Chairman Doyle called the July 25, 2007meeting to order at 7:30pm and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Doyle reviewed the agenda.

Geoff Brooks, Round Lake Road for a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND). Warren Longacker of Lansing Engineering was here on behalf of the applicant Brooks Heritage, LLC to present a Traditional Neighborhood Development. The parcel is approximately 111 acres which is currently undeveloped with a majority of the parcel heavily wooded with an exception a smaller area of brush located along a utility easement down the eastern side of the parcel. The topography is generally considered rolling on a slight ridge line that transverses from west to east across the developed area of the parcel to two wetland areas to the north along Round Lake Road to the south. Mr. Longacker said that 53 acres of wetlands have been identified on site and have been confirmed by ACOE and DEC.

Mr. Longacker said that the parcel is zoned Ballston Lake Residential which permits the Traditional Neighborhood Development. The concept includes tree plantings, sidewalks, and a park area. The applicant is proposing to development the parcel in accordance to the TND regulations and the current plans shown here include 99 units:

55 single family unit units west of the open space area in the middle

22 two-family homes located east of the central park area

Mr. Longacker said again totaling 99 units.

Mr. Longacker said 83% of the entire parcel approximately 93 acres of the site will either remain open space or undeveloped. The access of the homes will be provided by two curb cuts on Round Lake Road and the network of the roads will traverse throughout the parcel to create a grid type pattern; to conform with a TND guideline.

Mr. Longacker said during the design process the applicant has stressed to maintain a buffer between Round Lake Road and the developed area and have achieved approximately 100’ feet of existing vegetation for two family units and 400’ existing for vegetation that shall remain along Round Lake Road.

Mr. Longacker said that the project will be serviced by extension of existing utilities; water and sewer. The water connection will be made from the existing water main located at the intersection of Eastline Road and Chapel Hill Development. The sanitary sewer service within the parcel itself will be a gravity line which will discharge to a centrally located pump station and then pump up to an existing gravity system located along Round Lake Road. The storm water management will be managed on site and the basin will be designed in accordance with NYSDEC and EPA guidelines.

Mr. Longacker said that the applicant is responding to CT Males comments and will be incorporating the changes into the plan.

Mr. Cwalinski does not feel that this is a TND design and does not feel it meets the Towns requirements; should have a mix of land use types. (residential, commercial). Mr. Longacker said this is a combination of single family homes; 4,500sq. ft. per residential unit and two family homes and will be different in architectural standards. Mr. Longacker said that commercial has not been proposed at this time. Mr. Cwalinski said that applicant does have a choice because if our zoning says to provide a mix of uses including residential, commercial, civic and open space in close proximity to one another within the neighborhood. Mr. Longacker said that it is on the layout design and does conform to the TND requirements and has pedestrian friendly streets, open space areas and again does not have commercial proposed. Mr. Cwalinski mentioned civic. Mr. Longacker replied the open space area in the middle pertains to civic. Mr. Cwalinski said that this proposal looks more like a conservation subdivision than a TND.

Mr. Doyle asked the center green space include areas for children to play; baseball, soccer. Mr. Doyle has concerns because of the lot sizes he feels there should be a "pocket park." Mr. Longacker said presently proposed are a gazebo and benches, but will look at the size of it.

Mr. Cwalinski asked who maintains the gazebo and open space. Mr. Longacker replied the HOA.

Mr. Cwalinski asked for setbacks. Mr. Longacker replied they are on the coversheet.

Front yard 15’

Rear yard 30’

Side yard 5’

Mr. Cwalinski asked the location of the garages. Mr. Longacker said in the front. Ms. Eddy indicated that is not pedestrian friendly. Ms. Eddy is against having garages in the front. Ms. Eddy needs more detail about the designs and move the garages back.

Mr. Cwalinski said the 30mph is inconsistent with the Town’s Design Standards.

