|
|
|
|
|
|
Town of Charlton Planning Board Minutes 784 Charlton Road Charlton, New York 12019
Minutes of Planning Board Meeting – March 20, 2006
Chairman Ray Black called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. at the John W. Taylor Hall.
Present: Ray Black, Chairman, Jay Wilkinson, Mark Hodgkins, Gary Vanderhorst, Alternate, William Keniry, Town Attorney and Susan York, Planning Board clerk. Christopher Mitchell joined the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
AGENDA MEETING: Chairman Black opened the meeting advising the Board that Gary Vanderhorst was asked to attend the meeting in order to have a quorum.
Mr. Black stated that there is a draft of the November minutes for approval. There were some comments, which have since been incorporated. Mrs. York stated that Mrs. Caron drafted the minutes entirely from the tapes. Mrs. York stated that she had very little changes. Mr. Black inquired if the other board members had reviewed the November draft. Mr. Wilkinson stated that he has reviewed the draft. Mr. Black stated that he does not have a copy of the November minutes with him tonight.
Mr. Black stated that there is also a draft of the February minutes for approval. Mrs. York stated that she had a couple of changes wherein she requested a couple sentences be added. Mrs. York stated that she requested any monies received at that meeting go into the record. Mrs. York provided Mr. Black with a copy of her requested changes. Mr. Black gave Mrs. York’s changes to the other board members present to review.
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1, 41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3)
Mr. Black stated that he has not heard anything from Mr. Durst and does not expect to have any additional information at tonight’s meeting.
Mr. Keniry stated that his understanding of this matter was that no new maps have been presented. The question of level of activity has been raised on this matter. Mr. Keniry stated that the period of time that the local subdivision regulations permit an applicant inactivity is six months. This application was commenced on or about June, 2005. Since that time the letter of August 2005 from the town engineer has not been responded to or complied with. Mr. Keniry raised the concept of reaching out to the applicant requesting a status as to what the applicant’s intentions are.
Mr. Black stated that the last activity the Board had was at the September, 2005 meeting. The last time Mr. Durst addressed the Board was at the January, 2006 meeting. We have not received any formal submittals.
Mr. Keniry stated that the local subdivision regulations state that 6 months of applicant inaction as determined by the Planning Board. It is really at the discretion of the Planning Board to decide.
Mr. Black stated that this matter is carried on the agenda in case the applicant decides to come to the meeting and provide an update. Mr. Black stated that this matter is also carried on the agenda because there is an active application to the Town Board regarding the water district extension.
Mr. Keniry inquired if the Board would like to ask the applicant for a plan.
Mr. Black inquired as to the status of the application to the Town Board from the Town Liaison, Sandy Verola, before addressing Mr. Keniry’s inquiry.
Mrs. Verola stated that the Town Board received a letter from Mr. Durst requesting a Public Hearing for the water extension. Mrs. Verola stated that she does not think they can have a Public Hearing at this point on the extension.
Mr. Keniry stated that Mrs. Verola is correct. There are a number of very significant items that the Town Board is currently lacking for example no SEQRA has been done. Mr. Keniry’s understanding is that the report that has been filed with the Town Board remains as a draft report. The statute requires that you must file a map plan and a report.
Mr. Black clarified that there is not even a complete application yet because the information submitted is not complete.
Mr. Keniry stated that at the Town Board level, that which has been submitted is not complete. In addition that which has been submitted is not legally sufficient for the Town Board to consider and have a Public Hearing on.
Mr. Black stated that it is in the best interests of both the Town Board and the Planning Board to have Mr. Keniry draft a letter to the applicant that relates our current assessment of the status of each. Planning Board is still evaluating the conceptual plan. Planning Board does not have a formal preliminary plat at this time. Planning Board is awaiting engineering details, which were outlined in the letter from Mr. McNamara, dated August 16, 2005. At the Town Board level, there is insufficient information necessary to proceed with an application there and list the items the Town Board is lacking. The letter should also request the applicant’s intentions. Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board and the Town Board should review a draft of the letter before it is forwarded to the applicant.
Mr. Keniry stated that there is an ongoing dialogue between the Town Board and the applicant at this time. Mr. Keniry will draft the letter relating only to the Planning Board.
Mr. Black stated that he would also like the applicant to know that the Planning Board acknowledges that the applicant does not have a sufficient application to the Town Board.
DeNooyer/Van Guilder (235-1-44 & 235-1-67.2)
Mr. Black stated that he has not received any new information on this matter.
Mr. Black stated that we expect, due to substantial water issues with the property, that this will wait until the weather warms up and there can be some percolation tests done.
Nigriny/Orminski (247-1-50.12)
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board sent the applicants a letter requesting a response before this evening otherwise the Planning Board would take action to deny the application.
Mr. Black stated that there has been no response to that letter therefore our activity tonight would be to deny that application.
Kenyon/Van Guilder (223-1-11.11)
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board has received all appropriate items for the submittal. This property is located on Rocky Ridge Road just off of Jersey Hill Road. The property borders both roads; it is on the corner.
Mr. Black stated that Michael McNamara, P.E., Environmental Design Partnership, LLP has reviewed the plan. Mr. McNamara has responded with a letter of March 15, 2006. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 1.
Per Mr. McNamara’s letter, item #1 pertained to the appearance of an error in the labeling of the topographic contours. Mr. Black stated that he could not get a sense of that while visiting the site. We will have Mr. Rabideau explain.
