Town of Hague Planning Board
January 4, 2007
Members present: Chairman David Swanson, Rolly Allen, John Brown, Tim Costello, Pam Peterson, Erwin Siwek
Members absent: Peter Foster
Also attending: ZEO Catherine Clark, Town Attorney Dominic Viscardi, Recording Secretary Nancy Young
David Swanson called the meeting to order at 6:58 pm.
After introductions, the Board reviewed the minutes from 12/07/06, making note of the following:
Kostides, 26.17-2-2: Add at the end of the second paragraph - Miles Peterson submitted a copy of the Petersons’ deed describing water rights to the Petersons’ springs. He also presented a deed to the Kostides property documenting the sluce way.
Rolly Allen moved to approve the amended minutes. Tim Costello seconded.
Vote: Carried 6-0
Waters, (25.4-1-18.11) 239 Decker Hill Rd. SCUZ/OC1
The applicant is requesting a four lot subdivision of a 16.1 acre parcel. Cathy Clark reported that the APA has returned the Jurisdictional Determination. Eleven lots have been subdivided from the original parcel since 1973. The proposed four lot subdivision will be a Class B project. Ms. Clark noted a new application and survey have been submitted for review.
John Breitenbach appeared before the Board representing the property owner.
With respect to determining the type of subdivision before the Board, discussion ensued between Board members and Mr. Breitenbach concerning the requirements for major and minor subdivisions. During discussion the following points were noted:
Members expressed concern about additional development of the property. They would prefer the four lots not be further divided. They reviewed subdivision vs. Site Review issues and concluded a Site Plan Review will address most building and lot use issues.
Mr. Breitenbach noted the acreage exceeds the allowable amount and pointed out that future development would require additional review.
The access road to lot 1B exceeds the requirements for a major subdivision. According to Mr. Breitenbach, language will be included on the deeds stating the owners in common will maintain it jointly. It was noted the ROW was created through a previous subdivision.
In response to a question concerning the shape of the lots, Mr. Breitenbach explained the lots were designed to follow the terrain in the area.
A major subdivision would require land be designated for park or recreational use.
According to Mr. Breitenbach, most of the woodland is located on lot 1B. The remainder of the property is meadow or farmland.
The difference in fees for a minor vs. a major subdivision is substantial.
Section 150-6, Review of Minor Subdivision Plats (F)(2) allows the Planning Board to apply the standards for a major subdivision set forth in Section 150-9, Required Improvements
In conclusion, all agreed that determining the project a major or a minor subdivision would produce relatively the same outcome, excluding expense to the applicant.
Tim Costello moved to deem the project a minor subdivision and schedule a Public Hearing for February 1, 2007. Rolly Allen seconded.
Discussion: Mr. Viscardi, in response to a concern expressed by Rolly Allen, assured the Board that no precedent would be set, as each property is unique.
Vote: Carried, 6-0
The application was determined to be complete, subject to Site Plan Review. The group decided to visit the site on 1/6/2007.
Kostides, (26.17-2-2) 8 lakeshore Terrace TR1
*Pam Peterson recused herself and left the table. For the record, Mr. Breitenbach, representing the property owner, had no objection to Ms. Peterson remaining in the room.
The applicant is requesting the subdivision of a 4.02 acre parcel into 3 lots.
Ms. Clark described the Site Visit made to the property on 12/15/2006, making note of Erwin Siwek’s comments, emailed to her on 12/20/2006. Ms. Clark also walked the property with LG Waterkeeper, Chris Navitsky. It is her opinion that, because of the steep grade, lot #3, and access to it, would need engineering in order to build. Mr. Breitenbach acknowledged Ms. Clark’s and the Board’s concerns and explained that Mrs. Kostides has hired an engineer to address them.
It was noted the LGPC will review the engineering report with respect to storm water management. Although protections exist with the LGPC to safeguard the hillside, Mr. Breitenbach and the Board agreed that tree clearing, for lake views, must be part of the plan as well. In addition, they requested the next sketch plan include the following information:
proposed driveways, retaining walls, drainage
location of intermittent waterways, waterways
elevation
confirmation of the status of the(abandoned) road coming off lot #1
The Board decided to delay further action at the convenience of the applicant. Mr. Breitenbach requested that Ms. Clark contact him if she plans to visit the site with anyone, as he would like to be present.
