Chairman Doyle called the January 10, 2007 meeting to order at 7:30pm and Chairman Doyle led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Doyle introduced himself as the Chairman, Jeffrey Cwalinski-Vice-Chairman and John VanVorst-Member.

Chairman Doyle reviewed the agenda.

Chairman Doyle said that under new business was Curtiss Industrial park for site plan review, but information was received late and will not be on the agenda this evening.

H.R. Schultz Rt. 67 & Eastline Road for a PUDD. Mike Ingersoll of the LA Group and Wendy Cimino of Creighton Manning Engineering were present to present the case to the Board. The applicants were before the Board to present an amendment to the existing PUDD Industrial Park and Commerce Drive at the Corner of Eastline Road Route 67. The applicants are asking for an advisory opinion to return to the Town Board to amend the existing PUDD.

The existing PUDD encompasses the front of Route 67 and Commerce Drive and since then the applicant has purchased nine acres in the rear on Eastline Road and has watched the Town develop guidelines for Mixed Use Centers and to formulate a plan that would emulate what the Town has been seeking. Mr. Ingersoll said that the proposed buildings would be smaller, built to the road, and parking to the rear. Mr. Ingersoll said that a lot of time has been spent to accomplish cross lot access and encouraging mixed use development; single family residential to the rear, multi-family-office mix in the center, and up front would be smaller retail or commercial with possible apartments above.

Mr. Cwalinski asked buildings R-1, R-5 and R-4 have parking in the back, but looking at the drawing it is not clear there is enough room for cars to turn around and back up. Mr. Ingersoll said that all the buildings will have garages and will be able to get in and out. Mr. Ingersoll said that when the architecture gets developed, the buildings will be moved around and will be better addressed at that time.

Mr. Cwalinski said that building C-6 seems to be isolated from C-5 and asked if a sidewalk could be placed around C-5 go around the north end. Mr. Ingersoll said the idea was to have a building on Commerce Drive and will not be as tall and could be looked into at site plan review.

Mr. Cwalinski asked for clarification of CR-3 and C-6. Mr. Ingersoll said that it is pedestrian connectivity.

Mr. Cwalinski referenced a letter dated December 8 on page 5 "Specific Standards paragraph Main Street, first sentence references New York State Routes 50 and 67, but does not think that Route 50 is applicable." Mr. Cwalinski said that that the error also appears on pages 7 and 9. Mr. Cwalinski said that in the last paragraph in italics the last sentence says "The design accommodates internal bus stops", are there standards that have to be met to accommodate buses. Mr. Ingersoll said that it will be determined by CDTA.

Ms. Eddy asked "if the applicant is comfortable with a roundabout." Mr. Ingersoll replied yes.

Mr. Doyle asked about the pedestrian walkway and how it will work that close to an intersection; indicating walking lights. Mr. Ingersoll said that if the signal remains, it will need to be looked at time of site plan review.

Ms. Eddy asked if "there is anything in the wind." Mr. Ingersoll replied no.

Mr. Doyle asked if garbage trucks will fit. Mr. Ingersoll replied yes and will be demonstrated during the site plan review it will be illustrated how it will work on a larger scale.

Mr. VanVorst asked about the entrance into the project on Route 67 between C2 and C3 is indicating a right in and a right out only. Mr. VanVorst said that the majority of the traffic will be traveling from the east. Mr. VanVorst asked if visiting this site for the first time, "and want to leave the project, how will will they know that they have to turn right out only and how are they going to then turn around a turn and head back east." Mr. Ingersoll said that Commerce Drive and Eastline Road will be used to come in and cut through and if traffic exits there, the final detail and orientation will be pushed so that is the only way to go. Mr. VanVorst asks if the vehicle leaves the complex and reaches the stop sign. Mr. Ingersoll said that there will have to be lighting to encourage signage.

