PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
April 27, 2016
Chairman Ian Murray called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Planning Clerk Linda McCabe called the roll: Chairman Ian Murray present, Laurie
Griffen present, Patrick Hanehan present, Robert McConnell present, Joseph
Lewandowski present, Brandon Myers present, George Olsen - present, Alternate Christopher Koval - present.
Also attending: Town Engineer Ken Martin, Roger Sharp, Karen Hess, Brendan O'Hara, Libby Coreno, Jim Vianna, Kevin Hastings, Jeff Mancini, Kenneth Ayers, Gary Squires, Linda Macica, Maribeth Macica, Terri Korb, Kathleen Miller, Edith Rubinson, Justin Grassi, Tom Yannios, James Sasko, Jan & Marc Limesi, Marianna Jansen and other interested persons.
(Sign-in sheet is on file in the Clerks office)
Public Hearing for Special Use Permit
Roger Sharp #13-12
S/B/L 168.-2-35 Rural
Returning Applicant seeks to obtain a Special Use Permit for his High Peaks Sound home industry business.
Roger Sharp addressed the Board and stated he appreciated the Board's patience in this matter and that he finds it difficult running his own business, finding time to spend with your family and dealing with important matters and giving them the time and effort it deserves to come to a resolution that is positive for everybody. He said he told Zoning Officer Gil Albert his long term plan is to buy a property and build a warehouse on a location that does not impact surrounding neighbors. He asked for a 3 year special use permit to continue running his business where he is right now so it doesn't become a financial burden to his family, employees or customers.
Chairman Ian Murray stated the Board has been visiting this for 3 years. He asked if there were any questions from the Board; there were none.
Chairman Ian Murray opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m., asking those wishing to speak to please stand and state their name and address:
Frank Narrett, 366 Burgoyne Rd., addressed the Board and stated that Mr. Sharp has expanded his business, but he has no issue with this.
Peter Grassi, 394 Burgoyne Rd., addressed the Board and stated he is most affected by Mr. Sharp's business. The truck lights are in the windows of his house morning and night, there's 5 - 6 vehicles in the Sharp's driveway as well as the trucks. He had complained to Zoning Officer Gil Albert about the noise of the trucks due to the backup beeping signals; Mr. Sharp's turned off the signals, but he has small children and he is now concerned for their safety with those signals turned off. He said that everything the Sharp's have is situated on only 1 acre of his 2+/- acres; the house, the large building for his business, the swing set, his chicken coop and the trucks. It's been an ongoing issue with the noise and lights for years. This operation is very, very close to his home and asked the Board to deny this.
Karen Hess, 391 Burgoyne Rd., addressed the Board and stated she's not bothered by the noise or lights as she is further away than Mr. Grassi, so she supports the business.
Chairman Ian Murray asked if there were any further questions or comments; seeing none,
Chairman Ian Murray closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Chairman Ian Murray then read the findings of the Saratoga County Planning Board:
"Received from the Town of Saratoga Planning Board on February 17, 2016.
Reviewed by the Saratoga County Planning Board on March 17, 2016.
Comment: This special use permit is not a referable application under GML 239, however, the Saratoga County Planning Board reviewed the material submitted by the Town and has the following comments to offer. It is the opinion of the County Planning Board that unless it is expressly written in the Town of Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance that the outdoor storage of scaffolding and trucks is not allowed in the Rural zoning district then that should not be considered as a condition to approve or deny the special use permit. Given the rural character of Burgoyne Road and surrounding properties the County Planning Board does not feel that this type of outdoor storage negatively impacts the neighborhood character which is one of the criteria for issuing special use permits. The town may wish to ask the applicant if the scaffolding can be stored on the opposite side of the garage."
Laurie Griffen read the short form EAF, line by line, which was completed by the Board.
Robert McConnell stated with question #3, there is a definite impact - may be small/moderate, but the impact is there. The Board agreed.
