TOWN OF SCHODACK COUNTY OF RENSSELAER STATE OF NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING - June 18, 2007
CALLED TO ORDER BY: CHAIRMAN PETER GOOLD AT: 7:10 p.m.
PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Denise Mayrer, Vice-Chairman Peter Goold, Chairman
Sylvester Kedzierski Melissa Knights, Secretary
G. Jeffrey Haber
Wayne Johnson
John LaVoie
Paul Puccio
Nadine Fuda, Director
Tim Nugent, Esq
Richard Laberge, Planning Board Engineer
PUBLIC COMMENT :
No Public Comments.
APPROVE MINUTES - June 4, 2007
Johnson moved, Puccio seconded that the minutes be approved as amended
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Johnson, Haber, Kedzierski, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose: None
Abstain: Haber, LaVoie
Kohler Home Builders, LLC 2007-10/LB, R-40, R-20/210.-7-39.11 SITE PLAN
US Rt. 9 & Schodack Drive
Proposed - PD-2 / Residential and Commercial
Steven Hart, Hart Engineering, spoke about the Laberge letter dated May 2, 2007, and the comments made by the Laberge Group. We submitted a revised package and site plan addressing the following revisions.
· The access onto Schodack Drive, the road was extended from 22 ft. to 24 ft. And visual landscape screening was added and will keep the same access off of Rt. 9
· The other request was to add landscape screening along the property lines to the four single family units on the lands of Perez.
· Spoke to Angelo Defransesco from the Schodack Water Department and there will be a tap on Schodack Drive to the existing 12 inch water main.
Mr. Laberge, Laberge Group, stated that he just received the Hart Engineering letter dated June 13, 2007, and has not had a chance to review the PD application to make sure that it is complete.
He feels that the only action the board should consider is to declare their intent to seek is Lead agency. The next step is to make a report to the Town Board once the PD application is complete.
Member discussion between Mr. Laberge and Mr. Nugent on the lead agency and that the board should not consider this step until the engineering is complete.
Mr. Puccio asked about the Lands of Perez and the house that is already built, and the drainage issue.
Mr. Hart stated that the house on Schodack Drive is lot 3 of the subdivision, and the drainage from the hill is an issue that is being considered.
Mr. Johnson asked about the entrance to the apartments, and if the residents are being encouraged to use Rt.9.
Mr. Hart stated that they are not encouraging one entrance to another it will depend on the traffic flow. One access will be 24 feet wide and the other will be 30 feet wide.
Mr. Johnson asked about the driveway on the buffer area that runs behind the commercial lot.
Mr. Hart stated yes, that could be used for any business that may have a drive thru, such as a bank, coffee shop or drug store. The traffic will flow around the building with out disturbing the parking lot and pedestrians.
Mr. Johnson asked if they should anticipate a possible drive thru and widen the southern parking lot.
Mr. Hart explained that if they have a business needing extra driving lanes then the building will have to be moved in a little.
Mr. Johnson asked if they will provide an empty space on the parking lot for a walkway to the entrance of the larger apartment buildings.
Mr. Hart stated that he plans to widen the spaces for handicap parking and an entrance walkway.
Vice Chairman Mayrer states that the Planning Board will not seek Lead Agency until all engineering has been addressed by the Laberge Group.
Mr. Laberge states that he will look everything over and get back to Mr. Hart in time for any issues to be addressed before the next meeting on July 16, 2007.
Kohler Place 39-2004/RA/200.-7-47.11 SUBDIVISION
332 Shufelt Rd
Proposed - 5 Lot
Steve Hart, Hart Engineering explains the site plain for the proposed subdivision, The Kohlers what to divide 23 acres into 5 lots with a cul-de-sac. The tightest Lot is number four with 200 foot of road frontage and the smallest lot is 2.29 acres.
Mr. Hart states that they are looking for two wavers form the Planning Board.
· One is to have the first 300 lineal foot of the road be a 50 foot wide right-a-way instead of the required 60 feet, and if need be the back half of the road and the cul-de-sac can return to the 60 foot requirement.
· They propose a 10 % road way slope in stead of the required 8% slope. The reason being that the two existing homes in the front of the northern end of the property have a 10 % slope driveway and to alleviate any drainage issues they would like to do the same.
Mr. Johnson asked what the radius of the cul-de-sac, and is it a right-a-way radius?
Mr. Hart states it has140 to 150 feet of radius and it is from right-a-way to right-a-way.
Vice Chairman Mayrer stated that there will be no action on this item at tonight's meeting. But will come back at a latter date for a public hearing, pending an engineering review by the Laberge Group.
7:23 Meeting Break Discussion:
Jeff Haber discussed a Public Hearing he went to in Albany; the topic was the local Government Commission on Efficiency and Competitiveness.
The idea is to do a way with local governments i.e.: towns, villages and centralize all areas under one municipal office.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nadine Fuda read the hearing notice as published in the Troy Record:
Pond View Medical and Professional Offices published June 18, 2007
Vice Chairman Mayrer directed the affidavit of publication be made part of the hearing Record.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pond View Medical and Prof Offices 2007-15/R-40/178.-4-2.2 Special Use Permit
Pond View Road
Proposed - Medical and Professional Offices
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Vice Chairman Mayrer opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m.
Mr. Tice, Brewer Engineering, was present for this meeting.
Mr. Tice is requesting a Special Use Permit because the lending agency is interested in making sure that there is an active special permit in place at this time.
Mr. Nugent explains that a special use permit was issued at the time the Medical Arts Building was constructed, how ever it was for a limited time (18 or 24 Months) and was never renewed. This new Special Use Permit is a ministerial function.
Ms. Mayrer states that she believes no one would argue the property is well suited to continue as a medical arts facility.
Mr. Nugent states there is a request by the applicants to rent out space as professional offices which is a slight change but it is with in the board's purview to grant this permit.
Tony Lasowski resident asked if Lab Corp was going to stay.
Rex Rothman and Ed Finberg, owners, stated yes, that Lab Corp is staying, and would like to keep the tenants. Some of professional tenants do not fit under the original permit and that is why the request to broaden the new permit to accommodate those businesses, such as adult, and child daycare.
Mr. Johnson asked if there were going to be any connections to the new 200 unit town houses?
Mr. Rothman stated that one of the reasons that they wanted to purchase the building was to create a synergistic relationship between the building and senior care issues. That can be medical as well as social, cultural and psychological.
Puccio moved, LaVoie seconded that the Planning Board be LEAD AGENCY.
6 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose:
Puccio moved, Haber seconded a NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
6 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose:
Haber moved, Puccio seconded that the SPECIAL PERMIT be GRANTED: for an initial period of 2 YEARS
Vice Chairman Mayrer closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nadine Fuda read the hearing notice(s) as published in the Troy Record:
Lands of Humann published June 18, 2007
Vice Chairman Mayrer directed the affidavit(s) of publication be made part of the hearing record(s).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
Lands of Heumann 2007-13 /RA / 191.-5-5 / 191.-2-6 Subdivision
115 & 127 Boyce Rd
Proposed - 2 Lot
Vice Chairman Mayrer opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
There were no public comments:
Mr. Smith, Smith Engineering, was present for this meeting.
Mr. Johnson asked why the plans show the first lot of Heumann on the right. It makes the lot look larger then it really is. It should not be on the plans if the other adjacent lots are not included.
Mr. Smith, states that he wanted to show how the lands sit in the entire scheme of things. The right side of the map is the actual subdivision.
Mr. Johnson states that the maps should be adjusted and the lines should be removed.
Mr. Smith agreed to have the final maps adjusted.
Vice Chairman Mayrer closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m.
Haber moved, Puccio seconded that the Planning Board be LEAD AGENCY.
6 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose:
Puccio moved, Kedzierski seconded a NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
6 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose:
Johnson moved, Puccio seconded that the following resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS, a formal application was submitted to the Planning Board on: May 23, 2007, for approval of a 2 -lot subdivision entitled, "Lands of Human", map prepared by: Survey Smith , dated "May 2007", and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the subdivision application and plat at the Schodack Town Hall on June 18, 2007 at 7:30 p.m., and
WHEREAS, the requirement of the subdivision regulations of the Town of Schodack have been met by said subdivision plat and application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the application of be APPROVED CONTINGENT UPON submission of final maps, payment of fees and before building permits can be issued, permits to construct well and septic must be obtained from the Rensselaer County Health Department.
ADJOURN
Haber moved, LaVoie seconded that the Planning Board meeting be adjourned. There being no objections, Vice Chairman Mayrer adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nadine Fuda
Director of Planning & Zoning
TOWN OF SCHODACK COUNTY OF RENSSELAER STATE OF NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING - July 16, 2007
CALLED TO ORDER BY: CHAIRMAN PETER GOOLD AT: 7:04 p.m.
PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Peter Goold, Chairman Denise Mayrer, Vice Chairman
Wayne Johnson G. Jeffrey Haber
John LaVoie Sylvester Kedzierski
Paul Puccio
Nadine Fuda, Director
Tim Nugent, Esq.
Richard Laberge, Planning Board Engineer
Melissa Knights, Secretary
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mark Bonin, 510 Muitzeskill Road drafted a letter stating his concerns on the development of the proposed Schodack Landing Estates, His letter has been added to their file (# 2006-11).
Tim Craft, resident spoke about his concerns on the Schodack Landing Estates and submitted a map to be added to the file. (#2006-11)
Jay Silkworth, Schodack Landing Resident spoke about the concept of a cluster development and that Schodack Landing Estates does not resemble what a cluster development should be, and wonders if the board understands what the guidelines are for such a project.
Betsy Craft, Schodack Landing Resident wanted to remind the board that they have the authority granted to them by the Town of Schodack in article 9 - paragraph 281
to propose conditions on the project where it is warranted. In addition, she requests the board be scrupulous, to make sure that this project is of the highest quality. The current plan is much different from what was presented at the public hearing, maybe another public hearing is warranted.
Public Comment closed at 7:11
MINUTE APPROVAL-DATE
Johnson moved, Puccio seconded that the minutes be approved as amended.
3 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Johnson, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose:
Abstain: Goold
Victoria Moore Z654-07/R-20/201.12-1-5 RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA
19 North Overlook
Proposed - Area Variance
Victoria Moore was present for this meeting
Mrs. Moore stated that the reason for the variance was to put a 20 x 29 ½ addition on the right side of the house, also explained that the front yard setback runs through the middle of the existing house.
Mr. Puccio questions the amount of space.
Mrs. Moore stated that her lot is 220 ft by 100 ft.
Mr. Johnson asked about the overhead wires and if that was a right of way for Niagara Mohawk.
Mrs. Moore stated that the wires are her service connection.
Member discussion on the problem with the set back and the board decided on
"NO" recommendation to the ZBA.
This item will be reviewed at the next ZBA meeting held on July 19, 2007.
Steven Komp for Mr. Pier Z655-07/RA/179.-5-25.214 RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA
10 Palmer Road
Proposed Front Yard Setback
Steven Komp, contractor, and Nick Demos, Project Engineer, were present for this meeting.
Mr. Komp stated he measured the front yard set back from Palmer Road but did not do so from Rt. 150. And in doing so, the foundation is 33 feet from Rt. 150. They are requesting a variance for the Rt. 150 front yard setback.
Mr. Demos states the house faces Palmer Road and is well over the 50 ft front yard setback. When they did go back and measured the setback form Rt. 150 it was done from the pavement not from the boundary line, Either way the set back is incorrect. They are requesting the board to consider Palmer Road the front yard and Rt. 150 the side yard set back.
Mr. Johnson spoke about a letter written by Gary Ziegler Schodack Building Inspector. Stating that they should not pour the foundation until the measurements for each
front yard set back has been checked. And asked why that was not done before putting in the footings. (copy of letter in file # Z655-07)
Mr. Komp explained that they already had the footings in, and had misunderstood where the 50 ft set back was supposed to be. He measured from the pavement not from the boundary.
