Town of Bolton SEQR = State Environmental Quality Review
PLANNING BOARD PB = (Town of Bolton) Planning Board
MINUTES* WCPB = Warren County Planning Board
Thursday, October 21, 2004 APA = Adirondack Park Agency
6:00 p.m. LGPC = Lake George Park Commission
- DEC = Department of Environmental Conservation
*corrected version from minutes filed on 11/17/04
Present: Chairman Herb Koster, Sandi Aldrich, John Gaddy, Chauncey Mason, Mitzi
Nittmann, Don Roessler, Town Counsel Michael Muller
Absent: Henry Caldwell
H. Koster announced that Item #4 would not be heard this evening. He asked if there were any corrections to the September minutes. Counsel noted that there was a discussion not reflected in the minutes wherein it was suggested that the Board would required the delineation of clearing limits on all site plan review projects in front of the Board. J. Gaddy recalled that this was a recommendation by Town Engineer Tom Nace.
Motion by J. Gaddy to amend the September 16, 2004 to include that per Town Engineer Tom Nace’s recommendation, all site plan review applications and house siting applications will include the delineation of the clearing limits as part of the policy of the Town and Planning Board starting with BOZZONE SPR04-29. Disturbance limits are to be staked out in advance of the Planning Board meeting at which their application is heard. This will apply only to site plan review applications, not subdivision applications. Seconded by D. Roessler. All in favor. Motion carried.
Motion by D. Roessler to approve the September 16, 2004 minutes as amended. Seconded C. Mason. All in favor. Motion carried.
1) SPR04-29 BOZZONE, JOSEPH & JANE. To discuss Planning Board’s concerns when visiting the site which read as follows: 1) Do the disturbed limits shown in the field represent the area to be cleared, 2) How will stormwater be dealt with in the valley area, 3) Can the two Oak trees and one Maple tree located in the area shown to be disturbed be saved, and 4) The amount of clearing appears to exceed the 20’ allowed around the foundation. Section 212.04, Block 2, Lot 7, Zone LC25. Property Location: Diamond Ridge Subdivision off of Route 9N. South of Coolidge Hill Road. This application was for the construction of a single-family dwelling in the LC25 zone.
Regarding concerns over clearing, Mr. Tennent explained that they have marked the disturbance limits as requested by the Board last month. He believes there was some confusion among the Board about what the stakes in the field signified. Specifically, Mr. Tennent noted that he marked a line where the silt fence would be place, as he thought this would be considered part of the overall disturbance. He noted that this does not mean they will be clearing everything within the silt fence area.
J. Gaddy was concerned that some stakes were placed beyond the 20’ maximum clearing limit around the house foundation. He was concerned about visual impacts from the Lake, especially if there is any blasting. Mr. Tennent noted that they plan to cut only the trees necessary to be able to do what they need to, while adhering to the 20’ clearing limit as much as possible. He noted that this is a very large piece of property and the overall impact to the piece of property, in relationship to the 175-acre subdivision with 18 lots, is minimal. He added that even if all the trees were cleared in the allowable areas (septic, driveway and 20’ around the house foundation), it would still be filtered visually. Mr. Tennent noted that they have all their permit applications submitted and they would like to move forward, as time is limited due to the weather. J. Gaddy expressed continued concern about making sure nothing is cleared outside the 20’ clearing limit, to which Mr. Tennent offered to provide a certified plot plan verifying the house location and indicating what was cleared. J. Gaddy referred to Apple Hill, a development off of Horicon Avenue done several years ago, where he feels replanting requirements were never met.
M. Nittmann was concerned with erosion along the bank from clearing, and J. Gaddy wanted to know how the Board could be sure nothing is cleared beyond the 20’ limitation around the foundation. Mr. Tennent felt that the intended clearing is well documented, and he noted that the applicants are being delayed because they were willing to work with the Board on an afterthought requirement. He further stated that they just built a mile long road exactly to requirements and he has not removed a single tree in association with the applicants’ project. He felt the applicants were being held to a different standard than a similar application (in the same zoning district) that was on the agenda the previous month, for which permits were issued without having to go through the requirements this application has had to.
Mr. Tennent stated, as he did the previous month, that he would stay within the 20’ limit as much as possible, noting that some of the machinery is 20’ in length, and the Board would be hard-pressed to find any project that totally stayed within that limit. He asked if the intent of that regulation was to maintain large trees outside of the 20’ area or that there is to be absolutely no encroachment beyond the 20’. J. Gaddy felt that latter was the intent. H. Koster disagreed, noting that excavating and backfilling cannot be done within only 20’ of a building. He stated that the idea is to save as many large trees as possible. Mr. Tennent agreed with this, saying that the matter is also addressed within the stormwater permit.
Regarding concern #2 (stormwater in the valley area to the north), Mr. Tennent noted that this valley is along the property line of the next lot. He noted that they have made the setbacks requirements within this subdivision stricter than those required by the Town and there is no intent for development in this area. Regarding the third concern, J. Tennent did not foresee a problem with keeping the 2 oak trees and 1 maple tree.
M. Nittmann asked Mr. Tennent if he planned to start the project right away. Mr. Tennent indicated he did. M. Nittmann noted that H. Caldwell has voiced a concern that construction on the road be complete prior to the individual lots being developed, and she asked if this was possible. Mr. Tennent responded that it was not, adding that this was not a requirement of subdivision approval for this lot and the road is adequate to begin this project. He did note that there was a condition of approval placed on the subdivision that only applied to Lots 1-15 (of which this is not) that stated no CO’s would be issued prior to the subdivision road being completed.
Mr. Tennent again referred to the item on last month’s agenda (MOECKER SPR04-25), which he felt was not addressed to this much detail, adding that permits were issued prior to stormwater and other requirements being met, as the file will reflect. He also felt that the Moecker project, which is located in Lake Winds Subdivision, was far more visible (from the Lake) than the Bozzone project. H. Koster noted that this Board had nothing to do with the Moecker project starting when it did. Mr. Tennent stated that he was not directing his comments toward this Board.
Prior to the following motion, Counsel addressed each of the 4 concerns individually with the Board.
Motion by J. Gaddy to approve the disturbance limits for SPR04-29 as shown on the map and staked out at the site with the following conditions: 1) regarding concern #4, disturbance will be held to a minimum around the house building site, keeping in mind that there is a 20’ maximum clearing regulation around the foundation that may be encroached upon to allow (construction) machinery to maneuver; 2) regarding concern #2 (stormwater in the valley area), this will not pertain, as stormwater management will not be necessary in that area as per this application, as there is no construction proposed there; 3) regarding concern #3, the 2 oak trees and the maple tree will be saved if at all possible; and 4) regarding concern #1, the map detailing the location of the silt fence (shown in orange) is made a part of the file/record to distinguish the silt fence line from the disturbance lines. It is understood that not all of the vegetation will be cleared within the silt fence area shown. This approval is made in acknowledgement of the previous SEQR approval and site plan review approval pertinent to Section 200-31, granted on September 16, 2004 under SPR04-29. Seconded by D. Roessler. All in favor. Motion carried.
2) SPR04-24 WATERHOUSE, LAWRENCE & TINA. Represented by Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers and Tom Frost of Frost Architecture. To review the planting plan as per the condition of approval set forth by the Planning Board on July 22, 2004 when approving the major stormwater plan for the construction of a single-family dwelling. Section 186.07, Block 1, Lot 4. Zone RM1.3 & RCH5000. Property Location: 4838 Lake Shore Drive.
Michael O’Connor, Esq. and Peter David of the LA Group represented this application.
Mr. O’Connor stated that the trees that will be planted are substantial. Mr. David explained that they are utilizing indigenous plants, including pines, maples and birch ranging from 8-14’ in height and 3” in caliber. He noted that the plan he was presenting was a revised version of the drawings the Board had. Atty O’Connor stated that they revised the drawings (to show more plantings to the north and south of the guesthouse) as a result of conversations with P. Kenyon, who indicated that the Board might require more plantings than originally proposed. He added that this area was pretty much open 40-50’ out to the Lake before anything was done, and they will need to do some grading for stormwater.
