The regular meeting of the Planning Board, Town of Moreau, County of Saratoga and State of New York was held in the Town Office Building, 61 Hudson Street, South Glens Falls, New York at 7:00 p.m. on April 16, 2007. 

Planning Board members in attendance were Chairman Peter Jensen, Gary Dickinson, James Edwards, Ronald Zimmerman and John Arnold. Others present: F. Joseph Patricke, Attorney Martin J. Auffredou.

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jensen at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the March 19 2007 were reviewed. Any additions corrections… on page 962, Mr. Zimmerman’s comment near the bottom should read "is any of this Army Corps?" On Page 965, Poletti Stone revised to read Paletti. Mr. Edwards comments on the bottom of Page 964 should read "We have received a 5 page report that is just a checklist for completeness. We need a more substantive review to conduct a thorough SEQR." On Page 965 Mr. Edwards’ comment on the traffic report should read "The traffic comment is also nothing more than a statement about which project it relates to."

Mr. Edwards motioned to approve the minutes as amended, Mr. Dickinson seconded. Motion carried with Mr. Field abstaining.

William J. Rourke: This lot is zoned R5, we started out with 14 lots but because of the erroneous way I read the code about the number of lots, we are now down to 11. We have an environmental review with no endangered species identified. Because of concerns about sight distances, we have measured and it is greater than 600 feet at this area of concern by the hill. The new map shows lots that are a little bigger. Harold Bergman is doing the Engineering, and he doesn’t have that ready yet, but he will have sanitary design for next month. I would like your questions and would like to have a public meeting scheduled.

Chairman Jensen: Will storm water be ready 10 days prior to the public hearing?

Mr. Rourke: That’s what I’ve been told. But if not, can we still have public hearing?

Chairman Jensen: We don’t want to have that without SEQR and we can’t do SEQR without the storm water report. Board, do you have any questions for this applicant.

Mr. Field: Do you have the driveway profiles?

Mr. Rourke: We’ve plotted the profiles and were staying under 10 %. There’s an existing house with a driveway that crosses here, and there’s a profile of this with a maximum of 4-6%. Down the road between lots 10 and 11, there’s one driveway to service 10, 11 and 7 and you have the profile with 10 % grade in both direction. There will be 16 ft. of driveway here and the bottom measures 63 feet.

Mr. Field: Gary, does 10 % work for fire trucks?

Mr. Dickinson: It should.

Mr. Edwards: The 10 % is where you’re coming out of this dip?

Mr. Rourke: In both directions.

Mr. Edwards: It’s about where 3 driveways intersect? My concern is the intersection of all three at a 10% grade, could that be improved upon a little?

Mr. Rourke: I see what you mean. Maybe we can shift down here…but there’s a culvert. These are all laid out in the field, but I will take a look and see if we can slide it somewhere. I’ll have Harold take a look at it. I have talked to my attorney, and whoever build the driveway will provide a guarantee for the back lots.

Atty. Auffredou: Is that a homeowners’ association?

Mr. Edwards: How will that work with the driveway in the center?

Mr. Rourke: We’re just going to have an easement for these two owners over these 40 feet. The driveway is primarily going to be built on the center 40 feet, the top 16 feet and other bottom 63 feet will be over on this. So three people will have an easement over these 40 feet.

Atty. Auffredou: Will that require Atty. General approval?

Mr. Patricke: It’s just an easement, right?

Atty. Auffredou: Who’s going to maintain it?

Mr. Rourke: As far as snowplowing and that sort of thing, they will just have to come to an agreement.

Mr. Field: We will need that to be spelled out before then.

Mr. Rourke: We can put that in the deeds.

Mr. Patricke: In the deeds and on the map.

Mr. Field: We will need that spelled out on the map?

Chairman Jensen: Joe, if we get the storm water report 10 days before, will that be enough time for the Town Engineer?

Mr. Patricke: I don’t know what you expect to see on this report, there will just be soil and erosion control plans.

Mr. Edwards: And design for the culverts.

Mr. Patricke: It’s not a formal storm water management plan with a SWIPP.[AMENDED 5/21/07]

Mr. Rourke: I think he’s doing a formal report.

