Town of Malta Planning Board 2540 Route 9 Malta, NY 12020 (518) 899-2685 Fax: (518) 899-4719 William Smith - Chairman Dave Bowman Kyle Kordich Roger Laime Jean Loewenstein John Viola David Wallingford Darren O Connor (Alt) Joseph Lopez (Alt) Anthony Tozzi - Director Sophia Marruso - Senior Planner Shelley Norton Senior Planner Floria Huizinga Planning Exec. Secretary Mark Schachner Legal Counsel Meeting Minutes for The Town of Malta Planning Board held its regular meeting on Tuesday, at 6:30 p.m. at the Malta Town Hall, with Chairman, William Smith presiding. Present: Absent: William Smith, David Wallingford, Jean Loewenstein, Dave Bowman, John Viola, Darren O Connor (alt), and Joseph Lopez (alt). Leah Everhart, Town Legal Counsel; Sean Doty, Town Engineer; Sophia Marruso, Senior Planner; Floria Huizinga, Planning Executive Secretary Kyle Kordich and Roger Laime Correspondence: All correspondence is on file. SMITH read the following agenda into the minutes: Project # Project Name Project Type 16-04 Kultzow Minor Subdivision 15-23 Woodfield Mixed Use Site Plan 08-30 Hearn Road Medical Site Plan Extension #16-04, Kultzow (Minor Subdivision) 244 Van Aernem Road David Bogardus, Northeast Land Survey, presented on behalf of the applicant William Kultzow. The Applicant is seeking to subdivide lands located at 244 Van Aernem Road. The parcel consists of 2.004± acre parcel and is physically divided by Van Aernem Road into two lots. The property is located at the corner of Van Aernem Road and East High Street. The zoning is R-1. Lot #1 containing the existing single-family resident will be.948± acres. Lot #2 consists of vacant land and will be 1.056±. No new construction is planned on Lot #2 at this time. Both lots have sufficient road frontage. The adjacent parcel to Lot #1 is owned by the Town of Malta and was the prior site of School House Number 6. The Town typically parks mowing tractors on the vacant lot owned by Mr. Kultzow. There are no wetlands on either parcel. MARRUSO reported that SHPO has issued a letter of no impact. Staff had requested verification from SHPO because the Applicant had indicated that the project falls within the archeological area of sensitivity. Staff
Page 2 of 9 referred to SHPO s online Cultural Resources Information System (CRIS) and determined the entirety of Lot #2 falls within the archaeological sensitive area. The subdivision action is consistent with the roadway division of the property. Both lots are zoning conforming and consistent with the Town Comprehensive plan. Staff recommends the proposed SEQRA action to be Unlisted and consisted with the Town Wide GEIS and statement of findings. SMITH opened the public hearing at 6:35 PM. CHAD ROGNER requested a copy of the proposed subdivision map and stated he is fine with the subdivision. Mr. BOGARDUS provided Mr. Rogner with a copy of the subdivision map. SMITH closed the public hearing at 6:38 PM. Motion by: Bowman Seconded by: Viola Resolution #2016-04 Be it resolved that the Malta Planning Board on the 16 th day of February, 2016, determines Project #16-04, Kultzow, Minor Subdivision, is a SEQRA Unlisted Action and is consistent to the Town Wide Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Statement of Findings; therefore no further SEQRA review is required. Vote: Wallingford Yes; Loewenstein Yes; O Connor - Yes; Bowman Yes; Viola Yes; Lopez abstained; Smith Yes Motion by: Bowman Seconded by: Wallingford Resolution #2016-05 Be it resolved that the Malta Planning Board on the 16 th day of February, 2016 approves Project #16-04, Kultzow Minor Subdivision as presented. Future development of Lot #2 is subject to mitigation fees. Vote: Wallingford Yes; Loewenstein Yes; O Connor Yes; Bowman Yes; Viola Yes; Lopez abstained; Smith Yes #15-23, Woodfield Mixed Use (Site Plan) 90 Woodfield Blvd. Scott Lansing, Lansing Engineering, and Luke Michaels, presented on behalf of the applicant, The Michaels Group. The Applicant is proposing to construct 3 buildings: (1) 5,000 SF office building, (2) 10,000 GFA (5,000 SF footprint each) multifamily buildings with a total of 16 residential units, and (5) detached garage buildings for the associated multi-family uses on 2.93 acres of vacant land along Route 9. The office building will be occupied by the Michaels Group. Utilities will be services by Saratoga County Sewer District #1 and Saratoga Water Services. LANSING noted that at the previous meeting there were several comments that the Board requested be addressed. 1) The Applicant agreed with the proposed mitigation fees as outlined in the Chazen comment letter. 2) The Applicant verified that there is adequate room for fire apparatus and found that there is 4-6 feet of room from the overhang of the truck to the edge of pavement and meets NYS Fire Code; plans were sent to the Fire Department. 3) Access to the building meets NYS Fire Code and plans have been provided to the town engineer for review. 4) Architectural drawings have been submitted to the Town for review. 5) The Applicant has received correspondence from Saratoga County Sewer District and DEC and copies have been
Page 3 of 9 provided to the Town. The Applicant is waiting for correspondence from Saratoga Water Services, which is anticipated to be issued soon. Larger specimen trees have been added to the landscaping along Route 9. The Applicant cannot prevent people from walking to Route 9. The Applicant submitted an additional letter addressing engineering comments today. MARRUSO acknowledged receipt of the letters Mr. Lansing mentioned. Staff has reviewed the architectural renderings and and both designs appear to be consistent with the PDD approved renderings. MARRUSO asked Mr. Lansing what the height of the light poles will be. LANSING stated the poles are 12 feet high. MARRUSO noted that one light pole is near one of the residence and suggested that the Planning Board may want to recommend a shorter pole. SEAN DOTY, Chazen Engineering, reported that most of the comments in the Chazen, February 11, 2016, letter are minor in nature and any outstanding comments can be addressed quickly. WALLINGFORD again expressed concerns for child/pedestrian safety along Route 9. He suggested planting a vegetative hedge from the Condo buildings to the sidewalk and along Route 9. Wallingford also stated that he believes the fire department can maneuver around the building. FRANK MAZA, Round Lake Fire Department, stated the fire department had not received updated turning radius plans. MARRUSO stated plans have been submitted to the fire department and that the Town engineer has reviewed the plans for NYS Fire Code compliance. EVERHART asked if the Condominium Owners Association (COA) will own the stormwater management areas. The applicant shall clarify if the COA will own and maintain the stormwater management areas or if easements will be provided for access. It is recommended the Town Attorney review the COA prior to submitting to the Attorney General and the Town receive a copy of final documents. VIOLA expressed concerns with the project meeting fire safety standards. LANSING stated the project provides adequate room for fire trucks and meets NYS Fire Code. He confirmed that plans have been submitted to the Round Lake and Malta Ridge Fire Departments. MARRUSO advised that the site plan meets NYS Fire Code compliance and has been reviewed by the Town engineer. DOTY suggested the Applicant provide a planting plan and address engineering comments as conditions of approval EVERHART recommended the Board reach a consensus on the planting plan. The Board discussed the planting plan for the vegetative hedge as a barrier between Route 9 and the condominium buildings. The vegetative hedge is to be four (4) feet tall at maturity and was hand drawn on the Materials Layout Plan, revision date 2/5/16. A gate is to be installed at the sidewalk entrance to Route 9. A copy of this plan has been placed in the file for reference. EVERHART stated legal council agrees with staff s recommendation that the SEQRA action is consistent with prior SEQRA findings and that no further review is necessary
Page 4 of 9 RESOLUTION #2016-06 Motion by: Wallingford Seconded by: Loewenstein Be it resolved that the Malta Planning Board on,, finds that project #15-23, Woodfield Mixed Use Site Plan is consistent with prior SEQRA findings and therefore no further SEQRA review is required. Vote: Wallingford Yes; Loewenstein Yes; O Connor - yes; Bowman Yes; Viola Yes; Lopez Yes; Smith Yes Motion by: Wallingford Seconded by: Loewenstein RESOLUTION #2016-07 Be it resolved that the Malta Planning Board on,, approves Project #15-23, Woodfield Mixed Use Site Plan, with the following conditions: 1. Final plans to include vegetated hedge plantings which at maturation reach at least 4 feet in height generally configured by Planning Board on 2/16/16 as reflected in a hand drawn plan from meeting (Materials Layout Plan, revision date 2/5/16 and stamped received 2/16/16). A gate is to be installed at the sidewalk entrance to Route 9. 2. Applicant to address Chazen engineering comment letter dated February 11, 2016. 3. Applicant to provide agreement to connect correspondence from Saratoga Water Services. 4. Planning Board attorney to review draft Condominium Owners Association (COA) formation materials to ensure that the COA will own and maintain the stormwater infrastructure. 5. The development is subject to mitigation fees as calculated in the February 11, 2016 Chazen correspondence. Vote: Wallingford Yes; Loewenstein Yes; O Connor Yes; Bowman No; Viola No; Lopez Yes; Smith Yes #08-30, Hearn Road Medical (Site Plan Extension) 2801 Route 9 Bernhard Schiel, Northway Saratoga Holdings, LLC, requested an additional one year extension for the Hearn Road Medical site plan. He reported the Applicant has invested a great deal of time, financing, engineering, and legal work into the site and that it is critical that approvals stay in place. The viability of the project is based on the approvals staying in place. He advised that reports and plans for the water have been sent to DEC for review and approval. The property was purchased for two million dollars. SCHIEL reviewed with the Board Michael Sterthous letter dated February 10, 2016 which outlines the Applicant s plea for another extension. He noted that water and sewer will be extended 3000 feet along Route 9, and will provide water to the Malta Ridge Fire Department. He reiterated that economic circumstances have prevented the Applicant from moving forward with the project.
Page 5 of 9 WALLINGFORD noted that the Board had approved four prior extensions and that no improvement to the site has been made. The 2015 Planning Board approval was granted and stated that no additional extensions would be granted. He was not in favor of granting the Applicant s request for another extension. SCHIEL stated that the Board has nothing to lose by granting an extension and asked the Board to reconsider and grant another extension. LOEWENSTEIN said she understood the Applicant s position to a certain point. She noted that the 2009 approval is a long time to not see progress. The financial investment the Applicant made is a decision the developer makes and as the Board reviews things it cannot look at the choices the Applicant makes for investment. She also expressed concerns with changes in the community since the original approval. If the Board were to approve the development today it might be something different. O CONNOR asked how much of the $300,000 investment was spent in the past 3 years. VUILLAUME stated approximately $40,000 was for engineering costs. SCHIEL stated a lot of time has been spent on marketing the project. O CONNOR asked for clarification of whether the extension of water would benefit other properties along the way. VUILLAUME stated that they have been working with Saratoga Water Services in preparing the application that is submitted to the Health Department. The engineering for the water is finished. The water will be extended 3000 feet from St. Ledger s Woods to Hearn Road. The fire department and residents on Hearn Road would get water. BOWMAN stated he was against the prior extension and still is against granting another extension. VIOLA noted that the property was put up for sales shortly after the initial approval of the project. He expressed concerns whether there was good intent to develop the property. He expressed concerns that existing medical buildings in Malta are not fully occupied. He does not think there is a benefit to neighboring properties for the extension of water. He stated the project has gone on too long and that site plans typically are good for 3 years. LOPEZ expressed concerns with the lack of movement of the project. There have been other projects that were approved during the same time period and have been successfully developed. He also commented that the land has been for sale and noted that nothing is going to happen until the Applicant has someone to develop it. SCHIEL explained that the proposed project is for an imaging center and its size does not compare to other approved projects. There is no requirement that the Board cannot extend the project. He emphasized that if he did not have intension of moving forward with the project he would not have spent money and time on developing the project. He clarified the For Sale sign is a marketing tool advertising the site is available. SCHIEL and his partner purchased the land from the prior owner, Saratoga Malta, LLC, with the intension of moving the project forward. He has owned the property for approximately six or seven years. WALLINGFORD asked when the application to Saratoga Water Services was made. SCHIEL stated it was submitted in September 2015. He did not know that the water application had not been approved. LEAH EVERHART addressed the Board and directed them to the staff review which quotes Town Code Section 167-24F(7) of the zoning law. This Section sets the criteria for the Board to consider when an applicant seeks further site plan extension, which the Board has an obligation to consider. The Board does not care who owns the land. The concern is the development of the land. Whether the current owner wishes to be the developer is immaterial. The concerns expressed of the property being for sale and when it was put up for sales is irrelevant for the Board s consideration. The Board is to decide if they are granting or denying an extension.
Page 6 of 9 Upon denial of the extension the Applicant may resubmit the same application as approved in 2009, may go forward with vacant unapproved land or the applicant may resubmit the site plan application that was previously submitted in 2009 and seek the same approval again. Motion by: Loewenstein Seconded by: Bowman TOWN OF MALTA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION 8 OF 2016 DENYING THE REQUEST TO FURTHER EXTEND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROJECT NO. 08-30 HEARN ROAD MEDICAL WHEREAS, on March 17, 2009 the Planning Board conditionally approved the Hearn Road Medical Site Plan submitted by Saratoga Malta, LLC concerning property owned by Northway Saratoga Holdings, LLC (Applicant); and WHEREAS, the Site Plan was thereafter amended to alter the components of the sanitary sewer infrastructure to be installed; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Malta Town Code Section 167-24 (F) (4), Site Plan Approvals shall be void if construction is not completed and a certificate of occupancy issued within three years of Site Plan Approval; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Malta Town Code Section 167-24 (F) (7), the Planning Board may, in its discretion, extend this time period by up to two years; and WHEREAS, the Site Plan Approval would have expired by its terms in March of 2012, however, the Planning Board granted four one-year extensions, the last of which is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2016; and WHEREAS, after the passage of almost seven years from the Planning Board s original Site Plan Approval, there has been no building permit sought to allow for commencement of construction activities; and WHEREAS, during that time, properties within the vicinity of this site have been developed including the Malta Avenue Professional Offices; and
Page 7 of 9 WHEREAS, the Applicant now seeks to further extend the 2009 Site Plan Approval to 2017, for a total of eight years; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board, has given due consideration to this extension request at its regularly scheduled meeting of. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board finds as follows: 1. Proper planning requires careful and deliberate consideration not merely of the site of any proposed development, but also the nature of development within the vicinity which relies upon and further burdens the same shared infrastructure. 2. In 2009, the Planning Board was particularly concerned with features of this Site development including potential impacts to traffic. However, due in part to the nature of nearby properties at that time, the Planning Board conditionally approved the Site Plan. 3. While there have been no amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Law and no Moratoria adopted which directly impact this Site, there have been substantial changes in the nearby community over the last seven years, including, but not limited to, development of the Malta Avenue Professional Offices in close proximity to this Site. Such development constitutes a material change to the neighborhood in relation to traffic impacts. 4. While the Applicant identified a number of steps taken toward project advancement since initial Site Plan Approval, the vast majority of those steps occurred within the initial three-year approval period or soon thereafter. For example, the Applicant stated that the necessary Freshwater Wetlands Permit and Water Quality Certification were obtained from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in 2010; the SPDES Permit was obtained in 2011; the State Public Service Commission approved the water rates to be charged by Saratoga Water Services, Inc. (SWS) for provision of water to the Site in 2011; parcels within the Site were merged to facilitate project development in 2012 and the County Sewer District approval was issued in 2013.
Page 8 of 9 5. From 2013 to present, the only advancement identified by the Applicant was SWS s agreement to allow assignment of a private Water Supply contract. 6. While the Applicant indicates that over $300,000 has been expended toward site development, the Applicant does not indicate when such funds were expended (pre or post Site Plan Approval). In addition, the overwhelming majority of funds were advanced over three years ago. 7. The Applicant has continually identified the general economy as the basis for previous extension requests. While greater economic forces generally exist outside the direct control of any given applicant, the extensive and prolonged delay, coupled with the relatively scant progress over the past several years during a time of economic recovery, suggests that the economy is not the principal cause for the most recent extension request. 8. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that it has diligently pursued project development during the most recent extension and even during previous extensions. 9. The only outstanding approval identified by the Applicant concerns the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation s approval of the final Engineering Plan for water service to the Site. The Applicant indicates that the Engineering Plan was not submitted to DEC until after September 29, 2015, but provides no explanation for its delay, as provision of water service has been a necessary component of Site development since 2009. 10. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate good cause for any further extensions. RESOLVED, that the Board hereby denies the Applicant s request to further extend the Hearn Road Medical Site Plan Approval of 2009. Vote: Wallingford Yes; Loewenstein Yes; O Connor - Yes; Bowman Yes; Viola Yes; Lopez Yes; Smith Yes ADOPTED: VOTE AYES 7 NAYS 0
Page 9 of 9 Planning Board Business Wallingford motioned to accept the January 19, 2016 minutes, Seconded by Loewenstein, motion carried. Bowman and Viola abstained SMITH reviewed Planning Board member and alternate roles and reminded Board members that Legal Counsel, Mark Schachner, has previously advised that the alternates are only allowed to ask questions when filling in for a Board member. EVERHART stated that the best practice is to participate by listening for alternates. SMITH said he had a conversation with the prior Town Supervisor who had no problem with alternates actively participating; however, the current Supervisor is in agreement with Legal Counsel s guidance. O CONNOR requested that he be notified, in advance, if he is needed as an alternate for future meetings. SMITH also reminded Board members of the recusal process from projects. When Board members have a conflict of interest, i.e. family, close friends; don t like the project, etc. they should recuse themselves from participating in a project, and if it comes back to the Board in the future they should not participate. If a Board member has made a public stance on a project they should also recuse themselves. When a Board member recuses him/herself, he/she should step down and sit in the audience or leave the room. VIOLA asked if a board member does not like the applicant/project, would it be appropriate for the member to ask questions as a member of the public. EVERHART advised that a fellow board member should not have pull over other board members and therefore should remain silent. WALLINGFORD motioned to adjourn the meeting to the next regular meeting or any other meeting necessary for the conduct of the Planning Board, seconded by O CONNOR motion carried at 8:00 PM. Respectfully submitted by, Floria Huizinga Planning Board Secretary