Chairman Doyle called the August 29, 2007meeting to order at 7:30pm and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Doyle reviewed the agenda.

CW Ventures, 6 Brookline Road & Route 67 for Site Plan Review and a Special Use Permit. Mr. Lansing of Lansing Engineering was here this evening representing CW Ventures for the Brookline Apartments. Mr. Lansing said that the site is approximately 6.39 acres located in the southern most end of the Mixed Use Center North zoning district. The topography on the site sloping down as well as from Brookline Road slopes towards the wetland corridor that runs from the east to the west. Mr. Lansing said that the vegetation on the site has clearing toward the front and then the back of the parcel is primarily wooded. Mr. Lansing said that the existing structures on the site are a single family dwelling and a barn.

The proposed conditions for the parcel as you may recall there was an application for a carwash in the front corner of the parcel and reviewed and the applicant has chose to table at this point and would like to look at other options for that front corner of the piece and shift to the back portion of the parcel.

Mr. Lansing said that the layout of this proposal would like to state one section of the Mixed Use Center North District: Purpose and Intent "Establish and for the purpose of creating a commercial and social core for the town emphasizing; a small town feel. This requires a balancing of a variety of uses on a scale and design so that the various uses cannot only coexist, but complement each other to create a vital and active community of shopping, service, social and residential opportunities." Mr. Lansing went on the say said that the applicant consulted with a commercial and retail real estate broker to get a feel for what would be a marketable use for this parcel and the conversations with the realtor it was determined that some form of retail commercial type strip in the front. Mr. Lansing indicated that after speaking with the realtor, there was a significant amount of commercial space if the immediate area and did feel it would be marketable at this time, and felt the location would be somewhat challenging for both retail and commercial uses at this time. Mr. Lansing said that trying to establish a corridor of commercial type uses for business and retail along Route 67 and came up with residential along the back portion of the parcel. Mr. Lansing said what is being proposed is outlined in the zoning ordinance as a special permitted use will include apartment buildings; eight units per building, two stories for each building for a total of 56 units; seven buildings on the parcel.

Mr. Lansing said that access for the site would be along Route 67 and Brookline Road. Mr. Lansing said that parking has been positioned close to the proposed apartment buildings in the front with the vision that this corridor would be developed with a retail type commercial space; parking in the rear of those structures with shared type parking arrangement with the retail commercial along the strip of Route 67.

Mr. Lansing said that a mailbox pickup system is being proposed and dumpster locations throughout the site. Mr. Lansing said that sidewalks are proposed on the edge of the parking areas to connect the residents within the project; work with Board to show possible linkage towards other areas of the corridor.

Mr. Lansing said that public water is available in close proximity to the project. There is an existing sanitary sewer corridor through the middle of the parcel consisting of a large trunk line; proposed gravity to this area. The storm water management is being proposed conceptually two areas which consist of surface storm water management areas. Mr. Lansing said as the project moves toward preliminary design, would like to investigate possibly doing some of the mitigation under the parking lot to eliminate some visible signs of storm water management.

Mr. Lansing said that there were comments received from the Planning Staff at CT Male and suggested a phase 1 archeological assessment, master plan requested for the oval parcel with the apartments take up the majority of the parcel and the phase 2 the applicant feels the carwash and the utilization of the existing home would still be a viable project may pursue in the future.

Mr. Lansing said that the wetlands need to be shown and impacts are considered and a permit will be needed.

Mr. Lansing said that building facades meet the current design standards. The Route 67 setback is a maximum of 20’ and have applied a 20’ setback to the interior of the parcel and would like a waiver.

Mr. Lansing said that a zero side yard setback given the type of proposed use is not appropriate would be requesting a waiver.

Mr. Lansing said that access points have been shown. Off street parking is recommended; rear a side and the parking in the front would be potential future shared parking for some for a use if this front portion is ever developed.

Mr. Lansing said that within the parking areas the landscaping is deficient and have to displace a couple spots and have to add a couple of planted areas and will take care of during preliminary design.

The green space is required to have 35% as shown is 66% green space on the parcel. Mr. Lansing said with the development of phase 2, or the front portion of the parcel would the 35% be met with the phase 2 requirement be met. Mr. Lansing said that as shown, the calculations for the parcel and 53% with the future potential development plan for phase 2 and feel there is enough room; will meet the 35% green space.

Mr. Lansing said that screening and buffers for business to residential was a comments and recognize that there is a residential structures around this parcel and believe that require and believe that the buffers that are being supplied would be adequate and would work with the Planning Board to enhance those buffers as seen fit.

Mr. Lansing said sidewalks, site lighting and signage and would be recognized during preliminary design as well as underground utilities.

Mr. Lansing said that architecture, façade and fenestration which will be developed for the units. The units are modeled after Saratoga Heritage Complex; renderings and layouts to be distributed to the Board for review.

Mr. Hayden asked if they will be rental apartments. Mr. Lansing replied yes. Mr. Hayden said 1100sq. ft. Mr. Lansing said that Saratoga Heritage Apartments has

One bedroom

Two bedroom

Two bedroom with a den

Mr. Lansing said that a variation in the rent.

Ms. Cristy has concern with Route 67 with driveways. Mr. Lansing said that the access point in this area could be a potential access point in commercial to limit the number of curb cuts; they may have a curb cut of their own.

Mr. Rhodes suggested right through the storm water management area. Mr. Lansing said that it is something that could be looked at.

