Town of Bolton
PB = (Town of Bolton) Planning Board
WCPB = Warren County Planning Board
APA = Adirondack Park Agency
LGPC = Lake George Park Commission
DEC = Department of Environmental Conservation
PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES
Thursday, May 20, 2004
6:00 p.m.
Present: Chairman Herb Koster, Sandi Aldrich, Henry Caldwell, John Gaddy,
Chauncey Mason, Mitzi Nittmann, Don Roessler, Zoning Administrator Pam Kenyon, Town Counsel Michael Muller
H. Koster opened the meeting at 6:07 pm by asking for corrections to the April 21 minutes. There were none, so a motion was made by D. Roessler to approve the April 21 minutes as presented. Seconded by C. Mason. All in favor. Motion carried.
H. Koster asked if there were any corrections to the April 22 minutes. There were none, so a motion was made by D. Roessler to approve the April 22, 2004 minutes as presented. Seconded by M. Nittmann. All in favor. Motion carried.
Due to the late arrival of some applicants, the agenda items were heard in the following order: #8, 9, 13, 16, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, with all others being tabled.
1) SPR03-20 COSTAS, JOHN. Represented by Atty Michael O’Connor & Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. 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 186.19, Block 1, Lot 1, Zone LC45. Property Location: Homer Point Road. Subject to SEQR. The WCPB determined no County impact with the stipulation that the plans are implemented as proposed with reducing impact on Lake George and the designated wetland.
This application was withdrawn at the applicant’s request.
2) SPR03-32 ELVIN, KEITH & SUSAN. To discuss condition of approval set forth by the PB on 1/22/04 as it relates to the 10-12 3-4’ high hemlocks that are to be planted in the area where the stumps were buried. By letter dated 3/9/04, Mr. Elvin would like to substitute the hemlocks for another species, thus requiring approvals from the Board. Additionally, when granting site plan review approval on September 18, 2003 for a major stormwater project one of the conditions set forth required that the parcels be merged. To date the merger has not taken place. Mr. Elvin would like to discuss this matter with the Board. Section 156.00, Block 1, Lots 26 & 27, Zone RL3. Property Location: Valley Woods Road approximately 1,200’ from Finkle Road.
This application was tabled at the applicant’s request.
3) SPR04-04 NOWAKOWSKI, EDWARD. For the construction of a barn/garage/storage building constructed without approvals, seeks site plan review for an accessory structure containing more than 1,500 square feet of floor space. 1,644 square feet exists. Type I Site Plan Review is also sought for a land use within ¼ mile of the Schroon River. Section 184.4, Block 1, Lot 20.2, Zones RR5 and LC45. Property Location: 611 East Schroon River Road. The WCPB determined no County impact. APA approval required. Subject to SEQR. NOTE: After the fact. This item was tabled last month so that the applicant could provide stamped architectural drawings of the structure for Town Engineer Tom Nace to review.
This application was tabled at the applicant’s request.
4) SPR04-12 FAETZ, EDWARD & PATRICIA. Represented by Jeff Tennent of Fine Homebuilding. In accordance with condition of approval set forth by the Planning Board on January 22, 1998 when approving the clearing plan for Apple Hill Subdivision (SD87-23), seek site plan review to clear additional vegetation on lot #3. Specifically, the condition reads: No further cutting is allowed on Lots 3,4,5,8 and 9 without prior Planning Board approval. Section 171.11, Block 1, Lot 11, Zones RM1.3 & RL3. Property location: Lot #3 of Apple Hill subdivision. Subject to SEQR. This item was tabled last month so that the Board Members could visit the site once the trees to be removed are shown on the map.
