Vice Chairman Cwalinski called the, 2008 meeting to order at 7:30pm and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Vice Chairman Cwalinski reviewed the agenda.

Corrections to minutes: Page 1) under MOTION change motion to minutes. Joseph Hilko, change agent; to (agent), second paragraph strike "the" in first sentence before catching. Joseph Suhrada, Page 2) capitalize Engineering, add "he" after last meeting, strike "both", 3^rd para; change have to has, add "should", 4^th para; add "to" before ACOE. Page 3) strike "in", after pond add "that", change purpose to (purposes), add "," after said, strike recognize, add "," after Mr. Lazare, change wetlands to (lots). Page 4) change our to (your), strike "of", change were to (was), 2nd para; add "," after driveways in last sentence and strike "or", 3rd para; add "there is" after speed limit, 5^th para; add "a" before chain. Page 5) 2^nd para; add "the barn", strike and add "or if it" is salvageable, strike "." add "," strike "Mr. Bedore" add "he", 4^th para; add "option", strike "a" add "the". Page 6) strike "my" add "his", 2^nd para:, strike "is" add "equals", strike "in", add "if", strike "the common grantors", add " 4^th para; add "the applicant said" after meeting, 5^th para; add "," after water use, strike "will use", strike "which". Page 7) 4^th para; strike "drives" add "rides", 5^th para; strike "to" add "will", 6^th para; strike "law" add "lawn". Page 8) Change "e" to "a" in Rabideau, 2^nd para; add "asked after Ms. Eddy, 3^rd para; strike "was the" add "there were", 3^rd para; after five years ago add "signed" after school strike "signed", 7^th para; strike "for" add (more), strike "a"

MOTION: Ms. Cristy made a motion to approve the January 23, 2008 minutes as amended. Mr. Hayden seconded the motion and all voted in favor except Mr. Rhodes who abstained. CARRIED.

CW Ventures, 6 Brookline Road & Route 67 for Site Plan Review and a Special Use Permit. Scott Lansing of Lansing Engineering was present representing Victor Santoro of CW Ventures for the Brookline Apartments. Mr. Lansing is here to advance the preliminary design engineering drawings to give the Board an update to receive a Special Use Permit and an approval on the project.

At the last meeting, conceptual approval was granted for the apartments on the back portion of the parcel. The previous configuration had seven (8 unit) buildings and since the last meeting, the applicant has obtained detailed topography for the site and found there is a moderate slope from the back portion of the parcel towards the intersection of Brookline and Route 67. The general layout has changed to angle the buildings to work with the slope. Mr. Lansing said that the number of buildings went from seven to six. The green space has increased to 47% in the back portion of the parcel; the overall green space is 64%. Mr. Lansing said improvements have been made with the buffer in the back portion with areas of green space between the buildings..

Mr. Lansing said that since the last meeting, comments were received from the Town Engineer which are technical in nature some of significance with suggestions of refining grading to reduce wetland impacts, grading by property lines; maintain some existing vegetation, landscaping and lighting plan with next submittal.

Mr. Hayden asked the dimensions of the green space. Mr. Lansing said 60’ x 40’. Mr. Hayden asked if that area will be included in the landscaping and lighting plan. Mr. Lansing said it is planned for that area. Mr. Hayden asked that if the buildings in the back will be staggered. Mr. Lansing said that the grade comes down and the buildings would be perpendicular to the slope with small landscaping walls (3ft. to 4ft.) between the buildings.

Mr. Cwalinski asked if a fence could be installed in the rear; to maintain security of the apartment complex and residential backyards. Mr. Cwalinski asked about the space to the left of the apartment complex. Mr. Lansing said that there is a wetland complex with an upland area in the middle.

Mr. Cwalinski said that at the November 1, 2007 meeting the Board asked the applicant to research the recreational opportunities and asked if that had been done. Mr. Lansing said that there has been a discussion to connect a trail off Brookline Road which CT Male is working on plans.

Ms. Cristy asked if the apartments are for adults only. Mr. Lansing said there are no restrictions. Ms. Cristy asked about a play area. Mr. Lansing said that the green space has been increased.

