MOTION to close this PUBLIC HEARING at 8:12 P.M. made by G. Luenzmann
and seconded by P. Owen.
VOTING
AYE: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, G. Luenzmann, P. Owen, V. Werany
MOTION
CARRIED. 5 AYES
G.
Lake: On the Public Hearing the gentleman that wanted to know
about the map, you can come down and see Carol. You have ten days
to put in your written comments.
C.
Long: Thank you.
G.
Lake: Dick, at this time, you need another work session with him?
D.
McGoey: I need to get the Preliminary Plans in my hands to take
a look at them.
A.
Fusco: We had addressed everything on this plan. I will give you
this one right now. If there are some other comments we will address
those and we will give a complete set to Carol to give out.
G.
Lake: Are you willing to waive any time frame?
A.
Fusco: Yes I will.
TABLED.
Applicant waives any time frame.
1. HEIMBACH - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION - Maples Road (36-2-24.2) #060-001
A.
Fusco: I am representing the lands of Heimbach and Neugarten.
This is for a two lot subdivision. Again, this is on Maples Road.
It's a parcel of approximately nine or ten acres and is being
divided into two parcels. We have had work sessions with the Town
Engineer. We have included soils information. We did receive recently
some additional comments which we would be happy to address in
the next submittal. We do feel that this property is conducive
to the two lot subdivision. They will be two very nice sized lots.
We did find good soils on the property.
G.
Lake: Anything from the Board?
V.
Werany: I have nothing right now.
A.
Dulgarian: Where is this in relationship to the five lot subdivision?
A.
Fusco: It's approximately a quarter mile away. The five lot subdivision
is next to . .
A.
Dulgarian: the bridge.
A.
Fusco: Next to the bridge. This is immediately across the bridge
on the Highland Avenue side of the bridge. There is a little stone
house which is not included.
G.
Luenzmann: I don't have anything.
P.
Owen: No.
G.
Lake: You have Dick's comments, correct?
A.
Fusco: Yes.
G.
Lake: Do you want to go over them for us?
A. Fusco: He had indicated he wants some additional information
on elevations and septic systems. We would be happy to provide
that. We will give some more information on to the adjoining wells
in the area and septics. The soils types we took off the soils
map and will convert them to Town designations. We do owe a detail
based on the Department of Public Works requirements for driveways
and shoulders which we will add on to the project. We will also
look at the site distances and place them on the maps. We also
need to do culvert size on Maples Road. The last comment was that
this needs to go to Eustance & Horowitz for their inspection
of the soils.
G.
Lake: Do you have any problem with any of those items?
A.
Fusco: No.
G.
Lake: Dick, do you have anything at this point?
D.
McGoey: No.
V.
Werany: I'm just looking at the project location here. It is the
same number on the five lot as it is on the two lot.
A.
Fusco: Yes. The parcel is a very large parcel. It crosses both
roads. The tax lot numbers are the same but they are separated
by the highway. It's a portion of that tax lot.
V.
Werany: It is all one lot then?
A.
Fusco: It's all one huge lot. There are even portions of this
that aren't being touched.
A.
Dulgarian: Aren't we looking at a seven lot subdivision?
A.
Fusco: No, not really because of the separation from the road.
That makes the difference.
One of the things with old farms, is what they did, when they
had tax mark map designations
the whole farm would be one tax lot number. The boundary becomes
the road. When you have a public road that goes through it, it
automatically becomes a separate tax lot however, the tax map
number did not change. We did check that out previously.
A. Dulgarian: Even when the road crosses a subdivision line?
A.
Fusco: That's correct.
V.
Werany: On the locator map here, I'm looking at the five lot subdivision
and the highway goes through and then there's a darkened area.
It doesn't look like it's connected.
A.
Fusco: Explained to V. Werany. (Not audible).
V. Werany: Is that all part of this lot?
A.
Fusco: That is owned by another person. I believe what we're doing
is, how we've done this before is you say a portion of. It's a
portion of tax lot 36.2, 24.2.
D.
McGoey: We've always considered a Town road a natural subdivision
regardless of whether it is the same tax lot. It's really a minor
two lot subdivision.
G.
Lake: Anything else from the Board?
P.
Owen: No.
G.
Luenzmann: No.
G.
Lake: Dick, are you all set?
D.
McGoey: I just want to add that the road dedication shall be a
gratuitous offer of dedication twenty five feet from the centerline.
It's shown on there but it just says road dedication.
A.
Fusco: No problem.
D.
McGoey: You can probably go to final conditioned upon my comments
and Eustance & Horowitz for the septic systems because it's
not a major subdivision.
MOTION
for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION made by G. Luenzmann and seconded by
P. Owen.
VOTING
AYE: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, G. Luenzmann, P. Owen, V. Werany
MOTION
CARRIED. 5 AYES
MOTION
for a TWO LOT SUBDIVISION subject to D. McGoey's comments and
Eustance & Horowitz approval of septic systems made by P.
Owen and seconded by G. Luenzmann.
VOTING AYE: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, G. Luenzmann, P. Owen, V. Werany
MOTION
CARRIED. 5 AYES
2. HEIMBACH - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION - Maples Road/Mud Mills Road (36-2-48.15)
#061-001
A.
Fusco: I represent Mr. Heimbach in regard to a proposed two lot
subdivision. It's tax lot #36-2-48.2. It's immediately down the
road from the other two lot subdivision that we had earlier entertained.
It does meet the zoning classifications. There are two large lots
that this would be separated into. We had checked the soils on
them. The soils are acceptable for individual sanitary systems.
There's one other minor area that I would like to address to the
Planning Board. You will see lands of Rykowski. There is a small
piece of the Heimbach parcel that we are proposing to have a lot
line change there as well. Mr. Rykowski has a garden there. Mr.
Heimbach is either going to make an arrangement so that he can
keep his garden there. It's basically a two lot subdivision and
a lot line change.
D.
McGoey: You will have to make the other party, part of the application.
We will need something signed off by him agreeing to that.
A.
Fusco: That had just been recently been designated last week and
it is a low land area. It has the wetland type soil. It really
isn't that swampy but it does have that soil so designated as
wetlands.
G.
Lake: The dwelling that you show here and the septic are outside
of the wetlands?
A.
Fusco: Yes it will be.
G.
Lake: Any comments from the Board?
V.
Werany: No.
A.
Dulgarian: No.
P.
Owen: Nothing else.
G.
Luenzmann: No.
G. Lake: Dick, the other gentleman has to be put on the application?
D.
McGoey: Right.
G.
Lake: You have that?
A.
Fusco: Yes.
G.
Lake: Do you have Dick's comments?
A.
Fusco: Yes I do. They're basically quite similar to the last comments
that we had on the prior project. Septic system and wells. In
relationship to the right-of-way it was the same comment. A typical
detail for the Department of Public Works. We will put in iron
pins. We will identify any utility easements that are there. There
is an annex water line in the front of the property. We don't
plan to utilize it but we will show it. We will identify where
it terminates.
D.
McGoey: Why aren't you using it?
A.
Fusco: Basically we had looked at a possibility of looking at
two family houses in there at one point but according to the ordinance
it needed both water and sewer. There is a question as to whether
water is existing. We didn't want to try to expand the water district.
It's easier to just do a well.
D.
McGoey: The lots are not in the water district?
A.
Fusco: I don't believe that they are.
D.
McGoey: I would prefer to be hooked to town water if they are
in the water district. Maybe you should verify that.
A.
Fusco: We can verify that. My impression was the lots in question
were not in the district and the formalities of going through
a district extension was more onerous than putting in a well.
We will verify that. If, in fact, they are in the district we
will utilize it.
G.
Lake: You don't have any problems with Dick's comments, adding
them?
A.
Fusco: No.
G. Lake: Do you want us to do Preliminary since you wanted to
check on a couple of items?
D.
McGoey: Yes.
G.
Lake: Any other comments from the Board?
V.
Werany: Dick, this lot #1 here does he have enough soil there
for that?
D.
McGoey: That's why I had him do additional percolation tests.
V.
Werany: It is pretty well hidden in the corner.
D.
McGoey: I know it. I want to see a little more soil tests.
A.
Fusco: One of the things that we could do is that we check out
the soils. That's why we actually moved the lot line over to meet
the soils.
D.
McGoey: You may want to call Eustance & Horowitz before you
do those additional percolations?
A.
Fusco: Okay so we do have authorization then to contact Eustance
& Horowitz?
D.
McGoey: Yes. Once you get Preliminary tonight.
A.
Dulgarian: No.
P.
Owen: Nothing else.
G.
Luenzmann: No.
MOTION
for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by
P. Owen.
VOTING
AYE: G. Lake, A. Dulgarian, G. Luenzmann, P. Owen, V. Werany
MOTION
CARRIED. 5 AYES
3. CURRIER & LAZIER - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - East
Main Street/Fair Avenue (74-9-1) #059-001
A.
Fusco: I represent Currier & Lazier for a Site Plan approval
for a real estate office on East Main Street. This is approximately
a four and a half acre parcel of land. It's zoned Highway Commercial.
There are five existing residential units in there. It's proposed
that the residential be augmented with the business use, basically
a real estate office. There will be four thousand seven hundred
square feet of office, twenty seven hundred in the front building
and two thousand in the rear building. This is the Site Plan that
we prepared to indicate that we have sufficient parking. We're
going to widen out the driveway to meet the Town requirements.
We would be paving for twenty five parking spaces which meets
the requirements. There is some urgency to move forward in this
due to a hardship on the real estate office. They need to move
out of their existing lease that they have. We are trying to move
this along as quickly as possible. The applicant met with the
Town Engineer. We're willing to move forward on this. We do have
comments from the Engineer which we would be more than happy to
address. It is a commercial use on a Highway Commercial property.
We would like to continue with this as much as we can and possibly
do some of the site work while the weather is still acceptable.
G.
Lake: Any comments from the Board?
V.
Werany: I believe there are some residences in the back. Are they
going to remain?
A.
Fusco: Yes they are. Some of them will remain. Basically there
are currently five rentals in the back. What's proposed is that
we reduce them to four. Ultimately, they may need the entire facility
for their offices but for the initial request, what we are looking
to do is to maintain four rental units as residential and have
the offices. Eventually they may take over all the property for
their real estate purposes.
G.
Lake: The rental units would be . . .
Continue