Mr. Cwalinski asked that the fuel tank locations be shown on the diagram and also be buried. Mr. Cwalinski asked who maintains the pump station. Mr. Longacker replied Saratoga County Sewer District. Mr. Doyle indicated that the pump house will be fenced with an 8’ black chain link fence.

Mr. Doyle said that this is a small development and how to tie together with future development across the street. Ms. Eddy asked if there is proportion between the number of single families and the multi family units.

A further discussion was held on what a Traditional Neighborhood Design’s. Mr. Doyle feels that more detail is needed, for example:

Sidewalks

Grass area between the road and the sidewalk

Tree plantings

Lighting; downward directed to make it walk able

Mr. Longacker said that there is a lighting plan included. Ms. Eddy asked for plantings. Mr. Longacker replied that it is included.

Mr. Longacker said that 5’ concrete sidewalks are proposed on both sides of the street within that planting strip are trees and alternate light fixtures every 100’ on center.

Ms. Eddy asked about mailboxes. Mr. Longacker said that there will be an internal mailbox for each individual lot or a possibility or have a central location. Ms. Eddy asked for a grouping.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 7:55pm.

Anne Pierce asked about the increase of impervious surface moving the garage to the rear of the property. Mr. Doyle said that the garage will not be in the rear, but still attached to the house; setback from the front of the house. Ms. Pierce asked if it will be a one or two care garage. Mr. Longacker replied one.

Paul Simpson asked if the dark green color on the map was the designated wetland. Mr. Longacker said that it was representing that the wetlands lie within that area.

Mr. Simpson asked for the square footage of the lots:

Single family lots 4,500 sq. ft.

Duplex units 9,000 sq. ft.

Application tabled.

Lee Ramsey recused himself as did Josephine Cristy. Mr. Doyle explained that Ms. Cristy is the wife of Mr. Cristy, agent for the applicant and Mr. Ramsey owner of the property south of 800 Route 50.

Nick Paravalos, 800 Route 50 for Site Plan Review, Nick Cristy, P.E., was present along with Mr. Paravalos to present the case to the Board. Mr. Cristy reviewed the whole property and the original drawing indicated a ditch and after a site review indicated a drop off. Mr. Cristy eliminated that with the parking all the way to the back. Mr. Cristy said that there was a question with the property line to the south that shows parking infringing on the property; question on how much. Mr. Cristy said that there was a question on the sign was in the wrong location.

Mr. Cristy and Mr. Paravalos said that they came up with 76 striped parking spaces. Mr. Cristy said that there is no way to get another parking space in there because the handi cap #5 and space next to it is shown is 8’ and if it was made 4’ then two parking spaces where two parking spaces where one is shown; then it would make it 77. Mr. Cristy said that 71 parking spaces are needed because after reviewing the barber shop the three chairs the barber is going to handle the used cars. Mr. Cristy said that originally showed ten people in the kitchen, but there is only seven paid help and showed one extra which totals eight. The retail store 30 remains the same. Mr. Cristy feels that there are adequate parking spaces and does suffice for this project.

Mr. Hayden wanted to know where the parking was for the 1750 sq. ft. store. Mr. Cristy said that the garage in barber shop is included in the square footage. Mr. Hayden asked if this for the used car shop. Mr. Cristy said the barber shop has three parking spaces and none required because it is only used for storage for cars. Mr. Paravolos said that the cars are sold on the internet and the four parking spaces are next to the garage as a display. Mr. Cristy said that all that will be done inside the garage with the cars will be polishing and cleaning.

Mr. Hayden did not see any parking spots for individuals to look for cars because you are all saying it is all done on the internet. Mr. Cristy said that it could be the five totals from a 71 requirement to a 76 total. Mr. Hayden said that 71 was mentioned, but feels that more spaces are needed pursuant to the Town requirements. Mr. Cristy said that there are 76 spaces and five extra spaces.

Mr. Doyle asked for an estimate that includes customers that will be looking at the cars. Mr. Doyle said that the Board agreed on two extra spaces. Mr. Doyle said that there was an agreement on 73 spaces.

Mr. Johnson said that a new drawing will need to be submitted for signature.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:10pm

Mr. Russo 795 Route 50 said at the last meeting for a Special Use Permit the Board determined 77 parking spaces. Mr. Russo asked if this was correct. Mr. Doyle replied yes. Mr. Cristy replied that it was incorrect. Mr. Russo said that in the minutes the Board said if there were not 77 parking spaces after the striping June 1, 2007 the Special Use Permit would be revoked. Mr. Doyle said that the applicant was issued a letter by the Building Inspector. Mr. Russo said that there is insufficient parking there from the start before the barber shop before the used car lot.

Mr. Doyle went through the parking spaces:

Barber shop has three chairs (9 parking spaces required)

Restaurant has 120 seats (1 parking space for every 5 seats: 24) (wait people, kitchen help before 10) upon checking how many employees (7) they are putting down for (8) one parking space for every 100 sq. ft. (30) add 9 for the barber shop add (2) for the car customer equals (73)

Mr. Russo asked about parking of the cars themselves. Mr. Doyle said that it is not included because the cars are parking along side of the garage. Mr. Russo said the cars are parked in the front along Route 50; three cars for the last four days. Mr. Paravalos said that the cars are there because the building is being painted. Mr. Russo said that there is not enough room on the side of the building to park the cars. Mr. Doyle said that there is enough room for four cars.

A further discussion was held on parking issues.

Mr. Russo asked the size of the parking space. Mr. Doyle replied 9’ x 18’. Mr. Russo asked who will measure the parking spaces. Mr. Reilly said the same individual who measured your parking spaces no one. Mr. Reilly said in the site plan you showed the parking and took engineers word and took your word same thing here; end of discussion.

MOTION: Mr. Hayden made the motion for 73 parking spaces are required including the handi-cap which is total of three. Mr. Cwalinski seconded the motion, Ms. Eddy voted in favor, Mr. Cwalinski voted in favor, Mr. Hayden voted in favor and Mr. VanVorst voted in favor. CARRIED.

Joseph Hilco, 169 Lake Road for Site Plan Review. Mr. Rutland was present to present the case to the Board. Mr. Rutland said that this application has been simplified and the basement has been moved around to the back. Mr. Rutland said that the existing garage has been extended. Mr. Rutland said that the engineer will provide extra trench detail and pipe size that have to be added. Mr. Rutland said that grading plans and storm water plan will be completed. Ms. Cyr said that the state does not require storm water management on this project, however given the projects location and being that it is in the Ballston Lake Waterfront District to guide the applicant and to create some sort of storm water management; swales, drywells. Ms. Cyr would like guidance from the Board to prescribe to the applicant to perform because there are no concrete guidelines.

Mr. Cwalinski asked if a variance was granted with respect to the septic system. Ms. Cyr said that if the final design cannot meet the DOH guidelines. Ms. Cyr said that it may not meet separation requirements. Ms. Cyr said that lot 242 is close to the proposed septic system and well.

Mr. Doyle said that the Town requires a Professional Engineer sign for the septic tank installation, but in addition, variances on septic tanks are an item that the Board looks at lightly; especially at the location relative to the lake. Mr. Doyle said that the run-off will be coming off to the front of the property which will take care of road drainage should also look at swales to capture and slow down the water.

Mr. Cwalinski asked for the well location of neighboring properties. Mr. Rutland said that it will be placed on map. Mr. Cwalinski asked about shoreline repair. Mr. Rutland said that the process will be taken through the proper channels and then brought back to the Planning Board.

Ms. Cyr recommends that the rate of run-off is not increased on this site due to this project, but there is an existing drainage that comes down the southern property line; is that a town road or is that a private road. Mr. Rutland replied a private road. Ms. Cyr said that Joe Whalen, Highway Superintendent has a lot of problems with drainage on Lake Road and would like to see no increase of run-off to the Town road drainage system off Lake Road of this project.

