Town of Charlton
Planning Board Minutes
784 Charlton Road
Charlton, New York 12019
Minutes of Planning Board Meeting – May 19, 2008
Chairman Ray Black called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the John W. Taylor Hall.
Present: Ray Black, Chairman, Jay Wilkinson, John Kadlecek, Mark Hodgkins, Dawn Szurek, Chris Mitchell, Mike Armer, Bill Keniry, Esq., Planning Board Attorney, Susan York, Planning Board clerk and Kimberly Caron, Recording Secretary.
AGENDA MEETING:
Mr. Black stated that there is a quorum.
Minutes
Mr. Black asked for comments on the draft of the April meeting minutes. Mrs. York previously provided comments via mail. No other comments were presented.
Public Hearings
Mr. Black stated that there are no Public Hearings.
Kilichowski/Metz (237-1-1.1)
Mr. Black stated that the Board was waiting for perc test information to prove that it meets the 45-minute perc requirement. Mr. Black stated that the results have been received and it perced at 30 minutes. Mr. Black stated that new maps have been received. Mr. Black stated that at the last meeting it was determined that there were no specific requirements for house location.
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1, 41, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3)
Mr. Black stated that this is a placeholder as this matter is on hold.
Lot Line Change
Vincent/VanGuilder (226-1-68.11)
Mr. Black stated that he received an e-mail requesting a title change to the drawing. Mr. Black stated that he has requested a write up for the Board to review. Mr. Black stated that all he has received is the e-mail.
Mr. Black read the e-mail to the Board.
Mrs. York stated that Mr. VanVranken raised the issue of the title change.
Flynn/Hayes (237-1-49.21 & 237-1-50)
Mr. Black stated that this matter was on hold because the Board requested the Right to Farm note added to the drawing, a scale change and both lots shown. Mr. Black stated that revised drawings have been received.
Mr. Wilkinson inquired if the Board could request the building be shown.
Mr. Black stated that the Board did not specifically request that and that both houses and the garage are shown.
Katz/Murphy (247-1-30.11 and 247-1-30.12)
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Katz will be available for discussion but will be arriving late.
Mr. Black stated that the Board accepted the preliminary application. Mr. Black stated that the Board took lead agency for SEQRA and waived the Public Hearing, engineering review and fees. Mr. Black stated that the application was sent to the County for review and the County response was no significant countywide or intercommunity impact. Mr. Black stated that in accordance with memorandum of understanding, it has been reviewed and deems to present no countywide impact.
ZBA Referral
MPH Properties, LLP (256-1-103)
Mr. Black inquired if Mr. Wilkinson would be willing to take the lead to review the building options, the site options, the parking lot options, etc. Mr. Black stated that the Board could propose a workshop with both the ZBA and the Planning Board together with Mr. Lansing to discuss in detail the options.
Mr. Black entered into the Public Record the letter from Ralph and Nancy Rusilas. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 1. Mr. Black also entered into the Public Record the letter from the ECC. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 2.
The Board discussed possible meeting dates for the workshop.
Pre-application Conference
Cianfarani (256-1-67)
Mr. Black stated that he has reviewed the application. Mr. Black stated that although the lot size is adequate, the frontage is not and the location of the existing house prevents creating a new lot that will meet the mean width requirement of 200 feet. Mr. Black stated that the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance is that the mean lot width, the mean width of the lot substantially perpendicular to the lot depth, has to be 200 feet. Mr. Black stated that as proposed that would be something less than 200 feet for the new lot. Mr. Black stated that not only the mean, but also the maximum lot width would be consistent all the way back. Mr. Black stated that it moves this application from the category of a minor deviation to a relatively significant deviation.
Mr. Black stated that this application would have to be referred to the ZBA.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that there is a letter from Tom Lewis pertaining to a meeting to discuss the potential agenda for the 2009 County Planning Conference. Mr. Black stated that he would like to attend.
Reports
Mr. Black stated that there would be standard reports.
The meeting was closed at 7:28 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING
Opened at 7:30 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Minutes
Mr. Black made the motion to approve the draft of the April 21, 2008 minutes with changes incorporated. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Subdivision Applications
Kilichowski/Metz (237-1-1.1)
Mr. Black stated that the current concerns with this application pertain to the wetlands and the wet soils and also the septic system. Mr. Black stated that the Board had soil boring data but did not have the perc test results. Mr. Black stated that the perc test has been done and the results have been added to the drawing.
Mr. LaFountain asked for the date of the drawing.
Mr. Black stated that the revision date is May 16, 2008. Mr. Black stated that the results were at 1 inch and perced 21 minutes.
Mr. LaFountain stated that he would need a witness to those tests, as the initial test reports were a failure. Mr. LaFountain stated that he did not witness these latest tests.
Mr. Black inquired if Mr. LaFountain wanted the applicant to be placed on hold until he could witness the test.
Mr. LaFountain stated that when they are ready to re-test they could contact him to be there to look at them.
Mr. Black stated that Mrs. Metz has just provided him with a letter from John Gay dated May 7, 2008 to the Metz’s. Mr. Black stated that he would like to read the letter into the record. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as Attachment 3. The letter stated that the results of the test conducted in early April yielded holes in which no measurable drop in water was observed. On April 26, 2008 soil percolation tests were conducted on the west end of the first field. Tests were conducted in a 12-inch deep hole. The first reading was 1 inch in 35 minutes, the second was 1 inch and 42 minutes, the third was 1 inch and 55 minutes and the fourth test was greater than one inch and 60 minutes. Charlton Town Code requires a percolation rate not to exceed 1 inch and 45 minutes.
Mr. Black stated that now there is a drawing dated May 16, 2008 that is signed by John Gay with a perc test location and a drawing that stated 1 inch in 21 minutes.
Mr. Kilichowski stated that they are percing the wrong side of the property. Mr. Kilichowski showed the Board where the tests were being conducted. Mr. Kilichowski stated that the location was changed because of the long driveway issue. Mr. Kilichowski showed the Board the house location that was before the Board. Mr. Kilichowski stated that the recent test was done in the field where the house was proposed before the Board.
Mrs. Metz stated that she had made it clear that the location of the house is where it was drawn and not necessarily where they were going to build.
Mr. Kilichowski stated that the issue is that Mrs. Metz is not willing to pay for a long driveway.
Mrs. Metz stated that she would like to withdraw her name from the application.
Mr. Kilichowski stated that he would like to subdivide the property anyway.
Mr. Black stated that he understands Mr. Kilichowski’s desire to continue the subdivision and obtain approval. Mr. Black stated that he understands that Mrs. Metz wants to withdraw her name from the application. Mr. Black stated that the application lists the Kilichowski’s as owners and the Metz’s as the applicants. Mr. Black stated that there is also an affidavit on file allowing Mrs. Metz to speak on behalf of the Kilichowski’s. Mr. Black stated that the application before the Board might now be invalid.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Keniry for his opinion.
Mr. Keniry stated that the backside of the application is signed by Francine Kilichowski. Mr. Keniry stated, if acceptable to the Board, the Board can accept an amendment to the application that the application be in the name of the Kilichowski’s and ask Mrs. Metz if she desires to terminate the affidavit allowing her to speak for the Kilichowski’s. Mr. Keniry stated that the applicant should be revised and the short form EAF be revised. Mr. Keniry stated that it could be done orally.
Mr. Kilichowski inquired if he does that, will it relieve Mrs. Metz of all liability.
Mr. Black stated as relates to this application before this Board, yes it will release her of liability.
Mr. Black stated that if the affidavit is withdrawn and put on the record, which is being done via this discussion, and Mrs. Metz agrees (Mrs. Metz nodded her head yes) and then the Board agrees to modify the application to remove the Metz’s from the application and modifying it back to an application in the Kilichowski’s name only.
Mr. Keniry informed the Kilichowski’s and the Metz’s that they each may have their own separate rights under any contract that they may have that the Board is unaware of.
Mr. Hodgkins inquired about the perc tests.
Mr. LaFountain stated that since John Gay signed off on it and it meets to subdivision requirements and based on the criteria there are no issues. Mr. LaFountain stated that the soil borings were quite a distance from where the percolation test was done.
Mr. Black stated that the drawing has the required septic note and also a note pertaining to the septic system design.
Mr. Black stated that in review, the Board has an application listing the owner and applicant are now the Kilichowski’s based on Mrs. Metz withdrawing her name from the application and have a separate application where the applicant and the owner are the same. Mr. Black stated that the Board is in a position to approve.
Mr. Black stated that the County reply was no significant countywide or inter community impact. Mr. Black stated that the ECC’s concerns pertained to the wetlands delineation. Mr. Black asked Mr. Schorr to comment.
