Skip Navigation
Welcome to Glenville
Town Links
Quick LInks

This table is used for column layout.




PZC Minutes 1-11-2016
Planning and Zoning Commission
Town of Glenville
18 Glenridge Road
Glenville, N.Y. 12302
January 11, 2016

Present:        Michael Carr, Chairman, Thomas Bodden, James Gibney, Patrick  Ragucci, Kurt Semon and Marshall Tanner

Also
Present:        Paul Borisenko, Building Inspector, Kevin Corcoran, Town Planner,
                Mike Cuevas, Attorney and Lynn Walkuski, Stenographer

Absent: Tim Yosenick

Meeting called to order at 7:04 PM

MOTION to approve Agenda:
Moved by: M. Carr
Seconded by: K. Semon
Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Absent: 1                                       Motion Approved

MOTION to approve minutes from December 14, 2015 meeting:
Moved by: M. Carr
Seconded by: P. Ragucci
Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Absent: 1                                       Motion Approved


Meridian Construction Company of Scotia, Inc.           Site Plan Review
92 Saratoga Road                                                        (Final) Public Hearing

The applicant is seeking to establish a contractor’s office in the existing building located at 92 Saratoga Road.  The property is located on the east side of Route 50, immediately north of the Highland Square senior apartments site.  The property is zoned “Professional/Residential.”

M. Carr asked if there were any additional comments from Ed Wierzbowski the applicant.

E. Wierzbowski indicated there were no additional comments or issues.

M. Carr said he did not have any issues either and asked the Board if there were any additional comments or discussion.  No discussion took place.

M. Carr opened the floor for comments or concerns.  No public comment was made and the public hearing was closed.


MOTION

In the matter of the final site plan review application by Meridian Construction Company of Scotia, Inc. for a contractor’s office located at 92 Saratoga Road, the PZC hereby approves the application.  The Commission’s decision is based upon the following findings:

  • The proposed use does conform to other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, including, but not limited to, landscaping requirements, building design, off-street parking requirements, building setbacks, fence requirements, sign regulations, storm water management and erosion control requirements, etc.
  • The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical vehicular access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, curbing and traffic controls.
  • The proposed use does exhibit satisfactory pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation, including separation of pedestrian traffic from automobile traffic, the placement and usefulness of on-site sidewalks and walkways, the accommodation for pedestrians at adjacent street intersections, and overall pedestrian and bicyclist safety and convenience.
  • The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical location, arrangement, and setting of off-street parking and loading areas.
  • The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical placement, arrangement, size, and design of buildings, lighting, and signs.
  • The proposed use does provide for the adequate type and arrangement of trees, shrubs, and other landscaping elements, as they relate to visual and noise buffering of adjacent sites and the reduction of visual impacts from the street.
  • The proposed use does demonstrate adequate provisions for the collection and/or disposal of storm water, sanitary waste, and garbage.
  • The proposed use will allow for adequate on-site snow plowing and snow storage.
  • The proposed use does demonstrate adequacy and durability of structures, roadways, utilities, and landscaping in areas with moderate to high susceptibility to flooding, ponding, and/or erosion.
  • The proposed use does retain existing trees and vegetation for aesthetic reasons, and minimize soil erosion and siltation.
  • The proposed use does protect adjacent properties against noise, glare, light pollution, odors, litter, unsightliness, or other objectionable features.
  • The proposed use does provide suitable open space for buffering and/or recreation purposes.
MOTION
Moved by:  M. Carr
Seconded by: P. Ragucci
Ayes:  6   Noes:   0   Absent:   1                              Motion Approved


Backyard Shed Company, Inc.                             Site Plan Review
658 Saratoga Road                                               (Final) Continued from   
                                                                        December

This application calls for establishment of a shed and gazebo retail business on the property formerly occupied by the Creekside Café, which was destroyed by fire in 2014. This proposal includes the establishment of a new building - a carriage house-type structure - that will serve as the office.  Sheds that are for sale would be stored outdoors on the property. As proposed, at a minimum, a front yard setback area variance would be required, as well as variances for insufficient pavement-free buffers along the front and side yards. The portion of the property slated for this business is zoned “Community Business.”

M. Carr asked for the Backyard Shed representative to come forward for a discussion of concerns from the December 11, 2015 PZC meeting.

Ryan Becker, represented his father Fred Becker, stepped forward to address concerns.

M. Carr mentioned traffic circulation concerns regarding the entrance and exit with the location of the proposed building.

R. Becker asked if the concerns were pertaining to tractor trailers.

M. Carr indicated not only tractor trailers but also vehicles.

R. Becker addressed the issue of vehicles by indicating that the business usually has no more than two customers at a time on a daily basis.  There is one delivery a week. The most traffic that would be seen is the tractor trailer coming in once a week.

M. Carr’s concern was about access, ingress/egress off of Route 50, would there be a single “in and out” or “in and out” of both entrances?  

K. Semon inquired as to where the “in and out” will be.  The assumption is “in” would be at the north entrance and “out” at the south entrance.  He also inquired whether there will be signage or will drivers be allowed to make their choice.

R. Becker replied that there would be signage at both entrances.

M. Carr mentioned to have in/out for both entrances labeled on the site map appropriately.

K. Semon stated that maybe it would be better not to have signage as to cause confusion for the drivers.

M. Carr stated currently there is no signage.  Also, he saw no problems with the traffic due to the fact the previous business Creekside Café saw more daily traffic than what is expected for Backyard Sheds.

T. Bodden asked if the representative will be living there and if he would prefer for customers to be pulling into the north entrance because it allows for a more open area.

R. Becker agreed using the north entrance will allow for customers to walk through the lot to the office.

J. Gibney stated the map currently shows “in” on the north entrance and “out” on the south entrance.

P. Ragucci asked if there could be clarification as to how many sheds are typically delivered at a time.

R. Becker responded depending upon the size of the sheds it is usually 4-5 sheds per delivery.

K. Semon inquired whether deliveries are during working hours or in the evening.

R. Becker stated deliveries are during business hours. There are no deliveries at night. Deliveries are made during the day so he can see the inventory first. Additionally, there are no weekend deliveries.

K. Semon asked if there was any manufacturing at the site.

T. Bodden asked if they do modifications to the sheds at the site.

R. Becker said there is no manufacturing at the site. If there are any modifications to be made to the sheds it would only require hand tools, no machinery that would be causing any noise.

M. Carr addressed the issue of the building making sure that it will be as presented and not changed. The proposed building looks nice and will be a nice addition.

R. Becker confirmed the building will be the same as indicated in the rendering.

M. Carr inquired about the proper decommission of the grease trap. He also mentioned that documentation needs to be provided to the Town to show that it has been done.

R. Becker said Fred Becker has made plans to set that in motion once they start at the site.

T. Bodden asked Paul Borisenko, Building Inspector, if the decommissioning of the grease trap is a pre-requisite for an ok on this and does it need to be mentioned in the resolution?

P. Borisenko, Building Inspector, said in order for construction to begin the grease trap has to be decommissioned.

M. Carr mentioned that on the site plan the Board would like to see the number and exact locations of the sheds.  Currently the plan shows 12 locations, however there are other outdoor display areas that do not show anything and the Board would like it to be clearer as to what will be in the additional outdoor display areas.

M. Carr addressed that the applicant shall provide a statement regarding the intended use, if any, of the remaining portion of the parcel including the portion that has frontage on Paradowski Road.

R. Becker indicated that they have no plans for that section of the parcel.

M. Carr asked for some type of notification; either memo, letter, or email stating that they have no intention for development on that part of the land.

M. Carr next addressed if there are any plans for lighting.

R. Becker responded there will be flood lights and motion sensors off the building and possibly a street light in the back corner.

M. Carr stated there is more concern with light spilling off property potentially impacting adjacent properties.

T. Bodden asked what the procedures/requirements are for approving the lights. Does a lighting plan need to be submitted? Where do we draw the line on that?

P. Borisenko, Building Inspector, stated that the ordinance requires that there is no glare; lights should be aimed properly, etc.  If there is a problem, we will hear about it quickly.

K. Semon asked about the overflow of parking from the Pig n’Whistle and do you have any plans to prevent this from happening, such as a yellow plastic chain.

R. Becker indicated that they will be using a yellow plastic chain for prevention of reusing the lot.

MOTION

In the matter of the final site plan review application by Backyard Shed Company, Inc. for a shed and gazebo retail business located at 658 Saratoga Road, the PZC hereby conditionally approves the application.  The Commission’s decision is based upon the following findings:

  • The proposed use does conform to other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, including, but not limited to, landscaping requirements, building design, off-street parking requirements, building setbacks, fence requirements, sign regulations, storm water management and erosion control requirements, etc.
  • The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical vehicular access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, curbing, and traffic controls.
  • The proposed use does exhibit satisfactory pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation, including separation of pedestrian traffic from automobile traffic, the placement and usefulness of on-site sidewalks and walkways, the accommodation for pedestrians at adjacent street intersections, and overall pedestrian and bicyclist safety and convenience.
  • The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical location, arrangement, and setting of off-street parking and loading areas.
  • The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical placement, arrangement, size, and design of buildings, lighting and signs.
  • The proposed use does provide for the adequate type and arrangement of trees, shrubs, and other landscaping elements, as they relate to visual and noise buffering of adjacent sites and the reduction of visual impacts from the street.
  • The proposed use does demonstrate adequate provisions for the collection and/or disposal of storm water, sanitary waste, and garbage.
  • The proposed use will allow for adequate on-site snow plowing and snow storage.
  • The proposed use does demonstrate adequacy and durability of structures, roadways, utilities, and landscaping in areas with moderate to high susceptibility to flooding, ponding, and/or erosion.
  • The proposed use does retain existing trees and vegetation for aesthetic reasons, and minimize soil erosion and siltation.
  • The proposed use does protect adjacent properties against noise, glare, light pollution, odors, litter, unsightliness, or other objectionable features.
  • The proposed use does provide suitable open space for buffering and/or recreation purposes.
Conditions of Approval:

  • Applicant will adjust the site plan accordingly with respect to entrance and exit as far as the site plan, not necessarily signage on the site, but making sure it is properly indicated on both the north and south curb cuts that they are going to be used for both entrance and exit as necessary.
  • Applicant must properly decommission the grease trap and provide documentation to the Town that is acceptable.
  • Applicant must show the exact number and locations of sheds on the site plan.
  • Applicant shall provide a statement regarding the intended use, if any, of the remaining portion of the parcel, including the portion that has frontage on Paradowski Road.
MOTION
Moved by:  M. Carr
Seconded by: J. Gibney
Ayes:   6   Noes:   0   Absent:   1                             Motion Approved


Oakfield Hospitality                                            Request for Extension
2 and 4 Freemans Bridge Road                            of Final Site Plan Filing
                                                                        Deadline

Oakfield Hospitality is requesting a second 62-day extension of the final site plan filing deadline for their approved 104-room Hilton Homewood Suites Hotel.

M. Carr inquired as to the nature of the extension.

Bhavik Jariwala, Oakfield Hospitality representative, stated they are still waiting for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approval.  They got a letter out to FEMA about two weeks ago and the response they received from FEMA was not an approval, but inquiry about endangered bat species.  They have environmental consultants who were to respond today, January 11th, and after that, hopefully will have the approval.

M. Carr indicated that is it out of the applicant’s control and if the consultant does what they need to do, then we are just waiting on the federal government’s response.  

MOTION

In the matter of the request of the extension of final site plan review filing by Oakfield Hospitality located at 2 and 4 Freemans Bridge Road, the PZC hereby grants the second 62-day extension as they are awaiting to secure approval from Federal Emergency Management Agency, also known as FEMA, bringing the final filing date to March 21, 2016.

MOTION
Moved by:  M. Car
Seconded by: K. Semon
Ayes:  6   Noes:  0   Absent: 1                                         Motion Approved


Other business discussed:

M. Carr addressed the traffic study on the Ashline proposal for the restaurant on the corner of Hetcheltown and Route 50. The traffic accident history at that location is very inconsequential.  He asked Kevin Corcoran, Town Planner, for his thoughts on the Traffic Study.

K. Corcoran stated the report showed a very low accident frequency, below state average, and the causes of the accidents were not attributed to intersection design.

With no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 P.M.



Submitted by:

_________________________                               _________________________
Lynn Walkuski, Stenographer                             Linda Neals, Town Clerk