Acceptance of the Minutes PUBLIC HEARINGS...2018/02/01 · be handled by that HOA prior to presenting the project to the Planning Board. Jeff Anthony, who is the applicant’s agent,

Planning Board Minutes P a g e | 1 January 9, 2017

Minutes of the Town of Lake George Planning Board meeting held on January 9, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., at the Town Center, 20 Old Post Road, Lake George, New York. Members Present: Sean Quirk, Chairman Fred Pape, Vice Chairman Heath Mundell Robert Flacke Nathan Hall David Meixner Rich Askew Also Present: Adele Behrmann, Dan Barusch, Jim Grey, Tom Hutchins, John Carr, David Columb, Thomas & Theresa Lloyd, Jeff Anthony, Rhonda Reynolds, Michael Murray, Pete Lewis, Randall Kelly, Ach Monroe, Michael Hickin, Terry Curtin, Tom Loffredo, Greg Cunningham, Trevor Flynn, Robert Woodcock, Jon Lapper, Esq., Matt Steves, Dennis MacElroy, Brian Hart, Randy Kelly, Jonathan Bunter and others.

Acceptance of the Minutes

A motion is introduced by Fred Pape; seconded by Heath Mundell to accept the minutes of the November 14, 2017 meeting as

complete.

All in favor, motion carries.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Chairman Quirk reminds the public to keep comments to 3 minutes; the minutes are not transferrable to another person, stick to

the subject and should be directed to the Board.

1. Application for Site Plan Review SPR31-2017 submitted by Cannon Point Homeowners Association with Jeff Anthony

as agent with a proposal for renovations to the pool by replacing the pool deck, coping and fencing. Addition of a handicap

access ramp to the pool and relocate the mechanical shed. Installation of a new permeable pavers as well as a new fire pit

around the picnic tables as well as renovation of the lakeside porch, patio and knee walls on the Manor House. Location of

property is 3562 Lake Shore Drive. Tax Map No. is 226.13-1-19.1. Lot size is 17.98 acres. Zoning Classification is RCH-LS. Code

References are 175-23, 175-29 & 175-37. SEQRA is Type II.

Chairman Quirk confirms with Dan Barusch that typically a Homeowner Association will get approvals by the membership prior

to presenting a project to the Board. In this case, the opposite is true therefore can a conditional approval be given? Dan

Barusch agrees and states that if an approval is granted, should any changes to the items approved occur in the future, the

applicant needs to come back to the Board; major changes will also need review since they would be modifications to the

original application.

Chairman Quirk adds that he received many comments from the homeowners in opposition to the HOA’s proposal that should

be handled by that HOA prior to presenting the project to the Planning Board. Jeff Anthony, who is the applicant’s agent,

introduced Randy Kelly from HAA Architecture in Glens Falls and some of the Board Members of the HOA. He continues by

stating that this project has been reviewed by the Homeowner Association on several occasions for about 1 year and it

potentially represents the maximum changes for the Manor House and swimming pool restoration project although there may

be more in the future because the facilities of the property are older and outdated. These are the needed renovations:

▪ The swimming pool was renovated structurally several years ago, however the coping and the decking are in need of

replacement.


▪ The deck between the pool and the Manor House will be removed and replaced in the same configuration.

▪ The pump house or mechanical building for the pool is visible and awkward for the turnaround road. The proposal is to

move it to the corner, screen it with vegetation and get it further away from the access driveway.

▪ The fencing for the pool will be completely replaced with cable fencing by the lakeside, traditional picket fencing and chain

link fencing in the wooded area.

▪ Addition of ADA compliant handicap access to the pool.

▪ Entire pool area will be landscaped.

▪ Creation of a walkway along the driveway of the Manor House.

▪ Renovation and rebuilding of the walkway to the front door of the Manor House including the addition of some

benches and lights. The current landscape will be replaced by a new landscaping plan.

▪ On the lakeside of the Manor House, the proposal is to develop a new walkway around the building and also connect it to a

walkway to the living units and a circular fire pit area. The cannon at the end of the fire pit area will be moved to another

area with the addition of nautical flags, Adirondack chairs and landscaped.

▪ Permeable pavers will be used to create pads as bases for the picnic tables in the front of the Manor House lakeside.

Jeff Anthony adds that this proposal is the entire scheme and the maximum the HOA would want to do however as they work

with the membership some of these items may not be done.

Fred Pape reads the application into the record.

A motion is introduced by Heath Mundell; seconded by Nathan Hall to accept the application as read.


A motion is introduced by Heath Mundell; seconded by Fred Pape to approve Site Plan Review SPR31-2017 with the following

condition:

▪ Any less of the proposed work is acceptable by the Board, however any additional work will need to be approved by

the Planning Board.

Ayes: 7 Hall, Flacke, Heath, Pape, Meixner, Askew, Chairman Quirk.

Nayes: 0

Abstain: 0


2. Application for Site Plan Review SPR39-2017 submitted by Robert Woodcock with Winchip Engineering as agent with a

proposal to construct a 36 ft. x 28 ft. detached garage with a 28 ft. x 12 ft. carport as well as a 26 ft. x 23 ft. guest cottage; for

property located at 2690 Lake Shore Drive. Tax Map No. is 251.11-1-2. Lot size is 2.08 acres. Zoning Classification is RCH-LS.

Code References are 175-23, 175-37 & 175-13(B)(2). SEQRA is Type II.

Zach Monroe is the agent for Mr. & Mrs. Woodcock who are also present at the meeting. He describes features of the project as

follows:

▪ Construction of a detached garage with a rec room, office space and full bathroom above.

▪ Addition of a carport as storage space.

▪ Construction of a guest cottage to be located by the lake, with no bedrooms but rather a big open room with a

kitchenette.


The structures will connect to the existing septic system which was designed for 6 bedrooms with the existing house having 4

and 1 bedroom each for the cottage and the garage.

On major concern for Chairman Quirk is that the Town code (175-13(B)(2) prohibits 2 residences on one lot unless it can be

proven that the parcel can be subdivided with one of the residences on it. Dan Barusch informs him that it is acceptable as long

as an imaginary line can be drawn separating the two structures and ultimately producing two conforming lots. The next

requirement will be for both structures to be accessible; in this case, there is a path to the cottage. Secondly both the house and

the cottage are within the required setbacks and since the lot is two acres, there is an opportunity to draw this second imaginary

line. Chairman Quirk argues that two driveways will be needed, one for the cottage and one for the garage since the rooms and

full bath on top of the garage could be easily turned into an apartment although it may not be the applicant’s intention. Dan

Barusch adds that this section of the code aims at the fact that if two structures are put on the same lot, can an imaginary line be

drawn between the two structures that would make two conforming parcels and even though the line is not on the map? The lot

is over 2 acres thus meeting the requirements and the existing house is in a conforming location.

A discussion ensues about the number of driveways needed, some of the Board Members believe that the garage could be

considered a third single family structures due to the fact that it has living space above with a full bathroom which could be

considered or turned into a separate apartment. Dan Barusch adds that it could be called an accessory structure with an

apartment above which is technically a residential structure changing the number to 3 residential structures. Chairman Quirk

then asks if there is a need for two driveways; Dan Baruch replies that three residential structures are not allowed on one lot

however, it would depend on whether the Board would consider the apartment above the garage a residential structure or not.

Zach Monroe states that his interpretation of what the imaginary line represents is in the instance that two houses are built, one

cannot be a rental house without subdividing the lot; he believes the code was geared towards cabin colonies but he doesn’t

believe it is the case for this project. Dan Barusch reads the definition of “accessory structure” which includes cooking facilities

however this living space does not have a kitchen. If he had to make a determination, the garage wouldn’t fall under the

“accessory structure definition” due to the lack of kitchen.

Bob Woodcock, when asked by the Board, agrees to change the bathroom to a ½ bathroom and also makes a correction to the

number of bedrooms in the main house which are three. As for the cottage, their intention is to keep it tucked into the woods

with filtered views from the main house and the lake therefore with the exception of one or two small trees, only tall brushes

will be taken down. The land disturbance will be minimal because the cottage will be three seasons and on piers.

As for the septic, Dan Barusch informs the Board that the property has one that is large enough to accommodate 6 bedrooms

and since they have three in the house, they can technically add another three bedrooms. Zach Monroe adds that the original

approval was for the main house and the cottage but the main house was never built.

Fred Pape reads the application into the record with correcting the answer to the questions “within 100 ft. of all streams and

water bodies….” which should be “yes.”

A motion is introduced by Chairman Quirk; seconded by Heath Mundell to accept the application as read with the above

correction.


Chairman Quirk opens the meeting to the public with no responses.

A motion is introduced by Fred Pape; seconded by Bob Flacke to close the public hearing.



Nathan Hall confirms with Dan Barusch his interpretation that there doesn’t need to be a driveway for the guest house. Dan

Barusch replies that the provision just states that two primary structures could be placed on a lot with an imaginary line but no

formal subdivision is necessary. If they wanted to subdivide they would need a variance for road frontage and would have to

provide an easement for the lakefront lot. It’s feasible, but they would have to come back to the Board.

A motion is introduced by Heath Mundell; seconded by Fred Pape to approve Site Plan Review SPR39-2017 with the following

condition:

▪ The full bathroom located on top of the garage shall be reduced to a ½ bathroom.

Ayes: 7 Hall, Flacke, Heath, Pape, Meixner, Askew, Chairman Quirk.

Nayes: 0

Abstain: 0


3. Application for Site Plan Review SPR41-2017 submitted by Jon Toussaint with Tom Hutchins as agent with a proposal to

replace an existing dwelling with a new, 2 story, 4 bedrooms and 2 baths single family dwelling on the same footprint; for

property located at 1 Tamarac Lane. Tax Map No. is 226.09-1-3. Lot size is 0.62 acres. Zoning Classification is RCH-LS. Code

References are 175-23 and 175-37. SEQRA is Type II.

Tom Hutchins introduces himself and Jonathan Bunker from the Michaels Group. He describes the project as follows:

The property is two separate parcels with a circa 1950s single story house and a cottage. The request is to replace the house and

the porches in the same footprint with a slight reduction in the overall impervious area. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a

shoreline setback variance with the layout of the lot remaining the same including the driveway. The Eljen septic system was

installed in 2013 with a 1,250 gallons tank and capacity for 4 bedrooms with a 1,000 gallons tank that pumps up to an absorption

field located on the adjoining parcel. Jonathan Bunker further describes that the house will be two stories but great care was

taken to keep the roof tucked down the living area and keep the cottage look intact. Chairman Quirk asks questions about the

foundation and the composition of the driveway however Jonathan Bunker comments are not clearly audible but he confirms

that the basement, which is actually a ¾ basement, will remain as crawl space. A second concern of the Chairman is the

compacting of the soils associated with a complete tear down; Jonathan Bunker replies that in terms of heavy equipment,

they’re using a small excavator which will be minimal and at the Chairman’s suggestion they’ll work from the driveway back

towards the house making sure that the septic system is not disrupted.


A motion is introduced by Nathan Hall; seconded by Heath Mundell to accept the application as read.


In response to Dan Barusch’s question, Tom Hutchins clarifies that the house itself is 3 bedrooms with a very small loft and the

septic system is designed for 4 bedrooms. Dan Barusch advises them to keep the bedrooms as they currently exist.

Chairman Quirk opens the public hearings to the public with no response.

A motion is introduced by Fred Pape; seconded by Bob Flacke to close the public hearing.



A motion is introduced by Nathan Hall; seconded by Fred Pape to approve SPR41-2017 as submitted.

Ayes: 7 Hall, Flacke, Mundell, Pape, Meixner, Askew, Chairman Quirk.

Nayes: 0

Abstain: 0


4. Application for Site Plan Review SPR42-2017 submitted by Trevor Flynn as agent for Amy McGarry with a proposal to

renovate an existing structure with the extension of the existing dormer with 2 additional dormers, an additional 3 seasons

porch and a new entry porch as well as new stormwater control measures; for property located a 3464 Route 9L. Tax Map No.

is 252.05-1-4. Lot size is 1.13 acres. Zoning Classification is RS-1. SEQRA is Type II.

Trevor Flynn begins by stating that the applicants purchased the property a few months ago and have been residents of Lake

George for roughly 40 years. Thy bought it for its location next to the lake since they love Lake George and the outdoors; they’re

also looking to retire in this home. Since they love the outdoors, they feel that this house has very minimal exterior spaces due

to the site grading, accessibility to the site and just the way it was constructed. This structure is for the most part pre-existing

and non-conforming because of the setbacks with only two small areas that are exterior and leveled with the grade which is

what prompted them to look at other alternatives on how to increase exterior space. One of their concerns is accessibility to the

lake, the boat house and other exterior spaces when they retire which is mainly due to the grading. Another concern is runoff

flowing downwards into the basement and the sides of the house due to the grading of the site and steep driveways. A third

concern is that the water from the roof would go directly into the lake and wanted to come with some ideas to prevent that. To

add exterior space, one solution would be a screened porch so they can have dinner outside and extended family gatherings.

They looked at many locations with the chosen one being in back of the garage that has a mud room; this area would offer them

an inside connection to the screened porch without having to be out in the weather. Besides the screened porch, the second

request is for a small entry canopy which currently consists of just a small concrete pad before you enter through the main entry

door. Architecturally, the goal is to keep as much of the Adirondack look of the house by using natural color tones but also

enhance its beauty by introducing some stone elements. As for the dormers, the two additional ones above the screened porch,

however, there will be no increase of the roof perimeter or envelope but rather just a volume increase. This project will be

phased and this proposal shows the most they’ll do with the house; the addition of the two dormers would be phase II.

Chairman Quirk voices his concern with the storm and/or rain water. Trevor Flynn replies that the Zoning Board recommended

that one of the proposed rain gardens be moved more to the west in order to further move it away from the foundation and the

front door; permeable pavers will be used for the walkways.

Fred Pape asks Trevor what is directing the stormwater to the rain gardens since he doesn’t see any grading changes; they seem

to be plopped onto the landscape. Trevor Flynn replies that for the most part they were able to work with the existing

topography and as of right now the stormwater seems to gravitate towards the house, around it and towards the lake but

believes that the rain gardens in their proposed locations will serve to capture more of the stormwater.

Fred Pape states that he has no problems with the visual renovations of the house however he has a concern with the

stormwater especially the one on the right of the north side that may not do anything. Dan Barusch adds that this is the side the

applicant is proposing putting gutters to lead the stormwater to rain garden 1. Rain garden 2 will be moved and shown on the

final site plan adjacent to the section of the driveway behind the retaining wall. Trevor Flynn directs the Board to a map showing

retaining walls along the driveway that already drive the water downwards towards the rain gardens. Fred Pape asks how far

uphill will the water towards the house be pulled. Trevor replies approximately 10 ft. to 15 ft. on the corner of the house.

Chairman Quirks recommends to potentially shortening one of the retaining walls on the west side to further help the runoff to

access the rain garden. Trevor Flynn replies that they’ll consider that suggestion. A discussion ensues among the Board

Members relating to grading and compacting of the soils on the site and Mr. Flynn advises that they’ll be doing some grading


with no expectation to move a lot of material around but rather stay within the existing topography and if needed put in a swale.

Fred Pape adds that creating a small swale becomes an excavation project and that he would prefer to see a little more of

grading plan because he is not sure the rain gardens will do what they are expecting them to do.

Dan Barusch reminds the Board that technically no stormwater plan is necessary for this project due to the total disturbance

being less than 1,000 sq. ft.; in terms of efficiency, he believes that the first rain garden won’t do much. Trevor Flynn states that

the first rain garden is more of a decorative one and the permeable pavers will do most of the work. Fred Pape is concerned

with the excavation for the rain gardens and believes that it possibly might be more beneficial not to have them at all; Dan

Barusch believes that there will be disturbance at the site regardless.

Chairman Quirks asks if the screened porch will be on piers; Trevor Flynn responds that because of the bedrock in the area, they

believe they may be hitting it resulting in minimal excavation but this is still being discussed. He reassures the Chairman that the

three tall pines in the front will not be taken down. On that note, Dan Barusch makes a suggestion that the applicant do two test

pits in the area of the screened porch before construction; Trevor agrees with the suggestion. Dan Barusch asks how much and

which sides of the house will the stone be put on; will it be portions or the entire façade? Trevor Flynn replies that the stone will

be on the lake side and the front of the house; currently the front entry’s goal is a water table height of stones but it can change.


A motion is introduced by Heath Mundell; seconded by Bob Flacke to accept the application as read.


Chairman Quirks opens the meeting to the public with no response.

A motion is introduced by Chairman Quirk; seconded by Fred Pape to close the public hearing.


The Board Members remind the applicant to keep the colors to an earth tone theme.

A motion is introduced by Fred Pape; seconded by Heath Mundell to approve Site Plan Review SPR42-2017 as submitted.


Nayes: 0

Abstain: 0


Chairman Quirk advises Trevor Flynn that as he mentioned in the beginning, as this work will be done in stages, should any major

changes be needed or done, he needs to come back to the Board for review and that tonight’s Board’s approval applies only to

the proposal he presented tonight. Trevor Flynn replies that he understands.

5. Application for Site Plan Review SPR8-2013 submitted by Laphatt Holdings, Larry Clute as owner and Jon Lapper, Esq. &

Matt Steves as agents with a proposal to construct six 2 story four-plex buildings for total project with a square foot of 3,755

sq. ft. for each building. Of the eight units in the Town, four are 2 bedrooms and four are 3 bedrooms; for property located at

513 Canada Street. Tax Map No. is 251.10-1-16. Lot size is 2.08 acres. Zoning Classification is RH. Code References are 175-

37, 175-34 & 175-47. SEQRA is Unlisted.


Chairman Quirk is familiar with this project which has been around for a long time. The last request from the Board was a sign

off from Chazen, the Town’s engineer.

Jon Lapper, Esq. presents the project to the Board and begins by introducing Matt Steves, the project’s engineer. The interesting

thing about this project is the fact that part of it is in the Village of Lake George and due to their zoning, more units could have

been built in the Village then the Town however, a decision was made to spread them out so 16 units are in the Village and 8 in

the Town. They were granted two variances and received approvals from the Village in 2013, from DOT for the curb cut and the

final settlement with Chazen. The 2013 approval from the Village was contingent on the project receiving approvals from the

Town and has not expired. The water and the sewer hook ups are with the Village. Matt Steves reiterates that this is really one

project even though it is physically located in two municipalities. He then describes the exact location of the driveway and the

project confirming that the one dwelling currently on the Town’s lot will be demolished.

Chairman Quirk reminds everyone on the flood damage that a hurricane brought to this area from English Brook years ago but all

the damage has been fixed and reconstructed. The Village has issued a moratorium on sewer and water hookups after the

project’s approval which prompted a question on whether a letter from Dave Harrington is needed confirming the ability for this

project to hookup; Dan Barusch responds that he has discussed this with Dave and since the approval to hook up was given in

2013 prior to the moratorium, they can still hook up. Chairman Quirk would prefer that a letter from Dave Harrington confirming

the hookups be obtained and placed in the files.

Asked by the Chairman for his opinion, Dan Barusch replies that he believes it’s a good project; it has taken a few years to work

out all the issues but ultimately a sign off was received from Chazen stating “no comments.” A Short Form SEQRA is needed for

this project because it is an Unlisted Action and Dan advises the Board that the letter from DOT and the traffic analysis from Craig

Manning were attached to the SEQRA in the packets to the Board. One of the major concerns with this project was the traffic

impact but it was address with the one curb cut and its location and avoiding crossing over English Brook. Dan continues that the

design for the townhouses is nice with an Adirondack theme; such rental units being new and nicely designed are scarce in the

Town. Matt Steves adds that two other sign offs were received and were included in the packets, namely the SHPO (State

Historic Preservation Office) and the Endangered Species.

Chairman Quirk remembers ledge in the back of the property being an issue; Matt Steves explains the steps taken by Tom

Hutchins to address the issues but his comments are not clearly audible. The other concern Chairman Quirk remembers was

access by emergency vehicles; Matt Steves

replies that they received a sign off from the Fire Department, portion of the main driveway will be constructed with permeable

materials but all the necessary signoffs were received. Dan Barusch adds that there will be a stormwater easement through the

neighbor’s parcel for stormwater which was also part of the Chazen review. Dan Barusch instructs the Board to read Part I of the

SEQRA and respond to Part II; the application was previously read in the record but the public hearing has been left open.

Chairman Quirk opens the public hearing to the public with no response.

A motion is introduced by Fred Pape; seconded by Heath Mundell to close the public hearings.


Fred Pape reads Part I of the SEQRA. (Copy attached at the end of the minutes).

Chairman Quirk and the Board members answer the questions on Part II of the SEQRA, (Copy attached at the end of the

minutes).


A motion is introduced by Chairman Quirk’ seconded by Nathan Hall to declare a Negative SEQRA.


Nayes: 0

Abstain: 0


Chairman Quirk inquiries about the color scheme, Matt Steves responds that they will be complementing the Adirondack theme,

with earth tones, greens, cedar types post, stone, etc.

Dan Barusch summarizes the latest updates from DOT which require the applicant to mark on the final plans:

▪ Water and sanitary crossings in the Route 9 right-of-way.

▪ The driveway should be shown shifted to the south.

▪ The guardrail modifications must be included in the plans.

Tom Hutchins responses to Dan’s comments are not audible. Dan also asks to get a copy of their submittal to DOT.

A motion is introduced by Chairman Quirk; seconded by Fred Pape to approve Site Plan Review SPR8-2013 as submitted.

Ayes: 6 Hall, Flacke, Pape, Meixner, Askew, Chairman Quirk.

Nayes: 1 Mundell

Abstain: 0

Motion carries.

6. Application for Major Subdivision SUB8-2017 (Preliminary Plat) submitted by Landcrafters, LLC (John Carr) with Dennis

MacElroy as agent with a proposal to subdivide 98.7 acres into 6 residential lots. The smallest lots to be 5.013 acres, the

average lots to be 16.35 acres and the largest lots to be 57.168 acres. Lots will have individual onsite wastewater systems and

drilled wells; for property located at Truesdale Hill Road. Tax Map Nos. are 238.00-1-31.11, 225.00-1-60 & 225.00-1-60.2. Lot

size is 98.7. Zoning Classification is RR-5 & RR-10. Code References are 150-6, 150-14, 150-26, 175-85 & 175-86. SEQRA is

Unlisted.

Dennis MacElroy begins by briefly describing the project. He reminds the Board that they appeared at the October meeting for a

sketch plan discussion and approval and at that time the cluster subdivision option was presented to the Board and approved.

The preliminary plat has a detailed set of plans with some slight revisions made as per comments made by the Board at the

October meeting; the revisions are as follows:

▪ The entry road is about 300 ft. long with a cul-de-sac at the end. There was a question about site distances therefore the

cul-de-sac is in the same location but the entry was re-aligned about 50 ft. and moved to the Lake George side.

▪ The driveways serving lots 5 & 6 were combined.

▪ Slight property lines adjustments were made.

The reason this property was clustered is because it is bisected by RR-5 and RR-10 zones and wetlands. Clustering allowed some

of the sites in the RR-10 zone to be less than 10 acres which is one of the reasons for a clustering subdivision. A jurisdictional

determination was received by the APA indicating that they are satisfied, however the Town is the actual permitting authority.

The goal is to achieve the preliminary plat so some of the fine points can be worked on and button up some of the other needed

for final plat approvals.


Fred Pape confirms that the changes made were the ones to shorten the driveway that connects lots 5 & 6 and the entry drive

change. Chairman Quirk asks if the entry round about was shifted down a little? Dennis MacElroy replies that the entry to the

road was shifted but the cul-de-sac is essentially in the same location. Ultimately the road will be dedicated to the Town. He

believes that the compromise is between longer dedicated streets or longer driveways depending on the houses’ sites.

Dan Barusch thinks that this project is a good use for the cluster provision but he believes that in the future because of the slopes

most, if not all, of these lots will have to go for site plan review. He further comments that this project is a major subdivision

therefore needing a full blown stormwater permit and a SWPPP. As for the road, it is a short one and its dedication to the Town

will be decided by the Highway Department and the Town Board. The reason for clustering is to minimize development of lands

with limitations as well as provide some conservation; this is a responsible proposal because it is keeping the development away

from the wetlands and slopes. The only outstanding item that needs to be addressed is the Chazen review. Dennis MacElroy

adds that they are still working with Chazen on their comments which are primarily stormwater related with a few subdivision

comments.

Nathan Hall comments that he originally had the same concerns as the other members about the cul-de-sac, however he likes

the shared driveways and any other concerns are with the slopes and stormwater but he is in favor of the project. Dan Barusch

asks the applicant if there are any plans on a conservation easement however John Carr’s reply and a brief discussion with the

Board are not clearly audible. Chairman Quirk agrees with the prospect that all lots will have to come back for site plan review;

Dennis MacElroy adds that these plans are a preliminary indication of what could happen in the future with generic house

footprints leaving the ultimate final decision to a home buyer. Dan Barusch reminds the Board that this is a preliminary plat and

the applicant will have to come back for a final plat within 6 months of the preliminary one however in most cases there is no

change between a preliminary plat and a final plat.


A motion is introduced by Heath Mundell; seconded by Nathan Hall to accept the application as read.


A question arises on whether or not to leave the public hearing open for the final plat submission; the decision is made to close

this public hearing and have a public hearing in the future.

A motion is introduced by Chairman Quirk; seconded by Fred Pape to close the public hearing.

All in favor motion carries.

Fred Pape reads Part I of the SEQRA into the record (a copy is attached with the minutes).

Chairman Quirk and the Board Members answer Part II of the SEQRA (a copy is attached with the minutes).

A motion is introduced by Chairman Quirk; seconded by Nathan Hall to declare a Negative Declaration.



Nayes: 0

Abstain: 0



A motion is introduced by Fred Pape; seconded by Heath Mundell to approve the Preliminary Plat Plan SUB8-2017 as

submitted.


Nayes: 0

Abstain: 0


7. Application for an After-the-fact Site Plan Review SPR21-2017 submitted by Donald Hart with Brian Hart as agent, with a

proposal to construct a landscape retaining wall on the site to prevent erosion and to stabilize the bank area down by the

shore; for property located at 4 Trinity Rock Road. Tax Map No. is 238.08-1-74.1. Lot size is 1.4 acres. Zoning Classification is

RCH-LS. Code References are 175-23, 175-37 & 175-90(A). SEQRA is Type II.

Dan Barusch explains to the Board that he and Sean Doty and a structural engineer met at the site with the final finding by

Chazen that because the wall is made up of stones of different shapes and sizes, it is difficult to understand its structural load

and feasibility. In summary, Chazen believes that there is a good chance that the wall is stable due to the sheer weight, gravity

and sizes of the stones. As per their visual observation as to what’s behind the wall, it was determined that it is mostly fill made

up of dirt, sands, etc. from the area as well as some stones but no visible filter fabric. Chazen issued a letter with four

recommendations as follows:

▪ Upland drainage should continue to be directed away from the filled area behind the heavy stone. (Dan Barusch

comments that the retaining wall did not change or impact the erosion from the shared path; it was there before and it is still

there now).

▪ The backfill of the rock wall should be perpetually vegetated by grass, shrubs or trees.

▪ The backfilled area behind the subject wall should not be surcharged. A surcharge includes heavy vehicles and structures.

(Dan Barusch comments that there currently is vegetation on top of the wall which seems pretty stable however because of

the lack of fill and no structural analysis of the wall, Chazen recommends that the sodded area behind the wall not have any

heavy equipment, cars, etc. on top).

▪ The exterior, or lake side, of the heavy rock wall should not be parged or mortared. The voids between the heavy stone

should remain open to prevent hydrostatic pressure.

(Dan Barusch adds that over time little pieces of some material seeping through those holes which is common with any

retaining wall with natural stone that doesn’t fit into each other; a filter fabric will prevent the seepage as well as change

the way the stormwater is retained).

In summary, Chazen has not specified whether or not to take the wall down and bring the area back to its natural state.

Nathan Hall asks that if the wall adhered to all the above conditions, would it then be satisfactory to the Town. Dan Baruch

replies yes; a couple of the conditions are enforceable but others are not since the office cannot be checking if cars are parked on

the wall at all hours. The upland drainage is everyone’s concern, including the neighbors, which should be addressed by a grant

from Warren County Soil and Water specifically aimed to complete a stormwater retrofit of that catch basin at the top of the hill

and the culvert system coming down. He has discussed this with the LGA to try to come up with a solution to this problem since

no public funds can be used on private properties.

Bob Flacke asks if this project was a priority on the Warren County Soil and Water grant, Dan Barusch replies that it was along

with other projects which were all approved as well.

David Meixner comments, on the record, that he feels the Board should get very tough with After-The-Fact projects and Mr.

Hart’s project should be the last one. It should be made known that the Board is not going to “rubber stamp” after-the-fact

projects although his comments are not directed to the Hart project but rather they’re general comments. Dan Barusch adds


that it has gotten much worse since he started which some people attribute partly to the Planning & Zoning office following up

on complaints; a practice that wasn’t done in the past. Most of them are discovered through neighbors’ calls and complaints. He

agrees with David Meixner that they should not be rubber stamped, however, in the Hart situation, he has been in front of the

Board numerous times, paid the fine given by the Town Board, hired two engineers and the Town Engineer inspected it as well.

When discovered, after-the-fact project receive an “Order to Remedy” letter with specific instructions.

A discussion ensues among the Board Members who are in full agreement with David Meixner comments. Some of the Board

Members believe that it is a cost benefit to the applicant to pay a fine imposed by the Town Board than not being able to do the

project at all. Brian Hart replies that the project was suggested by a neighbor who thought might be doing a good thing since the

Harts allowed him to use their yard while his project was going on.

Chairman Quirk opens the meeting to the public with no response.

A motion is introduced by Fred Pape; seconded by Heath Mundell to close the public hearing.


A motion is introduced by Chairman Quirk; seconded by Heath Mundell to approve Site Plan Review SPR21-2017 with the

following condition:

▪ The applicant shall follow the recommendations made by Chazen, the Town Engineer, pertaining to the wall. Ayes: 6 Hall, Flacke, Mundell, Meixner, Askew, Chairman Quirk.

Nayes: 1 Pape

Abstain: 0


8. Application for a sketch plan for Major Subdivision SUB7-2017 submitted by 9-L Corp. (Gary Koncikowski) with Jon

Lapper, Esq. & Matt Steves as agents, with a proposal to subdivide 239.05 acres into 17 residential lots. The smallest lot to be

2.92 acres, the average lot to be 17 acres and the largest lot to be 73.38 acres. An HOA will be formed for the private road and

the conservation areas; for property located at Dixon Hill Road. Tax Map No. is 212.00-2-25. Lot size is 239.05 acres. Zoning

Classification is RR-10. Code References are 150-6, 150-14, 150-26 & 175-85, 175-86. SEQRA is Unlisted.

Jon Lapper, Esq. begins the re-introduction of the project by stating that at a previous meeting, the Planning Board was

supportive of the cluster subdivision but under the code they had to show that not only the conventional cluster could support

the number of lots but also the ones with water issues. Matt Steves worked on it and they were able to show that it can support

the density. They are seeking the Board’s conceptual approval so they can come back with a preliminary plat. Matt Steves adds

that there were a couple of lots that didn’t meet the code requirements for a conventional subdivision because they were under

water. Subsequently they reviewed all the lots, their widths and that every lot met the 10 acre zoning and no more than 10% of

the property would be under water.

Nathan Hall comments that he prefers a cluster subdivision and feels it’s more appropriate for a project with wetlands; other

Board Members agree with his statement.

Dan Barusch reminds the Board that at this point they would formally be approving or denying the applicant’s use of the cluster

provision to get them out of sketch plan status and into preliminary status. Chairman Quirk reiterates that the applicant had to


show that all the lots fit in the cluster and concur with the water provision of the code which has been shown. Dan Barusch

states that he has no problems with this project.

A motion is introduced by Heath Mundell; seconded by Fred Pape to approve Application of a Sketch Plan for Major

Subdivision SUB7-2017 as submitted.


Nayes: 0

Abstain: 0


9. Application for Site Plan Review SPR41-2017 submitted by Joseph Gallacchi with Yvette Gallacchi as agent, with a

proposal to construct a 432 sq. ft. three stalls horse barn; for property located at 25 Amanda Drive. Tax Map No. is 238.00-1-

27. Lot size is 12.7 acres. Zoning Classification is RR-7. Code References are 175-15, 175-37 & 175-50. SEQRA is Type II.

The applicant is not present. Dan Barusch notes that normally the Board will not consider an application when the applicant is

absent, however the only reason this application is being reviewed by the Board is the fact that the code requires Site Plan

Review for private horse stables. Chairman Quirk doesn’t see a problem with it since the lot is over 10 acres and meets all the

setback requirements from neighbors. Dan Barusch has no issues with this project but the Board can chose to table it and ask

the applicant to come in at a later date. The consensus from the Board is to review it tonight.


A motion is introduced by Heath Mundell; seconded by Bob Flacke to accept the application as read.


Nathan Hall confirms with Dan Barusch that this is an accessory use to a family residence therefore the distances required don’t

matter.

A motion is introduced by Chairman Quirk; seconded by Fred Pape to approve Application for Site Plan Review SPR41-2017 as

submitted.


Nayes: 0

Abstain: 0


A motion is introduced by Chairman Quirk; seconded by Nathan Hall to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Adele Behrmann

Planning & Zoning Clerk











Documents

Acceptance of the Minutes PUBLIC HEARINGS...2018/02/01 · be handled by that HOA prior to presenting the project to the Planning Board. Jeff Anthony, who is the applicant’s agent,