Town of Bolton                                                                

PLANNING BOARD                                                     

MINUTES                                                                             

Thursday, February 26, 2004                                     

6:00 p.m.                                                                             

Present:  Chairman Herb Koster, Sandi Aldrich*, Henry Caldwell, John Gaddy,

Mitzi Nittmann, Don Roessler, Zoning Administrator Pam Kenyon, Town Counsel Michael Muller

Absent:   Chauncey Mason

* new member, replacing Kathi DiMauro

PUBLIC HEARING

1) SD03-01 WRIGHT’S FARM SUBDIVISION.  Rolf Ronning.  Seeks to divide into 10 lots that parcel designated as Section 140.00, Block 1, Lot 5.1, Zones RL3 & LC25.  Property Location:  West side of Federal Hill Road.  Subject to SEQR.  Major Subdivision.  Preliminary Plat.

Mr. Ronning referred to a letter that LG Waterkeeper Chris Navitsky submitted last week to the Town engineer and to Mr. Ronning’s engineer, Dennis Dickinson, outlining his concerns over stormwater.  As a result of the correspondence, Mr. Ronning presented revised pages 5/7 and 2/7, which address Mr. Navitsky’s concerns.  Mr. Ronning indicated that the changes are insignificant.  He stated that Mr. Nace provided a letter basically saying that all his concerns have been dealt with.  Mr. Ronning explained that on page 2/7 the only change, outlined in green, was the identification of the stormwater easements.  On map 5/7, he noted that the invert in and invert out numbers (in upper right hand corner) were changed from 875 to 870.  These were changes agreed upon by the engineers.  Mr. Ronning said that in addition to these changes, the maps reflect the Board’s requests of last month. 

From the public, LG Waterkeeper Chris Navitsky spoke, thanking Mr. Ronning for addressing his concerns.  He felt the County should review the subdivision roadway since it abuts a County road.  Noting that this was a request in Mr. Nace’s letter, Mr. Ronning stated that he contacted WC DPW and told them about his plan.  He forwarded a copy of the drawings and also got an application.  They indicated they would issue a permit once the Town approved it.  Mr. Ronning stated that there is already an existing road there, and although there is currently no culvert, he would install one.  H. Hoster noted that Mr. Nace also requested a check dam at the sharp turn toward the bottom of the subdivision roadway (Mr. Ronning pointed out on page 5/7 where this was incorporated into the plan).

Jim Hood of LGA spoke, thanking all parties for working together on this project.  He noted that the LGA has been particularly concerned about this application because they will be involved in 2 projects having to do with improvements to the nearby Indian Brook.  The LGA would like to see a performance bond required for stormwater maintenance.

Motion by H. Caldwell to close the pubic hearing on the preliminary plat.  Seconded by J. Gaddy.  All in favor.  Motion carried.

REGULAR MEETING

H. Koster opened the regular meeting by asking for corrections to the January 2004 minutes.  There being none, D. Roessler made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 22, 2004 meeting.  Seconded by J. Gaddy.  5 in favor.  1 (S. Aldrich) abstained, as she was not present at the January meeting.

1) SD03-01 WRIGHT’S FARM SUBDIVISION.  Rolf Ronning.  Seeks to divide into 10 lots that parcel designated as Section 140.00, Block 1, Lot 5.1, Zones RL3 & LC25.  Property Location:  West side of Federal Hill Road.  Subject to SEQR.  Major Subdivision.  Preliminary Plat.

H. Caldwell was concerned about the driveway on lot 15, as it appeared that they would have to go on the neighboring property to build it.  Mr. Ronning explained that a road already exists there.  H. Caldwell noted that the map indicates both proposed and existing driveways in this area.  It was determined that the driveway for Lot 14 was proposed right along the existing road to be used for Lot 15’s driveway.  The driveway on Lot 10 is also already in, as this is where they drilled the required well for DOH.  Lot 15 will be retained until all other lots are sold, per the APA’s requirement, and Mr. Ronning assumes that the APA will monitor this. 

