CLERMONT PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 12, 2011
The Clermont Planning Board held its regular meeting on Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. Those present were Chairman Laurence Saulpaugh, Clayton Andrus, Jennifer Phillips, Thomas Jantzen, Aldo Dusman, George Schmitt, Town Engineer, Robert Desmond, Robert Zimmerman and Andy Howard, Town Attorney. Nancy Sperry and Brenda Case were absent.
The Chairman opened the meeting.
The minutes of the December meeting were approved on a motion made by Thomas Jantzen, seconded by Clayton Andrus.
MARY JANE FUCHS: Mr.Zimmerman brought in maps for the proposed subdivision of land owned by Mary J. Fuchs on Wright Road and County Route 6. She would like to subdivide a nine-acre parcel into three parcels. Two of the lots would be more than two acres each and the balance would be added to the parcel of Theresa Fuchs. A deed of transfer will be done to Theresa Fuchs. Mr. Zimmerman did a percolation test and the results were 19 minutes on one and 26 minutes on the other two. This was not done for septic design, just as proof that it would sustain a septic system. Aldo Dusman would like the maps stamped that the lots are not Board of Health approved. He asked if it wouldn’t be better if they were BOH approved. Mrs. Fuchs is not selling the lots; they are going to each one of her daughters. On the final map the house of Theresa Fuchs will be located on the parcel. Mr. Zimmerman will meet with Jim Potts to determine where the driveways should be placed. Mary Jane Fuchs owns the land around the parcels, but there should be notification to Kathy Hettling who is across Cedar Hill Road from the affected land. Mr. Zimmerman will prepare descriptions of all parcels involved. Tom Jantzen asked that utilities be shown on Theresa Fuchs parcel, which comes from Cedar Hill Road and determine where there may have to be easements for the other parcels for utilities.
Goodman: Mr.Zimmerman discussed a proposal by Mr. Goodman at the intersection of Lasher Avenue and Hogtrough Road of building two duplex buildings with two units in each, two bedroom. There is a fifty-foot right of way from County Route 8. The units would be on a common septic system and have adequate parking. Aldo Dusman believes it has to be a subdividable parcel for each unit unless he links them together in some way.
Andy Howard suggested that it could fall under the Planned Unit Development plan in the zoning ordinance. He would have to review the zoning, as there may be set back requirements. Also, Mr. Goodman would have to go the zoning board for a special permit.
Andy Howard and the board discussed the responsibilities of the Planning Board and the applicant in the planning process. Aldo Dusman read from last months meeting regarding time limits on subdivisions, when it goes from a minor subdivision to a major subdivision. Andy Howard looked into the issue on when a minor subdivision becomes a major subdivision. There is no limitation in the town ordinance nor is there one provided by the State on looking back on when a minor subdivision becomes a major subdivision. The applicant must take care not to put themselves in a position that they cannot subdivide. If they have a 100 acres and do a four-lot subdivision, and return four years later and want to do further, they can do it. If they don’t layout it out properly, the applicant is doing it at their peril. If done appropriately, they can do it. If you try to call it a major subdivision, you have no authority; they could bring action against the town.
If someone has a major subdivision, you can waive things in the code.
If they don’t have road frontage, you could require a public road.
Aldo asked if you don’t apply the zoning to one could you force it on another
As a planning board, each application is seen on a case by case basis. This is not selectively enforcing the code. Asked how it is applied effectively, Andy answered that the test would be whether the decision making you used was reasonable and had a rational basis. Jennifer Phillips asked if consistency would be a rational. Unless you had multiple applications that were exactly the same, each case is looked at differently. There may be circumstances that determined your decision.
Jennifer asked what the common look back period would be and should we put it in the code. There are varying time periods. It doesn’t mean they cannot develop it just means they have to call it a major subdivision.
Andy spoke about the application by William Cole and notices to adjoining landowners. One neighbor across the street has been to the Town Board and has said he did not receive notice of Mr. Cole’s lot line adjustment. The scheduled hearing was postponed, as stated in the minutes, so that proper notice could be given, and the hearing held the next month. At the public hearing, another neighbor did come to the public hearing and spoke about his concerns with the proposal of Mr. Cole. The suggestion that came out of the discussion at the Town Board meeting was for the planning board to assist in confirming that the notices are sent. Andy is suggesting to have either the Assessor, Town Clerk or John Fieser to help the applicant determine who is an adjoining landowner and a list be sent to the Planning Board, which can be compared to the certified receipts.
Aldo Dusman asked about public water systems and how many units you can have before it is required. George Schmitt said that it is the fifth hookup, which triggers a public water supply. There is an expensive draw-down and bacterial testing, which must be done.
A motion was made by Tom Jantzen, seconded by Jennifer Phillips to adjourn at 8:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Helen Shannon
Secretary