Added: December 29, 2017
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Donna Bernard
Present: Greg Kroyer, Paul LaPierre, and Marianne Romito
Absent: JoAnne DeLong
Also present was Deputy Supervisor and Planning Board Liaison Michael McCrary.
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of November 2, 2017
Mrs. Romito made the motion to accept the minutes of November 2, 2017 as corrected. These included the size of the water pond at Hunter Mountain and the passing lane going east, not west, on Route 23A by the Deming Road egress. Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Michael McCrary
Ms. Bernard asked Mr. McCrary as the new Planning Board Liaison, whether he had any news for the Planning Board. He said they are still working on safety concerns, but nothing more than that.
Ms. Bernard asked Mr. McCrary, as a parting plea from her position as Chair, whether he could not get the Town Board moving on accepting the improvements the Code Review committee had made to the Code Review, as the language had been very carefully considered and pertinent to the parcels coming before the Planning Board now. The parcels coming before the Board are more and more either non-conforming, or land locked, or people want to plan their estates, or have parcels they want to sell that are not buildable. She is concerned that an application with a shared driveway, for example, would come before the Board before the Town Board has done its part of the work, and the Board would be unable to help that applicant. Ms. Bernard emphasized that she is not seeking approval of the major code items reviewed like the Timber Harvesting, Solar Panels and Senior PODs, but the work put into strengthening language where the Code Review committee advised Jewett to improve on these things.
Mr. McCrary answered that the Town Board is still awaiting input from Mr. Rappleyea. Mr. Kroyer made a point of asking that wedding venues be added to the Code Review under the Public Assembly law. This was an important concern the Code Review committee had not addressed at the time. Ms. Bernard offered to meet with the Town Board, and said the Code Review Committee could meet again if necessary. Mr. McCrary said that he had asked Mr. Rappleyea if a neighboring town had a similar wedding venue law, which Jewett could easily adopt, and he had said one did.
Agenda Item 4: Special Use Permit for Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl, Inc. for Tax Parcel ID Tax No. 163.00-2-18.11 in the Rural Conservation Zoning District consisting of 40.3 acres. Property located off Deming Road (no address is given in tax information)
Ms. Bernard thanked Mrs. Lindsay Allen and Mr. Russ Coloton for their patience last month in allowing this Planning Board to hash out what needed attention from Jewett in the SEQRA process for this application.
Mr. Silver, a member of the public who had missed the Town of Hunter Planning Board meeting, asked Mr. Kroyer whether Hunter had voted on anything at their meeting. Mr. Kroyer said they had not. Ms. Bernard said that she offered Mr. Silver five minutes later to express his concerns at our meeting.
Mrs. Allen said that the one thing on the agenda was for the Board to accept the Special Use Permit (SUP). Ms. Bernard thanked her for bringing an updated and upgraded plat, and asked her and Mr. Kroyer to review the map for the minutes. Mr. Kroyer had taken the time earlier today to review and mark with little careful sticky notes those things that were important from Jewett’s perspective: the site as it exists now, the proposed site plan, and basically the items that concerns the Town of Jewett. The plat now addresses the concern with Deming Road, showing the changes made from last month. There is a detail and cross section of the paving to be done. Jewett was concerned about the single lane; the detail on page D-5 portion shows how it is going to be paved.
The plat shows signage also, so the Planning Board doesn’t need to approve sign permits as they are already shown. The location of the stop sign is illustrated, and they are showing the deed. Mr. LaPierre noted they are going to pave fifty linear feet into the access road. The plat shows adequate detail of what they want to do. Mr. Kroyer noted that he ran this by Highway Superintendent Mallory, and said that Jewett’s engineer will look at it as well. Mr. Coloton noted it as DOT standard.
Mr. Kroyer asked whether the three-foot width on the shoulder was because of the way the bridge was designed. Mr. Coloton said that was why; the bridge is that width. Mr. Kroyer said to his eyes the plat looks pretty good, with twelve layers of sub-base. A picture of the sign at the access road reads “Hunter North.” Deming Road residents will be able to drive unimpeded. There are two gates: one in Jewett that is thirty-two feet wide. Access road is wider than the town road. Mr. McCrary said this is subject to our engineers. Mr. Kroyer wanted to catch everything relevant to the Town of Jewett. The temporary facilities are located on the plat –the portable ticket booth, the restroom facilities, the food truck location – accessible for people who ski to walk over and get something to eat. Ms. Bernard said the Board asked for these locations because of ski area code. Trash collection point is a dumpster in the corner with trash receptacles set around the area. Parking area will include 250 -260 parking slots on about an acre. The parking lot for the Board’s information is one hundred and forty feet (140’) higher than the Deming Road intersection. The access road is three quarters of a mile long and increases in elevation by one hundred and forty feet (140’) from start to finish, shown as two feet at a time.
A culvert is located in the Town of Jewett. The erosion control is listed for the whole site, and from the parking lot is graded to drain into a retention pond. Mr. Coloton said drainage is illustrated from pretreatment to storage. The graded areas flow down into a culvert and into what Mr. Kroyer called a wing gutter. Mrs. Allen said that most of the water will sit in the pond and evaporate, but if it overflows it will go under the access road via pipes, of which a cross section is shown. Mr. Coloton pointed out three locations to the road water drainage and the overflow to the bigger basin. NYSDEP has complete oversight on this; Delaware Engineering has DEP permit and has been working with them steadily.
Mr. Kroyer looked at the culvert detail, and said two sixty-inch (60”) culverts run one hundred and twenty feet (120’) along under the road, shown on page D-4. Mr. LaPierre agreed that Mr. Kroyer was right. Mr. Kroyer further noted the loads are all illustrated, and everything looks in order. Ms. Bernard asked for further questions or comments from the Jewett Planning Board on the updated site plan and ancillary supporting information. In addition to complying with Jewett’s request to add the additional information, which they have done, she said the second letter written by this Planning Board identified the SEQRA and NYSDOT issues, which information everyone has. She cross walked it with the SEQRA, everything Jewett asked for they fixed, and the Board received another letter today detailing the times of operation.
Mr. Kroyer said that regarding snow fencing, Hunter Mountain replied they know what they are doing with regard to snow removal and maintaining access. Everything that was addressed and agreed upon included enhancing the two hundred and ninety feet (290’) of Deming Road and was also included in their creation of the access road.
The other issue for Jewett was the turnoff from Route 23A onto Deming Road. Delaware Engineering called NYSDOT and spoke to the regional director and presented a possible venue for the Hunter and Jewett Town Boards to jointly respond with a statement in writing. For the minutes, Mr. McCrary said the suggestion from NYSDOT was to extend the 45 mph speed limit beyond Deming Road and the no passing zone to just west of the Wright Road exit because of traffic on Wright Road turning left and traffic from Route 23A turning onto Wright Road just past Deming Road going west. He said Escrow was asked for and obtained. Lamont Engineering has been appointed as our consultant. Ms. Bernard noted there has been a lot of teamwork in Jewett, with Delaware Engineering being very supportive in their guidance. Mr. Kroyer suggested the extension of the 45 mph speed limit and no passing zone to a Hunter Planning Board member, who suggested it to a Hunter Town Board member, and he agreed. Mr. McCrary pointed out that NYSDOT said it was the job of the Town Boards to write that letter instead of the Planning Boards. Because this involves a state road, he thought the Town Boards should write directly to NYS instead of going through Greene County. Ms. Bernard suggested it would not hurt to copy the County. Mr. McCrary said that the usual procedure for a town road change would be to notify the County who notifies the State. Mr. Kroyer noted that the speed limit change involves both the Hunter and Jewett Town Boards. Mr. McCrary said he would introduce a motion to the Jewett Town Board at its meeting next week. Mr. Kroyer suggested waiting until Lamont Engineering weighs in on the situation.
The Jewett Planning Board’s engineer Doug Van Duesen from Lamont Engineering will review this site plan and give a report. Mr. Kroyer read the estimate statement from Lamont Engineering delineating their responsibilities in this review. Mr. LaPierre said that Greene County built the bridge and owns the right of way of both sides, and suggested that they might need to be notified in what might be a disturbance of their property. Mr. Kroyer said they have been considered as an interested party on the SEQRA. Ms. Bernard suggested they receive another 239 report in connection with this. Mr. LaPierre suggested a letter informing them this project might disturb the approach to their bridge. Mr. McCrary said Lamont Engineering would offer their consideration whether the south approach to the bridge was adequate for the needs of this project. Ms. Bernard said Delaware would resend the 239 Form with the new site plan with the road improvements that were not on there before. Mr. Kroyer asked if there was anything else we needed to include. Mr. Coloton suggested that they take the contact information of the engineer in charge so they could communicate directly. Mrs. Allen provided her card along with the name of the engineer in charge. Ms. Bernard asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Kroyer regarding the town engineer.
Since the last meeting, the Planning Board had received the NYSDEP response letter. For the minutes, Michelle Yost thought there had been a planting contract with one of the previous owners that does not affect the agreement here. The planting, for a stream-side stabilization, is not even close to the area being worked, Mr. Coloton said. The row of trees planted ten years ago hasn’t grown much.
Ms. Bernard said that everything has either been addressed or is in the process of being addressed, so she would like to open the floor to entertain a motion to accept the Special Use Permit Ski Area for the forty acres. Mr. Kroyer said things should fall together in time for the Public Hearing, which is scheduled for January 17, 2018, a Wednesday, to possibly be held at Hunter Elementary School. Ms. Bernard advised Mr. Silver to call the Town of Hunter Planning Board to determine the time and place. Mr. Kroyer said the Board should be able to accept this application tonight, but there still may be some conditions appended to it; they do not have the wording completely worked out yet. Ms. Bernard said this short list would be worked out by the January 4, 2018 meeting. Mr. Kroyer promised he would keep the conditions to a minimum, and explained that Jewett wants clarity before it grants a permit. Mr. Bob Mallory might have concerns the Board might not be aware of.
Ms. Bernard asked to entertain a motion to accept the Special Use Permit with the understanding that conditions are to be attached pending what is learned by the scheduled Public Hearing. Mr. LaPierre made the motion, which was seconded by Mrs. Romito, and subjected to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Mr. Kroyer – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mrs. Romito – aye. Ms. Bernard summarized that to date, the Board has accepted the Sketch Plan, the Site Plan, and the Special Use Permit. The sixty-two day limit from tonight is Feb 7th.
Mr. Coloton requested a copy of the signed escrow agreement, and Mr. Kroyer promised to talk to Ms. Mallory, Supervisor’s Assistant, and obtain a copy for him.
Mr. Coloton asked who notifies the abuttors, because in the Town of Jewett the applicant does that, and in the Town of Hunter, the Planning Board does that. Mr. Kroyer and Ms. Bernard said they would work that out with the Hunter Planning Board Chair. Mrs. Allen said that she would be seeing Sarah tomorrow, and so she could take care of this.
Mr. Silver was given five minutes to talk, and he expressed his concerns regarding climate change, believing that there would not be much skiing within the next few years, and therefore would like to avoid having the aesthetic west side of Hunter Mountain defaced for the purpose of skiing.
Agenda Item 5: Brooks and Brooks for discussion item: Lot Line Adjustment for Catherine Condon. For property located at 113 Natty Bumpo’s Path, Hunter, NY; Tax Map Parcel ID Nos. 130.00-4-17.1, containing 38.41 acres, and adjacent parcel 130.00-3-42, which contains 25.35 acres. New resulting lot sizes will be 29.66 and 34.10 acres respectively.
Mr. Ricky Brooks of Brooks & Brooks brought a different map and said that what they had learned was drastic enough they thought they had better come back before the Planning Board for advice. He delineated with his finger the new adjustment line, the location of Lawrence Road and Natty Bumpo’s Lake. There is a fifty-foot (50’) strip of land out to Lawrence Road, which this property would now be serviced by. Mr. Kroyer asked whether this was the property that was originally going to get sold to the DEP, and Mr. Brooks affirmed that. This fifty-foot strip right of way serves as a shared driveway to four other properties, which could make it subject to Planning Board review, but what lies under it is also problematic. The fifty-foot (50’) strip is illustrated between the solid blue line and the dashed line. The Levi property has part of their septic system into the fifty-foot (50’) wide strip of land. This is a problem because it is an encroachment, which could be satisfied by an easement if the owner wanted it to be. Or in this case, the owner is proposing to convey to Levi a twenty-foot (20’) wide strip of land for free so that he owns the encroachment, with his septic wholly on his property. This way when it comes time for the septic system to be maintained, Mr. Levi can stay on his own property and maintain it. The amount to be conveyed is a bit over a tenth of an acre. They would maintain an ownership interest in the land by keeping a right of way over it, but the fee title to the land would be given to Mr. Levi.
Mr. Kroyer wondered whether Jewett could allow a right of way less than fifty-feet wide. Mr. Brooks answered that the code does not stipulate each lot needing a fifty-foot (50’) wide right of way. He pointed out the problem area adjacent to the Levi property and the beginning of the fifty-foot (50’) wide. Problem area is a little corner along the driveway into Levi property. The fee strip of land that would go along with the Condon property would be thirty-feet (30’) wide. Mr. Kroyer noted that this is really a flag lot, which may be accessed by a narrow corridor with a minimum fifty-feet (50’) of road frontage. He wondered whether Brooks & Brooks could maintain the fifty-feet (50’) of road frontage, addressing the problem toward Levi’s property. So Condon would own thirty-feet outright, and have access to another twenty-feet. Since the wording is not specific to the ownership of the land, and the fifty-foot (50’) roadway would be maintained, the Planning Board did not anticipate difficulty with this solution. However, this would need to be worded into the deed and placed on the legend on the map.
