PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
TOWN OF GLENVILLE
18 GLENRIDGE ROAD
GLENVILLE, NY 12302
November 9, 2015
Present: Michael Carr, Chairman, Patrick Ragucci, James Gibney, Tim
Yosenick and Kurt Semon
Also Attending: Paul Borisenko, Building Inspector, Kevin Corcoran,
Town Planner, Peg Huff, Attorney, Christopher Koetzle, Supervisor and Joelle Ventrice, Stenographer
Absent: Thomas Bodden
Meeting called to order at 7:03 pm.
MOTION to approve Agenda:
Moved by: K. Semon
Seconded by: T. Yosenick
Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 Motion Approved
MOTION to approve minutes from October 19, 2015 meeting:
Moved by: P. Ragucci
Seconded by: K. Semon
Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 Motion Approved
Added agenda item – Oakwood Hospitality/Hilton Homewood Suites:
Oakwood Hospitality, the applicants for the Hilton Homewood Suites project, requested approval to extend the final site plan filing deadline by 62 days, to January 11, 2016. The applicant is waiting for FEMA approval.
Moved by: M. Carr
Seconded by: K. Semon
Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 Motion Approved
Jason Berggren for Current Electrical Systems Inc. Site Plan Review
NYS Route 5 and Washout Road (Final) Public Hearing
The applicant is proposing to establish an electrical contractor office, warehouse and yard for the storage of equipment and materials on a vacant 4.6-acre parcel on the northeast corner of Amsterdam Road and Washout Road. The property is zoned “Highway Commercial.”
M. Carr said that they received a referral from Schenectady County and they offered comments about the slope of the proposed driveway. They recommend that the slope be shown on the site plan. The slope of the proposed driveway appears to be in excess of 20%, but it should not exceed 8% generally.
Discussion followed regarding the driveway slope and the concern about getting on and off Route 5 safely.
M. Carr noted that DOT approves the highway access in this instance.
J. Berggren indicated that the proposed dumpster is now shown on the site plan.
M. Carr instructed the applicant to have DOT look at the grade of the driveway prior to the applicant doing any work on it. A curb cut already exists for the property, but it is not clear if the curb cut was ever permitted by DOT.
The public hearing was then opened.
Bob Bochniewicz, 202 Washout Road, spoke. He stated that he owns the property north of the tracks. He was wondering about the parking lot lights and how many trees are going to be taken down. He also stated that he didn’t know about this project until he received this letter.
J. Berggren stated his building is going to be a couple hundred feet from the railroad tracks.
B. Bochniewicz asked about how many trees will be taken down.
J. Berggren said he will leave some near the ditch.
B. Bochniewicz said that he is concerned with the wind once the lot is cleared. The wind will catch those trees and may actually knock them down. He stated that he had the same problem on his property when National Grid came and clear-cut the line. The wind took down 17 of his trees subsequent to the National Grid work.
M. Carr said that there is a significant area that is controlled by the Railroad. He asked the applicant to characterize the vegetation to the rear of his property, in the setback area just south of the railroad. J. Berggren answered that there are a lot of trees in this location; primarily Locusts and Black Walnuts, about 8-12 inches in diameter.
M. Carr asked if he could save some of these trees. J. Berggren answered yes.
P. Ragucci asked about the lighting. Mr. Berggren answered that there are 2 pole lights on the west side and south side. Asked about the direction of the lighting, Mr. Berggren said the lights will be aimed downward.
The public hearing was closed at this point.
MOTION
In the matter of the final site plan review application by Jason Berggren for Current Electrical Systems, Inc. for an electrical contractor office, warehouse and yard for the storage of equipment and materials located at NYS Route 5 and Washout Road, the PZC hereby conditionally approves the application. The Commission’s decision is based upon the following findings:
- 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.
- The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical vehicular access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, curbing, and traffic controls.
- 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 on-site sidewalks and walkways, the accommodation for pedestrians at adjacent street intersections, and overall pedestrian and bicyclist safety and convenience.
- The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical location, arrangement, and setting of off-street parking and loading areas.
- The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical placement, arrangement, size and design of buildings, lighting and signs.
- 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.
- The proposed use does demonstrate adequate provisions for the collection and/or disposal of storm water, sanitary waste and garbage.
- The proposed use will allow for adequate on-site snow plowing and snow storage.
- The proposed use does demonstrate adequacy and durability of structures, roadways, utilities and landscaping in areas with moderate to high susceptibility to flooding, ponding and/or erosion.
- The proposed use does retain existing trees and vegetation for aesthetic reasons, and minimize soil erosion and siltation.
- The proposed use does protect adjacent properties against noise, glare, light pollution, odors, litter, unsightliness or other objectionable features.
- The proposed use does provide suitable open space for buffering and/or recreation purposes.
Conditions of Approval:
- The site plan is to be amended to identify the grade of the proposed driveway.
- The applicant needs to coordinate with NYSDOT on the proposed driveway and secure a curb cut permit if required. Town Planning staff will initiate the discussion with DOT.
- The applicant shall preserve as many trees along his northern property line as possible to buffer his proposed business from the residence to the north of the railroad tracks.
MOTION:
Moved by: K. Semon
Seconded by: T. Yosenick
Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 Motion Approved
Michael Cellini Modification to Previously-
2575 Johnson Road & Weatherwax Rd. Approved Site Plan
The applicant is requesting modification of an approved site plan that was issued on August 10, 2015 for a seasonal zip line adventure course. The proposed amendment would increase the designated area for the adventure course from just under an acre to 3.37 acres.
Michael Cellini Minor (2-lot) Subdivision
2575 Johnson Road & Weatherwax Rd. (Preliminary)
The applicant is seeking minor subdivision approval to divide his property into two lots. One lot would consist of 7.7 acres, and it would include the existing single-family home. The second lot would consist of 42.2 acres, and it would contain the adventure course. Both properties are zoned “Rural Residential and Agricultural.”
M. Carr stated to the crowd attending that tonight is not a public hearing and this Commission will not act on anything tonight due to the fact that there are a lot of unanswered questions that we will hopefully get answer to.
M. Cellini passed out a packet to all Commission members and staff present.
M. Cellini read a statement to the Commission explaining why he is here today.
- Requesting subdivision of property at 2575 Johnson Road
- Address a misunderstanding not a change to his original plan
- Diagrams handed to the Commission tonight show the original approximate course area and the new staked out area by the surveyor
- Course is still in the same area, except for some minor deviations
- Survey shows his property line 35-40 feet more east than originally presented
- Actual course is even further away from the neighbor to the south
- Surveyed area shows the whole boundary to illustrate where guy wires and walking paths are located
- Surveyed area is not an increase in the size of the course. Always been shown as similar to Adirondack Supreme, but smaller
- 40 elements and zip lines
- New diagram shows actual tree locations and mimics what was presented prior
- The new layout is much shorter from end-to-end than the original proposal
- Zip A and Zip H are at the very edge of the course
- Entire course will sit between those trees
- New design is smaller in area than previously proposed
- Not here tonight to ask for anything more than I have ever originally planned
- I’m asking the Commission to drop the site plan portion of this submittal and consider his subdivision
- Regarding the subdivision request, I realize that coming back a second time is frowned upon, but had I known I needed it to be subdivided, I would have made the request before
- Not advised until recently by my Attorney that I should subdivide to buffer his house from the course for liability reasons
- Told by bank, need to subdivide to receive SPA loan
M. Carr stated that he appreciated this submittal. This does seem to clear things from their perspective. He stated he does understand that the final layout is dependant on someone coming out and looking at the trees. We also understand that there are going to modifications to the course. Also, the board would like to see where the guy wires are to be located. And would also like to see where the trails are on the map.
M. Carr asked, based on looking at the new diagram presented tonight, why the need to expand?
M. Cellini answered that when his surveyor came out, he wanted to give himself as much room as possible since we don’t know where the guy wires will be located just yet. The course will still remain about the same size, however
M. Carr questioned “how do you expect us to review/approve something that we think will be here? He also stated that there are concerns from the neighbors. This Commission needs as much information as you can give us, including where the guy wires and course elements will be located. This is a good start, but we still need more.
K. Semon asked about the new diagram and where the placement for guy wires, paths, etc will be.
M. Cellini showed the board that that is pretty close to what was originally proposed.
M. Carr asked the applicant why he didn’t originally show the larger area first.
M. Cellini said that until we get to look at the trees and determine how much stress can be put on them, we can’t pinpoint the location of the guy wires.
M. Carr said he is not concerned with the guy wires as they will be in the trees. We won’t see them and they don’t make noise.
M. Carr also stated that this is a good start, but we want to see more detail than this.
P. Ragucci stated his concern regarding the subdivision. The Commission looked at the noise, traffic patterns and impact area of the course. My personal concern is that I was more comfortable going forward knowing that you were living on the property. This changes my comfort level. There is more risk if you are not living on the site.
M. Carr stated that he understands the liability concern. You might focus on it a bit more if you lived on the property. If you subdivide and split it off, there might be less focus, and more willingness to sell the course.
J. Gibney understands the concerns of the Commission, but he noted that someone could buy the property and build houses on it. And if the adventure course property was sold and the new owner wanted to change or expand the course, they would have to come back before the Commission anyway.
K. Semon stated that this is based on a business plan and the business plan didn’t note concerns that are being brought before us now. He’s worried that in a few months, more concerns will come down that need to be addressed as the business model is not fully completed.
M. Cellini said that the company insuring the Zip Line business will insure the house and now is saying they cannot insure both if they’re on the same property. These were unknowns before and now I come to you for the subdivision.
J. Gibney pointed out that there is no requirement that says that the one who owns the property has to live on it.
M. Carr said that from a liability point, this makes complete sense. This is a process; this is the way it is.
M. Carr says that moving forward; we will like to see a proposed development in the diagram. What is causing the need for so much more area dedicated to the course?
M. Cellini answered that he doesn’t need all the extra space, but the surveyor came in first and identified an area to work with. The green area on the map is the actual course area.
Discussion regarding the course area/course surveyed area ensued.
T. Yosenick noted that when looking at the new diagram, anything outside the green box needs to stay inside the original area.
M. Cellini said that he is showing exactly what the PZC asked of him. I gave myself a comfortable working area and the Commission can hold me to those limits.
M. Carr stated again that he just wants to see a plan that identifies where the walking paths, guy wires, and course elements will be located. He’s not trying to be complicated, he just wants to see these items on paper because what we are approving is on paper.
K. Semon said he would like a statement of what the guy wire system will be and that the guy wires will be within the trapezoid.
P. Huff asked if we ever got a copy of the survey that was done. K. Corcoran answered yes.
M. Carr said that in regards to the subdivision, you can do whatever you want to do on your land. We weren’t under the impression that this was going to be done. It changes the dynamics.
M. Carr also stated that the applicant has identified/flagged trees as potential stations and guy wire anchors. Why can’t you place the green box around where they are now and see where that is in regards to setbacks?
He also stated that maybe you could re-orient the green box to include the entire proposed course.
M. Cellini said that approximately 1/3 of the original box isn’t even being used for the course. This is an approximation. This is what I originally proposed.
K. Corcoran said that we haven’t received the zoning referral from the County yet for either the revised site plan application or the subdivision application.
P. Borisenko noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), when previously reviewing and approving the conditional use permit for this project, gave some latitude to the applicant to adjust the course layout and shape subsequent to conditional use permit approval. Provided the use doesn’t change and the parking lot doesn’t expand, and if the course doesn’t significantly increase in scope, the ZBA does not need to reconsider the conditional use permit. The ZBA did impose a condition, though, that an as-built map/plan be submitted for ZBA verification.
M. Carr and the Commission members opted to table both the revised site plan and subdivision applications pending submission of a revised/more detailed site plan.
Backyard Shed Company, Inc. Site Plan Review
658 Saratoga Road Preliminary
This application calls for the establishment of a shed and gazebo retail business on the property formerly occupied by the Creekside Café, which was destroyed by fire in 2014. This proposal includes establishment of a new building- a carriage house-type structure- that will serve as the office. Sheds that are for sale will be stored outdoors on the property. As proposed, at a minimum, a front yard setback area variance would be required, as well as variances for insufficient green buffers along the front and side yards.
Fred Becker was in attendance to present this application. He stated that they are currently located at 800 Saratoga Road, Burnt Hills, NY. We have been in business for 3 years. We have sheds, gazebos, some garages, and no permanent structures. There will be a carriage-style structure for the office and an apartment upstairs.
M. Carr said they need variances and a 25 ft. buffer for the parking lot, 2 pavement-free buffers that need variances.
F. Becker said the first floor is sales/office with a garage and the second floor will be an apartment.
M. Carr asked how many sheds will be on the property. Mr. Becker answered about 30-35.
K. Semon stated that most of the sheds will be in the rear of the property. The applicant noted that the goal is to use the front and side (left side rear) for display of the sheds/gazebos.
F. Becker said that they will be asking for 10 ft. of green space near neighbors, understanding a need for a variance.
T. Yosenick asked what the hours of operation are. Answered: closed mostly Jan and Feb, primarily opened M-F, 10-5pm, Sat, 10-4pm and Sun, 10-2pm.
F. Becker said that the grease traps have been de-commissioned.
P. Borisenko stated the trap was pumped out and filled with sand.
K. Semon asked if they are keeping the existing asphalt as is, not adding to it. Mr. Becker answer no, they are not adding to it.
J. Gibney asked if they will be using the current entrance. The answer was yes.
J. Gibney also asked about the number of parking spaces. P. Borisenko said that they are in compliance with our code relative to allotted parking spaces.
MOTION
In the matter of the preliminary site plan review application by Backyard Shed Company, Inc., to be located at 658 Saratoga Road, formerly occupied by the Creekside Café, the PZC finds that this application will not result in a significant potential adverse environmental impact. Consequently, the PZC hereby issues a SEQR Negative Declaration.
Moved by: M. Carr
Seconded by: K. Semon
Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 Motion Approved
MOTION
In the matter of the preliminary site plan review application by Backyard Shed Company, Inc. for establishment of a shed and gazebo retail business at 658 Saratoga Road, formerly occupied by the Creekside Café, which was destroyed by fire in 2014, the PZC hereby conditionally approves the application.
The Commission hereby schedules a public hearing for December 14, 2015 to consider the final site plan review application for this particular project.
Conditions of preliminary approval are as follows:
- Document that the grease trap is empty.
- Obtain variances from the ZBA regarding setbacks, buffer, and parking.
- Verify existing curb cuts with DOT.
- Identify gravel on the green space for displays of sheds/gazebos
The Commission hereby schedules a public hearing for December 14, 2015 to consider the final site plan review application for this particular project. However, in order for the Commission to schedule a public hearing for December 14, 2015, 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.
Moved by: M. Carr
Seconded by: K. Semon
Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 Motion Approved
Fred Ogle Zoning Map Amendment
651 Saratoga Road Recommendation to the
Town Board
The applicant’s 0.35-acre property at 651 Saratoga Road, which is occupied by the former Explorer’s Post cabin, is presently split-zoned, with the front 45% being zoned “General Business” and the rear 55% being zoned “Land Conservation.” The cabin is located within the “Land Conservation”-zoned portion of the property. The applicant wishes to have the entire property zoned as “General Business” in order to allow commercial use of the cabin. The “Land Conservation” zoning district boundary is meant to follow the boundaries of the 100-year floodplain. However, recent revisions of the Floodplain Maps resulted in a smaller amount of floodplain on this property.
Fred Ogle was in attendance and spoke regarding this application. He stated that as the property stands now, it has no use. He would like the zoning changed to the same as the front portion of the property.
M. Carr asked the applicant what he wants to do with the property. He also asked about the feasibility of installing a septic system.
F. Ogle stated that he has no running water in the cabin. If approved, he would like to bring water service to the cabin.
M. Carr stated that if Mr. Ogle wants a commercial operation or if the public will be using this, the County Health Dept. and/or NYS may need to issue permits.
M. Carr said that rezoning to the more intense “General Business” designation allows much more opportunity for larger/higher intensity uses to come to the property.
M. Carr noted that Mr. Ogle doesn’t know what he wants to use the property for. So how can we make a recommendation?
K. Semon asked the applicant if the Town needs to review the “Land Conservation” zoning in its entirety since the floodplain has changed.
P. Borisenko said that the “Land Conservation” zoning designation follows the floodplain, and it will need to be adjusted in various locations throughout the Town to reflect the new floodplain mapping by FEMA.
M. Carr said that the issue is whoever occupies this building, the infrastructure doesn’t support this. The leach field must be located at least 100 feet away from the stream, which greatly limits commercial use of the property.
M. Carr also asked the applicant if he would like approval first, and then have a choice of multiple uses for the property? The applicant answered yes, he wants this done legally before he starts anything.
M. Carr referenced the need for a curb cut on Route 50, in addition to the issues regarding sanitary facilities for this property. He noted that other agencies must review these items, not just the Town.
MOTION
In the mater of the zoning amendment application by Fred Ogle for the property located at 651 Saratoga Road, the PZC recommends that the Town Board approve the rezoning from “Land Conservation” to “General Business.”
Factors that the Town Board may want to consider:
- Consider applying the “Land Conservation” zoning to match the revised floodplain on the property, which is significantly narrower than originally shown. This takes the building out of the floodplain and “Land Conservation” area and puts it into the “General Business”-zoned area.
- NYSDOT approval will be required for any new curb cuts or work within the Route 50 right-of-way.
- This property has limited development potential due to the absence of public water at the moment and the area restrictions on the property for placement of a septic system. However, both of these issues fall primarily under the purview of the County and/or State Health Department, not the Town.
The Town Board may want to consider leaving the zoning of the remaining floodplain portion of Mr. Ogle’s property as “Land Conservation”, and change the remainder of the parcel to “General Business.” This is consistent with our practice throughout the Town. The floodplain on Mr. Ogle’s property occupies 9.1% of his parcel.
Moved by: M. Carr
Seconded by: K. Semon
Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 Motion Approved
Homeland Security & Public Safety Consortium Informal Site
Barhydt Road Plan Review and
SEQR Rec. to the
Town Board
This proposal involves the opening of a multi-use firearms range facility on the Town of Glenville property that was formerly used as a municipal landfill. Approximately 3.5 acres of the 73.4-acre site would be dedicated to the firing range. The property is located north of Barhydt Road and the railroad tracks, and east of Wagner Road. The property is zoned “Rural Residential and Agricultural.”
Jack McDonald and Tom Bates were in attendance for this application. This facility is adjacent to the actual filled area of the landfill and out of the way. This will benefit the community.
M. Carr asked about the firing of bullets. Are there any issues of lead reclamation with the bullets? Applicant answered that they hired an outside consultant; handling this issue.
M. Carr said he is concerned regarding the lead. Maybe not in 10 or 20 years, but in the future, it could be an issue.
K. Semon asked what kinds of weapons will be used. It was answered pistols, revolvers, rifles and shot guns. It is a closed range for law enforcement. No automatic weapons.
M. Carr asked how far away are you from the closest residence? It was answered 1,000 ft. to Wagner Road and 3,000 ft. to Vley Road.
M. Carr asked if there will be any issues regarding stray bullets. The answer was no. The firing range is aligned for downward bullet trajectory.
T. Yosenick asked if weapons will be stored on site. It was answered no, take in, take out. Nothing on site.
M. Carr also asked about the landfill construction. The firing range appears to impact where the landfill is on the site plan. How are you planning on removing the material? How is it going to affect the long-term monitoring of the landfill per DEC? Is the landfill capped, and if so, will the repeated effect of the bullets disturb the cap? The applicant should determine if the proposed firing range complies with the DEC Landfill Closure Plan. We would also like to see on the site plan where the firing range is to be located in relation to the cap and filled area. Finally, the Town of Glenville should assume no liability in association with the firing range.
M. Carr has questions regarding digging into a closed landfill. Does DEC need to approve it? What are you going to do with the refuse?
Discussion followed regarding exactly where the proposed range will be located relative to the refuse area. According to the applicant, the range will not disturb the filled area or cap.
M. Carr asked about the hours of operation. It was answered 9:00 a.m. to 9:30/10:00 p.m. There will be times where there might be twilight shooting, but most of the firing will occur between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., with selective occasional shooting to occur on Saturdays for tournaments or training.
M. Carr asked about noise/sound. Looks like you will be below grade, which will certainly help. Are there existing noise studies to determine potential impacts on neighbors? The applicants answered that a noise study has been done. During their measurements a concrete mixing truck drove by and that made more noise than our shooting. This report shows that noise is less than 70 decibels - dB(A) at the nearest homes.
J. Gibney stated that the Town’s noise standards are applied to the property line, not the road or residence.
P. Borisenko stated we limit noise to 75 dB(A) at the property line.
M. Carr asked if there are any mitigations measures that you could take after the fact, if you had to.
Applicants answered that the natural setting will help out. The wall construction will also help.
J. Gibney stated that as he looks at the property line immediately west of the firing range, it appears that noise from the range is going to be over the 75 dB(A) level. If they are over that level, will they have to go to the ZBA for a variance?
M. Carr said that they are concerned about the noise level at the property lines, particularly the closest property line to the west. This is a great use of the property. But, if you are 90 decibels here, how can we approve if it isn’t in compliance with the zoning requirements?
P. Huff asked if there is anything in the Landfill Closure Plan from DEC that limits the use of the landfill property. Answered, no review, no requirements.
More discussion regarding noise levels followed.
K. Semon asked about the existing building. Will it have septic and water? The applicant answered that it will be on the site plan.
K. Semon asked about security, alarms, lighting and parking.
M. Carr asked if shooting ranges are listed as an allowed use in the RA zoning district, where the landfill is located. K. Corcoran answered that shooting ranges aren’t specifically listed as an allowed use, but educational facilities are permitted. The Town needs to determine if a firing range qualifies as an educational facility.
MOTION
In the matter of the informal Site Plan Review and SEQRA recommendation for the proposed Homeland Security and Public Safety Consortium firing range on Barhydt Road, on the property of the former Glenville municipal landfill, the PZC finds that this application will not result in a significant potential adverse environmental impact. Consequently, the PZC recommends that the Town Board, as SEQRA lead agency, issue a negative declaration.
Additional Comments/Recommendations:
- PZC noted that the Town’s code sets a maximum noise level of 75 dB(A) at the property line. The applicant admits that they won’t be able to meet that specification at the western property line, at least. The PZC recommended consideration of additional noise attenuation measures as a result. The PZC also questioned if the applicant would need a variance from the ZBA if they can’t meet our noise standards.
- Applicant should investigate/confirm that establishment of a firearms range complies with the Landfill Closure Plan.
- It is difficult from the map to determine where the proposed firing range is located in relation to the landfill boundary and cap. This should be better indentified on the site plan and no grading, cutting or filling should occur within the area that was filled and capped.
- The applicant identified a plan for lead abatement and brass collection. If any other metals will be used and deposited on the property, this should be stated in the Business Plan, and there should be an explanation of how these metals (if any) will be collected and deposited.
- The proposed firing range should not alter or impact the methane gas vents and monitoring, or the leachate collection system.
- The Business Plan identifies that an insurance policy will be in place for the facility with a minimum of $1,000,000 coverage and indemnity. The Town should not assume any liability in association with the firing range.
Moved by: M. Carr
Seconded by: K. Semon
Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 Motion Approved
With no further business, the meeting ended at 9:05 pm.
Submitted by:
______________________________ _________________________
Joelle Ventrice, Stenographer Linda Neals, Town Clerk
| 