H. Koster asked Mr. Ronning if he had made application to the County for the cut onto Federal Hill Road for Lot 8’s driveway, as he had to do for the subdivision roadway.  Mr. Ronning stated that he had not, but would check with the County and do so if it was required.  H. Koster noted that the plan does not include stormwater for the driveway on Lot 8 or the driveways on Lots 9 & 10, as was requested last month.  Mr. Ronning believes the stormwater for the entire project was accounted for and approved by the engineers, noting that he believes Mr. Nace determined that this wasn’t necessary, as there was no impact. 

P. Kenyon asked if the small triangular portion near the cul-de-sac was considered a separate lot.  Mr. Ronning stated that this would be a part of the de minimis homeowners association, and it is indicated on the map that it shall never be built upon and is connected to the road.  It will be deeded to the HOA, along with the road.  P. Kenyon wondered why it wasn’t included with the road lot.  Mr. Ronning stated that it is common area that goes with the road, but he wanted the Board to be able to see where the road boundary was.  P. Kenyon requested that the triangular portion be designated as common area on the map.  H. Koster asked that it also be noted that this land would be deeded to the HOA.  Mr. Ronning proposes a maintenance agreement similar to the one he did for Indian Summit Subdivision.  Regarding the easement areas (for stormwater), H. Koster requested that the metes and bounds be shown on the map. 

Mr. Ronning intends on putting in the road and cul-de-sac, but does not plan on putting the entire driveways in.  He will likely put in the first 30-50’ of the driveways, as he did for Indian Summit, so that people know where the driveways start and will have a place to turn around.  D. Roessler wondered if the proposed house sites should even be shown on the map, as he believes this has been an issue in the past.  P. Kenyon explained that the house sites shown on the map are not necessarily where the houses would be located. 

H. Caldwell would like Mr. Ronning to create a construction area at the roadway entrance, where he could put his construction materials so that mud and dirt are not tracked out onto the road.  Mr. Ronning indicated that the first and most challenging priority is to establish the beginning of the road.  As one of the first steps, they would put in a recharge basin at the base of the road. 

M. Nittmann wondered how many different proposed septic designs there were.  Mr. Ronning stated that there were 2 basic designs, shallow and deep trench.  He indicated that all pages of the subdivision would be filed with the County.  Mr. Ronning is waiting for DOH to sign off on the subdivision.  Before he can sell any lots, Mr. Ronning must get approval from the Attorney General.

H. Caldwell wondered if site plan review should be required on every lot.  H. Koster noted that according to Mr. Nace’s letter, stormwater was accounted for on the entire project.  Regarding this, Mr. Ronning stated that there is a standard formula (he believes set by the State) that Mr. Dickinson used to calculate stormwater for the entire project, including estimated driveways and house sizes.  P. Kenyon asked Mr. Ronning if he needed to get a SPDES permit, to which he responded that he assumes his permit pending with ENCON is the SPDES permit.  H. Koster read comment #5 from Mr. Nace’s letter, in which it says “stormwater analysis takes into account the added impervious surfaces from the proposed houses and driveways on all the proposed lots.  As such, a separate analysis of these should not be required”.  P. Kenyon noted that Lots 13, 14, and 15 would automatically require site plan review because they fall within a land conservation district.  H. Caldwell would like site plan review required on each lot.  D. Roessler noted that Lot 10 is listed on both pages 6/7 and 7/7, which showed the septic designs.  H. Koster also noted that there was a page labeled 8/7.  Mr. Ronning will correct these pages. 

M. Nittmann requested that the disturbance area for the road be staked out.  Mr. Ronning plans to stake out the road and the lots upon getting approvals from this Board.  Mr. Nace will monitor construction of the road, at Mr. Ronning’s expense.  H. Koster asked Counsel if requiring Mr. Ronning to put up a $50,000 bond seemed reasonable.  Counsel asked the Board what they perceived to be the risk, noting that such funds are generally used to address failure of contractual obligations.  The bond would be held until the subdivision roadway is completely constructed and approved by Mr. Nace.  Counsel would review the terms of the bond prior to the Board accepting it.  Although Counsel had some suggested changes to Mr. Ronning’s proposed stormwater maintenance agreement, he felt that it was well written.

Regarding reseeding of excavated areas, as indicated on page the page labeled 8/7 (typical soil stabilization detail), H. Caldwell was concerned about the use of fertilizer and nitrogen so close to the wetland.  H. Koster did not feel that nitrogen was a problem, as wetlands create quite a bit of nitrogen.  M. Nittmann did not feel the proposed nitrogen levels (30 lbs/acre) were a problem.  Mr. Ronning again noted that the engineers have agreed on the plan, adding that the use of fertilizers pertains only until the grass establishes.  J. Gaddy would like to minimize the use of fertilizers near the wetlands, and suggested no use be allowed within 75’ of the wetland.  The Board decided to have the engineers determine what a reasonable distance would be. 

J. Gaddy stated that based on the potential increase in use of Town recreation facilities, and the unavailability of an appropriate facility within the subdivision lands, he suggests the Board impose a $400 recreation fee per lot.  Mr. Ronning stated that he had a separate 13-acre parcel containing a wetland that he would be willing to donate to the Town, as perhaps a wetland preserve/park, to address the recreational provision for this major subdivision.  J. Gaddy felt that this did not meet the requirements of the recreational provisions for this proposed subdivision.  Mr. Ronning stated that he would agree to the Board imposing the $400 recreation fee per lot.

The Board had no problems with the application meeting the criteria of C1-C7 of the SEQR form. 

Motion by M. Nittmann to accept subdivision application SD03-01 as complete, make a negative declaration, and approve the preliminary plat as presented with the following conditions: 1) the common area be designated on the map; 2) the metes and bounds for the stormwater easements are designated on the map; 3) the applicant put up a $50,000 performance bond until the subdivision road is inspected and approved by Town Engineer Tom Nace; 4) Tom Nace is to review all road construction and stormwater at the applicant’s expense; 5) based on the Board’s findings that there will be an increase on the Town’s park and recreation facilities, and there are not adequate provisions for the creation of a park facility within the subdivision, a $400 recreation fee is imposed on each lot, to be paid at the time the certificate of compliance is issued on each lot; 6) the page numbers of the subdivision drawings are corrected (1/8 →8/8), and the septic detail on pages 6/8 and 7/8 is amended to correctly reflect all lots; and 7) no construction shall take place until such time all required permits, as discussed, are obtained.  Seconded by D. Roessler.  All in favor.  Motion carried. 

Motion by M. Nittmann to convert the preliminary plat of SD03-01 to final plat as presented.  Seconded by D. Roessler.  All in favor.  Motion carried.

Motion by M. Nittmann to grant final subdivision approval of SD03-01 with the condition that all conditions set forth on the preliminary plat be included on the mylar.  Seconded by D. Roessler.  All in favor.  Motion carried. 

2) SPR03-31 WRIGHT’S FARM SUBDIVISION (SD03-01). Rolf Ronning.  In accordance with Chapter 125.13C1 of the stormwater regulations, seeks Site Plan Review for a major project, specifically to remove more than 15,000 square feet of vegetation.  Section 140.00, Block 1, Lot 5.1, Zones RL3 & LC25.  Property Location:  West side of Federal Hill Road. Subject to SEQR.  The WCPB determined no county impact with the stipulation the applicant work with WC Soil and Water Conservation district to develop a sediment and stormwater control plan for the implementation of the road and lot clearing due to the wetland and slopes located in the subdivision. Subject to SEQR.

Motion by H. Caldwell to accept the application as complete, waive a public hearing, make a negative declaration and grant final approval for the stormwater plan for Wright’s Farm Subdivision, under SPR03-31, as presented.  Seconded by J. Gaddy.  All in favor.  Motion carried.

3) SPR03-22 WRIGHT’S FARM (SD03-01).  Rolf Ronning.  In accordance with Chapter 200-22 of the Zoning Ordinance, seeks Type II Site Plan Review to place an advertising sign greater than 4 square feet. Approximately 14 square feet is proposed.  Section 140.00, Block 1, Lot 5.1, Zone RL3.  Property Location:  Federal Hill Road to be known as Wright’s Farm.  Subject to WCPB review. Subject to SEQR.

P. Kenyon stated that the WCPB determined no County impact.  H. Caldwell asked Mr. Ronning to further reduce the size of the sign to 6’ x 18” (from 8’ x 20”), adding that he feels that a 4’ sign would be large enough.  Mr. Ronning stated that he reduced the original sign to this proposed size at the Board’s last request. 

The sign would be wood carved, one-sided and would not be illuminated.  Mr. Ronning was not sure how high the stonewall, in which the sign would be placed, would be until they get the road built and can determine what size retaining wall will be needed at the entrance.  He indicated that it would not exceed 3’ at the location where the sign would be.  Mr. Ronning stated that although there may not be stone along the top of the sign, the sign would be supported by stone from underneath and along the sides. 

When it was suggested that the proposed wall might require a variance, Mr. Ronning asked the Board to allow him a stone base, with a stone pillar on each side not to exceed 2’ wide.  He stated the sign would be 2’ off the ground, supported by a 2’ stone wall.  He agreed to a sign size of 6’ x 20”.  This would make the top of the sign no higher than 44” high off the ground.

Motion by H. Caldwell to accept the application as complete, waive a public hearing, make a negative declaration and approve the site plan as presented with the conditions that 1) the size of the sign, which will be single-sided, be reduced to 6’ x 20”; 2) there will be no illumination of the sign; 3) the maximum height of the sign, including the stone work, will be no more than 44” above grade; and 4) the total length of the sign, including the stone work in which the sign will be placed, will be no more than 10’ in length.  Seconded by J. Gaddy.  All in favor.  Motion carried.

4) SPR04-01 KINCAID, BARRY.  Seeks Type II site plan review for an agricultural use, specifically to create a log-yard for storing and selling wood, posts and rustic lumber.  Equipment will also be stored in this area.  Section 186.00, Block 1, Lot 40.2 Zone RL3.  Property location: 35 Brookside Parkway off of Trout Lake Road.  Subject to SEQR.

Mr. Kincaid explained that he is asking for a storage area to store logs and equipment.  He anticipates that people would occasionally be coming to the site, but he did not expect many visitors.  He may in the future want a small sign out front.  D. Roessler asked what Mr. Kincaid what his plans were for the area he’s currently using along Trout Lake Road.  Mr. Kincaid indicated that he would be moving the equipment and logs onto his property under this proposal, as the area he’s currently using belongs to his parents.  H. Caldwell felt that the proposed log-yard wouldn’t be visible from the road.  S. Aldrich asked Mr. Kincaid how much fill he would have to put in and what the deepest point would be.  Mr. Kincaid estimated no more than 8’, noting that it will taper off so that runoff will be directed to the natural sediment basin there.  There is a culvert going under the roadway that empties behind his sister’s house.  S. Aldrich wondered if parking equipment up there would affect Huddle Brook, as there may be a possibility of fluid leaks.  H. Koster felt that there shouldn’t be a concern, as long as Mr. Kincaid wouldn’t be doing maintenance on the vehicles. 

J. Gaddy asked Mr. Kincaid if he would be cutting and splitting wood, such as a wood lot operation.  Mr. Kincaid explained that basically the area would be used to store wood, as often times when he clears a lot, he collects the wood, but can’t get rid of it all.  So he plans to store the excess wood at this location, and when he builds up enough inventory, he’ll have the wood hauled away.  The location won’t be used as a wood splitting retail operation.  Mr. Kincaid would like to eventually get a portable mill.  H. Koster explained to Mr. Kincaid that if he intends to increase the operation at all, he would have to come back for approvals. 

S. Aldrich wondered if the Board should be concerned with the amount of proposed fill, and if the 6’ maximum regulation in the ordinance had to do specifically with buildings.  H. Koster stated that the ordinance addresses this, not so much with regard to buildings, but to prevent greatly altering the natural topography of land.  He noted that the Board has the authority to allow more fill than the 6’ maximum.  P. Kenyon agreed, regarding this particular site, as it is not near the Lake.  Mr. Kincaid noted that there is a large sediment basin that runoff must go through prior to entering the Brook. 

The Board had no concerns with the application meeting the criteria of Section 200-31 or C1-C7 of the SEQR form. 

Motion by D. Roessler to accept the application as complete, waive a public hearing, make a negative declaration and having found the application meets the criteria of Section 200-31, grant final approval as presented.  Seconded by M. Nittmann.  All in favor.  Motion carried.

5) SPR04-02 TOREBKA, THOMAS & ELEANOR.  Represented by John Barber, Jr.   Seek Type II site plan review to timber-harvest an area greater than 1 acre on one parcel.  Section 156.00. Block 1, Lots 62 & 63, Zones RL3 and LC25.  Property location: 565 Valley Woods Road.  Subject to WCPB and SEQR review. 

Mr. Barber noted that there was a cutting plan included in the application.  Mr. Gaddy asked if the plan called for leaving buffers along the road.  Mr. Barber stated that it did.  Mr. Barber anticipates that the project would take 5-6 weeks, which he doesn’t plan on beginning until the weather is dry.  P. Kenyon explained that the County determined no County impact.  J. Gaddy asked about the fertilizing plan, and whether the figures shown were from a standard formula.  Mr. Barber explained that the fertilizing plan came from John Peck of the WC Soil and Water Conservation District.  Mr. Peck will be inspecting the site after it is reseeded.  H. Caldwell asked if they proposed some sort of construction entrance by the header.  Mr. Barber stated that the Town had widened Edgecomb Pond Road near where they want to use an old existing landing, which sits up on top of a crown.  He doesn’t foresee the need to put in a culvert because it is flat there. 

The Board had no concerns with the application meeting the criteria of Section 200-31 or C1-C7 of the SEQR form. 

Motion by J. Gaddy to accept the application as complete, waive a public hearing, make a negative declaration, and having found the application meets the criteria of Section 200-31, grant final approval as presented with the condition that the recommendations outlined in the letter dated January 22, 2004 from John Peck of the WC Soil and Water Conservation District are followed to minimize erosion at the site.  Seconded by D. Roessler.  All in favor.  Motion carried.

6) SD04-02 CADY, PETER & SUSAN.  Seek to divide into three lots that parcel designated as Section 156.00, Block 2, Lot 66, Zones RL3 & RM1.3.  Property Location:  24 North Bolton Road.  Subject to SEQR. Sketch Plan Review.

P. Kenyon suggested the Board discuss the timber harvesting currently being done on the property.  She noted that Mr. Cady had obtained approvals in February 2002 to timber-harvest the property, and she wondered why it was occurring now.  Mr. Cady explained that the logger is completing the work from the original plan, as he had begun the project, but had to take up other jobs before he completed Mr. Cady’s job.  P. Kenyon understood this, but noted that the ordinance stipulates that timber-harvesting cannot occur on a parcel that is under review for subdivision.  Mr. Cady believes that his logger only had a couple days of work left, which was basically cleaning up.  In light of this, P. Kenyon and the Board felt that the logger should be allowed to complete the job as long as no additional trees were removed. 

J. Gaddy asked Mr. Cady where he anticipated house sites in relation to the clearing that has been done.  Mr. Cady stated that they really only want to sell proposed Lot 3 (the most northerly lot).  He noted where his property was logged, and where the neighbor’s driveway is situated, close to the property line.  He showed where he anticipates a buyer of proposed Lot 3 would likely propose their driveway and house.  Mr. Cady stated that they do not plan on selling proposed Lot 2 right now, as they would like it to serve as a buffer zone, although they may sell in the future.  Mr. Cady stated that he didn’t plan on doing any additional timber-harvesting, other than the removal of 1 tree in front of his house. 

J. Gaddy asked if there were any deed restrictions on the property.  Mr. Cady explained that there were, and he has worked with the previous owner and Atty Richard Bartlett to address them, specifically one of which was to not subdivide.  This is the deed restriction he addressed with the previous owner, Peter Simon, through Atty Bartlett.  J. Gaddy asked Counsel the following question: when the Board places a condition on a parcel that it not be further subdivided, the only sure situation that can prevent further subdivision is if the density is maxed out on the property, as deed restrictions can be worked out with previous owners.  Counsel stated that this particular situation was unusual, in that the original owner took a single parcel and attempted to restrict its ownership through certain covenants.  He believes Mr. Bartlett has properly addressed the issue, without the need to solicit permission from adjacent owners, since it only involves the subject parcel.  Counsel indicated that in this case, it would seem the adjacent property owners would be considered not affected by the covenant, as their parcels were not subdivided from the subject parcel.  He reminded the Board that they deal primarily with the Bolton Code and should typically not get involved with deeds and covenants. 