Mr. Tennent explained that at the last meeting he was requested to locate the trees to be removed on the map. He noted that a lot of these trees were in the area shown as the ‘cutting limitations’ on the original subdivision map. H. Koster noted that this area should not be interpreted as total allowable clearing area, but rather as the building envelopes in which a house could be built. H. Caldwell wondered why they were taking down trees #11, 14, 13, 10, 9, 12, & 8, which are in front of the house. Mr. Tennent explained that these are being removed to obtain a view, noting that there are trees close to the house that will remain. J. Gaddy had concerns over a proposal for additional clearing in light of clearing that was done years ago in this subdivision, and replantings that did not survive. He noted that Mr. Tennent’s response to his concerns last month were that he doesn’t own the property any longer. Mr. Tennent stated that the conditions for replanting were attached to the deeds, including that for the road parcel, which would have been transferred to the HOA, although the plantings were along the property lines of the individual lots.
C. Mason also expressed concern about the additional clearing necessary for the well and the septic. Mr. Tennent stated that wherever they build on the lot, it would require blasting.
There was a discussion regarding the placement of the house for the least amount of tree removal. Mr. Tennent stated that he would try to reposition the house to lessen the amount of clearing.
Motion by D. Roessler to table the application so that the applicant can propose a new location of the structure to lessen the amount of clearing/visual impact. Seconded by M. Nittmann. All in favor. Motion carried.
5) SD04-10 FAETZ, EDWARD & PATRICIA AND PAEDELT, VOLKER & ANNELIES. Represented by Jeffrey Tennent. Seek to amend a previously approved plat SD87-23, specifically to create a lot line adjustment between those parcels designated as Section 171.11, Block 1, Lot 11 & Section 171.10, Block 1, Lot 14, Zones RL3 & RM1.3. Sketch Plan Review. Subject to SEQR. This item was tabled last month so that the Board Members could visit the site once the trees to be removed are shown on the map.
Mr. Tennent explained that the applicants want to move forward on this lot line adjustment regardless of the outcome of the associated site plan review application (SPR04-12). The Paedelts (Lot 5) will be conveying a .3-acre pie-shaped portion to the Faetzs (Lot 3). The northwesterly property line forms a semicircle around the well for Lot 5. J. Gaddy asked that contours be added to the map, to which Mr. Tennent responded that they are shown on the original subdivision map. Mr. Tennent noted that acreages listed for both Lots 3 & 5 did not reflect the conveyance of this triangular portion.
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, approve the sketch plan, convert it to final, and grant final approval. Seconded by H. Caldwell. 6 in favor. 1 (John Gaddy) opposed. Motion carried.
6) SPR04-10 BROOKER, BRIAN. Represented by Dennis Dickinson. In accordance with Section 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 186.10, Block 1, Lot 8, Zone RM1.3. Property Location: 23 Sweet Briar Lane. The WCPB determined no County impact. Subject to SEQR. This item was tabled last month pending Town Engineer Tom Nace’s approval of the stormwater plan.
Mr. Brooker explained that the plan was submitted to Town Engineer Tom Nace, who provided Mr. Brooker with a comment letter (dated 05/18/04) requesting that 1) silt fence be placed around the temporary soil stockpile and 2) that the water quality basin be separated into two basins, one on each side of the dwelling. Mr. Brooker revised the plan in response to those comments, and Mr. Nace provided a letter (dated 05/19/04), indicating he was satisfied with the changes. There will be an on-grade terrace constructed of paver stone on the east side of the house. It is Mr. Brooker’s intent to live in the existing cottage while the proposed house is being constructed, after which time he would remove the cottage.
Mr. Brooker has not yet come up with a planting plan, but will do so after he constructs the house and sees what it looks like. H. Koster stated that the Board would like to see a planting plan. The structure in the middle of the property was used as a sleeping cabin in the past (it has no bathroom or kitchen), and is now used as a storage shed, as Mr. Brooker would like to continue to use it. In the area where the cabin will be removed, Mr. Brooker plans to extend the ground cover that is naturally occurring at the site (covered mostly in pine needles). C. Mason requested that trees be planted between the structure and the Lake to provide a 20-25% screen. Mr. Brooker stated that there are existing trees and other vegetation there now. C. Mason noted that the existing screening is only at the edges of the property, and he would like to see screening added to the center of the property.
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 with the conditions that 1) the trees on the corners of the lot closest to the Lake remain and are protected from excavation of the stormwater ponds, and 2) the applicant plants 3 trees (in the 6-8’ tall range) on both the north and south corners of the property closest the Lake (6 trees total). Seconded by J. Gaddy. 5 in favor. 2 (S. Aldrich and M. Nittmann). Motion carried.
7) SPR04-14 MOECKER, MICHAEL & HERMAN. Represented by John Wells. Seek Type II Site Plan Review to construct a single-family dwelling in the LC25 zone. Section 199.12, Block 1, Lot 20, Zone LC25. Property Location: Lake Winds Road off of Coolidge Hill Road and being Lot “A” of the Lake Winds Subdivision.
This item was withdrawn, as the applicant’s associated variance was denied.
8) SPR04-15 HANSEN, CHRIS & ELIZABETH. Represented by Brent Bullock. Seek Type II Site Plan Review to timber harvest an area greater than 1 acre. Section 156.00, Block 1, Lot 24, Zone RL3. Property Location: 58 Frank Cameron Road. Subject to WCPB review. Subject to SEQR.
Mr. Bullock stated that they plan to take out the overly mature and diseased trees, noting that the property was cut about 40 years ago. What is there now is of poor quality and needs to be thinned out. They will be using the same header as was used in the past (off Valley Woods Road). They plan on selectively cutting almost to the stonewall toward the easterly property line. The earliest the logger could get onto the property would be mid-June, but he will likely wait until the winter months when the pulp industry is better. The WC Soil & Water Conservation District indicated that they did not foresee any stormwater or erosion problems at the site. M. Nittmann felt that a buffer should be left between the subject property and the neighbor to the east. H. Koster and P. Kenyon explained that the applicant is not clear-cutting but is rather logging to enhance the forest by getting rid of older and diseased trees. The County determined no County impact.
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 to approve the site plan as presented with the condition that the cutting is done according to the professional foresting plan submitted to the Board, respecting the ‘no cut’ zones along the roadway, trying to minimize any visual effects. Seconded by D. Roessler. All in favor. Motion carried.
9) SPR04-16 CHAPMAN, LAURA. Represented by Scott Quigan. In accordance with Section 200.47G2 of the Zoning Ordinance, seeks site plan review to temporarily place a transient mobile home on that parcel designated as Section 199.11, Block 1, Lot 2, Zone RL3. Property Location: East off of Wall Street approx ¼ mile from Coolidge Hill Road. Subject to SEQR.
Mr. Quigan explained that this is a renewal application, as the Board approved the same request a couple of years ago. His parents would like to park their motor home on this location for approx 2 months while they are here during the summer months, as was the circumstances the last time they made this request.
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 approve the site plan as presented. Seconded by D. Roessler. All in favor. Motion carried.
10) SPR03-15 NEACY, KEVIN. 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 213.09, Block 1, Lots 10.1 & 10.2, Zone RM1.3 & LC25. Property Location: Adjacent to 4041 Lake Shore Drive. Subject to SEQR. Subject to WCPB review.
This item was tabled at the applicant’s request.
11) SD03-24 ANGEL, MITCHEL. Represented by Matt Steves of VanDusen & 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.
Referring to the agenda note that the item was tabled at the November 2003 PB meeting, Mr. Steves noted that they had come back to the PB at a later date and discussed the language for the driveway maintenance agreement. At that time, Mr. Steves was requested to submit the driveway detail to Town Engineer Tom Nace. They have hired Engineer Tom Hutchins to design the stormwater and drainage plan and provide a report on the same. They received a review letter from Mr. Nace today outlining his concerns. It is Mr. Steves’ understanding that Mr. Hutchins addressed all those concerns, which will result in slight modifications to the plan. They will make changes to the plan after the County reviews the application, in case the County has additional recommendations.
M. Nittmann was concerned with the steepness at the bottom of the existing driveway. Mr. Steves stated that they would be reworking this section of the driveway, as the grading and stormwater drainage plan for the new access will go right down to the Route 9N property line. The average grade of the new access is 13%, and no sections exceed 15%. P. Kenyon stated that the Board is viewing the access as a driveway, not a road. Counsel agreed, stating that a satisfactory maintenance agreement has been submitted.
H. Koster noted that it appears there would be some significant cut and fills to accomplish the new access. Mr. Steves stated that it would be mainly a need for fill areas, as they will try to maintain the existing ground, which has a good perc rate of about 2½-3 minutes. They will fill toward the outside and create ditch lines on the inside.
Motion by J. Gaddy to table the application pending a recommendation from WCPB on the associated site plan review application SPR04-19. Seconded by C. Mason. All in favor. Motion carried.
12) SPR04-19 ANGEL, MITCHEL. Represented by Matt Steves of VanDusen & Steves. In accordance with Section 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. Approximately 42,000 square feet is proposed. Section 156.00, Block 2, Lot 73, Zones RL3, RM1.3 and LC25. Property Location: 5413 Lake Shore Drive. Subject to SEQR and WCPB review. This application has not yet been forwarded to the County.
The Board requested that the proposed access be flagged at least one week before the next meeting, to which Mr. Steves agreed.
Motion by J. Gaddy to table the application pending a recommendation from WCPB and to have the applicant flag the proposed access, as discussed (marking the centerline). Seconded by M. Nittmann. All in favor. Motion carried.
13) SPR04-13 PALAZZO, JAMES & FIERMAN, HOWARD. As per condition of approval when approving the Christmas Tree Brook Subdivision (SD00-10), seek site plan review to remove vegetation and to construct a single-family dwelling. Section 156.00, Block 1, Lot 20.4, Zone RM1.3. Property Location: Lot #4 of Christmas Tree Brook Subdivision off of Federal Hill Road. Subject to SEQR.
Mr. Palazzo explained that surveyor Dennis Dickinson has already flagged the 75’ setback at the site for the septic system (as was a condition of subdivision approval), even though the map appears to have the leach field within this setback. Mr. Palazzo explained that the garage would be located under the structure. M. Nittmann noted that the brook at the rear of the property was not shown on the map. It was determined that the brook is about 75’ west of Mr. Palazzo’s rear property line.
The Board had no concerns with the application meeting the criteria of Section 200-31 or C1-C7 of the SEQR form.
Motion by H. Caldwell to accept the application as complete, waive a public hearing, make a negative declaration and grant final approval as presented with the condition that the applicant observes the 75’ setback from Federal Hill Road for the wastewater disposal system. 6 in favor. 1 (S. Aldrich) opposed. Motion carried.
14) SD04-14 COSMEN, STEPHEN. Represented by Matt Steves of VanDusen & Steves. Seeks to amend a previously approved plat (SD94-10), specifically to create a lot line adjustment between those parcels designated as Section 156.00, Block 1, Lots 39 & 42, Zones RL3 & LC25. Property Location: Valley Woods Road. Sketch Plan Review. Subject to SEQR.
Mr. Steves stated that no new lots are being created, and the proposal is to change the rear lot line of Lot 1 such that it follows the zone line, reducing it in size to a 3.31-acre parcel. The remaining portion of Lot 1 (to the west of the new lot line) will be merged with Lot 2, creating a 15.01-acre parcel. P. Kenyon noted that there were conditions of approval on the original subdivision that state: 1) construction on Lots 1 & 2 shall be behind the 275’ road front setback line; and 2) location of homes in the LC25 zone will require site plan review. Mr. Steves agreed to add these notes to the map.
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, approve the sketch plan, convert it to final and grant final approval with the conditions that: 1) construction on Lots 1 & 2 shall be behind the 275’ road front setback line; and 2) site plan review is required on Lot 2 if construction is within the LC25 zone. Seconded by C. Mason. 5 in favor. 2 (S. Aldrich & M. Nittmann) opposed. Motion carried.
15) SD04-12 VITALE, JOSEPH. Represented by Matt Steves of VanDusen & Steves. Seeks to divide into 4 lots that parcel designated as Section 123.00, Block 2, Lot 57.2, Zone RL3. Property Location: New Vermont Road. Minor Subdivision. Sketch Plan Review. Subject to SEQR.
Mr. Steves stated that the application involves property on the south side of New Vermont Road consisting of approx 28 acres. They propose a total of 4 lots: 2 smaller lots in the front (approx 2.95 and 2.66 acres) and 2 larger flag-shaped lots in the rear (approx 10 and 13 acres). There is a house under construction that would be on newly created Lot 1. Mr. Steves indicated that all the lots would be accessed off a common driveway, even though each lot has its own road frontage. They feel it is less of an impact to propose 1 curb cut instead of 4. They will use existing skid trails where possible for the access. Mr. Steves indicated the proposal for this access is similar to that for Item #11 (ANGEL SD03-24), including the HOA agreement for maintenance. It was determined that the amount of disturbance would be greater than 15,000 sq ft, therefore making it a major project.
They have shown the topography in the area of the proposed house sites, septic and wells. J. Gaddy requested that any intermittent or permanent streams be labeled on the map. Mr. Steves stated that he would flag the centerline of the road, and disturbance would be 15-20’ out from that line. He believes that the applicants will be removing the existing chicken coop, as it is on the property line between proposed Lots 3 & 4. The line with ‘x’s in it represents a fence line that runs along the existing stream, which is the northern property line for Lot 1 and part of Lot 2. P. Kenyon requested that the 75’ setback line along the pond be corrected on the map, as it currently is shown from the center of the pond.
P. Kenyon asked H. Koster if the Board was treating the access as a driveway instead of a road. H. Koster indicated they were treating it as a driveway. Mr. Steves stated that the drivable surface would be 18’ wide. Mr. Steves will provide proposed language for the driveway maintenance agreement. M. Nittmann requested that contour lines be added to the map for the entire property. Mr. Steves noted that the lots are large, and they have shown 2’ contours in the areas proposed for development. It was determined that what was shown was adequate.
Motion by D. Roessler to accept the application as a completed sketch plan, and table it pending the following information, as discussed: 1) major stormwater plan; 2) detail on the proposed road; 3) label all streams, wetlands and watercourses; 4) correct the setbacks shown on the map; 5) road maintenance agreement; 6) proposed language for deeded drive easements. Seconded by M. Nittmann. All in favor. Motion carried.
16) SD04-07 CONSAGA, JOHN. Seeks to amend a previously plat SD03-12, specifically to divide into 2 lots that parcel designated Section 185.00, Block 1, Lot 15.1, Zones RR5 & LC45. Property location: 84 Twin Boulders Drive off of Lamb Hill Road. Major Subdivision. Sketch Plan Review. Subject to SEQR.
Mr. Consaga explained that he is increasing his property from 4 to 6 lots, which includes the addition of two 5-acre lots, one on each side of the main driveway leading to his house. It was noted that the previous 4-lot subdivision listed the lots as Lot A, B, C and D, and the current map shows the 2 new lots as Lots D & E, which would both be accessed off of Trout Lake Road/Lamb Hill Road.
J. Gaddy asked Mr. Consaga if he had devoted any of the property to recreation space. Mr. Consaga stated that 33 acres would be left untouched. J. Gaddy explained the $400 recreation fee per major subdivision lot, which may be imposed by the Board if they find that there are not adequate recreational facilities on the property. J. Gaddy asked if there were any deed restrictions on the land. Mr. Consaga indicated there were none. H. Koster thought the map showed the driveway for Lot D as coming off Mr. Consaga’s driveway, but Mr. Consaga explained that this is the old road that has been there for years, but is no longer used or maintained.
H. Caldwell asked about the .93-acre portion of proposed Lot D, which was shown to be on the opposite side of Trout Lake Road/Lamb Hill Road. He wondered if this would be considered a separate lot, in light of recent discussions by the PB regarding the determination that a road going through a lot deems it 2 separate lots. P. Kenyon responded that this would not be the case here because it was part of a previous subdivision approval and showed a land hook. It was determined that the smaller portion would not be buildable, and H. Koster requested that a note be added to the map stating so. Mr. Consaga explained that the note “acreage in question” on the map referred to the triangular portion abutting Lamb Hill Road in front of the Burgio property and Lot C.
J. Gaddy noted that Mr. Consaga’s driveway has held up very well and he wondered how he maintained it. Mr. Consaga stated that yearly he adds item 4 and grades it. Mr. Consaga stated that there are no streams or water on the property.
Counsel asked the Board to determine how stormwater management would be handled, as this is a major project, even though the applicant is only creating 2 new lots. It was determined that the Board would address the matter after contour lines were added to the map.
Motion by H. Caldwell to accept the application as complete sketch plan review, schedule a public hearing at 6:00 for the May 17, 2004 PB meeting, and table it, requesting the following additional information, as discussed: 1) a note be added to the map indicating that the .93-acre portion of Lot D cannot be built upon; and 2) contour lines be added to the map. Seconded by J. Gaddy. All in favor. Motion carried.
17) SD03-29 ABBOTT, SCOTT & MARNIE. Represented by Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. Seek to divide into three lots that parcel designated as Section 185.00, Block 2, Lot 35. Zones RL3 & LC25. Property Location: Coolidge Hill Road. Subject to SEQR. Minor Subdivision. Sketch Plan Review. This item was tabled at the December meeting pending additional information and variance approval.
Mr. Abbott explained that they were before the Board in September to discuss their proposed 3-lot subdivision. The parcel falls within in two zones (RL3 and LC25) and the Niagara Mohawk line runs through the property (along the zone line). They propose one access off of Coolidge Hill Road. A variance was obtained for proposed Lot B for deficient lot width (V03-52 approved on 1/5/04). The ZBA placed the following conditions on the approval: 1) the land in the RL3 zone will not ever contain a residence or be subdivided; 2) the land in the RL3 zone will always be a part of the most southerly lot (shown as Lot A on map SP2 dated 11/21/03); and 3) the applicants include the conceptual tree removal plan (as shown on map SP3 dated 11/21/03), the environmental covenants and the new driveway configuration in the presentation to the Planning Board. The new plan reflects these conditions as well as requests of the PB at the last review, including the addition of a cul-de-sac/hammerhead, a minimum of an 11’ wide drive surface, proposed tree-clearing, house colors, building materials and lighting.
The Board had also requested that the proposed tree clearing lines be removed, because even though the applicants proposed only a filtered view, such lines on a map are often misinterpreted to mean that the total marked area can be cleared. Mr. Abbott noted that they have contacted Forrester Dick Cipperly, who plans to contact John Peck at WC Soil & Water Conservation District, to work out a plan. Mr. Abbott provided photographs taken from the Lake in November, showing a house that is barely visible, built on a mountainside. H. Caldwell asked Mr. Abbott if he was planning on timbering the property. He responded that they propose only a light cut to achieve a view, not to cut trees for the purpose of selling the timber. He added that they are pretty much leaving the trees along the property lines between the lots, and behind the building envelopes. They plan to build a log home.