Chairman Ian Murray then read a Resolution to deny the Special Use Permit, as follows:
Resolution Disapproving High Peaks Sound Special Use Permit, April 27, 2016
WHEREAS, High Peaks Sound, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Applicant", by application dated January 13, 2015 (as revised), seeks a special use permit to operate a "home industry" at 386 Burgoyne Road in the Town of Saratoga,
WHEREAS, the Applicant duly appeared before the Saratoga Town Planning Board, hereinafter referred to as "Board" for pre-application conferences on October 23, 2015, November 18, 2015 and April 27, 2016 at which input and information from the Applicant was received, and
WHEREAS, members of the Board have visited the proposed site, and
Whereas, a legally noticed public hearing on said application was held on April 27, 2016, at which public comment was received, and
WHEREAS, the Board has received written materials concerning the application as follows:
v Various correspondence from the Applicant
v Various correspondence from neighboring property owners
v Photographs of the subject premises
v Survey by Jason M. Tommell, PLS, dated August 1, 2014
v EAF from Applicant dated February 1, 2015
v Survey by Van Duesen & Steves, PLS, dated November 3, 2015
v Written submission by Attorney Stefanie Bitter dated November 3, 2015
v Correspondence from Saratoga County Planning Board dated March 18, 2016
WHEREAS, the following review and consideration of all of the above, and pursuant Section 400-32 (B) (4) of the Zoning Law, the Board finds as follows:
v Applicant has proposed to operate a sound equipment business on his property involving the trucking, storage and maintenance of such equipment.
v Applicant proposes to park, operate and maintain two large (24' and 36') box trucks on the premises.
v Applicant has not demonstrated that the use is reasonably necessary to provide social, cultural, or economic amenities for existing and future residents of the zoning district.
v The subject premises is surrounded on all sides by lots containing (or approved for) single family dwellings. The proposed use will have a negative effect on these existing adjacent land uses due to excessive noise issues and unsightliness resulting from the outside parking of large commercial trucks and storage of business equipment.
v Proposed off-street parking facilities for Applicant's family, the business vehicles and employees are insufficient.
v the proposed use does not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance as to "home industry" in the following respects:
1. The use is not "carried on by the Applicant's family" as the business regularly employs at least two employees, and at times additional hires.
2. The use is not "carried on wholly within a building or structure accessory to the principal building (residence)" as large business vehicles will be parked outside.
It is therefore,
RESOLVED, by the Planning Board of the Town of Saratoga, that the application of High Peaks Sound, Inc. for a Special Use Permit is hereby denied.
Roll Call Vote of the Board: Chairman Ian Murray - deny the request, Laurie Griffen - deny,
Robert McConnell - deny, Joseph Lewandowski - deny, Brandon Myers - deny, Patrick Hanehan - deny, George Olsen - deny, Alternate Chris Koval - deny. Carried 8 - 0
Chairman Ian Murray added this application has been denied and the Applicant now needs to contact Zoning Officer Gil Albert and he can tell the Applicant the necessary steps he needs to take.
Continued Public Hearing for Minor Subdivision
Brendan O'Hara #16-03 Representative: M. Elizabeth Coreno, Attorney
121 Cahill Rd. 480 Broadway, Suite 250
Stillwater, NY 12170 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
S/B/L 207.-1-36.1 Rural
Returning Applicant seeks to subdivide his 33.36+/-acre parcel into two lots; Lot 1 is to be 11.083+/- acres with the existing single family home and Lot 2 is to be 22.279+/- acres which the Applicant intends to sell.
Attorney M. Elizabeth (Libby) Coreno appeared on behalf of the Applicant, stating John Kenny was with her. She reviewed the application, the information of last month's meeting as well as the map she had submitted last month, adding the water notes will be on the mylar. She stated she had spoken with Town Attorney William Reynolds and she is asking for approval of the minor subdivision.
Chairman Ian Murray asked the Board if they had any questions in regard to the memo from Town Attorney William Reynolds; there were none.
Chairman Ian Murray reconvened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m., which was opened at the March 13, 2016 meeting, asking those wishing to speak to please stand and state their name and address:
Mr. Kenneth Ayers, Attorney, 50 West Grand St., Palantine Bridge, NY, stated he was there on behalf of his clients, Mr. & Mrs. Lautenberg, neighbor of Mr. O'Hara and apologized for them not being present. He requested that his documents become part of the file and handed a folder to the Clerk. He reviewed last month's meeting, acknowledged the soil engineering and the lot-line adjustment to provide more frontage, but said the frontage should be 300' with 5 acres or more. After a lengthy speech insisting the land is to remain agriculture, he read from the 2000 minutes that stated "Representative David Harper returned from last month with a revised application for a two lot subdivision. Parcel A will consist of 59.971 acres which includes a two story house with attached garage and barn on the property and parcel B consists of 42.712 acres. Parcel B will be for agriculture use only. They may return at a later date to change this restriction." He stated his clients are against this and asked the Board to deny this application.
Chairman Ian Murray stated that what Attorney Mr. Ayers read aloud is exactly what is before them. The Applicant is back before the Board to change this to a single residence. The note Mr. Ayers speaks of was a plat note, which can be changed; it is not a deed restriction.
Mr. Ayers vehemently disagreed, stating that Miligi gave the Lautenberg's the map and it cannot be changed; no one can change it because the Lautenberg's are invested.
Patrick Hanehan requests counsel at the next meeting; he also stated a house has already been built on that land, so hasn't precedent been set?
Chairman Ian Murray responded that is correct.
Attorney Mr. Ayers said in response to a precedent being set with the house built there; it wasn't subdivided. It was a code enforcement error issuing the building permit. It does not create a vested right. His clients are not asking for Mr. O'Hara to tear down his house, but he believes legally they can do so under the law.
Chairman Ian Murray responded that Attorney Mr. Ayers has researched it and certainly knows he can Article 78 this as well.
Attorney Libby Coreno asked if she might speak to some of Attorney Mr. Ayers comments and Chairman Ian Murray replied yes, but to please wait a moment.
Chairman Ian Murray then asked if anyone else would like to speak; no one spoke.
Chairman Ian Murray closed the Public Hearing at 8:05 p.m. He then said as a representative for Mr. O'Hara, Attorney Libby Coreno can certainly speak to the Board.
Attorney Libby Coreno stated she knows the Board does not want this meeting to turn into a trial, so from her understanding of what Attorney Mr. Ayers read of the 2000 minutes, the restriction should be carried forth onto the proposed Lot 2. The reality is that Attorney Mr. Ayers commented on the real property law, but not its full extension. If there is a belief that a covenant inside a deed, or something in the public record, that was to give adequate notice - did not provide notice, those rights are private property rights to be addressed between the buyer and the seller in the Supreme Court. The Planning Board is completely without authority to resolve private property rights and should not do so. She said they stand ready and able to defend Mr. O'Hara on any claim that the Lautenberg's have in Supreme Court, whether that be a vested rights issue, whether that be the fact that his clients do or do not have unclean hands for watching a building go up twice - once being a house and twice being a swimming pool, which they knew not to be agricultural use. And so she questioned if the Applicant has now met the discretion of the Board, in rolling back the 2000 restriction as it was noted in the minutes, because it has twice been not observed and the home and pool were built in full knowledge and view of the Lautenberg's. She thanked the Board.
Laurie Griffen read the short form EAF, line by line, which was completed by the Board.
Approved With Conditions
Public Hearing for Minor Subdivision
TISA Development #16-05 Representative: James Vianna, PLS
Lisa Breen 170 Lohnes Rd.
117 Chelsea Dr. Stillwater, NY 12170
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
S/B/L 207.-1-36.1 Rural
Location: Haas Rd.
Returning Applicant seeks a two lot subdivision of a 9+/- acre parcel, located on Haas Rd. Lot 1 (4A) is to be 4.85+/-acres and Lot 2 (4B) is to be 5.63+/- acres.
Jim Vianna, PLS, appeared on behalf of the Applicant. He reviewed the Applicant's application as well as last month's meeting, stated it is a 10.5 acre parcel to be subdivided into 2 lots. Survey is complete, soil engineering is complete and both lots will have raised systems, there's plenty of sight distance, and level grade on the road.
Chairman Ian Murray stated Jim Vianna did a great job as always and asked if there were any Board questions; there were none.
Chairman Ian Murray opened the Public Hearing at 8:13 p.m., asking those wishing to speak to please stand and state their name and address. Seeing as no one spoke, Chairman Ian Murray closed the Public Hearing at 8:14 p.m.
Laurie Griffen read the short form EAF, line by line, which was completed by the Board.
Approved With Condition
Sketch Plan for Major Subdivision Conference
John Witt, Witt Construction #15-05 Current Owners: Bethesda Episcopal Church
563 N. Broadway 41 Washington St.
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
S/B/L 193.-1-17, 193.-1-18, 193.18-1-55 Lake Residential, Mr. John Witt
Rural District II, Rural District Mr. Emory Waldrip
Location: 142 Cedar Bluff Rd. (Co. Rd. 71)
Returning Applicant seeks to subdivide three parcels, with a total of 113.70+/- acres, into a major subdivision.
Kevin Hastings and Jeff Mancini appeared before the Board on behalf of the Applicant. Kevin Hastings handed out updates to the Board of the 35 lot plan layout and statistics. He then reviewed Board concerns of the last meeting and proceeded to respond to those concerns, comment by comment:
1. Proposed Road Profile & Cross Sections - he said they provided two. Chairman Ian Murray said he did ask for those and appreciates having been given them, but on step further, they need cross sections. They need it from zero until at least station 8 because of the cuts and fills in there.
2. Disturbances of Cuts & Fills and Slope Modifications - he said they provided Drawing SW-1. the point was to show approximate disturbance due to the road section and grade. That disturbance due to the road grade as proposed, is almost at the setback line. You can overlay in your mine where the disturbance of the road is and that additional clearing is for the house itself.
Chairman Ian Murray responded that's why they need the cross sections to look at these because he believes they are under estimating the limits of disturbance for clearing, and the cross sections will help that. If you flip back to the steep slopes and look at it, he believes they are under calculating; especially on Lots 1 - 8, 21 & 22.
Kevin Hastings continued that was the purpose of SW-1, to respond to questions #1 & 2, Cuts & Fills. He noted additional cross sections and asked if they want 25' or 50' cross sections.
Chairman Ian Murray and Town Engineer Ken Martin said 50. Chairman Ian Murray said there's a lot overlaid on there, and will have some comments later on concerning those.
3. Driveway Slopes - in the handout tonight, there was an update to the charts. It was on C-1, for the driveways. They've added the estimated driveway lengths and approximate slopes.
4. Clearing & Disturbance Limits on the Lots - C-1 Conceptual Clearing Plan - they've overlaid the road disturbance is approximately at the setback line of the houses. They showed some vegetation clearing and went through the color versions of this with the Board; distinguishing the areas of disturbance, wetland areas, proposed open space and the buffer areas that will remain wooded.
George Olsen stated it doesn't look like you've included cutting for the sites.
Kevin Hastings said this is all conceptual. The Applicant reserves the right as far as thinning and harvesting that is allowable. This is a concept based on where the placements of the houses will be; again, the driveway lengths, the disturbance he pointed out earlier on the approximate setbacks. The up-hill lots houses are located further in on the lots so each will be unique as far the grading, the clearing and will be very site specific, which they understand is a very sensitive issue for the Board.
Chairman Ian Murray responded correct.
5. NRCS opinion of the land they'd like as agriculture - Kevin Hastings said they received a letter on April 15th from Dustin Lewis and he believes the Board has a copy of it.
Chairman Ian Murray stated because he tried to initiate a meeting between the NRCS and the Applicant multiple times and it never happened, he and Town Engineer Ken Martin took it upon themselves and met with them. They were switched over to Dustin Lewis at Soil and Water Conservation and that letter is a result of the subsequent meeting.
Kevin Hastings said that letter is the response to #5 as far as to the agricultural use of the open space.
Chairman Ian Murray responded that is right. He added that he knows the Applicant isn't here, but he wants Kevin Hastings to take that message back to him. He asked if Kevin Hastings understands and if he had any questions.
Kevin Hastings responded he understands the letter but reserves the right for the Applicant to answer to it.
Chairman Ian Murray then stated as far as he is concerned, the way the letter reads, everything that is set aside over there will remain untouched.
Kevin Hastings said he assumes that will be determined.
Chairman Ian Murray responded that is the sentiment of the Board and this Board indicated that from the very beginning of this application, but the Applicant never got it. So to reemphasize this - everything that is set aside is to remain untouched.
Kevin Hastings said he will deliver the message, but in no way is he speaking for him on that.
The Board said the easterly set asides need to be done small; Chairman Ian Murray said correct and they have the ability for sustainable agriculture over there, but this parcel will remain untouched. He wants the Applicant to know that. This will not come out of conceptual tonight, we're not going to preliminary tonight because of some of these conditions and that is one of them. The Applicant needs to understand that that is off the table and a condition of approval.
6. County Sewer - they've submitted a letter from County Sewer indicating they have the capacity for the subdivision.
Chairman Ian Murray said correct and copies of the letter are in their packets.
7. Kevin Hastings said the second page of the handout is the latest breakdown of the buildable land, open space and wetland delineation, as far as the area.
Town Engineer Ken Martin said he'd like to see the parcels overlaid on the colored map showing the slopes.
Brandon Myers questioned the reason for removing every tree from the 33.42 acres.
Kevin Hastings said he cannot answer for the Applicant. Brandon Myers replied that removing every tree doesn't make any sense to him, in the context of Dustin Lewis's letter.
Board discussed the east side and the less lot constraints there and it could be possibly developed for agriculture pursuits in very specific ways. They also discussed the sensitive areas and that they cannot be touched.
8. Archeology and Wetlands - Kevin Hastings said they are communicating with Army Corp. for determination.
Chairman Ian Murray stated they need to see that to tie into the SWPP plan.
Kevin Hastings then said archeology has been completed and under the 30 day response period.
9. Endangered Species - NYS DEC letter is on file; there were no endangered species found.
10. Erosion Sediment Control - ESC-1 & 2 are the layout plans for erosion and sediment control. It's split east and west. They show erosion control practices with slopes - silt fencing that goes around the perimeter of the down slopes, sediment traps, a stabilized construction entrance in the front and along the temporary construction roads they have water bars to interrupt the runoff during construction.
Chairman Ian Murray stated as he eluded to earlier, he had some comments/concerns, so back to the storm water plan. He thinks the outflow they have for 9 & 10 needs to be investigated. That is right on the seat; there is no way to control the erosion coming off of there. He physically walked it and checked it and has serious concerns.
Kevin Hastings replied this is a preliminary plan and in his opinion storm water management will be finalized in their next submittal.
11. District Boundary - the Board wanted to see the Lake District. It is on the first drawing E-1. They included a color slope map with further details; sewer layout and updated forest management report which was completed by Gerber.
The Board reviewed the letter/report. Chairman Ian Murray asked if Kevin Hastings would like to speak to it and he replied no.
Chairman Ian Murray said he walked the parcel a couple of times, understands the report and understands the species. He believes it would be more beneficial to the Board if is was mapped out so everyone can better understand it and he'd like full drawings, please.
Kevin Hastings said that was all he had and asked if there were questions from the Board.
Brandon Myers stated they've talked about the sensitivity of the slope below lots 11, 12 & 13; he'd like to see a 50' buffer behind the top of the ridge and have the area below it be part of the untouched property. He thinks, after looking at the colored slope charts, that lots 9 - 17 are unusable lots. The storm water discharge should be run into less steep area of the property, it's too steep.
Kevin Hastings said they'd take that into consideration. He's not been on the property to look at that specific spot, but the next step is to field locate and fine tuning the plan as far as slopes, practicality and vegetation.
Alternate Chris Koval stated vegetation is a big part of this; you'll have to be very specific.
Kevin Hastings replied storm water management is allowed under open space and they understand the sensitivity to it and making it work and fitting it in with the environment. He then said they will look at combining the systems into a practical column outflow near Lot 1 and Lot 2.
Brandon Myers said they show an elevation of 420' where the driveway is, but it's really 460' - he believes there's a 40' discrepancy.