J. Gaddy noted that while the area may have been cleared 40’ back from the Lake, it was wooded behind that, including in the area of the house site. Atty O’Connor stated that the woods pretty much began where the foundation is proposed. He indicated on the map where there were some isolated trees that had been taken down because they were hollow. Atty O’Connor presented drawings taken by Mr. Frost in November 2003, prior to any clearing being done. He reviewed the tree planting plan, as listed on drawing L-2, adding that there will be ground cover also. C. Mason acknowledged the plantings on the sides and in back of the house, but felt there should be more plantings in front to screen it from the Lake. Atty O’Connor noted that when they were in front of the ZBA, they agreed not to disturb any trees to the south of the road going down to the point. H. Koster noted that when the applicant was in front of the PB, this area, as well as the area to the west of the house, had been thinned out.
Mr. David stated that they could field locate some trees to break up the roofline. When asked to plant 3 deciduous trees and shrubbery, Atty O’Connor indicated that the applicant would likely agree to planting the trees, but probably not the shrubbery, noting the house will be finished in stone. He added that had they proposed a more compliant location further away from the Lake, it would have been far more visible. D. Roessler suggested 3 shrubs to the north and south of the patio.
Counsel read a letter from Julie Martin of the LGA who was concerned with maintaining vegetation and stormwater runoff. Mr. David noted that this letter referred to the original plan, which has been revised to address these types of concerns. Atty O’Connor agreed to plant shrubbery on the north and south corners of the house (toward the Lake), as well as plant 3 trees with a beginning height of 10’ between the house and the Lake.
S. Aldrich asked about the cutting regulations within 35’ of the shoreline, referred to in the letter from the LGA. H. Koster does not believe this regulation was violated. Counsel referred to this section (§200-37B1a), noting that it is to prevent clearing, not require an applicant to plant.
Motion by J. Gaddy to accept the planting plan for site plan review application SPR04-24 as presented with the following conditions: 1) the plan submitted on the map labeled F-3 (dated 10/21/04) will include a minimum of 3 deciduous trees with a minimum height of 10’ to break up the expanse between the proposed house location and the lakefront. These trees are to be field-sited and a record of where they were planted will be submitted to the Planning Office for the file; and 2) a number of native-type shrubs are to be planted at the consultants’ discretion to soften up the building line as it appears from the Lake. This approval is made in acknowledgement of the previous SEQR approval and site plan review approval pertinent to 200-31 for SPR04-24. Seconded by D. Roessler. All in favor. Motion carried.
3) SPR04-34 VANLEEUWEN, HANK & ELIZABETH ANN. Represented by Chris Gabriels. To alter existing dock, seek Type II Site Plan Review for a land use within 250’ of the Lake George shoreline. Section 156.12, Block 1, Lot 8, Zone RCL3. Property Location: 59 Indian Brook Drive. Subject to SEQR. Subject to WCPB review.
Mr. Gabriels stated this involved a pre-existing 4’ x 100’ dock, onto which they propose to add an 8’ x 38 “L” addition, which meets all rules and regulations. Mr. Gabriels indicated that the depth if the water is approximately 16” at the deepest spot. There are no plans for lighting. The WCPB determined no County impact. The Board had no concerns with the application meeting the criteria of Section 200-31 or C1-C7 of the SEQR form.
Motion by D. Roessler to accept the application as complete, waive a public hearing, make a negative declaration, and grant final approval as presented. Seconded by M. Nittmann. All in favor. Motion carried.
4) SPR04-35 VAJ Inc., LLC. Represented by Joe Pfau, P.E. In accordance with Chapter 125.13C1 of the stormwater regulations, seeks Type II Site Plan Review for a major project, specifically to remove more than 15,000 square feet of vegetation. Section 140.00, Block 1, Lots 1 & 3, Zones RL3 & LC25. Property Location: Valley Woods Road and County Route 11. Subject to SEQR. Subject to WCPB review. This application is in conjunction with a subdivision to be known as Valley Woods Subdivision (SD04-27).
This item was tabled at the applicant’s request.
5) 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.
Mr. McCarthy explained that the proposal is for a single-family dwelling. The structure is 36’ x 43’ and meets all setbacks, and was rotated slightly to meet the 50’ setback from the stream. The house will be finished in cultured stone at the base, with a neutral color vinyl siding. He noted that there is a deeded parking area (shown incorrectly on one of the maps) that is dedicated to the property toward the east. The McCarthys plan on erecting a fence between their home site and this parking area. The driveway entrance will run alongside the parking area. There are 2 sheds on the property, one of which will be removed, as it is dilapidated and sits right on the property line. They tried to design their house to fit in with the surrounding homes.
