Anthony Tozzi - Director
John Zepko - Senior Planner
Caleb Stratton - Planner
Sophia Marruso - Planner
Glenn Rockwood - Chairman
Kyle Kordich
Fred Larson
Jean Loewenstein
William Smith
Dave Stiles
Dave Wallingford
Carrie Woerner (alt)
Roger Laime (alt)
Town of Malta
Planning Board
2540 Route 9
Malta, NY 12020
(518) 899-2685
Fax: (518) 899-4719
Meeting Minutes
The Town of Malta Planning Board held its regular meeting on Tuesday, May 18, 2010, at 6:30
p.m. at the Community Center, with Chairman Glenn Rockwood presiding.
Present: Glenn Rockwood, Kyle Kordich, Jean Loewenstein, Bill Smith, Dave Stiles, Dave
Wallingford, Carrie Woerner
Karen Heggen, Town Attorney; Joel Bianchi, Town Engineer; Caleb Stratton, Town Planner
Absent: Fred Larson, Roger Laime
Correspondence: All correspondence is on file.
ROCKWOOD read the following agenda into the minutes:
Project #
10-11
10-13
10-14
10-02
10-03
#10-11
Project Name
CVS Subdivision
396 East Line Road
5067 Nelson Avenue Extension
State Farm 1D
State Farm 1A
CVS Subdivision
Project Type
Subdivision
Lot Line Adjustment
Subdivision
Site Plan
Site Plan
2535 Route 9
STEPHANIE FERRADINO, of Jones Ferradino, provided an overview of the previous approvals
granted for the site. The original Constantine property was subdivided, granted a special use
permit, and a corresponding site plan was approved in August 19, 2008. A site plan amendment
was approved in February 24, 2009. An area variance was granted to allow for 99-foot road
frontage on June 2, 2009. Additionally, reciprocal easements, a stormwater easement, and a
frontage easement were all granted. With regard to the SEQR determination, she suggested that
it is an unlisted action with a negative declaration. FERRADINO addressed two issues that were
raised at the April 20th meeting. A Board member had asked if the site plan needed modification;
she answered that if there are changes made to what was proposed, there would be
modifications in parking, type of permitted use, and a change in configuration of the building and
parking area. The Board had also asked if there was a maintenance agreement, which
FERRADINO clarified as being part of an easement (granted March 10, 2009).
1
STRATTON added that the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the zoning district,
and requires SEQR action and the Board approval or disapproval. ROCKWOOD asked what the
minimum lot size is in the downtown district. FERRADINO replied 40,000 square feet; both new
lots would be in excess of an acre, each. BIANCHI added that the subdivision would be an
unlisted action. STRATTON clarified that the project could not be found as a negative declaration;
instead, it is consistent with the GEIS, and the applicant will pay certain fees. ROCKWOOD
asked if there was any comment from the public; there was none. The public hearing was closed
at 6:43 p.m.
RESOLUTION #2010-24
Motion by:
Jean Loewenstein
Seconded by: Dave Wallingford
Be it resolved that the Town of Malta Planning Board does hereby determine that Project
#10-11, CVS Subdivision, is in conformance with the conditions and thresholds of the
Town of Malta’s Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Statement of Findings. The
applicant will be responsible for all GEIS mitigation fees associated with this project.
Vote: Rockwood-yes, Smith-yes, Loewenstein-yes, Wallingford-yes, Woerner-yes, Stilesyes, Kordich-yes
RESOLUTION #2010-25
Motion by:
Carrie Woerner
Seconded by: Dave Stiles
Be it resolved that the Town of Malta Planning Board approves the subdivision for Project
#10-11, CVS Subdivision, with the following conditions:


The Board waives the 2nd public hearing and fees associated with the 2nd public
hearing
Submit final subdivision fees upon submission of final maps to be signed by Town
Officials and Planning Chairman.
Vote: Rockwood-yes, Smith-yes, Loewenstein-yes, Wallingford-yes, Woerner-yes, Stilesyes, Kordich-yes
#10-13
396 East Line Road Lot Line Adjustment
396 East Line Road
RODGER REESE presented to board the proposed lot line adjustment at 382 and 396 East Line
Road, summarizing that his intent was to retain the land behind his home containing his gardens
and yard. STRATTON commented that the lots with the proposed changes meet the minimum
requirements of the R1 zone. He noted that the SEQR will be unlisted, and recommended a
negative declaration since no new properties are being created. ROCKWOOD asked if there
were homes on both properties and inquired about the location of the wells. HEGGEN asked if
the Planning Board could approve the lot line adjustment subject to her review of the survey. The
Planning Board asked the applicant if it was possible to submit a new survey with the home and
well locations noted. The applicant expressed concern over being able to quickly obtain a new
survey map. ROCKWOOD asked if the planner and the Planning Board had any issues accepting
the survey maps as they were presented. STRATTON responded that he was satisfied with the
plans, but it was up to the Planning Board to determine whether or not to make the request for a
map with the specific items notated.
2
RESOLUTION #2010-26
Motion by:
Jean Loewenstein
Seconded by: Dave Wallingford
Be it resolved that the Town of Malta Planning Board does hereby determine that Project
#10-13, 396 East Line Road, will have no significant adverse environmental impact and
therefore adopts a negative declaration pursuant to the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act. This determination is based upon the Board’s review of the
documentations submitted by the applicant (dated April 8, 2010), the information
presented and discussed at the meeting (dated May 18, 2010) and correspondence from
the Town of Malta Building/Planning Department (dated April 29. 2010) with the condition
to submit the deed language for review by the attorney and consolidating the two lots into
one lot.
Vote: Rockwood-yes, Smith-yes, Loewenstein-yes, Wallingford-yes, Woerner-yes, Stilesyes, Kordich-yes
RESOLUTION #2010-27
Motion by:
Dave Wallingford
Seconded by: Jean Loewenstein
Be it resolved that the Town of Malta Planning Board approves the lot line adjustment for
Project #10-13, 396 East Line Road, with the following conditions:








Before the maps are filed that they are presented to the Planning Department for
approval, indicating the structures on said parcels
As shown on survey map dated March 30, 2010
No new lot be created
Consolidation of the Reese parcel into one tax parcel
New deed be reviewed and approved by the Planning Attorney prior to filing
The Board waives the 2nd public hearing and fees associated with the 2nd Public
hearing
Waive park fees
Submit final subdivision maps to be signed by Town Officials and Planning Chairman
Vote: Rockwood-yes, Smith-yes, Loewenstein-yes, Wallingford-yes, Woerner-yes, Stilesyes, Kordich-yes
#10-14
5067 Nelson Avenue Extension Subdivision
5067 Nelson Avenue Extension
DUANE RABIDEAU, professional land surveyor from Gilbert VanGuilder Land Surveyor,
presented on behalf of the applicant, Kay Katzer. He explained that she wanted to subdivide the
71.447-acre to sell a 5-acre parcel at the northwest corner of the lot to the adjoining landowner,
Marie Balet. He said that they don’t plan on building, but are planning on using the land for their
business. SMITH asked if the Balet property is north of the parcel on the survey map. RABIDEAU
replied yes. ROCKWOOD asked if there was anything additional that the Planning Board needed
to know. STRATTON explained that the application was very straightforward, and that he had two
comments. The first was that in the event that Balet decides to develop on the new 5-acre parcel,
she will need to file for a soil disturbance permit based upon the level of disturbance caused by
the level of activity; this permit is either inexpensive or free. The second comment was that the
town has a GEIS which assesses the appropriate fees based upon the future build-out. Because
the buyer isn’t building, there won’t be fees with the subdivision. If and when they decide to build,
3
there will be certain fees applied, all of which can be found at the Town’s Building and Planning
Department. He said that he just wanted all parties to be aware of these potential fees.
HEGGEN noted that the map shows an encroachment of a mulch area, and assumed that the
area had been moved; she asked if the final maps would not show the encroachment area.
RABIDEAU replied yes.
With no public comment, ROCKWOOD closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m.
RESOLUTION #2010-28
Motion by:
Bill Smith
Seconded by: Jean Loewenstein
Be it resolved that the Town of Malta Planning Board does hereby determine that Project
#10-14, 5067 Nelson Avenue Extension, is in conformance with the conditions and
thresholds of the Town of Malta’s Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Statement
of Findings. The applicant will be responsible for all GEIS mitigation fees associated with
this project.
Vote: Rockwood-yes, Smith-yes, Loewenstein-yes, Wallingford-yes, Woerner-yes, Stilesyes, Kordich-yes
RESOLUTION #2010-29
Motion by:
Dave Wallingford
Seconded by: Dave Stiles
Be it resolved that the Town of Malta Planning Board approves the subdivision for Project
#10-14, 5067 Nelson Avenue Extension, with the following conditions:



The Board waives the 2nd public hearing and fees associated with the 2nd public
hearing
Submit final subdivision fees upon submission of final maps to be signed by Town
Officials and Planning Chairman.
Filing of Notice of Intent (NOI) and Response Letter from DEC regarding NOI along with
their SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) prior to any work done on the
property
Vote: Rockwood-yes, Smith-yes, Loewenstein-yes, Wallingford-yes, Woerner-yes, Stilesyes, Kordich-yes
#10-02
State Farm 1D Site Plan
40 State Farm Place
JOE BIANCHINE of ABD Engineers and Surveyors presented to the Planning Board, and began
by reviewing previous presentation and project progress. He addressed the comments from the
letter from Joel Bianchi of Chazen Companies, dated April 14, 2010. He noted that among the
key issues that were addressed, they had added a sidewalk on Lot 10 with a crosswalk and a
continuation on to the site at 40 State Farm Place; snow storage areas had been added on the
north, east, and south parking lot sides; banked parking had been added to the site so that the
parking ratio is 4 to 1,000. He added that stormwater comments were discussed with Bianchi.
BIANCHINE said that there was a question regarding a signed access agreement, which was
sent to Stratton; the old agreement was unclear, so they had generated a new agreement with a
4
provision access. HEGGEN asked if the applicant was amenable to granting an easement to the
town for this. BIANCHINE said they are; the language in the new agreement conforms to the old
agreement. He explained that it will be difficult to go back and get the hotel to sign the new
agreement and take action quickly. ROSENBLUM said that hopefully the agreement signed back
then is sufficient. HEGGEN explained that the town needs this easement because the town is the
last resort as the responsible party. BIANCHI asked if the agreement that had previously been
sent dated from 2007 was the same agreement that was currently in place. BIANCHINE
confirmed that it was. BIANCHI commented that granting access to the stormwater basin is more
important to the town; getting the Hyatt Hotel to comply with the new agreement is the applicant’s
issue. The fact that the town will have access to the basin on this property is more important
under the current regulations. ROSENBLUM said that they have a separate recorded basin
agreement .HEGGEN commented that she had reviewed that document quickly, and the project
blanks have to show the recordation of the easements- they’re supposed to be filled in with the
book and page references. ROSENBLUM said that they have joint responsibility for maintenance,
so that when this goes back to the town as a last resort, it should be encumbered upon both
properties jointly. HEGGEN suggested that a condition of approval include that the applicant
grants an easement to the town through the stormwater area; a separate agreement will need to
be done with the stormwater management officer.
BIANCHI said that only some technical items needed further discussion; he agreed that some
items are minor. He said that correspondence was sent to DEC, but they didn’t get back to them
in time for the meeting. He explained that it is up to DEC to grant the waivers. If the Planning
Board approves the site plan, there should be a condition regarding DEC granting deviations.
STRATTON said that Zepko is not comfortable granting a deviation; Zepko wants to quantify the
deviations that are occurring, and he only just received new formulas this month to do so.
BIANCHI added that this is an issue that Zepko is dealing with for all projects, not just with this
project; it will make Zepko more comfortable for future projects.
ROCKWOOD noted that he was absent at the last meeting, and asked if the Planning Board had
gone through design elements, materials, and lighting. The Board replied that they had.
ROCKWOOD asked if the applicant was attempting LEED-certification. BIANCHINE said that
they intend on getting LEED-certification on the building, that they will make the attempt.
BIANCHINE said that there will be a standard directory sign for tenants within building, which will
be placed within middle of island, and there will be an address sign at the entrance similar in
appearance to what was previously submitted with 30 State Farm and the Hyatt. He added that
there is no proposed signage for the façade. ROSENBLUM said that the signs approved with
PDD amendment, and that there is no external lighting.
ROCKWOOD asked if there was any landscaping that would be affected by pushing off snow
past the banked parking area. BIANCHI responded no.
HEGGEN said that the stormwater agreement is based on working issues; she said she wants to
be sure that the Town can update the agreement with the project, and that requires Zepko’s
approval of the agreement.
STRATTON asked Bianchine if he had a copy of the letter issued from Saratoga County Sewer.
BIANCHINE replied yes.
HEGGEN advised the Planning Board that if LEED-certification is a condition of approval, they
should note that it is intent and desire of the applicant to receive LEED-certification. The
certification comes at the end of the project, not the beginning. If site plan approval is based upon
LEED-certification and the building doesn’t meet the requirements, then the site plan will not be
fulfilling a condition of approval. ROCKWOOD said that the design documents need to
demonstrate that this is going to happen.
5
RESOLUTION #2010-30
Motion by:
Jean Loewenstein
Seconded by: Dave Wallingford
Be it resolved that the Town of Malta Planning Board does hereby affirm that Project #1002, State Farm 1D, is consistent with the action on the initial State Farm PDD and the
original SEQR findings, based upon a review of the information provided by the applicant
information presented and discussed at the meeting, Town Engineer review, and upon
Planning Department review.
Vote: Rockwood-yes, Smith-yes, Loewenstein-yes, Wallingford-yes, Woerner-yes, Stilesyes, Kordich-yes
RESOLUTION #2010-31
Motion by:
Glenn Rockwood
Seconded by: Bill Smith
Be it resolved that the Town of Malta Planning Board approves the site plan for Project
#10-02, State Farm 1D, with the following conditions:





An easement to the stormwater basin be granted to the town, and be found acceptable
to the Planning Board attorney and the stormwater management officer;
Approval of the stormwater management system deviations by NYDEC and/or
stormwater management officer
At the time of building permit application that the applicant demonstrate good faith
efforts in attempting LEED-certification
Address all issues of Town Engineer correspondence dated April 14, 2010
Submit final site plan maps to be signed by Town Officials and Planning Chairman.
Vote: Rockwood-yes, Smith-yes, Loewenstein-yes, Wallingford-yes, Woerner-yes, Stilesyes, Kordich-yes
#10-03
State Farm 1A Site Plan
10 State Farm Place
ROCKWOOD reviewed the buffer issue of the project, explaining that the issue was taken to the
Town Board; the Town Board has given the Planning Board the direction to make the project as
best as possible based upon the issue. HEGGEN explained that the options are to allow the
applicant to maintain the buffer as is or have it be modified; ultimately the Town Board is
requesting that quality green space is created.
ROCKWOOD said that the sign shown in the rendering is what would be on the corner of the
road. He said that the Planning Board had asked for mature trees. ROSENBLUM explained that
the landscaping engineer has incorporated larger mature trees in the plan.
BIANCHINE gave an overview of the project. The applicant is proposing an office/ servicesoriented, 2-story building, approximately 25,000 square feet in size. Services would be provided
on the first floor and offices on the second floor. The entrance is centered with the building. He
reviewed the traffic circulation patterns in the parking lot. There is parking in front between the
building and the access road, with additional parking in the back and banked parking available for
potential future use. The parking ratio will be 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The landscape
berm will hide views from Route 67. The rendering now shows what it would look like exactly;
they have created the screening effect. The applicant is proposing to use a 200-foot buffer. The
stormwater management dry basin is in the buffer between the rear of the building and Route 67;
6
the location of the trees and shrubbery is on the plan. The only signage shown is the directory
sign and the building identification number sign, which are both consistent with the rest of the
park. Future signage done by tenants would require future review by the Planning Board. There
are utilities there- both water and sewer have been put in. There is a bike path through the site
that runs out to Route 67, which will connect to 40 State Farm and the Hyatt Hotel. He received
Chazen’s comments and they may still have some deviations that need to be addressed.
BIANCHI stated that there are a lot of items with comments on the prior application that have
showed up again. He noted that the applicant has provided a better landscaping plan, and all
related comments had to do with species selection, spacing, and the position of certain plants.
Overall, the applicant has largely responded to the items to his satisfaction. He said that he
needed to know if the plans satisfied the quality green space idea; these plans are larger than
would otherwise be seen on the Planning Board. He encouraged the Planning Board to think
about if the green space in the front of the building needs modification.
BIANCHI also said that the applicant had coordinated with the fire department, and needs to
show the location of the Knox box. With regard to the stormwater, the applicant is facing similar
conditions as what occurred at 40 State Farm; there is a continuation of some deviations. He said
that when the Planning Board acts, if there is still no DEC consultation, then his recommendation
would be a condition of approval. He concluded that the applicant’s intent has been satisfied, but
not yet to the letter of the law. LOEWENSTEIN asked if most comments from Bianchi’s May 12,
2010 letter had been addressed. BIANCHI responded that the May 18, 2010 letter from Bianchine
said that they had, but he hadn’t yet seen it.
WALLINGFORD said that a 200-foot space to the north of the property was mentioned, and
asked where specifically on the site plan those lines were located. BIANCHINE showed the
location of the lines on the map. He explained that the berm is 3-4 feet high; the depression is the
stormwater management area; deciduous trees will be planted near Route 67; the rest of the area
will consist of pine trees and grass.
ROCKWOOD asked with regard to the northern area of the site, what options are available for
stormwater management. BIANCHINE replied that this area will take roof drainage and
construction drainage. ROCKWOOD asked if infiltrators can be used. BIANCHINE responded
that the soil doesn’t permit it because it is all clay. BIANCHI added that the DEC has matrices that
are used to determine stormwater management practices, and the applicant has followed this.
ROCKWOOD asked if this is the only option for the property. BIANCHI responded yes, or the
applicant could shift the building entirely or put all stormwater management underground, which is
about 3-4 times more expensive. BIANCHINE added that the design used at 10 State Farm is the
same design used at 30 State Farm, which is LEED-certified. ROSENBLUM explained that he
wants this area to be very attractive because it is a gateway to the rest of the park.
ROCKWOOD said that clear-cutting is the right thing to do but they need clarification from the
Town Board. ROSENBLUM said that the area is scrubby brush. ROCKWOOD added that the
grass will never be perfect. STRATTON asked if there are any larger trees on the property now
that could be retained. ROSENBLUM said that when the property was cleared, they saved some
trees; they didn’t want to cut anything that is attractive and benefits the site. ROCKWOOD asked
if the basin flat and narrow. BIANCHI said it is; the basin will drain very quickly, and standing
water will dissipate within 36 to 48 hours.
WALLINGFORD said that the rear parking lot is delineated by islands and asked if there are
crosswalks at the parking lot. BIANCHINE responded that there are crosswalks at the parking lot
entrances and exits that connect to the sidewalk at the edge of the site.
ROCKWOOD asked if there will be down lighting on columns so that the lights won’t be terribly
bright. ROSENBLUM said that the lighting design helps them to avoid putting in light poles on the
north side; light spill must be prevented. He explained that lights that will be put on the building
7
will project enough light on to parking lot. ROCKWOOD said he understood that there will be wall
wash lighting but asked if this same lighting will sufficiently project onto parking lot. ROCKWOOD
asked if the lights under the drive-thru are recessed. ROSENBLUM said yes. BIANCHI added
that there will be very thick screening. ROCKWOOD stated that the Planning Board wants to
avoid major lighting issues. SMITH asked if there will be any glare toward Route 67.
ROSENBLUM said no; they will use the exact same fixture as what is used at 30 State Farm.
ROCKWOOD asked about the south side parking lot lights. ROSENBLUM said that they will be
20 feet tall. WOERNER said that on the north side, there isn’t a lot of light in the corner, but there
will be traffic coming around from the drive-thru, and seems like the parking lot corners could be
dangerous and not sufficiently lit. ROSENBLUM noted that the lighting representative is
comfortable with the design.
STRATTON asked the applicant to show hydrant locations. He clarified that the applicant is
proposing to bring the water line across State Farm Place and run directly to the building.
BIANCHINE explained that the water line is already across the State Farm driveway. STRATTON
asked if there was any way to put in a hydrant at that connection point; he explained that when
trying to lay hose, all access would be cut off to Hyatt, 40 State Farm Place and 30 State Farm
Place as a result of trying to connect across the only access way. He said that trying to connect to
hydrants across the property lines wouldn’t be effective- they are within the hose lay length of 500
feet, but are across the street. ROCKWOOD commented that the will have a connection on the
building and it will be sprinklered. STRATTON said that a new hydrant would benefit the fire
companies. ROCKWOOD asked where the water is on the building. BIANCHI explained that it is
located to the right of the entrance. BIANCHI said that Stratton brought up a good point that he
had seen before. ROCKWOOD said that it is better to address it now than wish they had done it.
WOERNER added that it is better to be safe than sorry in this situation. The PLANNING BOARD
all agreed to ask for a fire hydrant.
BIANCHI said that he is in agreement with Bianchine’s written responses, but needs to actually
review them himself. He noted that they will warranty their plants to ensure the condition of the
landscaping. He said that the applicant has responded verbally, but he hadn’t yet seen the plans.
He will also need to talk with his own landscaping engineer. LOEWENSTEIN said that she likes
the plans; it’ll be good to have hardy plants that will look good throughout the year.
HEGGEN commented that when the Town Board talked about the PDDA, one issue was that the
Town Board wanted the Planning Board to show when they deviate from requirements.
ROCKWOOD clarified that the submitted renderings will be submitted with the site plan, and
asked if the Planning Board approved of them. The PLANNING BOARD said that they did.
HEGGEN said that the Planning Board needed to clarify that they are deviating from the no-cut
buffer.
Board agreed that the no cut buffer was being deviated into because of its deteriorating
condition.
ROCKWOOD noted that the depiction of the landscaping in the drawing is different.
ROSENBLUM said that the approved mature trees are dispersed throughout the site.
STRATTON asked if it was possible to move the dumpster enclosure because it is very visible.
ROSENBLUM said that the position of the dumpster was selected because they thought that it
was the least visible space while remaining accessible to the cleaners. ROCKWOOD added that
the applicant could move it but would be near the hotel.
WOERNER asked about the snow removal for the site. BIANCHINE responded that the snow
storage areas are on the west and east sides. WOERNER asked if the snow storage locations
conflicted with the banked parking. BIANCHINE said that potentially, they could.
8
ROCKWOOD asked about the building materials. ROSENBLUM said that they will use the same
brick, and general materials as what is used on 30 State Farm Place. ROCKWOOD asked the
Planning Board if they are comfortable with design. The Planning Board affirmed that they are
comfortable with the design.
HEGGEN noted that the applicant had termed the path parallel to State Farm as an asphalt
walkway. She explained that the town requires shoveling of sidewalks; she urged the applicant to
use the same language that is used within the code so that there is an understanding of what
maintenance they are obligated to provide. They may choose multi-use path, or walkway, for
example.
ROCKWOOD asked if the Planning Board had any additional comments; there were none.
RESOLUTION #2010-32
Motion by:
Jean Loewenstein
Seconded by: Dave Wallingford
Be it resolved that the Town of Malta Planning Board does hereby affirm that Project #1003, State Farm 1A, is consistent with the action on the initial State Farm PDD and the
original SEQR findings, based upon a review of the information provided by the applicant
information presented and discussed at the meeting, Town Engineer review, and upon
Planning Department review.
Vote: Rockwood-yes, Smith-yes, Loewenstein-yes, Wallingford-yes, Woerner-yes, Stilesyes, Kordich-yes
RESOLUTION #2010-33
Motion by:
Carrie Woerner
Seconded by: Bill Smith
Be it resolved that the Town of Malta Planning Board approves the site plan for Project
#10-03, State Farm 1A, with the following conditions:







Address all issues of Town Engineer correspondence dated May 12, 2010
Landscaping be in substantially conformance with the attached renderings, as
confirmed by the Planning Department
At the time of building permit application, that the applicant demonstrate good faith
efforts in attempting LEED-certification
An easement to the stormwater basin be granted to the town, and be found acceptable
to the Planning Board Attorney and the stormwater management officer
Approval of the stormwater management system deviations by NYSDEC and/or
stormwater management officer
Hydrant placed on the east side of the primary egress and north of the sidewalk in the
green space
Submit final site plan maps to be signed by Town Officials and Planning Chairman.
Vote: Rockwood-yes, Smith-yes, Loewenstein-yes, Wallingford-yes, Woerner-yes, Stilesyes, Kordich-yes
9
The meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sophia Marruso
Planning Board Secretary
10