The Board had no concerns with the application meeting the criteria of C1-C7 of the SEQR form. 

Motion by D. Roessler to accept the application as complete, waive a public hearing, make a negative declaration, convert it to final plat and grant final approval as presented.  Seconded by J. Gaddy.  All in favor.  Motion carried. 

7) SD03-30 MILLSBROOKE EQUITIES.  Represented by Atty Dennis Phillips. Seek to amend previously approved plats (SD01-03 & SD99-17), specifically to create a lot line adjustment between those parcels designated as Section 141.00, Block 1, Lots 26 & 11.2, Zone RL3.  Property Location: Northwest Bay.  Subject to SEQR. Sketch Plan Review.

Atty Phillips explained that they obtained Town approvals in 2002 for a 3-lot subdivision and a boundary line adjustment on this property.  When the application went to the APA, the Agency requested additional information pertinent to the back part of the property being a rattlesnake basking area.  Rather than complying with the APA’s additional information request, they withdrew the application, and abandoned the subdivision that the Town had approved.  The have revised the request to be a simple boundary line adjustment, whereby adjacent neighbors John and Helen Hubbard would like to purchase a small portion of the Millsbrooke property along the Lake to extend their shoreline.  Atty Phillips explained that they returned to the APA with the simplified application, which the Agency approved (the permit was filed with the County on January 14, 2004). 

Atty Phillips explained that there is an inset on the map that shows both the Millsbrooke Equities and Mr. Hubbard’s properties.  There is a small Lakefront portion of Lot 5 that is land-hooked to the larger portion of Lot 5 across Route 9N.  The proposal is to take part of the Lakefront portion and incorporate it into the Hubbard parcel.  Since they were last in front of the Board, they have more clearly labeled everything on the map.  It was noted that the 3-lot subdivision (approved by the PB in 2002) was never filed, and therefore was null and void.  H. Koster stated that when they did the original subdivision on this property several years ago, the “rattlesnake doctor” did an extensive study on the property, determining that there was no significant rattlesnake population present. 

J. Gaddy asked what deed restrictions were on Lot 5.  Atty Phillips stated that there are deed restrictions on this lot that were a carry-over from when the Walker Point Trust owned the property.  The lakefront portion of Lot 5 was deemed a non-residential lot (a residence could not be built upon it). 

M. Nittmann asked about various lines on the map pertaining to Lot 5.  Atty Phillips gave a history of the property, pointing out the residual lot that remained after approx 1,305 acres were sold to the Nature Conservancy.  It was created by basically outlining the existing farm, and was never assigned a lot number.  H. Koster asked if the Nature Conservancy has rights to utilize the lakefront portion of Lot 5.  Atty Phillips stated that the Conservancy does not.  H. Caldwell believes this land has been transferred to the State. 

Motion by H. Caldwell to accept the application as complete, waive a public hearing, make a negative declaration, and approve the lot line adjustment as presented.  Seconded by J. Gaddy.  All in favor.  Motion carried.  

8) SD03-23 FARBANIEC, PHILIP & CYNTHIA (BLUEBIRD COTTAGES).  Represented by Jeff Anthony of the LA Group and Atty Howard Krantz. Seek to divide into 10 lots (9 building lots & 1 common area) that parcel designated as Section 186.14, Block 1, Lot 59. Zone RCH5000.  Property Location: 4632 Lake Shore Drive.  Subject to SEQR.  Sketch Plan Review.  Major Subdivision. This item was tabled at the December 2003 meeting pending a revised layout of the proposed lots and roadway. 

Atty Krantz introduced Kevin Hastings of the LA Group, who is the project civil engineer.  Atty Krantz stated that they have modified the proposal based on suggestions from the ZBA and PB along the review process.  He noted that the WCPB actually recommended approval and the ZBA approved all associated variances.  Concerns raised by LG Waterkeeper Chris Navitsky have been addressed.  They are seeking the Board’s conceptual approval, with the anticipation of the Board scheduling a public hearing. 

