Town of Charlton
Planning Board Minutes
784 Charlton Road
Charlton, New York 12019
Minutes of Planning Board Meeting – September 15, 2008
Chairman Ray Black called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the John W. Taylor Hall.
Present: Ray Black, Chairman, John Kadlecek, Connie Wood, Mark Hodgkins, Jay Wilkinson, Bill Keniry, Esq., Planning Board Attorney, Susan York, Planning Board Clerk and acting Recording Secretary. Dawn Szurek joined the meeting at 7:10 and Chris Mitchell joined the meeting at 7:14 p.m.
AGENDA MEETING:
Mr. Black stated that there is a quorum.
Minutes
Mr. Black asked for comments on the draft of the July 21st 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.
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.
Jones (226-1-53)
Mr. Black stated that the Board has a request for a pre-application conference from Mr. Michael Jones.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he and Mr. Kadlecek had made a trip on Sunday to visit the property. Of the two options proposed, he favors option #2 with modifications. The power lines are a factor. Mr. Wilkinson also asked, and received verification, that Mr. Michael Jones was in the audience to hear the agenda meeting.
Mrs. Wood asked, what are the dimensions? Later in the meeting, Mr. La Fountain brought the tax map to the table to show the parcel.
Mr. Kadlecek stated that, regarding option #2, he observed two undesirable features:
1) Route 67 - the new driveway needs to cut into Sweetman Road
2) The southern boundary line needs to be moved further south, away from the power lines, to place the house further from the power line.
Mr. Black observed that the solid black line on the map was the power line. He asked if the black spot on the map was a pond and Mr. Kadlecek informed him that it was a big tree.
Mr. Black stated that option #1 creates a situation of squeezing the house in, and so does option #2, due to the power line. However the house is placed, the concern is the long driveway that would be needed.
It was observed that there is plenty of road frontage on Route 67 and Sweetman to meet road frontage requirements.
MPH Properties, LLP (256-1-103)
Mr. Black referred to Mr. McNamara’s letter of September 12, 2008 [Attachment 3] that indicated that Mr. McNamara had reviewed the revised plans with the most recent record of work date of July 30, 2008. This was confusing, so he checked the revision block on the map and read that the revision date was August 25, 2008, to incorporate changes per the Town Engineer’s comments dated July 30, 2008. Mr. Black concluded that the August 25th plans, that address the July 30th comments, are the plans to which Mr. McNamara refers in his September 12th letter.
Mr. Black expressed that he was very pleased with the review of the stormwater plan performed by Mr. Kadlecek and Mr. Wilkinson, and their written comments. He wanted to review these comments during the meeting, and concludes that Mr. McNamara is satisfied.
At this point, the Acting Secretary will describe the written documents, for MPH Properties, which were provided to the Planning Board for the meeting.
1) Detailed plans, with a revision date of 08/25/08, previously distributed.
2) Three copies of the detailed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Report, previously distributed to Mr. McNamara, Mr. Kadlecek who worked with Mr. Wilkinson to review, and the Town Hall copy loaned to Mr. Schorr, who reviewed the plans and verbally conveyed to Mrs. York that he, representing the ECC, has had ECC concerns satisfied.
3) Via E-mail on September 12, 2008, with copies at the meeting – September 11, 2008 stormwater plan review comments provided by Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Kadlecek, listing 6 comments/questions. Via E-mail on September 12th, Mrs. York was asked to forward the comments to Mr. McNamara with the request that he forward them to Mr. Lansing, if he thought it necessary. [Attachment 1]
4) Mr. McNamara replied to the comments from Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Kadlecek via E-mail on Friday, September 12th. When Mrs. York discovered that not everyone was on distribution to receive this reply, she forwarded the E-mail to the rest of the Planning Board on Sunday afternoon, September 14th. Paper copies were made available at the meeting. [Attachment 2]
5) Via E-mail on September 12, 2008, with copies at the meeting –Mr. McNamara’s September 12, 2008 letter [Attachment 3]
6) Unsigned draft copies of the ZBA August 12, 2008 Resolution granting a special exception permit to MPH Properties, LLC/Charlton Family Medicine – Capital Care.
Lot Line Adjustment
Heritage/Palmer (247-1-29.11 & 247-1-29.12)
Mr. Black stated that this is on hold.
