Town of Bolton                                                

PLANNING BOARD                                                      

MINUTES                                                         

Thursday, November 20, 2003                           

6:00 p.m.                                                         

-                                                                      

Present:  Chairman Herb Koster, Henry Caldwell, Kathi DiMauro, John Gaddy, Mitzi

    Nittmann, Don Roessler, Town Counsel Michael Muller

Absent:  Chauncey Mason

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. Public Hearing remains open from last month.  Further review by the Board is dependent upon Tom Nace’s approval of the stormwater plans.

P. Kenyon explained that a letter from Town Engineer Tom Nace came about 3:00 this afternoon.  Mr. Ronning has a new map and has requested that the Board let him speak on it briefly.  H. Koster asked Mr. Ronning if he would be willing to extend the “time clock” on the application.  Mr. Ronning stated that they are very close to completing the stormwater plan for the project.  He would like the Board’s recommendation on one of the lot configurations and an issue on the proposed road.  He was not favorable to extending the time clock, as he is not looking for final approval this month, but would be next month.

There were no comments from the public.  The project was discussed under the regular meeting. 

Motion by J. Gaddy to keep the public hearing open until next month.  Seconded by K. DiMauro.  All in favor.  Motion carried.

REGULAR MEETING

H. Koster opened the regular meeting at 6:12 pm by asking for corrections to the October 2003 meeting.  K. DiMauro noted that on the bottom of page 8 and top of page 9 in the motion for Alfredo SPR03-29, the following condition was omitted: that the power distribution route be shown.  On page 7, para 2, line 3, J. Gaddy questioned the Health Dept setback distant of 10’ (between the sewer line and wellhead), as stated by Tom Jarrett.  Mr. Jarrett was present and confirmed that he did indeed say this.  Additionally, K. DiMauro noted that on page 15, para 4, line 6, in the parenthesis it should read “A1 & A2” instead of “A2 & A2”.  Motion by D. Roessler to approve the minutes as corrected.  Seconded by K. DiMauro.  5 in favor.  1 (H. Caldwell) abstained as he did not attend the October meeting.  Motion carried.

1)  SPR03-29 ALFREDO, THOMAS.  Represented by Atty John Lapper and Jarrett-Martin Engineers.  In accordance with Chapter 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.  Approximately 3.2 acres is proposed.  Type II Site Plan Review is also sought to construct a single family dwelling in the LC25 zone.   Section 213.09, Block 1, Lot 4, Zones RL3 & LC25.  Property Location:  Off of Coolidge Hill Road to South View Drive.  Subject to SEQR. The WCPB determined no county impact.  The public hearing was closed on October 16, 2003.

Mr. Jarrett explained that last month the Board asked for additional information, which they have outlined in their letter of November 7 as follows: modifying the driveway near the house, proposing a hammerhead instead of a cul-de-sac in the driveway, re-affirming the accuracy of the topography done by Dave Bolster, re-verifying the accuracy of the retaining wall height, providing wastewater details for the leaching system, providing a landscaping plan for the house and showing the power supply route coming in off of Coolidge Hill Road to the site.   Additionally, they have obtained a letter from Town Engineer Tom Nace signing off on the project, with one stipulation that the Town witness a deep test pit near the leaching system.

J. Gaddy has concerns with the impact of the project on the view from the Lake, as many projects in the past have turned out much differently than what the Board had expected when approving them.  He wondered what stipulations the Board could place on the project that would ensure trees remain as stated by the applicant.  He would like this project to become a model of good development along ridgelines.  Mr. Jarrett reviewed what they would like to propose with regard to J. Gaddy’s concerns.  They have requested permission for dead and diseased trees to be removed upon the zoning administrator’s inspection and removal of live trees only with PB approval.  J. Gaddy was still opposed to the current proposal in that he would like to see the structure moved far toward the north, to ensure that the history of past projects would not repeat itself as far as visual impact.  He feels that not allowing the project as proposed is a sure way not to have it become something the Board later regrets.  Mr. Alfredo suggested that the Board make the stipulation that trees on the property be tagged and numbered and shown on the map, adding that most of the trees are already located on the survey.  Mr. Jarrett noted that the Bolton Comprehensive Plan calls for filtered views in sensitive areas, which he feels they have more than accounted for.  He indicated Mr. Alfredo’s willingness to include specifications about the tagging of the trees in his deed if the property were ever sold. 

K. DiMauro addressed an earlier comment of J. Gaddy such that the Board should not allow certain development because the Board has allowed people to “get away with” things in the past.  K. DiMauro feels the Board has always done a thorough job reviewing applications and placing appropriate conditions on approvals, but there seems to be an enforcement problem (not the blame of P. Kenyon, who she feels is spread too thin), which she feels the Town must address, perhaps with added staff.  She did not feel it was fair to restrict the rights of all applicants because a few might abuse the system. 

J. Gaddy noted that this particular application involves a 55-acre parcel, and the applicant has the option of proposing the house on a less sensitive spot on his property.  He felt that restrictions such as tagging trees are a step in the right direction for setting the standard for future development.  K. DiMauro agreed.  H. Koster added that just saying no to projects was not the answer, as suggested earlier by J. Gaddy. 

H. Caldwell felt that the situation was unique in that the Ledges are not on Mr. Alfredo’s property, and there is a 50’ setback from the property line, so he won’t have a spectacular view of the Lake.  He felt the Ledges are protected.  In light of the fact that there won’t be much of a Lake view, he wondered why the house couldn’t be moved to a different part of the property on a more conducive building site.  Mr. Jarrett responded that the proposed site offers a tremendous view of the mountains and has southern exposure. 

H. Koster wondered what the status was of the right-of-way dispute (South View Drive).  Atty Lapper stated that they have documentation of a deeded easement.  The neighbors have made the allegation that the metes and bounds description from 100 years ago is approx 50’ from where the actual road is now.  Atty Lapper stated that this is a matter of law, as the owner (past and current) of the subject property has used this road all along.  The matter may have to be litigated, but at this point it does not involve this Board. 

Mr. Jarrett stated that all the utilities would be underground.  K. DiMauro asked about the note on the map that stated ‘no trees within the 50’ setback of the east property line to be removed following construction without approval from the Town of Bolton’.  Mr. Jarrett explained that there is one more tree that needs to be removed within this setback, in addition to those for the driveway hammerhead, but after that any trees to be removed must get Town approval.  (Trees to be removed were marked by an “X” on the map.)  Mr. Jarrett stated that after construction all ground cover within the disturbance line, even that below the 6” limit, would remain.