Ms. Bernard is in total agreement that the owner of the septic should have the septic notched out under his responsibility. This solves yet another awkward land use problem. The amount of land to be conveyed is less than sixteen hundredths (0.16) of an acre, and will be solved by a Boundary Lot Line Adjustment. Ms. Bernard said that Mr. Brooks knows this application and will come before the Board again with the Application, the before and after deeds, the legend on the map, and proof of the school district lines. Mr. LaPierre said by doing this, the fifty-foot (50’) road frontage could never be contested. Mr. Brooks mentioned that there are four easements in total on this land, including the homeowners sharing the right of way and that Mr. Levi himself has other easements on property he owns behind this one. He said Michael Ryan has a sixteen-foot right of way going up along his property. Steve Levi has a fifteen-foot right of way up to his other property. Some overlap, Mr. Brooks said. DEP’s policy is when they have a shared driveway situation such as this, they do not publish it for public access, and they will put it in writing to Mr. Levi. The Board agreed this was a good thing.
Mr. Brooks said that Mr. Levi and Mrs. Condon had not yet come to an agreement, so he does not know if this can be accomplished in time for next month. Mr. Brooks said that at the culmination of this, DEP would pick up all the expenses.
He said he never filed the other lot line alteration, because the week after we signed this, he found out about the other problem. The time limit on this has expired for filing, so he will need to come before us to have it signed again.
With a round of holiday wishes, Mr. Brooks took his leave.
Agenda Item 6: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre.
Mr. LaPierre provided the secretary with the GCPB notes for the past two months to add to the minutes.
From the October 18, 2017 meeting, the Town of Athens adopted the revision of its Site Plan Review Law. The Town of Hunter is looking at a Site Plan for an upgrade to the Twilight Park sanitary sewer system. A gravity sewer will direct water to a pump-station, which will convey the sewage to a new on-site wastewater treatment plant. A renovation is planned for the Villa Maria in the Town of Hunter that will include building renovations, a wastewater treatment system installation, renovation of the pool area, and a new parking area and walking paths. The Town of Hunter is also reviewing a Site Plan for a Hunter Mountain ski trail expansion located west of the existing ski trails. The Village of Coxsackie is updating the Village Code related to mobile homes with an expanded definition which distinguishes it from a modular home, and amends its Schedule “A” Use Regulations of Residential Districts to eliminate the “manufactured home park” category and replace it with a “mobile home park” category. In the Town of Coxsackie, Jake’s Lock-up is seeking an Area Variance for the expansion of existing storage units that would violate their setbacks. Also in the Town of Coxsackie, someone is seeking a Use Variance to install a temporary propane tank above ground behind an existing building used as a warehouse. In the Town of Hunter, Haines Falls Auto has brought a Site Plan proposing site modifications including the addition of a new structure for receiving and processing construction and demolition debris. The GCPB disapproved of this Site Plan citing the nearby location of the Mountain Top Historical Society Visitor Center and North Lake Road, and the fact that the site’s setting is also located close to what the 2000 Town of Hunter Comprehensive Plan called the “gateway corridor” and the town’s “main roadway.” The Town of Coxsackie received a Use Variance to install two above ground propane tanks.
At the November 15, 2017 GCPB meeting, the Town of Greenville is considering the construction of a +/- 3000 KW solar array farm on State Route 32 in Freehold in Rural Residential Zoning. The community had considered SEQRA and arrived at a Neg Dec. Buffer zones will be established on the east and the west. Greenville requires a bond for decommissioning. Also in the Town of Greenville, the local Stewart’s seeks an upgrade, addition, and canopy replacement. In the Town of Coxsackie, a moratorium has been placed on utility scale solar energy systems. In the Town of Greenville the construction of a Tractor Supply store is planned on the west side of State Route 32 north of Tops Plaza. In the Town of Coxsackie the construction of a 723.6 KW solar array will be built on Stacy Road just south of the CH facility, power to be purchased by the Village.
Agenda Item 8: Other business:
The Planning Board members handed their vouchers for training for 2017 in to Mrs. Epstein to give to Cindy Mallory for payment, except for Mr. LaPierre, who could not locate his. Later when typing these minutes, Mrs. Epstein found it among the papers he had handed her.
Ms. Bernard gave Mrs. Epstein a calendar for 2018, and the Board settled the dates for next year’s meetings including snow dates for January and February. These will be as follows: January 4, with snow date of January 11; February 1, with snow date of February 6; March 1; April 5; May 3; June 7; July 5; August 2; September 6; October 4; November 1; and December 6 of 2018. These dates will be published as a Legal Ad in The Daily Mail and/or Mountain Eagle.
Mr. Kroyer had a quick little report on the DEP who was studying whether there was going to be any developable land left in Jewett. People did not like results of the study, which was faulty, as they were using the assumption of one and three tenths (1.3) acres of developable land per housing unit. This fit in the hamlet, but unless you are building in the hamlet you cannot build the house on one and three tenths (1.3) acres. The Catskill Watershed Corporation (CWC) had Chassen Engineering do a second study, and while they are not under control of DEP, their study came out virtually identical to the first one for the Town of Jewett. Mr. McCrary said Chassen Engineering did not take Zoning into account either, so this is subject to a third study. This was a plan to attack DEP’s justification for buying up more ground. CWC is paying for this, but will get reimbursed on this study because DEP screwed up. There is a new fad – filtration avoidance discrimination – that is part of the Clean Water Act, under which NYC was ordered to buy up land. The Coalition of Watershed Towns is fighting this. Mr. McCrary is one of four representatives of Greene County, he said.
The Town Board has been notified of all procedures, and has offered its comments, but Mr. McCrary felt it has not often done much good. Mr. Kroyer commented that for the Town Board to object to potential land sales was not going to be popular with the residents of Jewett, who will want to sell their land, a real catch twenty-two. Ms. Bernard wondered what Michelle Yost was trying to do. Mr. Kroyer said that this information is available on the GIS maps. Mr. Kroyer had spoken to Mrs. Bower who is an excellent resource, and is well informed on this situation. They agree that the Board does not have much power over anything except in the hamlets. Mr. McCrary noted that the DEP is mandated; it must purchase a certain dollar amount of land, and go out of their way to buy more expensive land to use up the money faster. They will purchase buildable land and they have. A future solution might be to swap. Ms. Bernard requested copies of the Chassen Engineering study for the Planning Board.
The next monthly meeting of the Planning Board will be held January 4, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. with new Chair Gregory Kroyer officiating over the meeting.
Mr. LaPierre motioned to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 9:23 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Romito, and carried unanimously.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Donna Bernard, Chair
Added: December 29, 2017
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:25 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Donna Bernard
Present: JoAnne DeLong, Greg Kroyer, Paul LaPierre, and Marianne Romito
Also present at this important meeting were Town Supervisor Jim Pelliteri and Town Board Chair Michael McCrary.
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of October 5, 2017
Mr. LaPierre made the motion to accept the minutes of October 5, 2017 as written. Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Nathan Miles
Mr. McCrary will be attending the Planning Board meetings as the liaison. Errors were noted to be corrected on phone numbers on the town website. He said that if the Board had anything specific to ask the Town Board prior to Wednesday, to let him know.
Agenda Item 4: Catherine Condon
Brooks and Brooks requested to appear on behalf of Catherine Condon for a new application, apparently regarding a subdivision, for which no material has yet been received. They cancelled tonight, and requested placement on the December 7, 2017 agenda of the Planning Board as they had a conflict.
Agenda Item 5: Sketch Plan Review and Site Plan Review for Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl, Inc. for Tax Parcel ID Tax No. 163.00-2-18.11 in the Rural Conservation Zoning District consisting of 40.3 acres. Property located off Deming Road (no address is given in tax information)
Mr. Russell Coloton, President of Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl, Inc., and Mrs. Lindsey Allen from Delaware Engineering, Inc. were present tonight. This action is coordinated with the Town of Hunter Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for SEQRA. Mrs. Allen had brought two large sets of plans, which she laid out for Board review, and seven packets of information, which Mrs. Epstein passed out to the membership and placed in the file. The packet includes Jewett’s Application for Sketch Plan Approval, Site Plan Approval, Special Use Permit, SEQRA Full EAF Part 1 and Location Map, the Hunter Mountain Ski Trail Expansion Map, a list of parcels within five hundred feet (500’), and the Greene County 239 Form.
Mrs. Allen said that most of the project is in the Town of Hunter with a portion on a parcel in the Town of Jewett off of Deming Road. They plan five new ski trails, a ski lift, an access road, and Stormwater Management plans to be overseen by NYCDEP. All are illustrated on these plats.
Mr. Coloton offered background information: About six years ago Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl, Inc. brought in a group called Snow Engineering, a ski area design group well known in the United States, to see where they could gain acreage as Hunter Mountain gets very busy on the weekends. Snow Engineering took their mapping and reviewed the current terrain, and found they have great beginner and expert skier terrain, but are about twenty percent (20%) short of the typical distribution between beginners and experts. Snow Engineering provided color-coded diagrams by skier ability, and one of the neat things that came out was the different terrain not as steep as the other areas. Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl is hoping to expand this into intermediate skiing terrain.
One of the directions they have been heading in resulted from the elected officials of the Town of Hunter asking whether they would consider trying to get another entranceway into the ski area, giving traffic access to rest of the village, which is pretty desolate from the business standpoint. The significant challenge is the majority of guests coming from the east. All of the features and amenities are located in the base area. It still remains a challenge to get people through the village as there is not going to be a lot offered over at this new area.
Ms. Bernard asked for immediate questions before the Planning Board begins the Sketch Plan Review with the list to ascertain all requirements are met, which the Board requires for both Sketch and Site Plan Review. Mr. Kroyer noted layers in the larger plat. Mrs. Allen showed where the Jewett town line falls, the parcel, the parking lot, Deming Road in the corner, and the presence of a north arrow. The road name is misspelled on the plat, Mr. LaPierre noted – Deming, not Demming. Name of project, name and address of applicant, contact person, and developer of the project as Delaware Engineering are listed. The plat is dated, and boundaries of the property are plotted to scale.
The existing watercourses are the Schoharie Creek, the floodway, and Taylor Hollow Creek. Mr. Kroyer asked if that was getting a bridge over it. Mr. Coloton informed him that this pedestrian bridge is located in the Town of Hunter. A culvert noted on the Jewett part of the project that will drain the ditch from one side of the road to another is located just inside the wood line. Grading and drainage plan showing proposed and existing contours: Mrs. Allen showed that one page of the plat contains the existing contours, and the next page illustrates the proposed contours. The contours are a little different where the road is.
Ms. Bernard said no buildings or outdoor storage are proposed in the Jewett parcel. Mr. Kroyer asked if the parking lot and roadway would be gravel, and Mr. Coloton said that they would. Access and egress are the same; the access road ends in a loop. Ms. Bernard wondered if someone parking in the proposed two hundred and fifty spaces would have access to the rest of the mountain. Only by skiing or walking over, Mr. Coloton answered. The pedestrian bridge over Taylor Brook, designed like the one in Hunter Village by Dolan’s Lake, would be for that purpose. People cannot gain access to the base lodge by driving from this parking lot without going back out to the main roads. The access road is about a half mile long. The Board does not expect many people walking into the ski trails at this area. Total proposed improvements are the gravel for parking lot and road and a retention basin that is kind of a divot with grass in it five to six feet deep. Mrs. Allen said NYCDEP would need to approve all Stormwater Plans, and the retention basin is designed with the NYS “Blue Book” on Stormwater Management.
There will be no sewage disposal as there is no lodge. The facilities would provide port-o-let toilets and maybe a food truck. Ms. Bernard said that a Special Use Permit for a ski area would need to be adjacent to a facility with amenities. Mr. Coloton said you could ski from the bottom of the zephyr (west side) to access the lodge, and they provide port-o-lets at the bottom of the west side now. Mr. Kroyer read the SUP laws, which state that a parcel would not need amenities if contiguous with existing ski area use, which this is. Ms. Bernard agreed that the ski area to be utilized has both access to the Base Lodge and the port-o-lets, which are in closer proximity. Mr. LaPierre noted that a food truck would add the problem of the waste management from food residue. Mr. Coloton promised there would be trash receptacles and garbage collection. He said they had adopted a portion of Route 23A wherein they assure trash pickup.
No well is necessary as no water is needed there. Snowmaking on all trails to the bottom of the lift comes from the other side. Water for snowmaking comes from Dolan’s Lake and a sixty-million gallon impoundment pond by Colonel’s Chair. The facility currently has a water withdrawal limit with NYSDEC. Mr. LaPierre inquired about an old well, and Mr. Coloton remembered when the Slutzky family was drilling for wells and there was a sulfur problem before the treatment plant was put in. There are no fire hydrants or location of fire emergency zones.
Emergency concerns exist. Deming Road is effectively a one-lane road, Mr. LaPierre said, although the bridge is two lanes. Mr. Kroyer expressed concern about emergency egress. Mr. Coloton thought two hundred and fifty (250) cars leaving over a two-hour period is not a lot of traffic. There would be a stop sign on the access road entering Deming Road, which is within the fifty-foot (50’) right of way of the Town of Jewett, so that Deming Road traffic would have right of way. Mr. LaPierre said that a speed limit sign near the bridge got clobbered by a snowplow and has never been replaced. He noted that Deming Road congestion has been problematic during Mountain Jam and Taste of Country when that vacant land had been used for parking. He suggested that Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl might provide snow fencing, because although the highway guys do a really great job of plowing, there are areas that drift in as quickly as two hours after plowing.
