Town of Bolton SEQR = State Environmental Quality Review
PLANNING BOARD PB = (Town of Bolton) Planning Board
MINUTES WCPB = Warren County Planning Board
Thursday, November 18, 2004 APA = Adirondack Park Agency
6:00 p.m. LGPC = Lake George Park Commission
- DEC = Department of Environmental Conservation
Present: Chairman Herb Koster, Sandi Aldrich, John Gaddy*, Henry Caldwell
Chauncey Mason, Don Roessler, Zoning Administrator Pam Kenyon, Town Counsel Michael Muller
*arrived at 6:30
PUBLIC HEARING
H. Koster opened the public hearing at 6:13 pm.
1) SD04-30 STRANEY, LOUISE. Seeks to amend a previously approved plat (SD03-18) approved by the Planning Board on October 16, 2003, specifically to create multi lot line adjustments between those parcels designated as Section 186.00, Block 1, Lots 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3. Zones RL3 & LC25. Property Location: Long View Drive off of Trout Lake Road. Subject to SEQR. Sketch Plan Review. Major Subdivision.
Mrs. Straney referred to the 3 lots going from north to south as Lots A-1, A-2, and A-3. She explained that one of the reasons for the lot line adjustment was to decrease the width of the right-of-way (going through Lots A3 & A2 to the property line of Lot A1) from 50’ to 40’. Another reason was to create a better building site on Lot A-1 with the need to cut less trees.
There were no comments from the public. Motion by H. Caldwell to close the public hearing. Seconded by D. Roessler. All in favor. Motion carried.
REGULAR MEETING
H. Koster opened the regular meeting at 6:15 pm by asking for corrections to the October 2004 minutes. S. Aldrich pointed out the following corrections: 1) on page 4, in the motion, condition “3)” should instead read “2)”; 2) on page 7, it should be noted that the application was also represented by John Mason of Sunsoval; and 3) on page 11, the date under “Recording Secretary” should read 11/17/04 instead of 10/17/04. It was also noted that there were two copies of page 6.
Motion by D. Roessler to approve the October 21, 2004 minutes as corrected. Seconded by S. Aldrich. 5 in favor. 1 (H. Caldwell) abstained, as he did not attend the October meeting. Motion carried.
1) SD04-30 STRANEY, LOUISE. Seeks to amend a previously approved plat (SD03-18) approved by the Planning Board on October 16, 2003, specifically to create multi lot line adjustments between those parcels designated as Section 186.00, Block 1, Lots 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3. Zones RL3 & LC25. Property Location: Long View Drive off of Trout Lake Road. Subject to SEQR. Sketch Plan Review. Major Subdivision.
H. Caldwell asked if a homeowners association was in place, as he was concerned over road maintenance and emergency vehicle access. Mrs. Straney noted that a fire truck was able to access the property this past summer when she had a brush fire. She indicated that they don’t currently have a homeowners association, but to date the property owners have each pitched in for the work they’ve done on the road. H. Koster explained that even though the neighbors have worked together so far, future owners may not be so accommodating, and he felt there should be a road maintenance agreement/HOA.
It was noted that when Mrs. Straney subdivided the 2 lots off for Leto (SD99-11 approved on 06/24/99), there was a condition of approval that stated “The roadway along lots B1 & B2 will be upgraded to meet current stormwater regulations”, which Mrs. Straney stated they did five years ago, and all the lot owners have talked about paving the road, as it washes out a lot and they are constantly spending money to repair it.
H. Koster asked Mrs. Straney why the right-of-way stopped at her property line and then jumped to a spot approximately 100’ toward the west where it continued up to Lots A2 & A1. Mrs. Straney referred to the 80’ x 180’ easement area through which the right-of-way passes. However, H. Koster noted that the right-of-way is shown on the map to extend beyond this 80’ x 180’ easement area west into the lands of John Murphy. He further noted that the existing driveway is shown to be half in the right-of-way and half into the lands of Mr. Murphy. Mrs. Straney stated that the actual driveway is not in the same location as is shown on the map. H. Koster noted that according to Mrs. Straney’s licensed land surveyor, it is in this location. She stated that the driveway is about 22’ wide and is within the right-of-way.
