 |
|
****JavaScript based drop down DHTML menu generated by NavStudio. (OpenCube Inc. - http://www.opencube.com)****
|
|
|
|
|
Town of Charlton Planning Board Minutes And Public Hearing Minutes 784 Charlton Road Charlton, New York 12019
Minutes of Planning Board Meeting – February 20, 2006
Chairman Ray Black called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. at the John W. Taylor Hall.
Present: Ray Black, Chairman, Constance Wood, John Kadlecek, Jay Wilkinson, Robert VanVranken, Town Attorney and Susan York, Planning Board clerk. Christopher Mitchell joined the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
AGENDA MEETING: Mr. Black started the meeting stating that we have a quorum of 4. Mr. Black stated that Mr. Mitchell would be joining the meeting soon. Until Mr. Mitchell arrives, motions will have to be unanimous to pass or would result in an automatic vote of “NO”.
Mr. Black stated that there is a draft of the January minutes. Mrs. Wood commented that the minutes were wonderful. Mr. Wilkinson stated that the minutes were excellent and that he had no corrections. Mr. Black inquired if any other board members had changes or comments to the draft.
Vincent/VanGuilder (226-1-68.1)
Mr. Black stated that there would be a Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. on the Vincent Property represented by Mr. VanGuilder. Mr. Black stated that the property is located on Sweetman Road. There is an existing house, garage and two sheds. Mrs. York stated that there is an existing driveway that is not shown on the survey map.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Vincent’s objective is to subdivide the land and property with the minimum amount of land necessary to meet the minimum setback to the buildings required.
Mr. Black stated that his only comment is on the way the boundary lines are drawn. There are weird angles drawn in order to make it meet the setback requirements. Mr. Black stated his preference would be to square it off making it look more normal in order to be more understandable to any future owner. Mr. Black stated that he did not think the Planning Board had the authority to require that but would inquire if it could be done.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. McNamara has reviewed the survey maps. Mr. McNamara has provided written comments in a letter dated January 12, 2006. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 1. Mr. Black stated that Mr. McNamara’s first comment pertained to the map date being revised to be more recent. Mr. Black stated that the original map submitted was an older version dated May 10, 1995. Mr. Black stated that a new survey map has been provided dated January 13, 2006.
Mr. Black stated that the second comment pertained to having the drawings annotate the proposed setbacks for the sheds and the pond to ensure that the sheds are at least five feet and the pond is at least forty feet from the proposed lines. Mr. Black stated that this has been done.
Mr. Black stated that the third comment pertained to adding a bearing and a distance that were missing from two of the proposed property lines. Mr. Black stated that he was not sure exactly which two property lines were missing but the new drawing shows them all to have bearing and distance at this point.
Mr. Black stated that the fourth comment pertained to the driveway, citing the new town ordinance related to driveway length and ditch crossing. Further, it was requested that the driveway note be added to the drawing as new note #6 to supplement the curb cut note. Mr. Black stated that this has been done.
Mr. Black stated that all of Mr. McNamara’s comments have been incorporated.
Mrs. Wood requested Mr. Black review the property lines with her. Mr. Black made a suggestion as to where to modify the proposed property lines. Mr. Wilkinson also made a suggestion as to where to put the proposed property lines. The Board agreed to inquire further of the applicant.
Mr. Black stated that as pertains to the agenda, we have always treated subdivisions first come first serve and always keep them in the same order as they have come before us. Mr. Black stated that if we kept to that tonight, then after Mr. Vincent’s public hearing we would then review the previous application and would address Mr. Vincent’s application later in the agenda. Mrs. York suggested discussing the application after the public hearing as the public might be interested in hearing the board’s discussion. Mrs. Wood stated that she thought it was a great idea as it makes a lot more sense. Mrs. York stated that her recollection was that Bill Keniry’s suggested this at the October training.
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1, 41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3)
Mr. Black stated that he does not expect Mr. Durst to attend or to have any discussion on this application tonight. Mrs. York stated that Mr. Durst requested that his matter be placed on tonight’s agenda.
Muscanell (256.10-1-9)
Mr. Black stated that this application has been through the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board needs to act on that. The ZBA went through SEQRA and already had a Public Hearing. Mr. Black stated that we are now able to waive both those for our consideration and if Board agrees then we will be in a position to act on that tonight.
Mrs. Wood raised concern that in reading the Public Hearing minutes from the ZBA, most of the hearing focused on the structure that has nothing to do with Planning Board as we are only talking about the subdivision.
DeNooyer/VanGuilder (235-1-44 & 235-1-67.2)
Mr. Black stated he would like to make this application agenda item b instead of agenda item d per Mr. VanVranken’s suggestion. The reason for that is because there has been no activity. Due to the significance of the potential water issues they were going to have to do some perc tests. There was a letter written from Mr. Rabideau to Mr. Keniry confirming the understanding and agreement that the time frame within which the Planning Board has to act will be extended to May 31, 2006. Mr. Black stated that the reason for the extension is because the applicant would like more time to do perc and other tests. Mrs. Wood stated that the “For Sale” sign has been pulled.
Banker Trust (224-1-4.1)
Mr. Black stated that this is an approved subdivision. The mylars have not been signed yet as they required final revisions. Mrs. York stated that the phone number has been disconnected. Mr. Black stated that we received verbal notification that the applicants were not going to proceed with the subdivision because the property has been sold totally in tact. Mr. Black inquired as to what action the Planning Board should take now. Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York has been working on getting a formal letter from Mrs. Banker indicating her intent and that she no longer intends to subdivide the property. Mr. Black suggested passing a new resolution based upon the verbal transaction.
Mr. VanVranken interjected that in speaking with Mr. Keniry about this matter, the applicants are withdrawing their application. Mr. VanVranken suggested that instead of making a new resolution, that the Board acknowledges the applicants withdrawal of their application.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if written withdrawal is required. Mr. VanVranken stated that it should be done in writing but the Board may not receive a response from the applicants.
Mrs. Wood suggested sending a letter to Mrs. Banker, since she did not move that long ago her mail should still be forwarded.
Mr. Mitchell suggested sending the letter by certified mail.
Mr. VanVranken suggested putting the resolution in the minutes and sending a letter to Mrs. Banker enclosing a copy of the minutes from when the resolution was passed stating that the Board would appreciate confirmation of the withdrawal in writing not later than “insert date’.
Mr. Black raised concern that if we pass a new resolution stating that the Planning Board is acknowledging the withdrawal and therefore is now considered null and void, what if Mrs. Banker responds back that she didn’t really mean to withdraw.
Mrs. Wood stated that since the mylars have not been signed the time might expire before we receive any response.
Mr. Mitchell suggested that our letter state that we are acknowledging her verbal withdrawal and if she doesn’t respond within a certain amount of time the Board will consider it withdrawn.
Nigriny/Orminski (247-1-50.12)
Mr. Black stated that we have the same situation as the Banker Trust with this application. This application came to the Planning Board as a subdivision. It did not meet the zoning requirements. The Planning Board could not establish a way to make it meet the zoning requirements that the applicants were in agreement with. The applications chose to go before the ZBA and the area variance was disapproved. Mr. Black stated that we have not received any word from the applicants. Mrs. York has left messages for the applicants and has also written a letter to the applicants to which the applicants did not respond. Mr. Black stated that we did not give the applicants a deadline in the letter. Mr. Black suggested disapproving the subdivision and issuing a new resolution followed by a letter to the applicants.
Mr. Black advised that Sandy Verola, Town Liaison is ill and would not be coming to the meeting.
Mr. Black advised that Dave LaFountain, Zoning Administrator is present and will give his report during the Business Meeting.
Mr. Black advised that Mark Hodgkins is out of town thus there will be no Comprehensive Plan report.
Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York and he have started a process wherein they are giving the Town Board a monthly report of the Planning Board’s activities.
Mr. Black stated that there is some correspondence to address.
Mr. Black closed the agenda meeting at 7:32 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
Opened at 7:34 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Black advised that the January 16, 2006 minutes have been completed. Mr. Black stated that he had some minor changes that have been incorporated. Mr. Black reviewed his changes with the board. Mrs. Wood made the motion to accept the January 16, 2006 minutes. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black stated that as it is not time for the Public Hearing yet that the Board would discuss other agenda items.
BUSINESS MEETING
Banker Trust (224-1-4.1) Mr. Black stated that this was a four-lot subdivision. The application process was completed and approved by the Planning Board. The mylars had not yet been presented for signature. Mrs. Banker indicated verbally that she had sold the property in tact and that the subdivision would no longer be pursued. Mr. Black stated that we have attempted to contact Mrs. Banker to get a more formal withdrawal all to no avail. Mr. Black proposed making a new resolution that acknowledges the verbal withdrawal of the subdivision and therefore the new resolution is that we acknowledge it and consider it to be null and void.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if the subdivision was approved with conditions of approval. Mr. VanVranken stated that Mr. Mitchell was correct. The approval was conditional with modifications of November 21, 2005.
Mr. Black inquired if Mr. VanVranken had the conditions. Mr. VanVranken, reading from Mr. Keniry’s notes, stated that the conditions had something to do with the sale of the lot.
Mr. Mitchell suggested that it be noted that the conditions were not met.
Mr. VanVranken stated that the resolution that was signed on the 16th of December 2005 did not contain the conditions.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the conditions were noted on the survey map.
Mr. VanVranken read from Resolution 2005-16 “Now therefore be it resolved that the final plat entitled “Subdivision of Lands of the Judy Rae Banker Trust” situate on NYS Route 147 be and the same is hereby approved with the following modifications done”. The conditions were met when the resolution was signed.
Mrs. Wood inquired how the resolution was signed in December when the Board did not meet that month. Mr. Mitchell stated that it was signed when it was received.
Mr. Black stated that the conditions of approval were adding the DEC wetlands notes and the standard well notes. Mr. Black stated that when the resolution was written the modifications were not noted.
Mrs. York stated that when she contacted Mrs. Banker to ascertain the status of the mylars Mrs. Banker informed her that they were not going forward with the subdivision.
Mr. Black suggested that a resolution be proposed to acknowledge the verbal withdrawal of the subdivision application and that at this point the Planning Board considers it formally withdrawn.
Mrs. Wood stated that the new resolution would not have a new number after it. Mr. VanVranken stated that Mrs. Wood was correct.
Mr. Black inquired why this would not receive a new number.
Mrs. Wood stated because it is not a subdivision.
Mr. VanVranken stated that the new resolution would reference last year’s resolution, which is Resolution 2005-16.
Mr. Black stated that each time a new resolution is passed it is a formal action and therefore requires a new number.
Mrs. Wood raised concern that we are only attaching numbers to parcels being subdivided.
Mr. Kadlecek suggested that Mr. Black write up the wording for the new resolution during a break.
Mrs. Wood agreed as she feels that attaching a new number would be confusing.
Mr. Black advised that this issue would be tabled until after the Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING (7:45 p.m.)
Vincent/VanGuilder (226-1-68.1)
Mr. Vincent advised that someone from VanGuilder Land Surveyor, PLLC would be attending on behalf of Mr. Duane Rabideau, who is on vacation. At this time, the representative has not arrived.
Mr. Black inquired if Mr. Vincent would like to wait. Mr. Vincent stated that he did not care. Mr. Vincent stated that he did not think there would be a lot of problems. Mr. Vincent stated that if there were questions, the representative from VanGuilder has all of the maps. Mr. Vincent stated that he just got back from Florida.
Mr. Black stated that the purpose of the Public Hearing is to explain to those in the public that have come what the subdivision is about and the details and then receive their input.
Mr. Mitchell inquired how many attendees were present for the Hearing. Two people raised their hands.
Mrs. Wood suggested waiting about 15 minutes for the representative to come.
Mr. Vincent stated he would like to wait.
Mr. Black inquired if the hearing attendees would mind waiting. One attendee stated that they mind and would like the hearing to go forward.
Mr. Black reviewed the subdivision process with the attendees. Mr. Black stated that as a subdivision becomes before the planning board the formal process, which is imposed by the Town Law in the State of New York, has us evaluate it to see whether it meets the Zoning Ordinance requirements in the Town of Charlton and whether it meets the New York State requirements for land use, etc. We are also obligated to collect input from the public which is a very important part of the process because sometimes people in the area know things about the piece of property that wouldn’t normally be known to the planning board. The propose of the public hearing is to collect input so you can get explanations for questions you may have about the subdivision or if you want to point out any potential issues that we overlooked for our consideration.
Mr. Vincent will present the objective, what is the subdivision about and what is the plan, and then we will open the floor for public comment or questions, questions either to Mr. Vincent about what the intent is or comments to the board about your particular position or opinions.
Mr. Black officially opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Black introduced the Board members. Each person who addresses the Board will be required to state their name and their address.
Mrs. Wood inquired if Mr. Vincent needed a map. Mrs. Wood gave Mr. Vincent her map.
Mrs. York stated that for the record Mr. Vincent’s name is James.
Mr. James Vincent, applicant, presented the following plan.
-stepmother is 87 years old and wanted to go into assisted living in Saratoga and she is fine but wants to now sell her house with some land and keep other land in trust as it is supposed to go to himself and his brother -trying to sell this piece of property with 7.21 acres; -outbuildings are located on Sweetman Road; -the drawing does not show a driveway but there is a driveway right here; Mr. Vincent stated that he has brought that to the attention of the surveyor and requested an updated drawing be brought to this hearing;
Mr. Mitchell stated that the surveyor should be bringing an updated mylar also showing the pond.
Mr. VanGuilder, Gilbert VanGuilder Land Surveyor, PLLC arrived at 7:52 p.m. Mr. VanGuilder passed out to the Board the revised drawings and presented the following plan.
-subdivide parcel consisting of approximately 94 acres of land into a 7.21 acre parcel around the existing dwelling and an 86.6 acre parcel to be kept as a large parcel that it partially wetlands and partially uplands. (Mr. Vincent lives adjacent to the 86 acre parcel); -there are trails existing through the property that Mr. Vincent would like to preserve; -Mr. VanGuilder stated that in speaking with Mr. Vincent today regarding the future of this parcel, it is Mr. Vincent’s intent to leave it as a large parcel not to be subdivided in the future. -existing house is located on the 7.2-acre lot -proper setbacks have been set up from the existing pond and also from the outbuildings on the property; -the addition to this map, just added today, is the existing driveway to the home; same map Board has seen from previous meetings.
Mr. Black stated that this application was submitted to the Saratoga County Planning Board for their input. On January 30, 2006 we received a letter from the Saratoga County Planning Board stating that upon their review at the January meeting approved subject to receiving a DPW permit prior to receiving final approval. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 2. Mr. Black stated that the letter was in reference to the 86-acre parcel. Mr. Black stated that driveway access was not required prior to planning board approval just prior of the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Black stated that the notification of the Public Hearing was submitted to and posted in the Schenectady Gazette.
Mr. Black stated that Michael McNamara, P.E., Environmental Design Partnership, PLLC have completed engineering review. There is a letter from Michael McNamara, P.E. dated January 12, 2006 wherein several comments and suggestions were made (Attachment 1).
Mr. Black stated that the first comment pertained to the date of the map. It was requested that the map date be revised to be more recent. Mr. Black stated that this has been done.
Mr. Black stated that the second comment requested that the drawings annotate the proposed setbacks for the existing home, sheds and pond on the 7.2-acre parcel. Mr. Black stated that this has been added.
Mr. Black stated that the third comment pertained to a bearing and a distance missing from two of the proposed property lines. Mr. Black stated that this has been added.
