Planning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD ON JULY 16, 2018 AT 6:30 PM IN THE COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Stephanie Couture Mr. Bob Bucher Mr. Joseph Nadeau Chairman Mark DeFruscio ABSENT: Vice Chairman Jack Carroll ALSO PRESENT: Robyn Reynolds, Deputy Director of Economic Development and Planning CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 11 MEETING Chairman DeFruscio opened the meeting at 6:30 pm and asked if any of the Planning Board members had any comments on the proposed minutes. Member Nadeau moved to approve the minutes and Member Couture seconded the motion which passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF A PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL AT 90 1st Street Chairman DeFruscio noted that the property abuts the river and appears to have close proximity to the neighbors, but that there was enough space to install the above ground pool. The applicant confirmed that they planned to install a deck nearby the pool in the future. Chairman DeFruscio asked about professional installation services and noted that the Board reviews grounding but that the ground appeared flat and that the concern would be that the water would flow into a basement or the basement next door. The applicant confirmed that they had no basement, and that the basement of the neighbor is farther away. Member Bucher asked if they already had a fence installed, which the applicant affirmed. Chairman DeFruscio noted that a ladder would add an extra safety feature. Member Couture made a motion to approve the special use permit for the private swimming pool at 90 1st Street, which Member Nadeau seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Chairman DeFruscio confirmed there were no variances needed and instructed the applicant to apply for a variance if they were to move the pool and not meet the setbacks. The applicant confirmed markings. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF A PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL AT 45 JAMES STREET The applicant noted that it would be a 24’ above ground pool that would be 4.5’ deep and that the installer was A-Frame pools. Chairman DeFruscio inquired about the drainage pattern and asked which direction the water would flow if the pool broke. The applicant noted that the pool would be in the middle of the yard and the neighbors were more than 15’ from the pool. Chairman DeFruscio asked for clarification on the submitted drawings, and the applicant verified dimensions of the pool to Chairman DeFruscio and Member Nadeau. Chairman DeFruscio noted that the Board generally reviews pools in terms of grounding – that pools need 5-6 feet, and that a qualified contractor would be doing the electrical installation. Member Bucher asked if the yard was fenced in. The applicant noted that there would be a 2’ fence around the pool and a ladder. Chairman DeFruscio discussed that the Board was also reviewing pools for safety measures as these are very important. There being no further questions from the Board, Member Nadeau made a motion to approve the special use permit for a private swimming pool at 45 James Street which was seconded by Member Bucher and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOME OCCUPATION AT 39 MILLER AVENUE Chairman DeFruscio asked if the applicant was present, to which R. Reynolds replied no. Chairman DeFruscio noted that they would not review the application without the applicant present. CONSIDERATION OF A PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL AT 47 N RESEVOIR STREET Chairman DeFruscio noted that the application was for a 24’ round above ground pool and it would be 4’ deep. Chairman DeFruscio pointed out that the Board would be reviewing the application in terms of where the water would flow if the pool broke, to examine the grounding, and to ensure that the proposal considered safety measures. The applicant noted that the property was already fenced. Chairman DeFruscio noted that they were placing the pool closer to a new development nearby and that they were requesting a variance as the pool would be 4’ away from the side of the property. The applicant noted that it is between 4 and 6 feet away from the side of the property and the original application was an estimate. Chairman DeFruscio asked about the placement and why it was so close. The applicant noted that the property has a 3-tiered deck and that the pool in the middle of the yard would take up too much space. Chairman DeFruscio noted that the gradation had the water flowing closer to the new development, which may be an issue. The applicant noted that there was a fence as a barrier and that the pool had a lot of clearance in the back of the property. Member Bucher asked if the applicant had a fence, which the applicant confirmed was around the entire backyard and not just the pool. Member Couture noted that she had the same question about distance away from lines of property. Member Bucher noted he would be more concerned if there were a neighbor next to the side of the property, but there is none. The applicant noted that the road next to the side of the property is a private road so if the pool broke it would not be significant. Chairman DeFruscio pointed out that the water would rush out all at once and asked who was installing the pool. The applicant noted that he is a contractor and would be installing the pool. Chairman DeFruscio noted that they could approve the pool conditionally, based off of the variance needed from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Member Couture made a motion to approve the special use permit, conditionally upon the approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, which Member Bucher seconded. The motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF A PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL AT 2 LEXINGTON ROAD The applicants approached the Board and noted that it would be a 40 foot long in-ground pool, 4 feet deep with steps as part of the area calculated that would be covered with water all the way across. Chairman DeFruscio pointed out that pools such as these are normally 16’ by 32’. The applicant noted that it is 40 feet in total counting the stairs and noted that the drawing submitted was a bit off due to her calculations and confirmed that it would still be 16’ wide. Chairman DeFruscio noted that the applicant should fix the drawing the reflect the application. Member Bucher asked about the variance needed as the drawing showed 8’ instead of 10’ for the required setback. The applicant noted that she could do 10’ but would prefer 8’. Chairman DeFruscio noted that if it were 10’ a variance would not be needed. The applicant noted she understood. Chairman DeFruscio asked that she resubmit the materials to ensure that the file was accurate and that he is not concerned about leakage since it’s an in-ground pool. Member Couture had no questions when asked by Chairman DeFruscio, but Member Bucher asked about fencing. The applicant noted that everything had been fenced in. Chairman DeFruscio asked who would be installing the pool and the applicant noted it would be Cypress Pools. Chairman DeFruscio asked about the placement of the filter, which the applicant clarified on the submitted map. Chairman DeFruscio asked about the noise level of the filter, to which the applicant and R. Reynolds clarified that it would not be enough noise to cause a disturbance to neighbors. Being no further questions, Member Nadeau made a motion to approve the special use permit at 2 Lexington Road, conditionally upon the approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, which Member Couture seconded. The motion passed unanimously and Chairman DeFruscio noted the variance still needed. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF A PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL AT 121 MASTEN AVENUE The applicant noted that the City has already come out and measured the pool, as the applicant had made an appointment that was in conflict with the rescheduled Planning Board meeting. The applicant noted that it is a radiant pool that is very strong and would be 15’ off of the property line, it would be 54” high. Chairman DeFruscio asked about the grounding, and the applicant noted that an electrician had done the work. Chairman DeFruscio asked how far the pool was away from the house, and the applicant confirmed it would be 15’ away from the house. The applicant noted that there are road drains and it would be far enough away from the neighbor’s house as well as that the pool is saltwater based and made from bulletproof material. Chairman DeFruscio asked why there would be a timer on the pool in terms of heating and cooling and the applicant noted that it was part of the package. He also noted that Code Enforcement has been contacted regarding the pool and had no issues. Member Bucher asked the applicant about fencing and the applicant noted there is a locked ladder with the pool, but no fence. Chairperson DeFruscio noted the applicant may want to re- examine the fence in the future. Member Couture made a motion to approve the special use permit for the private swimming pool at 121 Masten Avenue, which was seconded by Member Nadeau. The motion passed unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF A PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL AT 187 DARTMOUTH STREET Chairman DeFruscio asked if the applicant was present, to which R. Reynolds replied no. Chairman DeFruscio noted that they would not review the application without the applicant present. CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN REVISION AT 55 MOHAWK STREET Mike Schaeffer, from Schaeffer Engineering Associates appeared to discuss the proposal and noted that he’s been working on the building since 1995. The applicant noted that they have changed uses over the years and that a new tenant, New York State, would like to have a loading dock. The applicant noted that as the building used to be a warehouse there was a loading dock that was taken out but now there are going to be deliveries coming by small vans and they are proposing to put the loading dock back in at a location previously discussed in building plans. Chairman DeFruscio asked if this was going to eliminate parking. The applicant answered that there would be no parking eliminated and that they had planned the loading dock in an existing island but that it was a placeholder. The applicant clarified that the design intentionally left space as to not obstruct cars that would be coming in. Chairman DeFruscio asked for clarification on the plans submitted, and the applicant pointed out features on the site plan and stated which areas were dedicated to parking, which would be the loading dock versus garbage storage. Member Couture asked if they were accepting trailors. The applicant noted that that might occur in the future, but not for the current use as the Office of General Services would be the new tenant and it’s not needed. Chairman DeFruscio noted that the Health Department is currently a tenant. Member Bucher asked if this was in accordance with open space requirements, which R. Reynolds confirmed. The applicant noted it used to be all filled in, but they uncovered a lot during original construction. Chairperson DeFruscio asked if there were any further questions, to which Member Bucher asked about a lighting plan. The applicant noted there would not be a change and that additional lighting would be the same as is installed now. Member Bucher asked about dark skies, and the applicant noted it would be dark sky compliant. Member Bucher made a motion to approve the amended site plan with the addition at 55 Mohawk, which Member Couture seconded. The motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll Stephanie Couture X FURTHER DISCUSSION OF A SITE PLAN AT 385 SARATOGA STREET M. Cherubino of the Community Builders presented changes to the site plan which was presented at the June meeting. She noted that the building would be angled to mimic the feel of buildings downtown and gave the update that The Community Builders had applied for a grant to restore Lock 2 of the Champlain Canal and that it may be placed on the historic trails brochure. M. Cherubino noted that this would be a public park with an easement with the City likely, and as DOT is redoing the Cohoes Boulevard this would be a good opportunity. Chairman DeFruscio asked if this was a Saratoga Street side rendering and M. Cherubino noted that she could bring additional materials to the next meeting and wanted to bring in these drawings simply for an update. Chairman DeFruscio noted with the bike path connection, the park could be a good resource for citizens and visitors. CONSIDERATION OF DECLARING LEAD AGENCY FOR SEQR FOR ERIE POINT AND JUNCTA SUBDIVISION Chairman DeFruscio noted that the Board would need to consider declaring lead agency for SEQR purposes and also to classify the Action. R. Reynolds noted that the letters had been sent to involved agencies and there were no responses disputing the Planning Board’s intention to declare lead agency for SEQR for the projects. Member Bucher made a motion for the Planning Board to declare lead agency for SEQR for the Erie Point Project and related subdivision and to classify the Action as Unlisted, which was seconded by Member Nadeau. The motion passed unanimously. YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll Stephanie Couture X DISCUSSION There being no further business, Chairman DeFruscio made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:33 pm, which was seconded by Member Couture. The motion passed unanimously.