 |
|
****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 – September 17, 2007
Chairman Raymond Black called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. at the John W. Taylor Hall.
Present: Raymond Black, Chairman, Jay Wilkinson, John Kadlecek, Chris Mitchell, Dawn Szurek, William Keniry, Esq., Planning Board Attorney, Susan York, Planning Board clerk and Kimberly Caron, Recording Secretary.
AGENDA MEETING:
Mr. Black stated that there are five of seven Board members present which represents a quorum.
Minutes
Mr. Black asked for comments on the meeting minutes. Mrs. York previously provided comments via mail. No other comments were presented.
Gracey/VanGuilder (237-1-21.1)
Mr. Black stated that there would be a Public Hearing with deliberations to follow. Mr. Black stated that this property was the subject of a previous subdivision that was withdrawn because it was found that the land was undevelopable.
Mr. Black stated that there is a letter dated September 14, 2007 from the Environmental Conservation Commission (Annexed hereto as Attachment 1) and a comment letter from Mr. McNamara dated September 12, 2007 (Annexed hereto as Attachment 2). Mr. Black stated that there were general indications in Mr. McNamara’s letter. Mr. Black stated that Mr. McNamara did point out that the NYS Health Department wanted a 100-foot setback for separation from wetlands to a waste water system. Mr. Black stated that this may not fit with the 100-foot setback and may be null and void. Mr. Black stated that subsequently, Mr. McNamara has had conversations with Jim Meachem from the Department of Health and indicated that what is jurisdictional for the 100-foot setback is DEC in a letter dated September 14, 2007 (Annexed hereto as Attachment 3). Mr. Black stated that relative to what the Army Corp wants, that is outside of the Health Department’s jurisdiction.
Mr. Black stated that the Saratoga County Planning Board’s reply was “no significant County Wide or Inter Community Impact”
Mr. Kadlecek raised the issue that comment #5 of Mr. McNamara’s letter needed to be addressed.
Mr. Mitchell stated that a raised system could address that.
Mr. Black stated that the Board would need to see the house and the septic area higher. Mr. Black stated that the Board could request more contour delineation.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the vegetation there would make that very difficult.
Mr. Black stated that adding additional contour lines would give the 2-foot elevation separation which would show the slopes of the land and get a sense of where the house and the septic might be relative to low level.
Mr. Black stated that the Board could suggest some kind of proof that the house and the driveway are created at an elevation such that if a backup were to occur that they are protected.
Mr. Mitchell suggested having a site visit.
Bliss/VanGuilder (247-2-3)
Mr. Black stated that this is a standard lot line change. Mr. Black stated that all required documentation has been provided and the application is complete. Mr. Black stated that the Board could waive the Public Hearing and the fees.
Gutto (225-1-66.1)
Mr. Black stated that there are two issues remaining. Mr. Black stated that the drawing needs to be cleaned up so it is clear what are wetlands and what are not wetlands. Mr. Black stated that pertaining to the outstanding agreement with DEC regarding the pond, the Board does not know if DEC agrees with Mr. Gutto’s plan. Mr. Black suggested not moving forward until proof has been received that the DEC has accepted the plan.
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1, 41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3)
Mr. Black stated that Warren Longacker from Lansing Engineering, P.C. was present representing Mr. Heflin.
Mr. Black stated that the Town Board wants a preliminary approval before they will move forward with the water district extension. Mr. Black stated that there was a comment letter from Mike McNamara dated May 16, 2007 (Annexed hereto as Attachment 4) associated with what was needed to proceed on a preliminary application. Mr. Black stated that there were numerous points on that letter. Mr. Black stated that he had asked for a clarification from Mr. McNamara. Mr. Black stated that he felt some of the comments were in the details of locations but others have more substantive and may exactly affect the fundamental issues of this matter. Mr. Black stated that those comments would need to be addressed before proceeding.
Mr. Black stated that he would suggest a Public Hearing and if there were no new issues presented and the resolution of the comments is acceptable then the Board could proceed to preliminary approval with the details coming after the water district approval.
Reports
Mr. Black stated that there would be standard reports.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that there were several training opportunities under correspondence.
Mr. Black stated that he would like to move Agenda item 5 to a. of 4.
The meeting was closed at 7:40 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
Opened at 7:41 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Minutes
Mr. Black made the motion to approve the draft of the August 20, 2007 minutes with changes incorporated. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Gracey/VanGuilder (237-1-21.1)
Mr. Black asked Mr. Rabideau if it would be alright to postpone the Public Hearing for a few minutes.
Mr. Rabideau stated that was fine.
Bliss (247-2-3)
Mr. Rabideau appeared.
Mr. Black stated that this is a lot line change. Mr. Black stated that the application is complete. Mr. Black stated that this subdivision is making the property line where is has been assumed for many years. Mr. Black stated that the Board could waive the Public Hearing, engineering review, park fees and application fees.
Mr. Black made the motion to make the Board lead agency for the purposes of SEQRA. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black made the motion to waive the Public Hearing, fees and the engineering review. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black made the motion that the subdivision be listed as an unlisted action under SEQRA with a negative impact declaration.
The Board reviewed the short form Environmental Assessment form and answered no to all questions.
Mr. Wilkinson seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black made the motion to approve the lot line change as submitted and represented by the drawing and authorize the chairman to sign. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Resolution 2007-12 was made.
Gracey/VanGuilder (237-1-21.1)
Public Hearing (7:54 p.m.)
Mr. Black explained the Public Hearing process.
Mr. Black read the Public Hearing notice from the Daily Gazette.
Mr. Rabideau presented the following plan: -subdivide 14 ˝ acre parcel of land on Root Road; -subdivide the 14 ˝ acre parcel into Lot 1 being 9 acres and Lot 2 being 5 ˝ acres; -wetlands work has been done; DEC went out to the property to establish jurisdiction and the rest of the wetlands are federal wetlands marked in gray on the drawing; -house will be located on the upland area and has been shown together with the well, septic and driveway locations. There will be two separate driveways.
Mr. Rabideau distributed copies of the revised map, modified August 30, 2007, that addresses the Planning Board comments made at the August meeting.
Carmen Gutto, 1563 ˝ Division Street: Can you tell me where the distinction is between State and Federal wetlands? From here the State wetlands and the federal wetlands all look to be shaded in the same fashion.
Mr. Rabideau stated all wetlands are shaded in gray regardless of State or Federal.
Carmen Gutto: So where is the distinction between the Federal and the State wetlands.
Mr. Rabideau stated that on this parcel here, this blue line down through here cuts across here, down there cut across here and that would be to 100 foot adjacent area.
Carmen Gutto: That’s to the State wetlands.
Mr. Rabideau stated to the State wetlands and then this small piece here with the 100 foot adjacent area here.
Carmen Gutto: That’s State wetlands?
Mr. Rabideau stated that was correct.
Carmen Gutto: Now where are the Federal wetlands?
Mr. Rabideau stated basically in between plus. Everything gray is Federal with the overlying DEC wetlands jurisdiction on top of that in this area and that are up there.
Carmen Gutto: They are regulated by both agencies?
Mr. Rabideau stated correct.
Carmen Gutto: Consequently they only need to be hatched in one format to show all of the wetlands.
Mr. Rabideau stated that in this case just to keep it simple, we hatched everything that’s a wetland under somebody’s jurisdiction as gray and basically the State wetlands would show the green 100 foot adjacent area. This is State and that is Federal.
Carmen Gutto: And you are going to be crossing through both of those wetlands?
Mr. Rabideau stated yes.
Carmen Gutto: So have you done the permits yet required by New York State?
Mr. Rabideau stated not yet. Mr. Rabideau stated that they were getting them now.
Marv Schorr, ECC chairman: You show the Federal wetlands connected to the DEC wetlands. If they are contiguous, isn’t it one wetland under the law?
Mr. Rabideau stated no.
Marv Schorr: What distinguishes the two?
Mr. Rabideau stated that a field survey by DEC.
Marc Schorr: All the gray areas are wetlands.
Mr. Rabideau stated that was correct, physically they are classified as wetlands. Jurisdictionally they have only from this point to here and this is strictly Federal wetlands.
Marv Schorr: What distinguishes in this case the Federal Wetlands from the DEC wetlands?
Mr. Rabideau stated from the State.
Mr. Black stated that his understanding was that NYS wetlands are lands and property and ground that acts as a natural filter to rejuvenate the water, areas where there is sedimentary soil or filtration going on in the actual physical land itself. If the land is involved in that type of activity acting as a filtration system then the NYS claims jurisdiction. Mr. Black stated that the Army Corp would have jurisdiction over the same thing but they also in addition have anything that is a flowing water way where water is flowing and it routes water from different areas towards a navigable waterway. Anything that feeds a navigable waterway and represents a water flow towards that they have jurisdiction as well. Mr. Black stated that the land in-between the two areas could represent a place where you have water flow but not necessarily filtration going on.
Mr. Rabideau stated that it is really waters of the US which include wetlands, intermitten streams, perrineal streams, navigable streams, RPW’s, non-RPW’s, seasonal RPW’s. Mr. Rabideau stated that we are in a situation where this area in here is like a retention while this area here is still wetlands but definitely has intermitten stream corridor there. From here to here is that corridor and basically the way DEC looked at it the fact that since it was a corridor of water they decided to cut their jurisdiction here and here. It is a very subtle difference.
Marv Schorr: I believe the NYS regulations are 12 ˝ acres minimum and certain flora has to be there, it does not say anything about filtration to be defined as a NYS wetland.
Mr. Rabideau stated that they use the same criteria as a Federal Wetland. Mr. Rabideau stated that it is a case of jurisdiction. Mr. Rabideau stated that to clarify this, he has a map of the DEC wetlands and the DEC did sign off on the map. Mr. Rabideau stated that the 1999 amended map from DEC is wrong and the new map supercedes that.
Marv Schorr: And their map shows all of that as well.
Mr. Rabideau stated that was correct but it shows it incorrectly.
Marv Schorr: That is an official map though.
Mr. Rabideau stated that the map he has supercedes it.
Marv Schorr: Where has this been filed by the DEC?
Mr. Rabideau stated that it is in Warrensburg. Mr. Rabideau stated that they have spent two years getting to this point.
Carmen Gutto: What I have experienced between the State and the Federal especially when you go back to this parcel of land that we have in front of the Planning Board since 1992 and continue to be here is that until 1992 there was no NYS DEC wetlands on any of this property according to their mapping. In 1999 they finally decided to do mapping of that western portion of this county a lot of what they did, because we have had Federal wetlands delineations done prior to that because there was no State delineations or a mapping regards this particular 158 acre parcel. What has happened over time, which is part of the issues in these letters, is that when in 1999 when DEC , what they really did they had a lot of areas that were not 12.5 acres contiguous, so what they did was to go up through it and start connecting the dots whether or not that land was contiguous and how wet it was, they connected it al together So there is a lot on this map you will see stuff that was designated as Federal wetlands and there is a question with regard to that in here, that now is DEC wetlands cause the DEC has overlayed some of their mapping are to what was Federal wetlands before.
Mr. Black stated that the current map indicates what DEC is taking jurisdiction over.
Carmen Gutto: How long ago were those Federal wetlands delineated?
Mr. Rabideau stated that they were delineated at the same time the DEC was, which was within the last two years. Mr. Rabideau stated that the basis for DEC wetlands in Saratoga County is the 1999 amended map.
Carmen Gutto: Even though the map is incorrect?
Mr. Rabideau stated that this map supercedes that map.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the reason those are separate is that the Army Corp’s criteria is vegetation and how many months of the year the water lays on that land.
Mr. Rabideau stated that it looks like a big swamp but it is not. You would need to be on site to see it.
Bruce Gardner, Councilman: With the width of that flow area here from Army Corp, has anybody looked at the 50, 100, 500 year flood plain elevation?
Mr. Rabideau responded no. Mr. Rabideau stated that this is the lowest point of the whole property and the contour is 97 and up here it is 106, which is a nine foot elevation change.
Gilbert Bliss, 504 State Road: Is that to the west of the existing home?
Mr. Rabideau responded yes.
Mr. Kadlecek asked Mr. Rabideau to point to where the culvert was located that goes under Rood Road.
Mr. Rabideau showed the Board on the drawing.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he walked the property and thought he saw remnants of a stonewall on Lot number 2.
Mr. Rabideau showed the Board on the drawing.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that it would be helpful to show that on the drawing.
Mr. Rabideau stated that there was a location on that stone wall but it is not on this drawing.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that it could be a reference point.
Mr. Black made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Public Hearing closed at 8:17 p.m.
Gracey Deliberations
Mr. Black stated that there are two comment letters from Mr. McNamara, one dated September 12, 2007 and one dated September 14, 2007 (Attachments 2 and 3). Mr. Black asked Mr. Rabideau to address the comments in the September 12, 2007 letter from Mr. McNamara.
Mr. Rabideau stated that comment 1 pertained to adding lot numbers to the drawing, which has been done.
Mr. Rabideau stated that comment 2 pertained to showing the utility overhead line and poles and showing the existing stream and culvert crossing of Root Road, which has been done.
Mr. Rabideau stated that comment 3 pertained to providing a copy of the DEC map showing the limits of the state wetlands jurisdiction, which has been provided tonight.
Mrs. York was asked to get a copy of the DEC map to Mr. McNamara.
Mr. Rabideau stated that comment 4 pertained to adding 100 feet between an absorption field and a wetland. Mr. Rabideau stated that was a misinterpretation that it has since been clarified and amended. Mr. Rabideau stated that they updated the jurisdiction of DEC and now have the 100 foot adjacent area. Mr. Rabideau stated that the subsequent September 14, 2007 letter from Mr. McNamara states that the matter has been resolved.
Mr. Rabideau stated that comment 5 pertained to adding field shot elevations to show the vertical relationship between the streams, the edge of the wetlands, and the septic and house areas, which has been done using 1 foot contours.
Mr. LaFountain inquired as to the date of the perc tests.
Mr. Rabideau stated they were done in June or July.
Mr. Black questioned the perc rate on Lot 2 being 43 minutes.
Mr. Rabideau stated that was correct as there is more clay soil. Mr. Rabideau stated that was the worst case scenario.
Mr. Kadlecek requested the numbers for each of the holes.
Mr. Rabideau provided a copy to the Board. Mrs. York made copies for the Board members.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if that was the stabilized rate.
Mr. Rabideau responded yes for test #2.
Mr. Mitchell read the results.
Mr. Black asked Mr. LaFountain what was the normal criteria where you see the difference between a normal septic system and a raised system.
Mr. LaFountain stated that it is not typically based on the percolation rate. It is based on the separation for impervious materials to ground water.
Mr. Black asked if the results for this percolation test raise concern.
Mr. LaFountain responded yes.
Mr. Black asked Mr. LaFountain what would satisfy him that this is an acceptable system.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he would have to ask Mr. McNamara about that.
Mr. Black stated that there is a letter from the Environmental Conservation Commission. Mr. Black asked Mr. Schorr to review the letter (Attachment 1).
Mr. Schorr stated that he walked the property and fellow member Bob Kileen, Jr. also walked the property, and the letter states the observations from the site visit.
Mr. Black stated that the letter indicates that this is the same piece of property that Bob Kileen, Jr and Bob Kileen, Sr. walked a number of years ago when it was being considered for subdivision then. Mr. Black stated that the letter states that, at that time, it was considered very marginal because of the wetlands and the process was stopped by the applicant.
Mr. Rabideau stated that he has a copy of that map with him and showed the Board. Mr. Rabideau stated that Lot 1 on the first subdivision is now the Wilder house. The current subdivision is from this point west.
Mr. Black stated that what has changed is that the previous subdivision application was for 4 lots and the current application is for 2 lots.
Mr. Rabideau stated that the rules have changed and subdivisions are now environmentally driven.
Mr. Black stated that the ECC’s comments were that the land is wet and that it would be difficult to sight septic systems in dry areas and the owners may get stuck with failing systems.
Mr. Rabideau stated that they have had an engineer to the site to look at that issue and they are confident that the systems will work.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if the ACOE says that you can put a septic system right up to the edge of the creek?
Mr. Rabideau stated up to the edge of the wetlands because the ACOE has no jurisdiction beyond that. Mr. Rabideau stated that they split the difference and put it on the highest spot.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the Town of Charlton Zoning Ordinance calls for 100 feet setback to the creek.
Mr. Rabideau stated that it is not a stream.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the Zoning Ordinance says pond or stream.
Mr. Rabideau stated that it is neither, it is dry.
Mr. LaFountain questioned if it is a dry Federal wetland.
Mr. Rabideau responded yes.
Mr. Black stated that the County decision was that there are no significant county or intra community impacts. Mr. Black stated that the County’s comments were that the applicant should supply a septic system design by a NYS licensed engineer and that the Board should consider the use of one shared driveway to avoid two separate wetland crossings.
Mr. Black stated that he does not like the concept of shared driveways. The Board has considered shared driveway access at the roadway. Mr. Black stated that the second driveway imposes a normal impact to the crossing. Mr. Black stated that the Board chooses not to require that.
Mr. Black stated that there is a concern regarding the potential for the house to see seasonal flooding issues and the Board is looking for some verification that the house actually sits elevated and that the elevations are such that if there is seasonal high water that somehow the houses were going to be engulfed by it. Mr. Black stated that the drawing was amended per engineering comments and now shows a 5 foot elevation from the wetlands to the house locations. Mr. Black stated that it implies that there will not be flooding in and around the house necessarily but the basement is a different thing.
Mr. Rabideau stated that from here to here there is an 8 foot elevation difference.
Mr. Black stated that if they had mottling at 5 feet down on Lot 1 and a basement was dug out to 8 feet the basement would be sitting in water.
Mr. Rabideau stated that they would build up.
The Board agreed that there was no concern with the location of the houses. The Board did have concern with the septic systems.
Mr. Black suggested an engineering of the septic system now showing a legitimate engineered design for each septic system.
Mr. Wilkinson inquired if the Board should require the ACOE crossing permits before the construction of the driveways in case down the road they want to move a driveway location.
Mr. Rabideau stated that the permit locks the location. Mr. Rabideau stated that they have already applied for the permits.
Mr. Black inquired as to when they expected action on that.
Mr. Rabideau stated within 30 days.
Mr. Black inquired if Mr. Rabideau thought he would have a permit that says the locations on the drawing are acceptable.
Mr. Rabideau stated that he may not.
Mr. Wilkinson suggested adding a standard note to the drawing that says no building permit will be issued until the crossing permits have been approved.
Mr. Black polled the Board. The Board agreed to require ACOE permit approval before Planning Board approval. The Board further deliberated on additional comments pertaining to the building envelope and the septic systems.
Mr. Black stated that the Board would like to see an engineer designed septic system on the two lots and remove the language “proposed”, show a required building envelope within which the house has to be located and a note indicating ACOE approval of crossings.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the applicant has 62 days from tonight.
Gutto (225-1-66.1)
Mr. Gutto appeared and provided revised drawings for the Board.
Mr. Black stated that at the last meeting the Board requested a change to the well note replacing “building permit” with “lot sales”. Mr. Black stated that has been done. Mr. Black stated that the County had withheld approval because they wanted a new map and more information with what was going on with the pond. Mr. Black stated that the newest map has not been sent to the County. Mr. Black stated that the Board and the applicant also agreed to defer Planning Board action to the October meetings. Mr. Black stated that there is a letter from the Environmental Conservation Committee and some additional engineering comments.
Mr. Gutto stated that the last time he was before the Board he brought in colored maps. Mr. Gutto stated that he is referencing the colored map because for the discussion of the engineering comments, specifically comment 2 paragraph 4. Mr. Gutto stated that he believes that he did not realize that when the map had been developed, that not only was the legend governed by the hatchings for the wetlands but by the color as well. Mr. Gutto stated that due to cost of making colored copies, the maps were reproduced in black and white. Mr. Gutto stated that a copy of the map from the last meeting was black and white and went to the County and Mr. McNamara. Losing the color distinction made these maps confusing. Mr. Gutto stated that he had the wetland hatching modified on the latest maps so that the distinctions would show in black and white.
Mr. Gutto stated that the map from the last meeting has the federal wetland delineated before the 1999 DEC map was created. On this property, prior to 1999 there were no DEC wetlands that were mapped by the DEC. At the time of the 1999 subdivision, the Board had recommended that the ACOE delineate the property. Mr. Gutto stated that was done. Mr. Gutto stated that the wetland in question was originally an ACOE federal wetland. There was a note on the initial map of the prior subdivision that stated that Lot #3, which would have been this entire parcel with the piece that we are cutting out, was not subject to the federal wetlands delineation. Even though part of it had been done, the ACOE decided that we did not need to do it after it was already done. Mr. Gutto stated that what the Board is looking at was all delineated by Environmental Design Partnership and had been stopped at certain points coming in. At that point ACOE had decided because this was not going to be subdivided that this should not be subject to their delineation although it had already been done, so it was included in here. Then in 1999 the DEC came out with the new mapping, they connected all the dots and said now this is DEC wetland. The hatching here was delineated as ACOE wetlands. When McFarland finished the delineation in August, 2007, his initial cross hatching was the same as the DEC cross hatching. Mr. Gutto stated that this wetland is DEC and was flagged in 2007.
Mr. Gutto continued to further explain that the colored map showed all of the different hatchings in different colors and the black and white map has all of the hatchings looking the same, which made it hard to show the jurisdiction of the wetlands.
Mr. Gutto stated that they have now changed the hatching on the federal wetlands delineation done August, 2007 here and this is all DEC wetlands here.
Mr. Black suggested showing all of this as federal wetlands and all of the as DEC wetlands and put the buffer on just the DEC portion.
Mr. Gutto stated that there are no DEC wetlands impacting this lot except where the buffer is already on.
Mr. Black stated that what the Board is trying to get clarified is what does the DEC recognize, where is the 100 foot buffer that affects this lot, and what is Federal wetlands and do we cross it with a driveway.
Mr. Gutto stated no, there is a driveway here.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Gutto to make two hatchings, one that indicated what is DEC and one that indicates what is ACOE.
Mr. Gutto stated that you need three because you need to have who did the delineation.
Mr. Black stated that a surveyor is licensed and certified to say that this is the DEC jurisdiction and that is the ACOE jurisdiction. Mr. Black stated that the Board is not interested in who did the delineation. The surveyor’s license makes him qualified to make the determination.
Mr. Gutto stated that Mr. McFarland will not do that because he wants specific distinctions between whose work is showing on this map because he has to certify this map that this is his work. Mr. Gutto stated that Mr. McFarland is very specific in pointing out who delineated what on the drawing.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that a field delineation is only good for five years and this was done in 1996. Mr. Wilkinson suggested removing it from the drawing.
Mr. Gutto stated that what Mr. McNamara was looking at was incorrect mapping.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is satisfied with the explanation to Mr. McNamara’s comment #2.
Mr. Gutto stated that comment #1 pertained to adding a ZBA variance note, which has been done as note #20.
Mr. LaFountain asked for Mr. Gutto to combine note #16 with note #20 with “reference Lot 3-2”.
Mr. Black stated to leave note #16 as is and revise note #20 adding “reference Lot 3-2”.
Mr. Gutto stated that comment #3 pertains to obtaining a final written disposition from DEC that specifically outlines all of the necessary permits to ensure compliance. Mr. Gutto stated that there is a letter from Mr. Koenig that specifically states that this is not a mining operation.
