem unreasonable for the Board to request that the applicant provide an expert opinion from a qualified Transportation Engineer. At a minimum, we do suggest that the driveway for Lot #3 be moved to the southern extent of the lot. This would add more than 50 feet to the available distance without any apparent hardship to the applicant. Likewise, the driveway for Lot #4 should not be proposed any further south than currently shown. Notes should be added to the plan to ensure implementation of each of these suggestions.
Pipe cover:
A second concern expressed by the Planning Board was related to the available cover over the 18” culvert pipe installed beneath the proposed driveway to Lot #4. This pipe was observed to have approximately three feet of soil over the top of the pipe at the likely driveway location. This cover would be expected to either remain the same or increase when the final driveway is constructed. The existing terrain will promote construction of a driveway that slopes up from Sacandaga Road. Manufacturers of the type of pipe installed at the site typically recommend at least one foot of cover in order for the pipe to provide highway loading capacity. Our observations of the culvert did not raise any concerns.
Wetland Issues:
The Charlton Environmental Conservation Commission submitted an “Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Map” to the ZBA along with a letter dated September 17, 2006. Presumably, this map was printed from an internet resource. One possible source is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This website did show the same wetlands as the ECC map but property lines overlays are not available. We also reviewed the Saratoga County GIS website. That resource did not show any wetlands on the Cuchelo property.
Although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a federal agency, their wetlands are not what we commonly refer to as “federal wetlands.” The Fish and Wildlife Service keeps track of wetlands in conjunction with their studies of habitat and migration trends. Their wetlands are mapped from aerial photos, large scale USGS mapping and often just a “best guess” method.
Federal wetlands that have restrictions on disturbance and development fall under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The ACOE does not have official mapping of their wetlands. Federal wetlands must be field delineated based on soil, vegetation and drainage characteristics and then surveyed to be accurately placed on a property. The wetlands shown on the ECC map have no influence on the determination of whether those same areas are ACOE federal wetlands.
In addition, there are two categories of ACOE wetlands. In January of 2001, the US Supreme Court limited the jurisdiction of the ACOE to wetlands that have a surface hydraulic connection to “navigable waters.” The interpretation of navigable waters has been continually tested and redefined since then but the current policy is that there must be some small perpetual flow between the wetland area and a body of water that is considered to be “waters of the U.S.” Under this court ruling, there are many areas that fit the criteria of a federal wetland but are not subject to the regulations of the ACOE. These are commonly referred to as “non-jurisdictional federal wetlands” or “isolated wetlands.” The wetlands shown on the ECC map, if they fit the ACOE criteria, would likely be non-jurisdictional.
Furthermore, the disturbance of up to one-tenth of an acre (4,356 square feet) of federal wetlands is allowable under an implied nation wide permit. If the wetlands on the ECC map were federal wetlands and were determined to be jurisdictional, the only disturbance would be for the driveways of Lots #1, #2 and #3. Each driveway would potentially disturb a rectangle of about 12 feet by between 75 and 100 feet. The cumulative total of this disturbance would be less than one-tenth of an acre. The driveway for Lot #4 was not considered toward the disturbance amount since it could easily avoid the “wetland” along the north property line. The ECC letter made reference to a 100 foot wetland buffer. Federal wetlands do not have a 100 foot buffer. The ECC has made the very common mistake of applying a rule that pertains to New York State DEC wetlands to the federal wetland category.
The 100 foot adjacent area to DEC wetlands is, in fact, an issue with respect to Lot #4. The prior plan reviewed for our July 11, 2006 comment letter showed Lot #4 with split frontage on either side of the Zeliger property. The original proposal indicated that the Lot #4 driveway would be positioned south of the Zeliger parcel. The plan we received during the meeting now contains frontage only to the north. Unlike federal wetlands, New York State DEC jurisdictional wetlands are shown on official mapping. The official DEC map shows a small finger of wetland along the stream corridor extending about 400 feet east of Route 147. The revised Cuchelo plan has added the DEC wetland but does not illustrate the 100 foot adjacent area. This should be added to the drawing along with a note that an adjacent area disturbance permit will be required for the driveway prior to the issuance of a building permit. During DEC’s review of that application, it is possible that they could extend their wetland and the 100 foot adjacent area further downstream along the stream corridor. This could then place the proposed home within the buffer. Regardless of this possibility, the issue is the purview of DEC and we believe a permit would be granted for Lot #4. The only possible consequence to the plan may be that DEC would require that the home location be shifted about 50 feet to the south to increase its distance from the stream corridor.
Finally, there were additional Planning Board comments that arose during the meeting. In order to provide a comprehensive list of changes that should be made to the plans prior to the Board’s next consideration; the meeting comments, along with the revisions mentioned previously in this letter, are summarized below.
1. Move the Lot #3 driveway to the southern extent of the lot. Add a note to the plan in the vicinity of the Lot #3 driveway entrance that specifies that location to ensure it is not changed during a building permit application. 2. Add a note to the plan in the vicinity of the Lot #4 driveway entrance stating that the driveway should be within 70 feet of the north property line to ensure that it is not changed during a building permit application. 3. Graphically add the 100 foot setback line to the DEC wetlands shown along the stream corridor. Add a note in the vicinity that states the need to obtain a DEC adjacent area disturbance permit prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Revise the combined driveway for Lot #1 and Lot #2. Although the management of curb cuts on Route 147 and the location of the combined driveway are both favorable design elements, the driveways should separate prior to leaving the public right of way. This will avoid the need for cross easements or maintenance agreements between neighbors. 5. Revise the water and sanitary notes located at the bottom of the plan and the driveway permit note listed as Note #2. The versions on the plan are similar to Charlton’s standard wording but should be changed respectively to read as given in the Town of Charlton Subdivision Application and Review Guide.
“All building permits for dwelling units shall be contingent upon the construction of a water well with adequate flow capacity and acceptable potability in accordance with the requirements of the New York State Department of Health.”
“Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan prepared by a licensed professional engineer showing the proposed sanitary disposal system, percolation tests, and details shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrative Officer. The plan should be certified by the design engineer as meeting the requirements of Appendix 75-A of the New York State Department of Health and the Town of Charlton. Where non-conventional systems such as alternative systems, shallow systems and built-up systems are planned, the individual plans are to be approved by the New York State Department of Health and the construction, as built, is to be certified by a licensed professional engineer prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.”
“A curb cut permit from the NYS Department of Transportation will be necessary for access to Sacandaga Road (State Highway 147) 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.”
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\cuchelo_4lotsacandagaroad_subdivreview2.doc
Cc: Planning Board Members Bill Keniry John Gay, P.L.S. Michelle Cuchelo
|
|
|
| |