Planning Board Work Session
November 23, 2015
Attending: Richard Fon, Chairman, John Kincart, John Flynn
1. Fieldstone Manor, Strawberry Road
The applicant has received all the required approvals from outside agencies and has prepared all the necessary easement documents as well as the document deeding the recreational site to the town. The Planning Department will review these documents before submitting them to the town attorney for review.
The applicant indicated that upon further review of some of the physical issues involved in converting the stone building into condominium units, his revised plan is to convert the units into the same number of high end rental units; the owner will retain ownership of the units. Related to this change, he will review possible changes to the stand alone garages in order to build something less expensive, e.g., a carport. The applicant will have to check with the Town Boardís original flexibility resolution to determine if the resolution specified the type of ownership for the seven units.
The applicant also indicated that he has a property owner willing to take the fire tower. However, the applicantís plans for the future disposition of the tower lot remained unclear.
Changes to the garage plan and the tower lot may require a revised subdivision plan.
Mr. Tegeder questioned the applicant on work that had been done, but shouldnít have been done, on the site prior to receiving final subdivision approval. In response the applicant acknowledged that he had used some fill from the adjacent George Washington School site to grade and create a pad for the future recreational area.
2. Colangelo Subdivision, Jacob Road
A more formal, detailed site plan was presented, showing the 6 lots allowable under a conventional site plan. The site and size of the proposed solar array was shown. Mr. Capellini suggested that since the solar array would be used to power the proposed development, it should be considered an accessory use and therefore not require a special use permit. The Planning Board told him to consult with Building Inspector Winter about that. The subdivision will tie into the sewers on Catherine Street as septic systems were found to be not feasible. The siteís entry statement will be some sort of towers, not the silos as originally envisioned. There will be a public trailway leading to the Hunter Brook Greenway and also a public dog park. The trailway will not require tree removal.
Mr. Tegeder asked about tree removal on the property. Mr. Colangelo said that he had cleared 2 ac. as part of the proposed agricultural operation on the site. After the fact, he went to the Town Board for a tree removal permit. All that activity has been stopped and the area restored to the satisfaction of Bruce Barber, Town Environmental Officer, according to Mr. Colangelo. Mr. Colangelo said more recent tree cutting on the site was just removing trees downed during Superstorm Sandy. Mr. Tegeder pointed out that the project would require a tree survey and that removing trees before thatís done would make it difficult for the Planning Board to determine what mitigation should be required. Mr. Colangelo said he has a forester marking trees on the site, but wasnít clear whether this was for a tree survey or to mark trees for harvest. Mr. Colangelo thought the tree survey could be done once the site plan had been approved, and seemed surprised when informed that it was a requirement of the tree permit necessary for approval. Mr. Fon encouraged Mr. Colangelo to consult with his professionals, Mr. Capellini and Mr. Riina, as well as Bruce Barber and Town Engineer Sharon Robinson, about the laws and regulations governing site plan approval and for guidance in presenting plans to the Planning Board.
3. Fieldhome, Catherine Street
The applicant described proposed changes in lot lines with the Holy Comforter and the Fieldhome Hall on separate lots. Formerly the lot lines were oddly configured because a septic system had to be accommodated on one lot. Now that the septic system is no longer needed, the lot lines can be made more regular. Reconfiguring the lot line will require some side lot variances. The reconfiguration shows utility easements for both existing and any future lots. The applicant has not yet applied to the ZBA for the lot line adjustment and variances, but asked the Planning Board to recommend approval when it does get the referral from the ZBA. The Planning Department staff will review the situation and get back to the applicant.
4. Spirelli Electric, East Main Street
(See Planning Board, 10-19-2015.) The applicant showed plans which were supposed to compare the as-built situation on the site with the approved site plan. The Planning Board said this was inaccurate because it didnít show some items that were on the site and showed other things that didnít exist. The Planning Board recommended that the owner, representatives of MAP Architecture, the Building Inspector and Planning Department staff meet on the site to reach an understanding of how the existing conditions differ from the approved site plan.
5. Crompond Terraces, Old Crompond Road
Before discussing this item, the Planning Board went into closed session to receive advice of counsel. Upon return, Mr. Fon emphasized that the Planning Board was considering a packet of documents only as pertains to the siteís rezoning, not to any specific site plan design. This is according to the permitted segmentation of the action (i.e. rezoning and site plan review). He emphasized also that the Town Boardís negative declaration under SEQR for the rezoning does not preclude the Planning Board from doing a full site plan review, including SEQR, on a specific site plan. There was considerable discussion between the applicant, the Planning Board and Mr. Tegeder to make sure that everyone was on the same page about the difference between the rezoning, the conceptual plans submitted to date and any future, specific site plan review and about the Planning Boardís ability to still carry out SEQR. Mr. Tegeder will draft a memo to the Town Board indicating the Planning Boardís opinion that the rezoning is in keeping with the master plan, yet reserving future site plan review.
(Note: Marathon Development, originally listed on the agenda, was pulled at the applicant's request.)