Description: Proposed 2-lot subdivision of a 1.145 acre lot in an R1-10 Zone.
Planning Board, 10-17-2016
The item was taken off the agenda at the applicant's request
Planning Board, 9-26-2016
Several area homeowners raised a series of concerns about the proposed plan, including their long standing concern about drainage in the area and the plan to pave a portion of Baker Highway which would involve what they said was taking portions of their property. They also advised the board of numerous instances where, in their opinion, the developer had violated the terms of the building permit for the first house and also his unresponsiveness after work he had done created serious problems in the road for area residents that had to be repaired by the Highway Department. The residents have retained their own engineer to review the drainage issue.
In general, while understanding that they can’t stop development, the residents felt that their properties and privacy were being compromised so that a single property owner could make a larger profit.
Citing what he called a “laundry list” of issues raised by the residents as well as from town staff that need answers, the board adjourned the hearing pending the receipt of more information from town staff and the residents’ engineer.
Planning Board, 8-8-2016
The applicant has agreed to pave 200 feet of Baker Highway to a width of 18 feet. (Although town road specs require a 24 foot road, the Planning Board has the flexibility to reduce the requirement; the paved portion of Baker that ends at Christine is 18feet.) The road will be pitched so that runoff will be directed to a swale that will discharge into the existing catch basin at Baker and Christine. The road will have curbing on one side and a shoulder on the other. Once paved, it will be up to the Town Board to accept the road as a town orad.
When the property owner who will be affected by the new road advised the board that the road or shoulder will be on her property, Mr. Tegeder explained that the road will be in the right of way, not her property; you may be using the property, he said, but it’s not yours.
A second resident noted that after the applicant paved 200 feet of Baker Highway, about 100 feet would be left unpaved and that it made sense to pave that remaining portion. It was suggested that the town pick up the tab for this extra paving.
The board asked the applicant to review and possibly modify some of the stormwater provisions.
A public hearing will be scheduled for September 26 and Mr. Tegeder advised the surrounding residents who attended the meeting that they could submit written comments to the board anytime before that date and also speak at the public hearing.
Planning Board, 4-25-2016
The Planning Board is firm in its desire that Baker Highway – for its entire length – be paved and brought up to an acceptable standard that could be less than the regular town standard for roads in new subdivisions. What those standards might be was left for a future discussion. Mr. Fon explained that the board was looking beyond Mr. Triglia’s 2-lot subdivision and had to provide for the health and safety of the area in the event the Kelderhouse-Dornach property was developed. The board rejected Mr. Triglia’s plan to pave only a small portion of Christine.
At issue is how wide the road can and should be. The applicant’s engineer said that because of existing telephone poles, the road could only be 12’ wide; Mr. Tegeder disagreed and said that if the engineer looked on the west side, the road could possibly be closer to 18’, He asked the engineer to take a second look. Mr. Triglia was not happy with the paving requirement, calling it too costly, Mr. Trigilia. It was suggested the Mr. Triglia research the cost of bringing the road up to a standard that would be acceptable to the board.
Also to be clarified is who will do what to follow through on the plan discussed during a site visit for the drainage and catch basin at the corner of Christine and Baker. With nothing in writing, one possibility was that the highway department would supply the piping and the applicant would do the construction.
Planning Board, 4-11-2016
As a follow up to the discussion at the Town Board about substituting more drainage improvements for a paved road, the applicant explained proposed drainage changes. However, Mr. Fon expressed the board’s continuing concern for the health, safety and welfare of both current and future residents, focusing in on on site and off-site improvements. And although the Town Board appeared to take any improvements to Baker Highway off the table, the Planning Board raised the issue of who actually “owned” the road. When Mr. Triglia said that the owners of the property on both sides of the road owned the land to the center of the road, the board asked him to provide copies to the title. On Mr. Kincart’s suggestion, Mr. Tegeder will prepare a memo to the Town Board asking it the Town Board will be willing to accept a donation of a road if the Planning Board decides it wants the road improved to a possible “neighborhood’ standard as opposed to the higher regular town standard.
Not happy with the delay, attorney Al Capellini advised the board that Mr. Triglia has a contract to sell the first, already built house, but that the contract calls for the property to be subdivided. In response, Mr. Fon reminded Mr. Capellini that Mr. Triglia’s problem was of his own creation because he should have gotten the 2-lot subdivision approved before building the first house. And Mr. Flynn noted the board’s concern whether the existing substandard infrastructure could support the increase in density.
The board plans a second site visit.
Planning Board, 3-28-2016
(See Town Board, 3-22-2016 below and also Kelderhouse-Dornoch subdivision.) Mr. Tegeder advised the board that the Town Board appeared to favor Mr. Triglia providing some drainage improvements in lieu of paving a portion of Baker Highway. He also advised the board that the Turus Lane homeowner who currently maintains and plows Baker has advised him that he will no longer do it if there is additional development that uses the road. He added that at least one homeowner has expressed the opinion that while she preferred keeping Baker unpaved in order to maintain the character of the neighborhood, she would want the road improved is there were going to be additional homes.
Town Board, 3-22-2016
The issue before the Town Board was whether or not to support the Planning Board’s preliminary decision to require the applicant to pave 100 feet of Baker Highway.
Several area residents advised the board that they preferred the dirt road as keeping in character with the neighborhood and did not want it paved. Instead, they said they were more concerned about drainage in the area. Mr. Tegeder, however, said that he had heard from other residents who wanted the road paved and suggested that all the affected residents be queried. He also explained the long range implications of keeping Baker unpaved if the abutting property was developed.
After considerable back and forth, and after it became apparent that the Town Board was listening to the homeowners and that Highway Superintendent Paganelli thought that drainage was more important than 100 feet of paved road, Supervisor Grace suggested that in lieu of the paving, Mr.Triglia provide some additional drainage improvements. He also said that as part of the Planning Board’s approval there needed to be a maintenance agreement relating to Baker Highway. (The road is currently plowed by an area homeowner, with neighbors providing him with a sum of money.)
Almost as an afterthought, and in connection with differing opinions of how wide any changes to Baker Highway should be, Mr. Tegeder said the 2-lot subdivision could be processed under the town’s Flexibility Standards that allows for narrower roads. What followed, without any discussion, was a board vote authorizing the Planning Board to consider using Flexibility.
Mr. Tegeder expressed concern that the board failed to adopt a policy that would provide guidance to the Planning Board regarding approving future subdivision requests involving substandard, ie., unpaved roads. While he said the lack of a policy left the Planning Board with a “willy nilly” approach, Supervisor Grace said he preferred not to adopt a hard and fast rule.
Planning Board, 2-22-2016
Mr. Fon reported on the site visit that included several department heads as well as Planning Board members.
For the Board, the key issue remained looking at the overall neighborhood and just not at the proposed 2 lot subdivision. The Board also seemed unanimous in not wanting to create a second legal lot (the first lot with the house already built got a variance for being on a substandard road, i.e., a private road. While Mr. Triglia expressed concern that he was being held up while the Board looked at the broader neighborhood, Mr. Tegeder reminded him that he created his own problem by building the first house prior to getting approval for the two lot subdivision. And even though Mr. Triglia said access to the second lot could be from Christine, not Baker, the Board advised him to consider paving Baker to town standards up to the lot line that would separate the two lots; this would leave the fate of the remaining section of Baker up in the air, possibly pending the future development of the lots off Turus. If that is done, it woujld then be up to the Town Board to accept the upgraded portion of Baker which would then allow the Highway Department to plow that portion of the road.
There was a brief discussion of whether the existing residents who now pay for private maintenance of the road, would want to create a special district that would float a bond to pay for the upgrade of the road. (Although some area homeowners were present at the meeting, because it was as work session, they were not able to address the board.)
A memo from the Water Department noted that the water line that had been put in for the first house did not meet town code.
Planning Board, 1-25-2016
The applicant’s engineer has prepared a SWPP (stormwater pollution prevention plan) that he explained will not create any additional runoff on existing properties. Mr. Barber said the plan was generally acceptable but made some suggested changes. Under the plan, the applicant would make provision to widen Baker Highway but the road would remain an unpaved private road.
A “monkey wrench” was thrown into the discussion when Mr. Tegeder advised the board that because the owner of several vacant parcels off Turus Lane (a private road that feeds into Baker Highway) has expressed interest in constructing at least house on the road, with the possibility that three or four additional houses could be built in the future, the board should look at the broader picture of the road network in the area before approving the Triglia 2 lot subdivision. While the board realized that this might hold up Mr. Triglia, it concerned that if it approved subdivisions on private roads on a piecemeal basis, it could end up with “a mess.”
When Mr. Triglia expressed concern that his subdivision would be held up (he said he already had buyers for the two houses), he was reminded that he created part of the problem himself by getting a building permit for one house, putting in a foundation, and then applying for the subdivision.
The board will make a site visit to the location before proceeding. One of the issues to be considered is whether the current residents of the area want their roads to remain private or have them brought up to town standards are become part of the town’s official road network.
Planning Board, 12-7-2015
Having reviewed drainage in the area with Highway Superintendent Paganelli and the town engineer, the applicant said that the culvert at the corner of Christine and Baker could accommodate piped runoff from the 2-lot subdivision. He added, though, that the receiving catch basin may have to be cleaned out. His revised plan eliminates the swale along Baker Road but retains a swale between the two properties although he considered the latter swale optional at the discretion of the board. He also plans underground retention on the first lot. The board said it wants to see the applicant’s storm water plan (SWPP) with all the calculations, before approving any plan.
The board also discussed the feasibility, as well as the pros and cons of having the applicant pave Baker Road up to town standards and having the town take over the road. It was noted that while paving the road would be an improvement, at previous meetings area residents have indicated that they preferred the dirt road. Mr. Tegeder said it was up to the board to decide which approach was best.
The applicant said he would hold off with any sale of the first house (under construction) until the subdivision plan, which would involve stormwater for both lots, was decided.
Planning Board, 8-24-2015
The applicant got an as built survey for the already approved house on lot #1 which showed it to be 25 ft closer to
The applicant showed an aerial photograph of the site and the surrounding residences and roads, but Robyn Steinberg pointed out that this information still needed to be included in the site plan drawings.
The discussion centered on run off from the site. The plan proposes vegetation swales on each lot which will slowly release storm water into a ditch running off site along
Planning Board, 7-13-2015
Public informational Hearing.The proposal is to subdivide a 1.145 acre parcel with an existing house to create one additional lot for a second single family dwelling. The lot is on the corner of Christine and Baker Highway, although the entrance to the second lot will be from Baker Hwy. Both are private roads. The current zoning requires 20,000 sq. ft. The property owner previously received a variance from the ZBA. (Note: it was not clear what the variance was for.) Several residents spoke in opposition to the plan citing existing stormwater issues. They also said that many area residents were not aware of the ZBA hearings .
In response to the comments, board members asked the applicant to look into several potential stormwater measures that would control runoff from the site. The board also explained that the purpose of the informational hearing was to give residents an early opportunity to view and comment on the plan so that the applicant could “fine tune” the plan and return to the planning board for a subsequent second public hearing. The hearing was closed.
Planning Board, 6-22-2015
Al Capellini, lawyer for the applicant, explained that the area including the site was upzoned in 1970, but kept the R1-10 setbacks, apparently because so many lots in the area already had houses which would end up non-conforming. The proposed lots (about 24,000 sq ft and 25,000 sq ft) are surrounded on all sides by private, unpaved, paper roads. The proposed lots are conforming in all respects, except for lacking frontage on a Town road. One house already has a ZBA variance for the lack of frontage and the applicant is in the process of getting the second variance. The lots will be sewered and get town water via a service connection down