TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
Wednesday, August 8, 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
Lindsay Childs
Michael Cleary
Theresa Coburn
Absent: Jan Weston, Planning Administrator
Linda Clark, Counsel
Thomas Robert
************************************************************************
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 LeFevre – Gipp Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a concept presentation of proposed 2 lot subdivision of 4.8 acres. Zoned – R-15. Larry LeFevre presenting.
Terry Coburn, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
LeFevre – 51 & 53 Gipp Road
The applicant has applied for concept approval to legally subdivide a parcel that was separated by deed a number of years ago. The parcel contains one house and the subdivision would create a vacant parcel to the north. Variances will be needed for lot area and lot width for both parcels and side setbacks from the existing home. There are other similarly sized lots in this neighborhood. No planning objections.
Chairman stated: It is my understanding that you are trying to sell a lot that was previously divided by deed.
Larry LeFevre presenting: We believed that it was divided before and then found out recently that it was not. It needs to be subdivided before we can legally sell it.
Chairman asked: When you were living there before, did you divide that lot by deed?
Mr. LeFevre explained: It was just recently that we had it all divided by deed. It is my understanding that it was divided when the house with the lot on it was purchased. Then the lot next to it was purchased a few years later as two separate lots.
It was only recently that we found out that it wasn’t done legally back then. We are trying to get it all straighten out now so that we can go through with the sale.
Chairman asked: When you did reside at the house and when you purchased that house, did it come with the two lots or was it just the one lot?
Mr. LeFevre said that it came with the two lots. I grew up in that house and always had the second lot as part of the yard. Then when we wanted to sell that one lot we got the deed worked out within the last year.
Chairman asked: Do you have any intent to build a structure on the 70 by 150’ lot.
Mr. LeFevre said yes. The people who are trying to purchase the lot from us would like to put up a house.
Chairman explained: The lot is substandard in size and also at the building line. Variances will be needed for the lot area and the lot width for both parcels and side setbacks.
Terry Coburn stated: It seems to fit in with the next two lots that are 70’ across the front. There are two lots on either side that are 70’ by 150’ and the other one is 70’ by 165’.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience.
Peter Downy, 3 Victor Drive, was concerned about dividing the two pieces of property. That is a very small lot and by putting a home on that lot would make the neighborhood look cramped and crowded.
Mrs. Mohr, 56 Gipp Rd., gave an overview of Gipp Road. I am concerned that if you let something like this happen, there are a few other houses that do have similar situations of selling their land and subdividing. That would really make a very congested road on Gipp Road and not the same character as we have now.
Mrs. Mohr wanted to know just how to go about subdividing. Mr. LeFevre cannot speak for 51 Gipp because he does not own it. He can only speak for 53 Gipp Road and he is not subdividing 53 Gipp Road and no one from 51 Gipp Road is asking to subdivide.
Chairman explained: This happens if they file a deed down at the County Clerks Office and does not go through a subdivision approval. This is why they are in front of us for subdivision approval. The town would not have anything to do with the purchase of that existing home. When we find out about it, is now when someone wants to do what they are doing now. Then we find out that it was not subdivided legally. They created illegally a substandard lot. They will need subdivision approval.
There was further discussion about the lot and what needs to be done.
Chairman stated: What alternately what we would want to see which does not show up on this map is the existing house in relations to the existing property line, and what is the proposed building envelope for this proposed new house. From my perspective, they will need variances for the house and the lot itself. They will have to show the location of the house that they want to build.
Sandra Losee, 51 Gipp Road, owner stated: I have been there for 3 years and purchased the house, not knowing that the lots were illegally subdivided. The first that I’d learned of it is when I received the notice. It was Mr. LeFevre brother who owned the home that I have purchased and residing now. I knew that I owned a portion of the other lot but not the entirety of the lot.
Ms. Losee’s Attorney, stated: We have done a title search and gone back forty years and found that in 1953 the deed was split. We pulled the tax map and it was shown as two lots. We are in favor of subdivision and at the same time we are not in favor of lot 2 being a buildable lot.
Michael Cleary stated: You did a title search and saw that this is two lots. Therefore, the applicant believes that she bought one lot. She owns what she owns. The issue is, can they make two lots to build on and can they come back and get a legal subdivision and build a house?
Chairman stated: The question is when did they do that, what was the regulations back then and was it done legally at that time?
Sandra Losee, owner, added: The entrance way to the yard, on the side of the house is indeed on lot 53. That is what I got from the town hall.
It is not lining up with all the numbers as well as the amount of property that you need now in order to build. Therefore, the next lot, deeming it buildable would also have to take into account that there is not that much land. Then they would need a variance.
Chairman stated: You will need to submit to us a copy of the deed.
Michael Cleary stated: We would need a survey of the two lots and to show the existing house wanted to ask for a survey of the two lots and the existing house and let the applicant come back.
Chairman stated: You are not necessarily completely grandfathered in. What we have to determine first is, is it a pre-existing non-conforming lot. What is the status of this parcel before we can continue with any concept approval? We will have our attorney look into this.
Mr.LeFevre explained: That is the impression that we are under that it is pre-existing non-conforming. Before we started all this, we had that checked out. Since the parcel did go back and forth between family members, we had our lawyer look at the deeds and she went and traced it back to make sure that it was in fact a subdivided lot. My parents bought the two lots separately. This is the understanding that we were under.
Chairman stated: The concept will be continued.
SITE PLAN REVIEW - MILLER – 2390 Western Avenue
Chairman Fenney announced that this was a site plan review to allow the construction of a 10,000 sq. ft. office building. Zoned Local Business. Troy Miller presenting.
Terry Coburn read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Miller – 2390 Western Avenue
The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow the construction of a 10, 000 sq. ft. two-story office building. The parcel is 1.2 wooded acres with a high point near the middle and then sloping down toward Western Avenue and in the rear toward the golf course. When this land was subdivided in 1988 by Paul Wein to create the present law office, a joint access and a sidewalk across the entire property were conditions of approval. I have the following comments:
- Joint access is shown which eliminates the need for an additional curb cut.
- A sidewalk is shown, but only on the 2390 parcel. The sidewalk should be installed across both properties, as was the condition of subdivision approval.
- The plan shows all required parking, but the applicant is requesting some parking be banked. This will become a green island in the rear parking lot.
- It would be preferable to have all parking in the rear.
- A clearing and grading plan should be submitted along with stormwater
management plans.
- A landscape plan should be submitted.
- No elevations have been submitted but the architecture should be consistent with the historic hamlet as recommended by the recently completed Guilderland Hamlet master plan.
No objection to site plan approval.
Troy Miller presenting: I am proposing a 10,000 SF new construction office building at 2390 Western Avenue. It is my intension to occupy 1/3 of the building with my company, CM Fox Real Estate and rent the remainder. My business will have one employee and agents who often work from home or are out in the field.
The design of the building will use the sloped terrain to accomplish a two-level entrance area. The rear entering on the 2nd floor and the front entering on the 1st floor. The building is going to have a historic commercial architecture featuring Victorian details.
The idea is to use the topography of the land to allow an entrance in the front as well as an entrance in the back. There will be five or more employees and they would be parking in the back.
Chairman asked about the elevation drawings.
Terry Coburn asked about the putting in a sidewalk. In the original plan a sidewalk was to be put in and now it should be crossed on both lots.
Chairman asked about the grading and clearing and the stormwater management plan and about the landscaping plans.
There was a discussion on the parking spaces.
Chairman made a motion to make a recommendation for 2390 Western Avenue office building, with the following conditions and suggestions:
Conditions:
· Install sidewalk across both properties as per original subdivision approval.
· Provide a clearing and grading plan and stormwater management plan.
· Provide a landscaping and lighting plan that adequately screens the parking lot from U.S Rt. 20.
Suggestions:
· Provide a phased banked parking plan that reduces the proposed spaces but can provide additional parking based on future tenant needs.
· A traffics study should be considered for any change in use/tenant that requires banked parking acres to be converted.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 5-0 vote by the Board.
SITE REVIEW – Wideman – 5 Velina Drive
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a site plan review to allow a hair salon customary home occupation. Zoned R-15. Nancy Wideman presenting.
Terry Coburn read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Wideman – 5 Velina Drive
The applicant has requested a special use permit to operate a beauty salon as a home occupation. She will be the sole employee and there is adequate parking in a doublewide driveway. No planning objections.
Nancy Wideman presenting: I would like to operate a hair salon as a home occupation and I will be the sole employee.
Chairman stated: This is pretty straightforward.
Chairman made a motion to recommended a hair salon customary home occupation at
5 Velina Drive.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 5-0 vote by the Board.
MEETING ADJOURNED:
TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
August 8, 2007
LEFEVRE – Gipp Road
MILLER – 2390 Western Avenue
WIDEMAN – 5 Velina Drive
| 