H. Koster was hesitant to approve the map as presented, as the matter of the right-of-way location could become potentially controversial with future lot owners. Mrs. Straney referred to the previously approved plat (SD03-18, approved by the PB on October 16, 2003), which showed it to be in the same location. She then indicated that the driveway is probably shown accurately, noting that the easement actually goes across Mr. Murphy’s wall and her wall, as shown on the map. She added that this driveway has been used since 1982 and there is no proposal to change it.
H. Koster asked Counsel how to proceed. Counsel noted that the applicant is merely asking to adjust the lot lines on a previously approved plat, and the Board’s concern about the location of the right-of-way is off premises from the parcels involved in the application in front of them. He felt that whether the Board approved the request or not, it would not impact the gravel path (driveway) that has been in use for 22 years, especially since there is no proposal to change it.
P. Kenyon pointed out the condition of approval from October 2003 noted on the map, requiring that the subdivision comply with major stormwater regulations, which she assumes means that the right-of-way shown on Lots A2 & A3 must comply with the major stormwater regulations, as do future houses on Lots A2 & A1, upon development. Counsel agreed, suggesting that if approving the application, the Board make this a condition now, so there are no future misunderstandings.
H. Koster asked if the Board needed to require major stormwater on the right-of-way at this time. Counsel indicated that the stormwater didn’t necessarily need to be an issue under a lot line adjustment application, as long as it was understood it would have to be addressed upon development of the lots. H. Koster estimated the disturbance for the entire right-of-way across Lots A2 & A3 was approximately 20,000 sq ft. Counsel then indicated that the stormwater could be addressed now for the right-of-way and the individual lots upon their development.
Mrs. Straney indicated that there is an existing logging road (from logging done in 1985) about 23’ wide within the 40’ right-of-way shown, extending to a point approximately 65’ past the septic system, for a total of approximately 493’. Based on this, H. Koster estimated the disturbance to be approximately 11,000 sq ft.
Referring to the condition of approval from 2003, P. Kenyon asked the Board if Mrs. Straney would be required to do major stormwater on the access even if it is below the 15,000 sq ft threshold, as well as on the individual house sites. Counsel advised the Board to make a decision tonight regarding this, as the access has the potential to be in excess of 15,000 sq ft once it extends into Lot A1, and the houses will most definitely be subject to the major stormwater requirements. H. Koster felt that both would have to be done to major specifications, as it didn’t make sense to have the houses major and the road getting to them as minor.
Counsel assumed that when the first house location is determined and the lot developed, stormwater for the road would be addressed at that time. H. Koster noted that if Lot A1 were developed first, that lot owner would be required to do major stormwater for the entire access, which crosses over 2 other lots. He felt this could pose future legal problems. He wondered who would be responsible for road maintenance, to which Counsel indicated it would be up to all the lot owners to decide upon a road maintenance agreement.
P. Kenyon read from the minutes from the October 2003 subdivision approval, which indicated that the Board would require major stormwater on the lots when they were developed, but not necessarily the driveway accessing Lots A2 & A3, as Mrs. Straney indicated it would only be 10-12’ wide and involve about 5,000 sq ft. P. Kenyon asked the Board if Mrs. Straney would be required to put the road in before any lots are developed. Counsel was concerned over recording the change in the width of the right-of-way from 50’ to 40’, noting that it had to be extinguished if the new one is permitted, to eliminate problems with future owners thinking they have a 50’ right-of-way.
J. Gaddy felt that the road and the houses should be done to the major stormwater regulations, as projects inevitably become larger than the Board expects. He noted that in this case, the neighbors have already done some clearing, making stormwater and erosion control more of an issue.
