Minutes of meeting held atGuilderland 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.
Chairman Feeney made the motion to approve the minutes of June 14, 2006 and June 28, 2006 with a few minor corrections. The motion was seconded by Paul Caputo and carried unanimously by the Board.
************************************************************************
CASE OF SCHAFER - Settles Hill Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a public hearing on the final plat of a 2 lot subdivision of 33.7 acres. Zoned RA-3. Mark Schafer presenting.
Linda Clark, Counsel, read the Legal Notice as follows:
The case of the Mark Schafer will be heard on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at the Guilderland Town Hall, Route 20, and Guilderland, New York 12084 for the purpose of obtaining final plat approval for an unnamed subdivision.
Such subdivision is proposed as 2 lots cut from 33.2 acres
The general location of the site is at 345 Settles Hill Road
The property is zoned: RA-5
Tax Map # 25.00-1-7.14
Plans are open for inspection, by appointment, at the Planning Department during normal
business hours.
Stephen Feeney, Chairman, Planning Board
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Schafer - Settles Hill Road
The applicant has a final plat for a two lot subdivision of 33 acres. I have the following comments:
- The proposed location of the systems has been shown on the plan.
- The site data chart needs to reflect the new Rural Agriculture 3 zoning and the minimum 3 acre lot size.
- The limits of clearing and grading plan have been shown.
- the Beagle Club is an adjoining property owner and notes on the plat should be included to inform potential buyers of its location.
- the first three lots of this original subdivision were deed restricted from further subdivisions. It should also be explored for these two lots, especially since the 60 ft. access would allow for an additional lot.
- A shared driveway access and maintenance agreement must be submitted.
No objection to final approval contingent on the above concerns being addressed before signature.
Mark Schafer presenting: This design does not differ from the concept plan. We just had Stephen Walrath, Land Surveyor, certified it. The grading and clearing has been shown on the plans and the location of the proposed leach field and the well and the proposed home. There is a 60-ft.shared-driveway access and we could divide it down the middle so that each home would have a 30 ft. wide strip driveway.
There was an existing driveway that went back the first 500 ft. when it was a single lot.
Chairman Feeney asked about the existing driveway. Did you want to have it as a shared driveway?
Mr. Schafer explained: There was an existing driveway that went back the first 500 ft. when it was a single lot. We could keep that driveway where it is and then just do an easement.
Chairman asked about the driveway profile. I think that the 11% of the grade on the road of the first 50 ft. is a really steep driveway before it starts to level off.
The Erosion Sedimentation Control Plan has been provided to some degree.
Chairman asked about the culvert.
Mr. Schafer explained: There is a culvert back about 400 ft.
Chairman asked for any comments from the Board.
Terry Coburn wanted to know if Mr. Schafer would be willing to agree to a deed restriction of no further subdivision.
Mr. Schafer said that he would agree but wanted to know why you are asking. The new homeowner is the one who should be able to decide that.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience.
Chairman made a motion to close the public hearing.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
Chairman wanted to note for the record that there is no letters from any neighbors and the Albany County Planning Board referral was not required. We have comments from the Guilderland Advisory Council dated April 26, 2006, and in summary: The GCAC has no objection to the proposed subdivision provided the tree cutting is kept to a minimum and prudence is used in the final site location of the dwellings to guarantee they are not located to close to the rear drop off of the parcel.
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 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 by the comments of the Guilderland Conservation Advisory Council, and by the environmental short form that the applicant has filled out, and the minor nature of this two lot subdivision on Settles Hill Road.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
There was a discussion on whether or not to have the deed restriction of no further subdivision.
Chairman made a motion to approved the final plat for the 2 lot subdivision on Settles Hill Road with the following conditions:
- Town Highway Superintendent approval for any new curbcut. The final plat should reflect any changes he requires.
- Albany County Health Department approval (with building permit application).
- $1,500.00 per dwelling unit - Park & Recreation Fund (with building permit application).
- Notation included on plat and in the deeds identifying the adjoining Beagle Club.
- The applicants modify the site dated chart to reflect the new RA-3 zoning.
- Notation included on the plat indicating that no further subdivision is permissible.
- Notation on the plat indicating that the driveway is privately owned and maintained.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MATTER OF McCORMICK - Depot Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a concept presentation of a proposed 2 lot
subdivision of 53.7 acres. Zoned RA-3. Maurice McCormick presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
McCormick - Depot Road
The applicant has submitted a concept plan for a 2 lot subdivision. This is a 54 acre
parcel is located on the southern border of town, between Depot Road and the railroad tracks. The site contains an old farmhouse and has a rolling topography. The new parcel far exceeds all zoning requirements. No objection to concept approval.
Maurice McCormick presenting: I have approximately 54 acres and what I would like to do is to subdivide this parcel into two lots. One lot will be 40.92 acres and lot # 2, will be 12.83 acres which includes the house, barn and a small pond on this lot that I will be selling off. There is almost 540 ft. of road frontage.
Chairman asked about the gas line and the stream.
Mr. McCormick explained: That is a high pressure gas line that runs through the 48 acres parcel and I believe that there is a sixty foot or ninety foot easement the runs the entire length of that.
Chairman explained: There is a certain distance that you need to keep the residents away.
There may be some wetlands on the lot and the Guilderland Conservation Advisory Council Committee will walk the property and will let us know.
Chairman asked for any more comments from the Board and there were none.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none.
Chairman made a motion to approve the concept for a two-lot subdivision on Depot Road.
The motion was seconded by Terry Coburn and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MATTER OF MILL HILL - Route 155
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a site plan review of a revised Planned Unit development including 88 multi-family units, 24 townhouses and a convenience store.
Zoned PUD. Terresa Bakner presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Mill Hill PUD
This original PUD was approved in 1993 and included a 100-bed adult home, which is in full operation, and three other phases that were never built. A 160-bed nursing home, an 81 unit congregate care facility and 232 independent living units. The approved plan also allowed for a clubhouse, commercial office or retail space and the Guilderland Ballet. All units had an age restriction of 62 and over.
The present plan calls for 24 townhouses and 88 condo units. The plan also shows a Stewarts Shop with fuel pumps. The Phase 4 nursing home will remain unchanged at this time. My comments on the site plan are as follows:
- A traffic report has not been submitted at the time of this writing. A traffic signal should be investigated for this intersection especially since site distance is less than ideal and the convenience store will generate pedestrian traffic from east side of Route 155.
- A pedestrian path should be incorporate from the residential units to the convenience store. Further, it is not clear if sidewalks and pathways are being provided throughout the development.
- A pedestrian pathway to the Nott Road park has been investigated in the past. I am not sure what the final outcome was on the feasibility of such a path. However, aside from providing lawn space, no other recreational opportunities being provided on site. In keeping with the intention of a Planned Unit Development, some sort of recreation should be provided.
- The plan should specify the lands of the Guilderland Ballet.
- A buffering and landscape plan should be submitted.
I have no objection to the approval concept plan with the above comments. The next step will include a full review of infrastructure, storm water management and traffic.
Terresa Bakner presenting: We have met with the New York State Department of Transportation for a traffic light and the good news is that we have met those warrants and there will be a traffic light at Rt. 155 and Mill Hill Court. There is also a pedestrian walkway at that light. The traffic signal will have the appropriate pedestrian signaling for that type of crosswalk. We fully intend to have a pedestrian walkway to the convenience store and will work with Ms. Weston or whoever you would like us to work with the pathway for the overall site.
We have a rendering here tonight of the Stewarts facility. Tom Lewis, Bakner and Stewart's representative, explained the building design.
There was further discussion about the location of the Stewarts and where the location of the gas canopy.
Lindsay Childs wanted them to provide a sketch of the angle of the canopy over the gas pumps.
Chairman stated: We will need details of the crossings and where that crossing is going to terminate on the east side.
Lindsay Childs thought that there would be fewer conflicts with turning traffic at this crosswalk around the south side rather than the north side, because a lot of the turns at that intersection are to or from the north.
There are also sidewalks on Dr. Shaw Road from Veeder east and it would make more sense between Veeder Road and Rt. 155 to put the sidewalk on the southside of Dr. Shaw rather than the northside.
Terresa Bakner stated: We can certainly note that and work with DOT.
Chairman stated: There is a site distance limitation looking to the left turn. Now with vegetation removal will that meet the standards?
Terresa Bakner stated: There are already intersection-warning signs out there. If we move the vegetation it will maximize the sight distance there.
Chairman stated: I am assuming that the entire internal roadway will have a sidewalk.
Terresa Bakner explained: We are going to look at the pathways and will make attractive pathways throughout it. .
Chairman added: The only thing was the Nott Road pedestrian pathway and where did that end up through the years.
Lindsay Childs explained: In the previous progress, we made an effort to try and connect this to the Town Nott Road Park which is immediately next to this parcel to the west.
That route was not feasible.
The issue remains that this site is immediately next to a park and the residents cannot get to it.
Chairman added: Another issue that Ms. Weston had raised was that some sort of recreation should be provided on site.
James Cohen wanted to note that since you lower the age limit to 55 and up, there should be more active recreation on site.
Terry Coburn mentioned in the minutes of March 1995 there was a discussion about the preservation of protecting the 48" oak tree. Also, there was a discussing regarding an easement for a bike path and that was agreed upon. There was a water pressure issue that was mentioned at the final approval on April 1995, and the developer agreed to provide financial help for the water problem between Weatherfield 4 and Vale of Normanskill and Mill Hill at the final approval.
Terresa Bakner wanted a copy of those minutes.
Ms. Weston wanted to know if Mill Hill Court will remain a private street or are you anticipating dedication to the Town?
Ms. Bakner stated: Right now we would like to keep it a private street.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience.
Steve Rucinski, Stream Lane, was concerned about their backyard looking directly at Stewarts and concerned about the lighting noise pollution and the littering.
Chairman stated: We will be looking at that to some degree and also the Zoning Board of Appeals will be issuing a Special Use Permit. My sense is to have an attractive looking facility that is adequately landscape.
This Board is looking at the layout, and the location of the driveway, and the location of the structure and the landscaping. The final approval and any conditions do rest with the Zoning Board Appeals.
Chairman asked Ms. Weston to clarify this process.
Ms. Weston explained: A PUD site plan review does not incorporate concept, it is a procedure that this Board and the applicant is comfortable with. At this point, we are looking at the concept then there next stage would be the preliminary final stage. Then we will designate a TDE and they will start to work on all their engineering infrastructure drawings. They will come back to us once the TDE is satisfied with that and all the other details that will be forthcoming then we will give them a preliminary site plan review.
Terresa Bakner stated: In Phase 4, that has an approved site plan. There is a nursing home and an office building to go with that nursing home. I will submit the old plans showing the plans for Phase 4 at the next meeting.
Chairman added: In Phase 4, you will need new storm water regulations requirements and the site will need to be stabilized.
Chairman made a motion to approve the concept plan so that they can start doing some of the preliminary engineering.
The motion was seconded by Paul Caputo and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MEETING ADJOURNED: 9:05 P.M.
TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
CASE OF SCHAFER - Settles Hill Road
MATTER OF MCCORMACK - Depot Road
MATTER OF MILL HILL - Route 155
| 
