Chairman Doyle called the December 19, 2007 meeting to order at 7:30pm and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Doyle reviewed the agenda.

MOTION: Ms. Cristy made a motion to approve the November 28, 2007 minutes as submitted. Mr. VanVorst seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Geoff Brooks, Round Lake Road for a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND). Warren Longacker of Lansing Engineering was present to represent Mr. Brooks for the Round Lake Road Traditional Neighborhood Development. Mr. Longacker said at the November meeting this project was presented and the Board expressed their general approval of the preliminary layout, but conceptual approval was not granted due to traffic issues at the intersection of Round Lake Road and East Line Road approximately 700ft. east of the project site. Mr. Longacker indicated the towns traffic engineer, BJF Planning had recommended that a single lane round-about be constructed or a traffic signal be installed at the intersection to alleviate future levels of service of delay. Mr. Longacker said that the Town’s Engineers and the Town Board’s recommendation had contacted the County following this Planning Board meeting to discuss possible options for improvement on that intersection. Mr. Longacker said that Mr. Serbalik of Saratoga Public Works said that has indicated that the 2008 preliminary County budget actually included money set aside for a traffic signal at this intersection. Mr. Longacker said that the vote was set on this and Mr. Serbalik called Mr. Longacker this morning indicated that the budget was approved with this traffic signal. Mr. Longacker feels that this traffic signal here as indicated in the CME engineer’s traffic study would improve the level of service and will address the BFJ’s planning comment. Mr. Longacker said the additional comments that were brought up at the last planning board meeting pertain to the interior of the site; one being the inclusion of pedestrian walkways at each sidewalk crossing; the plans have been revised to include that. Mr. Longacker said that another comment had pertained to the radiuses of all the intersections. The radiuses have been proposed to 35ft. which meet the town code; which initially had 20ft. radiuses, but due to the changes in the town code in July it has been revised to 35ft. and have contacted Mr. Whalen, Highway Superintendent and would like to see the radiuses remain at 35ft. as it meets the town’s standards. Mr. Longacker said that another comment was possible parking along the street and would like to know any discussion with the Planning Board and the Town Highway Superintendent. Mr. Longacker is requesting preliminary approval and feel that all the comments have been addressed and have submitted the plans and applications to the State, DEC, DOH and Saratoga County Sewer District.

Mr. Whalen, Highway Superintendent met with the Planning Board in the agenda meeting to discuss and address the concerns over the radii and the intersection and does not feel that the 20ft will be sufficient; (applicant proposing 22ft.) due to the Town Law; No Parking on town roads (4ft. of pavement) between November 1^st until April 1^st. Mr. Whalen feels that the 35ft. radius is sufficient and would like to see some type of marking at the crosswalk. These concerns have been brought up to the Planning Board and should be addressed at the Town Board level which Mr. Whalen is prepared to take the next step and have a meeting.

Mr. Rhodes said that this is a conflicting code; the TND says 20ft, and Mr. Whalen requirement is 35ft. Mr. Rhodes said that the conflicting part of the code is the smaller radii meets the better pedestrian requirement, but the applicant needs do some research to provide the intersection treatment that will accommodate snow removal equipment as well as create a safe pedestrian environment. Mr. Rhodes said to factor the oversized from the curb radius that would work for a passenger cars and the clear width to allow snow removal operations. Mr. Rhodes feels that this is the applicant’s responsibility to do the research and does not want to create something that is going to be confusing to a pedestrian or a motor vehicle operator. Mr. Rhodes feels for this review to move forward and Mr. Whalen will be successful lobbying the Town Board revising the code because it was an oversight to make sure that there is enough room on each parcel for parking; so there is not problem parking on the street.

