Planning Board Minutes - March 14, 2005

Those present at the March 14, 2005 Planning Board meeting were:

Planning Board Members: Don Roberts – Vice Chairman
Rich Berkowitz
Cindy Patenaude
Marcel Nadeau
Tom Ruchlicki
John Higgins
Alternate Planning
Board Members: Bob Beck
Dan McDermid

Planner: Jeff Williams

Town Attorney: Bob Chauvin
Deputy Town Attorney: Lyn Murphy

Town Board Liaisons: Walt Polak
Mindy Wormuth

CHA Representative: Mike Bianchino


Mr. Roberts opened the March 14, 2005 Planning Board Meeting at 7:03 pm. Mr. Roberts asked the Board if they have reviewed the February 28, 2005 Planning Board Minutes. Mr. Ruchlicki abstained due to being absent from the previous meeting. Mr. Higgins made a motion to approve the February 28, 2005 Planning Board Minutes. Mr. Berkowitz seconded. Motion carried.

Public Hearing:
05.131 PH Betterbodz, 163 Route 146 – In-Home Occupation
Mr. Roberts opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 pm. Mr. Roberts asked if anyone would like to have the
Public Notice read. No one responded. Mr. Peter Reilly, Atty., is representing Ms. Joyce Kania in her In-Home Occupation Use Permit Application. Mr. Reilly stated the business name is Betterbodz and is located just south of the Vosburgh Road. Mr. Reilly stated the property is located at 163 Route 146 on a 21.79-acre parcel. Mr. Reilly stated that this In-Home Occupation is an Internet site with Internet sales of vitamins. Mr. Reilly stated that the business would be Internet sales only. Mr. Reilly stated that Betterbodz purchases vitamins in bulk wholesale and then turns around and sells these vitamins on the Internet to individual consumers. Mr. Reilly stated that looking at the criteria for the in-home occupation, Article 9 of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and the requirements for special use permits under Article 16 would not affect any of those criteria. Mr. Reilly stated there was concern under the definition of in-home occupation with two issues: no retail sales and no stock in trade. Mr. Reilly stated it was their position that this business does not offend the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Reilly stated there are absolutely no retail sales operating at this site with no consumers coming to the site. Mr. Reilly stated all sales are done over the Internet and are then shipped. Mr. Reilly stated that stock in trade is only the keeping of the wholesale vitamins for a matter of days before they are shipped to the consumer. Mr. Reilly stated no customers visit the site and all products are sold via the Internet. Mr. Reilly stated that as far as any impact, there isn’t any. Mr. Reilly stated that they are before the Board tonight seeking the approval for the In-Home Occupation Special Use Permit. Mr. Reilly stated he was open to the Public and the Board for comments and questions. Mr. Roberts asked if anyone from the Public wished to speak. No one responded. Mr. Roberts closed the Public Hearing at 7:08 pm. Mr. Nadeau asked if tractor-trailers would be making deliveries to the site. Mr. Reilly stated there would not be tractor-trailers deliveries to the site. Mr. Reilly stated there would be no more 2 trucks per day. Mr. Reilly stated that FedEx and DHL panel trucks made the deliveries. Mr. Nadeau asked Mr. Reilly if he was aware that a tractor-trailer was stuck between the two pillars. Mr. Roberts stated the Town received a complaint about a tractor-trailer being stuck at this location. Mrs. Kania stated there was a truck that did get stuck that was delivering two pieces of furniture to her site. Mrs. Kania stated that the driver of the truck was unable to judge when he turned the corner if he was going to take out one of the pillars. Mr. Roberts stated there will be no tractor-trailers allowed on this site for deliveries. Mrs. Kania stated that was correct. Mr. Higgins stated the application states that there is one employee beside the applicant. Mr. Reilly stated that was correct. Mr. Higgins stated that he had the occasion to drive by the site during the past two weeks and had observed as many as five cars parked at the site. Mr. Higgins stated that on his way to the Town Hall this evening there were two cars parked at the site at around 6:00 pm. Mr. Higgins stated he was not referring to the cars being parked at the house, but over where the business is proposed to be located. Mr. Higgins stated if there is only going to be one employee he doesn’t understand why there would be five cars parked at the site. Mrs. Kania stated that her brothers sometime come to her home to help her with her animals and help with work around her house. Mrs. Kania stated that her boyfriend is there and she does have one employee. Mrs. Kania stated that she herself owns three vehicles. Mr. Higgins stated to the applicant that he just wanted her to understand that she is only entitled to herself, family members and the one employee. Mrs. Kania stated that she understood. Mrs. Wormuth stated that the Town is looking to rezone this area with regards to the Town’s new comprehensive plan. Mr. Roberts asked if there would be a sign involved in the in-home occupation. Mr. Reilly stated there would be no signage.
Mr. Berkowitz made a motion to approve the In-Home Occupation application contingent upon no tractor-trailers are used to deliver the products. Mrs. Patenaude seconded. Motion carried.

Old Business:
04.213 OB Fairway Meadows Phase II, Johnson Road – Major Subdivision/GEIS
Mr. Roberts recused himself from this item. Mr. Scott Lansing of Lansing Engineering proposes Fairway Meadows Phase II project. Mr. Lansing stated that since the last meeting they have submitted full documents for the drawings of the water supply report, sewer report, storm water pollution prevention plan and a full set of construction documents for the proposed project. Mr. Lansing stated that all of these documents have been submitted to the Town and to CHA for their review. Mr. Lansing stated that they have received comments back from CHA and they have reviewed those comments. Mr. Lansing stated that he felt the comments were technical in nature and something that they can address. Mr. Lansing stated that he was before the Board this evening for preliminary approval for the project so they can proceed to approach DOH, DEC, County Sewer and continued to work with CHA to address their comments. Mr. Lansing stated that they would like to be back before the Board once an approval is received from DOH, DEC, County Sewer and CHA comments are satisfied for final approval. Mr. Bianchino stated the Board has reviewed SEQR for this project in its entirety and the Board did find at the time that the entire project was consistent with the GEIS, therefore, at that time the Board issued a Negative Declaration to SEQR. Mr. Bianchino stated that they did review the subdivision review and preliminary plans and in CHA’s letter they noted the mitigation fees for Phase II as required by GEIS. Mr. Bianchino stated CHA did have some technical comments regarding sanitary and storm water comments. Mr. Bianchino stated there were a couple of issues regarding the lot grading that was proposed and the constructability of the lots. Mr. Bianchino stated these comments can be addressed prior to final approval.
Mr. Higgins made a motion to grant preliminary approval of Fairway Meadows Phase II Major Subdivision/GEIS application contingent on CHA’s comment letter being addressed prior to final approval. Mr. Berkowitz seconded. Motion carried.





05.111 OB A & M Sports, McBride Road – Special Use/GEIS
&
05.119 OB A & M Sports Complex, McBride Road – Commercial PDD/GEIS
Mr. Scott Lansing of Lansing Engineering stated he was before the Board to continue discussions on the A & M Sports Complex. Mr. Lansing stated that initially the indoor gymnasium was proposed in another location. Mr. Lansing stated that at the past Planning Board meeting, there was a Public Informational Meeting to obtain comments from the Public. Mr. Lansing stated that many of the comments supported some of thoughts of the Planning Board revolving around the former proposed location of the gymnasium relative to it being in the vicinity of existing residences. Mr. Lansing stated they have also received comments from CHA in recent correspondence. Mr. Lansing stated that in response to the Town’s comments, CHA’s comments and the Public’s comments, they have relocated the gymnasium to more of a northern location behind an immediate relative of the McBride’s and away from the single-family residential uses. Mr. Lansing stated the proposed relocation is behind the Hillcrest Firehouse. Mr. Lansing stated that the parking has been situated as far as possible from the existing residences. Mr. Lansing stated that the ball fields remain in the location that was previously proposed. Mr. Lansing stated that some of the comments from CHA included a 100 FT. buffer from the residences to the proposed building and they have observed that comment. Mr. Lansing stated there would be a 100 FT. buffer from both the parking and to the building to the closest residences. Mr. Lansing stated CHA’s comment involved relocation of the PDD in accordance with the comments from the Planning Board and the Public. Mr. Lansing stated they are proposing an access for the entrance of the project off of Pruyn Hill Road in regards to CHA’s comment regarding site distance. Mr. Lansing stated that they have checked site distance and they feel that it is adequate. Mr. Lansing stated CHA’s comment in regards to insufficient parking has been addressed by expanding the parking from 66 parking spaces to approximately 145 parking spaces. Mr. Lansing stated that the applicants were looking for some input from the Board on the revisions that have been made to the plan. Mr. Lansing stated that the applicants are anxious to move forward with the Special Use Permits for the ball fields. Mr. Lansing stated that with spring coming, the applicant would like to start construction of those fields and continue to work with the Board on the site plan for the PDD with the gymnasium. Mr. Roberts stated that at prior Planning Board meetings with comments from the Public and the Board they were urging the applicant to move the buildings further to west. Mr. Lansing stated that unfortunately that land is not available to the applicants. Mr. Lansing stated that his impression of the comments from both the Board and the Public were the impact to adjacent residences and keeping a buffer for those residences. Mr. Lansing stated that in an effort to try to adhere to those concerns they shifted the site to the north so the only impact would be to an immediate relative of the McBride’s. Mrs. Wormuth stated that when the Town Board initially heard the proposal, Dr. Amann had a concern about where the driveway was proposed to be located. Mr. Lansing stated that the previous issue was that they had the facility more or less in Dr. Amman’s backyard with access next to his property. Mr. Lansing stated that it was his understanding that Dr. Amman’s issue was not necessarily with the access but more with the location of the facility. Mr. Lansing stated that Dr. Amman felt if the driveway was moved and the length of the driveway was reduced, the entire facility could be shifted to the south so the facility would be away from his home. Mr. Lansing stated they tried to go that route with the relocation of the driveway to the south and have a shorter driveway to the facility on the south but there was some opposition from the Public on that plan. Mr. Higgins asked what property was referred to when Mr. Lansing stated that the property was not available to the applicant as there are proposed fields and outdoor basketball courts proposed in that area. Mr. Lansing stated that the property would not be available for the PDD/facility but the fields have always been proposed in that area. Mr. Lansing stated that the owners of the parcel do not want to make the minimum required 10-acre parcel for the proposed PDD available in the central western portion of the property. Mr. Higgins inquired if the new proposed 120 parking spots include the previous proposed 66 parking spots located by the fields. Mr. Lansing stated that was correct. Mr. Higgins asked if the parking spots were part of the proposed PDD. Mr. Lansing stated that the parking spots are for the Special Use and the PDD. Mr. Lansing stated there was a comment that there were not enough spaces for the Special Use and the PDD project. Mr. Lansing stated the 145 parking spots include the 65 spots in one area and the remainder in another area. Mr. Lansing stated that because the ball fields and parking spots were not permanent structures, the landowner did not mind those being in that location. Mrs. Patenaude stated that she did see some improvements being made in regard to comments made, however, she is confused because it was her understanding from the original meeting that these were two separate issues and they wanted to go ahead with the Special Use Permit regardless of whether or not they went ahead with the PDD. Mrs. Patenaude asked if she was correct in making that statement. Mr. Lansing stated that Mrs. Patenaude was correct that one project hinged upon the other project. Mr. Lansing stated they wanted to get a location on the building so that the ball fields were not constructed and something would need to be demolished so the other project could be constructed. Mr. Lansing stated they are trying to get some direction from the Board so they can move forward immediately with the Special Use Permit and still work with the Board on the PDD. Mrs. Wormuth asked if the Special Use Permit was completely separate from the PDD and if the applicant’s wanted the Special Use Permit regardless. Mr. Lansing stated that this was correct. Mr. Steve McBride stated that the PDD application is for the building and the Special Use Permit is for the ball fields. Mr. McBride stated that he would not own the ball fields but he would like a Special Use Permit so that he would be able to operate softball leagues, clinics, etc. Mr. McBride stated that they want parking for the building and they want enough parking for the Special Use Permit and they do hinge on each other. Mr. McBride stated that if the building is never constructed then he still wants to obtain the Special Use Permit. Mr. Chauvin stated that he needed clarification on which parcel the parking would be on for the property that is going to be covered by the facilities and which parcel the parking would be on for property that is going to be the open fields. Mr. Chauvin asked if the two parking parcels would overlap. Mr. Lansing stated that they would not overlap. Mr. Lansing stated there would be 65 parking spaces for the gymnasium and 80 parking spaces for the Special Use Permit. Mr. Chauvin asked if they would be separate parcels. Mr. Lansing stated they would be separate parcels. Mr. Lansing stated they are proposing an access road connector between the two uses, which has been recommended by CHA. Mr. Higgins asked if there would be two separate access points. Mr. Lansing stated there would be two separate access points, one on McBride Road and one on Pruyn Hill Road. Mr. Lansing stated that there was one existing access and they are proposing a second access to the site. Mr. Higgins questioned if the Board approves the Special Use Permit and the PDD is not approved, how would they access the parking. Mr. Lansing stated the access would be from McBride Road. Mr. Higgins asked if a traffic study has been conducted. Mr. Lansing stated they are currently in the process of conducting a traffic study. Mr. Nadeau stated in one of CHA’s review letters on the previous application CHA recommended the entrance to be located on McBride Road. Mr. Nadeau asked Mr. Bianchino how the new proposed entrance would fit into the plan. Mr. Bianchino stated that the concern was about the location of the driveway in the midst of the existing residential property. Mr. Bianchino stated that the new proposal has moved the driveway to a point where it is closer to the Firehouse. Mr. Bianchino stated he is still in the process of reviewing the new driveway proposal. Mr. Lansing stated that the proposed access is on an existing 60 FT. ROW. Mr. Bianchino stated he would like to see the traffic study. Mr. Bianchino stated that the Board, from a SEQR standpoint could issue Lead Agency notifications. Mr. Chauvin stated that the Lead Agency notifications might get the ball rolling with the County and they could see any transportation issues that might mitigate that they change the location of the entrance. Mr. Roberts stated that in the new proposal there is mention that the new facility would be located behind a member of the McBride family. Mr. Roberts stated that at the Public Hearing members of the family stated they had no problems with the proposed project but voiced their concerns that they didn’t want the facility located near their homes. Mr. Roberts asked what member of the family would the new proposed facility be behind. Mr. Steve McBride stated that the new proposed facility would be located behind his home. Mr. McBride stated that he has talked with the neighbors with the concerns and he stated they were happy with the 100 FT. buffer. Mr. Nadeau asked if there are any new benefits to the Town. Mr. Lansing stated the benefits would be the same as were previously outlined. Mr. Polak stated that he wanted to make sure that Dr. Amann is aware of the new proposed location. Mr. Polak stated that moving the proposed project ahead will at least allow for the Special Use Permit for the upcoming baseball season. Mr. Roberts stated that Mr. Higgins and Mr. Ruchlicki would be the committee review team for the proposed project.
Mrs. Patenaude made a motion to accept Lead Agency as per SEQR and asked CHA to send out the notices. Mr. Berkowitz seconded. Motion carried.



05.125 OB Casale Rent-All, 1641 Route 9 – Concept Commercial Site Plan
Mr. Tom Andress of ABD Engineering stated that when he was previously before the Board he had introduced the Casale Rent-All project. Mr. Andress stated that the applicant, Mr. Tony Casale, currently operates out of the True Value Hardware store on Route 9. Mr. Andress stated the proposal is to move Mr. Casales rental business across the street on Route 9 just south of Mabey’s Self-storage. Mr. Andress stated the proposed parcel does have some frontage onto Route 9 and the bulk of the useable land is in the rear of the property. Mr. Andress stated that the proposed site has a deeded access by easement through Mabey’s property but they are not proposing to use that at this time. Mr. Andress stated that there are deeded rights to a private road that is located on the southern edge of the property and the property provides access to an apartment complex in the rear and access to other properties that abut it by deeded access. Mr. Andress stated the proposed use is for a rental business. Mr. Andress stated the building would be 6,000 SF that have would be used for sales and rental area with some office space and a small engine repair. Mr. Andress stated they are proposing a building just under 10,000 SF for a pole barn that would allow all the larger equipment to be stored under cover. Mr. Andress stated that the last time they were before the Board, CHA has had an opportunity to review the plans. Mr. Andress stated they have responded to a few of the comments that CHA had. Mr. Andress stated there has been some rearranging with the buildings due to sewer easement that runs through the property. Mr. Andress stated there would be parking in the front of the building for customer parking. Mr. Andress stated they have added equipment display. Mr. Andress stated that they have also added in an area for fueling that would be used only exclusively by the rental business. Mr. Andress stated there would be a 250-gallon above ground diesel and also propane that would be under cover and would meet all the requirements of the DEC standards. Mr. Berkowitz asked if any propane would be sold. Mr. Casale stated that propane would be available for sale. Mr. Andress stated that behind the building there would be some open area for open storage that was one of the comments in CHA’s letter. Mr. Andress stated that this open area would be buffered from a residential home in the front and apartment complex in the rear. Mr. Andress stated they are proposing 6 FT. hardwood fences for the buffers that would be located along the line of an existing mobile home and a garage to define the space. Mr. Andress stated that one of the issues that were submitted to the Town was to look at the easements. Mr. Andress stated one of the issues was the access road stating that it appeared to be 22 FT. in width. Mr. Andress stated that they did measure the easement because a survey has not been done. Mr. Andress stated their measurement varied from about 26 FT. down to 18 FT. Mr. Andress stated that they are proposing to widen the road so there would be a minimum width of 24 FT. Mr. Nadeau asked if the Hatlee’s have a home near the proposed site. Mr. Andress stated yes that the Hatlees do have a home and a garage near the proposed site. Mr. Nadeau asked what type of buffer they have proposed for the Hatlee property. Mr. Andress stated the original plan showed a berm with some trees that has now been modified that to 6 FT. wood fencing. Mr. Andress stated they are looking to still have some visibility on Route 9 to see the buildings locations. Mr. Higgins asked if a sign has been proposed and where would that be located. Mr. Andress stated the sign is something that still needs to be worked out. Mr. Berkowitz asked if there were storage areas in the front of the site. Mr. Andress stated there would be an equipment display area and the rest of the storage would be behind the structures. Mr. Higgins asked where the aerial lifts are stored. Mr. Casale stated that some would be inside the building and some would be outside the building. Mr. Higgins stated that if these aerial lifts were stored in the equipment display area that some of the neighbors might get upset. Mr. Casale stated that this is the reason they are putting the fence up as opposed to the berm which could be seen through. Mr. Roberts asked if there would be any materials that will be stored outside. Mr. Andress stated there would be an area near the pole barn. Mr. Andress stated that materials would be salt/sand in small bins that he currently uses at the True Value site. Mr. Berkowitz asked if mulch and other landscaping types of materials. Mr. Casale stated yes that they do sell mulch and topsoil. Mr. Higgins asked if this area would be strictly storage of material that they would be buying from someone else and would not be processing any of these materials on site. Mr. Casale stated that was correct. Mrs. Patenaude if there was another area they could move the small equipment display, as it would right along the property line near the neighboring residents and would the small equipment display be strictly for display or will this equipment be rented out. Mr. Andress stated that the small equipment in the display area would be available for rental. Mr. Andress stated that as the project progresses, they can do some work with the buffer and at the present time the project is still in a conceptual stage. Mr. Nadeau stated he was concerned with the noise that would be generated in the small equipment display area. Mr. Casale stated there is an existing building and a big garage that would buffer the area and also a fence. Mrs. Wormuth stated that one of the issues the Board is not having an accurate depicted site plan showing where the residence is and the structures in between. Mrs. Wormuth stated that with this concern it is becoming an issue regarding buffering and visibility. Mr. Andress stated that they recognize that and they would move to the next level with survey work but what they wanted to do first is make sure the proposal was reviewed by CHA. Mr. Andress stated that after CHA’s review then they could receive CHA’s comments and received feedback from the Board and then they could proceed to that level to be able to show CHA and the Board all the improvements and the topography. Mr. Nadeau asked if the neighbors had been approached on the proposed project. Mr. Casale stated that he had. Mr. Casale stated he has proposed the project to the Board to make sure the project was conceptually acceptable and then they would move to the next level. Mr. Patenaude stated that the Board would need more detailed survey wetland delineation. Mr. Polak asked where the wetlands drain to. Mr. Andress stated that there was piping for drainage that runs over the top of the sewer. Mr. Bianchino stated the comments from the applicant have added information that CHA had asked for and stated that the Board does have additional concerns. Mr. Roberts stated that Mrs. Patenaude and Mr. Berkowitz would be the committee review team for the proposed project.
This item was tabled and referred to CHA for review.

New Business:
05.129 NB Resnick Mattress, 1683 Route 9 (St. John’s Plaza) – Sign
Mr. David Kollar of Olson Sign Company is representing Resnick Mattress for their proposed sign application. Mr. Kollar stated that the applicant wishes to replace their existing freestanding sign with a new sign. Mr. Kollar stated the applicant is proposing a 32 SF sign that is 6 SF smaller than the existing sign. Mr. Kollar stated the applicant is proposing for additional height on the new sign. Mr. Kollar stated that the existing sign is 8 FT. and they are proposing a 12 FT. high to the top. Mr. Kollar stated that the reason the are proposing the 12 FT. sign is because the Resnick Mattress Store is located in a very commercial area. Mr. Kollar stated the existing sign is too low and is blocked by the St. John’s Plaza sign and it does not attract customers to the site. Mr. Kollar stated that the proposed sign has less advertising on the top portion of the sign. Mr. Kollar stated that an existing real estate sign hides about 90% of the existing Resnick Mattress sign from one direction. Mr. Kollar stated the applicant is asking to move the sign up an additional 4 FT. Mr. Kollar stated that he does not believe it will obstruct any other signs at the Plaza. Mr. Roberts stated the reason for the size of the existing Resnick sign is because it would not block out the St. John’s Plaza sign. Mr. Roberts stated that because the Resnick Mattress store is located very close to Route 9 it was agreed that the existing smaller sign would be acceptable because of the visibility it had to Route 9. Mr. Roberts stated he had concern with raising the height of the sign. Mr. Nadeau stated that a solution could be to remove the real estate sign if it is blocking the Resnick Mattress. Mr. Kollar stated that when driving on Route 9 because of the snow that is plowed it is up, to the bottom of the sign and is very hard to see from Route 9 as you are driving by. Mr. Higgins stated that originally St. John’s Plaza was not suppose to have it’s own separate sign but the Board allowed the Plaza sign so it would give the Plaza it’s own identity. Mr. Higgins stated that all the signs were suppose to be on the Plaza’s pedestal. Mr. Higgins stated the existing Resnick Mattress sign has been at that location for many years and he does feel the need for a different dimension sign. Mr. Kollar asked if the sign could be replaced by a new sign at the same height as the existing sign. Mr. Kollar stated the sign needs to be replaced because if is rotting away. Mr. Roberts asked if it would be the same sign at the same size. Mr. Kollar stated the sign would be smaller. Mr. Kollar stated the new proposed sign would be double-sided with the dimensions of 4 FT. by 8 FT. and internally lit. Mr. Roberts stated no neon. Mr. Kollar agreed the sign would have no neon it would be florescent. Mrs. Wormuth stated to the Board that there have been applicants from St. John’s Plaza who have stated that they felt that their sign visibility is poor and they would like to have individual sign, add signs to the pylon and put different signs in the roadway between the Resnick sign. Mrs. Wormuth asked the Board to take into consideration that other businesses at the Plaza also feel that their businesses are not seen adequately from the road. Mr. Roberts and Mrs. Patenaude stated that other tenants in the St. John’s Plaza all have their signs over their stores and they feel that other tenants will approach the Board stating that the new Resnick sign is blocking their sign. Mr. Roberts stated that he does not see a problem with replacing the existing sign but he does not want to see any changes made to the height of the sign. Mr. Berkowitz asked if the new proposed sign would be even with the peak of the old sign. Mr. Kollar stated yes it would be. Mr. Kollar stated the sign would be taller but smaller overall. Mr. Berkowitz asked if the name on the sign would be changed. Mr. Kollar stated yes as the business name has changed over the years. Mr. Berkowitz asked if they would be replacing Resnick’s Troy Mattress Outlet name on the new proposed sign. Mr. Kollar stated no because the bottom of the sign is the portion that is rotting away and would have to be taken down. Mr. Berkowitz made a recommendation that the applicant be allowed to replace the existing sign with the wording changed and the design would be the same as the existing sign. Mr. Chauvin stated that the applicant has the option to modify their application or the Board can act on the present application. Mr. Chauvin stated that if the applicant wants to replace the existing sign with the exact same sign they would just need a building permit. Mr. Chauvin stated if the applicant wants a new sign they would need the approval from the Planning Board. Mr. Kollar stated that it was mentioned by the board that there could be no neon. Mr. Kollar stated that the existing sign is neon. Mr. Kollar asked if the would have to replace the neon. Mr. Higgins asked if it was exposed neon. Mr. Kollar stated no that the neon was covered. Mr. Kollar asked if there were concerns with how the sign was lit internally. Mr.
Roberts asked if any of the neon would be exposed. Mr. Kollar stated that no internal lighting would be exposed. Mr. Roberts stated that if the internal lights were not exposed then it would be okay.
Mrs. Patenaude made a motion to deny the sign application. Mr. Nadeau seconded. Motion carried.

05.135 NB Mocha Lisa’s Internet Café, 1683 Route 9 (St. John’s Plaza) – Change of
Tenant & Sign
Mr. Ed Esposito from St. John’s Plaza Development LLC is proposing a change of tenant and sign application for Mocha Lisa’s Internet Café. Mr. Esposito stated the new tenant, Mocha Lisa’s, proposes to occupy the former 1,564 SF MetLife Office in St. John’s Plaza. Mr. Esposito stated that the sign would not exceed the existing signboard that exists on the façade. Mr. Esposito stated there would be no change in the parking. Mr. Esposito stated there are 8 parking spaces that are designated for this office space. Mr. Esposito stated that 6 parking spaces are required for the 18 seats proposed at Mocha Lisa’s. Mr. Esposito stated there would be 4 Internet stations and would have a “Friends” type of environment with a higher end living room coffee house. . Mr. Esposito stated the mocha colored sign dimension will be 30” x 8’8”. Mr. Chauvin asked if there are lights over the existing sign. Mr. Esposito stated there are no lights over the sign. Mr. Esposito stated that the new tenant has requested 4 hook lights above the sign. Mr. Berkowitz asked if the hook lights are currently above the sign. Mr. Esposito stated the hook lights are not currently in place above the sign. Mr. Chauvin asked if other tenants had the hook lights above their signs. Mr. Esposito stated no. Mr. Berkowitz asked if a permit was required from the Department of Health for a restaurant. Mr. Esposito stated they would only have coffee. Mr. Higgins stated that if any type of food is served a New York State Department of Health approval is required. Mr. Roberts asked how many employees there would be. Mr. Esposito stated there would be two. Mr. Higgins asked what the hours of operation would be. Mr. Esposito stated the hours of operation would be 6am to 9pm seven days a week.
Mr. Higgins made a motion to approve the change of tenant and sign application for Mocha Lisa’s Internet Café contingent on no “hook lights” for the exterior sign lights. Mr. Higgins stated the proposed sign above the storefront will have the same dimensions as the existing sign and should be internally lit. Mr. Berkowitz seconded. Motion carried.

05.136 NB Noradki Subdivision, 30 Ushers Road – Minor Subdivision
Mr. Andrew Schauffert of Santo Associates proposes a minor subdivision application of two lots that is a boundary line revision. Mr. Schauffert stated that the parcel consist of approximately 8-acres owned by the Noradki’s located at 30 Ushers Road. Mr. Schauffert stated that the Canadian Pacific Railroad bisects this parcel. Mr. Schauffert stated the Noradki’s propose to convey a parcel of .0910-acre to Jennifer Pipino who currently owns a lot adjacent to the Noradki land. Mr. Schauffert stated that the addition of the .0910-acre would bring the parcel to 60,000 SF that is the minimum lot size area in a Light Industrial zoned area. Mr. Schauffert stated that the Pipino’s propose to use the lot for residential construction. Mr. Williams stated that the residential use would not be allowed in this zone. Mr. Schauffert asked if a special use permit could be obtained for a residence in that zone. Mr. Schauffert stated that the property is currently being used as a residence. Mr. Chauvin stated that the subdivision is acceptable but the proposed residential use is not acceptable in this zone. Mr. Schauffert asked if there is a possibility of obtaining variance. Mr. Chauvin stated that the applicant would have to apply for a variance separate. Mr. Chauvin stated that the subdivision is acceptable based on lot conformance but the Board cannot imply that the subdivision would have a condition that it would be for residential use because that is not permitted in the zone. Mr. Schauffert asked if he should appear before the ZBA for a variance and return to the Planning Board for the subdivision approval. Mr. Chauvin stated that he would be able to obtain the subdivision but they cannot designate it for residential use. Mr. Chauvin stated that subdivision would be in conformance with the ordinance that would be Commercial but then they would have to apply for the variance. Mr. Chauvin stated the Planning Board could deny the minor subdivision application but then they would not have a conforming lot to obtain a variance from the ZBA. Mr. Schauffert stated that they would proceed with the subdivision. Mr. Schauffert stated that after the approval of the subdivision from the Planning Board, they would then proceed for a variance from the ZBA. Mr. Chauvin stated that they could schedule a Public Hearing but they would need to make sure that any reference to residential use for the parcel would be deleted from their map. Mrs. Patenaude asked if the mobile home would remain on the property. Mr. Schauffert stated that the mobile home is stored on the property and they intend to remove the mobile home as soon as the snow melts.
Mr. Berkowitz made a motion to set a Public Hearing for the March 28, 2005 Planning Board meeting. Mrs. Patenaude seconded. Motion carried.

05.137 NB Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Route 236 & Betts Lane – Sign
Mr. Mark Haskin a representative of the local Kingdom Hall proposes a double-sided sign. Mr. Haskin stated they currently have a single-sided sign. Mr. Haskin stated they are proposing the double-sided sign due to the currently sign being small and it would have better visibility from the roadway. Mr. Haskin stated that most of the other signs are double-sided and other churches in the area have double-sided signs, such as the Temple Baptist Church and the Harvest Church. Mr. Haskin stated that the proposed double-side sign would be lit externally. Mr. Haskin stated the proposed sign dimensions are 3.85 FT. x 6.92 FT. with stone columns on either side of the sign. Mr. Haskin stated they have had a lot of visitors from different areas weekly and these people have had a hard time spotting the Kingdom Hall sign as they drive up. Mr. Roberts stated that when the building was constructed, a sign was mentioned at that time and the Board was told that the sign would not be issue because everyone knew where the Kingdom Hall was located. Mrs. Patenaude stated that the sign application was discussed at great length at another Planning Board meeting and at that time the Board stated the sign was not appropriate and would like the opinion from council. Mr. Haskin stated that they did apply for a sign application and were denied and they were under the impression that they had to wait a year to reapply. Mr. Chauvin stated to Mr. Haskin that he would refer the sign application to the Deputy Town Attorney, Mrs. Murphy, for review.
This item was tabled to allow the Town Attorney’s to review past denial of signage.

05.138 NB Arlington Heights, Farm to Market Road – Major Subdivision PDD/GEIS
This item was removed from the agenda per the applicant’s request.

05.139 NB Thomas Nicolla Consulting Services, PPLC, 6 Corporate Drive – Change
of Tenant
Mr. Tom Andress of ABD Engineering is submitting a change of tenant application for 6 Corporate Drive in the Halfmoon Sportsplex. Mr. Andress stated that there was an original proposal before the Board for a retail shop included within the confines of the sports facility. Mr. Andress stated that the applicant proposes to replace the retail area with a professional physical therapy use called Thomas Nicolla Consulting Services. Mr. Andress stated that this firm has offices throughout the Capital District with one location across from the Shenendehowa School Campus. Mr. Andress stated that the applicant tries to locate offices where there is demand for professional physical therapy and physical training. Mr. Andress stated their services would be open to anyone in the facility and anyone from the general public. Mr. Roberts stated to Mr. Andress that the Sportplex would lose the retail area if this application were approved. Mr. Andress stated he was aware of the loss of the retail area. Mr. Berkowitz asked if there would be any vending machines. Mr. Andress stated that as you walk into the Sportplex building there is an arcade on the left and upstairs there may be a soda machine. Mr. Berkowitz asked if the hours of operation were Monday through Friday and they would not be operational on the weekends. Mr. Andress stated no physical activity services would be available on the weekend. Mrs. Wormuth stated that she understood that this was a permitted use for a PDD but would like to review how the fees were paid on the building as far as uses. Mrs. Wormuth stated that all the permitted fees are up-to-date and that the parking is in compliance. Mr. Chauvin stated if the Board is going to move forward with the approval he would like to have Mr. Williams and Mr. Murphy calculate what the required fees would be and make it a condition of any approval granted. Mr. Chauvin stated any additional fees would need to be collected before a stamped approval and the resolution. Mrs. Patenaude stated that the Board was okay with the parking for the retail space and questioned if the physical therapy business had comparable parking needs as the retail space.
Mrs. Berkowitz made a motion to approve the Thomas Nicolla Consulting Services application contingent upon Mr. Williams’ and Mr. Murphy’s review of required building fees and review of parking. Mrs. Patenaude seconded. Motion carried.

05.140 NB Guideboard Road Retail Building, Guideboard Road – Commercial Site Plan
Mr. Tom Andress of ABD Engineering proposes a commercial site plan for a retail building located on Guideboard Road between the Country Dollar Plaza and the NBT Bank. Mr. Andress stated that this parcel has an existing curb cut and an existing access drive that goes to the bank. Mr. Andress stated that the application is proposing a retail plaza utilizing the existing access. Mr. Andress stated at the edge of the existing access pavement a parking area is proposed so no additional pavement will be needed. Mr. Andress stated that as part of the approval process a 10 FT. strip was conveyed to the County for future road improvements through that area. Mr. Andress stated they are proposing double parking with an access road running through the middle. Mr. Andress stated that the proposed building would be used for a standard retail plaza with an overhang similar to the St. John’s Plaza. Mr. Andress stated they are proposing additional parking in the rear for tenant use and access to the rear for deliveries. Mr. Andress stated that there would be a center aisle coming off of the access strip to the Bank. Mrs. Patenaude stated that she had concern with parked car backing up into the access road that leads to the bank. Mr. Andress stated that he understood the concern with the cars backing up but it would depend on the volume of traffic. Mr. Andress stated that the bank did not have a large volume of traffic except at certain times during the day. Mr. Polak asked if the ROW was 5 FT. to the parking area. Mr. Polak stated that he did not like the idea of cars parking in the parking lot and shining headlights into the oncoming traffic. Mr. Polak stated he also had concerns for snow removal. Mr. Andress stated that the ROW was 10 FT. between the proposed parking area and the edge of the access road. Mr. Berkowitz stated that many parking spaces would be lost in the winter due to snow removal. Mr. Andress stated that stated that berming could be used to eliminate headlights shining into oncoming traffic. Mr. Andress stated that this issue would be looked at as the project progresses. Mr. Polak stated that the size of the building might have to be reduced to have adequate parking. Mr. Nadeau stated that maybe the building was too large for the proposed site. Mr. Andress stated that the proposed building width was 65 FT. and in order to make a retail store work the building should be 55 to 65 SQ. FT. Mr. Bianchino speculates that the parking at the Flooring Warehouse probably encroaches on the property line. Mr. Bianchino stated the Board would need to look at the existing parking lines. Mr. Bianchino stated that proposed retail building might have an impact on those existing spaces at the Flooring Warehouse.
This item was tabled and referred to CHA for review.

Mrs. Patenaude made a motion to adjourn the March 14, 2005 Planning Board Meeting at 8:30 pm.
Mr. Higgins seconded. Motion carried.


Respectfully submitted,

Milly Pascuzzi
Planning Board Secretary