The following items were discussed during the Planning Board Training session:

Transcription

1 Town of Malta Planning Board 2540 Route 9 Malta, NY (518) Fax: (518) Glenn Rockwood - Chairman Kyle Kordich Jean Loewenstein William Smith Dave Stiles Dave Wallingford Carrie Woerner Roger Laime (alt) Dave Bowman (alt) Anthony Tozzi - Director Nancy Vlahos - Senior Planner Sophia Marruso Planner Floria Lowin- Planning Administrator Meeting Minutes for The Town of Malta Planning Board held its regular meeting on Tuesday, at 6:30 p.m. at the Malta Town Hall, with Chairman Glenn Rockwood presiding. Present: Absent: Glenn Rockwood, Bill Smith, Dave Stiles, Dave Wallingford, Carrie Woerner, Roger Laime, and Dave Bowman Mark Schachner, Town Legal Counsel; Leah Everhart, Town Legal Counsel, Joel Bianchi, Town Engineer; Anthony Tozzi, Director; Nancy Vlahos, Sr. Planner; Sophia Marruso, Planner; Floria Lowin, Planning Administrator Jean Loewenstein, Kyle Kordich Correspondence: All correspondence is on file. Planning Board Training, 6:30 to 7:30 PM. The following items were discussed during the Planning Board Training session: Public comments outside of public hearing. Board member recusal. Alternate board members roles. Board member participation. Decision-Making Motions and Polling. ROCKWOOD read the following agenda into the minutes at 7:35 PM: Project # Project Name Project Type Columbia Development Site Plan Amendment Cramer Road North Major Subdivision Farley Minor Subdivision GlobalFoundries Site Plan Amendment

2 Page 2 of 9 #12-24, Columbia Development (SPA) 2537 Route 9 Lisa Tymchyn from Hanley Sign Company presented on behalf the Recovery Sports Grill signage. Three signs are being proposed for the building and are to be located on the west, east, and north sides of the building. SEFCU currently has signs on the south, east and west sides of the building. The Recovery Sports Grill and SEFCU signs will balance each other out. ROCKWOOD asked if the signs are all the same size and construction. TYMCHYN stated that the signs are all the same and are within the 120 maximum and do not exceed 60 sq. ft. The signs are all the same size and construction with gooseneck external lighting. MARUSSO stated that the signs, coloring, and lighting are in compliance with the downtown design. The signage size and lettering are compliant with the sign code of the C-1 downtown district. Brian O Conner, Columbia Development Company presented on behalf of the proposed enclosure for the north end of the building. The applicant is proposing a 4H x 5 x 12 ft enclosure to be constructed of 1/2 inch treated plywood with galvanized fence post; using hardy plank board to match the existing rear of the building. The enclosure will have a locked gate for security of equipment. A CO2 tank and a 55 gallon drum for grease disposal will be located in the enclosure. These items are placed outside for accessibility for servicing and cleaning purposes. A single awning is proposed to be placed over the two doors and window which will replace the three awnings originally proposed. ROCKWOOD inquired about the odor that may come from the grease container. O CONNOR stated that the containers are sealed. Restaurants are required to maintain a certain level of smell. TOZZI stated that it probably is a Department of Health code rather than a building code. ROCKWOOD inquired about delivery access to the enclosure. O CONNER stated that deliveries would be received for CO2 and removal of grease as well as supplies for the restaurant. ROCKWOOD confirmed that the gate to the enclosure would be locked to prevent public access to the enclosure. O CONNER agreed. ROCKWOOD asked for engineering comments. BIANCI had no engineering comments. MARUSSO asked for confirmation of the materials to be used for the gate. O CONNOR stated that the material will be aluminum, chain link. WOERNER confirmed that the entire enclosure would consist of the hardy plank as apposed to only being located at the top as depicted on the photographs. ROCKWOOD inquired whether the chain link was acceptable in the downtown standards. MARUSSO stated that there is no fencing standard in the downtown district and it is at the Board s discretion for use of the chain link fencing; however, she suggested that it may be visible from Route 9. WALLINGFORD suggested the applicant use a wrought iron gate in place of the chain link fence. O CONNOR stated the applicant would not be apposed to the wrought iron gate and that the gate faces the parking lot. LAIME inquired whether the sidewalk goes up to the enclosure. O CONNOR confirmed that it does and that the sidewalk is approximately 7-8 ft in length with a ramp. LAIME also inquired if lighting for the awning was proposed. O CONNOR stated that no specifications for the lighting had been made. MARUSSO confirmed that the western and northern elevations will be hardy board material and the eastern material will be the fencing material. ROCKWOOD stated that the lighting under the awning should be consistent with the existing building. ROCKWOOD inquired whether the enclosure is within the setback requirements. MARUSSO stated that there is a zero side setback requirement.

3 Page 3 of 9 RESOLUTION # Motioned: BOWMAN Seconded: SMITH Be it resolved that the Town of Malta Planning Board does hereby determine that Project #12-24, Columbia Development, Site Plan Amendment, is consistent with the prior SEQRA statement of findings with no further environmental review needed. Vote: Bowman Yes, Stiles Yes, Laime Yes; Woerner Yes; Smith Yes, Wallingford Yes, Rockwood Yes Motioned by: WOERNER Seconded by: STILES RESOLUTION # Be it resolved that the Town of Malta Planning Board grants approval for Project #12-24 Columbia Development, Site Plan Amendment, as presented with the following conditions: The chain link fence and gate shown on the site plan reviewed at the Planning Board meeting shall be revised to replace the fence material with a black wrought iron fence and gate will be subject to approval by planning staff, prior to issuance of a building permit. Fuel and waste storage located within the fenced enclosure will be screened from public view by enclosure 4 ft. in height, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Lighting under the awning to be consistent to the existing design of the building, as determined by planning staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Vote: Bowman Yes, Stiles Yes, Laime Yes; Woerner Yes; Smith Yes, Wallingford Yes, Rockwood Yes #12-25 Cramer Road North (Major Subdivision) 2656 Route 9 Scott Lansing, Lansing Engineering, presented on behalf of the applicant. The subdivision consists of 78.7 acres located on west side of Route 9. The zoning is PDD#54 with an underlining C-4 zoning. The applicant is proposing 38 duplex structures, with the creation of 76 lots and 2 commercial lots, which are not proposed for development at this time. The road way consists of approximately 3,400 feet of road with 2 exists out onto Cramer Road, including sidewalks and streetscape on both sides of the road. There is 55 acres of open space to be maintained by an HOA. There is an area on the property that the Archeological Conservancy may take over; however, if the land is not taken over by the Archeological Conservancy the HOA will take the land. Buffers are proposed on the front and west sides of the property and consistent with prior applications. Water will be supplied by Saratoga Water Services and sanitary sewer is proposed to go thru the Highpoint pump station. Stormwater is to be managed on sight. The applicant is seeking questions and comments from the Board and the public. BIANCHI reviewed his engineering comments, dated July 20, 2012, with the Board. COMMENT #4. BIANCHI asked LANSING where the provision for open space and gazebo are. Local law requires the Planning Board to weigh in on this aspect of the plan. COMMENT #5. Section D-6 of the PDD required the plans to connect from the residential to the commercial and stated that the submitted plans did not indicate the connection. Section D-3 of the PDD states the grade at Cramer Road and Route 9 need to be corrected to comply with federal regulation. The plans did not have

4 Page 4 of 9 them. BIANCHI stated that other comments were stormwater related, and that this Board and the previous Town engineer had reviewed it. At that time the project was ready for permits, however, permits had not been obtained. BIANCHI stated he reviewed it for changes from the prior submittal and noted primarily the changes included State regulations of inclusion of green infrastructure. He had given LANSING feedback on this. No substantive changes have been made from the prior submittal. LANSING stated the applicant was expecting comments from the Board and public tonight in order to incorporate them into the plan. BIANCHI stated that the Town Board had visited SEQRA and has weighed in on it. BIANCHI feels that there are sewer issues that need to be addressed and resolved with other parties. Due to the sewer issues, he does not feel the project is ready for action at this time. ROCKWOOD requested comments from the Board. SMITH asked LANSING to clarify changes made to the proposal from the previous submittal. LANSING stated that there were a few minor lot line shifts. The sewer proposed has individual pump stations that would pump up to a gravity main along Cramer Road and up to the Highpoint pump station. As part of the PDD the project is required to participate in a bypass line for the sewer from Steeplechase. The applicant is coordinating with other projects in the area in regard to the sewer. The PDD requires participation with other projects as well. SMITH asked if other projects are expecting this one to go down Cramer Road. LANSING stated that the other projects are leaning toward Route 9P and the applicant will participate in either route as long as it meets the Town s requirements. WALLINGFORD confirmed that roads will be built to town specifications and eventually turned over to the Town. LANSING confirmed. WALLINGFORD inquired whether street lights are being proposed. LANSING stated that they are not proposed as part of the project. WOERNER inquired about the elevations of the structures. LANSING stated structure elevations had been submitted as part of the PDD. WOERNER asked for copies of elevations for Planning Board members the next time they appear before the board. LAIME asked for clarification for water and sewer services. LANSING stated they are waiting for approval and a letter from Saratoga Water Services. He also stated the Saratoga County Sewer is aware of the project and anticipates connection. ROCKWOOD opened the public hearing at 8:10 PM. VAN SICKLE thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak and appreciates the proposed buffer to her property. She stated that the dead end road was discontinued many years ago, and stated that part of the land that was owned by the Town was reverted back to her. She confirmed that Cramer Road would not be extended across her property. LANSING stated that it not part of this application. ROCKWOOD stated he was not aware of any plans at this time. RUDICK, VP of Highpoint HOA, The HOA is opposed to the plan due to lack of completion and lack of integrity from other projects owned by Mr. Farone. The HOA is concerned that the homes are of poor quality. They would like to see trails, lighting, and gazebos. HOA is also concerned that the builder will only do the minimum to build the homes. LANSING stated that Frank Barbera is contracted to build the homes. Tom Farone has not expressed any interest in building the homes for this project and hopes that appeases the one concern of Mr. Rudick and the Highpoint HOA. A gazebo will be added to the engineered drawings. The road connection to the front commercial portion of the project will also be added. The grading of the front portion will be completed to improve the site distance.

5 Page 5 of 9 ROCKWOOD stated that a trail had been proposed to connect with Travers Meadows and wondered why it is not shown at this time. LANSING stated that it is not proposed at this time. The trail would reset the Army Corp process. The public hearing will be held open. ROCKWOOD requested that a copy of the legislation of PDD #54 be provided to Planning Board members the next time this project appears before the Board. #07-17, Farley (Minor Subdivision) Locust Road Andy Brick, Law firm of Donald Zee, PC, presented on behalf of Renee Farley. The Planning Board requested the applicant to return to the Board for clarification of road frontage requirements for the approved subdivision. BRICK stated he had received correspondence from Mr. Schachner in regard to the road frontage issue and in turn Mr. Brick submitted a written rebuttal. BRICK stated that the general road frontage standard may not have been adequately applied when the subdivision was approved. He stated that if the Board were to apply the general standard, the standard has never been applied in the zoning district by the lake. The 100 ft. road frontage requirement in the R4 zoning and is in conflict with the subdivision requirement of 200 ft. road frontage and has not been considered in the past. He presented the Board with an aerial photo of subdivisions in the Silver Beach area and all the lots contain less than 200 ft. of road frontage. BRICKS believes the only logical way to address the issue, on a prospective basis, is to grant a waiver of the 200 ft. requirement. He reminded the Board that during the approval process they had made a determination that the project did not have a negative impact on the community. BRICK stated that it is unfair to apply this standard to Ms. Farley if it has not been required in the past. He thanked the Board and referred them to his letter dated July 13, 2012 SCHACHNER stated regardless of the 200 ft. frontage requirement, known or not known to the Board previously, according to New York law in subdivision regulations and Section 143-8(B)(3)) of our subdivision regulations must be applied or waived. The applicant s attorney is correct that our zoning restriction in Section 167:17, in reference to the R4 frontage, required 100 ft. of frontage and the subdivision regulation requires 200 ft. The Malta Town Code states that if there are inconsistencies or conflicts the more restrictive provision applies. The Planning Board has the right, under Section 143:10 of the Subdivision regulations, to waive a requirement of the Town subdivision regulations if it imposes hardship on the subdivision. SCHACHNER also stated that the prior approval has been challenged in litigation by Saratoga Lakeside Acres Association. The Board received a letter, dated July 17, 2012 from the Attorney representing the Association raising issues, which are raised in the litigation If Board had any question of applicant or of the prior considerations, you can may do so; as well as, whether or not to waive the 200 ft requirement. SCHACHNER stated that New York Law states we must apply or waive it, even if the Board was not aware of the requirements. ROCKWOOD referred to the Saratoga Lakeside Acres Association letter and their reference to the subject of flooding and asked Joel Bianchi to comment on the matter. BIANCHI said that during his review of the project, prior engineering records were also reviewed and materials submitted to date. The applicant has produced mapping of the flood plane boundary developed by FEMA. The property itself is not in a regulated flood plan but property around it is within the 100 year flood plane. The property may a runoff that passes through it, the engineering of record, has demonstrated that it would not exacerbate flooding on the periphery of the project. The records produces by the applicant suggests that property itself does not flood. ROCKWOOD asked if a secondary access to the property is possible via Meadow or Schuyler which run parallel to Locust Road. FARLEY stated that Locust Road is the only access? BRICK stated that if the Board were to consider the road frontage on Schuyler. Schuyler runs through the lot and provides more than enough road frontage for the lots that are deficient on Locust Road, depending on how the road frontage is calculated. FARLEY said the only lot in questions is the first lot which has 150 ft of road frontage. She has

6 Page 6 of 9 no access to Meadow and is not owned by the Association. ROCKWOOD asked for clarification of the fire access compliance of the road. BIANCHI stated the applicant proposed a driveway and therefore, it was reviewed as a driveway according to building code Section 511 of the New York State Fire Code. The plans submitted demonstrate compliance with Section 511. The Board cannot ask more than the code requires. SCHACHNER referred to the April , approval resolution # and the conditions set forth that the applicant meet the requirements of NYS fire code, as a reminder to Board as to what is required of the applicant. ROCKWOOD stated if there is a driveway, then there is no road. FARLEY stated that after the first 500 feet it becomes a driveway for the back lot. BRICK stated that under Town definition it is a paper street. FARLEY stated that according to a 1927 map all the streets are the same and on one deed. SCHACHNER asked if Rockwood was inquiring whether the road would need to meet Town specification. ROCKWOOD stated he was looking for clarifications as to whether it was classified as a road or a driveway. BIANCHI stated he reviewed it as a driveway for compliance with the fire code. WOERNER asked why it was reviewed as a driveway vs. a road. BIANCHI stated that a road was not proposed. There is no provision within Town subdivision regulations that a road is required at some point. ROCKWOOD stated the applicant is required to have 200 ft of frontage on the road, paper street, driveway, which is it. BIANCHI stated that it is a zoning code interpretation question and is not what the engineering review did. TOZZI stated that subdivision regulations are in conflict with the zoning code. Subdivision regulations require that every lot have 200 ft. of road frontage. SCHACHNER stated that the subdivision regulations were amended in BRICK state that the issues raised in Mr. Walsh s letter of July 17 th will be addressed in the court of law. BRICK requested a waiver of the 200 ft. requirement. SMITH asked about NYS fire access requirements in relation to the condition of approval. BIANCHI stated the requirements are set forth by the New York State Fire Code. BOWMAN asked what the width of the road is. BIAHCHI stated according the NYS Section of the Fire Code requires driveways to have a minimum unobstructed width of 12 ft. and a minimum unobstructed height of 13ft 6 in. FARLEY said the road would be 20 ft. wide. TOZZI clarified that the subdivision regulations states that lots must have road frontage. There is a subdivided parcel that has been there for 90 years that has a road. The applicant is providing access to each lot with a driveway, which the subdivision regulations do not prohibit. BIANCHI stated an unimproved right away exists and Town regulations do not dictate what is built within the unapproved right away. The applicant has chosen to construct a driveway that is regulated for fire apparatus ; town roads are more robust. ROCKWOOD clarified that 2 lots are deficient in road frontage requirements. FARLEY stated that one lot has 150 and the other has 180 ft. SCHACHNER stated the restriction of the 200 ft. frontage is in the subdivision regulations and stated the Board has the right to waive requirements of subdivision regulations and referred to Town subdivision regulations. WOERNER asked for clarification of the 50 ft shortage on one of the lots, and whether it was given to her son s lot. FARLEY stated that she acquired 50 ft from Gucciardo for her son s property. She referred to the April 4, 2006 ZBA minutes for clarification of the variance request for her son s property. FARLEY referred

7 Page 7 of 9 the Board to item number 2 of Mr. Walsh s letter dated July 17, subdivisions were routinely granted with the 100 ft. frontage. BRICK stated that in the R-4 zone ROCKWOOD asked if prior subdivisions were granted and if the road frontage was addressed and if the 200 ft. requirement had been waived. MARUSSO suggested that some administrative research could be done to look at the approval process that was used. The Board agreed that review and research of other subdivisions in the Silver Beach area should be done to clarify past practices by the Board. ROCKWOOD stated that in his tenure as Chair, the issue of conflicting zoning and subdivisions regulations had not previously come up. BRICK stated, in fairness, now that the Board is aware of the regulations, asked for a waiver and apply it prospectively. ROCKWOOD thought that a secondary access would be available, and that it may be possible to reconfigure the lots. BRICK stated reconfiguration of the lots would be a significant expense to the applicant. BIANCHI stated that due to the length of the driveway being over 500 ft. the fire code dictates the width of 20 ft., which the applicant has demonstrated. ROCKWOOD opened the public hearing at 8:55 PM. JOSEPH WALSH, attorney, representing Saratoga Lakeside Acres Association, suggested the town engineer meet with Cheryl Fischer at Department of State regarding requirements for fire apparatus road width requirements. WALSH stated that there is more than 500 ft. of access road and is providing access to 4 or more buildings/dwellings. Background information was included in the lawsuit papers. WALSH stated that the State s position is that if the road is over 500 ft. the width of the road must be 26 ft not 20 and must have a turn around at the end. The first part of the road is a private road, owned by the Association, and the widest point is 33 ft. wide and the road surface is less than 20 ft. He stated that they cannot have this access road service the minor or major, 4 or 5 lot subdivision without addressing the fact that the applicant does not own the first part of the road. The road cannot be widened because it abutted by private property on both sides. There is a 33 ft boundary and a road surface of 20ft or less. WALSH referred to Town Law Section 280, and stated that he ed Attorney, Donald Zee copies of a Third Department Applet Division case dealing with this type of case and section of law. Mr. Walsh felt that it is similar to the Farley situation. He stated that Ms. Farley has the right to access the road but it is still a private right-a-way. It is not a public street, which Section 281 deals with. You have to have a highway or public street in order to obtain a building a permit and the private right-a-way does not do it. The Statute addresses it as well as Subdivision 4, dealing with access by a public street. The only way around that is for the Town Board to adopt a resolution identifying certain parts of the municipality as open development areas, which would empower the Planning Board power to adopt appropriate regulations addressing the use of p rivate rights of way in order to access these areas. That is the State Law general provision in 280A of the Town law. He stated the Town s ordinance and Town subdivision regulations do not address open area conc epts. The Town s subdivision regulations, Section , defines the standards roads are to be built to. He does not feel the Planning Board has the rights to way the requirements for a street. WALSH addressed the drainage issues in the Silver Beach are and admits the land is not in a 100 year flood plane, but stated that according to the Town s own drainage study this property is designated as flood plane. His client states that the land is subject to flooding several times a year. The stormwater design requirements require for the account of a larger watershed area. This project is within the Drummond Creek watershed area. The Silver Beach drainage study specifically identified limitation, which have not been addressed. There are two outlets to the lake that have design deficiency or limitations that this area cannot do any better than a 2 year 24 hour storm event. The Town s stormwater pollution prevention plan requirements require a 10 year 24 hour storm. Because of the limitation on the existing outfalls, even though they are not on the applicant s property, the applicant s property is limited to 2 year 24 hour limit. He feels these are important factors and the applicant is creating more impermeable areas. He is asking the Town Board address these issues found in prior studies, and to require the applicant to address some of these issues in order to mitigate the current flood prone situation.

8 Page 8 of 9 WALSH stated that the Town subdivision regulation do not address, under State Law, when 4 or more lots are going to be developed and offered for sale to the public it is regulated by the Attorney General Department of Law. An HOA requires a no action letter application, which is allowable if there are no more than 4 lots. No consideration was given to the deed for her son. WALSH also stated that the beneficial owner on her son s house is actually Renee Farley and this aspect will be pursued in the lawsuit. WALSH asked the Board to take into consideration the Attorney General regulations which he states have not been addressed. He also stated that the beginning of the road is owned by his client and his client must be part of any solution upfront and not as a condition of approval after approval is granted. He also is requesting that safeguards be put in place so that no further subdivision of the property occurs. ROCKWOOD reminded Mr. Walsh that the Board is not a court of law and the applicant is not before the Board to try the case. S. VIOLA felt that there was misrepresentation and disputed the statement that Farley needed two (2) inches set back for her son s variance. She also asked that the Board have the applicant reconfigure the lots. She also referred to the subdivisions that Ms. Farley referred to earlier and believes they are Renee Farley s subdivision. VIOLA does not feel that if Farley was able to subdivide prior it does not give her the right to subdivide now in light of the subdivision regulations. ROCKWOOD stated that staff will look into practices of the subdivision on the map provided by Ms. Farley. J. VIOLA stated that the subdivision should not be granted even though prior subdivisions had been granted. WALLINGFORD would like to look into previous practices. SMITH feels the applicant should come back. SCHACHNER stated this is a reconsideration of the application and that the public hearing be kept open. MARUSSO asked for clarification which parcels the Board would like to have researched for the subdivision regulations. ROCKWOOD stated that he would like to see what has happened in the Silver Beach location; the Board agreed. SCHACHNER stated that the finding of the staff review does not determine what the Board decides. One of the principles of New York Zoning Law, even if prior failure to enforce something is now recognized or a mistake is made if the applicant has no obtained vested rights, than the Board is to honor current appropriate law. He agreed that it would be appropriate to see what the staff findings will be. ROCKWOOD stated he would like to know the circumstances surrounding the prior approvals. ROCKWOOD asked for verification of the necessary width of the road. BIACHNI stated he has a written interpretation from Ms. Cheryl Fischer from the Department of State on this exact subject which states that it is in conformance, as presented to them. SCHACHNER stated that if there was a mistake made in the response from the Department of State, the applicant is still required to adhere to the NYS building code. Some of these issues are not within the Board s purview. ROCKWOOD addressed that no subdivision be allowed; he believes that it was addressed and is in the minutes. SCHACHNER stated when a revised decision is made; clarification on no further subdivision and road maintenance agreement can be made. BABLIN referred to the February and March 2012 minutes for a road maintenance agreement and no further subdivision; she stated that they had not made it into the final approval. ROCKWOOD stated that the applicant will return to the Board when information is gathered and no decision

9 Page 9 of 9 is being made at this time. The public hearing will remain open. #12-23, GlobalFoundries (SPA) 400 Stonebreak Road ROCKWOOD reported on the contents of the reply from County Planning regarding the 239 referral dated July 20, The decision of the County Planning Board is that the project will have no significant County wide or inter community impact. The Board agreed to reaffirm the approval. Motioned by: STILES Seconded by: WOERNER RESOLUTION # Be it resolved the Malta Planning Board hereby reaffirms the July 17, 2012 approval of Project #12-23, GlobalFoundries, Site Plan Amendment. Vote: Bowman Yes, Stiles Yes, Laime Yes; Woerner Yes; Smith Yes, Wallingford Yes, Rockwood Yes Meeting adjourned at 9:25 pm Respectfully submitted, Floria Lowin Planning Board Secretary