There was a discussion as to whether what the applicant proposed for clearing would be considered timber-harvesting, which is prohibited during the subdivision process. Mrs. Abbott stated that they have no intention of timber-harvesting, but only clearing a minimal amount of trees to show a small building envelope and in turn a potential view. H. Koster indicated he would prefer that the applicants obtain subdivision approval prior to any proposed clearing being reviewed or approved by the Board. Mr. Abbott referred to a property involving a similar proposal (DITTRICH SD03-09 & SPR03-18, approved 06/19/03), and asked how it was handled. P. Kenyon stated that those applicants got subdivision approval, and then got site plan review for timber-harvesting, which they didn’t do at the same time.
M. Nittmann referred to #17 in the deed having to do with commercial operations, which seemed to be stricter than the zoning ordinance. Counsel stated that the developer has a right to place covenants on the property that are more restrictive than the zoning code.
Regarding the wetlands, Mr. Jarrett stated that the APA has informed them that the minor disturbance proposed (less than 300 sq ft per crossing) requires a general permit, which has been filed. He stated that because there is less than an acre of disturbance, only a post-construction notification is required for ACOE (Army Corps of Engineers). M. Nittmann wondered why the common access could not be located in the NiMo right-of-way. Mr. Jarrett explained that NiMo would only allow access straight across the ROW. J. Gaddy asked if there were any other wetlands or waterways on the property, to which Mr. Jarrett responded there were not.
Mr. Jarrett stated that they have submitted a major stormwater plan for the access, adding that stormwater permits for the disturbance on each lot would be sought on an individual basis, major or minor, at the time of site plan review. P. Kenyon indicated that the stormwater plan (for the access) had not yet been submitted to Town Engineer Tom Nace, which P. Kenyon asked the Board to request be done at the applicants’ expense. She noted that the stormwater plan had not yet gone to the County either.
There was a discussion regarding the width of the roadway, resulting in the Board requesting the driving surface be 18’. Mr. Jarrett later requested the applicant be allowed to propose a 14’ width over the wetlands, as this is the width specified in the wetland crossing permit. Mr. Abbott indicated that the surface would be crushed stone. It was noted that the length of the access would be approx 1,500’. P. Kenyon reminded the Board that if they were to consider it a road, it could only be 1,000, which this exceeded. She was concerned over the Planning Board’s recent trend of considering subdivision accesses as driveways instead of roads subject to Town specifications. H. Koster felt that the Board, where possibly over the last several years, has done so in an effort to minimize disturbance, noting that this parcel has a lot of acreage and only proposes 3 lots. The Board requested a larger radius at the turn in the roadway by Lot C, which H. Koster thought might require the houses to be moved slightly east. It was noted that if the driving surface were proposed at 18’, it would eliminate the need for the proposed 10’ x 50’ pull-out area for emergency access, shown on the driveway detail.
Mr. Jarrett indicated that they would be seeking preliminary and final approval next month, at which time the plans would reflect the latest requests of the Board and would hopefully have been reviewed by Mr. Nace. Mr. Jarrett indicated he would forward the plans to Mr. Nace. It was determined that the Board would do the SEQR analysis next month.
Motion by D. Roessler to accept the sketch plan as complete and table it pending review of the stormwater by Town Engineer Tom Nace at the applicants’ expense. Additionally, the Board requests that the radius be widened on Lot C for emergency vehicle turnaround; and 2) the proposed road width is widened to 18’, with the exception of where it goes over the wetlands, which will be 14’ wide. Seconded by J. Gaddy. All in favor. Motion carried.
18) SPR04-20 ABBOTT, SCOTT & MARNIE. Represented by Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. In accordance with Section 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 185.00, Block 2, Lot 35. Zones RL3 & LC25. Subject to WCPB review. Subject to SEQR. This application has not yet been forwarded to the County.
Motion by H. Caldwell to table the application pending WCPB review. Seconded by D. Roessler. All in favor. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 9:45 pm.
Respectfully submitted by,
Melanie Quigan
Recording Secretary
06/14/04