Mr. Patricke: There’s not going to be a plan for all 10 lots, but for each lot.

Mr. Zimmerman: I had a concern in January and it was recommended that there be peer review because of the grades, specific to hydraulic design and the nature of the soils. We have contemplated Saratoga County doing their own review.

Mr. Patricke: I contacted them. Didn’t they do a report out of the book and send it to you? That’s all they do, and it doesn’t replace having a professional soil scientist out there to do a report.

Mr. Zimmerman: I thought that Saratoga County would prepare comments specific to the site plan because they have special knowledge that we can pair with what we receive from the Town Engineer and the applicant’s engineer.

Mr. Rourke: I understand they don’t review specific projects?

Mr. Zimmerman: Why they didn’t tell me that?

Mr. Patricke: I am not opposed if they do, but they told me that they don’t, also.

Mr. Zimmerman: I thought it made good sense. We have a project that doesn’t please me in terms of these shared driveways, and a number of concerns for precedent. This will be the standard for folks developing in an R5 who want to maximize their land use.

Mr. Patricke: If we’re talking about his commenting on the soil, you are not going to get a report from Jeb, I’ve never seen him do anything like this, and if he offers to you should get that in writing.

Mr. Field: We get what’s in the book that they publish.

Mr. Patricke: They did do some soil work for the Town when we did our bowl.

Mr. Field: There are some troubling concerns with the soil, and we are not getting much additional information.

Mr. Patricke: That soil map that they put together is based on big concepts, and you still have to have someone go out and see what’s actually there. If the engineer can’t find a place to put a septic tank, they can’t.

Mr. Field: Building cellars in those soils was also a concern.

Mr. Edwards: Does it make sense to you to get into SEQR without test pit data?

Mr. Field: I want someone to make comments on these sensitive areas that have been brought up.

Mr. Rourke: Let’s put it off for a month. We’ll skip the next meeting so that everyone has had a chance to review materials from Harold.

Mr. Patricke: If I get it between now and June, can I forward it to the Town Engineer?

Mr. Jensen: Yes, you may forward what you receive to the Town Engineer.

Mr. Patricke: Bill, when you do those test pits both the Health Department and I have to be there.

Mr. Rourke: We were just going to call you, because this is not going through the DOH, because they are all over 5 acre lots.

Mr. Patricke: Are you designing septic?

Mr. Rourke: We will, but I don’t think they are required until the builders’ plans.

Mr. Patricke: If the Board is concerned about the soils they want to know that the septic is going to go in and the cellars are going to go in. If it needs Health Department approval, they have to be there.

Mr. Rourke: Why would they need it?

Mr. Patricke: If it’s not conventional.

Mr. Rourke: Okay, any non-conventional system will be reviewed by the Health Department.

Mr. Patricke: They want that portion on engineering presented.

Chairman Jensen: This is in the Ag district?

Mr. Rourke: Yes

Chairman Jensen: Have we received a statement yet?

Mr. Patricke: No.

Chairman Jensen: When you desire to go for a public hearing, we will need an additional 7 copies of the layout to send to interested agencies with the EAF so that they may object to the Town taking lead agency. Board, any other questions?

Mr. Edwards: Did you do this flag recently?

Mr. Rourke: Yes.

Mr. Edwards: Are there Army Corp or DEC wetlands?

Mr. Rourke: DEC.

Mr. Field: These are on DEC maps?

Mr. Rourke: No, they are not on the maps. There are on the West side but not on the East side.

Chairman Jensen: Any questions of us?

Mr. Rourke: No, I think about the one driveway and the easements in the deeds, and we will take a look at that one intersection. I don’t think we’ll be at the next meeting.

Chairman Jensen: So that will put you in June, with a public hearing in July?

Mr. Rourke: No…Can we request it in June, as long as the materials are all in in a timely manner?

Chairman Jensen: Applicant has requested to have a public hearing in June. Can I have a motion?

Mr. Field: Motion for public hearing on the Rourke Subdivision in June.

Mr. Dickinson: Second.

Chairman Jensen: Further discussion? Would you poll the Board?

