Skip Navigation
Welcome to Glenville
Town Links
Quick LInks

This table is used for column layout.




PZC Minutes 3-14-2016
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
TOWN OF GLENVILLE
18 GLENRIDGE ROAD
GLENVILLE, N.Y. 12302
MARCH 14, 2016

Present:        Michael Carr, Chairman, Tom Bodden, James Gibney, Marshall Tanner, Kurt Semon, and Tim Yosenick

Also Attending: Kevin Corcoran, Town Planner, Mike Cuevas, Attorney and Lynn Walkuski, Stenographer

Absent: Pat Ragucci

Meeting called to order at 7:00 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 February 8, 2016 meeting:
Moved by: M. Carr
Seconded by: J. Gibney
Ayes:  6   Noes: 0   Absent: 1                                  Motion Approved








Wolf Hollow Brewing Company                                                 Site Plan Review - Combined
6882 Amsterdam Road                                                     (Public Hearing)
                                                                                Preliminary and Final

Wolf Hollow Brewing is proposing to build a 60’ x 20’ outdoor enclosed patio to the rear (off the northeast corner) of the existing brewery building.  They are also proposing to reconfigure the internal access road and gravel parking lot to the rear.  Lastly, they are requesting rescission of the previous condition of site plan approval that prohibited the outdoor consumption of alcohol on site.

Peter Bednarek, co-owner and General Manager of Wolf Hollow Brewing Company (WHBC), addressed the Commission.  

P. Bednarek indicated he envisioned the patio in sections of thirds.  Patio furniture would be located in the first two thirds, with the middle third having a pergola for shade, and the northern most third will house the fire pit.  Patrons would access the patio through a roll-up garage door located on the northeast corner of the building.

K. Semon inquired about patrons exiting the patio area to the parking area. Would this be through the building?  He also asked about the type of fuel for the fire pit and whether consideration had been given to an emergency exit/gate.

P. Bednarek confirmed that patrons will need to go through the building to access the parking lot.  The fire pit will be wood burning and there will be gates installed which can be used as emergency exits.

T. Yosenick asked about how many tables and chairs will be on the patio.

P. Bednarek stated that although he has not yet configured the tables, the tables will provide seating for either 4 or 6, totaling about 40- 50 seats. At this point, there is no seating in the fire pit area.

M. Tanner asked will placement be on the grass or gravel?

P. Bednarek indicated it will be on the gravel. The patio extends 6 feet to the east edge of the building and 60’ back.

T. Bodden asked is the roll-up door located directly to the right of the building entrance as you enter the brewery?

P. Bednarek confirmed it was.

M. Carr wished to address some of the issues from the agenda meeting.  First, is the food service being provided by a third party? How is that going to be handled?  It is understood that it is BBQ food. Have there been any issues?

P. Bednarek said they already have BBQ food in-house; it’s a walk-up service, and there will not be wait-staffed service on the patio.

K. Semon asked if the BBQ was prepared ahead of time or whether it was prepared on premises.

P. Bednarek stated that it is prepared/smoked on the premises.

M. Carr inquired does the BBQ preparation have any affect on the neighbors?  Residential areas are on either side of the WHBC and they have heard that the neighbors are receptive to this business.

P. Bednarek said that he has contacted both neighbors and has walked the property with them.  He presented the Commission a letter from Mr. Kowalski, one of the neighbors, which indicated that he has no objection to the proposal. He also indicated that there haven’t been any problems /  complaints with the BBQ preparation of food.

M. Carr addressed the issue if there would be any outdoor entertainment or live music on the patio.  The Commission is aware of another venue having issues about live music on their patio.

P. Bednarek said at this time there were no plans for that.

K. Semon stated if they were planning to have live music it would be beneficial to hear about it now instead of having to revisit it later.

M. Carr next asked about the hours of operation; would they change and have there been any complaints?

P. Bednarek said their hours would stay the same; Thursday and Friday 4:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. and Saturday 12 noon to 10:00 p.m. He also stated they have been very well received with no complaints.

M. Carr addressed the issue of lighting. Will there be any increase in lighting as a result of the outdoor patio?

P. Bednarek said there will be nothing brighter than what is currently installed.  There are two motion sensored flood lights; one, located on the peak of the back northern part of the building and one at the entrance.  He indicated that lighting for the pergola would be small Edison stringed lights or lantern styled lighting at the fire pit.

M. Carr brought up the next issue of traffic. How will it be handled?

P. Bednarek said there is a slight redesign from the original site plans.  The proposed site plan now shows an in/out path, one way, with additional parking along where the two sheds are located.  This provides access to the additional parking area along with keeping traffic away from the patio.

K. Semon asked if more gravel would be brought in.

P. Bednarek said they would be bringing in more gravel along with signage indicating the in/out traffic pattern.

T. Yosenick asked whether there were going to be changes in rest room facilities due to increased number of seats.  Will they be able to handle additional capacity?

P. Bednarek indicated that they would be able to handle additional patrons as they have two bathrooms.

J. Gibney asked if there was a septic system or sewer, and if it’s septic, is it adequate?

P. Bednarek said there is a septic system and it is adequate to accommodate additional usage.

M. Carr asked about the well and its construction details.

P. Bednarek indicated that it is fairly new and drilled.  The leach fields are off to the north of the septic tank.

M. Carr also addressed the issue of the residential houses next to the business in relation to the patio.

P. Bednarek said the houses sit closer to the road while the majority of the patio is shielded by the current building.

T. Bodden questioned about lighting for the parking area that is in the back.

P. Bednarek said they have flood lights on the sheds and there is a 20’pole next to the garden shed which is also a flood light.

M. Carr noted that there haven’t been any complaints from the neighbors with the existing lighting.

M. Carr asked what would be their maximum capacity on a really good weekend?

P. Bednarek indicated that it would probably be about 150 with the patio.  

The concern for parking was brought up and M. Carr asked K. Corcoran, Town Planner, if he saw any issues.

K. Corcoran stated that there hasn’t been any issues that they are aware of.  If more space is needed customers could park on the grass.

T. Bodden asked if any current parking will be eliminated?

P. Bednarek said the only thing that is changing is in/out traffic pattern near the assorted tree area listed on the map.  Current parking will remain.

T. Bodden had concern with pedestrians walking from the parking lot sharing a road with cars. Would the applicant consider a sidewalk or path?

P. Bednarek agreed that they would be able to do that.  The location would be along the patio fence area.

Discussion followed about whether walkway should be paved or gravel and whether it should be marked or not.  

T. Yosenick asked if there is an actual number of parking spots dictated by code.

M. Carr doesn’t think there is an issue with the parking; there is plenty of room.

M. Carr asked if the speed limit on Route 5 is 55 mph and are there any issue with sight distance?

P. Bednarek responded no you can see clearly both ways.  The speed limit is 55 mph.

M. Carr said that they would not be able to move on this application tonight as the County Zoning Referral has not come back yet.  K. Corcoran contacted the County to expedite, but as of yet nothing has been received.

K. Semon inquired about the number of staff and whether there have been any public disturbances within the past year.

P. Bednarek replied two staff are behind the bar, one is in the BBQ area.  There have been a couple of instances where staff have stopped serving patrons, but nothing more.

T. Yosenick asked if they would be open on Sunday, and if so, what would the time frame be?

P. Bednarek said possibly within the next year.

M. Carr called for a public hearing and with no comments the public hearing was closed.

K. Semon suggested WHBC should get a letter from their other neighbor, Mr. Mooney, which would also indicate that he has no objections to the proposed patio.

MOTION

In the matter of Wolf Hollow Brewing Co, located at 6882 Amsterdam Road, the PZC hereby motions to table this application until the April 11th  meeting due to the County referral having not been received.

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





Ronold Woodbeck, III                                    Site Plan Review
3 Horstman Drive                                                (Preliminary)

The applicant is looking to convert a former doctor’s office into a day care center.  As proposed, the facility would be on a private well and septic system.  The property is located on the southwest corner of Route 50 and Horstman Drive, and is zoned Professional/Residential.

R. Woodbeck addressed the Commission and said his plans were to keep the existing footprint externally with the exclusion of some fencing and an entrance door leading to the outdoor play area. The interior will be gutted and renovated except for the entrance and foyer which will remain the same. The heating, air conditioning and roof are new.  The interior fireplace will be removed to acquire more square footage. The basement will be utilized for storage and the garage will stay the same.

T. Bodden asked where will the children play outside?
R. Woodbeck indicated there will be a fenced-in area around the perimeter of the building. He also indicated that he will be keeping the trees that are already there.  He has spoken with Terri Petricca, a neighbor, who also said that she would like to have the trees kept alongside the garage and Route 50 because they block the lights from Mohawk Honda.  Mr. Woodbeck said the parking lot will remain the same, but will have a reconfiguration of lines. The landscaping and lighting will remain the same, with a flood light  on the garage and a post lamp to the left.  

T. Bodden inquired about the installation of playground equipment.

R. Woodbeck stated no major equipment will be installed due to lack of space.  

M. Tanner asked if the age limit was up to age 4 years old and how many children will there be?

R. Woodbeck said the ages of the children will range in age from 6 weeks to 11 years.  It is expected that he will have 40-44 children enrolled.

M. Carr questioned whether the applicant felt he really had enough space to accommodate that number of children.

R. Woodbeck indicated that based on OCFS standards he has enough space.  

M. Tanner asked how many staff will be on site.

R. Woodbeck said if they maximum numbers there will be seven staff including himself, as director and school age teacher. He indicated he would like to use the well, depending on water sample test results.  If the results are not satisfactory, he would like to hook into the water line on Route 50.

K. Semon asked where the well and septic were located, noting there are sewer lines on Route 50 that could be hooked into if needed. He also asked if laundry will done on site.

R. Woodbeck said that he had priced out the cost of hooking up to the sewer line on Route 50 and it is cost prohibitive. He expects about 21 school age children and only 8 between the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. that would be using the facilities.  There will not be any laundry done on site.

T. Bodden indicated he lives on that street and said that most people don’t have adequate distance between the well and septic. Since this is going to be a commercial day care, and under current regulations, the applicant may have to hook into the sewer line.

M. Carr said that the applicant is going to have to demonstrate to the Commission that the current septic system will be able to handle the number of people expected at the daycare, since the original design of the septic system was not for a large number of people.

Several members posed the question about the State’s requirements for the applicant to prove that there is sufficient sanitary facilities on site to be run as a daycare.

R. Woodbeck stated that they are concerned with the number of toilets and sinks. The guideline ratio is 15:1; 15 children to one toilet and one sink.

K. Semon followed up by asking about the water quality.

R. Woodbeck said the water will be tested for consumability.

M. Carr asked where it will be tested.  At this point, Mr. Woodbeck approached the dais and showed paperwork regarding water testing protocol.

Several discussions continued among the members regarding the sanitary requirements and water consumability testing.

R. Woodbeck stated the owner, Dr. Hwang, had expanded the septic field (2,000 gallon tank and 1,000 gallon drywell) in order to accommodate the increased traffic of the doctor’s business.  It was moved from the front to the side of the lot.

M. Carr pointed out there are County Health and State regulations regarding location of the well to the septic field. Typically, you need to have 100 feet between them and the proposed site is small.

K. Semon noted there had been an expansion on this building and asked if the basement had been expanded.

R. Woodbeck said the expansion had a crawl space under it. There is a basement under the original building.

K. Semon asked if it was possible for the well to be in the crawl space.

M. Carr agreed that it was possible depending upon the age of the building.  The applicant will need to have answers to the construction of the well, proximity of well to septic field and the increased usage and capability of the septic system.

M. Carr next asked about the issue of traffic and drop-off times. How will it be handled?

K. Semon asked about how will parking be handled regarding special events.

T. Yosenick pointed out if both parents come to a special event, Horstman Drive will not be able to accommodate the increased traffic.

R. Woodbeck responded that it is a double lot and there is an open grass area, about 40-50 yards, that could be used for overflow parking. He also stated that he would ask the bank and/or Mohawk Honda if they would allow for additional parking for the daycare.

M. Carr stated that asking the other business to allow for overflow parking brings in another issue of pedestrians having to cross Route 50 to get to the daycare center.

T. Bodden asked about the distance of the driveway from Route 50 and asked K. Corcoran, Town Planner, if the change of usage will have an effect on the curb cut requirement.

K. Corcoran said the County referral was sent in last week.  We have not gotten back the County’s response/concerns, other than a brief conversation where the County questioned the adequacy of parking and proximity of the driveway to Route 50.

R. Woodbeck stated that he believes since the parking lot was reconfigured that he was not held to the 100’ curb cut requirement.

T. Bodden inquired as to how the significant change in use of property is effected by our Zoning requirements and the planning review process.

M. Carr stated although this type of business is allowed, there are concerns for what is the intensity of usage.  

R. Woodbeck mentioned that is similar to the Olde Schoolhouse Daycare Center where there was a driveway close to Route 50.

T. Bodden pointed out the two parcels are different considering the former was a  schoolhouse with a much larger parking lot.  At capacity you will have 7 employees and only 10 parking spots available.

R. Woodbeck stated that the number of spots was taken directly from code.

K. Semon speaking on the issue of parking, indicated that the applicant will know the number of employees and the approximate number of parents due to the enrollment.  Both need to be taken  into consideration.

T. Bodden is concerned about parents dropping off children.Where are they going to park? It’s a residential driveway.

M. Carr also asked will there be bus drop off?

R. Woodbeck stated that he will allow bus drop off.

M. Carr noted the calculations on short form EAF state the parcel is .9 acres, but the map submitted says .65 acres.  This will need to be verified.

T. Bodden asked the applicant why he decided on this site.

R. Woodbeck mentioned several features such as its closeness to SG Schools, the building is in nice shape, accessibility to Route 50, an outdoor play area on grass, along with good visual access up and down Route 50.

T. Bodden inquired where the applicant is with OCFS and their evaluation of this idea.

R. Woodbeck stated OFCS is concerned more with supplies, sufficient playground coverage and area, square footage of rooms, is the location far enough back from road, and background checks for staff.

T. Bodden asked so they have signed off on your floor plan, but don’t address the issue of parking, etc?

R. Woodbeck responded that is correct.

M. Cuevas, Attorney, cited Town Code Section 271.13, stating if there is a change from drs office, so long as there is no change in intensification of use, then a site plan review and approval is not needed. However, any change to building footprint, alternation of parking lot, etc. are all considered site features.

T. Bodden asked if the applicant knew how long the building has been vacant.

R.Woodbeck said he did not know.

K. Corcoran stated that for usage, if  the building has been vacant longer than two years then a site plan review is needed.

K. Semon asked about the type and height of fencing to be used.

R. Woodbeck said that he is planning on white vinyl picket fencing for aesthetics, but admitted he hasn’t really looked into it regarding the height.

 


Motion

In the matter of Ronold Woodbeck III, for the conversion of a doctor’s office into a day care center located at 3 Horstman Drive, the PZC hereby moves to table the project until the applicant can provide the Commission answers to the following questions/concerns.
  • The well construction and location relative to the septic field.
  • The increased usage expected and suitability of the septic system to handle increase
  • Confirmation of lot size.
  • Traffic plan and parking plan, including both drop off and pick up times, bus drop off, and special events
  • Type of fencing and height
  • Zoning Referral from County
MOTION
Moved by:  M. Carr
Seconded by:  K. Semon
Ayes:   6   Noes:   0   Absent:   1                                     Motion Approved



Amedore Group, Inc.                                             Revision to Extension
Yates Farm Condominiums – Maple Avenue                        that was Granted on
December 14, 2015

In December 2015, the PZC granted a three-month extension to Amedore for filing of the final site plan for the Yates Farm project, moving the filing deadline to February 29, 2016.  The wording of the extension approval was incorrect.  The extension should have been for commencement of construction, not filing of the final site plan. The final site plan was filed on October 13, 2008. Commencement of construction began on December 24, 2015. This action corrects the record and allows the applicant to close on financing.

M. Carr asked K. Corcoran, Town Planner, if the extension was worded wrong.

K. Corcoran stated the December 14th extension was worded properly according to what the applicant initially requested.  However, it wasn’t until the applicant was set to close on the financing of the project that the financing institution noted the wording needed to indicate commencement of construction.  Our code states that you must start construction within 2 years of site plan approval.  The applicant had received several extensions on the site plan approval over the past 8 years, the last extension ending on November 30, 2015.

M. Carr stated all that is needed is something that references when the PZC approved the December 14th extension, the wording should have read extension for the commencement of construction instead of filing of final site plan.



Motion

In the matter of Amedore Group, Inc., Yates Farm Condominiums – Maple Avenue the PZC is amending the notice of decision of December 14, 2015 to indicate that the application should have read the granting of an extension of the commencement of construction.  That extension was granted from November 30, 2015 to February 29, 2016.

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


Peter Ashline                                           Revision to Preliminary Site
612 Saratoga Road                                               Plan Approval and
                                                                Recommendation to the ZBA
                                                                on the Conditional Use Permit
                                                                Application

In order to satisfy the Schenectady County Dept. of Engineering & Public Works requirement regarding location of the driveway on Hetcheltown Road, the applicant has opted to use the existing curb cut on Hetcheltown Road, which provides a 100+ foot separation distance from the intersection of Hetcheltown and Route 50. This necessitated a redesign of the site plan, including the location and size of the proposed restaurant.  The restaurant has been down-sized from 1,900 sq. ft. and 55 seats to 1,420 sq. ft. and 42 seats.

M. Carr asked K. Corcoran what is the status of application.

K. Corcoran indicated he has sent the new site plans to the County and is waiting for their response.  The County wants to review the new site plans to make sure there are no alterations within the right-of-way that would trigger a County permit.




Motion

In the matter of Peter Ashline, for the construction of a restaurant at 612 Saratoga Road, the PZC hereby moves to table the application until the applicant is ready and has direction from the County, along with a revised site plan.

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

With no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.




Submitted by:



_____________________                                        _________________________
Lynn Walkuski, Stenographer                                  Linda C. Neals, Town Clerk