Counsel suggested that a formal road maintenance agreement be proposed, in accordance with the Town’s subdivision regulations. H. Koster explained that the road maintenance agreement need only apply to the three lots (A1-A3) involved in this application, not lots from previous subdivisions. He noted that if the Board requires major stormwater for the road, it would involve engineering. J. Gaddy requested that dark earth tones be used on the proposed homes for Lots A1 & A2, as they will be very visible from the Lake.
Motion by H. Caldwell to table the application pending a road maintenance agreement and a stormwater plan for Lots A1, A2 and A3. The proposed houses on Lots A2 & A3 must be finished in dark earth tones. Seconded by J. Gaddy. All in favor. Motion carried.
During the motion, Mrs. Straney asked if she still had to meet all these requirements if she chose to leave the right-of-way at 50’ wide. H. Koster told her that major stormwater would be required either way.
2) SPR04-36 McCARTHY, CHRISTINE & ROBERT. Seeks Type II Site Plan Review to construct a single-family dwelling in the GB5000 Zone. Section 171.15, Block 1, Lot 38, Zone GB5000. Property Location: Horicon Avenue across from the lower ball field. Subject to WCPB review. Subject to SEQR.
This application was represented by Bill Peterson, who explained that they have provided what the Board requested last month, such that the driveway and parking area are shown accurately, and the drainage retention area was resized to accommodate the driveway.
J. Gaddy asked about the infiltration area just to the south of the 4 parking spaces, as it appeared to him that there was a 12” pipe discharging onto open ground. He was concerned about its proximity to the steam. Mr. Peterson estimated the pipe outlet was about 10-15’ from the stream.
D. Roessler asked about the shed that was shown to be 4.4’ over property line. Mr. Peterson indicated that this would be removed. D. Roessler noted that the other shed, shown to be in the path of the proposed driveway, was marked to be removed. Mr. Peterson believes this shed is remaining during construction of the house, after which time the driveway will be built and this shed removed. It was noted that both sheds would be removed eventually. Mr. Peterson indicated that the driveway would be asphalt.
WCPB determined no County impact. The Board had no concerns with the application meeting the criteria of Section 200-31 or the SEQR form.
Motion by D. Roessler to accept the application as complete, waive a public hearing, make a negative declaration, and grant final approval with the condition that the shed on and over property line be removed. Seconded by Sandi Aldrich. All in favor. Motion carried.
3) SPR04-38 KUDLACK, RICHARD & LYNN. Represented by Attorney Ben Pratt. Seeks Type II Site Plan Review for an accessory structure containing more than 1,500 square feet of floor space, approximately 2,300 square feet is proposed. Section 141.00, Block 1, Lot 26, Zone RL3. Property location: Northwest Bay approximately 2/3 mile past Adirondack Park Motel on the right. Subject to WCPB review. Subject to SEQR.
Attorney Ben Pratt represented this application instead of Mark Rehm, who was listed on the agenda.
Atty Pratt indicated that the application is to construct a boathouse and dock on this property, which the Kudlacks are under contract to purchase. The project is subject to Town, LGPC, APA, and WCPB review. Atty Pratt indicated that the WCPB approved it and the LGPC has indicated it is relatively content with the proposal, subject to Town and APA approval. Although there are some outstanding issues with the APA and LGPC, the applicants believe none affect the footprint or aesthetics of the building as shown in the amended plan submitted November 9. Atty Pratt indicated they are seeking approval contingent upon the approval of the other agencies. He noted that the LGPC already issued a permit for the dock, but not for the boathouse.
J. Gaddy stated that he believes there was a concern raised by the APA over the proposed internal staircase. Atty Pratt indicated that this was removed from the plan, and the only possible internal staircase would be a pull-down type, with which the APA has no concern, although he believes the applicants will not propose this. H. Caldwell asked if the proposal was for 3 docks and a mooring. Atty Pratt indicated this was correct, noting that there was approximately 400’ of shorefront.
H. Koster asked if other parcels have access to this shorefront lot. Mr. Kudlack explained that the neighbor to south (Linder) has access to his waterfront property through the subject property. Both parties own land across the road (Route 9N). It was noted that Mr. Linder’s dock is an articulating dock, and Mr. Kudlack’s docks will be crib docks. Mr. Kudlack stated that there are no structures along the entire 400’ of his shorefront, and he believes Mr. Linder’s dock is approximately 45’ from his property line. S. Aldrich asked if the footpath accessing the south dock (not shown on the map) would be upgraded, specifically resurfaced with stone or paving. Mr. Kudlack indicated they have no such plans, as they want to keep it as natural as possible.
H. Caldwell referred to copies of response letters from the LGPC to neighbors concerned about potential marina use on the property. Mr. Kudlack stated that the docks are for his own use only, and he signed a document with LGPC stating so. The LGPC is waiting for approval from the APA before issuing a permit for the boathouse, as they are concerned over the size and shape of the attic, specifically that it might be used for living space. J. Gaddy noted that the application in front of the PB indicated the attic would be used for boat equipment storage. Mr. Kudlack indicated that they redesigned the attic to address the APA’s concerns, such that the height inside is approximately 4½’ from the floor to the roof peak.
J. Gaddy asked Mr. Kudlack how he would handle bathroom needs. Mr. Kudlack responded that they would use the marine heads on his boats, adding that there are bathroom facilities 300 yards away.
As for lighting, Mr. Kudlack indicated he would have lighting underneath the deck shining downward on the boat, and a couple of motion lights (on a timer) that would shine on the stairs and in the parking area. He stated that this would basically be a day use facility, and if no one is there in the evening, there would be no lights on.
S. Aldrich referred to the letter from the LGA addressing concern over this being a non-contiguous lot. P. Kenyon explained that this parcel was land-hooked with the portion across the street, thus there is not a concern with accessory use, since a principal structure exists on the other portion. Mr. Kudlack noted that the entire parcel consists of 39 acres.
The Board had no concerns with the application meeting the criteria of Section 200-31 or the SEQR form.
Motion by D. Roessler to accept the application as complete, waive a public hearing, make a negative declaration, and grant final approval as presented with the following conditions: 1) the docks are for private use only (no marina use); and 2) the second floor (of the boathouse) is used for storage only. Seconded by J. Gaddy. All in favor. Motion carried.
4) SPR04-17 SMITH, MARTIN. Represented by Attorney Mark Rehm. Seeks Type II Site Plan Review to construct a single-family dwelling in the LC25 Zone. Section 170.00, Block 1, Lot 29, Zone LC25. Property location: Edgecomb Pond Road approximately 1,900’ from Potter Hill Road. Subject to WCPB review. Subject to SEQR.
Atty Rehm distributed a hand-out addressing the criteria and aspects of the application, noting that the proposal is to build a single-family dwelling on this 31-acre parcel. It will be accessed by an existing dirt road. Atty Rehm indicated that the ZBA, at its meeting Monday night, determined that no variance was required.
The Board had no concerns with the application meeting the criteria of Section 200-31 or 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. Seconded by C. Mason. All in favor. Motion carried.
P. Kenyon pointed out that there was no stormwater plan included in this application, which would be required if this is a major stormwater project. Atty Rehm indicated he was aware of this, adding that they have the necessary applications ready to submit.
5) 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. Subject to WCPB review. APA approval required. Subject to SEQR. NOTE: After the fact. This item was tabled at the April 22, 2004 meeting so that the applicant could provide stamped architectural drawings of the structure for Town Engineer Tom Nace to review.
Mr. Nowakowski stated that the drawings done by North County Engineering (NCE) were reviewed by Town Engineer Tom Nace, who by letter indicated that with the exception of one note that was missing, the plan was adequate. Mr. Nowakowski stated that the main concern was the trusses, which were recalculated by NCE and also reviewed by the WC (Building Codes) inspector. There was also concern over how the structure would be used. Mr. Nowakowski stated that part of it would be used for storing garden equipment, tractors, snowmobiles, and there would be a small room he would insulate and use for storage of bulbs (plants) for his gardens. He noted that the APA already approved the plan. P. Kenyon indicated that the WCPB approved the project several months ago when it was originally submitted (May 2004).
