Chairman Doyle called the February 28, 2007 meeting to order at 7:30pm and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Doyle reviewed the agenda.

Louise DeLucia, Saunders Lane for a Major Subdivision. Kurt Bedore of Tommell and Associates was present to present the case to the Board. Mr. Bedore received the Town Engineers comment letter, dated February 22, 2007 and would like to address two outstanding comments and recent comments that were generated as a result of most recent submission. Mr. Bedore said that item #7 related to an analysis of the proposed dry force main related to inadequacy of the system or just the subdivision proper or adding on the existing lots on Ballston Lake. Mr. Bedore made the statement at the January 31, 2007 meeting that the system is adequate as designed for both conditions and the calculations will be provided as requested.

Mr. Bedore said that the transition from the cul-de-sac to the private portions of Saunders Lane has been looked at extensively to see what would be an adequate transition coming up at an up slope off the cul-de-sac and then back down, feathering in and matching existing grade on Saunders Lane. Mr. Bedore said what has been proposed in the last submission is adequate, but in the Town Engineers comments to lower the elevation further. Mr. Bedore asked the Board to look at sheet #8 of the current plans of the profile sheet of the dry force mains that further extend past the cul-de-sac. Mr. Rhodes clarified it was sheet #14. Mr. Bedore said that the LPSS extension profile is what is being proposed as opposed to the transition detail shown on sheet #20. Mr. Bedore said that the cul-de-sac is 2’ above existing grade at the bottom. The plan shows a short run up as per the detail at 5% and then feathering it back down about 100’ into the private road. Mr. Bedore has a concern going flatter from a storm water management perspective the roads and the drainage system are designed in accordance with the Town standards for the 10 year storm. Mr. Bedore said that if there is an excessive run-off there, there could potentially be surcharging out of the pipes when there is a 25 or plus year storm. Mr. Bedore suggested

the grades coming on the transition up at least go as high as what the wing edge which is a half a foot and that is to contain a more excessive run-off event in that cul-de-sac.

Ms. Cyr is in agreement with the proposal and will discuss with Joseph Whalen, Highway Superintendent.

Mr. Rhodes said increasing the bump that pedestrians will be traveling down, the driveway will make it easier to traverse (flattening it) or will be it difficult. Mr. Bedore said that it has been significantly flattened/feathered out with this submission. Mr. Rhodes asked if complaints will be made by residents who travel the road after this subdivision is built. Mr. Bedore feels in his opinion it will slow traffic down (pause) and would recommend signage/traffic control for traffic coming up the hill into the new road.

Mr. Doyle asked Ms. Cyr to speak with Mr. Whalen and resolve the issue that was discussed. Ms. Cyr said that the issue has been mitigated; 5% and reduced to 2 ½%.

Mr. Bedore said that the end sections were requested to be changed from HDPE to metal which will be provided; applicant in agreement with concern that metal being more resilient to potential damage from lawnmowers.

Mr. Bedore said that the applicant is in agreement with the clay soil conditions which can be corrosive and will call for poly wrapping on the water main.

Mr. Bedore said that recommendations of a fence be installed in the storm water management areas. Mr. Bedore asked the Board or Town Engineer what type of fence (4’ – 6’ chain link with barbed wire). Ms. Cyr said that the Highway Department prefers the fences that are being placed at Eastline Farms (Subdivision off of Eastline Road). Mr. Cyr said that she believes the fences are 4’ chain link fence and does not believe that they are painted black. Mr. Bedore indicated that he would take a look at the fences.

Mr. Bedore said that new developments related to external agencies to the Town would like to report that a work permit has been received from the NYSDOT to perform the test pits on the each side of Route 50 as support of the design of the directional bore; however the test pits cannot be performed until winter breaks.

Mr. Bedore received the amended wetlands permit from the ACOE on February 28, 2007 reflecting access to commercial lot B and the mitigation.

Mr. Doyle said that a 12’ gate will be needed around the fenced area. Mr. Bedore asked single or double. Mr. Doyle said double a gate.

Ms. Cyr said that the Town Engineer is comfortable with the Board granting final approval pending the technical comments.

Mr. Reilly will discuss the draft of covenants and restrictions with Robert Chauvin, Esq. which has been forwarded for Mr. Reilly’s with suggestions and amendments. Mr. Reilly said that the proposal reads "lot owners will be required to connect into the municipal sanitary sewers within one year of coming available." (Mr. Reilly believes that was what was discussed) "Lot owners will incur the cost of constructing and installing a grinder pump and force main lateral to the provided lateral stub at lot owners expense cost of this action may exceed $500.00." Mr. Reilly’s feels this will be a problem for the future homeowner because this is not reviewed at closing.