M. Nittmann wondered how anyone would know if the septic pump system failed.  Mr. Jarrett stated there is an alarm system.  The first alarm gives a warning and the second alarm shuts off the water to the house.  H. Koster suspected that the pump would be shut off at the end of the season anyway. 

Regarding question #11 on the environmental assessment form (does the project site contain any species of plants or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered), H. Caldwell felt there probably are things that could fall under that category on the site.  Mr. Jarrett stated that they performed the routine inquiry with NYS DEC and they indicated there were none.  H. Caldwell referred to another question (does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community), and supposes they answered no because the ledges are on adjacent property. 

Mr. Jarrett stated that the driveway comes to within about 10’ of the property line toward the ridge, as shown on drawing C-2.  He stated that according to Section E on drawing XS-1, this would require cutting to within 7-8’ of the property line.  This section of the road falls between two small ridges, so it should not create a visible notch. 

There was inaudible discussion among some Board members.  For the record, H. Koster stated that the idea of possibly requiring the applicant to return next month with the tree locations marked on the survey was being discussed.  He felt that this requirement could be incorporated in a motion tonight instead of postponing the application another month. 

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

Motion by M. Nittmann to accept the application as complete, make a negative declaration, and having found the application meets the criteria of Section 200-31, approve it with the following conditions: 1) all trees 100’ north and south of the house perimeter within the 50’ setback (from the easterly property line) be tagged and numbered.  The trees will be tagged and inspected by the zoning administrator prior to a certificate of compliance being issued or any construction being undertaken on the site; 2) a covenant is put in the deed prohibiting removal of these tagged trees; 3) the septic test pit hole is witnessed by a licensed engineer; 4) the ground cover within the property east of the disturbance line remain in its natural state; and 5) there will be no ground disturbance outside of the ground disturbance line noted on drawing C-4 during construction.  Following construction there is to be no ground disturbance at all within the 50’ setback.  Seconded by D. Roessler.  All in favor.  Motion carried. 

After the motion was passed, H. Koster addressed everyone by saying that he believes the Board gave an outstanding effort on its review of this project.  He thanked Mr. Alfredo for his patience during the review process, noting that ridgeline development (in relation to the Comprehensive Plan) is kind of a new issue to the Board, drawing a lot of public concern.  He referred to those who waged personal attacks on the applicant and his representatives, whom they did not personally know, in an attempt to tarnish their reputations.  He felt that although there were legitimate concerns, the manner in which they were presented was counterproductive to the review process. 

2)  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. Public Hearing remains open from last month. Further review by the Board is dependent upon Tom Nace’s approval of the stormwater plans.

Mr. Ronning stated that it would be almost impossible to see the houses from CR11, noting that this property will be accessed from Federal Hill Road, not CR11.  At an earlier review a concern was raised that Lot 10 did not have access off of the subdivision roadway.  They would like to propose a common driveway coming off of the subdivision roadway, accessing 2 lots (Lots 9 & 10), but this is not allowed per the ordinance.  They could instead propose an access to Lot 10 directly off of Federal Hill Road, but it would require cutting a 25’ wide strip (with 40’ of road frontage) out of the northern property line of Lot 8.  Mr. Ronning is asking the Board to allow him to propose a common driveway.  H. Caldwell suggested that Mr. Ronning instead combine these two lots, but Mr. Ronning prefers not to, as these lots offer some of the best views and have good soils.  He noted that this proposed common driveway is very level.  M. Nittmann asked whether the driveway would have to be built to major stormwater specifications.  Mr. Ronning responded that all the driveways have been calculated into the project’s stormwater plan.  P. Kenyon was concerned with creating a lot that doesn’t have road frontage. 

J. Gaddy inquired as to the odd shape of Lot 9.  Mr. Ronning explained that he is trying to contain the large wetland on one parcel (Lot 15).  He did not proposed the triangular portion of Lot 9 (toward the west) to be part of Lot 15 because this was already a large lot.  He did not propose it to be part of Lot 12 because the subdivision roadway runs between the two.  So, he added this triangular portion to Lot 9 with the idea that perhaps a tennis court could be built there in the future.  At the point where the lot line dips down toward the subdivision roadway on Lot 9, it is approx 6’ wide. 

H. Koster agreed with H. Caldwell in that he preferred Lots 9 & 10 be combined.  Mr. Ronning stated he would do so if the Board would allow him to create another lot within the LC25 zone in exchange (within Lots 13, 14 & 15), adding that there are good building sites there.  Mr. Gaddy wanted Mr. Ronning to be aware of development within the Indian Brook watershed.  Mr. Ronning responded that the engineers (Mr. Dickinson and Town Engineer Tom Nace) have been working together on the stormwater management plan. 

H. Koster felt that putting another lot in the LC25 zone would be a challenge given the contour of the land.  Mr. Ronning explained how he would propose it.  H. Koster would prefer that Mr. Ronning utilize some of the density in the RL3 zone (from Lot 12) instead of just the LC25 zone if he chose this route, adding that there is no guarantee the Board would approve such a proposal.  H. Koster also suggested that the odd triangular portion of Lot 9 be instead proposed as part of Lot 12.  Mr. Ronning agreed to this as long as the Board realized that the subdivision roadway would run through it.  Mr. Ronning stated that he could also add this triangular portion to the common area, followed by him suggesting he would create a park for the subdivision there to address the recreational provision (as outlined in supplemental ordinances).

Regarding the subdivision roadway, Mr. Ronning stated that they tried to design the road with the minimal amount of disturbance to the land.  As proposed, the road calls for a 3% grade for the first 30’.  Mr. Nace indicated that he is not entirely happy with this (as the ordinance requires 3% for the first 100’), but Mr. Ronning pointed out that the Board has granted him relief from this requirement in the past, adding that the visibility is great there.  P. Kenyon felt that this requirement had mainly to do with runoff concerns.  Mr. Ronning believes it has to do more with the ability to stop a vehicle from sliding into the main road in adverse weather.  H. Koster felt that there was adequate room to meet the requirement by extending the roadway further south, but Mr. Ronning disagreed, saying he would then have a problem meeting the maximum radius requirement and it would require a lot more excavation.  He went on to say that after the first 30’ it goes to about 5% grade for 50’-80’, and then to 9-10% for ±200’ before leveling out.  D. Roessler was concerned about the ability of emergency access vehicles to stop at the bottom of the subdivision roadway in poor weather.  Mr. Ronning will address the matter.

Counsel referred to Lot 15 where it indicated “Total Area = ±57.82 acres (Excluding Lot 1 west)” and asked Mr. Ronning what this meant.  Mr. Ronning referred back to early stage discussions of his proposal for this subdivision, which involved the issue of transferring density (of the parent parcel) between the east and west sides of Federal Hill Road.  Mr. Ronning suspects this note probably meant it was excluding Lot 6 west, which is the one lot that he doesn’t own, but is still calculating acreage/density from.  Counsel asked him find out what it meant and clarify it on the map. 

Referring to B(1) of Appendix B on page 15043 of the subdivision regulations, J. Gaddy asked Counsel if this was considered a Class B subdivision.  Counsel stated that he would have to think about it.  P. Kenyon stated that she had already addressed this question with J. Gaddy, telling him that she is working with the APA, who is waiting for the revised map. 

The item was tabled pending new maps. 

3) 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.  Further review by the Board is dependent upon Tom Nace’s approval of the stormwater plans.

This item was tabled pending new maps.

4)  SPR03-22 RONNING, ROLF.  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.  Section 140.00, Block 1, Lot 5.1, Zone RL3.  Property Location:  Federal Hill Road to be known as Wright’s Farm.  The WCPB determined no county impact review. Subject to SEQR.  Further review by the Board is dependent upon Tom Nace’s approval of the stormwater plans.

Mr. Ronning wished to order his sign for the subdivision.  As determined in the past, the Board chose not to entertain this application prior to subdivision approval being granted.  

5)  SPR03-36 PEPPER, JAMES AND SWETLAND, SALLY.  Seek Type II Site Plan Review for the construction of a proposed garage with storage above, containing more than 1,500 square feet of floor place.  Section 156.12, Block 1, Lot 28, Zone RCM1.3.  Property Location:  35 Cherry Avenue.  Subject to SEQR.  Subject to WCPB review.  Note:  Site plan review approval was granted on August 28, 1997 for a new land use within 250’ of the shoreline.  The proposed plans differ slightly than those approved. This item was tabled last month pending WCPB review. 

Mr. Pepper explained that the property is just under an acre.  When they obtained site plan approval in 1997, they had indicated that they might in the future come back and convert the second floor to a guest room or an architectural studio.  The building that was approved was 48’ long.  He thought he had conceptual approval on the preliminary drawings and did not think the application needed to be re-reviewed, but he was told by P. Kenyon that there is a new rule in effect that he must comply with, thus this review.  The new structure has been extended by 2’ because the stairs needed to be reconfigured, due to the need to increase the height of the first floor.  The roof has changed slightly as well.  There are a lot of trees at the site.  The proposed structure is higher than originally proposed, but they are also excavating 2’ deeper than originally proposed.  Only the very top of the roof should be visible from the Lake.  The structure will sit behind the existing residence, which they plan to expand in the future.  The County determined no County impact. 

H. Koster asked Mr. Pepper if it is his intention to have the second floor occupied at this time.  Mr. Pepper stated it was not.  He is seeking to finish the shell of the structure so that he may utilize the garage portion right away.  He stated he would return to the Board when he completed his plan for the second floor.  H. Koster noted that the septic system would have to be upgraded to accommodate the living quarters upstairs.  Mr. Pepper was aware of this and would address the matter at the same time that he proposed his addition on his house.  The existing septic is located to the north of the residence.   He noted that years ago he had several loads of fill brought in at the rear of the property, where he will likely propose the new septic system. 

Regarding stormwater, Mr. Pepper has dug holes for runoff.  He believes he has to account for 4500 gallons, and the design allows for over 5,000 gallons.  He explained where he proposes three 8’ drywells, two at the base of the driveway and one alongside the driveway.  H. Koster felt that Mr. Pepper would have to determine the specific location of the existing septic prior to proposing locations of drywells, to ensure the separation distance was being met between the two.  P. Kenyon stated that the separation distance was 20’, and Mr. Pepper responded that he believes the distance would be in excess of 40’ at the closest point. 

The Board had no concerns with the application meeting the criteria of Section 200-31 or the SERQ 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, approve the site plan as presented with the conditions that: 1) the test pit(s) for the stormwater controls is adequate; and 2) another drawing is provided showing the distance between the stormwater controls and the existing leach field.  Seconded by J. Gaddy.  All in favor.  Motion carried. 

Item #7 was heard at this point, pending the arrival of representatives for Item #6.

6) SPR03-37 BAER, SUSAN & BURKE, CORNELIUS. (Baer Necessities)   For the construction of a proposed second story addition to accommodate two apartments, seek Type II site plan review for a multi-family structure.  Section 186.14, Block 1, Lot 5, Zone RCH5000.  Property Location: 4587 Lake Shore Drive.  Subject to WCPB review. Subject to SEQR. NOTE:  A variance has been granted for deficient setbacks and parking.

Mr. Burke explained that they wish to build a second story addition, an idea that came to them upon discovering that the roof of the entire structure was in need of repair.  Mr. Burke and Ms Baer sold their summer residence in Town.  Since the roof needs repair anyway, they would like to add two apartments, moving into one and making the building owner-occupied. 

Upon purchasing the building, they had an engineer do a report on the septic flow under the existing conditions (3,500 gals/day as a restaurant) versus the proposed conditions (800 gal/day as retail space).  By adding the two proposed apartments, the added flow would be 600 gal/day (300 gal per apartment), bringing the total up to 1,400 gal/day, which is less than half of what previously existed. 

The height of the structure will be less than 35’, including the proposed cupola.  The addition will only go above the two retail stores on the east end of the building, as this provides enough space to meet their needs. 

The Board had no concerns with 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 approve as presented.  Seconded by D. Roessler.  All in favor.  Motion carried. 

7) SPR03-38 SHIPPEY, HAROLD & CAROL.  For the construction of a proposed 24’x 36’addition, seek Type I Site Plan Review for a land use within ¼ mile of the Schroon River. Section 122.04, Block 1, Lot 1, Zone RR10.  Property Location:  2239 East Schroon River Road.  Subject to APA and WCPB review. Subject to SEQR.

Mr. Shippey explained that they wish to remove their back porch and replace it with a great room, noting that the ZBA approved the associated variance application.  He stated that site plan review is required because the house is within ¼ mile of the Schroon River, although the house is not visible from the river.  The nearest neighbor to the south is 1 mile away, there are no houses within ½ mile to the east, and there are 2 seasonal dwellings to the north.  P. Kenyon stated that the APA has indicated the project is non-jurisdictional to the Agency.  WCPB determined no County impact.  The project is exempt from stormwater regulations because the new construction is less than 1,000 sq ft. 

The Board had no concerns with the application meeting the criteria of Section 200-31 or 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 M. Nittmann.  All in favor.  Motion carried. 

8) SPR03-23 NORTHWEST BAY PARTNERS. Represented by Clark Wilkinson and Jeff Anthony of the LA Group.  In accordance with condition of approval set forth by the Planning Board on May 26, 1994 when approving the Bell Point Shores Subdivision (SD93-04), seek site plan review to remove vegetation.  Specifically condition #4 reads as follows:  Prior to any development or removal of vegetation of any nature on any lot within the subdivision, the Town of Bolton Planning Board shall review and approve the vegetation removal plan submitted.  The buyer/lot owner (applicant) shall be required to present to the Board such documentation, as the Board shall deem appropriate and/or necessary to consider such plan. In no event shall any lot be cleared of vegetation in excess of 15,000 square feet. Section 156.16, Block 1, Lot 1.4, Zone RCM1.3. Property Location:  Lot 3 of Bell Point Shores.  

Mr. Anthony explained that this application pertains to Lot 3 of Bell Point Shores Subdivision.  They propose clearing for a single-family dwelling, a driveway, a septic field and well.  The overall clearing is under the 15,000 sq ft limit, as specified under subdivision approval.  They have provided a complete stormwater management plan for the project, as well as a landscaping plan.  The stone retaining wall shown on the drawings will be 3’ high.  H. Koster asked P. Kenyon if she was considering this wall to be landscaping.  She stated that she just recently learned she has been interpreting the definition of “retaining wall” incorrectly for quite some time.  She asked what the length of the wall was, and Mr. Anthony stated that it was about 80’ long, but he would section it if necessary.  Regarding whether it would be considered a structure, Counsel read the following from the ordinance: a retaining wall more than 2’ in height and in excess of 100 sq ft shall be considered a structure.  H. Koster realized that the wall was being proposed because of the existing retention pond there, and he asked if the PB had any latitude in their review of the wall, or whether it required a variance.  Counsel stated that although this topic is on for discussion at the end of the agenda, for now the Board would have to consider it a structure.  P. Kenyon felt that it could be considered landscaping, but Counsel felt that the ZBA would have to interpret it, not the PB.  P. Kenyon noted that the wall could instead be terraced, eliminating the need for it to meet setbacks.

Regarding the issue of stormwater maintenance on the road, an ongoing issue as to whether original conditions of subdivision approval are being met, H. Koster asked Counsel if the Board could proceed on the application.  Counsel explained that there has been a longstanding controversy within the subdivision as to the aspects of the developer’s road maintenance and the fulfillment of the requirements of the PB on conditions imposed in 1994.  It is his opinion from the 2 years he has been dealing with the project as Town Counsel, that the situation is the best it’s ever been, but it is a “seasonal moving target”.  As of right now, progress is being made and the financial requirements (paying back the Town) have been met.  There are stormwater reports due twice a year that, as of now, are current, although their content may not yet have been addressed.  It is his opinion that there are no pending violations.  It is too early in the season to determine whether the requirement to snowplow (also a topic of controversy) is being met.  In conclusion, Counsel felt that it was unfair to superimpose a requirement placed on the developer of the entire subdivision on the individual lot owners, especially if they are meeting all requirements relative to the development of their individual lot.  P. Kenyon added that the Town Board passed a resolution allowing the PB and ZBA to move forward on applications for the individual lots within this subdivision.  Counsel noted that eventually the individual lot owners would become the constituents within the subdivision HOA, so it could be advantageous to get the lots occupied.

Although not a public hearing, Bob Weisenfeld stated that the Town Board also indicated it would be appropriate for the PB to review the maintenance on the old road.  H. Koster acknowledge this, noting that it did not directly relate to the application in front of the Board tonight.  Mr. Weisenfeld noted that the applicant is the replacement sponsor for the developer (originally Rolf Ronning, then Mike O’Brien dba NW Bay Partners).  He stated that a fall stormwater report has not yet been submitted, and the application should therefore be deemed incomplete.  He requested that a public hearing be scheduled. 

K. DiMauro asked Counsel if the Board should make a distinction between the two applicants because one is an individual lot owner and the other is associated with the developer/sponsor (later termed “successor developer” by Counsel).  He felt that regardless of the owner, development on each lot had to be treated equally.  H. Koster agreed, saying that the Board would likely get into trouble if it segmented one lot from another, and that the issue of the subdivision (conditions of approval) should be treated separately.

H. Caldwell asked Mr. Anthony if this was a spec house being proposed.  He indicated that it was.  H. Caldwell felt that the developer evidently doesn’t have enough money to maintain the road, but has the funds to build a spec house. 

Richard Scanlon was also allowed to speak, introducing himself as the vice president of the HOA, and stating that he is also petitioning to develop one of the lots.  He explained that the developer lost its identity of “sponsor” after 5 years.  NW Bay Partners are simply homeowners who own 14 lots within the subdivision, and who are not paying their dues.  The entire amount of dues is being paid by 4 individuals in the association.  Mr. Scanlon will be doing the plowing himself.  He indicated on the map what road these 4 individuals pay to have plowed.  He felt that the individual lot owners should not be denied the right to develop their lots, even if the financial burden is being assumed by only a few of the lot/home owners.  He promised the Town that he would plow.  The Board indicated that they did not have a problem with Mr. Scanlon, but had a problem with the successor developer not paying their share of dues when they have money to build a spec house.  When asked by the Board, Mr. Scanlon indicated that it would be help him if the Board allowed NW Bay Partners to proceed because it would force them to put money in escrow (or wherever it is required) in order to bring the property into compliance. 