Mr. Whalen said that the parking problem is not just for winter it is also the narrow streets; parking on opposite sides of the street. Mr. Whalen has a concern with just wintertime snow removal; emergency vehicles. Mr. Whalen said that the fire trucks would have a problem getting through. Mr. Rhodes said that it needs to be looked at by the applicant so there are no conflicts. Mr. Rhodes asked the width difference of this and the regular comprehensive standards. Mr. Whalen replied 24ft. Mr. Rhodes asked what is proposed. Mr. Lansing replied 22ft. Mr. Rhodes said with emergency services would try to the applicant find similar projects in other areas to see if there are problems; Mr. Rhodes does not feel that 2ft. would be a significant problem. Ms. Cristy said that she had brought up the subject of emergency vehicles with this project and at that time it was decided there would not be a problem, evidently there is going to be a problem. Mr. Rhodes said that he is not sure that it is, the applicant will have to look at other communities that do this; if there are problems it will have to be addressed. Mr. Rhodes said that the experience of the worse case situation is why you have done an access here; you don’t have a problem that with block up this entire development because it is a grid situation as long as people are not parking within the intersection which is a New York State Law there should be ample space especially you can see through most of those areas; in the outside chance that there is the people can park across the street from each other.

Ms. Eddy asked if there is one or two car garage. Mr. Brooks replied Longacker replied two.

Mr. Cwalinski asked who takes care of the snow removal on the sidewalks. Mr. Longacker replied the Home Owners Associations (HOA) which is written in the legislation.

Ms. Eddy asked if the HOA will also take care of the sidewalks. Mr. Rhodes said that it is written in the ordinance.

Ms. Eddy asked if the owners are able to block the sidewalk. Mr. Rhodes said that it against the law.

Mr. Cwalinski asked that there will be no parking on the lawn in front of the house. Mr. Longacker replied yes. Mr. Cwalinski asked if the HOA will police that. Mr. Longacker said that the applicant will have to draft that in the legislation. Mr. Rhodes asked if the applicant is comfortable with a condition of approval and would not have to research it. Mr. Brooks asked the HOA; he replied sure. Mr. Rhodes asked if the Board was in approval. Ms. Eddy asked Mr. Reilly how much enforcement and capability does a HOA have. Mr. Reilly said as much as they want as some extent it depends on the HOA. Mr. Cwalinski asked if the Sheriff enforces the HOA. Mr. Reilly replied no. Mr. Doyle asked if there will be something in the HOA that specifically states that this is not acceptable an action will be taken; written rules. Mr. Brooks said that a cover sheet will have something with regards to the HOA. Ms. Eddy asked if the HOA could go through the deed. Mr. Reilly said that it does not go through the deed necessarily. Mr. Rhodes said it allows the Board to bridge the gap between the facts that the project does not fall in the PUD legislation the existing TND ordinance is lacking so they can create their own covenant and restrictions that are subject based on our comments.

Ms. Serra said with parking it has been shown that emergency vehicles can access at 22ft. If there is parking it has been addressed; and now there is no parking on the street.

Mr. Doyle said that with a TND parking slows down traffic, but again if you have two vehicles parked directly on the opposite side of the road that shortens the distance in between, but an emergency vehicle can still get through. Mr. Longacker is in agreement. Mr. Rhodes said that there is enough space in the middle. Mr. Cwalinski asked the total width of a fire truck including the mirrors. Mr. Johnson replied 11ft. Mr. Brooks suggested one night to park on the even side and one night on the odd side. Mr. Rhodes said that the fundamental question is does the Planning Board want people to park on the road or do we want to listen to the emergency services issues and just ask the applicant to put it in the deed. Mr. Rhodes said that the Board has already agreed on that at one point and now are bringing it up again. Mr. Doyle wants to make sure that the Board members understand. Mr. Doyle feels it will be difficult to enforce no parking on the street. Mr. VanVorst asked Mr. Whalen what he thinks about this issue. Mr. Whalen does not have a problem parking on the side of the road. Mr. Rhodes does not see it being a huge problem; when you look at the probability of two people on the opposite side of the road having a party at the same time which people are normally inclined to park in front of the house it is unlikely to have that condition that we are all worried about. Ms. Eddy said it is fine as long as you have a strong HOA. Mr. Rhodes asked if the Zoning Enforcement Office has the ability to enforce the conditions of approval. Mr. Reilly said that this is not an issue; opposite side parking.

