TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
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
Michael Cleary
Thomas Robert
Theresa Coburn
Jan Weston, Planning Administrator
Linda Clark, Counsel
ABSENT: Lindsay Childs
************************************************************************
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 announced that the public hearing for Carson on Old State Road is off the agenda this evening.
MATTER OF CARSON – Old State Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a public hearing on the final plat of a four-lot subdivision of .60 acres. Zoned R-15. Mark Blackstone presenting.
Linda Clark, Counsel, read the Legal Notice as follows:
The case of the Carolyn Carson will be heard on Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 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 two lots cut from .60 acres.
The general location of the site is at 3039 Old State Road
The property is zoned: R-15
Tax Map # 27.19-1-34
Plans are open for inspection, by appointment, at the Planning Department during normal
business hours.
Stephen Feeney, Chairman, Planning Board
Terry Coburn read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Carson – 3039 Old State Road
The applicant has submitted a final plat to split an existing .6-acre parcel in two. The proposal required two variances – one for the 100ft. width at building line and one for the minimum square acreage, which has been granted by the Zoning Board. The plat shows the proposed driveway, which has ample sight, distance and the water and sewer hookup locations. No objection to final approval.
Mark Blackstone presenting: The water and sewer hookups and the driveway were shown on the plat plan. I am splitting an existing .6-acre parcel in two and the lot sizes will be consistent with the vast majority of those in the neighborhood.
Chairman noted for the record: I received comments from the Guilderland Conservation Advisory Council, dated February 17, 2007, and the conclusions read as follows: As noted under the section related to drainage, there will be a need to redirect the storm water drainage pipes on the east lot in order to divert the drainage away from the new proposed west lot. So long as proper grading and storm water management procedures are followed and the existing trees are protected, GCAC does not envision any adverse impact on the environment other than one more residence in the neighborhood.
Thomas Robert wanted to know if there were any water problems out there.
Mr. Blackstone explained: That it is all sandy soil and there should be no drainage problems.
Chairman asked about the grading plans and the grading plans should show on the final plans.
Mr. Blackstone stated: The grading plans would be noted on the subdivision plans or the applicant would make a grading notation on a proposed plot plan prior to the building permit to indicate that the drainage will be controlled on site and directed to the rear of the property.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none.
Chairman entertained a motion to close the public hearing. It 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 comments of the Guilderland Conservation Advisory Council, and by the environmental short form, which the applicant has filled out, and the minor nature of the proposed subdivision.
The motion was seconded by James Cohen and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
Chairman made a motion for final approval for a two-lot subdivision at Old State Road with the following conditions:
- Town Highway Superintendent approval for any new curbcut.
- Town Water & Wastewater approval (with building permit application)
- $1,500.00 per dwelling unit – Park & Recreation Fund (with building permit application).
- $2,085.00 per dwelling unit – sewer mitigation fee (with sewer hook-up application)
The motion was seconded by Paul Caputo and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
MATTER OF MAZZONE – Old State Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a concept presentation of a proposed two-lot subdivision of .41 acres. Zoned R-15. Joseph Mazzone presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
The applicant is requesting to break off a building lot from the 3.5 acre parcel which contains the Auction Barn. The property shown as parcel 1 on the plan has been previously approved.
The new lot will be meet the R-15 requirements and have municipal water and sewer. Access will be from Old Carman Road that is less than ideal in that the road dips downward and sight distance is limited. The Superintendent of Highways will have to approve the final location of the curbcut.
No objection to concept approval.
Joseph Mazzone presenting: We would like to cut off one building lot for my daughter and put up a single-family home.
Chairman stated: The parcel now does not have a keyhole lot but you will be creating a keyhole lot on Parcel 2, is that correct?
Thomas Robert stated: I am confused: The plan shows a 3.5-acre parcel as a whole parcel.
Ms. Weston explained: What you are showing is that lot 2A and lot 2B are still one tax parcel. Did you ever file your plans before, because it is not shown on our tax parcel as all?
Mr. Mazzone stated: As for parcel 2A , we went to the zoning board a couple of years ago, for a single family home for ourselves.
Ms. Weston asked if Mr. Mazzone ever filed that subdvision at all.
Mr. Mazzone said no. The reason is that I thought I needed four stakes in the ground to show where I am putting the house before I can file.
Chairman explained: This needs to be done otherwise you run the risk of losing your approval. You needed to file to the Albany County Clerks office within 60 days after your final approval or there is some discretion on whether it is even an approved subdivision. This will need to be checked out.
Ms. Weston explained: I was looking at the actual tax parcel and I assumed that you had abandoned that one subdivision. In that case, it would be a keyhole lot, but it is zoned R-15 and you will still need all the requirements.
Chairman stated: My concern is the topography and where the driveway would come out on Old Carman Road. If that parcel 2A becomes a keyhole lot then it cannot exceed a 10% grade. I don’t know what the grade is there now and we will need to see the topography.
Chairman asked about the driveway. Depending on where you put the driveway for lot 2A.2, you cannot put it very far to the south, then you would be on a one-way section of the road.
Mr. Mazzone further explained: It is actually connected to the same driveway as the first proposal on my subdivision. She will get 15 ft. of her driveway on her own and the other 25 ft. opening will be to our property. It will be a separate driveway. Whatever the town’s requirement was at that time for Parcel 2A, of my last subdivision, is where the 40 ft. wide driveway was put for future use.
Chairman stated: The previous subdivision needs to be filed first.
Ms. Weston explained: It is still one lot. 2A 1 and 2A 2and are still one lot.
Linda Clark, Counsel, stated: If that problem is going to result in a continuance anyway, it may make sense to amend the application and reaffirm and renew the subdivision that had lapsed.
Paul Caputo stated: Right now you do not have subdivision. Maybe we should just pull this application and correct what you had before.
Ms. Weston suggested that it might be betterr now just to give them concept approval to this and have them come back for his final showing that this will be a 3 lot subdivision and to have just the one filing. .
Chairman added: We will not file the old one but will just add the lot to this subdivision making it a 3-lot subdivision.
Chairman stated: We need to see the topography and the grading and how you are going to get that slope less than 10% in that area. Also, we will need to see the location of the two driveways. I would like to see the grade of that proposed drive and the location of that driveway.
You will also need to show a building envelope on that new lot.
Chairman approved this concept as a three-lot subdivision.
BELOW – 31 North Bridge Street
Site Plan review to allow an in-law apartment. Zoned R10. Connie Below presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Below – 31 North Bridge Street
This is a site plan review for an in-law apartment that already exists. The house is large and has ample parking to accommodate the second unit. There have also been a number of illegal units within this house that have reportedly been removed. I have no objection to the one in-law apartment contingent on it meeting all other conditions required by the Zoning ordinance and that the applicant is insure that the house remains in compliance.
Frank Below presenting: The basement apartment has been removed and is being used for a family room. The in-law apartment is above the garage and is being used now. We are coming in now to bring it into compliance and the main house will be staying the same.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none.
Chairman entertained a motion for site plan approval in the matter of Below, 31 North Bridge Street for an in-law apartment.
The motion was seconded by Paul Caputo and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
ConRel – 3641-3643 Carman Road
Site plan review to allow the construction of a 4,000 sq. ft. building to be used as a wine and liquor store. Zoned General Business. Mike Davis presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Con Rel- Carman Road
The applicant is seeking a special use permit to construct 4,000 sq. ft. building in order to relocate the wine and liquor store currently located to the north. The site is zoned General Business and currently contains a single-family house, a garage used for warehousing and a smaller out building that would be removed. The applicant has met with staff and already made many changes to accommodate staff’s concerns. I have the following comments:
- - The revised plan now meets the parking requirements.
The relocation of the existing curbcut will require DOT approval.
- The building has been designed and oriented to give a more pleasing view to all sides of the building.
- A loading area is now shown. If a dumpster is needed, that area should also be shown.
- A small stormwater depression is shown. Neighbors have mentioned that this area of Carman Road has historically experienced drainage problems, particularly in the rear of the DiCaprio parcel to the south. A TDE should be assigned to review the proposed drainage system.
Overall, I am pleased with the revised design of this site. No planning objections.
Mike Davis presenting: The applicant wishes to move his business to 3641-3643 Carman Road and construct a 4200 square foot building on the site. The site is just south of the current location, separated by a strip of land owned by Mastrianni. The site currently contains a one-story building, a pump house, and a two-story garage with an addition being used for storage by Con-rel and a residence that is being rented out.
The applicant proposes removing the pump house, one story building and the addition to the two story garage to allow for construction of the proposed building and parking.
The new facility will have 700 square feet of warehouse space along with 180 square feet of office space leaving the remaining 3320 square feet for retail space. The two-story garage will continue as storage for Con-reel and the residence will be rented out.
We calculate that a total of 28 parking spaces are required. Our site plan shows the 28 spaces with one being used for loading/unloading. This will require a variance because parking is proposed in the setback. The required parking is unique for a wine and liquor store since most people are in and out in a short period of time. The applicant doesn’t project a doubling of customers and wants the additional space for inventory and the display of a greater variety of wines and liquors. He would be comfortable with 22 parking spaces but code requires 28 spaces.
Town of Guilderland water and sewer would service the site. The disturbance of the site will be less than ¾ acre and storm drainage will be directed to a proposed swale on the south side of the project and a drainage ditch to the north. A sidewalk is proposed along Carman Road. Landscaping will be new trees in front of the site along Carman Road with plantings around the building and parking.
Chairman asked about the driveway. Have you talked with the Department of Transportation and is there any reason why they would want it separated from the other driveway?
Mike Davis explained: Currently there is a driveway into the site. We are shifting it slightly to the north, but NYSDOT may want us to move it. We will be working with them.
Chairman asked about a dumpster.
Mr. Davis said a dumpster is not needed.
There was discussion about the drainage.
Chairman made a motion to recommend approval for site plan approval in the matter of Con-Rel Liquor Store, with the following conditions:
- NYSDOT approval of proposal curbcut. Consideration should be given to realigning the access to provide a straight entrance.
- Provide a lighting and landscaping plan showing the size, type and location of lights and identifying the size and types of plant materials.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
MATTER OF MUIA – 2261 Western Avenue
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a site plan review to allow an addition to the Hamilton House Antique Center. Zoned BNRP. Michele Muia presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Muia – 2261 Western Avenue
The applicant has applied for a special use permit to build a 1,000 sq. ft. addition to the
rear of the Hamilton House Antique Center. The property is zoned BNRP and received
a use variance a number of years ago to allow retail sales. The addition will necessitate
the relocation of a few parking spaces to the rear of the parcel, which will be used for
employees. Otherwise, all site characteristics stay the same. No Planning objections.
Michele Muia presenting: The plan being submitted shows a two-story addition to the rear of the building. The total square footage of the addition would be 1003.52 sq. ft. Taking into consideration the rehabilitation of the porch area, which is 220 sq. ft., the addition of new space is 783 sq. ft. Based upon the size of the proposed addition, no area variance is requested since the proposed addition is less that 25% of the building space. This proposed areas would be used for additional retail space and storage. The parking areas, which are primarily in the front and on the side, will not be impacted. Additional parking in the rear will still be available.
Chairman asked about the parking.
Michele Muia explained: The majority of the parking is just a couple of cars coming in and out. There is a driveway up the side to an existing garage and there is more than enough space for three parking areas.
Chairman stated: That this was pretty straightforward. My principle concern is that it is showing improvements on the adjoining lands where the actual driveway goes in, where the people have to turn around to park. The driveway continues up the hill, and passes the garage. Do you have site control of that? Is that an issue that would have to be resolved?
I talked with the Nature Conservancy and found out that there was a previous revocable license agreement with the previous owners. Right now there is no agreement, and no license to use that property based on this agreement that probably has not been filed.
Michele Muia said that she did not know.
There was further discussion about the property and how she will need to get the legal right to use the driveway.
Chairman made a motion to recommend approval for the Muia – 2261 Western Avenue, site plan review with the following condition:
- The applicant must demonstrate the legal right to use the driveway where it encroaches on the property to the west.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MEETING ADJOURNED: 8:45
TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
April 11, 2007
CASE OF CARSON – Old State Road
MATTER OF MAZZONE – Old Carman Road
SITE PLAN – Below - 31 North Bridge Street
SITE PLAN – ConRel – 3641-3643 Carman Road
SITE PLAN - Muia – 2261 Western Avenue
| 