Mr. Kroyer had spoken with Mr. Mallory who said the town road is inadequate for ski traffic, and would like to see the road improved from the bridge to the entrance of the ski area and the town right of way. Road is minimal right now; the materials are all around to bring it up to state specs from the 3-4” it is currently.
Ms. Bernard asked if access road is two lanes. Mr. LaPierre noted it is twenty-five feet (25’) wide. She is worried whether an emergency vehicle would have a way out and around traffic without going into a ditch. She asked whether there was plenty of space if someone had to be medivacked out on this side. Mr. Coloton affirmed this. Mr. Kroyer noted that Deming Road is jurisdiction of the Jewett Fire Department, who should be one of the involved agencies for this project or at least receive a letter.
Signage requirements exist as part of the SUP, but these applications may occur as needed. NYSDOT does not want signs located in their right of way. Mr. Coloton said there would probably be a directional sign.
Mr. Kroyer explained that some cases require buffering to provide privacy to people and their homes. Mr. LaPierre said the project is not close to neighbors; the only existing structure nearby is an old barn. The Jewett parcel will have less than ten acres of tree removal and there will be none close to the old barn. There is no need for a Timber Harvesting Permit. Whatever disturbances are made with the access road will be reseeded to look nice. Ms. Bernard wondered if tree line was located on maps – it is. There is no outdoor lighting, or retail outlets, on Jewett parcel.
Mr. Kroyer did not see NYSDOT listed as an involved agency, and expected they should be added to the list along with the Jewett Fire Department. Mr. Coloton said they went through the list of involved agencies with the Town of Hunter. Mrs. Allen said that parties not issuing a permit or approval are not considered an involved agency. They might be an interested agency, but not an involved agency. Mr. LaPierre said that the application was missing other involved agencies, including the Jewett Planning Board. Greene County was also missing, Ms. Bernard noted, and they are involved regarding the 239 Form provided.
Ms. Bernard asked Councilman McCrary whether NYSDOT was involved in the repair of the Carr Road Bridge after the floods. Councilman McCrary said NYSDOT were very much involved, and had been notified by Greene County. He said NYSDOT would not do anything unless they are notified. He is concerned about a bottleneck, and thought NYSDOT might want the type of two-lane entrance they have in Lexington. Any such lane becomes NYSDOT concern. Ms. Bernard said it is better to deal with these concerns before the fact rather than after the process has been finished. “Discretionary agency” in the wording of the SEQRA allows for potentially involved agencies, yet does not seem to indicate whether the party would be a permit/approval issuing agency. Mr. LaPierre noted also that Route 23A has a passing lane going east near the egress from Deming Road, which becomes a NYSDOT concern when considering the increase in east bound traffic from the proposed ski area. People frequently violate this safety – coming out of Hunter Village on a straightway, people speed regardless of road lines. Ms. Bernard emphasized the wish of the Jewett Planning Board that NYSDOT be notified.
Ms. Bernard said that right now the Sketch Plan has everything that is applicable to what the Board has heard. It did not identify anything that needs to be added. Mr. Kroyer wants to see the wishes of the Highway Superintendent to upgrade that area of Deming Road (as previously stated) up to state specs listed on the plat. Mr. Coloton said that he did not think the plat was the area to show such improvements as the town road is not their jurisdiction. Ms. Bernard promised to ask Mr. Rappleyea where that language should be. Mr. LaPierre said that at some point this approximately two hundred and fifty feet (250’) of road to be brought up to state specs would need a legal agreement between the Town of Jewett and Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl, Inc. Mr. Coloton said that Jewett would procedurally submit its recommendation to the Town of Hunter, who would act on it. Ms. Bernard said the Town of Jewett is responsible for approving this part of the process and that it could do so conditionally, which would be stated on its Decision paper.
Ms. Bernard stated the Jewett Planning Board would review the SEQRA as the Town of Jewett is an interested party and can offer comment on environmental impacts to the Lead Agency, and express its own concerns, which are not reflected on the SEQRA as reviewed by the Town of Hunter. She asked Mr. LaPierre to read aloud the SEQRA as presented.
The project named “Hunter Mountain Ski Trail Expansion” is located on Hunter Mountain in the Village of Hunter, NY 12442, and will disturb approximately forty-eight acres owned by Peak Resorts, Inc., requiring minor grading and blasting for the construction of the ski trails. Contact parties named are Russell Coloton, President, and Lindsay Ostrander Allen, Engineer of Delaware Engineering, DPC.
On page 2 of the SEQRA Part One, the Jewett Planning Board found that B. Government Approvals, d. Other local agencies should have been checked “Yes,” listing itself and the Jewett Fire Department. Under e. County agencies, “Yes” should also have been checked because they sent the 239 Form to Greene County. The Board also recommends that NYSDOT be added to the list of g. State agencies.
Under section C3. Zoning, b., the answer should read “Yes,” because Jewett’s Special Use Permit is required under Jewett’s Zoning law. The Town of Hunter does not have a zoning law, but Jewett does, so the condition above that, C.3.Zoning, a, should also be changed to a “Yes.” Under C.4.c. listing fire protection and emergency services that will service the project, the Town of Jewett Fire Department should be added.
Mr. Kroyer suggested providing the Town of Hunter with an Addendum letter following up the acceptance of their Lead Agency status with these changes.
On page 3, under Section D.1. Proposed and Potential Development, Ms. Bernard noted that the disturbance for the Town of Jewett would take place on forty and three tenths (40.3) total acres with a disturbance of less than two (< 2) acres.
The ski lift will be ninety (90) feet high, seventy-five (75) feet wide, and three thousand, two hundred (3,200) feet in length.
Under D.2.Project operations, j., page 7, would need to be changed to “Yes” for Jewett’s Deming Road two full time residents. If “Yes,” Mr. Coloton said he expected peak traffic flow during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., which are Hunter Mountain’s hours of operation, on the new access road of approximately two hundred and fifty feet (250’) for Deming Road Bridge and originating on Deming Road. Mr. Coloton also said that two hundred and sixty parking slots are expected.
On page 8, it was noted that noise would exist during the construction phase of the project. Still under D.2.Project operations, j., question q. was left unchecked and should be checked “No.” Nor did they answer r.
On page 9, E.Site and Setting of Proposed Action, E.1. Existing land uses, Residential should be checked because there are residents in Jewett. A list of parcels within five hundred feet had been provided in the packet. On page 10, c. would be “No” in pertaining to Jewett.
Mrs. Allen said in relation to questions h., i., j., k., and l. regarding waterbodies on page 11 are often automatically filled in on the online SEQRA form. Letter m. at the top of page 12 would include bear and coyotes as wildlife species utilizing the site. Letter q. should be checked “Yes” for hunting.
Ms. Bernard said the next step is to accept the Sketch Plan and Site Plan applications. Normally the Board would consider the motion with conditions to improve the plan, but in this case it is not Lead Agency. She would entertain a motion to accept the applications for Sketch and Site Plans as proposed. There are two conditions she will ask Mr. Rappleyea about – regarding the road Jewett wants improved, and the correct format for giving our input to the Lead Agency on SEQRA. Mr. Kroyer thought the Board could accept the Sketch Plan, but it could not accept the Site Plan without the SEQRA. Ms. Bernard explained that accepting the plans does not mean we are approving the plans. The entire process with Hunter must still be undergone. Mr. Kroyer noted that on the SUP the Board is required to hold a Public Hearing. She thought the Public Hearing would be held together with Hunter’s Public Hearing as Mr. Rappleyea had suggested. Mr. Kroyer thought it should be held separately. The Sketch Plan is cut and dry without requiring a SEQRA. He thought we could even approve that, as they have met all the requirements. He found that Delaware Engineering had not listed itself on the Sketch Plan application, so Mrs. Allen signed and initialed that for the file.
Mr. Kroyer motioned to accept the application for Sketch Plan Review. Seconded by Mr. LaPierre, the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Epstein totaled the amount due for the applications tonight and Mrs. Allen paid the Planning Board.
The Site Plan application was reviewed for completion. Letter F regarding SEQRA could list the NYSDOT, but it is not required as they will not be issuing permits here. Ms. Bernard said the Board would like to accept the Site Plan as reviewed with the understanding that Jewett’s concern from the Highway Supervisor for the improvement of the road will be represented as an addendum or a condition. Mr. Kroyer suggested the condition be attached to the SUP without involving the Hunter Planning Board at all. She agreed it makes sense as a place to put conditions, but it need not be approved tonight; she prefers to get the correct wording to accept the Site Plan addressing Jewett’s road improvement concerns.
Mr. Kroyer noted the road specs are not listed on the plat. Mr. LaPierre said the road specs are listed in town law. Mr. Kroyer wanted the weight specified for the culvert. He suggested Jewett might want to hire an engineer to review this. Mr. LaPierre wondered if this was even Jewett’s purview. Mrs. Epstein remembered that the town has the precedent to hire an outside engineer to consult for the development of the highway. Mr. Kroyer said the SUP requirements and Jewett Town Law assert that right. Mr. LaPierre said theoretically they would be building that road for their construction equipment to go over, so it will already be designed for machinery that is heavier than the weight of the traffic that will use it later. The consulting engineer can advise the development of Deming Road improvements as well as the access/egress road for Hunter Mountain.
Mr. Coloton said he thought the Town of Jewett would not want to take upon itself the liability of the private road, and that there are two considerations here: Jewett’s would be Deming Road. Mr. Kroyer said he is right, Jewett does not want to take liability, which is why it would hire an engineer to sign off on that. Ms. Bernard said that when Jewett has been Lead Agency it could approve it with conditions. Mr. Kroyer said that if somebody looks at this one time for both the Site Plan and the Special Use Permit, it is the same thing. Mr. Coloton said engineers would design the road. Ms. Bernard said this has to be by law concluded with Jewett, and she wanted to get this accepted so that we could move into the approval process.
The approval process might be delayed until we can talk to legal guidance how to go about it. As far as engineer’s review, we need to take advice from our highway supervisor. The road concern stops at Deming Road, Ms. Bernard said. Mr. Coloton is concerned by the delay over the culvert. Mr. Kroyer said he believes within the sixty days this can be reviewed and approved. Ms. Bernard asked Mr. LaPierre whether he was okay with accepting the Site Plan, but he remains uncertain whether the culvert is within our purview. Mr. Kroyer understood, but insisted that he still needs to look at the road.
Mr. LaPierre said this is not relevant to the Site Plan. Mr. Kroyer said it has to be relevant to the SUP, and he wants to get the issue nailed down in either the Site Plan or the SUP. Mrs. Romito asked whether we couldn’t accept the Site Plan and then put Mr. Kroyer’s conditions within the SUP. Mr. LaPierre said it is right there in the application for the Special Use Permit, C. Special Features: “In addition to meeting the standards prescribed by the Zoning Law the applicant will provide the additional amenities, features and/or accouterments as described below in order that the public convenience and welfare will be served.” Mr. LaPierre suggested we accept the Sketch Plan and the Site Plan. Ms. Bernard said we already accepted the Sketch Plan, and said we can accept the Site Plan. She wants to ascertain with Mr. Rappleyea whether any further language needs to be added to them for the roads. Mr. LaPierre said he doesn’t want something we all know is necessary to hold up the process of them moving forward.
Ms. Bernard asked for a motion worded in a way everyone is comfortable with. Mr. LaPierre motioned that the Planning Board accept the Site Plan Review pending answers to its questions regarding the road. Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 6: Special Use Permit for Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl, Inc. for Tax Parcel ID Tax No. 163.00-2-18.11 in the Rural Conservation Zoning District consisting of 40.3 acres. Property located off Deming Road (no address is given in tax information)
The third application before the Board tonight is for Special Use Permit. Ski Area is allowed in Rural Conservation Zoning. Special Use Ski Area regulations require a minimum of twenty-five (25) acres and appropriate sanitary facilities unless contiguous with an existing ski area. Definition is a development consisting of ski trails, slopes, chair lifts, base, and lodges. Activities are skiing, cross-country, snow boarding, snow tubing and other non-motorized snow sports. The term is changed to ski area not ski resort; to change the designation of vacant lands for use by putting parking spaces and access the Board has to change the designation of the zone with a Special Use for Ski Area. The Board can attach conditions and safeguards to the permit to ensure all applicable requirements. An applicant’s failure to comply with those conditions would revoke the SUP. Standards must provide adequate access for emergency services, fire and police protection. Health and safety for Jewett’s residents is a moral oath for Planning Board members to ascertain road can handle it as discussed. Aesthetics and use must be in harmony with that area and not detrimental to the Town Comprehensive Plan, which requires orderly development of adjacent properties and adequate vehicular access to areas of use. Ms. Bernard noted this has been more than covered, and the Board could tonight accept the Application for Special Use. If the Board agrees for the Ski Area, it would not be applying conditions until it actually approves the permit. It has interactions with other agencies before that can happen. Those conditions can then be formulated prior to issuing the permit. The applicant understands that if he abandons the SUP it would be revoked.
Ms. Bernard wants to accept the application. Mr. Kroyer noted it would start the clock ticking. Ms. Bernard said that Hunter would have sixty-two days just as Jewett does, and that further information would be known after the meeting November 14th. She asked Mr. Coloton how he felt about the progress in Hunter. Mr. Coloton said he wants everything in place from NYCDEP, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Town of Hunter by February 1st so that they could begin working on the project. The lead-time on chair lifts is so lengthy that the order needs to be placed by February to remain on production schedule.
Mr. Coloton wondered why the Board couldn’t accept the SUP tonight. Mr. Kroyer said this little bit about the road needs to be added. Mr. Coloton said that would be part of the conditions. Mr. LaPierre said that would get the clock ticking and the Board is not in control of the entire process. The SEQRA review is part of the Public Hearing with the Town of Hunter. Mr. Coloton asked whether Public Hearing would be the same as the one for the Town of Hunter. Mr. Kroyer said the Board would like it to be, but it needs to get everybody’s comments in from the public review. Ms. Bernard wants to have Mr. Rappleyea’s input. Mr. Coloton said he’d rather have Jewett go on a separate track than Hunter just to get the SUP done. He said it is a separate issue from the Town of Hunter, and really has nothing to do with them. Mr. Kroyer said it doubles the work for his engineer and that the Board was trying to make it easier, which was why it was trying to keep it together. Mrs. Epstein suggested the Board could always convene a special meeting if necessary.
The Site Plan can take up to four months, and usually the SUP moves quicker. Much depends on how fast the Hunter Planning Board can get their stuff together and coordinate the review. Ms. Bernard summarized that the Board would rather put this off tonight, and get our information together. We are not on the Lead Agency clock. We may be able to carry the Public Hearing sooner than thirty days from December 7th. Ms. Bernard said the Board waits until the next meeting to accept this because it wants to ascertain the language concerning the road.
She wants Mr. Rappleyea to guide us there. Mr. Kroyer asked Mr. Coloton whether he wanted to do the Public Hearing once or whether he wanted to do it twice. Mrs. Allen said the big issue was whether everything could be done on time, so do a separate hearing for SUP if necessary. Mrs. Romito suggested the Board wait and gather all of its information, including the information from the Town of Hunter 14th meeting and input from Mr. Rappleyea. Ms. Bernard noted the Board avoids the thirty-day delay imposed upon it by Lead Agency requirements, which can actually speed this up.
The Board decided to put the acceptance for this application off to the December 7th meeting, and that this will be listed first on the agenda. Mr. Kroyer said be prepared to follow No. 11 of the SUP clause to establish an escrow account in regard to the road question. The balance would be refunded within thirty days of the approval, and review the design of Deming Road from the bridge to within fifty feet of the access road. Mr. Coloton wanted this clarified. Mr. Kroyer said it is a minimal thing for them to review the work of the road. Mr. LaPierre said it was a common box culvert, and Mr. Kroyer said he wasn’t even thinking about the culvert, that Mr. LaPierre had really set him straight on that one!
The Special Use Permit application will be set on the agenda for December 7th for 7:30 p.m.
Agenda Item 7: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre.
Mr. LaPierre was rearing and eager to go with twenty-seven pages of a long Greene County Planning Board minutes, but Ms. Bernard reined him in, and said that it was very late and the Board would review this next month.
Agenda Item 8: Other business:
Ms. Bernard will formulate over the weekend all the questions, then send it to Mr. Kroyer, and collectively send it to Mr. Rappleyea as one draft. She asked him to specifically weigh in with the road thing and the engineer. Then they will send a copy to the Town Board, Councilman McCrary and Supervisor Pelliterri, and once the advice is received from Mr. Rappleyea, she will make the information more broadly available. She expects the Town of Hunter to declare itself Lead Agency on the 14th, and then they will have to collate all the information from all the other agencies, so it could still take time, and they could always decide to review the SEQRA as often as necessary depending on information that comes in.
Mrs. Epstein provided Vouchers for the Board to report its trainings, and double-checked the contact information for year’s end.
The conditions are given the night the Board approves the SUP; what it did with TREC, making sure it’s understood, as the last piece to fill in.
The next monthly meeting of the Planning Board will be held December 7th at 7:30 p.m. Catherine Condon will be coming back with a Minor Subdivision application, and the Board still has no information, although Brooks and Brooks is very efficient.
Mrs. Romito motioned to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 10:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Ms. DeLong, and carried unanimously.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Donna Bernard, Chair
Added: December 29, 2017
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Donna Bernard
Present: JoAnne DeLong, Greg Kroyer, Paul LaPierre, and Marianne Romito
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of September 7, 2017 and September 19, 2017
Mr. Kroyer made the motion to accept the minutes of September 7, 2017 as amended. Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
Mr. Kroyer motioned to accept the special meeting minutes of September 19, 2017. Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Nathan Miles
Mr. Miles was not present.
Agenda Item 4: Applications before the Planning Board
There were no applications before the Board tonight.
Agenda Item 5: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre.
Mr. LaPierre said there was no meeting of the GCPB to report on.
Agenda Item 7: Other business:
No further information has been learned concerning the Cell Tower. Ms. Bernard recalled that Mr. Rappleyea had said it required a brand new application.
Ms. Bernard asked Mrs. Epstein to provide Vouchers next month for the Board to report its trainings.
The floor was opened for local news: the Swiss Chalet has been sold and will become Jesse’s Harvest House – possibly a Food to Table; and there will be a Draft Horse Pull in Ashland next Sunday.
The next monthly meeting of the Planning Board will be held November 2nd at 7:30 p.m.
Ms. DeLong motioned to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 8:40 p.m. The motion was seconded by Ms. Bernard, and carried unanimously.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Donna Bernard, Chair
Added: September 09, 2017
TOWN OF JEWETT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 3, 2017 Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call: Chair: Donna Bernard Present: JoAnne DeLong, Greg Kroyer, and Paul LaPierre Absent: Marianne Romito Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of July 6, 2017 After spelling corrections on page two, Ms. DeLong motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Kroyer seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Nathan Miles Mr. Miles was not in attendance. Agenda Item 4: Public Hearing for Ann Huetter for Subdivision Application for property located at 9402 Route 23A, Jewett, NY, Tax Parcel ID No. 146.00-2-5.1 consisting of 82.0 acres in Rural Residential Zoning District. Prior to opening the Public Hearing, Ms. Bernard requested Mr. LaPierre to read aloud the NYCDEP and GCPB responses to the Planning Board’s letter announcing its intention to be Lead Agency. A copy of the first was given to Mr. Schaefer. Ms. Bernard said to Mr. Schaefer that the DEP recommendations are for any future plans on the property. The DEP does not find conflict with the PB intent to be Lead Agency. DEP’s involvement stems from any future septic building on the property and it recommends that if the well on Lot Three serves more than one home, that be illustrated on the plan. Mr. Schaefer said that it serves only the barn. The GCPB said only that this project is not their jurisdiction; the 239 Form was sent only because of proximity to State Route 23A. Ms. Bernard called for a motion to declare the Jewett Planning Board Lead Agency in this unlisted action. Mr. LaPierre so motioned, Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. As Lead Agency, the Board has the authority to review the SEQRA, which was preliminarily done two months ago. Ms. Bernard requested Mr. LaPierre read aloud Parts One and Two before the Board. There is an archeological area, but no disturbance will happen. Areas of the property are within a floodplain. Ms. Bernard said she ran the SEQRA for herself through the mapper summary, and all “Yes’s” matched. On Part Two, the Board made a preliminary determination based upon current information that no significant environmental impacts were noted. Mr. LaPierre motioned to open the Public Hearing. Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which carried, and so it opened at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Schaefer presented Mrs. Epstein with an Affidavit for the receipts of mailing to the neighbors and the notification of Sign Posting letter signed by Mrs. Huetter. No Public came forward, and so at 8:15 p.m. Mr. LaPierre motioned to close the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m. Ms. Delong seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Ms. Bernard summarized that the Board having not heard anything during the Public Hearing to alter the decision of a Negative Declaration, would entertain a motion to declare this action a Neg Dec. This was moved with all in favor. Agenda Item 5: Ann Huetter for Subdivision Application for property located at 9402 Route 23A, Jewett, NY, Tax Parcel ID No. 146.00-2-5.1 consisting of 82.0 acres in Rural Residential Zoning District. Ms. Bernard asked the Planning Board to review the plat for the last time. She noted that the DEP had suggested illustrating the location of all properties served by the well. Mr. Schaefer said the well does not serve any of the houses, only the barn. He has located the spring, which serves multiple dwellings, and noted that on the legend. The DEP said that the existing SSTS serving Lots Two and Three should be located on the plat. Mr. Kroyer stated that the wording of the letter was “should be,” not “must be.” The Board recalled that in the past, it has not required SSTS location unless the applicants were going to build. Everything is pre-existing, and there is no intention to change any of the dwellings where people are already living, nor any building planned. Ms. Bernard said she would entertain a motion to approve this Subdivision Application. Mr. Kroyer so moved, Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, and it was subject to a Role Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. Kroyer – aye; and Mr. LaPierre – aye. A Decision page was filled out and copies provided to Mrs. Bower, Mr. Shippee, Mrs. Carl, the NYCDEP, and Mr.Schaefer. Ms. Bernard completed the signing of the plats. Agenda Item 6: Brooks and Brooks for discussion item: Lot Line Adjustment for Catherine Condon. For property located at 113 Natty Bumpo’s Path, Hunter, NY; Tax Map Parcel ID Nos. 130.00-4-17.1, containing 38.41 acres, and adjacent parcel 130.00-3-42, which contains 25.35 acres. New resulting lot sizes will be 29.66 and 34.10 acres respectively. Patricia Brooks said that their client Catherine Condon owns two parcels of land; they are shown on the tax map with current configuration. One parcel outlined in blue has fifty feet of road frontage on Natty Bumpo’s Path and fifty feet of road frontage on Lawrence Road. The other parcel is land locked. The proposal before the Board is to do a lot line revision so that parcel as shown in the map on red. Currently they have a thirty-eight and forty-one hundredths (38.41) acre parcel and a twenty-five and thirty-five hundredths (25.35) acre parcel. When they are done, they will have a twenty-nine and sixty-six hundredths (29.66) acre parcel and a thirty-four and one tenth (34.1) acre parcel. The lot line revision would grant road frontage to the land locked parcel, and each parcel would have fifty feet of frontage. Mrs. Brooks wanted to make sure this approach would be in conformance with zoning. They have proposed a building setback line within the code, noting that the regulations for front yard and lot width was the average distance between the side lot line and taking the front yard or the building line. Mr. Kroyer noted that lots pre-existing August 11 2004 are exempt from any requirements under the Flag Lot law. This configuration meets the definition of a Flag Lot. Mrs. Brooks said that they planned on the subdivision map to propose the building setback line and flag lot, so that in the future nobody tries to build closer to Lawrence Road than that setback line as provided for in the code to protect the municipality and future purchasers of the property. Mr. Kroyer asked what is the point of the subdivision. Mrs. Brooks said that here is a sale to NYCDEP. Mr. Kroyer opined the action may be redundant, because DEP has this all covered. There is an existing house, which the family will retain. Road frontage there is fifty feet pre-existing at road’s end. The nine (8.73) acres will be added on to this piece. The land locked parcel will gain road frontage and access to the NYCDEP owned property gained from Lawrence Road only. That also serves as a ROW to four other private lots. Ms. Bernard inquired whether the application would be for a Flag Lot? Mrs. Brooks answered the application would be for a Lot Line revision. Ms. Bernard made note that if the area to be subdivided is going to NYCDEP, the Board needs to unlock it. Mr. Kroyer recommended an Altered Lot Line Adjustment based upon the fact that the amount of acreage is greater than one acre. An Altered Lot Line conveys a portion of land from one landowner to an adjacent landowner to increase size of the neighbor’s land or to accommodate a natural feature of the premises or of the local zoning law without creating a new lot. This law is not applicable when the conveyance of land creates a new parcel that could be subdivided. The parcel gaining size could be subdivided already, so that is not applicable. Mr. Kroyer checked further particulars required by this application, and said he saw nothing that went against its use. Ms. Bernard provided a copy of the Altered Lot Line Adjustment application to Mrs. Brooks. Mr. Brooks said the state owns portions of the land in there, right opposite the old swimming hole. Ms. Bernard wanted the rest of the Board to weigh in on this decision. No one had any disagreement. This application does not require a Public Hearing, Ms. Bernard noted, so that the Board could make the decision tonight. Brooks and Brooks have already notified the neighbors. This began as a discussion, but Brooks and Brooks submitted the Altered Lot Line Adjustment Application and the maps. Mr. Kroyer wondered about the location of the septic or the well, but Ms. Bernard said that none of that was applicable to any lot line adjustment. Rather the Board is considering the location of the school district line, or whether anything will be environmentally disrupted, just as for a regular Boundary Lot Line Adjustment. Mr. Kroyer is worried about this becoming public access that never was before. Ms. DeLong noted that it is DEP, so there will probably be very little public. Ms. Bernard said that depends on what kind of posting they do. The hiking, hunting, fishing access may bring in some public, especially around hunting season. Ms. Bernard said that people sell to DEP all over the mountaintop and the neighbors are not notified unless there is a Public Hearing. Mrs. Brooks commented that they make a practice of notifying all the neighboring landowners, and they save the mailing receipts. Mrs. Brooks inquired as to the cost of this application. Every part of these parcels are located in the Hunter Tannersville School District. Ms. Bernard queried whether there were any further thoughts or comments on this; there were none. She asked for a motion to approve this Altered Lot Line Adjustment. Mr. LaPierre so motioned, Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, and subject to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. Kroyer – aye; and Mr. LaPierre – aye. Mrs. Brooks will arrange with Mrs. Epstein to bring in the check and the completed plats for signing. A Decision paper was filled out and filed with appropriate persons. Agenda Item 7: Brooks and Brooks regarding name correction for plats for Subdivision for Charles B. Slutsky, David Slutzky, and Orvet Family LLC, for property located at State Route 23 and Deming Road, Tax Parcel ID No. 163.00-2-18.1, Zoning Districts Conservation and Rural Conservation. Last November the Board granted approval for this Subdivision. Since then Mr. Paul Slutzky discovered that the Slutsky family owns this, and not the corporation. Brooks and Brooks have brought the plats here for correction in name only. He needs the Board’s signature on the corrected copies of the maps. Ms. DeLong asked if there were further paperwork needed to amend the names, and Mr. Brooks answered not, the only correction is needed on the maps, which he will then file as amended. Deed reference has previously been clarified. The tax assessments were being sent to the wrong people. Ms. Bernard asked for a motion for the Chair to sign the corrected plats, and only the corrected plats to include the names of all five children. Mr. Kroyer so motioned, Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, and the plats were signed. Agenda Item 8: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre. The Village of Hunter had a Site Plan regarding building renovations and dumpster enclosure at the Snow Bird Ski Shop located at 7451 Main Street, to which the GCPB gave their approval for countywide considerations. The Town of Hunter had a Site Plan regarding stormwater management improvements at the Onteora Club on County Route 23C, which the GCPB approved for countywide considerations. The Greene County Planning Board also let it be known they are soliciting nominations for Planning Achievement Awards for worthwhile planning, community and economic development activities within the last three years in Greene County. Agenda Item 7: Other business: The next meeting of the Planning Board will be held September 7th at 7:30 p.m. and the Public Hearing for 8:00 p.m. Mr. LaPierre motioned to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 9:21 p.m. The motion was seconded by Ms. DeLong, and carried unanimously. Respectfully, Susan H. Epstein, Clerk ____________________________ Donna Bernard, Chair
Added: July 09, 2017
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Donna Bernard
Present: JoAnne DeLong, Greg Kroyer, Paul LaPierre, and Marianne Romito
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of June 1, 2017
Mr. LaPierre motioned to approve the minutes as corrected. Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Nathan Miles
Mr. Miles was not in attendance.