Counsel explained that he suggested to the Town Board that they allow individual owners to develop their lots so that the HOA can get back some control.  Counsel had sent a letter to the HOA members informing them of their responsibility to pay their share of reimbursement to the Town (who spent $6,000 on work associated with the stormwater maintenance of the road).  Mr. Damiani was the first member to pay.  He convinced other members to pay, followed by Mr. O’Brien (NWPB) paying his 14 lots’ share.  There were then complaints that the engineering reports were not meeting the requirements of subdivision approval.  It is Counsel’s opinion that in order to improve the ongoing problems at Bell Point Shores, the Town should allow individual lot owners to build, as these are the people who will truly care about the property and will likely seek to get it into compliance. 

The idea of establishing an escrow account or bond was discussed.  It was suggested that the funds be held until such time the conditions of subdivision approval are met.  If snowplowing is not done or the engineering inspections/reports are not performed, the Town would hire out these jobs and use the escrow funds to pay for them.  Madeline Weisenfeld, resident of Bell Point Shores, also spoke saying that the Board would be setting a precedent by approving applications before everything is in compliance.  The Board felt that this approach (escrow/bond) would be the best option. 

Mr. Weisenfeld again spoke, suggesting the escrow funds be released to the HOA upon the required tasks being completed.  He felt that the Board should take action in setting up the escrow account or bonds prior to the application being voted upon.  Regarding Mr. Scanlon’s interpretation of the word “sponsor”, he noted that it is his understanding that anyone who holds a certain minimum number of lots (3 or 4) in a co-operative housing establishment (for sale) is a sponsor, which NW Bay Partners is. 

H. Koster asked Mr. Anthony if he could speak for the applicant on the escrow/bond issue, to which he stated he could not.  Mr. Anthony explained that he is not working for Mr. O’Brien, but rather a partner of Mr. O’Brien.  H. Koster asked Mr. Anthony to relay a message to the partner that the Board would likely ask for a $10,000 bond to cover expenses for stormwater management and road maintenance.  Counsel advised the Board to instead require an escrow account, which would not be spent as long as the developer is in compliance.  It will be spent, after due notice, if the requirements are not being met.  Mr. Anthony felt that the request was reasonable, and suggested the Board make it a condition of approval.  Counsel suggested the matter instead be tabled to allow Mr. Anthony the opportunity to consult with his client and the Town to set up the account, the agent for which would be Town Counsel or his successor.  

Motion made by M. Nittmann to table the application to allow the applicant to respond to the Board’s request that a $10,000 cash escrow account be set up, as discussed.  Seconded by J. Gaddy.  All in favor.  Motion carried. 

9) SPR03-39 SCANLON, RICHARD & LISA.  In accordance with condition of approval set forth by the Planning Board on May 26, 1994 when approving the Bell Point Shores Subdivision (SD93-04), seek site plan review to remove vegetation.  Specifically condition #4 reads as follows:  Prior to any development or removal of vegetation of any nature on any lot within the subdivision, the Town of Bolton Planning Board shall review and approve the vegetation removal plan submitted.  The buyer/lot owner (applicant) shall be required to present to the Board such documentation, as the Board shall deem appropriate and/or necessary to consider such plan. In no event shall any lot be cleared of vegetation in excess of 15,000 square feet. Section 156.16, Block 1, Lot 1.9, Zone RCM1.3. Property Location:  Lot 8 of Bell Point Shores.

Mr. Scanlon stated that he wishes to build a single-family dwelling as per the original Rolf Ronning subdivision plan.  The drawings shown are from the original survey by Dennis Dickinson.  They propose the same size house and the same driveway, septic, and well locations as shown on the original map.  The stormwater management plan was designed by Mr. Dickinson.  P. Kenyon informed Mr. Scanlon that the stormwater plan would have to be more specific, as she believes Mr. Dickinson just copied the map in the file and did not design stormwater for this specific project.  P. Kenyon stated that Mr. Scanlon could not divert any water off of his property.  Mr. Scanlon stated that while he is not planning on undertaking construction right away, he needs to obtain a building permit as soon as possible so that he may secure a low interest rate mortgage.

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

Motion made by J. Gaddy to accept the application as complete, waive a public hearing, make a negative declaration, and approve the site plan review as complete, with the following conditions: 1) the stormwater calculations and septic are designed to meet current regulations; 2) the proposed clearing plan is adhered to in accordance with subdivision approval, wherein it states that no more than 15,000 sq ft of vegetation can be removed; and 3) Section 200-51C1-6 of the zoning ordinance is adhered to.  Seconded by D. Roessler.  All in favor.  Motion carried. 

10) SD03-23 FARBANIEC, PHILIP & CYNTHIA (BLUEBIRD COTTAGES).  Represented by Jeff Anthony of the LA Group and Atty Howard Krantz. Seeks 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. 

At this time, the Board reviewed variance V03-47 associated with this subdivision, per the ZBA’s request at its November 17 meeting, as follows: 

V03-47 FARBANIEC, PHILIP & CYNTHIA (BLUEBIRD COTTAGES).  Represented by Jeff Anthony of the LA Group and Atty Howard Krantz. For a proposed 10-lot subdivision (9 building lots and 1 common area), seek area variance for 1) deficient lot size. 20,000 square feet is required for each lot: 12,000 square feet is proposed for lot 1; 14,200 square feet is proposed for lot 2; 11,665 square feet is proposed for lot 4; 11,300 is proposed for lot 5; 2) deficient front yard setback: 30’ feet is required from the proposed right-of-way; 15’ is proposed from the existing house on lot 9 and 22’ is proposed from the existing house on the Sidney Werner parcel.  Section 186.14, Block 1, Lot 59. Zone RCH5000.  Property Location: 4632 Lake Shore Drive.  Subject to SEQR.  Subject to WCPB review. 

Atty Krantz explained that the Farbaniecs have owned the property for over 20 years.  He noted that there are maps showing the existing conditions, the as of right plan (referred to as Plan A, requiring no variances), and the proposed plan (referred to as Plan B), which is the Farbaniecs’ preferred option.  Plan B proposes the same number of building lots as Plan A, but offers a much more desirable configuration with less impact on the land.  Atty Krantz stated that Plan B was reviewed by WCPB, who actually recommended approval (with conditions) instead of declaring no County impact, as is usually the case.  He introduced Jeff Anthony, who gave the following presentation.

Mr. Anthony first went over the existing conditions map, which shows a main house currently occupied on a seasonal basis by the Farbaniecs, a garage/maintenance building, a recreation hall, and approx 17 cabin units.  Additionally, there are 2 moorings and dock space for 10 boats along approx 266’ of lakeshore.  There will be no change to the shoreline under the proposal.  Mr. Anthony noted that they propose to continue to use the current access off of Route 9N.  There is a small lot in the center of the property that has a small log cabin on it, which is not owned by the Farbaniecs.  As part of the proposal, utilities and access must be maintained to this separate parcel.  The site is nicely wooded, consisting mostly of mature pines and other mature trees, which are shown on the survey provided.  The topography is relatively level from Route 9N to the location of the cabins, beyond which the land drops off to the Lake where it again levels off somewhat.  Currently the site is serviced by Town water and each of the cabins has its own sewage disposal system, which is quite old. 

Mr. Anthony presented Plan A (the “as of right” plan).  Because this is in the RCH5000 zone, each lot must have a minimum of 20,000 sq ft.  The parcel is just less than 5 acres.  They are approx 200 sq ft short of having enough land to propose 10 conforming lots.  They are only asking for 9 lots, one of which would include the existing house and garage/maintenance building.  They propose no change to the condition or character of Route 9N, which is a scenic corridor.  Mr. Anthony stated that this particular plan is a “cookie cutter” approach, wherein a relatively straight driveway with a cul-de-sac is proposed with 20,000 sq ft lots evenly “sliced off”.  This plan does not effectively utilize existing open space.  The recreation building would have to be removed in order to accommodate some of the building lots.  There would be a common area along the shoreline that would be accessed by a walkway off the cul-de-sac.  There would be a community septic system, but it would involve septic easements across many of the lots.  The Farbaniecs do not prefer this plan, although it would not require any variances. 

Under Plan B, a 20,000-sq ft lot would be created along Route 9N, which would consist of the existing house and garage.  A common area would be created on the upper portion of the parcel and would consist of much of the open space, maintaining the recreation building for use by the homeowners.  Another common area would be created for access along the Lake.  The remaining land would be divided up into building lots, 4 of which would not meet the minimum lot size of 20,000 sq ft.  The existing driveway would be used for the subdivision access.  The proposal would maintain a lot of the existing tree cover.  The dashed lines on each lot are designated building envelopes (most of them 30’ x 50’), configured so as to maximize views on each lot.  These building envelopes would be specified in the deeds and covenants. 

Mr. Anthony noted that with one small modification to the outlay of the roadway, this plan would not require any front, side or rear yard setback variances.  Two of the lots are approx 11,000 & 12,000 sq ft.  This plan minimizes site disturbance.  They have engineered a stormwater management design for the entire project.  The sewage disposal system, which was design 25% over capacity (designed for 4-bedroom houses), would be located in the open space of the upper common area, where there are 5-6’ of good soils.  DEC issued a SPDES permit for this project this week. 

Under the plan, they intend to maintain public water supply.  The on-site waterline will be replaced.  There will be no modifications to the shoreline or the docks.  A row of evergreens will be planted along the northern property line to re-screen where several existing cottages will be removed.  Atty Krantz added that while this plan would require variances for four of the lots, the overall density is not increasing (from the “as of right” plan).  Stanley Werner (owner of the separate lot within the middle of the subject property) will maintain his deeded rights, which will not change under the proposal. 

Noting the amount of blasting that has recently been occurring at various sites along the lake, M. Nittmann was concerned about the ability of placing a house on Lot 1, as it is fairly steep and seems to consist primarily of ledge rock.  She suggested that a portion of proposed Lot 1 be merged into Lot 2 - so that it meets the 20,000 sq ft minimum lot size - and the remaining land be added to the proposed common land along the Lake.  Atty Krantz noted that one ZBA member had asked them to consider eliminating one of the building lots, a request which they respectfully declined.  Mr. Anthony noted that the Farbaniecs plan to reside within the subdivision, and purposefully selected Lot 1 as their home site.  H. Koster estimated that placing a house on Lot 1 would require blasting down about 10’.  Mr. Anthony felt this depended upon whether a basement would be proposed. 

H. Koster noted that in order for proposed Lot 2 to access the Lakefront common area, they would have to walk up to the cul-de-sac and around back down to the Lake.  P. Kenyon referred to the proposed 10’ wide private driveway(s) accessing 4 of the lots, as shown on the map.  She informed Mr. Anthony that it was the Board’s discretion as to whether to treat this as a driveway or roadway subject to Town specifications.  H. Caldwell was concerned with emergency access.  Mr. Anthony stated that they could widen the proposed driveway and add a hammerhead at the end of it.  They could also add a fire hydrant on site when they replace the community waterline.  The pathway to the common Lakefront area would be upgraded and improved. 

H. Koster noted that it has been the practice of the Board to segment the stormwater management on an individual lot basis, but given the constraints of the property, he asked if the proposed design took into account all roofs, driveways, and other impervious surfaces.  Civil Engineer Clark Wilkinson of the LA Group stated that they accounted for all impervious surfaces, including 90% of the entire proposed building envelopes.  They were particularly conservative in their calculations (storage for 1.5 gal/sq ft of impervious surface) knowing that the flow of runoff is directly into the Lake.  The stormwater plan’s specs meet LGPC requirements.  Atty Krantz noted that the proposed amount of impervious surface under Plan B would be virtually unchanged from what exists.  P. Kenyon asked Mr. Wilkinson if they had designed the stormwater to the Town’s major stormwater specs, because she did not understand how they came up with the calculation of 1.5 gal/sq ft.  Mr. Wilkinson noted that he referred to both the Town and the LGPC regulations and went by the newest LGPC regulations in the design.  He would re-verify his calculations.  P. Kenyon stated that the stormwater calculations would have to be provided for the PB next month. 

Mr. Anthony explained that they had originally hoped to propose a cluster development, but following an interpretation by the ZBA, it was determined that clustering is only allowed in zones that are completely residential.  So, they are proposing this configuration to minimize the impacts on the property while best maintaining the existing open space.

H. Caldwell was concerned about the cul-de-sac configuration.  He felt that proposed Lots 3, 4, 5 & 6 were confined, comparing them to those in the Anchorage subdivision, in which many homes required variances upon expansion.  Atty Krantz stated that one of the concerns of the ZBA was that the maximum footprints of the house sites be incorporated into the covenants and restrictions, and the Applicants are willing to do this.  He noted that Lake George Waterkeeper Chris Navitsky was favorable to the overall design, as was the WCPB. 