Mr. Schorr stated that the wetlands issue pertained to the prior application on this land that was previously withdrawn. Mr. Schorr stated that the comment is not applicable to this application.
Mr. Black stated that engineering review has been done. Mr. Black stated that the first comment was associated with the SEQRA form needing to clarify the applicant and owner are. Mr. Black stated that the second comment pertained to the wetlands buffer and that the location precluded the need for any permits. Mr. Black stated that the third comment pertained to septic system most likely requiring a built up system.
Mr. Black inquired as to the appropriate way to make the modification to the application and the SEQRA form.
Mr. Keniry stated that the minutes are adequate and the original application and the EAF already have Mrs. Kilichoiwski’s signature.
Mr. Black made the motion to list this application as an unlisted action with a negative impact declaration with no significant environmental impact. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black asked Mr. Kilichowski to revise the plan and initial and date the original SEQRA form.
Mr. Kilichowski revised the short form EAF and dated it May 19, 2008.
The Board reviewed the short form EAF.
Mr. Black made the motion to approve the subdivision as Resolution 2008-07 as represented on the drawing dated May 16, 2008 and authorize the chairman to sign the mylars. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Resolution 2008-07 was made.
Mrs. York stated that the Park Fee was due. Mrs. York provided the filing instructions.
Heflin/Durst (255-1-40.1,41,43.1,43.2,43.3)
No one representing this matter appeared.
Mr. Black stated that there has been no action and this is a placeholder.
Vincent/VanGuilder (226-1-68.11)
Scott Lansing appeared on behalf of Mr. Rabideau.
Mr. Lansing stated that the Lot Line adjustment has already been approved. Mr. Lansing stated that they are not changing the lot line adjustment, just a map title change. Mr. Lansing provided drawings to be signed, if approved.
Mr. Black made the motion to approve the change in the title, the deed reference and the revision block as indicated by Duane Rabideau’s e-mail request as Resolution 2008-08 and authorize the chairman to sign the mylars. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Resolution 2008-08 was made.
Mr. Black stated that as the Board does not have an affidavit allowing Mr. Lansing to speak for Mr. Rabideau, the approval was granted based on the e-mail from Mr. Rabideau.
Lot Line Adjustments
Flynn/Hayes (237-1-49.21 & 237-1-50)
No one representing this matter appeared.
Mr. Black stated that the Board would delay discussions.
Katz/Murphy (247-1-30.11 and 247-1-30.12)
Mr. Katz appeared before the Board.
Mr. Black stated that the Board was waiting for County review. Mr. Black stated that a letter was received and the comment was no significant countywide or inter community impact. Mr. Black stated that in reviewing the drawings, the date is 2006 and needs to be revised to 2008.
Mr. Katz stated that he will have that changed.
Mr. Katz stated that the house has been built but is not on the drawing. Mr. Katz inquired if the Board would like that added as well.
The Board discussed.
Mr. Black stated that the Board is not requiring the addition but it is up to the applicant.
Mr. Katz will have that added.
Mr. Katz inquired as to the time frame for filing.
Mr. Black stated that it is 60 days.
The Board reviewed the short form EAF and answered no to all questions.
Mr. Black made the motion to declare the application as an unlisted action with a negative impact declaration as relates to environmental impact. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Mr. Black made the motion to approve the subdivision as indicated on the drawing with the additions of the house and revising the signature block date as Resolution 2008-09 and authorize the chairman to sign. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Resolution 2008-09 was made.
Mrs. York provided the filing instructions.
ZBA Referral
MPH Properties, LLP (256-1-103)
Scott Lansing from Lansing Engineering appeared before the Board.
Mr. Black stated that the Board had discussions during the agenda meeting about this application.
Mr. Black acknowledged Adam Todd, Don Schermerhorn and Mark Chotkowski, Zoning Board members, were present for the meeting.
Mr. Black stated that unless there are changes to the plan as a result of what was presented at the Public Hearing, the Board is familiar with the plan as proposed.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that the Board has not seen the side views of the proposed buildings yet.
Mr. Lansing posted the side views of the proposed buildings for the Board members to see.
Mr. Lansing stated that since the Public Hearing, they have taken in the comments from the public and Mr. McNamara. Mr. Lansing stated that the biggest item, relative to public comment, pertained to site access and the architecture of the proposed buildings.