Kevin Hastings said he believes some of the driveways allow for a back slope cut, so the house is not necessarily sitting on the upper elevation. In other words, a cut when you have a back slope behind the house so the elevations you're looking at, the actual elevation of the finished floor of the house may be several feet lower than that, on a lot by lot basis.
Brandon Myers responded that is why he doesn't think those lots are useable the way they're proposed, with those grades. He said the Board needs to see protection of those slopes and needs to be untouched. He then questioned sight distance.
Kevin Hastings said that road is an un-posted highway, so by default NYS speed limit is 55 mph. He's not saying they're designing it for 55 mph, but they're showing the demonstration of the sight distance compared to what the 55 mph standard is. The sight distance to the north obviously was 800+', the sight distance to the south at Wright Rd., though not desirable for 55 mph, but at that point of the road it's a deceleration stretch to the stop sign. So if someone is doing 55 in front of the development, they have about 100' to stop.
Chairman Ian Murray questioned if they moved the road to the north closer to the intersection?
Kevin Hastings responded since the last meeting, they moved it closer to the stop sign but it's not going to work. They'd moved it up the road 80' which gives better sight distance.
Brandon Myers said he'd like them to think about redesigning the east side; the flag lots - the seven driveways. He'd like them to look again having the access to those lots be from the rear instead of the main highway and then possibly putting lots on the other side also. You may need to change it because the lots are too steep to the road; it would require massive cuts and fills there.
Kevin Hastings thinks they looked at that, but can look again.
Chairman Ian Murray questioned if Jeff Mancini has looked into the sight distances on the driveway on the eastside for the 30 lots and if so, what they are.
Jeff Mancini replied yes, they've looked but they are scaled from the drawings and he can give approximate numbers; they did not do a field measurement. He gave some estimates but they could go to shared driveways there.
Chairman Ian Murray stated he believes they will have to go to shared in order to make it work there.
Laurie Griffen stated the Board wanted larger buffers; they show 75' but the Board would like significantly more along the backside of the three lots (Hill Rd. side) and up through the back.
Chairman Ian Murray added they need 100' buffer along property lines of the farmstead. He also stated that due to the lot constraints and limits on the west side, they cannot do anything on that land - no agriculture, nothing. Any plans that were made are to be removed completely - it is off the table. It is to be totally set aside land only.
He then questioned if they received the report from VanFleet yet.
Kevin Hastings said there was no report on trace studies.
Chairman Ian Murray asked if they will furnish the Board with neighbor comments and Kevin Hastings replied he didn't know but will look into it.
Chairman Ian Murray then stated the Board needs the long form EAF and cross sections 0 - 10.
Kevin Hastings stated they'll get those all done.
Chairman Ian Murray asked him to define lots 1 - 8, 21 & 22 with the percentage of steep slopes and said with the lot constraints the Board needs storm water.
Town Engineer Ken Martin said we need SWPP in, long form EAF, hydrologic - he'd like to know how the analysis is performed and noted that NYS DOH will have to be involved in that.
He's asked the Chairman to get at least one well drilled for every 5 lots.
Chairman Ian Murray added that the trace study will help the Board determine if you do 1 for 5 or more. That's what they're trying to figure out.
Kevin Hastings questioned if Town Engineer Ken Martin like to see a procedural drill summary; schematic of the Applicant's plan.
Town Engineer Ken Martin responded yes, he'd really like to see that - his written plan and a map of where he proposes the well location to be.
Kevin Hastings replied he thinks that's coming along; he may have that for the next meeting, but no promises.
Chairman Ian Murray stated he'd like to see is a staked out line for the center of the road. Needs to see the cuts and fills and the balance through there and percentage of the slopes and wetlands.
Kevin Hastings questioned, for the entire road?
Chairman Ian Murray replied yes, that would be most beneficial. He added that the Planning Board has retained counsel, Miller, Manix, Schachner & Hafner, LLC of Glens Falls, NY to review the case. Their initial meeting was Thursday, April 21, 2016.
Sketch Plan for Minor Subdivision Conference
Madeline Akel Representative: James Sasko, Teakwood Bldrs.
6 Howe St. 8 Butler Pl
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
S/B/L 193.-1-1.12 Rural District
Location: Corner of Fitch Rd. & Chapman Hill Rd.
Applicant seeks to subdivide 9.34+/- acres into two parcels; one lot will be 4.85+/- acres with 349.6' of frontage and the other lot will be 4.5+/- acres with 179.77' of frontage.
James Sasko appeared on behalf of the Applicant. He reviewed the parcel, stated it is located on the corner of Fitch Rd. and Chapman Hill Rd.
The Board discussed the parcels with James Sasko.
Chairman Ian Murray stated it will have to go to the ZBA for frontage. He also stated that due to the down slope of the land they need to be careful of the separation distances; they increase, in fact they double. Aside from that the Board needs the soil engineering - the deep hole and perc tests.
Town Engineer Ken Martin stated he'd like to see sight distances, especially on the parcel needing the variance.
Carried 8 - 0
Denied and sent to ZBA for frontage variance
Daniel Didier Representative: Kevin Weed, VanGuilder Land
114 Wall St. Surveyor, PLLC
Schuylerville, NY 12871 988 Rt. 146
S/B/L 156.-1-9 Rural Residential Clifton Park, NY 12065
Applicant seeks to subdivide a 3.25+/- acre lot from his 49.89+/- acre parcel. He would also like a lot-line adjustment between his land and those of the Catalono's.
Kevin Weed appeared on behalf of the Applicant. He stated they want to subdivide a 3.25+/- acre lot for the Applicant's parents, from the 49.89+/- acre parcel. They do know where the driveway will be; it was an agriculture haul road in the past. They have DOT approval and will need to put a new culvert in, but aside from that it's good to go. He also stated they need to correct some encroachment issues with the Catalono's with a lot-line adjustment. When the Catalono's constructed their home, the in-ground pool, shed and barn everything was constructed square to Beaver St. When they performed the survey for the Applicant, they found the existing lot-lines go up at an angle; right through the pool, the shed and barn, so the lot-line adjustment will correct this. He then reviewed the odd frontage lines of the parcel B which is vacant, and not part of the subdivision, with the Board.
Chairman Ian Murray stated that Kevin Weed mapped out the wetlands and questioned if there is any wetland jurisdictional determination on it.
Kevin Weed responded there was not. There are no DEC wetlands in the vicinity, even checked the 500' buffer zone and there were none.
Chairman Ian Murray then stated get the soil engineering completed, short form EAF completed, add the agricultural statement and water regulation onto the map also; if this is completed by submittal date in May, we will publish for a Public Hearing.
Kevin Weed asked if there was anything else needed to go for public hearing next month and Chairman Ian Murray replied to be sure and get the neighbor notifications sent.
Kevin Weed thanked the Board.
Old Business: Chairman Ian Murray reviewed the Tri-Board Workshop meeting that took place
on April 18th for those members who were unable to attend. He said they discussed having someone from the Dept. of State come in for training and all Boards can attend. They are hoping to set up the meeting for some time in June. Once the date is finalized notification will go out to the Boards.
New Business: Chairman Ian Murray asked if anyone has heard any update on the Victory mill project? No one had. He then told the Board that the developer couldn't get the financing and he is now going for the Workforce Housing. Board members questioned what exactly does that mean - low income housing and more, smaller apartments?
Chairman Ian Murray believes that since the approval was based upon luxury apartments and businesses going in there, this change of use negates all of the past approvals. Board members believe the impacts will be huge to the community and school district. If it doesn't go back for approvals there could possibly be a lawsuit filed. Board members recalled how the developer down-played all the impacts before; agreeing the impacts of this proposal are huge and could be devastating to the entire area. They really need to send it back to planning.
The Board would like to be updated on that project as it goes on.
The next regular meeting will be held Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at .
Veering away from the minutes for a moment, I would like to say I am humbled and honored by the beautiful sentiments and gifts presented me by this Board at our April meeting. I find it an honor and a privilege working with this wonderful group of truly dedicated and concerned residents of our Town. I sincerely thank each and every member for their kindness and thoughtfulness - God bless you all.
Linda A. McCabe