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
Thomas Robert
Theresa Coburn
Linda Clark, Counsel
ABSENT: Jan Weston, Planning Administrator
Michael Cleary
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.
Chairman Feeney made the motion to approve the minutes of January 11, 2006 and January 25, 2006 with a few minor corrections. The motion was seconded Thomas Robert and carried unanimously by the Board.
CASE OF RUCINSKI - Gun Club Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a public hearing on the final plat of a proposed 4 lot subdivision of 8 acres. Zoned Agriculture. Daniel Rucinski presenting.
Linda Clark, Counsel, read the Legal Notice as follows:
The case of Daniel Rucinski will be heard on Wednesday, February 22, 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 4 lots cut from 8 acres.
The general location of the site is at 6420 Gun Club Road.
The property is zoned: Agriculture
Tax Map # 37.00-2-19, 16.1
Plans are open for inspection, by appointment, at the Planning Department during normal
business hours.
Stephen Feeney, Chairman, Planning Board
Terry Coburn read the Planning Department comments as follows:
Rucinski - Gun Club Road
This is a final plat presentation to break an 8 acre parcel into 4 building lots. All the lots meet the minimum zoning regulations and the applicant has obtained permission to connect to the Village of Altamont sewer system. Water will be supplied through private wells. I have the remaining comments:
- There is an intermittent watercourse that runs through the rear of the properties. This will require a 100 ft. setback which should be shown on the final plat.
- There are currently two residential structures on the proposed lot #4. One of these units must be removed before this subdivision is complete.
- proposed driveway locations should be approved by the Highway Superintendent as sight distance may be an issue in some locations.
- The board should consider obtaining a 30 ft. from centerline quit claim deed or easement to help bring Gun Club Road up to Town road standards.
No objection to final approval.
Chairman Feeney stated: I have the recommendation from the Albany County Planning Department, dated February 17, 2006, and read as follows: This Board has found that the proposed action will have no significant countywide or intermunicipal impact. Defer to local consideration. (On File)
There is communications from the Village of Altamont, dated August 23, 2005, discussing the connection to the public sewer system. (On File)
A letter from Bob and Shelly Johnston, dated July 21 , 2005, in regards to the sight distance. It appears that the vertical curve on Gun Club Road may restrict stopping sight distances for vehicles traveling northwest toward one or more of the proposed driveways. (On File)
I have comments from the Guilderland Conservation Advisory Council, dated July 29, 2005, in regards to the site inspection. They had no objections to this propose four-lot subdivision from an environmental standpoint so long as clear cutting of woods does not take place. (On File)
Chairman Feeney stated: It was not clear at our last meeting, on how much of a strip of property you were going to be adding to the proposed lot #4 to come up with the actual acreage. To me, that seems like an awkward piece of land to add to a lot to come up with the minimum of 2 acres.
Daniel Rucinski stated: The strip will be anywhere from 17 ft. to 20 ft. wide. Our intent it to keep this one lot with our parcel. What this does is that it gives us continuous access to the creek that is in the back.
Chairman stated: My concern is setting some kind of strange precedent that when people don’t have the acreage for a lot, they start adding awkward pieces. Usually, the lot should have some reasonable shape to it. I raised this up as a concern of mine and as I recall, the maps weren't as clear back at the last meeting as this map is now.
Mr. Rucinski explained: There were a lot of different options, but we have always presented it as that 20 ft. barrier. We wanted to maintain a right-of-way to that back property.
Chairman said: Do you have a right-of-way now?
Mr. Rucinski explained: That is a different piece of property, and this gives this property continuous access to that property.
Chairman asked for any comments from the Board.
Lindsay Childs asked if you are going to keep lot #4 that has the existing building on it.
Mr. Rucinski explained: Our intent is to keep that lot.
Mr. Childs stated: Is that 20 ft. strip to provide an access to the creek from your own lot?
Mr. Rucinski explained: Our intent is for now is to keep that lot for us as a buffer.
Mr. Childs asked if you are going to build on it?
Mr. Rucinski stated: It is a buildable lot and I have no intentions on building on it now.
Chairman asked if the existing dwellings on lot 4 will be coming down.
