 |
|
****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 – July 16, 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, Dawn Szurek, Mike Armer, Alternate, William Keniry, Esq., Planning Board Attorney, Michael McNamara, Town Engineer, Susan York, Planning Board clerk and Kimberly Caron, Recording Secretary.
AGENDA MEETING:
Mr. Black stated that there are seven Board members present which represents a quorum.
Minutes
Mr. Black stated that the minutes from the June 18, 2007 meeting and the June 26, 2007 Special on-site Public Meeting would need to be approved. Mr. Black stated that changes to the June 18, 2007 meeting minutes had been presented by Mrs. York. There were no changes to the June 26, 2007 special meeting minutes.
Gutto (225-1-66.1)
Mr. Black stated that there would be a Public Hearing on this matter this evening.
Mr. Black stated that he expects to hear a number of concerns. Mr. Black stated the first concern pertained to the mining going on on-site. Mr. Black stated that the Board has 2 letters from the DEC to Mr. Gutto that indicate that Mr. Gutto is working to classify the action as digging a pond and the DEC is waiting for details on the construction so that they can issue the appropriate permits.
Mr. Black stated that the he will indicate at the Public Hearing that the Board is aware of the issue, DEC is involved, and the Board is awaiting DEC’s determination on it before proceeding.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Keniry if the Board could move forward while this issue is open or if it was required that the Board verifies DEC approval before proceeding to an approval.
Mr. Keniry stated that there is no expressed requirement prohibiting the Board from proceeding with the review. Mr. Keniry stated that the Board may want to be careful about making approvals or decisions with respect to real property when there is a non-compliant condition on the property. Mr. Keniry read from the Subdivision Regulations Page 6 Section 4 Paragraph B: “that while under your consideration there shall be no alteration modification or development of any of the real property that you are considering, none of that shall take place without an approval of the Planning Board having first granted“. Mr. Keniry also read from Page 13 Section 3 Paragraph E: “the applicant is obligated to locate water courses and marshes that may exist on the property“.
Mr. Black stated that the Board’s position should be that the Board is aware of the potential issue and the Board is aware that there is communication on-going between the applicant and the DEC and currently it is being viewed as a pond. There is some additional information DEC needs relative to the construction details of the pond. For the purposes of this Board there should be no further action regarding progressing with whether it is a pond or mining issue, there should be no further action at all by the applicant without Planning Board approval and it is the intent of the Board to make sure that the DEC is satisfied with whatever the plan is before moving forward to approve or take action.
Mr. Keniry stated that it is appropriate for the Board to inquire as to what the activities are on that subject parcel.
Mr. Black stated that the second issue pertained to the difficulty in obtaining water in that area. Mr. Black stated that it was recommended by Mr. McNamara to obtain proof of water before approval.
Mr. Black stated that the third concern is that it has been over 10 years since the last DEC delineation. Mr. Black stated that delineations are only good for 10 years. Mr. Black stated that if the wetlands that are marked ACOE are really DEC wetlands it is possible that the building envelope may not work if you include the 100 foot setback requirement. Mr. Black stated that the Board will need to ask for a re-delineation and if necessary, the appropriate permit before moving forward.
Mr. McNamara stated that he was concerned with the wetland out at the front of the site on the west side. Mr. McNamara stated that it just stops.
Mr. Black stated that the Board received a new drawing dated June 12, 2007. Mr. Black inquired if the wetland Mr. McNamara was talking about was the one located at the road.
Mr. Hodgkins inquired along Route 67.
Mr. Black stated yes.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that there is no delineation line.
Mr. Black stated that the issues are the mining/pond, availability of water and the wetlands.
Nigriny/Durst (247-1-50.12)
Mr. Black stated that he would like to give the Board his opinion and then have the Board comment.
Mrs. Wood inquired if the Board could put off the vote.
Mr. Black stated that the 62 day mark is the day before the next monthly meeting so the Board would need the applicant’s approval.
Mr. Black stated that we have a piece of property that is more than adequate in size to be subdivided into two lots. Nature is involved, and there is a natural water course and pond division of the property. That water course division divides the property into roughly 2/3 and 1/3 parcels. 1/3 of the property is not adequate to make a legitimate building lot. One has to decide how much of that water course goes with which lot. Initially there was an attempt to try and change the setbacks and the ZBA disapproved that request. The next move was to eliminate a portion of the infringement by filling in a part of the pond and that raised concerns for the Board about appropriate permits. Mr. Black stated that he did not feel comfortable about an approval contingent upon such significant environmentally impacting work. The alternative suggestion was to keep the pond with the new house and build the appropriate setbacks into the existing developed lot. The Board had an on-site visit. Mr. Black stated that as he walked the property he observed an existing, well-developed and well defined existing lot. If you have to add the setbacks, if the pond goes with the new lot, the setbacks so encroach onto the existing property as to make it really untenable and unacceptable. If the pond stays with the existing property in order to meet the land requirements, the 2 acre requirement, then a portion of the backyard of the existing lot would have to be put with the new lot. That is also unacceptable. For the Board to establish a precedent where the Board is going to encroach upon and devalue an existing property and actually get into a situation where a portion of the developed lot is now given to an adjacent portion is a very bad precedent. Mr. Black stated that he is not in favor of that. Moreover, there are constraints that the natural division imposes constraints on the property such that in order to put a house, a septic and a well, that with the noted location of the stream on the lot, in order to get the proper setbacks from the road, from the property lines and from the stream you have a very limited solution. The location of that stream is critical to whether or not that solution is workable or not. If you look at the most recent map dated May 3, 2007, note the pond and look at the edge of the pond that is closest to Sweetman Road. Notice that right in the water area of the pond there is something called high water mark and there is a long dotted line along the edge of the pond. If you look at the location of that high water mark relative to the elevation lines on the drawing, they are somewhere between 101 and 103 feet of elevation. It is difficult to assume whether it is 101 or 103 feet. If the water level of the pond can get that high, the water level of the stream that is flowing into it has to be at least that high if not higher. If you take the corridor of the stream and you look at the 101 elevation mark along the stream, the stream is much more than 4 feet wide at the high water position. If the stream that is flowing into it was as high as 101 feet, the existing solution that has been provided will not work. If it is as much as 102 feet, it will not work at all, there is no acceptable solution. Since the Board is not in the business of approving non-conforming conditions, or conditions that won’t meet, that is the basis for disapproval.
Mr. Hodgkins proposed drawing a new high water mark line that follows the contour line. Mr. Hodgkins stated that if you continue the high water line mark from the pond around the stream at the elevation Mr. Black mentioned, then it would become very clear.
The Board reviewed the drawings.
Mr. Black stated that the first condition that the Board was discussing was the encroachment on the existing lot could be eliminated by filling in the pond and appropriate approvals could be gotten by the ACOE to do such. Mr. Black stated that the width of the stream during a normal flow condition is something that nature provides. Mr. Black stated that the ACOE may not have an issue with encroachment but the condition there that we are dealing with is not the setback requirement that is imposed by the ACOE, it is the setback requirement by our Zoning Regulations. Therefore, to defer this to an ACOE delineation would be a waste of time because it is not an ACOE violation, it is a Zoning Ordinance violation of the Town.
Mr. Black stated that he again reviewed the pictures provided and if you look at the picture carefully, there is the spillway of the pond. The pictures were taken in March of 2007. Here is the spillway of the pond and you can see that the water is part way up on the embankment climbing the lines to 101 to 103 feet. Mr. Black stated that you can also see the stream in the background and you can see the width of that stream. Mr. Black stated that it is not 4 foot wide but looks to be more like 20 feet wide.
Mr. Hodgkins provided an indication of the high water mark line on the drawing for the Board to review.
The Board had various discussions.
Mr. Black stated that in his opinion, the Board has adequate evidence based upon the applicant’s drawing done by John Gay and with the pictures that this condition of the high water situation is much different than indicated on the drawing and taking a conservative observation that it is 102 feet while it may be 103 feet, that this will not work.
Mr. Black stated that no further delineation is needed and the Board has the evidence needed. Mr. Black sated that he would like to reiterate that position and ask for Board discussions during the meeting and then propose a resolution. Mr. Black stated that he asked Mr. Keniry to prepare a proposed resolution.
Mr. Black stated that he would like some wording changes to the proposed resolution.
Mr. Keniry stated that it was drafted to be suggestive and could be changed.
Mr. Black stated that the question here is not where the stream center is but where the high water mark is and it is the Board’s interpretation that the high water mark is in such a position that it is not a workable solution for septic.
Markham (236-1-122)
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1, 41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3)
Mr. Black stated that is a place holder on the agenda.
Reports
Mr. Black stated that there would be standard reports.
The meeting was closed at 7:40 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
Opened at 7:40 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Black stated that there is a quorum of seven members.
Minutes
Mr. Black asked for a motion to approve the draft of the June 18, 2007 minutes.
Mr. Kadlecek made the motion to approve the June 18, 2007 draft minutes with changes incorporated. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. Ms. Szurek abstained from the vote. All were in favor.
Mr. Black asked for a motion to approve the draft of the June 26, 2007 Special on-site Public Meeting.
Mrs. Wood made the motion. Ms. Szurek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Markham (236-1-122)
Mr. Markham appeared before the Board.
Mr. Markham handed out the most recent map dated July 12, 2007.
Mr. Black stated that DEC re-flagged the western most line of the wetlands and the surveyor confirmed that the line on the drawing is in accordance with the flags. Mr. Black stated that the 100 foot buffer was added. Mr. Black stated that the building envelope is small but also included on the drawing. Mr. Black stated that it appears adequate that a solution can be met. Mr. Black stated that Mr. LaFountain has reviewed the percolation test results.
Mr. LaFountain stated that there is not a septic issue, there is just no setbacks shown on the north side of the building envelope. Mr. LaFountain stated that it would need to be 60 feet.
Discussions to be continued after the Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING (7:45 p.m.)
Mr. Black explained the Public Hearing process.
Gutto (225-1-66.1)
Mr. Gutto provided the following proposed plan:
-subdivide a 7.89 parcel out of a 54 acre parcel; -remaining parcel will contain the existing house; -ZBA approval for a necessary variance has been granted; -proposed locations for building envelope have been shown; -percolation tests have been completed; and -there are existing wetlands on the property.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Gutto give a brief history of the parcel.
Mr. Gutto stated that he purchased the property in 1992. There was approximately 158 acres with 4,000 feet of frontage on Route 67 and 2,400 feet of frontage on Division Street. In 1993, 8 building lots were subdivided out with the original farmhouse on Division Street and also a 15 acre parcel which was Lot 10 that fronts onto Route 67. In 1999 there was another subdivision of the frontlands on Route 67 and a federal wetlands delineation of all of the property was done.
Mr. Black opened the floor to the public.
Dale Ahlquist, 1567 Division Street: I have lived there about nine years. My first question is, have the Board members had the privilege of looking at the minutes from the Zoning Board of Appeals. If so you would see the neighbors are concerned. That night the room was overflowing with neighbors going against this. We would give the Planning Board our concerns but if it is on record, you people should have already seen the record and seen all the concerns that were voiced that night.
Mr. Black stated that he has personally read through the Public Hearing minutes from the ZBA.
Dale Ahlquist: It may be a good idea for the Board at some point to read those concerns because the neighbors, not only on Division Street but on Route 67 were very adamant that there…like I said there was an overflowing room that night against the proposals. There were many different issues. The water on that property, there was already one lot that was divided and couldn’t be built on because they couldn’t find water. There is supposedly litigation going on on another lot because of the water. There were issues with the neighbors said concerns about what they are going to do with the property because it has been an open pit going on for two years. They had to rebuild parts of Divisions Street because of that hauling and the Town refused to clear the backfill and it’s been two years of listening to us and probably last November the neighbors went to DEC to see if they could do anything. It had stopped since we have come to the ZBA as far as the hauling goes but our concern is, is it going to be another pit that is put in there hauling, the safety of our children, the dust, the living conditions, all of that was pushed to the side and no one seems to be addressing any of those issues. My concern is that all of the Board members read the concerns of all of the neighbors.
Mr. Black stated that he has two concerns written down, one the availability of water and getting adequate well water and second was associated with the digging activities on the property. Mr. Black asked if there were any other concerns Mr. Ahlquist wanted to put on the record.
Dale Ahlquist: Basically that open mining, the water, the safety of the children in the area.
Mr. Black asked for other comments. Mr. Black stated that once the Public Hearing is closed, any information received will not be in the same forum.
Dale Ahlquist: Is the attachment that the Zoning Board of Appeals put on the 50 acres where they couldn’t subdivide out in front of the Planning Board also.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board is aware.
Maggie Schmidt, 1312 Sacandaga Road: Have the wetlands been further delineated up in the middle?
Mr. Gutto stated that it was done for the subdivision prior to 1999. Regarding a recent letter from the Town Engineer, there is belief that they are DEC wetlands. Mr. Gutto stated that he had the County Environmental Office do an overlay of the DEC wetlands over the parcel and there are none. Mr. Gutto stated that he has the mapping showing that.
Maggie Schmidt: Did they come and look at the pond for you?
Mr. Gutto stated that DEC came out and was very satisfied that the pond was a pond. In the future, when they complete the digging out of the pond, the material taken out of the pond should not be taken off of the property. There is no problem with removing any of the stones.
Maggie Schmidt: Not the shale?
Mr. Gutto stated not the shale. As long as it goes on the existing parcel for use on the driveways. Mr. Gutto stated that is what the driveway base is and the driveways are very long.
Maggie Schmidt: Will there be any other pond building after this pond is done?
Mr. Gutto stated no.
Valarie Parker, 1563 Division Street: While this is going on, will the access be going through Division Street?
Mr. Gutto stated that the initial access will be through Division Street to remove the remainder of what needs to be taken from this pond area to build a road system out to Route 67.
Valarie Parker: How long will it take? I am just wondering because my entire length of the driveway runs along Mr. Gutto’s driveway. It has been quiet lately. My concern is the noise up and down the driveway.
Mr. Gutto stated that there are some issues that we have to address with regard to a driveway access from that property. The roadway is completed from down in this area here up to this parcel out to Route 67. The remainder of the construction will be done from the Route 67 side.
Mr. Black stated that as a matter of procedure, in the process of a subdivision, when a piece of property is being subdivided, no activity to modify that property is permitted during that subdivision process without approval of the Planning Board. Mr. Black stated that if there are plans for major material movement as a result of a subdivision, there needs to be a plan for that material removal and how that will be accomplished and done. Mr. Black stated that the Board does not have that information at this point, but will be looking at that as the process goes on.
Carl Restivo, 1561 Division Street: I am neighbors with Valarie Parker. Is it possible for the subdivision excavation of the pond and material to be brought through the field of the subdivision versus the road and the driveway that exists today?
Mr. Gutto stated that the equipment has to come in the driveway initially because there is no permit for Route 67. Once the driveway permit is issued for Route 67 they will use that.
Carl Restivo: Length of time it is going to take.
Mr. Gutto stated that it is all relative to the Planning Board process regarding the subdivision.
Carl Restivo: How long will you be doing work before that happens?
Mr. Gutto stated again it is all relative to the Planning Board process regarding the subdivision.
Lou Devito, 1563 Division Street: Why wouldn’t the Planning Board issue a permit for access to Route 67 minimizing the impact to the families on Division Street?
Mr. Black stated that the Board has not addressed that issue yet. Mr. Black stated that the Board prefers to have the equipment still on site. The reason why not to have the equipment still on site is that there is significant environmental impact potentially to wetlands that have to be crossed or if it is just plain inaccessible due to the wetlands. Since the Board has not reviewed the situation, that would be preferable but not necessarily required or possible.
Dale Ahlquist: I think that the Board has to feel the sense of the neighborhood and the fact that the neighborhood went to the Town for two years asking for something to be done…..(inaudible)….and finally after the road got re-built…..(inaudible)…..finally went to DEC and asked them to look at it and DEC said from that point in November on….(inaudible)….for two years it was not kept on site. There were trucks on Friday, Saturday and Sunday every morning, hauling and the dust and the impact, the safety of the children….(inaudible)…..this is a lot of sensitive issues for the whole neighborhood. We are all afraid for our water. There is extremely poor water down there as far as the levels…..(inaudible)…..all these issues about this lot. This is not against growth or the applicants, it is just that these concerns, we are frustrated with the Town.
Maggie Schmidt: It would be helpful to get a clear idea of how or what the Planning Board’s role is in determining water problems.
Mr. Black stated that on a number of occasions the Board has sought guidance from State or local County authorities on the issue of what potential could a new well have on adjoining wells and potential water issues. The answer is consistent from most all inputs. It is based a lot on experience with this area. The experience has said that it is impossible to predict where water is and is not, it is impossible to predict how one well may or may not impact another because without knowing the exact flow of the water, it is impossible. Experience has shown that as long as there is at least 2 acres available of space and land area between adjacent lots, that there is no problem between one well and another well. That is where the 2 acre minimum comes from in the Town of Charlton. It does not say it is impossible to happen but it says that it is highly unlikely and experience has shown over many years in this area that wells are just not affected by other wells as long as each parcel trying to access the water table is at least 2 acres. Having 2 acres or in this case 7 or more, does not necessarily mean that water is available because there are places in this Town you can’t get satisfactory potable water sources. It is normally the policy of this Board, where water is very difficult in the immediate area, to prove that there is a good potable water source. Mr. Black stated that it could be a condition of approval.
Dale Ahlquist: What is the next step?
Mr. Black stated that closing the Public Hearing is next, then deliberations on the issues of the Board and any that have surfaced by result of the Public Hearing.
Ms. Szurek inquired if Mr. Gutto stated that he would continue to remove the stone walls but the materials from the digging would stay?
Mr. Gutto stated that this pond that people are saying has been worked on for 2 years has actually been being worked about 3-5 weeks a year for the last two years. At this point, there is a section that is approximately 1/3 the area of the pond that has been excavated to 3 ˝ feet and needs to be excavated down to 8 feet. Once that excavation is completed that material will be used to create the driveway for this property. Mr. Gutto stated that they have numerous stonewalls on the property that are a mile long and part of what they do is when they make trails have people come in and take the stone walls out which leaves them with the trails. There are no mining issues with regard to the stone walls. The only issue would be taking off of the property the shale product.
Mr. Wilkinson inquired as to the final size of the pond.
Mr. Gutto stated that the average depth is going to be 8 feet. The pond is 1 acre. Mr. Gutto stated that it was about 150 x 210.
Mr. Ahlquist started to tell the Board that the applicant was lying and had told lies at the ZBA Public Hearing. Mr. Gutto tried to respond. Mr. Black stated that he appreciates the concern but does not want a debate.
Mr. Black made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor. Public Hearing closed at 8:15 p.m.
Gutto Deliberations
Mrs. Gutto stated that she respects the neighbors concerns and if this is approved will do all in her power to make sure that it is a comfortable situation for all of the neighbors.
Mr. Black stated that he would like to go though the letter from Mr. McNamara dated July 12, 2007. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 1.
Mr. Gutto stated that the first comment pertained to adding a note to the plan referencing the granting of the ZBA variance on April 10, 2007. Mr. Gutto stated that this has been addressed.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that there are two note #16’s and note #15 is missing.
Mr. Gutto stated that the second comment pertained to FEMA flood insurance. Mr. Gutto stated that this was a statement of fact and a non-issue.
Mr. Gutto stated that the third comment pertained to the necessity of obtaining a curb cut permit from NYS DOT and adding a note relative to that. Mr. Gutto stated that the note will be added.
Mr. Gutto stated that the fourth comment pertained to adding the right to farm note. Mr. Gutto stated that it would be added.
Mr. Gutto stated that the fifth comment pertained to replacing note #12 with the Town of Charlton septic note. Mr. Gutto stated that would be done.
Mr. Gutto stated that sixth comment pertained to adding the Town of Charlton well note. Mr. Gutto stated that every lot on the property has had different situations. Mr. Gutto stated that he had been present for the drilling of 12-16 wells on the property. Mr. Gutto stated that some have produced little or no water and needed to be drilled somewhere else. Mr. Gutto stated that he was also present for the drilling on three lots to the right of the lot facing Route 67 and found that when they used the dowser, they got 6-7 gallons per minute.
A member of the audience stood up and stated that there was no way that 7 gallons per minute was true.
Mr. Black stated that it has been well established that there is a potential for water issues here.
Mr. Black stated that his preference would be to have water be a part of the approval process. Mr. Black stated that if the intent of the subdivision is to create a building lot then it would make sense to get the well in now.
Mr. Gutto stated that the intention is to build on that lot.
Mr. Black stated that he is talking about being able to prove water as part of the subdivision process.
Mr. Gutto stated that he did not believe that was the case. Mr. Gutto stated that they have gotten water on every lot that they have developed on that property and have not had any substantial problems.
Mr. Black stated that the Board’s desire would be to assure that there was good water. Mr. Black stated that if the intent is to build a house and use it as a building lot the idea would be to prove that there is water so there is not an issue.
Mr. Gutto stated that his contention to that is that they can reach the same end note by making that a contingency.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Gutto if he meant contingent on the approval of the subdivision or contingent on the building permit.
Mr. Gutto stated a contingency of the subdivision approval that there has to be adequate potable water to be able to sell the building lot. Mr. Gutto stated that his intention is to build himself on that lot but it may not be for a few years.
Mr. Black inquired if the applicants preferred not to put in a well now and prove it but to make the lot sale contingent.
Mr. Gutto stated that in order to sell the lot or to build on the lot there should be a note that says that it has to be contingent upon adequate quantity and potable water.
Mr. Gutto stated comment seven pertained to wetlands on the property. Mr. Gutto stated that today he was at the Environmental County office to see what actually existed there. Mr. Gutto passed out the NYS DOT map showing that there are no DEC wetlands there. Mr. Gutto stated that the man at the County stated that the front parcel is clean of wetlands. Mr. Gutto showed the Board where the DEC wetlands existed.
Mr. Black stated that the Board would like to see a letter from DEC regarding this (showing Mr. Gutto) map stating that the parcel on Route 67 has no jurisdictional wetlands on it.
Mr. Gutto stated he would get that for the Board.
Mr. Gutto stated that comment eight pertained to the excavating activities. Mr. Gutto stated that this has been addressed.
Mr. Black stated that he agrees and that the letters provided clearly show that they are working out a solution with DEC on that. Mr. Black stated that the Board wants to make sure that it is clear that during the subdivision process there is to be no activity, unless specifically stated to the Board. Mr. Black stated that the Board does not want to get into the issue of a non-conforming condition with DEC. Mr. Black stated that it is the Board’s desire to see proof that a plan has been submitted to DEC and DEC has accepted and approved the plan.
Mr. Gutto stated ok.
Mr. McNamara stated that the letter also stated that other permits may be required.
Mr. Gutto stated that he was told that the information he provides will be used with regard to the reclamation process and whether or not, depending on the topography of the bottom of that pond, they will be allowed to stock it with fish.
Mr. McNamara stated that was one of the permits but there is also the Notice of Intent if it is over an acre of land disturbance, construction in wetland and stream disturbance.
Mr. Armer inquired if the forward wetland on Route 67 was an issue.
Mr. Black stated that if Mr. Gutto provides the letter from DEC then there is no issue.
Mr. Black stated that if the development of the parcel or subsequent development that stems from the subdivision will result in a lot of excavation and moving, the Board wants to see a description of that work and how it will be done, how much will be done, where the material will be taken from and where it will be going to so the Board can address all the issues that have been discussed. Mr. Black asked Mr. Gutto if that would be possible to provide.
Mr. Gutto stated that he could provide that.
Mr. Wilkinson inquired about no further work on the property.
Mr. Black stated that no further work could be done unless presented to the Board. Mr. Black stated that he is looking for, in general, anything Mr. Gutto plans to do and also as a result of the subdivision approval and the development of that remaining lot.
Mr. McNamara stated that the drawing shows a mortgage lot. Mr. McNamara inquired if there was any ill affect of showing that on the map.
Mr. Gutto stated that there was a lien on only that section, but that has been satisfied.
Mr. McNamara suggested taking that off of the drawing.
Mr. Keniry asked Mr. Gutto to clarify that there was an open lien that has since been satisfied.
Mr. Gutto stated yes there is no longer an open lien.
Mr. Keniry stated that Mr. Gutto may want to address that on the drawing.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Gutto to remove that from the drawing.
Mr. Gutto stated that he would do that.
Mr. Keniry inquired if Mr. Gutto could provide the physical alteration calculation in acres.
Mr. Gutto stated yes, but it would be difficult in the stonewall areas.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Gutto to also provide proof of the satisfied lien.
Mr. Gutto stated that he would try.
Mr. Black reviewed the Board’s requirements: Notes to be added: curb cut, right to farm, septic, well using “lot sales”. Provide evidence that DEC is satisfied with the pond construction and there are no open issues. Provide evidence from DEC that they have no DEC wetland encumbrances on the property or delineate if there are. Excavation and earth moving plan associated with the development of the property including the total amount of physical alteration in acres. Remove the note pertaining to the lien and provide evidence it has been satisfied. Change the two note 16’s and make one 15.
Mr. Black explained the 62 day time clock to the applicants.
Mr. Black made a motion for the Planning Board to be designated as lead agency. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Nigriny/Durst (247-1-50.12)
Dean Durst approached the Board.
Mr. Durst stated that there was on-site visit on June 26, 2007. Mr. Durst stated that he would like to review some of the discussions had during the on-site visit. Mr. Durst stated that Mr. McNamara’s letter does not reflect any of the discussions had on-site.
Mr. Durst stated that the letter addresses the concerns with proximity to the well and septic system. Mr. Durst stated that he put a stake way down by the pond for the well for the purposes of the on-site visit. Mr. Durst stated that he also staked out the proposed house with a 70 foot setback from the property line which would move that forward about 20 feet. Mr. Durst stated that he also moved the septic system to the front of the house which is the higher terrain. Mr. Durst stated that his intention is to continue the grade from the street going back to the house which is moved forward which will have natural blending of that contour going up to the house.
Mr. Durst stated that they would put in the driveway from Sweetman Road. Mr. Durst stated that the surface would be sloped in that direction for runoff. Mr. Durst stated that by relocating these items when applying for the permit that can be verified by the building inspector.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Schorr if the pond is undisturbed if there were any environmental issues.
Mr. Schorr responded no.
Mr. Black stated that he would like to walk through his own personal opinion. Mr. Black stated that he would then poll the Board for comments.
Mr. Black stated that he feels that this project should be denied. Mr. Black stated that when the project was first introduced it is an obliviously large parcel big enough in area to be subdivided into two different lots. Mr. Black stated that there is a geographic feature associated with the pond and the stream that naturally divide it into approximately 1/3 and 2/3 sections. The 1/3 section doesn’t meet zoning requirements on pure area alone. The initial attempt was to change the setback requirements and it went before ZBA and was disapproved. Then the applicants came before the Board again with a plan to fill in a portion of the pond to meet the setback requirements and the Board had issues with the potential serious nature of that environmental impact and how it would be dealt with. The Board was moving towards a position that the Board did not want to approve a lot contingent on such a serious environmental situation. At that point, the applicants proposed an alternative which at first appeared to be a much better solution, which is not to disturb the pond but to include the pond with the new lot and then provide the setbacks off of the existing lot. When the on-site meeting was held, Mr. Black stated that he saw an existing developed lot with a house and a yard and all of the sudden a situation where we are going to take a significant portion of the front and side yard of that existing developed lot and put it on our neighbor’s lot. Mr. Black stated that is unacceptable to him to make that much of an encumbrance on an existing developed lot just for the sake of trying to create a conforming condition. At that point, Mr. Black stated that he started to consider that if the pond stays with that existing lot to avoid the encumbrance on that lot, then the only way to meet the area requirement for the new lot, a significant portion of the back of the existing lot would have to be added to meet the area requirements. Mr. Black stated that also seemed unacceptable to him because again it is encroaching onto an existing developed situation and seriously de-valuing it for the sake of creating a lot that the natural geography does not support. Then as a result also, Mr. Black stated that he paid a lot of attention to the stream. Mr. Black stated that the drawing has a 4 foot stream with a single line down through it to the pond. During the Public Hearing, there were some pictures presented that provided evidence that the stream is not always 4 feet wide. Mr. Black stated that led him to question what is the stream actually because in the Town of Charlton, in order to build a house or a septic or locate a well, there are certain setback requirements to a stream. That stream fit’s the definition of a stream in this Town. Also the setback requirement isn’t to the center of the stream it is to the high water level of the stream. In that regard, the drawing that was done by John Gay, has a high water mark located on it at the bottom side of the pond. That high water mark is at 103 foot elevation level. If we track the 103 foot elevation out across the lot there is no acceptable solution for location of a septic system and meeting the 100 foot setback. On that basis, there is not an acceptable solution for location of a house and a septic.
Mr. Durst stated that Mr. Black is missing the note that says “pipe culvert controls pond elevation and constant level elevation is 97.1.
Mr. Black stated that there is very clear evidence in the pictures that the stream….
Ms. Nigriny interrupted and asked what photo’s Mr. Black was talking about.
Mr. Armer stated the photos taken during the heavy rain period.
Mrs. Nigriny stated that the Board looked at those pictures when they were at the lot and she explained that one of them wasn’t even her property.
Mr. Black stated that one picture is not but the other two pictures are very distinct.
Mr. Durst stated that Mr. Armer drove by after the heavy rain storm and noticed that it was handling the runoff….
Mr. Black stated that the Board is not disputing that, it was handling….
Michele Anderson, attorney for Ms. Nigriny stated that the photos were taken of a time that was close to 100 year flood which isn’t what they are talking about when they mean high water mark.
Mr. Black stated that he does not agree with that.
Mrs. Anderson stated that this was an extreme condition that affected the entire geographic region.
Mr. Black stated that he lives in the Town of Charlton and make hay on somewhat marginal fields at times. This has been one of the best years for making hay independent of that. Mr. Black stated that was not 100 year flood.
Mrs. Wood stated that the photos were taken in March.
Mr. Black stated that the point of his comment is there is evidence that there that the photos show that the stream is more than 4 feet at times. Trying to get a feel for how much more would have to be what John Gay has put as a high water mark and then follow that back through the property. When that is done the solution is that it can’t work. Mr. Black stated that without a workable solution to setback this is a non-starter.
Mr. Durst stated that the whole corner of Sweetman Road would be under water if that was at 103 feet.
Mr. Armer stated that if you look at the photos and compare it to the high water mark on the map it just points out to what the surveyor had pointed out. You can follow it from the headwall all the way up.
Mr. Black stated that he has stated his opinion of where he stands at this point. Mr. Black asked the Board to give their opinions.
Mr. Armer stated that when the Board walked the property the first thing he noticed was taking away from the existing lot which Mr. Black has already talked about. Mr. Armer stated that putting those lot lines right next to the driveway and the slope of the property, there would be no way to maintain it. If there were ever issues between neighbors, just getting over there, getting the grass mowed, you would be encroaching on their property.
Mr. Durst stated that Ms. Nigriny pointed out at the on-site meeting that she drives her lawnmower all the way around it.
Mr. Armer stated that he is not talking about getting to it, he is talking about you are sitting a few feet off the deck mowing your yard.
Mrs. Anderson stated that happens all the time, there is always an abutting lot line. Mrs. Anderson stated that you are always going to be mowing right next to someone else.
Mr. Armer stated that this is not a natural lot line.
Mr. Durst stated that the deck is 65-70 feet off the lot line.
Mr. Armer stated that the deck is not shown on the existing map. Mr. Armer stated that there is a side deck that is not shown.
Ms. Nigriny stated that that is the side deck.
Mr. Armer stated that there is a deck to the east also.
Ms. Nigriny questioned if he meant the patio.
Mr. Armer stated no, toward the pond.
Side discussions were had between among the applicants and the Board to determine which deck Mr. Armer was referring to.
Mrs. Anderson stated that she does not think this is appropriate standard. Mrs. Anderson stated that she is not sure what the basis in the law is for disapproving a subdivision because you are afraid the neighbors might get upset at each other.
Mr. Black stated that there is none.
Mrs. Anderson stated that she is not sure how this can be basis for denying a subdivision application.
Mr. Armer stated that he is not saying why this is being denied, he is saying that when he visited the property it was the first thing he noticed that he did not like about the subdivision. Whether it is approved or disapproved is that line is right along the side of the driveway and that is not a normal thing that you would….
Mrs. Anderson stated that the zoning requirements are met and that is what the Board needs to look at, is there compliance with zoning, are there issues with something specifically in the Town’s code with respect to subdivision or the State Law. Mrs. Anderson stated that she has not heard one thing. Mrs. Anderson stated that the only thing she has heard is a hypothetical high water mark and flooding based on pictures that aren’t identified as the location. Mrs. Anderson stated that there has been no evidence set forth to establish why a denial would be acceptable here.
Mr. Black stated that the Board disagrees. Mr. Black stated that Mr. Armer was passing on observations about the site visit.
Mrs. Anderson stated that the Town engineer sent two letters that have said that this subdivision is acceptable. Mrs. Anderson stated that she would generally think that a Planning Board would defer to their engineers decision on that.
Mrs. Wood stated that she does not agree with Mrs. Anderson’s interpretation that Mr. McNamara sent a letter that said the Board should accept this subdivision. Mrs. Wood stated that she read the letter quite differently. Mrs. Wood stated that she was appalled when she visited the site and saw how close that line was to the driveway. Mrs. Wood stated that it is an awkward division of property. Mrs. Wood stated that the Board has major concerns with the width of the stream.
Ms. Szurek stated that this is extremely tight, concerning the water, concerning the proximity of snow removal from the driveway onto the adjoining property, a number of things have been brought up. Ms. Szurek inquired, down the road, what is the Board’s liability to back up contingencies. You are locating a well in one spot, you are putting the septic in one spot, what happens if there is a failure in any case. There is no way…..
Mr. Durst stated with relocation of the well….
Mrs. Szurek continued, the well or the septic, the proximity to the water and so what is the Board’s long range obligation to the first owner, the next owner. If the septic were to fail and there is nowhere else to move it or the….
Mrs. Anderson stated there is no requirement of the law for backup. Mrs. Anderson stated that Mr. Durst has already shown the Board the one on the map that works and now he just mapped out another one that was on the property that works. There are two locations. But there is no requirement in the law to back up locations for well and septic.
Ms. Szurek stated that her concern is for the future if something fails and maybe there is a house built and then….
Mrs. Anderson stated there is no requirement in the law.
Mr. Keniry asked Mrs. Anderson to stop cutting off the members. Mr. Keniry stated that it is their right to participate in a public meeting. Mr. Keniry stated that Mrs. Anderson may not like the answers the Board members are giving but they do have a right to give them.
Ms. Szurek stated that she is thinking about the future buyer.
Mr. Durst stated that if she were to look at some of the neighborhoods that have been existing in Charlton for years and years, he grew up on a 100 x 150 lot. Mr. Durst stated that he moved in there in 1966 they had well posts and septics on 150 x 100 foot lot, every one of them. There was no public water, well and septic on 100 x 150 and there is definitely no provision for any kind of potential replacement area for any of those homes.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he agrees with Mr. Black. Mr. Wilkinson stated that he is very concerned about the stream, is it actually 4 feet and can we make the building envelope. Mr. Wilkinson stated that he would like to see that demonstrated with a field survey that shows where the actual delineated, where the high water mark is on that stream, is it 4 feet wide. Mr. Wilkinson stated that from what he saw on the site visit it appears to be something larger than 4 feet. Mr. Wilkinson stated that he would ask that someone delineate that stream so that the Board could get an accurate dimension. Mr. Wilkinson stated that based on the information in front of him. He does not see this as a viable building lot.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Wilkinson to talk about his experience when he visited the site in June.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he went by about the same time Mr. Armer had gone by and did not take any pictures but looked at it because of all of the concern. Mr. Wilkinson stated that when he saw the water flowing and looked back, they were showing the stream being 4 feet wide and everything was based off of that. It appeared that it is something larger than 4 feet.
Mr. Durst stated that he moved the septic system 40 feet from the stream.
Mr. Hodgkins inquired what was to say that is far enough.
Mr. Durst stated logic.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he would like to see a professional engineer to measure it all out and say it will work.
Mr. Armer inquired how far forward was the house moved.
Mr. Durst stated he moved the house forward 25 feet which is still 70 foot setback.
Ms. Nigriny inquired if the ECC measured the stream.
Mr. Schorr responded no but he did note an indication that in the back part of the lot where they walked across, where it was muddy, that it was wider than 4 feet but did not measure it.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that he is unconvinced that the flooding potential has been adequately addressed. Mr. Kadlecek stated that he was uncomfortable approving this lot as a building lot.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that the drawing shows the berm which creates the dam to be approximately, according to Mr. Gay, an elevation of 102-103 feet. Mr. Hodgkins stated that is why when you say that the pipe invert is at elevation 97 foot, that is not the water level of the pond. It drops into the out flow pipe at elevation 97 which is 6 feet lower. Mr. Hodgkins stated that the berm creates an overflow condition at 102-103 which when projected back up into the woods, widens that stream out significantly on the side that concerns the Board the most being the west side. Mr. Hodgkins stated that without further data, the Board can not gather anything that is contrary to that.
Mr. Durst stated that the simple solution to that is to drop the level of the dam and we wouldn’t be affecting the pond itself, we are modifying the manmade structure.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that the high water mark needs to be documented on the map.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Durst to look at the pictures provided to the Board during the Pubic Hearing. Mr. Black stated that on the spillway that leads to the pond, that spillway leads to a culvert pipe. That culvert pipe goes from there to the road. It is obliviously not just the height of that spillway. That culvert pipe is totally unable to handle the water as it is. Not only did it flood the entire culvert pipe area but it completely spilled out onto the property and flowed across Jenkins Road. Mr. Black stated that it is not the spillway that controls the height of the water. There is a lot more than that. It is the whole dam assembly, the culvert assembly, it is very significant.
Mr. Durst stated that if you look at the berm as far as the 103 foot mark it is not even close to that.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is not saying that is the high water mark. This just happened to be a point in time.
Mr. Black stated that without rectifying the situation the subdivision can’t be approved. Mr. Black stated that the setback to the edge of the water is the issue. Mr. Black stated that the only way to rectify it is to make significant changes to somehow change to whole structure of how the pond level is controlled and the water can be routed beyond that.
Mr. Durst stated that the concrete headwall is at 100 foot elevation. Mr. Durst inquired if Mr. Black was saying that the high water mark was 3 feet higher than that headwall.
Mr. Black stated that he did not put the high water mark on the drawing, Mr. Gay did and he put it at 103 foot. Mr. Black stated that based on the observations the Board has from the pictures, that is not that far off.
Mr. Durst stated that the zoning regulations says what for setback from a stream.
Mr. Black stated that from the edge of the stream at the high water point, 100 feet. When you go to 103 feet of the stream that is about 100 feet from the road. Mr. Black stated that there is not enough room.
There were several small discussions going on at this time.
Mr. Durst stated that he would speak to Mr. Gay regarding the high water mark.
Mr. Durst stated that the Board is basing disapproval on the high water mark.
Mr. Black stated that there are other issues associated with the encroachment onto an existing developed lot and a devaluation and impact on that. Mr. Black stated that in the subdivision regulations on page 4 “it is the declared policy and duty of the Planning Board to consider land subdivision as part of a plan for safe orderly and efficient use of land and/or development of the Town”. Mr. Black stated that when you start encroaching and devaluing property as a result of creating new lots, the Board does not consider that safe, orderly and efficient use of the Town property. Mr. Black stated that under that regard he would contend that the Board does have authority to pass judgment in that regard.
Mrs. Anderson stated that a significant number of cases would differ from the Board’s interpretation.
Mr. Black stated that is what the Courts will opt to determine.
Mrs. Anderson stated indeed.
Mr. Black stated that on that basis, he would like to move on in the agenda and then take a recess to develop a resolution to put before the Board and then reconvene after the recess.
Markham (236-1-122) Continued
Mr. Markham approached the Board.
Mr. Black stated that the Board was concerned about the possibility of having an acceptable building envelope and whether or not the wetlands would somehow prevent that. Mr. Black asked Mr. McNamara if he had a chance to review the revised drawings.
Mr. McNamara responded no.
Mr. Black stated that in looking at the revised drawing it appears that the septic system can be outside of the building envelope. Mr. Black asked Mr. LaFountain if he had the percolation test information.
Mr. LaFountain responded yes.
Mr. Black asked Mr. LaFountain if there were any issues relative to septic.
Mr. LaFountain responded no.
Mr. Black stated that we have an acceptable building envelope that we can fit a house into. Mr. Black stated that there seems to be reasonable room for septic and acceptable yard in the area. Mr. Black stated that there is an old well.
Mr. Markham stated that the old well has been filled in with rocks.
Mr. Black stated that the drawing needs a well note, which it has. Mr. Black stated that there is also a septic note, the wetlands note and the right to farm note. Mr. Black stated that the curb cut note needs to be added. Mr. Black stated that Mr. Markham previously stated that the property was inspected and the boundary was marked with orange flagging. Mr. Black stated that the front edge of the wetlands closest to the building envelope were flagged and the surveyor came out and re-surveyed the line they had drawn to make sure it corresponded with those flags. Mr. Black stated that the note on the drawing about how they delineated it still needs to be changed.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has a complete preliminary application and is in a position to move forward. Mr. Black stated that the application has already been accepted as complete and the Board has taken lead agency.
Mr. Black stated that there are three things to be added to the drawing. One being to add the indication that it is a 60 foot side setback from the old well, add the curb cut note and to change the note associated with the wetlands.
Mr. Black made the motion to schedule the Public Hearing for August 20, 2007 at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Nigriny/Durst (247-1-50.12) Continued
Mr. Durst asked for an adjournment to the August 20, 2007 meeting in order to resolve the high water mark issue. Mr. Durst stated that he would consult the surveyor regarding the high water mark and get resolution for that for the next meeting.
Mr. Black inquired about the issue of encroaching on the existing developed lot by including that pond.
Mr. Durst stated that it is not a zoning issue so he is not concerned. Mr. Durst stated that he is addressing the high water issue and the environmental issue.
Mr. Black stated that he thinks that is a legitimate request.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Board needs adequate review.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Durst when he thought he would have the information.
Mr. Durst stated that he will be contacting the surveyor in the morning.
Mrs. Wood stated that she still has major concerns regarding the encroaching.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he also has the same concerns as Mr. Black and Mrs. Wood. Mr. Wilkinson stated that even if the applicant goes out and spends the money to correct the high water mark problem there still remains the issue of the encroachment. Mr. Wilkinson stated that he proposes the Board make a decision on the information available tonight.
Mr. Black stated that he agrees with Mr. Wilkinson.
Mr. Armer stated that he agrees with Mr. Wilkinson on moving on this tonight.
Mr. Hodgkins inquired if there was a setback from the pond that affects the property line to the house and the high water, not just the septic. Mr. Hodgkins stated that if the water table winds up here, does that change anything.
Mr. Black stated that it is an existing structure and he does not know how it could affect it.
Mr. Black stated that the Board would adjourn to speak to legal counsel and reconvene at 10:15 p.m.
The Board reconvened at 10:40 p.m.
Mr. Black stated that there are two issues as stated earlier. Mr. Black stated that the Board would be willing to delay for more information but since the applicants are not addressing both issues the Board has decided to move tonight.
Mr. Durst stated that he requested an adjournment for the next meeting and that they had to be subject to the Public Hearing being adjourned for two months. Mr. Durst inquired doesn’t that matter.
Mr. Black stated that this is a different situation with different considerations and is not relevant. Mr. Black stated that the Public Hearing had individuals indicating that there were others that wanted to be present but couldn’t be there on that evening. Mr. Black stated that the public wanted time to gather some more information and the Board gave them that opportunity. Mr. Black stated that there are two issues and the applicants are willing to address one but not the other and therefore the Board views that as a negative condition that there is no advantage to wait because only one of the two issues will be addressed.
Mr. Black made the motion to designate the Planning Board as lead agency for the purposes of SEQRA and that the proposed subdivision has no significant negative impact on the environment, stream or the pond and that the application be classified as an unlisted action and that the Board make negative declaration. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black made the motion to deny the application as presented on the basis of 1) the evidence presented both on the drawing and by picture is that the stream location as indicated is not appropriate, it is not actually representing the high water situations and potential flooding that the stream has and that when you apply the setbacks to the high water level of the stream that there is not a satisfactory solution to septic location and 2) in order to add the pond with appropriate setbacks to the newly created lot, that a portion of the developed and well established yard associated with the existing structure is severely impacted and encroached upon and that it is really the wrong thing to do in light of the Board’s obligation to the Town in accordance with page 4 of the Subdivision Regulations and it moves in the wrong direction for safe orderly and efficient use of land or economical use of land or preservation or possibility of preservation of open space or natural resources of the Town or preserve the rural character, etc., the Board’s charter is to try and make what makes sense type subdivisions and the Board does not believe that this actually makes sense to take a portion of an existing and well developed lot and attach it to a newly created lot that actually changes significantly the character of the established lot and in a negative way. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion.
Mr. Black stated that he has stated his rational as to his reasons why to deny. Mr. Black stated that he would like each Board member to discuss their position.
Mr. Armer stated that there is a significant change of this existing lot. It is all in the landscaping, its all in the view from the existing property. There are electric poles that go to the house that would have to be moved. Mr. Armer stated that as you walk this it is just not something he could see being done.
Mrs. Wood stated that she concurs with Mr. Armer. Mrs. Wood stated that when they walked the property, that was the thing that really stuck out was that they are really changing that landscaping of that house, the view. Mrs. Wood stated that she thinks there will be potential problems with neighbors and it is such a strange angle that goes through their yard.
Ms. Szurek stated that she agrees with Mr. Black and has no additional input as Mr. Black already made the major points.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he also agrees with Mr. Black’s rational. Mr. Wilkinson stated that he concurs that his big concern is the stream and the flooding of that and being able to maintain the proper setbacks. Mr. Wilkinson stated that as you walk the property line you have an established yard pre-existing and you put this property line a few feet off of the driveway, you bring it down and then cut right over by the side yard and make a very unusual lot line and visual impact. Mr. Wilkinson stated that with the rural character of Charlton, it does not seem to fit. It doesn’t make a lot of common sense. Mr. Wilkinson stated that it is unusual from the standpoint that the Board has not had a situation like this before. We do not see angles that close and encroaching on other people’s yards.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the issue important to him is the flooding potential of that property is substantial and there is very little yard available and if a substantial fraction of it is potentially flooded, which the pictures suggest, then this is an unacceptable potential for avoiding the water affecting both the septic and the well. Mr. Kadlecek stated that for those reasons he would vote to deny.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that he also concurs with Mr. Black. Mr. Hodgkins stated that the property lines that would allow expansion or rebuilding of a septic system are going to be limited with the flooding of that and the water course that is there now. Mr. Hodgkins stated that he also agrees that the visual impact from the pre-existing house would be greatly affected in a negative way and that the way it wraps around the house really creates a flag lot style where one lot is directly in front of the other one and the Board has tried to keep that to a minimum.
Roll call vote was taken: Mr. Hodgkins - yes to deny Mr. Black - yes to deny Mr. Armer - yes to deny Mrs. Wood - yes to deny Ms. Szurek - yes to deny Mr. Wilkinson - yes to deny Mr. Kadlecek - yes to deny
Motion denied.
Mr. Black stated that the Board means no disrespect to the applicants.
Resolution 2007-10 was made.
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1, 41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3)
Mr. Durst stated that he believes that Mr. McNamara and Mr. Keniry have been in contact with Mr. Pentkowski.
Both Mr. McNamara and Mr. Keniry stated that they have not heard from Mr. Pentkowski.
Mr. Durst stated that he will contact Mr. Pentkowski tomorrow.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. LaFountain provided a report for June 2007. The Board reviewed the report with Mr. LaFountain.
Comprehensive Plan Report
Mr. Schorr stated that it has been approved and adopted by the Town Board.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that the Board has received a letter from Blue Neils for discussion next month.
Mrs. Verola suggested that the Board sit down with Mr. Schorr.
Town Board Liaison
Mrs. Verola stated that she wanted to make the Board aware that there was a report from Mr. Neils.
Mr. Hodgkins made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly A. Caron Recording Secretary July 12, 2007 Planning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: Major Subdivision - Lands of Carmen D. & Kathryne E. Gutto Tax Map Parcel No. 225.00-1-66.1
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received a proposed two-lot subdivision of lands of Carmen and Kathryne Gutto located on the south side of NYS Route 67 with a second frontage along Division Street. The subdivision plan dated May 24, 2007 with a latest revision date of June 6, 2007 was prepared by The MacFarlane Land Survey Company. The application should be categorized as a “Major Subdivision” according to Charlton’s Subdivision Regulations since previous subdivision activities have occurred within the past fifteen years.
The project was previously before the Planning Board in March of this year for a referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA issued an area variance for the application on April 10, 2007. The current subdivision proposal for a 7.89 acre lot on Route 67 and a 46.13 acre lot with a reduced frontage of 120 feet on Division Street is in compliance with the terms of that variance. Upon our review of the application and observations of the site from the right of way of Route 67, we offer the following comments for your consideration.
A curb cut permit from the New York State Department of Transportation will be necessary for the proposed access to NYS Route 67 prior to any construction. The applicant must provide a copy of this permit to the Town of Charlton as part of any building permit application.
It is the policy of this state and this community to conserve, protect and encourage the development and improvement of agricultural land for the production of food, and other products and also for its natural and ecological value. This notice is to inform prospective residents that farming activities occur within the Town. Such farming activities may include, but not be limited to, activities that cause noise, dust, smoke and odors.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan prepared by a licensed professional engineer showing the proposed sanitary disposal system, percolation tests, and details shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrative Officer. The plan should be certified by the design engineer as meeting the requirements of Appendix 75-A of the New York State Department of Health and the Town of Charlton. Where non-conventional systems such as alternative systems, shallow systems and built-up systems are planned, the individual plans are to be approved by the New York State Department of Health and the construction, as built, is to be certified by a licensed professional engineer prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
There are two letters included as part of this application from Stanley Koenig of New York State DEC to Mr. Gutto. The second letter remains unresolved as it requests additional information. The Planning Board should await disposition from DEC on this matter before closing the public hearing and issuing a SEQR determination.
There are other possible permits from NYS DEC that may be required as part of the pond building activity. The pond is shown within an area that is likely a DEC wetland. Such construction may require a permit for wetland disturbance and possibly for stream disturbance as well. Construction of the pond itself may also require permits for fish stocking, chemical treatment or a dam safety permit. The amount of land disturbance also appears to trigger the need for filing a Notice of Intent under the New York State Phase II Stormwater Regulations and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Although none of these issues is discussed in either of Mr. Koenig’s letters, items #1 and #3 of his May 10, 2007 letter do imply some additional consideration. We suggest that the applicant review all of these issues with DEC and obtain a written disposition that specifically outlines all of the necessary permits so that the town can ensure compliance before subdivision consideration.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions concerning this project.
Very truly yours,
Michael McNamara, P.E. The Environmental Design Partnership
C:\MY DOCUMENTS\WINWORD\charlton\SUBDIVISIONREVIEWS\Gutto_subdivisionreview.doc
Cc: Planning Board Members Bill Keniry Kathryne & Carmen Gutto
|
|
|
| |