Minutes of meeting held at the Guilderland Town Hall, Route 20, Guilderland, NY 12084 at 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Stephen Feeney, Chairman
Paul Caputo
James Cohen
Lindsay Childs
Michael Cleary
Thomas Robert
Theresa Coburn
Jan Weston, Planning Administrator
Brian McClenahan, substituted for Linda Clark
ABSENT: Paul Caputo
Linda Clark, Counsel
************************************************************************
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 September 27, 2006 with a few minor corrections. The motion was seconded by Terry Coburn and carried by a
6-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MATTER OF HARTMANN - 4278 Western Avenue
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a public hearing on the final plat to divide the two existing houses onto two separate tax parcels. Zoned Rural Agriculture 3.
Mary Schultz presenting.
Brian McClenahan, read the Legal Notice as follows:
The case of the Edgar and Freda Hartmann will be heard on Wednesday, October 25, 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 splitting the two existing houses onto separate tax parcels.
The general location of the site is at 4278 Western Turnpike
The property is zoned: Rural Agriculture 3
Tax Map # 26.00-2-10.11
Plans are open for inspection, by appointment, at the Planning Department during normal
business hours.
Dated: October 4, 2006
Stephen Feeney, Chairman, Planning Board
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Hartmann - 4278 Western Turnpike
This is a final plat presentation to separate the two lots that were purchased by separate deeds, but merged together at some point in time. The lots each contain an existing house and are physically separated by the Niagara Mohawk power lines. Lot #1 is less than the 3 acres now required by the Rural Agriculture district and the applicant has included the necessary language detailing the single lot exemption.
No objection to final approval.
Chairman stated: For the record, Albany County Planning Board, dated October 19, 2006, recommendations were: Defer to local consideration.
Mary Schultz presenting: We would like to separate the 17 acres into the two lots. One existing house is on 2.1 acres and the other house will be on 14.9 acres. There is a dirt driveway between these two parcels and the neighbors to the south own that driveway. As requested, we did put a note on the plans for both parcels and that will acknowledge that this is a one-time single lot extension. It will also stipulate that any additional subdivision in the future would have to comply with the zoning code regulations.
Chairman added: This was two existing tax parcels that were merged at some point, and now we need to separate them.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none.
Chairman made a motion to close the public hearing for discussion. The motion was seconded by Thomas Robert and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
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 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 environmental short form which the applicant has filled out, and the minor nature of the two lot subdivision with two existing homes already.
The motion was seconded by Thomas Robert and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
Chairman made a motion for final approval for the two-lot subdivision on Western Turnpike with no conditions.
The motion was seconded by Lindsay Childs and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************CASE OF LODEN
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a public hearing to create two lots from the 92.8 parcel. Zoned Rural Agriculture 3. Robert Loden presenting.
Brian McClehanan, read the Legal Notice as follows:
The case of the Robert Loden will be heard on Wednesday, October 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 2 lots cut from 92.8 acres.
The general location of the site is on the south side of Route 146, between Hawes Road and Gardner Road.
The property is zoned: Rural Agriculture 3
Tax Map # 38.00-2-7.1
Plans are open for inspection, by appointment, at the Planning Department during normal
business hours.
Dated: October 4, 2006
Stephen Feeney, Chairman, Planning Board
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Loden - Hawes Road
This is a final plat presentation to split a 92 acre parcel into two lots. As requested, the applicant has supplied a rendering of the proposed house, septic and driveway locations. The driveway will access Hawes Road, thereby eliminating any shared access concerns. The driveway is proposed at the crest of the road, which will maximize sight distance. The applicant has also submitted a cross section detail of the septic system, which will have to be approved by the Health Department. I have the following comments:
- The final signature plat should show a site location map, the building envelope and street addresses.
- The house is being proposed in the lower flat area of the parcel, with quite a rise up to Hawes Road. Driveway cross sections should be provided to insure that the driveway grade does not exceed the maximum 10%.