Mr. Rucinski explained: Our initial goal is to move forward with lots 1 and 2, and then look at the other two lots.
Chairman asked how large is lot # 4 without that strip of land.
Mr. Rucinski explained: It is one and one-half acres of land.
Chairman stated: I have no problems with the four lots. It concerns me on how you are going about getting the minimum acreage for lot #4. You are almost creating an inaccessible 1/2 acre of land. A better approach would be an area variance for the one lot.
Terry Coburn questioned the Legal Notice and how it was written up.
Mr. Rucinski stated: If the Town would look at the variance for one lot or two lots to create into two equal lots, I would not have any problems.
Chairman explained: I think that a variance would be the most practicable way to go.
Thomas Robert felt that if we are going to recommend that they don’t do a particular proposal that they are asking, then maybe it would be worth while for us to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board.
Linda Clark, Counsel, added: It might make better sense before he considers squaring off using the property across the right-of-way. This would be our preference.
Chairman stated: The sense of the Board is that you would get a variance either for the one lot or the two lots and that if in fact, that was denied, we would revisit the issue.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none.
Terry Coburn wanted to remind the applicant that they should not be clearing the land until SEQR has been reviewed.
Chairman made a motion to continue the hearing and to address a recommendation to the Zoning Board regarding the variance.
The motion was seconded by Terry Coburn and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
CASE OF TRALONGO/LICCARDI - Brookview Drive
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a public hearing on the final plat of a proposed 3 lot subdivision of 8 acres. Zoned - Agriculture. Daniel Rucinski presenting.
Linda Clark, Counsel, read the Legal Notice as follows:
The case of Tralongo Builders will be heard on Wednesday, February 22, 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 3 lots cut from 14.4 acres
The general location of the site is between the rear property lines of houses on the west side of Brookview Drive and the Woodlawn Sportsman Club
The property is zoned: R-40
Tax Map # 28.05-1-8 & 9
Plans are open for inspection, by appointment, at the Planning Department during normal
business hours.
Dated: February 2, 2006
Stephen Feeney, Chairman, Planning
Terry Coburn read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Liccardi - Brookview Drive
This is a final plat presentation to subdivide 14.4 acres into three building lots. The applicant has addressed the comments of the concept meeting by showing all driveways, corrected setbacks and building envelopes, provided a deed restricted buffer for the homes along Brookview Drive,
and prepared an erosion and sediment control plan. I have the remaining comments:
- The parcel is located in a partial protection area of the Pine Bush and the Commission requested at least 50% of the parcel be preserved. Of the 14 acres, 10 acres are shown as deed restricted as a no disturbance area. The language of these restrictions should be submitted prior to the final signing. Further, how the areas will be delineated on the ground should be discussed.
No objection to final approval.
Joe Bianchine, ABD Engineering, presenting: They would like to subdivide 14.4 acres into three building lots. The partials are two parcels being combined and then resubdivided into 3 parcels. Each parcel will be approximately 5 acres or less. The site does have very severe contour restrictions to it. Of the 14 acres, 10 acres will be shown as deed restricted as a no disturbance and the other four acres of land will be developed, and the 2.6 acres will be used for home construction and the roadway. We have provided a basic storm water pollution prevention plan, and there are utilities there.
One other site exception that we have discovered during our survey was that the Town's pump station on Lydius Street, is actually on this property and there was never a deed or easement for that.
Chairman noted for the record, the comments from the Guilderland Conservation Advisory Council, their site review, dated October 1, 2005, and part of their conclusion read as follows: Some parcels should not be developed. This parcel may be one of them communication. (On File)
Another response from Albany County Planning Board, dated February 17, 2006, and their recommendation read as follows: This board has found that the proposed action will have no significant countywide or intermunicipal impact. Defer to location consideration. (On File)
Comments from Neil Gifford, Conservation Director of Albany Pine Bush, dated September 13, 2005. (On File)
Communications from Woodlawn Sportsman Club Inc., dated September 24, 2005, raising some issues about the proximity of their facility. The issue with the raising of the stability of the ravine and the outfall of the storm water structure west of Brookview Drive. (On File)
Chairman wanted to know what is the status of the parcels closet to Brookview Drive.