Ms. Cimino, Creighton Manning Engineering said that if a vehicles makes a right in will notice a median is there (raised median design) so there is not a full access out. Ms. Cimino said that there will be internal signing to direct vehicles. Ms. Cimino said that the proposed round about is located at Eastline Road.

Ms. Eddy asked the applicant if this is the architecture that is going to be proposed. Mr. Ingersoll said that it the image/style that is being proposed.

Mr. Reilly said this application is before the Board as a proposal to amend the existing PUDD and at this stage of the process and gets reviewed to make sure that it is consistent with the master plan and zoning of the Town in that area. If the Planning Board is in agreement, it will then go back to the Town Board at which time it will be heard and a public hearing will be proposed on the amendment, if passed it will return to the Planning Board for detailed site plan review.

Mr. Doyle asked for an overall summary of the traffic; present future (peak hour’s a.m., p.m.)

Ms. Cimino gave a brief summary which looked at two different phases of development:

Phase I developed by 2009; light industrial, condominium space, general office space, and retail space.

Phase II developed by 2012; additional light industrial, apartments, and general office space.

Ms. Cimino said that an existing 6000 sq. ft. office building would be removed.

Ms. Cimino said that the Route 67 and Eastline Road intersection and the Commerce Drive intersection performed the two hour peak period traffic counts in October and November of last year for those morning and afternoon commuter periods then broke down to a peak hour period and took those numbers and projected to future conditions and put build volumes on them and analyzed the intersection.

Ms. Cimino said that the no build condition which is the future condition with this project a 1 ½ % background growth rate and added traffic volumes from six other specific projects to those volumes at the intersection. Ms. Cimino takes that existing volume added that background volume and use the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual to determine how many trips per each phase would be added into the project. Phase I (86 morning trips and 200 afternoon trips); comparable to the PUDD that was already approved. Phase II (120 morning trips and 140 afternoon trips) the total trips with the amended PUDD would be (300 morning trips and 340 afternoon trips). Ms. Cimino said that those trips are distributed on the roadway network at the two intersections based on existing patterns. Ms. Cimino said that there is right in and right out access on Route 67 and two site access points on Commerce Drive and two on Eastline Road and distributed to all the different driveways and when build volumes are determined, the highway capacity software analysis gives a level of service rating similar to a report card; (A: good; F: poor) higher vehicle delays. Ms. Cimino said to sum up the analysis, the unsignalized all the site driveway intersection operate very well the analysis shows that the Eastline intersection at 67 shows some constraints during peak periods ask well as Commerce Drive there are some delays exiting the site during the peak period.

Ms. Cimino said that there is the Route 67 Corridor Study and the Malta GIS that have identified the improvements that are needed in the corridor. Ms. Cimino said as part as their mitigation plan, have considered them and where the round about is being considered and by full build out 2012 conditions the constraints will increase. Ms. Cimino said that the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (left turn lane warrant criteria) which has been looked at for Commerce Drive and although the volume into Commerce Drive and out of Commerce Drive are not high, the need for left turn lane is more based on the high through volume.

Mr. Doyle asked the status of Route 9 to Eastline Road and what the completion will have. Ms. Cimino said the round about was complete and had started the study sooner, and was using data from the Route 67 Corridor Study and during the process of working on the study all the construction detours and blockages went out and did their own counts.

Mr. Ingersoll said that the curb cuts will be reduced to five.

Mr. Doyle asked about the impact on Stewart’s and the Curtis Lumber Co., once the state removes the bridge in that area will there be a speed reduction from the existing posted speed limits or what would the analysis of that be.

Ms. Cimino said that speed reduction was not looked at in this area and did not feel it was feasible. Ms. Cimino said that in order to have the speed limit reduced it has to be requested to the state and the state has to go through a process and unless there is a reason or a constraint that limits traffic to less of a speed, the proposed mitigation will help Stewart’s. Ms. Cimino said that there is a concept plan in the submitted report that states in order to put a left turn lane at Commerce Drive the lane has to be widened and then on the other side of the intersection a widening and a taper so that the main line flows; gradually goes out and goes back in. Ms. Cimino said that the solution to avoid the hour glass and the spacing the widening would become two left turn lanes.

Mr. Doyle said that in the past has spoke about alternate entrances for Curtis Lumber Co. and the existing problem today when exiting the site when making a left hand turn. Mr. Doyle said with the additional traffic increase what would the evaluation in that particular situation. Ms. Cimino said there is plenty of access to Eastline Road with the side streets which has a protected operating with a signal, but the left turns will be monitored by a traffic signal. Ms. Cimino said that the left turn has been eliminated out of what previously was a full access out of onto Route 67 and the improvement at Commerce with the left turn lane will widen that and will benefit the left turn lane; entering from Route 67, but the median can be used as a two step turn where the median can be used to make the left turn and cross traffic; if the movement is difficult at peak time.

Mr. Doyle asked if the increased traffic require turning lanes for Curtis Lumber Co. Ms. Cimino said that Curtis Lumber Co. was not looked at. Ms. Cimino would have to look at the percentage of traffic. Ms. Cimino does not feel that this project will impact the through volume at Curtis Lumber, Co.

Mr. Doyle said that the additional traffic from this development will put more pressure on the intersection of Route 50 and Route 67.

Mr. Doyle indicated that this project is a "good mix" for the area and meets the towns design standards. Mr. Doyle would like to see that pedestrian travel through the area or bike travel so this is a walk able community.

Mr. Reilly asked Chairman Doyle approve or disapprove.

MOTION: Chairman Doyle asked for a motion to forward on to the Town Board with the Planning Boards concurrence that it would meet the objectives of the long range plan. Mr. Cwalinski made a motion and Ms. Eddy seconded the motion. Ms. Eddy voted in favor, Mr. Cwalinski voted in favor, Mr. VanVorst voted in favor, Mr. Hayden voted in favor and Ms. Cristy voted in favor. CARRIED.

Geoff Brooks, Round Lake Road for a Major Subdivision. Scott Lansing of Lansing Engineering was present to present the case to the Board. The applicant was before the Board on September 13, 2006. Mr. Lansing said that the overall parcel is approximately 111.44 acres which is on the south side of Round Lake Road. Mr. Lansing said that the vegetation was heavily wooded along the front of the parcel and there is a knoll in the central portion of the parcel sloping off towards the south and also slopes towards the northern portion off towards the northwest of the site.

Mr. Lansing said that exact boundary has been completed for the parcel as well as contours. Mr. Lansing said that wetlands have been formally delineated on the site by a wetland scientist.

Mr. Lansing said that a density determination has been modified with the boundary and topography updates.

Total parcel 111.44 acres

Wetlands (formal delineation 53.14 acres) (cursory delineation 64.69 acres)

Slopes remain the same at approximately .31 acres

Streams (none)

Unconstrained amount of land of 57.99 acres; which is more than a 10 acre increase which was estimated at 46.41 acres.

Mr. Lansing said that 57.99 acres divided by 20,000 sq. ft. per unit gives a total of 126 units that would be permitted under the TND. Mr. Lansing said that the projected was 101 units that increased by 25 units. Mr. Lansing said that there are allowances for potential increase for affordable housing out of 15% that would be approximately 18 additional units; before it was 15 units. Mr. Lansing said another 15% increase for senior housing would be 18 units; before was 15 units. Mr. Lansing said that there was total allowable density for the project is 132 units and prior was 131 units and what is being proposed is 100 units which is less than the maximum allowable.

Mr. Lansing said that the two different types of uses that are being proposed are a single family and a two family duplex.

4500 sq. ft lots

50ft. in width

90ft. in depth

The proposal would be modeled after the village of Saratoga a Traditional Neighborhood Design would be close to the roadway with sidewalks, street lights, narrow and clustered. Mr. Lansing said that 52 single family units proposed; previously there were 51.