Mr. Edwards- Yes Mr. Zimmerman- Yes Mr. Arnold- Yes

Mr. Dickinson- Yes Mr. Field- Yes Chairman Jensen- Yes

Mr. Field: Are we handling this shared driveway the right way?

Atty. Auffredou: Is Bill Nikas helping you with this? We should talk about what we like to see and what documents need to be involved.

Mr. Rourke: I will have Bill give you a call.

Sketch Plan Review

Mr. Larry Clute: I am presenting lot line adjustments and looking for comments since last month.

Chairman Jensen: Your intent is two duplexes?

Mr. Clute: Yes

Chairman Jensen: Under cluster provision?

Mr. Clute: I don’t think so…is it, Joe?

Mr. Patricke: I don’t think so. The one lot complies. He was just asking to divide the other 1.63 acres into two lots.

Chairman Jensen: This is an R-who?

Mr. Patricke: Three. He needs two acres for a duplex and the issue is 200 feet at the building line.

Mr. Clute: We developed the new angle of the two lots on the new map.

Mr. Patricke: He was looking at two lots.

Mr. Clute: You offered some options. You could give me cluster if I went with single families. That was the intent of the new diagonal, it was a better property width.

Mr. Edwards: Will these be owner occupied?

Mr. Clute: No, I will be keeping them.

Mr. Field: Individual wells?

Mr. Clute: Correct.

Mr. Edwards: It is a shared driveway, right?

Mr. Clute: I would not label it that way, I would call it each lot having it’s own, even though it will look shared. It would be in common with the property line going dead center up the middle of the driveway belonging half to each lot.

Chairman Jensen: Martin, if you look at 149.16, at the definition for lot width, on the schedule, it’s 250. But do we have to look at this as parallel to Sisson Road rather than some odd angle?

Atty. Auffredou: I think that goes to Joe’s point that they make the lot size, the lot width, my understanding is that there’s precedent for looking at the building line for the width.

Chairman Jensen: If you look at that parallel to Sisson Road, do we hit 250?

Mr. Patricke: We do interpret it at the building line, and always have.

Chairman Jensen: Do we have to measure the 250 parallel to Sisson Road, moving the structure back until we hit the 250 point? On each lot, do we have to come up with a 250?

Mr. Patricke: At the building line.

Mr. Field: On the northern lot, you’d have to move the building back. You’re all right with the Southern lot?

Chairman Jensen: Is there something wet back there?

Mr. Edwards: Didn’t you have an issue with a stream? I have an issue with the back of the lot coming to a point? Didn’t we talk about it working if there was a cluster involved? I thought that the previous layout made more sense.

Mr. Patricke: But in the last layout, neither lot met the building width.

Mr. Edwards: I thought we could make it work if it was a cluster.

Mr. Patricke: To do a cluster, he has to dedicate land for public space which doesn’t make sense. If you liked that layout, you don’t have to call it a cluster, you can make it however you want.

Mr. Field: We just can’t make exceptions for environmental review. We could give you 225 feet instead of 250 feet because of the sensitive area in the back.

Mr. Edwards: I just thought it made more sense.

Mr. Patricke: If you call it a cluster we have regulations we have to follow. Nobody wanted to do that because we have to create an HOA and a spot in the back to maintain land.

Chairman Jensen: You could break it up somewhere else and get rid of that plot.

Mr. Edwards: You have to think, if you sold it off someday to individual owners, that point at the back will be a problem.

Mr. Clute: I liked the other layout, but this came about since then with the recommendations.

Chairman Jensen: What do you recommend as a Board? The applicant will do whatever we recommend in order to get his two duplexes in there.

Mr. Clute: Yes.

Mr. Field: If you change the orientation a few degrees, you can get 250 at a spot parallel to the road.

Mr. Clute: Side to side on the old map they were 230.

Chairman Jensen: Board, looking at the first layout, are you comfortable and can you justify due to sensitive areas, good reason not to conform to 250 lot width requirement and look more favorably to the first submission rather than what I shall call the "pointed" submission?

Mr. Field: I would say yes, since these are amply large lots for the area they are in and we don’t want him to move closer to the environmentally sensitive areas.