Agenda Item 4: Bruce O’Mara-Hulbert, P.L.S. for Two-Lot Subdivision for Sheepskin Hills, Inc., off State Highway 296, Jewett, NY; Tax Parcel ID No. 147.00-3-31 of 130.4 acres in the Rural Conservation Zoning District.
Mr. O’Mara-Hulbert called Secretary Epstein to say that they were not ready to pursue this application and asked to be placed on the agenda for August.
Agenda Item 5: Brooks and Brooks for Charles B. Slutzky/ Sheepskin Hills for Application for two-lot minor subdivision for property located at Ford Hill and NYS Route 296, Jewett, NY; Tax Parcel ID No. 147.00-2-21.111 in the Rural Residential Zoning District. Property consists of 73.62 acres to be divided into two parcels of 9.21 and 64.41 acres respectively.
Mr. Ricky Brooks arrived to present this Subdivision application. The paperwork had been delivered prior to his appearance tonight, consisting of the Minor Subdivision application, the letter of representation, a short form EAF, copy of the current deed of record, list of land adjoining neighbors within five hundred feet (500’), five copies of the subdivision map, and the application fee.
The bulk of the total acreage lies alongside Ford Hill Road, with a small area of land fronting NYS Route 296. Sheepskin Hills, Inc. is seeking to divide seventy-three and sixty-two hundredths (72.62) acres into two lots of nine and twenty-one hundredths (9.21) – Lot One – and sixty-four and forty-one hundredths (64.41) – Lot Two – acres respectively. As illustrated on the plat, Lot Two will have frontage on both roads, and Lot One retains its frontage on Route 296. There is a pre-existing red barn on Lot One, and a gravel road, part of which is not used. Mr. Brooks said that the side yard setback to the barn is fifty-four and one tenth feet (54.1’), which meets Jewett’s required fifty-foot (50’) minimum setback rule. Lot Two will be acquired by the NYCDEP.
Mr. LaPierre remembered many old trailers filled with junk that used to be on the property. Mr. Brooks answered that all forty-nine of those trailers have been removed and the area cleaned up.
Mr. Kroger inquired whether there was adequate road frontage. As the parcel exists now on State Route 296 there is three hundred and thirty feet (330’) of road frontage. The lot they are creating here (Lot Two) will have one hundred and one feet (101’) of frontage along Route 296, which also has a Right Of Way (ROW) along the existing gravel driveway. This same Lot Two has over one thousand feet (1000’) of frontage on Ford Hill Road, so it more than meets Jewett’s requirement of two hundred feet (200’) minimum. The south side of the access road hits center of the stream, back down toward the Renzo property along Route 296. There is a total of about two hundred and seventy feet (270’) of frontage for Lot One on Route 296.
Ms. Bernard asked about wetlands. Beaver dam created wetlands substantially divide the rear of the property, Mr. Brooks said, which is why DEP wanted to have access from both sides of the property. Mr. Brooks has been in preliminary contact with the DEP, and will have a conference call with them once the Planning Board has initially approved this phase of the project. Sheepskin Hills, Inc. will retain Lot One, and Mr. Brooks is unaware of Mr. Slutzky’s future plans for that acreage.
Mr. LaPierre noted a discrepancy in the acreage of Lot Two between page one and page two of the plat. Mr. Brooks said he seldom finds drafting errors and will have that corrected. Ms. DeLong commented how beautiful the plats were.
Ms. Bernard asked the Planning Board if it noted anything that was not listed on the plat that the Board would require. The Board agreed there is more than sufficient road frontage, that the existing barn more than meets the setbacks, and marveled that the junkyard is gone. Mr. Brooks said that he told Sheepskin Hills, Inc. that would be an environmental issue with the NYCDEP. Ms. Bernard asked about utilities. Mr. Brooks said there are none on the property itself, but there are some along the road. The Lead Agency mailing will include the County 239 Form because of proximity to a state highway. Ms. Bernard read the Subdivision checklist and the Board found nothing missing.
Mrs. Epstein prepared the Subdivision posting kit for Mr. Brooks, although Ms. Bernard determined that the Public Hearing could not be held until September 7th at 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Brooks submitted a copy of the online SEQRA and this received an initial review by the Planning Board. Of note, questions 5a, 5b, 6, and 13a were answered in the affirmative. Requested reasons for the answers for questions 10, 11, and 13a were found to be not applicable. There will be no construction or development within these wetlands.
Ms. Bernard inquired whether there was any further discussion to be held regarding this application other than the need for the correction on the plat in the amount of acreage. Not hearing anything further, she said she would entertain a motion to accept this application for a Minor Two-lot Subdivision. Mr. LaPierre so moved, Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 6: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre.
The Village of Hunter had a revision to the Site Plan for Scribner Hollow Lodge to incorporate planned improvements to the pool area, and also plans to incorporate a new event area west of the existing lodge. The owners are hoping to increase wedding and group conference business, although there will be no changes to the number of rooms or historic uses of the lodge. There was also a proposal to convert an existing tennis court into a garden, the addition of two storage buildings, and additional parking.
The Town of Athens has added a Zoning amendment to provide standards for roof and ground mounted solar installations.
The Town of Lexington has received a Site Plan for a brewing facility with attached dining and outdoor biergarden. Production onsite would mainly be for consumption offsite through wholesale and retail accounts.
The Town of Catskill brought forward a Site Plan for an art gallery at the site of the former firehouse in the hamlet of Leeds. It would utilize an existing building. The parking plan includes valet parking.
Agenda Item 7: Other business:
The next meeting of the Planning Board will be August 3rd at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. LaPierre motioned to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 8:36 p.m. The motion was seconded by Ms. DeLong, and carried unanimously.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Donna Bernard, Chair
Added: May 04, 2017
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:27 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Donna Bernard
Present: JoAnne DeLong, Greg Kroyer, and Paul LaPierre
Absent: Marianne Romito
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of April 6, 2017
Ms. DeLong motioned to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Nathan Miles
Mr. Miles was not in attendance.
Agenda Item 4: Mr. Joshua Bardfield for property of 188 acres located at 150 Shadow Mountain Road, Jewett, NY; Tax Parcel ID No. 149.00-1-4; Zoning District: Rural Conservation.
Mr. Bardfield had asked the ZEO the question of frontage requirements for the Town of Jewett, and received an invitation to appear before the Planning Board to address his questions. He explained his purpose in coming was to gain a better understanding of Jewett’s Subdivision law and what he would need to do to bring the road up to town specs. With the taxes rising thirty percent since 2016, he does not wish to support a one hundred and eighty-eight (188) acre property as a weekend home, and is considering viable alternatives. He brought a sketch map with colored boundary lines. A yellow line delineated approximately ten to eleven (10 – 11) acres that he would like to subdivide out from the unused portion of the property. This portion of the property was marked by a red line and consists of approximately one hundred and seventy (170) acres. He said the home was originally his grandfather’s, and has been in the family for over seventy years.
Current access to the property is via a private road. Mr. Bardfield said that although the illustration appears differently, the Highway Department said the public road ends at two stone pillars, which also mark the start of his private road. A strip of fifty feet (50’) in width appears on the sketch map at a right angle to the private driveway. Mr. LaPierre suggested that instead of having the strip end at his private road, he could jog the line over to the other side of his private road. Mr. Bardfield thought he might create a right of way to the land he plans to sell off. Ms. Bernard further noted that narrow corridor provides the potential of creating a flag lot, which might be the solution to this property. Mr. Kroyer thought that the Planning Board might create a waiver or an easement so that Mr. Bardfield would not have the expense of bringing that area of his driveway up to town specs. The waiver would come from the Zoning Board. Ms. Bernard said that a waiver would not be necessary if it was a right of way that was created, especially if the land ends up selling to NYCDEP.
Ms. Bernard wondered if neighboring property was now owned by NYCDEP. Abramson and Merino are existing neighbors, but Ms. DeLong thought that the Merinos had sold to the DEP. Selling to the DEP would be an idea for Mr. Bardfield as well; he could happily keep his home surrounded by woodland, retaining a level of privacy. The Board wondered if this becomes a sale to the DEP whether they would be content with access to the land from a private road or require access from a public road. Mr. Bardfield said he had previously spoken to Arlene Weissman of the DEP, and his contact has changed to Abby Dursham. He will speak to them again.
The question of whether a waiver or an easement would be necessary, as in the case of a public road being built, was addressed by Ms. Bernard’s reasoning the Board has authority to create a flag lot in this situation; therefore, a waiver will not be necessary. Such would be needful if a public road had to be built as in the case of a re-subdivision of a previously existing subdivision, but that is not the case here, where the land has been in the family for over seventy years, and has a good chance of being sold to the DEP. Mr. LaPierre wondered if NYCDEP would prefer access via a right of way or public roadway, but that is for Mr. Bardfield to learn. Ms. Bernard wondered how much land would be needed for access in the case of a Flag Lot. The Board said fifty feet (50’). Extending the yellow line over to red has turned access to this property by ninety degrees, and Mr. Bardfield makes it a bit larger on their end, by fifty feet (50’) for a flag lot. Mrs. Epstein made a copy of the Flag Lot from the Subdivision law for Mr. Bardfield. The idea was expressed that he could extend the public road by ceding the land to the town. However, if this does become a NYCDEP sale, Ms. Bernard remembered the Sugar Maples, which had a DEP Conservation Easement and no private road or public road was needed.
Ms. Bernard summarized that the simplest approach would be the creation of a flag lot with access along the narrow corridor, with the ninety-degree angle formed at the junction of the private driveway and the narrow corridor merged, a condition that she feels certain the Planning Board can approve without a waiver. She will consult Mr. Rappleyea via email with the questions approaching this subdivision, and reply to Mr. Bardfield with the answer when she receives it.
Agenda Item 5: Mr. Charles Schaefer for Ann Huetter for a Subdivision Sketch Plan Review and Boundary Lot Line Adjustment for property located at 9402 Route 23A, Jewett, NY, Tax Parcel ID No. 146.00-2-5.1 in the Residential Zoning District and consisting of 82.0 acres.
Mr. Charles Schaefer appeared before the Board tonight. He had previously mailed a package including the Subdivision Sketch Plan Review, the Boundary Lot Line Adjustment Application, payments for each, a letter from Ann Huetter authorizing him to represent the family, a list of the bordering neighbors, and three different maps. These maps included a Santo survey map showing the property without subdivision lines, one showing the boundary lot line adjustment, and one the proposed subdivision.
Ms. Bernard began with the Boundary Lot Line Adjustment. Mr. Schaefer said he had spoken to Ms. Nancy McCoy from the Real Tax Property Service in Greene County about annexing the horse barn across the street to land Mr. Robert Huetter owns. The minutes from November 3, 2016 state that a precedent existed with the Real Property Tax Office for this to proceed, and that this action is also supported in an email from Jewett Town Attorney Rappleyea. Mr. Kroyer said he had spoken to Mrs. Nancy Bower who also agreed with the procedure. A “Z” symbol needs to be illustrated annexing the land across the street to Mr. Huetter’s main property.