Ms. Eddy asked that the septic system be shown on the final drawing.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:33pm.

No one wished to speak.

New York Development Group, Stonebridge PUDD, Lake Road. Warren Longacker of Lansing Engineering was here on behalf of New York Development Group to present Stonebridge PUDD. The project is located on the western side of Lake Road and total 74 acres which the applicant chose to develop the parcel as a TND which will include a mix of single family, condominiums, commercial and town home type units.

Mr. Longacker said that the applicant has submitted this project to the Town Board and received positive referral to the Planning Board and has indicated to the Town Board specific community benefits.

Mr. Longacker said that the installation of sewer and the pump station along Lake Road and a donation of $100,000.00 to the Town as well as a secondary benefit an inclusion of a passive park along Lake Road of a less than a 200’ buffer.

Mr. Longacker said since the last meeting the applicant’s have received a letter from the Town Engineer stating that the conceptual layout plan is in general conformance with the town zoning. Mr. Longacker also received traffic engineer’s comments. Mr. Longacker said that the applicant’s are working towards receiving preliminary approval from Planning Board and Town Board and also preliminary engineering designs and receive guidance from the Town Board on the changes.

Mr. Doyle asked about the architectural styles with the prominence to the garage being recessed. Mr. Doyle asked the applicants to describe the multi-family units in detail; (architectural detail)

Mr. Doyle said that one of the comments was relative to the gazebo at the center round-about and there was a suggestion putting the crosswalks putting the center crosswalks 15’ to 20’ on either side of the round-about; connecting sidewalks. Mr. Doyle asked if any of these suggestions been considered.

Mr. Longacker said it will be looked at during preliminary design and will be in conformance with DOT type style round-about and put those crosswalks access to the center portion.

Mr. Booth said that at the last meeting there has been a concern there have been comments from the Board with the garages sticking out to far in the front. Mr. Booth distributed a schematic to the Board to show the garages recessed not the prominent feature on the house. On the opposite side of the page they are the prominent feature the garages are sticking out. Mr. Booth said with the most recent presentation that was given they are called "snout houses" they are unattractive particularly for this type of development. Mr. Booth has committed to have the garages recessed on the houses and porches which give the homes a sense of community.

Mr. Booth said that every adjacent building both townhouse and condominium with have a different landscaping plan. Mr. Booth said that different contrasting colors will be used to break up the townhouse; there are essentially three units connected. Mr. Booth said that there will be no two identical single family houses next to each other. Mr. Booth would like to have a flexibility of the setbacks; 2’ from house to house.

Mr. Booth said that the open space area with a drop off and has a concern and does feel a good idea for a path and would prefer a restriction; this area can still be used, but no paths or outlets onto Outlet Road or Lake Road. (safety concern) Mr. Booth said that a HOA would police this area to stop individual from entering that area. Mr. Booth described on the map the active park area and the passive park area.

Mr. Booth said that it is important that these future projects to be interconnected with the adjacent properties; whether they are developed today or whether they are developed five or ten years down the road. Mr. Booth showed future connection to adjoining properties.

Ms. Cristy asked if they were shard driveways. Mr. Booth replied no. Ms. Cristy asked for railings on front steps.

Mr. VanVorst asked the variable setback from house to house. Mr. Booth replied 2’ to 4’.

Mr. Reilly asked if changes were made to the local law. Mr. Booth said that if these concepts work and if that is what the Board wants to see, that is what will be adequate.

Ms. Eddy said what will be adequate what you already have done. Mr. Booth asked what has been suggested as changes to the plan. Ms. Eddy said then the Planning Board would review and before it goes to the Town Board. Mr. Booth said that it would be at the Boards discretion.

Ms. Eddy would like some understanding of how and when the commercial aspect is going to be done. Ms. Eddy does not want it sitting for five years. Ms. Eddy asked how this will be built out. Mr. Booth said that it will be dependent on the time frame the development goes out and what the uses are.

Ms. Eddy feels this proposal needs a professional review and forward to Town Board. Mr. VanVorst feels that the Board is unprepared and it is not the applicants fault.

Mr. Booth said that everyone has a different idea of what they would like to see. There are certain principals that are consistent from plan to plan which have been incorporated into the plan. Mr. Booth said that some individuals like alley’s and personally does not feel they work well in the northeast.

Ms. Eddy said that this is a great project and wants this project to work. Ms. Eddy said that it is not the concept or the changes that have been made, it is the legislation. Mr. Knox said that the Town has to embrace what it wants here. Mr. Doyle said that it has to fit the town. Ms. Eddy has a concern with the legislation.

Mr. Reilly said that once there is a concept and then the verbiage will need to be put in legal form will not be difficult. Mr. Reilly said that it is much more difficult to grasp the concept; what is a TND, what do you want in a TND.

Ms. Eddy feels that it is in her mind because our theory of what this should be needs to translate into the individual that is going to build this project; there are massive loopholes. Mr. Reilly said that it needs to be reflective in legislation which will be binding.

Mr. Reilly said under the procedure outlined in the ordinance the local law should be prepared with any modifications incorporated into if not to say that the Town Board could not massage it or change. Mr. Reilly said that it is the consensus on the concept and then let the applicant amend the local law that has been proposed and let the Board look at it extend the comments to the Town Board. Mr. Reilly said that this should be looked at again at this point.

Mr. Booth asked does it meet the zoning that was passed; he feels that it does. Mr. Reilly said that it does meet the review criteria of the Comprehensive Plan.

A further discussion was held on review of the legislation.

Mr. Doyle asked the Board if further review is needed of the legislation.

Ms. Eddy feels further review is needed.

Mr. Cwalinski said that further review is needed.

Mr. VanVorst is not in favor.

Ms. Cristy feels further review is need; an individual that is familiar with Town of Ballston.

Mr. Hayden said that we do the best with what we want and forward to the Town Board for their review and if they want an expert to look at it is their opinion.

Mr. Booth said who knows Ballston better than the Planning Board and the people that live here.

Mr. Reilly said after reading the legislation that was passed the applicant can either propose a TND whether the Planning Board can require it, but the Planning cannot require it, but the Planning Board is not requiring it and the applicant is proposing it. Ms. Eddy asked if it would get the same density. Mr. Booth said that obviously could do three to four times what is being proposed under the legislation.

Mr. Reilly asked the applicants to incorporate changes into the legislation and have the members look at it and send to Town Board with a recommendation and if the Board feels it need to be looked at by an outside agency and feels this Board has concerns about the legislation which reflects the TND.

Mr. VanVorst said that is the Board required to insist that there is commercial because of the new zoning. Mr. Doyle said that we do not have to insist. Mr. VanVorst said that if it is a TND the Board has to enforce commercial, it is a PUDD the Board does not have to.

Mr. Reilly asked for verbiage in words of possible build-out. Ms. Eddy agreed.

Mr. Johnson said that section 104-14 B. Purpose. The purpose of the standards is to allow the option development and redevelopment of land in the Hamlet Residential and Ballston Lake Residential Zoning Districts consistent with the design principles of traditional neighborhoods. Mr. Johnson feels that it is optional. Mr. Reilly concurs. Mr. Doyle said that commercial is not needed in everyone. Mr. VanVorst said that he stands corrected.

Mr. Doyle asked if anyone would like to make a motion to send this back to the Town Board and explain that the Board is in agreement with the concept and are concerned with the legislation incorporates all the facets of the concept. Mr. Reilly said that the Planning Board would like to look at the legislation as amended. Mr. Booth said that an updated copy will be forwarded to the Board.

Mr. Knox asked for an informal consensus of the Board on the commercial portion of the proposal. Mr. Booth said the option would be to encourage more density in the critical mass; luxury apartments.

Mr. Booth read an excerpt from the PUDD legislation.

Mr. Booth said that for any use will require site plan review. Mr. Booth said that the commercial is incorporated into the traffic study.

Mr. Doyle said the Board needs Mr. Reilly and Mr. Pott to review and feel the language is in concurrence with the concept.

Application tabled.

New York Development Group, 1487 Route 50 for Site Plan Review and a Special Use Permit for Cornerstone Condominiums. Warren Longacker of Lansing Engineering was present along with New York Development Group to present The Cornerstone Condominium Development. The project is located on the west side of Route 50 approximately 1000sq. ft. of the intersection of Route 67. The parcel is approximately 7.7 acres in size and currently utilized as a stone and landscape retail center. The existing building, parking and outdoor storage area is located along the western and eastern parts of the parcel along Route 50.

The topography site is generally flat with contours ranging from 100’ to 195’. Mr. Longacker said that the access to the site will be provided by a new curb cut located along the western side of Route 50.

The applicant’s are looking to develop this parcel to impede the existing zoning and surrounding land uses. The first parcel is one acre will be utilized by commercial use and the property in the back is 6.7 acres will be utilized for residential use which the applicants are proposing 12 four unit condominium buildings and one 6 unit condominium building totaling 54 units.

Mr. Longacker said that a letter was submitted on June 27, 20007 requesting certain waivers from the town zoning for the residential project. The Town Engineer returned the letter the letter supporting the waivers with two exceptions which will be addressed; one the buffer in between the residential and the commercial uses area. Relocate the trees between the sidewalk and the actual curb.

Mr. Longacker said that the water to the site will be provided by an extension by an existing 12" main which will be provided along the road. The sanitary sewer service will be connected to an existing main which is approximately 2750ft. south on Route 50 and the force main will pump out approximately half that distance and a gravity system will be picked and lay it down in an existing manhole. The storm water management will be managed on site.

Mr. Longacker said that the applicants are looking for preliminary approval on the project contingent upon addressing CT Male comments as well as needing approval from the state agencies DEC and DOH.

Mr. Cwalinski asked if there were any renderings the proposed buildings. Mr. Booth said they were

shown at the last meeting.

Mr. Johnson has a concern for emergency vehicle access around the cul-de-sac. Mr. Longacker said that he looked at that and a ladder truck measured 37 ½. long and ran it on a program and see that it would access. Mr. Johnson asked if the Eagle Matt Lee Fire Dept was contacted. Mr. Longacker replied no, just a standard fire truck program. Mr. Longacker said that it can access the site and it can go around the cul-de-sac, but would have to back out. Mr. Johnson said that he did not know the length of their fire truck. Mr. Longacker said he would check with them and modify it to see how it works.

Ms. Eddy asked if there was going to be a sign. Mr. Doyle reiterated wanting to know if a sign was being proposed. Mr. Booth proposed yes. Mr. Knox replied yes and will be maintained by the HOA.

Mr. Doyle asked the reason for using split rail fence around basin #1. Mr. Longacker said that in that area is surrounded by buffer and a barrier and would be more attractive than a chain link fence. Mr. Longacker said that installation of that fence in relation to the geo grid to the wall will be taking a look at to incorporate the side of the fence to the wall as opposed to go through potentially and affect the geo grid.

Mr. Hayden appreciated Mr. Lansings detailed Design Standard presentation and would appreciate it if every applicant would do the same. Mr. Longacker thanked Mr. Hayden.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 9:40pm

James Bordheim, 522 Cindy Lane asked what variances for granted. Mr. Longacker said that this parcel is within the Mixed Use North Zoning District and the legislation in that district refers to commercial development and this plan the back 6.7 acres are residential in nature. The one requested variance would be the façade being perpendicular to the street and parallel to the street, obviously being residential in nature for these units being perpendicular to street to access to the garages. The 0 setback limit lines to provide space between the buildings would be more for commercial use; separation between the buildings for esthetic and safety issues. The parking in the rear; provide parking in front for residential in nature. The landscaping between the commercial and residential use which the Town Engineer will not grant that waiver unless there is space between the commercial and residential space.

The plan shows trees along the road, but not within the strip between the edge of the pavement and the sidewalk; the trees will be relocated to be within the strip between the sidewalk and the pavement.

Sidewalks are adjacent to the road 5’ in width and generally a 3’ to 4’ wide area of green space in between the sidewalk and the edge of the road. Mr. Longacker said that a private or public road no less than 60’ in width which will be maintained by a HOA. Mr. Doyle asked the status of all the requested variances. Mr. Longacker said that CT Male reviewed and gave their approvals with the exception of the two that will be changed.

Michael Barno, 636 Cindy Lane asked the boundary distance between the road and properties and the buildings and the properties. Mr. Longacker approximately 15ft. between the edge of the road and the developed line and another 3ft to 4ft. to the sidewalk; possibly 18ft.

Ms. Eddy asked Mr. Booth how much green space is there now, and how much will be left on the property line.

George Corneilus, 625 Cindy Lane asked the required distance between property lines.

Michael Barno has a concern with the current back yards and what the spacing between the yards will be. Ms. Eddy asked if the homeowner maintains lawn to the property line. Mr. Barno replied no that there are strips of trees. Ms. Cyr asked for a copy of the landscaping plan. Mr. Barno asked what requirement is there for a buffer. Mr. Johnson said that the Mixed Use North District zero side setback.

Ms. Cyr said that it only calls for a buffer between residential and commercial uses. Ms. Cyr with this area being residential and your property being residential it does not require it. Ms. Eddy said that New York Development Group has a good reputation for not clearing cutting because they can do it. Mr. Doyle said that New York Development Group will be honest to their word.

Mr. Reilly said speaking to the concern about the buffering to the area; a no cut zone could be shown on the plan. Mr. Booth said that if it is an issue and anticipate taking down more trees, then the tress will be replaced.

Mr. Longacker said that the grading was limited behind the buildings due to the flat nature of the site.

Mr. Longacker said that these buildings two story buildings four units and a two story six unit building.

Ms. Eddy asked how many bedrooms. Mr. Know said the lower floor will be approximately 1300sq.ft. and the upper floor will be 1700sq. ft. with garages in the front and will be maintained by a HOA.

Ms. Barno asked the price range. Ms. Barno asked about a fence due to a pool in their yard and privacy.

Paul Simpson asked which area is higher the new or the existing. Mr. Longacker said that the central potion is 100’ of elevation and the rear portion is at 98’ and then moves to 95’. Mr. Simpson said that because there is going to be all this development where is all the water going to go does it run into the existing neighbors? Mr. Longacker replied no each house has a lateral going to a catch basin on a small group connected to a small catch basin alternating to a storm water management area sized to 100 year storm.

Anne Pierce asked about guest parking and is there a playground. There is a very large open area for children. Mr. Longacker said that the homes will be purchased with couples without children or older adults. Mr. Longacker said that there are two extra spaces for parking for each unit and no parking along the road. Ms. Pierce asked if a moving van can make the turning radius of the cul-de-sac.

Ms. Pierce asked "when it is switched from having a Home Owners Association to having it be professionally done." Mr. Booth said that a Home Owners Association is always professionally done.

A further discussion was held on Home Owners Associations (HOA).

Ms. Barno asked for stockade fence to be installed because of there above ground pool. Mr. Booth said that when the pool is being used is when the trees have full vegetation and will have a natural buffer. Mr. Booth is not in favor of stockade fence.

John Forshey feels that the property owners should fence their own property and anyone to object to residential property and have neighbors will have more neighbors and what is being said wants to take away another property owner rights to develop their property.

Mitch Draina said that on other developments there were right-of-ways to get into adjacent properties that were undeveloped; is this provided. Mr. Longacker and extension said it could be of the cul-de-sac.

Mr. Booth said that it would be a private road.

Mr. Cwalinski asked the engineering comments have been addressed. Ms. Cyr said that she will work with Lansing engineering on remainder which are technical in nature. Ms. Cyr believes that seven of the nine waiver requests are applicable to this project and recommend the Board grant the waivers. Ms. Eddy asked which two are to be granted. Ms. Cyr said that the two that need modification are #6; the applicant provide screening of the six unit condos and the future commercial lot and #7; putting the trees inside the sidewalk road buffer versus other side.

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski made a motion to accept the waivers. Ms. Eddy seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

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

Ms. Cyr said that the Sewer District Ext. has not been granted and suggested to the Board to wait to grant a Negative Declaration.

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

Mr. Doyle read through the four criteria of a Special Use Permit.

1) The use shall be of such location, size and character that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the district in which it is situated and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of the adjacent districts. The Board is in agreement

2) The location and size of the use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved or conducted in connection therewith, its site layout, and its relation to streets giving access to which shall be of such that traffic to and from the use and the assembly of persons in connection with it will not be hazardous or inconvenient to the neighborhood or conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood. The Board is in agreement.

3) The location and height of buildings, the location, nature and height of walls and fences, and that the use will not hinder or discourage the proper development and use of adjacent land and buildings or impair the value thereof. The Board is in agreement.

4) The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served and appropriate use of neighboring

property will not be substantially or permanently injured, subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards as determined necessary to promote the public health, safety and welfare. The Board is in agreement.

MOTION: Mr. VanVorst made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit. Ms. Cristy seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Mr. Doyle asked for preliminary approval of this project. Ms. Cristy made the motion for approval. Mr. Cwalinski seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Walter Katz, Outlet Road for a Major a Major Subdivision. John Gay of Northeast Land Surveyors was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Gay said that this proposal is for a two lot subdivision meeting all the town zoning setback requirements. Mr. Gay said that since the last meeting there was an update of the Storm Water Management Report for the medical arts building to include the two lots. Mr. Gay said that it will be possible to save and maintain tree cover on both of the lots.

Ms. Cyr said that the design that was submitted has met the DEC requirements and have signed off as proposed.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 10:30pm

Mr. Potorcar said that in the building contract it states a 60’ setback said that nothing can be built around the property line. Mr. Reilly said that the Planning Board cannot enforce this kind of private deed restriction. Mr. Gay said that it will be brought Mr. Katz’s attention.

Mr. Reilly asked if there is a private driveway agreement of record. Mr. Gay assumes so.

Mitch Draina asked about the access road because it is not really a road where the water line is located. Mr. Gay said that it is an easement to the water district and is intended to service the project. Mr. Draina asked if it will become a road. Mr. Gay said that it may become a road in fact in the future.

Julian Duchesne, 1157 Route 50 is the any plans for a second entrance on Route 50. Mr. Doyle said that the medical building has an entrance on Route 50 and Outlet Road.

Mr. Draina asked if the road could be shifted 50’ one way or the other to avoid so traffic wouldn’t be traveling down outlet road toward the proposed PUDD on Lake Road. Mr. Gay said that it could be accomplished by shifting it west, but not east.

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

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

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski made a motion to approve the subdivision of lands of Walter Katz III described on dwg 239.-1-75.1, rev June 27, 2007; subject to the attorney review of the deed and subject to $500.00 park and recreation fees for each lot at issuance of building permit. Ms. Eddy seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Mr. Doyle asked Mr. Reilly to take a look at the clause in the deed.

MOTION: Mrs. Cristy made a motion to approve the June 25, 2007 as submitted. Mr. Cwalinski seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Cristy seconded the motion.

Meeting adjourned at 10:38pm

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman