February 27, 2019 Planning Board Meeting

Town Planning Board Meeting Notes

Taken by a resident on February 27, 2019

Old Business:

Stonebridge PUDD Area B – site plan review – 20 condominium units.

Scott Lansing provided a refresher: 2.23 acres of two separate areas, west 0.8 and east 1.4 acres, zoned 12/4/2007 in accordance with the Stonebridge PUDD 20 condo units are proposed on the west side of Stonebridge Drive and 34 on the east side, 2-3 bedrooms each with individual driveway and garage, 64 total parking spaces.  Public water and sewer would be available.  49% green space. 

There have been positive responses since the last meeting with comments from CT Male.  The boulevard median was originally proposed to be left in.  Concerns were voiced from residents regarding taking a left turn into driveways and the creation of alternate routes to be able to drive around and turn right into those driveways.  The Highway Superintendent had a concern about snow removal, preferring the median be removed to provide unrestricted access.   Overall, this is a small portion of the area.  A revised proposal to mitigate the driveway access issue would be removal of the median and designate travel lanes.  Comments received from the Planning Board were mainly technical related to streetlights, conveyance of HOA lands, median concerns, addition of a silt fence, meeting the setback, and height consistent with the PUDD, no additional signage, and a CT Male assessment that appropriately evaluated traffic.   The traffic evaluation was performed on 1/8/19 and included the following:

Trip generations:  the original traffic plan was for commercial business with two buildings on each side.  The original AM peak enter trips were 64 and are now 2; exits were originally 52 and are now 7.  PM enter trips were originally 66 and are now 7; exits were originally 108 and are now 4.  This exercise was what the planning board asked be provided.

Solutions to remove the median:  The boulevard was intended to be aesthetic and to control the speed and flow of traffic.  Kathryn Serra said removing the median is not a good answer to the concerns.  Scott Lansing said the developer was agreeable to removing the median to address planning board concerns, based on the snow removal concerns expressed by the HWY Superintendent.  The PB concern was parking and taking a left into the driveway.  This was not in the proposed plan, and perhaps this could be workable from Abby Lane and other streets to turn around and enter the driveways from the right.

Sophia offered that other treatments such as on street parking could be considered to address concerns.

Kathryn noted that removal of the median would result in a 40 foot wide road with residents expressing concerns about traffic and safety.  Removing or changing the median would be precedent-setting.  She asked that the developer proposed other options for consideration.

Mr. Shorey suggested considering more trees for people entering their driveways.

Kathryn noted that not all driveways have a conflict but there is an opportunity here to do this right.  She suggested the Hwy Superintendent be approached again to determine how strongly he feels about removing it for plowing ease.

Mr. VanVorst asked Mr. Lansing if it was possible for him to design other options to consider.  Mr.

Lansing responded that he wants direction from the planning board as two options have already been proposed.  The number of trees could be increased, sidewalks could be modified, and perhaps striping could be added for a calming effect.

Kathryn commented that striping is not calming, and asked if the planning board would suggest the options or should Mr. Lansing do the research?

Mr. Dipasquale said he felt aesthetics is the issue; Kathryn asked if a “do nothing” option was worth discussing.  Mr. VanVorst polled planning board members.

Mr. Dipasquale said he had no opinion and deferred to Sophia to balance the efficiency of snow removal vs. aesthetics.  He asked if narrowing the pavement was possible.

Sophia said perhaps a “bump out” was possible.

Nicole said she would like to see other options.

Mr. Blair said the median should be left in or narrowing the roadway to slow traffic.

Ms. Mathias said the median should be left in and an attempt made to change the flow.

Mr. Shorey said they should get rid of the median and put a crosswalk in the road.

Mr. Maher said leave the median as is.

Mr. VanVorst asked Scott Lansing to return with one or two more options and to meet with the highway department to get more of an indication of how strong the feeling is regarding removing the median to facilitate snow removal.

Kathryn Serra asked for the stormwater analysis.  Residents have had ongoing problems with drainage and the cause is being determined.  It is unclear where the responsibility lies.  As a planning board, these issues should not affect this application, but to proceed without addressing them is at issue.

Mr. Lansing asked what the problems are.  Kathryn noted issues both to the east and west of the proposed condominium project, the inner loop of Lancaster Drive where the current properties don’t drain properly, perhaps impacted by roof runoff.  There are wetlands on Area B, which was brought to the town’s attention over the past several years. Mr. Lansing stated this is the first time he has heard about this.

Mr. VanVorst asked Mr. Lansing if, to be best of his knowledge, there is no way this project could impact the existing problem?  Mr. Lansing replied “No, this is part of the plan.”

Public Hearing Comments:

Barbara Beers, 107 Lancaster Ct and daughter at 105 Lancaster Ct. – Provided pictures last November of the flooding in their back yards.  Jed Haynes from Encon was consulted.  He said that if the areas were 12.8 acres or larger, a buffer would be required.  This property is less than 12.8 acres, so it would generally be referred to the Army Corps of Engineers.  However, in other towns, a buffer is provided regardless of the 12.8 rule.  Kathryn noted that no buffer is required in the Town of Ballston. Barbara said their property is flooding and asked how this will be alleviated by the Town?  They currently chop the ice to redirect water flow, so basements won’t flood.  The vegetation behind them slows it down, but this proposed condominium project will remove that vegetation.

Faye Renzi, 20 Stonebridge Dr – Mr. Murphy, her neighbor has flooding in his yard an into his basement.  The grade needed to be elevated up to the bottom of his basement window.  He was unable to come to the public hearing and asked her to speak on his behalf.  She also finds the suggestions of markings on the road not appealing in the neighborhood and has children ages 2 and 4 and concerned for their safety.

Liz Theilemann, 28 Lancaster Ct.  The Christians at 26 Lancaster next door also have improper grading in their backyard that needs to be changed at significant expense.

Michelle Brandt, 15 Lancaster Ct – She purchased her home in August 2015 pre-construction.  Her basement filled with 8 inches of water and was improperly graded down the center of the yard.  She noted that Mr. Lansing reviewed the property and questioned why other homes didn’t match the site map.  She noted that the builder was unwilling to help.  A trench has been placed next to her property which has been draining out into the street, against code.  She can’t finish her basement of her forever home, and invited members of the planning board to come in the spring to see the lake around her home.  Her home is also on a corner, and the only corner without a sidewalk.  Traffic is already an issue; there is no control of it.  She would like help fixing the grading.

Eric Connolly presented a motion picture aerial view of the Stonebridge development, showed the planning board the water channel north of 105 and 107 Lancaster Ct.  He suggested that a motion be made to consider resolution 18.177 that speaks to improvement of drainage that includes a $7600 survey fee.  He noted that the homeowners have had to pay $10-15K to fix their drainage issues and this should be a lesson to the planning board when considering building near wetlands.

Mr. VanVorst asked what relevance this had to the application under consideration?

Eric Connolly stated that Thomas Field, an engineering consultant noted that wetlands can be created and moved.  He was unable to FOIL the original plan, but the town houses do not have gutters.  If the vegetation (trees) is removed, there will definitely be an impact.  Mr. Connolly noted that the expiring wetland SWP, generated 12 years ago, is a liability for the Town and proposed a short-term moratorium until a new engineering study can be done, and asked that the town fix the properties impacted by flooding.  His 5-minute speaking time ended at this point.

Tracy Messing at 44 Lancaster Ct moved here 1 ½ years ago after retiring.  She and her husband chose Stonebridge for its aesthetics: streetlights, sidewalks, land.  She was assured by Lynn Johnson that it would stay this way.  She paid over $400,000 and is very disappointed.  She unknowingly had flooding and spent thousands for re-grading.  There is an empty lot next door that will need to be done also.  Her neighbor has to drive to her mailbox because it is so icy and there is no storm drain. 

Brian and Sophia have seen the water gushing into the street.

Mr. Chauvin stated that this Board didn’t make representation that the area wouldn’t change, the builder at the time was the issue and there is a new builder now.

Mr. VanVorst said he was very sympathetic to the issues but can’t solve them, and that this will probably end up in some court somewhere.  He recommended they obtain counsel because the planning board can’t resolve this for them, yet they are hearing it over and over again.  He said that any emails or other communication sent to him will be responded to.

Michelle Brandt said that her husband has sent several emails, and none have been responded to.

Jill Strock, 64 Lancaster Ct spoke also for #66 and #68 – in July there was no running water.  Now there is a stream behind these homes and welcomes anyone to come and see.  She asked that the planning board look to the 2005 Comprehensive Plan for the goals, maintain the rural community and aesthetics.  What is the need for additional condos?  Economic growth? – Numerous properties are still empty.  There are award winning schools, but bus safety will be a problem with a 40-foot extension and the proposed traffic plan – it is the planning board’s responsibility to review this.  Jill said she chose to move here for the hometown feel and in a unique part of town.  To not maintain it is not in the interests of the residents.  She works in community service for an underserved population that is diverse.  She asked if we are serving ALL in the same light. 

Mr. VanVorst said he just looked through his emails and sees nothing from Mr. Brandt.  Ms. Brandt verified that she had the correct address, which she did.

Karen Hollowood, 76 Lancaster Ct. – all of the issues have been raised to the Town Board and they were more sympathetic.  A moratorium is being considered, as either the SWP was done incorrectly or there is clearly something that was missed.  The water now drains across the road into the DEC designated wetlands.

David Pearce - asked if the planning board members are satisfied the application meets the requirements of the watershed overlay district.  The issue should be brought to the attention of the watershed overlay district to determine if a new SWP is needed or not.

Buniak, 35 Lancaster Ct. – how can the planning board allow further development at Stonebridge knowing about these issues?  The SWF done several years ago was not correctly done or something is seriously wrong.  Who is holding the new developer accountable for the removal of the boulevard median for convenience?

Charlie Burke, 50 Lancaster Ct. – asked what the square footage of the proposed buildings?  Mr. Lansing said 26,000 for the two stories (13,000 ground floor).  How does this fall within the HOA?

Ms. Brandt said she found the latest email sent to Mr. VanVorst on 1/29/19 that was not responded to.  Mr. VanVorst said he didn’t receive it.

Mr. Chauvin addressed rental vs. owner occupancy, as resident concern has been expressed.  He is asking the applicant for the condo offering plan for the HOA to review for necessary safeguards and noted this has been requested.

Ms. Mathias said the planning board should look at the application based on the information at hand and can look back at the SWF to see if it was done correctly. 

Kathryn Serra noted that the problem appears to be with the even-numbered homes on Lancaster Ct.  There are wetlands and a stream behind Area B.  The grading shouldn’t affect Lancaster Ct.  Areas B complies with the requirements, and she sees no issue with the application itself, but wondered if the planning board should ask the developer to look outside it?  Mr. Lansing replied that the developer would have a problem with that, and added that the proposed plan may be an improvement to the drainage problem.  Kathryn said they cannot proceed without looking at these other issues, that they can’t be ignored.  Mr. Chauvin said it is not appropriate to tie this project to the other issues.  The applicant can be asked to ensure that the project will not contribute to the issues.

Mr. VanVorst said the planning board is not ready to move forward yet.  Mr. Maher disagreed, said this has nothing to do with the other problems occurring.  Sophia suggested that 1 or 2 other options might be proposed besides keeping or removing the median, and that a conversation occur with the highway superintendent.  Mr. VanVorst tabled the issue for the evening.

New Business:

Katz 1184 Route 50 Commercial medical complex on the corner of Rt 50 and Outlet Rd. 

An amendment to the site plan requested, to enclose the stairwell, add one new parking space to the six current ones, add one streetlight, a dumpster pad and a turnaround.  Mr. VanVorst clarified that public transportation services would be available, not answered correctly on the Environmental Assessment form in error.  This was unanimously approved.

Stephens & Williamson 23 & 27 Mann Road lot line adjustment – no new lot, just the merging of properties.  The lots were previously nonconforming, and with this adjustment will now be conforming.  This was unanimously approved.

Cheema 1324 Route 50 Gas station amendment to the original plan which is to demolish the existing canopy and build a new one.  This is on the corner of Brookline Rd. and Rt. 50.  The new canopy will be centered on the building and extended to 45 feet wide (originally was 40).  Mr. VanVorst clarified that this would be permitted use under the zoning regulation, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, both answered “no” in error on the Environmental Assessment form.

This was unanimously approved.

Dudley 933 Route 50 site plan review for an indoor tennis court complex.  Several years ago the Dudley Foundation was formed in memory of Mr. Dudley’s son who was killed in an accident.  He was an avid tennis player.  This facility would offer tennis lesions at prices lower than competitors. 

Originally there were three buildings proposed but now is planned to be one 150 x 120 building with inside dividers for two tennis courts, a clubhouse and locker room.  long driveway is planned with parking on the northern side of the building and a 70 ft. setback.  The building will be positioned for expansion to more courts in the future and green space well over the required 35%.

Frank Herba from Herba Consulting assisted Mr. Dudley in presenting plans being formulated.  Two types of building styles were provided to get the planning board’s input before a purchasing decision is made.  The footprint is less than one acre and the property size is 3 acres.  There is a large senior community that plays tennis, 6 high schools in the catchment area, and a planned relationship with the Glenville YMCA.  The focus is for kids primarily, but private lessons will be also offered.  A promotional fee of $150 will likely be offered, with a usual cost of $225.  Conceptual approval is being sought now.

Mr. Dipasquale asked for a rendering to see how the building would look from the road.

Mr. Maher asked the same.

Mr. Chauvin suggested that since expansion is planned, they might consider a proposal in phases as a zoning change is coming and what might be approved now may not qualify in the future. 

Public hearing:

Tim Murphy, 941 Saratoga Road noted that most projects on this section of Route 50 have been residential and now are a mishmash of buildings.  This project will be directly to the south of his property and will be in direct view of all of his southern facing windows.  He said this is a very dangerous section of the road, and traffic is increasing.  He would like the hours and exterior lights to receive attention.  This will be zoned for commercial use, which will involve trash cans, parking etc.

Scott Draina, Outlet Rd asked if there will be personal lessons and tournaments with spectators and associated traffic and that this should be noted in the application.

Mr. VanVorst tabled the application.