- The Highway Superintendent has expressed an interest in obtaining additional right-of way along Hawes Road. A five foot strip should be shown on the plat and quit claim deeded to the Town.
No objection to final approval contingent on the above comments being addressed on the signature plat.
Chairman Feeney stated: For the record, I have comments from the Guilderland Conservation Advisory Council, dated September 5, 2006, and to summarize their conclusions were as follows:
GCAC recommends that tree cutting be kept to a minimum and that any plan for development provide for leaving as many trees standing as possible in and around building sites.
Chairman added: We referenced at the last meeting a letter from Bernard & Deborah Dzingle, dated September 12, 2006, regarding the lack of water in the area, the potential impact of a new house will have on their well. (On File)
We have a letter from Donald Zee, Attorney at Law, dated October 18, 2006, representing the Fowlers' and raising some issues in regards to the quality and quantity of the Fowlers' water source. (On File)
There was a referral from the Albany County Planning Department, dated October 19, 2006, and their comments read as follows: Defer to local consideration with an Advisory Note: Notwithstanding the above, the Albany County Planning Board recommends that if either site is
to be developed, the Albany County Department of Health evaluates the location of the wells and septic systems. (On File)
Robert Loden presenting: I would like to address some of the questions that were raised at the last meeting in regards to the wells and septic. In the package that I gave all of you, there is a hypothetical system that I have drawn for a three bedroom house.
I met with the potential owner of the property and he was able to give me the location of the well and the septic and the location of his house and that information has been placed on the plans. The other request was to have a clearer idea of the topo and we did this.
Chairman stated: In regards to the septic system, is that an engineer system?
Mr. Loden stated that it would be an engineer system.
Chairman stated: Albany County Health Department will have to review the system.
Chairman asked about the driveway. The driveway has been flagged out and it meets the grades and you will have to show on the finals plans the limits of grading and clearing. Also, you will need to have the Highway Superintendent’s approval for the curbcut.
Chairman added: If you go over an acre it will require a storm water pollution prevention plan. You will have to show on the final plans the limits of grading and clearing.
Chairman asked about the five-foot strip. Will you have any problem with donating the five-foot strip to the town by a quitclaim deed?
Mr. Loden said that he would have to discuss this with the buyer.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience.
Arlene Sumner, 6405 Hawes Road, had a letter that she read for the record and submitted her letter to the Board in regards to her concerns. (On File)
Donald Zee, Attorney for Carolyn Fowler who owns property adjacent to the lands owned by Mr. Loden, submitted a letter to the Planning Board, dated October 18, 2006, in regards to the application. Their concerns about the potential impacts of the development to her water source. Parts of the letter read as follows: As a result, we believe that the applicant and the Town should set a mechanism to insure the quality and quantity of the Fowlers' current water source during the course of construction by Mr. Loden and / or his successors. (Letter On File)
In the Stevens Farm situation, the developer was to test each of the adjoining property owner's water quantity and quality and if there was a degradation of this quantity and / or quality during construction the developer was responsible to remedy the situation. Our clients are willing to allow Mr. Loden and his technical experts to test their water source.
We believe that a cash bond should be placed in escrow by Mr. Loden with the Town to guarantee compliance.
Second, my client would appreciate that Mr. Loden provide a survey of all his lands with topography on it.
Third, that our clients also will have the right to use Mynderse Lane.
Finally, in reviewing the Planning Board's minutes covering the September 13, 2006 meeting, we find that Mr. Loden has indicated that there is the possibility of a future subdivision of his lands. If this is the case, it is incumbent on the Planning Board to perform its SEQRA review based on the potential full build out of the 92.8 acres rather than just an analysis of the impact of a two (2) lot subdivision. As the Town is well aware, segmented reviews under SEQRA is frowned upon by the Courts. If Mr. Loden changes his mind and is willing to commit that he desires no further subdivision of his lands, then a restrictive covenant should be placed on the plans as well as in the County Clerk's office. (On File)
Donald Zee wanted to know what is the long-term plan for the applicant. Under SEQR, the applicant should put forth on the record exactly what his plans are. There are potentially three different places on the 11 acre parcel where homes can be build. Is the applicant willing to put on the record that there will be no further subdivision of the 11-acre parcel?
Chairman stated: We have not asked him for that and I am not sure that I would.
Mr. Loden responded. When GCAC walked the property, one of the things that they told me was that they had to look at a piece for building purposes. If it is not buildable then it is not sub-dividable.
Also, I don’t have any plans for the 11 acres.
Chairman explained: If anyone wanted to subdivide further it would be scrutinize quite a bit more than what we are doing now. We are looking at cutting one lot from a 92 acre piece.
As far as with the water supply, they need to comply with the Albany County Health Department. The standard for separation from a water supply and septic is 100 ft. I believe that the separation between the springhouse and the approximate location of the septic system is about 500 ft. or more. It is well within any public health regulations.
Donald Zee, Attorney, was concerned about the impacts that this will have on my client's wells. I am asking the Board to set aside some sort of assurance for my client. The Fowlers' water source is located off their parcel and there has been at least two wells on the Fowlers' parcel, both of which have now failed. The fact that two wells have failed already, what was the cause of those wells to fail? The adjoining property owner, when a single family home was built, there was a decrease in their water supply.
There was further talk about the impact on the wells.
Chairman stated: I am not sure on what guarantee we can even provide that your client's water won't subsequently get worse for one reason or another.
I would be more inclined if this was a higher density, larger number of lots, and the wells encroaching within close distances. I don't deny that your clients have a legitimate concern and the water supply is not good out there.
Lindsay Childs commented: I am looking at the proposed location of the septic system and it doesn't appear that the location of the septic system is significantly higher than the location of the springhouse. The septic is significantly above the well.
Chairman added: It is well within public health standards.
Beatrice Smith, (owns property adjacent to the Fowlers) stated: The springhouse sits on Niagara Mohawk property and we were given the rights and the Fowlers to draw water from it.
There was discussion on the location of the house.
Pat Sungus, buyer of the property, stated: There isn't many places that a house can go because of the slopes of the land and the narrowness by Hawes Road. I picked a spot that is in the tree area, and it would be as far back as I can go from Hawes Road. The septic system will be on the lowest part of the land and I will take down only the trees that I need too. I am having a perc test done by the Albany County Health Department this week.
Terry Coburn asked: Do you have any intentions to further subdivide that 11 acres.
Mr. Sungus said no.
Chairman made a motion to close the hearing.
The motion was seconded by Terry Coburn and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
Chairman made a 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 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 In Accordance with Section 8-0113, Article 8 of the New York Environmental 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 two lot subdivision showing adequate size and location to comply with the Albany County Health Department for septic and well location.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
Chairman made a motion to approve the final plat for the two lot subdivision on Hawes Road 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)
· 5 ft. strip of land along the west side of Hawes Road to be dedicated to the Town for future highway improvements.
· Limits of grading and clearing to be shown on plans and if one acre or more proposed to be disturbed, a storm water pollution prevention plan must be shown.
· Site location map, required building envelope and street address to be shown on the plans.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MATTER OF ARCH BRIDGE REALTY - Route 146
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a concept presentation to create 4 lots from the 46.6 acre parcel. Zoned Rural Agriculture 3. Andrew Schauffert presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
The applicant is seeking concept approval to subdivide a 46-acre parcel into four lots. Lot #1 consists of 35 acres which the applicant would develop at a future date. Route 146 and Depot Road physically separate lots 2, 3, and 4 from the main lot. I have the following comments:
- Lot #4 does not meet the minimum 3 acre zoning requirement. The applicant has listed the parcel as “not for approval as a building lot”. The disposition of this parcel needs to be explained.
- The Black Creek winds through each of the 3 smaller parcels. The creek is a primary watercourse to the Reservoir and therefore, septic systems need to be 250 ft. from the creek. This appears to eliminate the ability to develop these parcels unless the sanitary sewer line is extended. Presently, the sewer line runs along the north side of Route 146 up to the intersection of Depot Road.
- A wetland delineation should be done for the site.
Because of the environmental sensitivity of these smaller parcels, it will be difficult to develop them. It is anticipated that when the 35 acre portion of the site is developed, conservation, clustered subdivision will be required. It would be appropriate, when looking at the entire parcel, that these sensitive parcels to be preserved as part of the overall open space requirement.
Chairman Feeney stated: There is a memo from William West, Dept. of Water & Wastewater, dated 10/23/06, and his comments read as follows:
Sewer - Presently no sewer service available for proposed subdivision. If public sewer is requested a pump station with gravity sewers is required. This is consistent with the sanitary comprehensive plan developed for the Park Guilderland Sewage Treatment service area. This is also consistent as conditions with previous development proposals associated with this parcel.
Water - Presently no water service available for proposed subdivision. All parcels are presently out of district.
As part of the proposed West End water extension The Town Board recently adopted a plan to extend a 12" water line down Hurst Road and a smaller 2" line down Rt. 146 to service existing homes. If the developer requests water service to any proposed lots along Rt. 146, the 2" would be inadequate and extension of the 12" water line with a possible loop to the Hurst Rd. line
would be required. This would be at the developer's expense. This is consistent with previous development proposals associated with this parcel. As adopted by the Town Board this one parcel is not included in the proposed water district and any future development of this parcel would require a district extension with improvements and a yet to be determined connection fee.(On File)
Andrew Schauffert presenting: This is a parcel of 46.7 acres and is one tax parcel at the moment, but it is technically four non-contiguous parcels of land that are all on the same deed. Mr. Reed owns the land and he proposes to sell it to Arch Bridge Realty. Arch Bridge proposes to take title to these parcels as four separate parcels. There is also 35 acres between Hurst Road and Rt. 146 and that will be the main piece. The parcel to the south of Rt. 146 will be subdivided into half. A parcel of 4.1 and another parcel of 4.7 acres and the two remaining parcels which are unbuildable because of the setbacks restrictions with the creek and the road and the property lines. Those two parcels will be left as one parcel for future consideration.
Chairman added: We would have a problem with creating a lot that is unbuildable. One of the issues that we would have is the Black Creek, which the setback for a septic system is 250 ft. away from the creek. and this cannot be met. This does not meet our standards.
The property on the south side would have been dealt with a larger scheme development. What you are proposing now is lots that do not meet our standards.
Chairman asked: The floodplains itself were taken from the firms' maps and has the elevations been determined for that?
Mr. Schauffert stated: There are base flood elevations that are available.
Chairman added: Would a survey pick them up accurately?
Mr. Schauffert explained: They could go out there and determine them that way.
There was further discussion about the floodplains.
Chairman asked about lots 2 and 3. You will be crossing the creek to build a lot?
Mr. Schauffert said that there is a bridge there already. There is an easement that goes back to the farm from the other lot. (Ballybay Farm)
Lindsay Childs wanted to know why are you doing a subdivision when you have a large piece of land that you are presuming to develop into a cluster subdivision?
Jan Weston, Town Planner agreed with Mr. Childs. When the applicant clusters the top part of the land, he will be taking good developable land that would be put into open space.
Mr. Schauffert explained: The applicant wants to take the land as four different parcels and have the ability to sell and build on them and still retain title to the large piece for some future consideration.
Chairman added: Lot 4 would not be approved unless it was a part of a larger piece of property. That lot does not meet any of our standards. Also, lots 2 and 3 do not meet our standards for the septic systems and would have some kind of flood plain issues.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience.
Robert Freisatz, 527 Rt. 146, commented on the wetlands located there and it may appear that this land is flat, but it really all slopes to both sides to the Black Creek.
Chairman stated: Conceptually, this does not meet our standards and cannot approve it. You can come back with new plans. If this is in conjunction to a larger development then things will make sense depending on what you are doing on the parcel across the way. If you keep the development concentrated in an area that is not as sensitive then there would be also access to water and sewer. When the 35 acres is developed it would have to be extended.
All the Planning Board members agreed.
Hassan Hamedani, Arch Bridge Realty Contracting, stated: The Bally Bay Farm owner spoke with interest to buy the 4.7 acre parcel (lot 3). We also talked casually about lot #4 being donated to the town as parkland.
Chairman stated: We would require that to be merged into one lot.
There was further discussion on what can be done with the other lots.
Terry Coburn suggested: If you came in and wanted to just developed the north side of the property., you would find that the property does not meet the standards, and the lots are not buildable. You could consider this property as open space land.
Ms. Weston suggested: The best thing at this time is to deny this and have them withdraw and then we can sit down and talk about all the different options. You should take a look at our conservation subdivision laws so that you know what to expect for that 35 acre parcel.
Garett Beckman, 590 Rt. 146, owns land 580 Rt. 20, commented: We came before the Board and had plans to develop our property and were held to the 250 ft. setback, however, for the amount of expense relocating our septic field we did not go forward.
Ben Crupe has the easement that goes through my property and Ballyfarm
The concept presentation to create 4 lots from the 46.6 acre parcel was withdrawn
************************************************************************
SITE PLAN REVIEW - Stuyvesant Plaza - 1475 Western Avenue
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a site plan review to allow the construction of maintenance storage building. Zoned Local Business. Edward Costigan presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Stuyvesant Plaza - 10 Executive Park Drive
The applicant has requested a special use permit to construct a maintenance building in the northwestern portion of their property. The building will back up to the Crossgates entrance ramp to the Northway. No planning objections.
Edward Costigan presenting: The proposed building will be used by the facilities and maintenance operations department for storage. Part of our intent is to consolidate some of our operations that are spread out throughout the property and miscellaneous vacant spaces.
The size of the building is 22' x 50 ' which is 1100 square feet in area. It will be behind the administration building. It will be similar in design to the existing Maintenance Garage in order to aesthetically blend in with the buildings in this area of the property.
Lindsay Childs stated: Your map does not show the existing maintenance shop.
Chairman stated: This is pretty straightforward.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none.
Chairman made a motion for site plan approval for Stuyvesant Plaza maintenance building.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by an 8-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************SITE REVIEW - Gordon Residential Development - Wagner Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a site plan review to allow a storage facility on the 50 acre site. Zoned Industrial. Daniel Hershberg presenting.
`Gordon - Wagner Road
The applicant has revised his original request a special use permit to allow the construction of self-storage units on this 50 acre parcel. The proposal has increased from 45,000 sq. ft. to 68,650 sq ft. and now includes vehicle storage.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
The site is at the end of Wagner Road, a dead end, sub standard street. The parcel has been zoned Industrial because of its proximity to the railroad but the land has always been used for agricultural purposes. There are three residences adjoining the property to the north. It is generally flat and drains toward the railroad bed. I have the following comments:
The plan shows the development of 8.4 acres of this 50 acre site with a conservation easement covering the remaining 41 acres. The details of the easement need to be defined but the preservation of the open space will be more in conformance with the intent of the surrounding rural agricultural zone.
- A stormwater report has been submitted. This needs to be reviewed by a TDE for conformance with all new stormwater regulations.
It appears that the proposed fencing is now 6 ft. which will eliminate the need for a variance. I could find no landscaping or lighting plan, both of which need to be submitted and reviewed for the protection of the surrounding homes.
The Fire Department should review this plan. Their access and the regulations, if any, of storage hazardous materials should be discussed.
No elevations have been submitted but the design of these structures should be reviewed. Further, the roof color should be earth tones, as requested by the Helderberg escarpment Planning Guide.
No objection to approval contingent on the following being adequately addressed:
Impact to the existing neighborhood.
Currently this is a dead end street, which is residential and agricultural in use. Neighborhood issues that have not been addressed include security, adequate buffering, lighting, drainage and fire protection. Also, the Highway Superintendent should review the adequacy of Wagner Road to handle potential truck traffic.
Visual impact.
This site can be seen as you go over the railroad tracks on Route 146, from the current residences and from the Helderberg Escarpment. There is no information on the building design, and very little on the buffering. The design and its compatibility with the rural character should be addressed.
Daniel Hershberg, Hershberg & Hershberg, presenting: The major concern about this site is the ingress and egress on Wagner Road. We have a small road connected to a major highway and therefore the traffic density provided by any new development here has to be very minimal.
That is why the self-storage facility and the outside vehicles or boat storage would be good for the site. The numbers of vehicles moving to these facilities are very minimal. A large conservation easement in excess of 41 acres will be established to protect existing wetlands. The Army Corps of Engineers are not issuing any jurisdictional letters these days due to the recent court decisions. We are in the final stage and we are working with the court to determine whether or not we meet the threshold for a nationwide permit or if we fall under the tenth of an acre exemption.
The storm water management was already reviewed by Boswell TDE. We will address their questions the same time we deal with the Corps questions regarding whether or not we might have to relocate or move some of that stormwater detention.
Only about 5% of the site ends up being paved areas. We did provide substantial buffer from the rear of the neighbors' homes. Trees along the periphery of the site will be retained, and we will only disturb trees when we put in the storm water management system.
We did propose to add some landscaping around the facility and will also only provide six parking spaces. The character of the neighborhood and values of surrounding property are reasonably safeguarded and there will be security lighting and will be entirely fenced.
This use only occupies 17% of the total site and is in keeping with the general character propose use and potential future use of properties in the area especially given its proximity to the railroad and the Industrial Park.
Chairman stated: Are there any culverts?
Mr. Hershberg explained: There is an existing culvert on Wagner Road. That culvert equalizes the drainage.
Terry Coburn asked what type of buffering are you planning to the rear property of the neighbors?
Mr. Hershberg explained: I think that they will be using some evergreen and deciduous trees.
Thomas Robert asked: That small piece of property to the west of the road, what is that piece?
Mr. Hershberg explained: That piece is actually a part of the parcel on the other side of the highway.
Mr. Robert asked about the outside vehicles storage. Will they be register vehicles?
Mr.Hershberg said yes they would be registered.
Jim Cohen asked about the fence and the type of fencing.
Mr. Hershberg said that it would be a six-foot chain link fence.
James Cohen wanted to know if you met with the neighbors.
Mr. Hershberg explained: I have met with one of the neighbors and she had no problems.
Chairman continued to review Ms. Weston's comments. The Highway Superintendent should review the adequacy of Wagner Road to handle potential truck traffic. The Zoning Board should be aware that this is going on.
Also, the Fire Department should review the plans and we need an elevation drawing needs to be provided.
There was further discussion about the security.
Chairman made a motion to recommend the site review to allow a storage facility with the following conditions:
· Satisfy Town Planner comments
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MEETING ADJOURNED - 9:50 P.M.
`TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
October 25, 2006
CASE OF HARTMANN – 4278 Western Avenue
CASE OF LODEN – Hawes Road
MATTER OF ARCH BRIDGE REALTY – Rte. 146
MATTER OF STUYVESANT PLAZA – 1475 Western Avenue
GORDON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT – Wagner Road
TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
October 25, 2006
CASE OF HARTMANN - 4278 Western Avenue
CASE OF LODEN - Hawes Road
MATTER OF ARCH BRIDGE REALTY - RT. 146
SITE REVIEW - Stuyvesant Plaza - 1475 Western Avenue
SITE REVIEW - Gordon Residential Development - Wagner Rd.
| 
