Minutes of meeting held at Guilderland Town Hall, Route 20, Guilderland, NY 12084 at 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Stephen Feeney, Chairman
Paul Caputo
James Cohen
Lindsay Childs
Thomas Robert
Theresa Coburn
Michael Cleary
Jan Weston, Planning Administrator
Linda Clark, Counsel
ABSENT:
************************************************************************
Chairman Feeney called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. He noted the exits for the sake of the audience in the event they were needed.
************************************************************************
MATTER OF VILLAGE OF ALTAMONT - Brandle Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a site plan review to allow a municipal water supply system on site. Zoned Agriculture. Richard Straut presenting.
Linda Clark, Counsel, read the Legal Notice as follows:
Village of Altamont - Brandle Road
The case of the Village of Altamont will be heard on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at
7:30 p.m. at the Guilderland Town Hall, Route 20, Guilderland, New York 12084 for the purpose of obtaining final plat approval for an unnamed subdivision.
Such subdivision is proposed as a 5 acre parcel cut from the 66 acre parcel to be used as a municipal well lot.
The general location of the site is on the east side of Brandle Road where the railroad tracks cross Brandle. (lands of Trumpler)
The property is zoned: Rural Agriculture-3
Tax Map # 48.00-2-17.1
Plans are open for inspection, by appointment, at the Planning Department during normal
business hours.
Dated: January 10, 2006
Stephen Feeney, Chairman, Planning Board
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Village of Altamont - Brandle Road
This is a final plat presentation to cut a 5-acre site off the 66 acre Trumpler parcel. This lot is used as a public utility for wells, pumps and similar equipment for the Village. The subdivision plan now shows a twenty-foot access giving the Trumplers access to their rear acreage. The special use permit for the use of the well was granted on October 5, 2005. No objection to final subdivision approval.
Richard Straut, Barton & Loguidice, P.C. presenting: The plan that you see here for final subdivision approval, is the plan that you have seen in the past. The property that is to be subdivided is just under five acres on the east side of the railroad tracks, including a small piece that allows access on the northern corner of the property, across the railroad tracks onto the back piece.
One of the issues that we have talked about and worked on in the past with the Planning Board was maintaining access to the back parcel that the Trumplers will remain the owners of. They maintain the triangular piece and the farm road that crosses the railroad tracks to access the back parcel. We had excluded from the purchase, which was initially included in the proposed purchase, the 20 ft. access along the east side of the railroad right-of-way to permit the access.
What we are proposing is to build a gravel access road back into the site and build a small well house back there. There will be two wells. One existing at this point on the property to pump water, and then it will be on the Village water system. This is a very important project to the Village. The access is 30 feet wide coming in to the site.
Chairman Feeney stated: One thing that I noticed is a wetland boundary and a stream. I did not see anything in the environmental form that addresses the wetlands. I noted that there is a DEC wetlands to the north; has it been determined whether this is DEC wetland or Army Corp of Engineers wetland?
Mr. Straut stated: Both the DEC and Army Corp of Engineers wetland permit are required and they are being prepared right now. We will be disturbing less than one-tenth of an acre.
Chairman added: On the plan itself, you need to show a detailed plan on how you plan on crossing the creek, the storm water erosion control management plan, and the size of the culvert that you will be using.
Mr. Straut explained: Those specifics are being developed for the permit application with DEC and the Army Corp. of Engineers. The way we routed the road was to minimize the impact to the wetlands. We will also have an erosion control management plan with the construction plan.
Chairman stated: On this plan, there is no reference to an easement. Is there an access easement crossing the railroad tracks? Also, on the final map we will need a description of an easement.
Mr. Straut explained: That is in the process of being obtained. The railroad company will be granting us a permit to have a crossing for the driveway as well as for the pipeline crossing the railroad. That will be updated on the map once that permit is ratified.
Lindsay Childs commented on the Environmental Assessment Form and how some of the questions were not answered. In Part 1, there is nothing on there about the wetlands report under the approximate acreage, question 2 on wetlands, and question 16. These need to be answered.
Paul Caputo wanted to know if we have to do the SEQR on this subdivision tonight?
Chairman stated: We will do a SEQR on the subdivision and we are noting that the wetland permits are required. It would have been nice if we had comments from DEC. The condition of the subdivision approval will be that they received the permits and the plans would need to be more detailed. The actual file map should show what is the level of disturbance, the location of the road, and the erosion sedimentation control plan.
Mr. Straut explained: This project has been delayed for other reasons.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience.
Nancy Trumpler, owner of the property that the Village stating that:
This matter is still in litigation and nothing has been resolved yet. We are very willing to work and resolve it, but as yet, it has not been.
I personally find it incredible that you would approve a final application when the landowners themselves do not agree with the setup of it. We don't agree with the 24 ft. access when they are giving themselves a 30 ft. access for their roadway, and only 24 ft. access to get to the remaining of our property.
In the contract, they are taking liberty with the wording of the contract that we had set up with them. We had a certain meaning of the wording when we set up the contract. The previous Board knew that, and the new Board is taken liberty with the wording of that contract. This is why it is in the Supreme Court's hands.
Chairman stated: This Board will not sign any plans until there is an easement agreement.
Linda Clark, Counsel, asked: Has there been any effort in the litigation, on your behalf, to get a restraining order that would affect or prevent this Board's consideration on this application?
Mrs. Trumpler said: I would have to have my attorney to answer that.
Counsel asked: Are you aware of any legal injunction or order of the court preventing us from making this determination?
Mrs. Trumpler answered: I am not aware of any.
Counsel asked: Another question I have is on that triangular piece of the property. I understand from the last time that you were here that is part of the litigation of whether or not that piece is even subject to the option. Is that correct?
Mrs. Trumpler said that is correct.
Counsel added: So you take the position that even if the option is enforceable, that triangular piece that measures .01 acres should not be conveyed?
Mrs. Trumpler said yes.
Counsel added: Does the Village of Altamont have your consent to come here and seek approval from this Board.
Mrs. Trumpler explained: We have opposed this from the first time they came.
Mr. Straut explained the way the option agreement was written. Essentially, the option agreement allowed the Village to purchase up to 5 acres of property in two non-contiguous parcels. It did have some language regarding the triangular piece, but that is something the attorneys will have to deal with.
Counsel asked Mr. Straut: Is that one of the issues in the litigation?
Mr. Straut said that is one of the issues.
Chairman asked Counsel: What would happen if we grant approval with conditions and the court decides in favor of the Trumplers?
Counsel explained: One thing that can be done in a situation like this, is that approval can be made conditional upon the village actually taking title to the parcel through the legal proceedings that now exist. That should resolve the concerns of the Trumplers and not affect the ability of the village to get through this part of the process.
Chairman stated: I will not sign anything until the Village takes title through the pending legal proceedings. This will need to be resolved.
Lindsay Childs asked: What happens if they settle, and then the lot lines change slightly from our final approval.
Chairman stated: They would have to refile, but that can be an administrative change and they would not have to come before the Board.
Paul Caputo wanted to know if it would make sense for this Board to continue this hearing at a later date, until some of these issues are resolved.
James Cohen wanted to know that with this many things up in the air, do you have a rule of action that you would make them conditional or continue the case. Is there a standard of action that you take?
Chairman explained: This is not a typical subdivision where we would need more detail information.
The conditions would have to be cleared. We would need to see the access easement from the railroad, the wetland permit, and a review and approval from DEC and the Army Corps of Engineers, plus the clear title. We would like to see the erosion sedimentation control methods and the approval from DEC, you will need to show construction details of the road and the culvert.
Mr. Straut added: Those details will all be part of the permit applications.
There was further discussion on whether to approve this subdivision or to continue it.
Thomas Robert mentioned that the applications always have conditions and that this Board should move ahead.
Linda Clark, Counsel, stated: I think that the conditions are an acceptable way to deal with this problem.
Chairman stated: I just hope that this get resolves and the village must show clear title to the property.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none.
Chairman made a motion for SEQR as follows
In Accordance with Section 8-0113, Article 8 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law, this Agency has conducted an initial review to determine whether the following project may have a significant effect on the environment and on the basis of that review hereby finds:
The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. This determination is based on a careful review by the Planning Board, and it is cognizant of the fact that the applicant has a wetlands permit application pending, and the review of the environmental short form which the applicant has filled out and still needs to fill out the couple of questions that were left blank. I will correct and initial the form where it was pointed out as far as the wetland application pending.
The motion was seconded by Thomas Robert and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
Lindsay Childs stated: The Board should be explicit of this particular case since there may be a matter of some dispute if the lot lines are moved.
Chairman made a motion to approve the final plat for the Village of Altamont, Brandon Road with the following conditions:
· Town Highway Superintendent approval for any new curbcut
· Identify access easement over D & H Railroad
· receipt of NYS DEC/ACOE wetlands permit
· Village must show clear title to property through pending legal proceedings
· Construction details showing road and stream crossing (culvert) and erosion and sedimentation control.
The motion was seconded by Thomas Robert and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MATTER OF EWING - Old State Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a concept presentation of a proposed 4 lot subdivision of 61.6 acres. Zoned Rural Agriculture 3. Richard Ewing presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Ewing - Old State Road
The applicant would like to cut three lots building lots from his 61 acre parcel. Eventually, he would like to demolish his residence on the front of the lot and build a new home toward the rear. This parcel is bordered by the end of Old State Road where it is barricaded by the closed railroad bridge and the railroad tracks which run along the full eastern border. Because of the elevation of the road and the tracks, this land sits low and appears to have some drainage issues. The land is almost entirely farm fields with some vegetation in the northern most corner. I have the following comments:
- This parcel is now zoned RA-3 which requires a 3-acre lot size, not the 2 acre shown. Also, the building envelope setbacks are incorrect and should reflect a 50 ft front and side setback and a 100 ft. rear setback.
- Because this land is in the RA-3 district, the Planning Board can require a conservation subdivision. Since the applicant is not trying to maximize the number of lots, I don’t know if the conservation subdivision is appropriate. However, I do think we should be exploring the possibility of preserving some of this open space, especially in light of the possibility of public water serving this area in the near future.
- There are at least two streams that run through this property. One runs behind the existing house and the other further back in the fields. I suspect there are also wetlands areas. These all need to be shown on the plat to adequately determine appropriate building lots.
The proposed shared driveway in shown in an area where the roadway is rising over the railroad tracks. Because of the steepness of the grade, I don’t think a driveway could use this location. Driveways should be located closer to the existing house where the road is at grade level.
Generally, I don’t think there will be a problem creating three new building lots on this site. However, until the environmental features are mapped and the zoning corrected, it is difficult to adequately review this concept.
Richard Ewing presenting: I would like to cut three new lots that run along the railroad tracks. There is an elevation of the road and the tracks and I am proposing driveways coming in to the flag lots and would like to build a new home towards the rear of the property. There is a stream that runs along the property line that runs all year and another stream further back in the field that dries up.
Chairman mentioned that what is in front of us doesn't comply with our zoning law. The lots are not large enough.
Mr. Ewing explained: That will be changed. When I first applied it was for only two lots and now it is three lots. The existing house in the front will be demolished and a new home will be built toward the rear in the future.
Chairman added: We will need to see a more detailed plan on the location of the streams, the grading and the driveway location.
Chairman asked: Would you later further subdivide the large lot?
Mr. Ewing said no.
Chairman added: You will need to identify any wetlands or streams on the property, and what the soils are like, and the lots need to be larger.
Also, would you consider restricting any future development on the larger parcel? Is that something that you would legally do?
Mr. Ewing said I would have to discuss that with my wife.
Chairman added: Because of the zoning, the Planning Board can require a conservation subdivision. Since you are not trying to maximize the number of lots, I don't know if the conservation subdivision is appropriate.
Ms. Weston explained: With the conservation subdivision, you could have smaller lots, if, in return, you do protect the open space. This is something you might want to consider.
Chairman also added: There are wetlands on the other side of the tracks and we would need some verification that there are no wetlands on your property.
Mr. Ewing said that one of the Guilderland Conservation members did walk through the site.
Ms. Weston added: You will need to be 100ft away from the stream and 200ft. away from the septic and according to this plan, this could eliminate your first lot.
Chairman stated: We do have a letter in the file, dated January 19, 2006 from Linda & Charles Boomhower with many concerns. They referenced the wetlands, the stream, and other concerns. (On File)
Lindsay Childs had problems dealing with this subdivision at this point of time.
There will be water coming to this part of the town soon. There is a reason why we only have 13 lots to a cul-de-sac and one is safety. Adding three more lots to the end of Old State Road is not desirable, simply from a safety standpoint. What needs to be done in this area, if they are going to bring water in, is to look at the area and see where it would make sense to put in a road. How does this fit in, and how is that going to fit in with developing that part of the town?
Chairman stated: This concept will be continued. It does not meet the standards. They need to show the streams, and they need to indicate if there are any wetlands within the vicinity, and to show an appropriate driveway location, and to show the correct setbacks from the septic and the streams.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none.
Mrs. Nobles, W. Old State Road, just wanted to look at the plans.
Chairman stated: We will continue this application and you will need to work with Ms.Weston on some of the information that we are requesting.
Vote 7-0
************************************************************************
MATTER OF CLEARY - Depot Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a concept presentation of a proposed 4 lot subdivision of 61.6 acres. Zoned Rural Agriculture 3. Richard Ewing presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Cleary - Depot Road
This is a continued final plat presentation to reconfigure a 4 lot subdivision that was approved in 2000. In response to the Planning Board concerns, the applicant has supplied a revised clearing and grading plan, a shared driveway and maintenance agreement, an erosion and sediment control plan and approved addresses from the Assessor’s office. The applicant has extended the conservation easement to the north side of the driveway and I have received verbal approval from the Fire Department regarding the driveway. My last remaining comments are:
- The calculated amount of clearing and grading is just slightly under the 5-acre threshold. If future lot owners want to clear more land, a stormwater management system must be installed. How this would be enforced is unclear to me.
- The Health Department has not yet commented on whether a septic field could be built on the slope as shown on lot #4.
I have no objection to final approval but would be more comfortable with a Health Department response before the signing of the plans.
Michael Cleary presenting: As far as the five acre clearing, I have no problem with letting the homeowners know that we are at a limit of clearing more land.
Chairman stated: I would have to clarify that with DEC. My main concern with this plat is that how much the topography changes from concept hearing to what was actually presented to us.
I have spoken to the Health Department on lot# 4, and they would not approve a septic system there. They have expressed a lot of concern about the lot and even some of the septics in the rear. There needs to be a lot of site engineering done before, to determine even if you can do it.
I am assuming that there has not been any deep hole testing done.
The Health Department had some issues with the system that is in there. There was about 6 ft. of fill that went into that system and at one point there was an issue with the fill actually moving away off the site.
Mr. Cleary explained the system and the inspections that were done.
Chairman added: I believe that there were concerns with lot 2 and 3. The concern was with the depth to ground water, especially lot 3.
My only concern is that the slopes are so severe and whether or not there were any thoughts on putting the systems on the other side where it is flat where they would be approved.
Mr. Cleary stated: That area was all filled systems, and they were pumped, and they went through the wetlands.
Mr. Cleary said that this was the first time that he heard about this.
Chairman further added: We would not give you final approval until it is clearly indicated that you could put a system in.
Mr. Cleary further explained: We have a design that my engineer has approved and the county has an issued with it.
Chairman explained: It is my understanding with the Health Department is that there is no design for the system. I had conversation with them and this does not meet their standards. We do not want to create lots that may not be buildable.
If there is adequate site investigations done on the lots and the Health Department gives approval for the septics, then I would not have any problems with this.
Mr. Cleary said that he will have a site investigation done.
Chairman stated: We would need a letter from the Health Department saying that they approve the septic systems on the slopes. The calculated amount of clearing and grading is just slightly under the 5 acre threshold. You will need to make sure with DEC on the 5 acre threshold on how much flexibility that you would have.
We would need an accurate clearing and grading plan that shows the amount of clearing and this needs to include all the clearing that was done for septic and yards and everything. You will need to include the clearing that was done for the house under construction and the driveway.
Thomas Robert stated: I was out there the other day and all the contours does not show on the plans and even the curb is sharper than what is shown.
Chairman made a motion to continue this final hearing. The motion was seconded by James Cohen and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MEETING ADJOURNED: 9:30 P.M.
TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
January 25, 2006
MATTER OF VILLAGE OF ALTAMONT - Brandle Road
MATTER OF EWING - Old State Road
CASE OF CLEARY - Depot Road
| 
