Chairman Doyle called the April 26, 2007meeting to order at 7:30pm and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Doyle reviewed the agenda.

Mr. Reilly asked the Chairman to address the medical facility on Outlet Road from the previous meeting. Mr. Doyle reiterated at last nights Planning Board meeting there was a review of a proposal for a medical facility at the corner of Route 50 and Outlet Road. The Board agreed to have a meeting this evening at the end of the agenda and reviewed the information that was provided by the applicant based on the prior meetings, the complexity relative to design standards and storm water management would be the opinion of the chairman not to hear the case this evening, but would recommend to the applicant prepare for the next meeting and ensure all the information is available.

GB Development, Route 50 & LakeHill Road for Site Plan Review and a Special Use Permit for a proposed CVS (concept). Geoff Galarneau, Project Engineer representing VHB, Greg Binzer representing developer, CME, Traffic Engineer, Gina Bangtson, Eric Anderson of C&B and Anthony Russo, Esq. were present to represent the applicant.

The proposed site is located on Route 50 and LakeHill Road consisting of 4.6 acres with existing Olde Homestead Restaurant, house and storage barn in the back. Mr. Galarneau said that there is a large area of wetlands located at the rear of the site with the building being out of the 100ft. buffer zone. The existing site is paved throughout the back area with two curb cuts off of LakeHill Road. Mr. Galarneau said the proposal would be to close that one curb cut and introduce only one curb cut away from the intersection. The second entrance to the site would be off of Route 50 with a proposed 50ft. easement between the Burnt Hill’s Fire District and the Ballston Lake Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine; 30ft. wide road that goes through to access the site.

Mr. Galarneau said that the proposed building 13,225sq. ft. with a drive thru with two lanes with both drop off and pick up. There is a compact area at the rear of the site where the dumpster will be located which will be enclosed with a fence and landscaping.

Mr. Galarneau said that there are 66 spaces proposed for the site located along Lake Hill Road and along Route 50. The vehicular traffic will enter off of LakeHill Road which will be a one-way where for the drive thru will exit. The vehicular traffic will enter Route 50 in a circular motion. Mr. Galarneau said the truck access includes a WB-50 design truck for deliveries.

Mr. Galarneau said that the drive-thru is for drop off and pick up only; there will be about 15-20 cars at the peak hour will be at the drive thru. Mr. Galarneau said that it is generally observed at four or five cars on queue with minimal wait time. The hours of operation will be from 7:00am to 11:00pm.

Mr. Galarneau said that a photometrics plan has been completed and will be submitted for final design; minimized any spillage over the property lines.

Mr. Galarneau said that the water will be provided off LakeHill Road and underground electric, telephone and gas.

The drainage from the site will be collected in catch basins surrounded by the site and exit via a 36" culvert. Mr. Galarneau said that this site has been lifted creating a swale with two catch basins. The two low points will be infused into the culvert; the culvert has been extended under the road (small temporary grading easement required). The septic system located in the rear.

Mr. Galarneau said that the landscaping plan introduces several species of trees and shrubs throughout the site and along the property line. There are several trees throughout the easement which will include lighting and at the back of the site.

Eric Anderson, Project Manager of Carter Burgess and Gina Bangtson were representing CVS and their prototype at the proposed site. Mr. Anderson gave a description of materials that were being proposed for the exterior of the building.

Mr. Doyle asked if a response has been received from NYSDOT. Mr. Galarneau replied yes. Mr. Doyle asked for a summary of the traffic plan and how DOT responded. Mr. Galarneau said the original meeting with DOT there were concerns with the entrance off of Route 50 either full access of right in or right out only. Mr. Galarneau said that a full traffic study has been done and the conclusion for that indicates that there is no impact to the entrance or no changes to the proposed entrance.

Ms. Cyr said that the traffic study as not included in the original submission. Mr. Galarneau said that part of the submittal have created a narrative;

The project site

What was needed for a Special Use Permit (retail/drive-thru)

Conclusions from the Traffic Study

Spoke to DOT; sent Traffic study via e-mail

Mr. Doyle said that a letter from DOT stating a right in/right-out. Mr. Galarneau said that at the last meeting with DOT it would be a right-in/right-out and the response to that comment was a traffic study to determine that. Mr. Galarneau said that DOT agrees with the study from their comment letter and have done there own observations.

Mr. Doyle said that the Town feels strongly about the traffic because it is a very busy corner. Mr. Doyle said that the Fire Department needs a way to get in and out of the site (unobstructed) in case of an emergency. Mr. Galarneau said information gathered from the traffic study will queue up to that point, however after that point there are right turns and then traffic is going.

Ms. Eddy feels that this is a tough situation.

Ms. Eddy asked what time are the deliveries made. Ms. Galarneau said daytime. Ms. Eddy asked peak hours. Mr. Binzer said 4:00pm to 6:00pm. Ms. Eddy has a concern with the traffic and the public and the concept that the applicants do not live here and we do. Mr. Binzer asked the concern with the curb cut itself or the right vertical access. Ms. Eddy said that this is not an appropriate place for this building.

Ms. Eddy said that she does not have an issue with CVS she has an issue with the location. Ms. Eddy said that this is a "Mausoleum" sitting here on the corner and would be taking down things that are the heart and soul of that intersection.

Mr. Rhodes said that it does not meet Design Standards.

Mr. Doyle said that this design does not fit.

Mr. Rhodes said that the proposed prototype building does not meet code nor does the site organization or the landscaping. Mr. Rhodes said this should be considered a sketch plan not a concept plan and major changes that need to be required to meet those Design Standards. Mr. Anderson said that there are other concepts that would fit the Design Standards. A representative asked about the Boards input on the location of the building on site. Mr. Rhodes said that it is not in the right spot. Mr. Rhodes said to read the Design Standards and will tell you site organization. Mr. Doyle told the applicant to request a waiver.

Ms. Eddy discussed the Town going through a Comprehensive Plan and said "that it wants to maintain its "Suburbaness"."

Mr. Galarneau said by pulling the building forward would restrict this entrance to exit only; 15’ setback.

Mr. Doyle has a concern with the entrance going off of Route 50 (5%). Mr. Doyle said that a troth has been created. Mr. Galareneau said that typically there would be no run-off on the road to the site and a slight build up of 402.2. Mr. Doyle asked how to maintain the two vertical walls. Mr. Galarneau said that eliminated the retaining wall and kept the 2% rate approximately 130ft. in and would transition into a percent to the low point; just to make up that 2% to make it more appealing to Dr. Buckley’s property.

Mr. Doyle said that a total reevaluation of the storm water on site. Mr. Galarneau spoke with CT Male and said that the existing conditions are approximately the same as proposed conditions. Ms. Cyr indicated not to do any on site storm water management.

Mr. Rhodes brought up schematics, site organization and said that traffic needs to be addressed.

Mr. Rhodes said that it starts that the application needs to meet zoning.

Mr. Doyle suggested to the applicant to look at traffic and the Towns Design Standards and has a concern with the Fire Department and peak hours and a need for those trucks to have access.

Mr. Galarneau said that if another traffic study of the intersection is performed the same data will be submitted. Mr. Doyle said to make the study intensive to peak periods; included school bus traffic and look at normal peak hour traffic.

Ms. Eddy asked if the Town has our own Traffic Consultant to review this traffic study.

A representative from CME said that the traffic in a draft preliminary state and DOT has commented on that issue. The major issue is the access on Route 50. A more detailed analysis for this intersection would be a gap study; a field technician may queue it for up to 10, 15, 20 seconds at a time and may gap out to the signal and can go out at four hours at a time and calculate the amount of gaps and time of gaps and how long it takes a vehicle to make a left or right turn; the details was not done because the field technical did not feel that it was to that point, but if DOT and the Town does a more detailed study can be performed.

Mr. Rhodes said that a same level of detail at Lake Hill Road.

Mr. Rhodes asked the Level of Service at that intersection. The intersection is currently operating (E) overall; low end of an (E) not operating well at all. Mr. Rhodes said that it is near an (F). The inherent nature of a CVS a lot of the traffic is considered "pass-by" traffic; traffic that would be making an intermediate stop; traffic is being generated at some peaks, but some of the traffic is already there, but not all at this intersection. Traffic generated through the intersection is about 1 ½%.

Ms. Eddy said that more traffic turns either east or west than proceeds north. Most of the traffic is traveling north so the traffic never gets to the intersection and by eliminating access and allow vehicles to make a right in and force them to the intersection. A further discussion was held on traffic.

Mr. Rhodes said that the DOT was talking about turn restrictions by requiring a courtesy exit.

Mr. Rhodes asked the square footage of the new facility versus the existing facility. Mr. Galnareau replied the proposed is 13, 225sq. ft. and existing is 8,775sq. ft. Mr. Rhodes said that the data should be able to be modified with the square footage increase and compare to the ITE data. Mr. Rhodes said to realize as this intersection gets worse, it could influence the trips that are hitting CVS. Mr. Rhodes recommends the traffic consultant look at what was done and scope out additional items to include on the amended study.

Chuck Haugh, P.E. suggested to keep the zoning compliant to the area, the intersection to include improvements; additional lanes and setbacks.

Anthony Russo, Esq. asked the Board about one of the design aspects which are the setbacks for the building. Mr. Russo would also like to discuss the concern of the design that the Board has for the design. Mr. Russo said that the applicants are proposing a CVS and this commercial property. Mr. Russo said that trying to get a full access north of this parcel is going to minimize the amount of congestion at this intersection. Mr. Russo said that most of the traffic is "drive-by" traffic and generated use will be coming from the north.

Mr. Russo said that the proposal has the building set back and in order for the customers to access the commercial site it is setback so it can access the facility; parking in the front. Mr. Russo said that this area has not come to look like the concepts of having buildable line urbanization. Mr. Russo asked the Board how "wetted" is the Board to that particular Design Standard. Mr. Russo had pictures to illustrate the fact that the design concept is non existent in any of the intersections. Mr. Rhodes said that it absolutely is, how far away those existing buildings from the curb line are (offers a lot of character from that roadway). Mr. Russo said that at the corner there is a former gas station that is setback into two sides bordering Route 50 and LakeHill Road. On the opposite corner the retail space that borders both LakeHill Road; asphalt parking on LakeHill in front and south east corner. Mr. Russo described surrounding businesses that surround the proposed site.

Mr. Rhodes said that all the buildings were in the site when the Town Board very recently changed the zoning. Mr. Rhodes said that the Planning Board has to follow the Town Boards direction. Mr. Russo said that the applicant is looking for a variance from it.

Ms. Eddy said "that CVS is doing a fine business where they are and it’s not like we are impeding them from doing business. Mr. Russo said that this is a retail establishment.

Mr. Russo said that the setback will have an impact on traffic and is an intrical part of the building design itself; placement.

Mr. Reilly said that the Board has made if fairly clear and understand the applicant’s position and Mr. Rhodes said that the pictures show improvements that were done long before the conceptual and the Comprehensive Plan was amended. Mr. Reilly said that the applications were conceptual level are deficient in many aspects from the Design Standards. Mr. Reilly asked the applicant to return with a concept that talks about the Design Standards which ones that can meet and cannot meet and continue the dialogue. Mr. Reilly said at this level of application and start trying to seek whether a waiver is needed or not from the setback if inappropriate. Mr. Reilly said architectural features, site features that just do not fit the Design Standards.

Mr. Hayden asked for the traffic study and if a new one has been performed. Mr. Hayden said that a Special Use Permit is required for this project. The narrative states; no significant impact (Mr. Hayden said that there is no impact). Mr. Galarneau said that the study would be distributed.

A representative from CVS asked if the design aspects of any site would fit the zoning there is still a need to understand the setback in order to reduce an affect on the traffic. So assume the design criteria have been met, would the Town be against or for a setback so that the applicant can impact the traffic study. Mr. Doyle said that at this point in time does not know and would like to look at the whole picture; concept.

Mr. Rhodes said that the Design Standards do indicate what the setback criteria is

Proximity of an intersection and offers additional room for future widening

Traditional Business Highway Area

Mr. Rhodes said that the analysis has to figure why it does not work.

Mr. Anderson asked since the new Design Standards have been introduced is there a business that can modeled the new design after. Mr. Rhodes said no, but the Design Standards show architectural features.

Application tabled.

James Hall, Root Road for a Minor Subdivision. John Gay of Northeast Land Surveyors was present to present the case to the Board. The property consists of 4.12 acres with an existing residence is located on Root Road. The proposal is to subdivide into two parcels

Lot (1) 2.3 acres

Lot (2) 1.8 acres

Mr. Gay said that the survey was performed in the winter and at the present time, do not have placement for the house on the lot #1. Mr. Gay said that an arbitrary spot was chosen so the well and septic system work for the adjoining properties.

Mr. Cwalinski asked the applicant if the stone wall will remain.

Ms. Cristy asked for driveway to be shown on map. Mr. Gay said it will be determined on the house design; side load garage coming in right/left. (site distance is good)

Mr. Rhodes asked for perc test and deep hole tests been performed. Mr. Gay replied no because the surveying was being performed when snow was on the ground and a lot of rain. Mr. Rhodes said that perc test and deep hole tests are a requirement for the subdivision application.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:55pm

Jeff Schoenberg has a concern that his well is 15ft. south of the line of Hatfield, so it would be 60ft. south of the property line lot #1. Mr. Schoenberg said that for a 100ft. protection zone around his well request a setback. Mr. Rhodes said that it is probably downhill and can the well be shown on the map for approval; if the septic is uphill that distance goes to 200ft.

Mr. Johnson said that the regulations require perc tests and test pit information. Mr. Johnson has a concern that if the septic system will be an alternate septic system.

Application tabled.

Brookline Storage, 75 Brookline Road for Site Plan Review. Mike Brooks of Tommell and Associates were present along with John and Colleen Skee representing JF Storage Holdings, LLC, owners of Brookline Storage. Mr. Brooks said that the proposal is for Phase (7) an additional 65’x 200’ storage building consisting of 13000sq. ft. located on the south east corner of the site.

Mr. Brooks said that with the construction of the new building the basin will be brought up to new standards and modify the sum of the existing drainage in the catch basins, flow patterns and the existing structures that are in the basins. Mr. Brooks said that the disturbance area for this is approximately 2 +/- acres so a full SWPPP will need to be provided and on the grading plan will shown the silt fence and erosion control measure and will need to send out an NOI for approval.

Mr. Brooks said that the footprint of the all improvements is approximately 83,000sq. ft. of foot print and was designed for a 90,000sq. ft. maximum.

Mr. Brooks said that the green space is approximately 61% which is within the threshold.

Mr. Brooks said that wetland buffer on the southern portion; phase (5) and (6) were issued permits to from DEC to perform work within that buffer. Mr. Brooks is waiting to hear from DEC; to follow same guidelines.

Mr. Brooks said that there will be no new lighting on the west side of the building; only building lights that are on existing structures.

Mr. Brooks went through the waivers that were requested

Building height 1-floor consistent with existing building.

No guest rooms will be created.

Number of employees will not change.

Hours of business is existing for the Town.

Number of designated parking spaces will not change on proposed plan.

This will not have a negative impact on traffic, sewer, water or existing utilities.

Storage of disposal methods; chemicals will not change due proposed site plan.

Utilities include lateral locations and size and connecting points will not change due to proposed site plan.

The landscaping does not change and is located in the rear of the building.

Mr. Brooks said that CT Male comments were received and the disturbance area should be noted. (+/- 2 acres. There is an agreement with the SWPPP. Mr. Brooks said that the Engineer’s Report was submitted late and should have been included with the submission.

Mr. Brooks said that the over flow spillway detail designed is sized for rip rap (is noted).

Mr. Cwalinski said that it was noted that item #34 said that photographs were submitted; were not included with submission.

Mr. Rhodes asked if this application requires a Special Use Permit because it is above a certain threshold.

Mr. Reilly said that it is an existing site will require a Site Plan Review.

Mr. Rhodes asked the total property acres. Mr. Brooks said 10.38 acres. Mr. Rhodes asked the development area is over 8 acres.

Mr. Rhodes said that it appears that there is a retail use that was never proposed on the project; retail element which should be incorporated on the project.

Mr. Reilly discussed section 138.12.4 of the zoning.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing at 9:15pm

Tiya Madden Cotter asked for specific location of the proposed building.

Sarina Dayter has a concern for an increase in traffic.

Mark Katz asked for the same consideration when his application comes before the Board.

John Skee said that all vehicles can maneuver through the site with exceptions to tractor trailers.

Application tabled.

Geoffrey Searl, 13 Hickory Grove Lane, Site Plan Review. Mr. Rutland was present to present the case to the Board. The applicant is proposing a 500sq. ft. covered front porch. Mr. Rutland said that there will be a 1% disturbance to the lot.

Mr. Reilly asked if the SEQR form was received. Mr. Doyle replied yes.

Mr. Rhodes said that this project will be exempt when the zoning code gets updated. Mr. Doyle replied yes. Mr. Rhodes said that the code is currently under revision because the square footage, the code was properly drafted to exclude the minor projects that do not have a negative affect.

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

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 9:30pm

Mr. Doyle closed the public hearing 9:31pm

No one wished to speak on this application.

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

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes made a motion to approval this project. Ms. Eddy seconded the project and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Mr. Doyle asked for corrections to the minutes of last meeting March 28, 2007. Mr. Rhodes said that he wanted to discuss a conversation with Mr. Gay at Specialty Silicones regarding connection to the existing storm water management structure that will be provided as part of the Special Silicones PUDD.

Corrections to minutes: Page 2, para; 8, add "not", para 9; change "best" to "most", change "as" to "is", para: 12, change "bounded" to "based". Page 3, para; 2, strike "four time higher", change "squeue" to "skewed", strike "by", strike "assumes", change "become" to "be", para: 3, change "the" add "there are un", change "in", to "preventing", para; 8, change "to be" to "not", change "grade" to "gridded", para; 10 add "there". Page 8, para; 2, add after extra. "but he would check with Clough Harbour, add "this", after site "and since the storm water pipe is stubbed to this site, the coverall facility design may have included acceptance for full build out."

MOTION: Ms. Cristy made a motion to approve the March 28, 2007 minutes as amended. Mr. Rhodes seconded the motion and all voted in favor except Mr. Hayden who abstained. CARRIED.

Mr. Johnson reiterated the policy on forwarding to Board members. Mr. Rhodes said that CT Male should e-mail to members and brought up faxing. Mr. Rhodes brought up how to receive County comments in a timely manner. Mr. Doyle said that he would contact Mr. Kemper.

Mr. Cwalinski made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Eddy seconded the motion. CARRIED.

Meeting adjourned at 9:45pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman