Town of Glenville
Planning and Zoning Commission
Monday, January 12, 2009
Glenville Municipal Center
18 Glenridge Road
Glenville, NY 12302
Present: Chairman Mike Carr, Walter Pryne, Tom Bodden, Jim Gibney, Mark Storti and Steve Marsh
Also Attending: Kevin Corcoran, Town Planner, Margaret Huff, Town Attorney, Paul Borsienko, Building Inspector, and Chris Flanders, Recording Secretary
1. Approval of the agenda as presented
Motion: W. Pryne Seconded: T. Bodden
Vote: Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Absent: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Approval of the minutes of the December 8, 2008 meeting
Motion: J. Gibney Seconded: W. Pryne
Vote: Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Absent: 0
MOTION CARRIED
2. Bordeau Builders Site Plan Review
69 Saratoga Road Final (Public Hearing)
Continued from December
The applicant is proposing to construct 16 condominium units in two eight-unit buildings as well as two five-stall garages. The property was recently rezoned by the Town Board to Residential Planned Development, thereby allowing the applicant to seek construction of condominiums instead of the previously-approved office building.
The applicant was represented by Donald Zee, the applicant’s attorney, and Jason Dell, Lansing Engineering. Mr. Bordeau was also present.
Mr. Zee stated that a third party consulting firm, Chazen Engineering, was asked to look at the submitted stormwater management plan and the lighting plan. He said the majority of the comments from Chazen were technical details. The applicant is in agreement with the changes and these have been shown on the revised plans that were delivered to the town. The lighting plan is waiting for a determination from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant had proposed an antique-look fixture; Chazen’s comments proposed a light that only allows light to shine downward. The applicant is willing to install whichever choice the PZC makes. He also said a letter has been received from NYS DOT, and the comments made were minor and technical in nature,
for example, measurements and descriptions. A letter of response has been sent to DOT accepting all of DOT’s comments.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 12, 2009
Page 2
M. Carr asked about the engineering review by Chazen. K. Corcoran said the review has been completed; Dana Gilgore, Engineering Department, has reviewed it and is discussing it with Jason Dell, the applicant’s engineer. Any outstanding issues are minor and are being resolved.
A brief discussion of the lighting ensued. Mr. Bordeau said it is a matter of preference and the Victorian-type lamp is consistent with the character of those in the neighboring Return development. He said there is no light spillage because the lights are in the center of the project except for one on the corner, which is over 200’ away from the nearest house. It was also determined that the brightness of these lights would not interfere with the airport. When asked about lighting the sign, J. Dell said there would be one light located on the ground, shining up on the sign.
As the public hearing was continued from December 2008, Chairman Carr asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. With no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
The Commission decided that the Victorian-style lighting is their preference.
MOTION
In the matter of the site plan review application by Bordeau Builders for construction of a 16-unit condominium project in two eight-unit buildings, as well as two five-stall garages, located at 69 Saratoga Road, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this application will not result in a significant potential adverse environmental impact. Consequently, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby issues a negative declaration.
Motion: M. Storti Seconded: T. Bodden
Vote: Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Absent: 0
MOTION CARRIED
MOTION
In the matter of the final site plan review application by Bordeau Builders for construction of a 16-unit condominium project in two eight-unit buildings, as well as two fine-stall garages, located at 69 Saratoga Road, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby conditionally approves the application. The Commission’s decision is based upon the following findings:
1. The proposed use does conform to other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, including, but not limited to, landscaping requirements, building design, off-street parking requirements, building setbacks, fence requirements, sign regulations, storm water management and erosion control requirements, etc.
2. The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical vehicular access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, curbing, and traffic controls.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 12, 2009
Page 3
3. The proposed use does exhibit satisfactory pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation, including separation of pedestrian traffic from automobile traffic, the placement and usefulness of potential, future, on-site sidewalks and walkways, the accommodation for pedestrians at adjacent street intersections, and overall pedestrian and bicyclist safety and convenience.
4. The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical location, arrangement, and setting of off-street parking and loading areas.
5. The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical placement, arrangement, size, and design of buildings, lighting, and signs.
6. The proposed use does demonstrate adequate provisions for the collection and/or disposal of storm water, sanitary waste, and garbage.
7. The proposed use will allow for adequate on-site snow plowing and snow storage.
Conditions of Approval:
1. The Victorian-style lighting design, Hadco exhibit C3069-DWG01, (attached to these minutes), is to be installed per the applicant’s lighting plan.
2. The applicant is to comply with Building Department regulations regarding signage; it is to include landscaping, using rock or vegetation around the sign base.
3. The applicant is to submit a recreation impact fee of $6,400 (16 units x $400).
4. A provision is made for future sidewalks per Schenectady County’s recommendation.
5. It is agreed that the stormwater management system will be owned and maintained by the condominium association.
Motion: M. Storti Seconded: T. Bodden
Vote: Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Absent: 0
MOTION CARRIED
3. Michael Crowley Site Plan Review
104A Heckeler Drive Final (Public Hearing)
This proposal is for an already existing accounting office on Heckeler Drive. The property is zoned Professional/Residential.
Gavin Vuillaume, Environmental Design Partnership, represented Mr. Crowley in this application. He said the building currently being used as an accounting office was originally approved as a bowling alley by the previous property owner. There are 3-4 employees in the building, and there are 10 parking spaces. A handicap parking space will be added. The building is on its own septic system, which was installed last summer. He added that Mr. Crowley is not requesting signage.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 12, 2009
Page 4
Chairman Carr then opened the hearing to the public. With no one wishing to speak regarding this application, the public hearing was closed.
Attorney Huff clarified that the address of the accounting office is 104A Heckeler Drive.
MOTION
In the matter of the site plan review application by Michael Crowley for an already existing accounting office located at 104A Heckeler Drive, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this application will not result in a significant potential adverse environmental impact. Consequently, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby issues a negative declaration.
Motion: M. Storti Seconded: T. Bodden
Vote: Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Absent: 0
MOTION CARRIED
MOTION
In the matter of the final site plan review application by Michael Crowley for an already existing accounting office located at 104A Heckeler Drive, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the application. The Commission’s decision is based upon the following findings:
1. The proposed use does conform to other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, including, but not limited to, landscaping requirements, building design, off-street parking requirements, building setbacks, fence requirements, sign regulations, storm water management and erosion control requirements, etc.
2. The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical vehicular access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, curbing, and traffic controls.
4. The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical placement, arrangement, size, and design of buildings, lighting, and signs.
5. The proposed use does provide for the adequate type and arrangement of trees, shrubs, and other landscaping elements, as they relate to visual and noise buffering of adjacent sites and the reduction of visual impacts from the street.
6. The proposed use does protect adjacent properties against noise, glare, light pollution, odors, litter, unsightliness, or other objectionable features.
Conditions of Approval:
None
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 12, 2009
Page 5
Motion: M. Storti Seconded: J. Gibney
Vote: Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Absent: 0
MOTION CARRIED
4. HB & I, LLC Site Plan Review
174 Saratoga Road Final (Public Hearing)
This item involves a site plan review application for an already existing law office and instructional services on the northeast corner of Route 50 and Lincoln Drive. The property in question is zoned Professional/Residential.
Gil VanGuilder was present to address the Commission regarding this application. He said that the property was a single-family residence, but is now being used as an attorney’s office and an office for the provider of business management instructional services. The building is on a pre-existing non-conforming lot. An area variance has been granted for the parking lot setback from the residential property to the north. A condition of the ZBA approval is that a mixture of 12 white pines and spruce trees are used as screening for the neighboring property, which will require the planting of six additional trees.
To address stormwater management, G. VanGuilder said a mowable recharge area to the east of the parking lot is provided to accept surface runoff. The soils in the area are sandy.
G. VanGuilder added that additional parking will be available in the existing residential driveway; the garage will continue to be used by the occupants of the building.
There is an existing cedar tree row which will remain as a buffer for the neighbors. The building is served by public water and public sewer.
When asked, G. VanGuilder said the instructional services business is primarily management training, which takes place off-site. The attorney on site has a law office in the New York City area, as well, and this is a part-time location for him. No signage is being requested at this time.
Chairman Carr opened the hearing to the public. With no on wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Carr noted that the Commission had no issues with this application at the agenda meeting.
Town Planner Kevin Corcoran noted that sidewalks are indicated in the town center area per the Town Center Master Plan, and this parcel is the last property in that area going southward on Route 50. Discussion followed regarding actual construction of a sidewalk, the escrow of monies to finance the construction of sidewalks in the future, performance bonds, and the room required for construction of a sidewalk.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 12, 2009
Page 6
Attorney Huff asked Mr. VanGuilder if his client would agree to extend the time period required for action beyond the 62-day period after the public hearing is closed to allow time to establish the performance bond. G. VanGuilder agreed to that extension.
MOTION
In the matter of the final site plan review application by HB & I, LLC for an already existing law office and an office for an instructional services business, both located in the same building at 174 Saratoga Road, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this application will not result in a significant potential adverse environmental impact. Consequently, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby issues a negative declaration.
Motion: M. Storti Seconded: T. Bodden
Vote: Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Absent: 0
MOTION CARRIED
MOTION
In the matter of the final site plan review application by HB & I, LLC for an already existing law office and an office for an instructional services business, both located in the same building at 174 Saratoga Road, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby conditionally approves the application. The Commission’s decision is based upon the following findings:
1. The proposed use does conform to other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, including, but not limited to, landscaping requirements, building design, off-street parking requirements, building setbacks, fence requirements, sign regulations, storm water management and erosion control requirements, etc.
2. The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical vehicular access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, curbing, and traffic controls.
3. The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical location, arrangement, and setting of off-street parking and loading areas.
4. The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical placement, arrangement, size, and design of buildings, lighting, and signs.
Conditions of Approval:
1. The approval conditions imposed by the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding landscaping are to be met.
2. The sidewalk plan and layout design will be shown on the plan and that a performance bond to develop that sidewalk is established. The sidewalk is required to be completed when the adjacent property to the north installs a sidewalk and will be an extension thereof. A note stating this
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 12, 2009
Page 7
condition of approval is to be added to the map. Furthermore, the amount of the performance bond is to be agreed upon by the Town.
Motion: M. Storti Seconded: W. Pryne
Vote: Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Absent: 0
MOTION CARRIED
5. Ronold Woodbeck Site Plan Review
491 Saratoga Road Final (Public Hearing)
The applicant is proposing to open a day care facility in the vacant former school building on the southwest corner of Route 50 and Gleason Road. This parcel is zoned Professional/Residential.
The applicant, Ronold Woodbeck, and his business partner, Kurtis Zarnofsky, were present to answer any questions the Commission or pubic may have.
Mr. Zarnofsky explained the changes to parking and ingress/egress to the property that were requested at the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting now shown on the revised map.
M. Carr read two letters that have been received about this application. One was in favor of the application and the second expressed concern regarding traffic issues at an already busy intersection. The letters are attached and made part of these minutes.
It was reiterated that the applicant will install a new septic system, as there is every probability that the existing one will not function properly.
Mr. Woodbeck stated the majority of the traffic at his site is expected to be between 6:30 am and 8:00 am. The school bus schedule will be determined by Burnt Hills Schools, and that route is currently being discussed with their transportation department.
Dr. Sandman, Glenville Dental, whose office is located across from the property on Gleason Road, said he is glad to see the building put to some good use.
T. Bodden reminded the group that this building was once a school in previous years.
M. Carr asked about indoor environmental issues. Mr. Zarnofsky said asbestos and lead paint have been addressed and the wood floors will be refinished. Day care facilities are governed by the Office of Children and Family Services and the applicants have been consulting with them
Mr. Woodbeck said at full staff, he would employ 10 to 12 people. After discussion, it was determined that parking is shown for 11 cars; parking for 15 is required for this use. The applicant needs to show an area for proposed expansion if necessary, adequate circulation, plus a note regarding both on the plan.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 12, 2009
Page 8
S. Marsh suggested revised maps be black and white in color for best reproduction and legibility.
Chairman Carr then opened the public hearing.
Nancy Garmley, 4 Gleason Road, stated that she is anxious to see something done with the building, but she is concerned with traffic, citing Gleason Road as a thoroughfare and the traffic congestion created by Pashley Road. She asked that a ‘no-right on red’ sign be considered for the Pashley Road and Route 50 intersection. K. Corcoran said he will contact the Traffic Safety Committee with her suggestion.
When asked about children playing outside, Mrs. Garmley was assured that the playground area will be fenced and to the south side of the property.
With no one wishing to speak further, the public hearing was closed.
Discussion followed regarding the sign. Mr. Zarnofsky said the sign will remain in the same location, and may not be lighted. He will work with the Building Department to comply with regulations.
T. Bodden stated he is actually more concerned with the safety of the drop-off area than with parking.
S. Marsh suggested the applicant show the maximum asphalt area and show striping for 15 parking spaces.
M. Carr summarized what the Commission is looking for as:
1. - eliminate colors on the site plan
2. - show maximum parking expansion/paving with 15 parking spaces marked, and circulation patterns
3. - show fencing
4. - show the sign
5. - add a note regarding removal of internal lighting from the sign
Mr. Marsh extended his thanks to the applicants for their cooperation during this application, which was seconded by M. Carr.
It was agreed that the applicant would return to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the February meeting.
6. Jonathan G. Zampella Site Plan Review
427 Saratoga Road (Preliminary)
The applicant is seeking site plan approval for a salon. The property is located on the west side of Route 50, adjacent to the East Glenville Fire Department property on the south. The property is zoned Community Business.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 12, 2009
Page 9
Mr. Zampella was present and corrected the spelling of his name. The agenda should read John Zampella.
Mr. Zampella explained he purchased this three bedroom property to convert into a hair salon for his wife and daughter’s business. He will be applying for a variance for parking in front of the building. There are currently four parking spaces and he will require an additional four, plus one being for handicapped patrons. He will install a new septic system and will connect to town water.
Mr. Zampella said he is requesting ‘over-sizing’ for the business by asking for approval for a four-chair salon. He will be installing three chairs at this time, and only two chairs will actually be used. In looking forward to possible future expansion, he is sizing the septic, parking, etc. for the eventual maximum number of four chairs.
The property is well treed and Mr. Zampella said the existing row of trees would stay intact as much as possible given any required parking and the septic design. The sign, if lighted, would be externally lit. For parking lot lighting, he plans on spot lights on the front of the house instead of pole lighting. P. Borisenko reminded him that any glare cannot bleed off the property interfering with traffic or the property across the street.
Mr. Zampella clarified the project is for four chairs and two sinks.
MOTION
In the matter of the preliminary site plan review application by John Zampella for a 4-cahir hair salon, located at 429 Saratoga Road, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby conditionally approves the application.
Conditions of preliminary approval are as follows:
1. Any lighting utilized will produce no glare or spill off the property, adversely impacting traffic or neighboring properties; a note to that fact is to be added to the plan.
2. A variance for parking in front of the building is granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
3. The sign location and construction of the type of sign is to be shown.
4. A total of ten parking spaces are to be shown on the plan.
5. The property is to be connected to public water before a certificate of occupancy is issued.
The Commission hereby schedules a public hearing for February 9, 2009 to consider the final site plan review application for this particular project. However, in order for the Commission to schedule a public hearing for February 9th, nine (9) copies of the revised site plan must be submitted to the Town of Glenville Planning Department no later than 14 calendar days prior to the public hearing date.
Motion: M. Storti Seconded: W. Pryne
Vote: Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Absent: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 12, 2009
Page 10
7. Richard DiCresce, Jr. Site Plan Review
178 Freemans Bridge Road (Preliminary)
The applicant is seeking site plan approval for a used-car sales business. The parcel is located on the east side of Freemans Bridge Road, adjacent to the Schenectady County Airport and just north of the Envy Salon. The property is zoned General Business.
Mr. DiCresce was represented by Gil Van Guilder, VanGuilder Associates. G. VanGuilder stated that since the last time the Commission had seen this project, legislation has been passed by the Town Board to allow the one-time transfer of a non-conforming use to another property in a General Business zone.
G. VanGuilder said Mr. DiCresce’s previous site was approved for 29 cars plus 4 customer parking spaces. From 1992 to the present, that number was increased to 65 cars without permission. This application is asking for 53 parking spaces for display of used vehicles. G. VanGuilder said he had met with the building department and acknowledges that this plan does not meet the required 25’ setback. Twenty-five feet in the front of the property must be green space.
G. VanGuilder said what Mr. DiCresce would like to do is obtain feedback from this Board, and then approach the Zoning Board of Appeals for some of the variances. He said the property was used in the 1990’s by Salisbury Chevrolet as a car sales facility and in 1998 until recently by Enterprise Car Rental.
M. Carr stated this application has been in the forefront recently. Variances need to be applied for and Chairman Carr stated that this application “will be treated as every application and this is to be clear for the record.” He asked Attorney Huff for clarification of the change of town law regarding a displaced business being allowed a one-time move. He asked if the original approval at the applicant’s previous site was for 33 total vehicles, does the law allow the expansion of that 33 vehicle limit. Ms. Huff said that would be an expansion of a non-conforming use, and a variance would need to be granted to do so.
G. VanGuilder asked if there is a threshold or percentage of expansion of a non-conforming use that would not trigger a use variance. Ms. Huff said no. She added that this new legislation provides for three conditions in order for this law to be applicable, those conditions being that the property being vacated to accommodate a planned development, that the property to be occupied is currently being used as a similar use, and the one-time relocation will happen within one year. She asked K. Corcoran if this application meets those three criteria. K. Corcoran answered yes.
M. Carr summarized by saying the applicant is seeking a variance for the additional vehicles, a variance for setbacks on the front and the side, and the expansion area in the rear of the building. He asked why the rear expansion was done. G. VanGuilder said the 20 spots shown are for expansion parking outside of the existing pavement. He said Mr. DiCresce had a copy of the lease agreement between Salisbury Realty and Enterprise that said there were 53 parking spaces. He said Mr. DiCresce was under the impression that it was approved for 53 parking spaces. That was agreement between Salisbury Realty and Enterprise Rental, not involving the Town of Glenville. G. VanGuilder went on to say the building inspector showed the condition of approval to him and they were limited to 29 vehicles. In
1998, Enterprise Rental was approved for 20 spaces. The number of 53 vehicles was not relevant to the Town of Glenville; it was a
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 12, 2009
Page 11
contractual number that Salisbury Realty wrote into the lease agreement. The Glenville Environmental Conservation limited the site to 50 vehicles, based generally on this plan. “This has become very complicated.”
T. Bodden said to avoid confusion and misrepresentation, the 20 spaces should be eliminated. The Commission needs to see this non-conforming use on the map and then go for variances before the ZBA.
G. VanGuilder said that this is a wish list; how the applicant wants to use the site.
T. Bodden said to see something like this with no setbacks at all – he “doesn’t see how this can fly.”
Chairman Carr reiterated his previous statement that this will be treated like any other application; the Commission is not going to look at it until the variances are granted. The setbacks and the number of vehicles have to be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
S. Marsh stated that the Commission is in agreement and asked if the applicant agrees that in transferring the use, it is approved for 33 parking spaces, of which are 29 cars for sale. Mr. DiCresce and Mr. VanGuilder stated that they are in agreement. S. Marsh then asked if the number of vehicles on the site now conforms to the number of 29. The response was “No.” S. Marsh asked “are we physically going to see the number of vehicles on that site conform to the 29, which is the approved use?” Mr. DiCresce said he wants to conform. S. Marsh asked if during the next week or two, if one of the Commission members drove by the site and counted, would they see no more than 29 cars, and Mr. DiCresce said, “That could happen.”
S. Marsh clarified that any more than 29 cars would technically be a violation; 29 cars are what is legal. Mr. DiCresce said he might be a couple cars over the 29. One is his plow truck. He said he has moved the cars away from the airport boundary, and that the snow takes up a lot of room. He has his old inventory, which is 65 cars. “I brought some to various other locations, like Salisbury and Frank & Sons, but once there were snow removal issues we brought them all back. I’ve wholesaled some of them in the meantime.”
Mr. DiCresce also said he would be improving the property. In the fall he put in some plants. He said he “was going to side the place, but the brick looks real good;” he will probably paint it. The inside will be retro, like a museum. He’s going to buy a 50’s soda fountain, 1930’s gas pumps, and a Coke machine. He has 7 or 8 antique cars and would like to have storage for them in the future.
M. Carr said he has several concerns: with the advent of this new legislation, the relocated business to this property needs to conform to what was approved for the previous, second, applying to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding setbacks, and for the number of vehicles if that is what the applicant wants. There are also questions about sidewalks, lighting, and landscaping in relation to the Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan. The Commission is not ready to move forward on this application with the number of changes that are being requested.
M. Carr reminded the applicant that the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to uphold the zoning in the town. What is on the books is what the Commission goes by.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 12, 2009
Page 12
Mr. DiCresce asked if he did not ask for more cars or change to the setbacks, could he get approval at this meeting. Mr. Carr explained the plan submitted does not meet the required setbacks now, so that is not possible.
M. Storti asked about the carport that is shown on the plan to the rear of the building. P. Borisenko said a carport is considered a temporary structure if it is not up for over 6 months in a one-year period. If it is up all the time, a building permit is required. Mr. DiCresce said he will talk to Mr. Borisenko about that; he brought it from his previous place of business. M. Storti asked that the carport be shown either as temporary or permanent, meeting all setbacks, etc.
M. Storti asked if the applicant plans to use the existing sign. Mr. DiCresce said he will use it, but having listened to previous applications, will not have it lit from within. M. Storti said the Commission will need to see a sign design that meets the Freemans Bridge Road Master Plan. The landscaping and the lighting need to meet the master plan, as well. He asked if the applicant proposes any pole lighting, and G. VanGuilder said the applicant is not requesting any pole lighting at this time. M. Storti further explained that it must be shown that the lighting will not produce any spillage, especially affecting the airport.
G. VanGuilder confirmed that the property is served by public water and sewers.
K. Corcoran noted that in addition to site plan, the applicant needs to provide a use variance application if he is looking to expand the use beyond 29 vehicles on the lot.
S. Marsh reminded the applicant that at this time, there should be no more than 29 vehicles for sale on the premises.
It was agreed by the applicant and the Commission to continue this application at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting following the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
The next meeting of the Town of Glenville Planning and Zoning Commission is to be held on Monday, February 9, 2009. The agenda meeting will be held on Monday, February 2, 2009. With no further items on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Submitted by Chris Flanders, Stenographer: Filed with Linda Neals, Town Clerk:
_________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
| 