Mr. Edwards: It just comes down to lot width. I prefer Plan A.

Mr. Field: I can go along with that.

Chairman Jensen: As far as zoning he needs 2 acres and he has three. Board, what would you recommend that this applicant do?

Mr. Edwards: Lean more towards Plan A.

Chairman Jensen: You would be comfortable not holding him to the 250 foot lot width based on other concerns? You are comfortable with the applicant going with the first of his two plans?

Mr. Edwards: I agree.

Mr. Zimmerman: Sure

Mr. Arnold: Yes.

Mr. Field: Yes.

Mr. Dickinson: Yes

Chairman Jensen: You have seen no opposition and have done due diligence to satisfy concerns brought forth the first time around.. The choice is yours, but I do not think you will find opposition from this Board, but don’t try to get a third new lot in there.

Mr. Patricke: Can we talk about you what you want to see on these forms? Short form or long?

Chairman Jensen: I think we are required to have a long form when there are more than 2 lots involved.

Mr. Patricke: Do you want contours?

Mr. Edwards: If you are going to survey it, you would have two foot contours.

Atty. Auffredou: It’s a discretionary call, the Board may ask for either.

Chairman Jensen: We’re safer with the long form. But we can do the short if there are no concerns. Board?

Mr. Edwards: Short, but I don’t know of any other issues, I think short will cover.

Chairman Jensen: Is that consensus?

Mr. Edwards: Move that we have as Short Form EAF.

Mr. Dickinson: Second.

Chairman Jensen: Discussion? Please poll the Board.

Mr. Edwards- Yes Mr. Zimmerman- Yes Mr. Arnold- Yes

Mr. Dickinson- Yes Mr. Field- Yes Chairman Jensen- Yes

Chairman Jensen: Motion carried, you only need the short form.

Mr. Clute: The contour line is 5. That’s one thing I absolutely know. Can I get back on next month for public hearing?

Chairman Jensen: I don’t think you will make it. We have to give interested agencies 30 days to object to the Town taking lead agency role in this.

Mr. Clute: So my closest would be June.

Mr. Patricke: It’s two foot intervals.

Chairman Jensen: Board, what else do you want to see?

Mr. Patricke: I don’t believe he’ll have any engineering other than standard erosion control. There’s no new roads and no proposed changes to the existing home.

Mr. Edwards: Anything fancy with regard to the driveway?

Mr. Clute: I will show the true layout on the next plan.

Chairman Jensen: Have you received an official application for preliminary on this?

Mr. Patricke: No.

Chairman Jensen: More paper. Board, seeing the complexity of this project, do you require it to be submitted to the Town Engineer for review?

Mr. Edwards: I don’t see why.

Mr. Zimmerman: I agree, don’t need to see engineering on this one.

Chairman Jensen: Any other requirements? Do the names of landowners with 500 feet appear on the drawings?

Mr. Patricke: No we haven’t done that in quite a while.

Chairman Jensen: We were having an argument about 2 and 5?

Mr. Clute: I lost.

Mr. Zimmerman: Did you mention a NIMO easement?

Mr. Clute: No, not on this.

Mr. Dickinson: Just on the front.

Chairman Jensen: Anything further? Doesn’t sound like it. Those items we just mentioned including the EAF will need to be submitted for the next meeting so that we can schedule the public hearing for the following month.

Mr. Clute: Okay, Thank you.

Mr. Patricke: We would like a very brief review of a subdivision of his land.

Mr. Rourke: Jim Hooper owns the Haven Oaks Farm on Route 197, the house is on this end of the property. It is zoned R5. We are anticipating clustering and having 5 lots. There is some sand and some clay and we are just going to dig until we find the right places.

Mr. Patricke: What I understand Jim wants to do is have that large portion on the back kept for raising his horses. Homeowners in the cluster can keep their horses there. He would sell just to people who want to have horses.

Mr. Hooper: The people on the perimeter all have access to the training track.

Mr. Patricke: It’s not a typical subdivision.

Mr. Hooper: I already have prospective buyers who want to partner with us, but I can’t offer them anything until I generate some revenue. I already have people in place to buy the lots.

Mr. Rourke: This would be the 25 acres per the zoning, and we have the questions about can we cluster, can we come out with these two driveways from two of the these lots? Harold Berger would also be doing this to find areas acceptable to septic.

Mr. Zimmerman: Would the people on the back have legal access to the land in the back?

Mr. Hooper: I want to keep it simple I would have a rental business agreement with them to lease a paddock in the corral.

Mr. Rourke: They would naturally have the green space rights to come of this under the cluster.

Mr. Hooper: There’s a lot of unusable area back here, and we’ve made arrangements that I can get my horses through from my other 30 acres.

Mr. Patricke: Ordinarily, in a cluster subdivision, the parcel that’s left belongs to those 5 lots. This is different from what a typical subdivision does.

Mr. Rourke: This would be their land as green area.

Mr. Hooper: I don’t know legally where I would go from there. I have had some people tell me that an agreement between myself and 4-5 other people would be easier to do.

Atty. Auffredou: Any homeowners’ association will result in a pile of paperwork. There are ways to structure this, but that’s a business decision for you and we can’t tell you how to go about it.

Mr. Hooper: When we met, I didn’t understand that the green space lot would change hands.

Mr. Rourke: You would retain part ownership.

Mr. Hooper: It’s in it’s early stages, but I want to keep two of these lots for my two children and I only have three buyers ready. I could keep three lots and I don’t know how that would effect my use of this land.

Mr. Patricke: The homeowners’ association would own the land.

Mr. Hooper: I want to build an arena and a riding area back here.

Mr. Zimmerman: He would be a part owner of the land, and he could do that.

Atty. Auffredou: I think your offer plan for your HOA would spell all this out, your plans for the large lot.

Mr. Hooper: There would have to be some leeway in there because someone might envision a half million dollar plan.

Atty. Auffredou: Well you are the sponsor, so you can control what purpose that will be developed for and you may charge the individual lot owners fees for the costs you incur and the benefits they will get.

Mr. Rourke: He’s got to straighten all that out, but as far as the cluster subdivision, does the Board have concerns about the driveway?

Mr. Edwards: Yes, that’s a tricky area and three new driveways in there is a big change.

Mr. Hooper: There are already three consecutive two acre lots with driveways. One of these planned driveways already exists because I take my hay in and out of there. So you are just talking about two new driveways, and the sight lines are good right down to my vegetable stand. I could just make 5 acre subdivisions and not need permissions.

Mr. Edwards: You are adding three house driveways to a busy, winding road. It’s a highway, tricky area and it might be tight looking west.

Mr. Arnold: What are the sizes of the four lots?

Mr. Rourke: About an acre and a half each.

Mr. Arnold: I would like to see, if you are going from 5 acre to 1.5 acre lots, in honesty you are selling lots to finance the building of your arena. I would like to see that area dedicated to those lots, by whatever means. I think otherwise we are just helping you finance your business venture. You could always rent use of your space. But we want to see that space dedicated to use by those homeowners.

Mr. Hooper: I just need to find the mechanism for that.

Mr. Arnold: If I wanted to subdivide my land into lots that are too small for the district, I would expect the same trouble.

Mr. Hooper: So I could leave this land alone as open space, and build the actual track or arena down here instead.

Mr. Patricke: You still have a homeowners association to define the ownership of the common lot.

Mr. Arnold: There are quite a lot of these in Virginia and Maryland. They build this way and then people buy land and ownership in the HOA so that they get access to the facilities. I’m not sure it fits into your idea of keeping ownership of the building.

Mr. Hooper: Would you rather see cluster and open space or 5 acre lots? If I’m going to lose ownership of the land, I would rather have them be large lots.

Mr. Arnold: You can put a restriction in the deed that the land can never be developed into housing. If your idea is to maintain that as open farmland, that is an option.

Mr. Patricke: You’ve heard opposition to the three driveways.

Chairman Jensen: Martin, I think he may come close on the ability to cluster. Open space areas – if he were to establish this arena and make it applicable to the plat, he could come under the cluster provision. Then we could make him do it.

Mr. Hooper: So I would have to build the arena?

Chairman Jensen: To create the 5 lots undersized on a cluster provision, there has to be a reason for clustering, and of you were going to put something on the other lot that was going to be a benefit to the other lots, you could wordsmith that and your attorney could work that.

Mr. Rourke: He could just say it was a riding trail.

Mr. Hooper: I am against people keeping horses on 5 acre lots, which is what would happen if I sold off conforming lots.

Mr. Rourke: I still think the big thing is the driveways. A cul d’ sac is not practical for 4 lots.

Mr. Hooper: If two driveways over 700 feet is too much for the road, we’ll scrap the whole thing.

Mr. Rourke: There’s no such thing as one common driveway.

Mr. Hooper: I’m not sure why these two are a problem when there are others further up the road. They were recently approved.

Mr. Patricke: Most of those lots were non-conforming lots. There are 6 on the North side nearer 32, which is an R-3. The ones on the south side have not been developed in the last 10 years.

Chairman Jensen: We did just have a consultant in here complaining about the traffic on 197.

Mr. Rourke: Isn’t there one near your house where one driveway crosses the whole front of the other property?

Mr. Patricke: I don’t know, but you’d ever get that arrangement approved again.

Mr. Hooper: When does a driveway become a road?

Mr. Patricke: The last time we did a large subdivision like this, the Town made them put a reverse road in and none of the houses came out on the main road.

Mr. Hooper: The people who keep calling about buying my land would come in a put in a cul d’ sac.

Mr. Patricke: I thought that was what was appealing about what you were trying to do, that people could live on a smaller lot and have the horses. We were voicing concern about the driveways, but no one is telling you to go home and not come back.

Mr. Hooper: Is there a contact I should talk to about the driveways?

Mr. Edwards: It’s a State road, so you have to go to DOT.

Mr. Hooper: I’d like to have them marked, and you can see where the road straightens out and the line of sight will be good either way.

Chairman Jensen: Is this right across the road from the Tee-bird South driveway?

Mr. Rourke: Maybe we could have the driveways shared this way?

Mr. Hooper: I am not here to force anything, I want ideas about what will work. Four is not a magic number for me. I would have to do some math about what I hear before I make a decision.

Mr. Arnold: Two three acre lots and one 5 acre lot, I would be more favorable to you maintaining ownership of the land and building your arena.

Mr. Patricke: That’s a nice concept, but you would have to get variances from the Zoning Board.

Mr. Hooper. I could sell more land in order to retain ownership of the back. Am I hearing that 5 acre lots here and here would be better?

Chairman Jensen: We would have to look at that portion behind ever becoming land locked.

Mr. Hooper: I have that problem with this layout because of a basin that I can barely get a tractor through.

Mr. Patricke: Now you’re just talking about subdividing three lots out of your property. You guys should talk about whether you would consider a 250 foot width.

Mr. Rourke: Can I have two acres over here and three acres over here for the one lot, L shaped?

Mr. Patricke: I think our code talks about that, being contiguous and parallel to the road?

Mr. Rourke: Would we be talking 250 or 500 road frontage?

Chairman Jensen: Code calls for?

Mr. Edwards: If it stays as one driveway, we would consider keeping with the 250.

Mr. Zimmerman: It looks like one driveway at the roadside?

Mr. Patricke: You will want it 40 feet wide, because at 55 miles per hour people come in faster.

Mr. Edwards: You will have to meet the State requirements for the road, curb cuts and paved part way in. Could you try to be across from the Tee-bird?

Mr. Hooper: I’ll have to go back and look at where that is.

Chairman Jensen: There is an out because the Planning Board may increase the width at it’s discretion by up to 100%. That’s what I was looking for.

Motion to adjourn was made at 9:03 p.m. by Mr. Dickinson and seconded by Mr. Edwards. The motion was approved unanimously. The next meeting is scheduled for April 21, 2007.

Respectfully submitted,

Tricia Andrews

Recording Secretary

Cc: Zoning Board, Town Board, Town Clerk, Supt. of Highways, Building Inspector, Assessor, Saratoga County Planning Board