*Pam Peterson returned to the table.
White/Bosi (93.12-1-4, 93.12-1-24, 93.12-1-35.1) Lakeshore Dr. TR1
The applicants are applying for a lot line adjustment for three lakefront parcels. If approved, what are now three lots will become two. Cathy Clark presented drawings, depicting the area before and after the line adjustment. In addition, Ms. Clark explained homeowners White will be consolidating their adjoining properties west of Rt. 9N, non-lakeside.
Contractor Skip Hourigan outlined the property owners’ intentions and presented a survey of the waterfront lots. He explained the existing, middle waterfront lot will be divided; part added to the northern lot, the remainder added to the southern lot, resulting in two waterfront parcels. The northern parcel is/will be attached by a land- hook to the property across the road belonging to the Whites. The southern waterfront lot will be retained by Mr. and Mrs. Bosi as a separate parcel. Mr. Hourigan went on to explain that the Whites intend to merge their two non-lakeside parcels into one lot, remove the existing home and rebuild. Once the lot line change is approved, deeds will be filed in Warren County.
It was noted by Ms. Clark that none of the parcels will become more non-conforming.
A Site Visit will be made to the properties on 1/6/2007. Mr. Hourigan will be available at that time.
Referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals:
Sheehan, (25.3-1-16) 9394 Graphite Mt. Rd. OCl/OCll
The applicant is requesting a variance for a six foot chain link fence and would like to maintain a one foot setback from the property line. According to Ms. Clark, Mr. Sheehan has stated that the fence is needed to keep the neighbors’(Girard) dogs off his property.
The Girards have given permission for the portion of the fence located on their property to remain until the ZBA makes their decision. If granted, the fence would be moved to the Sheehan property.
In further discussion the Board agreed that there does not appear to be a reason, based on the application, for such a tall fence. Neither does the application justify how the fence is placed on the property.
Rolly Allen moved to recommend the ZBA maintain the integrity of the four foot fence regulation as stipulated in the Code 160-52 A (1). Erwin Siwek seconded.
Vote: Carried, 6-0
The ZBA will meet on 1/25/2007.
New Business:
Rypkema, (43.5-2-5) 9820 Graphite Mt. Rd. (Hamlet)
Mrs. Rypkema is applying for a change of use from residential to commercial property, in order to open a retail store. She would like to sell furniture, home accessories, gifts and wine. According to Cathy Clark, retail operations are allowed in the Hamlet under Type I Site Plan Review.
Mrs. Rypkema explained there will be no major changes to the exterior of the building. A few minor modifications are planned for the interior. Parking is available in the adjacent Town lot.
The NY State Liquor Authority, the agency responsible for regulating the sale of wine will consider, among other things, the location, (distance to a school or church), storage and sales (wine must be stored and sold separately, with a separate entrance).
Planning Board members will meet Mrs. Rypkema at their Site Visit on 1/6/2007.
Other Business:
25% Rule for non-conforming structures
Board members reviewed the suggested wording put forth by Mr. Viscardi in a fax to Cathy Clark dated 12/14/2006. In conclusion, members agreed there were several points of view on this subject with several interpretations of the clause, both existing and proposed. More discussion is needed. Once a desired outcome is determined, words can be crafted to reflect it.
Warren County Planning Board Referrals
Mr. Viscardi gave a copy of Section 239M of the General Municipal Law to Cathy Clark. He suggested Planning Board members become familiar with the circumstances and requirements for County referrals.
Minutes - discussion/decisions
Referencing a recent request by the APA for more discussion in the minutes, Mr. Viscardi encouraged Board members not to feel restricted in what they say during discussions. He went on to explain that ultimately the Board is required to make a decision collectively. He feels the APA should be concerned with that decision, which should be worded in such a way to reflect what the Board did.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 pm. Motion by John Brown, second by Tim Costello.
Vote: Carried, 6-0