Mr. Black stated that the fourth comment pertained to requesting permission from the County Department of Public Works to add a driveway due to the new standards the town has adopted. It was further suggested that a note be added to supplement the curb cut note citing the new town ordinance. Mr. Black stated that the note has been added as note #7.
Mr. VanGuilder read new note #7 from the drawings. “Any proposed driveway to serve Lot #2 will require a culvert to maintain existing ditch line drainage. The size of the culvert must be approved by the Town Engineer or Highway Superintendent prior to issuance of a building permit. Any driveway over 500 feet in length must be accessible and able to hold a 50,000 pound, 30 foot long vehicle with facilities for turning available within 100 feet of any structure”.
Mr. Black stated that this application has been reviewed by Town engineering and by Saratoga County and at this point all comments have been resolved and incorporated.
Mr. Black opened the hearing to the public.
Torben Aabo, 220 Sweetman Road, stated: “I am pleased to see this, this is not going to change our neighborhood at all. I am all for it”.
Robert Cromie, 1851 Route 67, stated: “I have no problem with it”.
Mr. Black asked for any additional comments.
Mr. Black asked for a motion to close the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Mr. Kadlecek made the motion seconded by Mrs. Wood. All were in favor.
Mr. Black advised the attendees of the Public Hearing that the Board would be having deliberations on this matter next.
BUSINESS MEETING
Vincent/VanGuilder (226-1-68.1)
Mr. Black inquired about the lot lines that define the back of the property. Mr. Vincent stated that there is a road that runs between his driveway and his father’s driveway beyond the pond. Mr. VanGuilder showed the Board on the map.
Mr. Vincent stated that in wintertime you couldn’t get back in there to get wood or anything. There is a road that goes across here.
Mr. Black inquired what side of the lot line as shown was the road located. Mr. Vincent stated on the large property side.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if the road would be staying on Mr. Vincent’s property. Mr. Vincent stated that the road goes with the property. The small lot isn’t going to have the road on it.
Mr. Mitchell explained that the driveway at the base of the hill is located beyond Mr. Vincent’s house and has access to the back property. There is a field up there.
Mr. Vincent stated that he goes up there for haying equipment.
Mr. Mitchell stated that there is also a wooded area in the back. Mr. Vincent stated that Mr. Burke hays the area for his horses. Mr. Mitchell stated that it should be shown on the map.
Mr. Mitchell stated that showing it on the map would explain the culvert. The reason that the county was addressing it was because there is supposed to be an access to the property. There is already one there, just not shown on the map.
Mr. Vincent stated that there are three ways to access the property just like the Smiths up the road.
Mr. Black inquired which property Mr. Vincent was referring to. Mr. Vincent stated that Dan Smith is the next neighbor. Mr. Vincent showed Mr. Black on the map.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that they would add the driveway if the Boards wants it shown.
Mrs. Wood stated that it is a farm laneway.
Mr. Black inquired of Mr. LaFountain if there was a setback requirement for farm lane.
Mr. Black stated that the question the Board was asking is why maintain such odd property lines and the explanation is because there is an existing and very passable roadway that accesses the property and keeps upon the property.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if Mr. Vincent had an aerial photograph. Mr. Vincent stated that he did not have the photograph with him.
Mr. Vincent stated that because of the wet land on that end of the property it is real hard to go anywhere. That is the reason that he wants to keep it on the property.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that in order to change to location of driveway and to put in a new driveway would probably require a DEC permit to put additional fill.
Mr. Black stated that the access road can not possible be a driveway for that lot as it is crossing another parcel of land.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that it is only for his convenience that it exists for firewood and for Mr. Burke uses the rest of the property for hay.
Mr. Black clarified that the farm lane is not a driveway. Mr. Vincent showed the board the roads in question on the maps. Mr. Vincent also showed the existing house and his house’s location to the board on the maps.
Mr. Black stated that the access road does not have to be shown on the drawings.
Mr. Mitchell suggested that the second pond be shown on the map.
Mr. Black inquired if there was any question of the location. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Vincent showed the board the location of the second pond on the maps.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that no boundaries were affected by the second pond.
Mr. Black inquired if Mr. Vincent had a problem with having the drawings modified to show the second pond. Mr. Vincent stated that it was fine. Mr. VanGuilder stated that he would have the drawings modified to show the second pond.
Mr. Black stated that all comments have been satisfied. We have received no new information. We have agreement from the public.
Mr. Black then called for a motion to approve this subdivision contingent upon a drawing modification to show the location of the large pond on the 86 acre parcel and upon receiving revised drawings authorization to sign the mylars.
Mr. Wilkinson made the motion that the Planning Board take lead agency status and the proposed action is an unlisted action under SEQRA with a negative impact declaration relative to environmental impact. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Wilkinson made the motion to approve the subdivision and for the chairman to sign the mylars on the condition that the second pond be added to the 86.6 acre parcel. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Mr. Black clarified that there is a motion on the floor for the approval of the subdivision contingent upon drawing modification to show the large pond on the large acreage lot and authorization for the chairman to sign the mylars once the modified drawings have been received. All were in favor.
Resolution 2006-03 was made.
DeNooyer/VanGuilder (235-1-44 & 235-1.67.2)
Mr. VanGuilder stated that there is no new information other than they have received a letter from Mr. Keniry acknowledging their request for an extension on the review period. They are waiting on percolation tests on the soil. Mr. Black confirmed that the extension is through the end of May, 2006.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that as soon as the weather conditions are favorable Mr. DeNooyer intends to have those soil tests and percolation tests done and will report back to the Board the findings. Mr. VanGuilder stated he anticipated that they would be back for the April meeting.
Mr. Black inquired if Mr. VanGuilder knew of the issues relating to the required tests. Mr. Black explained that the concern about standing water and very wet land in the area was enough to get the Planning Board to require proof that where you want to put something you have perc. Further the Board was concerned that if you cannot meet the 45- minute percolation capability no subdivision can happen at all. That is the fundamental concern.
Mr. VanGuilder stated that Mr. Rabideau has advised Mr. DeNooyer of the requirements and Mr. DeNooyer is intending on getting the proper equipment out there to do the boring as well as percolation tests and to also check the separation to bedrock.
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1, 41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3)
Mr. Black asked Mr. Durst to approach the board.
Mr. Durst stated that he had an update. Mr. Durst stated that last week they went in front of the Town Board to discuss the water district extension approval. Dave Pentkowski, Esq., who is Mr. Heflin’s attorney was present. Mr. Durst inquired if Mr. Pentkowski, Esq. had spoken to Mr. VanVranken about a letter from Tabner’s office dated December 2004 wherein it stated “that upon concept approval that they (Heflin/Durst) would be able to submit a whole petition to the Town Board for review of the water for that subdivision. Mr. Durst stated that it wasn’t on preliminary approval with all the engineering details, he said on concept approval.
Mr. Black inquired as to who said this. Mr. Durst replied that it was in a letter that was issued by Mr. Tabner’s office to Lansing Engineering or Mr. Pentkowski, Esq.
Mr. VanVranken stated that this was a letter that was dated December of 2004. Mr. VanVranken stated that subsequent letters have taken the position that before the Town Board is prepared to consider the water district extension that the expectation would be that the applicants would be at least a preliminary approval stage with the Planning Board plus a SERQA review. Mr. VanVranken stated that this seems to be a point of disagreement that is as we speak being resolved and at this point in time is unresolved.
Mr. Black inquired if this was Mr. Durst’s understanding. Mr. Durst stated that he has not heard a resolution at this point. Mr. Durst stated that he did not know if it was being worked through Mr. VanVranken office or if the negotiations lie with the Town Board.
Mr. VanVranken stated that Jack??? Is the one working with Mr. Pentowski, Esq. and there is an open invitation for Mr. Pentkowski, Esq. to be in contact with Jack and or himself to convince them that the position that they have taken is otherwise better.
Mr. Black stated that the applicants have chosen not to proceed with investing heavily in the engineering, which will get the Planning Board to the point of preliminary approval. Mr. Black stated that although there is no formal resolution, we are near the point of having conceptual approval from the standpoint that you have a concept of a conservation design. At this point the Planning Board likes the design however 23 lots is the maximum number of lots and as we go through detailed engineering we may have to make some modifications i.e. some lots may have to disappear or relocate depending upon availability of adequate percolation rates and various other issues that may come up.
Mr. Black stated that we are not at the point of preliminary approval. The key points that would distinguish between conceptual and an actual preliminary approval is that it cannot be said for a fact that can legitimately fit 23 houses in there because of the issues with water.
Mr. Durst stated that they are looking for the Town Board to say “yes conditional upon final engineering and preliminary approval by the Planning Board, we will grant you up to a maximum of 23 water connections to be extended”.
Mr. Black stated that as we are not making progress here so are we in jeopardy of running out of time therefore should we get a formal agreement of an extension to a certain date to give us time to work out this agreement.
Mr. VanVranken stated that there is no approval pending and that the applicant is the one with the time problem not the board. Failure to prosecute the application within 6 months results in a withdrawal of the application.
Muscanell (256.10-1-9)
Mr. Black asked Mr. Muscanell to approach the board. Jason Muscanell, son of Mr. Muscanell, also approached the board.
Mr. Black stated that during the preapplication conference the Board informed Mr. Muscanell of the zoning issues pertaining to this subdivision. The Board referred Mr. Muscanell to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Black stated that there was a Public Hearing on October 12, 2005 and approval was received. Subsequently, a formal application was filed with the Planning Board. Mr. Black stated that the Board has a complete application.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Muscanell to present the Board with the plan for the subdivision.
Mr. Muscanell stated that he has an updated survey for the Board’s review. Mr. Muscanell also presented a copy of the septic design for the Board.
Mr. Muscanell stated that the property is located on the north side of Crooked Street.
Mr. Black stated that the Board does not approve septic designs. Mr. Black stated that we would be interested in knowing how the design has been done and laid out.
Mr. Muscanell stated that the septic system design drawings show that he is able to meet the requirements for the side boundaries for the leech fields and etc.
Mr. Muscanell continued that his primary residence is located on the north side of Crooked Street. Mr. Muscanell showed the board the location on the drawings. Mr. Muscanell stated that he wanted to create a new lot here with a proposal to put a new two-bedroom home on the new lot created. Mr. Muscanell stated that there would be a 24’ x 20’ garage in the rear with a driveway. Mr. Muscanell stated that the driveway actually is not shown the way they had wanted it. He will get a correction to that. The driveway was going to come from the road along side the house and stop at the end of the house. This would remain grass back in here. It is not going to be a place where you are driving in and out all the time, it is going to be more for a storage building.
