TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
Wednesday, October 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.
Chairman Feeney made the motion to approve the minutes of June 27, 2007 with a few minor corrections. The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a
4-3 vote by the Board (Lindsay Childs, Michael Cleary, and Terry Coburn abstained)
**********************************************************************
MATTER OF HAMMAN – Route 20
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a concept presentation of a proposed 3 lot subdivision of 9.4 acres. Zoned RA-3 Mike Davis presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Hamman - Route 20
The applicant has applied for concept approval to cut two additional lots off a 9.4 acre parcel that currently contains one house. The land is gently rolling with a drop off toward a small stream that forms the rear property line. The parcel is a field with little vegetation. The proposed lots meet the new RA-3 requirements and the plat shows the required 250 ft. septic setback from the stream. This parcel and the adjacent Knaggs farm are in a county agricultural district and a note to that effect must be included on the final plat. My only issues are that the NYS Dept. of Transportation will need to review and approve the two additional curbcuts onto Route 20 and compliance to stormwater management guideline. No objection to concept
approval.
Mike Davis presenting: The applicant has over 9 acres of land and would like to subdivide it into 3 lots. The parcel has one existing house and shed on it and is located west of 84 Lumber adjacent to the Knaggs Farm. It is primarily an open
field and there is a stream in the back and there is municipal water along the front. We have shown a 250 ft. setback from the stream for the septic.
Chairman asked about the site distance.
Mr. Davis stated: There is a driveway now and I really don’t see any problems with the two new curbcuts. I will discuss this with the Department of Transportation.
Chairman added: You will need to show the limits of grading and clearing and will need an erosion sedimentation control plan and a Notice of Intent.
Chairman asked for any comments from the Board.
Lindsay Childs asked if there was enough right-of-way on Route 20.
Mr. Davis said that there was over 60 ft. of right-of-way.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none.
Chairman made a motion to approve the concept for this three lot subdivision.
The motion was seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
MATTER OF NIEVES – 3591 E. Lydius Street
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a concept presentation of a proposed 3 lot
subdivision of 5.7 acres. Rafael Nieves presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Nieves - 3591 Lydius Street
The applicant would like to divide his 5.7 acre parcel into three lots, one containing his existing home with two additional building lots. The land is located between Lydius Street and the NYS Thruway and is within the Pine Bush study area. There is a significant berm along the frontage, which buffers the site from Lydius St., and then the parcel drops off and flattens out, back to the Thruway. The entire parcel is wooded and no public utilities are available. I have the following comments:
- The applicant proposes using the existing driveway for all three lots. This will require cross easements and shared maintenance agreements. Where possible, the lot lines should follow the driveway.
- The location of existing and proposed wells and skeptics should show on the plat.
- Limits of grading and clearing should be shown.
- Lot #3 could be larger to allow for more of a setback from the Thruway.
Generally, I feel that the proposed design is rather awkward, designed only to maximize the number of lots and I would feel more comfortable with a two-lot design. However, the proposal does meet the zoning requirements. No objection contingent on the above concerns being addressed.
Chairman stated for the record: We have a letter from Neil Gifford, Conservation Director at the Pine Bush Commission, dated October 5, 2007 and parts of the letter read as follows:
The proposed development represents a complete build-out of the parcel. The project therefore appears, inconsistent with the area’s Full Protection recommendation. To avoid, minimize and mitigate potentially negative impacts on the Commission’s ability to create and manage a viable Preserve the Commission offers the following comments.
1. Reduce the building envelope through clustering and/or setting aside the third (northern most) lot for conservation.
2. Require deed restrictions that would eliminate the use of potentially damaging invasive plants in landscaping developed portions of the property.
3. Retain as much of the existing vegetation and landscape with native plants to the greatest extent practical.
4. Use high pressure Sodium Vapor lights in exterior lighting.
5. Donate excess sand, if available to the Albany Pine Bush Preserve for use in restoring eroded areas within the Preserve. (On File)
A letter from Thomas and Barbara Mitchell, dated October 2. 2007 summarizes as:
1. The subdivision proposal appears to be motivated by financial gain rather than enhancing the current lot or the neighborhood.
2. The subdivision increases the chances of a catastrophic fire among the houses in the area.
3. The Town Code requires consideration of environmental and topographical concerns.
4. Depletion of the level of the aquifer could require us to sink additional wells or to replace our geothermal heating system.
5. The proposed subdivision can only have a negative impact on our property value. (On File)
Rafael Nieves presenting: The applicant would like to divide a 5.7-acre parcel into three lots and the one lot has an existing home in the center of the parcel. The land is located between Lydius Street and the NYS Thruway.
Chairman stated: We do have some concerns with the rear parcel with the traffic noise from the thruway.
Chairman asked for any comments from the Board.
Lindsay Childs wanted to know if this could be a clustered subdivision.
Ms. Weston added: Since there is no water or sewer, it is very hard to say how much room they would need to get septic and wells for a cluster design. Based on the Pine Bush concerns, and also the thruway being there, we would generally look for a corridor along the thruway that will not be disturbed. My suggestion would be to do away with lot 3 altogether
Chairman stated: There is no public water or public sewer. It would obviously be a conventional septic system. The way it is laid out now is not something all that attractive.
.
Chairman stated: We will need a report from the Pine Bush Commissioner to find out whether there are any endanger species on the site.
The main concerns of this Board are: the rear third back lot, the long shared driveway for fire safety concerns, and the noise from the traffic.
Terry Coburn questioned the keyhole lot in front and one in the back.
Chairman stated: There are a lot of design issues. It is in the Pine Bush and designated as full protection and as proposed now there are three lots that concern me.
Chairman asked for any comments to address from the audience.
Mrs.Lee, 3587 E. Lydius Street, was concern about the water problems that I have. There were three houses built about four years ago, and after that it seems that the underground water system got changed and that could be one possibility why we have water problems. My concern is if this subdivision goes through, then I am concern about the impact this will have on me whether or not it will add to my water problems.
Tom Mitchell, E. Lydius Street, had several concerns. One being a potential fire catastrophic. There is not enough room for fire vehicles. There are no hydrants and no public water available at that end. Also, I am concerned about the noise from the thruway. On the south side of Lydius there is a 150 acres of forever wild land. Building on either side of it would certainly be disrupted to the neighborhood.
Chairman explained: We would need more information.
Chairman stated: The sense of the Board is to continue the concept until we get further information on the environmental assessment and evaluation must be submitted and the location of existing and proposed wells and the topography to be shown.
Concept continued.
************************************************************************
MAT FARMS – Depot Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a continued concept presentation of a proposed 48 lot clustered subdivision of 210 acres. Zoned RA-3. Francis Bossolini presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Mat Farms - Depot Road
In response to past comments, the applicant has submitted the following:
- a revised conventional design showing that all lots would be considered buildable. Having reviewed this revision, I would agree that all 48 conventional lots would meet Town requirements.
- shown a conservation analysis which meets the requirements for conservation subdivision showing that 115 acres are required for conservation and 172 acres are provided. 27 acres buildable acres must be included in conservation area and 66 acres are provided. Further, the applicant meets the required incentives to gain a 25% density bonus, which would allow 60 lots in total.
- redesigned the conservation layout to show only one road access to Depot Road. In order to this, they have shown the entrance as a boulevard, which is no longer, allowed by Town standards. If the County insists on only one entrance, permission for the boulevard may be required by the Highway Dept and/or the Town Board. Personally, I liked the first clustered design better which pushed the development further off Depot Road and enhanced the Helderberg Escarpment viewshed. Also, the first concept showed a softer design of the cul-de-sac.
- I believe the applicant will also be prepared to update discussions regarding water and sewer, the pedestrian connections, traffic and the wetlands.
No objection to concept approval.
Francis Bossolini presenting: All of the 48 lots would be considered buildable and would meet all of the Town requirements. The lots do not approach any of the wetlands. We were conservative in our wetland assessment and assume that all wetland areas on the property were DEC’s connection to the east side. The 100 ft. buffer is shown and would line it with that in this plan.
Basically, we have our 48 buildable lots and then we transfer that to the cluster conservation subdivision provision. We took out the four existing lots and added our 56 lots here, taking advantage of the full 25 % density. There was some feed back from the Board regarding the entrance configuration. Previously, we had two entrances on Depot`
Road and now we represented it with one single entrance. We are still open for suggestions.
I don’t believe that there are any significant site distance issues where the access is located if we went back to the two entrances. With respect to the conservation cluster
lots the code allows a minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. therefore, our lots are anywhere between 15,000 and 20,000 sq. ft. We do like the fact that this entire road of homes now facing the Helderberg Escarpment and now has a nice view of protective land.
We are providing for open space the total conservation area of a 170 to almost 173 acres. Included in that is about 66 acres of buildable area that will be preserved and we
are looking at now some sort of homeowners association. The applicant would like to continue farming on part of his land.
In regards to the wetlands, we had submitted a PCN to the Army Corps and again taking a conservative view that these wetlands are indeed jurisdictional and are still waiting for their response. We did show two small crossings under this plan.
We had examined a pedestrian connection and are going to connect to the sidewalk. I would like to recommend a four-way stop sign that would provide a little more of a safe crossing.
I have spoken to William West, Water Department, regarding the sewer and water and this is not an issue. Mr. West did not indicate that there was any treatment capacity issues but did want us to evaluate the pump station that is currently operating there. He also indicated the potential for some kind of easement connection.
We have taken care of the 100 ft. buffer areas around all the wetlands.
Chairman asked if you had any discussions with the county regarding the two curbcuts verses the one curb. A boulevard street is not something we allow.
Mr. Bossolini explained: We only looked at some site distances and evaluated that area. My impression of this Board was to look at a single entrance.
Chairman stated: The only issue I have is with the number of lots is when you showed the standard plan. Where are you planning to locate the stormwater management facility?
Mr. Bossolini discussed the location of the stormwater facility.
Chairman asked about the GCAC comments in regards to the frontage.
Mr. Bossolini stated: It is still in the design process for the pedestrian connections and sidewalks.
Thomas Robert asked about the 80 ft. wide lots. Are you planning on having some of garages on the side?
Mr. Bossolini explained that he did do some impromptu sketches on how this might be able to accommodate a house and a garage in several configurations. With an 80 ft. wide and 10 ft. setbacks, you still have a 60 ft. building envelope. In a traditional neighborhood type design you might have a house that is between 30 and 36 ft. wide at the front by 40 ft. deep. A detached garage can be placed at the rear of the house.
The depths of these lots are 150 to 160 ft. deep or more. There will be plenty of room for pools in the back.
Mr. Roberts asked about the land that is going to stay as farmland. Will that be fenced off?
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience?
A representative of the Jehovah Witness Kingdom Hall, borders most of the property that is going to be developed. The concerns are the buffer areas between these home and the back lots limitations on their backyards and how much distance between our property and theirs.
Ernest Friebel, 6033 Depot Road, asked about the natural water drainage through the Bershwinger property that for years has not been opened up. My backfield is so wet now and I am concerned about the drainage.
Chairman stated: They are supposed to accommodate any natural drainage conditions. We need to maintain the flow of water, as it exists. They cannot block it up or stop it.
Mr. Bossolini explained: When we do our stormwater analysis, one of the things that we look at is all the flow patterns on and off the adjacent properties. If there is an issue we can discuss this. We are require by DEC regulations and our town review to address any drainage issues whether it flows off or onto this site.
Chairman made a motion to approve the concept for Mat Farms on Depot Road.
The motion was seconded by Thomas Robert and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
MATTER OF YIP – Church Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a concept presentation of a proposed 13 lot clustered subdivision of 151 acres. Zoned RA-3.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Yip - Church Road
This is a new 13 lot concept application for a 151 acre parcel that has been before the Board previously, but no longer includes the parcel that straddled the Town of New Scotland. The applicant is requesting conservation subdivision and has submitted a tract resource map, a conventional design and a clustered layout. They are also requesting a density bonus as outlined in the conservation regulations. I have the following comments:
- The conventional layout shows 10 lots, a few of which have next to no usable rear yards. At this point I would not include them for the purpose of calculating the final density although I think with some redesign, 10 approvable lots could be shown.
- In the project narrative, the applicant has shown two ways of calculating density. However, the only permitted calculation is based on the number of lots in a conventional design. Assuming that 10 approvable lots could be shown, and giving a 20% density bonus for a high percentage of open space and the open space being contiguous, 12 lots would be the maximum allowed.
- On the cluster design, a number of houses back right up to the angle of repose setback. This should be avoided since it creates a demand for variances for common features such as decks and pools.
- Lots 5, 6, and 7 are shown sharing a common driveway that is over 700 ft. long. This will create a problem for emergency services.
- The plan shows many of the houses and driveways on sloping land. It would be nice if these features could be built using the topography rather than substantially altering the landscape.
- The lots on the south of the development encompass a significant ravine as private property. It would be better if the ravine were included in the open space as it is environmentally fragile and would be better protected.
- A discussion should begin as to who will own the open space.
Overall, I think this design is headed in the right direction but will require some revision based on the above comments.
Scott Lansing presenting: The overall parcel is approximately 151.65 acres and comprised of two separate parcels. The topography is rolling with slopes that are generally mild to steep. Surface water drainage on the existing parcel generally flows to lowest portions of the site or steepest areas adjacent to stream channels. Here the water is diverted off-site and eventually leads to tributary streams that terminate at the Normans Kill.
Soils vary throughout the site and consist of predominantly loamy fine sand and silt loams. There is public water and sewer available that exists in the project vicinity and the zoning for the parcel is RA-3.
We obtained extensive data to get to this point. A complete boundary survey of both parcels. Site topography has been done, and wetland delineation has been preformed from both the NYSDEC and the Army Corps of Engineers. We do have a jurisdictional determination pending from the Army Corps of Engineers. Approximately 40.5 acres of wetland occupy the site.
We did perform a comprehensive site analysis to identify the site constraints on the parcels. The protective slope reserve setbacks are provided for in the first map and the . 100 ft. continuous intermittent watercourse setbacks and the appropriate wetland setbacks are provided for on the maps.
The first part of identifying the number of units on the parcel is taking a look at the overall parcel and calculating the amount of environmental constraints on the land and dividing that by the density. We came up with 36.26 acres of buildable land and divided by 3 acres per unit and came up with 12 units. Under the conventional layout plan a total of ten units have been proposed per the convention plan layout.
The other method was the Conservation Subdivision guidelines. We did see that there were several incentives available and are taking advantage of two of those. The first is the high percentage of conservation, where 60% or more of the total parent lot is to be protected as conservation area in perpetuity, the development may be awarded a ten percent bonuses. The second one is contiguous open space. Where 75% of permanently protected open space is contiguous, the development may be awarded a ten-percent bonus.
We do meet all the requirements and we are asking for the Board their consideration for that.
Mr. Lansing continued to discuss the density bonus.
The primary proposed infrastructure for the Church Road residential conservation subdivision includes roadways, water supply, stormwater management and sanitary sewer conveyance. With this layout the roadway would be a single access point on Church Road and will be designed to Town standards. The development proposes the maximum allowable number of lots on the cul-de-sac and will be serviced by public water and sewer.
The subdivision would be serviced by the extension of the municipal water service currently available through the Town of Guilderland. All stormwater management and mitigation will be performed on site and shall be designed and constructed in accordance with all local, state and federal requirements and will be offered for dedication to the Town of Guilderland.
Mr. Lansing addressed over all of Ms. Weston comments.
Overall, we feel that we are in accordance with the zoning ordinance and feel that this is a prime project for conservation subdivision. It is appropriate in density and produces an environmentally sensitive development layout in harmony with its natural surroundings.
Chairman stated: On the conventional layout, I do not see any stormwater management facilities.
Chairman added: You agree with Ms. Weston’s comments of having 12 lots instead of 13 lots.
Mr. Lansing said yes.
Chairman asked if these homes would be on grinder pumps.
Mr. Lansing said yes.
Thomas Robert asked about the protective land. You say that one person is going to own all the protective land, does that mean that anyone can hike or walk on it? What about the liability?
Mr. Lansing explained: That is my understanding that it would be available for active paths and would be privately owned.
Chairman stated: People in the subdivision would own it and not just one individual. This is my understanding and this may be an issue. It should be a common access.
Ms. Weston stated: If the Board wants to consider concept tonight, I think that Mr. Lansing and I need to further discuss a closer look to how we can complete this to make it work. If anything they might have to reduce the lots.
Mr. Lansing stated that he is more than willing to work this out.
Lindsay Childs was concerned about the open space be owned by one owner. The open space should be open to the community.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience.
Sandy Smith, Church Road, was concerned about the traffic and the drainage and concern about the open space being owned by one person and having the driveway for the development directly across my driveway. I can hardly get out of my driveway because of the traffic as it is now.
Mrs. Lass, 611 Krumkill Rd., was concerned about the new development and the traffic impact.
Donald Govel, Church Rd., was concerned about church road being so narrow and wanted to know if the developer had any plans to widen the road or to put sidewalks in.
Carl Fink, Church Road, thought that it was a poor spot for their access driveway because of safety reasons. I have seen so many accidents there.
Terry Coburn asked whether Todd Gifford, Highway Department, has looked at this for site distance and the curbcut for that road. Also, this might be the opportunity for the town to get that 30 ft. right-of-way.
Chairman stated: We will need to know: the number of lots and, who will be the owner of the open parcel, and the site distance analysis would have to be done to know where the road can actually be located
Mr. Lansing said that they did not do a site distance analysis and will look at that.
Chairman mentioned that we might be able to solve some of the drainage issues on Church Road.
Chairman added: We will ask the applicant to consider giving some more right-of-way (30 ft. from the center line) along Church Road.
You will need to have some public access to the farm cemetery that is on the land.
Mr. Lansing said that I think that there is an existing easement there now on the adjoining lands of the Lupe property.
Chairman further stated: You will still need to look at some of the engineering issues such as the road location and the stormwater. Also, you will need to talk to your client about what they would like to do with the open space property that may impact on whether or not you get a density bonus.
James Cohen did agree to approve the concept but would like to see that open space public ownership and not private ownership.
Chairman made a motion to approve the concept for a 10-lot subdivision on Church Road.
The motion was seconded by Paul Caputo and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
MATTER OF TWENTY WEST – Route 20
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a SEQR determination and decision on the preliminary plat for a 74 lot clustered subdivision.
Scott Lansing, Lansing Engineering, PC, gave a brief update of the project from the last meeting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, mentioned that the town will not accept Tawasentha Way as a street name and also, the shared driveway will probably require a private lane name and that should be submitted to the town.
Chairman stated: We are here to try to address the SEQR issue and preliminary approval tonight. For the record, we do have comments from the Albany County Planning Board, dated October 6, 2007, and their recommendations read as follows:
Modify local approval to include:
1. Submission of a copy of the Notice of Intent filed with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation affirming that t Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared is being implemented or submission of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that is consistent with the requirements included in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges (GP-02-01, January 2003) for construction activities that disturb more than one acre of land.
2. Review of the entire project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine regulatory jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
3. Review by emergency response units in the Town of Guilderland including but not necessarily limited to the local fire protection district and hazardous materials response units.
4. Review of the project should also include the local fire protection district and other emergency services as appropriate for site access.
5. Review by NYSDOT for design of highway access and assessment of road capacity.
6. Review by the Albany County Department of Health for water supply, wastewater discharge, Realty Subdivision and other required permits. (On File)
Chairman made a motion to approve the SEQR Determination 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 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form, representations submitted by the applicant, and the review by this Planning Board, and have drafted a Negative Declaration that the Board members reviewed and to summarize that Negative Declaration as follows:
After considering the criteria for determined significance as set forth in 6 NYCRR §617.7 Planning Board has determined, for the reasons discussed below, that the propose Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and the issuance of a negative declaration under SEQR is warranted. In summary, the Project is not expected to:
· Have a significant adverse impact on ground or surface water quality, wetlands, or cause a substantial increase in potential for erosion, flooding, or drainage problems;
· Result in a substantial increase in traffic levels or adverse impacts on existing levels of service at nearby intersections;
· Result in a substantial adverse impacts on a threatened or endangered species or significant habitat area;
· Impair the character or quality of important historical, archeological, aesthetic resources, or community character; or,
· Conflict with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan or creates a demand for other actions that would have significant adverse impacts on the environment.
Surface Water
The Applicant has prepared, and will implement prior to construction, an erosion and sediment control plan that will contain and manage surface water run-off to minimize any potential impacts. This plan has been prepared in conformance with the NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) has also been prepared for the Project’s construction phase as required by and conformance with NYSDEC’s General SPDES Permit stormwater runoff.
Wetlands
Overall, the site supports 25.66 acres of federally regulated wetlands and riparian corridors. Of this acreage, by letter dated November 17, 2006, the NYSDEC determined that it would assert jurisdiction over a previously unmapped 12.52 acre portion of forested wetlands located in the center of the property. In addition to the 12.52-acre wetland, the NYSDEC also regulates 27.18 acres of the on-site 100-foot adjacent area,
Proposed impacts to federally regulated wetlands and waters are all from road crossings, and it is anticipated that the project will be authorized under Nation wide Permit 14. The proposed impacts are under 0.493 acres, or 1.9% of the overall wetland area on the site. Less than 200 linear feet of stream will be impacted. Arch culverts will be used to minimize impacts on streams, where appropriate.
There are no impacts to the state-regulated wetland on site. The project proposes encroachment into 0.39 acre of adjacent area associated with the construction of a stormwater detention basin. The Project Sponsor met with the NYSDEC and reduced impacts to the adjacent area in accordance with recommendations made by NYSDEC staff.
As mitigation for the state and federal wetland impacts, the Project Sponsor is preserving 68 acres of land, which will be granted to the Town. This action will protect important wetland habitats including 6.13 acre of red maple hardwood swamp; 2.99 acre of hemlock swamp; and 4.47 acre of shallow emergent marsh. An additional 8.66 acres of wetland will be preserved on individual lots through deed restrictions.
The Project Sponsor also proposes to undertake a riparian planting along an agricultural drainage ditch within the 68 acre site in order to increase the habitat value of this area.
A Joint Permit Application was submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the NYSDEC on October 19, 2006 for review and consideration.
At this time, both agencies have indicated that there are no outstanding ecological or environmental issues on the project.
Traffic
The project is not expected to result in any significant traffic impacts in the area. To evaluate the Project’s proposed traffic impacts, the Applicant’s consultant, Creighton Manning Engineering (“CME”), conducted a comprehensive traffic impact study dated July 22, 2004. In general, the study concluded that the traffic generated by the Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts on the existing levels of service at nearby intersections.
The traffic study contains the following: (1) an evaluation of existing traffic volumes and patterns; and (2) a projection of future traffic volumes generated by the Project and growth in the area of the Project.
Future Traffic Conditions
On May 16, 2007, the NYSDEC provided a letter to the Town with its comments about the proposed Project. The Applicant will comply with all conditions imposed by NYSDOT. All proposed roadways should be constructed to Town standards for eventual dedication as public roads.
Noise
The Project is not expected to result in any adverse change to noise levels on or around the Site compared to existing background noise levels.
Drainage
The Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the drainage issues due to Applicant’s compliance with the NYSDEC Phase II Stormwater Requirements.
Historic and Archaeological Issues
The Project site has been designated by the New York State Office of Parks and Recreation as archeologically significant. As indicated, the Applicant has designed the Project with a sensitivity and respect to the areas of archeological significance through the avoidance of archeologically sensitive areas as well as the creation of an archeological park, consisting of approximately 68 acres. (On File)
Chairman mentioned that there was a correction that needed to be made under the Future Traffic Conditions and should read as follows: The Project will generate approximately 61 new vehicle trips during the peak AM hour and 82 new vehicle trips during the peak PM hour.
Chairman stated: That is a quick summary of the Draft Negative Declaration and I would entertain a motion to approve the SEQR Determination.
The motion was seconded by Thomas Robert and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
Chairman made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for Twenty West, 74-lot subdivision with the following conditions:
· Town Highway Superintendent approval
· Town Designated Engineer approval
· Town water & Wastewater Superintendent approval
· Albany County Health Department approval
· NYS Dept. Of Transportation approval
· $2,085.00 per dwelling unit – sewer mitigation fee (with sewer hook-up application)
· Identify alternative access to lands of Shines per existing easement
· Establish maintenance agreement for private driveway and place note on the plat and in the deeds indicating the Town will not assume maintenance responsibilities
· Show sidewalk connection to proposed sidewalk terminus of the adjoining senior housing project.
· Dedication of 68 acres to parkland to the Town
The motion was seconded by Thomas Robert and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************Meeting Adjourned: 10:00 P.M.
TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
October 10, 2007
HAMMAN – Route 20
NIEVES – 3591 E. Lydius St.
MAT FARMS – Depot Road
YIP – Church Road
TWENTY WEST – Route 20
| 