Mr. Doyle said that the build out of the plan the applicant is considering the car wash as a feasible venture. Mr. Lansing said that the applicant is considering the car wash; shifted focus toward the back portion of the parcel while there is reconsideration.

Mr. Doyle suggested a small gathering area in the corner. Mr. Doyle asked what do you envision and applicable and to the residents in the apartments. Mr. Lansing said that that will be looked at.

Mr. Doyle asked about the parking plan. Mr. Lansing replied two cars per unit.

Mr. Doyle read the Saratoga County Planning Board comments to Mr. Lansing stating that they want more information and the submission is not complete including water, sewage hookups and traffic studies. Mr. Doyle said that Michelle will forward a copy to Mr. Lansing.

Mr. Johnson indicated that this is a preliminary plan and has a concern with emergency access for fire apparatus. There are three sharp turns coming into the making right hand turns each parking lot off of Route 67.

Mr. Rhodes has a question on what application is being reviewed a carwash application and apartment or two separate applications. Mr. Lansing said that the apartments are being reviewed. Mr. Rhodes said that the carwash application has been pulled and substituted for apartments. Mr. Lansing replied yes.

Ms. Eddy asked for clarification on the future build out on the project.

Mr. Doyle said that the Board needs a clear understanding of what the build out of the parcel is going to be.

Mr. Lansing said that the applicant is treating this as two separate projects as phase (1) and phase (2); there is a sewer line going down the middle of the parcel which is dictating where this access road is located.

Mr. Cwalinski asked when the traffic analysis is being performed, what will be assumed that will be built there. Mr. Lansing replied a car wash.

Mr. Rhodes said that we asked them to show a complete build out and what we promised them is what ever they show is not going to consume us because that conceptual build out is not being approved it is just being used to plug in for SEQR and impact review. Mr. Rhodes said to show as conceptual future expansion, not subject to review.

Mr. Rhodes indicated that the Planning Board is asking for is a sketch of the whole site and show as conceptual future expansion, not subject to review, but included in all your impact analysis. Mr. Lansing replied correct. Mr. Rhodes said that the green space built out, proposed uses, and traffic impact plans are based on those proposed uses and well as the Hubble House.

A further discussion was held on potential build out of the parcel including a traffic study. Mr. Rhodes said that when the applicant returns, a traffic study will need to be revised for what is proposed in the future.

Mr. Rhodes said that what will be put in front of the Board for approvals in the future to be including as a schematic in their impacts.

Mr. Doyle said that there is a feeling that a car wash in not an appropriate idea for that particular corner.

Mr. Rhodes said that unless the Board denies the car wash, how the Board can tell the applicant not to show it as a schematic.

Mr. Lansing said that at this time, feels the carwash is a viable project, but at this time, is a pursing the apartment portion of the application is show it is concept.

Mr. Rhodes asked Mr. Reilly how to ask an applicant what to use for some proposed future plan.

Mr. Reilly said to look at traffic studies or potential impact on some possible uses under permitted zoning; carwashes, apartments and offices. Mr. Reilly said that alternative proposal to be looked for potential impacts.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:05pm

Bob DeSarbo, 6 Rolling Brook Drive asked the target for income. Mr. Lansing said that it has not been set and would be based off the market demand and would be based on the Saratoga Heritage Apartment; their rents range from $900.00 to $1200.00 a month. Mr. DeSarbo feels having a carwash will decrease the value of the apartments and will not bring in that amount of monthly rent. Mr. DeSarbo said that there are 56 apartments being proposed, are there any zoning restrictions with regard to density as far as number of units to be placed an acre parcel. Mr. Johnson said on max building coverage, but is not near that. Mr. Reilly said that it is the function of the mandatory green space.

Mr. DeSarbo asked if the area where the apartments are currently located be lighted and if so what type of lighting. Mr. Lansing said that the lighting plan has not been developed, but there will be lighting in the parking areas and will be downward style light fixture.

Mr. DeSarbo said will regards to the apartments towards the back what is the distance from the apartment to the property line. Mr. Lansing said 20ft and would try to maintain the existing vegetation to the greatest extent possible.

Jack Westbrook, 5 Brookline Road asked the access on both Brookline Road and Route 67 and what is the latest traffic study from the state to perform the background impact study. Mr. Lansing said that the traffic study was performed for the carwash facility with these exact access points. Mr. Lansing said that the traffic study was submitted to DOT and DOT did signoff on that traffic study and will need to be updated.

Betsy Baker, 2 Rolling Brook Drive has a concern that her house is not represented on the current plan and does feel that the applicant will get $900.00 to $1200.00 a month living behind a carwash. Ms. Baker said feels say that having a carwash in her backyard is a nightmare for her; apartments would be a better option.

Mary Batch, 7 Rolling Brook Drive asked to clarify the retail in the front. Mr. Lansing said that there is an existing parcel in the front which is not owner control of the corridor along Route 67. Ms. Batch asked when the study was performed. Mr. Lansing replied in the last six months. Ms. Eddy said for a potential car wash not for the apartments and another study will need to be performed.

Mr. Rhodes said that Rolling Brook was included in the DOT plan as it was originally proposed high density apartment complex which included well over 100 units in the DOT study.

Mr. Rhodes indicated that BFJ will be reviewing the traffic study for this application.

Jeff Waldin, 929 Route 67 wants to make sure that it is made viable for everyone; traffic study, left turn onto Route 67. Mr. Waldin mentions the buffer zone for individuals having property in that area which includes the 112 parking spaces what will that do for the traffic going in and out and traffic lights.

Mr. DeSarbo, 6 Rolling Brook Drive asked about the location of the potential round-about at this area and traffic studies were done without considerations for this potential round-about and any potential problems they may cause. Ms. Cyr said that the study was done with the current "T" intersection and the round-about. The future projected traffic was done two different configurations.

Mr. Rhodes indicated that this information can be retrieved through the Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC); it is not a DOT study.

John Bissell, 935 Route 67 asked the setback on the side. Mr. Lansing said 20ft. Mr. Bissell said the deer have no place to go. Mr. Lansing said that this is the applicant’s property and the application is before the Board.

Mr. VanVorst asked Mr. Lansing how long that piece of property was for sale. Mr. Lansing replied no. Mr. VanVorst said in reality anyone could have purchased that property and could have done anything they wanted to.

Application tabled.

John Smith, Zepko Lane for a Sketch Plan/Major Subdivision. Mike Brooks of Tommell and Associates was present to represent John Smith. Mr. Brooks said since the last meeting in March 28, 2007, minor changes have been made to the plans based on Town comments and Village comments. Mr. Brooks said that there are outstanding questions that still need to be answered that were forwarded to the Board in letter form regarding lot determination on the amount of lots that can be had within the subdivision based on the zoning ordinance. Mr. Brooks said that there is a need to know the number of lots for storm water runoff and the calculations that will be needed to conduct. Mr. Brooks said that there are wetlands on the site and is coordinating with DEC to finalize whether they are DEC or ACOE. Mr. Brooks said lot determination is the reason for the meeting to proceed with the subdivision and the final lot count.

Mr. Rhodes asked what a lot count means. Mr. Brooks said based on a the comment from the last meeting 21 lots is the maximum on a dead end street; now the subdivision shows 18, but because Lewis Street is not connected to a paper street. Mr. Rhodes said that there was a question on how the transportation system’s to get to this facility would be upgraded. Mr. Brooks said that the plan is not connected to Lewis Street right now. Mr. Rhodes asked how the facilities are being accessed. Mr. Brooks said follow Chester to Chester wood to Lewis and up. Mr. Rhodes said there is a portion of Lewis Street that is going to be used. Mr. Brooks replied yes. Mr. Rhodes asked if that is suitable for emergency services. Mr. Brooks said that it would be upgraded to the village standards to service the subdivision.

Mr. Rhodes said that whole intent of the number of buildings on a permanent cul-de-sac is to ability get in and out. Mr. Rhodes said that the connection of a cul-de-sac of 18 lots on a street that does not have very good access without saying that Lewis Street is too small. Mr. Rhodes said that the Lewis Street issue needs to be resolved before the Board can give the applicant a formal lot count. Mr. Brooks said if the applicant agrees to upgrade Lewis Street with the Village standards, how the Town is going to proceed. Mr. Doyle said that if this is a good entrance road 21 is allowed under code, but this is not. Mr. Brooks said that there are over 21 in the Village. Mr. Doyle said that if you count all of these then it would be noncompliant with a cul-de-sac at a dead end road.

Mr. Rhodes asked Mr. Brooks if multiple connections were explored for emergency services redundancy. Mr. Brooks indicated that this would be up to the client is whether Lewis Street is connected through would certainly solve it. Mr. Brooks said two subdivisions bring Zepko Lane down; concerns with the existing conditions and width. Mr. Rhodes said that two points are needed and to upgrade Lewis Street to provide two connections and that would satisfy the Towns code issue with the number of lots on a permanent cul-de-sac.

Mr. Reilly said under the definition of cul-de-sac "one vehicular access and go from there", unless you improve that road, you are already over the count. Mr. Reilly is in agreement that Lewis Street has to be improved.

Mr. Smith said that the intent was not connect Lewis Street and the feels the Boards biggest concern was having multiple access points to these houses for safety vehicles. Mr. Smith said where the Town determines its jurisdiction. Mr. Rhodes replied 22. Mr. Smith asked does the Town start counting from the Town line. Mr. Rhodes said that you are going to make the condition worse under the Town code and under the Planning Boards review we will start counting in its total. Mr. Rhodes said that the burden is being increased on Lewis Street in the Town of Ballston. Mr. Smith said that it is actually Chester Street; Mr. Rhodes replied that he is going by the way the map is labeled. Mr. Rhodes said that what has been done in the past regardless of municipal boundaries is begin at the route where there is only one point and that is Chester; the other route that has multiple points at that last intersection. Mr. Rhodes said that if you end up with 21 before it gets to your property you cannot get any additional lots.

Mr. Smith asked what jurisdiction the Town takes effect. Mr. Rhodes said as soon as you ask us to subdivide land in our jurisdiction. Mr. Rhodes said that the project needs to be reviewed under the Towns code. Mr. Rhodes said that where the Towns jurisdiction would end is as soon as an additional lot is created in the Town of Ballston; if a six lot subdivision within the Village of Ballston Spa it is not the Towns issue. Mr. Rhodes said that that cul-de-sac could be potentially being located in the Town of Ballston it is not a subdivision and that municipal boundary is not in fact a lot. Mr. Rhodes said that one lot would exist in whatever residual form it is.

Mr. Doyle asked Mr. Lake how the Village feels about making Lewis Street or Chester Street a through road Mr. Lake said that the Mayor and the Planning Board made it clear the Lewis Street should not be extended down; where Lewis Street meets Church. Mr. Smith said that the intention was not to affect Lewis Street.

Mr. Rhodes said that the mechanism of relief would be the ZBA.

Mr. Rhodes would just make it clear without the variances that it does not meet the code and it cannot be reviewed. Mr. Doyle has concerns with emergency vehicles accessing the site. Mr. Rhodes said that it would be up to the ZBA. Mr. Smith asked at what point were you counting and what point where you starting your count. Mr. Doyle had a question about Turnbull and talked about Lewis and Chester.

Mr. Rhodes asked if the Village has been spoken to about just an emergency services route with crash gates and other mechanisms so it does not become the through route and it still meets the intent of the emergency services redundancy. Mr. Smith replied no and said that it was not their intention to attach Lewis Street.

Mr. Rhodes asked to simplify and said that it turns into a Village project and Village impact. Mr. Rhodes said that it does not meet code and get a variance.

Application tabled.

Rick Diamond, HDB Ballston Spa, LLC, 260 Ballston Ave for Site Plan Review and a Special Use Permit. Tim OBrien of BL Companies was present to represent the Rite Aid Corporation which is located at the intersection of Route 67, Route 50 and Ballston Avenue. Mr. OBrien said that the applicant is proposing a 14,673sq, ft, pharmacy and a 2,700sq.ft. bank and drive thru lanes. Mr. OBrien has been before the Board previously and what was shown was the same site plan, but the entrances were in different locations. Mr. OBrien has spoken with the Traffic Engineer and the Developer, Rick Diamond and spoke with the neighboring land owner about the existing curb cut for the neighboring property and connected to that is an easement. Mr. OBrien has eliminated two entrances and added more interior landscaping and added a truck route to access Ballston Ave (in and out). Mr. OBrien said that the drainage area has been looked at. Mr. OBrien said that the Route 67 Corridor Study proposes a traffic circle at this intersection. Mr. OBrien said at the last meeting it was proposed that it would cut into the property and in fact it is outside of the property with the front property line and Ballston Ave would act as a bypass lane around that traffic circle. Mr. OBrien said that Ballston Ave would be a bypass around the intersection headed south and Route 67 and Route 50 would join together and go through the traffic circle with cut offs and bypass lanes at all the corners. Mr. Rhodes asked who designed that. Mr. OBrien said that it was in the traffic study. Mr. Rhodes said that he does not remember Route 50 Route 67 coming through an intersection south like that. Mr. Rhodes believes that they are separated; two separate crosswalks. Mr. Rhodes said there have been liberties taken with the geometry. Mr. OBrien said that it shows the general configuration with it out here. Mr. OBrien indicates that they are trying to locate the driveway where it will be proposed; show the best location same turning location and configuration and turning into the traffic circle and bypass.

Mr. OBrien indicated that the applicant would like to go forward with the traffic study now that the proposed curb cut shown and are in receipt of CT Males letter.

Mr. Rhodes asked the applicant why there was no time spent making this plan conforms to the Design Standards. Mr. OBrien said with regard to the Design Standards at the intersection of Route 67 and Route 50 is a 32 front yard setback, Ballston Avenue is a 15ft. setback for the buildings. Mr. Rhodes asked the front setback or the build to line. Mr. OBrien said the build to line is a maximum setback so the building has to be in the area rather than outside of it.

Mr. OBrien said that the plan has been shown in that format because if this building was moved forward it does not work with Rite Aids drive thru. Mr. OBrien said that if this is the only driveway into the site, at this location, the drive thru would interfere with that and if this was blocked off for emergency vehicles to access the front of the building they would have to go around the building to access and would be pushing it closer to the roadway and believe is a safety problem with this particular building.

Mr. Cwalinski asked why it is a safety problem. Mr. OBrien said that there is a concern with the people that ingress and egress the site the building; emergency access to the building.

Mr. Rhodes said that in front it seems that you are saying that it does not work with the Rite Aid plan you pulled the parking throughout the whole section along the corridor which is so important to have buildings closer and another building that is far removed from that boundary. Mr. Rhodes said that this plan is a conventional design for a commercial development in probably one of the bigger gateways into the Ballston Spa Commercial District and for some reason was not able to follow the zoning.

Mr. OBrien said that he will have the developer speak and explain why this design and layout works for them. Mr. OBrien said that a 30ft cross easement will be provided through the site for cross access with the neighboring land owner. Mr. OBrien said to bring the buildings closer would interfere with that cross access there are existing buildings and to get that access to go around the back of site would interfere existing layout for the neighboring property. Mr. OBrien said that this layout would utilize the existing curb cut and allow the cross access through the property.

Mr. Doyle has a concern with the applicant not following the Design Standards. There is parking along the front of the store along the outside perimeter facing the road. Mr. OBrien said within in regards to the entrances it is different layout than the previous; is the Board in agreement. Mr. Doyle feels the entrances are better than before and have provided access to the adjoining property. Mr. Hayden said the Board has required other applicants show the Board a layout to meet design standards and tell us why it does not work. Mr. Rhodes said that there was a discrepancy between what the Town Engineer said and what the Planning Board said and it clearly said it did not meet the design standards which were contrary to the Town Engineer. Mr. Rhodes said that there are certain numbers of entrances per linear foot and to break up more of the façade.

Application tabled.

NISHA-9/Roma International Properties, 1402 Route 50, for Site Plan Review and a Special Use Permit {Concept}. Albert Mugrace was present to present the application to the Board. Mr. Doyle asked if there was any new information that has not been presented to the Board. Mr. Doyle said the applicants were here back in June 2007 the minutes state thee were several pages of concerns yet after looking at the drawings are not conforming. Mr. Doyle said that this a complex site and there seems to be a lot of problems with the site because of the number of business that are going to be there. Mr. Doyle said that a gas station is being proposed, Extra mart, Subway, Dunkin Donuts and a Carwash so the traffic here will be real busy. Mr. Doyle said that the project does not come up with enough green space and the traffic patter is confusing and that is also stated in the narrative. Mr. Doyle sees no reason to move forward with the project until the applicant looks at the standards and builds something that is in conformance with that and also the Saratoga County Planning Boards comments. Mr. Doyle read the SCPB comments. Mr. Doyle indicated that Michelle will forward the SCPB comments to the applicant.

Application tabled.

Christ the Savior Church, 349 East Line Road for Site Plan Review and a Special Use Permit. Joseph Bianchine of ABD was present representing Christ the Savior Church for the review of a project on Eastline Road for a 7,400sq. ft. church with the entrance on the westerly side of the road and the chapel will be facing the east and will have a one way entrance on the south side of the project and then a one way out onto East Line Road. Mr. Bianchine said that the entrances have been discussed with the Saratoga County Highway Department, Ted Serbalik, and is essentially in agreement with the entrance with one possible exception does not like the idea of bollards at there as the delineation and so if it is not bollards it may possibly be delineators.

Mr. Bianchine said that in the rear is the parking which includes 154 parking spaces as indicated parking initially would not be paved if crushed stone surface where as the entrances will be paved and will be paved as money is made available.

Mr. Bianchine said that the landscaping in the front and back will be as money becomes available. Mr. Bianchine said that utilities are located in the front; water line and a grinder pump to pump out to existing sewer line that was put out to existing subdivision to the south. Mr. Bianchine said that he has spoke to Jim DiPasquale of the Saratoga County Sewer District and said that he is in agreement, but has a concern with have not officially accepted this section of the sewer line as a county sewer line.

Mr. Bianchine said that the CT Male comments have been addressed.

Mr. Bianchine said that the main change would be the swale that been reduce to a main detention system with a four way micro pool to contain water detention are for ponding and the outflow would be a diffuser along the side of the property the water is diffused as it goes to the north and to the west for an emergency spillway at that location.

Ms. Cwalinski asked Ms. Cyr if the comments from the August 1, 2007 if they are technical in nature and can be resolved. Ms. Cyr said that the proposed basin that has now been shown would likely address all comments. Ms. Cyr said the only comment that is not technical is #7. Ms. Cyr said that the applicant is not sure what type of sign. Mr. Bianchine said that there are not details to date. Mr. Doyle said that each zoning area has a specific size. Ms. Cyr said that Mr. Johnson said that the handi-cap parking spaces must to be paved. Mr. Doyle asked if the Planning Board if they are willing to have the Town Engineer review the sign or come back to the Board.

Mr. Reilly said that the sign would have to come back in front of the Board as opposed to just reviewed by the Town Engineer.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 9:07pm

Mr. Doyle closed the public hearing 9:10pm

No one wished to speak.

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

MOTION: Mr. Hayden moved to issue a Negative Declaration, with the basis that there is not a potentially significant environmental impact. Ms. Cristy seconded the motion and all voted in favor except for Mr. Rhodes who abstained. CARRIED.

Mr. Cwalinski read through the four criteria of a Special Use Permit:

1) The use shall be of such location, size and character that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the district in which it is situated and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of the adjacent districts. The Board is in agreement.

2) The location and size of the use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved or conducted in connection therewith, its site layout, and its relation to streets giving access to which shall be of such that traffic to and from the use and the assembly of persons in connection with it will not be hazardous or inconvenient to the neighborhood or conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood. The Board is in agreement.

3) The location and height of buildings, the location, nature and height of walls and fences, and that the use will not hinder or discourage the proper development and use of adjacent land and buildings or impair the value thereof. The Board is in agreement.

4) The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served and appropriate use of neighboring property will not be substantially or permanently injured, subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards as determined necessary to promote the public health, safety and welfare. The Board is in agreement.

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski made a motion to accept the Special Use Permit for the Christ the Savior Church on East Line Road. Mr. Christy seconded the motion and all present voted in favor except for Mr. Rhodes who abstained. CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski made a motion to approve the Site Plan Review, dated August 6, 2007 for Christ the Savior Church 349 East Line Road subject to the resolution of the County comments subject to the resolution of the storm water subject to the resolution of the sewage connection and subject to sign being approved for review at a later date. Ms. Cristy seconded the motion and all voted in favor except for Mr. Rhodes who abstained. CARRIED.

H. R. Schultz, Commerce Drive for Site Plan Review and a Minor Subdivision. Jim Martin of the LA Group was present to present the application to the Board. Mr. Martin said since the last meeting there has been correspondence with CT Male with the latest letter dated August 21, 2007. Mr. Martin said that the first letter was dated July 23, 2007 with a response letter of August 8, 2007 and the focus of the conversation was in reference to the August 21, 2007 letter which was technical in nature. Mr. Martin asked for clarification on the storm water prevention plan referenced in item #1. Mr. Martin said that it would not have to be prepared and it was a matter of timing and would prefer to prepare one at the time of building permit and the reason is because the buildings could be potentially smaller than planned and could effect the plan; site specific building.

Mr. Doyle has a concern that it is a three lot subdivision and that one part ties to another part and there would be some concern that it could be done individually. Mr. Martin said that the terms of the NOI the applicant has to submit for the whole site. Ms. Cyr said that the storm water plan incorporates erosion control plan and storm water management design and are missing the erosion control component of the SWPPP. Ms. Cyr said the only concern was the location of the three basins in the right of way. Mr. Martin said that they are going to reconfigure these on the property line so the grading does not spill over onto the highway right of way.

Mr. Doyle said that the last discussion it was mentioned the other access the goes up East Line Road would like to see a sign there directing people to go out East Line Road and then use that and go east go down the road and then make the left hand turn at the traffic sign at East Line and

Route 67; reduce left hand turns coming off Commerce Drive.

Mr. Reilly indicated the Lead Agency has already been established on July 26, 2007.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 9:24pm

Mr. Doyle closed the public hearing 9:25pm

No one wished to speak.

Mr. Martin would like a clarification on the SEQR process. The applicant went through the PUD process with the Town Board and was quite specific to the level of impacts and submitted a long form and came to a Negative Declaration and everything that has been shown so far is consistent with that SEQR process. Mr. Rhodes said that there was not the level of details as site plan, which is why site plan review requires SEQR. Mr. Reilly said that the July 26, 2007 minutes reflect both Lead Agency and in fact Negative Declaration was issued.

Mr. Doyle asked if the SEQR process that was established prior was adequate. Mr. Reilly said that it can be reaffirmed, but it was completed.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes made a motion to approve subject to satisfaction of remaining technical comments. Ms. Eddy seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

New York Development Group, Lake Road for a Planned Unit Development {PUDD}. Geoffrey Booth was present representing the Stonebridge Traditional Neighborhood Development project. Mr. Booth said since the last Board meeting Mr. Booth has retained two consultants with expertise in the Traditional Neighborhood Design in new Urbanism in using smart growth. Mr. Booth said the first consultant being Rick Shellman of TND Engineering has 20 years experience of both the USA and abroad with TND projects and engineer registered in 40 different states. The second consultant is Bob Stevens of Stevens and Associates. Since the last meeting, the consultants have reviewed the project and have made several recommendations which have been incorporated into the design as well as the physical design as well as modifications to the model ordinance. Mr. Booth said that there was a round about in the middle although it was an attractive feature of the sight; it did not provide the benefits that Traditional Neighborhood Developments focus on common area "village green". Mr. Booth said that the round about has been moved and some of the lots and made a "village green" in the center of the project which allows access from pretty much anywhere on the site with about a five minute walk. Mr. Booth said that cul-de-sac has been taken and reconfigured into useable green areas for the neighbors. Mr. Booth would like to see a "terminal vista" when traveling down the road.

Bob Stevens, Engineer who is based out of Vermont did his first TND ten years ago in Dover which evolved. Mr. Stevens finished construction on a project about a year and a half ago in Dover down the road from the first one and a couple a years ago developed a Master Plan for a new Town and a Regional Growth Center and redeveloped a strip development into commercial space and 1200 housing units and a long community process to get consensus.

Mr. Stevens said that the street grid system of interconnected streets helps spread the load of the traffic out along multiple roads and it also avoids some of the negative aspects of collector and arterial streets. Mr. Stevens said that it narrows the street which helps with traffic calming which helps with slowing vehicles down and gives alternative routes for bicycles. Mr. Stevens said that when you look at intergrading different modes of travel or traffic, the fact that there is a different grid system of smaller streets is alternate routes for bicycles to travel where you do not need to have that dedicated lane because that traffic speeds are slower; there is a direct correlation with speed and level of injury as well as getting the speed down to 20mph to 15mph can actually get an eye visual contact with pedestrians and bicyclists and speed things up.

Mr. Stevens said that the grids system interconnects with the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Stevens said the reason for the road width is to accommodate emergency vehicles. Mr. Stevens said that one of the principals of the Traditional Neighborhoods is that they have a place that you arrive what provides that; "village green". Mr. Stevens said that the street itself is comprised of four elements, street, tree belt, sidewalks and houses. Mr. Stevens said that it is layout out in proportion for pedestrians the street width is 26ft, to keep speed down, allow parking, tree belt which is 8ft can provide trees with street lights and adds buffer for snow and the buildings which become the walls of the street.

Mr. Johnson asked about the snow and where does it go and how does this system work. Mr. Stevens said that there was a mention about parking in the street if there was parking in the street it can become a problem, but the snow does get placed in the tree belt. Mr. Johnson asked for clarification of the tree belt. Mr. Rhodes said the 8ft green space between the curb and the side walk. Mr. Rhodes asked if there is parking on the street. Mr. Stevens replied yes on both side of the street. Mr. Stevens said that there will be no parking on the street in the winter time.

A further discussion was held on snow removal.

Mr. Cwalinski asked about single family detached residences have a setback of 15ft. and 30ft.; 10ft. for front yard setback and 20ft condominiums and townhouse units. Mr. Stevens said that 10ft. and 20ft. is consistent with the latest with Traditional Neighborhood Development. Mr. Rhodes said what the Town interprets setback you cannot build any closer than that point; so potentially you can push it back 50ft. Mr. Stevens said it should be a minimum 10ft. to a 20ft. maximum. Mr. Booth said after looking at the topography will want some flexibility. Mr. Rhodes asked if the applicants want the buildings staggered or do they want the visual friction to be consistent along that corridor. Mr. Stevens said that this will need to be broken up architecturally, color, form character and setback. Mr. Rhodes said that just reinforcing the existing code. Mr. Rhodes said that 15ft included a 10ft. reserve strip Mr. Rhodes asked about the porch setback. Mr. Stevens said that it within the setback, but the porch side is a minimum size if 6ft. so the actual porch is closer than the setback shown. Mr. Stevens said that now you are starting to encroach the 6ft.; there is still 4ft on the other side of the sidewalk and if the porch is coming out 6ft, and would have 8ft. between the sidewalk and the front porch.

There was a further discussion on placement of the mailboxes.

Mr. Cwalinski asked about the rear setback the single family detached residence shall be setback no less than 30ft. from the rear lot line. Mr. Cwalinski said a 20ft minimum rear yard setback. Mr. Booth said it is no more. Mr. Cwalinski said that no less than 30ft. means that you will be greater from the line. Mr. Booth said minimum 30ft or we can put the word minimum of 20ft.; it has to be 20ft. or more. Mr. Booth said that it gives the flexibility to move the garage back. Mr. Rhodes said that you cannot build out the entire building all the way to the back of the lot. Mr. Booth said only to 20ft. Mr. Rhodes said that the building setback from the rear lot no less than 30ft. Mr. Rhodes thinks that it is an error in the text. Mr. Reilly asked where Mr. Rhodes was referencing from. Mr. Rhodes said 104-14(B) [2] [a] [4] [b]. Mr. Reilly said that once you adopt it is a whole new set of guidelines and there’s set forth a new DCR a far as setbacks. Mr. Rhodes wants to be clear that there is an error in the Town’s code so that when the Board parts from it there is a reason for it. Mr. Rhodes said that the PUD legislation should be a close as practical to the code as written; Mr. Rhodes thinks that there is an error and why it does not match.

Mr. Reilly read "no principal buildings or accessory structures shall be permitted within the following setbacks;" so if you call it an accessory structure or an accessory building it is covered. Mr. Reilly said that either way it is being applied those setbacks apply. Mr. Reilly is looking at the proposed ordinance, not the Towns ordinance.

Mr. Cwalinski asked about locating a parking area next to an intersection. Mr. Booth said that when the consultants looked at this plan and during site plan it can be further discussed. Mr. Rhodes said that it can be screened.

Mr. Cwalinski asked about other future access points. Mr. Booth said that there are other future access points.

Mr. Rhodes asked about the allowable uses and is not sure that a transit use, transit bus stop, signs or a Christmas tree is a use; please look into this matter section (6 )[b]

Mr. Rhodes said that section (7) [b] [c] and [e] and is not sure why this is in the ordinance and seems more like a contractual agreement between the Town and the Developer. Mr. Rhodes said that is the section on certification on fees, establishment of sanitary sewer facility and the donation of $100,000.00 to the Town. Mr. Rhodes is not sure why it is in the ordinance, but there may be a reason for it and would appreciate removing anything not related to land use code.

Mr. Rhodes said that section (8) seem to be repeating the New York State Fire Protection of Building Code.

Mr. Rhodes said that section (9) [c] was under the understand that the park and rec fee was $500.00 per dwelling unit not $200.00 for condominiums buildings and $500.00 single family dwelling; per dwelling unit.

Mr. Rhodes said that section (11) said option dedication of open space recreation land. Mr. Rhodes said that this will be sent to the Town Board. Mr. Rhodes said that before the Town Board moves forward, and approve the ordinance, should make a decision and assign the ownership and if the ownership is dedicated to the Town the Town should be in the habit of maintaining sidewalks and it looks like there are passive connections into the park land and the way the code is written that the adjacent property owner is responsible for sidewalk maintenance. Mr. Rhode said that section of the entry of Lakeshore Road a segment of Town park land should potentially be owned by someone else. Mr. Rhodes said that it should be modified to be an LPA area and behind that would be the town park land. Mr. Rhodes said that they will already be maintaining a considerable portion of sidewalks so to add that 100ft. section is appropriate would have the LPA. Mr. Rhodes said that there could be an agreement or make that stub for the sidewalk exist for the LPA area on the other side; problem solved.

Ms. Eddy asked for clarification of the maintenance of the green. Mr. Rhodes said by rights it come down to who owns the village green which would clarify maintenance. Mr. Booth said a HOA.

Mr. Rhodes said that discussion was held on setbacks. Mr. Rhodes has a question on street trees which reduces density by the fact that you are adding or within the landscape area the boulevard the landscape or the boulevard should be subject to the review during the subdivision phase of a landscape plan and that linear footage should not reduce the street trees on the abutting segments. Mr. Booth is in agreement and said that was not the intent and works on both sides and shows trees in the center as well as the sides. Mr. Booth said that if he removes the "or" and stated the "in" that would accomplish it. Mr. Rhodes asked to make sure that the total density is not totally removed.

Mr. Rhodes said that the applicant is referencing a couple of places as referenced in Residentially Zoned areas. Mr. Rhodes said to be specific it should refer to the underlying zoning rather than the Residentially Zoned areas and not know where to look; Ballston Lake Residential District would apply.

Mr. Rhodes said that the Storm Water Local Law said that the plans will be conform and the plans will be modified to conform in the event in the overall procedure. Mr. Booth said that the Town is working on a Storm Water Local Law and if it is implemented it will be modified to meet that regulation

Mr. Rhodes said to make sure that the TND expert makes sure there are no cookie cutter houses next to each other; the identical residential buildings next to each other; Mr. Rhodes asked for another way to word that so there is some variety in architectural styles all the adjacent buildings and perhaps across the street. Mr. Stevens said the intent is the have the adversity of architecture as you are going down the street Ms. Eddy said that architecture is one things and color is another. Mr. Rhodes said that section (B) [7] [a] thinks the applicant means flammable. Mr. Rhodes said (9) radioactive materials someone mentioned smoked detectors.

Mr. Rhodes said that this is a much better plan that the original plan and wants to thank whoever was involved with the changes and appreciate the consultant for attending the meeting and helping the Board through the process because the Board was unable to get our own consultant.

Mr. Rhodes would like a TND person involved in the Subdivision and Site Plan Review of this project which will make the Board job easier to be able draw from the experience and reduces the Boards work load.

Ms. Eddy said in reference to the letter from CT Male from their Planner is there any interest in changing the "no later than 12 months as of last residential certificate of occupancy has been has been issued for area A an application shall be made to the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review within area B." It was recommended that it be six months because who knows how the build out is going to happen.

Mr. Rhodes said that the Board should draw from the experience from the TND expert to make sure that the phasing is going to make a vibrant development to allow commercial businesses to come in and appropriate times to serve the residential so the "popsicle test" can be justified quicker or met quicker.

Mr. Stevens said in the reality of the market place if you can find a tenant to build a building in phase (1) in quick in the market absorption and does not know that it is in the communities interest to force a build out sooner than ready for a speculative intent. Mr. Stevens said the way to quantify a commercial space and make sure that it is part of the plan. Ms. Eddy asked for an end date. Mr. Rhodes said to make sure the Board in a position a developer maintains ownership of a commercial parcel and sits on it until you can absolutely get the biggest top dollar; which means everything is built out. Mr. Rhodes said that it is the spirit of working together and having a balance. Mr. Reilly suggested said that the newest version 10 [b] has added language that the Planning Board shall have the authority in its sole discretion during Site Plan Review to determine the sequence of development within the Stonebridge PUDD. Mr. Booth did agree to this language.

Mr. Eddy asked for clarification. Mr. Reilly read 10 [b] "A conceptual phasing plan is attached hereto an appendix [b], however a formal phasing plan will be developed at the Site Plan Review stage and the Planning Board shall have the authority in its sole discretion during Site Plan Review to determine the sequence of development within the Stonebridge PUDD." Mr. Reilly said that the Board does not have to dictate what it is going to be, but as a Board you have authority to say no.

Mr. Rhodes asked what requires Site Plan on this project. Ms. Cyr said the Condominiums. Mr. Rhodes asked if an apartment complex was built, would Site Plan Review be necessary. Mr. Johnson said a two family or more would require it. Mr. Booth asked to remove the required that it has to be done. Mr. Reilly wants to keep it the way that it is for the Boards protection.

Mr. Booth is proposing Subdivision and Site Plan Review for everything except for commercial and during that the Board will establish a phasing plan and during that time will define what the phasing plan is and allow performance standards to be documented so the Board has a standard of review.

Mr. Doyle said that the Board will have to ask for justification and for not approving whatever phase. Mr. Rhodes suggests adding that language during the Subdivision and Site Plan Review phase.

Mr. Rhodes said that Mr. Reilly and Mr. Booth should be able to come up with language that sufficient to allow the Planning Board the detail of phase plan and standards of review during Subdivision and Site Plan Review. Mr. Reilly has recommended some language and feels that this can be worked out between the two parties.

Mr. Doyle polled the Board if they are in favor:

Ms. Eddy was in favor

Mr. Cwalinski was in favor

Mr. Rhodes was in favor

Mr. Hayden was in favor

Ms. Cristy was in favor

Mr. Van Vorst was in favor

Ms. Eddy would like to make it evident to the Town Board that the Planning Board needs a TND consultant. Mr. Rhodes suggested bringing in Rick that coined the phrase TND; then you have to different sides or even the people doing the Town’s traffic study BFJ; someone with experience. Mr. Rhodes said in support of Ms. Eddy’s motion gave Mr. Doyle the consultants contact information and asked Mr. Doyle to contact him to find out how he can be added to the Town Engineer as a consultant working on the real project. Mr. Doyle said that this costs money. Mr. Rhodes reminded Mr. Doyle a section of the Town code that allows the developer to pay that fee. Ms. Cyr said that if he works under CT Male then it is charged under escrow fees, not to the Town. Mr. Rhodes said that he does not even have to work under CT Male.

Mr. Doyle would like to make a motion to return this project to the Town Board based on the resolution PUDD legislation to the satisfaction of Mr. Reilly and also asking if the Board wants to look at this one more time. Ms. Rhodes replied no and Ms. Eddy said absolutely not.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes moves that this project be sent back to the Town Board for their final

polishing and approval the general concept as presented appears to be consistent with both the Master Plan and the TND established with this district. Mr. Rhodes said that we will approve with modifications as discussed as to be worked out with the Town Attorney. Ms. Eddy seconded the motion and all presented voted in favor.

MOTON: Mr. Rhodes made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Eddy seconded the motion. CARRIED.

Meeting adjourned 10:45pm

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman