TOWN OF COLONIE BOARD MEMBERS:

PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF COLONIE COUNTY OF ALBANY 0 *************************************************** DUNKIN DONUTS/SUNOCO TROY-SCHENECTADY ROAD AMENDMENT TO FINAL APPROVAL *************************************************** THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES of the above entitled matter BY NANCY STRANG-VANDEBOGART, a Shorthand Reporter, commencing on July, at :00 p.m. at the Public Operations Center Old Niskayuna Road, Latham, New York 0 BOARD MEMBERS: PETER STUTO, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL SULLIVAN KATHY DALTON LOU MION BRIAN AUSTIN TIMOTHY LANE KAREN GOMEZ ELENA VAIDA, Esq., Attorney for the Planning Board Also present: Michael Tengeler, Planning and Economic Development Fred Sharifipour, Owner/Operator Rocky Cocca, Cocca s Motel Ph --- Fax --0

0 CHAIRMAN STUTO: We ll start the meeting of the Planning Board. There is not much of a crowd here today. We have one item on the agenda. It s a light agenda. Mike, I want to ask you a question. There was a gentleman here who thought that the Jones project was on tonight. Is there any basis for him thinking that? MR. TENGELER: No, basis. I ve had meetings with Victor Caponera and we should be getting that on either on the next agenda, or the one after that. They ll soon be on. CHAIRMAN STUTO: Thank you. The meeting is called to order. The first and only project on the agenda is Dunkin Donuts/Sunoco, and Troy-Schenectady Road. This is an amendment to the final approval. It will be presented by the owner/operator. Mike, I ll ask you to do an introduction, if you could. MR. TENGELER: Okay, you pretty much covered it. The amendment is specific to fencing requirement that was indicated on the final set of site plans that were initially Ph --- Fax --0

0 approved by the Planning Board when they received final approval. Fred is here to state his case and go for an amendment on that requirement. CHAIRMAN STUTO: So, the requirement was to have the combination it looks like a wrought iron style fence with the brick pillars across the whole project, which would be the gas station and the Dunkin Donuts; correct? MR. TENGELER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STUTO: On the interior, as it shows from the photograph, that style fence is in front of the gas -- what is that in front of? MS. DALTON: That s the gas station. CHAIRMAN STUTO: I drove by it. That s what I thought. There is nothing in front of the Dunkin Donuts. The new fencing, as under the approved drawings, would be closer to Route than where that fence is; right? It would go all the way across? MR. TENGELER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STUTO: Okay, I just wanted to Ph --- Fax --0

0 make sure that we were clear on that. We ll give the applicant an opportunity to make their case. Could you state your name for the record? MR. SHARIFIPOUR: Fred Sharifipour. We currently have a CO. We had money in escrow for certain things that we had to do such as black top and top coat. One of the items was the fencing. We thought that it was just for the pictures, but as Mike explained to us later on, it s something that has to be done per the original site plan. That s why we re here tonight to see if we can eliminate it. The reason that we want to eliminate it is because we have pretty much done everything consistent on what looks good for the business and the Town. I think that putting more pillars in the front would make the place look more cramped. We already have a small entrance going in and it would confuse drivers for the one way direction that we have coming in from the Dunkin Donuts to the gas station. We talked it over with our engineer and we think that landscaping that all the way across would Ph --- Fax --0

0 look much better than putting up more of these massive pillars and metal fences. What we put up already was plenty enough and it already blocks the site. Our canopy is in the back and we didn t want to do the colorful Sunoco graphics and all that. It already blocks the site quite a bit, especially with the convenient store up front. We just really feel that it would look much better in that small area with continuous landscaping then putting in these big pillars. CHAIRMAN STUTO: Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? MR. COCCA: I m Rocky Cocca. I m not really opposed to the landscaping plan, as far as the pillars go. I think that what the Town is trying to do is fine. Somebody is going to be developing that property if I sell it. My concern is the landscaping issue where the two properties meet. The Sunoco got raised up a little bit and we have water that is coming off onto our property which is supposedly supposed to be a swale there, I believe. I don t know. I really never looked at the landscaping plan. Ph --- Fax --0

0 CHAIRMAN STUTO: He s got the drawings there. Do you want to take a second to look at those? MR. COCCA: I just want to show you what s happening to the property. When it doesn t catch the water, we re going to have to do a repair. Dunkin Donuts is doing the repair, but I don t want them to do the repair and then have the water come back. It wouldn t be worth it. They did do work today on the swale to catch some of the water. MR. LANE: So, this is your property? MR. COCCA: Yes. Today, they did do some relieving of it. These pictures aren t that good. I do truly believe that they will take care of it and go after the contractor, but I think that they need to have it on the record that we had a landscaping issue with the water. MR. TENGELER: It s not listed in the plans, but I did have that conversation from Adam Wands and there are certain standards that he wants the Sunoco site to abide by. CHAIRMAN STUTO: So far it s not there? MR. TENGELER: So far it s not there. Ph --- Fax --0

0 Work has been done and I haven t talked to Adam today. I talked to him yesterday. As far as I m concerned, as soon as we get a sign-off from Adam that says we re satisfied with the way that this is pitched and the way that this is draining CHAIRMAN STUTO: They re supposed to be a swale between the properties? MR. COCCA: I have no idea. MR. TENGELER: I was told that there is a swale that s supposed to be there. CHAIRMAN STUTO: To direct the water in which direction? To the rear of the property or to the front? MR. COCCA: There is a culvert. They built a culvert where we connect. They built a culvert that went underneath it. There is a pond back there and they do have half of it coming, but the other half -- I don t think that it s a big fix. I think that it s a little earth CHAIRMAN STUTO: Do you understand the problem? MR. SHARIFIPOUR: Yes. I ve been over it with Rocky. What happened is we went according Ph --- Fax --0

0 to the blueprints with our engineers and we completed it. That s what we completed. That s why we got a CO. Unfortunately, there are minor little details. Sometimes you have standing water someplace that nobody is aware of. There is some standing water and Adam wanted us to have our landscaper put in a little but more dirt, which we did today. MR. COCCA: I don t think that s the answer. I think that it s an answer right there. If we can get the water to that swale MR. SHARIFIPOUR: The swale that s on the blueprints is there. We hired a contractor and we hired an engineer. The Town Engineer came and looked at every corner, and I mean every corner. He made us dig in many places. We paid the contractor and paid our engineer. We ve paid thousands of dollars to the Town Engineer and done exactly what they wanted us to do on the premises. There is a little bit of standing water in the middle of that space. We will do whatever we can to move that water out. We did everything according to the prints. MR. TENGELER: There are certain Ph --- Fax --0

0 elevations that would indicate that it would pitch it to the back of the property. CHAIRMAN STUTO: Who was the Town official? MR. TENGELER: Adam Wands; he s the Stormwater Inspector. CHAIRMAN STUTO: What did he say? MR. TENGELER: He wanted to see some extra work done to pitch it better and make better flow. MR. SHARIFIPOUR: We hired another landscaper because our contractor thought that he did everything that was on the prints correctly. He didn t want to do it, so we hired another landscaper contractor to do what Adam asked him to do and Adam explained what needed to be done and he did it. I think that Adam was there yesterday. CHAIRMAN STUTO: We don t have the benefit of having Adam here. Mr. Cocca, you don t think that it was done properly to channel water as it currently exists right now? MR. COCCA: I don t. I don t know about the work that was done today. It s too early Ph --- Fax --0

0 0 to tell, but in my opinion the way that the water is coming off and the way that it s built there, I don t think so. I actually talked to your landscaper today. He might have done the work that Adam asked him to do, but they did not think that it was going to catch that water. They were the ones that said that it wouldn t be a big deal and try to bring in some earth and just create a little bank because the water got a little higher. This might not have been foreseen. This is not Dunkin Donuts fault. I just don t want to sign off on this and me have to pay the bill to fix it. CHAIRMAN STUTO: Mike, do you have any suggestions? MR. TENGELER: Yes, the Planning Board can make as a condition of approval that the Stormwater Department is satisfied with the way that the swale is draining and is pitched as a condition of this approval. MR. SHARIFIPOUR: We already have our CO. We have it for the pillars. We re going to do whatever we have to do to satisfy any problem there. Ph --- Fax --0

0 CHAIRMAN STUTO: Okay, let s leave the drainage issue aside. Anybody want to ask questions or have an opinion on the fencing? MS. DALTON: I think that it looks fine the way that it is. I think that if we had to do this all over again, I would have made it bigger. There isn t enough parking there. That s all hindsight. MR. MION: I think that you have a valid point when you say there s no room to move around there. I ve sat there I go there often and the slanted parking -- I ve sat there and watched them back out and go onto the road against the traffic. I guess I would agree with Kathy that it should have been made a little bit bigger. CHAIRMAN STUTO: I like the fencing better. I think that it s visually better. I have gotten comments from the elected officials - for example the Stewarts. It gives a little bit more definition to these properties. The one compromise that I would make since you already have the fencing in front of Ph --- Fax --0

0 the one building - the fencing is now in front although it was in a different dimension. It s closer to the building. You do have it in front of the gas station. My personal opinion would be to run it along the Dunkin Donuts and sort of line it up with the other fencing. That s the end of my statement. MR. LANE: There was a comment by Planning that these parcels were going to be merged? MR. TENGELER: Correct. Part of the initial approval by Mike Lyons, the Senior Planner, was that the parcels had to be merged and merging had to be finalized and on record with Planning and Economic Development as well. The business had a liquor license before the full CO was issued. I talked to the applicant who said that it was in the process of being merged, but we have not yet received confirmation yet in our department. CHAIRMAN STUTO: Do you want the applicant to address that? MR. SHARIFIPOUR: I actually had our attorney contact Mike Lyons directly and they were in contact and were working on it. Ph --- Fax --0

0 CHAIRMAN STUTO: Which attorney was that? MR. SHARIFIPOUR: The last name is Brustoff. MR. LANE: Are they supposed to give you a time frame? MR. SHARIFIPOUR: No, but he contacted Mike directly. I saw Mike last week and discussed it. MR. LANE: If we gave you approval on this alternative to do the landscaping rather than the fencing, will you be in a bind as far as time, or is that not an issue? We re saying okay, we ll condition the landscaping as opposed to the fence contingent on the merging of the properties. CHAIRMAN STUTO: You said that the merger is already being initiated. MR. SHARIFIPOUR: The merger is already happening. It s not already done. MR. LANE: Does this come down to a cost issue? MR. SHARIFIPOUR: Not at all. It s a function issue. On paper everything looks fine but when they go up, it s a different story. When they put up the pillars and the fencing Ph --- Fax --0

0 in front of the convenient store, they re pretty massive. It s okay there because that way people know that there is a driveway in front of it. If we put pillars in front of it, I don t think that anybody will know that there is a driveway in front of it because of the confusion of going in and out. I have a picture of the front landscaping. It s on the last page. It would go down -- our engineer defined the layout. MR. LANE: I m fine with that as long as it s a function issue, as opposed to a cost issue. MR. SHARIFIPOUR: No, as a matter of fact, I think that we ve already paid for the fencing up front. We paid for it as part of our site package. MS. DALTON: If you look at this picture, you can see that this is coming up from here and that s going vertically (Indicating). If you continued that CHAIRMAN STUTO: Going perpendicular to Route? MS. DALTON: Yes, and that if you bring it across, I think that it creates the Ph --- Fax --0

0 illusion that Dunkin Donuts is a separate parcel. It exacerbates the feeling that it s a separate parcel instead of giving that contiguous feel that the whole design is intended to create. CHAIRMAN STUTO: You re saying that my proposed compromise is confusing? MS. DALTON: The thing that would make sense if you wanted to do it would be to extend this perpendicular to come out here (Indicating). CHAIRMAN STUTO: I m not following you, to be honest with you. MS. DALTON: It s a visual illusion that you would create if you continue this perpendicular CHAIRMAN STUTO: I m not suggesting that. I m suggesting to continue the parallel fence. MS. DALTON: I just think that it would look a little strange. You d have fence and then you d have nothing and then you d have more fence on this side. Plus, in either case, you obscure the ability of people on Route to see that this is one continuous road and that they can turn in here Ph --- Fax --0

0 CHAIRMAN STUTO: No one will see an internal road. MS. DALTON: That s right because you re blocking that. The fact that this whole thing was designed to be a contiguous turn CHAIRMAN STUTO: I understand. I don t know if I necessarily agree, but I understand. My argument would be that you have a continuation of the existing fence across the whole property; but we can disagree on it. I would like to see a partial fence in front. MR. LANE: If he puts that in, wouldn t that be raising it? MS. DALTON: It s not that raised right now. MR. AUSTIN: I like the fence as it is because it creates a little park like area where people can be at tables. MR. SHARIFIPOUR: The fence defines the blacktop. Any more up front it would just be in the way. I talked to the guys at Midas and the Fire Station CHAIRMAN STUTO: What do the Board Members think about making this revision and also making a condition that he complies with Ph --- Fax --0

0 the suggestions of our Stormwater Department? Do you have any strenuous objections to that? MR. SHARIFIPOUR: Not at all. It s not only a hassle for Rocky, but it s more hassle for us. CHAIRMAN STUTO: So, if I understand the Board, I ll phrase the motion if somebody wants to make it. That we agree to the amendment of the site plan as suggested by the applicant, but that we add the additional condition that the applicant comply with our Stormwater Department with respect to diverting the water to the swale that they re working on now, notwithstanding that it may not be explicitly in the current plans. MS. DALTON: Also that they comply with the Planning Department. MR. MION: I ll make a motion. MS. DALTON: I ll second that. CHAIRMAN STUTO: All those in favor? MS. DALTON: Aye. MR. MION: Aye. MR. AUSTIN: Aye. Ph --- Fax --0

MR. SULLIVAN: Aye. MS. GOMEZ: Aye. MR. LANE: Aye. CHAIRMAN STUTO: I want to be recorded as no because I wanted the fence to be continued. Our stormwater people should be working on this. We ll put these pictures in for the record. 0 (Whereas the above entitled proceeding was concluded at : p.m.) Ph --- Fax --0

CERTIFICATION 0 I, NANCY STRANG-VANDEBOGART, Short hand reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of New York, hereby CERTIFY that the record taken by me at the time and place noted in the heading hereof is a true and accurate transcript of same, to the best of my ability and belief. NANCY STRANG-VANDEBOGART Dated August, Ph --- Fax --0