TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
Wednesday, February 28, 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
Thomas Robert
Theresa Coburn
Jan Weston, Planning Administrator
Linda Clark, Counsel
ABSENT: Thomas Robert
Michael Cleary
************************************************************************
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.
**********************************************************************
CASE OF CIANCETTA – Rosedale Way
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a public hearing on the final plat of a 5 lot subdivision of 1.1 acres. Zoned Townhouses. Mark Blackstone presenting.
Linda Clark, Counsel, read the Legal Notice as follows:
The case of John Ciancetta will be heard on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at
7:30 p.m. at the Guilderland Town Hall, Route 20, Guilderland, New York 12084 for the purpose of final plat approval for an unnamed subdivision.
Such subdivision is proposed as 5 lots cut from 1.1 acres , created for the construction of four townhouse units.
The general location of the site is at 105 Fort Hunter Road
The property is zoned: Townhouse
Tax Map # 15.10-4-9
Plans are open for inspection, by appointment, at the Planning Department during normal
business hours.
Stephen Feeney, Chairman, Planning Board
Ciancetta - Rosedale Way
The applicant has applied for final approval to subdivide the existing home and create four townhouse lots on the remaining land. I have the following comments:
- This property was not part of the Rosedale Meadows subdivision and therefore has no impact on the original density calculations of that development.
- The developer has met with the homeowner’s association and will include deed restrictions to insure conformity with the existing townhouses.
- A pump station mitigation fee of $2,125 per lot is required as per Bill West. This is in addition to the $2,085 sewer mitigation fee.
The lots all meet the zoning requirements are the GCAC found no environmental concerns. No objection to final approval.
Chairman stated for the record: A report from the Guilderland Conservation Advisory Council, dated December 4, 2006, and the conclusion was: GCAC does not see any environmentally adverse problem that this proposed subdivision would pose other than those which result from the continuing development of the northern portion of the Town. (On File)
A memo from William West, Department of Water & Wastewater Management stating:
Water: Water available – Taps needed – Plan should show location and separations on final plan.
SEWER: Sewer available – Taps needed – should show locations and separations on final plan. Sewer flow terminates at Williamsburg Drive PS. As required in Essex Woods a mitigation fee of $2,125 per lot is required to offset improvements made a pump station to accommodation increased flow. Cost is prorated per lot. In addition, a mitigation fee of $2,085 per lot is required for Nott Rd. STP capacity upgrades. (On File)
A letter in the files from Albany County Planning Board, dated February 22, 2007, and their recommendation read as follows: Intermunicipal Impacts: Potential impacts to water quality.
ACPB Recommendation: Modify local approval to include: Review by Albany County Department of Health for water supply, waste water discharge and other required permits.
Another letter from Viscusi Builders LTD., dated January 15, 2007 in reference to: As a follow up of the meeting we had on January 11th, John and I want to re-assure homeowners in Rosendale Meadows that we plan on construction these 4 new townhouses to resemble the existing town homes in the development. (On file)
A letter from Roberta M. Fox, dated December 11, 2006, had several concerns regarding the proposed subdivision. (On File)
Mark Blackstone presenting: We provided the lot numbers and submitted new maps that reflect some minor revisions. Clearly, the most discussed item at the previous hearing was the desire to insure the conformance of these new townhouses to their covenants and restrictions to the Homeowners Association. Mr. Viscusi letter addresses that he proposes to deal with that with deed restrictions and or becoming members of the homeowners association. In addition to that contractual and deed restriction, it is our position that if the Homeowners Association wishes to pursue the matter to the point of making these four units become members of the association we would agree to that.
Chairman stated: Just to clarify, it has been verified that this is not part of the original subdivision and has no restrictions as far as density. This has been looked into.
Chairman added: I heard that the proposal was to preserve or maintain some
of the tree area along Ft. Hunter Road. Is that part of the proposal?
Mr. Blackstone explained: I did not receive a copy of the GCAC comments but I did assure them that the preservation of the trees along Ft. Hunter will be preserve as best as we can as well as to whatever trees ca n be reasonably preserved along Rosedale Way.
Chairman asked about the chain link fence. Will that be removed?
Mr. Blackstone explained: The single family residential area will be improve by the removal of the existing out buildings and the relocation of the fence in relation to the new property lines. We have not discussed the necessity to remove the fence along Ft. Hunter or along the southerly property line. I don’t believe that it is necessary to do that in that area.
Chairman added: I think that the chain link fence is not permissible.
Mr. Blackstone stated: We can remove it if that is the case.
Chairman asked for any more comments from the Board.
Paul Caputo stated: My understanding is that you will be joining the homeowner association.
Mr. Blacktstone stated: We proposed to contract at a point in time and make the purchaser aware of the necessity to be in conformance with it, the restrictions and covenants and also the dues to the association. If the homeowners association wishes to pursue it beyond that, we would be more than happy to becoming part of the association, but we don’t oppose to reject ourselves into whatever degree of conclusion that they wish to pursue. The problem being the process and the amount of time it takes. If they wish for us to join, we have no problem with that. Certainly the contract and deed restrictions would identify that small change as far as not just adhering to being in conformance with it, but also upgrade it to becoming members when that paperwork is possible.
Linda Clark, Counsel, asked: When you say in conformance, do you mean to say adopt by reference all of the deed restrictions and requirements of the homeowners association in total?
Mr. Blackstone said yes.
James Cohen wanted Mr. Blackstone to be more specific when the townhouses close with the perspective buyer.
Mr. Blackstone explained further: We propose that they will be contractually obligated to us and it may be necessary to include the homeowners association as a third party to it that they will be in conformance and will be restricted by those covenants. Notification will be at contract signing and will be part of a deed restriction if we upgrade that to membership.
Chairman ask for any comments from the audience.
Barbara Leo, on the board of Rosedale Meadows, wanted to clarify: The Board did meet with the builder and the owner of the land. We made no formal agreement as to how the association by laws would be carried out or incorporated into this. They did make an offer to do as stated. We need to have an association meeting for us to see what the association wants to do with this new property development. There has been no decision made that we agreed to these terms.
We have no idea about enforcing deed restrictions and we need to see if that is allowable for them to join the association. We do have an attorney who is willing to look at these things for us but did not have the time as of yet.
I am also concerned about my section being near the front of this development, with new future owners if they are not part of this association.
Roberta Fox addressed the letter that she submitted to the Board.
John Denarto, Rosedale Way, just wanted to make sure that this project will come into compliance with the rules and regulations of the association.
Linda Clark, Counsel made a condition upon this final approval stating: Upon a deed restriction that would require new owners to comply in all respects with the requirements and conditions of the Rosedale Association.
Chairman made the motion to close the hearing and it was seconded by James Cohen.
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 this 4 house townhouse subdivision with public sewer and water available.
The motion was seconded by Paul Caputo and carried by a 5-0 vote by the Board.
Chairman made a motion to approve the final site plan and subdivision approval for the proposed 4-lot subdivision on Rosedale Way with the following conditions:
· Town Highway Superintendent approval for any new curbcut
· Town Water & Wastewater Superintendent approval
· $1,500.00 per dwelling unit – Park & Recreation Fund (with building permit application)
· $2,125.00 per lot pump station fee
· Identify limits of grading and clearing on plans
· Remove existing chain link fence
· Applicant agrees to condition that the townhouses will be deed restricted to require compliance in all respects with the requirements, obligations and restrictions applicable to the Rosedale Homeowners Association.
The motion was seconded by Paul Caputo and carried by a 5-0 vote by the Board.
MATTER OF MOHAWK VILLAGE APARTMENTS – 1-5 Okara Drive
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a concept presentation to cut the existing single-family home off from the remaining apartment complex. Zoned TH.
Frederick Clark presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Mohawk Village Apartments – Okara Drive
The applicant has requested concept approval to subdivide the existing single-family house from the remaining apartment complex. All site conditions are existing. No objection to concept approval.
Frederick Clark presenting: The new owner wants to separate the House from the apartment complex. It should be noted that historically it appears as though the house was a separate lot, but it was consolidated into the apartment complex some years ago. The Town of Guilderland already treats the House separately from the apartment complex for assessment purposes, as it has been assigned a tax assessment number so it may be assessed as a residential property rather than as a commercial/apartment property.
Chairman Feeney stated: This is pretty straightforward.
Chairman asks if there are any comments from the audience and there were none.
Chairman made a motion to approve this concept approval.
The motion was seconded by James Cohen and carried by a 5-0 vote by the Board.
MATTER OF ROMANO – Route 158
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a continued concept presentation of a proposed 4 lot subdivision of 14.7 acres. Zoned RA-3. Timothy Elliott presenting.
Romano - Routes 20 and 158
The applicant has submitted a revised concept map to divide 14.7 acres into 4 lots, one for the existing house plus three additional building lots. I have the following comments:
- The septic fields have been located at or greater than the 500 foot linear distance to the reservoir except for lot #2 and #4 which falls approximately 400 to 480 ft. from the reservoir.
- All lots now meet the 3 acre minimum area without the access land being included. Lot #3 will be just under the 3 acres but the applicant will invoke the one time exemption for this lot.
- Lot #3 still needs to show a 100 ft. rear setback for the envelope.
- The applicant had a wetland survey done. The location of the wetlands appears to be outside the building envelops but they should be included on the survey map.
- The applicant has included a deed restricted no cut buffer to the reservoir for further protection.
Although clustering seemed like a desirable option for the subdivision of this property, the setbacks from the reservoir coupled with the required separation of wells and septic made this option difficult. The applicant has made a reasonable attempt at mitigating at environmental concerns. No objection to concept approval.
Chairman Fenney stated for the record: I have comments from the Guilderland Conservation Advisory Council, dated November 4, 20056 and their conclusion read as follows: In construction of the driveway, stormwater management guidelines will need to be followed to avoid any adverse effects on the nearby reservoir, GCAC feels that this subdivision does not pose any major environmental problems due to the size of the proposed lots. If necessary to avoid wet areas as well as adverse effects created by the natural contours of the parcel and limitations of the soil, the sites of the septic systems and the exact building locations could be altered. (On File)
A letter from Albany County Health Department, dated January 10, 2007, reviewed the revised subdivision plan and had several comments and the conclusion was: that as there can be no assurance of the proposed residential lots obtaining adequate water supplies and in accordance with the Sanitary Code, no building permits for residential dwellings can be issued until such time as this department has reviewed and/or inspected and approved the water supply system for each lot. (On file)
A letter from Eric M. Holt, P.E., dated November 7, 2006, in regards to a wetlands investigation was performed by Charles Maine Wetlands Consulting: there are no NYSDEC or Army Corp of Engineers regulated wetlands adjacent to or within a 100-foot setback area of the proposed on-site septic system installations. (On File)
Chairman added: We will need to see the wetlands on the final plans and show the setbacks where the construction limits are from those wetlands and the final grading and clearing.
A memo from William West, Water & Wastewater Management, dated November 11, 2006, and their comments were as follows: 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 though the ACHD. (On File)
Timothy Elliott, PLLC, presenting: We have revised the maps which adequately addresses the concerns of the Planning Board. There will be three large buildable lots and the lot 1 has the existing house on it. Lot 2 will have 3.99 acres, and lot 3 would have 3.03 acres and lot 4 would have 3.52 acres.
We have established a 100 ft. setback on the eastern side of lots 2 and 4 which pushes the building envelope that much further from the reservoir, and also put in a 50 ft. wide no-cut buffer zone with natural plantings only for lots 2 and 4. There will be a deed restriction that will run with the land.
We had already DOT approval for the entrances of the driveways. All three proposed septic locations have been perked and approved by the Albany County Department of Health and the proposed wells are located on the map. All three locations exceed the requirement for a maximum distance from the reservoir that we could achieve as well as the best soil locations.
Further, the drainage locations selected by ACHD drain away from the direction of the reservoir. We did have the property inspected for the wetlands and it was determine that there is small area of wetlands in the lower right hand corner of lot 4. It is well away from the septic systems and well outside the building envelopes and will show that on the final map along with the clearing and grading.
We requested a letter from the City of Watervliet regarding the level of the reservoir and they refused to give us any such letter.
Chairman asked for any comments from the Board and there were none.
Chairman stated: The wetlands would need to be identified and put on the map.
We require some sort of separation distance for construction from federal wetlands and this would need to be shown. The limits of grading and clearing need to be established and you will need to submit a storm water pollution prevention plan with the erosion and sedimentation control prior to preliminary approval, and the 100 ft. rear setback on lot 3 needs to be corrected. The Fire Department will need to review this and will need the comments from the water department.
James Cohen asked about the building envelope on lot 2.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience.
Kim Szady , 6966 Rt. 158, owns several parcels that is adjacent to this parcel. Our concern is potential negative impact on our property and with the wetlands in the back. Another concern is with the wells and the impact they would have on my well and could there be a restrictions on them.