9000 sq. ft. lots on the aggregate the total of lots and split down the middle with a zero lot line with a minimum of 4500 sq. ft. per unit.

The applicant is proposing 24 buildings for a total of 48

The applicant is proposing a roadway which is 22ft. wide and is within the liking with the TND regulations; tighter, narrower roadway which will be built to meet town standards and proposed to be dedicated to the town. Mr. Lansing said that there is approximately 9,000 linear feet of roadway.

Mr. Lansing said that the wetland impacts at the time were estimated at .15 acres. Mr. Lansing said that storm water management would be performed on site. Mr. Lansing has been in contact with the Clifton Park Water Authority for water service to the project for a potential connection point which is a main on Longkill Road or Eastline Road where the 16" main by the Chapel Hill subdivision could possibly service the project.

Mr. Lansing said that over the past four or five months the applicants have been investigating a somewhat complex path through the Town of Malta and working with the Town of Clifton Park and owning and operating the sewers within the Town of Malta and going to the sewer district and get the sewer district line brought down. Mr. Lansing said that the sewer district will not take over the lines that are beyond non sewer district lines. Mr. Lansing said that that path has been pursued, with Supervisor Callanan and it has been determined that it would not be feasible. Mr. Lansing has spoken with Jim DiPasquale about running a line down Round Lake Road and bring the sewer district infrastructure past the Exit 11 interchange with a gravity system that goes up and goes more towards the Town of Ballston and the Town of Malta sewer. Mr. Lansing said that the line would be dedicated to the sewer district and replace the existing 3" force main along Round Lake Road to the project. Mr. Lansing said that there is a 3" force main that comes up to service Mourningdale Court and would upgrade that line which would discharge directly to the Saratoga County Sewer District and this project as well as other projects.

Mr. Lansing said the streetscape on the project the applicant is proposing street light sidewalks, street screening is being designed. The open space on the parcel is 92.07 acres approximately 83% of the parcel.

Mr. Lansing said that the applicant is proposing a central park transition between the two types of uses within the project would be linked by the open space along Round Lake Road area as well as the open space to the south. Mr. Lansing said that the applicant is proposing a form of trail system to connect those open space areas (northern and central park areas) as well as the vast open space to the south.

Mr. Lansing said the comments at the last meeting were to provide a western connection which has been provided. Mr. Lansing said that the potential connection on the eastern end and redevelop that area.

Mr. Lansing said that the previous plan had fewer lights and more lights have been added to the plan.

Mr. Lansing said that comments have been received from CT Male were focused around water, storm and sewer were addressed them in preliminary form.

Ms. Cristy has a concern for emergency vehicles on the proposed project. Mr. Lansing said that all the roadways would be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles.

Mr. Cwalinski asked "what is located in the lower right portion." Mr. Lansing said that there is presently a duplex. Mr. Cwalinski asked water and sewer will be serviced by the same sources as the others. Mr. Lansing replied yes.

Mr. Doyle asked if there will be enough room for a shed on the lots being proposed or access between the two houses (less than 15 to 18 feet). Mr. Lansing said the proposal is for 5ft. side yard setbacks.

Mr. Doyle asked the developer feels there is a market for this type of design. Mr. Lansing said again this is modeled after the village of Saratoga which is very successful. Mr. Doyle went through the positives aspects of the project.

Sidewalks on both sides of the road

Street lights; low intensity, but closer together

Sidewalks all lead to the center park area

Ms. Eddy asked if there would be basements in this proposed project. Mr. Lansing said that it would vary on the ground water conditions on each site, but would assume that there would be basements.

Mr. Reilly asked if a Home Owners Association is being planned for open space HOA ownership. Mr. Lansing said that can be discussed.

Mr. Doyle said that the need for maintenance of the drainage system would have to be planned for proper operation.

Mr. Doyle polled the Board for their comments on the concept plan.

Ms. Eddy said that "I think it’s neat and it should work"

Mr. Cwalinski said that "I like it."

Mr. VanVorst said that "I like it very much and I don’t see anything that they presented so far that stands as an obstacle to completion."

Mr. Hayden said that "it is much better than the first one."

Ms. Cristy is in favor of the concept plan.

Application tabled.

Michael Zuritis, 125 Lake Road for Site Plan Review. Michael Zuritis, P.E., was present to present the case to the Board. Mr. Zuritis said that modifications for the house location and setback requirements were submitted. Mr. Zuritis said that the on site septic was resubmitted with the comments from CT Male incorporated into the revisions were satisfied. The storm water management plan was submitted with the original subdivision and was originally reviewed by CT Male.

Mr. Zuritis said that an additional note that was added to identify control of the runoff of the gutters to a control system and a detail for the construction entrance which is in place from existing lot #9.

Mr. Reilly asked how many lots were originally approved. Mr. Zuritis replied nine. Mr. Reilly asked how many have been built on. Mr. Zuritis said two completed and one in the process. Mr. Zuritis said that the rezoning of the Waterfront District will result in in site plan reviews for three additional road side lots and one intermediate lot. Mr. Zuritis said that one lot was excluded from the Waterfront District.

Mr. Zuritis said that all of the lots associated in this subdivision actually do not abut the lake there is a wetlands separation between the lots and the lake which permits mitigation.

Mr. Zuritis said that the all the lots share access to the lake through a shared pier/boardwalk system which is maintained by a homeowners association. Mr. Zuritis said that the homeowners association will provide for maintenance and upkeep of the shared driveway.

Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing 8:35pm.

Chairman Doyle closed the public hearing 8:36pm.

No one wished to speak.

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

Mr. Doyle asked Ms. Cyr if there would be a problem granting a Negative Declaration.

Ms. Cyr said that both plans were developed in accordance with the New York State DEC regulations and reviewed by CT Male and there were comments back in 2004 and approved in June 2004. Ms. Cyr said that portions were resubmitted and did have the original copy and feel that the original plan is appropriate for this project, barring any comments from the Planning Board.

MOTION: Mr. Doyle 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. Doyle made a motion to approve construction a single family home it meets the SEQR requirements and meets the planning and zoning requirements. It was approved in 2004 and the requirements have changed because this is within the lake area. Mr. Hayden seconded the motion. Ms. Eddy voted in favor, Mr. Cwalinski voted favor, Mr. VanVorst voted in favor, Mr. Hayden voted in favor and Ms. Cristy voted in favor. CARRIED.

Ms. Cristy recused herself for the next case.

Thomas Donahue, 800 Route 50 for a Special Use Permit. Nicholas Cristy, P.E., Thomas Donahue were present to present the case to the Board. Mr. Cristy distributed copies of the proposed plan to the Board. The original drawing shows parking spaces on the north and south and the new plan cannot park as many cars as indicated on the drawing. Mr. Doyle said that the width of the asphalt that is shown is less than enough distance to get a car in there and secondly the asphalt only goes back to the door. Mr. Cristy said that there is no asphalt and will park on the grass/gravel. Mr. Doyle replied there is no gravel, just sand. Mr. Doyle said that the limited asphalt that is not on the drawing, but it only goes back to the door and drops off at the end of the asphalt 6" to 8" in various areas which will not work for parking.

Mr. Doyle has a concern of the number of parking spaces to accommodate the restaurant; pet store and the proposed barber shop/detailing facility. Mr. Doyle said that the applicants are proposing three chairs for the barber shop so three parking spots will be needed for each chair totaling nine parking spaces. Mr. Doyle said there will also be an area for the five cars to be on display which brings it to 14 plus the customers who come to view the cars will need a place to park.

Mr. Doyle said that if you continue on the south side that pavement ends just on the east side of the door and if you look at the parking spaces that have been drawn in the back of the diner those spots that have detailed are really not there. Mr. Doyle said that where the dumpsters are located uses up a lot of the parking space also some of the parking space that is shown that is unusable due to being able to get in and out of them. Mr. Cristy said that the dumpsters can be moved. Mr. Doyle said that the dumpsters are needed and where will they be placed. Mr. Cristy said that "he remembers two dumpsters", Mr. Doyle said that he saw three dumpsters. Mr. Doyle said that there is a certain requirement for a number of parking spaces, handicap parking spaces and need to identify that enough parking space to maintain.

Mr. Doyle said that "it just doesn’t work." Mr. Doyle suggested providing documentation that the additional 20 parking spaces are being leased on the south side, but will have to come up with a number of parking spaces.

Mr. Doyle asked Johnson if he had anymore to add. Mr. Johnson was in agreement.

Mr. Doyle reiterated that this project does not work.

Mr. Reilly said to the applicant if you went so far as to compute what is necessary as far as parking spaces. Mr. Doyle said that 120 seat restaurant has 24 parking spaces and indicated that he did not redo that calculation. Mr. Doyle said that a guess would be about 69 total parking spaces. Mr. Cristy said that he has shown 81. Mr. Doyle said that it is a problem because many of these spots that are shown are not usable. Mr. Doyle suggested going out to measure the space and make it work. Mr. Doyle asked the applicant to submit a site plan sketch to the Board which meets the requirements as stated for the number of parking spaces required.

Mr. Cristy asked Mr. Doyle how the total of 69 parking spaces was generated. Mr. Doyle said that he used the numbers that were provided (79 that were needed). Mr. Doyle suggested measuring the area and lay out the parking spaces and dumpster placement. Mr. Doyle said that if the south side of the building will be used an impervious surface will need to be placed there and once that is done that will require site plan review from the additional water runoff. Mr. Cristy said with only placing stone, where is the additional runoff. Mr. Doyle said the stone because the stone is impervious.

Mr. Doyle said that this is the same policy that each applicant must conform to the DEC standards.

Mr. Doyle said that Tom’s Barber Shop was a single family residence and had to add enough parking which has three chairs (three parking spaces for each chair) which required a lot of asphalt paving and when this was done, there was a runoff problem which needed the correct drainage and an engineered system that took that runoff water. Mr. Doyle said that the applicant had a plan and that plan was approved by CT Male; and this must be done on this project.

Mr. Doyle realizes that this is a rental property, but has a problem with parking spots. There is a marginal number of spots which are tight and the distance between the two parked cars is very difficult when there are larger SUV’s. Mr. Cristy said that the parking spaces that were proposed were 9ft. and the minimum is 8ft. Mr. Doyle asked Mr. Cristy to look at the standards that the town requires and use those standards and incorporate the engineering. Mr. Doyle suggested looking at the design standards to determine the size of the parking space and how many spaces that are needed for each store and based on that will determine the number of parking spaces.

Mr. Donahue said that "at the last meeting the Board members said that parking was not a problem and now a month later it is a problem." Mr. Doyle said that the map displayed in front of the Board is in correct. The parking that is being shown is non existent. Mr. Doyle indicated that CT Male pointed out the deviations in how many handicap spots needed. Mr. Doyle said that the Board went on the assumption that the drawing was accurate; the drawing is not accurate so consequently some of the spaces are not there. Mr. Doyle asked if there is a place for parking cars on the south side as indicated on the drawing. Mr. Donahue said that "you could park on the grass." Mr. Doyle said that it is not authorized parking. Mr. Donahue said that once a dumpster is in that location it is not considered a parking space. Mr. Donahue said "to move the dumpsters and how do you know next week there will be another parking space." Mr. Doyle said that a designed space is needed for a dumpster. Mr. Reilly said on the site plan the applicant specifies the location of the dumpster and that is where it stays. Mr. Doyle said that it cannot move each week and it should be screened.

Mr. Donahue asked "how many spots do we need." Mr. Doyle said that Mr. Cristy must lay out the number of parking spaces. Mr. Donahue asked Mr. Doyle "you don’t know." Mr. Doyle replied "I don’t know. Mr. Donahue said "then how do you know that we don’t have enough." Mr. Doyle said that if you have to park 16 cars and three dumpsters. Mr. Donahue said that he is not having a dumpster. Mr. Doyle said that it is all part of the parking problem by using up parking spaces for the dumpster.

Mr. Doyle said that it is not the Planning Boards job to engineer this project, but assume that the engineering is correct. Mr. Doyle said that this proposal is a problem and does not work.

Mr. Reilly said that it is not for the Board to compute. Mr. Doyle has come up with a number of 69 spaces.

Mr. Doyle asked for the applicant to return with a computed number of parking spaces, handicap parking spaces, and dumpster location.

Mr. Hayden asked how the public will access the office for the used car facility. Mr. Cristy replied through the side door.

Mr. Hayden asked where the work be done on the cars in what part of the garage (front or back). Mr. Cristy replied in the garage. Mr. Cristy said the only work will be to polish and vacuum the cars.

Mr. Doyle suggested designating the dumpster location and leasing the 20 spaces, if the landowner will agree.

Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing 9:06pm

Al Russo, 795 Route 50 asked the Board if his letter was received regarding this proposal. Mr. Russo asked how many parking spots would be needed for the restaurant. Mr. Johnson said 5 seats for 120 seats and then one per employee on the maximum shift. Mr. Russo said that he rented this location and there was no parking and said has been a problem for ten years. Mr. Russo said when traveling to that facility on a Saturday or Sunday you cannot get near that garage. Mr. Russo also wants to know the number of retail spaces for the pet store and what kind of parking is needed for a used car lot for customers to view the automobiles. Mr. Russo cannot understand how three businesses can be run out of 1200sq. ft. Mr. Russo indicated that the applicant’s current business location on Route 50 selling carport’s and shed does not meet the current zoning in the business corridor. Mr. Russo said that the location that the applicant is working out of presently has 20 or 25 cars spread all over and carport’s for sale and sheds for sale; it’s and eyesore. Mr. Russo said that "Mangino would be happy to get rid of him as a neighbor." Mr. Russo does not feel that 1200sq. ft. is a substantial amount of room to obtain those three types of businesses. Mr. Russo said that the other day there were seven to ten cars lined up on the grass.

Nick Paravalos said that he is the owner of the building and said that there was never a problem with the parking spaces and always has a parking space for every customer and the restaurant has 115 seats. Mr. Paravalos has purchased another 40ft. extra for the parking lot that is being used now; totaling 60ft. from the south side. Mr. Doyle said that the asphalt pavement needs to be increased for 60ft.

David Stern asked if the regulations will change because of the district that has used cars that will be changing oil. Mr. Doyle said that changing oil will not be allowed.

Mr. Russo said that currently automotive repair is being done at the applicant’s current facility.

Mr. Doyle said relative to the special use permit is for a barber shop with three chairs with an area to detail cars; not repair cars, or change the oil. (maximum five cars)

Mr. VanVorst said that the parking issue needs to be resolved and assure that there is not going to be any storm water issues.

Mr. Doyle said that dumpster placement needs to be determined.

Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Doyle if site plan review will be required. Mr. Doyle said that if more impervious surface is added.

Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Doyle to address the time frame for the next submittal. Mr. Doyle said that the next submittal for the Planning Board meeting which is January 31, 2007 is today. Mr. Doyle said that the applicant’s would apply to the February meeting.

Application tabled.

MOTION: Mr. Hayden made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Cwalinski seconded the motion. CARRIED.

Meeting adjourned at 9:20pm

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman