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, on August 20, 2007.
PRESENT: Ron Zimmerman, Acting Chairman
John Arnold
Gary Dickinson
James Edwards
ABSENT: G. Peter Jensen, Chairman
Tom Field
Also in attendance were several members of the public.
The Planning Board Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM, and the Planning Board then considered the following projects.
Item #1: Rourke Subdivision
The applicant, Bill Rourke, and his engineer, Scott Riese, were present for a Public Hearing on the 11-lot subdivision. However, due to improper sign posting [Code Reference 124.10 (d)] and improper notice to residents [Code Reference 124.9 (I)], the public hearing was postponed. Mr. Rourke provided a brief overview of the proposed subdivision to the interested residents in attendance, and Ron Zimmerman allowed time for several questions. [Mr. Joseph plans to reside in his current home in Lot #2, retaining 6 acres, and Mr. Rourke plans to build his home on Lot #6].
Mr. Darryl Finlayson – Gansevoort Road, Ft. Edward: Mr. Finlayson asked how the wetlands were delineated, as he is concerned that the (NYS) DEC has not come out and physically walked the wetlands. Mr. Finlayson asked how the proposed road for Lot #8 can go through a wetland to reach Route 32?
Mr. Rourke – We had a soil scientist flag the entire lot.
Mr. Finlayson – What’s preventing water from coming off this property, that is to say the wetlands area, and coming onto my property?
Mr. Rourke – We had a SWPPP completed to demonstrate that water will not run off the property at increased amounts due to the project.
Mr. Finlayson – I’d like to be able to review that SWPPP.
Ron Zimmerman – It is available, as a public record, through the Town Clerk’s office here at Town Hall.
Mr. Finlayson – I’m still very concerned, for the record, that DEC has not walked this property to flag the wetlands. What’s being shown on the map for the project could be too much, or too little.
Scott Riese – Most of the drainage from the project (due to increased impervious area) will be sheet flow. There’ll be a dry well to treat runoff a each home. As a result, there’ll be no increase in runoff to the adjoining property.
Mr. Rourke – The Saratoga County Planning Board released a letter on 8/20/07 recommending that we eliminate the driveway for Lot #8. So we’ll be providing an easement to Lot #8 from Fedor Road as well.
Scott Riese – Again, the SWPPP (specifically, the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan) is designed to ensure that runoff resulting from the project will be treated on-site.
Mr. Pat Killian – 120 Burt Road: What’s the size on Lot #11, and how close will the septic system be to the property line?
Mr. Rourke – Lot #11 is about 8.5 acres, and the septic system would be at least 100’ from the property line.
Ms. Viola Farnsworth – Burt Road, Gansevoort: How does the shared road work that goes back into Lots #7, 10 and 11?
Mr. Rourke – It’s a shared driveway, which will have a maintenance agreement, similar to that which occurred for the Garcia Subdivision (Old Saratoga Road). [Mr. Rourke provided a sample copy to the Planning Board and asked that the Planning Board, Joe Patricke, and Martin Auffredou please review and comment.]
Ms. Kim Reed – Fedor Road, Gansevoort: Where is your driveway coming out from Lot #6?
Mr. Rourke: The driveways will come out as shown on the map, and Lot #8 will be changed to come out onto Fedor Road.
Ms. Reed – Are you the developer, or just selling lots?
Mr. Rourke – I’ll probably sell Lots 3, 4, and 5 to a builder.
Mr. Dan Farnsworth – 2 Fedor Road, Gansevoort: Can someone else further subdivide one of the 5+ acre lots that you sell? How about townhouses or condos?
Mr. Rourke – No, only one single-family home will be permitted on the lots that get offered for sale.
Mr. Killian – Where will the power come from?
Mr. Rourke – Probably down Fedor Road, but I’m not sure whether National Grid will want it to be overhead or underground.
Mr. Finlayson – How about natural gas?
Mr. Rourke – I’m not sure if National Grid is interested in doing that, but we’d certainly welcome it.
Mr. Farnsworth – With all of these wetlands, will our cattle and property that are downstream from this project be seeing increased flow into our farmlands?
Scott Riese – The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been designed to make sure that there’s no increased run-off for post-development versus pre-development.
Jim Edwards: Tim Burley’s letter dated 8/16/07 suggests that the stormwater plan consider gravel roads to be impervious as well. I feel these comments are valid, as driveways are considerable and flanked by wetlands.
Scott Riese – We can talk to Mr. Burley regarding a modified CN value.
Jim Edwards – As opposed to drywells (which can be difficult in tight soils), perhaps you could consider an Eave Trench?
Scott Riese – We’ve been trying to design to DEC standards, but we can consider that option.
John Arnold – What’s the difference in the CN values for the paved driveways versus gravel?
Scott Riese – You’d go from 89 to 92, and grass ranges from 61 in B-soils to 80.
John Arnold – I feel you should use the higher CN value in your design, as there will be nothing to prevent the prospective buyer from paving his driveway after the sale is finalized.
Jim Edwards – Bill, what were your thoughts regarding the county’s comments regarding shared driveways?
Mr. Rourke – As I stated previously, I’d like the Town’s Attorney and Planning Board to review the Maintenance Agreement that I submitted previously.
Jim Edwards – Yes, but the county also wants us to consider Lot #3 and Lot #6.
Mr. Rourke – We can do that if you’d like; it’s up to the Planning Board.
Ron Zimmerman – Have you responded to any of the comments from Tim Burley’s letter?
Mr. Rourke – Yes we have, as follows: We added the adjacent property owners to the map; any adjoining septic or well is more 200’ away from the project and we can show that on our map. Our subdivision is on the State Planning Coordinates – we can show those coordinates. For the driveway on Lots 7, 10, and 11, we can provide it at 20’ wide.
Ron Zimmerman – Can you check to see that Mr. Burley reviewed and responded to Mr. Berger’s memo regarding the septic system design?
Mr. Rourke – Yes. I’ll make sure that he’s seen it and responds.
Mr. Dan Reed – Fedor Road, Gansevoort: Is it possible to move the shared driveway for Lots #7, 10 and 11? The lights will be shining in my house all night long if it stays where it’s currently shown on the map.
Mr. Rourke – I’ll locate your house and see if we can move the driveway a bit.
Mr. Reed – How can you ensure that someone buying the lot will in fact maintain the (shared) driveway?
Mr. Rourke – It’s a deed restriction, so they’re forced to agree to it if they buy the property.
Mr. Farnsworth – So which way will you move the (shared) driveway?
Mr. Rourke – We sited that drive on the flat spot, so we’ll probably try to move it to the west a bit.
Ron Zimmerman – (to the Planning Board) As there appears to be no further questions, shall we re-schedule the public hearing for this project?
Mr. Todd Kusnierz – 238 Gansevoort Road: You should wait to make sure that you’ve received your findings statement from Mr. Auffredou and Mr. Patricke before setting the meeting, otherwise a September meeting may be premature.
John Arnold – What’s the stumbling block with developing a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) for this project?
Mr. Rourke – Nothing. We can investigate a HOA, if that’s the intent of the PB. I was under the impression that the Garcia Subdivision did not have a HOA – just a maintenance agreement. I’ll research that further with Mr. Patricke.
A motion was made by Jim Edwards to schedule a public hearing for September 17, 2007 (7:00 PM), contingent upon a Special Meeting to be held on August 30, 2007. The motion was seconded by Gary Dickinson with all Board members voting affirmatively.
A motion was then made by Jim Edwards to schedule a special meeting with Mr. Rourke on August 30, 2007 (7:00 PM). The motion was seconded by Gary Dickinson with all Board members voting affirmatively.
Item #2 – Peter Bondzinski, Site Plan Review
Mr. Bondzinski reported that he appeared before the Zoning Board (ZBA) in June for a Public Hearing, and no one came forward. The ZBA received 2 letters, but no issues.
The ZBA was in favor of the project, and needed a (SEQRA) recommendation from the Planning Board before moving ahead.
Jim Edwards - We can do SEQR. Were there any changes to the site plan as a result of your meeting with the ZBA?
Mr. Bondzinski – No. No changes.
Jim Edwards – It appears as though the percolation test data is favorable for the site.
Mr. Bondzinski – Yes. Joe Patricke was in attendance for the test.
Jim Edwards led the Planning Board with a review of the SEQR Long Form, and made two suggestions to Mr. Bondzinski following the Part 1 review: a.) research/confirmation for the site to be conducted through SHPPO; and, b.) contact NYSDEC regarding endangered species. As a result, Part 2 of the SEQR Long Form could not be completed by the Planning Board due to the lack of correspondence/confirmation from both SHPPO and NYSDEC. As a result, the Planning Board was unable to provide a SEQR recommendation to the ZBA.
Once the Planning Board is able to provide a SEQR recommendation to the ZBA, the project will return before the Planning Board for a Final Site Plan Review. Ron Zimmerman polled the board to receive their feedback on the proposed project:
John Arnold – Mr. Dufour’s property appears to have his driveway on your property; that may need to be cleaned up a bit before going forward.
Jim Edwards – We’ll need to see some more detail regarding labeling, dimensions, stormwater management, septic system design, grading, parking lot details, and signage (e.g. one way in, one way out for traffic flow).
Garry Dickinson – No additional comments.
Ron Zimmerman – No additional comments.
Item #3 – New Beginnings Church, Site Plan Review
The applicant did not appear before the Planning Board, and no action was taken.
Item #4 – Chestnut Holding Group/Earth Tech, Sketch Plan Review
Steven Rutkey presented on behalf of Earth Tech for the project known as ‘Lands of Sylvia Freedman’. This project last appeared before the planning board in March 2006. The parcel contains 69.6 acres, and fronts on Route 32. A Sketch Plan was presented to the Planning Board in March 2006, and numerous comments were gathered at that time. Since that time, a full wetland delineation has been conducted, as well as a photogrammetric and topographic survey. Earth Tech recommends a cluster design, with 12 building lots. The wetlands are non-jurisdictional to NYSDEC. Earth Tech is working on a field confirmation/determination with NYSDEC, and Earth Tech has no plans to come near the ravine/wetlands as part of this project. A Town Road will run down the middle of the property, and the balance of the parcel (undeveloped) would be dedicated to a HOA. One issue raised by Mr. Rutkey is that the proposed total length of the road/cul-de-sac is about 1800’, while the code allows for a maximum of 1000’. The second issue raised is whether Lot D (9.3 acres) could be sold to the adjacent property owner (Ms. Peggy Springer), while still keeping the 12-lot density (perhaps by putting a deed restriction on the Lot D).
John Arnold – Is the entrance location flexible?
Mr. Rutkey – Yes it is. We can look at siting the entrance to be at the safest point. We were of the opinion that the current proposed entrance was best. We’ll study that.
Jim Edwards – What are the lot sizes in the proposed cluster design?
Mr. Rutkey – The lot sizes range from 0.8 to 1.9 acres.
Jim Edwards – What type of soils investigation has occurred?
Mr. Rutkey – None at this point. We were waiting for direction on a conventional vs. cluster design.
Ron Zimmerman polled the board to receive their feedback on the proposed project:
John Arnold – I support the cluster approach.
Jim Edwards – I support the cluster approach as well. We’ll need to work out the waiver for road length. We’ll probably need to see the lot size be a minimum of 1 acre.
Garry Dickinson – I am satisfied with the cluster design concept.
Ron Zimmerman – I am in favor of the cluster design. We’ll need to see detailed soils information. We’ll also need to consult with our EMS/Fire services, as well as the Highway Department, for their input regarding the length of the proposed road.
Item #5 – Minutes of May 21, 2007
Page 985, fifth line from top, sentence should read: ‘Mr. Robinson said they have to get water supply and sewer, then they go to Ni Mo’.
Page 985, eleventh line from bottom, ‘paving’ should be changed to "parking".
Motion by Jim Edwards to approve as amended. Gary Dickinson seconded.
All in favor aye – motion carries.
Item #6 – Minutes of July 16, 2007
Second page, seventeen lines from top, ‘orafice’ should be spelled "orifice".
Second page, nineteen lines from top, ‘SWIPP’ should be spelled "SWPPP".
Second page, fifteen lines up from bottom, a sentence should be added after the words ‘…at the project site.’ The sentence should read, "He was also concerned over the safety of the trucks being in close proximity to the school".
There being no additional business, a motion to close was made by Jim Edwards. The motion was seconded by Gary Dickinson. All ayes.
Meeting adjourned at approximately 10:10 PM.