TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
Wednesday, January 10, 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:
************************************************************************
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 ATTANASIO – Curry Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a public hearing on the final plat of a two lot subdivision of 20 acres. Zoned R-40. Gilbert Van Guilder presenting.
Linda Clark, Counsel, read the Legal Notice as follows:
The case of Dean Attanasio will be heard on Wednesday, January 10, 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 2 lots cuts from 20 acres.
The general location of the site is at 2729 Curry Road.
The property is zoned: R-40 Tax Map # 15.00-2-7
Plans are open for inspection, by appointment, at the Planning Department during normal
business hours.
Stephen Feeney, Chairman, Planning Board
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the Planning Department as follows:
Attanasio – Curry Road
This is a final plat presentation to cut an existing home site from the parent parcel and create an additional building. Because the proposed lot #1 meets the R40 area requirements but not the 200 ft. width at the building line the applicant applied for, and received, a variance in August of 2006.
I have no objection to final approval but since there is no municipal water and sewer in this location, existing and proposed septic and well locations should be shown on the signature plat.
Gilbert Van Guilder presenting: This parcel is located on the south side of Curry Road. There is a tree line that buffers the Thruway and another tree line that bisects the property around the knoll. I would like to cut an existing home site from the parent parcel and create an additional lot. I received an area variance for the frontage on Curry Road . The remaining 19.12 acres currently is being proposed for a one single family resident. There are no public water or sewer hookup and both of the houses will be on private wells and private septic system.
Chairman stated: This is a pretty straightforward application.
Chairman asked for any comments from the Planning Board and there were none.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none.
Chairman mentioned for the record: we do have a response from Albany County Planning Board, dated July 27, 2006, and stated: No significant countywide or intermunicipal impacts found. Defer to local consideration.
I have comments from the Guilderland Conservation Advisory Council, dated July 3, 2006, and reads as follows: GCAC had no problem with the two-lot subdivision since lot # 2 is so large that building a one residence and a garage would have little, if any, negative impact on the environment, especially if located to the rear of the treed area.
Chairman added: My assumption is that the larger lot, in the future, will see some type of proposal for development and we will address those potentially larger impacts at that time.
Chairman entertained a motion to close the hearing.
The motion was seconded by Paul Caputo and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
Chairman made a motion for SEQR Determination in the matter of the two lots, Attanasio Subdivision on Curry Road , 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 a two lot subdivision.
The motion was seconded Paul Caputo and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board
Chairman made a motion for final subdivision approval for the two lot subdivision on Curry Road with the following conditions:
· Town Highway Superintendent approval for any new curb cut
· Albany County Health Department approval (with building permit application)
·
· $1,500.00 per dwelling unit – Park & Recreation Fund (with building permit
· application.
· The existing septic and well locations be identified on the final plat.
The motion was seconded by Thomas Robert and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
MATTER OF BATTAGLINO – Brookview Drive
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a public hearing on the final plat of a two lot subdivision of 3.7 acres. Zoned R-15 Philip Battaglino presenting.
Linda Clark, Counsel, read the Legal Notice as follows:
The case of Philip Battaglino will be heard on Wednesday, January 10, 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 2 lots cut from 3.72 acres.
The general location of the site is on the east side of Brookview Drive between and behind #13 and #15 Brookview.
The property is zoned: R-15 Tax Map # 28.05-2-7.1
Plans are open for inspection, by appointment, at the Planning Department during normal
business hours.
Dated: December 21, 2006
Stephen Feeney, Chairman, Planning Board
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Battaglino – Brookview Drive
The applicant has applied for final approval of a subdivision consisting of two building lots plus a lot being offered for dedication to the Town. He has obtained permission from the adjoining neighbor to grade onto the neighbor’s property, thereby eliminating the need for the 7 ft. retaining wall. He has also submitted a letter from Bagdon Environmental stating that the site does not contain the requisite habitat for Karner Blue butterflies. I have following comments:
- This parcel is located in a full protection area of the Pine Bush study area.
- The applicant has shown a small corner of the lot to be dedicated to the Town. The Director of Parks has stated that this triangle has no value to the Town Park. The Neil Gifford, Pine Bush Commission stated at the last meeting that he felt the proposed triangle was not an adequate set aside to mitigate the impact to a full protection area. I agree.
A must larger area should be offered for annexation to the adjoining Fusco park not only for Pine Bush protection but also to further protect the integrity of what will remain of the dune.
No objection to final approval contingent on an adequate Pine Bush set aside.
Chairman Fenney stated for the record: I have a recommendation from the Albany County Planning Board, dated February 17, 2006, and read as follows:
No significant countywide or intermunicipal impacts found. The advisory note read as follows: Not withstanding the above, the ACPB is concerned with the development at the base of a steep slope and the potential impacts associated with stormwater runoff and hillside erosion in an area down slope from a state highway. (On File)
There is also a letter from the Albany Pine Bush Commission, dated April 13, 2005, stating that the parcel was targeted for Full Protection and summarized as follows:
The Commission is hopeful that the planned development for the property will occur in conjunction with a sound protection plan to avoid, minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practical potential adverse environmental impacts to the environmental resources in the Pine Bush Preserve. (On File)
Philip Battaglino presenting: Lot # 3 is the one lot that we will be donating to the Town for parkland. The Board’s recommendation was that they wanted lot #3 to be donated.
Michael Cleary wanted to know if there would be any problem donating more land?
Mr. Battaglino stated: I would rather not donate any more but if there is going to be any restriction made on it then I would have too.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, added: I thought at the time that the donation was being given in lieu of the Park fee. Now the discussions have now been that you do both. The park fee and the donation of land.
Chairman added: The triangular piece is about a third of an acre. Right now, that is just an open space parcel. From the GCAC comments earlier, they were concerned about keeping the building envelope on the flat portion of the property, which happened on lot #2 where the grading has been limited. The grading plan has been provided and shows the limits of grading and clearing. You also have shown the silt fencing and the erosion and sediment control methods. You are under the one-acre threshold that would require a submittal of notice of intent to DEC. Due to the slopes and the neighboring houses we asked Mr. Battaglino to provide some sort of erosion control plan and limits of grading and clearing. This he has done.
The one concern is that someone could come in the future and tear away that hill.
Terry Coburn suggested a no disturbance line.
Chairman asked for any more comments from the Board.
Terry Coburn suggested that the applicant seems agreeable that there would be an area where it will not be disturbed. The triangular piece of land could be left forever wild.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none.
Lindsay Childs commented: The issue is: what is the best way to protect the dune?
Mr. Battaglino said: The hill could not be moved. It abuts to someone else’s property on the other side.
Chairman stated: They have shown the grading plan and anything that happens out there should comply with the grading plans. Ten years down the road someone wants to take out the hill, then there will be issues with that.
Linda Clark, Counsel, suggested to have them stake out the limits of grading and clearing.
Chairman suggested donating the triangular piece along with the park fee.
Lindsay Childs suggested a no disturbance of a 140 ft. to have an elevation line and I do have a problem with lot 2.
There was further discussion about the triangular piece and the steep slope regulations
Ms. Weston, Town Planner, read the definition of the protective slope reserve.
Chairmen entertain a motion to close the hearing. The motion was seconded by Thomas Robert and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
.
Chairman made a motion for SEQR Determination in the matter of the two lot subdivision, Battaglino on Brookview Drive, 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 a two lot subdivision, review of the site for endangered species conducted by Bagdon Environment. The applicant proposal as mitigation to dedicate the triangular portion of the dune comprising roughly of 1/3rd of an acre to the town for preservation and the provision of a grading plan and erosion sedimentation control plan.
Lindsay Childs had a question on whether or not this was Type I Action on the SEQR Determination.
Chairman stated: That the project was an Unlisted Action.
There was further discussion about the SEQR determination.
The motion was seconded by Paul Caputo and carried by a 6-1 vote by the Board.
Lindsay Childs – opposed.
Chairman made a motion for final approval for a two lot subdivision on Brookview Drive 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.
· $2,085.00 per dwelling unit – sewer mitigation fee (with sewer hook-up application)
· Dedication of 1/3 acre parcel shown on plat as lot #3 for Town Park.
The motion was seconded by Thomas Robert and carried by a 6-1 vote by the Board.
Lindsay Childs – opposed
************************************************************************
MATTER OF FALLATO – Vosburgh Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this is a concept presentation of a proposed two lot subdivision of 1.7 acres. Zoned R-20. Paul Fallati presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Fallati – 6483 Vosburgh Road
This is a concept presentation to create a one acre keyhole lot behind an existing house on Vosburgh Road. This wooded parcel slopes downward in the rear with an elevation difference of 10 to 12 feet. The proposed lot meets all zoning requirements and the sight distance from the driveway is adequate. I have the following comments:
- Because of the elevation difference, drainage may be a problem. It appears that the drainage currently flows into a federal wetland located in the proposed Twenty West subdivision. If any filing is proposed, care should be taken to insure that water does not impact the adjacent neighbors.
- The site is also entirely wooded and limits of clearing should be discussed both for stormwater issues and buffering for neighbors.
- The access for the new lot will create a 3 ½ ft. setback to an existing shed. The shed should be relocated or a variance from the 5 ft. setback requirement will be necessary.
The applicant has been informed of both the sewer hook up fee, the park fee, and the $1,500 Vosburgh Road improvement fee. No objection to concept approval.
Chairman stated: I have for the record, comments from the Guilderland Conservation Advisory Council, dated December 6, 2004 and summarizes as follows: GCAC does not see any adverse environmental effects of this proposed subdivision other than the addition of one more dwelling in an increasingly populated portion of the Town, so long as any drainage problems that may result from development are contained and managed within the area itself.
Paul Fallati presenting: We would like to build a single family dwelling on Vosburgh Road on 1.7 acres. We are planning on having a 27,130 sq. ft. lot in the front and a 1.07 acres in the back We have met all of the town’s requirements
Chairman asked about the wetlands.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, explained: I’d put in the files, a copy of the twenty-west subdivision, and they are actually showing the 35 or 50 ft. setback around that wetland.
I doubt that they had it surveyed off their property and it doesn’t show it continuing to that property. My concern is that is does slopes off in the back.
Chairman asked for any more comments from the Board.
James Cohen asked about the limits of clearing and keeping the woods as a buffer zone.
Chairman stated: You will need to stay under an acre and need to see that on the plans.
Ms. Weston added: It will not be a bad idea to at least get a USGS topography plan on there and not having it surveyed but having that imposed on the survey maps.
Terry Coburn asked about the driveway.
Chairman mentioned that it is on a dead end road and there is not much traffic there.
Chairman asked for any questions from the audience.
David Batty lives next door to the property questioned. About 15 yrs. ago, I heard that Vosburgh Road was a substandard road and the development should be limited. Since that time, there has been continuous development and want to know why is that?
Chairman stated: Basically, this meets our standards for subdivision. It is a substandard road and would you like to have it upgraded to a standard road?
Mr. Batty stated: I f you are going to keep on developing then it should be widened.
Susan Batty, residence, had the same concerns. This is a substandard road and has no second means of egress, which is an emergency, security situation. I find it difficult now with the development in the last fifteen years backing out of my driveway safely and am concerned about having more keyhole lots.
My second concern is that this proposal is out of place and is in total conflict with the existing habitat and rural nature of this area. Also, there may be potential water and sewer hookup and maintenance issues. We need to say no to any more development on Vosburgh Road. I would like the town to take more consideration about not having any more development here that has been promised to us for years.
Chairman explained: From our perspective, this meets our standards and we cannot say no. We can make sure that there will be no drainage problems, and that they show the limits of grading and clearing and are not allowed to drain any water onto neighboring property. We will have the Highway Superintendent look at the driveway and get their approval. Sewer and water is really not an issue and is not a town issue.
There was further discussion about keyhole lots and cul-de-sacs.
Chairman stated: There is a pretty strong reaction about Vosburgh Road not being a thoroughfare road. I looked at Vosburgh Road and you will be able to get a few more lots but not a tremendous amount of development.
What we need to do is look at upgrading the road.
Lindsay Childs would like to see a interconnect between Vosburgh Road and Twenty West Subdivision. I am not sure that we should approve any more development on Vosburgh Road until that goes through.
Chairman added: The right-of-way that they are showing here and the edge of pavement shows that there is plenty of room to widen. We will have to look at the possibilities of the widening of the road and maybe some connection.
Lindsay Childs stated: We should be understanding as to what is going to happen to Vosburgh Road in the future in terms of widening and connecting and not approve anymore new development.
Linda Clark, Counsel, stated: What is the legal basis for that action?
James Cohen wanted to know who is responsible for the upgrading of Vosburgh Road?
Thomas Robert added: I don’t think that the neighbors want having a house behind them. They are satisfied with the road being what it is. Once you widen the road then you will probably do the connection to the other development and people do not want that connection on Vosburgh.
Chairman suggested that Ms. Weston take a look at property along Vosburgh Road and based on what exists and to make a reasonable estimation what are we really looking at, as far as additional lots on Vosburgh. Then you can give this Board a sense of what we are looking at as far as cumulative impacts.
Lindsay Childs would like to defer approval of this concept until the next meeting.
Chairman stated: If it meets the rules we legally cannot deny it. On what authority would I say no. The Town Planner has no objection to it. I think that it is reasonable that we look at how many more lots can we get, and if there any real safety spots on Vosburgh Road that need immediate attention, and to get some response on what the Town Highway Superintendent feels about.
Ms. Weston agreed to provide the board with a report on the number of potential future building lots on Vosburgh Road based on the available acreage.
Chairman made a motion to approve the concept for a two lot subdivision on Vosburgh Road.
The motion was seconded by Paul Caputo and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
(Lindsay Childs abstained)
Meeting Adjourned: 9:00 P.M.
TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
January 10, 2007
CASE OF ATTANASIO – Curry Road
CASE OF BATTAGLINO – Brookview Drive
MATTER OF FALLATI – Vosburgh Road
| 
