TOWN OF HARTFORD PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MARCH 23, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MIKE SWEZEY, CHAIRMAN
GARY BURCH
PHILIP GIBSON - ARRIVED LATE
JOHN HOLMES
BARRY GOLDSTEIN
MICHAEL DEYOE, ALTERNATE
ALSO PRESENT:
DENISE PETTEYS, PLANNING BOARD CLERK
MARK MILLER, ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
JEFF MEYER, ATTORNEY FOR THE TOWN
CHAIRMAN SWEZEY OPENED THE MEETING AT 7:01 P.M.
MOTION MADE BY HOLMES SECOND BY BURCH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 23, 2010 MEETING. MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
OLD BUSINESS
THERE WAS DISCUSSION REGARDING PATRICK SMITH NEEDING SOMETHING FROM THE TOWN STATING THAT HIS SITE PLAN REVIEW CONDUCTED BACK IN DECEMBER 2004 WAS APPROVED. THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT THE TOWN SHOULD ISSUE APPROVAL NOTIFICATION. ON MOTION OF HOLMES SECOND BY GOLDSTEIN TO ISSUE APPROVAL NOTIFICATION WHEN SITE PLAN IS APPROVED. MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE.
10-02 HAPPY SITE PLAN
PATTY HAPPY APPEARED BEFORE THE BOARD PROPOSING TO OPEN A RETAIL ART STUDIO IN EXISTING STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 7 GIBBS ROAD. THERE WAS DISCUSSION REGARDING WHICH STRUCTURES SHE INTENDED TO USE AND SHE ADVISED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE APPROVAL FOR ALL STRUCTURES IN ORDER TO AVOID HAVING TO RETURN IN THE FUTURE. ON MOTION OF HOLMES SECOND BY GOLDSTEIN TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION STRUCTURE #2, #3 AND #4 ALONG WITH PARKING AREA AND SIGNAGE DESCRIPTION PROVIDED AS RETAIL USE. MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE. SEQRA WAS CONDUCTED. ON MOTION OF STOKEM SECOND BY SWEZEY TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF THE SEQRA. MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE. ON MOTION OF HOLMES SECOND BY STOKEM THE SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE.
EXEMPT SUBDIVISION
THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAD RECEIVED CLARIFICATION OF THE DEFINITION OF EXEMPT SUBDIVISIONS PER ATTORNEY FOR THE TOWN MATT FULLERS LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2010.
HOLMES ASKED THE STATUS OF THE ATTORNEY OPINION ON HOW TO CLARIFY SECTION 2 OF THE EXEMPTION SECTION OF THE SUBDIVISION LAW. JEFF MEYER SAID THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE REQUEST.
10-03 LAVIN SUBDIVISION
STOKEM EXPLAINED THAT CALEB LAVIN SUBMITTED SURVEY MAPS THAT DO NOT MATCH UP WITH PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED SKETCH PLAN. HE REQUESTED CALEB TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD TO EXPLAIN THE CHANGES. THERE WAS DISCUSSION REGARDING WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS LOCATED AND IT WOULD BE ON BOTH HIS
MARCH 23, 2010 PLANNING BOARD MEETING PG. 2 OF 3
GRANDFATHER AND FATHER’S LAND. THE BOARD ADVISED THAT THE ROAD FRONTAGE PRESENTED ON THE SURVEY MAP WAS ONLY 25′ AND MUST BE 30′ PER SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. JEFF MEYER SUGGESTED THAT THE PREVIOUSLY “PROPOSED DRIVEWAY” LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE DELETED ON THE NEXT SURVEY MAP TO AVOID ANY FUTURE CONFUSION.
10-04 DONALDSON SUBDIVISION
PAUL DONALDSON APPEARED BEFORE THE BOARD WITH A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF +_2.71 ACRE SUBDIVISION FROM AN EXISTING +- 91 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 3360 STATE ROUTE 196. HE DISCUSSED THAT HE HAD ADJUSTED THE LINE SO THAT THERE WOULD BE MORE ACCESS TO THE BARN IN THE FUTURE. HE HAS NO PLANS TO SELL THE PROPERTY IN THE NEAR FUTURE. ON MOTION OF HOLMES SECOND BY STOKEM TO ACCEPT THE SUBDIVISION AS EXEMPT SUBDIVISION BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS. MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE. MR. DONALDSON DID NOT HAVE THE MYLAR WITH HIM AT THE MEETING. ON MOTION OF STOKEM SECOND BY HOLMES TO ALLOW THE PLANNING BOARD CLERK AND STOKEM TO SIGN THE EXACT MYLAR WHEN PRESENTED AND $75 FEE PAID. MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE.
10-05 VANBUSKIRK BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT
KEITH VANBUSKIRK APPEARED BEFORE THE BOARD REQUESTING INFORMATION ON A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON POPE HILL ROAD. THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT NO NEW LOTS WOULD BE CREATED AND THE INFORMATION WAS NOT RECEIVED MORE THAN THE 15-DAY REQUIREMENT. MR. VANBUSKIRK SAID THAT THE SURVEY MAPS PRESENTED LIST THE WRONG OWNER OF “AMERICAN WILDERNESS RESOURCES, INC.” THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT SEVERAL TOWN OFFICIALS, INCLUDING THE TOWN CLERK, ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND STOKEM PREVIOUSLY ADVISED MR. VANBUSKIRK’S ATTORNEY THAT THEY COULD ATTEND THE MEETING FOR INFORMATION ONLY. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT SINCE FORMAL APPLICATION WAS NOT SUBMITTED TIMELY THEY WOULD NEED TO RETURN WITH CORRECTED SURVEY MAPS AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE APRIL MEETING BEFORE ANY APPROVALS COULD BE MADE.
EXEMPTIONS
THERE WAS LENGTHY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SECTION ARTICLE II EXEMPTION DEFINITION. HOLMES SAID THAT HE FEELS THAT PROPERTY TRANSFER FROM AGRICULTURE TO AGRICULTURE BE EXEMPT AS WELL AS PROPERTY TRANSFERS WITHIN FAMILY ALSO BE EXEMPT. HE FEELS THAT NO OTHER SITUATIONS SHOULD BE INCLUDED. THE ONLY THING GRANTING AN EXEMPTION DOES IS ELIMINATE A PUBLIC HEARING FROM BEING REQUIRED. STOKEM SAID THAT HE FEELS THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME AND FAIRLY. JEFF MEYER SAID THAT HE FEELS THE 30-ACRE OR MORE DEFINITION WAS INTENDED TO INCLUDE AGRICULTURE AS WELL AS NON-AGRICULTURE TRANSFERS. HE SAID THAT THE AGRICULTURE ITEM COULD BE AN ENFORCEABILITY ISSUE - WHAT’S AN AG PURPOSE, DOES IT HAVE TO STAY AS AN AG PURPOSE. WHAT IS A FAMILY TRANSACTION AND DOES IT HAVE TO STAY IN THE FAMILY FOR A SPECIFIC LENGTH OF TIME ETC. GOLDSTEIN ASKED WHAT THE VALUE OR PURPOSE OF A PUBLIC HEARING IS USED FOR - TO GIVE THE PUBLIC A CHANCE TO COMMENT. JEFF ENCOURAGED THE BOARD THAT NO MATTER HOW THEY DECIDE TO CHANGE THE EXEMPTION SECTION THEY SHOULD KEEP SOME TYPE OF BOUNDARY LINE LANGUAGE. A BOUNDARY LINE NEEDS TO BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM A STREET SUBDIVISION BECAUSE IT DOESN’T NEED ROAD FRONTAGE FOR EXAMPLE. IT IS TREATED TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
MARCH 23, 2010 PLANNING BOARD MEETING PG. 3 OF 3
JEFF MEYER SAID THAT IF THE BOARD DEEMS SOMETHING EXEMPT THAN THE BOARD IS NOT LOOKING AT THE DETAILS OF THE PROJECT AT ALL. IF THE BOARD WANTS INPUT AND THE ABILITY TO COMMENT THEN SOMETHING CAN’T BE EXEMPT. HOLMES SAID THAT A GOOD EXAMPLE WAS THE LAVIN SUBDIVISION - TECHNICALLY IT IS BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS AND WOULD BE EXEMPT BUT THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE MAP HAD AN ERROR. IF THE BOARD HAD TRULY EXEMPTED HIM, THE BOARD COULD NOT HAVE COMMENTED ON THE ERROR. JEFF MEYER SAID THAT THE 30′ ROAD FRONTAGE IS LISTED IN A MINOR SUBDIVISION; HOWEVER, NOT IN THE EXEMPTION DEFINITION OR THE SUBDIVISION DEFINITION ITSELF. SWEZEY SAID THAT THE 30′ ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE DEFINITION OF A SUBDIVISION AND JEFF MEYER AGREED. GOLDSTEIN FEELS THAT SOMEONE COULD USE THE EXEMPTION ITEMS AS A LOOPHOLE AND THEN SELL IT TO SOMEONE ELSE. THE EXEMPTION CLAUSE LIMITS THE PLANNING BOARDS RIGHT TO EXAMINE PROJECTS PROPERLY.
JEFF MEYER SUGGESTED THAT ARTICLE III SECTION I: SKETCH PLAN ITEM B COULD BE CLARIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
“THE BOARD MAY REQUIRE, HOWEVER, WHEN IT DEEMS NECESSARY FOR PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, THAT AN EXEMPT SUBDIVISION COMPLY WITH ALL OR SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED FOR MINOR SUBDIVISIONS.”
JEFF MEYER WILL PREPARE A DRAFT TO REWRITE FOR AG AND FAMILY EXEMPTION ONLY. JEFF WILL INVESTIGATE THE ENFORCEABILITY ISSUE OF SOMEONE USING AN EXEMPTION TO BYPASS ALL REGULATIONS.
MOTION MADE BY GOLDSTEIN SECOND BY SWEZEY TO ADJOURN MEETING. MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:45 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DENISE PETTEYS, PLANNING BOARD CLERK