Chairman Doyle called the April 25, 2007meeting to order at 7:30pm and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Doyle reviewed the agenda.

New York Development Group, Route 50 (Beacon Hill PUDD) for Site Plan Review; Beacon Hill Condominiums; new configuration. Scott Lansing of Lansing Engineering was present along with Geoffrey Booth of New York Development Group to present the case to the Board. Mr. Lansing gave an overview of the existing site which consists of 6.25 acres located on the south of Everson Way, east of Route 50 next to the Technology Park. The parcel is served by public water, public sewer and storm water management with the utilities located in the Everson Way corridor.

Mr. Lansing said that the original application for a senior condominium project was approved:

8 Buildings

8 Units per building

A total of 64 units

A footprint of approximately 7,978sq. ft. per building with attached garages to be accessed from the bottom of the structure.

Mr. Lansing said that the site did include a looped roadway.

Mr. Lansing said that the modified site plan is consistent with the original approved site plan; senior condominiums. The modified includes:

13 Buildings

4 Units per building

A total 52 units

A footprint of approximately 4,220sq. ft. per building with attached garages to be accessed from the bottom of the structure.

The buildings would have two units on the first floor and two units on the second floor; consistent with the previous plan.

Mr. Lansing said that with the decrease from the original 64 units down to 52 units; approximately a 19% decrease. There is a decrease in excavation on the site with a wider footprint on the buildings so the road grades are flatter around the loop; 3% rather than 4- 4.5% which will eliminate the wall. The green space on the project has increased and the impervious has decreased so there is more green space area with less run off, storm water flow from the project to the storm water management area which is sized to accommodate.

Mr. Lansing responded to the CT Male comments which were technical in nature.

Mr. Hayden asked the applicant the reason for the changes. Mr. Booth replied that the Architect that designed the original plans could not accommodate the access needed for seniors that was originally promised.

Ms. Cristy asked the range in price. Mr. Booth what is "affordable in Saratoga Market; use the HUD standards" starting under $200,000.00 around $180,000.00 - $190,000.00. Mr. Booth said that the condominium will be managed by a HOA so the residents will not have to take care of snow removal, lawn care or outside plantings.

Mr. Rhodes asked if the original plan had more frontage on the sidewalk; more buildings in the center. Mr. Booth replied there were two large buildings in the center. Mr. Rhodes asked if the buildings fronted on both sides of the loop. Mr. Booth replied no; just the one side.

Mr. Rhodes asked about the operation and maintenance and is going to be owned by a HOA, is there anything that the Town needs to make sure that the storm water coming from the site are consistent with operation of maintenance; clean, maintained. Ms. Cyr replied that other than regular cleaning of the storm sewers nothing additional. Mr. Rhodes said that the HOA will not be aware unless it is documented. Mr. Rhodes suggested recommendations. Ms. Cyr recommends that if the Board is comfortable. Mr. Rhodes said that it comes down to the Town accepting the water. Ms. Cyr asked if the Town owns the basins of Beacon Hill. Mr. Johnson replied no, that the Town does not own the basins, they just maintain them. Mr. Rhodes asked Ms. Cyr if there is a concern with accepting what ever comes from this site into their facility and being responsible for that water; is there a concern based on CT Males review. Ms. Cyr said given the only problem on the site would be not regularly maintaining the storms sewers and feels this should be written up as part of the home owners agreement however, was once presented with the original application. Mr. Booth replied no. Mr. Rhodes asked if there is a problem, should it be addressed by this applicant. Mr. Doyle said that he spoke with Mr. Reilly and said that it needs to be covered and should have some agreement; requirements what can and cannot be dumped in storm drains (description of maintenance that will be provided).

Mr. Rhodes asked if there will be problem with snow management from the site. Mr. Booth said that there is plenty of open area around the site the push the snow.

Mr. Booth said the original area was designated for planting and sitting and is now strongly considering putting a gazebo in that area.

Mr. Doyle asked to place an additional light on the bottom section so there are two lights closer to gazebo. Mr. Booth is in agreement.

Mr. Doyle asked for more stone to reduce the amount of debris on the road during construction; presently less than 60’ increase to greater than 60’. Mr. Booth asked under construction. Mr. Doyle replied yes. (sheet #11)

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 7:45pm

Tracy McGuinness is here on behalf of Joan Johnson who resides at 1284 Route 50, Ballston Spa who has a concern of safety and quality of life. Ms. McGinnis asked if there are other similar properties the developer has built in surrounding towns. Mr. Booth said that this is the first condominium design. Ms. McGinnis said that when Beacon Hill was under construction her front yard was dug up and equipment was left on the property. Mr. Booth said that was Niagara Mohawk running the gas line down through the area. Mr. Booth said that if there is ever a problem or question to contact him directly or contact the Town of Ballston and speak to either Tom or Michelle and they can contact him directly and will address your concerns. Mr. Johnson said that if it is Niagara Mohawk the Town has no control over what they do.

