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
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 October 11, 2006 with a few minor corrections. The motion was seconded by Thomas Robert and carried by a
7-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MATTER OF CAPRON - Curry Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a concept presentation to divide 51 acres into four lots. Zoned R40. Richard Capron presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Capron - Curry Road
This is a concept presentation to subdivide the 50 acre site into four lots. Two lots are being created to encompass the two existing homes, with lot # 3 becoming a new building lot and lot #4 being offered for donation or sale to the Pine Bush.
The land is located between Curry Road and the Thruway and is flat and sandy. The parcel contains both wooded areas and open fields and is within the Pine Bush study area. There is no public water or sewer and one driveway currently serves the two houses and the barn. I have the following comments:
- This site is located in a full protection area of the Pine Bush. I have sent the application to the Commission and will report their comments when they are received.
- Although each lot is proposed to share the existing driveway, the lots all need to own 20 ft. of access to the road. Also, for 911 purposes, this driveway should have a private road name.
- All existing well and septic locations should be shown.
- All lots need to show a building envelope.
This proposal is creating only one additional building lot. I have no objection to concept approval contingent on the above concerns being adequately addressed.
Richard Capron presenting: We are looking to subdivide 3 lots and not 4 lots. Pursant to our talks with the Pine Bush Commission, lot 1 is to include the existing log home and then lot 4 would include the existing farm house currently used as farm manager's residence, garage and equipment barn. Then lots 2 and 3 would be combined into one lot.
Chairman asked if the Pine Bush Commission was interested in some of the land.
Mr. Capron explained: We have nothing in writing, but at this point the Pine Bush Commission is interested in lot 2 and lot 3 combined and possibly lot 4 which would include the existing farm house.
Lot 1 is the existing log home is where we live.
Ms. Weston explained: The concept is fine but couldn't come back for the final until lots 2 & 3 are resolved as far as what is going to happen.
Chairman stated: What you are presenting as concept is: Instead of the four lots, lots 2 and 3 will be combined as one lot and lot 1 and lot 4 will be as it is
Mr. Capron said yes. That is what I am presenting tonight. There are individual wells and individual septics.
Chairman asked about the triangular piece of land in front that belongs to the Pine Bush.
Mr. Capron explained: I think that it is part of the Pine Bush piece that is across the street and is part of Colonie.
Lindsay Childs asked about lots 42 and 44.
James Cohen asked: According to the comments, you want to build on lot 3, is that correct?
Mr. Capron explained: We were going to make that available as a lot for development.
Chairman explained: You will have to show the location of the well and septic.
Terry Coburn wanted to know if they don't combine the two lots, where would the access road be to that back lot.
Mr. Capron explained: That is one reason why the Pine Bush is really interested in lot 3.
Chairman stated: That was one of our main concerns. We could create a landlock parcel unless the Pine Bush bought it and had an access easement for management purposes.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience.
Paige Straight, Realtor working with the Caprons, stated: The main driveway that is currently there would access the older home and the larger lot, and there is plenty of room to add a new separate driveway for the log home.
Chairman stated: I have no problems with the concept.
Lindsay Childs asked about the driveway. If lot 1 and lot 4 were occupied, will they share the common driveway.
Mr. Capron said yes.
Lindsay Childs stated: We will need to know where the lot lines are located.
Chairman made a motion to approve the concept of a three lot subdivision on Curry Road.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MATTER OF ROMANO - 1847 Western Turnpike
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a concept presentation of a proposed 4 lot subdivision of 14.7 acres. Zoned Rural Agriculture 3. Tim Elliot presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Romano - 1847 Western Turnpike
The applicant has submitted a concept map to divide 14.7 acres into 4 lots, one for the existing house plus three additional building lots. The land, located just west of the Watervliet Reservoir inlet, is gently rolling with cleared fields and sparse vegetation. All the lots meet the requirements of the Rural Agriculture zoning. I have the following comments:
- The Watervliet regulations state that “no portion of the seepage unit of a subsurface sewage disposal system shall be constructed or placed within a 500 foot linear distance of the reservoir.” Linear distance is measured from the high water mark of the reservoir.
The applicant has shown a 300 ft. buffer from the reservoir for the placement of septics. This needs to be discussed.
- All lots show their own simple access out to a public road. Lots 2 and 3 will share a common driveway out to Route158. The plat shows that lot #4 will access Route 20. It may be desirable to have lot #4 also share the Route 158 driveway to reduce the curbcuts onto the major roadways.
- Lot #3 needs to show a 100 ft. rear setback.
I have no objection to three additional lots on this parcel if the septic locations can be adequately addressed.