ZBA Referral
Hichman (256.10-3-58)
Mr. Black stated that the ZBA had referred an application for an area variance for Edna and Mark Hichman, 4 Cortland Drive.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that he and Mr. Kadlecek had also driven to this residence on Sunday, September 14th . Mr. Wilkinson stated that they had noticed that the houses on his street all line up [approx. same distance from the road], and by adding a porch to the front, it would make this house jut out. Placing the steps on the front of the porch would place it closer to the road and they recommend that the steps be placed on the side, towards the driveway, to make them less intrusive. If outside access to the porch is limited to the driveway, the plan is OK.
Mr. La Fountain pointed out that the application requests 16 feet of relief for a 40 foot setback requirement.
Mr. Wilkinson wondered what the neighbors think of this plan.
Mr. Black stated that the porch doesn’t change the impression of the house much in that other houses on the street have front porches.
Mr. Kadlecek inquired if the porch will be open.
Mr. Black stated that the plan calls for an open porch now. Both expressed concern that an open porch, if enclosed later, starts to become an added room.
Mr. Hodgekins thought that, to have the stairs on the front, makes the porch more visually symmetrical.
Mr. Black stated that the rest is standard.
Mr. Black closed the agenda meeting at 7:25
Prior to commencing the business meeting, Mr. Keniry raised a concern with the Planning Board regarding MPH Properties. Mr. Keniry stated that the Town Attorney, Mr. Van Vranken, is of the opinion that the granting of Special Exception, to MPH Properties, does not need to come back to the Town Board. Mr. Keniry pointed out that, from the perspective of the Planning Board, the Planning Board is finished upon the granting of final site plan approval. However, Mr. Keniry stated that, within the Town Municipal law, it reads that the Town Board is the Board to grant such approval. He sees this written in Article VII, section 1 [which is page 55 of the blue Zoning Ordinance book]. Mr. Keniry stated that he is just raising this practical point, to allow the Planning Board to be prepared to answer.
Mr. Keniry went on to say that there are two options for review, and that local law clearly allows the ZBA to grant relief in Special Exception cases. The MPH Properties Special Exception is a special exception to Zoning, which is within the power of the Town Board.
Mr. Black read the first paragraph of the ZBA resolution, previously mentioned in distributed documents, which indicates that the Town Board granted jurisdiction to the ZBA. It states:
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2008, the Town Board of the Town of Charlton did by resolution refer a special exception permit application to the Town of Charlton Zoning Board of Appeals, requesting that the Zoning Board of Appeals exercise jurisdiction with respect to the application and as authorized by the Town of Charlton Zoning Ordinance, Article VII – Special Exception for Land Uses, and …
Mr. Black read the Town Ordinance and agreed that Mr. Keniry has a valid point.
Mr. Keniry stated that the applicant needs to check with the Town Attorney, Mr. Van Vranken, who needs to provide advice. Mr. Keniry interprets the law to indicate that the ZBA can provide determination of advised course of action, but cannot grant relief. The ordinance only grants, to the Town Board, the ability to grant relief.
Mr. Keniry informed the Planning Board that there is no need for the Planning Board to slow down. The SEQRA review is complete, per the July 21, 2008 minutes. Mr. Keniry sees no reason that Mr. Lansing’s changes of August 25th are of substance to negate SEQRA and impact the negative declaration.
Mr. Black stated that it important that, during the business review of MPH Properties, the Board needs to note that there are no substantive changes to impact the SEQRA negative declaration.
BUSINESS MEETING
Opened at 7:40 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Minutes
Mr. Black made the motion, 2nd by Mrs. Wood, to approve the draft of the July 21, 2008 minutes with comments previously provided by Mrs. York. All were in favor with the exceptions that Mr. Black abstained from the vote and Mr. Kadlecek was temporarily out of the room.
Mr. Black stated that there was no Public Hearing and no discussion on Heflin-Durst. Mr. Black asked Mr. Lansing if he minded that the Planning Board hear Mr. Jones, in that discussion should be brief.
Jones (226-1-53)
Mr. Michael Jones approached the Planning Board.
