Chairman Doyle called the meeting to order at 7:00pm and reviewed the agenda.

Review and comment C.T. Males letter, dated December 21, 2006 "Town Engineer Review Guidelines."

Sub Divisions – run-off water retention systems; Town Board’s concept’s, final decision on January 30, 2007

Planning Board Agenda (Approval of last months minutes will be the first item).

Plan to use County Planning Board and State DOT.

General discussion, topics by individual members.

Chairman Doyle indicated that letter is in draft form and the objective is to receive comments from the Board.

Chairman Doyle read a portion of the letter "In September of 2006 the Planning Board requested that as part of the engineering review the Town Engineer perform a cursor review of the items submitted to determine the completeness of the application. If the engineer determines that the application is not complete, then it cannot make it on the agenda. This review was to be performed three weeks prior to the meeting as soon as the application is filed. The process perhaps needs the most input from members of the Planning Board and Building Department in order to make an appropriate recommendation. We offer the following:

Engineering reviews are paid by escrow fees. If the engineer is to perform a cursory review of an application that does not need engineering review, the question of who pays for this review becomes important.

Mr. Rhodes said that application that don’t require engineering review do not get submitted to the engineer.

Ms. Cristy said that when the engineer is reviewing the application to do it as soon as possible.

Mr. Doyle said that if it does require engineering review, the engineer will not be part of the comment. Mr. VanVorst replied that Mr. Johnson will make that decision whether a review is needed or not. Mr. Doyle said that there basic criteria that will be discussed. Mr. Rhodes said that minor projects can directly be placed on the agenda or have Mr. Johnson triage them; if time allows.

Mr. Doyle continued on the letter as follows "Many items on the site plan or subdivision application are not applicable for applicants. In the past, many applicants have supplied a written not applicable under these items even though the application clearly states that waivers must be applied for in writing. If the waivers requested are not technical in nature, is it appropriate for the engineer to make the determination of an incomplete application." Mr. Rhodes replied no, and said that it is a specific term the only person in empowered by town law is the Planning Board to determine that the application is complete and not determining all the requisite components for an application. Mr. Rhodes asked that the terms be clarified.

Mr. Doyle indicated that he, Ms. Cyr and Mr. Johnson looked at the submittals and discussed them via a teleconference and Mr. Johnson had addressed his comments and forwarded the applications to the Board. Mr. Doyle indicated that this process worked for January. Mr. Rhodes said that it seemed like a lot of repetitive review. Mr. Doyle disagreed in fact felt that review brought up several items; one related to the January 10^th meeting and one to the January 30^th meeting.

Mr. Doyle said at the January 10, 2007 the H.R. Schultz, PUDD which the Board conceptually approved to send back to the Town Board could not verify the numbers that were submitted in their two traffic reports (Rossi-property) and the (DOT numbers from the Route 67 study); low about 20%. Mr. Doyle contacted DOT and indicated the review process had begun and 17 days later received the review letter. Mr. Doyle said that all the comments that were made at the meeting were in this letter. The concerns:

Curtis Lumber Co.

Verify traffic numbers

The number of cars that were counted for the Schultz property was approximately 20% less than the other two numbers that were submitted.

Mr. Doyle said that the County Planning Board approved it two weeks later with the new information that was received from DOT.

Mr. Doyle indicated that the process of three individuals has "gained some ground."

Mr. Doyle read the last paragraph "A cursory review of the application to determine completeness, but is should be looked at by all members; the Board, Code Enforcement Officer, the Engineer and the Attorney. The ultimate determination of application completeness should be made by the Planning Board Chairman, not the Engineer." Mr. Rhodes replied no. Mr. Doyle implied that he did not agree with that after discussion a conclusion was a partnership of three individuals reviewing the applications, if that is not agreeable to the Board it is open for recommendations or suggestions. Mr. Rhodes said it depends on what whether the application is a complete application or would it be a complete submission. Mr. Doyle said that all that can be looked at would be a complete application.

Mr. Voss said that every town has a checklist with 15-20 items with that would require a complete submission or a complete application, however within those submissions there may or may not be complete.

Mr. Rhodes indicated that Mr. Johnson does not have the time to review the applications and the concept was to have the Town Engineer step in and review from a submission stand point of all the components.

Mr. Rhodes has a concern with the mixing of terms with application completeness and complete application. Mr. Rhodes said that a complete application has a SEQR component to it and would be held up in court.

Mr. Rhodes feels that this process will burden three people. Mr. Doyle said that one time does not make a rule, but it seems to work and it helps Mr. Johnson. Mr. Doyle asked Mr. Johnson his feelings on the subject. Mr. Johnson said that he does agree with Mr. Rhodes and has it set up with to forward the applications to Ms. Cyr to determination the submission completeness.

Mr. Rhodes said that small applications should go directly on the agenda. Mr. Doyle said as long as the Town Engineer does not need to review.

Mr. Rhodes said that the real misunderstanding is the outline of responsibilities. Mr. Rhodes feels that the Design Standards should be a part of the site plan review.

Ms. Cyr performs the technical review of the applications.

A further discussion was held on review of the applications.

Mr. Voss said that his interpretation is what the Board is asking is "another set of eyes looking it from another perspective." Ms. Cyr’s review is technical. Mr. Voss said that with other Board’s act as a Town Planner and do not necessarily provide the hard core engineering review, but provide planning review.

Ms. Eddy asked the Design Standard "are they typical or a-typical in the surrounding community, so why do we throw them out just because we never had them, or do they need to be tweaked." Mr. Voss said "they should be recommendations." Mr. Doyle said guidelines. Mr. Rhodes said that the problem with standards is you need to be consistent with the application.

Mr. Rhodes suggested revising the Design Standards.

Mr. Rhodes asked if the service agreement between CT Male and the Town about reviewing applications in conformance with the zoning. Mr. Voss said that he was unsure. Mr. Rhodes said that there is nothing prohibiting CT Male doing that part of the job, since it is already in the job department.

Mr. VanVorst asked who pays for the engineers review. Mr. Doyle replied the applicant. Mr. VanVorst replied even though it may not be necessary.

Mr. Rhodes said that only the projects that require engineering review would be forwarded to the Town Engineer. Mr. Rhodes said that the engineer that has the application has to review to make sure that all the items are there.

A further discussion was held on engineering escrows.

Mr. Cwalinski asked Ms. Cyr if the application is incomplete, who receives a letter. Ms. Cyr said it has never been put in a formal letter only a phone call.

Ms. Eddy said that the engineer reviews the hard engineering, but the sign and lighting is not part of that review. Ms. Cyr replied no it is not. Ms. Cyr said that the application is submitted and there is a 25 item checklist and if one item is missing does she make the determination that the application is not on the agenda.

Mr. Rhodes said the applicant’s should be encouraged to do a sketch plan review. Mr. Johnson said that the sketch plan review only requires three items which is very rudimentary. Mr. Rhodes said that the Board is talking about schematic plans. Mr. Rhodes said that discretion needs to be taken.

Mr. Rhodes said that engineering review the submission and find out what is missing, quantify it, list it and submit that to the Building Inspector and then the hang man takes a look at it and makes a decision whether or not it will be placed on the agenda.

Mr. Voss said that zoning requires following a checklist to have a complete application.

Mr. Rhodes indicated that the Planning Board needs a copy of the missing paperwork attached to the package.

Mr. Johnson said that most of the applicant’s are looking for help and want to go over the application. Mr. Johnson asked how much help are CT Male and the Planning Board want to give ahead of the application submittal.

Mr. Rhodes said that he would like to see a rolling committee that would be comprised of the Planning Board Chairman and two Planning Board members or two random individuals that meet one night a week to meet with various applicants.

Mr. Johnson said that there are one or two things that can be done supply a list of the Design Standards and/or planning services that are going to be provided to the town.

Mr. Rhodes said that the zoning itself is saying what is complete and more of what is being looked at is Design Standards.

A further discussion was held on design guidance and encourages sketch plan conference.

Mr. Voss suggested workshops.

Mr. Johnson said that the applicant’s will be asked to hire an engineer and submit the Site Plan Review application including the checklist or apply to a Sketch Plan Conference.

Mr. Johnson said that there is nothing in the application which states that the applicant has to hire an engineer and most individuals don’t due to the cost.

Mr. Johnson said that in the Ballston Lake Water Front District a permit is needed for any structure; even an above ground pool.

Mr. Johnson said a precedent needs to be set to advise the Town Board to either hire an engineer to be in the put in the regulations; if that is what the Planning Board is considering.

Mr. Rhodes said that the Board needs to be careful not to become designers. Mr. Johnson said that when a sketch plan conference application is received, Design Standards are not shown only contours, elevations and plot plan.

A further discussion was held on what determines a small project; but still needs to meet Design Standards.

Mr. Rhodes said that the Design Standards need to be revised.

A further discussion was held on waivers and changing the Design Standards. Mr. Voss said that guidelines would create more flexibility. Mr. Johnson said that a checklist needs to be created for those structures that are not part of the Design Standards.

Ms. Cyr said that the applications requiring Site Plan Review or Major Subdivision Approval from the Planning Board will receive Town Engineer review.

Mr. Rhodes asked if the checklist attached is what the Town Engineer requires. Ms. Cyr replied no.

Mr. Rhodes said that it is not really when the preliminary and/or finals approvals are requested, it is when the application is requested. Mr. Doyle is in agreement.

Mr. Rhodes asked how the Town is requiring storm water. Ms. Cyr said that it is being required through state regulations. Mr. Rhodes said that the submission requirements are being asked to meet permit requirements. Ms. Cyr said that there is no storm water code in our local law

A further discussion was held storm water issues.

Ms. Cyr discussed septic design and submittal of escrow fees.

Mr. Doyle mentioned Design Standards, take out standards and make it guidelines and possibly change some of them. Mr. Doyle said that this needs to be looked at; many things that came out of the Comprehensive Plan were not included in the zoning.

Mr. Voss suggested making a list of comments and submitting to the Town Board.

Mr. Johnson said that the Town Board needs to accomplish the Overlay District and the Storm Water Management at the same time; they cannot do one without the other.

Mr. Rhodes said that there have been several technical reviews performed by CT Male and the applicant returns to the Board and it is not complete.

Mr. Doyle suggested a pre-meeting that if there is technical concern in some nature, it would be brought up at that time and would like the Town Engineer to look at that.

Mr. Rhodes said that there needs to be discussion on specific items that were asking the applicant to address.

Mr. Rhodes suggested a separate agenda meeting.

A further discussion was held on agenda meeting and general discussion.

Mr. Doyle asked the Board if any items should be added to the Technical Comments or change 1-5. Mr. Doyle suggested removing technical and will intent to have CT Male pick up the planning function; or add technical and planning.

Mr. Doyle said remove the word technical in item #5; and in remaining paragraphs.

Mr. Rhodes read the last sentence "Board members should not provide comments to an applicant without the Engineer’s or the full Board’s knowledge." This ensures that the Board will not discuss their application with an applicant at anytime.

Mr. Rhodes said that the last paragraph of the letter needs to be deleted. Mr. Rhodes said that the zoning will review it.

Mr. Doyle suggested a summary be added to the final draft.

Mr. Rhodes asked CT Male to prepare an expected fee schedule to what it would take to review a standard application.

Ms. Eddy said that the Chairman seems to be caught up on the dollar amount to the applicant and feels that the dollar amount equates to time too.

A further discussion was held on standards versus guidelines.

Mr. Rhodes said that the Design Standards need to be properly revised to establish precedent.

Mr. Rhodes said that this is what the Planning Board asked for in the beginning of this process to review the application against the Design Standards will have adopted mixed recommendations to the Planning Board. The Planning Boards job is to review those documents to make sure that it is working.

Mr. Doyle said that there have been many changes in different directions in the past year from the Town owning it, to a lease arrangement or to having the Home Owners Associations take care of the retention basins. Mr. Doyle said that the Town is looking at this matter and for right now the money will come out of the general funds and there will be a maintenance type of agreement with the land owner with a right-of-way to the area to be maintained. There is a concern with standing water and the probability to place a fence around it with a 12ft. gate.

Mr. Rhodes asked if this was a Town liability. Ms. Cyr said that the municipality owns it or private land owner with easement to the Town. Ms. Cyr said that other municipalities that don’t own it do have a Storm Water District.

Mr. Rhodes asked if it’s a liability if the Town owns the land, it becomes a safety issue. Mr. Rhodes asked will the code require that all ponds be fenced.

Mr. Doyle said that there was a discussion on adding more employees and equipment.

Mr. Johnson said that DEC is not in favor of fences.

Mr. Doyle said that the last month’s minutes will get reviewed first.

Mr. Doyle said that the Town of Milton has a large effect on the traffic in Ballston. The County Planning Board can do something to help; with Route 50 and Route 67. Mr. Doyle said that DOT is willing to check trips of cars to areas.

Ms. Cristy asked if there is plan to widen Route 50.

Mr. Voss suggested looking at the Department of Transportations website for any information.

Mr. Rhodes has a concern for changing the bridge in front of Curtis Lumber and the left turn lane/right turn lane into Specialty Silicone.

Mr. Rhodes suggests speaking to Saratoga County Department of Public Works to look at the area at Courthouse Hill and talk to the State DOT about taking a look at two of our failing intersections; 151 Lake Hill Road, V-Corners; the 67 Corridor study indicated that it was a high accident location because of the geometry.

Mr. Doyle said that the latest information on V-Corners is a "money problem there." Mr. Rhodes said that there is, but no one has been advocating for repair to an unsafe situation. Mr. Rhodes said that the accident diagrams; problematic intersection would be eligible for star program. Mr. Rhodes said that the State DOT typically does not get involved with local land use decisions; will only look at projects that exceed the increased number of trips by 50 cars at an adjacent intersection per peak hour.

Mr. Rhodes said that the County needs a Regional Transportation Policy.

Ms. Cristy said that there should be more microphones because she does not always here everything. Ms. Cyr is in agreement.

A further discussion was held to upgrade the sound system in the meeting room.

Mr. Johnson said that the Ballston Lake Water Front District requires site plan review which requires a building permit. Mr. Johnson asked what the Board wants to see for a residential site plan.

Mr. Rhodes said to waive all the submission requirements until the overlay is done. Mr. Rhodes said that nothing in the code requires the Town to ask the applicant for a submission.

Mr. Rhodes said that it has to meet zoning.

Mr. Johnson said that a permit will not be issued without a Site Plan Review.

A further discussion was held on Ballston Lake Water Front District requirements.

Mr. Rhodes said that the Ballston Lake Water Front District zoning needs to be amended and specific goals that are pertaining to obtain. The site plan permit application says nothing requires content, but that it needs to be provided.

Mr. Rhodes went over the checklist.

Archeological Assessments

Mr. Rhodes would not be required so now it would be superseding state law instead of local law. Mr. Rhodes said there is a concern for what is required.

Mr. Rhodes said that the Town should fund their own study and decide what they want to buy.

Mr. Doyle considered a (1A); which is considered a paper search in areas where there may be some concerns.

Mr. Voss suggested the SEQR process.

A discussion was held on the checklist that was currently being used by CT Male for their review.

Mr. Doyle asked Ms. Cyr whether the checklist was to be used by only the engineer. Ms. Cyr felt that it would be "our checklist."

Ms. Cyr feels this checklist encompasses everything.

A further discussion was held on the checklist.

Mr. Rhodes said that the Board should following the zoning checklist. Mr. Doyle asked the Board if they are in agreement. The Board is in agreement.

Ms. Cyr feels that this checklist works for an engineer and does not feel that it cannot be used. Ms. Eddy said that the Board did not say that the engineer could not use it. Mr. Doyle indicated to Ms. Cyr that it is her personal work list, but as far as the Town is concerned the Board will just stick to the zoning.

Mr. Rhodes said when reviewing in compliance with the zoning applicable to permits only. Ms. Cyr said for standard engineering practices. Mr. Rhodes said DOH standards, ASHTO standards.

Mr. Doyle asked Ms. Cyr to discuss with Mr. Vopelak what CT Male practices are to be.

Mr. Doyle asked Ms. Cyr to devise a tool adequate to review the project based on the zoning.

Mr. Rhodes asked for another letter before final draft.

Richard Voehringer’s overview of this meeting is the Board forming guidelines for the engineer’s technical review of the projects; site plans, major subdivisions and PUDD. Mr. Voehringer asked the Board if they would consider special use permits and lot lines adjustments. Mr. Doyle replied no. Mr. Voehringer feels that there should not be Design Standards either guidelines or recommendations. The applicant submits an application and this gets forwarded to engineering review, County Planning Board and CT Male. Mr. Voehringer feels that the archeological assessment should be tossed out and feels if the Town wants it, let the Town pay for it. Mr. Voehringer said that addressing wetlands puts the burden on the landowner hiring an engineer to delineate. Mr. Voehringer suggests a light rail system which will alleviate traffic problems for future development. Mr. Voehringer asked the Planning Board to recommend this suggestion to the Town Board.

Mr. Rhodes said a concept to consider if the application becomes longer, the meetings will become longer, and we only stay until a certain hour. Mr. Rhodes suggested 11:00pm.and it will pick up two weeks later; a standard rolling date. A further discussion was held on this suggestion.

Meeting adjourned 10:02pm

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman