Discussion/Information Items

A. Van Dyke Spinney 4 Lot Minor Subdivision at 193, 197, 243, 247 Van Dyke Road, Delmar - Project Update on Proposed Subdivision of 9+ Acres - Subdivision Application 17-00300004

The project was before the Board for an update. Staff comments were provided by Leslie Lombardo, Robert Leslie & Matt Hoffman. Board discussion commenced at 8:17 p.m.

To date, the project was discussed at the following meetings:

-Planning Board: 10/03/2017, 04/16/2019, 08/06/2019, 07/07/2020

Project Representative(s):

-Michael Vaillant of Lansing Engineering

-Morgan Ruthman of Van Dyke Spinney LLC, the applicant -Alanna Moran of Creighton Manning Engineering

Public Comments:

-there were no comments during the public comment period at the start of the meeting

Discussion / Information Items:

-Van Dyke Spinney is seeking approval to construct a 4 lot minor subdivision with 4 single family homes on 9 acres on the west side of Van Dyke Road, in an RA zoning district -the project area is across the street from the The Spinney at Van Dyke Senior Housing Development

-a basic SWPPP was provided to meet stormwater requirements

-prior discussions were related to drainage, steep slopes, driveways and site distance -revised plans were submitted in October 2019 to address issues related to front yard setbacks, building footprints, driveway layout for lots 3 & 4, driveway location for lot 1 moved closer to lot 2, grading detail to show flow of drainage from front of lot to back -a Town Designated Engineer (TDE) reviewed the proposed plan and provided comments in December 2019

-applicant withdrew their request for variances for front yard setback reduction to 20' -Mr. Vaillant provided information about the history of the Van Dyke Spinney project and surrounding area

-he noted that the PDD was originally approved in 2008

-applicant had originally sought approval for six (6) lots; currently seeking approval for four (4) lots

-applicant had originally sought approval for waiver of safe slope setback -parking will be provided via driveways and garages

-lots sizes range between 0.282 acres up to 4.64 acres

-a geotechnical and slope stability analysis was completed by Dente Engineering who recommended that five (5) feet be excavated from the top of the slope to stabilize the slope and allow for the set back line to be relocated

-three lines are shown on the drawing 1) angle of repose; 2) setback line if no material is removed; and 3) setback line if material is removed

-grading plans were provided in compliance with the slope stability analysis

-basic SWPPP was required and submitted to address erosion & sediment control concerns -water & sewer to be provided with connections to the existing service lateral's on the west side of the road

-water & sewer district extensions are required to include the new parcels in the water &

sewer districts

-Ms. Moran stated that VHB reviewed the site distance, safe stopping distance, curves and downgrades

-VHB recommended that an intersection warning sign and supplemental driveway plaque be installed on the southbound approach to Lots 1 & 2

-VHB also evaluated intersection site distances for Lots 1 & 2 using low volume roadway guidelines

-it was noted that some existing vegetation and grade change / berm along the road that is limiting site distance; the berming would be removed during construction

-there is no great spot to install the driveways so it was determined that the proposed driveway locations have been maximized with the installation of the intersection warning sign and driveway plaque

-vehicle lighting is used to evaluate site distance during snow conditions

-3-6" of snowfall would limit the site stopping distance for the southern driveway -Mr. Vaillant noted that the driveways are sloped at 5 percent, roughly 9" lower than the road

-Town's accepted range of grade for a driveway is a maximum of 10 percent

-MJ Engineering has not had a chance to comment on the latest information that VHB provided using AASHTO standards

-MJ did agree that the roadway environment is low volume due to the number of vehicles -MJ also confirmed that the placement of intersection sign and driveway plaque was consistent with AASHTO recommendations

-Ms. Aiezza is concerned about snow issues and noted that the potential for increased traffic on the road

-Mr. Gyory noted that it seems like the applicant is trying to cram in too much into a small area considering issues associated with site distance, grading and angle of repose

-Ms. Aiezza asked for an explanation as to why lots 3 & 4 are so close together

-Mr. Vaillant stated that the lots are below grade and driveways placement dictated the location of homes on the lots

-Ms. Moran noted that VHB recorded 512 vehicles / day when school was in session and the classification for Van Dyke Road will continue to be classified for 2,000 vehicles / day -Mr. Ruthman noted that the positioning of the homes is in conformance with Town guidelines

-Ms. Aiezza noted that the Board would be taking community character into consideration when reviewing the proposal

-Mr. Smolinsky would like to hear about a one lot option based on collective issues noted for lots 1 & 2

-Mr. Ruthman noted that requirements are being me for stromwater, geotechnical, traffic, civil engineering

-Ms. Aiezza noted that the lots have to meet the zoning code but there are other issues that need to be considered including community character, site distance, etc.

-Mr. Sweeney noted that the code provides a set of minimum performance standards that an applicant must meet in order to be entitled to the consideration for subdivision approval, it does guarantee

-the Board has discretion under SEQR and the code to determine if an applicant is meeting factors to their satisfaction and addressing things such as community character, design, aesthetics, etc, sufficient for them to find a Negative Declaration and ultimately grant approval

-the Board has the discretion to consider these things

-Mr. Gyory noted that there are issues with the angle of repose and the applicant is seeking relief from the safe slope setback

-he would like to see what the project looks like with one lot instead of two lots (1 & 2) -Ms. Moran noted that signage would be required for any driveway in this area on Van Dyke -northern driveway (stopping site distance is good, but intersection site distance is not good)

-southern driveway (stopping site distance is not good, but intersection site distance is better)

-Mr. Hoffman noted that stopping distance is more critical when it comes to site design for a low volume road

-VHB will provide estimated results for the intersection distance calculations if vegetation is removed

-Ms. Moran noted that site distance would improve for the southern driveway if vegetation is removed

-Ms. Leslie noted that removing the vegetation would reduce the neighbor's screening from the proposed development of Van Dyke Spinney Phases 3 & 4

-Mr. Vaillant mentioned that the finished floor elevations and front yard setbacks appear to be offset

-he noted that lots 3 & 4 are 600' from the existing homes on the street

-Mr. Gyory asked if deed restrictions would be placed on each lot to prevent future disturbance in the safe slope setback area

-he believes the Town would need to know the exact driveway location and building envelope prior to approval so the issues considered prior to approval are carried forward -Mr. Hoffman noted that Town Engineering staff would review building permits / grading plan, and require additional studies, if necessary

-he noted that there have been issues with plans being approved for homes with a 2,000 sf footprint and the building submits a permit application for a home that has a 3,000 sf footprint

-Mr. Smolinsky wondered if there was any opportunity to spread out lots 1 & 2 -he suggested that Lot 1 be moved further south by lowering the elevation to 6-7'

-Mr. Vaillant stated that it would not be possible to spread out lots 1 & 2 because of the safe slope setback line and proposed excavation of 5' of material

-Ms. Leslie noted that the Dente Report shows an area that experienced slope slippage in the past

-Mr. Gyory noted that several Board Members made suggestions and would like the applicant to acknowledge their willingness to look into it

-the Board has been clear at this meeting and others that they would like to see something different

-Ms. Aiezza noted that the applicant knows what is driving the Board's concerns and they are aware of drainage issues that could result if a neighbor were to do anything with their side yard

-Mr. Ruthman noted that the applicant can look at a shared driveway and would like to be informed of community character criteria

-Mr. Smolinsky recommended that the applicant look at the surrounding neighborhood, setbacks, spacing and propose something that is close to what is found in the existing neighborhood

-he will look at the Phase 3 & 4 proposal to consider how it lines up with the proposed 4 lot subdivision

-Mr. Ruthman noted that the applicant tried to address the Engineering criteria but is not

"hitting" the Planning Board's criteria

-he wondered if the Planning Board was looking for the applicant to submit options

-Mr. Smolinsky asked the applicant to look three existing houses on the drawing and the two houses that are being proposed for lots 1 & 2; he thinks the applicant could spread the houses out or down size to one lot

-Ms. Aiezza would like to see the proposed homes on lots 3 & 4 spread out as much as possible

-Mr. Leslie noted that the Zoning Law contains design guidelines for the Residential A district which encourages the integration of new subdivisions within existing neighborhoods by maintaining tree rows, hedgerows & similar features, designing new buildings adjacent to existing structures in a manner consistent with general architectural features in terms of form and materials, and locating new or infill buildings in line with existing buildings to maintain the integrity of the existing setback line of the street

-Mr. Gyory stated that the proposed plan seems to dense and the Board has requested that the applicant provide a plan that shows three lots instead of four

-Ms. Aiezza noted that it is the applicant's responsibility to address Board Member comments and come back

-Ms. Lombardo noted that the prior discussions concerning the proposed 4 lot subdivision revolved around drainage, grading, site constraints, safe slope setback lines, driveway placement

-these factors must be considered due to the applicant's request for a waiver and their wish to build outside of the Town's angle of repose line which is very close to the road

-Mr. Smolinsky noted that if the homes on lots 1 & 2 cannot be separated due to site constraints the only option would be to reduce lots 1 & 2 to a single lot

-Mr. Gyory said the Board has been clear and the ball is in the court of the applicant

-the applicant and design team can watch the meeting video to understand what the Board is looking for

-Mr. Ruthman would like to know more clearly how they feel about lots 3 & 4

-Mr. Smolinsky & Ms. Aiezza noted that a suggestion was made to find a way to create more separation between the buildings

-Mr. Vaillant indicated that the applicant will look at the site to see if it is possible to increase the distance between the homes on lots 3 & 4

Next Steps:

-applicant to provide option for a 3 lot subdivision

-applicant to provide option showing increased separation of homes on lots 3 & 4 -SEQR unlisted action, coordinated review with ZBA

RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Brian Gyory, Board Member SECONDER: John Smolinsky, Chairman

AYES: Smolinsky, Gyory, Aiezza, Lewendon, Powers

B. Cardona Development, LLC, 65 Kenwood Avenue, Glenmont - Project Update on