Mr. Lansing stated that relative to site access, one of the public comments pertained to vehicles exiting the parcel and going out onto Old Stage Road to match back up with Lake Hill Road. Mr. Lansing stated that in looking at that possibility, they feel that the access proposed is more appropriate. Mr. Lansing stated that it is their opinion that having the access come out onto Stage Road and go out to Lake Hill Road at a known intersection is the best access management for the parcel as opposed to coming out on Lake Hill. Mr. Lansing stated that during the Public Hearing, residents did talk about rather excessive speed on Lake Hill Road, which in their opinion does necessitate having the access management off of Stage Road as opposed to Lake Hill Road. Mr. Lansing stated that they have set up a meeting with Ted
Serbalik of the Saratoga County Department of Public Works. Mr. Lansing stated that he did meet with Mr. Serbalik out at the site to take a look at the parcel. Mr. Lansing stated that Mr. Serbalik felt that there was very adequate sight distance in both locations and agreed that this was the best access location for the parcel. Mr. Lansing stated that Mr. Serbalik would be supplying a letter to that affect.
Mr. Lansing stated that relative to the architectural elevations of the site, Todd Stewart is here, who generated the elevations for the buildings. Mr. Lansing stated that there are two renditions of the elevations. Mr. Lansing stated that at this time they would like to start with the core of the building and perhaps have this as a possible addition to the building. Mr. Lansing showed the east elevation, the north elevation looking from Lake Hill Road into the site, the south elevation looking from the bottom of the parcel up, northwest elevation would be looking directly on from the front entranceway and the west elevation looking in from Stage Road.
Mr. Lansing stated that the comments from the public and the Board were that of having a residential feel to it. Mr. Lansing stated that it would have a pitched roof, dormers, shutters, decorative window headers, etc.
Mr. Lansing stated that the second page is exactly the same viewpoints with the only difference is showing the extension off of the back portion of the building.
Mr. Lansing stated that there were engineering comments from Mr. McNamara. Mr. Lansing stated that one of the comments was relative to the lot size on the overall plan that we are applying for, the special exception, we do show the two buildings which are permissible as long as the buildings are less than 5,000 square feet for a 2 acre area and we are proposing two buildings that are less than 5,000 square feet and the overall area…
Mr. Black inquired if the 5,000 square feet was computed by the main core building, plus the addition, first and second floor.
Mr. Lansing stated that it is only a one-floor building.
Mr. Black inquired if the windows in the elevation on the second are just decorative.
Mr. Stewart stated just utilities upstairs.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired about the space behind the dormers.
Mr. Stewart stated that the space would be used for storage.
Mr. Lansing stated that the boundary has been done by a licensed surveyor and is verified at over 4 acres.
Mr. Lansing stated that another comment from Mr. McNamara pertained to access, which has been addressed by the meeting with DPW.
Mr. Lansing stated that the last comment was relative to parking. Mr. Lansing stated that they are proposing 100 spaces overall for the parcel, roughly 50 per building. Mr. Lansing stated that Mr. McNamara agreed with them that it was an appropriate number of spaces for the uses on this parcel. Mr. Lansing stated that the comment was relative to the interpretation of the code, and the Zoning Ordinance stated that the ratio is 3:1 from the building square footage. Mr. Lansing stated that since they have a roughly 5,000 square foot building we need 15,000 square feet of parking area. Mr. Lansing stated that they used the parking stall plus half of the isle for both areas and came up with an excess of 15,000 square feet.
Mr. Black stated that he would interpret the Zoning Ordinance as the entire paved surface of the parking lot.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if they would consider a smaller number of parking spaces.
Mr. Black proposed a less conservative one which included the connectors roadways between the parking areas. Mr. Black stated that the reason he would include that is because it is a paved surface and if there are no available parking spots, cars may park there.
Mr. LaFountain stated that it would be part of the Zoning Board of Appeals interpretation based on the criteria for that as a special use. Mr. LaFountain stated that it would be more appropriate that the parking question should come up in the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mark Chotkowski, Zoning Board member, inquired that since the utilities are going in the attic space, is the first floor on a slab.
Mr. Stewart stated a slab.
Don Schermerhorn, Zoning Board member, stated that he was inclined to agree with Mr. LaFountain in that it is a Zoning Code.
Mr. Black stated that of interest to the Planning Board is the desire to try to potentially reduce the parking area and potentially violate the 3:1 ratio. Mr. Black stated that the Board would like to consider alternatives to the paved surface, whether it is permeable or not permeable.
Mr. Todd stated that it was his interpretation that it would be the entire paved surface area, not just the allotment per vehicle.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if the Zoning Board of Appeals could look into that and report back to the Planning Board.
Mr. Chotkowski stated that his only concern is for the fire truck access to the site.
Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board plans to get input from the Police, Fire and other agencies as well.
Mr. Mitchell stated that 50 spaces per building seem adequate. Mr. Mitchell stated that in the winter they would want a place for snow removal.
Mr. Black stated that 50 spaces do seem to be adequate. Mr. Black stated that the Board would like to investigate if 30 may be adequate. Mr. Black stated that the Board’s interest in the site plan is to reduce the impermeable surface as much as possible for the purposes of stormwater management. Mr. Black stated that the Board’s second desire is to try and minimize paved surface areas from an aesthetic point of view.
Mr. Lansing stated that they do have ample room for snow removal. Mr. Lansing stated that they could discuss banking 10 spaces to increase green area and if there becomes a need for those spaces, they could construct them.
Mr. LaFountain inquired if the curbing would be asphalt or concrete.
Mr. Lansing stated that they have not gotten that far yet.
Mr. Schermerhorn stated that he would be inclined to interpret the Zoning Ordinance as read to be the surface area.
Mr. Black asked that the Zoning Board of Appeals discuss that issue at the next meeting.
Mr. Black inquired if they could reduce to meet the 3:1 ratio.
Mr. Lansing stated yes.
Mr. Todd asked which area was excluded.
Mr. Lansing pointed it out on the map.
Ms. Szurek inquired about the power lines.
Mr. Lansing pointed it out on the map.
Mrs. York stated that it looked like the poles may have to be moved.
Mr. Lansing had black and white plans, which he showed to the Boards.
Mr. Black stated that Mr. Wilkinson has done some conservation practices research. Mr. Black stated that he would like to turn the floor over to Mr. Wilkinson. Mr. Black stated that Mr. Wilkinson would be discussing potential areas for consideration. Mr. Black stated that the Board would like to have a workshop to discuss this site alone.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the Zoning Ordinance has a list for site plan review on page 110. Mr. Wilkinson stated that he would like to highlight some of the list:
-location design of outdoor lighting facilities;
-general landscape plan and planting schedules;
-location of fire and other emergency zones;
-location design and construction materials of all energy distribution facilities including electrical and gas;
Mr. Wilkinson stated that the Board is proposing having a workshop, possibly on June 2, 2008 to go through the issues. Mr. Wilkinson stated that the Board could provide copies of the pages from the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Lansing stated that he has a copy of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he went on to the NYS DEC website regarding stormwater management. Mr. Wilkinson stated that there were suggestions for other surfaces that could possibly be used in the areas where overflow parking would be.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that one of the things that are popular now is trying to make the driving areas porous rather than solid. Mr. Kadlecek inquired if Mr. Lansing had done any work with that type of material.
Mr. Lansing stated that they could look into that and get back to the Board.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if any special efforts were in the design to put together an energy star building.
Mr. Stewart stated that they have not discussed that at this time.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the power line does intersect the parking lot. Mr. Mitchell stated that they might have to be relocated or buried.
Mr. Lansing stated that the applicants are planning to leave the power lines as is as it is rather costly.
Mr. Black stated that the list of specific topics to be discussed at the workshop, so far, include:
Permeable surfaces in paved areas;
Power line; and
Energy star building practices.
Ms. Szurek questioned the signage. Ms. Szurek stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires uplit signage.
Mr. Lansing stated that they can speak to the applicants but thinks that they are looking for the Board’s preference.
Mr. Black stated that this is a two-phase project. Mr. Black stated that phase one is to build the core building first, then maybe an extension to that building and then later on a second building. Mr. Black stated that with the drawing on the left being the final view of what could happen, the drawing on the right being potentially what might be the case for some period of time. Mr. Black stated that he does not understand the exact intended use of the buildings. Mr. Black inquired as to the intended use of the second building. Mr. Black inquired if there would be two separate medical practices, or all one medical practice. Mr. Black inquired why not one building where you could expand and go to a second floor.
Marv Schorr stated that question was one of the ECC’s questions also.
Mr. Black stated that the Zoning Ordinance stated that the building height restriction is 30 feet. Mr. Black stated that if that were the preferred way, if there was a minor violation to do it, it could be accepted as a deviation.
Mr. Stewart stated that he could only speak to the costs. Mr. Stewart stated that it would have to be done all at once for a two-story and the proposed way could be done at sometime down the road, or not at all.
Mr. Black stated that an alternative to that would be potential expansion instead of a complete second building.
Ms. Szurek inquired as to the use for the other building.
Mr. Schermerhorn stated that Mr. Pellagalli, attorney for the applicants, stated that the second building would be a professional office building.
Mr. Keniry gave the definition of a professional office building.
Mr. Black inquired about the wastewater management/stormwater management area.
Mr. Lansing stated that they have not done a formal design yet. Mr. Lansing stated that they expect it would have a permanent pool in the stormwater management areas.
Mr. Mitchell inquired if it would be a managed system or a mowed system.
Mr. Lansing stated that it is proposed as an open basin with the banks of it being mowed and there would be maintenance involved with the basin.
Ms. Szurek inquired who maintains the area.
Mr. Lansing stated that the applicant of the parcel maintains it.
Mr. Black stated that there were two letters from neighboring property owners that were not read into the Public Hearing record. Mr. Black read a letter from Ralph and Nancy Ruslias and a letter from John Farrell.
Mr. Black stated that there is a letter from the Environmental Conservation Commission.
Mr. Schorr, ECC, stated that they would like to see a traffic study done.
Mr. Black stated that there is not a proposal for a traffic study as it has been reviewed by the County and agreed to with the entrance where it is.
Mr. Schorr stated that a traffic study was not done. Mr. Schorr stated that there will be an increase in traffic volume and the ECC would like to see a traffic study done. Mr. Schorr stated that the ECC also commented on the design of the building. Mr. Schorr stated that the ECC suggested a one, two-story building, to protect the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Schorr stated that the ECC also commented on the fraction of green space. Mr. Schorr stated that it does not look like 2/3 of the land is green space with two buildings on it.
Mr. Lansing stated that he could provide the calculations for the green space figure. Mr. Lansing stated that they looked at the ITE manual and did a trip study. Mr. Lansing stated that there would be low-level traffic throughout the day. Mr. Lansing stated that they are not planning on having a traffic study.
Mr. Hodgkins inquired how the square footage of the existing building compared to the new building.
Mr. Lansing stated that the existing building has 1800 square feet and 5 exam rooms.
Mr. Keniry stated that at the Public Hearing it was stated that the new building is 5,000 square feet with ten exam rooms. Mr. Keniry stated that it was also mentioned that they have no plans for expanding their staff.
Mr. Schorr stated that the ECC had major concerns with the proximity of the complex to the Alplaus Creek and the sharp slope of the land from the applicant’s site toward the creek. Mr. Schorr stated that they also asked for details of drainage provisions, stormwater management provisions, and details of provisions to protect the creek during construction.
Mr. Lansing stated that they plan to do a full stormwater pollution intervention plan for the parcel.
Mr. Schermerhorn inquired if that would include the area of disturbance.
Mr. Lansing responded yes.
Mr. LaFountain stated that the process is monitored by a third party inspector.
Mr. Schorr stated that the ECC’s last concern pertained to light pollution and the direction of the shining lights.
Mr. Black stated that the list of specific topics to be discussed at the workshop, now also include:
Permeable surfaces in paved areas;
Power line;
Energy star building practices;
Lighting plan;
Signage;
One building versus two buildings versus one two-story building
Building aesthetics;
Use of the building (undetermined);
Wastewater Management area;
Traffic study;
Need to involve fire department, police department and emergency services;
ECC concerns.
Mr. LaFountain provided Mr. Lansing with a copy of pages 110-114 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Black polled the Boards and the applicants about waiting for the next monthly meeting to review the issues or to hold a special workshop.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired as to the 45-day time clock.
Mr. Keniry stated that the Board is not under the gun now and they do not have the complete information to act on.
Mr. Black polled the Board and the applicants as to the availability for a workshop.
The parties agreed to hold a special meeting workshop on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Black stated that there will be a public notice posted for the meeting. Mr. Black stated that the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals would be present along with the engineering and construction firms for details of the site plan review. Mr. Black stated that the Board would notify the fire department, the police department and emergency services of the meeting. Mr. Black stated that the Board would further notify the ECC, Mr. McNamara and the highway department of the meeting.
Mr. Keniry will do the public notice.
Pre-Application Conference
Cianfarani (256-1-67)
Mr. Cianfarani appeared before the Board.
Mr. Black provided Mr. Cianfarini with the zoning ordinance requirements for subdivisions. Mr. Black explained the subdivision requirements for a single lot.
Mr. Black stated that the drawing as proposed has inappropriate frontage as drawn due to the existing house. Mr. Black stated that this Board cannot authorize exceptions to this requirement. Mr. Black stated that the application as proposed would have to go before the ZBA. Mr. Black stated that if ZBA approves the deviation, then the Planning Board can act of the subdivision. Mr. Black noted that, because of the location of the existing house, by the time the setback requirements are met it may jeopardize the ability to get 2 acres on the new lot. Mr. Black stated that when there is a substantial deviation you are setting a precedent. Mr. Black stated that it is likely that the ZBA will not approve this deviation. Mr. Black stated that it may be in best interest to see if there is another way to
divide the two lots. Mr. Black suggested having the property surveyed to get the details.
Mr. Black showed Mr. Cianfarini where he could move the driveway to possibly get a better layout.
Mr. Cianfarini inquired if he moved the house location behind the existing house if that was acceptable.
Mr. Black stated that the Board tried to avoid front yard/back yard properties to avoid privacy issues. Mr. Black stated that the Board would need to see the details as done by a surveyor. Mr. Black suggested going online to the GIS system to get the exact layout. Mr. Black stated that the GIS system could provide different sketches that could be drawn using the aerial view.
Mr. LaFountain stated that Mr. Cianfarini could come in Tuesday night and he would show him on the computer in the office.
Mrs. York suggested seeing if the parcel in front could be purchased.
Mr. Black stated that at this point, the Board is referring him to the ZBA.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. LaFountain provided the report for April 2008 and reviewed it with the Board.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that on Thursday, May 29, 2008 there is a meeting to discuss the 2009 Planning Conference and what should be included. Mr. Black stated that he is interested in attending.
Town Board Liaison
Mrs. Verola was not present.
The Board adjourned at 10:15 p.m. to enter in to Executive Session to discuss current and pending litigation. The Board returned from Executive Session at 10:45 p.m.
Mr. Mitchell made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Wilkinson seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:46 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly A. Caron
Recording Secretary
Attachment 2
Carlton Ellms, Chairman May 13, 2008
Town of Charlton Zoning Board of Appeals
468 Charlton Road
Charlton, NY 12019
Subject: Application From MPH Properties to Construct a Professional Office Building
The subject application from MPH Properties for a special exception to construct a professional office building on behalf of Charlton Family Medicine on the corner of Stage Road and Lakehill Road was reviewed by the Charlton Environmental Conservation Commission at its April 29, 2008 meeting, as requested by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
After examining the application and the site drawings, the ECC has the following concerns that it believes should be addressed during the course of the ZBA and Planning Board reviews.
A traffic study should be conducted to assess the impacts of the increased traffic on the area roads. What will be the daily volume of cars in and out of the parking lot? A similar medical facility constructed a few years ago at the intersection of Charlton Road and Van Vorst Road in the Town of Glenville appears to have significantly increased traffic volume at that intersection.
The design of the building should reflect the character of the neighborhood. A modern, large medical complex may alter the character of the neighborhood. Has consideration been given to erecting a two story building instead of two one-story buildings? The fraction of land on the site occupied by buildings and parking appears to be much in excess of the phase 1 and 2 fractions stated by the applicant during the presentation to the ZBA on April 21, 2008. At that time it was stated that 80% green space would remain after completion of phase 1 (building 1) and 67 % after phase 2 (building 2).
There are major concerns with the proximity of the complex to the Alplaus Creek and the sharp slope of the land from the applicant’s site toward the creek, details of drainage provisions, stormwater management provisions, and details of provisions to protect the creek during construction and after should be provided.
Special attention should be paid to minimizing nighttime light pollution from any parking lot and outside building lights. This is largely a rural agricultural and residential area, with residences fairly close by.
If we can be of any further help on this matter feel free to contact me at 399-4161.
Marvin M. Schorr, Chairman
Town of Charlton Environmental Conservation Commission
cc: ECC members
Ray Black, Chairman, Planning Board
Sue York, Planning Board Clerk
D. Salisbury, Town Board Liaison
| 
