Minutes of meeting held Guilderland Town Hall, Route 20, Guilderland, NY 12084 at 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Stephen Feeney, Chairman
Lindsay Childs
Thomas Robert
Theresa Coburn
Jan Weston, Planning Administrator
Linda Clark, Counsel
ABSENT: Paul Caputo
James Cohen
************************************************************************
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.
************************************************************************
CASE OF WAGNER - Walker Lane
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a public hearing of the final plat of a 2 lot subdivision of 146 acres. Zoned RA3. John Demis presenting.
Linda Clark, Counsel, read the Legal Notice as follows:
The case of Frederick Wagner will be heard on Wednesday, May 24, 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 dividing the 146 acres into two parcels on 90 acres (developed and 55.8 acres (vacant).
The general location of the site is at 100 Walker Lane
The property is zoned: Rural - Agriculture 3
Tax Map # 49.00-1-25
Plans are open for inspection, by appointment, at the Planning Department during normal
business hours.
Dated: May 3, 2006
Stephen Feeney, Chairman, Planning Board
Jan Weston, Town Planner read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Wagner - Walker Lane
The applicants received concept approval for a three lot subdivision in 2005. They have now reduced the proposal to two lots, one lot (90 acres) encompassing the existing houses and out buildings and the second parcel (55 acres) becoming a new building lot. I have the following comments:
-There is a small cemetery on the eastern edge of lot #1. A public easement should be shown to this site.
-There is a small stream that cuts through the lower part of the parcel. This should be shown, as well as the 100 ft. setback from it, along with a building envelope for lot #2.
No objection to final approval contingent on the above being shown on the signature plat.
John Dennis presenting: Previously, this was a 3 lot subdivision with one lot being 200 Walker Lane, and the other 100 Walker Lane and then the remaining land. It has since been revised to be a 2 lot subdivisions of 90 acres and 55.8 acres for the other lot.
The 90 acre parcel is fully developed and has two homes, barns and outbuildings.
Chairman stated: This would be a pre-existing nonconforming use with the 2 dwellings.
Chairman asked about the location of the stream.
Mr. Demis explained: The streams run through the west side of the property line.
Chairman added: You will need to be 100 ft. away from the stream for the septic and building.
Chairman asked about the cemetery. Public access to the cemetery needs to be shown on the plat.
Terry Coburn wanted to made sure that the Counsel agreed that is pre-existing non-conforming with the two houses on the lot. Now that we are subdividing, are we creating an illegal lot because of the two houses there?
Counsel Clark stated: We are not increasing the non- conformity of granting this subdivision.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience.
Phyllis Rosenblum, owner of property adjacent to the Wagners, was wondering whether they had any particular plans for this new lot.
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 2 lot subdivision 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 by the comments of the Guilderland Conservation Advisory Council, and by the environmental short form which the applicant has filled out and the minor nature of a 2 lot subdivision.
The motion was seconded by Terry Coburn and carried by a 5-0 vote by the Board.
Chairman made a motion to approve the final plat for your proposed two lot subdivision on Walker Lane with the following conditions:
· Town Highway Superintendent approval for any new curbcut
· Albany County Health Department approval (with building permit application)
· $1,500.00 per dwelling unit - Park & Recreation Fund (with building permit application)
· 100 ft. stream setback for building and septic shown on plat.
· public easement to the cemetery be identified on the plat.
The motion was seconded by Thomas Robert and carried by a 5-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MATTER OF CLEARY - Depot Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a continued final plat hearing of a 4 lot resubdivision of 33 acres. Zoned Rural Agriculture-3. Mike Cleary presenting.
There were no additional comments from the Planning Department.
Michael Cleary presenting: At the last meeting, one of the final issues was with the septic and the leach field and the County's pert test. Since then I had the county out there and the pert test was done on all three lots. Also, in discussion the last time, concerning the slopes, and the grading on lot 2,and my suggestion was to place the leach field on to my 20 acre parcel with the appropriate easement. The County had no issue with that and perform a perc test there and they all passed.
Chairman stated: We will need the location of the perc tests to be shown on the final plat. We do have the easements in the file for Counsel Clark to review them. You have an easement for the leach field and for the cross access from the private drive. You will also need to clarify the construction details of the paved roadway that will be put down.
Chairman asked about the conservation easement. Has the language been provided
for that on the plans.
Mr. Cleary said no.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none.
Chairman noted for the record a recommendation from Albany County Planning Board dated December 15, 2005, that reads: This Board has found that the proposed action will have no significant countywide or intermunicipal impact. Defer to local consideration.
Chairman added: The applicant has submitted an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. (On File)
Chairman made a motion for SEQR Determination 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 4 lot Cleary subdivision project may have a significant effect on the environment and on the basis of the 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 by the comments of the Guilderland Conservation Advisory Council, and by the environmental short form which the applicant has filled out, compliance with NYSDEC Phase 2 Storm water Erosion and Sediment Control regulations and the placement of the conservation easement in the vicinity of the wetlands to prevent any further encroachment.
The motion was seconded by Thomas Robert and carried by a 5-0 vote by the Board.
Lindsay Childs question the grading on the plans. They have proposed grading shown on the plan but should show as limits of grading.
Chairman added: The grading should say limits of grading and clearing on the plans.
Chairman made a motion to approve the final subdivision approval with the following conditions:
· Albany County Health Department approval (with building permit applicantion)
· $1,500.00 per dwelling unit - Park & Recreation Fund (with building permit application)
· soil test pit locations to be shown on the plat.
· driveway construction details shown on plat indication a paved roadway
· conservation easement language be submitted for review by Board Counsel
· easement language for common access and septic system be submitted for review.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 5-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************MATTER OF ATTANASIO - Curry Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a concept presentation of a proposed 2 lot subdivision of 20.1 acres. Zoned R40. Gilbert VanGuilder presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Attanasio - Curry Road
This is a concept presentation to cut an existing home site from the parent parcel and create an additional building lot. This parcel, on the south side of Curry Road is flat farm land with a tree line that buffers the Thruway and another that bisects the property around the knoll. I have no objection to another building lot being created at this site but have the following comments:
- The proposed lot #1 meets the R40 area requirements but not the 200 ft. width at the building line. The applicant could avoid a variance situation by creating a keyhole lot.
- There is no municipal water and sewer in this location. Existing and proposed septic and well locations should be shown.
Gilbert VanGuilder presenting: The applicant owns 20.1 acres of land on the southwesterly side of Curry Road. There is an existing home on the property that they have been in the process of renovation. They would like to subdivide the home out in a 1 acre lot. They realize that the lot does not meet the frontage requirement on Curry Road.
The reason that they are requesting the lot configuration that they are is because they would like to preserve the ability to further subdivide the property in the future. They don't have enough frontage to make two conforming lots at this time. At some point in time, they would like to put a public road back into the property in a cul-de-sac configuration. The lot that they are proposing would meet the frontage requirement on the proposed road. We do realize that does not meet the intent of the regulations for the R40 zone at this point in time, but that is their future intentions.
Chairman asked about the putting in the cul-de-sac in the future plans.
Mr. VanGuilder explainbed: They have not formulated any plans.
Ms. Weston wanted to know why couldn't the lot be 200 ft.wide and still fit in a road.
Mr. VanGuilder explained: What they would like to do is have two lots on either sides so it would be a traditional type subdivision. After the 60 ft. right-of-wide, there is 212 ft. of frontage left so it would leave approximately 150 ft. on the other side of the proposed roadway. They have enough depth to the property to develop it in that fashion when they decide to move forward with that proposal.
The applicant would like to build a single family home and then create some type of a cul-de-sac to provide lots for their family members.
Chairman wanted to know if there was any sewer or water hookups.
Ms. Weston said. They have no hookups.
Mr. VanGuilder explained: They will have wells and septics.
There was a discussion on whether or not they should go to the Zoning Board for the necessary variances.
Chairman stated: This does not seem out of character with the neighborhood. You will need a 50 ft. frontage variance as opposed just creating a oddly shape lot to meet. In the big picture if they developed this further, this would make sense.
Ms. Weston had no problem with sending them along to the Zoning Board to see if they can get the variance.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience.
Mike Doherty wanted to know if you could tell me for future building on this property what the town requires for the building lots size should be.
Ms. Weston explained: They would need to be 40,000 sq. ft. per lot, 200 ft. width of the building line.
Chairman made a motion to approve the two-lot subdivision on Curry Road, contingent on receiving the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 5-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MATTER OF THOMAS - 5060 Western Turnpike
Chairman Feeney announced that this was an advisory opinion on a request to rezone the former Bavarian Chalet properties from Local Business to Multiple Residence.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Bavarian Chalet - 5060 Western Avenue Rezone
The applicant is requesting to rezone a 13 acre parcel from Local Business to Multiple Residence. This parcel is located on the south side of Route 20, east of French's Mill Road.The site contains large parking areas close to Route 20, the vacant restaurant in the middle and a soccer field, large pond and vegetated area in the rear.
This parcel is surrounded by a mixture of older homes on smaller lots, a new construction houses on 1 acre+lots and open space.
The applicant is proposing 6.65 units per total acreage. We calculate density based on usable acres which would bring the average density closer to 7-8 units per acre, plus the community center. Recent Town Board rezones have only allowed a maximum of 6 units per buildable acre so this proposal is pushing that envelope. However, the fact that these units will be restricted to senior housing will help mitigate some of the density concerns.
I do have some reservations regarding the density and the site plan. These revolve mostly around traffic issues similar to the concerns raised when Masullo proposed a 74 unit develop just east of this site. Also, the design of the access, storm water management areas, buffering, etc. require a closer look that may reduce the overall density.
Presently, the entire parcel is zoned Local Business which could result in a large commercial venture that could have grave impacts to this neighborhood. I think that a low density, multi-family Zone is appropriate for this site as long as there are no negative impacts and the project meets zoning requirements. However, those impacts can only be assessed by going through the site plan review process. Therefore, I would recommend
that the Town Board consider a conditional rezone. Once appropriate density is determined by examining the environmental and site restraints, a final rezone could be recommended based on that approved site plan.
Francis Bossolini presenting and gave an overview of this project. There will be 86 units some with attached garages, the smaller buildings are 4 units structure with an attached garage. This property contains a large paved parking area. We will also increase the buffer between the residential properties along Rt. 20. With this reconfiguration we will be eliminating the curve cuts that currently go onto Rt. 20. There are public utilities water and sewer are both in the area. 50% of the project is green space that will be owned and maintain by a homeowners association that will be set up for the project. Within that there will be trails, low impact recreational areas.
The traffic will be less because of the senior housing.
There was further discussion about the traffic impact. The potential traffic impact from this development are at best equal to what you could see there from a more intense commercial development.
If we received the zone change then we would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for the special use permit. At that point there will be a complete analysis of storm water management, the utilities, and a more formulize traffic study.
Chairman explained: This is a procedural issue again and one thing that was not raised up again was the way that this was laid out if it was rezoned to MR., there would is significant area variances that will be needed.
Chairman asked: Have you at least done a layout that shows MR complying and what sort of a bonus number of units are you looking for. From our perspective, the town would want to see the proper setbacks.
Mr. Bossolini explained: If we were granted a rezone and if there were some problems with a variance we would still have the ability to modify the site plan for a future date to accommodate the setback issue.
There was a discussion on the access road and the intersection, and the site distance and more talk about the setbacks.
Chairman added: As far as pedestrian amenities, I would assume that might be condition of approval with some type of senior connection.
Chairman made a motion to make a recommendation to rezone the former Bavarian Chaplet properties with the following reasons:
· based upon proposed use as senior citizen housing.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 5-0 vote by the Board.
***********************************************************************
MATTER OF TRIMARCHI - 1869 Western Ave.
Chairman Feeney announced that this was the site plan for a professional use.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department to the Zoning Department as follows:
The applicant is requesting a special use permit to change tenancy in this building which had been used as a professional office for a number of years. Parking space #1 is located in an awkward and dangerous position and should be either parallel with the others spaces or eliminated, if not needed. No planning objections.
Antonio Trimarchi presenting: I am seeking a special use permit to re-use an existing residential structure as a professional office. There will be no changes to the building. We want everything to blend in with the others. I will add a (6) car parking lot to the rear of the building where there is currently a rear yard. There is an existing stockade fence there which serves as a buffer. There is existing landscaping in the front of the building and are planning on putting in a handicap ramp in the back. The site has an existing curb cut, which is currently sized for use by one vehicle.
Chairman stated: The only issue that I would have is that with parking space #1 & #2, you got the front on side parking is always a bad situation.
Mr. Trimarchi stated: I really need only (5) spaces
Chairman stated: I would recommend the removable of parking space #1 as shown.
Chairman made a motion to recommend the site plan approval for a professional office with the following condition:
· change parking space arrangement to eliminate space 1 and reconfigure so that all spaces are perpendicular to the building.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 5-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MEETING ADJOURNED - 9:30 P.M.
| 