Mr. Black accepted Mr. Gutto’s explanation.
Mr. Gutto stated that as it pertains to limits of jurisdiction, where this piece of wetland was delineated on Lot 3-2, and where the buffer comes out to Lot 2, that answers the comment in paragraph 2 because it has been delineated by the CPEC and it was also field located by McFarland Land Surveying in August of 2007.
Mr. Black stated that the comment says that permits related to the construction of the pond are the jurisdiction of the DEC.
Mr. Black was discussing the letter of September 11, 2007 from Mr. McNamara and Mr. Gutto was referencing the July 12, 2007 letter from Mr. McNamara.
Mr. Gutto stated that he has not received any correspondence from the DEC regarding any changes to the pond plan he submitted to them. Mr. Gutto stated that if there are changes required he will make them and move forward.
Mr. Black read Mr. Koenig’s letter to the DEC dated May 10, 2007.
Mr. Black inquired as to the slope between the well and the septic system.
Mr. Gutto stated that the proposed well is lower than the septic system.
Mr. Black stated that the Board has three further requirements to satisfy before granting preliminary approval. Mr. Black stated that the Board would like to see note #20 referencing Lot 3-2, move the well 100 feet uphill, and receive County Planning Board approval. Mr. Black stated that the Board cannot act without written County Planning Board approval. Mr. Black suggested that Mr. Gutto bring a copy of the map to the County personally.
Mrs. York will forward a copy of the map to the County Planning Board and to Mr. McNamara.
Mr. Wilkinson asked Mr. Gutto to remove note #14 as it does not apply to this subdivision.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Schorr if there were any further issues of the ECC that needed to be addressed.
Mr. Schorr stated that there are no issues.
Mr. Black stated that once the revisions are made and the county approval has been received, the Board will be in a position to take action to approve the subdivision.
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1,41,43.1,43.2,43.3)
Warren Longacker from Lansing Engineering appeared representing the applicants. Mr. Longacker provided a preliminary layout plan.
Mr. Longacker gave a brief history of the project: Project encompasses 4 separate parcels totaling 87 acres, located on the western side of Swaggertown Road; The site is currently occupied by a single-family residence owned by one of the applicants on the northern portion with an access drive to Swaggertown Road and several outbuildings; The remainder of the site is generally densely wooded and open meadow; The applicant is seeking to subdivide the parcel into 24 residential units, one of which would include the existing residence; each lot would include a 60 foot front yard setback, 50 foot rear yard setback and 60 foot side yard setback; lot sizes range between 0.85 acres within the new roadway to over 14 acres which includes Lot 11 which is in the back. Access to the site would be provided by a new curb cut made to the western side of Swaggertown Road and the new road would traverse within the parcel providing access to each one of the new units. The existing driveway would be realigned from Swaggertown Road to connect to this new road, which would provide access to an existing 2 acre landlocked parcel in the rear owned by someone else. Each unit would be furnished with an onsite waste disposal system. Water would be extended from the intersection of Crooked Street and Komar Drive, approximately 3,300 feet east of the parcel, and storm water management would managed onsite in accordance with NYS DEC and EPA Phase II Regulations.
Mr. Longacker stated that his office had received comments from Mr. McNamara back in May, 2007. Mr. Longacker stated that was in response to a preliminary submission and hearing documents. Mr. Longacker stated that his firm has addressed most of those comments.
Mr. Longacker stated that he would like to discuss the five remaining issues. Mr. Longacker stated that the five issues would cost the applicant a significant amount of money to address and they are asking the Board for some guidance and would like to delay in responding to those comments until such time as preliminary approval is granted.
Mr. Longacker stated that the issues in Mr. McNamara’s letter pertained to: the project should be contingent upon approval of the water district extension, having a new delineation of the wetlands, having an additional survey of the water main along Crooked Street and Komar Drive, and additional test pits to ensure that each lot is capable of sustaining a waste disposal system.
Mr. Longacker stated that he would like to first discuss the survey along Crooked Street. Mr. Longacker stated that in early August they did a hydro-flow test at the intersection of Crooked Street and Komar Drive. That was done because the topography was such that this is actually higher elevation than that area down there but the tie in point would be that they wanted to make sure there are adequate pressures for the water to actually service each individual lot. Mr. Longacker stated that they retained EDP to perform the tests. Mr. Longacker explained the hydro-flow test results that were previously presented to the Board for review.
Mr. Black inquired if the elevation difference had to do with water pressure.
Mr. Longacker stated yes.
Mr. Black stated that his interpretation after speaking to Mr. McNamara was that it had to do with storm water management and something associated with the ability to discharge storm water. Mr. Black stated that the pond was actually higher than where the storm water comes from so there is no way that the water is going to flow there.
Mr. Longacker stated that they have been working on a storm water pollution prevention plan. Mr. Longacker stated that they have relocated the road and raised the road up and also revised the grading so the water is directed towards to pond.
Mr. Longacker stated that the final issue was the outside waste water disposal systems and the need for percolation tests and deep hole tests on each lot. Mr. Longacker stated that he would like to request from the Board possibly getting the variance now and not doing that additional survey and not updating the wetlands delineation until preliminary approval is done. Mr. Longacker stated that they would like to take perc tests on each lot and deep hole.
Mr. Black inquired, what if the wetlands encompass some of the lots.
Mr. Longacker stated that they do. Mr. Longacker stated that what is on the drawing is from the USGS maps and the DEC map. Mr. Longacker stated that if there are wetlands there they could relocate some of the lots.
Mr. Black inquired as to the issue of doing the delineations in advance of preliminary approval.
Mr. Longacker stated that it is rather time consuming and expensive.
Mr. LaFountain stated that it does not make sense to do perc tests if lots have to be moved around.
Mr. Longacker stated that they have large lot sizes back here and they could always re-adjust these lot lines if necessary. Mr. Longacker stated that they would do more perc tests than just the 24 lots.
Mr. Black stated that as long as DEC retains the same general area of wetlands then it is fine but if they assume cognizance of more area then if may affect the lots. Mr. Black stated that he is more comfortable knowing what DEC claims jurisdiction on now.
Mr. Mitchell inquired as to where the water is discharging from the filtration system and whose jurisdiction is it.
Mr. Longacker pointed out the area on the drawing and stated that the Lot would be deeded to the Town of Charlton.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if it flowed onto DEC land or ACOE land.
Mr. Longacker stated that it is now labeled as ACOE.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if they raised the road what would be the elevation of the road relative to the properties.
Mr. Longacker stated 1 ˝ foot above the center line of the road.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired what direction the runoff would flow to.
Mr. Longacker stated the road.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if there was a discharge from the retention pond off the property.
Mr. Longacker responded no, it is onsite.
Mr. Black inquired if the water district right of way and storm water management system tend to occupy the same area.
Mr. Longacker responded yes.
Mr. Keniry stated that it is the applicant’s intent to dedicate the road and the infrastructure to the Town.
Mr. Black stated that would imply that the Town has cognizance of the maintenance of that parcel and the maintaining of that pond and it is not known that the Town has agreed to that. Mr. Black stated that if the Town does not agree to that he is not sure what other options exist.
Mr. Longacker stated that a Homeowners Association is an option.
Mr. Mitchell stated that is should be determined before preliminary approval if the Town is going to maintain that or if the applicant’s have to seek other options.
Mr. Keniry stated that in the Subdivision Regulations page 13 paragraph 3 a.-p. lays out the certain criteria required in order to form a complete plat preliminary application.
Mr. Black stated that it is wrong for the Board to grant exemptions to what the ordinance requires. Mr. Black read from the subdivision regulations page 13 paragraph 3 letters a-p to determine the information required for preliminary approval (Annexed hereto as Attachment 5): a. done; b. done; c. done; d. needs to be addressed; e. done; f. done; g. done; h. done; i. needs to be addressed; j. done; k. needs to be addressed; l. non-applicable; m. needs to be addressed; n. needs to be addressed; o. done; p. done.
Mr. Black stated that the Board needs to see acceptable percolation rate on each lot and where the systems are going to be on each building envelope and the DEC and ACOE wetlands delineations shown down along Crooked Street.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. LaFountain provided the report from August 2007 and reviewed it with the Board.
Town Board Liaison
Ms. Verola stated that a letter has been sent to Elaine Nigriny pertaining to the Town Board’s denial to refund her application fee. Ms. Verola stated that the Board would receive a copy.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that there are four training opportunities for Board members: -NY Planning Federation Conference on October 8 & 9 at Saratoga Springs; -NYS DOT Land Use Planning Conference on October 3, 2007; -Local Planning and Zoning October 31, 2007 at Fort Edward; and -Saratoga County Planning Conference January 30, 2008.
Mr. Kadlecek made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Wilkinson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted, Kimberly A. Caron, Recording Secretary
Ray Black, Chairman September 14, 2007 Town of Charlton Planning Board 1410 Division Street Attachment 1 Charlton, NY 12019 Subject: Kathryn M. Franze Subdivision Application
The subject application from Kathryn M. Franze to subdivide a 14.53 acre parcel on Root Road into two lots was reviewed, as requested by the Planning Board, by the Charlton Environmental Conservation Commission at its August 28, 2007 meeting. The subdivision map and accompanying information from Gilbert VanGuilder was reviewed.
Bob Killeen, Jr, a member of the ECC, and his father Robert Killeen, Sr (then a member of the Planning Board) had examined this same land more than 14 years ago when it was being considered for an earlier subdivision. At that time it was considered too low and extremely wet. After reviewing the Franze map and the latest DEC wetland map, and having ECC member Bob Killeen, Jr again look at the land in question, the ECC believes that this area is a big swamp that appears to have very little elevation and is unsuitable for residences. While it may be possible to fit individual houses into dry areas, wet areas exist throughout the land that are not part of the delineated ACOE or NYS DEC wetlands shown on the map. In addition to the fact that it appears from the subdivision map that the septic areas are fairly close to the ACOE wetlands shown (less than 100 feet), the ECC believes that due to the wetness of the whole area it would be difficult, if not impossible, to site the septic systems in dry areas. It would be unfair to future residents to allow building of residences because the general condition of the land is so poor.
The ECC wishes to again note that there have been several recent applications for subdivisions that, if granted, could disturb wetlands and streams. As the ECC’s previous reviews have stated, even if state and federal agencies are not concerned with the disturbance of a specific wetland, the ECC believes that Charlton has an obligation to future owners of such properties and should not condone these actions on properties that may be, at best, marginal building sites. At a minimum, Charlton should require mitigation or offsets for any wetland disturbance. The ECC also believes that protection of Charlton’s watercourses should be a priority in all such reviews.
If we can be of any further help on this matter feel free to contact me at 399-4161.
Marvin M. Schorr, Chairman Town of Charlton Environmental Conservation Commission cc: ECC members, D. Salisbury September 12, 2007 Attachment 2
Mr. Raymond E. Black Planning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: Exempt Subdivision Lands of Kathryn M. Franze (Gracey) Root Road Tax Map Parcel No. 237.00-1-21.1
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received a proposed two-lot subdivision of lands of Kathryn Franze (Gracey) located on the north side of Root Road approximately 1,700 feet east of Sweetman Road. The subdivision plan dated July 19, 2007 was prepared by Duane Rabideau, P.L.S. of Gilbert VanGuilder Land Surveyor, PLLC. The application can be categorized as an “Exempt Subdivision” according to Charlton’s Subdivision Regulations. The Planning Board, at its discretion, may waive the public hearing requirement. We reviewed the property on September 10, 2007 and offer the following comments for your consideration.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions regarding this project.
Very truly yours,
Michael McNamara, P.E. The Environmental Design Partnership
Cc: Planning Board Members Bill Keniry Duane Rabideau, P.L.S. September 14, 2007 Attachment 3
Mr. Raymond E. Black Planning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: Gracey Exempt Subdivision Tax Map No. 237.00-1-21.1
Dear Chairman Black:
This letter should serve as an addendum to my original comments of September 12, 2007. At the request of the applicant, Jim Meacham, P.E. of the New York State Department of Health in Troy telephoned me yesterday afternoon. Specifically, we spoke about the separation of septic systems from federal wetlands.
In comment #4 of my September 12th letter, I pointed out that the proposed layout for the east lot did not comply with the separation requirements of NYS DOH publication “Appendix 75-A.” In those standards, “wetlands” are defined according to the jurisdiction of any regulatory agency. Mr. Meacham explained to me that DOH has revised how they apply this policy.
The term “wetland” was redefined in a separate DOH publication, “Individual Residential Wastewater Treatment Systems Design Handbook.” This document is a companion publication to Appendix 75-A and is given equal consideration by the Department. This subsequent definition clearly limits the 100 foot standard to New York State agencies or local municipalities and excludes federal wetlands. Mr. Meacham assured me that the separation becomes merely a “recommendation” in the case of federal wetlands. His position within the Department does qualify him as a reliable authority on this matter. In light of this discussion, please consider comment #4 of my September 12th letter as having been resolved.
Very truly yours,
Michael McNamara, P.E.
Cc: Planning Board Members Bill Keniry Duane Rabideau, P.L.S.
May 16, 2007 Attachment 4
Mr. Raymond E. Black Planning Board Chairman Town of Charlton Town Hall 784 Charlton Road Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: Major Subdivision – Heflin-Durst Tax Map Parcel Nos. 255.00-1- 40.1, 41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received plans for a 24-lot major subdivision on the west side of Swaggertown Road. The plan set includes 16 sheets of subdivision, utility and grading plans, profiles, erosion control plans and construction details dated March 26, 2007 as prepared by Warren Longacker, P.E. of Lansing Engineering, PC. Our firm’s last action on this matter was to prepare a summary letter of items needed as part of the detailed engineering plans in August of 2005. We offer the following comments for your consideration.
General:
Subdivision Plans:
Layout and Materials Plans:
In order to confirm the acceptability of the proposed lot arrangement, it is necessary to perform test holes in the area of each proposed disposal field. Future test holes should be conducted to a depth of at least seven feet as many of the previous borings were not deep enough to confirm compliance. No formal information has been submitted on percolation rates. The test hole results do seem to indicate that acceptable percolation will be available but tests should be done for each system as required by Charlton’s zoning. The ordinance also requires that the Zoning Officer be notified 48 hours in advance of testing in order to be afforded the opportunity to witness the examination.
Upon completion of the field tests, a lot by lot evaluation should be conducted by the applicant to determine whether a conventional system, shallow trench or Charlton “built up” system is needed. In the latter case, a depiction of the field should be made on the subject lots to ensure that adequate area is available and the proposed lot configuration will provide acceptable building lots. 2. The applicant should review the plans with the Saratoga County Department of Public Works. A permit from the DPW will be necessary for the proposed entrance onto Swaggertown Road and the utility work within county rights of way. It is likely that the county will require that the water main be bored under Swaggertown Road. The plans should provide detail on the method of installation. 3. The proposed contours for the storm management area should be shown on the layout and materials plans to provide continuity with the utility information. 4. The graphics for the water main should be improved in order to better illustrate the proposed valve layout. 5. We recommend that the water main within the intersection be moved to the other side of CB#6. This may eliminate the need for the 45 degree fittings. 6. The water main is shown along curves with radii of approximately 110 or 150 feet depending on which side of the road it is on. This likely exceeds the normal deflection available at each pipe joint and fittings may be necessary. The location and specification of each fitting should be indicated on the plans. 7. Frame elevations, road stations and inverts should be added to the plans for the storm structures. The length, grade and pipe material should be added to the storm sewer runs. 8. The graphics imply that a drainage course intersects the proposed road at station 6+50 and possibly again at station 31+50. The applicant should provide information on the need for culverts at these locations. It does not appear that there is adequate vertical separation between the proposed road grade and the existing ground to provide sufficient cover if a culvert is necessary. 9. The storm sewer is too close to the right of way line at stations 16+60 and 18+10. Some adjustment or the addition of structures is necessary to provide a manageable working distance in the future. The flow distance between CB #17 and CB #20 also appears excessive. 10. There is an errant line on sheets 3 and 4 that crosses through the center of the proposed disposal field for lot #10. The line should either be removed or its significance noted.
Grading Plans:
1. Existing spot grades should be added to the plan along the drainage swale/stream in the area where the storm management basin discharges in order to confirm the design. Spot grades should also be added to show the location and elevation of the existing edge of road and shoulder on Swaggertown Road in order to confirm the proposed connection. 2. Easements should be provided to the Town of Charlton along the existing drainage course through lot 12 to allow maintenance of the channel. Easements may also be needed through lots 22, 3 and 4 if culverts are added. 3. Additional labels should be added to the existing topography to promote legibility. 4. A stormwater management report and hydraulic model must be submitted in order to justify the storm basin design and selection of pipe sizes for the storm sewer. 5. Greater detail is necessary on the storm management basins. Some contours appear to be labeled incorrectly and spot grades should be added on the spillways. An outlet structure would also seem to be warranted. The bottom of the basin is proposed to be 14 feet below existing grade. This would place the bottom more than 10 feet below the elevation of the adjacent channel. Groundwater is almost certain to be encountered at a lesser depth. The storm basin does not appear feasible as depicted. 6. The discharge elevation from CB #8 is noted on sheet 3 as 438.00. It is depicted graphically on sheet 7 near elevation 435.00. Since it appears that there will be no outflow from the first basin until the water surface tops 445.0±, the storm sewer would be inundated with water between stations 0+50 and 9+00 and stations 30+50 and 34+00. This is not an acceptable condition. 7. The Planning Board and Highway Superintendent should determine if a fence is desired around the basin. It would seem advisable for such a deep structure. Planting to screen the basin from view of the road and the adjacent lot should also be considered. Adequate access to maintain the basin needs to be provided. A detail for an access road is shown on sheet 12 but is not depicted on the plan. It would seem appropriate to construct a drive along the east and south perimeter of the basin to the outfall.
Profiles:
1. The initial road grade from Swaggertown Road is listed as 3.13%. The town roadway specifications call for a maximum grade of 3.00% within 100 feet of an intersection. Actual road elevations should be added to the plan to confirm the exact centerline grade. 2. The applicant should provide information on whether a culvert is necessary under the entrance to maintain Swaggertown Road drainage. 3. There are two crossings of the water main and storm sewer in the intersection between station 5+00 and 5+50. A minimum vertical separation of 18 inches should be provided and noted at each crossing.
Crooked Street Water Extension:
1. Sheets 9 and 10 show a water main extension along Crooked Street from Komar Drive to the project entrance. These plans do not appear to represent an actual field survey. The Crooked Street pavement is not indicated nor are the existing ditch lines, driveways, telephone poles and other various physical land features. The right of way and property lines should be based on actual field evidence to ensure that the plan is an accurate depiction of how the water main extension is to be built and that adequate room within the existing right of way is available. The names of the existing property owners should also be noted.
Sediment and Erosion Control Plan:
1. Phase I and Phase II on sheet 11 would seem to be out of order. The basin would need to be constructed prior to the upstream storm sewer. 2. On lot 10, a soil stockpile area is shown in the area of the proposed septic disposal field. This could compact the native soils and lead to a failure of the system. Notes should be added to the E&S plan to specifically prevent against stockpiling soil or materials or operating equipment over the top of proposed septic fields. 3. Some of the septic fields have been excluded from the limits of disturbance. The fields on lots 16 and 17 should be included in the disturbance calculation. 4. Greater silt fence would seem necessary than the limited amount shown. In particular, large portions of lot 12 along the south side of the roadway drain directly toward wetlands. The same is true for lots 8 and 9. 5. Plans for the disposal of tree stumps should be discussed. If they are to be buried on site, an area should be designated on the plan that will not interfere with lot or infrastructure construction.
Site Detail Sheets:
1. A full review of the detail sheets was not completed as the plans remain preliminary in nature. A cursory review did indicate that there are discrepancies between the road cross section and town standard. The water details also do not appear to comply with town standards. The applicant should review each of these and revise for future submittals.
Very truly yours,
Michael McNamara, P.E. The Environmental Design Partnership
C:\MY DOCUMENTS\WINWORD\charlton\HEFLINDURST\heflin_durst_subdivreview.doc
Cc: Planning Board Members Bill Keniry Warren Longacker, P.E. PAGE 13 Attachment 5
j. All existing restrictions on the use of the land, including easements, covenants, or zoning lines.
3. Preliminary Plat
The Preliminary Flat shall be clearly marked “Preliminary Plat”. It shall show the salient features of the proposed subdivision in sufficient detail to apprise the Planning Board of the layout. It shall be prepared at a scale of not less than fifty or more than one hundred feet to the inch. It shall include the following information:
a. Proposed subdivision name,name of Town and County, date, true north point, scale, name and address of record owner, subdivider, and engineer or surveyor, including license number and seal.
b. The names of all subdivisions immediately adjacent, and the names of the owners of record of all adjacent property.
c. The Zoning District, including exact boundary lines of district, if more than one district.
d. All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated to public use, and the conditions of such dedication.
e. Location of existing property lines, easements, buildings, water courses, marshes, rock outcrops, wooded areas, single trees with a diameter of eight inches or more as measured three feet above the base of the trunk, and other significant existing features of the proposed subdivision and adjacent property.
f. Location of existing sewers, water mains, culverts, and drains on the property, with pipe sizes, grades and direction of flow.
g. Contours with intervals of five feet or less as required by the Board, including elevations on existing roads. Approximate grading plan shall be shown if natural contours are to be changed more than two feet.
h. The width and location of any streets or public ways or places shown on the Official Map or the Master Plan, if such exists, within the area to be subdivided, and the width, location, grades and profiles of all streets or public ways proposed by the developer.
i. The approximate location and size of all proposed water lines, valves, hydrants and sewer lines and fire alarm PAGE 14
boxes. Connection to existing lines or alternate means of water supply or sewage disposal and treatment as provided in the Public Health Law shall be shown. Also profiles of all proposed water and sewer lines.
j. Storm drainage plan indicating the approximate location, size of proposed lines and their profiles and means of disposal. Also connection to existing lines and alternate means of disposal.
k. Plans and cross sections showing the proposed location and type of sidewalks, street lighting standards, street trees, curbs, and the size and type thereof. Also the character, width and depth of pavements and sub-base, and the location of manholes, basins and underground conduits.
1. Preliminary designs of any bridges or culverts which may be required.
m. The proposed lot lines with approximate dimensions and area of each lot.
n. where the topography is such as to make difficult the inclusion of any of the required facilities within the public areas as laid out, the boundaries of the proposed permanent easements over or under private property shall be shown. Such permanent easements shall not be less than twenty feet in width and shall provide satisfactory access to public highways or public open space shown on the subdivision map or official map.
o. An actual field survey of the boundary lines of the tract, giving complete descriptive data by bearings and distances, made and certified by a licensed land surveyor shall be submitted. The corners of the tract shall be located on the ground and marked by substantial monuments of such size and type as approved by the Town Engineer. These shall be referenced and shown on the Plat.
p. If the application covers only a part of the subdividers entire holding, a map of the entire tract, drawn at a scale of not less than four hundred feet to the inch shall be submitted. The proposed subdivision will be considered in the light of the entire tract. This map shall show an outline of the proposed subdivision with proposed and probable future street and drainage systems in the entire tract.
|
|
|
| |