Regarding stormwater, S. Aldrich noted that the plan accounts for the structure, but not the driveway. Mr. McCarthy indicated that he would likely not pave the driveway now, so would prefer to address the stormwater at a later date. He noted that the house would have a gutter system that would direct runoff to the back of the house, toward the stream. WCPB determined no County impact. H. Koster noted that the applicant would definitely have to come back for additional stormwater review if a paved driveway was proposed in the future. It appeared to M. Nittmann that the stormwater was being directed uphill according to the plan. H. Koster noted that this depended on how the grass swale was shaped.
M. Nittmann noted that the maps were inconsistent, as the existing parking area was shown in conflicting locations on some maps, and not shown on others. Regarding stormwater, Counsel advised the Board to be consistent, as they made a determination years ago that crushed stone is considered impervious, and must be accounted for in stormwater calculations. Mr. McCarthy stated that he would like to get started on the project, and if there was a problem with the driveway, he would not propose one at this time. He indicated they would just use the existing parking area for their driveway, but Counsel noted that these parking spaces are dedicated to the neighboring property, so therefore could not be used by the applicant. Mr. McCarthy responded that the existing pavement extends all the way over to about 10’ from the westerly property line, and he suspects there is enough room for 8 cars. Counsel noted that none of the maps indicated this.
M. Nittmann requested an accurate map showing whether there would be a driveway or not or if the existing parking area would be utilized, and the appropriate stormwater. Mr. McCarthy asked the Board if they were requiring him to account for stormwater on the pre-existing impervious surface. H. Koster indicated this was the case, as the applicant was changing the property (adding impervious surface). The Board felt that the surveyor/engineer knows what the Board requires, as he has been involved in many applications reviewed by this Board. Mr. McCarthy asked the Board if he could get an approval contingent upon his providing an adequate stormwater plan next month, so that they may get started on getting building permits before winter sets in. H. Koster didn’t feel there was a problem doing so, but he left it up to the Board to decide.
M. Nittmann wondered if there needed to be a note on the mylar specifying the deeded easement. Mr. McCarty stated that it is already in the deeds. J. Gaddy felt that the Board could grant a contingency approval on this particular project because it was not complex, but he added that he would not like to do so on many other projects. M. Nittmann felt it was important to have a map that accurately depicted all aspects of the proposal.
J. Gaddy began to make a motion to accept the application but deem it incomplete, listing what additional information he would like submitted as follows: an accurate map showing the correct location of the driveway, the existing deeded parking spaces dedicated to the adjacent property to the east, and an adequate stormwater design that works with the existing soils and incorporates both the driveway and house. He asked the Board if they had any concerns with Section 200-31 or SEQR. Counsel interrupted and explained that the Board cannot consider Section 200-31 or SEQR without the inclusion of an accurate stormwater plan. He asked J. Gaddy if his intent was to allow Mr. McCarthy to get his building permits, but return at the next PB meeting for his stormwater. He indicated this was accurate. Counsel did not believe that P. Kenyon would approve of this. M. Nittmann felt that Mr. Tennent would also contest this, as it is not correct procedure. Counsel agreed, saying that while he does not want to prevent the applicant from getting started, he is not completely comfortable with this type of conditional approval.
J. Gaddy again indicated he would not be opposed to the Board granting a contingent approval on this project so that the applicant could begin the permit process, noting that it is not complex, the setbacks are being met and the soils seem to be good. Zoning Clerk M. Quigan advised the Board that P. Kenyon would likely not issue permits until such time that she had all the stormwater, septic and house information, as is her practice. Counsel agreed, and advised the Board not to move in this direction. Mr. McCarthy again stated his concern with waiting too long, given the change in weather. Counsel felt that the engineer put the applicant in a poor position, as he knows what the Boards require. J. Gaddy rescind his motion and made the following motion.
Motion by J. Gaddy to table the application pending further information as follows: an accurate map showing the location of the driveway, the materials that the driveway will be constructed of, parking spaces (required for the adjacent property), and a complete stormwater design, as discussed. Seconded by S. Aldrich. All in favor. Motion carried.
6) SPR04-33 COSTAS, JOHN. Represented by Atty Michael O’Connor & Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. In accordance with Chapter 125.13C1 of the stormwater regulations, seeks Type II Site Plan Review for a major project, specifically to remove more than 15,000 square feet of vegetation. Type II Site Plan Review is also required for an accessory structure (garage) containing more than 1,500 square feet of floor space. Section 186.19, Block 1, Lot 3, Zones RM1.3. Property Location: 112 Homer Point Road. Subject to SEQR. Subject to WCPB review.
John Mason of Sunsoval also represented this application.
Atty O’Connor explained that there was some confusion about the extent of the project, specifically that this was going to be a teardown and rebuild, which is only the case for the garage. The main house and guesthouse will only be altered. On the main house, they will add about 2’ to one patio, and add a 10’ x 20’ screened porch. They will also change the roofline. There will be no site disturbance in this area, other than for the patio and porch.
As for the guesthouse, there will be no disturbance between the front of this structure and the Lake. There will be a 9’ x 22’ addition put on toward the rear of the structure, away from the Lake. Atty O’Connor stated that the project probably doesn’t require a major stormwater permit, although they designed the stormwater to major specifications. The existing garage does not meet setbacks, but is being moved to a compliant location. It will not be visible from the Lake. Atty O’Connor indicated that the neighbors to the north (Defliese) provided a letter stating they had no objections. The main house is going from 5 bedrooms down to 4, and the guesthouse is going from 2 bedrooms 3. A new septic system will be installed for the guesthouse.
Atty O’Connor noted that they did a full-scale engineered stormwater plan for a major project, as though it was a virgin site (as was suggested by the LG Waterkeeper), to the capacity to handle the entire site for the 10-yr storm and almost for the 25-yr storm. All of the new impervious surface will be accommodated on-site.
Atty O’Connor indicated that no new construction on the main house will further encroach upon the setbacks than what currently exists. He added that they would agree to be responsible for anything that happens to the tree hedge between this and the property to the south. Atty O’Connor indicated that the 4 trees in a cluster on the northeast corner of the main house will not be disturbed.
Referencing a letter of concern re: the septic for the main house, M. Nittmann asked if there had ever been any problems with it, or if it needed to be upgraded. Atty O’Connor stated that they have had no problems with the system and it functions well, adding that it currently serves 5 bedrooms, but will serve 4 in the future. M. Nittmann noted that the new garage would have a large game room and a bathroom, which she felt could be considered living space. Atty O’Connor indicated that it would be hooked into the new system for the guesthouse. Mr. Jarrett explained that the 2 systems on the property are sized for a total of 7 bedrooms, which is the total number of bedrooms there are in the structures. Mr. Jarrett stated that they are accommodating all the wastewater on the site in these 2 systems, but if the Board preferred, they would size the new system for an additional bedroom.
Atty O’Connor indicated that the plantings shown along the south side of the driveway represent what is proposed, not what exists. S. Aldrich asked why they were not adding on to the garage in its current location. Atty O’Connor indicated that doing so would have required another variance, so they instead decided to move it to a compliant location. He indicated that the hedge line along Homer Point Road would remain. It was noted that approximately 15 trees would have to be removed for the new septic system and new garage location, and the proposed landscaping would not interfere with the new septic system.
Regarding lighting, Mr. Mason indicated that all of the structures would have subtle coach lights and there will be some floodlights for security purposes. M. Nittmann asked if the very large tree in the middle of the property would be staying. Regarding the Board’s concerns over the septic system and trees, Mr. Mason stated that they would design the septic to whatever size the Board requires, and will position it so that the least amount of trees will be removed, adding that there is no proposal to remove any trees between the structure and the Lake.
The Board did not feel the stormwater plan needed to be reviewed by Town Engineer Tom Nace. Mr. Jarrett stated that he was conservative in his disturbance calculations, so he designed the stormwater as a major, even though they could keep it below the 15,000 sq ft threshold. H. Koster wanted to be sure that the motion reflected that the main house and guesthouse were being modified, not replaced, as indicated on drawing C-1.
The WCPB determined there was no County impact.
The Board had no concerns with Section 200-31 or C1-C7 of the SEQR for.
Motion by J. Gaddy to approve the application as complete, waive a public hearing, make a negative declaration and approve the site plan as presented with the condition that the drawing labeled C-1 is modified to reflect that the main house and the guesthouse are pre-existing structures that are being modified (not demolished and replaced), and the garage is a new structure (specifically the existing garage will be removed and a new garage will be constructed in a location compliant with setbacks), as discussed. It is noted that the septic system capacity for the guest cottage is being increased to accommodate 4 bedrooms (from 3 to 4). Seconded by D. Roessler. All in favor. Motion carried.
7) 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 three lots going from north to south as Lots A-1, A-2, and A-3. She explained that the proposal is to change the lot lines such that Lot A-3, the lot on which she resides, will go from 3.79 acres to 3.48 acres, Lot A-2 will go from 4.94 acres to 4.45 acres and A-1 will go from 3.68 acres to 4.48. Each lot meets the minimum road frontage requirements (100’). The original right-of-way was 50’ wide and went right through her existing septic field, which is located on Lot A-2. Mrs. Straney proposes to relocate the right-of-way to the west of its current as shown on the previously approved plat, and make it 10’ narrower so that it is 40’ wide. She also proposes to install a new septic system on Lot A-3 (to be used for her existing home), in an area where test pits were done and previously approved by the Board. She would like to keep the current septic on Lot A-2, as it would be feasible for a future owner to use this system. However, there were test pits done on this lot that indicate a new system could be put in on the other side of the right-of-way.
Counsel noted that because this is a change to a major subdivision, a public hearing must be scheduled. H. Koster asked if this map had to have all the other requirements for a major subdivision, including contour lines. Counsel noted that there were some sections in the code that read “unless otherwise agreed”, indicating the Board had some latitude.
Motion by J. Gaddy to accept the application as complete, convert the sketch plan to preliminary and schedule a public hearing for 6:00 pm on November 18, 2004. Seconded by M. Nittmann. All in favor. Motion carried.
On other business, Counsel noted that the Town Board approved a recent amendment to the Bolton Code that will allow the PB to create some criteria for architectural review for site plan review projects. The TB suggested that the PB meet with Lisa Nagel of ELAN to begin working on the criteria.
Motion by J. Gaddy that in compliance with Town Board Resolution #222 (amendment to Zoning Ordinance §200-53 Architectural Review), the Town utilizes Lisa Nagel of ELAN to hold workshops with the Planning Board in an effort to create criteria for architectural review, so that the Board can implement the new section of the Code §200-53C. Seconded by M. Nittmann. All in favor. Motion carried.
Counsel noted that the Town received the “Wright’s Farm As-builts & Stormwater Revisions” by engineer Dennis Dickinson, a copy of which has been submitted to Town Engineer Tom Nace. Regarding the PB’s motion on Wright’s Farm Subdivision last month that prohibits the presentation or sale of any lots, Counsel noted that the Town received building applications from one of the lot owners. Counsel believes permits should not be issued until such time the subdivision is in compliance (stormwater). Apparently these lot owners were told that they only needed to do a minor stormwater plan, but Counsel noted that as part of recent litigation brought against the Town, stormwater for all lots within a major subdivision must be done to major stormwater specifications. M. Nittmann thought that Mr. Ronning had represented that the original stormwater plan for Wright’s Farm included the house sites, driveways and the subdivision road. H. Koster did not think so. J. Gaddy wondered how the Board should handle other developments Mr. Ronning proposes, when there have been many questions about the representations he has made on Wright’s Farm, which is still not in compliance. Counsel indicated that the Board must take each application on its own merits.
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.
Counsel referred to a letter from Ronning, Inc requesting the Board give a 1-month extension of the approval for Eagle Park, which is a 3-lot subdivision scheduled to expire on October 23, 2004. He is asking for this extension so that the Town of Bolton can vote on the purchase of (a portion of) this land on November 2, 2004. Counsel noted that there was also a memo from Supervisor Gabriels making the same request. Counsel suggested the Board grant a 60-day extension, because in the event that vote passes, he will need time to draft documents for the Town to purchase the land.
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm.
Respectfully submitted by,
Melanie Quigan
Recording Secretary
11/18/04