Mr. Doyle said at some point in time there will be a fee when a person obtains a building permit a contribution towards the whole traffic migration problem. Mr. Rhodes asked Mr. Doyle if he was going to contact the Town of Malta to see what there program was to see what whether we were going to do something contrary to their program; is that still going to happen before a formal decision is made. Mr. Doyle indicated that a call has been made to Mr. Sausville and Mr. Ritchey from the County is ready to put the traffic light in. Mr. Doyle said that if the Board decided that they want a round-about then he would contribute $106,000.00 for the round-about, but the round-about would be two and a half times the cost of the traffic light. Mr. Rhodes does not want to do anything contrary to Malta’s plans. Mr. Rhodes feels that their plan is to collect money for improvement there and if they already to have money assigned to it they have to have a round-about and not a signal then we push forward and have the County through money at a signal; would that be the right thing to do. Mr. Doyle said that he would have to talk to Mr. Ritchey. Mr. Doyle said that he has talked to Mr. Ritchey who has talked to the adjoining towns and has their concurrence and Mr. Sausville was at the meeting and he was one of the individuals that approved the traffic light as did Mr. Callanan and many others. Mr. Rhodes said that the Board has captured the 35ft. radius and would like the applicant to look at an intersection treatment as a compromise and some sort of delineation so there is a safe pedestrian environment which still accommodates the highway operation. Mr. Doyle asked the Mr. Longacker to research which would be the best method for that area. (crosswalk)

Ms. Serra asked the Board if the direction is to go with the County funded traffic light. Mr. Doyle said that is the opinion of the Board. Mr. Rhodes votes no. Ms. Serra indicated that the consultant is pushing to look at a round-about and wants to know what the Board’s decision to not pursue that. Mr. Doyle has put a call in the Mr. Sausville, Supervisor, Town of Malta to see if there were monies that he was willing to contribute toward a round-about; he had already voted for Mr. Ritchey to put in a traffic light.

Mr. Longacker said that Creighton Manning indicated in the traffic study that this intersection operates at acceptable levels of service until the peak hours in the morning in the pm and the same would hold true in the build condition in 2009 and this development along with other ones in the general vicinity. Mr. Doyle does not know where the monies would come from the pay for the round-about in the near future. Mr. VanVorst said that if the monies were equal a round-about a better way to go and if a round-about goes in there, the amount of traffic will decrease because there is a large percentage of people traveling through that intersection because they are avoiding that round-about at exit 12. Mr. Doyle is in agreement. Mr. Rhodes said that the traffic counts in the round-abouts are increasing with a significant increase in volumes there; less delay. Mr. Doyle said that Mr. Johnson said that people like traffic lights because there is no mental involvement; the light turns red you stop when it turns green you go. In a round-about you have to remember where you are, slow down, people coming into the round-about; takes more thought and pre-planning. Mr. Doyle said that Saratoga County does not install round-abouts.

Ms. Serra read an excerpt from the BFJ letter, dated December 14, 2007. "BFJ did there own research and were able to verify whether the traffic light at the intersection is actually warranted through the manual of uniform traffic control devices MUTCD. They were able to determine that the peak hour traffic volume for this development do not meet peak hour warrants for signalization. They recommend that the applicant perform a traffic signal warrant analysis." Ms. Serra said that maybe a traffic signal is not even warranted from your standard traffic control device criteria. Mr. Doyle asked the applicant is they wanted CME to look at this again. Mr. Longacker said that CME looked at it in their initial report.

Mr. Longacker said that in CME initial report they made a statement that again during the peak hours this intersection would operate at a level of service F in 2009 with a no build condition and a level of service F in the build condition with the installation of the light would improve that level of service to a level of service to a C or B; it may not be warranted, but it does improve the level of service. Mr. Doyle said what harm does a traffic light do? Mr. Rhodes said that it kills people. Mr. Doyle said that stop signs can do the same thing. Mr. Rhodes said that traffic signals are worse. Mr. Serra said that the down falls to a traffic sign that are not needed is at 1:00pm or 1:00am when sitting at a red traffic light that is what BFJ wants to prove that a traffic signal and it will not impede traffic in a peak and non peak situation and that is when a four way stop is better than a traffic light because you do not need to wait for it to turn green to go. Ms. Serra would concur and recommend that CME would do the warrant analysis. Mr. Reilly said that the County is moving forward with the light whether we (the Planning Board) want it or not. Ms. Eddy said that BFJ that this intersection will eventually need to be improved, either with traffic light or with a single lane round-about.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:15pm

Anne Pierce, Lake Road asked for verification on parking on alternate sides of the street by the day and if there is parking from November through April only if there is bad weather or if there is no parking at all. Mr. Doyle said that it is true of all town roads (No parking on all town roads from November 1^st to April 1^st). Ms. Pierce said that no one can have a holiday party at all for that whole time or open house. Ms. Pierce said that you are saying to go ahead and disobey the law and have the party. Ms. Pierce said that you are telling the kids it is alright to break the law. Mr. Rhodes said that the law is already there; town wide. Ms. Pierce said "why don’t you just have wider roads and let people park and have their parties."

Blake Roberts asked if the parking is restricted to overnight.

Mr. Reilly’s understanding is that the Board wants and HOA, alternate side parking only, no overnight parking and then the overlay of the town law ordinance which disallows any parking November 1^st through April 1^st. Mr. Reilly indicated that it is never enforced other than if it is a problem with the snow plow and then they can tow the car because you are not suppose to be on the side of the road.

Geraldine Freedman, Ballston Journal asked the total number of units proposed. Mr. Longacker replied 99; 55 single family and 44 duplex units.

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

MOTION: Ms. Cristy made a motion for preliminary approval for the project with the stipulations that we had mentioned and improvements that we had said. Ms. Eddy said "what specifically what we were talking about." Ms. Cristy said "to approve it with the stipulations of the things that we have been talking about." Doyle said that we have talked about changing the radii on the corners, the crosswalks, the parking, (opposite street parking), outstanding engineering comments. Mr. Cwalinski seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Craig Jasmin, 197 Church Ave, for a Special Use Permit. Craig Jasmin was present to present the application to the Board. Mr. Jasmin said that he is applying for a Special Use Permit to sell used cars. Mr. Cwalinski asked what will be done with the existing shed. Mr. Jasmin said that it will be moved to the south-east corner. Mr. Cwalinski asked what will be done with the tires. Mr. Jasmin said that they will be moved closer to the building. Mr. Jasmin said that the tires get picked up by BCD which are located in Hagaman. Mr. Cwalinski asked if the sign will be altered. Mr. Jasmin replied no. Mr. Cwalinski asked about the cars being parked in front of the 5,000 gallon tanks how does a truck get back there. Mr. Jasmin said that they have to get moved every week; once a week there is a delivery. Mr. Cwalinski asked how many bays total in the existing buildings. Mr. Jasmin replied four. Mr. Cwalinski said the towns parking regulations total nine spaces. Mr. Cwalinski asked how many employees. Mr. Jasmin replied two full-time and two part-time. Mr. Rhodes asked per shift. Mr. Jasmin replied 8:00am to 6:00pm. Mr. Cwalinski asked the dimensions of the handi-cap parking spaces. Mr. Jasmin replied 9’ x 12’; one handi-cap parking spot and then the access spot. Mr. Cwalinski said that the dimensions are in 138-56(a) and would like to see the dimensions for the remaining parking spaces. Mr. Jasmin said they are to scale 8’ x 12’. Mr. Doyle said that the town parking regulations are 9’ x 18’.

Mr. Hayden asked the purpose for customer parking; just to drop off their car. Mr. Jasmin replied that was the only reason. Mr. Hayden asked if the dumpster will remain in the same spot. Mr. Jasmin said that the dumpster is located next to Augies.

Mr. Doyle numbered the spots where the used cars will be located. Mr. Doyle said that the last spot located by the street next to the right of way and wanted to know if that was going to work. Mr. Jasmin said that cars are parked there now and it has never been a problem. Mr. Doyle asked how many cars will there be without registrations. Mr. Jasmin said anything that would be for sale or going to be for sale. Mr. Jasmin said strictly maintenance work, not repair. Mr. Doyle asked in the back will it all remain gravel. Mr. Jasmin replied yes.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:32pm

Mr. Doyle closed the public hearing 8:33pm

No one wished to speak.

Mr. Rhodes asked if this application needs to follow the Design Standards like the Barber Shop and Car Dealership near the Burnt Hills Diner. Mr. Reilly said that it is only a Special Use Permit and there are no improvements to this facility.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes 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. CARRIED.

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 approve the Special Use Permit located at 197 Church Ave. Ms. Eddy seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Mr. Rhodes 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.

New York Development Group, 1477 Route 50 for Site Plan Review and a Special Use Permit. Scott Lansing of Lansing engineering and Jeff Knox of New York Development Group was present on behalf of the IaIa parcel multi family residential development. Mr. Lansing said that the parcel is located on the west side of Route 50 consisting of 3.66 acres in the Mixed-Use Center District North. Mr. Lansing indicated that the topography of the site is flat from front to back. Mr. Lansing said that the wetlands scientist has delineated the site for jurisdictional wetlands and no wetlands were found on the parcel. Mr. Lansing read one except from the ordinance "The purpose and intent of the Mixed Use Center Districts; establishment and purpose of creating a commercial and social core for the town emphasizing a small town feel this requires a balancing of variety of uses on a scale and design so the various uses cannot only coexist, but compliment each other to create a viable enactive community of shopping, service, social and residential opportunities." Mr. Lasing said that looking at the parcel and the Route 50 corridor where there are existing retail type of developments and feel that is the goal of the zoning ordinance to further development that and feel that their residential use was more appropriate for the parcel. Mr. Lansing said that the applicants are proposing a multi family residential development which is permitted in the Mixed Use Center North District development which is permitted under a Special Use Permit. Mr. Lansing said that the applicant is proposing six buildings each unit would be four units per building for a total of 24 units overall. Mr. Lansing said that access to the site will be off of Pine Grove Avenue to service the six buildings and a connection point off to an adjacent project that was previously approved by the Board.

Mr. Lansing said that internal sidewalks would be proposed in the development inside the roadway and would also connect to the approved sidewalks on the adjacent project. Mr. Lansing said that street plantings are shown along the roadway and street lighting.

Mr. Lansing said that there is an existing water line on Route 50 that would be extended in to serve the projects. The sanitary sewer would be connected with via low pressure grinder system connecting the six units out to a sewer line that would be constructed along Route 50. The storm water would be managed on site and a proposed storm water management area that would hinge off of proposed storm water management area for an adjacent project that would be sized to accommodate the storm water flows from the project.

Mr. Lansing said that CT Male comments have been received on the conceptual submission which is relative to water and sewer reports for the project in design of the adjacent project the overall area was looked at for both water and sewer including large residential development down towards the southwest commercial corridor along Route 50 and both water and sewer were sized to accommodate the potential area of the potential development of the parcel.

Mr. Lansing said that a traffic study is needed for the project and the applicants will provide and that the trips will not impact Pine Grove Avenue or the intersection or Route 50.

Mr. Lansing said that the proposed utilities will be placed on the plans when the applicant receives preliminary approval.

Mr. Lansing said that a wetland scientist has determined that the parcel has no jurisdictional wetlands.

Mr. Lansing said relative to landscaping, lighting, signage and with the building elevations would look like. Mr. Lansing said this would be developed further as the applicant moves further towards preliminary approval.

Mr. Hayden asked if the proposed condominiums will look like Cornerstone. Mr. Knox replied comparable with 1300 sq. ft. to 1700sq. with full basements.

Mr. Cwalinski compiled a list of missing items and gave it to Mr. Lansing; Mr. Cwalinski will email to Michelle. Mr. Cwalinski asked if there will be signage in front of Pine Grove Avenue. Mr. Knox said that they were working on it and if the Board had a preference. Mr. Cwalinski did not have a preference.

Mr. Doyle said that the comment Derrek made to maintain the core through staggering.

Mr. Rhodes asked if there is a way through sketch plan review to do the storm water management without having a pond; minimize open pond areas. Mr. Rhodes asked if this area in is the MS-4 District. Ms. Serra replied yes. Ms. Serra asked the applicant if filing has been made for covering Cornerstone. Mr. Lansing replied yes.

Mr. Johnson said that this application is under submission for conceptual site plan review. Mr. Cwalinski said when reviewing this application, looked at the agenda and it said site plan review, and reviewed it as site plan review. Mr. Johnson said there are two ways to review this application; one is concept (checklist with page 2) the other is a full site plan which has a different check list. Mr. Rhodes asked if all the requirements met for the conceptual site plan review. Mr. Johnson replied yes according to the checklist.

MOTION: Ms. Cristy made a motion to approve the concept as presented. Mr. Rhodes seconded the motion if it includes looking at the storm water management areas underground and minimizing the pond sizes and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

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

Meeting adjourned at 8:50pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman