 |
|
****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 – June 18, 2007
Chairman Raymond Black called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the John W. Taylor Hall.
Present: Raymond Black, Chairman, Constance Wood, Mark Hodgkins, Jay Wilkinson, John Kadlecek, Mike Armer, William Keniry, Esq., Planning Board Attorney and Susan York, Planning Board clerk. Chris Mitchell joined the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
AGENDA MEETING:
Mr. Black stated that there are six of seven Board members present which represents a quorum.
Minutes
Mr. Black stated that the minutes from the May 19, 2007 meeting would need to be approved. Mr. Black stated that changes had been presented by Mrs. York. Mrs. Wood reviewed her changes with the Board.
Amendment to Approved Subdivision
Cuchelo (235-1-33.1)
Mr. Black stated that this is a driveway amendment. Mr. Black stated that Guy Mitchell contacted him to see if he would look at the property with him. Mr. Black stated that they would like to move the driveway cuts.
The Board reviewed the map.
Mr. Black stated that the reason that they are having problems with the location is that the two places where the original driveway cuts were going to be for lots paired with 2 and 3 turned out to be the lowest points on the property. Mr. Black stated that at his visit to the property he noticed that it would take a lot of fill to cover it just to get through the marshy area but the cars coming up hill, in the case of the lot 1 & 2 combined driveways, is that the land is probably 6 feet below the roadway. The other location is probably 4 feet below the roadway. Mr. Black stated that it is a very difficult place to put a driveway.
Mr. Black stated that he walked and looked at the three different places, basically the end of each lot, and feel that those locations are not only acceptable but much preferred.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Mitchell indicated that he had met with Jay Janczak from NYSDOT. Mr. Mitchell stated that Mr. Janczak had been to the property and looked at the proposed locations and felt that was the right place to put them. Mr. Black stated that he asked Mr. Mitchell to get that in writing. Nothing has been received yet.
Mr. Black stated that the Board’s action tonight would be to make a new resolution granting the changes or to give the Board members a chance to visit the property.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he also visited the site and studied the properties. Mr. Wilkinson stated that he has great concerns with the driveway cuts.
Mr. Black stated that with the new driveway locations, a car does not disappear from vision at any point. With the current approved locations, the driveway is considerable lower than the road and that will present a dangerous situation.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he would like to wait until the Board receives the letter from Jay Janczak from NYSDOT. Mr. Wilkinson stated that this was a controversial issue a year ago.
Mr. Hodgkins suggested conditional approval tonight that the letter from Jay Janczak must be received by the Board.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the paperwork has no dimensions and lacks details. Mr. LaFountain stated that there is nothing to measure from.
Mr. Black stated that if the Board is comfortable, the action could be to approve contingent upon receiving something in writing from the State.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired what the Board is approving, what the State says?
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Mitchell stated that the State said that any location would be fine other than the approved locations.
Mr. Wilkinson inquired if the high spot has been verified on the survey map.
Mrs. Wood pulled out her map for the Board to review.
Mr. Black stated that the amendment should be worded that the specific locations should be removed from the drawing and that the locations are subject to builders discretion contingent upon State approval.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he would prefer to visit the site. Mr. Wilkinson stated that the Planning Board agonized over the ace of the cuts, especially on lots #2 & #3.
Mr. Black stated that if a majority of the Board wants site visits than that will happen.
Nigriny/Durst (247-1-50.12)
Mr. Black stated that there would be a continuation of the Public Hearing.
Mr. Black stated that from what he read on the minutes from the May Meeting, that there was not a lot of positive feedback from the general public.
Mr. Black stated that his personal opinion is that there are difficulties for septic and well, potential flooding, no back yard and the public is against this subdivision.
Mr. Black suggested that the Planning Board hold a meeting on site with Mr. LaFountain to discuss the issues.
Mrs. York stated that she has received a map of all of the well locations for the surrounding and adjoining properties.
Mr. Black stated that there must be five days notification before the Board can hold a Public Meeting on site.
The Board discussed possible dates. The Board agreed to meet Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. on site.
Markham (236-1-122)
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1, 41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3)
Mr. Black stated that this matter lacks escrow funding.
Gutto (225-1-66.1)
Mr. Black stated that the Board has received adequate information for acceptance of the preliminary application. Mr. Black stated that the Board could initiate engineering review and schedule a Public Hearing for next month.
Bliss (247-2-3)
Mr. Black stated that this is a pre-application conference.
Mr. Black stated that this matter needs a survey to continue.
Reports
Mr. Black stated that there would be standard reports.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that there were some training opportunities.
The meeting was closed at 7:27 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
Opened at 7:30 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Black stated that there is now a quorum of seven members.
Minutes
Mr. Black asked for a motion to approve the draft of the May 21, 2007 minutes.
Mr. Kadlecek made the motion to approve the May 21, 2007 draft minutes with changes incorporated. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. Mr. Black abstained from the vote. All were in favor.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is making a change to the order of the meeting.
Bliss (247-2-3)
Mr. and Mrs. Bliss approached the Board.
Mr. Black stated that this is a straight forward lot line change. Mr. Black stated that the Board could waive the normal fees and the engineering review process.
Mr. Black stated that the Board needs a complete application and a survey that shows all of the details. Mr. Black stated that the other owner would need to be present or an affidavit authorizing the Bliss’ to act/speak on their behalf.
Mr. Black asked Mrs. York to send a copy of the application to the Historic District Commission.
Mr. Black stated that to continue, the Board needs a survey and complete application which can be submitted at Town Hall.
Cuchelo (235-1-33.1)
Mr. Black stated that he would like to approve that the driveway locations not be specific and that the driveway locations for the lots be at the contractors preference contingent upon approval by the NYSDOT.
Mr. Black asked for Board opinion.
Mr. Wilkinson previously stated that he would like to re-visit the site.
Mrs. Wood and Mr. Kadlecek stated that they would like to see the letter from NYSDOT.
Mr. Guy Mitchell arrived and approached the Board.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is lacking DOT written letter from Jay Janczak.
Mr. Mitchell stated that he gave Mr. Janczak the same information given to the Board. Mr. Mitchell stated that Mr. Janczak reviewed it, signed it and attached his card to it.
Mr. Black stated that it is still not specific.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the signed paperwork is adequate.
Mrs. Wood suggested having Mr. Keniry review the submission from Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Black stated that the liability comes in if the driveway goes in as the Planning Board required.
Mr. Keniry stated that the Board can rely on the applicant’s say.
Mr. Black asked for a motion to approve as submitted as Resolution 2007-09 with Mr. Mitchell’s submission.
Mrs. York will write the resolution and attach the paperwork signed by Mr. Janczak.
Mr. Black made the motion to approve the amendment as submitted as Resolution 2007-09 with Mr. Mitchell’s submissions attached. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote was taken: Mr. Hodgkins: aye Mr. Armer: aye Mr. Black: aye Mr. Kadlecek: aye Mrs. Wood: aye Mr. Wilkinson: nay Mr. Mitchell: abstained Motion Carried.
Resolution 2007-09 was made.
PUBLIC HEARING (7:45 p.m.)
Nigriny/Durst (247-1-50.12)
Mr. Black began by apologizing for not being at last month’s meeting.
Mr. Black stated that John Nigriny was present with Elaine Nigriny.
Mr. Black stated that this was a continuation of last month’s Public Hearing. Mr. Black stated that since the intent and purpose of the Public Hearing was explained at last month’s meeting, he would not explain it again.
Mr. Black asked for comments from the floor.
Charles King, 133 Jenkins Road: I have a letter for the Board which contains pictures that we think the Board should consider. This letter was signed by a number of people. Copies will need to be given to the Board and the Nigriny’s.
Mr. Black stated that he would like to get copies made available to the Board and the applicant and Mr. Durst as well. Mr. Black asked Mr. King to read the letter into the record.
Mr. Durst: At the last Public Hearing it was stated that if they had any written documentation to be submitted it would be submitted within the two weeks prior to the Public Hearings.
Mr. Keniry stated that the minutes reflect that the neighbors had up until the night of the meeting.
John Nigriny: Once he is done reading the letter is he going to read all of the names that signed the letter and how many names are there?
Mr. King: (read letter) Ray Black, Chairman Town of Charlton Planning Board 1410 Division Street Charlton, NY 12019
SUBJECT: Nigriny-Durst Subdivision
A group of concerned residents of the Town of Charlton termed the Charlton Concerned Citizens (CCC) believes that the proposed subdivision of the Nigriny property at the corner of Sweetman and Jenkins Rd., as shown on a map created by Northeast Land Survey & Land Development Consultants, P.C. dated October 14, 2005 (termed the Northeast drawing) does not meet the best interests of the residents of the Town of Charlton.
The CCC believes that, although it may be possible to design and build the proposed home on the subject subdivision and meet the current written requirements of the State of New York, Saratoga County, and the Town of Charlton, the CCC believes that the construction does not meet the intent of the Charlton Zoning Ordinance. The CCC members believe that the design shown in the Northeast drawing is an attempt to meet the building minimum construction requirements rather than the intent of the requirements as discussed below.
1 The construction of the proposed home will require raising the level of the land at the projected home site about 5 feet around the foundation of the home and require at least 2 ˝ feet of fill over the location of the septic system leach field. The addition of fill as noted above will exacerbate the slope of the land in the east and south yards to 10% or more. The purpose of addition of fill is to ‘design around’ a high water table at the proposed building site.
2 The proposed home is a 4-bedroom home but there is little outside usable family living space for a large family. The north side yard is only 40 feet deep from house foundation to the property line. The east side yard (rear of house) is heavily wooded and will have about a 50-foot long 15% grade from the foundation of the home to a 4-foot wide stream (if the yard is graded horizontally out from the house foundation 20 feet, this 15% grade could become a 25% grade - very dangerous). The south yard is the biggest yard but again it has about a 120-foot long 10% slope directly towards the pond. The most usable yard is the front yard but this is dangerous for small children because of the traffic on Sweetman Rd. and the expected slight slope down the driveway into the road and then down Sweetman to Jenkins Rd. These slopes are the result of ‘designing around’ the pond and the stream in the rear yard as well as the high water table. The CCC believes that the design of the yards around the proposed home are dangerous for children, particularly small children and this design could make the Town of Charlton the subject of a law suit if a child is hurt on the lot.
3 There are few options for the new homeowner or a subsequent purchaser of the proposed home if either the well (see discussion of local well failures below) or the septic system leach field fail and have to be moved. There is little available room to relocate the well or the septic system and still meet code requirements. Both the well and the septic system are located in locations that were necessary in order to ‘design around’ zoning requirements. The zoning requirement for a 25-foot spacing between the Sweetman Rd. drainage ditch and the edge of the septic system leach field may have to be waived by the Board to allow the builder to locate the septic system on the lot and at the same time meet other building code requirements. The CCC believes that locations of the well and the septic system with little or no location flexibility does not meet the intent of the Charlton Zoning Requirements and could be a future problem for the Town and its residents.
4 The proposed 2.59 acre building site has been designed to ‘design around’ the lot-size zoning requirement. In an effort to do this it was necessary to extend the proposed lot into the front yard of the existing home and utilize a large portion of the front yard of this home. The CCC notes that this would probably be considered the rear yard of the proposed home and hence it would be possible for a future owner of the proposed home to build a fence in this yard. A 7-foot high fence in the front yard of the existing home would be considered by most people to be an ‘eyesore’ and affect the neighborhood and possibly property values. This property design is an attempt to ‘design around’ the zoning requirements rather than meet the intent of the requirements.
The CCC believes that other considerations need to be addressed as well, however these are not ‘big picture’ items as those above. The CCC urges the Board to consider that:
1 The Northeast drawing does not indicate if a ‘seasonally high’ ground water level test was measured, or if it was completed, the results of the test. This is a requirement of Charlton Zoning Ordinances, page 18. Based on this lack of information, it must be ‘inferred’ that the ‘seasonal high’ water table is at least * to top of the mottled layer (36” from the ground surface) as determined by the soil boring. The Northeast drawing also does not show the date of the soil boring and attempts by the CCC to obtain this data were denied by Northeast.
2 The proposed home may be subject to periodic flooding (see above*). Per a previous owner, Cal Lechman (existing home resident 1982-1998), the existing home on the subdivision site, which appears to be at a higher elevation than the proposed house, flooded from high ground water levels three times from 1982 to 1998. This flooding was the result of increase in the water table in the area. The basement of the proposed home, being at a lower elevation, could very likely be subject to similar flooding.
3 In the mid 1990s the well on the existing home failed and a new ‘dug’ well was installed on the property. When the basement well recovered, the owner (Lechman) realigned the water to system to again use the well in the basement. Homes on the north side of the proposed subdivision have had difficulties associated with finding an adequate water supply. The addition of an additional well (for the proposed home) could lower the water table enough to exacerbate the issue. Furthermore, if the well in the proposed home runs dry, as mentioned above there are few alternatives for the construction of an another well on the proposed subdivision.
4 The CCC believes that Charlton must protect its wetlands. As a result, the CCC contacted the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in an effort to determine the classification of the stream on the proposed subdivision. Area residents have stated that this is a stream that runs year-round. The DEC has stated that if this stream runs year-round it should be classified as a Class CT (protected trout stream) and construction in the area must be limited. If the DEC fails to classify the subject stream as ‘CT’ the CCC believes that the Army Corps of Engineers, who currently have jurisdiction over the proposed subdivision should be consulted regarding specific protection requirements necessary for construction in the subdivision.
In closing, the CCC would like to indicate that New York State Professional Engineers Code requires that Professional Engineers in the State of New York should not design simply to meet required guidelines but in all cases must use good judgment in all his/her designs. The CCC believes that good engineering judgment should be a key element in designing any home, especially a home on a questionable site. The CCC questions if the designers of the proposed subdivision have properly considered the impact of the proposed subdivision on the future owners of the homes in the proposed subdivision, as well as the impact of the subdivision on other residents of the Town of Charlton and the Town of Charlton itself.
The CCC urges the Board to seriously consider the above issues prior reaching any decision regarding the Nigriny Subdivision. The CCC reserves the right to make further comments if this issue is not resolved at the June 18, 2007 meeting.
Charlton Concerned Citizens
Mr. King also added explanations and comments while reading the letter. The letter expressed the feelings of 20 signers.
Mr. LaFountain made copies of the letter and provided copies to the applicable parties.
Cheryl Orminski, Sweetman Road: (Inaudible)…..have been a resident since 1970.… (Inaudible)…..believe that Doc Garrison put the pond in as a fire pond….. (Inaudible)……Regarding the wetlands I think if you look in……(inaudible)….. everyone on Jenkins and Sweetman are designated by DEC as being on wetlands. Regarding……(inaudible)…..looking at the proposed home and trying to figure out if they like the design or where it should be put, where the location of the design is on this lot is mind boggling to me. Everyone has a right to take a look at their neighbors and say do we really want that on a piece of property that shouldn’t be because of ten reasons because like…..(inaudible)…..said the DEC said they can built there…..(inaudible)….. they shouldn’t have been able to built there to begin with, with their proposed….. (inaudible)…… and they had to bring in fill and they had to bring up their foundation….(inaudible)……I guess I’m just appalled……(inaudible)…..the fire pond is a necessity…..(inaudible)…..I don’t think in perspective, I was there I think it was September of 2005, when…..(inaudible)…..were there and then they did their perc and it did pass…..(inaudible)…..I tried to jot down some important parts of their concerns…..(inaudible)…..and maybe I just had myself all confused but I think it’s been a major one. Regarding children on Sweetman Road, that’s an end, if their going to go 60 their going to fit in the ditch they are not going to fit in the pasture and cars don’t go 50 miles an hour at the end of that road. On my front of my property they do but not when they get down there. I’m really concerned about children getting hurt…..(inaudible)….. The remaining portion of the concerns were inaudible but the notes reflect the neighbors can be together to object to the subdivision.
Charles King: Mrs. Orminski indicated that automobiles don’t go 40 miles per hour.
Cheryl Orminski: Not at the end of the street.
Charles King: No they don’t go through a stop sign at 40 miles per hour your correct. It goes along Jenkins Road 50 and more. I live on Jenkins Road. Sweetman they have to slow down because there is a stop sign there yes. It has been stated that it should not be a problem to have a home on a big piece of property like this and there should be no problems meeting zoning requirements….(inaudible)…..but I don’t think she would like to look across the street and see a seven foot fence in the front yard of another house of an existing home, half of another house
Mr. Black interrupted.
Charles King: Is it a four bedroom house or not?
Mr. Black stated that what the Board would like to do is to receive information and not debate the merits of the input. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We are not all going to agree. The Board is not seeking to argue it out here. The Board is seeking neighbors opinions at this point.
Elaine Nigriny: I wanted to indicate that there is a daycare center from infants up to five or six year old children right next door to this lot.
Darlene Legendry, 22 Sweetman Road: I have been a resident here for 13 years…..(inaudible)……the bottom part all the way up to the…..(inaudible)…..45 miles per hour children at play and I will say that we enter and depart from the back of the house where it is set because the house is close to the road. We’ve had parties and we’ve eliminated those because the road is short and they fly on Sweetman Road but…..(inaudible)…..I’ve asked for cops to come. I’ve had the troopers come and sit on my property and several people have been arrested because they definitely fly and go over the speed limit of 45 miles per hour on that road.
Carmen Gutto, 1563˝ Division Street: I’ve been coming around here for quite a few years now and you guys have issues similar to what I’m, I just dropped a preliminary off, and there are all these speed limit issues. I think that at some point I indicated to Charlie that whatever the posted speed limit is really the responsibility of whoever the policing agency is on that whether it be a County or a State Highway or……(inaudible)…..it really has noting to do with the neighbors…..(inaudible)…..about enforcing the law…..(inaudible)…..
Tom Letendre, 22 Sweetman: If they bring in more fill down the road how far is the creek going to come to that…..(inaudible)…..if it backs up it will pollute my well. The drainage that will come off of that drains…..(inaudible)…..
Dean Durst: I would just like to defer the environmental issues to Marv Schorr. We actually determined that he actually had input in April which did not make the meeting minutes, but once we had revised the lot line and we were not going to need to fill in the pond area…..(inaudible)…..that Marv had reviewed that and had no issues at that time. I just wanted to bring that up so everybody knows it was duly reviewed environmentally to make sure that we…..(inaudible)…..
Mr. Black stated that there has been a letter since from Marv Schorr after the change in filling in the pond stating that there is no further issues.
Mr. Armer stated that the letter is dated June 1, 2007.
Marv Schorr, ECC: Just wanted to add one point, to the best that I have been able to determine, that stream is unclassified that runs through that property. Its not a trout stream, its not a…..(inaudible)….it’s not drinking water, it is unclassified. There are no official wetlands on the property but the Corp of Engineers has a different one so the criteria is different than DEC…..(inaudible)…from what I notices there is no vegetation there that would classify it as a wetland.
Barbara Merchant, 12 Sweetman Road: I have two questions that go back to the last meeting…..(inaudible)….a question that Dave LaFountain asked….. (inaudible)….concerning the survey and the new measurement…..(inaudible)….. the setback from the middle of the stream
Mr. Armer stated that he thinks the question that came in was from the distance from the edge of the septic to see the100 foot measurement and the question was with that 100 foot measurement where would that be taken from and we thought it would be taken from the edge of the stream and there were questions on is it over the 4 foot stream.
Barbara Merchant: The neighborhood is concerned with the same issues as the comprehensive plan on preserving open space. Some of the issues as to the preservations space and protecting the rural parts of Charlton. The largest issue is the condition changing the property value in terms of the way the neighborhood used to look or is….. (Inaudible)…..protecting property values…..(inaudible)…..committed to preserve the quality of life…..(inaudible)…..we really have committed to trying to preserve the quality of life that we have. Our neighbors are….(inaudible)….for the long haul…..(inaudible) …..as what we perceive as a very high quality of life and the beauty is astounding we feel that this corner of Charlton defines Charlton as well as…..(inaudible)…..that we can call a true place of beauty and we have every intention of trying to preserve that character.
Dave LaFountain stated that he recalled that the Planning Board had asked Mike McNamara to contact DEC to come over and look at the property.
The Board deliberated to see if anyone recalled asking Mr. McNamara to do that.
Dean Durst: I recall…..(inaudible)…..whether or not the stream has moved and where it was…..(inaudible)…..My response was that I would draw up figures…..(inaudible)….. Mr. Mitchell inquired if the ACOE looked at it.
Dean Durst: no. even after we say yes the stream is Army Corp we take 100 feet away from with the septic and the well there not encroaching. They are not any where near that. We are staying well away from that and again we have mentioned draining at our April meeting…..(inaudible)…..protecting that stream at all times…..(inaudible)…..
Chris Torelli, speaking for John Sleeter of 30 Jenkins Road: I would direct the Board’s attention to the map of the dug wells presented by the CCC. If you look at the pond toward the stream the only place to put the well in keeping with the 100 foot regulations and the corner of where Sweetman Road meets the Merchants driveway. If you follow the rest of the contour, the engineers used no good and dry wells all of these standards lead the water that lays down in that area along the road you can see on the higher elevations its as if…..(inaudible)……with this being the high abstract the low ground leads down here. Our standards, especially the engineered wells and the dry wells lead the water that lies down by that pond. So the Lettendre’s and the Day Care Center have to take water from all the way down here. Its been drilled on their property. This places a number of issues. If we are adding another well to the bottom that is one more family a large three bedroom house siphoning the water away from the existing wells ones which have to be moved every 5 to 10 years already. There is no where to put a well on this lot and you can’t tell from the picture but it cuts all the way over in front of the driveway. There really isn’t anywhere to put the well and maintain a respect to that…..(inaudible)…..It’s going to be a public water source if these wells dry up which I believe you also can…..(inaudible)…..
Mr. Black inquired if the red circles indicated dug wells.
Chris Torelli: Yes I believe they are dug wells……(inaudible)…..
Dean Durst: Can I ask your background in…..(inaudible)…..
Chris Torelli: It’s just what I learned from John Sleeter.
Elaine Nigriny: Where did you find this information out?
Chris Torelli: The neighbors.
Elaine Nigriny: Oh, the neighbors that are opposed to this subdivision provided to you a stat with everybody’s well. But how did they know?
Mr. Black inquired if it had been verified.
Chris Torelli: I verified…..(inaudible)……you follow the wells.
Many Public Hearing attendees began speaking at once.
Mr. Black stated that it would be the Board’s obligation to verify if this is accurate information.
Dean Durst: (Inaudible)…..we were planning on drilled wells it would not be good for us to use surface water as the…..(inaudible)…..
Charles King: Drilled wells do not work in that area, they use dug wells because of clay.
These were many separate discussions taking place.
Charles King: Because of the clay layer at the level of the well they go through that….. (inaudible)…..John Sleeter has a faulty drilled well.
Elaine Nigriny: Joe Cernik verified that there would be no problem. He couldn’t make it tonight. I’m looking at this map and next door to me, I spoke to them about the water. They’ve never had any problems. Mr. King who is at this meeting has had his sprinkler on sprinkling his lawn right now.
There ware some outbursts from the floor and Mr. Black asked for the attendees to maintain their composure and continue with the Public Hearing.
Barbara Merchant: We have many calls into the DEC and we have connected with Matthew Pressure and we have been asking him to take a look at the stream to determine whether or not we have been closer we have the vegetation that would classify the stream as a non-seasonal stream……(inaudible)…..slow to return calls….(inaudible)…..asking for more time to get the information from Matthew Pressure of DEC.
Mr. Black stated that the Board will not hold the Public Hearing open and will ensure that the wetlands determination has been done.
Mr. Black made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 8:34 p.m. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Nigriny/Durst (247-1-50.12) Deliberations
Mr. Black stated that there was a lot of public concern which was not unexpected. Mr. Black stated that the Board shares some of the same concerns as the public.
Mr. Black stated that one of the Board’s concerns is that this is extremely tight. There is no room for error. There is no room for relocation for example of a septic system should the subsequent failure occur down the road. Mr. Black stated that there is not as much concern for the well. With the 2 acre minimum situations the experience has been that one well will not rob from another.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is also concerned about flooding. There has been some pictures that have been provided showing the entire area that should be yard is under water.
Ms Nigriny stated that the yard has never flooded.
Mr. Black showed Ms. Nigriny the photo.
Ms. Nigriny asked to view the picture and asked when it was taken.
Ms. Nigriny asked Mr. Armer if he drive past the property and say that the property was dry after about a week of rain.
Mr. Armer responded that he did say that.
The Board had discussions about the photographs.
Ms. Nigriny stated that the photos are of across the street, not her lot.
The Board had further discussions about the photographs.
The Board agreed that they understood the photographs.
Mr. Black stated that the Board also had a concern with the lay of the land and the ability to have a legitimate living space for a family in a new house.
Mr. Black stated that the Board would like to meet at the property next Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. with Mr. LaFountain with the intent of trying to understand it. Mr. Black stated that the Board would be gathering information. Mr. Black stated that since there will be a quorum of the Board it will be a Public Meeting. There will be a Public Meeting Agenda notice for that. Mr. Black stated that Mr. Durst and Ms. Nigriny are welcome to be present. Mr. Black stated that he could not invite the pubic onto Ms. Nigriny’s property.
Ms. Nigriny stated that the Board was welcome to be on the property but the public is not.
Ms. Nigriny stated that the purchaser of the lot is thrilled with the lot.
Mr. Black stated that the concern s the long term use of the septic.
Mr. Durst stated that they have discussed alternatives to the layout. There is plenty of space to move around, they could move the well closer to the pond if need be.
Ms. Nigriny stated that Joe Cernik can also attend the Public Meeting.
Mr. Black stated that in regard to the concern for water, the Board may want to see proof of potable water in advance.
Mr. Nigriny inquired before the pond was built, what was there?
Mr. Schorr stated that the stream was there.
Mr. Letendre stated that there was a pond across the street when he was a kid.
Mr. Black stated that with all of the issues, the Board wants a site visit review.
Ms. Nigriny stated that her understanding of NYS Law is that since it is not a health or a safety issue there is no reason not to approve an exempt subdivision.
Mr. Black stated that New York State is a local law state meaning local law governs.
The Board will meet at the site on June 26, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.
Gutto (225-1-66.1)
Mr. Gutto approached the Board.
Mr. Gutto presented his map to the Board. Copies of it had been previously distributed.
Mr. Black stated that there has been a series of pre-application conferences. Mr. Black stated that the latest maps are dated May 24, 2007. Mr. Black stated that the ZBA approved the layout. Mr. Black stated that the Board’s concerns pertain to wetlands.
Mr. Gutto stated that the wetlands have been delineated, the building envelope has been included, the perc test locations have been shown and the pond has been located. Mr. Gutto stated that he also had the letters from DEC pertaining to the pond for the Board.
Mr. Keniry stated that the drawing notes contain two note 16’s.
Mr. Black stated that the Board’s concerns raised at the pre-application conferences have been addressed.
Mr.. Hodgkins stated that he
did not see the right to farm note.
Mr. Gutto stated that he would have it added.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has a complete preliminary application. Mr. Black stated that he would like to schedule the Public Hearing for July’s meeting.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the Public Hearing will trigger mining concerns.
Mr. Gutto pointed out the two DEC letters containing information before and after.
Mr. Black stated that for the purposes of subdivisions, mining is a separate land use issue, not the concern of the Planning Board.
Mr. Mitchell made the motion to accept the application as a complete preliminary application and to schedule the Public Hearing for July 16, 2007 at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1, 41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3)
Mr. Black stated that the Board is still waiting on getting an escrow account funded at which point in time the Board can start to move forward with the engineering drawings.
Mr. Keniry stated that June 1, 2007 was the last letter on the matter. Mr. Keniry offered a copy to Mr. Durst. Mr. Keniry stated that there are two significant points. One is the engineering funds required from the escrow account to advance the engineering review. Two, significant engineering has been submitted that substantitively they have determined that it is deficient in a number of ways. Mr. Keniry stated that in a letter to Mr. Pentkowski, he has encouraged him to contact Mr. McNamara.
Mr. Durst stated that the Town wanted preliminary approval for water before engineering. Mr. Durst stated that they are waiting for commitment for 21 water connections.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has received a detailed engineering package. Mr. Black stated that the package does not contain everything Mr. McNamara requested in his letter.
Mr. Keniry stated that since the last discussions between Mr. Pentkowski and Mr. Tabner, there are two points missing, one Mr. McNamara says that the drawings are not sufficient and the engineering escrow has been overdrawn and has not been funded. Mr. Keniry stated that there was a letter in June asking for funding and there has been no response. Mr. Keniry stated that the Planning Board will be ready to resume review once the escrow is funded and there is response to Mr. McNamara’s comments from the latest review.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. LaFountain provided a report for May 2007. The Board reviewed the report with Mr. LaFountain.
Comprehensive Plan Report
Ms. Verola stated that the Town Board needs to do a SEQRA review.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that the Public Hearing went smoothly.
Mr. Schorr stated that there will be no change until the Zoning Ordinance is changed.
Ms. Verola stated that at the next Town Board meetings they will do the SEQRA determination.
Mr. Schorr stated that the goal was to work the comprehensive plan into the Zoning Ordinance as soon as they can start.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that Mrs. York sent everyone a copy of the training available in Hyde Park for those who need 4 hours of training.
Mr. Black stated that he received a letter from Mr. Gay regarding the Ellms subdivision in terms of the perc tests. Mr. Black asked Mrs. York to file it in the file.
Mr. Black stated that he received a letter from the Saratoga County Real Property Tax Services indicating that they have received the new map for the Schermerhorn subdivision but they have never gotten a deed. Mr. Black asked Mrs. York to contact Mr. Schermerhorn and make sure he received the letter and is sending a new deed to the clerk.
Town Board Liaison
Mr. Black asked Ms. Verola if the Town Board needed more information from the Planning Board for the Storm Water Management review.
Ms. Verola responded no.
Mr. Black made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Hodgkins seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly A. Caron Recording Secretary (not present at meeting)
Town of Charlton Planning Board Agenda June 18, 2007
7:00 p.m. Agenda Meeting
1. Call to order 2. Ascertain quorum 3. Review/set agenda
7:30 p.m. Business Meeting
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve meeting minutes . . . May 21, 2007
3. Subdivision Amendment a. Cuchelo (235-1-33.1) . . . approved with resolution 2007-07, request to amend driveway cuts
4. Public Hearing continuation a. Nigriny/Durst (247-1-50.12) at 7:45 PM
5. Subdivision Applications a. Nigriny/Durst (247-1-50.12) pre-application conference 02/07, preliminary application 03/07, Public Hearing 05/07, continuing b. Markham (236-1-122) . . . preliminary application 02/07, continuation c. Gutto (225-1-66.1) pre-application conference 02/07 with referral to the ZBA for an area variance, variance granted 04/10/07, preliminary application d. Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1,41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3) . . . preliminary application 06/05, placed on hold 03/06, new maps received on 04/09/2007, escrow funding required to commence engineering reviews
6. Pre-application Conference a. Bliss (247-2-3) lot line change
7. Report by Zoning Administrator a. May, 2007
8. Comprehensive plan report a. Public Hearing June 11, 2007
9 Correspondence a. Training in Hyde Park on 7/12/07
11. Adjournment |
|
|
| |