� �����������TOWN
OF
PLANNING BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES
March 22, 2017
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 � absent, Robert
McConnell � absent, Joseph
Lewandowski � present, Brandon Myers � present,
George Olsen - absent,
Alternate Christopher Koval - absent.
Also attending:
�Town Engineer Ken Martin, Timothy Myers,
Christina Scanlon, Zoning Officer/Building Inspector Gil Albert, Town Highway
Superintendant Don Ormsby, K.M. Koury, D. Scripter, Amy Eitlean, Tim
Szablewski, Steven Erby, Jennifer Amerling, Andrew Peterson, Bridget Cuddahy,
Jean Seiler, Lauren Kirkwood, Terri Korb, Kate & Hub Miller, Jan Murphy,
Jim Vianna, Jeff Mancini, Brian Green, Kevin Hastings, Mike Ingersoll, Sonny
Bonacio, Randy O'Dell, Dave Carr, John Witt, Katie Gehl and other interested
persons.� (Sign-in sheet is on file in
the Clerk's office)
Public Hearing Special
Use Permit
Monolith
Solar Associates, LLC #17-04����������������� Owner:� Michael Giovanone
444
Washington St.�������������������������������������������������������������� �� Boat -N- RV Condos
Rensselaer,
NY 12144���������������������������������������������������������� �� 1428 Rt. 9P
S/B/L
193.6-1-2.1 Lake Commercial���������������������������������� �� Saratoga Springs, NY
Location:� 1428 Rt. 9P��������������������������������������������������������� �� 12866
Returning Applicant seeks a Special Use Permit to construct a roof mounted solar collection array system on the rooftop of Michael Giovanone's Boat-N-RV business, located at 1428 Rt. 9P.
Steven Erby, of Monolith Solar, reviewed the information presented to the Board at last month's meeting.� He asked if there were any further questions from the Board.
Chairman Ian Murray and the Board stated they had no further questions; they were all set.
Proof of Notice having been furnished by newspaper on
March 12, 2017, 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; seeing as no one spoke, Chairman Ian Murray closed the Public
Hearing at 7:36 p.m.
Chairman Ian Murray stated there no
significant county wide or inter community impacts.
Laurie Griffen read the short form EAF, line by line, which was completed by the Board.�
documents as presented, to declare the SEQR review complete and to make a Negative Declaration.� Chairman Ian Murray � aye, Laurie Griffen � aye, Patrick Hanehan � absent, Joseph Lewandowski � aye, Robert McConnell � absent, Brandon Myers � aye, George Olsen - absent, Chris Koval - absent.�
Carried
4 - 0
Chairman
Ian Murray made a motion, seconded by Laurie Griffen to approve the Special Use
Permit as proposed and accept it as complete.�
Chairman Ian Murray � aye, Laurie Griffen �
aye, Patrick Hanehan � absent, Joseph Lewandowski � aye, Robert McConnell � absent,
Brandon Myers � aye, George Olsen - absent, Chris Koval - absent.�
Carried
4 - 0
Approved
Gilman
P. Albert #17-09
967
Rt. 29
Saratoga
Springs, NY 12866
S/B/L
156.-1-3.1 Rural Residential
Returning Applicant appeared before the Planning Board two months ago for a Special Use Permit to turn his retail space into a second residence if the retail space doesn't meet expectations.� The Planning Board had to deny the Applicant due to a lack of required frontage.� The Planning Board then sent the Applicant to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance, stating if it is granted the Applicant is to return to the Planning Board for a public hearing; the ZBA granted the variance.
Applicant Gil Albert appeared before the Board and reviewed his proposal.� He stated he went before the Zoning Board of Appeals last month and was granted the requested variances.� He said the septic will go in prior to the retail business and he will wait on the well until needed.�
Chairman Ian Murray asked if there were any Board questions; there were none.
Proof of Notice having been furnished by newspaper on
March 12, 2017, Chairman Ian Murray opened the Public Hearing at 7:39 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 7:40 p.m.
Chairman Ian Murray stated there no
significant county wide or inter community impacts.
Brandon Myers read the short form EAF, line by line, which was completed by the Board.�
documents as presented, to declare the SEQR review complete and to make a Negative Declaration.� Chairman Ian Murray � aye, Laurie Griffen � aye, Patrick Hanehan � absent, Joseph Lewandowski � aye, Robert McConnell � absent, Brandon Myers � aye, George Olsen - absent, Chris Koval - absent.�
Carried
4 - 0
Chairman Ian Murray made a motion, seconded by Laurie Griffen to approve the Special Use Permit as proposed and accept it as complete with a review in one year.� Chairman Ian Murray � aye, Laurie Griffen � aye, Patrick Hanehan � absent, Joseph Lewandowski � aye, Robert McConnell � absent, Brandon Myers � aye, George Olsen - absent, Chris Koval - absent.�
Carried
4 � 0
Approved
Public Hearing for
Minor Subdivision
Tim
Myers & Christina Scanlon #17-01����
1120 Rt. 29���������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����
Schuylerville,
NY 12871������
S/B/L� 156.-3-11 Rural Residential������������������������������������� ���
Returning Applicants seek to subdivide their 4.9 acre parcel into two lots.� They have 475' of frontage on Rt. 29 as well as three structures on the property.
