Summary from March 7, 2017 Town of Colonie Planning Board meeting
Prepared by SAVE Colonie
Planning Board members:
Peter Stuto, Chair
Brian Austin (absent)
Timothy Lane
Louis Mion
Kathleen Dalton (absent)
Susan Milstein
Craig Shamilan
Kathleen Marinelli,(absent) Counsel represented by Town Attorney, Michael Magguilli
Staff: Joe LaCivita
TDE: Joe Grasso
1. Doran Open Development Area, 3 Timothy Dr
The applicant is seeking Planning Board recommendation to the Town Board to allow development of a single family home on 1.13 acres in an Open Development Area (ODA) on Timothy Drive off Fonda Rd. Timothy Drive is a dirt road that already serves several homes in the ODA. This project previously appeared before the PB on 10/18, but was tabled pending resolution of storm runoff/drainage and fire access issues. Fred Metzer, Surveyor, represented the Dorans during both appearances.
During his presentation, Mr Metzer described the new plans for slowing storm water runoff from the property by using stone-filled check drains along the rear property leading to an enlarged drainage area on the Timothy Drive side of the property. Joe LaCivita confirmed in response to a question from Chairman Stuto that representatives from the Town's stormwater department had walked the property with the Mr Metzer and had approved of the revised drainage scheme. They further walked Fonda Rd to assess any barriers to flow. Fonda Rd has somewhat limited capacity, with any overflow from Timothy Dr going into an open field across the road. A neighbor from 96 Fonda Rd asked whether the Town would address the current choke point in the Fonda Rd drainage that had caused his neighbor's basement to flood. Mr LaCivita assured him that the Town's stormwater dept had noted the problem and had committed to address it.
ACTION: APPROVED Recommendation to the Town Board for ODA subject to normal building permitting process
2. Restaurant & Retail Building, 109 Wolf Rd application for concept acceptance
This proposal had previously appeared before the Board on June 23, 2015 for sketch plan review. The proposed development is a 2800 sq ft restaurant and 4,450 sq ft of retail in a single building, which would replace the Tri-State Laundry building, which has been vacant for some time. The proposed development is adjacent to another property with the same owner, Wolf's 111 Restaurant and Games. The developer wants to share parking with his property at 111 Wolf Rd, because it is frequently overflowing. The developer is proposing to nearly double the number of parking spaces associated with a building of this size and use. In addition, he is seeking 3 waivers:
· omit parking islands,
· omit a 10' buffer between the 111 Wolf parking lot and the 109 Wolf parking lot, and
· reduce the green space to 25.3%, which will require an incentive zoning of payment of ~$78K.
Paving in the rear will be a permeable material. The developer is proposing a 50' buffer to the rear of the property, which abuts single family residential homes. Based on an aerial view provided by the developer, trees cover the back third of the property. Most of the existing trees will be removed and replaced with a solid vinyl fence with fir trees on either side. The developer stated that “some trees would remain”, but has not yet identified them.
The proposal has already received review by Albany County – especially for storm water management.
Several members of the Board expressed concern over the amount of parking. 111 Wolf Rd already has 197 parking spaces- approximately double the minimum. The addition of 96 spaces would create a very large expanse of parking. When questioned about the amount of parking, the developer stated that it was necessary to avoid encroaching on the parking of other businesses (confirmed by the TDE, Joe Grasso, who is a patron).
A McKane of SAVE noted that the project narrative was not specific about which trees would be retained and asked whether the property bordering on the residences could at least retain the same amount of tree screening as the commercial properties to either side of it. She also asked whether the Town was getting full value with the current incentive zoning payment schedule, which had not been updated since 2009.
Joe Grasso, the TDE, recommended that the developer survey the existing trees in the 50' buffer and 18' into the proposed parking area. The developer agreed. Mr. Grasso noted that the stormwater management area would encroach into the 50' buffer. He also noted that the screening between the neighboring 111 Wolf Rd property and the abutting residences was not entirely adequate and should be strengthened.
Joe Grasso stated that “a study conducted a couple of years ago” determined that the incentive zoning payment schedule is “still in line” with expected rates.
Peter Stuto expressed the desire to table the proposal until the tree survey is completed and the necessity to replace green space with so much parking further reviewed.
One resident spoke- she said that she was worried that the trees would come down in a storm and wanted them removed. She was concerned about parking lot lighting.
The developer responded that he is using “dark skies lighting” which would not have glare.
ACTION: TABLED pending tree survey and further assessment of parking needs
3. Barbera Homes Office/Warehouse, 208 Morris Road
Application for SEQR Determination and Final Review
Barbera Homes is seeking to build a 10,000 sq ft 1-story building for an office and warehouse on a 1.28 acre vacant lot that is zoned industrial. Although the area is in the Pine Bush, it already has 5' of fill and no significant native species remaining. A full environmental assessment has been completed.
ACTION: APPROVED
4. The Summit at Forts Ferry PDD, 33 &45 Forts Ferry Road
140,000 sq ft 110 unit independent senior living apartment building complex with six garage buildings of 9-10 stalls each and 192 parking spaces. The property is 13 acres and is zoned Office/Residential. It is surrounded by single family homes on three sides.
The stated benefits to the community from this PDD is 1400' of additional sidewalk on Forts Ferry Road at a stated value of $200,000 and improved drainage on the site.
The senior housing units (+55) will rent at market rates of $1600-2500/mo including transportation services, maintenance, cable, utilities, and onsite recreational programs. There will be 4-5 staff onsite full time and 2-3 on apart-time basis.
After a promotional video of the proposed complex , the developer's representatives displayed some computer-simulated panels that purportedly represented the view from the abutting residential properties, which were later challenged by the residents, using the developer's own aerial photographs of the site.
The developer's representatives spent quite a bit of time presenting a “by right “ development, who's purpose seemed to be to present the most drastic alternative possible use of the property. Although a total of 235,000 sq ft of commercial space was included in the “by right” presentation, it is the technical maximum for the acreage. The only way to reach that would be to build a 3-story parking garage, which the Board felt was not economically feasible. A more likely scenario would be 150,000 sq ft of commercial space with surface parking. The Board recommended that the developer bank any additional spaces above the 110 required by code until the need was demonstrated.
There is a 30' utility easement proposed in the 100' buffer for Catalina. The proposed easement will be in a zig-zag configuration to avoid an open view of the properties.
The TDE advised the Board that they might want to request a detailed tree survey, and to take additional photos into the site from Catalina Drive, as well as photos from 100' into the site looking toward the residences on Catalina Dr. There was further discussion between the TDE and Board members about modification of the water feature to preserve more vegetation in the front yard. There are two access points proposed from Forts Ferry. Several Board members questioned whether the access could branch from a single curb cut or whether one of the access points could be screened and limited to emergency vehicles.
25 people- mostly neighboring residents- signed up to speak. All but two spoke out strongly against approval of the project and the PDD. They were all very clear that while they supported senior housing, they did not support the PDD because the proposed development is entirely out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. Several residents also pointed out that the rents did not represent affordable senior housing, for which there is a strong need in the Town, but rather higher end housing, for which there is significantly less need. They further protested the lack of communication by the developer, Mr. Nigro, with the neighbors, lack of transparency and the deceit of the developer in claiming the opposite. They reported that after a year, there was no progress in reaching a compromise, or any recognition of the neighbors’ issues and no communication until last Wednesdays meeting.
Some examples include:
Eric Smith, representing the West Latham Neighborhood Association, stated that his association opposed the PDD based on its size, height, and density being totally out of character with the neighborhood and also expressed concerns about storm water runoff and increased traffic.
John Drake, residing on Catalina Dr for 24 years, stated that the proposed PDD did not meet the requirement of providing “significant public benefit” and should be rejected.
Mary Cox, another neighbor, objected to the proposal as too dense. She was particularly concerned that the developer had been entirely unresponsive to proposals by residents who had come to a Board meeting to comment over a year ago, that there had been no engagement of the neighbors during that period, and that the design presented at this meeting was the same one that had been rejected last year. She expressed the opinion that the Town should not be allowing PDDs to be abused as a planning mechanism. In response to Chairman Stuto's question, she stated that she would like to see development limited to 2 stories and less dense- more like the Spinney development in Delmar.
John Fahey, another neighbor, noted that the proposed sidewalk – the big benefit from the PDD- would be on the opposite side of Forts Ferry Rd, requiring seniors from the proposed complex to cross a busy road at an uncontrolled crosswalk, which would be quite harzardous.
The owner of the property proposed for development, Phyllis Mooney, who hasn't lived in the area since 1986, gave an emotional defense of the project. Several residents noted that Ms. Mooney had previously sold several other family parcels for approved developments, pointing out that their objections were not against development per se, just the placement of this scale of development on the remaining parcel.
Crystal Bruno, a neighbor, made a well-documented presentation on the confusing process that the Town had followed since 2007 in rezoning the parcel and changing the amount of buffer required. The Town approved the rezoning of the property from residential to office/residential as part of the 2007 zoning realignment following completion of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. As part of the rezoning agreement and after negotiation with the neighbors, Ms Mooney agreed to a much larger buffer than the current 100'. This enlarged buffer was placed in the 2007 zoning maps. At some point, the Town changed the zoning back to residential and then back to office/residential, of which many neighbors were either unaware or opposed. In 2010, Ms Mooney applied for a 45 unit senior housing development, which the Board members stated they had no knowledge of, but which appeared to be supported by copies of Town documents circulated to the Board by Ms Bruno. The 45 unit development was rejected as too dense, Ms. Mooney sued the Town over the size of the buffer and won the lawsuit, which was reduced to 100'. The Town has not completed an appeal.
Todd Drake, County legislator for the neighborhood spoke affirming that most residents he had spoken to were opposed to this project due to size and he concurred with their disapproval.
Rick Bruno, a neighbor, stated that there was a reason why the residents were so angry about this development- that the lack of honesty and transparency were insulting to the neighborhood and to the Board. He asked whether the Town had received a PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) application for this development. Joe LaCivita stated that no such application had been received by the IDA, nor had one been discussed with him.
Tim Nichols reiterated that this is the same project that was before the Board last year and that the developer and the Town hadn't listened to the neighbors. He briefly described the NYS legislative history in establishing the PDD concept statewide. The intent of the PDD was to provide a planning tool that would promote flexibility, encourage mixed land uses, conserve open space, and promote smart development. He stated that this development doesn't meet the intent of the PDD, that it provides no meaningful amenities to the neighborhood. He issued a blistering denunciation of the Town's use of PDDs to “shoehorn” in development where it doesn't fit. He reminded the Board that this neighborhood had been the driving force behind the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. He criticized the Town Attorney for doing a lousy job representing the Town and its residents on this project, which prompted an angry response and defense by Attorney Magguilli, followed by an extensive speech by Supervisor Mahan, who was also in attendance, about the efforts that her administration had made to overcome the failings of the previous administration.
Susan Laurilliard from SAVE spoke and asked the Board to include SAVE's August 2016 letter to Comprehensive Plan Review Committee in the Planning Board record; include all the various handouts in the record, and include the Town Board transcripts from 2006/2007 in the record and the 2005 Route 2/Route 7 Corridor study.
Joe LaCivita agreed to upload the 2006/2007 TB minutes to the Comprehensive Plan review site.
Ms Laurillard also suggested that the Comprehensive Plan review committee should address senior housing issues and the Planning Board should wait until the Comprehensive Plan finishes its review. Board member Shamlian said that was not doable, Ms Mooney's attorney stated it wouldn't be fair if his client had to wait.
Supervisor Mahan asked for a compromise to be reached.
ACTION: TABLED
Chairman Stuto advised the developer that he probably wouldn't approve something as big as the proposal and urged the developer to engage with the neighbors and look at scaling back the proposal. The developer's attorney stated that the developer needs the one unit concept for all of the amenities.