Mr. Johnson asked, when they looked at the location of the foundation footings, did they not notice how close they were to Rt. 150?
Mr. Komp stated that they had misunderstood and made a mistake.
Mr. Johnson feels that an unfavorable recommendation is in order; they were given notice that the foundation location was wrong and they did not rectify the problem.
Mr. Puccio asked how the code is written, and if it stated that, a corner lot must have two front yard setbacks.
Mr. Nugent states that is correct. No matter what road the house faces, a corner lot has two 50 ft. front yard setbacks.
Mr. Puccio asked to make it perfectly clear the building department had in fact told the contractor that the set back was incorrect, before they poured the concrete.
Mr. Komp stated that Mr. Ziegler from the building dept. had asked them if they were 50 ft. from the boundary, he thought that meant from the road.
Mr. Puccio asked what the site looks like today.
Mr. Komp states the foundation, septic, and driveway are in but not the house.
Chairman Goold stated this would go to the Zoning Board. Meeting to be held on
July 19, 2007.
Johnson moved, Puccio seconded an "unfavorable" recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
4 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Johnson, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
Kohler Home Builders, LLC. 2007-10/R-40,R-20/210.-7-39.11 SITE PLAN
US Rt.9 & Schodack Drive
Proposed - PD-2 / Residential and Commercial
Steven Hart, Hart Engineering, was present for this meeting.
Mr. Hart talked about a letter from the land use Corridor study dated July 2006.
They had picked out some of the items that were in support of the PD2 overlay.
There have been no changes made to the plan since the last meeting.
Mr. Laberge spoke about his letter dated July 12, 2007, on the planned development application for a commercial retail and multi family units to be located on Rt. 9 and Schodack Drive. In addition, request the board to start the 60-day review process on the PD application, then a report can be submitted to the Town Board.
Members discussed if there is significant information to go ahead and start the 60-day process.
Chairman Goold asked Mr. Hart if he agrees to everything in the Laberge letter.
Mr. Hart stated yes he agrees with the items.
Chairman Goold asked the board for a motion to certify that the information on the PD2 application by Kohler Home Builders is complete.
Puccio moved, LaVoie seconded.
4 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Johnson, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
Thomas Rudolph 2007-16/HC/200.-6-7 SITE PLAN
1800 US Rt.9
Proposed - Bar and Restaurant
Thomas Rudolph, applicant was present for this meeting.
Mr. Rudolph stated that he would like to reopen the Hillcrest Tavern and bring it back as a family restaurant and bar.
Chairman Goold spoke about the site plan and the only thing that Mr. Rudolph wants to do is put in a second bathroom.
Mr. Rudolph states that is correct and one wall needs to be removed. Nothing is to be changed on the out side of the building with the exception of updating the sign.
Chairman Goold questions the amount of parking.
Mrs. Fuda states that the square foot of the restaurant is 1200 sq ft for patrons who would require about 14 parking spaces and the site plan shows 22 spaces for parking.
Chairman Goold asked about the type of food, he plans to serve and if it going to be a family type setting.
Mr. Rudolph states that it will include Italian dishes, steaks, and food of that nature and yes, he wants it to be a family restaurant.
Puccio moved, LaVoie seconded APPROVAL of SITE PLAN contingent upon the following conditions:
- That the parking be delineated to include no fewer then the 22 parking spaces.
4 Ayes, 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Johnson, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
Schodack Plaza 2007-17/HC/189.-5-11 SITE PLAN
1649 Columbia Turnpike
Proposed - Retail Store
Tractor Supply Store
Rodger Keeting, Chazen Company. Engineer and Peter Lutz Esq. were present for this meeting.
Mr. Keeting states that the former Grand Union will become the new Tractor Supply store and the two end stores (former Ann's Hallmark and Rite Aide) are to be torn down to become the display and storage area for the tractors and out side lawn equipment. He also states that they would have a display area in the front of the plazas parking lot by Rt. 9 & 20. Utilizing the existing parking spaces to display items such as Lawn tractors & snow blowers etc. The existing island in front of the Hallmark store will be removed for easer access of the delivery trucks. They will use the existing public water and septic systems. They require about 109 parking spaces and with the adjustments to the site, the available parking is 169 spaces.
Chairman Goold asked if the yard would hold anything other than out door goods such as lawn furniture, garden supplies, lawn tractors and things of that nature.
Mr. Keeting states that is correct, it will be blocked off by a stockade fence.
Mr. Johnson asked about signage and the front display area, if they need special review or approvals to have the display by the road.
Chairman Goold wondered about the setback from the highway.
Mr. Keeting states that this is not going to be an enclosed area, the display areas will just take up the few existing parking spaces and then the items will be returned to the fenced in yard in the evening.
Mr. Keeting states that the screening will be an 8 ft high chain link fence with an entrance in front and the back for deliveries.
Mr. Laberge asked if the display area will remain at the same grade level and will not be raised, and questioned the heavy-duty asphalt.
Mr. Keeting stated that they are not going to change the grade just eliminate a few parking spaces by Rt. 9 & 20. The heavy-duty asphalt is for handling a larger style of tractor that may be on sale. No items are smaller then a regular size vehicle.
Mr. Puccio asked about the type of products that they sell, commercial, residential or farming.
Mr. Keeting states that the vendor caters to the recreational farmer. Someone with a couple of acres, horses and who likes to cut their own lawn. They also carry pet supplies, hardware, snow blowers and things of that nature.
Mr. Puccio wanted to clarify that the equipment displayed out by the road is not the size of a construction vehicle, just regular size lawn tractors.
Mr. Laberge asked about the type of fence is going to be used for the display area next to the store. He also asked about the improvements to Kraft Road and the possible pedestrian connection between Kraft Road and the rest of the plaza. He recommends that we make planning provisions for a five-foot multi purpose walk way and have the applicant place it on the map.
Mr. Johnson asked about the one light pole and if that was all they require.
Mr. Keeting states that there will be lighting attached to the building to light up the storage or display area
Mr. Johnson asked if they were going to use down lighting.
Mr. Keeting stated that was correct.
Mr. Johnson asked if the vendor is aware of the town sign restrictions.
Mrs. Fuda explained that the Plaza it self has a sign out by Rt. 9, and is allowed 100 square feet for everything within the Plaza. Each business is allowed 32 square feet.
Mr. Keeting stated that they are aware of the signing restriction, and are not looking for a variance. What is allowed is fine.
Mr. Johnson asked if the display by Rt. 9 would have a sign or just the equipment and a sale type banner on display.
Mr. Keeding stated that is correct just the equipment and some sort of banner will be there.
Mr. Puccio states that the only condition from the board is that a portion of land (easement) is set aside for a future walkway from Kraft Road and the Plaza is added to the plans. Other then that everything else can be approved.
Chairman Goold asked if they would show the sidewalk on the plans.
Mr. Keeting states that a note can be added to the plans showing the area set aside for the walkway.
Mr. Nugent stated that this is going to be approved with the condition that the applicant delineate on the map a five foot sidewalk connecting Kraft Road to the plaza which will be installed at a future date.
Mr. Puccio stated that it should be listed as a proposed sidewalk
Puccio moved, Johnson seconded APPROVAL of SITE PLAN contingent upon the following condition:
- Approximate location of proposed future sidewalk to be delineated on the map.
4 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Johnson, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
De Brino Calking 2007-18/HC/210.-7-23.2 SITE PLAN
US Rt.9
Proposed - Addition of Building and Shed
Dave Seaman Engineer, was present for this meeting.
Mr. Seaman States that the proposed additional building will be 1440 sq ft and the shed will be 2000 sq ft. The site coverage for this lot in Highway Commercial is 35%, with these additions the site covering will be 13%. He presented photographs to the board to show what the site currently looks like.
Chairman Goold discusses that the owner uses small trucks for his business.
Mr. Seaman stated that the site is not for customers use just for applicant's employees.
Mr. Johnson asked where the access to the new building and shed would be.
Mr. Seaman states that the access to the shed will be from the driveway that passes along the side of it.
Mr. Johnson asked if the shed would be an open or closed unit.
Mr. Seaman states that the shed will be open, the additional building will be enclosed, and will follow lines of the existing units.
Chairman Goold states that this is an allowed use in this zone so the only question is of the site plan it self and the circulation around the units.
Mr. Johnson asked about the open shed on the other side of the building.
Mr. Seaman states that is the existing shed is used to store equipment out of the weather and that unit was previously approved.
Chairman Goold asked about the distance between the buildings for the trucks to drive in and around the property.
Mr. Seaman states that there is 20 feet between the structures for the trucks.
Chairman Goold asked if the neighbors had a problem with the encroachment to their property.
Mr. Seaman stated that the neighbor has voiced their objections on the encroachment.
Mr. Johnson asked if the shed was built under building department review.
Mr. Seaman stated that it was not. The shed on the other side was approved and one of the employees took it upon him self to build the second shed with out thinking that a second permit was needed.
Mr. Johnson asked if there should be a review done on the shed for code purposes.
Mr. Seaman stated that he has plans ready to be submitted to the building department, and has completed an engineering review on the structure with suggestions for modifications.
Mrs. Fuda states that the applicant had come into the planning department last year for a site plan modification and when the inspector went to the site there was not one but two sheds, they are a mirror image each other.
Mr. Johnson asked if the building does not meet code, they would then have to make adjustment to do so.
Mrs. Fuda states that is correct.
Chairman Goold states that the only concern is the parking and circulation around the site, noting the building has been there for 70 years or more.
Mr. Puccio made a statement that in this town there has been a lot of suspicion about business development. And the message that should go back to Lou is to be meticulous, be careful. In the long run it destroys the creditability of all business development when businesses go and do things with out going through the proper channels and then have to come back and request permission to do what has already been completed. This is not good for the trust the public wants in their planning board and the processes of the town.
Johnson moved, LaVoie seconded APPROVAL of SITE PLAN
4 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Johnson, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
Kohler Place 39-2004/RA/200.-7-47.11 SUBDIVISION
332 Shufelt Rd
Proposed - 5 Lot
Steve Hart, Hart Engineering, was present for this meeting.
Mr. Hart states that the road between the first two homes is 50 feet wide and not the required 60 feet, also the steepest slope the town requires for roads is 8 % and they need a 10 % slope. He requests the board to grant a waver for the width of the right a way and the 10% slope.
Mr. Laberge explains that the two homes with driveways at the top of the hill have a fifty-foot right a way instead of the required 60 feet. The Laberge letter dated July 11, 2007 states that they would recommend a waver for only that portion of the road, the
rest of the development should be widened out to 60 feet .And to avoid icing on that portion of the road they would have to put in a closed drainage system.
For the rest of the development an open ditch for drainage will be sufficient
Mr. Johnson asked about the driveways of the two existing homes and where they come out, and if there is an easement?
Mr. Hart states that the two driveways go to the one existing driveway. In addition, that the easement has two houses on ether side and Mr. Kohler's house is in the back. The neighbors are in favor of the development and fixing the drainage in that area.
Member discussion on recommendation of the waver, and the decision was made to come for a public hearing on August 20th.
Sidney Chavin 2006-50/RA/190.-5-23 SUBDIVISION
Donmar Development Corp.
Co. Rt. 7
Proposed - 30 Lot Subdivision
Herald Berger, Engineer, Gary Sears, Donmar Development, and Brian Holbritter, surveyor, were present for this meeting.
Mr. Berger states that several months ago when this project came before the Planning Board it was a 30-Lot subdivision, since then they had completed their work with the health department on their storm water management design system and are now a 25-Lots subdivision. He summarizes what has been done and where the project stands today.
Mr. Berger states that they have been working with the Laberge review letter dated 1/17/07and had the opportunity to address those items. They have completed the storm water management design work and have determined that all the lots work from the stand point of sewage disposal, grading, drainage and water supply, the delineated wetlands have been completed with the exception of one small piece that needs to be incorporated into the plans. He also points out that everything completed to date is at 100 scale and they are on the verge to change things over to 50 scale. Some incidental items still need to be considered, such as a final survey plat, meets and bounds, ect.
Mr. Laberge stated that he did receive the plans back in June and he needs to get a letter out. One issue he expressed to the board was that the first lot at the bottom of the map is well over the 60 thousand square feet with a lot depth of 200 square feet, the end of that lot gets very narrow and ends up being a 40 thousand square foot lot.
He asks the boards opinion on the lot depth and if they wanted to revise. Now would be the time to do so before they get into engineering that is more detailed.
Chairman Goold asked about the size of the lot.
Mr. Berger stated that the lot is about 2 ½ acres.
Mr. Laberge states that there is a very steep hill in the front of this lot. Because of the grading that is going on the useable portion of the lot will be cut down to about 40 to 50 thousand square feet. This is a type of situation where we would recommend a waiver for this one lot, The only other items are with lots 13 and 27. There's a lot of wet lands and the storm water management pond, the applicant is requesting the wet lands be an easement on the two lots which limits the amount of space for each house and septic.
Mr. Berger states that is correct but they eliminated lot 12 to make more room and he said that they could move the border of lot 27 as well.
Mr. Laberge states he will complete a detailed review letter (see below) and get it to the board and the applicant for further discussion.
Chairman Goold asked Mr. Berger if he would agree to come back an August 20th to discuss the new review letter and then follow up later with a public hearing.
Mr. Berger states yes, and believes he could have a complete set of plans at 50 scale
for the next meeting.
All parties agree to come back for the next meeting on August 20 2007.
Laberge Letter dated July 23, 2007
We are in receipt of a preliminary subdivision plan for the above referenced property dated June 19,2007. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), dated June 2007 was also submitted. This plan was reviewed by this office as a sketch plan (Letter dated January 16,2007, and discussed by the Town of Schodack Planning Board November 20, 2006. We offer the following sketch review comments:
1. All Lots are a minimum of 60,000 sq. ft. as required in an RA Zone. Most of the lots appear to fully comply with the 200-foot minimum width, and 200 minimum depth. However, Lot 1 is 200 foot deep for only a portion of the Lot. The area of the Lot that is at least 200 foot deep is approximately 40,000 sq. ft.
2. Usable land on Lots 13 and 27 is questionable. The houses are shown abutting the ACOE wetland; approval of this layout of units should also come from the ACOE, as this will mean no back yard for Lot 27, and no side yard for Lot 13.
3. It appears that the house on Lot 26 is located inside a 100-foot buffer area. Please clarify the 100-foot buffer area.
4. Both roadway entrances are shown without storm water collection and drainage facilities. How and where will the water flow in these areas?
5. Certification of site distance for each entrance will be required on the next submission.
6. Landing areas for both roadways, and the cul-de-sac, are required. As profiled, each seems to come to the roadway center, or edge, directly into a 3% slope
7. Lot 16 is shown with a separate entry onto County Route 7. No grading plan was provided for Lot 16 or the proposed driveway connection to County Route 7. A driveway consistent with Town regulations is required.
8. A future connection to adjacent lands between Lot 6 & 7 to Lands of Heuman and Passmann should be substituted for the Proposed Future Road. Preliminary design of the connections should be engineered to ensure enough R.O.W. is reserved.
9. It was noted at the meeting referenced above, that initial soil test turned out well, but the EAF submitted notes that 80 percent of the site is poorly drained. It was recommended that numerous test pits be performed before the next submittal, and some percolation testing also be performed so that a final lot layout on the next submittal is better defined. The design engineer provided this information however the locations of these test pits should be shown on the plans.
10. The grading for the drain fields, and the septic tank/pump station layout, should be provided for the next submission. The drain fields for lots proposed as raised systems with 4 feet of fill, may impact wetland areas near the drain fields. The ACOE should review the impact of these fields before final design.
11. The proposed water quality and storm water management ponds are proposed on home lots. As such, they must be located in easements, and maintained by a Homeowner's Association. The Town of Schodack does not own or maintain stormwater management areas.
12. Some proposed well locations do not appear to meet the requirement of being 200 from drain fields if downhill from the drain field.
13. A Homeowners association must maintain the center grass island of the cul-de-sac.
14. Pedestrian provisions have not been addressed (See item 7 of our January 16, 2007 letter).
15. Roadway centerline data is required for the next submission.
16. The site seems to drain predominately to the west, towards Route 7, across the property of Dufur. This submission has not shown pipe crossings, elevations, and a full stormwater layout, which will show how the adjoining property will be protected from
additional drainage impacts. Please indicate how the point discharge from micro pool 2 will be routed around Lands of Hubbard and Prusky.
17. A full SWPPP has been submitted and will be reviewed after the next submittal. All storm water details should be provided on the plans with the next submission.
18. Well and septic layouts will require final approval by the Rensselaer County Health Department.
19. Street trees, monuments, and details should be provided in the next submission.
20. Lot bearings and distances will be required for the next submission. Note that the "Subdivision Plat" sheet for the next submission should include zoning and survey information only; it should not include buildings, topography, etc.
21. The location of the concrete truck wash area should be reevaluated. Due to the closeness of it to the drain field area on Lot 17, vehicles could potentially damage the drain field area.
22. After final grading plans are prepared, the location of silt fencing should be closer to the cleared area, to limit clearing areas that are not required to be cleared.
23. Sub area 5, existing conditions, appears to have a small area of offsite flows coming onto the property, which needs to be accounted for. This should be verified for the next submittal.
24. A note should be added to the plans noting that all roof drains will drain so that the roof runoff will pass through water quality structures, i.e. micro pools. This appears easily achievable on all Lots except Lot 16, which could be evaluated separately.
25. Given the steep grades, the driveway for lots 14, 15, 16, and 17 should be reevaluated and shared driveways should be considered with appropriate easements between lots.
26. The vertical curve at Station 21 + 70 should be extended to provide minimum K value of 30.
27. Due to the amount of information provided and requested on the plans the next submission should be done at 1 inch = 50 feet or 1 inch = 60 feet for clarity.
28. Rensselaer County Highway Department review is required.
29. Written comments from the appropriate emergency services should be solicited by the applicant based upon the current plan and profile.
We recommend the applicant incorporate these comments into the next submission for review. Please contact our office with any questions or comments on the above.
Schodack Landing Estates 2006-11/RA/226.-1-16.11 SUBDIVISION
Schodack Landing Rd & Muitzeskill Rd
Proposed 31 - Lot Subdivision
Lynn Sipperly, Engineer, L. Sipperly & Associates was present for this meeting
Mr. Sipperly states that the plains have changes since the last time it was presented to the board and Mr. Boll had completed an investigation on the questions that were asked by the board which includes wetlands delineation, archaeological investigation on phase 1, and a hydro geologic investigation.
· Wetlands delineation. The two entrances off Muitzeskill Rd. would impact the wet lands. The southerly entrance affected 3 to 4 tenths of an acre, and was taken off the plans.
· Archaeological investigation was completed which includes a phase 1A literature search to see if there are any historical structures in the area. In addition, phase 1B field search and perform testing on the soil to see if there are any artifacts on the site. In addition, no artifacts were found; a written letter is to be submitted by the archaeologist stating that the subdivision will have no impact to the cultural resources that are on the site. As for the historical buildings such as Mr. Hodges home the Church and parsons home the archaeologist recommends a buffer or screening to be put in to cover the subdivision from their view.
· Water supply, there were two wells already on site and the applicant has put in 4 more wells which were installed by Jeff Smith Well Drilling. Spectra engineering and environmental firm were consulted to direct the operation and to perform the testing. They are ready to submit a report to the town and the health department the results to the hydro geological study that the wells are able to produce a minimum 5 gallons per minute and up to 10.
The main reason that we are here is to bring the board up to speed as to where they are so far with the subdivision and the water supply.
Mr. Puccio asked about lots 9 & 10 and the fact that even though the lots have 77 to 80 thousand square feet the actual amount of the lot that is useable is quite a bit less because of the wetlands. Is the remaining land viable as a building lot?
Mr. Sipperly stated that they are viable for a house with well and septic.
Mr. Puccio asked about the wells, how deep are they and where they are on the map.
Mr. Sipperly states the wells are bedrock and about 230 to 270 feet deep.
Mr. Puccio asked if they drilled through the top gravel area where a water table was located, and went further down into the bedrock. Is that the water supply for the development?
Mr. Sipperly stated that is correct, the water was tested at the interface of the gravel level and did not find an adequate supply. They had to proceed further into the bedrock.
Mr. Sipperly explained where the wells are located and stated that they are all near the center of the site.
Mr. Johnson asked about the Church conservation easement and the access to it.
Mr. Sipperly stated that the easement is part of lot 21, it is a large lot and it will be restricted for development because of the conservation easement and wetlands.
Mr. Johnson asked if the lot 21 will have a deed stating they have ownership rights but not able to develop.
Mr. Sipperly states that is part of the lot but there then there will be a conservation easement by meets and bounds indicating no development.
Mr. Johnson asked if they considered not developing lot 27 and making that part of the no development conservation to avoid the impacts on the historical district.
Mr. Sipperly states that is was part of the previous plan, the area along the Schodack Landing road is all wooded. His conversations with the archeologist
Is that if they provide a 100 foot no clear buffer zone that should provide the normal screening that is recommended by New York State Historic Preservation Office.
Mr. Johnson asked who the open space parcel be passed on to.
Mr. Sipperly stated that they have not focused on that but there are three options,
one being the home owners assocation who will have sole use of the property, the second is a land conversency group which will also have restriced use for the lot owners. And the third would be town ownership and the land could be open to the public, But he understand the third is not an option.
Mr. Johnson asked about the Cluster Development and most of the lots are 60 thousand square feet and some have less then the 200 foot frontage. Do you know how many of the lots do not meet the RA requirement?
Mr. Sipperly states that it depends on what you look at, example on the cul-de-sac some of the lots have road frontage of 103 feet but when you look at the lot from the 50 ft. front yard set back that's where you will see the 200 feet requirement.
Mr. Puccio asked about the historic district and the delineation, Did we make any progress on the designation of a historic district and if it created any restraints on the development.
Mr. Nugent states that he had not turned anything up that would cause the board to put any restrictions on the development, but he is still looking into one aspect and
would rather not get into it at this time until it has been fully investigated. He also asked Mr. Sipperly if there is a protion of the property in the historic district?
Mr. Sipperly states that is correct, there is three maybe four lots that are in the historic district. His research shows that the historic district was set up by the town and not at the state level. There were no boundry restriction it was just an area set up to recognize the sensitivity of structures and homes within this area. This is one of the reasons that they went ahead and completed a full archeological investigation in this area so they could approach the New York States Parks, Recreational and Historic Preservation for their input on the buffer and screening between the subdivision and the historic structures.
Chairman Goold stated that we have sent a letter to Ruth Pierpont the Director of Historic Preservation of Field Services Bureau of Parks and Recreaction offices on October 26, 2006 and Ms. Pierdont has not responded to our request. We will have Mrs. Fuda follow up with her to see where we stand.
Mr. Laberge asked Mr. Sipperly about the June 26th letter stateing that they did complete a phase one archaeologoical, has it been submitted to SHPO and does the report talk about the historic district?
Mr Sipperly states that the text of the report has to be completed before submitting and it does include the histroic district.
Chairman Goold asked Mr. Laberge and Mr. Nugent if they feel that the applicant can proceed with the current plan # 4 and the rest of the engineering.
Mr. Nugent responds on the waver request for one entrance into the development and states that a project with 20 or more units must have two entrances. There are some conditions that the board must consider such as emergency access and the safty of the residents before thay can make a ruling in this waver.
Mr. Sipperly states that they want to make Oakdale Drive a Boulevard which consists of
two separate operating traffic lanes, It would be constructed in a way that there will be sufficient width on either side of the center median so two way traffic could be maintained at all times.
Mr. Nugent states that the board in granting any waver has to preserve the objects that are being asked to be waved, In anything they do the need to provide information to the board as to how those standards are going to be sustained.
Mr. Supperly stated that they will do that as they continue forward. And asked the board if at this time do they have any difficultys with their request.
Mr. Puccio states that he is a little unconfortiable with the cluster development concept. As he understands the code it is to perserve open space and to take advantage of opportunities for economics that are associated with infer-structure.
In this case there are lots that do not meet the RA code because of frontage but the depth is big enough. They have to concidered consolidating some lots to meet the RA zone requierments. He asked if they are streatching the clusted development concelpt in order to accomdate two or three lots.
Mr. Sipperly states that is not the case at all they started out with 44 lots and are now down to 25 lots so as not encroach on the wet lands and the historic properities.
This land is developable and if they were to move the lots to meet the 200 foot frontage then all the land would be consumed and the lots would increase from two acre to six acre lots. And there would be no land set aside for preservation.
Chairman Goold if the board would agree that the applicant has more work to do before they consider the waver
Members all agreed
No motion
Anna Zweig 2007-19/R-40/RA/HC/211.-2-28.2 SUBDIVISION
The Homestead
McClellan Rd
Proposed 2-lot Subdivision
Anna Zweig, applicant, and Peter Van Alstyne, Van Alstyne Surveyor of Kinderhook
were present for this meeting.
Mr. Van Alstyne states that Mrs. Zweig is looking to subdivide a large portion from the center of her property for a resident. The frontage splits into two pieces where it wraps around the land of Beckman. One side has 60 feet and the other is 145. The land was broken up at an odd angle so the buyers could have some physical bounds to the lot that they wanted, stream courses, hedge rows, and edges of fields also the top of the land was left for access should they want to do some logging in the future.
Mr. Johnson asked about the two access points, the fact that the frontage is split. One access is 60-feet and the other is 145-feet, he asked if this would qualify as the 200-foot frontage.
Chairman Goold states that he does not know of anything listed stating that it has to be continuous.
Mr. Van Alstyne states that he would clarify the setbacks on the map.
Chairman Goold states that the setbacks are not the issue. If you have more lots the code demands two access points, and they already have that and should they want to develop at some future date.
Mr. Johnson asked where the second driveway is going to be located.
Mr. Van Alstyne states that it is going to be located on the 60-foot section.
Mr. Johnson asked about the 145-foot parcel where the stream runs, is it all wetlands.
Mr. Van Alstyne states there are two streams that run through this property.
However, there is no DEC wetlands map listed for this property in there database.
This area is certainly wet and is not a good place to put an entrance. The 60-foot access goes over an old farm road so it was a natural place to put the entrance.
Member discussed the size of the lot, and the section that they want to subdivide.
Chairman Goold asked if everyone would agree to come back for a public hearing on August 6 2007.
Mr. Zweig agreed to the August 6 date
All members also agreed.
Planning Board Recommendations
A. Proposed Local Law No. 5 of 2007, adding a new chapter entitled
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems to the Code of the Town of Schodack.
Puccio moved, LaVoie seconded
4 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold Johnson, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
B. Proposed Local Law No. 6 OF 2007, adding a new Article 17 to Chapter 19 of the Code of the Town of Schodack, entitled Erosion and Sedimentation Control.
Johnson moved, LaVoie seconded
4 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Johnson, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
C. Ratify and Affirm that Chairman Peter Goold solicit price quotes for
proposals (RFP) on a Draft Comprehensive Plan for the Town of
Schodack
Puccio moved, Johnson seconded
4 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Johnson, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
ADJOURN
LaVoie moved, Johnson seconded that the Planning Board meeting be adjourned. There being no objections, Chairman Goold adjourned the meeting at 9:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nadine Fuda
Director of Planning & Zoning
SCHODACK COUNTY OF RENSSELAER STATE OF NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING- August 6, 2007
CALLED TO ORDER BY: CHAIRMAN PETER GOOLD AT: 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Peter Goold, Chairman Nadine Fuda, Director
Denise Mayrer, Vice-Chairman Richard Laberge, Planning Board Engineer
G. Jeffrey Haber
Wayne Johnson
Sylvester Kedzierski
John LaVoie
Paul Puccio
Tim Nugent, Esq
Melissa Knights, Secretary
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There was no comment from the public
MINUTE APPROVAL- July 16 2007
Puccio Moved, Johnson seconded that the minutes be approved as amended.
7 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose: None
Hannaford Distribution Center Info
Wind Energy Conservation
James Baisley, Hannaford Facility Manager, was present for this meeting.
Mr. Baisley stated that Hannaford would like to set up a Wind Turbine on the Hannaford property for a one-year trial. Their interest is to create electoric power for the warehouse. They have contacted consultants that specialize in this field and they feel that Hannaford has a 50/50 chance of having enough adequate wind to support a wind turbine. And before Hannaford invests a couple million dollars into the purchase of a wind turbine, they first need to do some diligent testing.
They proposed a 197-foot test tower with guide wire cables. It would be located between their building and the B-1 exit. If the site had to be changed they have enough property that they could use and will meet all the setback requirements. He understands that 197 feet is higher than the town currently zoned for. That is why he is here tonight to see what arrangements need to be made to build this test tower. He also states that this test is for only one year and then the tower will come down. All information collected would also be shared with the town.
Mrs. Mayrer asked if he knew that there were companies in that area that sells this data.
Mr. Baisley stated that they have looked at that data. But the specific wind can change as it goes around hill tops. The piece of property that has been selected has not been tested, this is such a large investment they need to test on that site. He states that Jiminy Peak has just built a wind turbine (had pictures), Vermont has quite a lot and GE is moving their turbine headquarters to Schenectady. All recommend doing this test before the actual purchase of a wind turbine.
Mr. Haber asked if he knew how noisy they are.
Mr. Baisley states that he has been around them and they are not noisy. There is a whooshing sound if you stand right underneath them but if you are 100 to 200 feet away, you cannot hear a thing.
Mr. Kedzierski asked about the height of the tower at Jiminy Peak.
Mr. Baisley states that is the size of there turbine is about 250 feet or more.
But they come in different sizes and scales. He does not know how big Hannifords turbine would be should they want to purchase one. He is just looking to put up a test tower.
Mr. Kedzierski states that Mr. Baisley is absolutely right about the noise, there is very little sound that comes off turbines. In addition, it's a great energy source. If all goes well they could run their business off the grid.
Mr. Baisley states that their goal is to create enough electricity to run the warehouse.
Mr. Kedzierski states he thinks it the way of the future.
Mr. Johnson asked how high this is in relation to the cell tower in the back.
Mr. Baisley dose not know which would be higher. If the test tower is higher it would not be by that much.
Mr. Puccio asked where the cell tower location is.
Mr. Johnson states he was asking about the Beagle Club property, which is up on top of the hill.
Mr. Johnson asked if the actual tower would be higher then the 197 feet of the test tower. Would the turbine be 200 feet and the blades would run another 100 off of that.
Mr. Baisley states it is based on the size and the wind availability. There is a good chance they may not even pursue a wind turbine it is all based on the test results.
Mr. Haber states that if they were to recommend the go ahead with the test everyone need to understand that the Planning Board will need to a have follow up.
Mr. Baisley states that he understands this is not a grantee that they will be able to put up the turbine, He also states that Hannaford will share all the information that they find.
Ms. Mayrer states that is what she was alluding to before, there have been studies done before in this area on the wind velocities, she her self has all the information, and was going to put up a wind turbine. If he was given a 50/50 chance, he might want to look into more advance data that is available.
Mr. Baisley states he would be happy to look at anything that is available, What they are interested in is the rotor effect that they would get off the that particular hill. The wind comes from the North West and they need to know how the trees and the hill will affect it.
Mr. Haber asked if it is approved when will the tower go up?
Mr. Baisley states if they were to get approval they would like to set it up before snow flies. And asked what the process was to get started.
Chairman Goold stated that he would have to apply for a building permit and be turned down.
Mr. Nugent states that is correct the building inspector would review the specks
and deny the application. With that denial he would then go to the Zoning board
to get the variance and then come back to the planning board for recommendation
and a hearing before the zoning board.
Mr. Puccio asked if this board does not have a problem with this request is there some way we can issue a positive recommendation to the zoning board of appeals and not make them come back to start the process all over.
Chairman Goold stated that in the past they have not short circuited the normal procedure that is in our code, there have been times when we have given a since that the planning board favors this thing. But to do it legally we have to go through the steps.
Mr. Nugent states we have in the past, sent the applicant back with a pre-application recommendation but that is when they have a large subdivision. He would be more comfortable if the actual application was filed. He does not know of any requirement that the applicant comes back to the planning board so much as you have the application and we make a determination at the next meeting.
Chairman Goold asked if the members were comfortable with what Mr. Nugent had just discussed.
Members responded "agree"
Chairman Goold states that if they want to go ahead with this project to contact
Nadine Fuda in the Planning office to discuss the process. One thing they would need is to get a variance.
Schodack Plaza Z656-07/HC/189.-5-11 Recommend to ZBA
1649 Columbia Tpk
Proposed - Retail store sign
Tractor Supply Store
Pat Boni, Boni Sign Co. Saxton Signs, was present for this meeting.
Mr. Boni stated that they would like to install a 6 foot 3 inch tall by 20-foot wide single sided illuminated sign in the front of the building. The town only allows for a 32 square feet for a sign. They have three main reasons why they are requesting a larger sign
1. the fascia size, a 32 square foot sign on the large fascia of the store (shows the board the print out of the sign) the sign would disappear. And compare to the other tenants this takes up less percentage of the frontage.
2. the set back, its quite a way back from Rt. 9& 20 and no one will be able to see the sign when they come from the south.
3. finally, there are several trees that will block the sign from view (as shown in the photo of the larger sign) a 32 square foot sign will be hidden from view because of those trees.
Mr. Johnson stated that at the last meeting he asked specifically if they were aware of the town sign code and in the minutes that were just approved they stated that they would not be coming back for a variance. And that was two weeks ago. He was just wondering if they were anxious to get an approval on the site plan and knew that they would be coming back for a variance.
Mr. Boni stated that he knew nothing about the building, just the sign.
Mr. Puccio stated that the conversation at the last meeting was about the sign in front of the plaza by Rt. 9&20. In fact the minutes state that Mr. Johnson asked the question and the follow up from Ms. Fuda stated that the Plaza it self has a sign out by Rt. 9 that is a 100 square feet, so everyone's focus was on that sign.
Mr. Johnson stated that they were discussing the signage and the town code. Because of Ride Aid and the problems they had, he asked specifically if they were going to need more signs. Ms. Fuda did explain that the large sign by the road could be used but the conversation was not specifically about that sign.
Chairman Goold asked if he could get a recommendation from the board.
Haber moved, Puccio seconded a "FAVORABLE" recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
6 Ayes. 1 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Haber, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose: 1
Noes. Johnson
Recommendations to the Town of East Greenbush Planning Board
William Favro 2007-23/RA/177.-8-5
9 Taylor Drive
East Greenbush
Proposed - Lot Line Parcel #F of Lot # 87
Richard Tice engineer, Brewer Engineering, was present for this meeting.
Mr. Tice stated that this lot is in Taylor Estates located in East Greenbush the residents was built by the Muzzulo Brothers and following that the ensuing prior land owner build a swimming pool and a deck in the rear setback area. Also they built retaining walls on the lands of Muzzulo. So in order to transfer the property the lawyers are requiring them to purchase the two parcels off Muzzulo. So actually, it is a lot line change.
Chairman Goold asked Mr. Nugent to guide the board thorough a lot line adjustment recommendation to another town.
Mr. Tice stated that he was instructed to come to the Town of Schodack first to run it by us, he is on Town of East Greenbush agenda for the next week.
Mr. Nugent stated that we have the authority over the Schodack portion of the lot.
Chairman Goold stated that this is just a simple lot line adjustment for us.
Mr. Nugent stated that we could do the lot line adjustment or defer it to East Greenbush. In addition, he recommends that we defer.
Mayrer Moved, Puccio seconded that the lot-line adjustment be waved and depicted on lot 87 owned by Mr. Favro.
7 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose: None
Darlene and Allen Dow 2007-20/RA/219.-1-8.144 Site Plan
1015 South Schodack Rd
Proposed - Two Family Dwelling
Mr. and Mrs. Dow applicants were present for this meeting.
Mrs. Dow stated that they want to add an accessory apartment to the side of the house with one common front door. This is for down sizing in the future because of health problems.
Chairman Goold asked if this was going to be a full fledge two family home that will be built.
Mrs. Dow stated that it will have a double front door with ample parking on 2.66 acres at 1015 Schodack Road.
Chairman Goold stated the minimum size lot in Schodack is 75 thousand square feet. Which is just under 2 acres so they should be fine.
Mrs. Mayrer asked if the unit will be for rent or for family members.
Mrs. Dow stated it is for family.
Mrs. Mayrer asked if they wanted a two family or should they do an accessory apartment.
Mrs. Dow stated that they were told that an accessory apartment variance would be required
Mr. Puccio asked why with a single door, it would not make sense.
Chairman Goold stated that it looks to him that they were asking for a special permit for a two family dwelling.
Mr. Nugent stated he was just going to ask for clarification, The agenda states that it is listed as a site plan and he thinks it should be noted as a special permit. Ether way they would have to schedule a public hearing.
Chairman Goold stated the application is for a two family if that is what they are applying for.
Mrs. Mayrer stated that she wanted to make it clear that when family members are involved and there is only one entrance, it is generally for an accessory use and not for a two family. A two family is usually for external tenants. And noted that it is a lot easer to get a special permit for accessory use.
Mrs. Dow stated that it is not for external tenants it is for family.
Mr. Johnson stated that a two family would allow them in the future if there was a sale to allow some one to have two tenants. It might be a more attractive property for a sale listed as a two family. So they need to decide how they want to the project to go.
Mrs. Dow stated they want to keep it as a special permit and a accessory apartment.
Mr. Johnson asked where the parking will be. Because the map he has shows the door right on the road.
Mrs. Dow stated that they have land to the side but have not designated where the parking will be.
Mr. Haber stated that he did not want to get into a situation that will create a future problem. he thinks, that is what the previous question wasAt some point in time the home will be owned by some who does not have an accessory to put into the apartment, then it will have to be a special permit. Shouldn't we as a body here for see that potential problem and say that the best approach would be listing this as a two family residence. If It is listed as a two family residence then they could rent to family with out any issues.
Mrs. Mayrer states that as a body, They have not been proactive about two family residences. If we are going to shift our philosophy on this issue that will be fine. Generally an accessory use is more readily received.
Mr. Haber stated that he understands what Mrs. Mayrer is saying. This could cause a problem, he was suggesting if there was a way to avoid a problem that would effect the future administration 25 years from now.
Mr. Nugent states that the code for an accessory apartment can only use 35% of the existing structure and from what he is looking at the second unit has the same square footage as the first. So it can not be considered an accessory unit.
Chairman Goold stated that a two family would be the easer thing to do, and will give them more latitude
Mrs. Dow stated that they are going to retire, not become landlords.
Chairman Goold asked Mrs. Dow to think over the items that were talked about at tonight's meeting and discuss it with Nadine, so the public notice can be announced correctly.
Mr. Puccio asked Mr. Nugent if Mr. and Mrs. Dow needs to understand that there is no impediment ether way. Process wise there is not a difference in what they are asking for and there is no constraint in the zoning code.
Mr. Nugent stated that the impediment is they will have to get a special permit no matter what they decide. As for the zoning code there is one constraint, to have an accessory apartment they are over the square footage requirement.
Member discussed the pros and cons on the accessory vs. a two family unit.
Chairman Goold stated they will have to come back to the planning board for a public hearing after they talk to Mrs. Fuda to get the wording correct for the public notice.
Mark Teliska 2007-3/HC/178.-11-13 SITE PLAN
1572 Columbia Tpk.
Proposed - General Contactor Building & Outdoor Sales Lot
Mark Teliska, applicant, was present for this meeting.
Mr. Teliska stated that he was here for two different items the first being the out door sales lot, he currently has a special use permit on the property for an automotive repair and would like it to include a auto sales lot.
Chairman Goold asked Mr. Nugent to explain the difference LB and HC codes.
Mr. Nugent states the LB requires an out door sales special permit and the HC allows all the uses that is permitted in the LB zone plus additional permit uses. A public hearing will be required.
Chairman Goold stated that they should talk to Mrs. Fuda and then come back for a public hearing at a later date.
Mr. Puccio asked where the cars would be located on the property. And about the original permit for the repair lot, as he understands the repair location was not to have overnight parking. And there are several cars parked behind the repair shop all the time. The code was set up stating that cars would have to be parked inside until repairs were completed.
Mr. Teliska stated that the south side of the house is newly paved. The new parking area is out front. It will hold about 22 cars and or trucks including parking for visitors. He also stated that his understanding the permit stated that there were to be no un-register vehicles. There are cars worked on overnight and gone the next day, there is a constant rotation of vehicles.
Mr. Nugent states that the code requires that there be no out door parking of vehicles except if the vehicle is property registered and undergoing active repair.
Mr. Teliska stated that is exactly what is going on. He also stated the cars are to go the junk yard if they are not repairable.
Mr. Johnson request that Mr. Laberge check into the frontage and how far back they have to be from the road,
Mr. Teliska stated that do to financial reasons he is scaling back from 5 buildings to one additional building. He is requesting to build an 80 by 100 building for his general contract business.
Chairman Goold stated to Mr. Nugent that this needs be sent to Mr. Laberge along with the sales lot.
Mr. Nugent stated since the initial applicant was for 5 buildings and Mr. Teliska has indicated that the plan is being scaled back for financial reasons the board will have to address SEQRA on the entire proposed use.
Chairman Goold asked Mr. Teliska if he was withdrawing his original application. The out door sales, vehicle repair and the contractor building are the only things he is requesting.
Mr. Teliska stated that is correct.
Mr. Nugent ask if he planned to put up the other building in the future.
Mr. Teliska stated not at this time. He only planned to put up one building not 5 in the first place, He was instructed to request the extra building incase he someday would like to have them.
Chairman Goold asked Mr. Nugent that if he genuinely decided that he no longer wishes to follow through with the original plan and states it in writing then can't we consider what he is currently requesting.
Mr. Nugent stated that Mr. Teliska keeps saying "at this time" which indicates he is still looking to build in the future.
Mr. Teliska states he is withdrawing the other 4 buildings completely.
Chairman Goold asked Mr. Nugent if they should have the applicant put it in writing his change in plans and state what he desires to do. Then we can base our review on his written statement.
Mr. Nugent states that in the applicants written statement to Mrs. Fuda says that he does not plan to go forward with his plans for the other buildings at this time. But he is not telling this board that he is not going to go through the other 4 builds in the future.
Mr. Haber asked is there an issue with saying "allocating the remaining spaces for future development" He would rather see then sit there for future development then for us to be accepting something we know none of us believes, including the applicant that the site plan will change.
Mr. Teliska stated that through casual conversation, he said that it would be nice to have a few more building on the property and it was suggested to request what he would like to do and get all the work done now so it would be a shorter process in the future. He stated that he only wanted one building to begin with.
Mr. Nugent states that he understands what he is saying, but what I am asking now "do you have any specific intentions for the remaining property in the future"
Mr. Teliska states No.
Mr. Nugent state fine then we can just limit ourselves to this application at this time.
Chairman Goold states that this application will be sent to Mr. Laberge for review. We will set at least the out door sales lot for a public hearing. The contractor building is a matter of right in the HC zone it is just a matter of a site plan approval. All of which will take place after the engineering review.
Mr. Teliska will come in to see Mrs. Fuda to discuss the next step.
Roy & Deborah Denniston 2007-22/RA/200.-4-3.1 SUBDIVISION
Woodward & Kingman Rd
Proposed - 2 Lot Subdivision
Richard Tice, Brewer engineering was present for this meeting.
Mr. Tice states that the 19.5 acres are on the southeast corner of Kingman and Woodward road. This is a two-lot subdivision, one lot will 7.2 acres and the remaining 12 acres will be retained by the Denniston's.
Chairman Goold asked the members if they had any problems with sending this to a public hearing.
Members stated no.
Chairman Goold asked Mr. Tice if everything could be ready of the August 20th meeting.
Mr. Tice stats they are ready.
Mary Murphy 2007-21/RA/201-3-3.4 Lot Line Adj.
Best Road
Proposed - Lot Line
Mr. Smith, surveyor, was present for this meeting.
Mr. Smith stated that the board had approved the three lot subdivision last year,
What they are planning to do now is move the line between lots 2 and 3 about 25 feet to accommodate septic system.
Mr. Nugent asked if it is lot two that is losing some land.
Mr. Smith stated yes, it is still 200 feet frontage at the 50 foot setback.
Mr. Johnson asked what is the actual road frontage on lot 2.
Mr. Smith states that it is 225 feet but it decreases to 200 feet at the setback.
Mr. Johnson asked if they had located an area for the other septic systems on the other lots.
Mr. Smith state they all have there septic systems in.
Mayrer moved, Haber seconded that the lot-line adjustment be accepted and approved. A public hearing and a survey map are not required. The property will be conveyed to the adjacent landowner and become part of that existing parcel.
7 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose: None
PUBLIC HEARING
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Melissa Knights read the hearing notice(s) as published in the Troy Record:
Title of The Homestead August 6, 2007
Chairman Goold directed the affidavit(s) of publication be made part of the hearing record(s).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anna Zweig 2007-19/R-40/RA/HC/211.-2-28.22
The Homestead
McClellan Road
Proposed - 2 Lot Subdivision
Chairman Goold opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Anna Zweig home owner was present for this meeting,
Mr. Johnson asked about the area of the smaller lot.
Mrs. Zweig stated the lot is 28 acres and there is 62 acres remaining.
Kedzierski moved, Haber seconded that the Planning Board be LEAD AGENCY.
7 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose: None
Mayrer moved, Puccio seconded a NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
7 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose: None
Puccio moved, Haber seconded that the following resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS, a formal application was submitted to the Planning Board on: July 9, 2007, for approval of a 2 -lot subdivision entitled, "The Homestead", map prepared by: Richard Van Alstyne, dated June 4, 2007", and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the subdivision application and plat at the Schodack Town Hall on August 6, 2007 at 7:30 p.m., and
WHEREAS, the requirement of the subdivision regulations of the Town of Schodack have been met by said subdivision plat and application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the application of Anna Zweig be APPROVED CONTINGENT UPON submission of final maps, payment of fees and before building permits can be issued, permits to construct well and septic must be obtained from the Rensselaer County Health Department.
Chairman Goold closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m.
ADJOURN
Haber moved, Mayrer seconded that the Planning Board meeting be adjourned. There being no objections, Chairman Goold adjourned the meeting at
8:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nadine Fuda
Director of Planning & Zoning
TOWN OF SCHODACK COUNTY OF RENSSELAER STATE OF NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING- August 20, 2007
CALLED TO ORDER BY: CHAIRMAN PETER GOOLD AT: 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Peter Goold, Chairman Denise Mayrer, Vice-Chairman
Wayne Johnson G. Jeffrey Haber
Sylvester Kedzierski Melissa Knights, Secretary
John LaVoie
Paul Puccio
Nadine Fuda, Director of Planning & Zoning
Richard Laberge, Planning Board Engineer
Tim Nugent, Esq
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There was no comment from the public.
MINUTE APPROVAL- August 6, 2007
Johnson Moved, Puccio seconded that the minutes be approved as amended.
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
Byers Lot Line 2007-26/R-20/188.-1-29.111 Lot Line Adjustment
Circle Drive. & Johns Lane
Proposed - Lot Line
Richard Tice, Brewer Engineering, was present for this meeting.
Mr. Tice states that the parcel of land is on the northern end of Byers Estate. This originally was not a building lot when Byers Estates was constructed. The lot in question has a pond at one end. Mrs. Byers intends to split the lot and give it to the two adjacent owners.
Mr. Johnson asked if the pond had anything to do with drainage.
Are the new owners going to maintain the pond?
Mr. Tice stated that it drains to the north into Sunset Hills. The pond is going to remain as is.
Mr. Johnson asked if the pond required regular cleaning out.
Mr. Tice stated that he does not think the pond has ever been touched. He knows that the town has not done anything with it over the years.
Mr. Kedzierski asked about the water flow to the detension basin on ether side of Fawn Ridge.
Mr. Tice stated the water does eventually end up down on Fawn Ridge through the drainage.
Mr. Nugent asked if the original approval requires the applicant to maintain the pond.
Mr. Tice stated that he had no idea what the original application stipulated regarding the pond.
Mr. Kedzierski asked if there was ever been a problem with the pond,
and will the town still have access.
Mr. Tice asked if the board would like a note on the plans stating that the town retains the right for access to the pond to maintain drainage.
Mr. Puccio stated he does not think the note on the plans for pond access is sufficient, he thinks that we need to find out if there was a maintenance responsibility for the Byers when this was set up. The key is that piece of property was under one owner and now splitting it in half, if there is something wrong who would take ownership.
Mr. Nugent states that we should look into exactly whether or not there is responsibility with the existing owner. The fact that the town on one or two occasions may have come in on emergency does not mean the town has any obligations to the maintenance of the pond.
Chairman Goold states that Ms. Fuda will research this item for the next meeting that is to be held on September 17, 2007.
All parties agree to come back at that time.
Kohler Home Builders, LLC 2007-10/LB,R-40,R-20/210.-7-39.11 Site Plan
US Rt. 9 & Schodack Drive
Proposed - Proposed - PD-2 / Residential and Commercial
Steve Hart, Hart Engineering, and Rob Kohler, applicant, was present for this meeting.
Mr. Laberge spoke about the July meeting and the letter he had prepared on the application for this PDD proposal by Kohler. He has put together a drafted report for discussion purposes amongst this board. If the board is satisfied, then the next step in the process is to authorize the Chairman to send the report to the Town Board.
Mr. Nugent asked if we previously determined that we have sufficient information on the PDD.
Mr. Laberge stated yes this was discussed at the July meeting.
Mr. Johnson asked if the phasing has any effect on this, the EAF states that they expect to have three phases and the last phase will be in the year 2011. He does not see any mention of phasing in the draft.
Mr. Laberge states that his only comment on phasing is with the multi family units. It is dependent upon access and utilities coming through the commercial retail portion. He was not sure about the year 2011.
Mr. Hart stated that 2011 is their goal between the commercial and residential.
Mr. Johnson asked if they were going to start with the commercial.
Then the residential is going to be the last phase.
Mr. Hart states that it is up in the air. It will most likely be market driven. Mr. Kohler is a residential contractor he may start with the apartment, it will depend on the approval period.
Chairman Goold states what is contemplated is a favorable report to the Town Board with the finding of our engineer. That this plan meets the intent and objections of the PD section of our code.
Puccio moved, Kedzierski second the motion.
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
Robert Davis 2007-24/HC/189.-10-13 Site Plan
1836 Columbia Turnpike
Proposed - Miniature Golf and Lighting
Robert Davis, applicant, was present for this meeting.
Mr. Davis states that he would like to put in a miniature golf course behind his business (Wholly Cow) the area is 160 feet deep and 115 wide. The golf course design will coordinate with the businesses in Rensselaer that are coming on board, He would also like to put in lighting where he has car and motorcycle shows. The lighting will be state of the art florescent floodlights that will be facing away from the road.
Mr. Johnson states the plans show the stone and paved parking area going right up to the state highway. He requests that the plans need to show the entrances, curb stops and the parking should not be on the state property.
Mr. Davis states that the paving and the entreances already exists.
The access road that he is looking at already exists and goes around the back of the building. There are three different areas off Rt.9 to get onto the property.
1. the entrance to the left, next to the dinner is for delivery trucks. This is not safe for them to leave. He would like the trucks to exit around the building and leave to the west of the property.
2. and the west entrances/exit is located towards the Hess station.
3. and the exit further down by the vegetable stand.
Mr. Johnson states that the plan shows the entire length from the west end up to the building which includes blacktop and stone parking as being access and it should be delineated from the highway.
Mr. Davis states that there are two section delineated.
Mr. Johnson states that the plans do not indicate the delineation.
He thinks that the map should be adjusted to show this delineation and he asks Mr. Laberge to make comments and resolve the issue.
Mr. Laberge asked Mr. Johnson if his concern was to get the curb cuts correct and the flow of the traffic in and out of the site. He asked the board if they had any other concerns that he should look at.
Chairman Goold stated that it needs a water quality special permit.
Mr. Davis states that he has the original print of the site before he owned the business and it also does not show the curb cuts. He will add the items mentioned if it is required.
Mr. Laberge stated that if the approximant location and dimensions should be sufficient for what we are doing.
Mr. Johnson states that he is looking at the site plan that was submitted to the board and it shows the parking going from the west end to the east end of the property and there are no curb cuts shown at all, and the parking is on state right a way. The plan needs to be more specific.
Mr. Davis states that is fine, he will take care of it.
Mr. Puccio asked if he could use full cut off lighting.
Mr. Davis states that he is only open until 10:00 at night and the lights will not be on after that time. In addition, this is a seasonal business; he closes the first week of October.
Mr. Puccio asked if the all the lights are shut off at that time.
Mr. Davis stated yes the lights are off on the entire site.
Chairman Goold talked about the items on the site, ice cream shop, the vegetable stand and the pavilion for barbeques.
Mr. Kedzierski asked, is there a single egress to the property or can you pull off at any point.
Mr. Davis stated there are a three entrances, the first one is about 5o feet long the second is about 35 feet and the third is about 60 feet it is the whole length of the 9&20 dinner. The state came in and put in two circular curb with brick inlay. Mr. Blake from DOT came in and measured off the building where the state property was. It is 15 feet off one end of the ice cream building and 20 feet of the other end which is to the curb cut.
Chairman Goold suggests we send this to Mr. Laberge to have this issue figured out for the next meeting and we will have a recommendation to make it legal.
Mr. Davis stated he will still adjust the plans to reflect the state property line and the curb cuts.
Chairman Goold asked Mr. Davis to work with Ms. Fuda on the issues.
Tina Murray 2007-25/RA/208.-2-3.10/208.-1-6/208.-6-18-16 Special Permit
1141 Muitzeskill Road
Proposed - Not for Profit Equine Rescue
Tina Murray, applicant, was present for this meeting.
Ms. Murray stated that she has 13 acres and operates a Not for Profit Equine Rescue and she also works full time as the director of operations at the Mohawk and Hudson River Humane Society. She is requesting two special use permits.
1. the first permit is to have more then 5 horse on 13 acres. With the not-for profit she takes in horses, rehabilitates and adopts them out. She also works with Law enforcement on cruelty cases. The special use permit will allow her to continue in her work.
2. the second permit will be for dogs. She fosters dogs through the shelter rehabilitates them and brings them back to adopt them out. She sometimes has up to 8 dogs and they all stay in her home.
Mr. Puccio asked where the lot is located on the map.
Ms. Murray states that there are three lots adjacent to each other.
Chairman Goold stated there is a section in the codebook that we have to comply with for the horse's special permit. But the dog rescue is a different issue.
Ms. Murray states that she is not here for a kennel permit unless that is what they require her to have.
Chairman Goold asked Mr. Nugent what the guidelines are on this issue.
Mr. Puccio states that the special permit process requires a public hearing and we should get comments in from the neighbors.
Chairman Goold asked the members if they think this requires engineering.
Mr. Nugent stated that we are going to need a public hearing on both special permits.
Chairman Goold asked Ms. Murray if she will agree to a public hearing on September 17, 2007
Ms. Murray stated that will be fine.
Kohler Place Public Hearing
39-2004/RA/200.7-47.11
332 Shufelt Road
Proposed - 5 Lot
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nadine Fuda read the hearing notice as published in the Troy Record:
Title of the Kohler Place published August 10, 2007
Chairman Goold directed the affidavit(s) of publication be made part of the
hearing record(s). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chairman Goold opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m.
Steve Hart, Hart Engineering and Robert Kohler, Applicant was present for this meeting.
Mr. Hart stated that the parcel of land is about 23 acres located on the south side of Shufelt Road it is in the RA zone. The map shows that each lot meets or exceeds the RA requirements. Currently Mr. Kohler's house is on lot 2, the intent will be to have each lot on separate wells and septic systems. There is 1100 lineal feet of road to be constructed. They have been working with the Laberge Group and their review letter on the waver request for the road cross section and the drainage system.
Michaelyn Doyle, resident, 336 Shufelt Rd. states that she is the first house on the left of the proposed road and has lived there for the last 20 years and has long waited for the road and development to be constructed. Her only issue is her embankment on the left side of her home, which is about 300 feet long from Shufelt Road and up the hill. It is very steep and she has spent a lot of time with the department of conservation developing the bank. She has planted over 30 different kinds of flowers, shrubs and trees to prevent the embankment from sliding. And in the last 20 years there has been no problems with erosion or sliding and would like it to remain that way. Also would not like to see retaining walls put in that will take away the country look of the area. She wish's Rob well and would like to see this project go through.
Mr. Puccio asked if the construction of the roadbed could possibly alter the grading on ether side.
Mr. Hart states that with revising the road profile it would alter the grading.
Mr. Laberge states that his comment before is on safety and maintenance. The issue in this section is one of drainage, to keep ice and water off the road. Plowing and the placement of snow will also be an issue. Hearing the neighbors concerns are important, what they need to do is sit down and work on this detail and talk with the highway superintendent and come up with an acceptable final solution.
Mr. Nugent asked about the short EAF section 6 the project description states that it is a four-lot subdivision and later changed to a five lot. However, in the description, it speaks about the 3 building lots and it is his understanding that there's a total of five lots one for the existing house with 4 building lots. And asked for the EAF to be corrected.
Mr. Hart stated no problem.
Mr. Johnson stated that they were going to look into the site distance on Shufelt Rd. Has that been done yet?
Mr. Hart stated that is something they are looking into and will put it in the plans.
Mr. Johnson asked about the contours of the slope, it looks to have less then a two-foot cut and does not achieve a one on three grade. Could it be avoided with a two-foot landscape wall at the back of the swale?
Mr. Hart stated the Laberge comment was to get the retaining wall back out of the right of way and put it at the 50-foot mark. It is one thing that they are looking into.
Chairman Goold asked Mr. Hart if they agree to comply with the items listed in the Laberge letter dated July 18, 2007.
Mr. Hart stated that item #3 on the road cross section is one item that they are still working on with the Laberge Group and with Ken Holmes of the highway dept.
Chairman Goold asked the members if they wanted to approve this on the contingency that the road issue needs to be worked out.
Mr. Laberge states that there is some engineering detail that needs to be looked at and was looking for the public hearing to get the benefit of the neighbors and any one else comments. Because of the road cross section and storm water detail that has to be looked at he would be more comfortable closing the hearing at this time and letting the applicant make his next submission and hopefully it will be a very short comment letter at that time. At this time, he would recommend the board entertain approving with some conditions.
Mr. Puccio questions the steep gradient and whose land is it on.
Mr. Hart stated that 25 feet off the centerline where the existing driveway sits is Mrs. Doyle's land.
Mr. Puccio stated that they would have to get her permission to grade.
Mr. Hart stated that was correct, If they did not get permission to grade they would need to construct a retaining wall seven feet back from Shufelt Road and up to her driveway.
Mr. Puccio states that his concern is they should move forward with the engineering and see how it all comes together.
Mr. Johnson asked if they have to do something about the 10% grade and the 50 foot width on the driveway.
Mr. Laberge stated that the meeting in July there were recommendation that these could be waved, but the idea was that would all be done at the final approval. There are no guarantees until we get to that point.
Mr. Hart agrees to work with Mr. Laberge and come back at a later date.
Chairman Goold closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m.
Darlene & Allen Dow 2007-20/RA/219.-1-8.144 Public Hearing
1015 South Schodack Road
Proposed - Two Family Dwelling
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nadine Fuda read the hearing notice as published in the Troy Record:
Title of the Two Family Dwelling published August 10, 2007
Chairman Goold directed the affidavit(s) of publication be made part of the hearing record(s).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chairman Goold opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m.
Mr. and Mrs. Dow, applicants were present for this meeting.
Mr. Dow states that they want to construct a two family dwelling for themselves and their daughter's family on South Schodack Road.
Chairman Goold states that this public hearing is on the application from the Dows to construct a two family dwelling. This is an allowed use in our code under article 10 it requires a special permit and the major elements are that each dwelling unit needs to have a minimum of 600 square feet of living space.
The board had no comment.
Kedzierski moved, Johnson seconded that the Planning Board be LEAD AGENCY.
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes Goold, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
Puccio moved, LaVoie seconded a NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes Goold, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
Puccio moved, Johnson seconded that the SPECIAL PERMIT be GRANTED: for an initial period of 5 YEARS
Chairman Goold closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m.
Roy & Deborah Denniston 2007-22/RA/200.-4-3.1 Public Hearing
Woodward & Kingman Road
Proposed - 2 Lot Subdivision
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nadine Fuda read the hearing notice(s) as published in the Troy Record:
Title of the Roy & Deborah Denniston published August 10 , 2007
Chairman Goold directed the affidavit(s) of publication be made part of the hearing record(s).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chairman Goold opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m.
Laurence Cash, 377 Woodward Road, states that his property is opposite the first lot and is not here to speak for or against the subdivision but would like to make a couple of comments. This piece of property when you pull in from Kingman Road onto Woodward you get quite an expansive view and think it is worth preserving. By making this subdivision it could be subjected to future development. He would like to make sure the Zoning regulations are upheld on such a prime piece of property.
Abby Cash, 377 Woodward Road, states what needs to be protected is the view, from her house you look over the section which is to be subdivided. She would like to purchase the land to keep it open but if that is not an option would like the house placed so that the they and the new owners could enjoy the view. Bottom line when someone has the advantage of such a wonderful view they should not be disadvantaged.
The board had no comment.
Kedzierski moved, LaVoie seconded that the Planning Board be LEAD AGENCY.
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Johnson, Kedzierski, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose: None
Johnson moved, Puccio seconded a NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
Kedzierski Moved, LaVoie seconded that the following resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS, a formal application was submitted to the Planning Board on: July 24, 2007,
for approval of a 2 -lot subdivision entitled, "Land of Roy and Deborah Denniston", map prepared by: Brewer Engineering & Associated , dated "July 24, 2007", and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the subdivision application and plat at the Schodack Town Hall on August 20, 2007 at 7:30 p.m., and
WHEREAS, the requirement of the subdivision regulations of the Town of Schodack have been met by said subdivision plat and application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the application of Roy and Deborah Dennistion be APPROVED CONTINGENT UPON submission of final maps, payment of fees and before building permits can be issued, permits to construct well and septic must be obtained from the Rensselaer County Health Department.
Chairman Goold closed the public hearing at 7 p.m.
Mark Teliska 2007-3/HC/178.-11-13 Public Hearing
1572 Columbia Turnpike
Proposed - General Contractor Building & Outdoor Sales Lot
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nadine Fuda read the hearing notice as published in the Troy Record:
Title of the Mark Teliska published August 10, 2007
Chairman Goold directed the affidavit(s) of publication be made part of the hearing record(s).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chairman Goold opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.
Chairman Goold speaks about the proposed plan by Mark Teliska to open a out door sales lot and one additional building on the property of the old Morris Body Shop. He asks if the board members or the public have any comment or questions.
Mr. Johnson he states that he asked Mr. Laberge look into the required distance from the highway the sales lot would need to be. And asked if the distance has been determined.
Mr. Laberge states he has no input on the distance at this time. He states that he missed the earlier meeting and has not been forward the revised plan, which is much smaller in nature. But he will look in the set back for the sales lot and have it for the next meeting.
Chairman Goold asked Mr. Laberge to look into the issue.
Mr. Laberge stated that he will take a look at the plan and offer any remaining comments
to see what has dropped away from original submission. He will have a comment letter by the September 17, 2007 meeting.
All parties agree to come back for the September 17, 2007 meeting.
Chairman Goold closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m.
Comprehensive Plan Resolution
Mr. Nugent recommends the Planning Board to adopt the following resolution and submit it to the Town Board.
WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State Town Law section 272-a, the Town has compiled studies from the past several decades which contribute to the common law Comprehensive Plan, articulate a set of principles and guidelines about growth and development in the Town of Schodack, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is comprised of many documents which may make it difficult to easily and concisely identify the elements of the Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board declared a preference to condense these documents into a single document which may subsequently be adopted as a "Town Comprehensive Plan," and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2007 the Town Board declared the Planning Board to be the lead agency for this initiative and charged the Planning Board with determining the appropriate steps to seek a qualified consultant to compile, as a single document, a Draft Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Schodack, based upon previous reports, studies and papers that currently comprise the Town Comprehensive Plan and charged the Planning Board with administering said scope of services, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to that delegation the Planning Board has circulated Requests For Proposals from qualified consultants and has received and reviewed the responses thereto
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Schodack Planning Board hereby determines that the Laberge Group best meets all of the needs of the Town and has the lowest cost for services and recommends that the Town Board enter into a contract with the Laberge Group pursuant to their response to the Request for Proposal and their amendment entitled Attachments A and B.
Puccio motion, and Kedzierski seconded to recommend to the Town Board the selection of the Laberge Group.
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
ADJOURN
Kedzierski moved, Puccio seconded that the Planning Board meeting be adjourned. There being no objections, Chairman Goold adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nadine Fuda
Director of Planning & Zoning
TOWN OF SCHODACK COUNTY OF RENSSELAER STATE OF NEW YORK
PLANNING BOARD MEETING- September 17, 2007
CALLED TO ORDER BY: CHAIRMAN PETER GOOLD AT: 7:09 p.m.
PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Peter Goold, Chairman Melissa Knights - Secretary
G. Jeffrey Haber
Wayne Johnson
Sylvester Kedzierski
John LaVoie
Paul Puccio
Nadine Fuda, Director
Tim Nugent, Esq.
Richard Laberge, Planning Board Engineer
MINUTE APPROVAL- August 20, 2007
Puccio moved, Johnson seconded that the minutes be approved as amended
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Puccio
Abstain: Haber, Mayrer
PUBLIC COMMENT
Steve Hoyt, Resident, Spoke regarding Crown enterprises EIS statement. He is requesting a 60-day comment review because it is such a complicated proposal. The normal 30-day comment period is not enough time to review the project. In addition, he believes the aquifer protection law requires a public hearing and if not he is requesting one to be held.
Monica Devito Z658-07/RA/218.4-7-2 RECOMMEND TO ZBA
924 River Rd
Proposed - Deck will enter front yard set back
Mr. Kedzierski asked if there were stairs coming off the deck.
Ms. Devito stated yes the stairs come straight down, and faces the road.
Haber moved, Puccio seconded a "FAVORABLE" recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
6 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
Recused: Mayrer
Hannaford Distribution Center Z657-07/HC/220.-3-8.2 RECOMMEND TO ZBA
970 Rt. 9 / Wind Tower
There were no comments from the board.
Haber moved, LaVoie seconded a "FAVORABLE" recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
6 Ayes. Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
Recused: Mayrer
Byers Lot Line 2007-26/R-20/188.-1-29.111 LOT-LINE ADJUSTMENT
Circle Dr. & Johns Lane
Proposed - Lot Line Adj.
Mr. Tice spoke about the drainage of the pond and who was to maintain its condition. From what they could find out from the old records there was no one responsible for the ponds maintenance. So what they have done on the current map was taken an easement around the pond, also made a restriction as to the use and filling of the pond and that the town has the right for ingress, egress at anytime.
Mr. Puccio wanted to clarify that the pond will be split and the ownership will go to the adjacent homeowners. As well, an easement will be given to the town.
Mr. Haber asked if he found a town easement from that pond to Pheasant Run.
Mr. Tice stated none what so ever.
Mr. Nugent asked if they could have the note state that the town has the right to but should not be obligated to maintain the pond.
Mr. Tice stated that the note can be listed how ever we want. And will stop by his office to make sure it is correct.
Chairman Goold stated that the Lot Line Adjustment be approved subject to the easement language being approved by the town attorney.
Kedzierski moved, Haber seconded that the lot-line adjustment be accepted and approved. A public hearing and a survey map are not required. The property will be conveyed to the adjacent landowner and become part of that existing parcel.
6 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
Recused: Mayrer
John Cardina 2007-31/RA/180.-1-18.1 LOT- LINE ADJUSTMENT
465 Burden Lake Rd
Proposed - Lot Line.
John Cardina applicant was present for this meeting.
Mr. Puccio asked for clarification on the direction of the lot line.
Mr. Cardina explained that they are going to move Eddy Brims line over and give him an additional 225 feet or 1 ½ acres.
Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Cardina if there were any improvements on his lot.
Mr. Cardina states that the house had burned down and has been demolished and it is just flat land. In addition, his ex-wife is building on the lot now.
Mrs. Mayrer states that his ex-wife needs to sign the application since they co-own the property.
Mr. Nugent states that they could do a conditional approval. With the condition that both parties signing the application.
Haber moved, Puccio seconded that the lot-line adjustment be accepted and approved. A public hearing and a survey map are not required. The property will be conveyed to the adjacent landowner and become part of that existing parcel.
6 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Puccio
Oppose: None
Recused: Mayrer
Thomas/ Purificato /Kelly 2007-32/R-20/199.-17-1-40/41/39 LOT-LINE ADJUSTMENT
Ridge View Circle
Proposed - Lot Lines on Lots 39-40-41
Richard Tice, Brewer Engineering, was present for this meeting.
Thomas/ Purificato /Kelly Cont…
Mr. Tice explained the conditions of the lot line request. This lot is located in Castle Ridge and was approved back in 1990. The following has a curd due to an error in staking the lot corners on lots 48 and 49, accessory buildings, and pool house on lot 48 encroached onto lot 49 and the shed on lot 49 encroached on lot 50. In order to eliminate said encroachment adjustments in lot lines are being made as follows.
Lot 48 - original area 19,695 sq. ft - revised area 20,613 sq. ft
Lot 49 - original area 16,931 sq. ft - revised area 16,923 sq. ft
Lot 50 - original area 18,603 sq. ft - revised area 17,693 sq. ft
Mr. Johnson Stated that the map should be adjusted to reflect the original lot line in a lighter shade and the new lot lines to look like the rest of the map. This should limit confusion in the future.
Mr. Tice stated that he would fix the map to reflect the lot line changes.
Chairman Goold stated that the Lot Line Adjustment be approved subject to the color change of the lot lines on the map, as well as the correction of the zoning code.
Puccio moved, Mayrer seconded that the lot-line adjustment be accepted and approved. A public hearing and a survey map are not required. The property will be conveyed to the adjacent landowner and become part of that existing parcel.
7 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose: None
Pervez & Sons LLC 2007-28/HC/200.-6-5 SITE PLAN
Rt. 9 /one mile south of 9/20 2007-29B/HC/200.-6-5 SPECIAL PERMIT
Proposed- Office / Warehouse
SP & Water Quality
Joe Bianchine,ABD Engineering & Surveyors was present for this meeting.
Mr. Bianchine stated Mr. Pervez has 2.4 acres of land on the east side of Rt.9 just north of the self-storage. What they would like to do is build a 14,400 sq. ft office warehouse (80 x 180). The site is steeply sloped and heavily wooded they would have the tractor-trailers come in from the south side to the loading dock. There would be two entrances and exits onto Rt.9 for traffic safety. They also propose an office area on the south side of the building, about 24,000 sq.ft. leaving 12,000 sq. ft. for the warehouse. They show thirteen parking spaces on the south side of the building, the warehouse will have 8 to 10 employees. There is no water and sewer in the area so they have completed testing with the Rensselaer County Health Dept. and found the area to be gravel based and not an issue for a septic system, and there is an existing well that they will further develop for their needs. Due to soil testing, they will need to construct a retaining wall along the backside of the site. The building it self will be a metal building. In addition, they will do landscaping in the front, the lighting will be minimal just on the building. Plans have been submitted to DOT but as of today they have not had a chance to review them.
Mr. Puccio asked if the hill was shale or gravel.
Mr. Bianchine stated that it is all gravel.
Mr. Haber asked if it zoned Highway Commercial.
Mr. Bianchine stated yes it is zoned HC.
Mr. Puccio asked if the site was big enough for the trucks to move around safely.
Mr. Haber asked if Pervez and Sons is already a trucking company or are they building this to sell or lease to someone else.
Mr. Bianchine stated that this will be lease it to some one else.
Mr. Laberge requests any comments from DOT be sent to him along with the other information. As well as the operational aspects - how many trucks & tractor trailers will be in an out through out the day, number of employees, and the type of public traffic.
Mr. Haber stated that he does not feel this is an ideal location for this type of business. He will be very interested to see the projected flow of tractor-trailers onto the site.
Chairman Goold asked if the board had any more questions before sending this to Mr. Laberge for engineering review.
Members agreed to send this to Mr. Laberge for review.
Crown Enterprises 24-2003/HC,RA/210.-7-43-50, 55-56 SITE PLAN
Kids Lane/Route 9
Proposed- Truck Terminal
Percy Cotton, Engineer, was present for this meeting.
Mr. Laberge spoke about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated August 2007, one stage of the SEQR - EIS process is to deem the statement complete. What he means by complete is that the applicant has answered in some way or fashion the items in the scoping document that was purposed some months ago. Mr. Laberge looked the draft over and has written a letter to the board, stating they can deem this document complete. If is the board decision to deem this document complete, then it will then be submitted to the involved agencies and the public for comment. When comments come in from all parties then the applicant is then responsible to prepare a final impact statement for final review.
Mr. Puccio asked about their storm water management. It looks to be all on the east side of the property so there will be no run off to the existing pond and the wet land on the other side of the road, is this correct.
Mr. Cotton states that is not correct the water initially flows to the east it is treated then flows around the site to the wet land area to the north.
Crown Enterprises Cont…
Mr. Johnson asked if we should hold the public hearing early in the process so the comments would be available to create this final impact statement.
Mr. Laberge stated that we can not hold it to early, quote from the DEC SEQR hand book - "The hearing can not start sooner then the 15th day following the notice or shall it be more then 60 days from the notice of completion" he fells that it should be notices a month or so from tonight. Comments can be accepted verbally at a public hearing or in writing from the public and the involved agencies.
Mr. Haber asked if we needed two public hearings.
Mr. Laberge stated that for the SEQR process we only need one public hearing on the draft document. Then the finding statement is open fora public review period.
Mr. Puccio asked if the SEQR process comes to closure before all the other transactions and special hearings.
Mr. Laberge stated that the SEQR has to be completed prior to decisions by other boards. And since the planning board is the lead agency a SEQR decision has to be made prior to the zoning board acting on the water control quality issues.
Mr. Puccio stated to get the process straight, first the planning board deems this to be complete tonight, then within 45 days or so there should be a public hearing on this application, then comments and a final draft prepared and then once that is done the board can come to closure on the SEQR process.
Mr. Laberge stated that is correct, the closure will be the drafting of a finding statement.
Mr. Puccio asked if the variance process for water quality control precede our approval on special permits.
Mr. Nugent stated that you have to have a variance on the water quality before a special permit can be issued.
Chairman Goold stated that they have not made a decision to extend the comment period from 30 to 60 days as requested by a resident earlier in the meeting. Would the board agree to this?
Haber moved, Johnson second, that the Planning Board deems the Draft Environmental Impact Statement complete. And to the 60 day period for written and verbal comments.
6 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose: None
Brian Hart 2007-27/HC/178.-9-2-2 SPECIAL PERMIT
1522 Columbia Tpke.
Proposed - Motor Vehicle Svs
With out gas sales ( SP )
This item was not addressed. No one was present for this meeting.
Swahlan Subdivision 2006-17/RA/178.-8-11.1 SUBDIVISION
2524 Reno Road
Proposed - 3-Lot Subdivision
Mr. Smith, Surveysmith was present for this meeting
Mr. Johnson asked about the culvert, entrance, and its location.
Mr. Smith stated it is partially on lot # 1 that is why the lot line was moved over so they can have access to the back portion of there property
Mr. Johnson asked if this is just for his use and not being proposed as actually access to the back portion of the property.
Mr. Smith stated that is correct.
Mr. Johnson asked about the east side of the lot, is that area intended for access to the remaining lands.
Mr. Smith stated that it is there should he need access in the future, right now he is not looking to have a flag lot added.
Mayrer moved, Puccio seconded that the Planning Board be LEAD AGENCY.
6 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose: None
Kedzierski moved, Haber seconded a NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
6 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose: None
Mayrer moved, Puccio seconded that the following resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS, a formal application was submitted to the Planning Board on:
March 27,2006 for approval of a 3 -lot subdivision entitled, " Swahlan Subdivision", map prepared by: Surveysmith, dated "April 20, 2006", and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the subdivision application and plat at the Schodack Town Hall on May 1, 2006 at 7:30 p.m., and
WHEREAS, the requirement of the subdivision regulations of the Town of Schodack have been met by said subdivision plat and application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the application of Thomas Swahlan be APPROVED CONTINGENT UPON submission of final maps, payment of fees and before building permits
can be issued, permits to construct well and septic must be obtained from the Rensselaer County Health Department.
6 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose: None
Tina Murray 2007-25/RA/208.-2-3.10/208.-1-6/208.-6-18-16 Public Hearing
1141 Muitzeskill Road
Proposed - Equine, Canine Rescue
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nadine Fuda read the hearing notice(s) as published in the Troy Record:
Title of the project published March 5, 2007
Chairman Goold directed the affidavit(s) of publication be made part of the hearing record(s).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chairman Goold opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Haber asked if there was a limit to the number of animals for the size of the property. And questions the special permits.
Mr. Nugent stated that the special permit request is to have more then five horses on ten acres.
Ms. Murray states that she is already a Not of Profit Equine Rescue and is requesting two special use permits one for equines and the second for canines.
Mr. Haber asked if there are a number of animals on the request or is it left open. And asked if she would mind that the number of equines were added to the permit application.
Mr. Murray stated that she could only comfortably house up to 12 equines, and has on objections to having that added to the request.
Mr. Kedzierski asked if she has veterinary care for the animals
Ms. Murray stats there are two veterinarians she uses, some of the horses come from abuse cases. However, the vets are not on site.
Mr. Nugent asked about the width of the back of the property , where the manure stored? And is it 150 feet from the adjacent property lines.
Ms. Murray stated that the back of her property is 1700 feet and it slopes dawn to a valley. That is where the manure is pushed. She is nowhere near 150 feet of anyone's property line.
Mr. Nugent request that she show on the map where the manure site is and this be one of items that the board should consider.
Ms. Murray stated she is not close to anyone's property line, and will mark the map as to where the manure site is located.
Mr. Haber asked about the dogs and how many could she accommodate at one time.
Ms. Murray stated that she houses up to but not more then 8 dogs in her house. She has a pet sitter that comes in every day and she will supply the names if requested. In addition, there is a fenced in yard for the dogs to use and many of them go to work with her. She is the director of operations at the Mohawk and Hudson River Humane Society. She said that 8 dogs is all she can handle and has no problem with that number being added to the special use permit.
Mr. Nugent states that one condition should be that the applicant meets the requirements of 219.34 subdivisions A as part of the special permit.
Equines:
Conditions being no more then 12 equines at any given time and that section 219.34 subdivision (A) be applied as well as (buildings and screening of the manure).
Kedzierski moved, Johnson seconded that the Planning Board be LEAD AGENCY.
6 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes Goold. Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose:
Puccio moved, Mayrer seconded a NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
6 Ayes Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes Goold, Haber, Johnson, Kedzierski, LaVoie, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose:
Kedzierski moved, Haber seconded that the SPECIAL PERMIT be GRANTED: for an initial period of 2 YEARS
Canines:
Conditions being no more then 8 dogs at any given time, living indoors, with a pet sitter.
LaVoie moved, Johnson seconded that the SPECIAL PERMIT be GRANTED: for an initial period of 2 YEARS
Chairman Goold closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m.
Robert Davis 207-24/HC/189.-10-13 PUBLIC HEARING
1836 Columbia Turnpike
Proposal - Miniature Golf
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nadine Fuda read the hearing notice(s) as published in the Troy Record:
Title of the project published March 5, 2007
Chairman Goold directed the affidavit(s) of publication be made part of the hearing record(s).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chairman Goold opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m.
Chairman Goold states that the applicant is here to request miniature golf to be added to his business. And asked if there was any comments from the public.
Mr. Haber asked about the small paved area.
Mr. Davis states that it is for car and bike shows.
Mr. Laberge states that it is an existing paved area.
Mr. Puccio asked where exactly the parking is going to be located.
Mr. Davis states that the stone and pavement area in front of the Ice-cream/food shop and pavilion is all parking. He would like to submit his design on the parking lot showing the concrete wheel stops or rope delineation.
Mr. Puccio stated his only concern is that once you put in something that will require people to be there for some time it will not be as transient as it is currently. Now you have people moving in and out in a constant flow of cars. It is a good idea to have
Robert Davis Cont…
delineated parking for patrons to do the miniature golf and the ice cream patrons will be able to park and leave without being blocked in.
Mr. Laberge stated that his comment letter was along the same lines as Mr. Puccio statement. This was to get a parking sceam delineated for the gravel area both on the map and on the site with curb stops or rope delineators. So people will get a since of how to park and over time it will become habit. He has already spoken to applicant on this item and this will be applied to this plan.
Chairman Goold asked Mr. Nugent if this item was notices correctly
and if we could close this public hearing.
Chairman Goold stated that this needs to have a new public notice and Mr. Davis should come back into the Planning Office to discuss this with Nadine.
Mr. Davis stated that he would do what is requested of him to do.
Chairman Goold closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Chairman Goold asked for two volunteers act as a community to monitor what happening with the Comprehensive Plan that the town is doing.
Mr. Puccio, Mr. Johnson and Chairman Goold agreed to be the monitoring group for the Comprehensive Plan process.
ADJOURN
Mayrer moved, Haber seconded that the Planning Board meeting be adjourned. There being no objections, Chairman Goold adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nadine Fuda
Director of Planning & Zoning