Mr. Rhodes would like to reiterate the recreational aspects stating the code is clear and offers these density incentives if there are not adjacent recreational opportunities then they need to be created.

Mr. Cwalinski opened the public hearing 7:40pm

Bob DeSarbo, 6 Rolling Brook Drive asked about the location of the entrance and the exit to the apartments. Mr. Lansing said that the front doors will be on the ends of the apartments.

Matt Baker, 2 Bolling Brook Drive asked if the Barn will be taken down. Mr. Lansing replied yes. Mr. Lansing said that the one side of the roadway will be on the edge of the barn. Mr. Baker asked the distance between Brookline Road to the first apartment. Mr. Lansing said 320ft. Mr. Baker said at the last meeting there was a concern about the setbacks and how close the buildings were to existing property lines; the buildings do not look any farther away; replied Mr. Baker. Mr. Lansing disagrees because the buildings have moved significantly. Mr. Baker asked why all the buildings are being placed on one side of the property. Mr. Lansing said that after reviewing the Master Plan it fits the zoning for the area. Mr. Baker asked about a Special Use Permit. Mr. Cwalinski said the criteria will be read and discussed.

Bob DeSarbo, 6 Rolling Brook Drive asked why the whole project could not be reversed. Mr. Lansing said that from the layout stand point that one area would be for future potential development, one area for shared parking, Mr. DeSarbo said that it would be the home owner’s best interest to have the project reversed. Mr. Lansing said that the applicant has to work with the zoning and with the Board.

Application tabled.

Joseph Suhrada, Round Lake Road and Schauber Road for a Major Subdivision (Sharon Lane) Erik Schmidt of Lansing Engineering and Duane Rabideau of VanGuilder and Associates were present representing Joseph Suhraha for the (Sharon Lane) Subdivision. Mr. Schmidt said that the previous questions have been answered from last month and also responded to the February 20, 2008. Mr. Cwalinski asked if there were any substantial changes. Mr. Schmidt said no substantial changes as indicated in the last meeting the changes that were required based on the previous letter are all relative and minor; the design of the wet swales for the water quality volume for lots 1 and 9 to take care of the additional impervious areas on those lots.

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

Mr. Cwalinski asked Ms. Serra if there was enough information to take action on SEQR.

Ms. Serra said that the comment letter had 15 outstanding comments and one of which that the Planning Board should make final approval contingent upon the applicants obtaining the ACOE wetlands disturbance permit and the remainder of the comments are technical in nature and would be comfortable granting approval.

Mr. Cwalinski opened the public hearing 7:50pm

Paul Simpson asked for clarification and how many units are being proposed. Mr. Schmidt replied 9 lots. Mr. Rhodes asked the total number of acres. Mr. Schmidt replied 85 acres.

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

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes made a motion to approve contingent on satisfaction of the engineering comments, receipt of the ACOE permit and Park & Rec Fee per building unit payable at issuance at building permit. Ms. Cristy seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

New York Development Group, 1477 Route 50 for Site Plan Review and a Special Use Permit. Scott Lansing of Lansing Engineering was present on behalf of the IAIA parcel accompanied with Geoff Booth and Jeff Knox of New York Development Group. The overall parcel is 3.66 acres which is currently vacant with a small cleared area with the balance of the area the parcel being wooded. The topography on the site is relatively flat which flows with a slope down towards Pine Grove Avenue. A wetland scientist has determined that there are no wetlands on the parcel. The proposed conditions for the parcel are within the Mixed Use Center North Zone. The proposed use is a multi-family residential which does fit within that Mixed Use Center North Zone under a Special Use Permit. Mr. Lansing went on to read the purpose and intent of a Mixed Use Center District "establish 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 of design so that the various uses cannot co-exist but complement each other to create a vital and active community of shopping, service, social and residential opportunities." Mr. Lansing said that the Route 50 corridor location would be used for commercial, retail type uses and the back portion residential based on the intent of the Mixed Use North that the criteria is being met with the proposed use. Mr. Lansing said that there are six multi family residential buildings each building would have four units per building for a total of 24 buildings overall. Vehicle access will be by a private road with a single curb cut on Pine Grove Avenue with connection to a proposed roadway as part of an adjacent condominium complex.

There will be an internal network for sidewalks on the side of the roadway which will go through the roadway continue through the parcel and connect Pine Grove Avenue and back into the proposed sidewalk system for the adjacent project.

The streetscape would include streetlights, tree plantings along the roadway with the same theme, as the adjacent parcels with a continuous streetscape.

Water service would be from the Route 50 area as well as the sanitary sewer and storm water management would be performed on site through the proposed expansion for the adjacent parcel.

Mr. Lansing said at the last meeting the applicant obtained conceptual approval for the project and advanced to preliminary design Mr. Lansing said that there have been no layout design changes. Mr. Lansing said that preliminary drawings have been sent to CT Male and comments were sent back to the applicant and felt they were minor and technical in nature and could be addressed.

Mr. Hayden asked for an updated traffic study. Mr. Lansing said that the number of units of the original traffic study performed was 60 units which have been decreased to 54 units; 6 units were accounted for.

Ms. Serra said the original traffic study did not include the entrance on Pine Grove. Mr. Booth said that the traffic study has been updated which will be submitted to the town. Mr. Rhodes suggested BFJ review the traffic study.

Mr. Cwalinski asked if it is a private roadway going through the development. Mr. Lansing replied yes. Mr. Cwalinski said that the general public will be using the sidewalks along the roadway and wanted to know how this will be handled; traveling on private property. Mr. Lansing does not feel that it is something that could be restricted and the sidewalks would be owned and operated and maintained by the Home Owners Association (HOA) and does not know of mechanism to restrict the public from using them. Mr. Cwalinski was not thinking of restricting the public, but permitting the public. Mr. Booth said from an insurance stand point to encourage the public to walk on them as far a restricting them; there will be no restrictions. Mr. Rhodes said that it could become a complaint, but feels that it will become an important link as commercial development happens to the north. Mr. Rhodes would like to see the sidewalk pulled from the site and put out with the public domain. Mr. Rhodes said that the sidewalk in the public thoroughfare would have a lot more advantages than in the interior routes; there would not be as heavy a traffic on the interior and pedestrian connection will be under served as future development happens to the north. Mr. Rhodes said because of the desire to make that route there will be trespassing and the Town Board will have to take the complaints so doing nothing is the appropriate solution; replied Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Booth said that he does not disagree entirely, however, there are sidewalks proposed on the other projects and to stop the sidewalks on the edge of the property line and not continue on through does not seem to be the best course of action at this point. Mr. Rhodes asked if the sidewalks could be pulled off the other project. Mr. Booth likes the sidewalks on the other project and said that it was one of Mr. Cwalinski’s requests to have the project approved and have honored the request.

Mr. Rhodes refers to the part of the zoning talking about offsite improvements to mitigate pedestrian accommodations or recreational improvements. Mr. Booth reiterated that no sidewalks to be in the project and asked where they wanted to see sidewalks; up to Route 50. Mr. Rhodes said on the public thoroughfare. Mr. Rhodes said that this has been discussed in the past on other projects and have been banking funds to enable that connection as mitigation for future projects as they occur to make the linkage. Mr. Rhodes asked how close this project to the pocket park in Carpenters Acres; what are the accommodations. Mr. Booth said that with 24 units with the average much less than one child per unit.

Mr. Rhodes asked why the storm water could not be underground. Mr. Lansing said it was not possible due to the ground water table.

Mr. VanVorst reiterated that a sidewalk system be established north from Pine Grove Avenue north along Route 50. Mr. Rhodes said that it is an important linkage, but is not asking for the entire connection. Mr. Rhodes said that this linkage is going to have to happen as development occurs and to discuss and figure out their (the developer’s) fair share and put that in an account and use it to make the connection that is required. Mr. Knox asked to calculate their fair share. Mr. Rhodes said that it requires a comprehensive look at the problem. Mr. Booth is struggling with the idea of changing around the two adjacent projects taking sidewalks out of. Mr. Booth said in the beginning to put money in an account for the Town would have been a better move, but to have sidewalks on one project and not on the other or both and now have to contribute additional for sidewalks on both projects has a hard time as well. Mr. Rhodes said that a fund was created on a project and the town never accepted it. Mr. Knox asked if Park and Rec fee could be used as mitigation toward the sidewalks. Mr. Rhodes said no it goes directly to the Park and Rec account. Mr. Knox asked to suggest allocating the Park and Rec. Mr. Rhodes said to bring that up with the Town Board. Mr. Booth said that the Board is suggesting taking fees from their development, but not the others, or until districts are established other businesses along the front until their property is redeveloped do not have to participate; Mr. Booth said if they have to contribute then everyone who owns a business in the town should be involved. Mr. Rhodes said that DGEIS normally are paid for by development as it occurs. Mr. Booth said that it is a town wide problem and everyone contributed for a sidewalk fund, but to start picking and choosing at this stage of the game is wrong. Mr. Rhodes said that it is not a town wide problem it is relevant to this area for the residences to the business. Mr. Booth said now the pedestrians have to walk on Route 50 from Carpenters Acres at the very least they can walk through the project to that much further up Route 50 without walking on Route 50. Mr. Rhodes said that this is not new; there were heated conversations with the Dunkin Donuts application and with every project that is occurring in that area that comes to the Board that needs to be addressed. Mr. Booth said as development occurs on Route 50 as it did with Dunkin Donuts will return to present new development and will discuss at that time on Route 50. Mr. Rhodes said that the Board petitioned Dunkin Donuts to bring logical terminus to the residential population in Currie Ct. to their commercial development.

Mr. Cwalinski said that letter dated February 6, 2008 page 3 comment regarding crosswalks; Mr. Lansing said that there are no intersections it may have been a carry over. Mr. Cwalinski could not verify that LS-1 and LS-2 canopy and deciduous trees are proposed to be a minimum of 4" caliper. Mr. Lansing will verify the caliper along the proposed roadway. The site lighting plan is 10’ 12’ maximum; your plan is 13 ½’. Mr. Lansing said that the pole height will 11 ½’ Mr. Cwalinski asked the color of the buildings. Mr. Booth said it was mentioned at the last two meetings not to have the buildings the exact same color. Mr. Cwalinski asked on drawing LM-1 the symbol for GP. Mr. Lansing said grinder pump. Mr. Cwalinski asked about the electric utilities. Mr.Lansing said typically electric utilities are completed by the Planners at National Grid and NYSEG. Mr. Cwalinski said that lighting fixtures are shown by units 5 and 6 they are in the same positions as trees. Mr. Lansing said that he will take a look at that and have made some tree revisions to CT Males comments.

Mr. Cwalinski opened the public hearing 8:15pm

Albert Armstrong, 16 Pine Grove Avenue asked if the sewer will be extended. Ms. Serra said that in order for your property to be connected there would have to be a sewer system built in the subdivision.

Julie Morales, 8 Pine Grove Avenue asked if exit was off Pine Grove Avenue. Ms. Serra felt that the survey was not complete and was missing the driveway on the Morales property and felt it would taper away from the entrance and may actually run into their driveway and we would ask that not happen because the road would be actually touching the driveway.

Mr. Rhodes asked if there is a parcel between Ecobellis and this proposed road. Mr. Lansing replied yes.

Robert MacFarlane has a concern with the septic system on the IAIA property which has always been a problem; in his opinion. The recharge basin is in close proximity to the existing septic system; Mr. MacFarlane suggests to the town to require the restaurant to hook into the septic system. Mr. Rhodes said that he does not feel that you can. Mr. MacFarlane said that you can with regards to the IAIA property because you are putting a recharge basin in high ground water area where there is already a septic system. Mr. Rhodes said that that property is not part of this application so there is no jurisdiction over it. Mr. MacFarlane said that there is jurisdiction of the proximity of the recharge basin to the existing septic system. Ms. Serra said that that it is not a recharge basin it’s a detention basin given the soils in the area not a lot of water will be going in the ground; only standards are that septic system needs to be 10ft away from any drainage ditch. Mr. Booth said that anyone who wants to tie in or has a problem with their septic, sewer will be available.

Mr. Lansing asked for preliminary approval contingent upon addressing comments from CT Male.

Mr. Rhodes asked what is outstanding from technical; minor traffic issues. Ms. Serra said the traffic issue, no comments on the sewer, issues with offsite survey was not completed and would not be comfortable preliminary until they at least made one attempt addressing comments. Mr. Rhodes asked boundary. Ms. Serra said the survey of existing conditions along the boundary; not showing driveway length, tree, and operates a sewer down that road. Mr. Lansing said that there is survey information for the parcel, grading, property, boundary with a slight overlap. Mr. Lansing driveway configuration out on Pine Grove the flares are not touching and does not feel it is that significant to clarify. Ms. Serra asked on the drawing if the green area will be cut down; her plan said that it will be cut to property line and said that it is not a true depiction. Mr. Lansing said that it will be looked at because the plan that is shown is an older rendering from a previous submission it does not reflect the grading in that area.

Mr. Rhodes asked about specific requirements regarding landscaping. Ms. Serra said that the Design Standards it does require a Vegetative Buffer between residential versus commercial, but technically a buffer is not needed, however the buildings are much larger than homes and should bring it to the Boards attention. Mr. Booth said behind the two buildings that are closest to the residential area if the trees end up getting cut down and new trees will be planted.

Mr. Rhodes said this survey does not show the Morales property; Ms. Serra said that it does not show the driveway or the existing trees that she has photographed the area that may be in proximity to the sewer force main; the tree may need to be cut down. Mr. Booth said that there will be no impact to the Morales driveway and any grading will be on our property line. Ms. Serra said in order to be comfortable with the force main the entrance location; a final survey is needed. Mr. Rhodes said that tree locations are needed in order to approve a force main. Ms. Serra said that the trees are very large which will be an impact to residents. Mr. Booth said if trees have to be taken down a new tree could be planted approximately in the same vicinity. Mr. Rhodes asked if the remaining comments are technical in nature. Ms. Serra replied yes. Ms. Serra asked if the Planning Board comfortable with approving a driveway location that may impact the adjoining property owner. Mr. Cwalinski does not have any problems with preliminary approval.

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

Ms. Morales asked if the roadway will next to her house. Ms. Serra said it will go right next to your property. Ms. Morales asked if will be trees between the road and the house. Mr. Lansing said edge of pavement to property line about 15ft. with street trees planted and a comment from CT Male to enhance the street trees in that area which will be incorporated in the final plans. Mr. Rhodes said that all the illumination is going to be such that there is going to be no tress passive light on private property owners. Mr. Lansing replied yes.

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

Mr. Rhodes read 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. VanVorst made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit on this project. Ms. Cristy

seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

MOTION. Mr. Rhodes made a motion for preliminary approval of Site Plan Review. Mr. VanVorst

seconded the motion and all voted in favor except for Mr. Hayden who voted against because he felt the

applicant should return due the Ms. Serra’s concerns. CARRIED.

Daniel Gibson, 9 Diamond Road for a Minor Subdivision. Robert MacFarlane, Land Surveyor representing the Gibson subdivision for a minor subdivision on Diamond Road. The existing lot consists of the house and 2+ acres. Lot #2 has 3+ acres which is located toward the rear of the existing house and has 100ft. of frontage on Diamond Road.

Mr. MacFarlane indicated that the setback lines between lots 1 & 2 have been changed to be 15ft.

Mr. Rhodes said in order to request a Conservation Subdivision was to be able to maintain some of the natural tree rows were the only way to enable a flag lot.

A Discussion was held on the placement of the proposed house and the building envelope.

Mr. Cwalinski opened the public hearing 8:45pm

Mr. Gibson said it was a great idea.

Mr. Cwalinski closed the public hearing 8:46pm

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

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes made a motion to approve with revisions that septic information to be added to the plan (soil information to be added to plan otherwise there is no disclosure because this is an alternative system), Right to Farm Law, and Park and Rec Fee payable and issuance of building permit. Mr. Hayden seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes made a motion to adjourn. Mr. VanVorst seconded the motion. CARRIED.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman