 |
|
****JavaScript based drop down DHTML menu generated by NavStudio. (OpenCube Inc. - http://www.opencube.com)****
|
|
|
|
|
Town of Charlton Planning Board Minutes 2009 Maple Avenue, Schoolhouse Charlton, New York 12019
Minutes of Planning Board Meeting – December 11, 2006
Chairman Raymond Black called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Schoolhouse.
Present: Raymond Black, Chairman, Constance Wood, Mark Hodgkins, Jay Wilkinson, John Kadlecek, Christopher Mitchell, Michael McNamara, Town Engineer, Susan York, Planning Board clerk and Kimberly Caron, recording secretary.
BUSINESS MEETING
Opened at 7:00 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Black stated that there is a quorum of five members.
Mr. Mitchell recused himself from discussions of the Cuchelo subdivision.
Subdivision Applications
Cuchelo (235-1-33.1)
Mr. Black stated that there were two remaining issues pertaining to this subdivision. Mr. Black stated that the first issue pertained to traffic, entrance, driveway pattern and speed limits. Mr. Black stated that the second issue pertained to the protection of the Alplaus Creek and an understanding of what the County wants.
Mr. Guy Mitchell appeared before the Board for Michele Cuchelo. Mr. Guy Mitchell provided revised maps.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that the change on the revised map was on Lot #4. Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that the front yard setback was indicated as 50 feet and has been changed to 60 feet.
Mrs. Wood, Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Kadlecek met with the County to discuss the issues. Mr. Black asked for a review of that meeting.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that he received a letter from Jason Kemper. A copy was provided to Mr. Black and annexed hereto as Attachment 1.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that Mr. Kemper’s letter included a copy of Clifton Park’s approach to the standard notes. Mr. Kadlecek stated that Mr. Kemper called attention to one note in particular which is marked on the letter regarding standard notes for Land Conservation Areas, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Attachment 2.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that he prepared a proposed note for the deed and drawing based on the notes provided by Mr. Kemper. Mr. Kadlecek stated that he would like Mr. Keniry to review the language he prepared.
Mr. Black read Mr. Kadlecek's proposed note: Saratoga County has identified the stream corridor passing through this subdivision as environmentally sensitive and deserving of protection. One option to accomplish this is to designate the appropriate portion of each lot as land conservation areas/easement. Notes to this effect will be included on the subdivision plans and references to the following restrictions will be included on the deeds for each of the lots created. The sensitive area is defined to be within 200 feet of the centerline of the stream. The following uses/activities shall not be allowed within the defined area: -construction of principal or accessory buildings included sheds, barns and other improvements including but not limited to pools and fences; -grading of the land; -trails for motorized vehicles; -clearing of vegetation, including removal of brush; -application of chemicals pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers; and -installation of utilities above ground or below ground. Any modifications of these restrictions must receive prior approval of Charlton Town Planning Board. Before a building permit can be issued for Lot #4, the adjacent wetland must be mapped by DEC and if any disturbances of the land would occur within the 100 foot buffer to the wetland the necessary permit must be obtained from DEC. Only after approvals from DEC (or wetland map showing that none are needed) have been provided to the Charlton Planning Board can a building permit be issued.
Mr. Black stated that the Town of Clifton Park standard drawing notes, the standard note for land conservation areas reads exactly the same with the exception of trails for motorized vehicles or chemicals. Mr. Black stated that Clifton Park’s norm is to put it on the deed as a restriction.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Planning Board needs to have Mr. Keniry provide advise regarding map vs. deed placement of the wording.
Mr. Black inquired as to the discussions regarding the buffer zone.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that Mr. Kemper said that was initially overlooked when it was first brought to the County level.
Mr. Black asked Mr. LaFountain what the normal process was for determining if there are wetlands or if they are within the 100-foot buffer.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the application form has a check box asking if there are wetlands located on the property. Mr. LaFountain stated that if the applicant checks yes, then there is no further action until the wetlands are delineated. Mr. LaFountain stated that if the applicant checks no the application is processed. Mr. LaFountain stated that if they checked no and are wrong then it is a DEC issue with the applicant and the Town has no jurisdiction over wetlands at the Building Department level.
Mr. Black inquired , in a situation like this, if a building permit came for a new lot that was created, was it normal to pull the drawing out.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he would review the drawing. Mr. LaFountain stated that in normal operating procedure they would not necessarily happen if done by someone else. Mr. LaFountain stated that if the application has the no box checked the application would be processed.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that there are two issues of how and where to put the restriction information on the deed. Mr. Kadlecek stated that if the Planning Board imposes a restriction of the property then the Board should be aware that it is being followed.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the purchaser might go to Town Hall when no one is there and review the wetlands map that is on file , see none and then find out that there are after the fact.
Mr. Black stated that there are two separate issues here. One is associated with the protection of the Alplaus stream itself and the other is associated with the wetlands that are part of the tributaries feeding the Alplaus but not the Alplaus itself.
Mr. Black stated that relative to the Alplaus, the County desired to treat it as a sensitive area. Mr. Black stated that it seems appropriate to acknowledge this area as being 200 feet from the centerline of the stream.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that Mr. Kemper did the line at 200 feet, with a scale, and it came out where the proposed house is located.
Mr. LaFountain inquired where the number of 200 feet came from.
Mrs. Wood stated Mr. Kemper recommended 200 feet.
Mr. LaFountain inquired why require 200 feet instead of the normal 100 feet.
Mrs. Wood stated that the County recommended 200 feet.
The Board reviewed the drawings.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that 200 feet does not affect the location of the proposed house as it is entirely a wetlands area.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Guy Mitchell what his thoughts were on the 200-foot restriction on the deed and a note on the drawing.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that he has contacted the County Plan and also spoke to an attorney. He feels that it is just a suggestion and it is not acceptable. Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that there is no reason for it. Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that there are more reasons, as far as the trees and the no cut zone are concerned, and the Board has no authority to impose the restrictions being discussed. Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that Planning Board has no legal right to do this; there are no laws for any of this stuff. Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that the Board is trying to force this upon Michelle. It has not been done in the past, it cannot be done now, it is not lawful. Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that Ms. Cuchelo would not go for deed restrictions. Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that Ms. Cuchelo knows the people who will own these properties in the future will adhere to any laws.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board is authorized to impose restrictions and/or approvals to satisfy the intent of the Town, law or not law. Mr. Black stated that the Board would not further discuss the issue as neither party are legal representatives.
Mr. Black inquired if Mr. Guy Mitchell agreed that there are potential wetlands through here.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that he does not agree. Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that the area that has the wetlands is on the map and that is a buffer.
Mr. Black inquired as to what the shaded area was.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that is the creek area.
Mrs. Wood stated that was wet.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that there are banks on either side of the creek and 10 foot drop all the way along there.
Mr. Black stated that the 100-year flood plain on the drawing could possibly be a wetland. Mr. Black stated that if that were a wetland, then the 100-foot buffer to that would be in a position that it would be encroaching on the proposed location of the house.
Mr. Black stated that the Board needs to decide whether to impose restrictions or get a DEC delineation and impose a 100-foot buffer to that.
Mrs. Wood stated that Mr. Kemper stated that the lines that they draw for the100 year flood plain are not exact.
Mr. McNamara stated that they tend to be overcautious. Mr. McNamara stated that it is likely that the flood plain is closer to the stream then shown.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that the research has been done. Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that there are different standards and specifications to build within the flood plain. Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that this is not DEC wetlands.
Mr. McNamara stated that the driveway coming off of Route 147 is in the 100-foot adjacent area and does require a permit from DEC. The wetlands are DEC jurisdiction. If the applicant applies for a permit, DEC will look into this matter. If they extend their wetland along the stream and with it the 100 foot adjacent area, that would be subject to review. Mr. McNamara stated that when DEC looks at it and it is their jurisdiction, the Town is covered.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that the tributary is much lower so going from that tributary is going up a hill and going to be considered a buffer.
Mr. Black stated that he does not know if that is correct. Mr. Black stated that he has walked the property and that it is very marshy in this area.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that he would like to walk the property with Mr. Black.
Mr. Black stated that from Mr. McNamara’s point of view, DEC jurisdiction will be picked up.
Mr. McNamara stated correct.
Mr. Black stated that the flood plain is not necessarily a wetland.
Mr. McNamara stated correct.
Mr. McNamara inquired where the requirement of 200 feet came from. He also stated that Clifton Park has a stream conservation ordinance and Charlton does not.
Mrs. Wood stated that Mr. Kemper suggested that.
Mr. Black stated that there is nothing in Clifton Park’s regulations or the letter from Mr. Kemper suggesting 200 feet.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that it is a suggestion not a law.
Mr. Black stated that when we have wells the setback requirement is 100 feet unless there is a downhill slope then the requirement becomes 200 feet. Mr. Black stated that the Board is assuming that the land around the stream is downhill and that is why the Board is asking for a 200-foot setback.
Mr. Guy Mitchell maintains his opinion that it is not legal for the Board to impose these restrictions.
Mr. McNamara inquired if the Public Hearing was closed and when it closed, in order to determine if the 62 day time window had passed.
Mr. Black responded yes, it was closed at the November 20, 2006 meeting.
Mr. Black stated that he would like to table this issue for now until the Board can speak the legal counsel.
Mr. Black stated that relative to the potential for a DEC encroachment on the house location that is going to be picked up as a normal consequence of the note and the fact that a driveway permit is required.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the advantage is that the Building Inspector knows the property well and would know to raise the issue at the time of building permit.
Mr. Black stated that the issue is covered with the notes on the plan.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that at the Town Board level, we should have some say or at least know where the house is going to go.
Mr. Black stated that the location of the house is of concern if the location impacts on environmental sensitive areas, or a neighbor, or creates a dangerous situation. Mr. Black stated that no matter where the location of the house is moved to, there should not be a problem.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that the fact is that a person has the right to put a house anywhere on the 16 acres as long as there are no wetlands. Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that the Board does not get to choose the location. Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that as long as it is a lawful place to put the house, they get to choose that.
Mr. Black stated that the last issue pertains to traffic, speed limits and sight distance for Lot #3.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that Mr. McNamara’s letter of October 26, 2006, stated that after his review of the area, that 63 MPH would marginally satisfy the required sight distance. Also the letter stated that it would not be unreasonable for the Board to ask for a Traffic Safety Engineer to review the area.
Mr. McNamara stated that 63 MPH for sight distance was legal. Mr. McNamara stated that it does meet guidelines and that marginal means just under and this is not marginal as it does meet requirements. Mr. McNamara stated that what he meant was that the limit of advise he could give on this issue was marginal. Mr. McNamara stated that it is not as clear-cut as you have to meet this number. Sight distance is based on the dip in the road that a car goes into and out of rather quickly. Mr. McNamara stated that he does not think that the Board needs to get another opinion.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he spoke with Mr. Janczak at NYSDOT and he did not see this as a concern as it meets all requirements.
The Board was in agreement that this is no longer an issue.
Mr. Black stated that there are now two remaining issues. One issue is the driveway and DEC wetlands. Mr. Black stated that there are notes on the map indicating the wetlands. The Board is in agreement that this issue is closed.
Mr. Black stated that the other issue pertains to the Alplaus and what, if any, restrictions are necessary. Mr. Black read the letter from Mr. Kemper dated December 5, 2006 [attachment 1]. The letter suggests, to protect the environmentally sensitive portions of the project, to place deed restrictions on those portions of the site. The letter further states that in addition, subdivision notes could be added to the plans referencing those restrictions. Mr. Kemper enclosed the standard subdivision notes that are used by Clifton Park Planning Board and indicated that he would forward the standard notes used by Clifton Parks Environmental Conservation Commission.
Mr. Black stated that his opinion is that the letter is giving suggestions not recommendations.
Mrs. Wood stated that her impression from meeting with Mr. Kemper, these were recommendations.
Mr. Black read the letter from the County dated October 24, 2006. Mr. Black stated that he interprets the letter to state that the Alplaus should be protected by a no cut buffer that should be indicated on the proposed subdivision map.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that he has spoken to Jaime O’Neill, the person who drafted the letter, and she stated that the letter was just a suggestion and not law.
Mrs. Wood stated that Mr. Kemper stated that they received our reference letter two days before their meeting and he felt they were rushed in their decision.
Mr. Black inquired if Mr. Kemper was giving a hard recommendation that this be done to preserve the Alplaus or were they providing us with guidance on what the Planning Board’s options would be if we chose to protect the Alplaus.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that there was a general agreement that the area is unique and was part of a major corridor through the Town and deserves some protection.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that Mr. Kemper was very concerned about that area.
Mr. Black stated that his sense from the discussions was that the County is recommending some protection to the stream and that they initially wanted to make the protection area larger.
Mrs. Wood stated that she is concerned about the "no cut buffer" requirement and believes that, instead, it should be a requirement for "forest maintenance".
Mr. Black asked Mr. McNamara is he had other situations where there had been sensitive areas, like the stream, and protections had been afforded which were not necessarily the same as DEC wetlands.
Mr. McNamara stated that Mr. Black was asking a legal question. Mr. McNamara stated that it has to be based on some kind of legislative ordinance. Mr. McNamara stated that he does not agree with the suggestions made by the County.
Mrs. Wood asked Mr. Guy Mitchell why there was objection to protecting the area.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that Ms. Cuchelo would protect it. Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that if the deed restrictions were in place and someone wanted to take a four-wheeler down to the stream to have a picnic they could not.
Mr. Black stated that it does not say that you cannot ride a four-wheeler, it says that you cannot build a trail.
Mr. Black asked the Board if anyone was aware of anything that was being overlooked in the ordinance.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Board needs to have legal counsel before making a decision.
Mr. Black stated that the remaining question is the nature of what the Board can impose in relation to the stream.
Mrs. Wood stated that her concern pertained to the environmental protection of the stream.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he would like a legal definition.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that he would also like to hear what Mr. Keniry had to say on the issue.
Mr. Guy Mitchell asked if the Board could deny the application based on this issue.
Mr. Black responded yes.
Mrs. Wood stated that it would be nice if the people purchasing the lot knew what the restrictions were.
Mr. Black asked if Ms. Cuchelo would be opposed to that.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated yes.
Mr. Black stated that this issue should be delayed to the January meeting to seek legal advise on where do we stand and to what degree do we have the authority to impose, any if at all, restrictions like this.
Mr. Black stated that he would contact Mr. Keniry to set up a meeting on this issue.
Mr. Guy Mitchell stated that he would have Ms. Cuchelo contact her attorney to speak to Mr. Keniry so their position is clear.
Miller/Foss (225-2-26.11)
Mr. Miller appeared before the Board.
Mr. Miller provided new maps for the Board to review dated December 8, 2006.
Mr. Black asked what the change was from the previously provided plan.
Mr. Miller stated that the new maps reflected two lots with Mr. McNamara's comments addressed. Mr. Miller stated that both wells were indicated as drilled wells.
Mr. Black asked Mr. McNamara to explain comment #1 in his letter dated December 6, 2006. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 3.
Mr. McNamara stated that comment #1 pertained to the front setback requirement for the main house on Cook Road and Route 67 which is sixty feet. Graphically, compliance with the setback is marginal. Dimensions from the closest house corner to the right of way lines should be added to the plan to ensure that a variance is not needed.
Mr. McNamara stated that the right of way line is the dark black line that separates the Town’s ownership of Cook Road and the private ownership of the land. Mr. McNamara stated that he was looking for specific dimensions. Mr. McNamara stated that he is satisfied with the new drawing.
Mr. Black stated that the buffer zone has been added on the wetlands and the wells have been labeled as drilled wells.
Mr. Black stated that the zoning information had been added and the topographical contours have been added.
Mrs. Wood stated that the site map is missing.
Mr. Black stated that this is a 60-acre parcel being divided into 2 pieces, one piece being 5 acres and the other piece being 55 acres. Mr. Black stated that we have a complete application. Mr. Black stated that the parcel with the existing house presumably percs. Mr. Black stated that the remaining 55 acres should be able to perc. Mr. Black stated that the Board could officially waive perc tests on the basis that the 5-acre parcel already has perc and the remaining 55 acres should have perc. Mr. Black stated that the applicant’s intention is to try to sell the 55-acre parcel as one lot.
Mr. Black stated that the Board could schedule the Public Hearing for the January 15th, 2007 meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Mr. LaFountain wanted to note that on the five acre parcel there are 2 front yards and 2 rear yards meaning that the pond setback would have to be 50 feet and the north boundary would need to be 50 feet from the pond.
Mr. Mitchell asked if the pond was fenced in.
Mr. Miller stated that the doted line on the drawing is the fence.
Mr. Black stated that the Board needs verification that the line drawn is 50 feet from the north boundary line. Mr. Black requested that the dimensions be shown.
Mr. Black made the motion to accept the application as a complete application and to schedule the Public Hearing for January 15, 2007 at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black advised Mr. Miller of the requirements for notification of neighboring property owners.
Mrs. York provided the information and instructions for notification to Mr. Miller.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Miller to bring revised drawings to the Public Hearing.
Mr. Black made the motion to take lead agency status for SEQRA. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mrs. York stated that she would refer this application to the County.
Pre-Application Conference
Payton/Todd (235-1-67.1)
Mr. Keith Payton appeared before the Board.
Mr. Payton stated that on the south side of the property there is a rectangular shaped field that he would like to subdivide off for his brother and wife. Mr. Payton stated that he would like to subdivide that field off and put a house on it. Mr. Payton stated that there is an existing well on the property and the water flows at 10+ gallons/minute.
Mr. Black stated that in looking at the wetlands map, there are significant concerns with wetlands in the back and in the north end of the property.
Mr. Payton stated that the area is soft but he has been mowing it anf that perc tests have been done.
Mr. LaFountain stated that as you turn off Route 147 and go roughly 150 feet there is a wet area. Mr. LaFountain stated that there may be wetlands there and DEC should look at it. Mr. LaFountain stated that there may be a need for a crossing permit if the area is wet.
Mr. Black stated that there is a potential for wetlands. Mr. Black stated that a survey would be required and identification of wetlands. Mr. Black stated that a wetlands delineation and 100 foot buffers may be required. Mr. Black stated that there may be a need for more specific delineation to know that they can properly place a house on that parcel.
Mr. Payton asked if he should start with a surveyor.
Mr. Black stated yes, that a surveyor would also walk the property.
Mr. Payton stated that he has a survey from 2001 when the property was previously subdivided.
Mr. Black asked to look at that map.
The Board and Mr. LaFountain reviewed the 2001 survey map.
Mr. Black stated that there was no wetland delineation on the 2001 survey map.
Mr. Black stated to Mr. Payton that he would need to have a survey map of this parcel with reference to site location map, perc test information and location, location of the wells, any wetlands on the parcel and the topography of the parcel.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he witnessed the percolation test and it was less than the 45-minute perc rate but would need an engineered system.
Mrs. Wood inquired as to the number of acres Mr. Payton wanted to subdivide off.
Mr. Payton stated approximately 7 acres.
Mrs. Wood stated that she has a concern with the final paragraph of Mr. Payton’s proposed plan. Mrs. Wood stated that she does not believe that any excavating for the foundation could be done without having the final subdivision process complete.
Mr. Payton stated that the builder mentioned that doing the work in the winter could be cheaper for him.
Mr. Black stated that the advise of the Board is not to begin construction before completing the process.
Mr. Hodgkins inquired as to the length of the driveway.
Mr. Payton stated that the driveway would be more than 500 feet and he is aware of the Town specifications for long driveways.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he gave Mr. Payton’s brother the spec sheet.
Mr. Black reiterated the requirements and required information for filing an application.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he also gave Mr. Payton’s brother three names for a surveyor.
Mr. Hodgkins inquired as to how much of a flat spot exists before going uphill.
Mr. LaFountain stated 100 feet.
Mrs. York inquired if there is an existing driveway cut.
Mr. Payton stated that there is and it will be shown.
Mrs. Wood made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly A. Caron Recording Secretary
The Board held a workshop from 9:00 p.m. to 10:20 p.m. on the topics of: a. Standard drawing notes; b. When to use deed restrictions not just the maps; c. Driveway locations on the maps – specific vs. proposed; d. Driveway cut referrals to the Highway Superintendent for Town Roads; e. Referrals to the Fire Dept. when driveways exceed 500 feet in length; and f. Rotating lead responsibility for subdivisions. December 6, 2006 Attachment 3
Mr. Raymond E. Black Planning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: Exempt Subdivision \ Lands of Miller \ Cook Road & Rte. 67 Tax Map Parcel No. 225-1-46.11
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received a proposed two-lot subdivision of lands of Steven & Karen Singer Miller located on the west side of Cook Road and along the north side of NYS Route 67. The subdivision plan dated August 31, 2006 and last revised November 21, 2006 was prepared by Ferguson & Foss Professional Land Surveyors. 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 the parcel into a 5 acre lot surrounding the existing home and a 55.35 acre remaining lands parcel. The existing home includes a pool, a pond and several accessory buildings. The proposed home lot appears to meet all zoning requirements. We reviewed the property on December 5, 2006 and offer the following comments for your consideration.
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 John Ferguson, PLS Steven & Karen Miller C:\MY DOCUMENTS\WINWORD\charlton\SUBDIVISIONREVIEWS\miller_2lot_rte67cookroad_review.doc
|
|
|
| |