Mr. Black confirmed that they would be driving on grass to get to the storage building.
Mr. Muscanell stated that occasionally they would be driving on the grass.
Mr. Muscanell stated that Michael McNamara, P.E., Environmental Design Partnership, LLP, reviewed the information Mr. Muscanell submitted. Mr. McNamara had written a letter in response containing seven items that need to be addressed. A copy of the letter, dated February 8, 2006, is annexed hereto as Attachment 3. Mr. Muscanell stated that he feels he had addressed them all.
Mr. Black requested Mr. Muscanell review the comments in Mr. McNamara’s letter with the Board.
Mr. Black stated that item #1 requires the final map to have the stamp and signature of a licensed Land Surveyor as the plan does not currently name the professional responsible for the work. Mr. Muscanell stated that this has been done. It was not done originally because he was waiting to make the changes. It has been done.
Mr. Black stated that item #2 requested some means of “tying down” the parcel should be added to the map. Also, a site location map or tie distances to the nearest intersection in each direction should be added. Mr. Muscanell showed the site location on the drawing and stated that the distance from the east boundary to Stage Road is also shown.
Mr. Black stated that item #3 required that the zoning district and bulk schedule parameters for parcel area and setbacks be listed on the maps. Mr. Muscanell showed the board where this had been done on the drawing. Mr. Muscanell stated that the front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks and lot size has also been incorporated.
Mr. Black stated that item #3 also requested that the ZBA resolution #05-07 dated October 12, 2005 should also be included. Mr. Muscanell stated that this is mentioned on the survey map item #3.
Mr. Black stated that item #4 pertained to the existing shed on Lot #2 must be at least five feet from both the side and rear lines. The scaled distance to the new lot line appears to be just short of this requirement. Calculated dimensions to each line should be added to the plan to evaluate compliance. Mr. Muscanell stated that here (showing on map) where the new boundary was created, between the two lots, his existing shed there has an addition to the west side of it. Mr. Muscanell stated that with that on there he does not meet the boundary requirement.
Mr. Black inquired if it was an addition or a lean-to.
Mr. Muscanell stated it was like a lean-to addition on there. Mr. Muscanell stated that he told the surveyor that he would be taking that off and if agreed upon he would have that off prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Black inquired that it is the lean-to that violates the setback requirements but once it is removed than the building itself is ok. Mr. Muscanell stated that yes.
Mr. Black inquired if the drawing shows it not being there. Mr. Muscanell stated yes it is shown without as he agreed to remove it.
Mr. Black stated that item #5 addressed the test pit and perc date submitted as part of the application along with two schematic drawings for a proposed septic system. The soils information would seem to support the design of a conventional septic system. The subdivision map indicates the location of the test pits but does not include the observations. The septic system sketches were not reviewed in detail but would not suffice for obtaining a building permit because they are not stamped by a Licensed professional. Mr. Black stated that they don’t approve the septic system design. Mr. Muscanell stated that he contacted the County Clerk and this was submitted with the perc test and the trench depth of 84 inches 13 inches of top soil and it is a sandy loam soil.
Mr. Muscanell stated that he spoke to Mr. McNamara for clarification on what additional information was needed. Per Mr. Muscanell, Mr. McNamara stated that it should be stated on the septic design drawing that the minimum trench length is 138 feet. Mr. Muscanell stated that it was designed for a three bedroom house at a 330 gallon a day flow rate. Mr. Muscanell stated that he had the system designed for a three bedroom house but they are only building a two bedroom house.
Mr. VanVranken stated that he has spoken with Mr. McNamara and their concern is if as a planning board a two lot subdivision is approved and later on because of the design, the system did not fit. Charlton design standards for an above ground system are much greater than the state standard causing this spread out to the point where if you designed it according to Charlton standards the edges of the system would be encroaching on the neighbors on both sides of this lot.
Mr. Black stated that item #6 pertained to adding the standard notes for the septic system and the right to farm. Mr. Muscanell stated that those notes have been added.
Mr. Black asked for questions from the Board.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if the house was going to have a garage as the structure in the back is going to be for storage. Mr. Muscanell stated that there would be no garage attached to the house.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if in the future would there be a garage. Mr. Kadlecek stated that it looks, to him, that there would be room to add a garage to the side.
Mr. LaFountain stated that they would have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Jason Muscanell stated that the design of the house has no garage.
Mr. Black inquired as to the current measurements. Mr. Muscanell stated 36 feet 8 inches. Mr. Black stated that for a 24 foot garage would take it down to 12 feet and the side setback requirements are 15 feet.
Mr. LaFountain stated that they do not have proper frontage, which is why there was the need for a variance.
Mr. Muscanell stated that he can meet all the zoning requirements, the front yard is going to be set back 60 feet.
Mr. Black stated that the issue is only the lot dimension its less than 200 feet.
Mr. LaFountain stated that is why they have a variance on the property to begin with, they do not have 200 feet of frontage.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if the requirement is 12 foot side setback for a garage or a building. Mr. LaFountain stated if he had 200 foot of frontage.
Mr. Muscanell stated that the ZBA gave him approval based upon the fact that he would meet the zoning requirements for the front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, which he is able to do. Mr. Muscanell stated that the garage in the back has to be 5 foot off the boundary, which he is going to keep it. If he needs to shift and go further that is not an issue as he has plenty of room there to move, he can move it to the rear or to the west more, off the boundary more. He can’t go forward with it because of the septic and leach fields.
Mr. Mitchell suggested that if he were to put up a garage to put it behind the house, as long as he did not encroach on the drain fields.
Mr. Black stated that he thinks that he could meet the side yard lot requirement. The board reviewed the measurements on the drawing.
Mr. Black read an excerpt relative to the addition of a deck from the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes from the October 12, 2005 Public Hearing for clarification. A copy of the minutes are annexed hereto as Attachment 4.
Mr. Black stated that a garage could be added as long as it meets all zoning requirements for setbacks.
Mr. VanVranken stated that Mr. Black was correct.
Mr. Black stated that the limit is 13 feet and if go beyond that have to go back to ZBA.
Mr. Black stated that we have a complete application. Normally the process would be to schedule a Public Hearing and then to do a SEQRA determination. Since SEQRA was covered and the Public Hearing was covered by ZBA and having read the minutes and have no further issues. It is an exempt subdivision, a single lot subdivision, we have the right to waive certain requirements. Mr. Black suggested that the Board waive both the SEQRA determination and the Public Hearing. That would enable to Board to act on this application tonight.
Mr. Mitchell made the motion, since ZBA has completed the SEQRA and done a Public Hearing, we accept their Public Hearing and SEQRA and waive having a Public Hearing and SEQRA. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mrs. York inquired if there was a need to refer this to the County. Mr. Mitchell stated that we do not have to refer to the county as it is not located on a county road, not in an Agricultural district or on a boundary.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to accept this as a complete application. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black suggested a motion of approval contingent upon the driveway being shown as intended not as shown. Mr. Black stated that before he can sign the mylars the Board will need to see revised drawings showing the driveway coming to the house and stopping.
Mr. Wilkinson made the motion to approve the subdivision acknowledging the ZBA approval case #05-07 and that the Planning Board authorize the chairman to sign the completed mylars with the contingency that the driveway be modified to show its actual location. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Resolution 2006-04
Mr. Black informed the Muscanell’s of the next step. Mr. Black stated that the surveyor would need to make the requested changes to the drawings. Then bring two drawings and two mylars to Mrs. York or to him and they will be signed. There is a park fee of $600.00 that will have to be paid in advance. Once validation is received that the park fee has been paid, then the mylars and drawings can be signed.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that there is a time-line in which to get the drawings to the county. Once they are signed, there is a 60 day period to forward to the County.
Mrs. York gave Mr. Jason Muscanell a copy of the requirements.
Mr. Muscanell requested further clarification regarding the garage. Mr. Muscanell stated that a garage would be permitted provided it meets all of the setbacks.
Mr. Black stated that he was correct. Mr. Black stated that because he received approval to violate the frontage requirement, alterations could be made as long as all of the requirements are met. The requirements are that between the two side lots you have to have 40 feet total neither one being less than 15 feet.
Mr. LaFountain stated that if it were to be a detached garage the requirements would be 40 feet of frontage, 5 feet on the side, 5 feet on the rear and 5 feet from the house.
Banker Trust (224-1-4.1)
Mr. VanVranken prepared a draft letter to Mrs. Banker. Mr. VanVranken read the draft to the Board: Town of Charlton Banker Subdivision Platt Withdrawal as the title. Resolution 2005-16 as amended on February 20, 2006. Whereas, on December 16, 2005 the Chairman of the Charlton Planning Board did sign a resolution designated 2005-16 approving the final plot plan entitled “Subdivision of the Lands of Judy Rae Banker Trust” and as authorized by the Planning Board on November 20, 2005. Whereas, the following assigning of such resolution, the Planning Board was advised verbally on January 6, 2006 that the applicant withdraws the subdivision application and will not process this matter further. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Planning Board hereby formally accepts the request of subdivision plat withdrawal and terminates in all respect and procedures relative to this application. The Planning Board further directs that Board Clerk York send a copy of the resolution to the applicant or her representative and to request written confirmation of receipt of this resolution.
The Board was in agreement that this draft letter would be sent. Mrs. York will type the letter and send it out.
Mr. VanVranken suggested sending by regular mail and registered mail. Mr. VanVranken also suggested putting in the letter that we are enclosing a copy for Mrs. Banker’s signature together with a self-addressed envelope to send it back.
Mr. Mitchell made the motion to accept the letter to terminate the Banker Trust subdivision as outlined by Mr. VanVranken. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mrs. York inquired if a copy should go to the surveyor. Mr. VanVranken stated that was fine.
Nigriny/Orminski (247-1-50.12)
Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York sent a letter to the applicants requesting a formal withdrawal or a modified application. We have received no response.
Mr. VanVranken suggested sending another letter indicating that if the Planning Board does not hear form them by the next meeting date then the Board will terminate the application.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. LaFountain previously handed out the Zoning Office Report Jan-06 to the Board members.
There were no comments from the Board.
Comprehensive Plan Report
Mrs. Wood spoke concerns on behalf of Dave Wood. Mr. Wood would like some input from the Planning Board in reference to the summary the committee had prepared. Mrs. Herrin has sent in some of her concerns.
The plan that was provided was a “rough draft”. The committee is looking to take all of the information that had been gathered try to congest it.
