Town of Otsego Planning Board
Minutes – May 6, 2008
PUBLIC HEARING
Rudy Burkhart – Minor subdivision – 4017 State Highway 80 (#96.00-1-14.00)
Chairman Paul Lord opened the Burkhart public hearing at 7:33 PM and asked if anyone from the public had questions or comments, but no one responded. A hearing notice to neighbors Daniel and Julie Evans was returned to sender due to incorrect address. Donna Borgstrom moved to close the public hearing. John Phillips seconded the motion and it was approved, 6-0.
REGULAR MEETING
Chairman Paul Lord called the monthly meeting of the Town of Otsego Planning Board to order at 7:34 PM. Roll call was taken by Planning Board Clerk Bill Deane. Members present were Lord, Donna Borgstrom (Vice-Chairman), Wes Ciampo, John Phillips, Joe Galati, and Doug Greene. Planning Board Attorney Jim Ferrari and Zoning Enforcement Officer John Stucin were also present. Member Steve Purcell was absent.
Chairman Lord said that an addition to the agenda involved “spot zoning,” a subject to discuss with Attorney Ferrari during “other business.”
The Board reviewed the minutes of April 1, 2008, mailed or hand-delivered to the members. Galati noted that, during the “agenda and conflicts review” at that meeting, he asked Chairman Lord whether he would read Galati’s written disclosure memo about the Walker application, or wanted to Galati to do so, but instead Lord passed the memo around to the members without reading it for the public’s benefit. Phillips noted that it was he, not Zoning Enforcement Officer Stucin, who had measured the Wingate sign. Borgstrom moved to approve the minutes as amended. Galati seconded the motion and it was approved, 6-0.
The Board reviewed the minutes of the April 22, 2008 work-shop, e-mailed to the members. Borgstrom moved to approve the minutes as written. Greene seconded the motion and it was approved, 6-0.
Zoning Enforcement Officer Stucin distributed his report for April-May. It consisted of the May meeting agendas for the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).
Chairman Lord reviewed correspondence received since the last meeting:
* An April 8 letter from the County Planning Department (passed around to members, then filed in “general correspondence”), reminding the Board about procedures in making referrals to the County.
* A memo from the Town of Otsego Ethics Board (read aloud by Lord, with copies distributed to members), itemizing new “procedures of disclosure” to be followed by the Town’s various Boards and their applicants. Ethics Board members Meg Kiernan and Orlo Burch were on hand, listening to members’ concerns about the procedures.
* A handout supplied by Greene, with copies distributed to members, entitled “Free Training for Board Members.”
The Board moved on to applications.
APPLICATIONS
Rudy Burkhart – Minor subdivision – 4017 State Highway 80 (#96.00-1-14.00)
Donna Borgstrom read aloud the minutes of April 1 relevant to the application. Chairman Lord asked if any member had a relationship with applicant Rudy Burkhart. Wes Ciampo said that he knows Burkhart’s wife’s family.
Burkhart distributed copies of his subdivision map, which was reviewed by the Board. Donna Borgstrom then moved to approve the subdivision as submitted and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Joe Galati seconded the motion and it was approved, 6-0. Lord stamped the plat “approved” and signed it. Burkhart was advised to file it with the County within 30 days.
Edward Walker – Major subdivision – Browdy Mountain Road (#84.12-1-1.01)
Donna Borgstrom read aloud the minutes of April 1 relevant to the application and public hearing. Chairman Lord asked if any member had a relationship with applicant Edward Walker. John Phillips said he had put a small addition on Walker’s deck 14 years ago. Joe Galati said his disclosure was on record (as included in the April 1 minutes). Chairman Lord said he was not satisfied with the specificity of Galati’s explanation; the other Board members indicated that they were.
Chairman Lord read aloud from pertinent correspondence (filed):
* A notice from the County Planning Board, saying they “found no countywide impacts and remanded the application to the Town for local decision.” Lord noted that neither the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) nor the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) had responded to the Board’s coordinated review correspondence within the allotted 30 days.
* A letter from TVGA Consultants, giving their engineering assessment of Glimmerhill Lane.
* A letter from neighbor Carol Akin, raising various questions and issues (including concerns about prospective new septic systems) about the subdivision application, with her hope that it will be denied.
Chairman Lord noted that the “clock” on the application process had been restarted by mutual consent of the applicant and the Board. Lord explained that it was time for the Board to make a preliminary decision, with three options: to approve the application as submitted; to deny it for cause; or to require further modifications.
With regard to concerns about future septic systems, Phillips said that, by New York State law, any new septic system must be engineered. Phillips noted that he had examined the property and neighboring camps. Doug Greene said that he had done that as well.
Lord and Borgstrom said they had ascertained that each of the five proposed lots has the required frontage (minimum 150 feet) on the private road.
Lord recalled the Keys subdivision on Huff Road. He said that it was not the landowners’ building which caused erosion problems, but the REA’s land-clearing to supply electricity to the new lots which did. Lord fears the same may be true of this application. Walker responded that there would be restrictions, permitting only underground lines for additional electricity needs.
Greene asked Walker whether he would consider an agreement with regard to tree protection, such as adhering to the shoreline protection area rule, in Section 4.04 on pages 19-20 of the Land Use Law: “No more than thirty percent of the trees six inches or more in diameter at breast height … may be cut over any ten year period… These standards do not prevent removal of dead, dying, diseased or rotten trees or vegetation, or other vegetation presenting safety or health hazards.” After discussion, the Board suggested clarifying that these criteria should be met by “each lot excluding the building envelope.” Walker said he had no problem in making this a condition of his application’s approval. He said he had provided a full, professional tree survey (more than 4,000 trees), and a plan for “selective thinning.”
Based on previous subdivisions near the Lake, Lord also expressed “grave concerns” about the slope and water issues. He thinks the three-acre minimum for building lots should apply only to “perfect-condition” lots; he believes that lots in that area should be at least five acres each, due to the terrain, but acknowledged that the Board had to go by the current law.
Galati said that the Board should review the Department of Health’s new standards on wells.
Attorney Ferrari said that the employment of a Homeowners’ Association and/or deed covenants regarding road maintenance, takes the burden off the Town. Borgstrom expressed concern about setting a precedent for allowing private roads in any subdivision. Phillips remarked that this particular road would set a good precedent.
Walker said he had stood by the law on his modest proposal, and done his best to conform. A member of the audience asked to speak, but Lord advised him that this was not a public hearing.
Phillips moved to grant preliminary approval to the subdivision plat as submitted, with the modification that “In each lot excluding the building envelope, no more than thirty percent of the trees six inches or more in diameter at breast height may be cut over any ten-year period. These standards do not prevent removal of dead, dying, diseased or rotten trees or vegetation, or other vegetation presenting safety or health hazards.” Greene seconded the motion and it was approved, 4-2, with Lord and Borgstrom opposed.
Lord advised Walker that he would have to submit a second application, including the language about trees and underground electric. The Board would review it at the June meeting and, if it were deemed complete, schedule a second public hearing for July.
Jerry Miller – Site plan review, special permitted use, motel units in GB-2 district – 6635 State Highway 28 (#97.00-2-6.22)
Donna Borgstrom read aloud the minutes of April 1 relevant to the application. Chairman Lord asked if any member had a relationship with applicant Jerry Miller. Wes Ciampo said that he frequents Miller’s restaurant, and most others said that they also go there, but no one reported any relationship beyond that.
Engineer Hans DeWaal said that the storm-water pollution prevention plan was filed with the DEC more than two weeks ago, and that the DEC has no issues with it.
The consensus of the Board was that this application constitutes an unlisted action. Chairman Lord went through the short environmental assessment form (EAF) submitted by Miller, asking him to make a few corrections. Lord then completed the Planning Board’s section of the form with Board input. Borgstrom moved to declare a negative declaration and authorize the Chairman to sign the form. John Phillips seconded the motion, it was approved, 6-0, and Lord signed the EAF.
Lord said that the Board had everything requested of the applicant. He noted that the application asks for both site plan review and a special permitted use to operate a motel.
After discussion, Miller decided to modify his application and EAF, seeking year-round rather than just seasonal use of the motel units. Ciampo moved to declare a negative declaration and authorize the Chairman to re-sign the EAF. Phillips seconded the motion, it was approved, 6-0, and Lord re-signed the EAF.
Phillips moved to deem the application complete and schedule a public hearing for June 3. Doug Greene seconded the motion and it was approved, 6-0. Zoning Enforcement Officer Stucin noted that the application needed to be referred to the County. Lord said he would take care of that.
SBA Towers – Site plan review, special permitted use, cell tower – State Highway 80/205 (#97.00-2-2.00)
Donna Borgstrom read aloud the minutes of April 1 relevant to the application. Present were Doug Dimitroff and Amy McShane of SBA Towers; property owner Mark Rathbun; and AT&T representative Kevin Brennan.
Dimitroff and McShane submitted an amended neighbor list, as requested by the Board. They said a reclamation performance bond (covering the cost of possible future removal of the tower) was being negotiated between SBA Towers and Rathbun. Attorney Ferrari gave input on this process.
Brennan explained the process for selecting a site for the tower. A,T&T could not extend the Fly Creek tower, because it belongs to Time-Warner, and there were no other towers between there and Burlington which they could use to co-locate. A,T&T determined where it would be appropriate to locate a new tower, based on their needs and the terrain involved. They then passed on these “small search parameters” to SBA Towers. Dimitroff said that the site SBA selected was within these parameters.
Dimitroff submitted a letter (filed) from Bassett Healthcare representative Douglas Bush, offering support of the proposed tower for the needs of hospital staff.
The Board had received an e-mail from Town Engineer K. Wayne Bunn, regarding his review of the SBA Towers application packages. Bunn reported no major concerns, but questioned the EAF, page 6, item 15, which said the project is located in a 100-year flood plain.
Wes Ciampo moved to deem the application complete, contingent on completion of the reclamation agreement, and to schedule a public hearing for June 3. John Phillips seconded the motion and it was approved, 6-0.
Randy Dean – Lot line adjustment – 6023 State Highway 80 (#99.00-1-6.02)
Once again, no one appeared on behalf of Randy Dean’s application. Chairman Lord asked Zoning Enforcement Officer Stucin to check on the new driveway which had been put in on Dean’s lot.
Harrison Hummel (Larry Ciano) – Site plan review, addition of deck and expansion of entryway to existing structure in Canadarago Lakeshore protection area – 114 Marble Road Extension (#52.11-1-16.00)
Larry Ciano and Hans DeWaal represented applicant Harrison Hummel (Ciano’s authorization letter is on file). Chairman Lord asked if any member had a conflict with the applicant; no member reported any conflict.
Ciano and DeWaal explained their proposal to add to an existing deck, and expand an existing entryway, on property within 500 feet of Canadarago Lake. They were granted variances by the ZBA for this project. Bill Deane read aloud the relevant minutes of the ZBA’s March 18 and April 15 meetings. No one had appeared at the public hearing held on the latter date.
Lord asked about measures taken due to the increase of impervious surfaces close to the Lake. DeWaal said that the property is self-contained, and that run-off would not get to the Lake. DeWaal said that construction would take about a month, and that there were no landscaping plans.
Borgstrom went through the site plan requirements in Section 8.04 on pages 32-33 of the Land Use Law. The application does not include topographic contours, engineering plans, traffic circulation plans, or landscaping plans. DeWaal asked that these requirements be waived, along with the public hearing, since one was already held by the ZBA with no public response.
Borgstrom moved to deem this a Type II action per New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Section 617.5(c)(10). Joe Galati seconded the motion and it was approved, 6-0.
John Phillips moved to waive the requirements for topographic contours, engineering plans, traffic circulation plans, landscaping plans, and a public hearing. Doug Greene seconded the motion and it was approved, 6-0.
Borgstrom moved to deem the application complete. Galati seconded the motion and it was approved, 6-0. Greene moved to approve the site plan as submitted. Galati seconded the motion and it was approved, 6-0. Lord stamped the plat “approved” and signed it.
Mike Staffin – First lot split – State Highways 28 & 80 (#97.00-2-4.41)
Chairman Lord asked if any member had a conflict with applicant Mike Staffin; no member reported any conflict. Staffin submitted a survey map showing his proposed first lot split. The Board reviewed it and agreed the new lots would meet acreage and frontage requirements. Lord noted that Staffin would incur higher taxes as a result of the split.
John Phillips moved to deem this a first lot split, and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat when submitted, with an effective date equal to the date of signing. Donna Borgstrom seconded the motion and it was approved, 6-0.
Ed & Robert Kukenberger – Lot line adjustment – County Highway 26 (#114.00-1-76.00)
Chairman Lord asked if any member had a conflict with applicants Ed or Robert Kukenberger. John Phillips said he bowls and serves in the Fire Department with Ed; Wes Ciampo also serves in the Fire Department with Ed.
The Kukenbergers submitted a color-coded map (filed) showing their proposed lot line adjustments. Robert owns the lands colored blue, green, and red, while Ed owns the land colored brown. Robert wants to give the green portion to Ed, combining it with the brown into one lot.
The board referred to Section 3.12 on pages 17-18 of the Land Use Law. Lord said the Kukenbergers would have to complete lot line adjustment forms and return to the June 3 meeting. Lord also remarked that the Board is still concerned by the “orphan” lot owned by another Kukenberger brother, Frank.
OTHER BUSINESS
John Phillips and Zoning Enforcement Officer Stucin reported that the Wingate sign was amended and is now a permissible size.
Zoning Enforcement Officer Stucin reported that some special permitted uses have been granted in the tenant’s name instead of the owner’s. Jim Ferrari said that the Harmony House special permit was issued to property owner Richard Votypka, but that Votypka is selling the business to someone else – should the permit be reissued to the new business owner? Bill Deane noted that that permit lists Votypka as both the property owner and business owner. Chairman Lord said that a special permit should stay with the property owner, and the Board should not be concerned about tenants or changes of business ownership. Other Board members agreed.
Zoning Enforcement Officer Stucin said that he thought Chairman Lord’s proposed “heirloom barn” law is an example of “spot-zoning.” Attorney Ferrari said it was not, as spot-zoning refers to the singling out of a single parcel for the benefit of a property owner. Doug Greene said that the proposed law should go in Land Use Law Article 3 rather than 2, as Lord proposed. Lord agreed that it should become Section 3.15.
Lord suggested scheduling another workshop on May 20 at 7:30 to continue discussing this and other proposed Land Use Law changes. Bill Deane said he would be taking minutes for the ZBA meeting at that date, and could not join the Planning Board workshop until the ZBA meeting is completed. Lord said that would not be a problem. Bill Deane will advertise the meeting.
Joe Galati said he had spoken with someone at the County Planning Board about their computer programs. Galati was told that any modern computer system should be able to support the County’s programs.
Bill Deane discussed the June 3, 2008 agenda. Returning applicants will be Walker, Miller (public hearing), SBA Towers (public hearing), and Kukenberger. Zoning Enforcement Officer Stucin said that there will be another applicant who is planning to convert a barn into a Buddhist retreat.
With no further business, at 10:55, Wes Ciampo moved to adjourn the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill Deane
Planning Board Clerk