Item #2 pertained to no wetlands being shown on the map and the application stated that there are no DEC wetlands. Upon Mr. McNamara’s review of the DEC freshwater wetlands mapping, the presence of NYS wetland PS-19 is indicated.
Mr. Black reviewed the wetlands map with the board.
Mr. Black stated, from visiting the property that the western most lot is going to be very difficult because of the stream and the low lands that exist there. Mr. Black suggested that before the Planning Board act, it would be in best interest to get the wetlands determined and on the map.
Mr. Black inquired if the Planning Board wants to proceed with a Public Hearing before getting the wetlands determined.
Mr. Vanderhorst stated that he thinks the Planning Board should get the wetlands flagged first. Mr. Vanderhorst inquired if the area had been flagged yet.
Mr. Black stated that it has not been flagged.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that Mr. McNamara suggests it be done.
Mr. Black stated that in reviewing the wetlands map it does appear that the stream that cuts through is shown on the map and it shows a fairly wide corridor of wetlands on both sides of the stream with more of the wetlands being on the eastern side of the stream. It appears that the two contour lines on either side of the stream are the boundary of the wetlands.
Mr. Hodgkins suggested the Board get the information needed before scheduling a Public Hearing.
Mr. Black clarified the position that the Planning Board should request a wetlands delineation and marking before scheduling a Public Hearing.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that with the DeNooyer subdivision the Planning Board requested perc tests, too. Mr. Wilkinson inquired if we should also request that.
Mr. Black stated that it does not appear to him that there will be a percolation issue.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that in November 2002 a small piece of this property was already subdivided.
Mr. Black stated that this is now a major subdivision, which requires a full environmental impact assessment, meaning that the long form SEQRA needs to be completed and submitted by the applicant.
Davidson (246-3-61.1) Pre-application Conference
Mr. Black stated that he does not have a full understanding of the plan.
Mr. Black reviewed the drawings with the board members present. Mr. Black stated that last year the Planning Board approved subdivision of these two lots (showing on drawing). They were originally Bill Grabo’s land. One house has been built on this lot and there were plans to have the son build a second house here (showing on drawing). It appears now that there is another piece of land that is actually bordering and going around the other side which is only 225 feet which they want to make a driveway go back and put one house behind and then have another house here (showing on drawing). Mr. Black pointed out where Mr. Shippey’s house is located.
Mr. Black raised two issues concerning this subdivision.
First, the land has already been subdivided many times. There were plans to combine this with Mr. Pye’s property and make a road that comes in and connects to Dawson Road. There is a lot of subdivision activity, which brings us into the major subdivision category.
Second, Mr. Black stated that he would oppose the concept of a building lot that goes behind Mr. Shippey’s house. There is not enough frontage also.
Mr. Vanderhorst inquired if there is going to be two lots.
Mr. Black stated that it appears that way.
Mr. Black stated that Lot B would connect with the property currently owned by the applicants. Mr. Black stated that he is not sure if the applicants want to adjoin or want to connect. If the intention were to append to the Lot adjacent to it then the suggestion would be to eliminate the 35-foot right of way because it becomes relatively useless and try to move the property line.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that Lot A does not meet the minimum requirements as it goes back only 150 feet and fails to meet the 200’ mean width requirement.
The Board will discuss the issues with the applicants during the preapplication conference.
Comprehensive Plan Report
Mr. Black inquired if anyone had any thoughts from the workshop the Board had on March 1st.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that there were two items to discuss.
There is an advisory letter from Mr. McNamara regarding the storm water system for the new Town Hall.
Mr. Keniry has been looking into the new SEQRA requirements. Mr. Keniry stated that he has checked with DEC. They are not yet prepared to give any additional guidance at this time. Mr. Keniry stated that he has their only internal guidance, which is meant for DEC staff. Mr. Keniry stated that the DEC has amended the regulations in connection with SEQRA and the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) are now required to be posted on a public website. There are additional requirements that require the draft must be converted to a final when the final EIS is available. Also the final EIS must remain posted for one year after the approvals have been granted. There is one exception and that is if it is impracticable. Mr. Keniry stated that this Planning Board does not have to do anything because we have not had an EIS filed here since he has been with the Board. We have Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) that are filed. The Planning Board always has either a short form or a long form, depending on the classification of the project, filed. The Planning Board is in compliance. If at some point in time there is a positive declaration on a project or a project is going to be classified as having a likely environmental impact or a significant environmental impact then we may be going down a road where an applicant is required to prepare an EIS.
The meeting was closed at 7:35 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
Opened at 7:36 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Black stated that there are two drafts of meeting minutes to be approved, one from November 21, 2005 and one from February 20, 2006. Since we do not have enough votes for approval, Mr. Black stated that we would table this for now until Mr. Mitchell arrives.
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1, 41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3)
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Keniry would be drafting a letter stating our current status of actions relative to the Planning Board and the application for subdivision. The letter will also reference the Town Board and the application for the water district extension citing that there is inactivity on both fronts. The letter will request what the applicant’s intentions are.
DeNooyer/VanGuilder (235-1-44 & 235-1-67.2)
Mr. Black stated that due to the concern for the potential for significant water problems, the Planning Board requested percolation tests proving that acceptable perc could be obtained.
Mr. Rabideau approached the Board stating that he has spoken to Mr. DeNooyer. Mr. DeNooyer is waiting for better conditions to get the results.
Nigriny/Orminski (247-1-50.2)
Mr. Black stated that this was an application for a two-lot subdivision. It did not meet zoning setback requirements and was referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance. The ZBA denied this request.
The Planning Board sent a letter to the applicants two months ago requesting either resubmitting the application meeting zoning requirements or a formal withdrawal of the subdivision application. We have not received a response. Last month we sent a second letter again requesting the same stating that without a response by the March 20, 2006 meeting that the Planning Board would take action to deny the subdivision application as submitted. We have not received any form of response or any action.
Mr. Black requested a motion to deny the application as submitted.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if we could use previous wording from the Banker Trust matter.
Mr. Black read the Banker Trust wording from the February 20, 2006 minutes to the Board. The wording does not apply to this matter.
Mr. Black stated that the resolution should state that the subdivision application as received did not meet zoning requirements and was referred to the ZBA. Subsequently, ZBA denied the request for an area variance. In absence of a modified subdivision plan that meets zoning requirements or formal notification to withdraw the subdivision, the Planning Board disapproves the subdivision application as proposed.
Mr. Keniry recommended doing a SEQRA determination first. The Planning Board has to take lead agency and make a SEQRA determination before passing a resolution to deny the subdivision.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion that the Planning Board takes lead agency status and the proposed action is an unlisted action under SEQRA with a negative impact declaration relative to environmental impact. Mr. Wilkinson seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black made a motion that the subdivision application as received did not meet zoning requirements and was referred to the ZBA. Subsequently, ZBA denied the request for an area variance. In absence of a modified subdivision plan that meets zoning requirements or formal notification to withdraw the subdivision, the Planning Board disapproves the subdivision application as proposed. Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Resolution 2006-05
Mr. Black stated that once the resolution is signed a copy would be forwarded to the applicants.
Kenyon/VanGuilder (223-1-11.11)
Mr. Rabideau approached the Board and handed out revised maps.
The Board reviewed the revised maps with Mr. Rabideau.
Mr. Black inquired as to the difference from the last maps.
Mr. Rabideau stated that per Mr. McNamara’s letter of March 15, 2006 (Attachment 1) there was an issue with the labeling of the contour lines. They have been fixed and changed.
Mr. Black stated that the Board discussed this matter during the agenda meeting. The Board raised some concerns.
The first concern was that the property was subdivided in November of 2002. In the past 15 years, this being a 5-lot subdivision, it is now placed into the major subdivision category. The only difference in what has been submitted to date and what will now be required is the long form Environmental Assessment form to meet the town requirements.
The second concern is the potential conflict between wetlands that are delineated on the wetlands map of DEC.
Mr. Rabideau stated that he has highlighted the area in question on the map.
Mr. Rabideau stated that he visited the site yesterday afternoon and saw where the stream crosses on the road. For about 50 to 60 feet the wetlands are approximately 50 feet wide and the farther north you go down the stream they keep narrowing up to a point probably 150-200 feet from the road down where it goes into a distinct stream with a distinct bed and bank. Since they do wetlands delineation, Mr. Rabideau stated that he does not think that if DEC were to come out that they would even be under their jurisdiction [streams come under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers]. The map indicated that the wetlands are approximately 500 feet wide and that is not the case. The maps are very general in nature and even if the stream corridor was classified as DEC from the most extreme portions of the wetland areas there is still plenty of room to do a house and septic. If you go 100 feet from the stream you basically go uphill and at just about 100 feet it plateaus out.
Mr. Rabideau stated that on Lot #2 the buildable area is on the westerly portion and the center of Lot #2 away from the stream. On Lot #3 the stream is farther to the east.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if the setbacks can be met. Mr. Rabideau stated that they could be met without question.
Mr. Rabideau showed the Board the stream on the map.
Mr. Mitchell inquired as to soil depth. Mr. Rabideau responded that he did not know.
Mr. Rabideau stated that the area has been logged.
Mr. Black inquired as to the process of having the area flagged in terms of the boundaries. Mr. Rabideau stated that their firm does do flagging.
Mr. Black inquired if the flagging was done based upon the observations that Mr. Rabideau did yesterday as opposed to soil samples. Mr. Rabideau stated that they do the three criteria’s: soils, hydrology and vegetation. Mr. Rabideau stated that for this property where there is frost on the ground they look at the vegetation and hydrology. If you have the vegetation you more than likely will have the other two. This area is more or less hydrology driven. This area could be flagged fairly easy. Mr. Rabideau stated that the issue is that DEC is supposed to go out and flag it but because they are so understaffed Van Guilder’s firm could do it.
Mr. Hodgkins inquired if the flagging would be reflected on the drawing. Mr. Rabideau responded yes.
Mr. Black stated that he has driven by the property and it does not appear that Lot #3 and Lot #4 will have any potential issues.
Mr. Black stated that in the letter from Michael McNamara dated March 15, 2006 (Attachment 1) it was pointed out that it needs to be determined that there would not be an issue with the potential for a crossing for a driveway. The concern is meeting the 100-foot setback requirement. Mr. Rabideau responded that it could be met.
Mr. Black requested that the drawing be flagged and the 100-foot setbacks are located on the drawing.
Mr. Rabideau stated that they could locate the stream and the edge of the flagged wetlands and place the 100-foot adjacent area on the drawing.
Mr. Black stated that the long Environmental Assessment form is also required.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that the Board discussed that if the flagging wipes out one lot the subdivision would be under 5 lots and therefore would not be a major subdivision.
Mr. Black stated that with the exception of the modified drawings, we have everything we need to move forward and accept this as a preliminary application. Mr. Black inquired of the Board if a Public Hearing should be scheduled at this time.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if any soil boring had been done on the property. Mr. Rabideau responded no.
Mr. Black stated that there is the potential for inadequate soils.
Mr. Mitchell raised concern that there may have to be a raised system. Mr. Mitchell stated that he would like to see perc tests or soil depths.
Mr. Wilkinson referred to the current guidelines and read them to the Board.
Mr. LaFountain stated that each lot should be tested in approximate location for depth of bedrock and depth of ground water.
Mr. Black inquired if the proposed housing area and the proposed septic and well locations could be shown. Mr. Black also requested showing a boring in that area with a table. Mr. Rabideau responded yes.
Mr. Black stated that prior to scheduling a Public Hearing the Board would like to see the wetlands delineation with appropriate 100 foot setback and the proposed locations for housing, septic and well relative to the buffer with a boring in that area that indicates that there is sufficient soil depth to support septic systems.
Mr. Rabideau stated that this would be done for next months meeting.
Mr. Keniry stated that a complete copy of the deed is needed. Mr. Rabideau will get that to the Board.
Mr. Rabideau wanted to recap the requirements for next months meeting: long form EAF, flag and locate wetland area, show on the map the 100 foot adjacent area, perc tests and test bed location and information, show proposed house, septic and wells and copy of the deed.
Mr. LaFountain added that due to potential problems with the presence of bedrock, the applicant might find that 200’ of separation might be required between the well and septic system. It is best to check the perc early to avoid problems.
Vincent/VanGuilder (226-1-68.1)
Mr. Rabideau left the final maps with Mr. Black to be signed. He also agreed to contact Mr. Vincent to inform him that his $600.00 Park Fee is still due.
Saddlebrook Subdivision
Mr. Rabideau stated that the owner of one of the new houses going into that subdivision would like to pick up a 199 square foot triangular parcel off of another lot. Mr. Rabideau inquired as to the process. Mr. Black stated that a subdivision application would have to be submitted but it would be called a lot line change.
Mr. Rabideau showed the Board on the map.
Mr. Black stated that there would not be an application fee. Engineering review would also be waived. If the Planning Board chooses to waive the Public Hearing then the adjacent property owners would be null and void together with the Active Farming form.
Mr. Rabideau clarified that the documents needed would be the subdivision application, mapping and the short form EAF. Mr. Black responded that was correct.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the Board should review the original subdivision map.
Mr. Keniry inquired if review was necessary because it could create a non-conforming condition. Mr. LaFountain stated that it might.
Zoning Report
Mr. Dave LaFountain, Zoning Administrator, provided a copy of the February 2006 activities to the Board. A copy of the report is annexed hereto as Attachment 2. The Board reviewed the report with Mr. LaFountain.
Minutes
Mr. Black stated that he would like to revisit the November minutes. Mr. Black inquired if Mr. Mitchell had reviewed the November 2005 minutes.
Mr. Black requested a motion for approval of the November 21, 2005 Planning Board Meeting Minutes. Mr. Wilkinson made the motion. Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion. All were in favor. Mr. Vanderhorst abstended from the vote as he did not attend the meeting.
Although completed in a timely manner, the February minutes could not be approved because not enough members were present at the March meeting who had also attended the February meeting.
Comprehensive Plan Report
Mr. Hodgkins inquired if the Board members had a copy of the minutes from the March 6, 2006 meeting.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that nothing was decided at that meeting. Mr. Hodgkins stated that he was not at that meeting. Mr. Hodgkins inquired if Mr. Vanderhorst had any information to add as he attended the meeting.
Mr. Vanderhorst stated that the plan is a process and when the process is complete then it goes to the various boards. They are still reviewing the recommendations given. Mr. Vanderhorst stated that the PUD’s have been a popular item of discussion.
The Board reviewed the March 6, 2006 Comprehensive Plan Committee Meeting Minutes pertaining to Planning Board.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board would continue to work on the recommendations to the committee, which is on the agenda for this evening.
Town Board Liaison
Mrs. Verola did not have a report.
ZBA Referrals
Mr. Black stated that we have two referrals from the Town of Galway.
The Board reviewed the copies of the referrals.
Mr. Black stated that the first referral is located on Route 147. The applicants names are Sandra A. Leahy (f/k/a Sandra A. Sanders) and Fred S. Sanders. It is a 128-acre parcel and they are subdividing off a 6.9 acre piece to make a one-single family unit. It has been referred to the Planning Board because the boundary of the original 128-acre parcel is on the Town line. The part with the 6.9 acres is on the northern part of the parcel therefore it does not border Charlton.
Mr. Black stated that the second referral is a special use permit and site plan review for commercial horse-boarding operation. The applicants names are Paul and Sue Lent. The parcel contains approximately 40 acres with 26 acres consisting of all of the buildings located in Galway and the remaining 14 acres are located in the Town of Charlton.
Mr. Black had a map showing the portion of the property located in Charlton. The Board reviewed the map.
Mr. LaFountain inquired what would be the road frontage in Charlton. Mr. Black stated 397 feet.
Mr. Black stated that if someone wanted to set up a horse-boarding facility they would have to come in for a special use permit in the Town of Charlton. Since 1/3 of the land is in the Town of Charlton it is not inconceivable that you would end up with paddocks and horses on Charlton Land. Mr. Black inquired if the Board felt that there should be a dual application special use permit in the Town of Galway and the Town of Charlton or should we acknowledge once applied for and given by the Town of Galway with our approval that they automatically have a special use permit with the Town of Charlton.
Mr. Mitchell stated his concern is how much traffic would be added to the road considering the other end of the road is a seasonal road for Galway. It is hardly passable in a rainy summer.
Mr. Black stated that the issues would be traffic and road access.
Mr. Keniry inquired where the application was in terms of the process. Mr. Black stated that this application would receive preliminary review at the March 28th meeting. Mr. Keniry will find out more information to guide the Planning Board. Mr. Keniry stated that the applicant might be required to file applications in both Towns.
Mr. Black inquired as to who maintains the road now. Mr. Mitchell stated that Charlton maintains the road.
Mr. Black inquired if the special use permits come before the Town Board. Mrs. Verola stated that was correct.
Mr. Vanderhorst stated that we are not benefiting from any of the tax base, but we are furnishing the infrastructure for it.
Mr. Mitchell stated that traffic is a major concern. It is not like to road cannot take the traffic and they are only running 20 horses which is not a huge operation.
Mr. Black stated that he feels Mr. Keniry’s research will find that this should be a dual application to the Town of Charlton on the basis that we are supporting the access. Therefore we are dealing with the potential access safety issues whereas the operation and the tax base are associated with the Town of Galway. Mr. Black stated that for that reason we should have independent approval and review process and request the simultaneous submittal to both towns. Mr. Black stated that the final go ahead should require approval by both Towns.
Mr. Keniry stated that if the Planning Board did nothing and at some later point Mr. LaFountain did an inspection at the property, there is a possibility that their use could be at risk. Mr. Keniry stated that the applicants are well advised to follow the Planning Board’s recommendation. Mr. Keniry stated that this is a matter of jurisdiction.
Mr. LaFountain stated that in his opinion this is a use concern. It the property in question is the next property north than it does not affect land use in the Town of Charlton.
Mr. Black stated that our concern is not associated with land use.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the infrastructure is a valid point but it is not what he thinks the Zoning requirement is.
Mr. Keniry stated that a part of this project is in the Town of Charlton. Mr. Keniry stated that it may invade into the four corners of Charlton’s jurisdiction strictly speaking on a map.
Mr. Keniry advised the Board of a hypothetical where you have a road that runs to the Town border with Glenville and then in Glenville they choose to have some type of industrial plant, it increases the traffic in your Town. However, without land use in your town, the question of independent jurisdiction arises.
Mr. Vanderhorst stated that this is not the first time this has happened. Mr. Vanderhorst stated that he remembers a house going up that was in Glenville and the driveway went all through Charlton. It was in West Glenville Fire District and it was approved.
Mr. LaFountain stated that his standpoint is a land use situation with the horses and the business that it is going to generate being on our land in the Town of Charlton.
Mr. Mitchell stated that considering the amount of noise that was made when they tried to patch up a few potholes in the lower half of the road and the school bus could barely get through it. He thinks there will be quite a few people with strong opinions on any other traffic or development on that road.
Mr. Black stated that the appropriate thing to do would be to draft a letter to the Planning Board in Galway in advance of their meeting next Tuesday. Mr. Black inquired if Mr. Keniry would be willing to draft the letter.
Mr. Keniry stated that he would draft the letter. Mr. Keniry suggested addressing the letter to the applicant as well.
Mr. Black requested that the Town Board Attorney, Robert VanVranken, Esq. review the letter before it is sent out.
Mr. Black stated that on the Leahy referral, the subdivision on Route 147, the Planning Board’s position should be no comment. Mrs. York will draft the letter to the Town of Galway Planning Board. Mr. Black requested that the referral be referenced and the Planning Board has no comment.
Pre-application Conference
Davidson (246-3-61.1)
Mr. Black stated that Jane and George Davidson have requested a pre-application conference.
Mr. Black asked Mr. and Mrs. Davidson to approach the Board. Mr. Bill Grabo also approached the Board.
Mr. Black asked Mrs. Davidson for an explanation of their plan.
Mrs. Davidson stated that they are interested in purchasing a piece of property from Mr. Grabo. They would like to subdivide a piece off of Mr. Grabo’s land. Mrs. Davidson stated that they are looking at two lots.
Mrs. Davidson provided a map for the board to review.
Mrs. Davidson stated that the first lot is only 50-foot road frontage going back and connecting with their piece of land here (showing on map). It will go behind here (showing on map) and will be a 2 or so acre lot with a 50-foot road frontage. The second lot will have 200 feet of road frontage and 2 acres.
Mr. Black stated that we had this subdivision last year and there is a house (Davidson’s house) here (showing on map) and there was an attempt to build a second. Mrs. Davidson stated that was correct, for her son.
Mr. Black inquired as to the intended use for this property. Mr. Black clarified that the intent is to build a house here (showing on map). Mr. Black clarified that this property (showing on map) would be for a third child. Mrs. Davidson stated that was correct.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board has several issues at this point.
Mr. Black stated that the first issue is that the concept of building a home behind another home, someone’s front yard and someone else’s backyard, is something that the Planning Board would not endorse. The Planning Board could not approve this without being referred to the ZBA because it does not meet the 200 feet road frontage requirement. If this were to be referred to the ZBA, Planning Board would be asked for an opinion. The Planning Board’s opinion would be to disapprove because of the idea of putting a house behind another house especially when they are in close proximity.
Mr. Black stated the requirements of the Town of Charlton are that you have to have 200 feet of road frontage throughout the parcel. According to the drawing provided, it is 200 feet in the front but only 150 feet in the back and it is on average less than 200 feet. This does not meet zoning requirements. That would also have to go to the ZBA for a variance. Mr. Black stated that it could go to less than 200 feet provided that the mean of the lot width is 200 feet.
Mr. Davidson stated that this starts at 200 feet but over here is 250 feet (showing on map). Mr. Black stated that it does not appear that way on the drawing.
Mrs. Davidson stated that her husband drew it but according to the surveyor, from this point here (showing on map) is 250 feet.
Mr. Mitchell stated that based upon what they are requesting, it will have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Black stated that our recommendation to the ZBA would be to deny.
Mr. Black stated that if the intent was to amend this land to this lot (showing on map) so this lot becomes 4 acres instead of 2 acres then that would be fine.
Mrs. Davidson stated that they could go back and make this lot 200 feet here (showing on map) and square it off here (showing on map) and make it 200 x 200.
Mr. Mitchell stated that they could also make it just one lot.
Mr. Grabo stated that he had approached Mr. Shippey to purchase some land and Mr. Shippey declined his offer.
Mrs. Davidson stated that since most of the area would still be wooded they would be able to keep privacy between Mr. Shippey’s house and where they would like to construct a house.
Mr. Black stated that based upon observing the woods on the lot it does not necessarily have to be that. Trees can be removed. The close proximity would not be approved.
Mr. Davidson wanted to clarify that without having 200 feet of frontage out here (showing on map) this second lot does not meet the zoning requirements. Mr. Mitchell stated that was correct.
Mr. Black stated that if it did meet the 200 feet out here (showing on map) we would also try to keep the location of the house from the other house.
Mrs. Davidson stated that was ok and they will just start it from here (showing on map) and go 200 feet over and 200 feet down and square it off and it will be 200 x 200.
Mr. Davidson stated it was drawn this way to try to keep this property away from the other structure here (showing on map). A straight line could probably be drawn if they moved it over 50 feet.
Mr. Black stated that with the prior subdivisions within the past 15 years, this now falls into the major subdivision category. Mr. Black stated that including the three previous subdivided lots adding these two proposed lots would create a five-lot subdivision. Mr. Black stated that the applicants would be required to file a long form Environmental Assessment Form as opposed to a short form.
Mr. Davidson inquired if they only subdivide one lot they don’t have to worry about that.
The Board reviewed the prior subdivision map of this property to ascertain the exact amount of lots.
Mrs. Davidson stated that they could not do 200 feet for both lots because they would be running into Mr. Grabo’s driveway.
Mr. Black stated that they could not create a non-conforming lot. A minimum of 200 feet has to be maintained.
Mrs. Davidson stated that there was not 600 feet there was only 500 something feet. That is why they shortened it all out. Originally they thought they could do 200 and then 200 but that shorted Mr. Grabo on his driveway. With the 50 feet and the 200 feet he had from this point (showing on map) over to the driveway 185 feet so we would impinge on his driveway if we kept 200 feet. The driveway crossed the other side. That is why they decided on 50 feet.
Mr. Black reviewed Mr. Grabo’s map with the Board and the Davidson’s.
Mr. Black inquired of Mr. Grabo if there were any plans for a potential road coming out through here (showing on map) onto Dawson Road. Mr. Grabo stated that the initial plan before the previous subdivision was to have a roadway access back to the Schenectady County part. There were some problems with Wetlands on another persons property on Dawson Road where it would have connected up to his property. He does dot know what the status is now. Mr. Grabo stated that he has not been approached by anyone to put a road through the property.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board’s feedback is that this lot (showing on map) would be a no; the lot squared off to be 200 feet by 400 feet fits all of the requirements.
Mr. Black pulled out the Wetlands map to see if there are any wetlands there. Mr. Black stated that there were none.
Mr. Davidson stated that they would revise their drawing to reflect one lot 200 x 400.
Mrs. York stated that they would need an affidavit signed by Mr. Grabo stating that they are applying for a subdivision on his land and he is in agreement with that.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that there is a one-day conference in Washington County on Local Planning and Agriculture on March 22, 2006. It is an all day conference ending around 3:00 p.m. The cost is $25.00.
Michael McNamara, Environmental Design Partnership, LLP has written a letter regarding the new Town Hall storm water management system and the issues involved with the plan site review. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 3.
Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York has revised the Subdivision Application and review guide. Mr. Black inquired if any Board members had any comments. Everyone was in agreement that Mrs. York did a great job.
Mr. Black stated that the standard notes have been added.
Mrs. York stated that she did make one change referring to picking up of Public Hearing cards. Mrs. York changed the wording to reflect that Mrs. York will provide the cards.
Mr. Black requested that the Board members review the revised application and review guide in detail and next month formal approval action will be taken. Mr. Black asked Mrs. York to E-mail Mrs. Wood and Mr. Kadlecek to request that they also review the revised instructions for the April meeting.
Mr. Black stated that as a Board, we reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Summary and had a workshop on March 1st to discuss the Planning Board’s recommendations. Mrs. Caron prepared an outline and summary for the Board to review. A copy of the outline is annexed hereto as Attachment 4.
Mr. Black stated that in our review, we tried to think about things that we had dealt with in our experiences on the Planning Board and to annotate issues not addressed by the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Black stated that Items A-H are ideas of things we thought were worthy of notation. The Board felt the plan as in front of us was too general to be directly useful by the Planning Board. In talking with Mr. Wood, his opinion was that the comprehensive plan only lists the desire of the Town. The specifics of how to do it or how it would be implemented would be up to various boards within the Town and the committees that would be formed afterwards.
Mr. Black stated that there is not much the Planning Board can do with what we have here. The sense is that the desire of the Comprehensive Plan was to not create specifics and our desire is to create specifics.
Mr. Black stated that there are two things that he wanted to point out specifically. One being letter E on the outline, Town owned property. Mr. Black stated that there was nothing specific in the current comprehensive plan about that. Mr. Black would like to see the identification of the types of land uses that might be considered for the future, i.e. Parks, ball fields, trails, etc.
Mr. Vanderhorst stated that this has been considered. Trails are a delicate subject because you are talking about other people’s land.
Mr. Black stated that it is tied to the subject of PUD’s. If they go forward or be it that of conservation design type subdivisions, the possibility of having available land that can be donated to the Town exists. Knowing in advance what we are looking for and why will help the Planning Board decide and push for certain things.
Mr. Vanderhorst stated that the committee did not understand that the Town really wanted to be burdened with land.
Mr. Black stated that the Town does not want to be burdened with land. Mr. Black stated that he was speaking in terms of the Planning Board.
Mr. Vanderhorst stated that in terms of the PUD being developed they thought maybe each property owner would own that land. The Town does not want the maintenance or the liability.
Mr. Mitchell stated that if you are going to do a major subdivision, something with a PUD, and you are going to have walk access through to another development or to a park, that could be considered under a PUD. When looking at a major subdivision that is not unreasonable to request.
Mr. Black stated that as those kind of developments come up there may be an opportunity for land.
Mr. Black stated that the point that the Planning Board is trying to make is that there is nothing stated in the Comprehensive Plan that would indicate the types of facilities that the Town may desire in the future.
Mr. Vanderhorst stated that the committee’s feelings are that the plan is still in infancy. Mr. Vanderhorst stated that in looking over the outline from the Planning Board’s workshop, there are some issues that the committee has missed.
Mr. Mitchell stated that in terms of categorizing minor subdivisions and major subdivisions, it should be in the guidelines of things to plan on.
Mr. Black stated that his concern is future public space. Planning Board is looking for the regulation. At this point the committee has not even stated this as a potential desire, therefore it will never get turned into a regulation.
Mr. Black stated that the other concern is the concept of conservation design subdivisions and PUD’s. Conservation design subdivisions are in the regulations as part of the Planning Board process. Mr. Black inquired if the idea of the Planned Unit Development is intended to be a replacement for the conservation design or in addition to. It specifically brings it out of the Planning Board and into the Town Board. Mr. Black stated that was a change.
Mr. Mitchell stated that an example would be that if you were going to put in a major subdivision that would require new roads, traffic lights, changing the flow of the area and the water, then it would come under a PUD. Whereas if someone wanted to work with the Town they could voluntarily come under a PUD to get what they need.
Mr. Vanderhorst stated that there are so many factors in dealing with PUD’s that if you look at the whole Town there are very few areas that would be able to handle PUD’s.
Mr. Black stated that any major subdivision, according to our Zoning Ordinance, containing 5 or more lots requires a submittal of a conservation design in addition to the normal design. Mr. Black inquired if PUD’s were recommended as a substitute for that or in addition to that. Mr. Black further inquired that if it is in addition to, how does it differ.
Mr. Vanderhorst stated that he would check into that and get the information for the Board.
Mr. Black summarized the three issues that the Planning Board could give feedback on today: -We need to identify potential public use land needs for the future in general -Relationship between conservation design requirement in effect now and Planned Unit Development -What are the views as to how current backland should be developed, as there are alternatives to that i.e. roads, keyhole lots, cul-de-sacs,
Mr. Black reviewed the remaining letters on the outline with the Board.
The board agreed that the remainder of the list consisted in details that are not going to be seen in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Black stated that the idea of commercial land should also be mentioned. Mr. Vanderhorst stated that the committee has reviewed the idea of commercial land and the consensus of most was the idea to not even mention it now. Mr. Black stated that the committee should consider a commercial zone or zones.
Mr. Black stated that he would write up a summary on the three specific points the Planning Board would like to see in the plan.
Mr. Vanderhorst added that Charlton needs to have a Comprehensive Plan in place in order to qualify for many potential grants that are available.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hodgkins seconded. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly A. Caron Recording Secretary
Attachment 1 March 15, 2006
Mr. Raymond E. Black Planning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: Four lot subdivision - Lands of Richard & Priscilla Kenyon Tax Map Parcel No. 223.00-1-11.11
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received a proposed four-lot subdivision of lands of Richard & Priscilla Kenyon located on the west side of Jersey Hill Road and on the north side of Rocky Ridge Road. The subdivision plan dated December 27, 2005 was prepared by Duane Rabideau, P.L.S. of Gilbert VanGuilder Land Surveyor, PLLC. An existing home fronting on Jersey Hill Road occupies the largest proposed lot. This same property was also subdivided in November of 2002 creating the two-acre parcel on Rocky Ridge Road indicated as “Lands N/F of Wight” on the plan.
Each of the proposed lots complies with the area and setback requirements of Charlton’s Zoning Ordinance. The plan also contains all of the relevant standard town notes concerning wells, septic systems and the right to farm law. I conducted a site inspection of the property on March 14, 2006 and offer the following comments for your consideration.
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\kenyon_rockyridge_subdreview.doc
Cc: Planning Board Members Bill Keniry Gilbert VanGuilder, P.L.S. Attachment 3 March 6, 2006
Mr. Alan Grattidge, Supervisor Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: Proposed Charlton Town Hall
Dear Supervisor Grattidge:
As you requested, we have recently completed a review of the revised plans for the new Town Hall. The site plan was approved by the Planning Board at its meeting on March 21, 2005. Since that time, the project has been delayed pending the completion of a Cultural Resource Management Survey. We understand that those issues have now been addressed and that it is anticipated the project will be let for bid in the next few weeks. The Town Board is seeking final comments so that any necessary plan changes can be incorporated prior to the bid.
The revised plans now show aboveground stormwater management basins in lieu of the large underground filter and “stormtech” array. Aboveground basins represent a more conventional approach to stormwater management and were originally considered during the conceptual planning stage. Their substitution will result in a very substantial cost savings to the project and will avoid many potential construction problems.
The storm system includes an open sand filter and subsequent detention basin. The design conveys small storm flows and the initial water quality volume of larger storms into the sand filter. Runoff is quickly percolated through imported sands and collected by an underdrain system where it is then discharged to the Charlton Road ditch line near the entrance drive to the site. Larger storms will bypass the sand filter and will be discharged to the detention basin. The detention basin bottom is sloped toward the west end where a small outlet pipe will restrict outflow and slowly discharge it to the same ditch line near the west boundary.
We believe that the sand filter and detention basin are an acceptable stormwater management design. If good quality material is used, the sand filter will be dry almost immediately after a storm event. The detention basin will also remain dry except during large rainfalls. The bottom is sloped toward the outfall pipe which is placed at the bottom elevation of the basin. An underdrain is also specified on the details for the outlet structure which will aid in the complete emptying of the basin. Water impounded in the detention basin will likely be drained only a few hours after a major storm event.
The planting plan does not show any proposed vegetation between the detention basin and the gravel walkway along Charlton Road. It may be desirable to add shrubs of 3 to 4 feet in height along the basin embankment. Red dogwood (Cornus), proposed in other locations on the site would provide screening of the basin without blocking the view of the Town Hall building. Other similar shrubs could be mixed in along the walkway for variation. Existing trees that are noted on the plan for relocation could also be positioned along the front walkway for screening. Similarly, the proposed plantings between the front entrance sidewalk and the storm basin sand filter may not provide enough of a barrier. Revising the proposed “dwarf boxwood” shrubs to the more substantial “burning bush” should be considered. Plantings in the detention basin on the side slopes could also be added. Selection of a water favoring species such as summersweet (Clethra Alnifolia) would serve to “break up” the open expanse of the detention basin.
There are several changes specified by the Planning Board that have not been reflected on the plans. These revisions should be made prior to bidding by contractors. A curbed island is still indicated on the east end of the center parking spaces. Comments from the fire department during the public hearing expressed concern that curbing would prevent fire trucks from making the sharp turn into the parking lot. It was decided that the island should be striped instead of curbed.
As a condition of approval, the Planning Board also required that a diversion swale be graded between the proposed septic system and the shared boundary with James Crawford. This addition must be made to mitigate the requirement that down gradient wells be 200 feet from septic systems when in the direct path of surface drainage. Finally, the Board expressed concern that any existing underground piping on the property may allow a short circuiting of the septic system. Although only a remote possibility, the property’s previous use as a cheese factory may have included some drainage or piping. The Board required that any existing piping found during construction must be removed to eliminate this possibility. A note should be added to the plans notifying the contractor of this condition. The note should be prominently located to prevent oversight.
We have also reviewed our previous comments sent directly to the design engineer by memo dated March 17, 2005. The nature of those comments was related primarily to correct errors and omissions on many of the details and design notes. It appears that a number of those corrections also remain outstanding. We strongly suggest that these changes be made prior to bidding to prevent misunderstanding.
Very truly yours,
Michael McNamara, P.E. The Environmental Design Partnership
Cc: Raymond Black, Planning Board Chair J. Paul Vosburgh, Architect (w/ 3/17/05 memo) Bill Keniry
C:\MY DOCUMENTS\WINWORD\charlton\charltontownhallreview_march2006.doc Attachment 4
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUMMARYOUTLINE OF ISSUES/SUGGESTIONS
A. Authority to modify applications beyond Zoning Requirements -site distances -speed considerations -driveway cuts
B. Availability of water and soil types -percolation rates -require proof of perc rate before land could be sold without infringing on buyers who are purchasing land without the intention of building (ie. forever wild land owners) -potable wells -hydro fracture vs. water wells
C. Adequacy of Septic Systems in concentrated areas and means to do it -raised septic systems have high failure rate -no more than 5 built up systems within five acres -place requirements on shared septic systems
D. Prevention of odd shaped lots/Preservation of Land -keyhole lots -bowling alley lots -small road frontage lots with large back land (ie. Possible future subdivision) -area density vs. lot size -preserving open space as good land as well as wetlands -more density to offset construction -making conservation design mandatory to preserve open space -require sketch phase of subdivision application to require conservation costs -ensuring conserved land stays that way
E. Town owned property and PUD’s -identify what land should be town owned -identify purpose and intention for land -public infrastructure (ie. Land used for hiking, biking, walking)
F. Commercial Land -identify location of land for possible future commercial sites -identify high speed rates of surrounding roads -signage issues -identify current regulations prohibiting a buyer from constructing a business not indicative to surroundings
G. Farmland -identify tax incentives (ie. Rented land) -identify differention between farmland and open land
F. Public use/Posted Land -identify abuses of land -identify ways of prevention of abuse -identify problem of utilizing land without owner’s permission
Summary
The comprehensive plan as read does not provide a design for the Planning Board to know what the goals for the land are going to look like when the development has ceased.
The Planning Board feels that there are many issues with site-specific regulations and feel unable to implement site-specific regulations beyond the current zoning regulations.
Kim 03/13/06
|
|
|
| |