H. Koster asked if it was feasible to reconfigure the cul-de-sac to be more like the configuration proposed in Plan A, so as to improve emergency vehicle access.  Mr. Farbaniec stated that they could widen the lower road, which he felt would be less obtrusive than moving the cul-de-sac more toward the Lake.  D. Roessler suggested the cul-de-sac be eliminated and a looped driveway be proposed instead.  P. Kenyon reminded the Board to keep potential setback issues in mind, as other variances may be required by reconfiguring the roadway.  Mr. Anthony would look into the matter and provide a new configuration by Monday’s submission deadline date. 

Again, M. Nittmann asked that one of the lots be eliminated by the Lake, as she was concerned about the effects of blasting.  Mr. Farbaniec stated that they are only 200 sq ft shy of being able to have a tenth lot, and they would not like to eliminate a lot.  Mrs. Farbaniec added that regarding building on Lot 1, they have consulted with three builders, who all felt that blasting may or may not be required, and that Lot 1 was a very good building site.  Atty Krantz stated that the Farbaniecs would be willing to stipulate a walkout (basement) to lessen any amount of blasting that may be required.  H. Koster explained that blasting along the lake has become a concern of many citizens in Town. 

Motion by H. Caldwell to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision (Plan B) to the ZBA, with the modification that a looped roadway is proposed instead of a cul-de-sac, and that the width of the road and the right-of-way are both proposed at 18’ wide.  Seconded by D. Roessler.  5 in favor.  1 (M. Nittmann) opposed.  Motion carried.

Motion by J. Gaddy to table the subdivision application SD03-23 pending the ZBA’s review of the associated variance.  Seconded by M. Nittmann.  All in favor.  Motion carried.

11) SD03-24 ANGEL, MITCHEL.  Seeks to divide into two 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.

Matt Steves explained that the proposal is for a 4-lot subdivision, although the agenda says two lots.  The property lies within three zones, predominately in the RM1.3 and RL3, with a small section along the northerly boundary in the LC25 zone.  One lot will contain the existing house in which Mr. Angel resides.  They intend to use the existing driveway for access off of Route 9N.  They propose a 25’ wide easement with an 18’ wide driving surface coming off of the existing driveway to access the other three lots.  It will have a 12% average grade, with the steepest grade being 15%.  There will be a hammerhead at the very top of the driveway for proposed Lots 1 & 2.  Test pits proved there to be suitable soils and slopes where the proposed septic systems are shown on the map.  For stormwater on the driveway, they propose a stone-lined trench with a series of check dams.  Mr. Steves stated that they are asking the Board to review the access as a driveway, not a road.  They will create a 25’ wide easement where the driveway goes through.  The proposed house sites meet setback requirements and the lots meet minimum lot size requirements.  Mr. Steves estimated the length of the propose driveway to be approx 900’. 

J. Gaddy was concerned about the visibility of the structures from the Lake, especially since the septic locations are proposed in front of the houses (toward the Lake).  Mr. Steves felt that the houses could be moved back a little in order to leave a patch of trees between each structure and the septic field.  They could agree to certain color schemes for the structures.  The Board was concerned with allowing the access to be considered a driveway, since it was accessing 3 lots and had a section that had a 15% grade.  Mr. Steves stated that he could reconfigure it to lessen the grade to 13-14%, adding that building the access to Town road specs would create almost 3 times as much disturbance.  D. Roessler felt that the curves in the road would be wide enough for emergency access.  Mr. Steves stated that the radius of each curve meets the Town road specs, and the grade is fairly flat at the curb cut off Route 9N. 

J. Gaddy asked if Lot 3 could be resubdivided.  P. Kenyon stated that it could be done, as long as the overall density was being met, but doing so would bring it up to a major subdivision.  The Board felt that there would be less impacts by leaving the access as only a driveway.  P. Kenyon stated that she was not familiar with having a driveway as an access to a subdivision, and she asked the Board if they were still going to require a stormwater plan and require that the driveway be constructed prior to the sale of any lots.  H. Koster indicated they would.  Mr. Steves stated that maintenance agreements would be written into the deeds.  He assumes that the first buyer would buy one of the upper lots, and would build the driveway.  P. Kenyon was very concerned about allowing the access to be considered a driveway and wondered how the first buyer would know where to put the driveway.  Mr. Steves stated that he would stake the location out.  P. Kenyon was concerned about there being enough room to accommodate stormwater.  H. Koster estimated the access to be 1,000’ in length.  P. Kenyon told the Board she was not comfortable being responsible for a 1,000’ driveway for a 4-lot subdivision.  Mr. Steves noted that this was only sketch plan and he would provide metes and bounds with a grading plan and other specifications if the Board wanted.  He would specify that the driveway be fully constructed upon the sale of the first lot, and prior to the issuance of a building permit. 

The Board felt that it was Mr. Angel’s responsibility to ensure that the whole driveway is constructed upon the sale of first lot, whether it be one of the upper lots or the lower lot.  Mr. Angel agreed to this.  Counsel asked Mr. Angel what he felt the responsibility of the four lot owners would be as far maintenance of the road.  Mr. Angel thought there would be deeded agreements, but he was uncertain as to how to divide the responsibility up, as the lower lot owners would only be using a small portion of the driveway.  Counsel advised the issue be addressed prior to the Board moving forward. 

Motion by J. Gaddy to table the application so that the applicant can provide the language for the maintenance agreement.  Seconded by M. Nittmann.  All in favor.  Motion carried.

12) SD03-25 ELLIS, PATRICK.  Seeks to amend a previously approved plat, SD02-22, approved by the Planning Board on February 27, 2003, specifically to create an easement  giving lot #4 lake access on lot #5.  Section  185.19, Block 1, Lot 6.1, Zone RCL3.  Property Location: South Trout Lake Road. Sketch Plan Review. Subject to SEQR.

Mr. Ellis explained that he is back due to an oversight on his part.  He originally took various pieces of land and combined them into a 25-acre parcel, from which he divided off 4 lots, retaining a fifth lot for himself.  Three of the lots abut South Trout Lake Road and the fourth lot is accessed off of Trout Lake Retreat Road, having rights to the beach of Trout Lake Retreat.  At the time Mr. Ellis neglected to incorporate enough lake frontage for Lot 4 to have a dock.  Thus, he would like to create a 25’ triangular lakefront easement on his lot for Lot 4 and would like to restrict it to pedestrian access only.

Motion by D. Roessler to amend subdivision SD02-22, previously approved by the Planning Board on February 27, 2003, such that Lot 4 will now have Lake access on Lot 5 in the designated triangular area, for the purpose of allowing the owner of Lot 4 to situation a dock there, and have pedestrian (not vehicular) access to it.  Seconded by M. Nittmann.  5 in favor.  1 (H. Caldwell) opposed.  Motion carried.

13) SD03-26 CASTRO, SAMUEL.  Seeks to amend a previously approved plat, SD84-14, South Farm, approved by the Planning Board on July 5, 1985, specifically to create a lot line adjustment between those parcels designated as Section 156.00, Block 2, Lots 21 & 22, Zones RL3 & RM1.3.  Property Location: 86 South Farm Road.  Subject to SEQR. Sketch Plan Review.

This item was withdrawn at the applicant request.

14) SD02-13 T& R LAKESIDE.  Due to several inquiries from several Planning Board Members, this matter is being placed on the agenda to review the planting plan. Section 213.05, Block 1, Lots 8.1& 8.2.

Mr. Schermerhorn explained that they received a few calls from P. Kenyon over the summer requesting that the landscaping be undertaken according to the approved plan, as she was receiving several calls of concern about the condition of the site.  Mr. Schermerhorn has explained that the site is still under construction, as he began his house in May and has just completed it.  There is still some site work left.  Mr. Farone, owner of the lot to the south, just put in his foundation about 4 weeks ago and is now framing.  Both owners intend on completing the landscaping in accordance with the approved plan, and they have landscape architects and contractors hired to do more than was required.  Part of the problem with the delay is that they have tried to be respectful of the neighbors’ request to not work on weekends and holidays, etc.  Mr. Schermerhorn is not sure he and Mr. Farone are in violation of anything.  They have continued to make sure the silt fence installed at the sites continues to be effective.  H. Koster understood that the planting would not be done until the site work is completed. 

Mr. Schermerhorn went on to explain that when they originally purchased the property, they were going to try to continue running the property as a resort.  However, when they began to fix up the cottages, they discovered they were insect and rodent-infested.  So, they got permits to tear down 7 duplex cottages and 5 lakefront houses, one of which was only 5’ off the property, another overhung the water, and another was only about 5’ from the shore.  They have improved the green space by approx 60%, and have improved the property in general. 

H. Caldwell felt that work has been undertaken that was not part of the original plan, as he thought some of the houses would be remodeled, not removed.  He did not think there would be any blasting.  The property seems to be devoid of vegetation and he wondered if there would be stormwater problems.  Mr. Schermerhorn state that both he and Mr. Farone submitted stormwater plans as part of their zoning compliance permits.  He stated that the original intent was to keep 2 of the houses.  H. Caldwell felt the applicant should have been more straightforward with the Board, even if what they are doing is legal anyway.  Mr. Schermerhorn apologized, saying he understood the Board’s position.  It was not his intention to mislead the Town in any way, but as they got deeper into the project, they found the structures and the septic system to be inadequate.  They were actually supposed to use the existing system, but have since hired an engineer to design new individual systems for each home.  The blasting that they did, which was minimal, was necessary for the foundations and the new septic tanks.  The stormwater provisions have been working very effectively. 

P. Kenyon asked Mr. Schermerhorn to address the amount of trees that were removed.  Mr. Schermerhorn stated that he has aerial photographs of the property.  He noted that there were few trees on the site, but a lot of impervious surface from roofs, driveways, asphalt, etc.  Mr. Schermerhorn stated that they removed roughly 8 trees where they put the new houses in.  P. Kenyon asked the Board try to be aware of the end result when approving projects like this, given the amount of impervious surface they’re starting with.  M. Nittmann wondered if the 20’ setback was being met on both lots, to which P. Kenyon stated it was. 

P. Kenyon stated that she read through the minutes, and in some dialogue it was represented that structures were going to remain, and in other portions it was represented that the structures were going to be rebuilt.  Mr. Steves stated that part of the discussions took place in the early stages, when only the subdivision was being proposed.  As time went on, the applicants developed a plan based on what they found on the property, but in any case, the applicants were subject to the process of obtaining certificates of compliance and building permits for the new structures, which was done.  He did not feel that they mislead the Town, as he did tell the Board during the review process that he expected that some homes would be proposed, although they did not think it would happen for a couple of years.  They were simply prepared to build earlier than expected.  The site will look much better upon completion of construction followed by the planting plan being implemented.  

M. Nittmann wondered about the large hole that was dug.  Mr. Farone stated that they dug this in an effort to keep runoff from entering the Lake.  Mr. Schermerhorn indicated that he would like to put in a swimming pool there.  P. Kenyon noted that they would need only a certificate of compliance and a building permit for the pool.  She informed Mr. Farone that he would have to apply for a variance for the retaining wall that is under construction near the water. 

H. Koster thanked Mr. Schermerhorn and Mr. Farone for coming into speak to the Board.  Mr. Farone stated that he attends a lot of these types of meetings in several municipalities, and he feels this Board handles itself very professionally and that Chairman Koster runs the meetings very well. 

Due to the late hour, the following items were tabled until the December 2003 meeting.

15) Zoning Amendments. Tattoo, Body Piercing, Branding, and Scarification Local Law. To make a recommendation to the Town Board, whereby the proposed amendment would be enacted as a local law. See proposed Local Law dated October 6, 2003.

16) Zoning Amendments. Ordinance for Adult Entertainment Business. To make a recommendation to the Town Board, whereby the proposed amendment would be enacted as a local law. See proposed Local Law dated October 6, 2003.

17)  Zoning Amendments.  To make a recommendation to the Town Board, whereby the following amendments would be made to the Zoning Ordinance.  Definition of Structure Chapter 200-8; Definition of Family Chapter 200-8; Supplementary Regulations/Shoreline Setbacks Chapter 200-37B2; Continuation Chapter 200-56B; and Accessory Use Structure Chapter 200-8.  See proposed revisions dated September 23, 2003.

Meeting adjourned at 12:10 am.

Respectfully submitted by,

Melanie Quigan

Recording Secretary

12/16/03

This site was last updated 05/12/10