Mr. Anthony explained that the engineering for the entire project has been submitted.  H. Koster asked if the variances were based on the 35’ x 50’ proposed footprints shown.  Atty Krantz stated this was accurate, adding that variances would be required to build beyond this footprint.  The proposed footprints, which will be specified in the offering plan, do not include garages, decks or unenclosed porches.  P. Kenyon noted that the actual proposed building sites were not approved by the ZBA, only the square footage of the footprints (1,750 sq ft).  H. Caldwell felt that the footprints would significantly increase if people were to start adding decks, garages and porches.  He compared this proposal to the Anchorage development in Town, wherein many of the houses required variances upon expansion, often resulting in impeding views of neighbors and difficulty in managing snow.  He felt that there would be one variance request after another.

M. Nittmann noted that under the original plan, 4 lots required variances, and after the road was reconfigured at the PB’s request, it created 2 additional substandard lots.  She further noted that Lot 1 did not have the standard building envelope that the other lots proposed, yet it was noted that Lot 1 would not require any variances to build upon.  She asked if the building envelope shown exceeded the 40% lot coverage.  It was determined that the building area shown represented the area that meets setbacks, and was not intended to represent the footprint of the house.  P. Kenyon asked that the area be more clearly labeled, not to read “proposed building pad location”.  To alleviate the Board’s concerns, Mr. Farbaniec stated that he would be willing to specify that the house on Lot 1 would not exceed 3,600 sq ft including 2 floors and a garage.  As for the other lots, he felt that garages could be proposed on some of the lots without requiring variances.  J. Anthony noted an error on the new set of drawings, in that the lot numbers were inadvertently omitted. 

S. Aldrich asked what the general deed restrictions would involve.  Mr. Farbaniec indicated that, for one, they would propose architectural review for each lot.  Upon a discussion with the Farbaniecs, Atty Krantz indicated that in addition to limiting the square footage of the house on Lot 1 to 3,600 sq ft, they would agree to not allow any additional variances on the 3 houses within the roadway loop.  H. Caldwell felt that the plan was generally good, but some details had to be worked out. 

There was continued discussion regarding the maximum house footprint.  Atty Krantz offered to place the setback envelopes on each lot, and stipulate that these setbacks would be met for all lots, including garages, decks and porches, while maintaining a 3,500 sq ft living area footprint.  The idea of whether Jacuzzis would be allowed was discussed, as this might overtax the community septic system.  H. Koster explained that regardless of stipulations placed on building sizes or septic system usage, applicants would likely come in with plans that proposed large lofts or offices, which could ultimately be used as bedrooms.  Atty Krantz did not know what else the applicant could do other than propose deeded covenants to restrict these things.  He noted that the ZBA seemed to feel the size of the houses were relatively modest by Lake George standards.  He offered to make the requested changes to the plan in time for next month’s meeting- which they hope will include a public hearing - and provide the covenants and restrictions to Counsel for his review before the meeting.  Atty Krantz felt that outside of this, it was up to the ZBA to limit people to what the Board approved. 

P. Kenyon asked H. Koster if the Board wished for Town Engineer Tom Nace to review the stormwater plan.  H. Koster felt that upon completing the stormwater plan, the applicant could forward a copy to Mr. Nace.  He felt that in this case, the stormwater plan should account for the entire project, unlike other projects, which the Board has allowed to be segmented.  Mr. Anthony stated that the stormwater report they provided does account for all impervious surfaces proposed (buildings, driveways, parking areas). 

M. Nittmann referred to a letter dated Nov 15, 2003 from Mr. Werner (owner of the existing lot within the entire subject parcel).  Atty Krantz indicated Mr. Werner’s concerns were addressed at an earlier meeting.  (P. Kenyon later stated that Mr. Werner’s letter was based upon the original proposal.)  Regarding the concerns over screening, Mr. Farbaniec noted that there is existing screening there.  At M. Nittmann’s request, Mr. Farbaniec explained the location of the existing and proposed waterlines.  Mr. Anthony added that Mr. Werner’s waterline would be within the road right-of-way.  Mr. Hastings explained that while there is not a typical fire hydrant proposed on site, there is a blow-off hydrant at the end of the waterline.  D. Roessler noted that there is a fire hydrant nearby on Route 9N- less than 100’ from the entrance to the subject parcel- that should provide adequate water in case of a fire.  He felt that installing a fire hydrant on site would not help the current situation in the Huddle area, as the main water supply line along Route 9N is currently insufficient. 

M. Nittmann wondered how much more disturbance was planned for the driveway for Lot 1, as she was concerned that it couldn’t handle the weight of a cement truck.  Mr. Anthony indicated the existing drive is adequate, and would be upgraded if became necessary. 

Motion by H. Caldwell to accept the sketch plan as complete, convert it preliminary plat and schedule a public hearing for next month, with the condition that the applicant provide the following additional information for next month: 1) the lots are numbered on the map; 2) setback lines are shown on each lot; 3) the applicant provide a copy of the proposed covenants and restrictions addressing the dimensional concerns raised by the Board; and 4) the stormwater issues that were raised are addressed.  Seconded by D. Roessler.  All in favor.  Motion carried. 

9) SPR04-03 FARBANIEC, PHILIP & CYNTHIA (BLUEBIRD COTTAGES).  Represented by Jeff Anthony of the LA Group and Atty Howard Krantz. In accordance with Section 125.13C1 of the stormwater regulations, seeks site plan review for a major project, specifically to disturb more than 15,000 square feet of vegetation. 2.3 acres is proposed. Section 186.14, Block 1, Lot 59. Zone RCH5000.  Property Location: 4632 Lake Shore Drive.  Subject to SEQR and WCPB review.   

The item was tabled as per the previous motion. 

10) SD03-24 ANGEL, MITCHEL.  Represented by Matt Steves.  Seeks to divide into four lots that parcel designated as Section 156.00, Block 2, Lot 73, Zones RL3, RM1.3, and LC25.  Property Location: 5413 Lake Shore Drive.  Subject to SEQR.  Sketch Plan Review.  Minor Subdivision. This item was tabled from the November 2003 meeting pending language for the maintenance agreement.

Mr. Steves explained that the application was in front of the Board in November, at which time the Board requested the common driveway have an 18’-wide travel lane, which they have accommodated within a 25’ right-of-way.  The Board also requested a clearing plan for each of the lots, including houses and septics.  Finally the driveway was lengthened and a curve added so that the grade would not exceed 12%.  Proposed language for the deeded easement for the common driveway has been provided (this will be attached to the mylar).  The entire common driveway will be constructed as soon as the first lot is sold.  P. Kenyon stated that she still has concerns about the common driveway, adding that if the driveway disturbance exceeded 15,000 sq ft, it must be reviewed by the PB as a major project under site plan review.   

H. Koster felt that the stormwater for the road would extend beyond the 25’ right-of-way.  Mr. Steves responded that the ditch lines for stormwater would fit within the 25’, although the cuts to accommodate stormwater might extend beyond, however the area would be reseeded and re-established.  Addressing the Board’s concerns over stormwater, Mr. Steves proposed that the swale along the entire driveway be lined with stone, with some check dams added along the way. 

H. Koster stated that the precedent for allowing driveways instead of roads (when accessing multiple lots) seems to become more and more lenient each year.  P. Kenyon responded that the Board should become more strict.  H. Koster asked Counsel if each lot had to come in for review under major stormwater status, if the driveway turns out to involve more than 15,000 sq ft of disturbance.  Counsel stated that it would not ordinarily be required, but the ordinance allows the Board to use discretion, in that they can require major stormwater review on any minor project.  Mr. Steves suggested the Board could approve the subdivision, but require major stormwater review on the road prior to Mr. Angel selling any lots.  He stated that the applicant would agree to a stipulation requiring site plan review on each lot, regardless if there is more than 15,000 sq ft of disturbance or not.

Motion by H. Caldwell to convert the sketch plan to preliminary plot and table it pending review of the stormwater plan by Town Engineer Tom Nace.  Seconded by J. Gaddy.  All in favor.  Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 10:45 pm.

Respectfully submitted by,

Melanie Quigan

Recording Secretary

03/18/04

This site was last updated 05/12/10