TOWN OF HARTFORD PLANNING BOARD MEETING
APRIL 27, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MIKE SWEZEY, CHAIRMAN
GARY BURCH
BARRY GOLDSTEIN
PHILIP GIBSON
JOHN HOLMES
LEONARD MOORE
GEORGE STOKEM
ALSO PRESENT:
DENISE PETTEYS, PLANNING BOARD CLERK
MATT FULLER, ATTORNEY FOR THE TOWN
CHAIRMAN SWEZEY OPENED THE MEETING AT 7:05 P.M.
MOTION MADE BY SWEZEY SECOND BY GOLDSTEIN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 2010 MEETING. MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
OLD BUSINESS
10-05 VANBUSKIRK BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT
THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON POPE HILL ROAD TAX MAP # 150.-1-30.4 AND LINDA AND ROBERT BINK TAX MAP # 150.-1-30.3. ON MOTION OF STOKEM SECOND BY HOLMES TO APPROVE THE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT. MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE.
EXEMPTIONS
MATT FULLER GAVE THE BOARD COPIES OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. THERE WAS LENGTHY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FOLLOWING THE BOARD MAY REQUIRE, WHEN IT DEEMS NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, THAT AN OTHERWISE EXEMPT SUBDIVISION BE DEEMED A MINOR OR MAJOR SUBDIVISION AS NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. MATT SAID THAT THE TOWN BOARD MAY WANT TO PUT CRITERIA IN HERE - SINCE THIS IS A PRETTY BROAD GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO MAKE SOMETHING NOT EXEMPT THAT IS OTHERWISE EXEMPT. HOLMES SAID THAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THIS DEFINITION SHOULD SAY MAJOR SUBDIVISION SINCE THERE ARE NOT ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A MAJOR WOULD EVER BE EXEMPT. MATT AGREED THAT IT SHOULD BE REMOVED. HE ALSO SAID THAT THE WAY THE REGULATIONS ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN WHEN A SUBDIVISION IS EXEMPT IT IS EXEMPT FROM ANY FURTHER REVIEW. STOKEM SAID THAT HE BELIEVES IT WOULD BE WISE FOR THE BOARD TO REMOVE ALL EXEMPTIONS (LOOPHOLES). MATT SAID THAT THE BOARD WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEEM SOMETHING A HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE ISSUE ARBITRARILY - THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A GOOD REASON. MATT SAID THAT IF THE BOARD WERE GOING TO EXERCISE DISCRETION HE WOULD AGREE WITH STOKEM’S SUGGESTION OF ELIMINATING ALL EXEMPTIONS. MATT SAID THAT MANY MUNICIPALITIES DO NOT HAVE EXEMPTIONS - FEWER HAVE THEM THAN DON’T HAVE THEM. GOLDSTEIN SAID THAT IT SEEMS TO BE A HUGE LOOPHOLE WHERE THE PLANNING BOARD DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVIEW SPECIFICS. STOKEM SAID THAT THE ONLY THING IT DOES IS DELAY THE APPLICANT FOR 30 DAYS PENDING A PUBLIC HEARING BE HELD. SWEZEY SAID THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL COST TO THE TOWN TO PUBLISH A NOTICE IN THE NEWSPAPER. HE SAID HE WOULD RATHER PAY THE ATTORNEY TO ATTEND THE MEETINGS THAN TO HOLD UP THE APPLICANT AND INCUR THE PUBLICATION EXPENSE.
APRIL 27, 2010 PLANNING BOARD MEETING PG. 2 OF 3
MATT CONTINUED TO DISCUSS THE ADDITIONAL PROPOSED CHANGES AS FOLLOWS: ANY DIVISION OF LAND AND TRANSFER OF LAND FOR AN EXPRESSED AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE . MATT SAID THAT THERE IS AMBIGUITY BUILT INTO THAT. IF SOMEONE STATES THE PURPOSE IS AG - IT IS AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE. AND PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ANY OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION. THIS WILL HELP GIVE THE BOARD THE RIGHT TO REVIEW THE SUBDIVISION FURTHER FOR ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS, ETC. AT THIS TIME, THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN THE BOARD HAS NO RIGHT TO REVIEW ANYTHING ABOUT THE SUBDIVISION ONCE IT IS DEEMED EXEMPT.
THERE WAS DISCUSSION REGARDING THE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT LANGUAGE. MATT SAID THAT A LOT OF THE MUNICIPALITIES THAT HE DEALS WITH DO HAVE THIS PROVISION THAT MAKE IT QUICKER FOR APPLICANTS. MATT SAID HE FEELS THAT THIS PROVISION WORKS WELL FOR THIS BOARD. IT WAS DECIDED THAT THIS DOES WORK WELL FOR THE TOWN.
ON MOTION OF STOKEM SECOND BY HOLMES TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD TO ELIMINATE ALL SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS WITH REVIEW OF THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF MINOR AND MAJOR SUBDIVISION. MATT SAID IN HIS PERSONAL OPINION HE WOULD DO AWAY WITH SOME EXEMPTIONS BUT DEFINITELY KEEP THE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT LANGUAGE. HE SAID THAT SOMEONE CAN COME BEFORE THE BOARD AND TELL THEM THEY WILL DO ONE THING AND TURN AROUND AND DO SOMETHING ELSE. HE SAID THAT THERE ARE NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL SITUATIONS. THERE WAS DISCUSSION REGARDING IF SOMEONE SAYS THEY ARE SUBDIVIDING FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE BUT THEN DOES SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY. HOW CAN THEY PREVENT CHANGES OR ENFORCE THE USEAGE. MOORE AND MATT SAID THAT ANY FORCED REQUIREMENT OF USAGE IS ZONING. MOTION WAS NOT APPROVED BY ROLL CALL VOTE WITH BURCH, GIBSON, GOLDSTEIN, MOORE AND SWEZEY VOTING NO.
ON MOTION OF HOLMES SECOND BY GOLDSTEIN TO REMOVE THE WORD “MAJOR” FROM THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REVISION THE BOARD MAY REQUIRE, WHEN IT DEEMS NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, THAT AN OTHERWISE EXEMPT SUBDIVISION BE DEEMED A MINOR OR MAJOR SUBDIVISION AS NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.
PRESENTED BY MATT FULLER AND IT BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE TOWN BOARD. BURCH ASKED WHY THE BULK TRANSFER OF 30 ACRES OR MORE WAS REMOVED AS AN EXEMPTION FROM THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REVISIONS. MATT SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD THINK ABOUT THE AG REQUIREMENT OR LEAVE IT AS A BULK TRANSFER. THE WAY THE AG REQUIREMENT IS WRITTEN LEAVES THE AMOUNT OF LAND WIDE OPEN. THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT A NON-AGRICULTURAL PERSON MAY NOT LIKE THE LANGUAGE. IT WAS DECIDED TO APPROVE THE LANGUAGE AND RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD AS PRESENTED BY MATT FULLER. MOTION WAS APPROVED BY ROLL CALL VOTE WITH STOKEM VOTING NO.
10-06 DEBOLT SITE PLAN
CHRISTOPHER DEBOLT APPEARED BEFORE THE BOARD WITH A PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR HOPS FARM AND NATIVE PLANT NURSERY LOCATED AT 7381 STATE ROUTE 40. THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT THE USAGE WOULD BE AGRICULTURAL. ON MOTION OF STOKEM SECOND BY MOORE TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION AS AGRICULTURAL EXEMPT. MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE. NOTE: CLERK COLLECTED REQUIRED $50 APPLICATION FEE.
APRIL 27, 2010 PLANNING BOARD MEETING PG. 3 OF 3
10-07 WADE SITE PLAN
RUSSELL WADE APPEARED BEFORE THE BOARD WITH A PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL AND RETAIL USAGE LOCATED AT 4 NORTH ROAD. THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO APPLY FOR RETAIL USAGE AND WOULD REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND A PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
NOTE: CLERK COLLECTED REQUIRED $50 APPLICATION FEE.
DUANE BURCH ASKED WHAT THE PROCEDURE FOR A BOUNDARY LINE CHANGE WOULD BE. HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE PARCEL SHOULD BE SURVEYED AND PRESENTED TO THE BOARD.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
THERE WAS DISCUSSION REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. A COPY OF THE PROPOSED GEIS WAS GIVEN TO MATT FULLER, ATTORNEY FOR THE TOWN. AFTER LENGTHY DISCUSSION, MATT SAID THAT IT COULD BE REFERRED BY THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FOR COMMENT ONLY SINCE THE TOWN BOARD IS THE APPROVING AUTHORITY. THERE WAS DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED APPROVAL SCHEDULE. ON MOTION OF HOLMES SECOND BY SWEZEY TO REFER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FOR COMMENTS ONLY - NOT TO SATISFY THE COUNTY REFERRAL REQUIREMENTS BY THE TOWN BOARD. MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE.
MOTION MADE BY STOKEM SECOND BY GOLDSTEIN TO ADJOURN MEETING. MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:35 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DENISE PETTEYS, PLANNING BOARD CLERK