The Boundary Lot Line Adustment map was unfolded, and included the address, the parcel ID No. 146.00-2-5.1 in the Rural Conservation Zoning District, and the owner as Mr. Robert Huetter, and the land to be conveyed. The current acreage of four and twenty-five thousandths would change to four and five hundred and fifty-five thousandths acres, which fits within the language of the Boundary Lot Line Adjustment Law, as the change is less than one acre. School district is Hunter Tannersville Central School District. Ms. Bernard requested the tax receipt for the records to prove the Planning Board has not crossed tax lines within this subdivision process. The Planning Board decided things were as requested, although Mr. Schaefer said he had not drawn the deed yet as he wanted the Board’s blessings. Ms. Bernard recommended that the before and after deeds appear as a legend on the plan as a preventive measure against paperwork getting lost, and keeping all information together.
Ms. Bernard requested a motion to approve the Boundary Lot Line Adjustment as proposed on the plan for a little over a half acre (0.525 acres) to be adjusted. Mr. LaPierre made the motion, and Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mrs. Epstein prepared a Notice of Action for Mr. Schaefer’s records.
Ms. Bernard requested Mr. Schaefer to speak to the Board about the Subdivision Sketch Plan. There are two maps. One shows the property as existing without the subdivision lines and the other with the proposed subdivision lines straight up the hill. John Huetter occupies a log home and there is another residence where Adam, one of the grandchildren is living now. The remaining acreage is to be conveyed to Dan and Cathleen Joyce, Ann’s daughter. This is a three-lot subdivision now that the Boundary Lot Line Adjustment is done, and lot four has become part of lot three. No building is contemplated, and nobody is planning on selling. It will continue in its present state for purposes of estate planning.
There is a private road with access for all the parcels. All the lots have road frontage, including lot 3, which is normally accessed through the house parcel. The Planning Board noted an existing road or log trail. Mr. Schaefer said it is not easily accessed, and there is a right of way reserved for the benefit of other parcels up the hill. Another reserve to be made is that all properties draw water from same spring.
Mr. Kroyer noted a line marked as a one hundred and eight and four tenths feet (108.4’) line, and pointed out that is inadequate road frontage. He thought one way they could address the parcel as illustrated with the flag lot definition, but Ms. Bernard pointed out that if the Board took that approach it would have to set conditions on the property, which she would rather not tell people what to do with their property seeing as how there is adequate acreage to play with here. Mr. LaPierre advised moving the line to give sufficient space for two hundred foot of roadway on each lot. He noted that particular topographical region as being steep and unusable. Mr. Schaefer noted the survey has one hundred and thirty feet to play with, and the two men measured a viable way to extend the line by angling it down. Ms. Bernard commented that the Planning Board needs to consider future use of the lots it creates for others to avoid problems later. Mr. Schaefer said that he would have his surveyor, Mr. McDonald, look at the plan and get that line to two hundred feet. Ms. Bernard said the Board just wants to see those three parcels with two hundred feet (200’) of road frontage each.
The Planning Board reviewed the Subdivision checklist and reviewed the plan. The tract is dimensioned to two hundred feet (200’) per inch; the lots to be subdivided include width, depth and acreage; the location of the nearest road; all existing structures, wooded areas, streams, wetlands, and other significant physical features; twenty foot (20’) contour lines may not be needed here; and current utilities, septic and drainage, any use of the lands including easements or covenants. Mr. LaPierre asked if the spring is the source of water for all the parcels. It is identified on the map but not identified as the source. Mr. Schaefer said it was, and that he needs to draft language retaining their rights to the spring. Mr. LaPierre suggested putting that fact that the spring is the water supply in the legend on the plan. Mr. Schaefer noted that there is a covered dug well that served the original home (no longer existing), but that it now serves the barn. There are no livestock in the barn at this time, although for years there were.
Ms. Bernard requested a motion to accept the Sketch Plan with condition that at the next meeting we have a plat that shows the road frontage at two hundred feet (200’) for lots one, two, and three and a note in legend that this spring is the water source for the property. Mr. LaPierre so motioned, which was seconded by Ms. DeLong, and carried unanimously.
Steps for a subdivision: Mrs. Epstein provided Mr. Schaefer with a Minor Subdivision Application, which he did not have. Ms. Bernard had seen a lake on the Greene County GIS map, and asked Mr. Schaefer whether he had provided us with a SEQRA. He had not. She advised Mr. Schaefer to speak with Cynthia Garcia concerning the lake, flood zones, and other requirements as the property lies alongside the Schoharie Creek, and offered that contact information. NYCDEP will give them proactive information on ways to proceed.
Ms. Bernard summarized that for next month Mr. Schaefer would need the completed Subdivision application, the corrected plat, and the tax receipts as proof of school district, and the fee for a three-lot subdivision. The Board can accept the Subdivision at the next meeting, as once it has the corrected plans, it can send out the intent of Lead Agency letters. A 239 Form will also go to Greene County because it is within five hundred feet of a county highway.
The Planning Board will see Mr. Schaefer at its next meeting of June 1st and preliminarily do the SEQRA, and decide when to hold the Public Hearing. The Board needs to allow thirty days for recipients to respond. Mr. Schaefer will be able to attend in June, but not July, so the Public Hearing for this project will be planned for August 3rd. Ms. Bernard suggested that Mr. Schaefer arrive around 8:30 p.m. next month because of the Public Hearing for another application, and asked him if he needed further information from the Planning Board. He said not.
Agenda Item 6: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre.
The Town of Catskill received an area variance regarding the addition of a screened porch to an existing structure on Route 32, which the GCPB approved as a local decision. Another area variance in Catskill dealt with the construction of a woodshed on Route 23A in Palenville, which was also approved as a local decision. Catskill received a site plan regarding an auto repair shop to be located on Main Street in Leeds, which was approved with a comment that more detail and limits in the area designated for vehicle storage should be required.
The Town of Cairo has been amending its zoning law. Changes include: (1) Elimination of Internal Incorporation of Other Laws’ Statutory Language; (2) Streamlining of Language Cross-Reference Overlap; (3) Incorporating Density Dimensions, Regulations and Conservation Subdivision Language into a Stand-alone Subdivision Law; (4) Elimination of Individual Standards for Special Uses; (5) New and Converted Two-Family Residences and Accessory Apartments; (6) Splitting Lots Between Two Rural Residential Designations; (7) Expansion of Designated Commercial and Commercial Mixed Use Districts; (8) Expansion of Designated Industrial Districts; (9) Regulation of Lot Dimensions; and (10) District Consolidation. The GCPB approved with comments: that Cairo consider developing applicant instructions and guidance documents explaining the new features of their zoning law and the town’s expectations of implementation; that Cairo consider offering pre-application meetings to review these requirements and expectations to include involvement of planning staff early on (including SEQRA scoping process); and that copies of all text and maps be provided to the Greene County Economic Development, Tourism and Planning in both PDF and original digital formats for archiving.
The Town of Hunter received a site plan regarding a retail garden center to be located at Route 23A east of Stewart’s in Haines Falls. The plan was withdrawn, so no action was needed.
The Town of Cairo received a site plan regarding an eighteen site “tiny house” seasonal/monthly campground on County Route 23B. Approvals are still needed by NYS regulatory agencies regarding water and the septic. This would be on a wooded parcel bordering the Catskill Creek, the existing house would become the office building, there will be a twenty-five lot car parking with golf cart transportation, a pool, and walking trails. The GCPB approved with the comment they should refer to local code for emergency vehicle access.
The Village of Athens received a site plan and special use permit regarding construction of fiber optic switching station of approximately twelve by thirteen feet to be located on Union Street. It will be fourteen feet high and look like a house with clapboard siding. An old trailer was removed. An existing stockade fence and trees exist for screening. Funded by state grants for expandable broadband, this building is mainly for use by the Town of Athens, and was approved by the GCPB.
Agenda Item 7: Other business:
Ms. Bernard had picked up information on Record Keeping for Mrs. Epstein and Mrs. Carl.
The next meeting of the Planning Board will be June 1st at 7:30 p.m.
Mrs. Epstein motioned to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 9:25 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kroyer, and carried unanimously.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Donna Bernard, Chair
Added: April 06, 2017
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Donna Bernard
Present: Greg Kroyer and Paul LaPierre
Absent: JoAnne DeLong, and Marianne Romito
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of March 2, 2017
Mr. Kroyer motioned to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion. It carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Nathan Miles
Mr. Miles did not attend tonight.
Agenda Item 4: Gary Pawlak for Sketch Plan Review for property located at 493 Ford Hill Road, Jewett, NY; Tax Parcel ID No. 130.00-4-31.2 and 130.00-4-59 in the Rural Residential Zoning District.
Mr. Pawlak and Mr. Bruce Maben were in attendance. Mr. Larry Gardner had taken care of the Subdivision Abandonment at the Real Property Tax Office in Catskill, and provided a copy of the document for the file. The land is now freed to pursue the three lot minor subdivision recommended to Mr. Pawlak by Mr. Maben, which will provide him with considerably more road frontage than formerly. The road frontage becomes five hundred thirteen and seven hundredths feet (513.07 ‘) for Lot One, five hundred fifteen and fifty-six hundredths feet (515.56’) for Lot Two, and remains four hundred twenty-nine and eighty-two hundredths feet (429.82’) for Lot Three.
The new plats provided by Mr. Maben show the new configuration with the old revealed by a dashed line. The location map in the upper right corner illustrates the old configuration, with the new indicated by a dashed line. Mr. Maben said the Sketch Plan itself remains the same as last week. The new acreage of the lots is as follows: Lot One becomes five and thirty-seven thousandths (5.037) acres, Lot Two becomes five and seventy-nine thousandths (5.079) acres, and Lot Three containing Mr. Pawlak’s home remains three and fifteen thousandths (3.015) acres for a combined total of thirteen and one hundred thirty-one (13.131) acres that he owns.
The Planning Board tallied its progress on this application. The Subdivision Sketch Plan had been turned in last month, but the Board had not accepted anything further pending the Subdivision Abandonment, which has now been received. Mr. Pawlak and Mr. Maben filled out a Minor Subdivision application, turned it in, and provided the application fees. Ms. Bernard calculated the dates to discern when the Public Hearing could be held. Mrs. Epstein will get the Lead Agency notification mailed NYCDEP early next week. Considering the thirty-day waiting period, the Public Hearing will be held on June 1st. Mrs. Epstein gave the subdivision form letter and sign posting materials to Mr. Pawlak, and he was advised to post that sign by May 18th.
The new plats were reviewed. The well and septic are labeled on the home property, the North location point illustrated, and the land prior to and succeeding the Subdivision Abandonment indicated both in the map and in the location map in the upper right corner. The Planning Board did an initial assessment of the SEQRA, read aloud by Mr. LaPierre, and found nothing amiss with the information at hand.
Mr. LaPierre made the motion to accept the Sketch Plan Review, the copy of Subdivision Abandonment, and the Minor Subdivision Application for a three-lot subdivision. The motion, seconded by Mr. Kroyer, carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 5: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cyndi LaPierre.
No information was provided tonight.
Agenda Item 6: Other business:
Ms. Bernard said that the active Planning Board members had attended the Watershed Summit held March 25th in Hunter. While there, she picked up a Citizen Science volunteer application in case the opportunity ever presents itself locally. Further training by the Greene County Planning Board will be provided April 26th in Cairo from 4:00 to 8:15 p.m.
The next meeting of the Planning Board will be May 4th at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. LaPierre motioned to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 8:10 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kroyer, and carried unanimously.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Donna Bernard, Chair
Added: March 02, 2017
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Donna Bernard
Present: JoAnne DeLong, and Greg Kroyer
Absent: Paul LaPierre, and Marianne Romito
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of February 2, 2017
Ms. Bernard called for a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Kroyer so motioned, and Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Nathan Miles
Mr. Miles was not here tonight.
Agenda Item 4: Gary Pawlak for Sketch Plan Review for property located at 493 Ford Hill Road, Jewett, NY; Tax Parcel ID No. 130.00-4-31.2 and 130.00-4-59 in the Rural Residential Zoning District.
Mr. Pawlak engaged Mr. Bruce Maben as his surveyor, who arrived, unrolled the plat and passed around three small Sketch Plans he had prepared with color-coding, along with the Sketch Plan application. Mr. Maben said that there had been changes from the original plan. Mr. Pawlak owns two parcels, 130.00-3-31.2, which lies behind his 130.00-4-59 off of Summit Drive. Mr. Maben suggested that the tax line between the two parcels be dissolved, temporarily creating one larger parcel, which would then be subdivided down the middle as illustrated on the color-coded Sketch Plan as Lot One in blue, and Lot Two in red, and the final lot, Lot Three, which is pre-existing beyond the right of way to a neighbor, is color-coded in purple. Lot One will become a five (5) acre lot, and Lot Two will consist of five and seventy-nine thousandths (5.079) acres.
Mr. Maben said he thinks that Mr. Pawlak’s lawyer, Larry Gardner, could draw up papers to dissolve that tax map line. Mr. Kroyer said that the Planning Board would need copies of the existing deeds and the copies of the deeds with the new parameters. Mr. Maben said that would come at the end of it, becoming a portion of the original deed. He suggested the subdivision ought to be done first so that the end result would be clear. Ms. Bernard summarized that this is a re-aligning of Mr. Pawlak’s own property wherein he would end up with three lots, instead of just two. Mr. Kroyer said that the two need to be made into one first.
The Planning Board had just asked Mrs. Bower this question of tax line dissolution in regard to the Porytko’s application, and learned that is something that has to be dealt with at the Real Property Tax Office. Mrs. Bower cannot undo a tax line once a property had been subdivided.
Mr. Maben commented that the entire property had been one at one time when a fellow named Baumgardner had owned it, but then it got subdivided in this funny way leaving a parcel without road access, which is where the right of way comes into it. The existing right of way is approximately forty feet (40’) by thirty feet (30’).
Mr. Maben asked whether the Planning Board would proceed with the subdivision once Mr. Gardner dissolves the tax line. Ms. Bernard said the tax line dissolution would leave Mr. Pawlak with a nice clean slate to subdivide, as he has more than enough property.
Ms. DeLong commented that parcel 130.00-4-59 as it now exists is not a good piece of land, Maben said that redistributing the land the way he has planned offers more road frontage to the new lots. He expects that Larry Gardner will take care of the tax line with the county, and there will be a simple letter from Catskill doing it just the way he is proposing, with a deed tied to it.
Ms. Bernard said that her initial online SEQRA review generated information about archeologically sensitive areas and some wetlands. Mr. Maben said the wetlands across the road were not affecting anything but the pre-existing. There is no activity near the water body. Mr. Pawlak said he spoke to Ms. Garcia right away, on January 10th, and she got on to the computer and found no problem, and asked to be copied on the issues.
Ms. Bernard calculated that at next month’s meeting, the Board could accept the Sketch Plan Review, and the Subdivision to get them on the clock, but there won’t be sufficient lead time to schedule the Pubic Hearing next month, because there are not thirty calendar days to receive a response from the Lead Agency letters by then. By the May meeting the secretary will need to notify the DEP, who should be the only interested agency, and the Board can provide the sign posting and sign posting letters to Mr. Pawlak.
Agenda Item 5: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cindy LaPierre.
Mr. LaPierre was unable to attend tonight.
Agenda Item 6: Other business:
Ms. Bernard still had not heard from the Town Board regarding re-appointing her as Chair, but that the Town Board is meeting next week, and her term of office is still good.
Mr. Kroyer said the Town Board still working on Code Review, and still waiting upon Mr. Rappleyea’s response.
Ms. Bernard had attended a February 23rd webinar on plant identification. She had asked a question, which they never replied to. She said that plant identification can help clarify a wetland, but the topic was under discussion was plants from Texas.
Mrs. Epstein heard from the Porytkos, who acquired their cousin’s share of the property and now own it outright, enabling them to easily move ahead with their plans, which would begin by meeting with the Building Inspector and contacting the DEP for advice.
Ms. DeLong said she won’t attend next month’s meeting.
Ms. Bernard reminded the Board of the Watershed Summit to be held March 25th in Hunter at the HTC elementary school. The Board can put in for four hours. She said the Greene County Planning Board usually offers some summer and fall training courses related to Planning and Zoning.
The next meeting of the Planning Board will be April 6 at 7:30 p.m.
Ms. Bernard motioned to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 8:15 p.m. The motion was seconded by Ms. DeLong, and carried unanimously.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Donna Bernard, Chair
Added: February 02, 2017
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:25 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Donna Bernard
Present: JoAnne DeLong, Greg Kroyer, and Paul LaPierre
Absent: Marianne Romito
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of January 5, 2017
Mr. LaPierre motioned to accept the January 5, 2017 minutes as corrected; Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
At 8:55 p.m. Mr. LaPierre made a motion to re-open the minutes to remove the “e” from the spelling of Mead(e). Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Nathan Miles
Mr. Miles was not in attendance tonight.
Agenda Item 4: Mr. Chuck Holtz for Boundary Lot Line Adjustment for Greg Rappleyea for property of 1.39 acres located at 58 Carr Road, Jewett, NY: Tax Parcel ID No. 146.00-3-3 to be granted 3.21 acres from adjacent property owned by Loren and Geraldine Mead, Tax Parcel ID No. 146.00-3-23.
At last month’s meeting of the Planning Board, it was discovered that this application best fit the Altered Lot Line description of the Town of Jewett’s Subdivision Code. Ms. Bernard had communication with Mr. Tal Rappleyea who concurred, and said the fee was the same as for the Boundary Lot Line Adjustment. Ms. Bernard prepared an application for the Altered Lot Line Adjustment, and copied it to Mr. Holtz, who was in attendance tonight. She asked him to come forward and describe the process for the Board.
Mr. Holtz said that Loren and Geraldine Mead, owning Tax Map Parcel ID No. 146.00-3-23 in the Rural Conservation Zoning District, would grant three and twenty-one hundredths (3.21) acres from their fourteen and thirty-seven hundredths (14.37) acre parcel to Greg Rappleyea, owning Tax Parcel ID No. 146.00-3-3, changing his total acreage from one and thirty-nine hundredths (1.39) acres to four and six tenths (4.60) acres. Resulting acreage for the Meads would be eleven and sixteen hundredths (11.16) acres. Mr. Holtz shared the plat with the Planning Board and described the approach they are taking. The action will bring the smaller parcel up to conforming.
Last month Mr. Holtz brought a Boundary Lot Line Application, a site plan, and before/after copies of the deeds. This month he brought the completed Altered Lot Line Application, a completed SEQRA, and the required letters of representation from Greg Rappleyea and Loren and Geraldine Mead, which were added to the file. The Planning Board reviewed the information provided, and found all in compliance with the application.
Finding no disturbance with this requested action and all information to be in order, Mr. Kroyer made the motion to accept this Application for an Altered Lot Line. Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which was subjected to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. Kroyer – aye; and Mr. LaPierre – aye.
Ms. Bernard informed Mr. Holtz that the plats for an Altered Lot Line Application have only thirty (30) days to be filed, but that if necessary, he could request an extension on that timeframe from the Planning Board.
Agenda Item 5: Gary Pawlak for Sketch Plan Review for property located at 493 Ford Hill Road, Jewett, NY; Tax Parcel ID No. 130.00-4-31.2 in the Rural Residential Zoning District.
Mr. Pawlak was not ready to present his application tonight, so his application will be put in the pending area of the agenda.
Agenda Item 6: Nestor and Christina Porytko, Boydan, and Joanne Iwaskiw for review for property located at 9041 Route 23A, Jewett, NY, Tax Map No. 147.00-4-8. Alexandra A., Ihor Magun, and Lydia and Jeffrey Nascimento, owners of Tax Map ID No. 147.00-4-10, located at 9035 State Route 23A and consisting of 5.2 acres, would grant 2.022 acres to Nestor and Christina Porytko and Boydan and Joanne Iwaskiw, owners of Tax Map ID No. 147.00-4-8, consisting of 0.673 acres, making for changed acreage of 3.2 and 2.695 acres respectively. Rural Conservation Zoning District.
Nestor and Christine Porytko appeared before the Planning Board tonight to discuss how they could subdivide properties they co-own with Bohdan and Joanne Iwaskiw in the interest of long-term use by their families. The properties are located adjacent to property owned by the extended family west of the Maplewood Cemetery on State Route 23A. Mr. Porytko’s grandfather bought the property located immediately next to the cemetery in 1960. They and their many cousins have summered there for half a century alongside the Schoharie Creek, a place he loves and described as without car noise.
Mr. and Mrs. Porytko have a room at this home. Recently the Porytko and Iwaskiw families bought the two neighboring lots from a priest (Nehrebecki) who lived in Kerhonkson and had not developed the land. These two lots, Tax Parcel ID Nos. 146.00-4-7 and 146.00-4-8, consist of five and seven tenths (5.7) acres and sixty-seven hundredths (.67) acre respectively, and combined would total over six (6) acres. Their goal is to divide the property evenly between them with about three (3) acres each, and Mr. Porytko would build a log cabin on his share of the property. The current dilemma is how to split the land.
This application first came before the Planning Board last December, when Mr. Joe Vanucchi presented the application as a possible Boundary Lot Line Adjustment. At that time Mr. Kroyer noted that the two long, narrow parcels as illustrated failed to meet the minimum lot width of two hundred feet, which would create non-conforming lots and probable setback problems. The Board found then that the plat as presented could not work.
Since then the Porytkos had been to visit the surveyor, and that he had come up with a solution. To the east and right of the properties the Porytkos and Iwaskiws wish to subdivide, is a thirty-foot wide right of way owned by another cousin, Ms. Magun. Mr. Porytko said she would be happy to help them out anyway she can. If he purchases this right of way area and adds it to his property, they would gain sufficient lot width and road frontage.
In order to combine the properties for subdivision as the Porytko and Iwaskiw families wish to do, the Planning Board said that the first step would be to have the property line between 146.00-4-7 and 146.00-4-8 dissolved by the Tax Assessor, Nancy Bower. That would make this one parcel of approximately six (6) acres, which could be evenly subdivided within the Rural Conservation Zoning District.
The next problem would be to determine the acquisition of sufficient land to gain the property width that would allow for the lawful setbacks. Each lot would require a minimum lot width of two hundred feet (200’) throughout their length and have access to the road. The purchase of the thirty feet (30’) of right of way from Ms. Magun would solve the width problem. Ms. Bernard noted that two hundred feet (200’) of lot width would need to extend throughout the entire length of each subdivided parcel. If this isn’t possible, she told the Porytkos, another way to solve the problem would be to approach the Zoning Board of Appeals with an application for a Variance. In this scenario, the Planning Board would deny the subdivision application on the grounds of insufficient setback widths, at which decision the Zoning Board would consider a Variance. The Town of Jewett requires a minimum distance of fifty feet (50’) for setbacks, Mr. Kroyer noted. The Planning Board advised the Porytkos to be proactive and get their information ahead of the time the Board is ready to make its decision on an application. Ms. Bernard noted the most successful applicants have been proactive with the NYCDEP, who oversees all properties within the Schoharie Watershed, especially those adjacent to the streams.
Mr. LaPierre wondered about the height of the flood line. Mr. Porytko answered the creek rises to the level of the dry creek bed, and during the severe floods it flooded the field by the volley ball court, but that any home they would build would be at least one hundred feet (100’) from the creek, up by the road. Ms. Bernard suggested they communicate with the NYCDEP to walk the property and discover what would be required in the way of septic system plans. He thought they would need to plan ahead for a septic and reserve septic plus a well for each property.
The Planning Board summarized three steps would be necessary to resolve the complications regarding the property lines: (1) have Mrs. Bower dissolve the line between the properties co-owned by the Porytkos and Iwaskiws; (2) acquire sufficient land from the right of way which could be added to the now six acre parcel via an altered lot line adjustment; and if the plat and all pertinent information is incorporated in a coherent way, (3) the Planning Board could approve the altered lot line application simultaneously with the subdivision application.
The Board told the Porytkos that all involved properties need to be illustrated on the final survey.
Agenda Item 7: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cindy LaPierre.
Mrs. LaPierre did not attend the meeting of the Greene County Planning Board.
Agenda Item 8: Other business:
The plats were re-signed for AM III LLC at the request of Ms. Jayme Hise due to labeling error.
Ms. Bernard had talked with Mr. McCrary regarding the Oath of Office for the Chair of the Planning Board. He said that if a person’s term of office has not expired, there should be no reason to be sworn in. The Chair’s term of office is six years.
The next meeting of the Planning Board will be March 2 at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. LaPierre motioned to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 9:04 p.m. The motion was seconded by Ms. DeLong, and carried unanimously.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Donna Bernard, Chair
Added: January 05, 2017
Agenda Item 1: The meeting was called to order at 7:25 p.m.
Roll Call: Chair: Donna Bernard
Present: JoAnne DeLong, Greg Kroyer, and Paul LaPierre
Absent: Marianne Romito
Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of December 1, 2016
Mr. LaPierre motioned to accept the December 1, 2016 minutes as recorded; Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3: Report by Town Board Liaison Nathan Miles
Mr. Miles said the Town Board has long term plans to add security measures to the Municipal Building. The Town Clerk now has her own office and a storage container has been purchased for extra files. Mr. LaPierre said that when he was still acting on the Town Board (between 2005 and 2006) plans had been made to expand the Municipal Building to include a community center and host such events as square dances, barbecues, and similar community venues. Mr. Miles inquired whether the paperwork for those plans still existed. Mr. LaPierre promised to look to see if he still had any copies.
One way to gain space would be to consolidate the Highway Department into the area across the street by the salt barn. Mr. Miles would add handicap access, and Ms. Bernard considered emergency preparation to include a shower facility and backup generator against such hardships as those posed upon the mountaintop communities by the blizzard of 2008-2009 and the floods of 2011.
Ms. Bernard inquired about action on the Code Review process. Mr. Miles said they have not, but that it remains on the Town Board agenda. Ms. Bernard said the Planning Board would advise the Town Board if needed. She is eager for Code improvements to facilitate jobs the Planning Board could encounter, such as shared driveways that could open up land locked parcels.
Ms. Bernard noted that the time is approaching to re-appoint the Chair position. She wondered whether anyone else on the Planning Board wanted the job? The Board insisted upon Ms. Bernard’s excellence at the job, so Ms. Bernard told Mr. Miles that if she were asked, she would accept the position for another year.
Agenda Item 4: Public Hearing for Brooks and Brooks for Minor Subdivision for Sheepskin Hills, Inc. for property located at 2272 Route 296, Jewett, NY: Tax Map ID No. 147.00-3-23.1, Zoning District: Rural Residential.
The Planning Board received letters from the Greene County Planning Board, which says it has no jurisdiction over this process, and the DEP. The DEP has no interest in declaring itself Lead Agency for this minor subdivision located within the Schoharie Reservoir drainage basin, which is dividing approximately thirty-three (33) acres into two lots of approximately eleven (11) and twenty-one (21) acres to provide adequate area for a new subsurface treatment system (SSTS) and office space. The DEP made no requests for changes to the plat, but noted from aerial imagery there appears to be a watercourse on Lot 1, and no building to be done within one hundred feet of the watercourse. They imposed no constraints on Lot 2 wherein no changes were proposed.
Mr. LaPierre read aloud the SEQRA Part One to review the work done last month. No changes were deemed necessary. Afterwards, the Board filled out Part Two of this short form EAF. The proposed action creates no material conflict, no change in use of land, no impairment of the quality of the existing community, no impact on environmental areas, no adverse change in traffic flow or other infrastructures, no increase in energy usage, it will not impact any existing water supplies or facilities, it will not impair quality of local character or other resources, it will not impact local flora or fauna, there will be no increase in potential for erosion or drainage, and so based upon preliminary findings this action will not result in any significant or adverse impact, allowing the Planning Board to give this a Negative Declaration.
Mr. LaPierre motioned to give this unlisted action a negative declaration based upon its preliminary findings pending no new information from the Public Hearing. Ms. DeLong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
Mr. and Mrs. Brooks provided the school tax bill as requested, and the ten letters sent out for the Public Hearing. Of the ten that were mailed, seven were delivered and three returned. Mrs. Brooks handed Mrs. Epstein the receipts and proof of sign posting for the file. No changes to the map as result of their meeting with Ms. Garcia. Lot One is the improved lot, so there are no plans there, despite the streambed.
Mr. LaPierre made the motion at 7:55 p.m. to open the Public Hearing. The motion, seconded by Mr. Kroyer, passed unanimously.
Frances McKee and Mick Bessire arrived for the Public Hearing. They wondered whether a motel or apartment complex would be built on that land. Mrs. Brooks explained that the subdivision is solely residential, not commercial, so that generally any building on a lot like this would be a single-family dwelling. Ms. Bernard explained that a motel or apartment complex would require a Special Use Permit and needs be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and neighborhood character. Permitted uses are listed in the Jewett Zoning Code.
Mr. Kroyer made the motion to close the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m. for the Subdivision of Tax Parcel ID No. 147.00-3-23.1. Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved.
Agenda Item 5: Brooks and Brooks for Minor Subdivision for Sheepskin Hills, Inc. for property located at 2272 Route 296, Jewett, NY: Tax Map ID No. 147.00-3-23.1, Zoning District: Rural Residential.
Ms. Bernard asked whether anyone heard any information during the Public Hearing to change the Negative Declaration. Hearing no reasons at the Public Hearing to change the Negative Declaration of the SEQRA, Mr. Kroyer motioned to sustain the earlier vote. Mr. LaPierre seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Ms. Bernard requested the Planning Board to take a final review of the plat. Hearing no new questions, she requested a motion to approve this Minor Subdivision for Sheepskin Hills, Inc. located at 2272 Route 296 in Jewett, NY.
Mr. LaPierre made the motion, Mr. Kroyer seconded the motion, and it was subjected to a Roll Call Vote: M. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. Kroyer – aye; and Mr. LaPierre – aye. Mrs. Epstein signed the plats for this subdivision. The Planning Board Decision form was filled out and copies made for the Town Clerk, Assessor, and Building Inspector.
Agenda Item 6: Public Hearing for AM III LLC for two-lot subdivision for property located at 354 Merwin Street, Jewett, NY, Tax Parcel ID No. 111.00-1-9 in the Rural Conservation Zoning District. Acreage of 39.395 to be divided into Lot 1 of 15.2 acres and Lot 2 of 24.2 acres.
A reply to the Lead Agency letter was received by email from the DEP, and copied for the file. Nothing was heard from the Town of Ashland. From the preliminary plat sent to the DEP, it was recommended that the site plan show the proposed location for a subsurface treatment system (SSTS) on the vacant parcel and it was noted that topographical lines were not illustrated for this steep slope, necessitating further work should future development be proposed.
Ms. Bernard requested a motion to declare the Jewett Planning Board as Lead Agency for this unlisted action. Ms. DeLong made the motion, Mr. Kroyer seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
Ms. Jaymie Hise, real estate agent for Gene Gordon Realty, and Mr. Bob Green, property manager for Michael Osterer, owner of AM III LLC, represented this application tonight. The Planning Board held a letter of representation for Mr. Vanucchi, but none for these individuals. They provided personal indentification, and agreed to provide the required letter of representation immediately next morning via email to the Planning Board Secretary. Ms. Bernard placed a phone call to Mr. Osterer, who approved this representation on his behalf. (Note- this letter of representation was duly received the morning of January 6th, and a copy made for the file).
The maps provided by Mr. Vanucchi were unfurled for Planning Board review. Mr. Kroyer asked whether these were the corrected maps, and Mrs. Epstein answered they should be. This is a two-lot subdivision of approximately thirty-nine and four tenths (39.4) acres being divided into Lot One of fifteen and two tenths (15.2) acres and Lot Two of twenty-four and two tenths (21.2) acres. The frontage totals two hundred and fifty feet (250’) along the road, the lot sizes are good for the district, there is a residence on one part, and a shed without electricity on the other. Upon further examination, the phrases related to the potential Boundary Lot Line Adjustment were still on these maps.
Mr. Green had a copy of the site plan stamped and dated the same date as those provided the Planning Board, but the maps did not match. The Board agreed that it could not accept the plats provided due to the incorrect language and the inconsistencies between copies bearing the same date. Ms. Bernard was concerned whether the DEP had received the proper information; Mrs. Epstein replied that the cover letter labeled the map “preliminary.” Mr. Kroyer said that the copy Mr. Green had was a map that the Board could accept. They gave the incorrect maps to Mr. Green to return to Mr. Vanucchi.
However, Ms. Bernard said, the Planning Board could accept this subdivision application conditionally, providing the conditions are met and the cleaned up site plans delivered in a timely manner. The SEQRA was reviewed prior to opening the Public Hearing.
Mr. Vanucchi had provided an older form of the SEQRA, but Ms. Bernard located an updated version that the Planning Board filled out, following the older copy, which Mr. Green signed. She asked Mr. Green and Ms. Hise whether there were watercourses on the property; there is not. The Planning Board filled out Part Two: no material conflict with an adopted land use regulation, no result in use of land, no impairment of quality of community, no impact on environmental characteristics, no affect on transportation issues, no increase in use of energy, no impact on public or private water supplies, no impairment of archeological or historic resources, no change to natural resources, no increased potential for erosion or drainage problems, no risk to human resources or human health. Based upon this information, the Board found that based upon analysis the proposed action wouldn’t result in any significant environmental impact.
Mr. LaPierre motioned to give the SEQRA a Negative Declaration. Mr. Kroyer seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mr. LaPierre motioned to open the Public Hearing at 8:55 p.m. Mr. Kroyer seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. No public had arrived for the Public Hearing advertised to begin at 8:30 p.m., so at 9:00 p.m. Mr. LaPierre motioned to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Ms. DeLong, and carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 7: AM III LLC for two-lot subdivision for property located at 354 Merwin Street, Jewett, NY, Tax Parcel ID No. 111.00-1-9 in the Rural Conservation Zoning District.
Ms. Bernard requested the Board to take a final look at the plat Mr. Green had brought. Mr. Kroyer suggested simply making a list of the conditions to be met.
Ms. Bernard requested a motion be made that a final approval of this two-lot subdivision will be made providing the following conditions are met: (1) that new site maps are received with removal of the new lot line wording; (2) removal of old lot line wording; (3) label the new lot line; (4) that five copies of the maps plus the mylar be provided; (5) that the Planning Board be provided a letter authorizing Mr. Green to represent AM III LLC to be electronically delivered to the Secretary of the Planning Board; and (6) that the Planning Board be provided a copy of the school tax bill to prove School District; and that all of these conditions, (1) through (6) must be provided to the Planning Board no later than January 11, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.
The motion was made by Mr. LaPierre, seconded by Ms. DeLong, and subjected to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Ms. DeLong – aye; Mr. Kroyer – aye; and Mr. LaPierre – aye.
The Planning Board filled out the Decision Form of the Planning Board and copies provided to the Town Clerk, the Tax Assessor, and the Building Inspector.
The Planning Board convened again on January 11, 2017 from 11:35 a.m. to 12:05 p.m. Ms. Bernard requested this be an addendum to the Minutes of January 5, 2017. Present were Ms. Donna Bernard, Mr. Greg Kroyer, and Mr. LaPierre. Ms. Hise had delivered the new plats, and the Board convened to review the AM III LLC revised maps provided, and assure that all conditions listed above had been met for Minor Subdivision, SBD No. 111.00-1-9. The Board found that all conditions had been met. All plats and mylar copies had been signed by Ms. Donna Bernard. A copy of all email correspondence with Jayme Hise is to be provided for the file.
Agenda Item 8: Gary Pawlak for Sketch Plan Review for property located at 493 Ford Hill Road, Jewett, NY; Tax Parcel ID No. 130.00-4-31.2 in the Rural Residential Zoning District.
Mr. Pawlak introduced himself as a neighbor living right around the corner on Ford Hill Road. He has his home on a ten and six tenths (10.6) acre parcel on the corner of Ford Hill Road and Summit. It is the first house on the corner from Route 296. He proposes a subdivision into a parcel of three and a half (3.5) acres and a parcel of seven (7) acres in the Rural Residential Zoning District. There is a smaller parcel of two and a half (2.5) acres in front, currently where his home is. There is an existing easement to a chalet. Mr. Pawlak showed the Planning Board the area where he plans to break the parcel so that the easement will remain with his home. Adequate road frontage of two hundred and fifty feet (250’) exists on Summit Road where the entrance lies. He owns two pieces adjacent to this Tax Parcel No. 130.00-4-31.2. He will provide a map and wanted to see if his plan was doable prior to hiring a surveyor. There is no water on the property. Mrs. Epstein provided him with a Sketch Plan Review application, a Minor Subdivision application, and SEQRA Part 1. He is to be placed on the agenda for February 2, 2017.
Agenda Item 9: Mr. Chuck Holtz for Boundary Lot Line Adjustment for Greg Rappleyea for property of 1.39 acres located at 58 Carr Road, Jewett, NY: Tax Parcel ID No. 146.00-3-3 to be granted 3.21 acres from adjacent property owned by Loren and Geraldine Meade, Tax Parcel ID No. 146.00-3-23.
Mr. Holtz of Holtz Surveying originally came with a Boundary Lot Line Application, a site plan, and before/after copies of the deeds. Needed are letters of representation from Greg Rappleyea and Loren and Geraldine Meade. Loren and Geraldine Meade, owning Tax Map Parcel ID No. 146.00-3-23 in the Rural Conservation Zoning District, would grant three and twenty-one hundredths (3.21) acres from their fourteen and thirty-seven hundredths (14.37) acre parcel to Greg Rappleyea, owning Tax Parcel ID No. 146.00-3-3, changing his total acreage from one and thirty-nine hundredths (1.39) acres to four and six tenths (4.60) acres. Resulting acreage for the Meades would be eleven and sixteen hundredths (11.16) acres. Mr. Holtz shared the plat with the Planning Board and described the approach they are taking. The action would bring the smaller parcel up to conforming, but the acreage too large for the intent of the Boundary Lot Line Law.
Mr. Kroyer and Ms. Bernard considered that the Altered Lot Line Application might be more appropriate here than the Boundary Lot Line Application. Mr. Kroyer looked up the laws for Boundary Lot Line and Altered Lot Line, and Board agreed that the letter of the law seems to best fit an Altered Lot Line application. Ms. Bernard noted that this Planning Board has not had one of these come before it in its experience, and wanted to put this issue before Mr. Tal Rappleyea, Town Attorney. Mrs. Epstein could not find an Altered Lot Line application or the fee, and Mr. Holtz agreed to wait until the Board has discerned its best approach. He will be placed on the agenda for February.
Since the meeting, Ms. Bernard communicated with Mr. Tal Rappleyea, who recommended the Altered Lot Line approach, and said that the fee is the same. Ms. Bernard also sought input from Mrs. Bower on this topic.
Agenda Item 10: Report from Greene County Planning Board representative Cindy LaPierre.
The meeting of the Green County Planning Board was not discussed tonight.
Agenda Item 11: Other business:
Ms. Bernard asked Mr. LaPierre to provide his wife Cindy with the emailed copy of “hot buttons,” new and hot topics at a webinar Ms. Bernard had taken (on or about December 21, 2016) and shared with all Board members. She emailed the Board further information on “hot buttons” and asked everyone to read and save the information. An idea that came up with the Board’s discussion is to ask Mr. Ed Diamonte to incorporate these topics as trainings at the County level.
The next meeting of the Planning Board will be February 2 at 7:30 p.m., weather pending.
Mr. LaPierre motioned to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 9:55 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kroyer, and carried unanimously.
Respectfully,
Susan H. Epstein, Clerk
____________________________
Donna Bernard, Chair