The committee is concerned that they are not hitting on the things that pertain to the Planning Board.
Mr. Black stated that the plan covered objectives i.e. Preserve open space, protect water ways, etc. The Planning Board reacts to more specific things i.e. Protecting streams and buffering them, consolidation of residential district, etc.
Mrs. Wood stated that there is some concern regarding the PUD’s. The way the system is written now is limiting.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that he is concerned that the Planning Board is excluded from the PUD system. Initiation and approval should come to the Planning Board.
Mr. Black suggested having a workshop on this topic alone, possibly with Mr. Wood present, to react to what we have heard for the purpose of review and feedback.
The Board discussed and agreed to meet on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. at Mrs. Wood’s house. A note would be posted to inform the public of the meeting and their right to attend.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York has been sending a monthly report of the Planning Board activities to the Town Board. Mr. Black inquired if anyone had any objections to that. No one had any objections.
Mr. Black addressed the topic of subdivision review. Mr. Black suggested the Board begin to rotate who takes the lead for the application or have responsibilities rotated for certain people to do certain things.
The Board discussed the idea.
Mrs. Wood suggested that when the application is filed with the clerk that the applicant should be notified that Planning Board members will be visiting the site.
Mr. Black stated that we must get the landowners permission before visiting the property.
Mr. Black suggested rotating site visits in pairs. As new applications come in we will rotate assignment of who will be visiting the site.
Mr. Black addressed the farewell get together for Mrs. Herrin and Mr. Caine. The date is March 4, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at Mrs. Wood’s house. Please bring a dish to share. Drinks will be provided. Mr. Caine cannot attend the get together.
Mr. Black informed the Board that there is a one-day conference in the Town of Easton, Washington County on local planning and agriculture. Anyone interested in attending is welcome to go.
Mrs. Wood stated that she would be attending the conference.
The conference starts at 8:30 a.m. It is an all day conference. The fee is either $20.00 or $25.00.
Mr. Black addressed the change in SEQRA Laws. The change requires posting of all Environmental Impact Statements on the Town website as of February 26, 2006.
Mr. Black stated that any new application received would have to be posted. The lead agency may post the statement on their own website. The lead agency may direct applicant to post on their own or some consultants website. The posting must site URL in all notices regarding the statement.
Mrs. York stated that Mr. Keniry is looking on how to accomplish this new requirement. Mr. Keniry is also looking into whether both the short form and the long form have to be posted.
Mrs. Wood raised concern in posting the EAS forms without the applications. People viewing these statements will not know why or what they are posted for.
Mr. Kadlecek suggested having a paragraph in front of the form explaining what is going on.
Mr. Black stated that Chapter 641 of New York State Law 2005 covers this issue. Mr. Keniry is looking into it.
Town Board Liaison
Mr. Black stated that as our Liaison is ill there is no report tonight.
Mr. Kadlecek made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly A. Caron Attachment 1
January 12, 2006
Mr. Raymond E. Black Planning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: Exempt Subdivision - Lands of Leslie & Alberta Vincent Tax Map Parcel No. 226.00-1-68.1
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received a proposed two-lot subdivision of lands of Leslie & Alberta Vincent located on the west side of Sweetman Road opposite Lasher Road. The subdivision plan dated May 10, 1995 was prepared by Gilbert VanGuilder, P.L.S. of Gilbert VanGuilder Land Surveyor, PLLC. 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. I reviewed the property on January 11, 2006 and offer the following comments for your consideration.
Any proposed driveway to serve Lot #2 will require a culvert to maintain existing ditch line drainage. The size of the culvert must be approved by the Town Engineer or Highway Superintendent prior to issuance of a building permit. Any driveway over 500 feet in length must be accessible and able to hold a 50,000 pound, 30 foot long vehicle with facilities for turning available within 100 feet of any structure.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please feel free to call.
Very truly yours,
Michael McNamara, P.E. The Environmental Design Partnership
C:\MY DOCUMENTS\WINWORD\charlton\vincent_sweetmanroad_subdivreview.doc Cc: Planning Board Members Bill Keniry Gilbert VanGuilder, P.L.S.
Attachment 3 February 8, 2006
Mr. Raymond E. Black Planning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: Exempt Subdivision - Lands of Ronald & Sandra Muscanell Tax Map Parcel No. 256.10-1-9
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received a proposed two-lot subdivision of lands of Ronald and Sandra Muscanell located on the north side of Crooked Street approximately 600 feet west of Stage Road. The subdivision plan dated December 27, 2005 was prepared by Thompson/Fleming Land Surveyors, 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. I reviewed the property on February 7th and offer the following comments for your consideration.
“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.”
“It is the policy of this state and this community to conserve, protect and encourage the development and improvement of agricultural land for the production of food, and other products and also for its natural and ecological value. This notice is to inform prospective residents that farming activities occur within the Town. Such farming activities may include, but not be limited to, activities that cause noise, dust, smoke and odors.”
If you have any questions concerning this project, please feel free to call.
Very truly yours,
Michael McNamara, P.E. The Environmental Design Partnership
C:\MY DOCUMENTS\WINWORD\charlton\muscanell_crookedstreet_subdivreview.doc
Cc: Planning Board Members Bill Keniry Ronald & Sandra Muscanell Thompson/Fleming Land Surveyors, P.C.
|
|
|
| |