Tim Elliot, Attorney for Romano, presenting: I have a letter from Eric M. Holt, P.E., dated November 7, 2006 addressed to the Planning Board Members and read as follows:
Dear Planning Board Members
This letter is to advise the Planning Board that whether existing soil conditions are suitable for on-site septic system. (On File)
Tim Elliot continued: The lot currently is 14.83 acres with one single-family dwelling. Our proposal is to break it up into four lots containing 4.46 acres with the existing single family dwelling on lot 1. Lot 2 will have 3.90 acres and lot 3 will have 3.23 acres and lot 4 has 3.24 acres. All the lots exceed the minimum 3 acre requirements.
We have provided a driveway to lot 4 off of Route 20, which has already been approved by DOT. The access to lots 2 and 3 would be met by a common driveway coming off of Rt. 158 which has also been approved by DOT.
We have shown the proposed location of the septic system and we exceeded more than 300 ft. setback from the reservoir. We have met with the Council for the City of Watervliet and their Assistant Management, Mark Gleason, and discussed this proposal with them. They acknowledge that the current law is in fact a 300 ft. distance from the reservoir not a 500 ft. setback.
Chairman stated: Our subdivision regulations call for 500 ft.
Mr. Elliot continued: We exceed the 500 ft. setback for lot 3, and lot 2 would be approximately 450 ft. and lot 4 would be approximately 400 ft. setback.
Albany County Department of Health was out to review the map and they did the perc test on it and, I do expect a report back from him next week.
We have shown the building envelopes on each lot with 75 ft. setbacks on each side except for the reservoir side that we are showing as a 100 ft. setback.
Chairman added: Just for clarification, our subdivision regulations calls for 500 ft. I have talked with Mark Whites about the percs and was told that two of them can be conventional and one an engineer system.
You will need to do a recalculation just to show us that the keyhole sections of the lots cannot go into the calculation of the area in accordance to our code. I don't think that matters for lot 2, for you will probably be at 3 acres by my calculations. Lot 3, you will probably make 3 acres when you cut off the keyhole sections, and lot 4, I don't think that you do. So at a minimum, we will be looking for a one time exemption under our Rural Agriculture 3.
Ms. Weston added: The new law allows for a one time 2 acre cut and this may fall under it. We will need calculations for all those keyhole lots without the access part of it.
Chairman stated: As my understanding, there were some plans to raise the water level of the reservoir. When you met with the City of Watervliet, did they discuss the potential impact of that?
Mr. Elliott explained: They did and we specifically discussed that and they indicated to me that the primary impact would be seen on the opposite side of Route 20.
Chairman added: We will need a letter from them to that effect that they do no anticipate water levels changing.
Where you are showing the proposed septic systems, is that where the perc test were done in those locations?
Mr. Elliot said: The actual location are slightly different from what is shown on this map.
Chairman continued: On lot 3, the septic system does comply with the 500 ft. setback and on lot 4 the propose system, is that somewhat accurate?
Mr. Elliot said that it was very close.
Chairman stated: Alternately, we will need to see all the limits of grading and clearing and the well locations should be shown on the plans.
Chairman wanted to know if you would consider doing a cluster design.
Ms. Weston stated: When you do the calculations you will find that your keyhole lots are not meeting the minimum requirements. You may want to consider pulling those lots on to smaller lots and then providing an open area adjacent to the reservoir that would just be open space.
As a cluster design they can be smaller than 3 acres.
Chairman stated: For the record, we have a letter from the Department of Water and Wastewater Management, dated 11/6/06, and read as follows:
WATER
Presently there is no water at this location. The Town Board has authorized design for extension of water to service this location however formal approvals by NYSDEC and approvals for bonding have not been completed. Although the plans do not indicate public water they also do not indicate well locations. Until all approvals are completed it is premature to assume availability of public water.
Plans should probably show well locations and proposed public water locations. If public water is assumed Pine Grove FD should be contacted for possible dry lines, hydrant, easements etc., within proposed subdivision.
SEWER
No public sewer
When/if water becomes available there exists a greater probability for development in the area. Protection of the Town's raw water supply should be a major concern. As a minimum, the City of Watervliet's water shed rules and regulations should be followed. Consideration of septic system districts with maintenance agreements should also be explored through the ACHD. (On File)
Chairman added: There was further discussion about the setbacks and the regulations. Albany County Public Health's law is 300ft and our subdivision regulations call for 500 ft. setback.
Lindsay Childs would like to see a cluster design.
Mr. Elliott stated: Our surveyor indicated that one of the reasons why it was originally put out in this fashion was to accommodate for the wells and the 200 ft. separations between the wells and septic.
Chairman stated: Conceptually, you will have to go back and review some of these things, because it is not meeting our base line standards.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience.
Tom LaForte, 6998 Rt. 158, stated: as far as the perc test goes, my lot is horrendous and it is all clay. As far as the wells, I have one of the few good ones in that stretch and mine has not gone dry, but I am concern about my water supply.
Kathy Cranker, 6968 Rte. 158, stated: We have two wells and we still get water delivered when we run out. I am concerned about the water issues and the septics.
Terry Coburn would like to see this 4 lot subdivision redesigned so that you do meet the 500 ft. setback.
Chairman made a motion to continued the concept of this 4 lot subdivision.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
SITE REVIEW OF ROMANO - 1847 Western Avenue
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a site plan review to allow a mortgage consulting business. Zoned BNRP. Tim Elliot presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Romano - 1847 Western Avenue
The applicant is requesting a special use permit to use the basement of this residence as a mortgage consulting office. The property is zoned BNRP. My only concern is that of parking. Although the applicant states that the driveway can hold 5 cars, it is a single width driveway. Assuming there will be someone living in the residence, plus the applicant and two employees, and an occasional customer, all parking will be stacked bumper to bumper, and all vehicles have to back up onto Route 20.
I have no objection to the business use, but some better means of parking and access should be developed to accommodate anticipated usage.
Tim Elliot presenting: There is a turn around area set up in the front to prevent vehicles from having to back out onto Western Avenue. The driveway can hold up to four vehicles with the garage for additional parking. There is space in the rear of the building that could also park another vehicle.
The use that we are seeking is for professional office space for a mortgage consultant office. Two employees will be on the site and no changes to the exterior of the building.
There will also be a pre-existing apartment on the second floor.
Chairman asked: Does the business need six parking spaces?
Mr. Elliot explained: This business really does not need six spaces.
Chairman stated: From my perspective, we are looking at a site plan for a special use, and in reality, the proposed use is that I would not want to show six spaces, and then another business comes in that needs six spaces. They really do not function as six spaces and I would rather you seek a variance of four spaces.
Thomas Robert questioned: You have two 85 ft. dimensions on the driveway. Does that mean that it is 170 ft. long?
Mr. Elliot explained: No, it is 85 ft. total.
Mr. Robert was concerned about the turnaround.
Terry Coburn asked if there was a business there before.
Mr. Elliot said no. It was being used as a two family home and no one is there now.
Chairman wanted to know if you could get a few spaces in behind the structure.
Chairman added: You have six parking spaces shown on the plans that really don’t function as parking spaces. I would like to see a design that works.
There was further discussion about the parking issues and eliminating the garage and use that space for more parking.
Mr. Elliot wanted to know how many cars is a reasonable number for the driveway?
Chairman stated: The Zoning Board will deal with that issue. My sense is that you need to come up with a realistic demand.
My sense would be to recommend that the applicant remove the garage to provide reasonable parking lot in the rear to accommodate five or six parking spaces.
Chairman stated: I will be willing to recommend approval for the site plan in the matter of Lisa Romano, 1847 Western Avenue, with the following condition:
· the applicant eliminate the proposed turnaround in the front yard and remove the existing garage so that all the parking for the proposed business can be provided in the rear of the structure without stacking in the driveway.
· the applicant investigate their legal rights to access the alley way as a preferred alternative. There will be a one way access in from Western Avenue with existing traffic onto the alleyway out to York Drive.
Lindsay Childs stated: What we want is the parking resolved in the back and not stacked.
The applicant request was to continue and come back with a new plan.
The motion for the site review was continued at the request of the applicant.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
SITE PLAN REVIEW - Mill Hollow - 5080 Western Turnpike
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a site plan review to allow a 86 unit senior citizen residential facility and community center. Zoned Multiple Residence. Francis Bossolini presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Mill Hollow - 5080 Western Turnpike
The applicant has applied for a special use permit to construct an 86 unit senior housing complex on the former Bavarian Chalet site. The plan calls for 4 and 8 unit buildings and each unit will be sold as a condominium unit. The majority of the development will occur in the existing parking area and the rear soccer fields. The existing Western Turnpike access will be eliminated and the only access will be from Frenchs Mill Road with an ‘emergency access only’ along the eastern property. The developer had agreed to construct a sidewalk east to Saint Boniface church and also to give the Town a portion of the former restaurant for use as a Town senior citizen center.
This proposal is being reviewed concurrently with Twenty West, a 74 single family unit development, directly to the east. I have the following comments:
- The application will require variances from the required 100 ft. side and rear setbacks to residentially zoned properties.
- a pedestrian connection should be made at the southeast corner of the property which would connect with the proposed Twenty West subdivision. This tie-in would allow the seniors to access the significant open space of Twenty West and the Twenty West residents to walk to the senior citizen center. This connection should also be examined as a possible vehicular emergency access.
- Bill West would like the required pump station to be shared with the adjoining development. This, and other infrastructure, needs to be coordinated through a common TDE.
- An emergency crash gate should be shown on the eastern access driveway.
- The dumpster in the northeast corner should be relocated. As shown, it is too close to the single family home that will be constructed to the east.
In general, I am in favor of this proposal with my main area of concern being the infrastructure coordination and connections between the two adjoining proposals.
Dominic Ranieri, Architect, gave a refresher course on what this project is about.
We have developed some of the architect plans and the site plans much further since we last met.
The chalet will be preserved and my client will provide the town with the community center at that location. The whole site is still being design around maintaining as much of the countryside.
Francis Bossolini, Civil Engineer, talked more about the technical issues that are of a concern. We do have to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals for the site plan and special use permit. We are proposing to construct 86 unit senior housing complex on the former Bavarian Chalet site. There are two building sites with attach garages and then with detached garages. We will be providing a little over two parking spaces per unit. One will be in the garage and the other outside. From the marketing standpoint, we need to have almost two spaces per unit and that is what we are providing.
Mr. Bossolini discussed the storm water management plan, and the pump station` and the water and sewer hookups.
We will preserving 60 % of greenspace and will enhance all of the buffers around the property. We did identify some of the wetland areas on the property. We are working with the DOT on the routing of the sidewalk back to the existing sidewalk that is just to the west of the Town Hall.
Mr. Bossolini also discussed the traffic concern. The senior housing generates much less traffic in the peak hour.
We are closing the entrances onto Route 20 and all the traffic will be routed out from French's Mill Road. There is a small emergency strip out to Route 20 and currently is paved and will maintain that and use it as an emergency crash gate.
We are in the mist of completing our Phase 1 Archeological assessment and when we have that report we will pass that on to the town.
Chairman asked about the limits of clearing.
Mr. Bossolini discussed the sidewalk connections and the dumpsters. We are preparing all the final reports that we need to submit to our TDE for review and the storm water management plan, the utility calculations and the actual traffic numbers.
Paul Caputo asked about the line of existing trees on the bottom side of the drawing. That is on the neighbors property.
Mr. Ranieri, the Architerct, explained: Those are the actual trees but some of those will need to be cut down. We will have a fair amount of plantings that will go in to supplement that.
Lindsay Childs asked about the parking and wanted to know more about the pedestrian walkways along the Community Center.
Chairman mentioned: For the handicap parking spaces you will need to provide a 8 ft. access for each space.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none.
Chairman made a motion to recommend the site plan review with the following conditions:
· Provide a landscaping plan showing size and type of plantings. Clearly indicate existing "old growth" trees that will be preserved. An attempt should be made to preserve as many of the existing trees along the easterly boundary of the site and along the entrance drive from French's Mill Road.
· Clearly show limits of disturbance to ACOE wetlands & total acreage impacted. If 1/10th (.10) acres or more will be disturbed, no final action should be taken until ACOE has an opportunity to comment on the required Pre-Construction Notification (PCN).
· Provide pedestrian access at the southeast corner of the site to the adjoining proposed subdivision (20 West). Access to possibly include emergency vehicle access.
· Consider emergency crash gates at the eastern access drive and eliminate parking spaces in front of driveway to provide unobstructed pedestrian access.
· Provide sidewalk plan around parking lot perimeter in front of the condominiums. Show sidewalk connection to the interior of the site from French's Mill Road and from the Senior Center parking lot to the Senior Center building.
· Dumpster in the northeast corner should be relocated to provide improved buffer for the proposed homes to the east.
Also, you will need a permit from DOT to construct the sidewalk.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
SITE REVIEW - Capital Board & Bike - 1890 Western Ave.
Jan Weston announced that this was the former Robinson retail auto parts store and the applicant is seeking a special use permit for the sale and service of bicycles, snowboards and skateboards.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, commented: My main comment is the landscaping. Where possible the landscaping could really be improved.
Chairman stated: My biggest concern with the site is that I would like some sort of comment from DOT regarding the proposal. There is no pedestrian accommodation across the front of this parcel.
Paul Caputo want to know on what the original special use permit was before so that we can make a determination.
Linda Clark, Counsel, made the motion to recommend the site plan for the Capital Board & Bike Shop with the following conditions:
· NYSDOT be given an opportunity to review and comment regarding utilization of the site including: parking within the DOT's r-o-w, whether there would be any benefit to reducing/consolidating curb cuts & providing adequate pedestrian accommodation.
· Consideration be given to improving landscaping.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MEETING ADJOURNED: 10:10 P.M.
TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
November 8, 2006
MATTER OF CAPRON – Curry Road
MATTER OF ROMANO - Western Turnpike
MATTER OF ROMANO – Western Turnpike]
SITE PLAN – ROMANO – 1847 Western Avenue
SITE PLAN – MILL HOLLOW – 5080 Western Turnpike
| 