Mr. Black informed Mr. Jones that it was the advice, not a requirement of the Planning Board, that the new driveway avoid Route 67 and be placed with access to Sweetman Road. He also stated that, in the current option #2, the power line impacts placement of the driveway.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the property contains old Route 67, which is north of the power line.
Mr. Jones indicated that the dark line on the sketch is the power line, and he provided a better copy of an aerial view that shows it. Mr. Jones indicated that the National Grid right of way runs 15 feet on either side of the power line.
Mr. Black suggested that, under option #2, if old Route 67 is outside of the National Grid right of way, it could be used for the driveway. He further stated that National Grid would have to rule. The Planning Board would require a survey map that shows the existing road, National Grid right of way, and any driveway crossing the right of way. A permit would be required from National Grid, and the Planning Board would require proof of such permit for the subdivision process. Mr. Black added that option #2 seemed to be sufficient as shown.
Mr. Kadelcek is concerned that there is a sag in the power line that must be considered when crossing under it.
Mr. Mitchell did not think the sag was a problem when moving farm equipment under it. He also suggested to Mr. Jones that the line in question might be a secondary line, not a primary line. Primary lines definitely require permits to cross under but, perhaps secondary lines do not.
Mr. Black informed Mr. Jones that some of the Board members suggest moving the driveway south of the power line. If he is thinking of doing this, he needs to be aware of Charlton’s requirements for driveways over 500 feet in length. Such long driveways must be able to accommodate a 50,000 pound vehicle of 30 feet in length, with a turn-around within 100 feet of the house. Such driveways are very costly to build, and the old Route 67 roadbed might be sturdy enough to meet the long driveway requirements.
Mr. Black further stated that Mr. Jones can plan for the driveway to cut into Route 67, but the Planning Board will not look upon it favorably.
Mr. Kadlecek proposed that the driveway cut be moved further south for sight distance reasons, and he strongly favors the driveway cut into Sweetman.
Mr. Black called for a summarization roll-call of opinion and preference:
Mr. Kadlecek – option #2 with slight line adjustment and driveway cut into Sweetman Road, further to the south
Mr. Wilkinson – option #2 with the driveway south of the power line to avoid the issues of the sag and crossing under it
Mrs. Wood – option #2, driveway south of power line with no cut into 67
Ms. Szurek – neutral
Mr. Black – option #2, cut into Sweetman, and he has no issues with a driveway that crosses under the power line.
Mr. Mitchell – option #2, try to use old Route 67 roadbed as the driveway.
Mr. Hodgkins – option #1 not so good, try to use old road bed to keep cost of driveway down – will need to have an engineer test the depth of the road bed. Also, have National Grid fix the sag in the line.
Mr. Black asked Mr. La Fountain to give Mr. Jones the driveway information.
Mr. La Fountain pointed out that Sweetman Road is a County road.
Mr. Black reiterated to Mr. Jones that the Planning Board will require a copy of the written permit from National Grid if his plan calls for crossing under the power line.
MPH Properties, LLP (256-1-103)
Review began at 8:05 with Mr. Lansing coming to the front to present his latest overview plan. The primary remaining issues were with the stormwater system design, which was the focus of discussion.
Mr. Black referred to a final review letter from Mr. McNamara, dated September 12, 2008 [Attachment 3], the stormwater detail review comments from Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Kadlecek, with 6 comments/questions [Attachment 1], and an E-mail from Mr. McNamara, dated September 12th, that answered the 6 comment/questions [Attachment 2].
Mr. Black expressed that, with this information, it appeared that Mr. McNamara was satisfied with Mr. Lansing’s latest plans, but it appeared that this satisfaction was based upon plans not yet seen by the Planning Board. The latest plans received by the Planning Board contain a revision date of August 25, 2008.
Mr. Lansing confirmed that the plans that he brought to the September 15th meeting contained the latest changes requested by Mr. McNamara.
Mr. Black requested that Mr. Lansing address the 6 comment/questions raised by Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Kadlecek. Each of the 6 comment/questions are listed individually, followed by Mr. McNamara’s September 12th reply, followed by Mr. Lansing’s explanation as given at the meeting.
#1 More information is needed about the design, functioning, and maintenance of the underdrain.
Mr. McNamara’s reply:
This item fits with comments that I discussed with Scott and he is addressing. He will add a detail, specify elevations on the underdrain and move the drain to the perimeter of the basin.
Mr. Lansing described the functioning of the underdrain, pointing to the plans and the location of the stormwater system to the south-west corner of the parcel. The underdrain will be 30 inches underground, perforated, with a gate valve with access from the top. Plan DT5 shows the detail. Mr. Lansing said that the drain would normally contain water, and that the function of the system will be to direct stormwater runoff to this “dry basin” where normal evaporation of the water, through soil and vegetation covering it, will remove excess water. In the case of heavy rain and runoff, the function of the gate valve is to permit release of excess water into the deep ditch, along Stage Road, that already drains stormwater runoff towards the creek. One change to the plans had been to direct excess
water to the normal roadside ditch, rather than towards the neighboring parcel.
Mr. Hodgkins commented that the plans appeared to contain provision for a French drain, where water will seep to the underdrain, utilizing the gate valve as an emergency way to release excess water.
Mr. Black observed that water will normally get out purely through the ground. He then questioned the perforated pipe along the line of stone, and expressed concern that soil will, over time, plug it up.
Mr. Lansing replied that the pipe will normally be filled with water, and that filter fabric will be used to prevent the pipe from being plugged with soil.
#2 Section 5.2 states “Design Point One was utilized for the final post-development stormwater discharge analysis”. How was this used if discharge is not to occur at DP1? Because of a rise in the terrain at the south end of the property, it is possible that this location is not where surface water now exits the site.
Mr. McNamara’s reply:
The different location between Scott's modeled design point and the actual discharge is insignificant. The current plans are discharging to the area that we considered to be the best location.
Mr. Lansing stated that the emergency drainages were moved towards the highway and not south to the creek.
#3 Section 6.2 discusses conveyance piping design. We do not see the proposed locations of the storm sewer pipes and where water will enter and exit the pipes.
Mr. McNamara’s reply:
This is probably just boiler plate language that does not apply to this particular project. There is no harm in leaving it in but it can be removed if the Board desires.
Mr. Lansing stated that the catch basin had been replaced by the closed system.
Mr. Kadlecek asked how will erosion be avoided?
Mr. Lansing answered, with turf reinforcement.
Mr. La Fountain asked if Mr. Lansing had obtained a SPDES permit [State Pollutant Elimination System]. Mr. Lansing replied “yes”. [Secretarial addition: The detailed stormwater plans refer to Construction Activity permit GP-0-08-001]
#4 Sheet DT-5 specifies a “10 foot wide gravel access/maintenance drive”. Will a gravel surface still be necessary given the change in system design?
Mr. McNamara replied:
This is an errant label left behind from the prior plans. I mentioned it to Scott. There is also another "aquatic bench" label that he is going to remove.
Mr. Lansing stated that this label was removed.
#5 Several sheets show a large black dot just south of the spillway. What is it supposed to represent?
Mr. McNamara replied:
Not sure what the black dot is. I think it will likely disappear when Scott refines the underdrain per my comments.
Mr. Lansing replied that the black dot is the gate valve, and it was reduced in size on the plans.
#6 Parking spaces at the north end of the site are still referred to as “banked” on most sheets and unlabeled on one sheet. Both suggest that these spaces are to be considered as approved. That is not the case. Either remove the parking area from the drawings or otherwise make it clear that Planning Board approval is needed before this area can be paved over.
Mr. McNamara replied:
The note on sheet LM-1 near the banked spaces satisfied me that the plans were pointing out that they would need further approval if utilized. If the Board wants to see it noted different or removed altogether, I think that is fair and it is up to them. They could certainly reiterate that comment on Monday and it is a minor enough change that it could be an item of a conditional approval.
A comment was added to the drawing, but Mr. Kadlecek stated that he wants to see the wording “can’t build banked parking until approved” and display this area with dotted lines.
Ms. Szurek inquired about the planting charts on DT5, but no plant locations are shown on the plan.
Mr. Lansing replied that this changed when the stormwater system changed into a dry basin system.
Mr. Hodgkins commented that it looked like the underdrain is 3 feet below the French drain.
Mr. Lansing explained that there are 2 drains: 1 around the outside and 1 deep on the floor of the basin. He explained that DT5 had been revised on September 12th per input from Mr. McNamara.
Mr. Lansing approached the table with his plans to discuss in further detail.
Mr. Lansing explained how the parking will be graded to flow water away from the building, where it will be collected in swales and routed towards the drainage area.
Mr. Black observed that the map shows contours to indicate how the water will flow. There was discussion about the 2 outflow points, on the map, to direct water to the basin. Once the water reaches the basin, it collects and evaporates.
Mr. Lansing explained how water will only be drained from the basin if someone opens the gate valve.
Next, the discussion turned to drainage from the roof. Mr. Lansing explained how the roof will drain. The Planning Board wants the plans to indicate roof drainage to swale with a 4” line, with 12” pipe below ground, under parking area.
Ms. Szurek pointed out that plan LS1 still contained the same coding error [PA], for a spruce tree in front of the sign. Mr. Lansing will have his landscape architect correct this. He thought it had already been done.
Mr. Black summarized the remaining changes needed:
1) Banked parking spaces
2) PA landscape code
3) Roof drains
Mr. Black made a motion to approve the final site plan review for MPH Properties, with the contingency that the 3 changes be made to the final plans, Mr. Hodgkins 2nd, all approved, none opposed.
Resolution 2008-11 was made
Mr. Black inquired if the Planning Board sees any changes that would affect the SEQRA negative declaration of July 21, 2008, as prepared by Acting Chairman Mr. Wilkinson with input from the Board. The original copy was located in Mr. Black’s folder. The Planning Board declared that there was no significant change to the plans to affect the negative declaration.
Mr. Keniry stated how this is important, because the clock started ticking, for the applicant, with this July 21st date on the SEQRA review.
Mr. Black called for the minutes to reflect that there is confusion as to which Board can grant Special Exception to permitted use – the ZBA or Town Board. Town Board members Mrs. Verola and Supervisor Grattidge, present in the audience, were asked to have the Town Board provide something in writing, from the Town Board. He expressed his understanding that the Town Board can delegate, to the ZBA, the review of a case, but the Town Board needs to grant the Special Exception. Mrs. Verola and Supervisor Grattidge agreed.
Mr. Keniry agreed to speak with the Town Attorney, Mr. Van Vranken.
Mr. Keniry explained to Mr. Lansing that the statute requires that a minimum of three copies of the final plans be submitted, plus any additional copies desired, for the Chairman to sign.
Mr. Black commended Mr. Lansing on the excellent job that he had done on preparing the plans, and that it was a pleasure to work with him.
ZBA referral
Hichman (256.10-3-58)
Mr. Black summarized the discussion, made during the agenda meeting, that the Planning Board response is:
1) the addition of a porch is a legitimate request
2) regarding the entrance to the porch, steps towards Cortland Drive increase the area variance, and that the Planning Board suggests steps at the side, towards the driveway.
Mrs. York was asked to prepare the letter to the ZBA with this response.
In addition, Mr. Black explained how letters, like the one Mrs. York will draft, will be reviewed by himself before it is sent. Mr. Black also sited how Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Kadlecek had performed peer review of their feedback regarding the MPH Properties stormwater review. Mr. Black finds this peer review of letters, coming from the Planning Board, is an excellent practice.
Zoning Administrator Report
Mr. LaFountain provided the reports for July and August, 2008. Nothing on them was significant for discussion.
Correspondence
Mr. Black stated that there was a breakfast conference to discuss the process for the purchase of development rights. No-one was interested in attending.
Mrs. York provided conformation to the three other people who plan to attend the NY Planning Federation Conference, of October 13th and 14th, that they had been signed up in time.
Town Board Liaison
Mrs. Verola agreed to obtain Town Board action regarding authority for granting of the Special Exception Permit for MPH Properties.
Mr. Black made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Kadlecek seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Susan York
Acting Recording Secretary
September 11, 2008 Attachment 1
Mr. Ray Black, Chairman
Charlton Planning Board
Comments and questions about the Revised (8/25/08) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Report for Charlton Family Medicine / Capital Care
1) More information is needed about the design, functioning, and maintenance of the underdrain.
2) Section 5.2 states “Design Point One was utilized for the final post-development stormwater discharge analysis”. How was this used if discharge is not to occur at DP1? Because of a rise in the terrain at the south end of the property, it is possible that this location is not where surface water now exits the site.
3) Section 6.2 discusses conveyance piping design. We do not see the proposed locations of the storm sewer pipes and where water will enter and exit the pipes.
4) Sheet DT-5 specifies a “10 foot wide gravel access/maintenance drive”. Will a gravel surface still be necessary given the change in system design?
5) Several sheets show a large black dot just south of the spillway. What is it supposed to represent?
6) Parking spaces at the north end of the site are still referred to as “banked” on most sheets and unlabeled on one sheet. Both suggest that these spaces are to be considered as approved. That is not the case. Either remove the parking area from the drawings or otherwise make it clear that Planning Board approval is needed before this area can be paved over.
Comments provided by Jay Wilkinson and John Kadlecek
John Kadlecek Attachment 2
Ray Wilkinson
Scott Lansing
Bill Keniry
Sue York
Dear All,
Attached is a letter that I was emailed this morning and asked to forward to Scott Lansing. The letter represents comments of Planning Board members John Kadlecek and Jay Wilkinson. Mr. Lansing and I have discussed some final minor comments that I had by telephone yesterday and he is changing the plans to address those issues. After receiving those changes, I anticipate sending out a letter today that will sign off on all previous comments that I have made. Many of the issues I discussed with Scott are similar to the comments of Jack and Jay.
I was asked to provide input on the Jack and Jay's comments so I offer as follows:
1. This item fits with comments that I discussed with Scott and he is addressing. He will add a detail, specify elevations on the underdrain and move the drain to the perimeter of the basin.
2. The different location between Scott's modeled design point and the actual discharge is insignificant. The current plans are discharging to the area that we considered to be the best location.
3. This is probably just boiler plate language that does not apply to this particular project. There is no harm in leaving it in but it can be removed if the Board desires.
4. This is an errant label left behind from the prior plans. I mentioned it to Scott. There is also another "aquatic bench" label that he is going to remove.
5. Not sure what the black dot is. I think it will likely disappear when Scott refines the underdrain per my comments.
6. The note on sheet LM-1 near the banked spaces satisfied me that the plans were pointing out that they would need further approval if utilized. If the Board wants to see it noted different or removed altogether, I think that is fair and it is up to them. They could certainly reiterate that comment on Monday and it is a minor enough change that it could be an item of a conditional approval.
Michael McNamara, P.E.
The Environmental Design Partnership
900 Route 146
Clifton Park, N.Y. 12065
518 371-7621 phone
518 371-9540 fax
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 10:02 AM
Subject: MPH Properties Stormwater
Hi Mike,
Attached is a review of the Stormwater plan for MPH Properties that was prepared by Jack and Jay. If you think that the comments are valid, would you please forward it to Scott Lansing?
Thanks,
Sue
September 12, 2008 Attachment 3
Mr. Raymond E. Black
Planning Board Chairman
Town of Charlton Town Hall
784 Charlton Road
Charlton, N.Y. 12019
Re: MPH Properties, LLP
Medical Office Building – Stage and Lake Hill Roads
Tax Map Parcel No. 256.00-1-103
Dear Chairman Black:
We have received updated materials in the application for the proposed Charlton Family Medicine office buildings at the intersection of Lake Hill and Stage Roads. The revised plans have a most recent record of work date of July 30, 2008 and were prepared by Scott Lansing, P.E. of Lansing Engineering, PC. A revised stormwater pollution prevention plan and storm management calculations were also included.
In addition to the above referenced plans, we have received further changes in response to discussions between our firm and the applicant’s engineer. A detail for the storm basin underdrain, specification of the underdrain elevations and the relocation of the underdrain to the outer perimeter of the basin are now shown on sheet DT-5. Together with the submitted revised plans, these changes have addressed all of the comments expressed in our July 18, 2008 letter.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please feel free to call.
Very truly yours,
Michael McNamara, P.E.
The Environmental Design Partnership
C:\MY DOCUMENTS\WINWORD\charlton\SUBDIVISIONREVIEWS\mph_phelpsmedical_siteplan_detailedreview2.doc
Cc: PB Board Members
Scott Lansing, P.E.
Bill Keniry
| 
