Minutes of meeting held 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
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 WHALEN - Brooks Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a concept presentation of a proposed 2 lot subdivision of 2.8 acres. Zoned R-15. Michael Whalen presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Whalen - Brooks Road
The applicant has submitted a concept proposal to cut a new building lot off an existing 2.8 acre parcel. The land is generally flat and wooded and public utilities are available to the site. The major issue is access. Brooks Road is a narrow, unpaved, private road. Because there are Town utilities within its right-of-way, the Town does do some minimal maintenance and plowing.
It appears that three houses currently use Brooks Road for their access. I don't think one more house will make or break this driveway, however, I do think that limiting any further subdivision would be appropriate. Also, a maintenance agreement should be submitted prior to final approval.
Michael Whalen, presenting: What we are proposing to do is to cut the 2.8 acres into two separate lots. The lot sizes are a little larger than normal and the building setbacks greater than usual. We have an existing drive and we would like to extend that to the new lot. We will cut down only enough trees to get a house in the new lot and want to keep most of the wooded property. There are public utilities available.
Chairman asked: Do you own the front of the property?
Mr. Whalen explained that it is his wife' parents property.
Chairman asked. There is an existing drive and there is no description of the easement. Where does the drive come out?
Mr. Whalen explained: It comes out to Brooks Road and it does not cross another piece of property as shown on the map.
Lindsay Childs asked: Who owns the adjoining piece of property? Who owns Brooks Drive?
Mr. Whalen stated: Jerry Miller and his wife. Brooks Drive is a right-of-way to our properties.
There was a question on who owns Brooks Drive.
Mr. Brooks explained: My family lives back there. It is their property. What Brooks Road is now a right-of-way going back. As far as I understand, everybody owns up to that right-of-way. I don't understand if Brooks Road is ours, taxable wise or not.
Terry Coburn wanted to know when the Town maintains the road, do they maintain that existing driveway or do they maintain the 12 ft. right-of-way.
Mr. Whalen explained: They maintain the road right from Western Avenue to the existing drive. The easement goes across the larger lot.
Chairman asked: My question is your mother's house and your house are on two separate tax parcels?
Mr. Brooks said yes. Brooks Road separates the two parcels.
Chairman stated: There is an easement across the one parcel and the Town maintains Brooks Road.
Mr. Whalen further explained: The first house was built in 1870. Since then Brooks Road has been there as the lands were developed around it. It has always been there.
Chairman stated: The easement that you are showing does not show access to Brooks Road. The access will have to be more clarified.
There was further discussion about that the easement appears to be going over another lot.
Chairman stated: We will need an up-to-date survey.
Terry Coburn wanted to know if that would be an extension of Brooks Road.
Chairman said no: That is a private drive.
Linda Clark, Counsel, explained: I think that when you look at this, you are going to find that you have some rights to get to Brooks Road from that existing drive. Whether it's an easement or the map is wrong it does connect directly to Brooks Road.
Terry Coburn had a concern about emergency vehicles trying to make that ratio turn into the long driveway.
Ms. Weston stated: I do not have a problem with one more house going back there, but I would like to see that be the limit. Also, something with the driveway for the future to be be resolved, so that in another forty years everyone would understand the maintenances and access agreement to that driveway. This is not a town-dedicated road.
Linda Clark, Counsel, stated: There is a larger issue here. Conceptually, you are trying to create another lot that doesn't have access directly on the road. Typically, you would consider that to be a keyhole lot and we would require that lot have a separate 20 ft. strip leading directly to the road which you do not have there. You cannot usually build a keyhole lot off an easement or land that you do not own.
Chairman explained: You will have to come back with a survey and language on what this easement actually is and where is this driveway in relationship to the easement. This should all show on the easement. Does this existing driveway go across another piece of private property, which owns the other parcel? Where is the house in relationship to your driveway? Also, the location of Camp Terrace needs to be shown on the plans.
Michael Cleary suggested: Wouldn't it be better if they owned the road and you gave the easement to the other lots. That would be more consistent with what we do. That the back parcel owns the land that the easement is on and that parcel gives easements to the other two parcel. Then you have a direct access to Brook Road.
Linda Clark, Counsel stated: You will need another 20 ft. If you can manage to own a 40ft. strip wide in your name then you give them easements over your land.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none.
Chairman stated: Conceptually, we can work the issues out and still meet our standards.
Chairman made a motion to approve the concept of a 2 lot subdiviosn on Brooks Road.
The motion was seconded by Lindsay Childs and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MATTER OF SPAWN ROAD REZONE
Chairman Feeney announced that this was an advisory opinion on a request to rezone five houses at 3011, 3017, 3019 and 3023 Spawn Road from General Business to R-15.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the Staff's Comments as follows:
The applicant is requesting to rezone 5 properties along Spawn Road from General Business to R15.
The 5 parcels are residential, single family lots with homes that are 50 to 80 years old.
The parcels are located on the north side of Spawn Road, just east of the DiCaprio flower shed. They are surrounded by houses to the south and east, Con-Rel, a Liquor store and the vacant Mastrianni site to the north.
I wholly support this request for the following reasons:
- Presently, these 5 houses are considered non-conforming. As such, it would be difficult for them to build additions or otherwise expand.
- Because they are zoned General Business, they are not entitled to the buffering that would be required should the parcels to the west or north be commercially developed.
- Zoning these properties residential gives protection to the residence along the south side of Spawn Road and the houses along Timothy Lane, insuring that commercial uses will not encroach into residential neighborhoods.
Ms. Weston added: This was a request from the owners of the 5 houses.
Chairman asked for any comments from the Board.
The Board all agreed with the rezoning of these properties.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none.
Chairman made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning of the five houses.
The motion was seconded by Lindsay Childs and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MATTER OF MILL HILL PUD - Route 155
Chairman Feeney announced that this was an advisory opinion on proposed amendments
to the Local Law defining the PUD. Terresa Bakner presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the Staff's comments as follows:
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Local Law of 1987 established in a
planned unit development at the Mill Hill site. The Town Board is requesting
and advisory opinion on the amendments. If the new local law is approved the applicants
will begin a site plan approval process with the Planning Board including all sites and
environmental and technical review. The amendments reduce the original density, reduce
the age limit from 62 to 55 and include a convenient store with fuel pumps in Phase 2.
No Objection.
Terresa Bakner, represents BBL Development Company. What we have here is the previous site plan that was approved by the Planning Board. There is already a final site plan for this site. For Phase 3 and 2 we are proposing to change that site plan as part of the amendment to the PUD. There was approximately 81 units being proposed, and that portion of the project we are eliminating those units and instead we are proposing to take the original number of retirement residential independent Living Unit and reduce them to around 88 units and that is all laid out in the local law that was submitted. There will still be 24 townhouses and we will be keeping the same number.
The layout that is shown follows very closely the layout of the previous final site plan that was approved for the site. This Phase 4 is actually approved for a nursing home. We are not proposing to change that at this time. The active green area went from 12.5 acres to 15 acres. The overall increase in green area will also have a positive effect aesthetically and will be in keeping with the community character.
The RCC units would no longer be included. The multifamily residence will be 88 units instead of 200 units. The density has decreased substantially. For each of the units there will have attached garages now and the age limitation would decrease from aged 62 to aged 55. The Recreational Center was eliminated and a new commercial use of a convenience store would be designated.
Lindsay Childs asked about the multifamily residence.
Chairman asked what are we approving?
Ms. Bakner stated: We will be coming in for an amended final site plan. We currently have a final site plan that was approved.
We had the PUD approval from the planning and town board and had preliminary site plan approval and then went ahead and got final site plan approval, but the project was not yet built except for Phase 1. What we have now is the approved final site plan and we are going to come back and asked for an amendment.
This is a not a major redo. What this is a reduction in the dwelling units and the whole concept of the Mill Hill Planned Retirement Community is retained. We are going to have a nursing home in Phase 4 and Phase 1 we have what is there now. The other ones provide for places where people can come and live in different stages of their lives. This was the whole plan for it.
Chairman stated: The crux of the issue tonight is really just the reduction in density and the convenient store.
This will be just an amendment to Phase 2 and 3. The other phases will stay as originally proposed.
There was some discussion about a traffic light and the sight distance.
Lindsay Childs explained: One other thing that held up this project in the past was the promise that Armand Quadrini made to the town to provide a park in Westmere between Palmer Boulevard and Johnston Road. You have now taken care of. and was hoping to have a sidewalk or path to connect Rt. 155 to Nott Road Park.
Paul Caputo was very much in favor of this proposal.
Terry Coburn was worried about the convenient store without a traffic light.
Chairman Feeney made a motion to recommend the proposed amendments to the Local Law defining the PUD.
The motion was seconded by Lindsay Childs and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
Town of Guilderland
Planning Board
June 28, 2006
MATTER OF WHALEN - Brooks Road
MATTER OF SPAWN ROAD REZONE
MATTER OF MILL HILL PUD - Route 155
| 