Mr. Bianchine said: We are not proposing anything at this point. This is not part of our proposal.
Chairman stated: A concern of ours is that the one lot is not buildable with the thruway easement and the angle of repose for lot #3. If the angle of repose continued, I would assume that lot #3 would be almost covered by the angle of repose. Is that lot really a buildable situation?
Lindsay Childs asked: Is the topography on this map the same as the one for concept?
Mr. Bianchine stated: I think that it has been updated. It has been surveyed.
Chairman stated: The angle of repose is a concern of mine and you will need to note on the map regarding the Woodlawn Sportsmen's Club is located close by. The proposed easement to the Town, needs to be filed and the deed restrictions. We will need some language as to the deed restrictions for a no disturbance line, and the silt fence.
Neil Gifford, Director of Albany Pine Bush Commission, stated: The area is in a Partial Protection Area 60, and is valued for its linkage and wetland values and for its ability to buffer areas recommended for protection. The commissioner's primarily concern was with the building envelope which was very significant.
We are please to hear that our recommendation at this concept hearing is providing that balance that we always try and strive for. I think that the deed restrictions that were articulated this evening, sounds like a reasonable good approach providing that those deed restrictions are sufficient to permanently protect the 10 plus acres that are illustrated on the final plat.
With that there were a couple of other relatively minor comments that the commissioner has made in an earlier letter, relating to the standard items about native plant landscaping, vegetation and appropriate outdoor lighting. Based on the conversation that we had, the Commissioner and the committee would support, from the Pine Bush perspective, that this plan does indeed strive to meet the Partial Protection recommendation and is therefore consistent with the management plan provided that the deed language is sufficient as articulated at this meeting.
Chairman commented: I think that we are limited in gaining legal access to examine the deed restrictions. I am not sure how much legal access that we have to insure that the deed restrictions are in fact being upheld.
Mr. Gifford stated: I know that we do have access along Old State Road.
Liccardi owns another unbuildable lot that adjoins parcel 3.
Chairman explained: We need to look into the other parcel more. You are combining a lot in here that was unbuildable and maybe there is not really an engineering problem there. My sense is, I would have to review the most recent case where if this went forward and this is basically a single ownership all by itself, I think that we would be hard pressed to deny some kind of development there. We may be getting into a situation where we are looking at a slope stabilization issue.
Terry Coburn explained: If they applied for a building permit, I don't know how much the building department would go out and look at that property to see if it was in the angle of repose.
Mr. Bianchine stated: My client does not have a contract on that parcel of land.
Linda Clark, Counsel explained: The seller is really shared as a joint applicant in these situations. Before we end up with a questionable lot, we would have to go back and research the circumstances behind the original subdivision. There are things that we would want to consider carefully and look at. It might make sense for you to make that call to the client and make sure that we have a real issue here.
Chairman explained: You can stay the course, but if the applicant is not interested or the owner not interested, and they want to keep it as a buildable lot, then I do not know where we would go.
I think that the environmental issue has been addressed and personally I would be leery of granting final approval.
Lindsay Childs added: The hope would be that they merge the parcel into lot #3.
Chairman made a motion in the matter of a 3 lot subdivision on Brookview Drive 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, review of the Pine Bush Commission finding that the proposal is consistent with the management plan and by the comments of the Guilderland Conservation Advisory Council, and by the Full Environmental Assessment Form, which the applicant has filled out.
The motion was seconded by Thomas Robert and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board
Chairman made a motion to continue this hearing until we researched the two adjoining non conforming lots. What is our legal position and the language of the deed restrictions.
The motion was seconded by James Cohen and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
MATTER OF BATTAGLINO - Brookview Drive
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a continued concept presentation of a proposed 2 lot subdivision of 3.7 acres. Zoned R-15. Philip Battaglino presenting.
Terry Coburn read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Battaglino - Brookview Drive
The applicant has submitted a revised concept plan, the main difference being the driveway grading. He has obtained permission from the adjoining neighbor to grade onto the neighbor’s property, thereby eliminating the need for the 7 ft. retaining wall. He has also submitted a letter from Bagdon Environmental stating that the site does not contain the requisite habitat for Karner Blue butterflies. I have the following comments:
- The applicant will have to provide written permission from the neighbor regarding the grading.
- I am still concerned about the 14 ft. retaining wall, especially its safety. I would think some kind of railing would be necessary to protect anyone from falling off of it. Further an independent engineer should evaluate the impact of this grading.
- Proposed driveway grades should be provided, as by regulation, these grades cannot exceed 10%.
- This parcel is located in a full protection area of the Pine Bush study area. The applicant has shown a small corner of the lot to be dedicated to the Town. I am not sure whether this has any value to the Town or whether we would rather have the monetary donation. The Pine Bush Commission should discuss any mitigation that may be necessary.
I have no objection to moving this application to the next level where the issues of grading and drainage should be thoroughly addressed.
Chairman Feeney noted for the record, communications from the Guilderland Conservation Advisory Council, dated July 28 2004, and to summarize it as follows: consideration be given to revise the plan whereby the lot line separating lots #1 and #2 is located so that the building envelopes on both lots lie on the flat portion of the property.
Comments from the Albany County Planning Board, dated February 17, 2006, and their recommendation read as follows: This Board has found that the proposed action will have no significant countywide or intermunicipal impact. Defer to local consideration. The advisory note: Not withstanding the above, the ACPB is concerned with the development at the base of a steep slope and the potential impacts associated with storm water runoff and hillside erosion in an area down slopes from a state highway.
Received a memo from William West, dated February 15, 2006, and their comments were: 2 additional sewer services are approved, mitigation fee to apply. However, all future approvals for connections that flow to the Lydius St. pump station are pending until a review of the pump station has been preformed.
Conmmuinication from Bagdon Environmental, dated June 24, 2005, concluding that the site does not contain the requisite habitat (lupine plants) that supports both species. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that either species would be found on or adjacent to the site.
Philip Battaglino presenting: This is a 2 lot subdivision of 3.7 acres with 20% of disturbance. We have removed the retaining wall that was between lot #2 and the neighboring property.
We have adjusted the slope from 10% to 5% on this property and everything will be draining back to the road to the storm sewer. All elevations are set for the water to drain into the center of the two driveways and into the storm sewer.
We have completed the environmental survey assessment form and I have conveyed lot#3 to the town.
Approximately 80 to 85% of this property will be undisturbed. All the wood buffer zones between neighboring properties will be left alone. We have met with the Advisory Council Committee twice and I think that we have met all the town's requirements.
Chairman stated: Are you saying that the grades on the driveway will be no greater than 5%?
Mr. Battaglino said yes. No greater than 5%.
Chairman mentioned that he did a quick measurement of the grades. The grade parallel to the northern line looks like a 16% slope and this will need to be clarified. You will need to clarify the limits of the grading and the clearing will be.
Chairman added: Are those significant encroachments from the neighbors and if so, your property is on their lawn.
Mr. Battaglino stated: The apron goes over to the neighboring house.
Thomas Robert had a question about the neighbor's fence line and I am concerned about the inground pool on the other property that is right on the base of this slope for the road and is not shown on the plans. The pool is at the bottom of the 7 ft. high slope that you are proposing for the roadway. This has to have some impact on that pool
Mr. Battaglino explained: With the property on the right side, there will be no disturbance.
Chairman added: I would assume that for the proposed lot 2 you will not do any re-grading. The re-grading will assist along the development of lot 1.
Mr. Battaglino explained: To make both lots even, we would have to do some grading.
Lindsay Childs explained: The problem is that the Conservation Advisory Council recommended that lot #1 and the house to be push further to the south in the flat area, so that you would not have the grading problems.
James Cohen asked about the retaining wall.
Mr. Battaglino explained: The retaining wall will start at 1" to 14" and then back to 1".
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience.
Neil Gifford, Pine Bush Preserve Commission, commented: This is in a
Full Protection Area and is considered for classification as a Type 1 action under the State Environmental Quality Review Ace, given it is adjacent to Fusco Park. The Type I SEQR threshold is really a quarter of what it would normally be, given that a substantially contiguous to parkland. All of these issues needs to be flushed out a little more, given the available information, and the Commissioner certainly welcomes the opportunity to do that with the Town and with the applicant. There is room to address those issues and will try and develop some reasonable compromise that balances the Pine Bush Conservation issues. Without having fully review all of the available information with the Full Technical Committee, I cannot adequately represent the Commission's perspectives on that.
Chairman stated: Once the concept is approved, then the information would be forwarded to you.
There was discussion about the protection of the slope area.
Chairman mentioned that you would need a more detailed grading plan on a larger scale and how the slope is going to be stabilized, and to show the limits of clearing and grading in relationship to the trees and show the driveway profiles. You will also need to have a letter from the neighbors in regards to the grading easement
Paul Caputo would like to see the fence put up along the wall.
Chairman made a motion to approve the concept for a two lot subdivision on Brookview Drive.
The motion was seconded by Paul Caputo and carried by a 5-1 vote by the Board.
(Lindsay Childs opposed).
MATTER OF OPEN DOOR CHURCH - 2323 Western Avenue
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a site plan review to allow the conversion of the former Teen Center to a church. Zoned Local Business/Agriculture. Douglas Turner presenting.
Terry Coburn read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
2323 Western Avenue - Open Door Church
The applicant has applied for a special use permit to use the former Teen Center building as a church. Parking is more than adequate and there are no site plan changes anticipated.
This problem with this site has always been the access. There is no center turning lane, and making a left out of the site onto Western Avenue can be difficult, especially during peak traffic times. A church seems to be a good fit since their traffic is concentrated at times when normal traffic is at its lowest. No planning objections.
Douglas Turner presenting: Open Door church of Guilderland, NY is seeking to rent 2323 Western Ave., Guilderland, formerly the home of Innovative Teen Services. The project consists of simple, non-structural, interior renovations to make the property usable as a house of worship.
We would have two full time employees, minimal traffic during the day and most of our activities occur after 7:00 p.m. during the week and busy at the weekends.
Chairman stated: This is pretty straight forward. You are aware of the access issue. This is not an easy place to get in and to get out of.
Mr. Turner said yes that we are aware of the access issue. The greatest hindrance is the weeds that occur at the left of the property as you are coming out.
Chairman stated: A recommendation would be to talk with the Department of Transportation in the cutting of the weeds.
Chairman asked for any comments from the Board.
Terry Coburn asked: Are you going to add some landscaping to the place.
Mr. Turner said that he is planning for make provision of a landscaping plan.
Paul Caputo wanted to know if you have any concerns about the access without the turning lane on Western Avenue.
Mr. Turner did not have any concerns. Our hours would be during the non-peak hours.
Thomas Robert asked: There is no middle turning lane, does this set a precedent for other properties in the area that may be later developed?
Chairman stated: This is an existing situation, and there is no DOT permit required.
Mr. Turner added: The existing driveway is an easement from the Bumble Bee side and the existing front 50 ft. is also not a part of the current property. Our setback begins 150 ft. from the road and there is no DOT right-of-way.
Chairman made a motion to approve the site plan review for the Open Door Church with the following conditions:
· provision of a landscaping plan.
The motion was seconded by Thomas Robert and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
Matter of Ware -2026 Western Avenue
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a site plan review to allow the conversion of the florist shop into a 70 seat restaurant. Zoned Local Business.
Connie Ware presenting.
Terry Coburn read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Ware - 2026 Western Avenue
The applicant has applied for a special use permit to convert the former Phoebe’s Florist shop into a sit down restaurant. They also plan on constructing a 10 x 47 ft addition to the rear of the building. The restaurant will have 70 seats and 12-14 employees
As much as I like the idea of an upscale restaurant in an intimate setting, I have not reached a comfort level with how much impact this will have on the adjacent neighborhood. I have the following concerns:
- This property was rezoned from BNRP to Local Business in 1992 at the request of Phoebe Archibald who wanted to use the structure as a florist. Much of the approval of that rezone was based on the very low impact a florist would have on the parcel and the surrounding neighborhood.
- The lot is less than the required 20,000 sq. ft minimum in a Local Business zone. The rear buffer area is only 15 ft. rather than the required 25 ft. These non-conformities were considered minimal when the use was a florist, where most of the business was conducted by phone and there was no night time use of the parking. However, with a use that will operate at night and is going to overflow its site for parking, strong mitigation should be required.
- Parking requirements for this use are 37 to 47 spaces depending on the interpretation. There are 18 parking spaces on site and the applicant has an agreement with the owner of the office building next door for additional spaces after 5:00 p.m.. There are no specifics of how many spaces will be leased and whether the owner of the adjacent building will limit any uses that may require evening parking hours.
- The narrative states that while they will initially only be open for dinner, opening for lunch is a possibility. There is no mention of how they would accommodate lunch time parking.
- There is no buffering between the rear parking area and the adjoining residence except for a chain link fence. Night time parking will certainly have an impact on this house and an adequate screening from headlights should be provided. Further, the lights from vehicles exiting the parking will be directly opposite another residence. How this could be mitigated should be discussed.
- Although a sidewalk was required when Phoebe’s was approved, the sidewalk was never constructed. This applicant should be required to install the sidewalk, which would provide a missing link in a system that extends to Ableman Avenue.
Overall, the narrative does not give enough information to provide a comfort level for this use at this location. Perhaps when there is a dialogue between the Board and the applicant, there will be a better understanding of whether this use will be a good fit.
Connie Ware presenting: I would like to open my own fine dining Italian restaurant. The location for this project will be 2026 Western Avenue, formerly Phoebe's Florist. My renovation plans will revitalize this property. The restaurant will offer fine dining with tableside service in an elegant and intimate atmosphere. The restaurant will offer valet parking. A small bar and lounge area will also be available for guests waiting to be seated.
I have met with my three neighbors and Dr. Gagliardi has already given us permission for use of his 35 or 36 parking spaces after 5:00. The entrance shall remain at the front of the building with an added rear door for an employees' entrance as well as for deliveries.
A walkway will be added along the east side of the building running from the parking lot to the entrance. The property's current owner parking lot will be expanded, on the west side of the current parking lot, by an additional 3 spaces to allow for deliveries. Increased landscaping will be put in along the rear of the property as a buffer. We will be moving the existing entrance from Cornwell Ave. slightly north so that the headlights from our patrons cars won't be shining in the neighboring windows.
Chairman stated: This is a revised application than what we had in our packet. If you are going to mortify the drive and provide parking in the front, I believe that you would need a variance.
Moving the entrance is a good idea. The parking agreement with Dr. Gagliardi, will have to be legalize or to have a contract agreement.
Terry Coburn wanted to know where the valit parking will be.
Ms Ware explained: The parking will be at Dr. Gagliardi parking lot.
Chairman stated: You have a parking space in the town's right-of-way which will need permission from the town.
Ms. Ware stated: I believe that is existing as is.
There was further discussion on the parking and on the handicap parking.
Chairman added: As far as the variance issue there are two things to be aware of: One, is the parking in the front yard, and the second is to maintain 70% of lot coverage.
Paul Caputo asked about the existing entrance from Cornell.
Chairman thought it would be a great idea to get rid of the parking in the front altogether.
Lindsay Childs asked about the sidewalk. Since it was never built you would have to put in a sidewalk. The standard is to put in a 5 ft. green strip between the edge of the street pavement.
Chairman made a motion to recommend approval the restaurant at 2026 Western Avenue with the following conditions:
· Removal of existing asphalt drive in front
· Installation of sidewalk along Western Avenue with a direct pedestrian connection to the front entrance.
· Landscaping plan be provided showing proposed buffer to the adjoining single family residences with proposed lighting plan.
· Parking agreement with Dr. Gagliardi providing exclusive use to the proposed restaurant on a continuing basis.
· Consideration being given to modify the entrance on Cornell Avenue to show a more functional traffic pattern for the valet parking.
The motion was seconded by Paul Caputo and carried by 6-0 vote by the Board.
Meeting Adjourned: 10:20 P.M.
TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
February 22, 2006
CASE OF RUCINSKI - Gun Club Road
CASE OF TRALONGO/ LICCARDI - Brookview Drive
MATTER OF BATAGLINO - Brookview Drive
MATTER OF OPEN DOOR CHURCH - 2323 Church Drive
MATTER OF WARE - 2026 Western Avenue
| 