Applicant Tim Myers appeared before the Board and reviewed his proposed subdivision.�
Chairman Ian Murray stated the soil engineering is not on the map.� He asked who did the testing and told the Applicant he needs to contact them and have it put on the map.
Applicant Tim Myers responded they did the first one but Lansing Engineering did the most recent.�
Chairman Ian Murray stated we'll make this conditional, for the septic location, upon the approval of Town Engineer Ken Martin's review.
Laurie Griffen questioned which lot they plan to build on.
Applicant Tim Myers responded on lot 2.� �
Laurie Griffen asked if and when they would be removing the brick house and what the plan is for the other lot with the two structures.
Applicant Tim Myers responded the brick house is being removed in a month or so.� For Lot 1 he stated they are unsure what they will do with the other lot, possibly have a an apartment or two, possibly a retail business there or rental unit; they just don't know at this time.�
Chairman Ian Murray stated the Applicant will have to return to the Board for a special use permit prior to any business going in there or rental unit.� Chairman Ian Murray then questioned the location of the driveway for the second parcel; he suggested it be a shared driveway between the two parcels, as the location on Rt. 29 is a difficult area for another driveway.� Chairman Ian Murray suggested placing it going down the property line and split off further back; they could make it wider and even put in a median to separate the private house from the other parcel or possible future business that may go in there on that other parcel.�
Laurie Griffen stated that would minimize the potential of auto accidents there; the Applicant agreed.�
Chairman Ian Murray stated on the short form
EAF, question #10, it says
'proposed action connect with existing public or private well'; there is a
private well there and that is connected to the private buildings there,
correct?
Applicant Tim Myers
responded yes, it is and he plans to use that for the two buildings on Lot 1.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated that will satisfy those two buildings.�
But the new house?
The Applicant
replied he will be putting in a new well for the new house.
Proof of Notice having been furnished by newspaper on
March 12, 2017, Chairman Ian Murray opened the Public Hearing at 7:51 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 7:52 p.m.
�
Chairman Ian Murray stated this was sent to the Saratoga County Planning
Board and the MOU response is there are
no significant county wide or inter community impacts.
Brandon Myers read the short form EAF, line by line, which was completed by the Board.�
documents as presented, to declare the SEQR review complete and to make a Negative Declaration.� Chairman Ian Murray � aye, Laurie Griffen � aye, Patrick Hanehan � absent, Joseph Lewandowski � aye, Robert McConnell � absent, Brandon Myers � aye, George Olsen - absent, Chris Koval - absent.�
Carried
4 - 0
Chairman Ian Murray made a motion, seconded by Laurie Griffen to approve the subdivision as proposed, conditional upon removal of the brick house and final review and sign off by Town Engineer Ken Martin.� Chairman Ian Murray � aye, Laurie Griffen � aye, Patrick Hanehan � absent, Joseph Lewandowski � aye, Robert McConnell � absent, Brandon Myers � aye, George Olsen - absent, Chris Koval - absent.
Carried 4 - 0
Approved
with condition
Sketch Plan Conference
for Minor Subdivision
�����������
James
Jennings #17-05�������������������������������������������� ���� Owner:�
Lloyd Fisher
101
Minnie Bennett Rd.������������������������������������������������������� ������� 175 Hathaway Rd.
Schuylerville,
NY 12871������������������������������������������������������ ������� Schuylerville, NY 12871
S/B/L
182.-2-10 Rural
Location:
between Minnie Bennett Rd. & Hathaway Rd.
Representative:� James M. Vianna, PLS
���������������������������� 170 Lohnes Rd.
���������������������������� Stillwater, NY
12170�
Lloyd Fisher seeks to subdivide a 6.13+/- acre lot from his 93+/- acre parcel.� Lot 1 to be
6.13+/- acres, to be conveyed to James Jennings for a single family residence.� Lot 2 to be the balance of the land, an 86.87+/- acre parcel and it will remain as farmland.
Jim Vianna, PLS, appeared before the Board on behalf of the Applicant.� He reviewed the proposed two lot subdivision stating the survey was completed in 2005, perc tests and soil engineering have also been done.� He stated there has been no change to the land since the survey was done and asked if the Board wanted him to update that.
Chairman Ian Murray stated test pit was done in 2005, all sandy soils there; he then questioned Town Engineer Ken Martin if there was any need for an updated test.
Town Engineer Ken Martin responded no.
Chairman Ian Murray stated the best location for the driveway is to place it across from one of the two across the road.
Jim Vianna, PLS, responded okay.
Chairman Ian Murray asked if there were any Board questions; there were none.� Chairman Ian Murray then stated we will advertise for a public hearing for the April meeting.
Jim Vianna, PLS, thanked the Board.
Returning
Dave
Scripter #17-07
19
Canterbury Rd.
Clifton
Park, NY 12065
S/B/L
193.6-1-50 Lake Residential
Location:� 1376 Rt. 9P
Applicant seeks to subdivide his 2.57+/- acre parcel, with 150' of frontage, into two parcels.� Lot 1 has an existing house and Lot 2 will be for a single family residence.
Applicant Dave Scripter appeared before the Board.� He stated that Lot 1 will have 90+/- Ꞌ of frontage and Lot 2 will have 60+/- Ꞌ of frontage.� He said in the past there were three parcels
and someone combined them prior to his ownership of the property.� He stated he was before this Board in 2013, was denied and sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for variances.� He went before the ZBA and received the requested variances.� He didn�t get the DEC wetland variance, but will do so.
Chairman Ian Murray stated he needs variances for the side yard setbacks, the hot tub will be removed, there is adequate parking for the Applicant�s lot, but parking area is needed for the other lot and a shared driveway along the property line is needed.�
The Applicant responded he will have Santos prepare a better drawing for the Board.
Chairman Ian Murray stated the Board can take no action and has to deny the Applicant and send him to the ZBA for the needed variances.� Chairman Ian Murray stated once the Applicant
gets the ruling from the ZBA, he is to come back before the Planning Board.
Denied and sent to the ZBA
Returning
Sketch Plan for Major
Subdivision
Bonacio
Construction #17-10���������� ��� Owner:�
Richard P. Leach/Peter T. Leach
18
Division St. #401�������������������������������������� ������ 185 Chestnut Ridge Rd., Queensbury, NY
Saratoga
Springs, NY 12866����������������������� ������ 10 Mitchell Pl., #4GH, New York, NY
S/B/L
180.-1-8 Conservancy & Rural��������
Location:� 149 Fitch Rd.
Applicant proposes to subdivide a 203+/- acre parcel, separated by Fitch Rd., into an 18 lot Conservation Subdivision.
Michael Ingersoll, of the LA Group,
appeared on behalf of the applicant and stated he was looking for guidance from
the Board for the proposed conservation subdivision.� He proceeded with a power point presentation
of the proposed project.� The property to
be subdivided is 203+/- acres on both sides of Fitch Rd. although total acreage
is 206.27+/- and it lies within two zoning districts, rural and
conservancy. �As he was going through the
power point presentation, he stated the woods on the land are not mature.� He stated there is an existing power line that cuts through the
property and he�s hoping to bury it.� DEC
and Army Corp have not been out there yet, but he showed their map with a
wetland overlay and the stream that goes through the property.� He stated they added a 100� wetland buffer
outline on the property map, should the GIS mapping show it to be in a flood
plain zone.� �He showed the location of the 25%+ slopes, the
old rail bed, other slopes that they will be staying away from, the 107+/- acre
buildable areas and the 61+/- acres of set aside land for open space and showed the open
fields which they will be keeping as is.�
He then reviewed the location
of the proposed houses, stating they will be tucked away in the woods and will
not be seen from the road.� This is proposed
for 18 lots, although there are two existing, so actually 16 lots to be
built.� They propose to have the two existing homes remain
in this development.� He stated they would like to utilize the old road to the creek and
will need a DEC permit for that.� He added they are looking
at a possible walking trail going in,
with limited access to Fish Creek, possibly having each
lot (various sizes of 1.1+/- to 21+/- acres) in an HOA setup.� Their other option is for a simple HOA for the pedestrian walking trail only.�
Total proposed area of open space is 112+/- acres (includes wetland areas), limited tree removal,
limited grading
and farmstead image is to be retained.� �
Chairman Ian Murray questioned the
difference with option 1 and 2;
option 1 is 18 lots in an HOA and option 2 is to have property lines with deed
restricted balances, is that correct?
Michael Ingersoll
replied that is correct.�
Chairman Ian Murray questioned
if the road layout between option 1 & 2 is the same and will be a private
road for either scenario, built to the 22' rural road standards?
Michael Ingersoll
responded correct and they will build the road to rural road standards.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated lots 9 & 18 are the set aside lands and will be deed restricted to
agriculture uses?
Michael Ingersoll
replied Yes; lot 18 (56.3acres) it can go as is, though they didn't want to
deed restrict.
Chairman Ian Murray
said in his opinion, he thinks it best to deed restrict it to no further
subdivision and no further development of that lot.
Sonny Bonacio agreed
and said there is to be absolutely no further subdivision of lot 18.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated they showed DEC wetlands overlay on their map, but stated those fingers
are Army Corp; are they connected?
Michael Ingersoll
responded no, they aren't connected.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated he likes the land features of that land and he really likes how they've
broken it up and utilized the lands and thinks it's a good plan.� Whether the Board goes with option 1 or 2,
he's not sure yet, but he likes it.
Michael Ingersoll
then stated the difference of option 1 or 2 is the legality of how they explain
it.� There will be no change in the deed
restrictions or clearing limits.
Chairman Ian Murray
said he understands their position, but the Board has to look at it a bit
further and pass it through the Town attorney due to the situation with the
road.� Although it's going to be private,
the language they come up with for the cross easements, ownership and all that,
our attorney needs to look it over.
Chairman Ian Murray
asked if the Board had any further questions; there were none.
Michael Ingersoll
questioned as they go further into this, with test pits, does the town have
Building Inspector Gil Albert witness them?
Building Inspector
Gil Albert stated he witnesses the deep hole tests.
Michael Ingersoll
stated after the tests are complete, they will refine their proposal.
Town Engineer Ken
Martin stated with option 2, it will be in Rural Residential district, so
they'll need NYS DOH approval; the size of the lots dictate that.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated archeological needs to be done and it could be a problem.�
Michael Ingersoll
responded it needs to be done before purchase.
Board members
Brandon Myers, Joe Lewandowski and Laurie Griffen really like the proposal.
Michael Ingersoll
then clarified the building envelope restrictions; no one can apply for docks
on Fish Creek and land clearing will be restricted also, with no cut zones on
the properties toward Fish Creek.
Michael Ingersoll
said they'd like to go forward and asked what the Board thought.
Chairman Ian Murray
replied this is a clean proposal and as long as they get the legal language
right, yes go forward and Laurie Griffen stated this is a thoughtful design and
really fits the property.
Returning
Special Use Permit
Pre-Submission Conference
Brian
Green #17-08
1439
Rt. 9P, P.O. Box 3207
Saratoga
Springs, NY 12866
S/B/L180.18-1-13
Applicant has 4 residences on his property, one of which is an illegal garage apartment.� He seeks to bring this to code by obtaining a Special Use Permit.
Applicant Brian Green appeared before the Board stating his property has been run as a 4 family unit for years.� He purchased the property two years ago and rents it out; Building Inspector Gil Albert has been out there and everything is up to code now.�
Chairman Ian Murray said this is a two-step process; the Board has to send the Applicant to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and then he�d have to come back before this Board.� As is, the Applicant doesn�t meet area requirements; in fact, substantially less than required.
Building Inspector/Zoning Officer Gil Albert stated in 1989 it was built as a two-family duplex.� In 1990 the ZBA granted a variance for a two-car garage (one for each side of the duplex), but it ended up being built as a separate two-car garage with a non-permitted apartment above it and the house turned into a 3 family residence without a permit.
Chairman Ian Murray stated it doesn�t meet regulations.� Four family, lot coverage, parking, and emergency access are all issues.� We don�t know if the driveway was DOT approved and we don�t know anything about the drainage on the lot.� This should go to the ZBA with a negative recommendation.� He then asked if there were any Board questions.
Laurie Griffen questioned how this even sold.
Building Inspector/Zoning Officer Gil Albert responded Mike Giovanone bought and sold it years ago; he had tried to get a CO on it, but because it was out of code he couldn�t give him one.� This was pre-existing before he became the Town�s building inspector and zoning officer.
Applicant Brian Green stated he had talked to Building Inspector/Zoning Officer Gil Albert �prior to purchasing and knew no CO would be issued and that it was illegal, but bought it anyway and wants it okayed.� He just wants to make it right,
Laurie Griffen stated send this to Zoning and let them decide.�
Chairman Ian Murray questioned if the present Board wanted to send it as is or with a negative recommendation:� Laurie Griffen � as is, Joseph Lewandowski � as is, Brandon Myers � as is.
Chairman Ian Murray stated the Board can take no action and has to deny the Applicant and send him to the ZBA for the needed variances.�
Denied and sent to the ZBA
Chairman Ian Murray told the Applicant if after going before the ZBA and they rule in his favor, he is to come back before the Planning Board.
Major Subdivision
Conference
John
Witt, Witt Construction #15-05�����
563
N. ����������� Broadway����������������������������������������������������������������� ����
Saratoga
Springs, NY 12866����������������������������������������������� ����
S/B/L
193.-1-17, 193.-1-18, 193.18-1-55 Lake Residential, Rural District II, Rural
District������������������������� ���������������������
Location:� 142 Cedar Bluff Rd. (Co. Rd. 71)
Returning Applicant seeks a 32 lot major
subdivision.
Applicant John Witt
appeared before the Board and stated that since the last meeting they've
revised the road with a gentler grade, rearranged the uphill lots and said Lot11
now has access off of Hill Rd.� He then
reviewed the previous road profile and compared that with the current road
profile, stating the new profile works better with the topography.�
Town Engineer Ken
Martin questioned if the road had moved.
Applicant John Witt
replied yes.� He showed where the
original road was located and the revised location, stating driveways will have
to be adjusted.
Town Engineer Ken
Martin stated Lots 18, 19 & 20 are going to be very steep.� They're going to take a lot of work and will
take a lot of clearing to make that happen.
Chairman Ian Murray
agreed.�
Applicant John Witt
stated Lot 19 will be tough, Lot 18 won't be bad and Lot 20 has plenty of space
to get up and around.� They may have to
adjust the entrance a little bit, go up a bit higher, but he believes it can be
done, meeting the Town's specs without having to do an expensive clearing for
the driveway.
Zoning
Officer/Building Inspector Gil Albert questioned how long the driveways are on
those three lots.� There are state fire
codes to deal with and anything over 150' has to have turn-arounds for fire and
emergency vehicles.
Applicant John Witt
stated Lots 18, 19 & 20 will be over 150'.�
Chairman Ian Murray
stated his concerns with those lots are the topos, which show at 20% grade.� The Applicant has to get very creative in order
to get those to a 12% grade.�
Applicant John Witt
said the original layout was at 12%; he thinks they can do it and will do so
prior to final approval.
Chairman Ian Murray
then said he had road profile questions:�
On Map L4 - he understands the road changes, but asked for an
explanation of the lot-lines on Lots 1 & 2, specifically what the dark
lines are and the dash lines.
Jeff Mancini replied
the dark lines are the changes they'll make on those lots.� The dash lines represent wetlands.
Chairman Ian Murray
said that's fine, but they're Army Corp. wetlands and although the Applicant can
build up to them, there are certain restrictions there.� The Applicant needs to think about the
provisions for storm water.� He
questioned if their future storm water spot is to be between Lots 2 & 3 and
if that is why the adjustments were made.
Jeff Mancini replied
yes.
Applicant John Witt
noted Map L2 shows the lane off of Trombley Rd. and there had been concerns
about the location of the driveway at the intersection; they can locate the
driveway off the farm lane instead.
Chairman Ian Murray stated
the Applicant talked about keeping that road to 14' - 18', and questioned if that's
been changed.
Applicant John Witt
replied yes, they want to make it a town road and will make it 22' if needed.
Chairman Ian Murray
questioned if they have storm water provisions for that, and where the location
of the manholes are to be.
Applicant John Witt
responded they can't design it, won't design it until final approval of their
plan.� He then stated on E1 - he's noted
the sight distances; 480' going down Wright Rd. and 800' going the other
direction.
Chairman Ian Murray
said to alternate existing grade and alternate center line grade.
Applicant John Witt
showed road profiles off of Trombley Rd. as 484' going to the North and 480' to
the West.
Chairman Ian Murray
questioned this is proposed as a town road?
Applicant John Witt replied
yes.
Town Engineer Ken
Martin questioned the width of the road and added they'll have to stay with
22'.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated this was proposed as a private road, keep it private or redesign it with
easier access.� Highway Superintendent
Don Ormsby doesn't like circles.� Do a
cul de sac or go private with it.
Applicant John Witt
asked if there was anything else on the lot layout and was told no.
He then said
wetlands were revised - 111.6 acres.� Map
W3 - no Army Corp. permit is needed, delineations have been signed off.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated the Board received a copy of that letter from Army Corp. today.�
Applicant John Witt said
at the last meeting they were told trees larger than 6" in diameter were
to be tagged; he tagged those near the property lines and once the lot layout
is approved they can do a walk through and re-tag trees.
Chairman Ian Murray
responded that the Applicant offered to inventory and catalogue the trees, but
all the Board received were trees along the property lines catalogued.� The Board expects it all to be done; this is
half a plan and the Board wants it complete.
Applicant John Witt
stated he wants an approved layout plan, adding it's expensive to do that full
inventory and cataloging.�
Chairman Ian Murray
replied the Applicant offered to do it and the Board expects it done.
Applicant John Witt
stated they have to clear for houses and driveways, but to do every tree is too
excessive and he doesn't think it's fair to make them do that.
Chairman Ian Murray responded
the Board has used it as a tool in the past; again, the Applicant offered to do
it and the Board expects it done .
Applicant John Witt
questioned if they could do it case by case.
Chairman Ian Murray
said okay, leave trees as tagged and when finalized go and tag them all.
Town Engineer Ken
Martin said as long as it's with each building permit, he agreed.
Applicant John Witt
then stated he received a letter from NCRS saying the whole site is suitable
for hand planting and the report says it's a 'best representation' of their
intention for a small scale orchard.� The
report suggests strong evidence of a small orchard on that land.� The report favors the entire property due to
the soil types and topography of the land which proves to be suitable for hand
planting farm.� The farm land
classification report indicates 52.1 acres of suitable farmland.� The WNBEA and B&C soils are choice
farmland and best soils for crop farming.�
He continued to go through the letter with the Board.
Laurie Griffen stated
she knows soils, she knows farming and knows how to read soil maps and
questioned what the Applicant was telling them?�
She's gone through the letter herself three times and still needs an
interpreter for what the Applicant is trying to say.
Applicant John Witt
said he's just telling her what the NRCS wrote.
Laurie Griffen told
the Applicant to tell her again, because she doesn't understand what he was
trying to tell them.
Applicant John Witt
replied that they say the whole thing is suitable for hand planting - the whole
property is.
Laurie Griffen
questioned hand planting of what?
Applicant John Witt
said of everything and anything.�
Laurie Griffen
stated you've got to be kidding.�
Applicant John Witt
said this is a report; he didn't do/write it.�
Chairman Ian Murray
said the report is based on the soil, but seeing as you have foliage coverage
there, it's not suitable for planting because you have no light.� They're only giving you classifications on
the soil and like Laurie Griffen said, we understand what the Applicant is
saying, and he himself understands soil maps too; but he's not understanding
what the Applicant was telling them.
Applicant John Witt
said he's not trying to tell them anything.�
Brandon Myers asked
what the report related to.
Applicant John Witt
responded that the Board asked him to get a report from NRCS and that was
it.� Read the report.� He then stated that the Board knows what he
is trying to do.
Chairman Ian Murray
said the Board knows exactly what the Applicant's trying to do and the Board
has been over this time and time again with the Applicant.� The Applicant wants the proposed orchard; the
Board said there's to be no orchard, no clearing anything on the wetlands on
the west side, the Applicant said he was okay with that and would have it
labeled protected.� The Applicant then
came back a couple meetings later with wanting the orchard; the Board said no
again.� This is a constant issue, the
Board said no over and over and it is to be off the plan.
Brandon Myers added
this is not productive; it�s a disjointed project.� The Board has repeatedly said no to the
orchard, but the Applicant doesn't listen.�
He just keeps coming back with the orchard.� We say no, he says okay, then he comes back
again with the orchard; we say no, he comes back again and again.� This ping ponging has got to stop.� The orchard is off the table.� He then stated the pre-submission sketch plan
the Board saw earlier from the LA Group, was a very organized, comprehensive,
respectful project that takes our regulations seriously.�
Applicant John Witt
said he�s been asked to do a lot more than they were asked to do.� He�s gone above and beyond and is looking for
approval for the roads, the lot layout, finish the job and get the project
going.�
Chairman Ian Murray
stated it�s gone a bit above and beyond what we needed to know only because of
what the Applicant has proposed since the beginning.� The underlying issue is, what is the
Applicant planning for the proposed layout of Lot 32, with the land, and what
are the Applicant's thoughts on the proposed orchard?
Applicant John Witt
responded that Lot 32 and the land, the farm, has no changes.� As far as the orchard goes, he stated he
wants the orchard across the road from the farmstead, he wants that corner
opened up with an orchard.� He thinks it
will be a visual enhancement that follows the Town�s criteria for conservation
subdivision.� Opening up the corner, with
an orchard across from the farmhouse will be a beautiful thing.�
�
Chairman Ian Murray
stated he does not believe that and the Board has said no orchard from day one,
yet the Applicant keeps bringing it back.�
The Board says no to the orchard; the Applicant does not listen.� Because of the wetlands, the sensitivity to
the wetlands, the proximity to the lake, the erosion, the run-off, things such
as that, is why the Board said no.� But
the Applicant keeps bringing it back and that�s why we are where we are.
Applicant John Witt
replied he understands.� But he's keeping
the orchard on the plan.� He added he is
before the Board tonight to get the lot layouts, and to be sure they are
comfortable with the lot layouts and the road grades.
Brandon Myers stated
he is not comfortable with the lot layouts and will not approve anything until
he sees the driveways, the finished gradings, the limits of clearing, retaining
walls/no retaining walls; he needs to see how it all fits together.� He cannot approve without the topo and
engineering on each lot; and the orchard is off the plan.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated we're slowly getting there, but not close to a vote yet.� He understands what Brandon Myers is saying
and understands how it�s being proposed, but the Board needs to keep moving
forward.�
Applicant John Witt
stated last year he got a letter from Saratoga County Soil that read 'the open
space farming plan on the eastern portion would be well suited for agriculture
production due to the decrease slope along the separation from any creek or
stream'; he said he was just reading some areas he highlighted from that
letter.� It also mentioned the
development of sugar bush for the production of maple syrup on the slope side
(west side parcel) as an agricultural venture.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated the Board is in agreement with that.�
Applicant John Witt
then said the other letter the Board received is from an independent
hydrologist.� The basic notes were that
the hydrologist said the property lines continue to change and once the
lot-lines are finalized, they�ll locate the trace in the wells and show the
locations on the maps.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated as the Applicant said, the lines keep changing and it�s premature for
the Board to make any decisions since there is no accurate information.� The Board is looking for the plan with the
final location of lot-lines from the Applicant.
Applicant John Witt
then said the Board wants to restrict the east side open space, correct?
Chairman Ian Murray
replied absolutely.
Applicant John Witt
then stated he has a couple of options for the west side.� It could be an HOA or part of an HOA that
monitors it, or it could be owned by Lot 32.�
Which way would the Board like?
Chairman Ian Murray
replied either way.� The Applicant can
put it on Lot 32, but again as stated months and months and months ago, label
it as a protected area; nothing happens there.�
If Lot 32 wants to have a sugar bush on that side of the road, the Board
is good with that. If they want to raise strawberries in their backyard, or
pumpkins, so be it.
Applicant John Witt
then said setback was to be increased to 100� on agricultural area?
Chairman Ian Murray
stated yes, 100�.�
Applicant John Witt
then stated they�ve talked about the orchard, tree cutting on the western side,
showing it as individual plot plan prior to permitting and a proposed grading
plan up front, with the final clearing � no tree will be cut until they get the
proposed plot plan approval.
He added they are to
restrict slopes on Lots 10 & 11- a do not disturb up to 50� of tree line.
He then cited town
code for conservation subdivisions and said he�s willing to not disturb trees
which aren�t affected by the creation of the views and vistas.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated he�d like the Applicant to read 400-8.12 of our Code:� Steep slopes, Erosion and Sediment Control �
that supersedes the conservation subdivision.�
He told the Applicant he needs to read that.� That section pertains to the subdivision and
he feels the Applicant is getting way ahead of himself with the clearing and the
view sheds.� He�d really like him to
review that.� Again, it is section
400-8.12 of the Town Code.
Applicant John Witt
said they want to protect the slopes too.�
Obviously they won�t put a house down on the hill, they want to put it
up high, back off the slope.
Laurie Griffen
stated the Board�s concern isn�t views and vistas, it is to make sure that the
Applicant does the right thing with the land, especially the slopes.� We have to be careful trying to stuff 100
pounds into a 50 pound bag all the time; you just have to keep working through
it.
Applicant John Witt replied
concerning the storm water; once they get the final approval on the lot layout,
they�ll do it.
