Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2011 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Tom L Lewis, Vice-Chair; Amy Durland; Philip Klein; Dan Gaba; Howard Pinsley; Jamin Totino STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs CALL TO ORDER: Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated the proceedings of this meeting are being taped for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. REPORT ON ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS BY THE CHAIR There are no actions by the chair. APPLICATIONS ADJOURNED AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST: 1. 11.012.1 Seward Street Apartments, Corner of Seward Street & Morgan Street, site plan for multi-family apartment complex in the Urban Residential-4 District. 11.022 181 Phila Neighborhood Rooming House, 181 Phila Street, public hearing for a special use permit for neighborhood rooming house in the Urban Residential-3 District. 10.052 CDJT Workforce Housing, Citywide, City Council request for an Advisory Opinion for review of Zoning Amendment Proposal request for workforce housing. 11.002 Buff Road Subdivision, Buff Road and Route 9N, public hearing for a final 15 lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-1 and Rural Residential-1 Districts. ADJOURNED – WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 10.028 Cellco-Verizon Cell Tower, 81 Nelson Avenue, SEQRA evaluation of potential environmental impact for a new 90' monopine telecommunications tower and associated equipment in an Urban Residential-2 District. 10.027 307 Grand Avenue Multi-Family, 307 Grand Avenue, public hearing on special use permit  for multi-family housing in the Transect-4 District. 10.031 307 Grand Avenue Multi-Family, 307 Grand Avenue, review of site plan for multi-family housing in the Transect-4 District. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETING/AGENDA WORKSHOPS: Planning Board caravan will be held on Monday December 5, 2011 at 4:00 P.M. Planning Board workshop will be held on Monday, December 5, 2011 at 5:00 P.M. Planning Board meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 7, 2011 @ 7:00 P.M. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman offered this opportunity to allow citizens to address planning issues not on the scheduled agenda. None heard. AGENDA ITEMS APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. 11.020 Dupras Subdivision, 29 and 47 Staffords Bridge Road, public hearing on a 2 lot subdivision in the Rural Residential-1 District. DISCLOSURE: Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated that an employee at his place of employment was a prior owner of this property. She discussed this project with me a year ago and I immediately passed this over to the Planning Department. This is simply a disclosure there is no need for recusal. Clifford Van Wagner stated, prior to the two gentleman who are here tonight, ownership of this an illegal subdivision appears to have taken place in 1983 with the prior owner of property. Two portions of parcel have been conveyed to separate owners since then and have been treated as two separate parcels since, but never legally subdivided. Current owners Pember Dupras and WGC, LLC (William Cummins) are proposing a 2 lot subdivision to resolve this issue and receive legal subdivision of properties. A permit was issued for a garage when property was under single ownership. Residential structure constructed instead. Building file reflects notification to property owner that construction of residential unit had not received a building permit. Two family accommodations noted, in violation of RR-1 permitted uses. Current owner working with Building Department to comply with building permit needs for structure. The structure will be utilized only as single family residence, complying with RR-1 regulations. The former City Engineer indicated that the two applicants would be required to put a water line in at a distance of 525 feet for a considerable amount of money. Our new City Engineer and the Department of Public Works have reviewed this and decided that was a significant financial burden for a two lot subdivision, so that requirement has been removed. Agents: John Carusone, Mike Toohey Applicant: Pember Dupras; WGC, LLC City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 22, 2011- Page 2 of 17 Mr. Carsone stated we had our presentation approximately six months ago. Mr. Dupras was not the person who built the residence there although the permit called for a garage. That was a prior owner. The subdivision occurred two owners ago for each of these two gentlemen. These are basically innocent people who want to have the City now bring into conformance that which has existed on the grounds, namely a two lot subdivision for at least the last 25 years. Without that they cannot do anything on their properties. They are not out to do this for profit, in fact for Mr. Dupras this has been a huge financial loss for him. He has to now take the building and now apply to try to get a CO for this and this will be a very expensive fix. He is looking to get this into compliance so he can move on. Amy Durland questioned the applicant’s plans for this property. Mr. Dupras stated the next step would be to get the building into compliance so that I can occupy it or sell it. Amy Durland questioned if he planned to build more buildings on that property. Mr. Dupras stated no it is a three acre lot. My intention is to do whatever I have to do to get it to the next step so that it can be occupied. I do not intend to add to it. I just need to fix what is there. Amy Durland questioned if he was familiar with the survey map which shows these lots and it shows these wetlands which cover the vast majority of both parcels. It also shows the wetland buffers. For some reason the wetlands and the buffer are not shown on your property. It looks like your property clearly has wetlands on it. I am wondering why the survey map stops and does not show the continuation of the wetlands. Mr. Dupras stated when the original owner broke this up I think they took the easiest piece of that land to develop. There is a very dramatic elevation change which is not shown right there. Amy Durland stated when this property was visited some six months ago or so, I do remember some variations in the topography, but I do not remember that dramatic elevation change. I am just wondering why because it still looks to me like that lot line is very squared off and abrupt in terms of the idenification of the wetlands and the buffer. Mr. Dupras stated I believe that would need to be addressed by the surveyor. However, there is an elevation change at the corner which would be the southwest corner. There is an elevation change of approximately nine or ten feet from the lot at the level of where the house is built to the wetlands below. Amy Durland stated what makes her wonder though if it is simply that is because the buffer also is not shown, and the buffer it seems would be applicable even if it is regarding property off the lot. So, the reason I am interested is because I assume you have septic and if the septic appears in the wetlands, and if that is an issue in terms of getting your CO or getting the Building Inspector to approve this property. Mr. Dupras stated I don't think that a Building Inspector will find any issues with the lot as it exists on the ground. Where the septic tank is located is high and dry at the same level of the house, as is the leech field. Mr. Carusone stated we did have a joint meeting with Kate Maynard, Principal Planner,the Building Inspector, the applicants engineer and myself and no one has ever raised any issues about the location of the septic or indeed the wetlands on this particular parcel. I do not think the City Building Department has any issue with it. Discussion ensued regarding the 2-lot subdivision to comply with current conservation subdivision regulations or the future subdivision of larger parcel that RR-1 provisions will apply, or if a waiver will be considered due the unique circumstances. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there are any further questions or comments from the Board. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 22, 2011- Page 3 of 17 None heard. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there is anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this application. None heard. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated there are no comments from various departments. The biggest issue was the water lines and the engineer has removed that from the table. The next question the Board faces is if the Board wishes to vote on a waiver of conservation subdivision regulations due to the unique circumstances of this application. Dan Gaba questioned if the waiver in question was for the two lot subdivision only and not the larger property within the subject conservation subdivision. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated that is absolutely correct. Amy Durland questioned the meaning of the waiver of the conservation subdivision. Is it only for the purpose of endorsing this particular lot configuration or does it have any implications at all for future development. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated it has nothing to do with future development. This waiver is addressing this two lot subdivision and has no bearing on any future subdivisions. Dan Gaba made a motion to waive the requirements for the conservation subdivision for this two lot subdivision with the caveat that the two resulting parcels will still be held to any application standards. Second by Jamin Totino. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0. SEQRA PART I: Review of SEQRA Part I with the following changes: #9 – Indicate some forest; and #8 – that the action does comply with the existing zoning by virtue of the waiver which was just motioned and passed by the Board. Philip Klein made a motion to accept SEQRA Part I with the changes as noted. Seconded by Howard Pinsley. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 22, 2011- Page 4 of 17 None heard. VOTE: Tom L. Lewis, Vice Chair in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0. SEQRA PART II: Howard Pinsley stated that based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, the project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this, I move to make a SEQR negative declaration for this action. Seconded by Tom L. Lewis, Vice Chair. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Amy Durland asked in regard to Section C-5 I wish to have the condition added any further subdivision be subject to the City's conservation subdivision regulations. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated so noted. VOTE: Tom L. Lewis, Vice Chair in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0. Jamin Totino made a motion to approve the two lot subdivision with the caveat that the two resulting parcels will still be held to any application standards, as well as any further subdivision be subject to the City's conservation subdivision regulations. Any subsequent action on either of these lots is subject to the Planning Board review for subdivision conservation approval in the future as a new application. The City Engineer and the Department of Public Works have conferred and decided that the 525 feet of water line is not a requirement of this two lot subdivision. Seconded by Howard Pinsley. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tom L. Lewis, Vice Chair in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 2. 03.088.4 Lexington Club, 52 Marion Avenue, sketch of site plan for review of mixed use building in the Transect-5 District. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 22, 2011- Page 5 of 17 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated this is sketch plan application tonight, so no action will be taken. It is an opportunity for the applicant to come before the Board to explain what they are looking to do and we can give some input. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated this project has a history which pre-dates everyone here on the Board. A Special Use Permit was approved on July 9, 2003. Site plan was approved on October 15, 2003. Architectural Review on October 21, 2004 and extended to June 1, 2006. Construction began and was halted in 2007. There still remains an existing Letter of Credit in place in the amount of $444,756, which was extended by the Planning Board until June 30, 2012. This Board requested additional securing and screening of the site in December 2010. This is a T-5 zone which is a mixed use zone. The project was initially approved by the Board in July 2003 called for a hotel, restaurant, banquet facility, spa, office/retail, residential multi-family and townhouses and parking deck and on-street parking. What we have today is a request for 154 apartment units and 5,000 square feet of commercial space. SEQRA: No SEQRA action required with review. Agent: Dave Carr, LA Group, Norman Ward, LA Group. Applicant: Andre Schmidt, Beechwood Associates. Mr. Carr, LA Group gave a brief presentation and overview of the project. The applicant is here for a Special Use Permit and Site Plan modification of a previously approved project. The building along Route 50 is an 80 room hotel, that is four stories from within the site and three stories along Route 50. Route 50 is approximately 25 feet above Excelsior Avenue. So, the project is benched into the site. A 69 unit condominium, a six story building along Excelsior Avenue. Also, 8 townhouse units which are three stories. An office, retail building that is 5200 square feet and a restaurant/banquet facility which is tied to the hotel which includes 150 seat and 250 seat banquet facility. The biggest differences between this plan and the approved plan is that there is no parking deck, the parking deck is very costly, because it needed to be constructed for emergency vehicle access. Due to the change in grade you cannot really link this to the rest of the project access wise. When we come in for site plan approval we will then provide the information concerning the parking deck and include it in the plan. This is a big project and it will be completed in phases. The new plan proposes the apartment building, the condo building, the townhouses and the office building. The parking lot along the back, that is the required parking to get us to what the City requires. Also, we feel that this access would be a shared access with the rear apartments. The approved plan has 80 hotel units, 69 condo units, 8 townhouse units for a total of a mix of 157 units. We are proposing 154 units. We had a 6,000 square foot spa within the hotel. We are proposing a 5,000 square foot commercial building and we feel that an exercise facility makes sense on one of the floors because of the apartments. We are proposing 7500 square feet of office/retail. The 150 seat restaurant/250 seat banquet facility is out of this proposal. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated his concern is the integrity of what is in the ground. I am questioning before you spend more effort in developing this would be to have an independent structural engineer that would work for the City and would report to us and do an inspection of all the footings and the foundations that are there because you application is predicated on what is there. What you have in place you are converting from the hotel and the condos to straight apartments. We spoke to the City Engineer at the workshop last night. Kate has spoken to the building department and they are all in agreement. Dave Carr, stated they would be in favor of this because we would want to do it anyway. I would think the building department would require it. Discussion ensued regarding the T-5 zone, the former approved plan called for diversity of uses versus the new City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 22, 2011- Page 6 of 17 plan proposed which provides for 154 apartments units and 5,000 square feet of commercial space. Phasing of the project, placement of buildings, civic space,pedestrian access and a mixed use building which fits the public realm. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated I think the Board would like to see if you can show us some different variations on how you can make this mixed use more active. With market conditions being what they are, we understand that the applicant has an investment in this property with the structures that are there. The direction that we need to see is more interactive uses. This site is begging to be developed. There is a portion of it that has been in disrepair and there has been comments such as when is the City going to do something about this. We understand that the market has changed. I would encourage you to make those alterations. Then you can return to the Board again. The Board recessed at 8:40 P.M. The Board reconvened at 8:50 P.M. 3. 10.013 White Farms Road Bed and Breakfast, 66 White Farms Road, public hearing for a Special Use Permit for six room corridor bed and breakfast in a Rural Residential-1 District. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated on April 28, 2010, the Planning Board initiated SEQRA coordinated review with the DRC and requested Lead Agency Statrus. On May 5, 2010, the DRC voted to defer SEQRA Lead Agency status to the Planning Board. The Planning Board accepted Lead Agency status at the May 26, 2010 meeting. There have been numerous presentations and the applicant was last before the Board on January 26, 2011, and has been adjourned at the request of the applicant ever since. Documentation indicating the possible operation of a bed and breakfast without appropriate approvals in 2004 and 2009. In 2007 the Building Inspector issued a Certificate of Occupancy for the construction of a habitable space at the basement level with no approval for use of this space for office or home occupation purposes. There is no approval for use of this single family residence as a "guest house" or "bed and breakfast" or "bed and breakfast dwelling." The Planning Board identified additional information requested in May 2010 such as specific parking locations identified, tent locations, band locations, lighting locations, public sewer connection and/or confirmation septic system to handle commercial use. Site plan review is required. Architectural review is required. Previously there was a five room neighborhood bed and breakfast application and now the applicant within the past year or year and a half changed the application to a corridor bed and breakfast. The difference between the two in our Zoning Code is that the corridor bed and breakfast allows outdoor entertainment and the neighborhood bed and breakfast does not. The Board does have to consider the positive and negative impacts in a Special Use Permit. The use and harmony with and promotes the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, the overall compatibility of the use with the neighborhood and the positive and negative impacts on community character including character of adjoining properties, districts and uses, and the positive and negative impacts on density, including the density of adjoining properties, districts and uses. Our concern all along has been lighting, noise, outdoor bands, porta-potty's located onsite, positive and negative impacts on vehicular congestion and parking. Parking requirements for corridor bed and breakfast are 1 per guestroom plus 2 per resident manager or residential unit. As presented, the proposed B & B activity would require at least 8 spaces, which would accommodate the outdoor entertainment. The Board had questions about traffic that could include 100-200 guests on site. The positive and negative impacts on infrastrucure and services, the positive and negative impacts on environmental and natural resources, including the environmenrtal and physical suitability of the site for development, the risk of fire, flood or erosion and impacts such as emissions of electrical charges, dust, light, vibration or noise detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The extent to which the use provides positive or negative effects on the long-term economic stability and community character of the City and surrounding properties, districts and uses. This has been on our agenda for a very long time. The attorney for the applicant, Mr. Harper has supplied the Board with an overview because this application has been going on for so long. Attorney: David Harper Applicant: Jon Cromer City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 22, 2011- Page 7 of 17 Engineer: Steven Smith Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated on the original application dated 01/05/11, the application is for six outside events one per month May through October and we now have a request for a maximum of 17 outdoor events. Also as noted in the overview provided to the Board, the applicant has maintained a home occupation in the dwelling for several years in connection with a videography business. The applicant has a business of videography at sporting events such as skiing or equestrian competitions. He has used his home to duplicate and market the videos and to on occasion to store equipment. In the event the Special Use Permit is granted and the property is converted to a B & B, no home occupation would be allowed under the zoning ordinance. The present home occupation would have to be discontinued. Due to what I have read this use presently not legal. Mr. Harper stated he disagreed with the home occupation being illegal. He stated he has years and years of correspondence with Mr. Biffer and the tortured history of this home occupation. As you know a home occupation does not require a Special Use Permit or any other land use planning. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the 2007 Certificate of Occupancy dated 09/12/07 issued by the Building Inspector for the construction of habitable space at the basement level, under the eastern porch of this single family home indicates the following condition of approval: "There is no approval for use of this space for office or home occupation purposes. There is no approval for use of this single family residence as a "guest house" or "bed and breakfast" or "bed and breakfast dwelling." Discussion ensued regarding whether the building inspector meant the habitable space at the basement level of the home only, or the entire home. Since Mr. Biffer is no longer employed as a Building Inspector in the City of Saratoga Springs, the Board proceeded with the application. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated the corridor Bed and Breakfast is the easiest part of this application. We have issues regarding the sanitary sewer versus the septic system which our City Engineer has reviewed in great detail and stated this is not acceptable. We then have the 106 parking spaces for the 200 guests at special events then that septic system is also at issue, and the porta potties on site and the compatibility with the neighborhood and issues of that versus hooking up to the City's sanitary sewer system. Amy Durland questioned the sound and the amplification system potential for these events. This is something that comes up as you may know in various applications in front of us as you know and it is an issue. I would like to try to figure out what in these special events is anticipated in terms of sound systems and can you characterize it in someway. David Harper, stated the most realistic event that would be scheduled here would be a wedding. That would generate music outdoors. I do not know if I can characterize it beyond that. We have a noise ordinance which in residential areas is very strict. Amy Durland stated as an example we have had applicants whose noise issue has required constant monitoring. We have also had applicants who voluntarily stated they would use acoustical music and not electrically amplified music because of the issue of noise. I am just wondering where do you fall in that range of possibilities. Jon Cromer, applicant stated it would be up to the renter, if it was a wedding, and they wanted electric music or if they wanted acoustic music. We are in the neighborhood of the Saratoga Performing Arts Center and there is sound when they have concerts until 11:00 -11:30 P.M. Another issue we have as well is the fireworks from the weddings at the Hall of Springs at 10:00 – 11:00 P.M. There are other things to consider. You are in the neighborhood in which that is part of the neighborhood. The wedding events would be done by 8:00 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 22, 2011- Page 8 of 17 Amy Durland stated this is an RR-1 zone though, it is the most rural zone. B & B's are allowed but because there are other uses supplementary to the B & B there definitely means that there needs to be some limits on the noise impact. You may hear the fireworks or some of the noise from SPAC or the Hall of Springs but that does not justify creating a situation where there is too much noise. I have to say of all the issues we are talking about and that we need to sort through in order to try to decide what is acceptable or what is not the noise issue is one that I have still not come to terms with. I am not quite sure how we define it and characterize it so that is consistent with the zone and the use that we are talking about. Philip Klein stated if it were just the B & B application we had to consider the noise is not a problem and that is why it is difficult and the only way we can get through these issues is to separate the application into two issues. The application for a B & B and secondly the outdoor entertainment issue. Howard Pinsley questioned the outdoor entertainment. Mr. Harper stated there is a listing of 17 events. Weddings, charity events, fund raisers. Jamin Totino stated what the applicant indicated and what we have in writing are two different things. What exactly are you asking for? Dan Gaba asked if they are just weddings and fund raisers or events that are outside of these venues to be considered for the outdoor entertainment. Mr. Cromer stated the curfew in the city for outdoor entertainment is 11:00 P.M. To pacify everyone we could certainly regulate it for an earlier hour. We are also looking at clam bakes, steak roasts, local charity events and they may not alway wish for electric music. They may not want any music. They may want a DJ. They may want acoustic music. I cannot say that it will be all loud electric music. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated one of the other issues regarding lighting which includes the installation of 8 walkway lights installed on 8 foot poles. My question to the Board is how does that fit into an RR-1 district. Is that lighting going to spill out to adjacent residential homes. Mr. Cromer stated they will be placed 40 feet apart and down the driveway downward facing. Also solar lighting will be used in the landscaping details as well. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, questioned the porta pottys. Mr. Cromer stated the concept of porta pottys is a construction site porta potty. That is not what we have in mind at all. We have gone to Stone and I have been to plenty of horse shows in West Palm Beach and they have these gorgeous trailers, marble countertops and Stone has two of them. They are attractive and they do not stick out like a sore thumb. These are luxury trailers. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated he cannot picture a luxury trailer in an RR-1 piece of property. Jamin Totino stated the question for him is a question of capacity. What I see is that these units can handle up to 200 people capacity for three to four hours, although I am looking at 106 spaces plus 9 = 115 spaces. A two people a car you are already up to 230 people I am wondering what exactly are you asking for. Are you asking for the capacity to serve 200 people or are you asking for a capacity of 400 people. I am confused by that because just by virtue of what parking you have available alone exceed what you are proposing in serving and in regard to the amount of facilities. Dave Harper, Attorney for the applicant asked the Board for a few minutes to confer with his client. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 22, 2011- Page 9 of 17 The Board recessed at 9:20 P.M. The Board reconvened at 9:27 P.M. Dave Harper, Attorney for the applicant stated after conferring with Mr. Cromer they are now proposing to limit the outdoor events to no more than 2 a month for the months of June, July and August totaling 6, and with the provision of acoustic music only no live bands. The lighting will be downward facing. If the Board is adamantly opposed to any outdoor entertainment whatsoever than there was no point in upgrading the application to a corridor bed and breakfast because the sole reason to do this is to have outdoor events. So if it is the sense and the majority of the Board that there shall be no outdoor events then we would like to reduce our application back to a neighborhood bed and breakfast, with no outdoor events, all we have done is talked ourselves into a 7th bedroom that we may or may not really want and the requirement of having a resident host that we may or may not want. That is the only difference between the neighborhood and the corridor bed and breakfast. Discussion ensued regarding the request of the applicant. Jamin Totino stated he is still concerned regarding parking and capacities. Are we talking about 200 people or 400 people. I don't think we know enough around what exactly is the proposal. We know what the Bed and Breakfast is by and large but with regard to the outdoor entertainment and the capacity of the site and the capacity of what exactly is being asked for I am still unclear and I am no where near having enough information tonight to cast a vote on that. There is too much grey area. Amy Durland stated I do feel I am near being able to cast a vote on it because of their post conference and what they have indicated. To say there is no outdoor activities is unreasonable given the location of this property and the fact that it is in a fairly remote area. Given the fact that there are large outdoor events and parties in areas nearby in surrounding areas and nearby properties. The proximity also supports the idea of the use of a corridor bed and breakfast but I think that the RR-1 zone and the fact that there are residential neighborhoods and residences in proximity it is reasonable to impose constraints. So let me suggest a couple of constraints that are consistent with what you just said. We can identify the type of permissable activities, I say weddings, receptions, showers, fund raisers. Maximum number of events per day about two per month during the months of June July and August. Maximum number of people attending these events 100. Hours of operation that needs to be refined, but I would be fine when those events occur that it would be until 10:00 P.M. on a weekday and 11:00 P. M. on a weekend. There is some concern about having all day events so probably the Board if there are interested at all in considering outdoor activities that there would be an interest in having a total limit per day. The sound does need to be refined more, but I am encouraged to hear you talk about acoustic music. That is my feeling. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Carrie Stuart, 20 Geyser Road. I have two children ages 7 and 10. My residence is the closest to the proposed Bed and Breakfast and I have some concerns. I have more concerns now having listened to the applicant and what was said tonight. I feel there is an inability to disclose on the clear plans of the property and that concerns me. The fact that Mr. Cromer continues to dismiss local ordinances and laws as demonstrated by the recent discharging of fireworks over his home on numerous occasions has further increased my concerns. He talks about the SPAC fireworks that happen, I have witnessed at least on five occasions one of which the police were called for where he has discharged fireworks over his home. That to me impacts my family much more than SPAC. My children ask questions they want to know why is he allowed to do fireworks, is that legal. We enjoy seeing the SPAC fireworks we know when they are going to happen. You do not know when Mr. Cromer is going to do what he does. The fact that he has an incredible sound system even though the acoustics will be limited I still have a concern. There have been times when it is after 11:00 P.M. at night and quite honestly I do not know who to call. I don't what to do about it and I would like to know who is going to monitor this situation. I have resided at my residence longer than Mr. Cromer has owned the property and I have seen the impact his illegal activity has already had on my family. The number of City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 22, 2011- Page 10 of 17 events that he maybe able to host, the noise level at the events, the type of activity allowed the hours of operation and the visual impact of the activities that take place there will ultimately effect my family and our quality of life. I feel even with the parking spaces of 106. If he chooses to have the parking by my property that is going to impact us. My child has severe asthma, severe environmental allergies and I didn't even think about this until it was mentioned tonight he has a dirt driveway and I am at the doctor constantly with my son. That will impact us. I respectfully ask that you consider the neighboring properties in finalizing your decision regarding the proposed business. The safety of my family and my neighbors is of utmost concern to me. I am confident that you understand how important the outcome of this application is to all of us. Mike Toohey, attorney for Mrs. Whitney. I am wholly befuddled as to what I am to speak about. I have absolutely no idea as to what this application is right now. I have a lot of things to say about what the application was when we started this but I am not sure if the application has changed and I am not sure you know if its changed. Clifford Van Wagner stated the application in front of us is what is on the paper. I don't know that we can do anything other than respond to what is in front of us, review the SEQRA form and go from there. Mike Toohey stated this is a process that has been going on since April of 2010. I believe it was perpetual in intent to befuddle the Board and allow certain things that were infact true then to become faint memories as opposed to what they are right now. The Special Use Permit is not a personal right. The land is the part that controls it, and what goes on with the land as it impacts the rest of the neighborhood. In most cases when you have to wonder about what the impact is going to be on the neighborhood you have to take a leap of faith because you do not have anything to compare it to. In this case I believe we take a leap of bad faith. We have seen and you have heard it again tonight what has gone on with the property and this is has been going on since 2004 and continues up until November 11, 2011 of this month. Activities that are not acceptable in a normal neighborhood and I believe in most cases are illegal. This land was use as a park and party lot. A fence going into the State Park area had been illegally cut and a trail had been created from Mr. Cromer's land through and into SPAC. People would drink and indulge in other forms of entertainment and go back and forth between these properties. When that was brought up as being illegal it was ignored, as was indicated a violation was finally filed and ultimately the Police Department of the City of Saratoga Springs had to block White Farms Road so as to stop traffic from entering for this particular use. There was a lack of recognition as to what was appropriate use of the land. That carried with it people who were coming back onto this property and into this neighborhood that were so inebriated not only were they urinating on Carrie Stuarts property and Mrs. Whitneys fence they were crossing over double strands of barbed wire to get into the Cady Hill Property. Again the use of this property and the conditions that you can put on it which is part of what this charge is how do you have any sense that there is going to be some sort of enforceable control. There has been admission that there is a home occupation and Mr. Harper wants to contend that a home occupation is legal. I do not disagree with the fact that in this neighborhood you can have a home occupation but there is a limited home occupation that you can have and that says that you can only have one person outside of the household that is employed there. The neighbors and I believe you have seen double tractor trailers on this site. There is and I have supplied the Board within your records and I have looked at them again today for his production company site which indicates that he has 32 employees. Now the employees do not have to reside on the site. They do not have to come to work on the site, that is not the way the statute is written. If there is a business that has more than one employee then it cannot exist. Again, not my facts, the websites for at least two different companies that I have found today indicate that this not only exists but continues to exist. There is a 2004 letter from Mike Biffer saying that you cannot utilize this property as a Bed and Breakfast. You would think that someone who wanted to blend with the neighborhood, wanted the use of the land to be consistent with the neighborhood would discontinue at least advertising this. At 6:00 P.M. this evening I found a site that still has Longshots listed as a Bed and Breakfast at 66 White Farms Road. I have a copy of it for the Board which is time and date stamped today as being produced. The idea that you have some control over conditions that could be used with regard to this property, I find to be a faint possibility. What Ms. Stuart spoke about is not just an inconvenience of someone shooting fireworks over their house into a wooded area. It is a violation of the penal code. This is not something that happened five years ago, City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 22, 2011- Page 11 of 17 this is something that happened two weeks ago and has continually happened over the course of the last few months. How are you going to impose conditions on this property that are going to be reasonable and controllable with regard to this neighborhood. The corridor bed and breakfast use of this property is an abberation. The only reason that that happened is there is a 60 foot sliver that goes through the woods and comes out on Route 50. This site is in a RR-1 District and the idea that it is in an area that invites large amounts of traffic I do not believe that it is consistent in any way shape or form. The request is for 6 bedrooms, 1 housekeeper, a hot tub and a garbage disposal. I do not believe that the system that exists in there or the science that has been used to expand that system has gone far enough to have a septic system that in fact will work. As recently as last night, the City Engineer stated that additional lines need to be installed. The applicant has indicated 17 events with 200 people per event that is 3600 people that would be on this property at 17 different times. When will the porta johns be trucked in and when will they be removed. How would every member of the Board like to be sitting in your home and see a box. It maybe the nicest box on the inside all these things are boxes and are portable toilets that they are putting on peoples land and they are in clear site. The others maybe smaller so you maybe able to hide them some, these are much larger. When you have a 200 person event, and those two stalls are there, how will stop people from going inside the house to use the house bathrooms. I don't understand how that would happen. In speaking with Stone, they will bring these porta johns out on Friday and pickup on Monday. I do not think this is a reasonable expectation of what should go on in the neighborhood. This is a commercial use. 17 events, 200 people even 6 events and they do not know what they want to do. My instinct is the Bed and Breakfast operation is going to be separated from the commercial indoor activity operation. Your code uses the word commercial, it moves this away from Mom and Dad running a cute little bed and breakfast out in the country for some friends to come in and enjoy. Why this Board would set a precedent in a commercial operation for 200 people, 17 times or however many events there are people are using the facilities and this requires a sanitary sewer. This is not a Mom and Pop operation. This is clearly an applicant wanting to have parties with amplified music, or dj's who do use amplified music. Concerning traffic, White Farms Road is by nature a rural road. The amount of traffic exiting this road with the proposed number of guests the applicant has indicated is not consistent with a RR-1 District and it is just plain dangerous. The idea that porta johns called something else is no longer a porta john. That is exactly what these are going to be. They are higher, they are taller, they are wider and they are more visible than even the smaller ones would be. You cannot hide these things. You go up four sets of stairs to get into them. It is a visual impact to this space. The ground having vehicles parked on them over time becomes compacted and hard as a rock. This impacts stormwater drainage, and the ability of septic systems to infact absorb the water they need to absorb and infact to work properly. 106 cars is not an inconsequential parking lot. 106 cars also wears out the grass. So you now are sitting in a rural area and you will have maybe not a black topped parking lot but you will have a hard dirt almost macadam parking lot that is visually impactful for everyone who is in the neighborhood. Lighting is also an issue in this area. Cook out and barbeques for this number of people will have a great environmental impact on the neighbors with regard to smoke and odors. This is a commercial enterprise which is being proposed. Not a bed and breakfast. The standards for a Special Use Permit state that you have to make determinations as to the six items the Chairman has alluded to. I do not believe that there is enough data that has been supplied to the Board to answer those six questions. It is not the Boards job to drag from the applicant what he wants to have happen. It is his job to supply that information to the Board. There are several types of Special Use Permits, Permanent, Temporary and Renewable. I would strongly ask you not to give any permanent rights with regards to the use and utilization of this land because at that point mayhem will infact ensue. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak concerning this application. None heard. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Amy Durland stated she does not know if the Board is being completely fair to the applicant if we characterize them as waffling on this application. They came to us with an application for a corridor bed and breakfast. It is according City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 22, 2011- Page 12 of 17 to the ordinance our perview to establish the type of permissable activities, the maximum number of days per event and the maximum number of people who attend. They have come back to us with some concessions, in terms of some of those elements. This is one of those sections of the ordinance that isn't just reliant on the applicant, it is reliant on the Board to make those particular terms. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated that is true, it is also incumbent upon this Board to take what we have heard and relate it back to the SEQRA. The SEQRA form is going to decide this for us. It is incumbent upon the applicant to propose, and it is incumbent upon the Board to look at limitations but ultimately we need to go back to the SEQRA form. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated as you know this application began with a neighborhood bed and breakfast. On May 13, 2010 Mr. Harper corresponded and changed this from a neighborhood bed and breakfast to a corridor bed and breakfast. So at that point it was tabled. We have noticed the current application a few times due to the duration of time passing between appearances before the Board. Logically this would need to be renoticed as a neighborhood B & B and this would be a separate application technically. Cannot be acted upon tonight. Tom Lewis, Vice Chair stated I believe the record shows that I am not comfortable with supporting the outdoor entertainment at all. The septic alone and after the City Engineer's comments and the obviousness I actually thought on Monday you could put porta pottys there but people are going to go inside. All the noise and other issues. As a new member on the Board I do get frustrated by the lack of enforcement and there are violations going on and that is the sort of thing which makes me think if you have to put conditions on what you approve then I feel we should lean towards the one year renewal on the lesser 6 bed is where I am headed, but I am just one vote. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Board. Amy Durland stated she is still unsure of how a SEQRA determination can be made when we haven't determined where we are headed. Philip Klein stated he agrees with Tom. I am in favor of the regular bed and breakfast right now without the outdoor entertainment. Especially in light of the fact that there is so little enforcement. Amy Durland stated she feels the Board cannot consider enforcement. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we have two members that state they can support a motion for a t 6 room bed and breakfast with no outdoor entertainment. If I straw poll the Board and find out where the Board stands we do not need to review the SEQRA and we give Mr. Harper the opportunity to chat with his client and decide how they wish to proceed based on the straw poll. Howard Pinsley stated he is in agreement with the 6 room bed and breakfast with no outdoor entertainment. Jamin Totino stated he feels he cannot escape the idea that in regard to specificity that has been brought up. I brought it up myself and I cannot get past that and I also feel that if we move forward we are creating the application for this applicant and I am not comfortable with that. Given those aspects I think as far as I could go is the bed and breakfast alone. Dan Gaba stated he is in agreement with Jamin. The bed and breakfast I can work through. Amy Durland stated she ok with the neighborhood bed and breakfast. I think we are according to the ordinance we are obligated if there is an application for a corridor bed and breakfast to come up with the terms. I don' t think we have done that yet. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 22, 2011- Page 13 of 17 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated I am hearing no terms. What you are hearing from five members and myself that says that we may approve a corridor bed and breakfast with or without outdoor entertainment. So, there are no terms. Amy Durland stated she believes it could have been constructed in a way that would have been acceptable. I certainly am not going to object to the applicant switching to a neighborhood bed and breakfast if that is their interest. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated Mr. Harper you offered that opportunity earlier and rather than go through the SEQRA form we now have seven people that will support an application for a corridor bed and breakfast with no outdoor entertainment or an application for a neighborhood bed and breakfast in which case that would have to be re-notified because it basically would be a new application. Mr. Harper again requested a moment outside with his client. The Board recessed at 10:15 P.M. The Board reconvened at 10:18 P.M. Mr. Harper, attorney for the applicant stated on behalf of the applicant I would ask the Board to table the application for a corridor bed and breakfast. I understand to ressurect the neighborhood bed and breakfast application you would like us to re-advertise and re-notify which we shall do. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman confirmed the corridor bed and breakfast will be tabled and the neighborhood bed and breakfast will be re-advertised and re-notified. 4. 11.044 Doten Avenue Subdivision, Doten Avenue, public hearing for a two lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-2 District. A lot line adjustment was completed on this parcel in 2010. The proposal in front of us is the resulting parcel of land which has enough square footage to request a subdivision as opposed to a lot line adjustment because subdivision is necessary when density is being increased. A two lot subdivision is proposed. SEQRA: This appears to be an unlisted action. Applicant: Ravmor, LLC, David Redgrave Agent: David Shaver, Northeast Land Survey Mr. Shaver stated the lot is currently 120 x 120 as it sets. Basically we are proposing to split the lot in half. Two zoning compliant lots. The area is currently vacant brushland. The lots will be serviced by an existing 8" sanitary sewer and an existing 8" water main within Doten Avenue. There is also a gas line and overhead utlitities adjacent to the property. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the parcel of land that you are subdividing, the size of the parcels are they compatible to those adjacent in the neighborhood. Mr. Shaver stated pretty much, it varies. The lots in this area range from 25 feet wide. Over the course of time some lots are wider, some more narrow. This is consistent with the neighborhood. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 22, 2011- Page 14 of 17 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated subdivision requirements in our zoning code as opposed to lot line adjustment kick in a requirement of sidewalks and street lights and street trees. Mr. Shaver asked if the onous could be placed on the builder stating before a certificate of occupancy is issued sidewalks, street lights and street trees per the City's subdivision requirements. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Shawn Warmsley, 5 Richard Avenue. Questioned if an apartment building could be placed on this property. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated this area is in a UR-2 building district which denotes only single family dwellings can be built in this zone. Carlo Cordi, 3 Taylor Street. Mr. Cordi made some comments on the sanitary sewer and the pumping station near his home and made some complaints regarding infringements on his property. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated that Mr. Cordi should contact the City Engineer and speak to him regarding his concerns. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. SEQRA: PART I Howard Pinsley made a motion to accept Part I. Seconded by Jamin Totino. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tom L. Lewis, Vice Chair in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 PART II Howard Pinsley stated that based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, the project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this, I move to make a SEQR negative declaration for this action. Seconded by Jamin Totino. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 22, 2011- Page 15 of 17 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there is any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tom L. Lewis, Vice Chair in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated we now have to vote on the two lot subdivision. The applicant has indicated that he will put notes on the plans that the sidewalks, lights and trees per code will be included even if the project is sold they will be part of the approval. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. Dan Gaba made a motion to approve the two lot subdivision on Doten Avenue. Seconded by Philip Klein. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Tom L. Lewis, Vice Chair in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 5. 11.042 Stewart's Shops Corp., Richard Farrell, 11 and 15 Maple Dell, request for an advisory opinion to the City Council for Zoning Amendment change fromn Tourist Related Business District to Highway General Business District. Agent: Jennifer Howard, Stewart's Corporation. DISCLOSURE: Tom L Lewis, Vice Chairman recused himself from this application and left the room as he is an employee of Stewart's. Amy Durland disclosed that Dr. Farrell is a neighbor of hers, but this will not affect her decision, so there is no need for recusal. Howard Pinsley disclosed that Dr. Farrell is a neighbor of his as well, but this will not affect his decision, so there is no need for recusal. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 22, 2011- Page 16 of 17 Jennifer Howared stated they had appeard before the City Council to petition for a Zoning Amendment which is a request to change the current zoning designation from Tourist Related Business District (TRBD), to Highway General Business District (HGBD). The reasons cited for the proposed change is a desire to allow for a wider range of uses that are afforded under HGBD, in particular an office and retail use. Also the possibility of a text amendment to a Tourist Related Business District. Currently the area cannot be used for office space only a Realty Office. Dr. Farrell is a neighbor and this would enable him to rent out office space as well. Discussion ensued regarding the application. Howard Pinsley made a motion for an advisory opinion to the City Council noting it is not binding to recommend that the City Council change the subject parcels from TRBD to HGBD. Seconded by Amy Durland. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Amy Durland, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Jamin Totino made a motion to accept the minutes of the October 26, 2011 meeting with corrections as submitted. Seconded by Philip Klein. VOTE: Amy Durland, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, abstained Jamin Totino, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0-1 Amy Durland made a motion to accept the minutes of the November 9, 2011 meeting with corrections as submitted. Seconded by Jamin Totino. VOTE: Amy Durland, in favor; Philip Klein, in favor; Dan Gaba, in favor; Howard Pinsley, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 11:04 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 1/11/12 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – November 22, 2011- Page 17 of 17