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

NEW BUSINESS:

Joseph Lazare, 370 Goode Street for a Sketch Plan Conference. Mike Brooks and Kurt Bedore, P.E., of Tommell and Associates were present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Brooks said that the parcel consists of 40 +/- acres of land with a sketch plan of a 24 lot Conservation Subdivision.

Mr. Brooks said that the project has been presented in front of the Town Board to get approval to the existing public water system off Goode Street which was received contingent upon Planning Board review.

Mr. Brooks said that there are approximately 14 acres of green space that will be dedicated to the Town or a Home Owners Association or be deed restricted to each of the lots of the lot lines are established.

The remaining land is 25.5 acres of land or 64% of the property will be served by public water and individual septic systems. The access will have a boulevard entrance off Goode Street extends towards the intersection with a continuous loop. There will be 13 lots that front off the boulevard the existing home which is known as lot #24 will keep that entrance for now and there will be 10 lots off the loop.

The storm water solution was to try to minimize the amount of grading and existing topography of the land is lower in the front and one in the middle of the property. Mr. Brooks said that there are wetlands on the property which have been flagged by Tommell and Associates and need confirmation by DEC and ACOE.; totaling (3).

Mr. Rhodes asked will that change the lot density based on areas. Mr. Brooks replied no.

Mr. Brooks said that there are 24 lots and the minimum lots range in size range from .6 acres average to just less than one acre and the maximum to 1.5 acre. Mr. Brooks reiterated how the Town wants to handle the green space whether it is dedicated to the Town and an HOA is set up or the lot lines can be extended back and can be deed restricted as part of the lots.

Mr. Brooks said that the applicant is looking for sketch plan recommendation so the applicant can proceed with the rest of the engineering and the process with the DEC, ACOE and the NYSDOH and other upgrades necessary for this project.

Mr. Cwalinski asked about the pond. Mr. Brooks said that the water is seasonal.

Mr. Cwalinski asked about the sign stating "Hog Farm" Mr. Brooks has no recollection of a sign. Mr. Cwalinski said that the sign requires a permit.

Mr. Rhodes asked if the Town Board provided direction of storm water management maintenance to handle all residents. Mr. Doyle said it would require easements and depending on the depth of the pond it would require fencing. Mr. Rhodes asked about lot #23 the barn will it be removed. Mr. Brooks said that the barn and the garage on lot #24 will be taken down.

Mr. Rhodes said that the Board has made exceptions for properties that front on a public street and have access to a public street and would give an exception to connect from the new streets to limit the curb cuts. Mr. Rhodes said that lot #1 has the storm water management area and questioned there is access and could be relocated. Mr. Rhodes said that a permanent number of homes has to be determined that needs to be allowed on a cul-de-sac which is 21.

Mr. Rhodes said that it is common to do an emergency services driveway; so it sufficiently separates the two access points to have redundant means. Mr. Rhodes would like the Town Engineer and Town Attorney to review. Mr. Reilly said as far as the ability to waive the 21 requirement would be the Planning Boards jurisdiction not the Zoning Board.

Mr. Doyle asked for some north/south access to the larger tracks of lands on both sides. Mr. Brooks said that there may be some lot line adjustments because of the conservations subdivision and trying to make enough room for the house to the septic system and do not want to make the lots to small; a possible paper street. Mr. Rhodes said to allow development of adjacent properties, but it is not necessarily fixing the total number of lot issues. Mr. Rhodes asked what the park space reservation of the reserve strip along the lot. Mr. Brooks said that it is part of the greater piece of land off to the south. Mr. Rhodes said that there are deep lots. Mr. Johnson said that strip was part of park and rec land that the Town took in lieu of park and rec land parks and rec fee. Mr. Rhodes asked if it provides linkage. Mr. Johnson said that at the time, the Town had a park and rec commission and was acquiring land to try to link it all up. Mr. Rhodes asked the applicant to look into this matter and to see how it all connects to something similar into this area through the same paper street area.

Mr. Doyle asked hoe the Board members feel about the number of lots in this proposed subdivision.

The Board is in agreement to follow the zoning with 21 lots.

Ms. Cyr asked Mr. Brooks to describe the traffic flow on the boulevard with the relation to driveway location. Mr. Brooks said that the driveways would enter a common access point where it splits. Ms. Cyr said that lots #22 and #23 driveways would be on top of each other; shared access.

Mr. Rhodes asked if the whole intent of the boulevard to get the exception from the number of lots would the boulevard be replaced. Mr. Brooks said if the number of lots is decreased to 21 it would make the access narrower. Mr. Rhodes said that what was offer on the Saunders Lane project is to get someone able to demonstrate what that number of lots can work. Mr. Rhodes said that this is not going to be a problem providing service to the number of homes if it is within the control the Planning Boards control to waive and the applicants gives the Boards information of why it can be done, the Board would consider it. Mr. Bedore said that Mr. Brooks is a Lieutenant with the Burnt Hills Fire Department and feels he is qualified to speak about this matter and has the experience and qualifications. Mr. Rhodes asked Mr. Brooks if he trained in emergency services access as well as the ability to respond in all residential emergencies. Mr. Brooks had no comment.

Mr. Cwalinski asked that the comments be addressed about the seasonal or non seasonal water to be addressed. Mr. Brooks said that it will be looked at. Mr. Rhodes said that a pipe will be installed to maintain the hydraulic connectivity. Mr. Brooks replied yes.

Mr. Rhodes asked about soil testing. Mr. Brooks said that (7) preliminary soil test pits have been completed and depending on where they were done were three to four feet until mottling/high ground water.

Mr. Hayden asked who will maintain the road. Mr. Brooks said that obviously it will be dedicated to the Town.

Mr. Reilly would add that read under Article 10 Conservation Subdivision at the preliminary there should be a conservation analysis. Mr. Bedore asked that the applicant is still open to the 24 lots. Mr. Doyle said that 21 lots is the number that the Board has been using, but the Board would be interested considering any new information; safety is a major concern. Mr. Rhodes said that the burden of proof is on the applicant and would a public, health and safety issue.

Application tabled.

Richard & Mary Czub, 152 Lake Road for Site Plan Review. Mr. Czub was present to present the case to the Board to propose shoreline conservation by placement of gabions and fill. Mr. Doyle said that after looking at the presentation that your engineer presented and the DEC permit for putting in and raising the elevation of the land in the front, it is not in conformance with the town code and also does not have DEC approval to fill only approval to place rip rap to prevent erosion of the soil. Mr. Doyle said that there is a major problem and will not be able to do this. Mr. Rhodes said regardless, it is against town code. Mr. Doyle said that the applicant is trying to elevate the shoreline to acquire more square footage of land; the shoreline has to remain the same. Mr. Doyle said that the DEC is saying that the applicant can stop the erosion, but you cannot replace it. The town code does not allow you to modify the shoreline. Mr. Rhodes said that the code states that you cannot alter the contours of the shoreline. Mr. Rhodes said after looking at your map, it clearly indicates that you are extending out beyond the existing shoreline raising the elevation. Mr. Rhodes said that intent is to say what is there today let’s preserve it, but you can see the problems it presents to your adjacent neighbors and what is there today what nature gives us and let’s try to abate that in the sediment that is coming back in the lake by preserving the existing shoreline only.

Mr. Doyle said after reading the DEC permit is says that the only allowable stone is football size stone "rip rap" along the edge to abate any further erosion of the shoreline. Mr. Czub said to take the means of the water. Mr. Doyle said that he read and did not interpret that from the permit.

Mr. Doyle said to talk to your engineer and the Town Engineer. Mr. Doyle said that this land cannot be rebuilt.

Mr. Czub asked the town to preserve what he has now. Mr. Doyle said the town is saying you can preserve the existing water line.

A further discussion was held on how to build the shoreline with gabions.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes made a motion to disapprove. Mr. Cwalinski seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Robert & Amy Azarow, 61 Lundy Lane, for Site Plan Reivew. J. T. Pollard of Smith-Pollard Architects was present on behalf on the applicants to present a proposal for 76 linear foot rip along the shore of Ballston Lake on the southern end of Ballston Lake. Mr. Pollard said that a cantilever dock (floating dock) which will consist of 250sq. ft. and are in accordance with the current dock regulations. There are also decks shown on the plan consisting of 320sq. ft. and one 140sq. ft. for a total of 460sq. ft. Mr. Pollard said that there is also a concrete slab which supports the cantilever dock so the dock will not be taken out in the winter; that area is 140sq. ft. Mr. Pollard said that the applicants are also proposing a future gazebo. There are also 12 to 14’ retaining walls which vary in height depending on the grade changing along that area 4ft to 8ft.

Mr. Pollard said that the main focus of this project will be rip rap which will be loose laid along the existing contours along the lake.

Mr. Rhodes asked the limits of the existing vegetation and the resulting. Mr. Pollard said it has been provided on the existing site plan. Mr. Pollard said that there have no plans for new trees to be planted. Mr. Pollard said that one tree will be removed. Mr. Pollard said that there will be planting beds up along the upper portion of the deck. Mr. Rhodes said that the requirement of this application because of the improvements there should provide more than small planting beds. Mr. Pollard said that only one tree is being removed. Mr. Rhodes said replace it. Mr. Rhodes said in the code it indicates to preserve as much as you can. Mr. Pollard does agree and does have to deal with people who move to lake and have an element of privacy and sitting on the deck. Mr. Doyle said that there is room to the right for a tree. Mr. Pollard replied yes; a tree could be planted. Mr. Rhodes said that the intent is to do the intent to do the exact opposite of what the people want here to have a clear cut view and have screening a few trees; so we are at odds with traditional lakefront development with the great big homes and the existing shoreline which is pretty well treed.

Mr. Pollard indicated that the DEC has given the applicant a permit which was approved. Mr. Doyle indicated that the Board would need a copy of the DEC paperwork. Mr. Doyle said that this paperwork was not submitted with this application. Mr. Pollard indicated that Todd submitted it with the package. Mr. Doyle asked the Board members if they received it with their packages. Mr. Doyle did not receive it nor did any of the Board members; the only DEC permit was from Mr. Czub. Mr. Rhodes said that it could be town engineer reviewed to make sure that everything in place before building permit to be issued. Mr. Rhodes said that cutting standards is a problem; maintaining existing vegetation where it cannot be maintained (will be replaced). Mr. Rhodes said that the only problem is the applicant will provide substantial visual screening from the water dwelling for accessing structures and parking areas and may be asking for more than just a replacement of a tree. Mr. Pollard said the pictures propose is very similar to what was there with to what was there with the exception of a larger dock. Mr. Pollard said that the dock is a function of the owner not having to take the dock out in the winter and deal with that 10’ x 12’ concrete slab that is ballasted to the cantilever that goes to the lake 20ft. Mr. Rhodes said that there is more impervious surface that is being provided.

Mr. Rhodes asked after looking at the plan wanted to know what the circles represent. Mr. Pollard said that the trees were not surveyed, but took measurements off of the property line and took locate existing trees; located gazebo where it in an area where it was heavily treed.

Mr. Rhodes asked about lighting. Mr. Pollard said no lighting. Mr. Pollard said that there is an existing sprinkler pump which will be maintained and placed back in the shed. Mr. Rhodes said that the only outstanding issues are with the DEC and ACOE and can be handle with the technical end.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes 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.

Mr. Doyle asked for numbers on the contour lines.

Ms. Cyr said that an erosion and sediment control plan needs to be provided for stabilizing on the steep slopes.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:25pm

Anne Pierce asked if the deck or future gazebo will interfere with the neighbors on the lake. Mr. Pollard said no that there is a gazebo on the neighbor’s property and this one will be next to it. Ms. Pierce asked if the deck will be cantilevered or will there be a bubbler. Mr. Pollard said that is the idea of a cantilever because there is no structure in the water.

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

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

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes made a motion to approve subject to technical comment and review of a permit and resolution of comments of latest plans dated July 17, 2007. Mr. Cwalinski seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Mr. Rhodes said that there were three outstanding issues:

Show the replacement of the tree

Erosion and sediment control

Provision and satisfactory and demonstrate that permits are in place

Peter Brooks, 94 Lake Road for a Sketch Plan Conference. Peter Brooks was present to present the application to the Board. Mr. Brooks is proposing to make the lake shore more usable and dig out a cove. Mr. Doyle asked the applicant if he has looked at the code. Mr. Cwalinski said that it stated that the activities shall not alter all natural contours of the shoreline. Mr. Brooks said that the contours can be altered, the elevations. Mr. Doyle said that it cannot be allowed with our existing zoning.

Mr. Rhodes said that it also says that you cannot excavate the shore and will be changing the contour and can image the water line is now going to come in and that water line is the contour when it is plotted so that is a substantial change. Mr. Brooks said that topographically would be changing the contour of the land by lower it. Mr. Doyle said that it does not conform to the town code and would have a difficult time getting DEC approval.

Mr. Rhodes said that as long as there is no excavation, filling or modifying the shoreline it is a permitted use. There is some vegetation clearing that would have to be taken into consideration. Mr. Rhodes said that techno dock foundation; so there is no excavation and they are considered pilings which is an elevated structure. Mr. Johnson said that it gets you out to the edge of the lake. Mr. Brooks said there are two challenges one is getting to the shoreline and getting to a useable depth of water. Mr. Rhodes asked what the neighbor has for a dock. Mr. Brooks had soundings done and would have to go out at least 40 to 50ft. past that 3ft zone in addition to that, because of that shallowness there is a milfoil issue.

Mr. Rhodes said that would mean dredging out 40ft. into the lake a sufficient width so that you can stay ahead of the fact that it is going to naturally build back in and then you are going from the shoreline into the property. Mr. Brooks said that is not what is being proposed. Mr. Rhodes said that if you cannot get to get it or use it, to get to it with a boat. Mr. Rhodes said that you cannot get it unless you put a dock 40ft. out, but you can build a cove on the interior parcel and still get to it. Mr. Brooks said that you need about three feet of water for an outboard motor. Mr. Rhodes said that the solution would be to put a dock that is 20ft long. Mr. Doyle said that it is not the matter of the visual impact it is the matter of the code.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes moves to deny this application because it does not meet zoning. Mr. Cwalinski seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Edward Jones, 801 Route 50 for Site Plan Review. Peter May of Hanley Sign Company was present to present the case to the Board. Mr. Hanley said that there is a single pole existing sign made out of wood located in front of the property and are proposing to replace with a 24 sq. ft. post and panel design sign made out aluminum painted green which meets the code requirements and the design criteria.

Mr. Cwalinski asked for the dimension. Mr. Rhodes said that it could be the condition of the approval.

A further discussion was held on the setbacks on of the sign placement.

A further discussion as held on lighting. Mr. Doyle suggested lighting for the sign. Mr. May said that there was ground lighting. Mr. May said that an illuminated sign would use the term and illumination.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:58pm

Mr. Doyle closed the public hearing 8:59pm

MOTION: Ms. Cristy made a motion to approve the application for a sign at 801 Route 50. Mr. Hayden seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Mr. Rhodes asked for clarification if SEQR was performed on signs. Mr. Doyle replied no.

Joseph Suhrada, Round Lake Road and Schauber Road for a Major Subdivision [Concept]. Duane Rabideau of Gilbert VanGuilder and Associates was present along the Lansing Engineering to represent Sharon Lane, LLC for the request a proposed 9 lot subdivision located on Round Lake Road and on the east side of Schauber Road. Mr. Rabideau said that the proposal is to subdivide it into 9 lots varying in size from 21/2 acres to 25 acres; two 45 acre parcels. Mr. Rabideau said that the overall parcel is approximately 83 acres which will be serviced by a private road straight in with a cul-de-sac at the end. Mr. Rabideau said that lot #1 will have a proposed house on Round Lake Road and lot #9 will have a house on Round Lake Road and the rest will access on the private road.

Mr. Doyle said that there is a concern with the interpretation of the code relative to the Traditional Neighborhood Design. Mr. Doyle said that this is in the Ballston Lake Residential District. Mr. Doyle said that the first section of the code indicates that there are no sewers or water and are less than 15 lots a TND does not have to be considered. Mr. Doyle said after reading further into the code, it is not quite as clear whether address the issue of a TND. Mr. Doyle said that the Planning Board has some discretion and the applicant would have to provide some technical information as why a TND would not work and connections to large areas which may be Traditional Neighborhoods Designs on it. Mr. Rabideau said that it anything east or west indicates ACOE. Mr. Rhodes asked about the south. Mr. Rabideau said that is the Volpe Subdivision with existing flag lots. Mr. Cwalinski indicated that there is no way where this project could tie in.

Mr. Doyle asked for a map explaining the probability of being able have a official neighborhood TND and connect to a adjacent TND which is controlled by the build out on the two sides and the wetlands on the third side the road being the fourth side.

Mr. Rhodes said that the code is specifically saying is the that your project will not prohibit future development on adjacent lands to a TND and that a TND development on your property does not work. Mr. Rhodes suggested a narrative a sketch should be enough and looks at the section of the code that talks about subdivisions in this district.

Mr. Cwalinski asked about lot 7 and 7A asked why. Mr. Rabideau said apparently they will be left as is; (one lot)

Mr. Rhodes asked the total area of lot 7. Mr. Rabideau said 2.5 acres.

Mr. Doyle asked about the lots #6 and #8. Mr. Doyle asked that no further subdivision of lot #6 and lot #8.

Mr. Rhodes asked what an Amsterdam Waste Water Disposal System is. Mr. Rabideau said that it is a large leach field area. Ms. Cyr said that it is for very slow perc soils.

Mr. Reilly asked if the applicant would agree for no further subdivision. Mr. Rabideau will have to ask the applicant.

Mr. Rabideau will have to supply a narrative, no further subdivision.

Mr. Rhodes asked about the Amsterdam Waste Water Disposal System; said that there are 30 minute percs. Mr. Rhodes reiterated and said 55 minute percs; just a hair not under buildable. Mr. Doyle said to use caution because the numbers are very poor.

Mr. Doyle suggested returning with a full Site Plan Review.

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Rhodes seconded the motion and present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Meeting adjourned: 9:15pm

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman