Planning Board Minutes - May 23, 2005

Those present at the May 23, 2005 Planning Board meeting were:

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

Planner: Jeff Williams

Town Attorney: Bob Chauvin
Deputy Town Attorney: Lyn Murphy

Town Board Liaisons: Mindy Wormuth
Walt Polak

CHA Representative: Mike Bianchino
EDP Representative: Mike McNamara


Mr. Watts opened the May 23, 2005 Planning Board Meeting at 7:03 pm. Mr. Watts asked the Planning Board if they have reviewed the May 9, 2005 Planning Board Minutes. Mr. Roberts made a motion to approve the May 9, 2005 Planning Board Minutes. Mr. Higgins seconded. Motion carried.

Note: Dan McDermid and Bob Beck will sit in for Cindy Patenaude and Rich Berkowitz in their
absence.

Public Informational Meeting:
04.214 PIM Fellows Road Pdd, Fellows Road – Major Subdivision/PDD
Mr. Watts opened the Public Informational Meeting at 7:04 pm. Mr. Watts asked if anyone would like to have the Public Notice read. No one responded. Mr. Roberts recused himself from this item. Mr. Scott Lansing, of Lansing Engineering, stated he was before the Board tonight to obtain comments from Public and work with the Planning Board for a referral to the Town Board as part of the PDD process. Mr. Lansing stated the site is located on the south side of Route 146 and bisected by Fellows Road. Mr. Lansing stated the overall parcel is approximately 84.2-acres. Mr. Lansing stated that 60-acres are located to the west side of Fellows Road and 24-acres are located to the east side of Follows Road. Mr. Lansing stated the parcel is currently vacant and formerly used for agricultural purposes. Mr. Lansing stated there is a NYDEC dedicated wetlands and there are scattered Federal wetlands throughout the proposed project. Mr. Lansing stated the topography generally slopes towards the south and then toward the east. Mr. Lansing stated that vegetation closely follows the NYDEC wetlands and there are some forested areas in the DEC regulated area and in the agricultural area. Mr. Lansing stated the area to the east is a former agricultural area with some light brush scattered throughout. Mr. Lansing stated the parcel is currently zoned Agricultural/Residential. Mr. Lansing stated the proposed use for the parcel is a Planned Development District (PDD). Mr. Lansing stated the PDD consist of 49 townhouse buildings that are proposed to be located on the western 60-acres. Mr. Lansing stated that each townhouse would be 3-unit buildings for a total of 147 townhouse units. Mr. Lansing stated the applicant is proposing 25 luxury apartments buildings. Mr. Lansing stated there would be 8-units per building for a total of 200 apartment units proposed for the 24-acres on the eastern side of Fellows Road. Mr. Lansing stated 4 duplex lots are proposed along the frontage of the relocated roadway alignment that would be located to the northeast portion of the project. Mr. Lansing stated the total equates to 355 units for the project. Mr. Lansing stated a gross density is calculated to be 4.21 units per acre and a net density of approximately 6.63 units per acre. Mr. Lansing stated these calculations are well below the PDD ordinance, which states a maximum density of 10-units per acre. Mr. Lansing stated that water would be connected to the waterline that currently exists along Fellows Road. Mr. Lansing stated that the water would be extended into the various roadways to service the residences within the proposed project. Mr. Lansing stated that storm water would be managed on site at low-lying areas to mitigate storm water runoff. Mr. Lansing stated that gravity sanitary sewer is proposed for the project that would go to a central pump station to the east of the project. Mr. Lansing stated the pump station would pump the sewage into the force main that is located on Route 236 and continues to Route 146. Mr. Lansing stated they are proposing improvements to traffic in the Fellows Road/Route 146 area. Mr. Lansing stated the Public benefits for the project is a land donation to the Town. Mr. Lansing stated the first part of the land donation is approximately 60-acres of land on Vosburgh Road as part of the Vosburgh Road PDD. Mr. Lansing stated the land is located adjacent to passive recreation land that has been identified in the GEIS. Mr. Lansing stated the applicant is proposing the dedication of approximately 6.94-acres that is located off of Fellows Road which is adjacent to lands currently owned by the Town. Mr. Lansing stated the applicant is proposing traffic improvements to the intersection of Fellows Road and Route 146. Mr. Lansing stated that currently there is an acute intersection where Fellows Road meets Route 146. Mr. Lansing stated that this is a very dangerous intersection. Mr. Lansing stated the applicant is proposing to terminate the westerly portion of Fellows Road and the westerly connection to Route 146. Mr. Lansing stated that the realignment of Fellows Road would be extended to the east to access Route 146. Mr. Lansing stated they have worked with Creighton Manning on the traffic situation and a Creighton Manning representative is present to answer any traffic related questions. Mr. Lansing stated they have identified a location approximately 200 FT. to the east to help maximize sight distance. Mr. Lansing stated the applicant has acquired a parcel that has an existing barn and the applicant plans to demolish the barn to increase the horizontal sight distance. Mr. Lansing stated the applicant is proposing a main sewer line and pump station down towards Route 236. Mr. Lansing stated the pump station and gravity sewer line would be designed to service a broader area to expand sewer service to the Route 146 corridor. Mr. Lansing stated another Public benefit would be a dedicated land area for a cross-town connector for future roadways. Mr. Lansing stated they feel the proposed project attributes justify the PDD. Mr. Watts asked if anyone from the Public wished to speak. Mr. Bill Flavin, of 82C Fellows Road, stated he lives on the triangle at the intersection of Fellows Road and Route 146. Mr. Flavin stated the intersection was deadly and it has to go. Mr. Flavin stated that it has taken 3 deaths to get the speed limit lowered to 45 mph on Route 146. Mr. Flavin stated that across the intersection to Werner Road was also a dangerous intersection. Mr. Flavin stated there are approximately 40 residences on Fellows Road and around 5:00 pm you can’t get out of your driveway due to the traffic at the intersection. Mr. Flavin stated he would like to see that road closed. Mr. Jerry Baker, of 88 Fellows Road, stated the proposed changes to the intersection of Fellows Road and Route 146 would not solve the problem due to the hump in the Road. Mr. Flavin stated this is the location where the deaths have occurred. Mr. Flavin stated that with the increase of traffic from the proposed project and the location of the access of project will only create more deaths. Mr. Flavin stated the current sharp turn is proposed to be moved down and you still would not be able to see over the hill in the road. Mr. Harvey Hayner, of Route 236, asked where the pump station would be located on Route 236. Mr. Lansing stated the pump station is proposed to be located on Town owned land on Route 236 at the low point. Ms. Barbara Lodge, of 42 Fellows Road, stated that she and her husband moved to Fellows Road in December. Ms. Lodge stated that had they known that this project was going to take place they would not have moved to that location. Ms. Lodge stated that it is a shame that such a beautiful area will be given away to development that would increase traffic on a road that is already full of traffic. Ms. Lodge asked the Planning Board to reconsider their intent on approving this project, as it will take away a beautiful area. Mr. Watts closed the Public Informational Meeting at 7:16 pm. Mr. Lansing stated the access point on Route 146 has been determined to be the optimal location. Mr. Lansing stated that Creighton Manning has worked with CHA and have identified the proposed access point as the optimal location. Mr. Lansing stated the project, traffic study and the cut on Route 146 all has to be approved by NYDOT as well as the Town Engineer for the traffic analysis, intersection sight distance and configuration. Ms. Lana Moran, of Creighton Manning Engineering, stated that by opening the intersection further east by approximately 200 FT. would increase the sight distance at that intersection to almost 700 FT. that is well above the standard for a 55 mph zone. Ms. Moran stated that the current speed limit on Route 146 is 45 mph so the sight distance would be increased and would make that area safer. Mr. Bill Flavin, of 82C Fellows Road, asked if that would be the only access onto Route 146. Mr. Lansing stated that the westerly access would be terminated and the only access would be on the easterly side. Mr. Flavin asked if there would be a traffic light at that intersection. Mr. Lansing stated that there was no traffic light proposed for that intersection. Ms. Moran stated they recommend that the intersection be monitored to see if a traffic light is warranted. Ms. Moran stated if a traffic signal is warranted at that location then one would be put in. Mr. Bianchino stated they were concerned with the area with the high point in the road and the Town has been working to try to eliminate to do something with the 2 existing curb cuts on Fellows Road and Route 146. Mr. Bianchino stated the original proposal was to modify the existing curb cut location. Mr. Bianchino stated the Board had concerns with the sight distance at that location and the applicant did further study and determined that moving the curb cut further to the east would provide the best location on that stretch of road. Mr. Bianchino stated that there is no question there is a rise in the hill and they will work with NYDOT to see if anything could be done to improve the sight distance. Mr. Bianchino stated the applicant’s current proposal at the Fellows Road and Route 146 intersection is the best location short of cutting the whole rock cut down and lowering the road. Mr. Nadeau asked why doesn’t the Board request that a traffic light be installed at the Fellows Road/Route 146 intersection as Creighton Manning’s review stated that it is a borderline situation knowing the problems that have occurred at that intersection already. Mr. Nadeau stated that Mr. Bianchino stated if the access was moved further down doesn’t mean that it is the best location but the lesser of two evils. Mr. Nadeau stated the Board should consider looking into a traffic signal at the intersection seeing as it is a borderline situation. Ms. Moran stated there are several signal warrants that have to met in order to install a traffic signal and this has not quite been met at that intersection. Ms. Moran stated that if other projects in the area, including the Fellows Road development, were to progress and go in then at that point a traffic signal would probably be warranted. Ms. Moran stated at this point traffic volumes do not warrant a traffic signal. Ms. Moran stated that the applicant is very willing to work with the NYDOT and the Board to make sure the Town gets what they are looking for as long as it is warranted. Mr. Watts asked if a traffic signal was warranted, who is responsible for the payment of the traffic signal. Mr. Lansing stated he did not have that information. Mr. Tanski stated it is his understanding in reviewing the Creighton Manning report and talking to his engineer, that other projects in the area would have to take place for a traffic signal at the Fellows Road/Route 146 intersection. Mr. Tanski stated that with talking with Mr. Bianchino, he has stated to CHA that he is willing to put a certain amount of money per unit into a escrow account in case the traffic signal is warranted at a later date or whatever the Town wants to use the monies for. Mr. Tanski stated that if there is no more development in that area, the traffic light will not be warranted and even if they wanted to put it in, NYDOT would not allow it. Mr. Watts asked how close the intersection is to be warranted for a traffic signal. Ms. Moran stated it is close. Ms. Moran stated that in order to meet the warrant you would need to see traffic continue to increase at about a 2% rate per year and you would need to see other developments come in around Route 146, Vosburgh Road and Werner Road area. Ms. Moran stated until that happens the thresholds really aren’t met. Mr. Berkowitz asked if the Sheldon Hills project was considered in their numbers. Ms. Moran stated yes. Mr. Chauvin stated that this is a substantial improvement since traffic improvement studies that were performed in the late 80’s and 90’s. Mr. Chauvin stated he liked the applicant’s offer for an escrow. Mr. Chauvin stated that quite often warrants are met not because of development in the area but because of development outside of the area therefore, a SEQR review would require he warrant and the escrow is a very good idea so if it does happen in the future they won’t have to wait for another developer to come in. Mr. Chauvin asked Mr. Lansing to structure an agreement similar to ones that they have used in the past to assure that the traffic improvement monies will be there when the traffic improvements are needed. Mr. Ruchlicki stated that he thinks they will not have any trouble meeting the 2% increase in traffic per year. Mr. Ruchlicki stated he had commented on the hump on Route 146 back when the project was first proposed and mentioned that hump should be removed from Route 146. Mr. Ruchlicki stated regardless if a traffic signal is installed there still will be a problem if the top of the hump is not removed because it is a sight issue. Mr. Ruchlicki stated that he travels that road all the time and asked if the study for sight distance was physically performed because the sight distance from that point to the entrance at SAAB of Halfmoon is terrible because of the hump in the road. Mr. Ruchlicki stated if the applicant is willing to put money into an escrow account for a future traffic signal then the applicant could take the hump out to mitigate sight distance. Ms. Mason stated an on site sight distance analysis was performed in person. Ms. Mason stated at the analysis the site distance measurement was over 700 FT., which is well above the actual standard. Mrs. Wormuth asked if the money put into escrow would be for a traffic signal or money per unit for future traffic improvements. Mr. Watts stated it was his understanding the money in escrow would be for a traffic light when warranted. Mr. Tanski stated it would be money per unit in escrow for the Town to do what it wants because if the traffic light is not warranted the Town could take the escrow money and use it someplace else. Mr. Watts stated there are always issues that Planning Board and Town Board wrestles with relative to any expansion of property in the Town. Mr. Watts stated that when areas are zoned Agricultural/Residential, Residential, or Commercial, those properties are going to be utilized for houses or Commercial development for a variety of purposes in accordance with the Town’s zoning ordinances. Mr. Watts stated that where there are traffic issues the Town does an excellent in terms meeting the needs and understanding the needs of the Town’s residents. Mr. Watts stated the developers in the Town of Halfmoon have a history of making payments of escrows that are done in other Towns. Mr. Watts stated this is why the Town does not have Town taxes or highway taxes in the Town of Halfmoon. Mr. Watts stated there is a large continuous process of looking at reviewing and trying to meet the needs for places for people to live, businesses for people to go and to keep the Town on a good path to reasonable growth. Mr. Watts stated that the issues of safety are always paramount when new projects come to the Town. Mr. Nadeau asked what amount of traffic would flow to Guideboard Road, which is already a problem the Town has at the present time. Ms. Mason stated that based on the existing travel patterns in the area they estimate about 40-45% of the traffic will head to Guideboard Road, 10% will head to the intersection of Routes 236 and 146 toward Mechanicville and 35-40% would head toward exit 9 and Clifton Park. Mr. Watts stated that relative to the Guideboard Road issues they have been developing a fund within the Town for possible traffic improvements. Mr. Watts stated that some of these roads are State and County roads and at this point the State has not come forward nor has the County in terms of making improvements to those roads. Mr. Watts stated the with the Town’s limited resources they are looking to make proper improvements on roads or to contribute toward those proper improvements. Mr. Watts stated that funds have been set aside for making traffic improvements in other areas within the Town where the State and County are not making the improvements. Mr. Polak stated that in all the studies over the years the Town is aware of what their problems are also aware of the problems on State an County roads. Mr. Polak stated that getting the State and County to recognize and correct these problems are fruitless. Mr. Higgins asked Mr. Lansing if he saw a copy of a letter from CHA concerning some of the redesign that they requested regarding access to the proposed cross-town connection. Mr. Lansing stated he did see the letter. Mr. Lansing stated he believes that CHA was referring to some sort of a connection from the internal roadway to the cross-town connector. Mr. Lansing stated he would review the letter and work with the applicant to address CHA’s concerns. Mr. Watts stated at this point a lot of issues have been raised relative to traffic, escrow and various items and he does not feel comfortable at this time nor does the Board to take any action on this project. Mr. Watts stated this project will be revisited at the next Planning Board Meeting and have discussions with the applicant. Mr. Watts thanked the Public for their concerns and issues. Mr. Watts stated some improvements would be made to Fellows Road and hopefully more improvements would come in the future.
This item was tabled for further review in order to make a recommendation to the Town Board.

Old Business:
04.235 OB Adam’s Pointe, Johnson Road – Major Subdivision/PDD
Mr. Ivan Zdrahal, of Ivan Zdrahal and Associates, proposed a revised PDD application for a residential subdivision located on Johnson Road and McBride Road. Mr. Zdrahal stated that this project has been before the Board in the past. Mr. Zdrahal stated the Board appointed Mr. Higgins and Mr. Ruchlicki as the committee for the project. Mr. Zdrahal stated he met with the committee and discussed different options for the project. Mr. Zdrahal stated that one of the Board’s concerns was the size of the lots. Mr. Zdrahal stated he has revised the plan to the address the concerns that were raised. Mr. Zdrahal stated the new proposal is for the same type of residential units that are geared toward empty nesters. Mr. Zdrahal stated they are still proposing the Home Owners Association. Mr. Zdrahal stated the main change from the previous proposal is that the lot sizes were increased to a minimum of 15,000 SF. Mr. Zdrahal stated that the access road configuration generally would stay the same. Mr. Zdrahal stated they have changed the number of lots from 21 to 20. Mr. Zdrahal stated that the minimum lot area would be 15,000 SF with the largest lot area would be approximately 26,000 SF with the average lot area would be approximately 17,000 SF. Mr. Zdrahal stated the minimum lot width would be 75 FT. Mr. Zdrahal stated other lot widths would be 80 to 120 FT. Mr. Zdrahal stated a buffer is still proposed according to the findings of the northern GEIS. Mr. Zdrahal stated a buffer to be placed along Johnson Road and McBride Road. Mr. Zdrahal stated the PDD developable green space would include 2.7-acres of land. Mr. Zdrahal stated the increase in the developable green space justifies the increased density from the conventional 18-ots proposal that was previously presented to the 20-lot proposed for the PDD. Mr. Higgins stated that he and Mr. Ruchlicki met with Mr. Williams and Mr. Zdrahal to discuss the comments from the Board from the previous meeting. Mr. Higgins stated the GEIS intent was discussed regarding the individual development to benefit by increased quality green space in exchange for the benefit of smaller lots for the developer. Mr. Higgins stated the extent of the quality green space in exchange for the lots were able to be negotiated to the point where the actual quality green space remained but the lots were able to be larger than what was originally proposed by the developer. Mr. Higgins stated they reconfigured the road and added in the 60 FT. future right of way in case it was needed. Mr. Higgins stated the benefit of the increased quality green space and the larger lots work very well for this application. Mr. Ruchlicki asked if Lot #1 and Lot #2 had green space in front along the road where the wetland section is located. Mr. Zdrahal stated that area was proposed as a land preservation area. Mr. Ruchlicki ask if the 2 flag lots would have less disturbance to the wetlands if the 2 driveways were placed side by side instead of spacing them. Mr. Zdrahal stated that could possibly be done. Mr. Zdrahal stated with the shared driveway there might be less impact to the wetlands. Mrs. Murphy asked if a trail was proposed for one of the Public Benefits. Mr. Zdrahal stated yes the trail is still included as one of the Public Benefits. Mr. Higgins asked how the maintenance contract would be set-up for the Home Owners Association. Mr. Zdrahal stated there is a draft maintenance document for the HOA that is ready for review. Mr. Watts asked about the land preservation area. Mr. Zdrahal stated the land preservation area is located between the edge of the right of way and the wetlands. Mr. Watts asked who would own the land preservation area. Mr. Zdrahal stated that the land preservation area would be part of the lots. Mr. Watts stated that they would have to have much more definition of the Public Benefits for the Town Board before this project moves further.
This item was tabled and referred to CHA for review. The Planning Board asked for a list from the developer of the proposed Public Benefits in writing for review and a copy of the proposed HOA agreement to the Town Attorney for review.

05.111 OB A & M Sports Complex, McBride Road – Special Use
Permit/GEIS
Mr. Scott Lansing, of Lansing Engineering, proposed a Special Use Permit for A & M Sports Complex. Mr. Lansing stated that one of the Boards concerns at the last Board meeting was the sight distance at the proposed access point on McBride Road. Mr. Lansing stated another concern was regarding the location of one of the softball fields. Mr. Lansing stated that they have met with the Board’s committee and have walked the proposed site. Mr. Lansing stated they investigated the entranceway on McBride Road and a survey was performed by surveyors for sight distance. Mr. Lansing stated that they discussed with the committee the proposed field locations. Mr. Lansing stated they have made modifications since the last Planning Board and committee meeting. Mr. Lansing stated the entrance was relocated approximately 10 FT. to meet the sight distance requirements for that roadway. Mr. Lansing stated that one of the ball fields was relocated to centrally locate the fields all in one area. Mr. Lansing stated the pavilion has been relocated near the parking area and they have added portable restroom facilities that would be located close to the pavilion. Mr. Lansing stated that one of the parking areas were moved closer to the ball fields under the recommendation of the Board’s committee. Mr. Lansing stated that he feels they have addressed all the comments that the Board had and would like to request the Board’s consideration for final approval of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Higgins stated that he and Mr. Ruchlicki did meet with the Mr. Lansing and the applicants and, as Mr. Lansing mentioned, there has been some relocation within the proposed project. Mr. Higgins asked Mr. Lansing if he saw CHA’s letter about the relocation of the entrance to a common entrance for the softball fields. Mr. Lansing stated that CHA’s review stated that they feel that the sight distance was met. Mr. Lansing stated one of CHA’s comments was that if the Board still had concern with that entrance that there is a possibility that the entrances could be combined. Mr. Lansing stated it was his understanding that the applicant’s would like to have an independent entrance from the soccer fields. Mr. Bianchino stated they looked at the sight distance and the requirement was met for the current posted speed limit. Mr. Bianchino stated if the Board still had concerns with sight distance, he recommended that the current posted speed limit be reduced as another possibility. Mr. Higgins stated that the entrance next to Hillcrest Firehouse is not going to be used for this project. Mr. Lansing stated the entrance next to Hillcrest Firehouse was not part of the Special Use Permit application. Mr. Roberts asked what was proposed for restroom facilities. Mr. Lansing stated there would be portable restroom facilities that will be brought in during the seasons. Mr. Roberts asked how many. Mr. Lansing stated the plan shows 3 and the soccer fields 1 or 2. Mr. Steve McBride stated there would be a minimum of 2 portable restrooms at all times during the active season. Mr. Ruchllicki stated that when he visited the sight he noticed that there is a hump in the field before it flattens out and once he stood off the end of one of the ball fields he saw a different perspective of the layout of the project and he feels a lot better about the project. Mr. Ruchlicki stated the layout is very deceiving from the road. Mr. Ruchlicki stated the relocation of the one ball field is definitely a plus because of the parking issues. Mr. Ruchlicki stated that overall the committee meeting went well. Mr. Watts stated that this application was a very worthwhile project and a good service for the community.
Mr. Higgins made a motion to declare a NEG DEC to SEQR. Mr. Nadeau seconded. Motion carried. Mr. Higgins made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit for A & M Sports Complex. Mr. Nadeau seconded. Motion carried

05.138 OB Arlington Heights, Farm to Market Road – Major Subdivision/PDD
Mr. Chauvin recused himself from this item. Mr. Gavin Vuillaume, of Environmental Design Partnership, stated the original PDD was approved in 1999. Mr. Vuilluame stated the original PDD consisted of 50-lots on 25-acres on a parcel of land located on the west side of Farm to Market Road. Mr. Vuillaume stated there is one entrance that is directly across from Moreland Drive. Mr. Vuillaume stated there has been difficulty with Army Corp as far as permitting to get the entrance road built the way it was originally proposed in 1999. Mr. Vuilluame stated that Mr. Belmonte has purchased additional lands to gain access to the project without disturbing wetlands. Mr. Vuilluame stated they are proposing an alternative design that does show the purchase of some additional lands. Mr. Vuilluame stated there might be approximately 1/10 of an acre of disturbance. Mr. Vuilluame stated they are avoiding a 3 to 4-acre green space area with wetlands incorporated. Mr. Vuilluame stated some of the existing vegetation would be preserved. Mr. Vuilluame stated the original proposal was for 50-lots and they are now proposing 48-lots with an additional 1-acre so the density is consistent with other developments. Mr. Vuillaume stated the proposal calls for an on-site storm water management area and the low point of the property along with a pump station as was originally proposed. Mr. Vuilluame stated they anticipate on installing sidewalks, streetlights, street trees and also a Home Owners Association as part of the project. Mr. Vuilluame stated the all the streets would be publicly owned and maintained. Mr. Vuilluame stated the Public Benefits they will be making an offer for a gift of a $1,000 per lot or a total of $48,000. Mr. Vuilluame stated they would be donating an unrestricted gift of funds of $48,000 to the Town not for any specific use but to be used in the GEIS area. Mr. Vuilluame stated the sidewalks and the preservation would also be a Public Benefits for the proposed project. Mr. Higgins asked what the width of the roads would be. Mr. Vuilluame stated there would be a smaller right of way and the road widths could be designed to what the Town feels would be adequate for this size project. Mr. Vuilluame stated that in similar projects they have gone to a smaller road section. Mr. Vuilluame stated if CHA feels it is appropriate for this particular project they would suggest a 28 FT. road width with a 2 FT. wing wedge as apposed to the 30 FT. width that the Town typically likes. Mr. Higgins asked if the applicant felt that the streetlights are a Public Benefit. Mr. Belmonte stated that the streetlights have turned out to be a Public Benefit as the homeowners in the community love them especially while they are walking in the evening. Mr. Belmonte stated that the streetlights are also a safety benefit. Mr. Belmonte stated that in past they have had difficulty with NYSEG in getting the streetlights turned on. Mr. Belmonte asked the Town for assistance with the streetlights when the time comes. Mr. Watts recommended a Public Informational Meeting to be set prior to referring the proposal to CHA.
Mr. Roberts made a motion to set a Public Informational Meeting for the June 13, 2005 Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Higgins seconded. Motion carried.

05.146 OB D & R Village, 430 Route 146 – Sign
Mr. Watts stated he is not setting a precedent but at the last moment the applicant became ill and he is allowing Mr. Roberts to present the sign application to the Board. Mr. Roberts stated that at the April 11, 2005 Planning Board Meeting the applicant came before the Board with a sign proposal that was much higher than the Board allowed in that area. Mr. Roberts stated the applicant has revised the sign application to a 5.5 FT. by 7 FT. double-sided sign with 2 FT. by 5.5 FT. interchangeable sign on top and a 5 FT. by 5.5 FT. “D&R Village” sign on the bottom. Mr. Roberts stated the total area of the proposed sign would be 77 SF. Mr. Roberts stated the sign will be lit with internal lights and will have a total height of 7.5 FT. Mr. Roberts stated he has reviewed the sign application and he sees no problem with the proposal.
Mr. Roberts made a motion to approve the Sign application for D & R Village. Mr. Nadeau seconded. Motion carried.

05.15O OB Pal’s After School & Summer Camp, 282 Grooms Road – Change
of Tenant/Use
Mr. Tom Andress, of ABD Engineering, stated that at the Public Information Meeting held on May 9, 2005 there were a number of issues in which they have made some modifications. Mr. Andress stated that one of the concerns was with the bus drop-off. Mr. Andress stated that a representative from Shenendehowa Schools did agree that the buses could be maneuvered through the site. Mr. Andress stated that the parking lot would be cleared during the period of bus drop-off and pick-up. Mr. Andress stated that there would be signage put up for the principle parking in the rear and a handicap space has been relocated. Mr. Andress stated that the building is fully handicap accessible. Mr. Andress stated there is 900 FT. of sight distance to the east and about 600 FT. to the west. Mr. Andress stated they have provided photographs of the rear and an aerial photo to show a relationship between houses to the south of the project. Mr. Andress stated the closest neighbor spoke in favor of the project who is located over 200 FT. away. Mr. Andress stated there is an extensive wooded area between the facility and the houses. Mr. Andress stated that the nearby homeowners, due to the topography, could see the proposed facility. Mr. Andress stated that they are proposing some additional trees planted to the rear of the parking lot and planting trees to the rear of the proposed play area. Mr. Higgins asked if the buses were able to make the swing around or did they have to back up to be able to make the swing when Shenendehowa did their test. Ms. Russell stated the buses are able to make the swing without backing up. Mr. Higgins suggested widening the driveway to allow for a right-hand only turn so that this would allow the traffic to keep moving rather than stacking up. Ms. Russell agreed with the suggestion. Mr. Andress stated this was now on the plan. Mr. Ruchlicki asked if it was possible to have the buses travel east to the facility from school which will be a right-in only and when exiting the facility to have a right-out only toward Route 9. Mr. Ruchlicki stated this would eliminate the buses from crossing lanes and holding up traffic. Mr. Watts asked Mr. Williams to write a letter from the Planning Board to the Shenendehowa Transportation Director, Mr. Christopher, indicating that it is recommended by the Planning Board that buses entering the facility travel eastbound on Grooms Road and exiting eastbound toward Route 9 for a right-in and right-out only for safety reasons. Mr. Watts asked Ms. Russell to clarify the need for day care. Ms. Russell stated that there is a huge need for day care in the community. Ms. Russell stated that the elementary students are dismissed at 2:00 pm, which would require some type of day care. Ms. Russell stated that she has 200 children enrolled ready to go is into the proposed facility if approved by the Board. Mr. Watts stated that Shenendehowa Schools have a unique schedule that revolves around transportation issues that generates the need for day care in this area. Mr. Bianchino stated there was an issued raised by the Board relevant to parking in the upper lot. Mr. Bianchino stated the Board stated that there could be no parking in the upper lot when the buses are on-site. Mr. Andress stated that was correct. Mr. Bianchino asked how the parking in the upper lot would be restricted. Ms. Russell stated that signage would be put out indicating no parking at the time the buses are there. Ms. Russell stated the signs would read no parking between the hours of 2:00 pm and 3:00 pm. Mr. Chauvin stated that the Director of Shenendehowa Transportation stated that if parking is not restricted, the bus drivers would be forced to drop-off the children on the road. Mr. Chauvin stated that the minutes and a letter from the applicant should be in the record reflecting that if this is not the case, then their use would be subject to termination. Mr. Chauvin stated this is a significant issue that the Shenendehowa Transportation Department has expressed and if the parking is not done in this way, they do not want to participate. Mr. Chauvin stated the parking has to restricted and policed so that the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer doesn’t have to be at the site to do this for the applicant. Mr. Roberts stated to the applicant that the proposed day care would be located in the Professional Office/Residential zone so their signage could not exceed 10 SF.
Mr. Roberts made a motion to approve the Change of Tenant/Use application for Pal’s After School & Summer Camp contingent upon the drop-off area is to be immediately adjacent to the building and not on Grooms Road. Mr. Nadeau responded “Nay”. Mr. Higgins seconded. Motion carried by a 6 to 1 vote.

New Business:
05.154 NB T-Mobile USA, Crescent Road – Cell Tower Site Plan
Mr. Bianchino recused himself from this item and Mr. McNamara replaced him. Mr. Jeff Davis, an Attorney with Hiscock & Barclay, Syracuse, NY, proposes a site plan review for T-Mobile USA. Mr. Davis stated T-Mobile is doing improvements statewide for their network. Mr. Davis stated T-Mobile’s facilities are currently located at the Twin Bridges and Exit 9. Mr. Davis stated the proposed cell tower would be an in-fill between the 2 current locations. Mr. Davis stated there is a large capacity and coverage problems along Crescent Road, Interstate 87 and Exit 9. Mr. Davis stated the proposed cell tower site plan would be a co-location to the other 2 sites. Mr. Davis stated the proposed site is adjacent to I-87 where there is a lightweight ham radio tower. Mr. Davis stated the current tower is 98.7 FT. high with a 10 FT. antenna for a total approximate height of 109 FT. Mr. Davis stated that T-Mobile proposes to removed the existing tower and replace the tower with a 140 FT. monopole type cell tower structure that can support antennas for 3 other providers. Mr. Davis stated that T-Mobile proposes to build the tower extendable to 160 FT. depending on Planning Board approval. Mr. Davis stated the proposed site is on the opposite side of I-87 and adjacent to the Town line with Clifton Park. Mr. Davis stated there is a small wedge of land on the other side of I-87 that is the Town of Halfmoon that is 28.7 FT. from the Town line of Clifton Park. Mr. Davis stated the proposed parcel for the tower covers both Towns. Mr. Davis stated that all the setback requires are met except in the direction of the I-87 corridor. Mr. Davis stated the proposed cell tower site plan is consistent with cell towers that are along the NYS Thruway, I-87 and the DOT’s camera towers. Mr. Davis showed a computer generated Propagation Map that shows the need for more coverage. Mr. Davis stated that they have other towers in the area and that a new tower is needed in the I-87 corridor to resolve coverage discrepancies. Mr. Davis stated that he would submit a check for escrow to the Town Engineer. Mr. Roberts asked who owned the property for the proposed cell tower site. Mr. Davis stated Matthew Keenan, Jr owns the property. Mr. Higgins stated that they have looked at the height of other cell towers and 140 FT. may be not be something the Town would want. Mr. Davis stated that at the Public Hearing, Mr. Crawfield, Radio Frequency Engineer for T-Mobile, would be present to answer any specific RF questions. Mr. Davis stated there were alternative sites and a couple of those locations were rejected for RF reasons and they will have propagation studies for the Board to review in case there are any specific questions in relationship to those studies. Mrs. Murphy stated the engineer would need to see T-Mobile’s studies before a Public Hearing. Mr. Davis stated he would submit those documents to the Town Engineer for review. Mr. McNamara stated that there will be a Type I action and a coordinated review will be needed for SEQR purposes. Mr. Watts asked Mr. Williams what the status was with Clifton Park and DOT on this project. Mr. Williams stated Clifton Park has reviewed the application and responded with no comment and there has no response for DOT. Mr. Davis stated that he would submit the application to DOT. Mr. Davis asked if a balloon test would be required to simulate the height of the proposed tower. Mrs. Murphy stated the Board, for visual impact, would require a balloon test. Mr. Williams stated in past cell tower projects there was a committee review team that observed the balloon test. Mr. Davis stated they could put a notice in the newspaper and notify the committee review team when the balloon test will be done and for how long. Mr. Davis stated that if the balloon test could be done between now and the next meeting, then T-Mobile would be interested in doing the test if it is agreeable with the Board. Mr. Watts stated the Board is agreeable with having the test done before the next meeting.
This item was tabled and referred to Mike McNamara of EDP for review.

05.162 NB County Waste, 1927 Route 9 – Commercial Site Plan/GEIS
Mr. Joe Bianchine, of ABD Engineering, stated that about 1-1/2 years ago County Waste did receive site plan approval for a project at their site and since that time have received approvals from NYS DEC for the solid waste. Mr. Joe Bianchine stated that County Waste now wished to modify their approved site plan to introduce a fiber processing building. Mr. Bianchine stated that County Waste currently has trash pickup and recycling pickup. Mr. Bianchine stated the fiber processing building would handle the curbside recyclables such as: glass, platics, tin and paper. Mr. Bianchine stated this processing was currently being done in Schenectady, however, this facility will be taken by the County of Schenectady and used for a maintenance facility for the City of Schenectady. Mr. Bianchine stated the Port of Albany currently does the paper recycling and the lease terminates this year and the facility is now too small to operate at that location. Mr. Bianchine stated that County Waste proposes to consolidate their operations in a
40,000 SF building located at 1927 Route 9. Mr. Bianchine stated that previously at this location on the site plan the building was a maintenance facility for maintaining trucks. Mr. Bianchine stated that the maintenance facility will remain on the site but will be relocated near the welding facility. Mr. Bianchine stated that a majority of the change would occur within the Town of Clifton Park. Mr. Bianchine stated last Tuesday evening they received a use variance from the Town of Clifton due to the site being in a Light Industrial zoned area. Mr. Bianchine stated they would be back for a site plan review at the Town of Clifton Park. Mr. Bianchine stated that the changes in the Town of Halfmoon are that a small portion of the building is within the Town of Halfmoon. Mr. Bianchine stated that the C&D and MSW processing buildings are currently located 30 FT. north and would be shifted down to create circulation with their trucks. Mr. Bianchine stated they have modified the storm water detention basin to meet the current storm water regulations. Mr. Bianchine stated the addition on the office building would remain the same; the outside recycling area that is currently used is proposed to be removed and relocate to the new building. The welding and truck wash building’ along with the office addition will remain the same. Mr. Bianchine stated the only change to occur in the Town of Halfmoon is the building relocations, grading and storm water management area changes. Mr. Higgins asked if the current buffering would be filled in as most of the year you can see right into the site. Mr. Bianchine stated they are proposing a heavy buffering of evergreen trees and the gap would be filled in. Mr. Higgins stated that the previous maintenance building in the rear was much larger than the proposed building. Mr. Scott Earl, owner, stated since the last meeting they have sold approximately 60 trucks/tractor trailers and that work has now been outsourced. Mr. Earl stated the change in recycling allows them to stop shipment of recycling in and out of the facility. Mr. Earl stated currently all the collection trucks empty into a bunker and then it is trucked out by tractor-trailer to Rotterdam and Albany. Mr. Earl stated the proposed project would create approximately 40 new jobs. Mr. Higgins stated in the upper corner of the site there was a gate that went out towards Tabor Road. Mr. Higgins stated the gate has been taken down and there is work going on. Mr. Earl stated the gate is being relocated further back on the property to allow for temporary storage of the trailers while the building is under construction. Mr. Higgins asked if they would be using the Tabor Road access. Mr. Earl stated they maintain the access strictly for Shenendehowa Central School District because the school buses have a problem with the crossing on Tabor Road and the buses are not allowed to back up or go around the crossing. Mr. Ruchlicki stated that he and Mrs. Patenaude had previously been the committee for the project on the last revision and asked Mr. Watts if they could make a return visit to the site. Mr. Watts stated yes. Mr. Watts asked Mr. Williams if he had referred the project to the Saratoga County Planning. Mr. Williams stated yes.
Mr. Roberts made a motion to accept lead agency for SEQR purposes and asked CHA to send out notices. Mr. Nadeau seconded. Motion carried.
This item was tabled and referred to CHA for review.

05.163 NB The Beauty Parlour, 1548 Route 9 – Sign
Ms. Joane Mastroianni, the applicant, proposes an increase to her currently signage for the Beauty Parlour located at 1548 Route 9. Mr. Roberts stated the applicant proposes a 10 FT. by 3 FT. sign. Ms. Mastroianni stated that was correct. Mr. Roberts asked if the sign would be internally lit with no neon. Ms. Mastroianni stated the sign would be internally lit as the existing sign and there would be no neon. Mr. Roberts asked if the current location formerly had 2 uses and now is only utilized by one tenant. Ms. Mastroianni stated that was correct. Mr. Roberts stated that in the future if there are 2 uses the signage could not be increased. Ms. Mastroianni stated she now occupies the entire building. Mr. Roberts stated there could be no banners on the windows or any sandwich board signs.
Mr. Roberts made a motion to approve the Sign application for The Beauty Parlour with the condition that the approved sign will not be enlarged for any future tenant and the approval is contingent upon no banner signs or sandwich board signs. Mr. Ruchlicki seconded. Motion carried.

05.164 NB Dudek Dairy Farm, 127 Brookwood Road – Minor Subdivision
Mrs. Barbara Dudek proposes a Minor Subdivision for Dudek’s Dairy Farm located on 127 Brookwood Road. Mrs. Dudek stated that they are proposing to convey property to Carver Sand & Gravel. Mr. Watts asked what Carver’s purpose was for purchasing the land. Mrs. Dudek stated she was unaware what Carver intended to do with the property. Mr. Williams stated the subdivision plans indicated a “Deep Ravine” on the parcel. Mr. Roberts asked Mrs. Dudek if the parcel had been subdivided in the past. Mrs. Dudek stated that it has been. Mrs. Murphy stated that the Board had to look at how many times this parcel has been subdivided and whether this project should be treated as a Major Subdivision because of the number subdivisions done in the past. Mr. Nadeau asked who was submitting the application. Mrs. Dudek stated that it was Carver’s application. Mr. Watts stated that the number of subdivisions on the Dudek property had to be researched and there would have to be someone representing the proposed subdivision. Mrs. Dudek stated that she was the applicant.
This item was tabled for review of the number of subdivision

05.165 NB Country Club Acres, Inc., Vosburgh Road – Minor Subdivision
Mr. Dave Flanders, of David A. Flanders Associates, proposes a Minor Subdivision on a 59.5-acre parcel located on the southerly side of Vosburgh Road. Mr. Flanders stated the Vosburgh Trailer Park is located to the west of the parcel, to the east was lands of Country Club Acres and parcel to the south is owned by Joseph Kapenos. Mr. Flanders stated the adjoining land to the east and south has been presented to the Board as a conceptual subdivision by Ivan Zdrahal. Mr. Flanders stated the 59.5-acre parcel has extensive wetlands that exist on the property. Mr. Flanders the northerly limits of the wetlands has been delineated on the map along with the NYS DEC buffer strip. Mr. Flanders stated they have not made an attempt to delineate lands south of those boundaries as they have no intension of developing the land nor is there adequate access to the remaining portion of the land. Mr. Flanders stated the parcel also has a utility easement owned Adirondack Power Corporation that runs through the property. Mr. Flanders stated they are proposing to divide the property into 2 individual lots. Mr. Flanders stated that 1 lot will have an area of 16.1-acres and the balance of the property would be 43.1-acres. Mr. Flanders stated that water would be provided by the Town’s municipal system and there would be an on-site septic system. Mr. Flanders stated that they would be doing a percolation test. Mr. Flanders stated there is an existing driveway and they intend to use that same general strip and create an ingress/egress easement 40 FT. wide for the improvement of that driveway. Mr. Flanders stated the installation of the water main would service 2 houses and the 40 FT. strip will go to the common division line to provide access for both drives and the utilities to the 43.1-acre parcel. Mr. Flanders stated there is a portion of the NYS DEC buffer strip in the area where the driveway is located. Mr. Flanders stated they are applying to DEC for a permit for driveway disturbance for the buffer area. Mr. Nadeau asked Mr. Flanders to explain where there was no further access to the land. Mr. Flanders stated the frontage of Vosburgh Road was just shy of 300 FT. so therefore they could only have 2 lots. Mr. Flanders stated that there is no other access by any of the other adjoining lands so they could not develop any more lots. Mr. Flanders stated there is no proposed road that they are aware of coming into the parcel and the other area has extensive wetlands. Mr. Flanders stated there was 142 FT. of frontage on Vosburgh Road and the other lot has 150 FT. of frontage. Mr. Nadeau asked if there was water and sewer on Vosburgh Road. Mr. Flanders stated there was water. Mr. Higgins asked if this parcel was the piece of property that the applicant had discussed with the Town as possible parklands. Mr. Polak stated that parcel is across the road to the east. Mrs. Wormuth stated that the applicant has approached the Town Board and asked that the Town Board look at this with the engineers to see whether or not the Town would be interested in utilizing or finding access to the back of the parcel for possible Town use through another piece of the property. Mrs. Wormuth stated that because this is the first time the application has been before the Board, it has not been before the Board in another form as a PDD. Mrs. Wormuth stated that they would ask the engineers to review and discuss with the applicant. Mrs. Wormuth stated this would be subsequent to this action and should have no impact on how the Planning Board proceeds with this proposal. Mr. Higgins stated during the GEIS some of this property was discussed for a potential town park.
Mr. Roberts made a motion to set a Public Hearing for the June 13, 2005 Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Higgins seconded. Motion carried.

05.166 NB Safe-N-Sound Self-Storage, Routes 4 & 32 – Concept Commercial
Site Plan
Mr. Mike Sykes stated he would be representing the applicant, Anthony Grande, who is conceptually proposing a self-storage business located at Routes 4 & 32. Mr. Sykes stated the proposed facility would consist of a small office in the front of one of the buildings, 28 heated storage units in one building and the remainder would be 210 unheated storage units. Mr. Sykes stated there would be Town water and on-site septic. Mr. Sykes stated they are proposing storm water at the low point to the rear of the property. Mr. Polak asked if there has wetland delineation. Mr. Sykes stated the wetlands have not been delineation as of yet. Mr. Sykes stated there is small stream located on the property. Mr. Polak stated there was an issue close to the proposed property where three-quarters of the land could not be developed due to wetlands and recommended that the applicant look into the situation before the project progresses. Mr. Watts asked who owned the property. Mr. Grande stated that he owns the land and Mr. Abele was the previously owner. Mr. Watts stated the board would need significantly more information regarding this project such as: intensity of use, architectural renderings for the buildings and proposed buffering. Mr. Nadeau stated there are historical buildings located near the proposed site. Mr. Watts stated the architecture of the proposed buildings would be important due to the historical buildings in the area. Mr. Higgins stated that if the entire parcel is now owned by Mr. Grande then the maps should be redone to signify subdivisions of the lands.
This item was tabled and referred to CHA for review.

05.167 NB Suchocki Subdivision, 51 Harris Road – Minor Subdivision
Ms. Joann Suchocki stated she will be representing her father, William Suchocki, a proposal for a Minor Subdivision located on the east side of Harris Road. Ms. Suchocki stated they propose to subdivide a 2.14-acre parcel from the existing 216-acre farm for a single-family home. Ms. Suchocki stated they propose to hook into the County sewer and Town water. Mr. Nadeau asked what the acreage would be for the remaining lands. Ms. Suchocki stated approximately 213-acres. Mr. Higgins asked if the sewer is force main or gravity. Ms. Suchocki stated she believed it was gravity. Mr. Polak stated the gravity system was recently installed.
Mr. Ruchlicki made a motion to set a Public Hearing for the June 13, 2005 Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Higgins seconded. Motion carried.


Mr. Ruchlicki made a motion to adjourn the May 23, 2005 Planning Board Meeting at 9:10 pm. Mr. Roberts seconded. Motion carried.


Respectfully Submitted,

Milly Pascuzzi
Planning Board Secretary