Planning Board Minutes - April 25, 2005

Those present at the April 25, 2005 Planning Board meeting were:

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


Planner: Jeff Williams

Town Attorney: Bob Chauvin

Town Board Liaisons: Mindy Wormuth
Jim Bold

CHA Representative: Mike Bianchino

Mr. Watts opened the April 25, 2005 Planning Board Meeting at 7:02 pm. Mr. Watts asked the Board if they have reviewed the April 11, 2005 Planning Board Minutes. Mr. Roberts made a motion to approve the April 11, 2005 Planning Board Minutes. Mrs. Patenaude seconded. Motion carried.

Public Hearings:
04.223 PH Vosburgh Road Commercial PDD, Vosburgh Road – Minor Subdivision
PDD & GEIS
Mr. Watts opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 pm. Mr. Watts asked if anyone would like to have the Public Notice read. No one responded. Mr. Scott Lansing of Lansing Engineering presented the Commercial Subdivision plan for the Vosburgh Road PDD for the Public Hearing. Mr. Lansing stated the proposal is for a 1-lot subdivision that is in accordance with the PDD that was approved by the Town Board several months ago. Mr. Lansing stated that the 3-lot subdivision consist of: Lot #1 is approximately 1.10-acres that is proposed for professional office use, Lot #2 is approximately 58.58-acres proposed to be dedicated to the Town for open space and Lot #3 is a separate parcel approximately 2.62-acres and is proposed for a Stewart’s shop that is under a separate proposal by Stewart’s Corporation. Mr. Lansing stated he was before the Board for Public comment. Mr. Watts asked if anyone from the Public wished to speak. Mr. Joe Anuszewski stated that he lives next door to the proposed project. Mr. Anuszewski asked if there would be a buffer around the proposed professional office building. Mr. Tanski stated that they would place a berm and shrubbery along the property line. Mr. Nadeau stated he had mentioned that the building would need a buffer for Mr. Anuszewski’s property. Mr. Tanski stated that when Mr. Nadeau brought up the need for a buffer around Mr. Anuszewski’s property to their attention, it was their intent to put trees along the property line. Mr. Tanski stated that he would buffer the property to Mr. Anuszewski’s satisfaction. Mr. Anuszewski stated he was agreeable with Mr. Tanski’s proposal for the buffering of his property. Mr. Watts closed the Public Hearing at 7:06 pm. Mr. Nadeau asked Mr. Chauvin if all other issues were addressed or should the approval be contingent upon those issues. Mr. Chauvin stated he had not looked at the GEIS or talked to Mr. Bianchino about the boundary lines of the water and drafting of PDD legislation. Mr. Chauvin stated the approval should be contingent upon those two issues. Mr. Higgins asked if the area around the cell tower had been cleaned up. Mr. Tanski stated yes. Mr. Chauvin asked Mr. Tanski if he had a time line on when he would be deeding the property over to the Town. Mr. Tanski stated he was going to work this issue out with Mrs. Wormuth and whatever she was confortable with.
Mr. Nadeau made a motion to approve the Vosburgh Road Commercial PDD Minor Subdivision PDD & GEIS contingent upon the review of the legal information by the Town Attorney. Mr. Roberts seconded. Motion carried.
Mr. Watts stated that he would read a letter into the record of the minutes that was
received from Chris Abele via fax on April, 25, 2005 at 2:25 pm. Mr. Watts stated that he would take comments from the Planning Board Members after the letter has been read. Mr. Watts read the letter.
*(see attachment)
Mr. Higgins stated that during the Public Hearing Meeting and numerous discussions with the developer for Sheldon Hills they discussed the Vosburgh Road traffic improvements including a traffic light. Mr. Higgins stated that the Planning Board minutes of the Sheldon Hills project would reflect that the applicant acknowledged that, when required, the Vosburgh Road improvements and the traffic light would be the applicant’s responsibility. Mr. Berkowitz agreed with Mr. Higgins statement. Mr. Berkowitz further stated that he recalled that it would be a private matter between the two landowners and not the Town. Mr. Watts stated it was his understanding that there have been numerous discussions where Mr. Abele has approached the Town Board and members of the Town Board have reiterated that decision to Mr. Abele. Mr. Chauvin stated he was not involved in the discussions or negotiations of the Vosburgh Road improvements. Mr. Chauvin further stated that he has been advised consistently from the beginning of the project that those improvements were to be handled as part of Sheldon Hills. Mr. Chauvin stated that all the work that has been done including the SEQR review, the outside district user agreement, the Planned Development District (PDD) legislation, the traffic study and everything that formed the basis for the approval for the project is geared to the Sheldon Hills project paying for those improvements. Mr. Chauvin stated that pursuant to the representations Mr. Michaels and Mr. Abele made, both on the record at the Planning Board, when he was present, and with representatives from the Town Board when they met, at this point those are conditions precedent to that project going forward and the PDD’s approval.

05.147 PH Cruver Subdivision, 72 Cary Road – Minor Subdivision
Mr. Watts opened the Public Hearing at 7:11 pm. Mr. Watts asked if anyone would like to have the Public Notice read. No one responded. Mr. Dave Flanders of David A. Flanders Associates proposes a 1-lot subdivision to create a one-acre parcel from an existing 6.4-acre parcel at the intersection of Tabor Road and Cary Road. Mr. Flanders stated that the purpose of the subdivision is so the applicants can build a new home for themselves and the remaining approximately 5.4-acre parcel would contain their existing residence and a barn. Mr. Flanders stated that the outbuildings and pole-barn would be removed from the property as the boundary line would bisect those existing buildings. Mr. Watts asked if anyone from the Public wished to speak. Mr. Watts closed the Public Hearing at 7:13 pm. Mr. Nadeau stated he has looked at the Cruver Minor Subdivision proposal and saw no issues with this project.
Mr. Nadeau made a motion to approve the Cruver Minor Subdivision. Mrs. Patenaude seconded. Motion carried.

05.148 PH NYSEG Raylinsky Lane Regulator Site – Special Use Permit
Mr. Watts opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 pm. Mr. Watts asked if anyone would like to have the Public Notice read. No one responded. Mr. James Grant, representative for NYSEG, stated that due to the amount of growth in the Town of Halfmoon it has put a strain on NYSEG’s electric system. Mr. Grant stated that they have taken some proven measures to do the most economical things they could to meet the electrical demand and are at the point where the next most logical move is to install some regulators at a couple different sites around NYSEG’s system. Mr. Grant stated that NYSEG currently has a transmission line located at the Raylinsky Lane. Mr. Grant stated that proposal for Raylinsky Lane site would be for 3 regulators. Mr. Grant stated the site would be fenced in with a chain-linked fence topped with barbwire and around the chain-linked fence area will be a decorative fence. Mr. Grant stated that Mr. Tanski has agreed to do landscaping around the decorative fence area. Mr. Grant stated that the landscaping would be done in a fashion that would be consistent with the other landscaping in the area. Mr. Grant stated that they have met with adjacent property owners and have explained to them the proposed regulator site and buffering that would be done to have the least amount impact possible to the area. Mr. Watts asked if anyone from the Public wished to speak. Mr. Everett Graham, a resident of Raylinsky Lane, asked where the proposed regulator site would be located on Raylinsky Lane. Mr. Grant stated the proposed site is adjacent to the existing NYSEG transmission line on Raylinsky Lane. Mr. Nadeau asked if there has been any comment on Mr. Fusco’s issues on the buffering. Mr. Grant stated that he has met with Mr. Fusco and stated to Mr. Fusco that the regulator site would have a lot of screening. Mr. Grant stated that Mr. Fusco was agreeable with the proposed buffering. Mr. Nadeau asked if Mr. Fusco could submit some type of written document stating he was agreeable with the proposed buffering and did not have a problem where the regulators would be located. Mr. Tanski stated the proposed site is the only place in the area for NYSEG to install the regulator site. Mr. Tanski stated the only alternative is that NYSEG would have is to put the regulators on telephone poles located along the road. Mr. Tanski stated that he was privy to the meeting with Mr. Fusco and he is in complete agreement with the proposal. Mr. Chauvin stated he had no problem with getting a letter from Mr. Fusco stating he was agreeable with the proposal but he did not want to create a precedent where the Planning Board has a Public Hearings and the people don’t show up and then the Board is delaying action or not taking action in deference to someone who didn’t write a letter to the Board or did not attend the Public Hearings. Mr. Chauvin stated he would like to get the letter from Mr. Fusco but he did not want to see it as condition or contingency on the approval of the proposed project. Mr. Tanski stated that he would get something in writing from Mr. Fusco. Mrs. Patenaude asked what the height would be of the decorative fence around the chain-linked fence. Mr. Grant stated he was still working on the fence with Mr. Tanski and Mr. Fusco. Mr. Grant stated that an 8 FT. fence would be the highest they could get and the landscaping would be higher than the entire facility once it fully matures. Mr. Higgins asked if there was a lease arrangement with Mr. Vincent Russell as the proposed regulator site would be located on his property. Mr. Grant stated that NYSEG has an easement arrangement with Mr. Russell. Mr. Higgins asked if it was an existing easement. Mr. Grant stated yes. Mr. Higgins asked Mr. Chauvin if he had a copy of the easement agreement. Mr. Chauvin stated that he has reviewed the easement agreement document and is satisfied with NYSEG’s right to use the property in the fashion that has been described.
Mr. Berkowitz made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit for NYSEG Raylinsky Lane Regulator Site. Mr. Higgins seconded. Motion carried.

Old Business:
05.111 OB A & M Sports Complex, McBride Road – Special Use Permit/GEIS
Mr. Scott Lansing of Lansing Engineering presented a proposal for a Special Use Permit for the proposed A & M Sports Complex located on McBride Road. Mr. Lansing stated he was before the Board to advance the Special Use Permit for the project as the applicants are anxious to get the ball fields associated with Special Use Permit constructed so they could be utilized for this years upcoming recreational season. Mr. Lansing stated that the Special Use Permit includes 3 softball fields and 3 outdoor basketball courts with associated parking. Mr. Lansing stated they estimate 80 parking spaces for the Special Use Permit facility. Mr. Lansing stated that the proposed PDD area includes a 20,000 SF gymnasium that includes indoor basketball courts and indoor racquetball courts and includes approximately 65 parking spaces. Mr. Lansing stated that a traffic study has been performed for the project including all the uses on site; the soccer fields, the Special Use Permit and the PDD. Mr. Lansing stated the traffic study has been submitted to CHA for review. Mr. Lansing stated he was before the Board hoping to set a Public Hearing for the Special Use Permit for the project. Mr. Lansing stated they were also before the Board hoping to set a date for a meeting with the committee members for the PDD sometime after the Public Hearing for the Special Use Permit. Mr. Nadeau stated that knowing that the Board was not comfortable with the whole site, why would the Board want to grant the Special Use Permit at this time. Mr. Nadeau stated there are a lot of issues with the PDD site plan that have not been addressed. Mr. Lansing stated that it was his understanding that the issues with the PDD site plan involved the location of the building. Mr. Lansing stated that the location of the proposed gym building was formally proposed to the adjacent residents. Mr. Lansing stated that these residents had expressed concern with the location of the building and since that time the applicants have relocated the proposed PDD building directly behind their own home. Mr. Lansing stated that he feels they have mitigated that concern from both the Board and the Public. Mr. Lansing stated that parking was another concern and they have increased the amount of parking and they are working with CHA to make sure there is adequate parking for the site. Mr. Lansing again stated the applicants are very anxious to have the fields built for the upcoming season that is outside of the range of the PDD. Mr. Higgins stated that he believes, in his personal opinion, that the Board gave the applicant the indication that moving the proposed facility over behind his home was totally unacceptable to the Board. Mr. Higgins stated that he questioned about moving the facility further onto the property and the applicant stated that the property owners were hesitant to do that. Mr. Higgins further stated he was still not comfortable with the proposed facilities location being behind the applicant’s home. Mr. Higgins stated if the fields are going to be constructed, then the Board is almost locked into either accepting or rejecting the PDD’s location. Mr. Higgins stated that the applicant should understand that if the Board accepts the location of the fields, the Board may or may not accept the location of the PDD facility at a future date. Mr. Lansing stated that he believes the applicants do understand that and he would express that to the applicants once again. Mr. Lansing stated that he may have gotten the wrong impression at the last few meetings which he definitely felt that the old location was a problem for both the Board and the Public and they had submitted a new proposed location so it would impact only the applicants. Mr. Lansing stated that if the Board were to push the PDD facility back into the parcel, that land is not available to the applicant so the PDD would most likely not happen for the applicants. Mr. Lansing stated that a third revision to the PDD plans have been submitted for review. Mr. Roberts stated that the Board wanted the applicants to relocate the proposed PDD further to the west on the property. Mr. Watts stated that at this point the third revision plan has not been accepted and additional information has been requested. Mr. Lansing stated that the traffic study was the primary additional information that was requested by the Board. Mr. Lansing stated he did not recall that the Board stating that they did not like that location. Mr. Higgins stated that the Board had concerns with parking and concerns about access from the Hillcrest Firehouse. Mr. Higgins stated that he had asked questions about moving more of the parking off of McBride Road. Mr. Lansing stated that there is proposed parking off of McBride Road and a connection between the two parking lots that was suggested by CHA. Mrs. Patenaude stated at a prior meeting she had mentioned that she felt, in her own personal opinion, that the project was moving in the right direction and that there was improvements as far as the buffering. Mrs. Patenaude stated she believes there are still reservations that were expressed by Board Members that the PDD could not be moved into the parcel as the applicants said that land was not available to them. Mr. Nadeau stated that another issue was; what was the Town’s benefit of creating this PDD. Mr. Nadeau stated that one of the proposed Town benefit uses was for the Senior’s to utilize the facility one to two days a week and he felt that was not a great use to the Town. Mr. Lansing stated that as a part of that benefit it was for five days a week not one or two days a week during the months of November to April or somewhere in that range during the winter months. Mr. Lansing stated it would be one hour Monday through Friday. Mr. Lansing stated in addition the applicants are willing to dedicate a corridor around the entire parcel to provide the most amount of flexibility to the Town for a potential Town wide trail system that is identified in the GEIS. Mr. Watts stated that the Planning Board Minutes of March 14, 2005 stated there was a discussion of the Board being happy with the buffer and Mr. Nadeau asked if there were any new benefits to the Town and Mr. Lansing stated the benefits would be the same. Mr. Watts stated there was also a discussion for the need of the Special Use Permit for the upcoming season. Mr. Watts stated that the third proposed site for the PDD still has some outstanding issues. Mr. Lansing stated the applicants are very eager to advance the Special Use Permit project and they fully understand the risks associated with the proposed PDD and if there is anything that the Board would consider to advance the Special Use Permit they would greatly appreciate that. Mr. Chauvin stated to Mr. Lansing that hearing the Board’s concerns and reservations, that from a SEQR perspective, they do not want to get into any segmentation and Mr. Lansing and Mr. Bianchiano could work on that. Mr. Chauvin stated that if the Board would be willing to schedule a Public Hearing for the Special Use Permit, the Board would need something from the applicants in writing acknowledging that the applicants are aware that the location of the proposed PDD facility as a part of the approval is not guaranteed, granted or confirmed and they are proceeding at their own risk. Mr. Chauvin stated if that was something the applicants were willing to do, the Board is willing to go forward with the Public Hearing for the Special Use Permit. Mr. Lansing stated the applicants would be willing to do that.
Mrs. Patenaude made a motion to set a Public Hearing for the May 9, 2005 Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Higgins seconded. Motion carried

05.140 OB Guideboard Road Retail Building, Guideboard Road – Commercial Site
Plan
Mr. Tom Andress of ABD Engineering stated that at a previous Planning Board Meeting he proposed a 16,000 SF retail building on Guideboard Road. Mr. Andress stated that Salty’s Restaurant is to the east and NBT Bank is to the west of the proposed site. Mr. Andress stated the Board had a lot of concern and the Board referred the project to CHA for review. Mr. Andress stated that because there were many issues that the Board had with the proposed project, they decided to make modifications to the site plans and to resubmit those plans to the Board. Mr. Andress stated that one of the biggest concerns from the Board was the existing driveway that serviced NBT Bank. Mr. Andress stated that in their original submittal they proposed to have a situation where they would back into that NBT Bank driveway with cars that were parked at the proposed plaza building. Mr. Andress stated Mr. Bianchino suggested that topography and a survey of the entire site be made. Mr. Andress stated another issue was that there was parking from the adjoining property that would integrate into the site plan. Mr. Andress stated the new proposal involves maintaining the drive in the position that exist and installing a 5 FT. planting strip between the driveway and the proposed parking area which would be the standard 42 FT. required for the parking area. Mr. Andress stated the vehicles would be parking facing the building so there was not the issue regarding headlights shining into Guideboard Road. Mr. Andress stated that they are also proposing buffering, green islands and a circulation pattern around the parking area. Mr. Andress stated that by putting in the green islands it would create traffic control. Mr. Andress stated that the adjoining parcel parking area would be modified to be used by both parties. Mr. Andress stated there would be parking in the front of the proposed building, parking on the side and majority of parking in the rear of the building. Mr. Andress stated they would set up the building as a four-sided building so there would be access, depending on the number of tenants, they would rear accesses into the building. Mr. Roberts asked what type of buffering is proposed for the rear of the building to separate it from the homes. Mr. Andress stated they are proposing a 6 FT. high stockade wood fence and plantings in front of the fence for a heavier buffer. Mrs. Patenaude asked if the buffering could be extended down toward the angled edge of the property. Mr. Andress stated they would have no problem extending the buffer. Mr. Ruchlicki asked if they were claiming the green area in front of Guideboard Road. Mr. Andress stated no. Mr. Andress stated he was just showing that area to depict depth from the pavement. Mr. Andress stated that area was in the County right-of-way and there is a 10 FT. strip of land that will be dedicated for widening purposes. Mr. Andress stated that the access drive would be in front of the proposed project and then there would be more buffering in front of the building with plantings and ornamental type trees. Mr. Andress stated the survey shows lands to be conveyed and lands not to be conveyed so it still has the green space of 30%. Mr. Nadeau asked if Mr. Andress had received CHA letter of April 22, 2005. Mr. Andress stated that he had not received the letter. Mr. Nadeau stated the letter had issues relating to the parking as well as the traffic. Mr. Bianchino stated that one issue raised was about the parking that is on the lease line. Mr. Andress stated that the line was the property line and they do not want tell the adjacent business that they could not park in that area and prevent them from being able to use their building. Mr. Bianchino stated there concern is with whether to eliminate some parking spaces or how they would stand in terms of total parking spaces. Mr. Andress stated that their total doesn’t include those particular spaces. Mr. Andress stated they could eliminate those spaces and still meet the parking requirements. Mr. Chauvin asked if the other building would still meet their parking requirements. Mr. Andress stated he would have to check with Mr. Williams on how many parking spaces they used. Mr. Chauvin stated the Board would need to make sure Country Dollar Plaza meets the required parking for their site. Mr. Chauvin stated it would have to be decided if they would want a shared access parking easement. Mr. Andress stated that he would work with the Planning Department to get what the last approval was. Mr. Andress stated it was not their intention to cut the other building off. Mr. Ruchlicki asked how the storm water would be addressed. Mr. Andress stated that one portion of the site has an open basin in the rear and there is a notation on the plans for infiltration galleries underneath the pavement. Mr. Ruchlicki asked what were their plans for snow removal. Mr. Andress stated that there would be areas around the perimeter to put the snow and there is the ability to put the snow in the rear of the site. Mr. Andress stated that a notation could be put on the plans that if the snow becomes too high they would have it removed from the site. Mr. Nadeau stated to Mr. Andress that the plan was looking better but they need to see CHA comments. Mr. Andress stated he would review CHA comments and go forward from there.
This item was tabled for revisions to CHA’s comment letter.




05.150 OB Pal’s After School & Summer Camp, 282 Grooms Road – Change of
Tenant/Use
Mr. Tom Andress of ABD Engineering proposes to convert the Latham Medical site located at 282 Grooms Road to a daycare. Mr. Andress stated the existing building is a 2-story building. Mr. Andress stated the site would remain as is with a couple of changes. Mr. Andress stated that one change would be to accommodate school buses that will drop-off and pick-up children. Mr. Andress stated there are two parking areas that would be kept open during the times that there is bus pick-up and drop-off to enable the buses to turn around. Mr. Andress stated that he feels there are more than adequate parking spaces available for the facility. Mr. Andress stated the plans show an area to bank parking spaces on the property if more parking is required. Mr. Andress stated another change is a proposed enclosed play area. Mr. Andress stated that there is wood line between the site and the Timberwick Development. Mr. Andress stated they are proposing a 6 FT. high vinyl fence along the proposed play area with plantings in front of the fence. Mr. Andress stated there is an existing planted medium that would help to buffer the view of the play area as you enter from Grooms Road. Mr. Watts stated that at the last meeting the Board requested information regarding the traffic. Mr. Andress stated that the information that was provided regarding the traffic was that Pal’s Daycare has taken the numbers that the Doctors originally had and what the Doctors ended up with as they progressed through the many years they were at that location. Mr. Andress stated that the Doctors provided a summary stating that it was close to 350 trips per day. Mr. Andress stated that Pal’s calculated an increased number of children as double of what the number is presently at Pal’s in Halfmoon-Executive Park. Mr. Andress stated that the Halfmoon-Executive Park number was 120 children and the proposed 282 Grooms Road location would be 220 children and came up with approximate 250 trips per day that is 100 less than the amount of trips that was generated by the Medical facility. Mr. Andress stated that there would be peak trips during the AM period and significantly fewer trips in the PM period. Mrs. Patenaude stated that she finds the traffic study information to be very helpful. Mrs. Patenaude stated that the breakdown of how many children are picked-up/dropped-off at specific time intervals that was provided to the Board by Pal’s answers all the questions that she had regarding the traffic. Mr. Roberts stated he had concerns regarding the school buses but is now more comfortable with the information provided. Mr. Higgins asked how they could tell handicapped people that they cannot park in handicapped parking spaces because buses will be arriving. Mr. Andress stated that a change will be made to the plans showing permanent handicap parking spaces and it would still meet the code. Mr. Higgins stated that the two parking spaces should be eliminated and left for the school buses to load and unload rather than asking people to move their cars at the times the buses would be arriving. Mrs. Russell stated that the parents do not come to pick-up at those times the buses would be arriving. Mrs. Patenaude stated that there are always the exceptions that a parent may be coming to pick-up a sick child or for any other reason and that is the one case where the 8 parking spaces may be occupied when the school buses arrive. Mrs. Russell stated if the Board request that the 8 parking spaces be eliminated then they would eliminate them. Mr. Nadeau asked if there is adequate parking if there is a stacking situation where you would show 40 cars in and 40 out. Mr. Andress stated the small parking lot is in the front and the principle parking lot is in the rear so most of the stacking would occur in the larger parking area. Mr. Watts stated that this proposed facility will meet the need for daycare that the Town has and it is a good location for the site. Mr. Watts stated the Board’s issues have been addressed regarding parking and utilization of the building. Mr. Watts stated that because the proposed daycare center is located near a residential area we would need to schedule a Public Information Meeting for the next Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Roberts made a motion to set a Public Information Meeting for the May 9, 2005 Planning Board Meeting. Mrs. Patenaude seconded. Motion carried.

New Business:
05.151 NB Kennedy Lane Subdivision, 7 Kennedy Lane – Minor Subdivision
Mr. Gil VanGuilders of Gilbert VanGuilder and Associates PLLC, proposes to create a 35,000 SF lot from the existing 7.87-acre site of the Kennedy Lane Storage Facility. Mr. VanGuilder stated there is an existing single-family residence on the property. Mr. VanGuilder stated that near the end of Kennedy Lane there is an existing wood framed building that was initially considered part of the storage facility. Mr. VanGuilder stated the applicant, Mr. Tanski, is willing to have a note entered on the plan and noted on the record that one of the existing self-storage units will not be used for commercial purposes. Mr. VanGuilder stated that this one self-storage unit would only be accessory to the single-family use in the existing home. Mr. VanGuilder stated the existing home is connected to public water and has an individual septic system on the property. Mr. Higgins asked if the use would be for residential at this time. Mr. Tanski stated that was correct. Mr. Higgins asked if the existing wood frame building, which is the first self-storage unit, would stay with the house. Mr. Tanski stated that was correct. Mr. Higgins asked if this it was the one where the used car dealership license is hanging. Mr. Tanski stated that it was not a used car dealership. Mr. Tanski stated that he and his brother-in-law use it for their own personal use. Mr. Tanski stated that it would be relocated on top of the hill.
Mr. Roberts made a motion to set a Public Hearing for the May 9, 2005 Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Higgins seconded. Motion carried.

05.153 NB MochaLisa’s Internet Caffe’, 1683 Route 9 (St. John’s Plaza) – Sign
Mr. Michael Serianni, owner of MochaLisa’s Caffe’, proposes a modified sign application. Mr. Serianni stated the modification design is more in continuity with the signs that are currently in St. John’s Plaza. Mr. Serianna stated he is proposing is a resin board designed to last over 2,000 years. Mr. Serianni stated the sign is a high-density resin board that would be applied to the building with the MochaLisa’s Caffe’ logo that depicts a coffee cup. Mr. Serianni stated he would like to light the sign with gooseneck lights instead of being backlit. Mr. Serianni stated that today the current trend today in high-end food establishments is gooseneck lighting. Mr. Serianni stated he wanted to fall into that category with the espresso bar and a high-end café and would like to project that image. Mr. Serianni stated that the gooseneck lights would not shine out into the parking area. Mr. Serianni stated that the lights are designed to turn back face toward the building exclusively and would not hinder any one’s view. Mr. Serianni stated that there are a few plazas in the area, primarily in Clifton Park, that have a similar design to the St. John’s Plaza and many of the businesses would have a neon-backlit sign but the food establishments have gooseneck lighting. Mr. Serianni stated that the Price Chopper Plaza in Clifton Park and in Plaza 8 at Exit 8 have a similar design in a few of their establishment signs. Mr. Serianni stated that the establishments with the gooseneck lit signs sets them apart from the other establishments and also adds to the character of the plaza. Mr. Serianni stated the gooseneck lit signs break up the monotony of everything looking alike and redefines sections of the plaza. Mr. Serianni stated that he was before the Board asking for approval to put the gooseneck lighting on his sign and set his business apart and establish it as a high-end food establishment. Mr. Roberts stated that they have revisited the St. John’s Plaza and has no doubt that the proposal is a nice proposal and would be nice for Mr. Serianni’s business but when the Planning Board approved St. John’s Plaza they approved it with the condition that every sign in the plaza would be similar in nature and to have consistency in the that plaza. Mr. Roberts stated that these conditions have been done in other plazas in Town. Mr. Roberts stated that if the Board approved MochaLisa’s Caffe’ sign submission the Board would be losing all control in anything else that anyone wants to do in that plaza and in other plazas as well. Mr. Roberts stated that he wished Mr. Serianni well in his business but the success or failure of the business did not depend on the lighting package. Mr. Roberts stated he was not in favor of the proposed sign application. Mr. Nadeau agreed with Mr. Roberts and stated the Board has basically remained with a general pattern throughout the years. Mr. Nadeau stated that he is sure that the Board has turned people down with similar ideas only to keep it consistent. Mr. Nadeau stated to veer off of the pattern with sign consistency at this time would be a disservice to the people the Board has disapproved in previous years in previously applications. Mr. Serianni stated that if the Board were to look at some of the other plazas that he has mentioned, up until a few years ago they were similar in being consistent within the plaza. Mr. Serianni stated that the gooseneck lighting trend appears to be accepted by most of the people in the Towns in terms of their likeability of the plazas. Mr. Serianni stated that when he did research on deciding what type of sign that he wanted, he did ask many businesses within plazas that had gooseneck lighting both locally and in Utica, Delmar, Albany and Queensbury, the people all say they like it as it adds ambiance to the plaza. Mrs. Patenaude stated that she agreed with Mr. Roberts’ and Mr. Nadeau’s comments. Mrs. Patenaude stated that she didn’t want to get into an argument on who’s taste is better and the Board needs to be consistent throughout with what is allowed in terms of sign and the Board should stay with the decisions they made. Mrs. Patenaude stated that MochaLisa’s signage was approved at a previous Planning Board meeting and the Board should be consistent with what they are approving.
Mr. Roberts made a motion to disapprove the MochaLisa’s Internet Caffe’ sign application on the basis of keeping signage consistent within St. John’s Plaza. Mr. Higgins seconded. Motion carried.

05.155 NB Plaza 222, Guideboard Road – Sign
Mr. Greg Dawhare, of Nick Sign Co., proposes to modify the exisiting Plaza 222 sign located on Guideboard Road with a sign to incorporate a listing of the four plaza tenants. Mr. Roberts asked what colors would be on the sign. Mr. Dawhare stated the sign would have a white background with the colors of the tenant’s logos. Mr. Roberts asked how the sign would be lit. Mr. Dawhare stated the existing floodlights would light the sign. Mr. Dawhare stated that the sign would be more visible to traffic traveling on Guideboard Road instead of the drivers having to turn their heads to look on the building for the tenant’s signs. Mr. Roberts asked if the sign would be 8 FT. high. Mr. Dawhare stated yes, approximately 8 FT. off the ground. Mr. Roberts stated to Mr. Dawhare to make sure the floodlights do not shine out onto Guideboard Road. Mr. Dawhare stated he may not be involved in the lighting but he is assuming the floodlights have shields and the floodlights would be focused onto the freestanding sign. Mr. Roberts stated that the sign should not be placed in the right of way and should not be located further out than the existing signage. Mr. Dawhare stated the sign would be located exactly where the poles are now on the existing sign.
Mr. Roberts made a motion to approve the Plaza 222 sign application contingent upon the sign not being placed in the right of way and that the lights do not shine onto Guideboard Road. Mr. Berkowitz seconded. Motion carried.


Mr. Berkowitz made a motion to adjourn the April 25, 2005 Planning Board Meeting at 8:05 pm. Mr. Ruchlicki seconded. Motion carried.


Respectfully submitted,

Milly Pascuzzi
Planning Board Secretary

* (Attachment) .