The Board had no concerns with the application meeting the criteria of Section 200-31 or 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. Seconded by S. Aldrich. All in favor. Motion carried.
6) To discuss proposed amendment as outlined in Supervisor Gabriels correspondence dated September 1, 2004.
P. Kenyon explained that these were amendments the APA proposed to make to their ordinance, and Supervisor Gabriels is seeking the Board’s feedback on them.
H. Koster asked Counsel if people could still ask for a variance from some of the sections proposed to be deleted. Counsel indicated this was the case, noting that the APA has these regulations in place for all the municipalities in the Park that don’t have an APA approved land use code. He noted that since Bolton has an approved code, the proposed amendments don’t really apply, but it’s nice the APA is looking for the Town’s feedback.
H. Koster noted that the Town’s code might in some instances be less restrictive than APA’s. Counsel acknowledged this, but noted that the APA has approved the Bolton Code (although he could not think of any part of the Bolton code that was less restrictive than the APA’s).
The Board had no specific comments on the amendments.
On other business, J. Gaddy addressed the Board with a couple issues. He noted that at the APA workshop he had raised the issue of whether the Town road commission had to follow stormwater regulations. Counsel advised that the stormwater regulations require that the municipality must be in compliance (Section 125-7). J. Gaddy feels that the PB is stringent in making applicants comply with all aspects of the stormwater regulations, yet the Town is clearing roadsides and not mulching. He feels the Town is setting a poor example, and he wondered if the PB could require them to mulch, noting that it is past the time when germination can take from hydro-seeding. H. Caldwell noted that the County and State do the same thing.
J. Gaddy wondered if he should address the matter through the new Code Enforcement Officer. P. Kenyon suggested he instead try discussing the matter with the highway superintendent. He stated that he has tried this approach with no success. He agreed with the comments of Jeff Tennent (who spoke at the last PB meeting) in that everyone should be held to the same requirements.
On another matter, J. Gaddy asked if Mr. Ronning’s Saddlebrook Subdivision is considered a Class B regional subdivision, since it is being proposed in a low intensity zone. P. Kenyon stated that the Town is waiting for Mr. Ronning to submit his jurisdictional inquiry form to the APA, who will provide a response to the Town as to whether it is a Class A or Class B subdivision.
Furthermore, J. Gaddy noted that the ZBA approved the variance for the bridge, but he doesn’t believe Mr. Ronning ever presented deeds illustrating that he owns the property where the bridge is proposed. Mr. Ronning, public in attendance, indicated that he had such deeds and agreed to provide copies at his next appearance in front of the PB.
J. Gaddy would like to see the PB begin requiring bonds from developers of large projects, in accordance with the current regulations. He would like to start enforcing other aspects of the regulations that the Board has not been enforcing. He feels that doing so would address some of the goals of the Master Plan.
H. Caldwell asked Counsel if the Board was going to proceed by asking the Town to address stormwater, but not require the same out of the State. Counsel referred to the recent LGPC lawsuit on behalf of the Fund for LG (and others) vs Town of Bolton (& Moonlight Management) over the handling of major stormwater projects by the Town. He suggested that the matter somehow be handled in a comprehensive manner instead of “dropping the ball” specifically on the Town of Bolton, as the stormwater regulations indicate that all public and private entities are required to comply. He further suggested that the matter be addressed internally prior to going to other agencies. H. Koster agreed, as he had similar concerns with the Town when the water filtration plant was built, and the Town attempted to address stormwater.
J. Gaddy agreed that he didn’t wish to involve other agencies, but he was merely seeking the advise of Counsel as to whether the Town was required to follow these regulations. H. Koster feels that the Town and State have made efforts to address concerns when raised. Counsel noted that while municipalities are exempt from some regulations, the stormwater regulations specifically indicated that public and private entities are subject to adhere to them. P. Kenyon indicated to J. Gaddy that she felt his recent approach to the matter (when he and concerned citizens held a meeting on Hendricks Road with the highway crew) was maybe not the best approach. J. Gaddy responded that he has made several other efforts over the years to no avail, citing his repeated requests over the past 3 years for the Town to address the need for a salt storage shed at the highway garage, as salt is entering the Lake. P. Kenyon noted that she has addressed erosion matters with the highway department, which resulted in their seeding, mulching and hydro-seeding roadsides.
On other business, although not a public hearing, developer Rolf Ronning was allowed to speak on a matter involving Wright’s Farm Subdivision.
Mr. Ronning stated that he wished to make a clarification (on procedure) with Wright’s Farm. He had hoped to have a letter from Tom Nace, who indicated to him today that there was one more thing he wanted Mr. Ronning to do, after which time he would provide a letter accepting the as-built plans with the recalculations for the stormwater. Mr. Ronning was under the impression by J. Gaddy’s motion made at a previous meeting that once Mr. Nace approves the changes in the as-builts and the re-calculations, the stop work order (prohibiting the presentation and sale of lots within Wright’s Farm) would be lifted. However, he noted that P. Kenyon has taken the position that no building permits would be issued until the new as-builts and stormwater calculations are re-reviewed and approved by the Board.
P. Kenyon read the minutes from October 21, 2004 as follows: Motion by J. Gaddy that there will be no processing of any applications or building permits (/certificates of compliance) for Wright’s Farm pending approval of the stormwater permit (plan). Seconded by M. Nittmann. All in favor. Motion carried. P. Kenyon felt that the new plan should be considered an amended major stormwater plan, requiring Planning Board approval.
Mr. Ronning indicated that the changes involved a short ditch that needed to be installed along the roadway, and at the bottom catch basin there will be the addition of a 3’ pipe. H. Koster did not feel the Board should discuss design issues at this time. J. Gaddy noted that Mr. Ronning on numerous occasions has indicated he would have the new calculations, but failed to do so.
Mr. Ronning responded that the 2 engineers have been conferring back and forth to get an acceptable plan. He noted that he sold a lot in June or July after the plan was approved, and the lot owner has ordered a pre-fabricated home, which is being delivered soon. Mr. Ronning anticipates that the whole plan will be approved before Thanksgiving, and the Board should rely on the judgment of the Town Engineer. H. Koster felt that the Board should not carry the burden of the applicant’s engineer being two to three months late with the new calculations.
Counsel recapped the chain of events as follows: Mr. Ronning presented the original stormwater plan, which was approved and accepted by the PB. Thereafter he undertook construction on the subdivision roadway, but not in accordance with the approved plan. Doing so put the Town in a difficult position, as to whether or not to issue a stop work order, which from a legal standpoint, Counsel felt should be done. After much discussion, the Board opted not to issue a stop work order based on the advise of Town Engineer Tom Nace, who felt that doing so would pose a greater erosion problem at the site, which was in a raw state.
Counsel went on to say that he and Mr. Nace were in contact several times after this decision was made, as Counsel wanted to be sure that work continued in accordance with Mr. Nace’s recommendations. Counsel kept the Town aware that work was continuing under a revised plan, which had yet to be approved. All the while, Mr. Ronning represented that the new plan was better than the original. When new calculations were repeatedly not provided by dates the applicant represented he would provide them by, the Board voted to place a stop work order on the presentation and sales of lots in the subdivision. Counsel had asked Mr. Nace to stay on Mr. Ronning’s engineer about getting the new information in a timely manner such that the Planning Board would have ample time to review it prior to the next meeting.
Thereafter, Counsel received a call from Stephanie Bitter, a lawyer representing someone (Mrs. Green) who had purchased Lot 7 in Wright’s Farm. She felt her client shouldn’t have to provide a major stormwater plan for an individual home site, as she understood this was done at the time the stormwater for the subdivision was approved. Counsel then realized that the lawyer likely didn’t realize the larger problem in that her client had purchased a lot in a subdivision that was in a state of flux, as the stormwater was not built as approved and the revised stormwater calculations were not yet reviewed and approved by the Board. Counsel called Mr. Nace last week for a status report, only to be told by Mr. Nace that the stormwater was still incomplete and unacceptable.
In light of this course of events, Counsel advised that the Board review the new plan and vote on it prior to development occurring on any lots.
Mr. Ronning spoke, indicating that the reason the plan was still incomplete was that the 2 engineers had different philosophies on one of the calculations. He stated that Mr. Nace indicated he was satisfied with the plan with the one exception of the sizing on one of the culverts. He was concerned with waiting until the following month when the figures should be ready in days. He suggested a few knowledgeable Board members review the figures when they’re ready, so as not to hold up the lot owner or work at the site. He felt that the Board should rely on the Town Engineer to approve the plan. Counsel responded that he felt that no members of the Planning Office or the Planning Board put Mr. Ronning or the subsequent lot owner in the predicament their in.
P. Kenyon believes the new stormwater plan (as-builts) has to be filed with the County, which in itself requires review and approval by the Board as part of the subdivision approval. Counsel felt that it was important to comply with the stipulations of the recent lawsuit against the Town, and to be consistent with all applications. Mr. Ronning then asked for the Board to hold a special meeting, and he referred to Atty Ben Pratt, who also represents the lot owner Mrs. Green, to address the Board.
Atty Pratt noted that Mrs. Green is caught in the middle in that she purchased her lot prior to the stormwater changes taking place. He explained that she ordered a pre-fabricated home that is scheduled for delivery in December. He went on to say that the disturbance for Mrs. Green’s lot would actually be less than what was calculated under the original plan. They are asking for an exception for Mrs. Green so that she can obtain a building permit and begin construction of the foundation prior to the house arriving. Otherwise, she will have huge problems with construction and storage of the home. He asked the Board to hold a special meeting, assuming that the final stormwater calculations are provided and approved by Mr. Nace in time.
Counsel advised the Board against making such an exception, as they may feel inclined to do so for other applicants in the future. He added that the Board still has no guarantee that the figures will be provided in time, especially based on past performance. Mr. Ronning felt that he could have the new calculations and Mr. Nace’s approval by Thanksgiving.
It was noted that the deadline for the December Planning Board meeting was the following Monday (11/22/04). Atty Pratt felt that they could have Mrs. Green’s major stormwater plan by that date, with the anticipation that Mr. Ronning’s new stormwater calculations will be submitted, review and approved at a special meeting, at which they would ask the Board to review Mrs. Green’s plans as well.
While the Board understood the problems Mrs. Green faced, they were reluctant to proceed in the manner requested by Mr. Ronning and Atty Pratt, as the Board has been accused of inconsistency in the past, even from those for whom they have held special meetings.
P. Kenyon felt that Mr. Ronning should have disclosed to Mrs. Green the fact that she was going to need a major stormwater plan. Mr. Ronning responded that he told Mrs. Green that when they did the major stormwater plan for the subdivision, they included all driveways and house sites. H. Koster responded that that is not how the Board proceeds, as the Board requires major stormwater on a subdivision road at the time of subdivision review and approval, and major stormwater as the individual lots are developed. Mr. Ronning noted that Mr. Nace told him he needed to include house sites and driveways in the subdivision stormwater plan, and he therefore felt it was redundant for the lot owner to do the same upon proposing a house. H. Koster explained that house sizes and driveway lengths often change when the lots are developed, so that is why the Board reviews the subdivision road as a major project and then the individual lots under major stormwater, separately.
After further discussion and consideration, the Board made the following motion.
Motion by H. Caldwell to not hold a special meeting for the owner of Lot 7 in Wright’s Farm, as requested by Mr. Ronning and Ben Pratt, Esq. Seconded by D. Roessler. All in favor. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 pm.
Respectfully submitted by,
Melanie Quigan
Recording Secretary
12/08/04