Mr. Rhodes recommends that the number be founded on an estimate based on today’s connection cost and have that cost estimate by attached. Mr. Rhodes asked if a signature is required at closing. Mr. Reilly said that he is going to suggest that it reference to it within each deed.

Mr. Rhodes suggests disclosing the information to the potential home buyer at contract in advance; so it’s not seen after the house has already been built.

Mr. Doyle asked the Board their feeling of the one year after sewers become functional or should there be more time. Mr. Rhodes indicated those words are from the NYSDOH Mr. Rhodes said that this is consistent with the approval of a Realty Subdivision.

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski made a motion to approve the Saunders Lane Subdivision as described on the map 05-051.03 revision date February 7, 2007, subject to park and recreation fees to be paid at issuance of building permit. Mr. Reilly’s review of DCR, resolution of all technical engineering comments and right-to-farm law. Mr. VanVorst seconded the motion. Ms. Eddy voted in favor, Mr. Cwalinski voted in favor, Mr. Rhodes abstained, Mr. Hayden voted in favor and Mr. VanVorst voted in favor. CARRIED.

Mr. Rhodes said that for the record is abstaining because he was not at the last meeting and has not had a chance to review in detail.

George Kane, 285 Middleline Road for a Minor Subdivision. Clark Wilkinson, P.E. of Paragon Engineering was present representing Mr. Kane who was also present. Mr. Wilkinson said that the applicant was before the Board on December 20, 2006 with outstanding issues.

Keyhole lot language; not clear as to how that maintenance fee is proposing to be split equally among the four lots or the portion within the easement. Mr. Wilkinson said that roughly 500ft. of road will be shared from the four lots.

Mr. Wilkinson said that 20’ x 40’ pull-off area. Mr. Wilkinson said that 20’ was added to the 16’ width at first, and was asked to reduce. Mr. Wilkinson moved placement to be on top of the hill behind the existing tree line; reduced it to 25’ for two cars to pass.

Mr. Wilkinson said that the setback on lot #2 is 150’ and building restriction lines which is reflected on the plan.

Mr. Wilkinson said that the proposed mailboxes will be grouped as approved by the US Post Office.

Mr. Wilkinson wants the school district to request from DPW where to have to school bus stop sign be placed. Mr. Wilkinson said that it is his understanding that if the school district requests it; the County will put it in.

Mr. Rhodes asked Mr. Wilkinson if the information from Saratoga County about the ingress/egress easement has been received and said that a sample easement language can be reiterated on the map. Mr. Wilkinson does not feel that the language needs to be placed on the plan, but should be included with all the deeds. Mr. Rhodes said to handle with the Town attorney.

Mr. Rhodes said that the map and the deed language but not to abandon the shared driveway and have more than one driveway cut; potentially this could have three driveways. Mr. Rhodes asked for the driveway to be made darker. Mr. Rhodes said that right-to-farm law to be added, water contingency standard note.

Mr. Rhodes said that driveway location is not changing so adjustment of signage requirement is not at the same place; so if the school district feels it is required they should be asking for the signage to be installed. Mr. Wilkinson said that he will speak to County DPW and find out if the school requests it. Mr. Doyle recommended contacting the Supervisor of Transportation of the BH-BL School District. Mr. Rhodes wants reassurance that if it’s required it’s completed.

Mr. Rhodes asked if a SPEDES permit will be required. Mr. Wilkinson replied yes, because this project will exceed one acre, but will not exceed five acres which will be require a sediment control plan and (NOI). Mr. Rhodes said as part of the general permit conditions it will need to be submitted to the Town.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:00pm

Mr. Doyle asked for the well location for the existing house. Mr. Wilkinson said that it is located in the basement.

Mr. Doyle closed the public hearing 8:01pm

No one wished to speak on this application.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes made a motion to approve the latest submission for the George Kane subdivision including the items that were discussed in the minutes and attorney sign-off on deed language (covenants and restrictions related to driveways). Mr. Rhodes indicated that if a sign is required it will be installed. The notes will be placed on map and park and recreation fee for each

new building lot at issuance of building permit application. Ms. Eddy seconded the motion. Mr. VanVorst voted in favor, Mr. Hayden voted in favor, Mr. Rhodes voted in favor, Mr. Cwalinski voted in favor and Ms. Eddy voted in favor. CARRIED.

CW Ventures, Brookline Road & Rt. 67 for Site Plan Review and a Special Use Permit. Scott Lansing of Lansing Engineering, Victor Santoro, applicant and Wendy Cimino, P.E., of CME were presenting the proposed car wash on Brookline Road. Mr. Lansing is proposing the Brookline Car Wash which is a listed use in the Mixed-Use Center zoning listed under a Special Use Permit. Mr. Lansing indicated that the drawings before the Board are what was presently before the Board and suggested revisions that are being proposed in response to comments from CT Male. Mr. Lansing indicated that the rendering is based off the old site plan and will be updated with the new modifications.

Mr. Lansing said that the application was before the Board back in October 2006 and gave a brief summary of the proposal. The site is wooded approximately 6.39 acres with the exception of the area around the existing home. Mr. Lansing said that the wetlands have been delineated on the site by a Wetland Scientist.

Mr. Lansing said that the applicant is proposing a car wash facility and the Board’s desire was to keep the existing house to remain on the parcel. (to be converted to another use) Mr. Lansing said that the existing wood frame barn will be demolished. Mr. Lansing said that a demolition permit was pulled for the wood frame house by the previous owner; the demolition permit has expired.

Mr. Lansing said at this time, the applicant is proposing is a car wash facility only and there is no immediate plans for the balance of the parcel.

Mr. Lansing said that the automobile service is listed under Special Use under Mixed-Use Center zone and does require a 40,000 sq. ft. lot, 150ft. of frontage, 60ft. front yard setback, 30ft. side yard setback, 30ft. rear yard setback, 30% maximum building coverage and 40ft. maximum height.

Mr. Lansing said that the applicant is proposing a six bay car wash with three of the bays being manual and three automatic. The applicant is also proposing seven vacuum locations on the parcel with three having shampoo service and access from Route 67 and Brookline Road. The locations have been chosen to be as far away from the intersections.

The Traffic Impact Study has been performed. Mr. Lansing said that one parking space is being proposed for the facility which is for maintenance located in the back of the building. Mr. Lansing said the cueing behind the car wash bays for one vehicle.

Mr. Lansing said water service for the project will be from BH-BL water district #2 and existing main on Brookline Road. There is an existing trunk line going through the site. Mr. Lansing said the calculations were 3,500 gallons per day on an average day; 12 homes per flow.

Mr. Lansing said that since the last meeting the following items have been performed.

Topographic survey of the parcel

Boundary survey

Traffic Impact Study

Comment response to Town Engineer

Request by the Board to complete an item by item response of the Zoning Guidelines/Analysis

Mr. Lansing said since that time comments have been received of item by item response and a letter from CT Male. (Engineer and Planner)

Mr. Lansing said that the Town Engineer was satisfied with comments that were submitted. Mr. Lansing said that comments about traffic will be referred to Ms. Cimino, CME, but would like to mention one comment that does relate to the site plan which is relative to the intersection of Brookline. Mr. Lansing said that the site distance in one direction was 15ft. shy of the actual guidelines and now have moved that intersection over 15ft. to compensate and to be more of a buffer in that area.

Mr. Lansing said that other comments were relative to the noise (highway) in comparison to the noise from the vacuums and the noise from the roadway. Mr. Lansing said that a waiver was requested with the original location and was positioned out in front of the parcel. Mr. Lansing said that specifications were reviewed and there were two different types of vacuums that will be proposed; a quieter vacuum.

Mr. Lansing indicated 75 decibels at 10ft., 50 decibels at 150ft. Mr. Lansing said the comparison on the highway traffic is approximately 90 decibels; normal conversation is about 60 decibels and a quiet neighborhood is listed as 55 decibels.

Mr. Lansing said that the proposed revisions to the project have been shifted to the side and back and obtained 150ft. from the back to the adjacent property owner’s property line. Mr. Lansing said that after reviewing the Town ordinance/regulations there is no reference to which property line. Mr. Lansing said that the 150ft. from the property line of the adjoining property owner and his interpretation and intent of that regulation that noise does not impact the adjoining property owner or the use of their property which is subject to 50 decibels.

Mr. Lansing said that the highway noise is 90 decibels which is more intense than what Route 67 and a quiet neighborhood at 55 decibels. Mr. Lansing said that the applicant will be below that at those property lines.

Mr. Lansing said that the comment regarding the 2000sq. ft. structure; existing house was part of the development and will not be part of the development at this time. Mr. Lansing said that this was included in the traffic study and were projections on the balance of the parcel to look at the intersection that is being proposed.

Mr. Lansing said that the last discussion on potential future round-about at the Route 67 and Brookline area.

Mr. Lansing said comments from Mr. Charles Voss; CT Male has a concern of the location of the back and side of the parcel which has been adjusted. Mr. Lansing said there was confusion by Mr. Voss regarding the existing house being converted into a 50,000sq. ft. office complex which is not proposed at this time. Mr. Lansing said that a potential future use still needs to be put together for the balance of the parcel per the Planning Board’s request.

Mr. Lansing said that SEQR segmentation is not being proposed at this time.

Mr. Lansing said that the outdoor use was questioned relative to setbacks on the building. The building does require the use of the outside and it is the applicant’s interpretation of an outside use and activity.

Mr. Lansing said that applicant is proposing a setback an access of 20ft. which is recommended by the standards. Mr. Lansing said that a 60ft. setback from the property line is being proposed to the face of the building of that 60ft., 40ft. of that would be pavement for the access egress of cars to the wash bays.

Mr. Lansing said that there was a suggestion that an interpretation from the Zoning Board of appeals for the use of the project.

Mr. Lansing said that access to the existing house from the internal roadway shown on the map with off-street parking positioned in the rear of the building.

Mr. Lansing said that the screening and buffers relative to Brookline Road connection which was shifted 15ft. for the site distance.

Mr. Lansing said that the applicant is looking for consideration for the approval of the Special Use Permit.

Mr. Rhodes said that the information that is being presented this evening has just developed and is site organization.

Mr. Rhodes said that it is important to complete a sketch plan of the future development which will allow the comment for site organization.

Mr. Rhodes suggested looking at the GPI study that was performed as part of the Comprehensive Plan that is more significant of the two studies that were done. Mr. Rhodes said that although the Route 67 Corridor Study shows and illustration of a round-about which discussed a signalized intersection concept; so did GPI. Mr. Rhodes said that it is still undetermined what intersection will be designed there and future proposed use in this corridor is compatible with it; a signalized concept needs to be looked at.

Mr. Rhodes suggested how the historic site is going to be developed in the use that is being proposed. Mr. Rhodes is encourage that it is being preserved, but wants to make sure that the overall site does not detract from its historic nature.

Ms. Eddy asked if all the trees being shown will be left on the site. Mr. Rhodes said that the plan is "some what artistic." Mr. Lansing will take a closer look at that. Ms. Eddy said that the existing house will be made "to preserve it so it can fall down." Mr. Lansing replied yes. Ms. Eddy would like more information on the vegetated buffer.

Mr. Doyle said that a concept plan is required for the whole site is required. Mr. Doyle said how storm water management will be handled, traffic.

Mr. Lansing said that it is difficult with the existing house to come up with developed concept use. Mr. Lansing said as far as the balance of the parcel, the applicant at this time, does not know what the use will be.

Mr. Doyle said that as one member does not feel that he can go through with the car wash not knowing what will done with the rest of the site.

Mr. Lansing said the site has flexibility on how the site can be organized; avoiding the wetland areas and placing storm water management areas accordingly.

Mr. Cwalinski said that "we are the Planning Board and we have to look toward the future and we have to have an idea what is going up there."

Mr. Rhodes said that it is simple to get a model office building use; it’s used is the sensitivity analysis.

Mr. Rhodes said to show access into the site and how circulation is going to be and room for vegetation will be left and what the proposed clearing limits will be. Mr. Rhodes said that what will be looked at is removed some of the buffer that screens the proposed car wash.

Mr. Lansing said that there is a buffer area which is wetlands. Mr. Lansing said as far a use for the concept is a layout of office which can be placed on the plan, but then the focus is sensitivity and parking. Mr. Lansing said that the applicant is not trying to plan for that, but with the Board’s requests with four acres remaining and could get about 10,000sq. ft. of office per acre.

Mr. Rhodes said that the outdoor use interpretation not an outdoor use, but would consider it a public plaza, courtyard or sidewalk-retail.

Mr. Rhodes said that the Design Standard that is prefaced with it being in Town Planning Board review it is within the Planning Board’s jurisdiction not having to return to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Rhodes said that what is being proposed is heavily weighted on what is considered an outdoor use. Mr. Lansing said that the use is permitted under the zoning; the building was shifted 20ft. from the property line.

Mr. Rhodes said that a berm in front is typically done in a commercial activity in a major corridor to soften pavement in front; a bare minimum along both Brookline Road and Route 67.

Mr. Doyle does not know who would want an office building behind a car wash and does not feel that it fits.

Mr. Rhodes said that it is the Board’s responsibility to give the applicant direction on how to move forward with the proposal. Mr. Rhodes suggested Mr. Voss, Town Planner on organization and compatibility.

Mr. Lansing was open to suggestions and direction from the Board.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:40pm

Nick Cristy said that if the applicant does not know what will be going on the property above, how the applicant can hypothesize something that may not take place. Mr. Rhodes said a traffic study was performed. Mr. Rhodes said that the concept plan would give the Board guidance and feedback on site organization how it relates to the project as proposed.

Mr. Cristy asked the height of the berms. Mr. Rhodes said that in commercial areas 2ft. – 3ft. with 2ft. vegetation above; which ends of 4ft – 5ft. Mr. Rhodes said that the berm shields the utility; not the business, but soften the hardscape.

Robin Larkin would like to respond to an earlier comment that "people would not like an office behind a car wash." Ms. Larkin said that in Clifton Park and Scotia there are a lot of car wash’s and feels that it would not matter.

Scott Miller said that the issue is the need for compatibility of the historic structure and the car wash. Mr. Miller does not think that it is fair to ask the applicant for more work until the issues are addressed with the car wash. Mr. Rhodes said typically you don’t want something that emulates a historic structure. Mr. Rhodes said that in this proposal it is being separated by landscaping.

Mr. Rhodes suggested separate driveways; which already exist, but feels it would help for identity so it is not a combined entity.

Ms. Eddy asked to soften that "or candle it in the wind the type of signage being period type that kind of thing to direct people in."

Mr. Rhodes said that there could be historical landscaping selections.

Mr. Rhodes said that a landscaper with historical qualifications would be helpful and the consensus here is that it is compatible.

Mr. Rhodes said that the service is a permitted use and what is being discussed is the setback of the building which is contingent on sidewalk-retail.

Mr. Reilly said that CT Male suggested the applicant going to the ZBA for the appropriate variances, but feels that it is not necessary because the Planning Board is the administering board under the guidelines.

Mr. Lansing said that it is his understanding to review the plan and address CT Male and Board comments. Mr. Lansing said that there are concerns about compatibility and use of the structure that is there. Mr. Rhodes asked for a sketch.

Mr. Rhodes wants to be comfortable with the general site organization and parking and circulation along Route 67. Mr. Rhodes said that a good landscaping plan could help to mitigate.

Mr. Doyle has a concern for the road cut on Route 67.

Ms. Cimino of CME said that the level of service for a car wash is low traffic generator. Ms. Cimino said that the study is with NYSDOT for their review. Ms Cimino said that a full access was completed and 300ft. of distance which is enough distance between and unsignalized; round- about analysis was completed to check those distances and add a driveway to a round about as well.

Mr. Rhodes said that one of the findings of the Route 67 Corridor Study was that the left turns into Brookline Road were the most problematic features by not allowing a separated entrance to the facility from Route 67 will cause more left turns onto Brookline Road. Mr. Rhodes said to make sure that the site is compatible for future expansions for signalized intersection.

A further discussion was held on an unsignalized or signalized intersection including right-of-way.

Mr. Rhodes asked for new noise data based on the new site of what is going to be the receptors. Mr. Rhodes also asked to include the car wash bays.

Mr. Doyle asked to contact the County to see if they are willing to accept the wash water from the bays.

Mr. Cwalinski asked for dumpster clarification.

Application tabled.

Thomas Donahue, 800 Route 50 for a Special Use Permit. Nicholas Cristy, P.E., was present to present the case to the Board. Mr. Cristy said that the updated plan has daytime parking spaces due to the dumpster pickup time being 6:00am. Mr. Cristy said that the cars "for sale" will be parked along side of the building. Mr. Cristy said that there is a 500sq. ft. storage area in the existing retail building and does not feel that space can be claimed for pedestrians entering and exiting the building; so there is an additional five parking spaces. Mr. Doyle asked Mr. Johnson’s interpretation. Mr. Johnson said that the code only calls for the sales for retail sales. Mr. Johnson said that it is gross floor area to be included.

Mr. Hayden asked the applicant if the cars will be parked next to the building instead of out front. Mr. Donahue replied yes. Mr. Cristy replied four cars; possibly five and one or two more to be parked in the garage area. Mr. Hayden asked if most of the sales are on the internet. Mr. Donahue replied yes.

Mr. Doyle asked at the handi-cap spot at the end of the walkway at the south end of the building needs a ramp. Mr. Cristy said that the sidewalk comes flush with the pavement at the end. Mr. Johnson said that the ramp was needed at the north end; a 2ft. slope.

Mr. Rhodes said that there isn’t a concern over the number of parking spaces because it’s zoned Mixed-Use and the overall intensity will be reduced beyond the typical zoning asks.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 9:05pm

David Stern asked if additional pavement will be added or has the parking been redesigned to meet the requirements that was discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Doyle said that no pavement has been added and the number of used cars has been reduced. Mr. Stern said that it has been adjusted so it fits.

Albert Russo asked for copy of the plan for his review. Mr. Russo asked for the breakdown for the café; for employee parking, the retail store employee parking and the three businesses that are being proposed. Mr. Doyle indicated that it is shown on the drawing. Mr. Russo asked when the pavement was approved by the Town along side of the building. Mr. Russo replied when he was a tenant in that building, there was a sidewalk. Mr. Doyle asked for clarification. Mr. Russo replied south side. Mr. Russo asked if that pavement was approved by the Town. Mr. Johnson replied no; prior to June would not have to be approved by the Town. Mr. Doyle said that prior to June 2006 it did not require Town approval. Mr. Russo asked if it would require approval before that time. Mr. Doyle asked Mr. Cristy when the pavement was placed on the south side. Mr. Paravalos replied 2004. Mr. Doyle gave Mr. Russo his copy of the proposal.

Mr. Doyle closed the public hearing 9:08pm

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes made a motion to waive the application of several of the Design Standards because the intensity of use is not changing and is likely to be decreasing from the original use. Mr. Rhodes said there are no exterior building modifications, access modifications and intensity of use increase; i.e. vehicular or retail trips, it should be exempt. Ms. Eddy seconded the motion. Mr. VanVorst voted in favor, Mr. Hayden voted in favor, Mr. Rhodes voted in favor, Mr. Cwalinski voted in favor and Ms. Eddy voted in favor. CARRIED.

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

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.

Mr. Russo commented about a parking spot in front of the garage door (handi-cap parking). Mr. Doyle said that the garage access has been agreed to be limited to parking places in front of the garage door. Mr. Russo said that the applicant is "going to run three businesses out of that square footage." Mr. Rhodes said that if the intensity changes the Building Inspector has the ability to have the applicant in front of the Board.

Mr. Doyle said that there will stipulations and agreements will be followed:

No automobile repairs on site

Cleaning of vehicles allowed

Car sales will remain; no more than five cars outside (three outside and two inside)

Parking will be permitted in front of the roll-up doors.

Mr. Johnson said "no more than five; so it has to be two outside or three outside." Mr. Doyle said no more than five. Mr. Johnson said five outside or five inside. Mr. Doyle said a total of five; no more than four outside, one inside.

Mr. Rhode asked if this discussion was part of a meeting. Mr. Doyle said that it was part of a discussion and it should be on the drawing and it was agreed to.

Mr. Stern said that no cleaning was mentioned and thought that the applicant was able to detail the automobiles. Mr. Doyle clarified no washing.

Mr. Rhodes asked for proper documentation of the stipulations.

Mr. Rhodes asked how the Board would address conditions on use, would it be part the condition of the Special Use Permit.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes made a motion to have certain terms and conditions as part of this approval and they are as follows:

Mr. Reilly suggested proposing a resolution approving a Special Use Permit subject to the following:

Mr. Doyle went through the following conditions/terms of the Special Use Permit:

Maximum of five total automobiles on site for sale at any one time; no more than four outside at any one time to be located as shown on the map in the relative proximity and parked on pavement.

Mechanical work or vehicle washing will not be permitted.

Vehicle detailing of outside customers will not be permitted.

Parking spaces as shown in front of vehicle access door will remain available at all times.

Mr. Reilly asked if the parking spaces will be striped.

Parking spaces will be striped consistent with the plan

Mr. Rhodes asked the applicant to resubmit plan showing striping is proposed rather than a conceptual parking layout.

Mr. Johnson said that time frame is needed when striped must be performed.

Parking lot will be striped per plan on or before June 1, 2007.

Violations of the terms above at the Building Inspectors discretion could cause or trigger additional Site Plan Review. Mr. Doyle said that the Special Use Permit will be revoked.

Mr. Rhodes suggested a one year Special Use Permit. Mr. Doyle asked the Board’s opinion.

Mr. Rhodes said that 74 parking spaces are needed for this site; (3) handi-cap spaces required for 77.

Mr. Rhodes said that the parking spaces are not needed in front of the dumpster.

Nick Paravalos asked if the garage could be used for personal use (change oil in own vehicle). Mr. Doyle said no.

Mr. Russo said that there are not 74 parking spaces at that location. Mr. Rhodes indicated that there are 77 spaces. Mr. Russo asked if there are not 77 parking spaces when paving is to be performed, what will be done. Mr. Doyle said that the applicant will lose the Special Use Permit due to lack of parking

Mr. Rhodes said that there is an item in the zoning that allows an applicant to bank some of the additional spaces that are going to be common trips.

Mr. Russo said that there "has been a problem with parking for 15 years."

Mr. Russo asked who checked the dimensions for the parking. Mr. Doyle said the parking has been satisfied. Mr. Doyle said if the requirements are not met, there will not be a Special Use Permit. Mr. Russo asked who will be accountable.

Mr. Stern asked by June 1, 2007 if the striping is completed and there is an inadequacy, and is not compliant; the permit will be taken away at that time and cannot run the businesses. Mr. Stern asked if anything were to be added, it would need to come before the Planning Board and go through the SEQR process for additional asphalt. Mr. Rhodes replied yes.

Mr. Reilly asked for clarification for the three spots in front of the dumpster are not necessary. Mr. Rhodes said that as part of the motion they are, they have to be installed per plan. Mr. Rhodes said that they are shown on the plan as striping; 77 spaces as shown on plan. Mr. Rhodes was clarifying the need for parking requirements; they exceed the minimum parking requirements per the Town’s zoning as presented.

Ms. Eddy seconded the motion. Mr. VanVorst voted in favor, Mr. Hayden voted in favor, Mr. Rhodes voted in favor, Mr. Cwalinski voted in favor and Ms. Eddy voted in favor. CARRIED.

Walter Katz, III, 1152 Route 50 for Site Plan Review and a Special Use Permit. John Gay of Northeast Land Surveyors was present to present the case to the Board. The applicant is before the Board for a 5,000sq. ft. for Community Care Physicians Medical building and will occupy the top floor of the Route 50 floor of the building and the bottom will be vacant and not finished off at this point.

Mr. Gay said the existing buildings on the proposal are remodeled apartment buildings and two remaining are still in concept phase.

Mr. Gay has shown the points of egress are a right turn in/right turn out off of Route 50 which is a State requirement. Mr. Gay said that there is another access point on Outlet Road with site distance from both directions. Mr. Gay said that the parking has been shown the parking necessary for patient use on that level and in the back.

Mr. Gay said a grading plan has been performed for the site for the building, parking lot, septic system and a driveway.

Mr. Gay said that Mr. Voss said that code requires up to 31 parking spaces; historically that can be done, but can be banked for later use. Ms. Cyr said that a total of 56 spaces are needed; deficient by 31 spaces.

Mr. Rhodes said that parking needs to be shown, grade it, and include storm water run-off comps as if they were to be built. Mr. Rhodes said to show a reason that it is not needed based on some trip counts for parking occupation rates for adjacent sites in this area. Mr. Rhodes said that it needs to be demonstrated and will be built if it becomes a problem; which is an irrevocable letter of credit or an agreement.

Mr. Rhodes said that the storm water basin needs to be constructed to accept the run-off from it. Mr. Gay said that it has been completed for the entire site.

Mr. Rhodes referred to the parking to be demonstrated based on scientific information presented by medical professionals. Mr. Rhodes said commonly in professional businesses there are double bookings, and more waiting areas. Mr. Rhodes suggests ITE parking guidelines.

Mr. Rhodes asked for a boundary definition; subdivision. Mr. Gay said that it is a leased parcel.

Mr. Gay said that the construction entrance off Outlet Road marked no construction entrance off Route 50. Mr. Gay said that silt fence will be erected around the site and filing of an NOI.

Mr. Gay said that the following sheet indicated septic detail and signage.

Mr. Gay said that the landscaping plan will outline Outlet Road and Route 50 and other areas throughout the site.

Mr. Gay said that the applicants are proposing signage for the site including an entry sign with the building number.

Mr. Gay said that the storm water management area has existing water line is an already dedicated Town easement.

Mr. Cwalinski asked about the retaining wall. Mr. Gay said that the building has been moved and was able to grade the area out.

Mr. Johnson asked if the proposal is for a two story building. Mr. Gay replied yes.

Mr. Eddy asked if employees will be walking around the building or will other access be provided.

Mr. Johnson said this will become a problem for handi-cap accessibility. Mr. Johnson said that two separate uses will be needed in building one in the lower level and enough parking for that use and enough for the upper level; unless vertical access will be placed in the building. Mr. Gay said that the doctor’s are maxed out for additional space. Mr. Johnson said that an elevator would be required.

Mr. Rhodes asked the grade of the driveway or roadway from the back to the front. Mr. Rhodes said that site access needs to be provided to the upper floor; in order to park in rear and use existing site to get to the front it has to be in compliance with ADA. Mr. Gay said that walkway has been provided with a set of stairs which meets the handi-cap accessibility code

Mr. Johnson said that if the slope is 1 on 20. Ms. Cyr said that a 5% slope a 2% is needed. Mr. Gay said that it can be extended for parking and would have to cross the road and extend out the sidewalk. Mr. Rhodes said that banked parking will prove how many spaces are needed. Mr. Rhodes said that if the applicant cannot provide handi-cap access to any part of this facility whether employees, or the patients, the site needs to be cognizant of that. Mr. Rhodes said to provide enough total spaces to meet the code requirements on the upper level, or that site access needs to be provided.

Mr. Doyle asked the applicant to provide parking analysis.

Mr. Rhodes asked for the applicant assumes a use in the first floor and to show parking on the site development plan.

Mr. Rhodes asked if the new commercial application rates for the Elgin system. Mr. Gay replied yes.

Mr. Rhodes asked the purposed of two SEQR forms. Mr. Gay said that the short form EAF does not include the acreage for the storm water management. Mr. Rhodes said that it will need to be amended based on the site reconfiguration of parking. Mr. Rhodes asked for site photographs.

A further discussion was held on a concept plan for proposal. Mr. Rhodes asked how this proposed sketch plan marries in with the proposed site organization standards and general comments. Mr. Rhodes suggested meeting with the Town Planner.

Ms. Cyr asked the distance from the storm water basin from the maroon house. Mr. Gay said that he will need to be cognizant of slopes and water. Ms. Cyr asked for a safety fence around that storm water management area; low points.

Mr. Rhodes asked if this is a standard that the Board request for applicant’s to submit. Ms. Cyr it is brought up by a case by case basis.

Mr. Rhodes asked about sidewalk. Mr. Doyle said that as the area builds out, there would be a SideWalk District made and sidewalks to be put in and applicants would be charged by an appropriate amount (linear footage).

Ms. Cyr suggested reviewing the Design Standards and assesses each item with a comment and how it will or will not comply and why a waiver will be needed.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 10:05am

Mr. Potocar has a concern that this property will become Community Care Physician’s; a mini hospital, or the site will left with three vacant buildings.

Mr. Potocar has multiple environmental concerns that he would like the Board to consider.

Ms. Eddy asked Mr. Potocar if he has Town water. Mr. Potocar replied yes.

Mr. Potocar has a concern with drainage because the facility that is being proposed will have medical waste.

Mr. Potocar has a problem growing grass on his own property because the hard soil and upward slope to Route 50. Mr. Potocar has a concern of how this will be mitigated.

Mr. Potocar has a concern for traffic and shortcuts from Route 50 to Outlet Road.

Patty Southworth asked how many physicians are currently in this practice. Ms. Katz replied 3 ½ physicians. Mr. Rhodes said that there are 15 patient spaces proposed. Ms. Southworth said that there could be one patient, but dad comes in at the exam. Ms. Southworth has a concern how parents are going to access the building; strollers, baby carriages and toddlers that are walking. Ms. Southworth said that if there is parking in a different section, where pedestrians will have to cross and need to be cognizant that toddlers are running away from their mothers and parking will need to be delineated. Ms. Southworth said that signage will need to be visible for individuals making deliveries to the building.

Ms. Southworth is in favor of having adequate medical coverage in Town, but is aware that this is a pediatric group and is located on Route 50.

Mr. Rhodes said that ADA compliance handles a lot of that.

Ms. Southworth said that delivery trucks will be accessing the site; UPS, FedEX and would like adequate turn-around parking.

Ms. South said that the number of physicians does not dictate how many patients are seen within an hour with bookings every seven minutes.

Mr. Doyle suggested the applicant to consider an elevator for the proposed building.

Mitch Draina asked how far down Outlet Road is the access road. Mr. Gay replied 200ft.

A further discussion was held on access to the site through Outlet Road.

Ms. Southworth asked if there is direct to access to the apartments from this access. Mr. Gay replied no; only Route 50.

Mr. Gay said that other than making a non direct road, but placing stop signs.

Mr. Rhodes said that the right in right out needs to be looked at. Mr. Rhodes said that anyone that wants to make a left turn from the arterial of Route 50 to go down Outlet and make a right hand turn into the building. Mr. Rhodes would like this presented to the Board. Mr. Gay said that traffic is traveling south on Route 50 and without a turning lane would like to see left turns into the site. Mr. Rhodes disagrees because it is the same as having a red light at the intersection and would have to navigate traffic that is on the roadway. Mr. Rhodes is concerned with the movements that are now redirected to Outlet Road.

Mr. Rhodes prefers to keep commercial trips on our principal arterial corridors Route 50 and Route 67. Mr. Gay said that he will have Ms. Cimino, CME revisit the site.

Ms. Eddy asked if there will be left out of the site. Mr. Rhodes replied yes.

Application tabled.

Correction to January 29, 2007 Workshop Minutes: Page 1) Add "Mr. VanVorst". Page 6) para; 11 strike "review it" add "be reviewed" (attach letter), para; 16 strike revised add "applied". Page 7) change paragraph to "Mr. Rhodes indicated that there was active projects related to the bridge in front of Curtis Lumber and a turn lane at Specialty Silicone, para; 11, add "at V-Corners", para; 12 strike "would be" add "may be." Page 8), para; 4 add "storm water strike "all the", add "of storm water reports.", para; 8 strike "that are pertaining", add "they are trying", add "about required"., para; 9 add "drafter by CT Male.", para; 11 add "said assessments", strike "so now it would be superseding state law instead of", add "unless established by a"

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski made a motion to accept the January 29, 2007 minutes as amended. Mr. Hayden seconded the motion. CARRIED.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman

Enc.