Town of Charlton

Town of Charlton

Planning Board Minutes

And Public Hearing Minutes

784 Charlton Road

Charlton, NY 12019

Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting and Public Hearing –November 15, 2004.

Chair Raymond Black called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the John W. Taylor Hall.

Present: Raymond Black, Chair, Constance Wood, Christopher Mitchell, Deborah Herrin, Steve Caine, Jack Kadlecek, John Tasse and Bill Keniry, Attorney for Planning Board.

The meeting opened with the salute of the flag led by Raymond Black.

Mr. Caine moved to approve the August 25, 2004, meeting minutes. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor except for Mr. Tasse, Mrs. Wood and Mr. Mitchell who were not in attendance at the August 25, 2004, additional meeting.

It was decided to hold off on the October 18, 2004, meeting minutes until the January, 2005, meeting. Mrs. Herrin had sent the secretary some minor changes but due to miscommunication the changes were not brought to the meeting and therefore not made into the meeting of November 15, 2004.

LOT LINE CHANGE:

Ball: Dave and Lisa Ball were returning the west two acres of a four acre parcel back to the original farm (Mr. Richardson's farm). Therefore, it would reduce the one lot to a two acre lot with 200' of frontage on Charlton Road. The house remaining has 200' of frontage. The remaining (westerly) two acres is shy of the 200' required for a building lot, but it is actually being attached to the main farm so it will not be a concern. Mr. Black noted that the Board had opted not to have a public hearing. An environmental impact form needed to be completed which Mr. Ball completed. The application was forwarded to the County and Mr. Black received their response back which Mr. Black read. It stated there was no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. It was noted by the County that any new or future driveway would require a curb permit from Saratoga County Department of Public Works.

Mr. Tasse moved the Planning Board take lead agency status. Mr. Mitchell seconded. All were in favor.

Mr. Tasse moved to approve the Ball lot line change as exempt because it is a lot line change. Mrs. Wood seconded. Mr. Tasse seconded. All were in favor.

TOWN OF CHARLTON

PLANNING BOARD

Page 2

Mr. LaFountain asked about the clock for the original four acre subdivision - from the viewpoint of future subdivisions. Mr. Black asked for a little more clarification and Mr. LaFountain asked about a major subdivision being from 15 years from now. Mrs. Wood stated they had subdivided off the property two years ago and that started the clock running in terms of a major subdivision but this action does not change that. He asked why it would not. Mrs. Wood stated because it was a subdivision two years ago.

Mr. Tasse moved to list this application be considered an unlisted action under SEQRA determination with negative declaration environmental impact. Mrs. Wood seconded. All were in favor.

Mrs. Herrin moved that the Planning Board approve the lot line adjustment of the Ball/Richardson application and authorize the Chair to sign the mylar. Mr. Tasse seconded. All were in favor.

Resolution 2004-13 was made.

PUBLIC HEARING

Schermerhorn:

Mr. Black opened the Public Hearing for the Schermerhorn matter at 7:32 p.m. Mr. Black reviewed the requirements for the Public Hearing after Mr. Schermerhorn stated his intent. Mr. Schermerhorn told the Board they requested a minor subdivision for property located on Sweetman Road. One parcel would be approximately 52 acres and the remaining parcel would have 16 - 17 acres. There would be an access driveway from Sweetman Road to be included in the deed for the new lot "2" as noted on the map. He was denied a building permit and went before the Zoning Board of Appeals and received their approval. He came back before the Board to receive the Planning Board's approval. Mrs. Herrin asked why there would be a 50' driveway. Mr. Schermerhorn stated is was a right-of-way but that the driveway would actually be closer to 16'. Mr. Tasse stated he also thought 50’ would be closer to the requirement of 200' rather than only 16'. Mr. Tasse asked if there was any restriction for future development in the back. Mr. Schermerhorn stated the ZBA stated the new lot number 2 be restricted to single family and not to be divided in the future. Mr. Black reviewed the sequence of events. The original pre-application conference was in June at that point it was determined ZBA approval was required first. That approval was granted in August, 2004. There was a preliminary application in September to the Planning Board. A Public Hearing was set for October due to lack of publication the Public Hearing was deferred until now. The ZBA requested comment from the Planning Board which was provided and he read to the members. It stated that the application would be endorsed since it provided open space to the Town of Charlton and preserved the rural character of the town. The Planning Board recommended approval of the area variance with two conditions 1) the 50' access to lot 2

TOWN OF CHARLTON

PLANNING BOARD

Page 3

should be owned in fee as opposed to a deeded right-of-way from lot 1; and 2)the approval should limit the use of lot 2 to one-single family unit - no further subdivision. Mr. Tasse read the Zoning Board of Appeals approval; a copy of which is attached. Mr. Black noted there was a completed application, the application fee had been paid. Publication was made and postcards were sent.

Mr. George Brenner, owner of adjoining land, stated he found absolutely no objection to Mr. Schermerhorn's intentions. He gave his okay.

Ms. Cheryl Orminski, owner of adjoining land, asked if lot 2 was the only lot having a new house placed on it. Mr. Schermerhorn agreed. She then asked if there would be one year in which to build it. Mr. Black replied that Mr. Schermerhorn had one year in which to pursue diligently the process of building to be completed with due diligence. She asked if Mr. Schermerhorn would be the one to build it or if it could be transferred. Mr. Black stated it was not designated nor applied to a particular individual. It is authorized and approved by ZBA and tonight's actions would be to make a formal subdivision for the purpose of one single-family unit not specifically to whom. Mr. Brenner stated that you can control land use but not alienation.

Mr. Keniry notified that Town of Ballston since the back of the property borders the Town of Ballston. There was no input from the Town of Ballston received.

Mr. Black read the notice.

Mr. Tasse moved to close the Public Hearing at 7:48 p.m. Mrs. Wood seconded. All were in favor.

RESUME PLANNING BOARD MEETING:

SUBDIVISIONS:

Schermerhorn: Mr. Black stated he had received ZBA approval with the conditions Mr. Tasse had stated.

Mr. Tasse moved the Planning Board declare itself lead agency for SEQRA. Mr. Mitchell seconded. All were in favor.

Mr. Tasse moved that this application be determined as an unlisted action with negative declaration . Mrs. Herrin seconded. All were in favor.

Mr. Black stated he referred the application to the County and had received their reply stating there was no significant county-wide or inter-community impact.

TOWN OF CHARLTON

PLANNING BOARD

Page 4

It was determined that the standard notes and signature block would need to be added to the mylar.

There was discussion as to whether or not the restriction regarding no further subdivision was to be placed on the deed or not. After being asked by Mr. Black, Mr. Schermerhorn stated he would withdraw his application if the language regarding no further subdivision would be added to the deed. Personally, he had no problem with it, but did not want to run into a problem somewhere in the future if he were to sell the lot or if his heirs needed to do it. It was noted a deed restriction would run with the land. Mr. Tasse noted that it was an effective way to preserve open space. Mr. Schermerhorn stated that he was not under the impression that it needed to be a deed restriction when he received approval from the ZBA. Mr. Black reviewed what the Planning Board had recommended to the ZBA. It was decided it was a conditional approval but not a deed restriction. There was discussion as to where to put this condition so that it would be known what the Planning Board requested without it being placed on the deed. Mr. Caine asked if Mr. Schermerhorn thought the property would be subdivided as long as it was in the present configuration before the Board. Mr. Schermerhorn did not think so. Mr. Black stated there were three options before the Board 1) conditionally approved only in the notes, minutes and ZBA similar notes; 2) that conditional approval be so noted on the mylar and 3) a deed restriction that would go into the title and the drawing that the land can never be subdivided in the future. Mr. Caine wondered if Mr. Schermerhorn sold the property in the present configuration that if anything but option 3, could the property could be subdivided. Mr. Black stated no, that it would have to come back before the Planning Board to be subdivided because it does not meet the zoning regulations. After discussion the Planning Board presented Mr. Schermerhorn with the following language:

Planning Board approval of lot number 2 is conditional that lot number2 shall not be further subdivided in accordance with terms and conditions set forth in case number 0403 decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, dated September 15, 2004.

This language was agreeable with Mr. Schermerhorn and would be placed on the map. Mr. LaFountain asked why it would not go on the deed. Mr. Black replied that if it were to be placed on the deed it would stay with the land forever. It could be envisioned in the future where the property may be amended or added to other pieces of property that therefore would make the total parcel have the ability to be subdivided. Mr. LaFountain asked if it were not the intention to have the parcel not be subdivided. Mr. Black replied that the intention was not to allow a road with more than one lot. Mr. LaFountain stated that without a deed restriction there would be no leg to stand on to make it enforceable. There was some discussion regarding this.

TOWN OF CHARLTON

PLANNING BOARD

Page 5

Mr. Tasse asked if it was added to the map would this be able to be found. Normally no one checks the maps so it would probably not be enforced. There was discussion as to whether to place the restriction on the map or on the deed. Mrs. Herrin asked if there would be the possibility to change this restriction if the Schermerhorn’s were able to attain additional property with road frontage. Mr. Keniry felt this would be too conditional, that the applicant would be back before the Planning Board. That to put a condition in the deed would be binding, that would run with the land. Mr. Keniry noted, that if nothing would be added, the applicant could come back with lot 2 as proposed, what would be done in all likelihood, the Planning Board would probably say that it could not be approved in its present state; it would be substandard. Mr. Brenner stated he felt that a deed restriction would be too permanent. After a little more discussion Mr. Black asked Mr. Schermerhorn if he would be willing to put the language in a deed. Mr. Schermerhorn stated that if it would be required, he would withdrawal his application. That this was not the understanding he had with the ZBA, it is totally different. Mr. Black stated when he wrote the ZBA it was not his intent to have the stipulation that for a total of 57 acres it could never be built on. He personally believes that if that parcel were amended to others and suddenly it would become legally allowed to be sub-divided he would see no reason why that would not be allowed. He would trust that if the town was trying to preserve open space with the comprehensive plan and then zoning ordinance enactments (changes) that would ultimately define what would and would not be allowed.

After some further discussion as to where to place the above note it was agreed it would go on the map.

Mr. Tasse moved that the Planning Board approve the subdivision with the following language added:

Planning Board approval of lot #2 is conditional that lot #2 shall not be further subdivided in accordance with terms and conditions set forth in case number 0403 decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals dated September 15, 2004.

It is also moved to grant the Chair the authority to sign the mylar as long as the sidelines are consistent with the requirements and the addition of the standard notes. Mr. Kadlecek seconded. All were in favor.

Resolution 2004-14 was made.

TOWN OF CHARLTON

PLANNING BOARD

Page 6

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:

Mr. Black stated he had the October 31, 2004, report from the Zoning Administrator. It was noted on the agenda it should say October, 2004, and not September, 2004.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:

There were no matters to review.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REPORT:

Mr. Caine stated they had a report based upon a vision statement and the flow of the group they now have 17 objectives that they are trying to refine. There has been overwhelming support. Mrs. Herrin stated the new GIS updates show the new wetlands.

TOWN BOARD LIAISON:

Mr. Grattidge stated he had no new matters to discuss.

CORRESPONDENCE:

Mr. Black stated he had sent a letter to Mr. McNamara regarding the water availability. He was waiting his response but had talked with him briefly on the matter. Mr. Black also sent a letter to the ZBA regarding the Crooked Street fence matter and the Planning Board’s approval for it. He also had forwarded the letter to the Town Board regarding the Stage Road sight issue and Mr. Grattidge had stated that it was forwarded to the County level. Mr. Black also informed the Board regarding the January 27, 2005, annual County Planning Board meeting. Mr. Keniry, Mr. Kadlecek, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Tasse and Mrs. Wood were all anticipating being able to attend the meeting. Mr. Caine and Mrs. Herrin would not be available.

OPERATIONS:

At the ad hoc meeting Mr. Black went to last month it was determined that a clerk for the Planning Board should be added. Mr. Black took suggestions from members as to what the requirements of the clerk should be. It was hoped to have evening hours for the new clerk on Tuesday nights. At this time, the clerk would accept applications and do other paperwork that is necessitated in this position. He passed around a list of the anticipated Planning Board Clerk’s responsibilities for everyone’s review.

It was also discussed the possibility of an agenda meeting at 7:00 pm in a room different from the current meeting room, where the upcoming matters of the evening would be discussed amongst the members of the Board. It would be open to the public, but Mr. Keniry knows from other towns where they use this format, the meetings are handled at a faster pace. Usually an entire nights agenda is discussed in 30 - 45 minutes. It is immediately before the meeting, but hours are turned into 20 - 40 minutes.

TOWN OF CHARLTON

PLANNING BOARD

Page 7

Mr. Ronald DiDonna came before the Board and stated he had people interested in the Fairweather Farm but they would need either a lot line adjustment or would it be a new subdivision. He came before the Board for a conceptual review if they would be willing to discuss it.

The front would be retained as a horse farm and the back which has a little parcel coming out to the old Western Avenue. There was some discussion as to whether Mr. Nielson owned it or not and it was assumed for the evening that he did. Mr. Black stated in order for it to be a lot line change some portion of the parcel would be amended to another existing parcel. Mr. DiDonna stated they are trying to get a piece owned by Mr. Nielson. Mr. Nielson’s 1.95 acres would be merged. There would be one family house built. The 1.95 acre parcel is not build-able. There are streams and wetlands so it is really only good for access to the back land. Mr. DiDonna showed on the map what the owners were hoping to do with the land and asked if they would prefer to have it a lot line change or a new subdivision. Mr. Black thought it would be a lot line change and Mr. Tasse thought it would be a subdivision. While reviewing the map and discussing it further Mr. Kadlecek asked if only one person would own all of the land. No, there would be two owners. For a lot line adjustment it is typically done in one meeting and there are no park fees along with no fees. After review of the map and discussion it was thought it would be both a lot line change and a sub-division. It could be an exempt subdivision there would not be a requirement of a public hearing on the elimination of the merger but there would be a public hearing on the other transfer. Mr. Black stated that they had given inconsistent information that they were not sure if it would be considered a lot line change or a subdivision so Mr. DiDonna obtained an application for both. Mr. Black stated he would do an application for a subdivision and they could choose to do a lot line application and the process would be shorter. Mr. Black stated that they had just done something inconsistent with Mr. Keniry’s advice. Mr. Black stated there was a difference of opinion and the recommendation Mr. Black provided was to submit an application as a subdivision with the $100. application fee as though it was a subdivision. If in the process of reviewing the preliminary application in January, a lot line change can be acted as such at that point.

Mr. Keniry reminded everyone that the filing of the decision of the final plat within 5 days of the date of adoption of the resolution stating the decision of the Board on the final plat the chairman or authorized representative shall cause a copy of such resolution to be filed in the office of the Town Clerk.

TOWN OF CHARLTON

PLANNING BOARD

Page 8

Mr. Keniry asked everyone to keep the minor subdivision review packet - even a major subdivision takes it’s base on the minor subdivision. These were for the members personally; just for their own review. He also thought that the members should be thinking about possibly going down the road and having the members more individualized into checking into different matters on a subdivision review i.e. historical research, GIS research.

Mr. Black reminded everyone that there would be no Planning Board meeting in December.

On a motion by Mr. Mitchell, seconded by Mrs. Wood, the meeting was adjourned at 11:07 p.m. All were in favor.