Chairman Ian Murray
said the Board just wants the preliminary work done on it so they don�t get to
the end and find it doesn�t work and then have to go back and begin again.�
Applicant John Witt asked
if the Board had any comments about the entrance sign design.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated because of the size of the Town trucks, with plowing etcetera, the Board
feels it may be a hindrance. �The Board
has never seen any details on it; it was discussed briefly, but the Applicant
never came back with details.� Are there
to be raised curbs, flush curbs, plantings; the Board has received
nothing.� He�d just like to see the roads
intersect as it is a rural area.� Keep it
simple, keep it in its natural vegetative state.
Applicant John Witt
asked if they like the revised road designs.
Town Engineer Ken
Martin stated it depends on the lots at the entrance.� Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 and 17, 18 & 19 are
problems.� A grading plan is needed for
those.�
Applicant John Witt agreed
that he needs to come back with a grading plan for those difficult lots with
the driveways.
Town Engineer Ken
Martin and Chairman Ian Murray said yes.�
Chairman Ian Murray added that some preliminary SWPP planning is also needed
there so that the Applicant knows which road profile works out best and can
make it work for him.� They don�t care
which profile he goes with, it just has to be the one that will work out best
for those lots.
Applicant John Witt
then stated that the Board saw the letter they sent in to SHPPO and questioned
if the Board is okay with them holding off on Phase III of the archeology.
Chairman Ian Murray
responded that is a major thing.� Going
over the letter, one of the components left out is the land of Waldrop.� We�ve asked about this a number of times
throughout this process and that land must be included.� Where does it stand?� Also, Libby Coreno�s letter states the Board
declared ourselves Lead Agency; the Board has not declared ourselves
lead agency because we haven�t come to that point yet; this is still an
incomplete application.� He then went to
the second page of the letter and read �in summary, the survey of this site was
conducted and it was determined that a 4.6 acre portion of the site, Hill Rd.
side, is NRHP eligible, which requires either preservation, avoidance or a
Phase III data recovery.�� Chairman Ian
Murray stated he understands that, it was discussed at the last meeting, but
the Board has never seen the 4.6 acre parcel identified in any plan.� As to Brandon�s point earlier, the Applicant
is getting ahead of himself.� We know the
Applicant doesn�t want to spend the money to do Phase III, but if we don�t have
the resolve on there, and this is in the road layout etcetera, then the project
changes.�
Laurie Griffen asked
if the Applicant could show them where this is on the map.
Applicant John Witt
said in the next presentation they�ll show where it is.� He then stated SHPPO found a little piece of
an arrowhead and did a grid search of the area and only found char.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated they found more than that; they found arrowheads as well as char, which
are noted in that report.
Attorney Justin
Grassi stated the Board has to analyze worst case scenario, meaning the most
impacts there could possibly be.� The
Board doesn�t have the information that would be in Phase III or even
additional information such as where the 4.6 acres is located and what kind of
development and impacts may be on that land.�
So, since no information has been provided, the Board has to look at it
as a worst possible scenario, which could result in a Positive
Declaration.� At the very least, the
Board needs more information as to where it is in order to consider making a
determination.
Applicant John Witt
said he doesn�t have a copy of that letter.�
Chairman Ian Murray
stated he read the report but it didn�t transpose onto their maps and he had to
read the report just guessing.�
Applicant John Witt
said it�s kind of right at the end of Hill Rd.��
He then said, let�s say worst case scenario and they don�t go to Phase
III, they can�t build in that area.� He�d
have to draw a line and they�d lose Lots 11 � 14.
Attorney Justin
Grassi stated that for a Type I Action of SEQR the Board cannot do a
conditional Negative Declaration; those are reserved for Type II Action
only.� So if the Applicant were
comfortable with conserving whatever areas that might fall, it would have to be
a condition that the Applicant placed, in order to avoid SEQR mitigation.� Because if that wasn�t part of the
application, the Board cannot make it contingent on that.� They can�t force the Applicant to do it.� The Board would have to measure the
significance of the impact in SEQR review.�
Chairman Ian Murray
stated it�s possibly a major design constraint.
Applicant John Witt
responded in order to get preliminary approval without going to Phase III, they
just show getting rid of 8 lots and show an alternative.
Laurie Griffen
replied the Applicant needs to show the Board where it is and what the
alternative would be, in order to know which way to go.
Applicant John Witt
then said when they do Phase III, they can go through there.
Chairman Ian Murray
replied possibly.
Brandon Myers stated
he will not vote for a preliminary until he sees it; he will not do a
conceptual preliminary.
Applicant John Witt
said he never heard of a project not getting preliminary approval and doesn�t
understand why he can�t get it.
Chairman Ian Murray
responded if the Applicant cuts that back, did the design work on it, he could
possibly get preliminary approval.
Attorney Justin
Grassi stated right now the Board is working toward preliminary approval.� Preliminary approval is approving significant
general concept; road layout, topography, open space, lot layout, recreation
area, lot sizes and things of that nature.�
If what the Applicant proposes isn�t attractive with the Board or some
Board members, based on foreseen impacts, the Applicant may or may not receive
approval if information isn�t provided to the Board.� If more information is required and the
Applicant does not provide it, approval votes may be lost.� Usually that level of detail would be
reserved for final plat, but the Board doesn�t want you to waste your time if
they don�t get the information requested.
Applicant John Witt
said Phase III is very expensive.� He
doesn�t want to spend the money.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated it�s the cost of doing business.�
Applicant John Witt
said he doesn�t think it�s fair that he�s asked to spend that money without an
approval.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated he can�t give preliminary approval until SEQR is complete.
Attorney Justin
Grassi stated SEQR review is a review of the environmental impacts on the
entire project and that includes the design details.� So the Board absolutely is required to review
everything from the archeology and whether or not it is mitigated.� If, for instance, as the Applicant proposed a
new plan removing the 8 lots, and the Board found that adequate, then it might
make it through SEQR and if so, on to preliminary.� They do have to look at the entire package to
complete SEQR.
Applicant John Witt
said he understands that.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated the Planning Board is not here for the benefit of developers, they are
here for the benefit of the Town and the Town's residents.
Laurie Griffen
questioned exactly what does Phase III entails.
Applicant John Witt
said Phase III is where they take the areas where they found things, such as
the arrowheads, and basically do a big dig.�
He's not saying he won't do it, but he'd like to get preliminary
approval.
Chairman Ian Murray
responded there is no way the Board can do it.�
Applicant John Witt
said legally he thinks Chairman Ian Murray is wrong.� Libby Coreno's letter says otherwise.� He then reviewed the letter again.
Attorney Justin
Grassi clarified that what Attorney Coreno indicated in her letter is
accurate.� The Board can move forward and
do SEQR determination and whether or not the impacts are significant they will
be required to assume the worst significant impacts.� To clarify, without Phase III completed,
whatever the determination could be, they have
to assume the greatest worst impacts.
Applicant John Witt
said, looking at the worst case scenario, he's the developer, he understands he
has to do Phase III to develop that land.�
What happens if they do the dig and find more stuff; they document it,
and then he's allowed to develop it.�
Chairman Ian Murray
stated no, that is not always the case.�
Two different times the town Planning Board has had this and those
applicants chose avoidance.
Applicant John Witt
said you can choose avoidance if you don't want to go to Phase III, but if you
go to Phase III you are allowed to develop it.�
That is the rule.
Chairman Ian Murray
responded the other way around that is if you don't want to spend the money on
it, the Board has to consider the worst case scenario and if they do that and
consider those impacts, they can Positive Declaration it.� Then the Applicant will have to go to EIS on
that.�
Applicant John Witt
replied he's looking for preliminary approval without going to Phase III.
He understands the
risk.
Attorney Justin
Grassi stated the only recommendation he has is for the Board to review as much
information as they have for where it is, what was found there and try and make
sure the Board is educated on exactly what is occurring there.� It's possible the Board may find there's no
way to determine environmental impacts and cannot make a Negative
Declaration.� It's up to the Board.�
Hub Miller addressed
the Board with his concerns about the project.�
Applicant John Witt
stated he will provide road layouts, driveway layouts, will have the archeological
plotted out; he thinks the Board will have enough information to decide which
way they want the road to be.� They've
gone through soil surveys, wetlands, existing wells, revised roads, driveways,
manholes will be revised once they do final sewer, retaining walls, water
quality and volume will be shown in the storm water design in the final
layouts, east side road will be built to Town specs either doing a circle or
going back to a hammerhead turnaround; whichever the Board prefers.� He added if the Board changes their mind and
would like the road to go straight through, he is fine with that also.� He thanked the Board for their time.
Chairman Ian Murray
stated the Applicant knows what the Board needs for information and when the
Applicant comes back they will deal with the issue of the application being
deemed complete or not and if it can move forward to SEQR or not.�
Returning
Old
Business: Town Building
Inspector/Zoning Officer Gil Albert and Highway Superintendent and Quaker
Springs Fire Chief Don Ormsby, addressed the Board with their ongoing concerns
of the cul de sac and their belief the road should be a through-road and
connect at Hill Rd.� A through-road makes
it easier and faster for emergency vehicles to get where they need to be and
also cuts down the time of plowing and is safer for the Town's large
vehicles.� If a fire were to occur there,
they have to set up a portable pond as there are no hydrants there.� With a cul de sac, when one truck is stopped
at the pond filling up, another truck has to stop and wait which defeats the
purpose of trying to keep things working efficiently.� That is only one reason Don Ormsby believes a
through-road is best, though there are multiple reasons.
They understand cul
de sacs are sometimes needed, but it is not needed at that location.�
Chairman Ian Murray
stated they've talked about this before and he doesn't want to argue it.� The duty of the Planning Board is to develop
the best project and that is what they are trying to do.� The Board has done due diligence, talked with
the residents and the Town has had cul de sacs since 1984.� He believes, in his opinion, that a cul de
sac is the best fit for the surrounding area.�
He then sincerely
thanked Don Ormsby for his service as a fireman.��
Laurie Griffen
stated they had both plans originally, polled the Board 6 months to a year ago
and the majority opinion of the Board was to have a cul de sac at that time.
Brandon Myers stated
since then, Town Building Inspector/Zoning Officer Gil Albert and Highway
Superintendent and Quaker Springs Fire Chief Don Ormsby have come to meetings
with their legitimate concerns and maybe it should just be a private road.
New
Business:� none
Meeting Adjourned
The next regular meeting will be held Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 7:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. McCabe
Planning Clerk