A discussion was held on the planting plan for the project.

Mr. Rhodes said that Route 50 will be reconstructed so there will be turbulence. Mr. Doyle said a left hand turn lane being proposed; the road will be widened.

David Stern asked the elevation difference where their house is to not having to put a retaining wall because of the change of the structure. Mr. Booth said that this the highest part of the site. Mr. Lansing said 2ft. higher. Mr. Stern asked whether a berm would be beneficial or a possible fence. Mr. Rhodes said that it is hypothetical. Mr. Doyle said that if it lower it could be problem than if it sitting higher. Mr. Booth said that he would look into it and feels that fences are opaque and are not attractive and feels more screening is more attractive.

Mr. Doyle closed the public hearing 8:05pm

Ms. Cyr said that she is comfortable with the Board granting approval and having it subject to technical comments. The Board is in agreement.

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski motioned to name The Town of Ballston Planning Board the Lead Agency in the SEQR process. Ms. Cristy seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski moved to issue a Negative Declaration, with the basis that there is not a potentially significant environmental impact. Ms. Cristy seconded the motion. CARRIED.

Mr. Doyle asked the Board for approval with the stipulation that the stated engineering concerns are resolved prior to the issuance of paper. Mr. Rhodes asked for the additional storm water items that presented by the Planning Board. Ms. Cyr read through the three comments the comment that Mr. Rhodes provided the comment that the Home Owners Association having maintenance of the storm sewers at a frequency of at least once a year preferably in the spring time. Mr. Rhodes said that there was no comment made offering statement what if should include; recommendations were made from the Town Engineer regarding what it required for Home Owners Association Maintenance. Ms. Cyr requested Mr. Reilly review it. Mr. Doyle provided two comments with regards to the lighting in the gazebo area and the second regarding the construction entrance off of Everson Way which will be incorporated into the comment letters. Mr. Lansing said that the revised plan will be forwarded to the Saratoga County Sewer District for review and approval.

Mr. Doyle asked for an approval of the project. Mr. Rhodes replied so moved and Ms. Eddy seconded the motion. Mr. VanVorst voted in favor, Ms. Cristy voted in favor, Mr. Hayden voted in favor, Mr. Rhodes voted in favor, Mr. Cwalinski voted in favor and Ms. Eddy voted in favor. CARRIED.

Curtis Industrial Park, Route 67 for Site Plan Review. John Gay of Northeast Land Surveyor was present to present the case to the Board. This proposal is a continuation of the two maintenance buildings. Since the last meeting, there have been no changes on the parcel, positioning size of the buildings, areas to be paved, areas to be graveled and the trees to remain on the site.

Mr. Gay said that during CT Males review the comments have been addressed since the last meeting the additional comments were:

Short EAF completed and submitted.

Wetland delineation has been identified.

Ms. Cyr asked for the boundary plotted on the plans to confirm that there is no impact of the wetlands associated with this project.

The building had a less than 1% pitch concrete pad away from the building; the proposal is to raise the building 2/10’ on the plan so it increases the grade to 1.4% pitch.

Grass waterway detail is still on the plans.

Approval still needed from Saratoga County Sewer District before hookup.

Water main detail needed; Mr. Rhodes asked Ms. Cyr is a picture or specification in written form. Ms. Cyr said she will need to check. Mr. Rhodes said that the manufacturer cut sheet may need to be provided.

Detailed water shut off valve to be provided.

Specify pipe schedule. (or equal with manufactures specification)

Changed concrete pad sub base material.

Changed to 1" copper water pipe to main.

Copper service detail added 1 ¼" HDPE lower pressure force main and existing sanitary force main.(under pressure)

Water valve detail on plan.

Dumpster pad specification the same as the concrete pad in front of the doorways.

Mr. Rhodes said that most of the outstanding information is technical in nature and should be able to be worked out with the engineer.

Ms. Cyr said the only comment not technical in nature is the boundary of the wetlands on the finalized plans to be shown on for public records.

Mr. Rhodes said that it comes down to a technical review as long as the project does not change the disturbance limits beyond where it shows a conflict. Mr. Rhodes asked for the wetland limit based on the wetland scientist’s information including a note on the plan saying it’s based on the field delineation that will be reviewed by the Town Engineer.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:28pm.

Mr. Doyle closed the public hearing 8:30pm.

No one wished to speak on this application.

MOTION: Ms. Cristy motioned to name The Town of Ballston Planning Board the Lead Agency in the SEQR process. Mr. VanVorst seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes moved to issue a Negative Declaration, with the basis that there is not a potentially significant environmental impact subject to Town Engineer review of the items discussed and satisfaction of technical comments. Mr. VanVorst seconded the motion. CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes made a motion for approval for this project as amended. Ms. Cristy seconded the motion. Mr. VanVorst voted in favor, Ms. Cristy voted in favor, Mr. Hayden voted in favor, Mr. Rhodes voted in favor, Mr. Cwalinski voted in favor and Ms. Eddy voted in favor. CARRIED.

Walter Katz III, 1152 Rt. 50 for Site Plan Review and a Special Use Permit. John Gay of Northeast Land Surveyors. Mr. Gay submitted photographs of the site. Mr. Rhodes said that typically what is done in most communities is 8 1/2" x 11" with a narrative and a quick plan which shows the location; this size which is provided is to "big" to maneuver. Mr. Rhodes said that existing condition photographs are good for the record.

Mr. Gay said that the applicant was asked by the Board to show how the rest of the site could be developed. Mr. Gay said that this is shown on the plans; futures build out on a piece by piece basis.

Mr. Gay said that the road had been required by the Water Department to be kept open for maintenance of the water line connecting Outlet Road with the other side of Route 50.

Mr. Gay said that grading requires the Storm Water Management to be of that size.

Mr. Gay said that the parking spaces for a medical facility require 1 parking space for 175sq. ft. (20 parking spaces on top; requires 28) adding another parking lot thus eliminating the need for an elevator and eliminating the need for a set of stairs up the side of the building. There will be a crossing area with a sidewalk to make sure it is accessible with the handi-cap spots in front of the door.

The bottom floor is anticipated to be office space which has a different ratio and that ratio is 1 parking space for 300sq. ft.

Mr. Gay said that when this project was started, Creighton Manning did the initial traffic study which indicated the driveway was closer to the intersection and was not a right turn in or right turn out only.

A discussion was held on CT Male comments and how to be expedited to applicant and the Board in a timely manner. Ms. Cyr said that the letters are mailed out on Monday and feels that the applicant should have the comments and review them and understand the technical issues, but does not feel resubmitting a completely revised plan to CT Male and the Planning Board can give enough review time from the day the letter was sent.

Mr. Rhodes asked the Town Engineer to e-mail all comments to applicant and Planning Board members directly.

Ms. Cyr said at the last meeting there was a comment made by Mr. Rhodes "does there need to be a restrictive right-in/right out entrance on Route 50." Ms. Cyr said that it could be a full use entrance and exit. Ms. Cyr said the applicant will not have to redo the full impact traffic study for this issue (Ms. Cyr replied that is how she interpreted the minutes).

Mr. Gay said that the available site distance on Outlet Road site driveway should be analyzed. Mr. Gay said that the pictures show that it is a straight run up to the traffic light without any obstacles in the other direction is almost unlimited distance.

Mr. Gay said that a lighting diagram needs to be provided. Mr. Doyle asked for a detailed lighting plan.

Mr. Gay said that the applicant was asked to review the Town of Ballston Design Standards for the Business Highway District and provide a narrative explaining how the site compiles with each design standard and why waivers are being requested. Mr. Gay said that there have already been two meetings and discussions included building location, parking, highway entrance and potential future build out.

Mr. Rhodes said that comment should have been received during the last review and should not have been given this evening. This project should be for final review this evening. Ms. Cyr said this was on previous comment letter that were drafted by the Planner. Mr. Rhodes said that the review asked for a sketch plan of the entire site which is included and there was no comment related to it. Ms. Cyr said that the Master Plan and the build out of the site were asked for, but there more design standards than building setback, parking location and many more which are related to the appearance of the building which was never resolved in the original meeting when referencing the location of the building. Mr. Rhodes said that the applicant was asked for a plan of review during the last meeting. Ms. Cyr said that it could not be reviewed because the plans that were submitted did not include pertinent information. Mr. Rhodes said that the review could have included architectural details, parking, site layout and the overall plan and whether it is consistent with the pattern of the design standards. Ms. Cyr said that it would have been done initially, but there were the other instances which regarded the landscaping that were done originally. Mr. Rhodes said that there has never been a real compatibility analysis done for the sketch plan that was submitted for the design standards. Mr. Rhodes does not feel in any way to cause any more delay on this project; going forward cannot continue to have this happen. Ms. Cyr said that this comment came about obviously from a review of previous minutes, and review outstanding comments that in CT Males opinion that were not addressed. Ms. Cyr said that if the Planning Board does not agree with this comment, then CT Male would need to know that it does not need to be addressed; remainder of design standards.

Mr. Gay said that the appropriate parking has been placed on the same level eliminated the elevator.

Ms. Eddy asked how delivery trucks will enter and exit the site and where will the trucks be parking.

Ms. Eddy asked about dumpsters and special regulations regarding medical waste; separate dumpsters for medical waste and will it need to be identified and have security.

Mr. Doyle said that all medical waste is going to stay within the building within a storage area. Ms. Hipwell replied yes. Ms. Hipwell said that the deliveries are made by UPS trucks.

A further discussion was held on parking on the proposed site.

Ms. Eddy asked Ms. Hipwell how many patients are seen in one hour. Ms. Hipwell replied nine.

Ms. Eddy asked "how many parking spaces you are going to have as opposed to as if it is different then; how many you are suppose to have." Mr. Gay said that 27 are needed.

Mr. Gay said that there are 5ft. sidewalks with intrical curves and does not feel that it is a common practice and proposed concrete bumpers.

Mr. VanVorst asked Mr. Gay to clarify pre-development and post-development drainage. Mr. Gay said that it is strictly a technical question. Mr. Gay said that the detention basin was built out of the site not built out of the building. Mr. Rhodes asked the calculations of the drainage areas. Ms. Cyr said that the conflict was the design point of the basin far removed from the outlet of the basin and the way it was designed and were concerned that they were concentrating fill off the property line directly into the Potocar property (the maroon house). Ms. Cyr wants to meet with Mr. Jacobson to discuss this matter. Mr. Rhodes asked this discharge point or the design point. Ms. Cyr replied both. Mr. Rhodes said that the drainage is not appropriate for the analysis and the delineation of the drainage areas are also in conflict. Ms. Cyr said in conflict related to the design point of the property and the discharge point of the detention basin. Mr. Rhodes asked which design storm. Ms. Cyr replied all of them. Mr. Rhodes said to defuse the discharge.

Mr. Cwalinski asked about a lighting plan. Mr. Doyle said that Mr. Gay will provide a lighting plan which will be approved.

Mr. Johnson needs to see a final approval on the lighting plan because it could be an issue.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes made a motion that the Town Engineer reviews the lighting plan and the Planning Board provide detail instructions what the Board is looking for. Mr. Rhodes asked for a photometric plan (contour map), lighting selections and making sure that the plans are consistent with the design standards that the photometrics prove that there is no spillage beyond the property lines and everything is in conformance with both zoning and design standards and pending satisfactory Town Engineer comments or Town Engineer review it could be approved. Mr. Rhodes also included storm water.

Mr. Doyle asked the Board members if they were in agreement to the motion:

Mr. VanVorst was in agreement

Ms. Cristy was in agreement

Mr. Hayden said that if this is what the Board is going to do; then should set a better precedent for future projects and has a concern with the lighting plan and design standards.

Mr. Cwalinski said that a photometric plan should be resolved between the engineers.

Ms. Cyr said that CT Male does take direction from the Board, but the Board does need to understand that there are 60 outstanding technical comments which include pipe sizing and pipe venting. Ms. Cyr said that there are outstanding comments related to storm water and would like to reiterate and causes potential impacts to downstream property owners as designed and will attempt to work this out with the engineer, but as it states and as the applicant plans to approve this the storm water plan is not something that CT Male is comfortable with. Mr. Rhodes said to make sure that the property is not negatively impacted.

Mr. Reilly said that there is recourse if there is a subsequent problem, if CT Male is not satisfied.

Mr. Rhodes said that it does not meet the design standards. Mr. Rhodes also said that the conflict is the new parking areas; design/numbers. Mr. Rhodes said that it is clear of where parking should be located.

Mr. Rhodes said that he holds to his original position and wants this application to receive approval tonight and feels the comments regarding design standards should have been given in the past and since they were not, feels the Planning Board owes the applicant to set a bad precedent and does not know another way around it and does not feel it is fair to redesign the site.

Ms. Eddy has a concern with setting a precedent and said that "it bothers me and five meetings is a long time and think we need to be better communicators on all sides."

Mr. Rhodes asked "if there was a way to figure how to admit that there was perhaps better things that could have been done in the growing pains in this application and allow it to move forward realizing that there are certain conformances do not meet design standards and cannot justify a waiver and feels that the Board should be fair to the applicant."

Mr. Rhodes said that the parking cannot be put on the other side of the road it needs to be placed either in front, inside or in back; it cannot be put across where a new property is going to be.

Ms. Cyr said that the first time the applicant returned for a full site plan review was February 21, 2007 and the letter states that the applicant develop a formal narrative to address each of the design standards.

Mr. VanVorst asked if there is a possibility to move the septic system to keep the parking all on one side.

Mr. Rhodes asked Ms. Cyr to define the outfall or the overflow would this be at full build out. Ms. Cyr said that this was a full build out condition and will see flow coming out of the culvert pipe and that was the ultimate problem is the way the outlet pipe is situated and just channelizing and concentrating the flow right off on to the reservoir onto that property. Mr. Rhodes asked if it can be designed to defuse the flows.

Mr. Rhodes said that potential impacts can be addressed relating to storm water management and address any potential negative impacts relative to the lighting plan. Mr. Rhodes said "that were saying you can and were trusting the Town Engineer will be able to confirm that they can, why can’t we do SEQR." Mr. Doyle has a concern that it will not have an affect and the Board will have to understand that all the engineering items have not been completed.

Ms. Eddy asked Ms. Cyr "if she was comfortable with the Board declaring a Negative Dec and tang your it." Ms. Cyr said that she is fine with that, but wants the Board to be aware that and also the public.

Mr. Reilly said that as a Board his concern would be to issue a conditional Negative Declaration in compliance with the requirements of the engineer and has a concern with the design standards. Mr. Reilly is concerned from a legal perspective that this be approved without compliance.

Mr. Doyle recommends one more meeting before final approval and to put forth as much concentrated effort at that time.

Ms. Eddy feels that there are two attorneys with the same response.

Mr. Rhodes asked for the applicant to forward material for the following meeting which is being held tomorrow.

Mr. Rhodes said to forward the waivers that are required. Mr. Gay suggested that the applicant was asked to show a master plan of the site and that was accomplished and if so if that is not required will take off what is there and will not be in noncompliance with the standards.

Mr. VanVorst said that the parking is still noncompliant. Mr. Gay said that the parking is correct; one bay of parking under the design standards. Mr. Rhodes said that it has to be along the building.

Mr. Doyle does not feel that the Town Engineer and the applicant can resolve the storm water management in an eight hour period. Mr. Rhodes said that this is not the topic of discussion; it is compliance of the design standards. Mr. Rhodes said that an analysis can be presented of what the design standards say for the entire project and what is being proposed and why the variances are needed.

Ms. Eddy said that she has to follow the side of legal input and if it is precedent setting then she would have to say no.

Mr. Cwalinski said that he would have to agree with the lawyer for the applicant to return next month.

Mr. Rhodes said that the design standards are completely separate evidence by the discussion the Board had and voted the storm water and photometrics would be a separate thing handled with technical review of the engineer and agreed and are now reintroducing that as a reason why the applicant cannot bring in design standards analysis for discussion by this Board and feels if the applicant can produce it, the Board owes it to the applicant to review those and have no objections can operate a conditional Negative Declaration just like the Town Attorney presented.

Mr. Hayden feels that the applicant should return next month.

Ms. Cristy said that the Board has to be careful not to set a precedent.

Mr. VanVorst said that there has to be way to give the applicant conditional approval to be able to start the project that if it were necessary to stop at any time to resolve the issues; the issues will be resolved and to put this project off any longer is inappropriate.

Mr. Doyle suggested the applicant forward waivers to the Board and approval at next months meeting.

Ms. Eddy asked Mr. Reilly his concerns about setting the precedent with the concept of giving the applicant contingent negative declaration. Mr. Reilly said a Negative Declaration would be based on in relation to storm water meeting all engineering requirements. Mr. Reilly has a concern with the design standards with fairness to all applicants at least those that have been met and those that haven’t been met and why and much smaller projects.

Mr. Rhodes asked Mr. Reilly design standards are separate from SEQR. Mr. Reilly replied yes.

Mr. Rhodes said that the one outstanding issue is the design standards.

Mr. Cwalinski asked Mr. Gay "if you could get that to us tomorrow." Mr. Gay said that he owes it to his client.

Mr. Gay said that the parking spaces have already been discussed. Mr. Rhodes said that the proposal should meet design standards; circulation, parking.

Mr. Rhodes asked Michelle for a copy of a detailed analysis that Scott Lansing did. Mr. Rhodes asked the applicant to contact Mr. Lansing. Michelle replied that she had faxed it to Mr. Gay last month. Mr. Rhodes suggested using that information as a template and produce and expedite back to the Board.

Mr. Johnson asked when the submittal will need to be in and how will it be distributed to the Board and how much time will be allotted. Mr. Doyle said that there will be no way to get this information to the Board members until Mr. Gay comes in and starts speaking to it. Mr. Rhodes said "or another way." Mr. Rhodes said that we provide someone as a conduit for that communication to the Board at a responsible time for the applicant to finish it. Mr. Rhodes said "it you can get it done by 4:00pm and to somebody at the Town or the Board that could distribute it. Mr. Doyle said that is a difficult to make this happen.

Mr. Johnson said that logistics are still needed. Mr. Johnson said that he is being accused of not getting information to people in a proper manner.

Mr. Doyle said that this project will be last on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting.

Mr. Johnson is still not clear on how the information will be distributed to the members. Mr. Doyle said that it will be distributed at the meeting tomorrow night. Mr. Gay will attempt to finish at 4:00pm and will deliver at 4:30pm. Mr. Johnson there will be no one in the building at 4:30pm. Mr. Rhodes suggested e-mailing the information to the Board members. Mr. Johnson replied that some of the members do not have e-mail. Mr. Doyle asked Mr. Gay to e-mail the information to the Board members. Ms. Eddy said that no one will be here to accept the e-mail 4:30pm. Mr. Johnson replied 4:00pm. Mr. Doyle said that that includes CT Male.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:45pm.

David Stern said that he does not see resolution on how the compliance of the parking can be resolved unless the driveway is moved and will not be in compliance to design standards. Mr. Stern said that the lighting design can be designed and changed if needed and will be setting a bad precedent by going forward and trying to declare a Negative Declaration when all the information that is needed from the engineering firm does not fit. Mr. Stern feels that it is a bad idea to accept and said that there have been no objections to this project, other than the neighbor that had a concern for drainage on his property. Mr. Stern feels that there will not be proper notification given for a special meeting; ten days notice is required by Town Law. Mr. Stern does not feel by providing that information tomorrow will be resolved with the design standards with what is going on with the SEQR process. Mr. Stern would ask to postpone.

Anne Pierce said that the Town is working on the Ballston Lake Overlay District to be added on to the zoning to hold people in the area to a higher standard. Ms. Pierce said that the neighbor’s septic area should be noted so it doesn’t impact the neighbors leach field and function of their septic system. Ms. Pierce asked what hazardous wastes would be going into the septic systems. Mr. Doyle replied there is no medical water that will be going down the drain nor do any sort of chemicals. Ms. Pierce asked how many staff parking spots. Ms. Hipwell replied seven. Mr. Doyle said the comment regarding storm water management and SEQR that nothing will be approved until it absolutely meets code.

Mr. Doyle said that 28 parking spaces are needed. A further discussion was held on parking requirements.

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski motioned to name The Town of Ballston Planning Board the Lead Agency in the SEQR process. Mr. VanVorst seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Application tabled.

Alan Colyer, 227 Blue Barn Road for a Minor Subdivision. Duane Rabideau of VanGuilder and Associates was present to represent the applicant. The application is for a three lot subdivision consisting of 22 acres:

Lot (1) 16 acres with existing house and pond

Lot (2) 1.8 acre parcel

Lot (3) 4 acre parcel

The entrance on Blue Barns road has been reconfigured to be one common driveway to service each lot. The plan now shows Lefferts Way. The right-to-farm law has been added. Mr. Rabideau said that a 20ft. utility easement has been added along Blue Barns road for water and sewer. The lot size specifications have been added to the plan. Mr. Rabideau has added the water contingency note to the plan.

Mr. Doyle said that there is no public water to this property, but part of the property is in the water district off Kingsley Road; the residence must be within the water district.

Ms. Eddy asked Mr. Johnson for clarification "because he is not in the water district he can never be in the water district." Mr. Johnson said that the applicant will need approval from the Town Board to be placed in the water district. Mr. Johnson said that one needs extension of a water district, the Town Board will have to prove that. Mr. Johnson does not believe that the water district line is a dimensional line. Ms. Eddy asked the process to include the two new lots. Mr. Johnson said approval from the Town Board to extend the water district. Ms. Eddy asks if there are monitory involvements in having the Town Board approve it. Mr. Johnson replied no.

Ms. Eddy asked if Ms. Cyr have reviewed the soil samples. Ms. Cyr replied no. Mr. Doyle said that because it is a minor subdivision the Town Engineer does not get involved. Mr. Rhodes said unless the Board asks.

Ms. Eddy asked Mr. Rabideau if he reviewed the soil samples. Mr. Rabideau replied that he looked at them, but they do not make sense to him.

Ms. Eddy did research and started with the Saratoga County Soil and Water sent Ms. Eddy to Cornell Cooperative Extension and also spoke with DOH, DEC and found a person that can explain that in fact the sample were composite mixed samples and learned that arsenic will find its lowest levels. Ms. Eddy replied that these sample taken were deep soil samples and all kinds of things were mixed together to accomplish this. Ms. Eddy said that it is not good science when each and every one of these tests comes up with an (s); s: spike recovery outside of the accepted recovery limits. Ms. Eddy said that this is not acceptable. Ms. Eddy said that DEC and DOH that in fact and uncomposited shallow sample; allover the parcel top two or three inches to get a proper sample. Ms. Eddy said then sample from four to six inches so if your first samples come up not good then you go deeper to see what the lower samples meet.

Ms. Eddy said that there is no indication of who took the samples. Ms. Eddy said that if the applicant does not feel a need to hook up to town water, then as a member of the Board need to see good science samples.

Mr. Rabideau asked who the person who read this information. Ms. Eddy replied Jim Rittenauer who in fact was part and parcel of Seelye Estates. Mr. Rabideau asked Mr. Rittenauer’s qualifications. Ms. Eddy said that Mr. Rittenauer is a soil specialist at the DOH in Troy. Mr. Rabideau if this issue was just arsenic. Ms. Eddy said this test was for arsenic. Mr. Rabideau said that this is because of the apple orchard and arsenic was not allowed the time those trees were planted. Ms. Eddy said that the study says "spike recovery outside the accepted recovery limits." Ms. Eddy requested verification/qualification.

A further discussion was held on the site relating the sampling of the soils.

Mr. Doyle suggested the application research the old apple orchard which would give a threshold limit and correct sampling.

Ms. Eddy asked Ms. Cyr if CT Male can review this for the applicant. Ms. Cyr said that if it is authorized, if the Board requires it; an escrow fee will have to be applied to this project.

Mr. Rabideau asked when Ms. Eddy spoke with Jim Rittenauer and asked the capacity of the report. Ms. Eddy replied that "he was at work it was today during work hours and spoke with supervisors, water people, soil people and they wondered why I was not going to Glens Falls." Ms. Eddy replied that it was because it was not a major subdivision. Mr. Doyle spoke with Ballston Spa and spoke with Soil Conservation. Mr. Doyle said that this was not adequate and should have sampling similar to what was performed on Seelye Estates.

Mr. Rhodes asked if this area is proposed for future sewer service in the Saratoga County Report. Mr. Doyle replied yes. Mr. Rhodes suggested considering this application a major subdivision.

Mr. Doyle asked Mr. Rabideau to speak to his client about treating this application as a major subdivision which requires an escrow fee. Mr. Reilly said that the Planning Board can use the resources of the Town Engineer on a minor subdivision also.

Mr. Rhodes said that if this area is included in the Saratoga County Sewer Study and dry sewers are recommended, shouldn’t the Board be requiring them. Mr. Doyle said that dry sewers have not been done. Mr. Rhodes asked who will pay for the connection. Mr. Doyle said each applicant will request to be tied into the sewer system. Mr. Johnson confirmed that area was in the Saratoga County Sewer Study. Mr. Rhodes asked the recommendation; major subdivision. Mr. Johnson said that Blue Barns Road shows gravity. Ms. Cyr said that dry sewer not be built and could obviously put a dry lateral. Mr. Johnson asked how do you know the elevation of the lateral. Ms. Cyr said that work would have to be done in the County right-of-way.

Mr. Doyle said that the recommendation would not require sewers and require for major subdivisions.

Mr. Johnson said that the Board is requesting the applicant return next month and would like the information three weeks prior to the application deadline.

Application tabled.

Fairley Sports Training, LLC McCrea Hill Road for Site Plan Review. John Gay of Northeast Land Surveyors was present to present the case to the Board. Mr. Gay said that on March 20, 2007 the applicant received a comment letter from CT Male which there were a total of 29 items many technical in nature and had responded to that on March 27, 2007 addressing the comments and making the changes on the drawings. Mr. Gay received a comment response letter from CT Male on April 17, 2007 consisting of 63 items. Ms. Cyr wanted to reiterate that the additional comments were based on the fact that there was a note regarding storm water management plan was not submitted.

Mr. Gay said at the last meeting there was a discussion regarding the second floor and adding on the front a portion that is essentially a stairwell to the second floor.

Mr. Gay said at the last meeting there was a discussion on landscaping the building to minimize the impact of Route 50. Mr. Gay said that the change was to reposition the Blue Spruce and created an arc that went along the property line.

Mr. Gay said that discussion at the last meeting was to bank parking for the facility. Mr. Fairley does not want to do that he welcomes space.

Ms. Eddy asked "if there were groups that come in buses." Mr. Fairley replied no.

Ms. Eddy asked if there would be "pick-up" games in the parking area. Mr. Fairley said not in parking lots; this is an "indoor facility."

Ms. Cristy asked if there is an indoor waiting area. Mr. Fairley replied yes.

Mr. Johnson said that so the Board is aware once this building is constructed, as per the state building code, the maximum occupancy load needs to be posted. Mr. Johnson said that the maximum occupancy load will probably be much higher than what is alleging to be in the building. Mr. Johnson said it is the space designated toward assembly, space toward retail and calculate it out; based on the square footage on its use. Mr. Johnson said cannot by the code post it to what the individual wants it posted; more or less of what the code requires.

A further discussion was held on posting the maximum occupancy of the proposed facility.

Mr. Rhodes said regarding parking a decision will not be made based on relative to the maximum occupancy. Mr. Rhodes said to compare to other facilities; it will become a problem with change of use or change of tenant. Mr. Doyle recommends a waiver.

Ms. Cyr said that the original application for this PUDD has certain traffic thresholds affiliated to what could be built here and when a certain build out reached a point a left turn lane would be constructed. Ms. Cyr said that apparently the project triggers that threshold and the construction of the left turn lane is being required.

Mr. Gay said that Clough Harbour did a traffic study for the PUDD and projected the types of buildings that would be in the park and what the traffic would generate. Mr. Gay said that Clough Harbour updated that study for the owners of the park which included with a lot less traffic being generated than what was being projected in their original thoughts on what was going to happen in the park.

Mr. Rhodes asked for a Level of Service Analysis of the intersection. Mr. Rhodes said that this was asked for at the last meeting. Mr. Fairley said that "we did." Mr. Rhodes said that there was not a Level of Service Analysis. Mr. Rhodes said that it is a level of service of the intersection of Route 50 and McCrea Hill Road. Mr. Rhodes said that trip counts were provided, but were not looked at what the counts related to with the passing of the roadway.

Ms. Eddy reiterated that Mr. Rhodes asked for a Level of Service Study in the minutes. Mr. Fairley asked for the definition of level of service. Mr. Rhodes said that the CT Male report should tell the applicant what was missing. Mr. Rhodes said that he did not see much in that report. Ms. Cyr said that the question was did the applicant provide a traffic count; clearly the peaks are off normal peak (10:00am and 7:00pm). Ms. Cyr said that the left turn lane project is moving forward regardless of what goes on here and a Planning Board member has asked for an analysis of the intersection be provided. Ms. Cyr said in CT Males professional opinion given the fact that peaks from the project are off-peak are not warranted and would obviously need to be discussed between myself and the Board related to whether or not the analysis has to be performed. Mr. Rhodes asked "are you sure one car does not trip, do you know what the existing peak hour traffic is." Ms. Cyr replied no. Mr. Rhodes asked how that statement can be made. Ms. Cyr said obviously improvements are in the works; grant funding is somewhere, its probably going to get built.

Mr. Doyle said that the left turning lane is going to get built. Mr. Doyle said that the money is available and that is going forward. Mr. Doyle said that he thought the Board was at the stage of letting this project go ahead without the turning lane being completed and based on that Mr. Rhodes asked for a traffic count. Mr. Rhodes asked for a Level of Service Analysis that identified if there will be additional delay caused by this proposed project.

Mr. Fairley asked if there was someone to speak with regarding data compiled at the same time as this trip. Mr. Rhodes said that he is confident that the person that compiled your data can answer your question in about 15 minutes.

Mr. Rhodes wants to clarify the minutes had a discussion connecting to the stub and found that there was not surplus capacity in the storm water management area of the lower piece. Mr. Gay said only on site storage and discharge, but no treatment capability.

Mr. Doyle asked Mr. Gay about the minor subdivision and the possible need for space. Mr. Gay said that the applicant has sufficient space.

Mr. Fairley asked for the number of occupancy from Mr. Johnson before moving forward. Mr. Rhodes said that it does not have to be Mr. Johnson who submits it this is building code information that the engineer should be providing.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 10:55pm

Mr. Vernum asked the location of the proposal. Mr. Gay gave Ms. Vernum the detailed information on the proposed location.

Audeliz Matias has a concern for traffic on Route 50 making left hand turns into the Industrial Park. Ms. Matias has a concern for the speed limit of 55; because vehicles are always exceeding the limits. There is also a concern with entering and exiting into the Ridgeview development.

David Stern said that this proposal looks of the building is much better than the Heating and Cooling facility and also the burned out building next door. Mr. Stern said to consider when looking at occupancy as one area as a separate use, but overall it does look nice.

Mr. Cwalinski said that there was a fatality on Middleline Road and two Sheriff cars were almost part of the accident. Mr. Cwalinski said that it is a dangerous hill and the Town’s Comprehensive Plan has provisions to mitigate the hill. Mr. Cwalinski said that "he would like to see this Board write a letter to whomever and have them mitigate that problem as soon as possible." Mr. Doyle said that the Town is taking a lead, but would confirm that and would write the letter to Saratoga County.

MOTION: Mr. Hayden made a motion to adjourn. Mr. VanVorst seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Meeting adjourned 11:03pm

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman