TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
Wednesday October 24, 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
Thomas Robert
Theresa Coburn
Jan Weston, Planning Administrator
Linda Clark, Counsel
ABSENT: 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.
Chairman Feeney made the motion to approve the minutes of September 26, 2007 with a few minor corrections. The motion was seconded James Cohen and carried by a
6-0 vote by the Board.
************************************************************************
MATTER OF LUCARELLI – Old State Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a proposed 2 lot subdivision of 41.9 acres. Zoned RA-3. Jack McDonald presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Lucarelli - Old State Road
The applicant has requested concept approval to divide a 42 acre parcel into two building lots. The land contains a pond and a stream/wetland system that crosses the property. It has a gently rolling topography and wooded areas. I have the following comments:
- It appears that a wetland/stream has been culverted. The applicant should show how the drainage will be maintained on the site.
- The plan shows a shared driveway which will require a shared access and maintenance agreement.
- The location of the proposed septic should be shown with a setback of 250 ft. from the wetland/stream areas.
- This parcel is adjacent to a county agricultural district and notification of such should be shown on the final plat.
- The limits of grading and clearing should be shown.
No objection to concept approval.
Jack McDonald presenting: I would like to divide this parcel into two parcels, located on Old State Road. There is an existing driveway that serves the site and plans on moving the driveway to a common boundary for the two lots. Each lot will be approximately 20.89 acres. The Federal wetlands have been delineated and will have Princetown water hook-ups and conventional septic systems.
Chairman asked: Do you have a District agreement with Princeton already or is this something that you are petitioning for, and will you be running the line down to Old State Road?
Mr. McDonald stated: The resolution has been approved by both the Town of Guilderland and Princetown and we will be running the line down Old State Road.
Chairman asked about the one crossing. Is there a culvert there?
Mr. McDonald said: There is a culvert on Lot 2 and that will be the only crossing. The existing culvert from the wetland area to the existing ditch was installed in the early 1980s. We will be crossing over that pipe.
Chairman explained: We will need to accommodate emergency vehicles on your long driveway. Will this driveway be able to do that? You will need to show us a cross section on the final map on how you are going to build the road and this needs to be shown on the map. The culvert itself will have to accommodate the emergency vehicles.
Chairman asked for any comments from the Board and there were none.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience.
Earl MacIntosh, 2090 W. Old State Road, expressed his concerns. I feel that the site has been altered, wetlands have been filled and I am having downstream issues with flooding and the soil erosion.
There is an existing 24” culvert that is running from the existing stream. The pipe was put in to convey water from one place to another ponded area from west to east land I am concerned
Chairman asked Mr. McDonald: Are you showing all the pipes and all the drainage improvements that has been made on that property.
We have specific standards on the water course that is reference as a drainage ditch, and we have a 250 ft. minimum setback for the septic system. This will have to show on the plans. The minimum setback for a house construction would be a 100 ft. from the watercourse. If you are going to install the culvert, we will need to have detail plans on how it is going to be built, and what is the size and a notice to the Army Corps.
Mr. McDonald said yes we have.
Mr. MacIntosh stated: That pipe was done in the early 80’s.
A resident added: I think that the developer must correct the source of pollution and erosion that has been created.
Mr. McDonald stated: There responsibility under the state’s guideline to comply with the stormwater management guidelines. They will be disturbing more than one acre as a result of these two house projects and the driveway. I am sure that the applicant will be more than willing to go over any issues the residents may have with past issues.
There will not be any downstream effects and will make sure that their concerns are met.
My understanding is that the work was done in the 80s and back then the Army Corps of Engineer regulations was done differently
Chairman stated: You will need to show the limits of grading and clearing and provide an erosion and sedimentation control plan. We will need the location of the water hookups, the driveway and culvert details showing they are adequately equip for emergency vehicles, and the location of the springs and streams.
Linda Clark, Counsel, asked if there was a permit for the pipe.
Mr. McDonald stated: I don’t believe that a permit was a requirement for in the 1980s to do this kind of work.
Mr. McDonald added: It was not mentioned but there were downstream flooding problems and I think that I can address that, but as far as the pipe itself and the effects on the hydraulic system, I doubt there that are any measurable long term erect of that.
Lindsay Childs asked Mr. MacIntosh, were you talking about that there was serious erosion and sediment problems in 1994 and do you still have that problem.
Mr. MacIntosh said yes. The stream from my property floods more often than it did before.
Chairman stated: Any construction that occurs out there now has to be stable and cannot be sending erosion and sedimentation into the stream anymore. This is clearly a standard that we have to follow now. We will take a look at the site.
Jack McDonald stated: If there is erosion problems or if there is something that we can do at the increase of flow going downstream, we will certainly do that.
Chairman made a motion to approve the concept for a two-lot subdivision on Old State Road. You will need to show additional information on the erosion and sedimentation plan, and need to show limits of grading and clearing needs to be identified, a standard notation on the plat as far as the Agricultural district, clear notification that the there is an existing working farm there,
To show the driveway and details of the culvert showing that they are adequate for emergency vehicles, and will need the location of hydrant and water connections and the septic system.
The motion was seconded by Terry Coburn and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
MATTER OF DAS – 6030 Nott Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a proposed 2 lot subdivision of 11 acres. Zoned RO40. Sal Rico Firm presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Das – Nott Road
This is a concept approval request to split a parcel that straddles Nott Road. The 9.1 acre piece, on the east side, has an existing home. The 2.8 acre parcel on the west side is bounded by the Hungerkill and has a sewer easement crossing it. I have the following comments:
- The majority of the 2.8 acre parcel is within the 100 year floodplain. The limits of the floodplain should be shown on the plat.
- The property should be evaluated for wetlands.
- The sight distance for the proposed driveway should be checked.
Because of the very wet nature of this area, additional information may be needed to
determine whether there is a viable building envelope of the proposed lot.
Sal Ricco presenting: The existing home sits on 9.1 acre part of this 12 acre parcel. on
the east side of Nott Road. On the west side are 2.8 acres which they proposed to
separate from the main parcel and to make it as one separate building lot.
There are no setback issues and there is already water and sewer location and there is a
sewer easement running in the rear of the 2.8 acre parcel on the far west side crossing the
Hungerkill stream. We do not have a wetland delineation but will provide that to the
Board. There is sufficient setbacks from the rear of the stream of 100 ft. and is 150’ to
175 ft. from the stream at its nearest. There is a fire hydrant already on the road, and the
driveway is shown which needs to be approved by the Highway Department.
Chairman stated: This is pretty simple but it is in the floodplain, therefore, we have a concern about that. It is not that you cannot build in the floodplain but it would need to be first floor elevation, and need to be elevated a minimum of one or two feet above the flood elevation plus other restrictions. We have a map from FEMA that indicates the proposed house location would be in the floodplain. We will need to know the location of and elevation of the 100 year flood plain, and wetland delineation must be complete, and a topography of the site would need to be shown and the building envelope and the location of the driveway. We will need this information before we can approve the two lots. Then, this would have to be shown of the final plat. .
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none.
Chairman stated: The sense of the Board is to continue the concept.
Concept continued.
SITE PLAN REVIEW – Barringer – 140 Schoolhouse Road
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a site plan review to allow an in-law apartment. Zoned R-15. Roy Barrringer presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Barringer - 140 Schoolhouse Road
The applicant has applied for a special use permit to include an in-law apartment in a residence under construction. There is not much information in the file but as long as the unit meets the conditions of the accessory apartment law and there is adequate off-street parking. I have no objections.
Ray Barrringer presenting: I am applying for a special use permit to include an in-law
apartment. There will be adequate parking. We meet all the town standards.
Chairman stated: This is pretty straightforward. When this is no longer in use it cannot
be turned into an apartment.
Chairman asked for any comments from the audience and there were none..
Chairman made a motion to approve the site plan review for Roy Barringer, 140
Schoolhouse Road, for an in-law apartment.
The motion was seconded by Lindsay Childs and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
SITE PLAN REVIEW – Carman Realty – 3770 Carman Road
Chairman Feeney announced that we have two site plan reviews on 3770 Carman Road.
The applicant has requested two special use permits, one for a nail salon and the second for a card and gift shop to be located in the Carman Plaza. No site changes are anticipated and the plaza has good traffic circulation and adequate parking. No planning objections.
Chairman stated: There are no sites changes and I have no planning objection.
Paul Caputo commented: In the future I would really appreciate a paragraph or two from our Zoning Law Officer stating why they are in front of us. Once again I am very concerned that every business in town is treated equally.
Chairman made a motion to approve the two site plan reviews on Carman Road, Carman Plaza with no conditions.
The motion was seconded by Terry Coburn and carried by a 6-0 vote by the Board.
MEETING ADJOURNED: 8:45 P.M.
TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
October 24, 2007
LUCARELLI – Old State Road
DAS – 6030 Nott Road
BARRINGER – 140 Schoolhouse Road
CARMAN REALTY – 3770 Carman Road
CARMAN REALTY – 3770 Carman Road
| 
