1
TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
February 24, 2016
Minutes of meeting held Guilderland Town Hall, Route 20, Guilderland, NY 12084 at
7:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
Stephen Feeney, Chairman
James Cohen
Thomas Robert
Herb Hennings
Michael Cleary
Theresa Coburn
James Cohen
Jan Weston, Planning Administrator
ABSENT: Bruce Sherman
************************************************************************
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 asked for a motion to approve the minutes of January 27, 2016, so
moved by Terry Coburn seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 6-1 vote by the
Board. (Herb Hennings – abstained)
************************************************************************
FULLER STATION ROAD SUBDIVISION
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a continued concept review to determine the
allowed number of lots. Zoned R40. James Easton presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Frenchs Mill Road Subdivision
The applicant has submitted a revised conventional plan incorporating the environmental
limitations listed by the Board as well as showing the two existing homes and Stormwater
areas. The plan now includes the filling of the isolated wetlands and shows 58 lots.
Although many of these lots are extremely tight, they do meet our minimum requirements
with the exception of #11 which does not meet the 200 ft. width at building line and #58
which has no side setback from the road. I would also eliminate #20 because when all
the front and side setbacks are included, the proposed house is virtually hemmed in on all
sides.
PB 02-24-2016
2
Once the applicant supplies verification that the proposed filled wetlands are indeed
isolated, I would be comfortable indicating that 55 lots is the baseline for a future
clustered design.
James Easton, MJ Engineering, presenting: I am here tonight to talk about the max
density plan of roughly 100 acres in size off of Fuller Station Road. The plan that is in
front of the Board is not the plan we proposed to build. We are just determining the
number of lots that will be allowed to be built on the 100 acres. Probably less than half
of the 100 acres will be built on and the rest will be deed restricted or whatever the Board
suggests.
The Board requested at the last hearing, that the two existing homes be shown and how it
functions within the proposed subdivision as it was laid out. We have shown the isolated
wetlands and have shown the stormwater management areas. Out of all those things, we
have four areas all greater than 40,400 sq. ft. in size for stormwater areas. The isolated
wetlands have been determined by Army Corps of Engineers and the DEC wetlands were
flagged. We added the 100 ft. buffer and redid the whole roadway the last time and we
had 1.5 acres of wetland impacts that we estimated. By redoing the plan again there will
be a .7 acre impact. That .7 acre impact basically takes the wetlands from the edge of the
right-of-way, about 60 ft. in width.
Chairman stated that we have received the site review summary from the GCAC, dated
January 25, 2016 and summarized as follows: GCAC does not object to the proposal
provided that a stormwater management plan can be included showing that there will not
be any adverse runoff to neighboring properties nor in the direction of the Watervliet
Reservoir. Another concern is the location of the entrance to the development on Fuller
Station Road due to limited sight distance. Of further concern is whether or not West Old
State Road can support the added traffic. Also, make reference to how an existing
easement for egress/ingress for a neighbor who has landlocked property along the north
boundary. (On file)
Mr. Easton said yes. The parcel that is landlocked does have an easement. There is a
gravel road that comes out to Fuller Station Road. The owner of parcel A has rights to go
across parcel B to Fuller Station Road. In the development we would have to provide a
15 ft. wide easement for that parcel to get out to a town road.
Chairman stated: We have issues with the building code now as far as access for
emergency vehicles and we might look for a wider easement. The location would have to
be appropriate.
Mr. Easton stated: We have no problems to do a wider easement as we revise the plans to
the next level.
Chairman stated: that was mentioned at the last hearing from Mark Bianca. He expressed
concerns about the access road and park land space.
PB 02-24-2016
3
Chairman mentioned that there is no correspondence in the file from the Army Corps of
Engineers. Mr. Easton explained that we do not have an official letter from them on this
topic. The application went in and still waiting and will submit the letter as soon as we
get it.
Chairman stated: the wetlands on lots 28 and 29 seem odd to me that they might be
considered isolated.
Chairman mentioned that I am not sure how this site might be developed with the
existing house, a nd the 2-bay garage detached from his house. To get an approvable lot,
if this lot with the 2 bay garage was ever to be built, the structure would have to be taken
down.
Chairman stated: If this lot remains without any houses on it, then we would have to
restrict any further subdivision of that parcel unless you do this now, during this proposal.
Mr. Easton fully understood that. That is done by a deed restriction on the parcel and we
will just deed restrict the remaining lands to no further subdivision.
Chairman asked for any comments from the Board.
Chairman asked for any comments from the neighbors who are here and there were none.
Chairman asked for a motion to approve staff’s opinion for the concept density of 55
lots, so moved by Michael Cleary seconded by Thomas Robert and carried by a 7-0 vote
by the Board.
************************************************************************
ARDUINI – 1238 Western Avenue
Chairman Feeney announced that this was a site plan review to allow the construction of
a seasonal deck at The Across the Street Pub. Zoned General Business. Michael Arduini
presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Across the Street Pub - 1238 Western Avenue
The applicant has applied for a special use permit to construct a seasonal outdoor deck
that would accommodate 6 additional tables. I have the following comments:
-
Since the deck will be cantilevered from the second floor of the building,
it will not eliminate any existing parking spaces.
-
In a 2005 application, the applicant stated that there was seating for 108
patrons and 41 parking spaces. This application states seating for 72
patrons and 37 spaces. The Zoning Board should determine what the
actual number is and whether the existing parking will be adequate to
accommodate the additional seating.
PB 02-24-2016
4
-
The proposed deck is across from the Dunkin Donuts at the Days Inn, but
there is also a neighbor to the south. Since the deck is elevated, some kind
of buffering should be considered to screen the patrons from a direct,
overhead view into the neighbor’s yard. Also lighting should be screened
for the same reason.
-
Hours of operation and limitations on noise producing activities should be
imposed to protect surrounding residents from undue nuisances.
In general, outdoor seating is an attractive amenity not only for a restaurant, but for the
Town as well. However, when these patios are adjacent to existing residences, they can
create undesirable negative impacts for the neighbors. These impacts would have to be
mitigated before I was comfortable with this request.
Michael Arduini, owner, operator of the Across the Street Pub Restaurant, presenting: I
am proposing to add a 12 x 26 seasonal deck on the east side of the restaurant, over the
parking lot and not lose anything.
Ten years ago, I came before the Zoning Board for approval of a similar deck that was
larger in size on the other side onto the other parking lot, and that deck was in direct line
of sight of my neighbor and did not get the approval. Plus, we were going to lose a total
of 4 parking spaces. Just for structural purposes this would make things better for
everybody. There will be no smoking or music out there. We are just trying to compete
with some of the close places next to us.
On the south side of the deck a 6 foot privacy fence will be put into place. This will
buffer any noise that might come from the deck and protect some of the people. The
seating will be limited.
Planning Board recommended that we utilize the space above the retaining wall as green
space, to create even more of a sound barrier between the business and the residences.
Chairman asked if you have any elevation drawings and Mr. Auduini said no. Not at this
point.
Chairman asked if you are planning on screening the south wall of the deck.
Mr. Arduini said yes we are planning on a 6 ft. privacy fence, landscaping on the hill by
the fence, and lighting directed on the deck.
Chairman stated that you will need to show the actual elevation of the deck and the
landscaping area.
Michael Cleary stated: The floor of the deck is a couple of feet below the stockade fence
and it is about 4ft. above the retaining wall.
PB 02-24-2016
5
Chairman stated that it might be beneficial to actually just show the elevation of the
fence, and hillside.
Terry Coburn had a concern about the noise and to limiting the time to 9:00 instead of
11:00 p.m.
Michael Cleary suggested having flowers around the deck.
Bruce Sherwin wanted to know about the lighting.
James Cohen was concerned about the noise and felt that it is going to be an issue.
Chairman asked for any more comments from the Planning Board Members and there
were none.
Chairman asked if there are any neighbors in the audience who would like to comment.
Hilda Jasiewicz, 102 Arcadia, submitted a letter dated February 28, 2016 to Jackie
Coons, expressing her concerns and disappointment about the noise from the deck out
there. I had concerns about the delivery trucks coming in to unload, garbage trucks, and
emergencies vehicles to get in during business hours with the parking lot full to be able to
get into the driveway parking lot area and the clearance for that.
Don Reeb, 5 Norway Street, concern was that we would like to have a community that is
not subject to outdoor seating because the houses are close together, and concerned with
the lighting and not having sufficient parking, and the noise. This is an urban
environment which we have to take into consideration. The idea of having outdoor dining
where the neighbors hear the noise from the business.
Robert Nicklaus, Arcadia Ave., wanted to make it clear about the parking concerns. I
like the idea of them working with the other businesses.
James Cohen asked about the fencing.
Chairman stated that we are operating under the existing code and don’t think that the
new code reduces the number of required spaces.
Chairman added that a lot of the issues that came up are legitimate issues about the noise
and parking. I feel that the site plan itself should have more detail drawings of the deck
and the neighboring properties.
Chairman made a motion to recommend approval for site plan review for a construction
of a seasonal deck, at Auduini, 1238 Western Avenue, with the following conditions:
•
Provide detailed site plan showing elevation drawing of deck &
relationship to neighboring properties.
PB 02-24-2016
6
•
A six-foot high sound wall is constructed along the south side of deck.
•
Provide a landscaping plan with possible installation of columnar style
evergreen plantings along rear property line to better screen residential
dwelling.
•
Provide lighting plan for deck.
seconded by Terry Coburn and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
MILL HOLLOW TWO – 5060 Western Turnpike
Chairman Feeney announced that this advisory opinion on a request to amend Local Law
#3 of 2006 to eliminate the 55 year old age restriction and revise t he location of the
required sidewalks. Mary Beth Slevin presenting.
Jan Weston, Town Planner, read the comments of the Planning Department as follows:
Mill Hollow Two
The applicant has submitted a request to the Town Board to amend two conditions of the
local law that rezoned the property from Local Business (the Bavarian Chalet) to
Multiple Residence to allow for 86 condominiums. The conditions are:
1. All units will be age restricted to 55.
I have no objection to the elimination of this condition as I do not think it will have a
discernable impact on traffic or any other aspect on the project.
2. That sidewalks be installed from French’s Mill Road to the Twenty West subdivision
at Landbridge Road.
The applicant is proposing that in lieu of this full sidewalk, that they instead install a
short length of sidewalk from Route 20 into their project and then another, at the
southeast corner of the project, into the Twenty West subdivision. However, this
southeast connection has already been planned for and required as part of the approvals
for both Mill Hollow and Twenty West.
One of the main reasons I supported this rezone, and the huge density bonus it granted,
was because it would provide for a new senior citizen’s center, and that the center would
be connected to a wide area of residential neighborhoods, Town Hall and commercial
entities. Having it only connect to one subdivision (which is already required) would
negate the whole concept of the center being integrated with the wider community.
Further, eliminating the age restriction will attract even younger residents to the project,
increasing the number of pedestrians who could easily walk to the supermarket or
drugstore if given safe access.
PB 02-24-2016
7
I believe the sidewalk was required to be fully installed after two Certificates of
Occupancy were issued. If the issue is mostly financing, as a compromise I would be
comfortable if the Town allowed more buildings to be built and occupied before the
sidewalk is installed.
Mary Beth Slevin presenting: There are really only two conditions of the Local Law that
we were requesting to have modified. The first is the age restriction and the second is the
requirement for sidewalks along Rt. 20.
With respect to the age restriction, this project was approved back in 2006 and the world
has changed so much since then. The finance world, the market board, and fifty-five and
older is very different now than it was back then. The environment for financing of these
kinds of projects has significantly changed. The barriers for entry are much higher and
aggressive now and those barriers have really made it difficult for the project to progress.
The only way this project will go forward and to be successful is if it has some relief
from the age restriction that is currently proposed. That is not to say that the project will
not continue to attract adults over 55. The units are designed for persons over 55 and will
continue to be designed in that fashion and will provide the project an opportunity to
succeed.
The infrastructure of the project is substantially complete, the sewer and the water
completed and the stormwater. The senior center has been increased by 32 % in what was
required in the original local law.
To get to the next step to move this project forward, to build the rest of the units that have
been approved, it does need to have that age restriction of 55 eliminated. The second
condition is the sidewalk requirement to go along Western Avenue. There are several
reasons why that relief is requested. The main one is the cost of it and how it has
increased since 2006.
What they are proposing is a connection between Rt. 20 over to 20 West which
alternately still gets back to Rt. 20. It does it in a fashion that is not as direct as it really
won’t be along Rt. 20, but still provides the kind of connectively that the town promotes
within the comprehensive plan. It promotes the kind of community benefits that is also
endorsed in the comprehensive plan. Those reasons and the increased space in the senior
center that the developer has provided support the secondary relief that we are asking.
For all of those reasons we are asking the Board to make a recommendation to the Town
Board, that these two conditions be amended as requested.
Michael Cleary commented that when the proposal came up for the sidewalks, it wasn’t
that the sidewalk was going to be built on private property, it was stated by the developer
that they would build it, whatever it took to built it, that was stated. That was not
changed. Saying that it was said that the plan was to build on private property is not what
I remember. I am open to listening to different suggestions for the sidewalks.
-
PB 02-24-2016
8
Steve Buck had an aeriel view of two sections of the sidewalk. One that comes from
Frenchs Mill Road and across over 700 ft. to the turning point and take the sidewalk
down to our property and connect it to Twenty West.
We purchased the project after the approval, the intitial take that we had on the sidewalk
was that we thought that we were going to be able to get it within the right-of-way. Quite
frankly we did not take a hard enough look at it to make sure that that could be done.
What we are trying to concentrate on is to getting the senior center built.
On the sidewalk, the DOT is not going to want us to change any of the storm drainage
channels or the ways that the drainage is moving off of Rt. 20. Because of that fact, we
would have to go and put the sidewalk on neighbor’s property. The issue that we have is
that we aren’tx4 `1237890-ASaaa not going to be able to do that without there being
some taking of property. The costs have over burdened a project that was already
overburdened.
This has made it impossible for us to finance the project any further, and just a burden
on us having us to present a viable project for a bank to buy into. We would like to get
just enough relief to show to the bank.
Mr. Foley explained the overhead and the markup for the total cost of the project and just
wanted to provide you with backup on how we came up with the potential cost.
Chairman asked the Board about the age restrictions.
Terry Coburn wanted to know how many units have been sold to someone 55 or older.
My concern there is that if there were several units sold and people moving in thinking
that this was a 55 and older development. Will the senior center then become useable by
all of the units?
Steve Buck explained that they are just simply leasing and haven’t closed on any units.
The senior center is 99.5% complete. There has been some request for floor changes and
we have provided that. Assuming that we move forward, it is our intent to deliver the
senior center with the next 30-60 days complete, so that the seniors can begin to use it
immediately.
Michael Cleary wanted to know if you go forward without the age limit of 55 and older,
the ages drop, and will the other people have the use of the senior center.
Mary Beth Slevin explained that it will be a dedicated use, exclusive to the town’s use,
approximately 5100 sq.ft. that is reserved for the senior center for the town use. Upstairs
will be used for the residents of the condominium use.
There was discussion about the sidewalk design and the maintenance and what DOT
would agree to.
PB 02-24-2016
9
Chairman stated: Lifting the age restriction will attract the younger residents to the
project and I would support that. I believe the sidewalk was required to be fully installed
We would need a survey of the whole layout including property line, and the right-ofway. We would need a whole layout including property line so we may know how to
approach it.
Steve Buck would like the opportunity for the town to come up with a solution that is
affordable for us to move forward. The construction financing is contingent upon 13
sales. If we have to get into all the engineering to satisfy DOT, the cost would double
and it would become an unaffordable burden on the project.
Chairman had no issue about granting some sort of time relief for the construction of the
sidewalk. We would also need to have a survey.
.
Chairman stated: I think that we are all in agreement on lifting the age restriction and let
the project be able to move forward, and then let’s work on the sidewalk connection. We
need to know what we are dealing with from a right-of-way standpoint. I have spoken to
DOT that we would be talking to them about this issue.
Chairman stated: We can make a recommendation to the Town Board to lift the 55 year
old age restriction on the Mill Hill project and that we will look to put a hold on the
sidewalk until they explore more details so that we can make a more informed decision.
Chairman made a motion to approved to amend Local #3 of 2006 to eliminate the 55 year
old age restriction and reserve decision on the sidewalk until the applicant can provide
further information to develop feasibility and accurate cost estimate.
seconded by Michael Cleary and carried by a 7-0 vote by the Board.
MEETING ADJOURNED : 10:00 P.M.
PB 02-24-2016
10
TOWN OF GUILDERLAND
PLANNING BOARD
February 24, 2016
FULLER STATION ROAD SUBDIVISION
ARDUINI – 1238 Western Avenue
MILL HOLLOW TWO – 5060 Western Turnpike
PB 02-24-2016
11
PB 02-24-2016
12
PB 02-24-2016
13
PB 02-24-2016
14
PB 02-24-2016