Chairman made a motion for concept approval with the following information needed for final approval, including additional information on the maps. You need to identify the wetlands locations on the plans, and the appropriate setback distances from the septic systems, and the 100 ft. rear setback corrected and the Fire Department review where the potential hydrant might be located.
The motion was seconded by Paul Caputo and carried by a 5-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************Site Plan Review – Romano – 1847 Western Avenue
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a site plan review to allow a mortgage consulting business. Zoned BNRP. Timothy Elliott 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 a portion of this residence as a mortgage consulting office. The property is zoned BNRP. As recommended by the Planning Board, the site plan has been modified to include the removal of the garage with all parking located in the rear of the building. My comments are as follows:
- The two eastern most spaces are not valid, as a vehicle could not back out of the spaces.
- There is only a 2 - 3 ft. buffer around the proposed parking. The newly paved area will be adjoining single-family uses on either side, but is located adjacent to or behind the neighboring garages. This may be able to be mitigated with solid fencing. Also, this narrow strip may not be adequate for snow removal or storage.
- Variances will be required for the buffering, along with the 8 ft. driveway for two-way traffic, and possibly green area.
- Access to the rear alley way should be explored.
No objection to site plan approval contingent on the above concerns being adequately addressed.
Timothy Elliott, presenting: What we have presented previously, the main concern was the parking and whether we would remove the garage or whether we can possibly create enough parking with the garage present. It was decided that the garage will need to come down. Our new proposal shows the garage being raised in the rear of the building providing a total of seven spaces. We have removed the turn-around space in the front and concentrated all the parking in the rear. On the first floor there will be a business type mortgage consultant office and with a single tenant on the second floor.
There are no easements or right-of –way that comes with the property over that alleyway in the back.
Chairman asked: How many spaces do they need for this business to function?
Mr. Elliott explained: we will need one space or two spaces for the tenant and two spaces for the employees and one or two spaces for customers.
Chairman stated: The entrance should be a one way in and an exit out from the alleyway. This should be explored into by talking with the owner of it.
Also, maybe you can reconfigure the parking space to reduce some spaces to five spaces and would like for you to contact the owner of the adjacent alley for the possibility of a rear access.
Lindsay Childs would like to see a site plan that includes the access in the back.
There was further discussion about the access alley and the layout.
Chairman made a motion for site plan approval in the matter of Lisa Romano, 1847 Western Avenue, with the following conditions:
· Reconfigure proposed parking lot to reduce spaces to 5 that provide reasonable setback distance from adjoining property and adequate space for circulation.
· Attempt to contact owner of the adjacent alley to explore opportunity for rear access.
The motion was seconded by Paul Caputo and carried by 4-1 vote by the Board. (Lindsay Child opposed)
Site Plan Review – Dordick – 2563 Western Avenue
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a site plan review to allow a space in Park Place plaza to be used by the Queen of Tarts business as office space and a café.
Zoned Local Business. Vera Dordick presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Dordick - 2563 Western Avenue
The applicant is requesting a special use permit to utilize space in the Park Place plaza for a café and office. All site conditions have been previously approved. No planning objections.
Chairman stated that this was pretty straightforward.
Chairman asked for any questions from the Board.
Paul Caputo wanted to know what was in the location prior to this.
Chairman made a motion for the site plan in the matter of Dordick, 2563 Western Avenue, recommended approval.
The motion was seconded by Paul Caputo and carried by a 5-0 vote by the Board.
Site Plan Review – Carciobolo – 1 Ardsley Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a site plan review to allow an in-law apartment on the premises. Zoned Local Business. Louis Carciobolo presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Carciobolo - 1 Ardsley Road
The applicant has applied for a special use permit to allow an in-law apartment. The structure is a two family house and the apartment exists in one of the units. Formerly, a photography studio utilized some of the space. There is adequate off-street parking to accommodate the units. No planning objection contingent on the applicant meeting all the other requirements of the in-law apartment law.
Chairman stated: We may recommend that the plans provide more details for the Zoning Board.
Chairman made a motion in the matter of Carciobolo, 1 Ardsley Road, for an in-law apartment to recommend approval.
The motion was seconded by Terry Coburn and carried by a 5-0 vote by the Board.
TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
February 28, 2007
CIANCETTA – Rosedale Way
MOHAWK VILLAGE APTS. – 1-5 Okara Drive
ROMANO – Route 158
ROMANO – 1847 Western Avenue
DORICK – 2563 Western Avenue
CARCIOBOLO – 1 Ardsley Rd.
| 
