Town of New Scotland

Document Sample
Town of New Scotland Powered By Docstoc
					                         Town of New Scotland Planning Board
                                      Minutes
                                             July 10, 2012
                                         Charles Voss, Chairman
                                       Planning Board Members:
                                Robert Stapf, Stuart Morrison, (Alternate)

    Lori Saba, Planning Board Secretary, Paul M. Cantlin, Building Inspector, Jeremy Cramer, Assistant. to
                                             Building Inspector
Jeffrey Baker, Planning Board Attorney ,Mark Dempf and Dave Hanson, Town Engineer (Stantec Engineering)

                                         Absent: Jo Ann Davies,

Public Hearing 7:00 P.M.


Regular Meeting:
Discussion/Action Minutes for May 1, 2012. Mr. Stapf made a motion to approve the May 1, 2012
minutes and Mr. Morrison seconded the motion. All in favor motion so carried.


Communications/Correspondence:


Public Comment (agenda items only, 2-minute limit/person)


New Business:
 1) Special Use Permit Application #546: application submitted by Jeffrey Turner to be allowed to
    expand his pond from approximately 11,450 square feet to 22,900 square feet in size. The pond
    would be constructed an a parcel owned by Mr. Turner, consisting of 89.9 acres, is situated
    within the RF District at 717 Dunbar Hollow Rd, and is identified as New Scotland tax parcel
    #117.-1-1. This application is a Special Use of Article II, Section 190-11 of the Town of New
    Scotland Zoning Law.
     Mr. Stapf made a recommendation to send this application to the August 7, 2012 PB meeting for
     a public hearing and Mr. Morrison seconded the motion. All in favor motion so carried.


 2) Referral: Variance Application # 461: Application submitted by Kevin Bestler for relief from
    Article II, Section 190-16 of the Zoning Law to be allowed to install a swimming pool within
    the front yard setback. The parcel owned by Mr. Bestler, is located within the "CH" District at
    2024 Delaware Tnpk. and is identified as New Scotland Tax parcel id # 106.3.-1-8. The "CH"
    District requires a minimum front setback of 30 feet. This is a two part variance request because
    the parcel is a corner lot with two front yards. The first request is for 19 feet of relief to allow for
    the pool to be constructed within 11 feet of the front property line facing Delaware Tnpk. and
    the second request is for 16 feet of relief to allow for the pool to be constructed within 14 feet of
    the front property line facing North Road.
     Mr. Stapf made a favorable recommendation to the ZBA for approval of application #461. Mr.
     Morrison seconded the motion. All in favor motion so carried.
                                                                      Planning Board minutes, July 10, 2012

3) Modification: Stone Creek Estates SUP # 511: Application submitted by Charles Carrow on
   behalf of Stone Creek Estates of NS, LLC to request a waiver of relief from Article XV, Section
   190-107 of the Residential Senior Citizen Housing Law to establish property setbacks and
   would allow for additional build out, including decks, to be built on the premises. The original
   parcel subdivided was located at 1882 New Scotland Road and was identified as New Scotland
   tax parcel #84.-2-16.1 The parcel had been approved as a site for a RSCH District, and the
   subdivision went through the Special Use Permit Process for it’s approved subdivision.
    The Board had some questions and additional information to clear up loose ends that we had
    with this subdivision. There are some landscaping issues. There were some issues with
    setbacks that we would like to clear up. There are some requirements that the Board made on
    condition of approval when the original site plan went through that we didn’t see on deeds,
    which created some enforcement issues for our Building Department. We are trying to deal with
    the proposed deck issue.
    Mr. Baker wanted to expand upon what Mr. Voss just said it became clear that even the original
    approval for this would have required a variance for any expansion of any of the buildings,
    including adding any deck. Rather than requiring burdening the town with multiple variance
    applications and making applicants go through various applications we suggested that they come
    in with a modification request to get a sort of generic approval for the decks. That is what the
    application is for. Then we can also clarify some issues with the swale and the landscaping, also
    a proper notice is provided to all the homeowners.


    The Board invited Mr. Arico (Mr. Carrow’s representative) to explain these concerns.


    Mr. Arico explained they just submitted a new map which we proposed in the original approval
    there were no dimension setbacks that were required. We created a right of way or the limits of
    the property, the red line is the visual line between the two units where a zero setback line would
    be created between two units. That is the only setback that we ever had in the original
    approvals. Apparent unit 16 has the deck, what we did we created this blue line as what our
    proposed setback would be. Where no deck, no extension, or any other structure could be built
    beyond. The only modification that we would need back here is the landscaping would have to
    be modified pushed closer to the property line. There is that swale in the back that still needs to
    be maintained. That swale is just a carrying the rear of the most of these houses for the water to
    collect and stretch into the retention basin. The rest of the landscaping and swale except for
    these three properties, or six units, will remain exactly the way it was on the original plan. So
    there is a slight modification and we have noted it on the plans that decks could be extended out
    to that five foot setback, but it would have to be as an overhang so there is no structure within
    the drainage swale to interrupt any flow. If that was to happen and a ditch was to be filled with
    stone so it wouldn’t get overgrowth. The stone will allow the water to run through it. There is
    very little water. We don’t expect the swale to be an inch or two of water during a peak flow.
    Those are the modifications with the setbacks. We did show the setback of the drive way and as
    approved we show setback lines for each parking a car can park within, in front of the garage
    and not over hang into the road.


    Mr. Voss: That is our concern is there enough room between the proposed new decks to allow
    for the swale which is right out here in addition to landscaping. Take in consideration that
    landscaping trees aren’t linear they spread out. Landscaping is required to be on your side of the

                                                 2
                                                                    Planning Board minutes, July 10, 2012

line. I guess the concern is can everything fit back there? The swale, the required landscaping,
as originally proposed, in addition to the deck that people would like to put. That is where we
ran into problems with the folks in unit 16 was that the deck protruded out too far. There is no
homeowners association in this development to enforce the landscaping and deck issue. Our
primary concern is the drainage swale, especially along the back, 13 – 18 units and to make sure
this all works. Again, that is an integral part of the Storm Water Management System. The
problem with what we are having is over the long term with these parcels being individually
owned with no homeowners association to over see or no other mechanism to manage that other
than the individual property owner.


Mr. Baker explained that we have asked that they provide on this plan the dimensions of the
distance between the respected buildings and the lot lines. I think that got confused a little bit in
the translation so that we see these setback lines, obviously this is your call as the Board. I
would not recommend adopting different setback lines or new setback lines. We were looking
for dimensions from the property lines to the buildings, so the Building Department would have
certainty when approving a building permit. If you are going to go in an establish new setback
lines as opposed to essentially, what exists are the setback lines in the commercial district,
because that is the underlying zoning for here. You are starting to create a presumption that in
the future these buildings could be enlarged within those setbacks without a variance. In terms
of a bulk increase and like I said that is your call.


Mr. Arico: We are now showing a 12-foot deep deck, is that agreeable, or 12-foot to no more
than 16-foot deck. There are other lots that will allow bigger decks, just these six homes that
will not allow a bigger than a 12-foot deep deck. The swales are now more of a water quality
issue. This was asked for by the town, we didn’t want to cutter the homes, so 1/3 of the houses
were going to sheet drain to the back.


Mr. Voss: In the deed language you have to put a definition of the swale what the restrictions
are in regards to the swale. Where the swales are located for each individual lot. Legally that
has to be put into that instrument, so that the buyers know that there is a swale back there that
has to be maintained. The swale is a critical component of the overall SWM system. Also,
specifically where it is located, so if someone wants to propose a deck they know when they
come into the Building Department they will have the information.


Mrs. Robinson asked to speak, who is representing Mr. Olsen the adjoining property owner,
explained that Mr. Olsen is in favor of this development and the decking. His only concern is
with the neighbors going onto his property to walk their dogs or to cut through to walk to
Stewarts. The neighbors have been trespassing onto his property. Mr. Olsen would like a fence
to be put up right on the property line, the fence is not going to grow into the swale, down the
driveway from Mr. Olsen the fence goes around the corner you would prevent residents from
trespassing on the commercial property. They are not going to climb the fence. They might go
through some trees. Again, we have a residential development in a commercial district. I think
foremost we have to protect the commercial businesses that were there first, as well as the
residents who are living there. The fence is the simplest solution and if you are going to put
deed restrictions that say you need to stay out of the swale, you can put deed restrictions that say
you have to maintain your fence.

                                              3
                                                                  Planning Board minutes, July 10, 2012



Mr. Carrow agreed to work with Mr. Olsen to get some fencing up and move the swale closer to
the fencing rather than have the decks encroaching the swale area. Mr. Carrow and Mr. Olsen
will have the fencing picked out before the August 7, 2012 public hearing. I need to break
ground on unit 18. I can’t wait 60 days.


Mr. Baker: If you provide a building permit application for those two lots showing us the space
for the swale, showing the proposed fence now we will give him the building permit. We are
not going to hold him up on that.


Mr. Cramer: We are waiting for lot fees and the elevation of the roads, elevation of the
sidewalks, the front, but that was one of the requirements that we’ve had, that and lot fees, I
believe are the only things holding us up from issuing one. Subject to this meeting and the
changes we have talked about.


Mr. Voss: My only concern is that we want to make sure the timing of the insulation of the
fencing, the swale, that all happens very quickly rather than six months from now.


Mr. Carrow: I will do the swale immediately. We will do it all at once, as soon as we can agree
on a fence and see if the company can come out here. I think it might take a couple of days for
the fence to be put up.


Mr. Baker: Just to make clear the town does not have liability for a fence or trespassing. That is
not a town issue. That is between individual landowners.


Mr. Voss: I just want to make it clear we will not require both landscaping and the fencing. We
are not just requiring the fencing. The hot box in the front needs some landscaping around that
some time this year. The other question that I’ve had is the finalization of the road. Right now
the road does not function properly with SWM.


Mr. Carrow: I have to wait for the 80% before I can finish code. That is in the approval. That
site is in great shape.


Mr. Voss: It is. I agree with you.
Mr. Baker: I think we should get a revised plan in that has the change in the setbacks, the
change in the landscaping, and the dimension of the houses with the fencing issue sufficiently
before the public hearing. I will work out the restrictive declarations.


Mr. Dempf: I would like to make another suggestion, why don’t we move the swale now that
we have some room. I would like to eliminate a potential non-conforming issue because quite
frankly putting stone under the deck, in the winter you are going to have pre-thaw, the water is
not going to run, it is going to run, lets not run into an issue of an ice dam, or something like
that ripping someone deck out. Let’s keep this swale far enough away now that we have a little
bit more room to work in. I think it makes a little more sense to push is back a little bit. My
                                              4
                                                                         Planning Board minutes, July 10, 2012

     other item is there are two sides to a fence, so if it is right on the property line then that means
     you are trespassing to maintain the other side.


     Mr. Carrow: I will sit with Jim and work this out. We will make it work.


     Mr. Stapf made a recommendation to send this application to the August 7, 2012 PB meeting for
     a public hearing and Mr. Morrison seconded the motion. All in favor motion so carried.

Discussion items:

       Discussion/comment: proposed local law E of 2012. This law is basically taking a larger
       group of parcels from industrial to R2 as well as commercial to R2.

       Mr. Stapf: I have two questions, why are we doing it? If we are doing it why aren’t we also
       including Youmans Road?

       Mr. Dempf: I was told the reason that they wanted to do it and not look at Youmans Road,
       because Youmans Road was involved in the rest of that other hamlet or study. That was being
       addressed there and they wanted to keep this separate. Why are we doing this? I think
       predominantly there is a feeling that this area lends itself to that residential character I guess.

       Mr. Stapf: We have an industrial site over there already. Residential up against an industrial
       site may create problems for the industrial site, because then you have people building houses
       and there are no buffer zones.

       Mr. Dempf: I just drew the lines.

       Mr. Stapf: You did mention that you did have a draft copy of the report that is out there and
       you indicated that you were going to send us copies. I would appreciate it if I could look at a
       draft some time. Other than that I do not have any comments.

       Mr. Voss: I’ve seen this and I’m not concern with this addition. I think it makes sense,
       because we are looking at potential new infrastructure maybe out there. Mark I’m going to
       bounce that question off you tonight, has we seen anything, not necessarily directly related to
       this, but could impact.

       Mr. Baker: Yes, I haven’t seen anything final. They had a map proposal they have not given
       me the proposal to look at. It did supposedly get rid of some of the issues. I also heard
       another proposal because I was in town hall I was called into a meeting. To me it sounded
       like the best proposal I’d heard, but I don’t think it gained any traction quite yet, because there
       was something I threw at it. The proposal was take the water line put it down 308 where it is
       suppose to go and then the town gives or sells that piece of land to the developer. My opinion
       was if the town got of it, in today’s fiscal standpoint $100,000. The town can’t give it away.

       Mr. Stapf: I hate to say it but this is the only piece of industrial land that we really got that is
       useful to this town. Taking it out and putting it residential. We have plenty of residential in
       this town.


                                                    5
                                                                     Planning Board minutes, July 10, 2012

       Mr. Voss: My only proposed alteration for this would be to maybe consider extending the RA
       district kind of behind Jake Herzog’s piece. That is a land locked parcel back in there. There
       is no road access to that piece directly.

       Mr. Dempf: Tell the Board because I think they make take action tomorrow on Wednesday.

       Mr. Voss: I will send a copy of our comments.

       Minor Subdivisions for the month of June 2012

       Anything else that may come before the board -Open Discussion (2-minute limit per person)

Adjournment: Mr. Morrison made a motion to adjourn and Mr. Stapf seconded the motion. All in
favor motion so carried.




                                                 6

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:9/28/2012
language:English
pages:6