Chairman Doyle called the July 26, 2007meeting to order at 7:30pm and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Doyle reviewed the agenda.

Lisle A. Eaton, Jr., 8 Waverly Road for Site Plan Review for the construction of a garage. Mr. Eaton was present to present the case to the Board. Mr. Eaton applied for a building permit for the construction of a garage which required variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals that were granted. Mr. Eaton said the only outstanding item was the location of the drywell for the gutter downspouts.

Mr. Doyle asked if there will be drywell on each side of the building. Mr. Eaton said his intention would be to have two on each corner of the building as it faces Waverly Road.

Mr. Cwalinski asked how many feet between the garage and shoreline. Mr. Eaton replied 390ft. Mr. Hayden asked if part of the garage going to be on the blacktop. Mr. Eaton said that part of the blacktop will be excavated out for the garage. Mr. Hayden asked the height of the proposed garage. Mr. Eaton replied on story. Mr. Eaton said eventually the existing garage will be taken down.

Mr. Doyle asked the applicant to provide drywell information to CT Male.

Ms. Cyr said that she is confident during construction that there will be no possibility of any sediment running off into the lake into this project and given the installation of two drywells there should not be any increase of any runoff to this project.

Mr. Reilly said that under Site Plan Review this Board has discretion to waive all and any of the requirements depending on the level of the project and the environmental concerns which have been spoken to. Mr. Reilly said that if everything on the sketch plan is sufficient the Board can make its decision.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 7:45pm

Mr. Doyle closed the public hearing 7:46pm

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.

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

Mr. Doyle said that the drywells would need to be installed before the building permit is issued.

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski made a motion to approve the addition of the garage subject to the addition of the drywells on either side of the garage. Ms. Cristy seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Christ the Savior Church, 349 EastLine Road for Site Plan Review. Joseph Bianchine of ABD Surveyors was here on behalf on Christ the Savior Orthodox Christian Church. Mr. Bianchine said that the property is located on the west side of EastLine Road consisting of 7.5 acres. The site is currently an open field. The proposal is for a 7,300sq.ft. one story church with steeples that will be less than 40ft. Mr. Bianchine said that the applicants are proposing a one way driveway circulation; one way in on the south side up to the front of the church to the canopy to drop off. Mr. Bianchine said there will be parking in the back of 54 parking spaces which is more than what the proposed total lot code requires. The church is setback 160ft. from the right-of-way and 175ft. from the pavement. Mr. Bianchine said that it is in line with the house from the north.

Mr. Bianchine said that the landscaping around the foundation of the church in the back and the islands in the parking lot will also have landscaping around the monument sign and trees along East Line Road.

Mr. Bianchine said that water and sewer are at the site. There is a sewer line one the easterly side of East Line Road which will require a grinder pump and cross East Line Road.

Mr. Bianchine said that drainage on the site currently flows from the south to the north and maintains that same drainage pattern and swale to direct water to the back.

Mr. Bianchine said that down type lighting has been proposed.

Mr. Bianchine said that paving only the front portion of the site and leaving the rear portion as a crusher run stone and saving some of the landscaping in the back initially. Mr. Bianchine said due to the high cost of materials.

Mr. Doyle asked if the applicant have spoken to the County about the two road cuts. Mr. Bianchine said that he has a call into Mr. Serbalik.

Mr. Cwalinski asked to describe "special events" Rev. Burdikoff replied church activities, holiday events.

Mr. Hayden asked the location of the steeple. Mr. Bianchine pointed out the location of the steeples.

Mr. Cwalinski asked how owned the bollards. Mr. Bianchine said that the bollards are located on the road right-of-way and would need permission from county highway.

Ms. Cristy asked if the meditation and bell tower if it is a separate building. Mr. Bianchine replied that it is a grass area with benches.

Mr. Hayden asked if the turning radius has been checked for emergency vehicles for fire trucks. Mr. Bianchine said that he thinks that it can be accommodated.

Mr. Hayden said that the engineer encourages fewer parking spaces. Mr. Hayden asks what’s your theory on that suggestion. Mr. Bianchine said that this is what the church wants and will be cutting down on pavement.

Mr. Bianchine said that CT Male comments will be addressed accordingly.

Mr. Doyle opened the public haring 7:55pm

Dean Doin, 343 EastLine Road asked if the hedgerow will be left.

Mr. Doin asked the height of the light poles. Mr. Bianchine replied 20ft.

Rev. Birkhoff said that services will be held on holy days.

A question was raised about having three steeples. Rev. Birkhoff said that there will be one larger steeple and the other two will be smaller. Mr. Bianchine held up a drawing of the church to see the rear elevation view.

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

Mr. Doyle asked the applicant to incorporate the CT Male comments and if there are questions, contact Ms. Cyr.

Mr. Doyle asked about security lighting or will post lights be used; will they be used all the time. Mr. Bianchine said that they lights will be on a timer. Mr. Doyle has a concern with spillage onto the other

properties.

Mr. Cwalinski asked for right-to-farm law to be added to final map. Michelle provided Mr. Bianchine with the standard verbiage.

Application tabled.

H.R. Schultz, Commerce Drive for Site Plan Review and a Special Use Permit. Jim Martin of the LA Group was here on behalf of Harold Schultz for the East Line Commons. Mr. Martin said that this is the first part of the phase one development that was recently approved in a PUD modification that was before the Planning Board and received Town Board approval for the modification. Mr. Martin said that the subdivision of what is now approximately 13 acre lot and one lot consisting of 5.7 acres and the two other lots 4.2, 3.2 acres in size; lot #15 and lot #17. Mr. Martin said that the building coverage is consistent with lots that have been developed along this route; mixed use buildings, office, light manufacturing assembly or warehousing as consistent with the PUD as modified.

Mr. Martin received CT Male comments and will comply with requests for further clarification and information within the next week or two.

Mr. Martin said the narrative describes the project trying to accommodate on an employee basis because of the nature of the uses within the buildings because they shift somewhat between office and light manufacturing. Mr. Martin said that the upper end number of parking spaces which would be accommodated is shown on the site plan and be a good use of the building is shown and a loading dock off the back.

Mr. VanVorst asked what is #15A. Mr. Schulz said that they are the dedicated Army Corps Wetlands.

Ms. Eddy asked about the traffic study. Mr. Martin has been corresponding with DOT and is nearly done with that correspondence and has accepted the traffic counts and found ours to be accurate. Mr. Martin said that information has been sent to DOT showing there is not need for a left turn movement with the assignment of some traffic through to East Line Road. Mr. Martin said that the level of service (LOS) at the intersection oval remains the same; there is a slight drop in one of the levels of service at a particular turning movement at a particular hour; the overall stays the same.

Ms. Eddy asked the applicant if there are tenants for the proposed buildings. Mr. Martin said that there are no specific tenants at this time.

Ms. Cyr said that there are existing storm water basins on site. Mr. Martin replied yes. Ms. Cyr asked if they are constructed under the old regulations which require just retention. Mr. Schultz asked for review of that under the new code. Ms. Cyr made the Board aware that she is comfortable with approving a project that is not meeting DEC current standards once DEC has signed off on it or approves it. Ms. Cyr indicated that the missing items would be treatment of the run-off; there would be increase run-off to the site, just the water will not be treated.

Mr. Doyle asked the plan for the rest of the development to the east; balance of the development. Mr. Martin refers area (E) showing two buildings that have been in for site plans that were in for site plan approval and subdivision and the rest has no specific tenants. Mr. Martin said that the plan would be to transition through the site from residential to a mixed use building with residential and some offices and office and retail to the front. Mr. Martin said that area (A) would be the next to apply for site plan.

Mr. Doyle said that based on DOT is the east/west road that runs between the business districts and would like the applicant to consider that this road get developed to take the load off the left hand turn. Mr. Schultz said that this is already functioning now behind building #12. Mr. Martin said that the road exists, but will be moving it and making it more prominent.

Mr. Hayden asked the number of stories. Mr. Schultz said that the current configurations of some of the buildings have mezzanines; second stories for storage.

Mr. VanVorst said that there are occupants in area (E). Mr. Martin said that building #14 is approved and #11, #13, and #12 exist.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:20pm

Mr. Doyle closed the public hearing 8:21pm

No one wished to speak

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

Mr. Doyle said that the Board feels that the concept is great and proceed ahead with the rest of the engineering.

Application tabled.

Brooks Heritage, LLC Round Lake Road for a Minor Subdivision Duane Rabideau of Gilbert VanGuilder and Associates is present on behalf of the applicant to present the case to the Board. The applicant is request to subdivide an 81 acre parcel of land into a two lots. The parcel fronts on East Line Road and also on Round Lake Road which will be creating lot #1 of approximately 79 acres and down in the south east corner of the parcel will creating a residential building lot of 2 acres. The residential lot will have an on site septic system and also a private well.

Ms. Eddy asked about the proposed ingress and egress for the proposed PUDD which should be identified on the map.

Mr. Cwalinski asked about the assumed 75’ wide easement.

Mr. Cwalinski asked for the building envelope to be placed on the map.

Ms. Cyr asked a question about the 100’ buffer; the septic leach field is the south west corner considered a DEC or ACOE wetland. Mr. Rabideau replied no that DEC and ACOE determined that it was not wetlands. Ms. Cyr wants to make sure that the proposed septic location is not within the DEC buffer.

Mr. Doyle asked the distance to the sewer line or water line. Mr. Rabideau did not know. Ms. Cyr said that it would be the same proposal as for the Round Lake Road TND to provide extensions. The closest water in the Town of Ballston is located at East Line Farms Subdivision.

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

Richard Ward said that his property was delineated. Mr. Rabideau said that his firm has had the ACOE delineate the property. Mr. Ward indicated that his property has been delineated, not the property that is being proposed and how do you know that they delineated that aggregate of wetlands. Mr. Rabideau replied "that’s what we do and they sign off on it." Mr. Rabideau said that all the agencies have been out there numerous times. Mr. Ward said that after contacting the ACOE they said there was an error after during the delineation process. Mr. Rabideau said it might have extended into it because your property because is the last one. Mr. Ward asked if water and sewer will be off East Line Road. Mr. Rabideau said it will run down through this major subdivision; down Lake Road. Mr. Ward asked how many residents will connect to water and sewer. Mr. Rabideau indicated that their firm is not working on that part only concentrating on the subdivision. Ms. Cyr asked for clarification of the TND that was in front of the Board last evening was it on this property or on the Roberts property. Mr. Rabideau clarified that it was on both properties.

Jim Splain, 2 Mourningdale Ct. asked if something will be done on the property on Round Lake Road. Mr. Splain asked when it comes to part by Round Lake Road would like the developer to keep 25ft to 30ft. of trees from Round Lake Road into the development. Mr. Doyle said that the development sits in about 100ft. because of the wetlands. Ms. Cyr said that it is 300ft to 400ft.

Mr. Splain asked if residents of Mouningdale Court will be able to hook up to water line. Ms. Cyr said that CT Male will be working with the Town Board at a water district extension and one of CT Males recommendations will be to look at will be extending the district to everyone and every parcel who abuts the line.

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 Minor Subdivision as described on the maps subdivision of lands of Brooks Heritage, LLC subject to the addition of the building envelope to the dwg. and showing the ingress and egress for the proposed TND on Round Lake Road and $500.00 park and rec fee to be collected at issuance of building permit. Ms. Eddy seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Darren & Holly Fitzgerald, 258 Scotchbush Road for a Minor Subdivision. Duane Rabideau of Gilbert VanGuilder and Associates was present to present the case to the Board. Mr. Rabideau said that the rectangle parcel consists of 7 acres parcel located in the front with the single family dwelling and then subdivide it for two single family dwellings consisting of a keyhole lot (2) 2.3 acres and keyhole lot (3) 2.2 acres. Mr. Rabideau said that the applicants are also requesting a lot line adjustment for the parcel in the back so there is 60ft to get back to the rear parcel.

Mr. Rabideau said that the parcels will be serviced by individual well and septic.

Ms. Eddy asked for the consideration of one driveway; one curb cut.

A further discussion was held on flag lots which are allowed only in minor subdivisions in the rural district.

Mr. Doyle asked for one curb cut (one access road).

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:50pm

Bill Hagen, 248 Scotchbush Road asked if the two lots meet the current zoning. Mr. Doyle replied yes. Mr. Hagen would like to know approximately where the proposed homes will be placed on the "L" shaped lot. Mr. Rabideau gave an indication what was proposed on the map. Mr. Hagen has a concern with the lot in the back because of the wetlands and runoff and how it will affect his property. Mr. Doyle said that town code does not allow an individual to build their house to have any runoff created by that building to leave that individuals property. Mr. Doyle said that there will be swales that so develop that the water will remain where it is today, but will not be anymore.

Mr. Doyle closed the public hearings 8:54pm.

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

Mr. Cwalinski asked about test pit information. Mr. Doyle said that a separate addendum was sent with that information. Mr. Doyle indicated that the test pit information needs to be added on the final map.

A further discussion was held on having one driveway.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:59pm

Mr. Cunningham said that he sold the property to the Fitzgerald’s and the future plan was to build a house in the back, but a house was built by the road. Mr. Cunningham was unaware of the two additional homes being built.

Mr. Doyle asked if the land deal is transacted; Mr. Cunningham is holding the mortgage. Mr. Reilly said the only concern of the Board is that it meets zoning.

Mr. Doyle closed the public hearing 9:02pm

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski made a motion to approve the subdivision described by the drawing subdivision and lot line adjustment between the lands of Darren and Holly Fitzgerald# 07-30-37, dated July 2, 2007 subject to the test pit and soil data being added and one point of ingress and egress for this subdivision and any future subdivisions and $500.00 park and rec fee to be payable at issuance of building permit. Mr. VanVorst seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Pasquale & Verna Monaco, 267 Lake Road for a Sketch Plan Conference. Duane Rabideau was present to present the case to the Board. The applicants are proposing to subdivide a parcel around the existing house and create a 60’ wide private road and then create lot #2 which would front on this private drive.

Mr. VanVorst asked where the current property lines to be shown. Mr. Rabideau described the property lines to the Board.

Mr. Rabideau said that the proposal is to put the frontage for lot #2 on the private road; now lot #2 would require a piece of land from lot #8.

Mr. Rabideau said that the applicant is proposing relief from some of the requirements of the major subdivision. Mr. Doyle asked what is being recommended from the applicant. Mr. Rabideau said that topographic contours would apply to the entire piece of property in lieu of that just a limited topos of this area so that for possible subdivision will know what the contours are.

Ms. Cyr asked if a road will actually be built as part of this project. Mr. Rabideau replied no just requesting to build a driveway to just get to this parcel and when any other subdivision is before the Board will get upgraded to a private road status.

Mr. VanVorst asked the private road to the proposed house on lot #2 will come down to the easement. Mr. VanVorst asked the driveway to the existing house in lot #1 still come off of that. Mr. Rabideau replied yes.

Ms. Eddy asked for clarification of the proposed TND in comparison to this proposal. Mr. Rabideau explained it to the Board and said that Chapel Hill is below.

Mr. Reilly asked if Monaco is going to retain the 60ft. private road. Mr. Rabideau replied yes. Mr. Reilly asked why not show a common driveway coming in and retain whatever rights by way of deed and keep a minor subdivision. Mr. Rabideau said that you cannot get the road frontage on Lake Road.

Mr. Rabideau said that the proposal is to create a lot around the house and new lot for a family member; and a lot line adjustment; which creates three lots.

Mr. Rabideau said that when looking at requirements of a major subdivision the topography are basically limited to the area that makes it manageable.

Mr. Doyle asked the Board their feeling of having the topographic to the end of the proposed lot of the private road in 306ft. Mr. Doyle said that the other 61 acres are not being disturbed at this time so the topographic will not be looked at in that area.

Ms. Cyr was in agreement. Mr. Doyle was also in agreement. Mr. Rabideau went through all the waivers with the Board.

Private roads; no easements (future will be an easement bonded to lot)

A number to identify each lot

Purpose for which sites other than residential lots are dedicated in the location; drainage in detention basins

Minimum setback lines on all lots

Names of owners of adjoining lands

Title subdivision, title block

Site data summary including number of residential lots (site statistics)

Proposed sanitary waste water disposal; proposed septic area on that lot

Proposed water supply distribution

All regulated wetlands are DEC and the closest is Ballston Lake

Street name signs

The final plot plan shall contain signatures, surveyors, engineers and deed restrictions.

The statement of intent which enables the Planning Board to the adequacy of trees to be retained and/or planted throughout the subdivision.

Mr. Doyle would suggest in addition to the items which the Board has agreed to put together a narrative that describes what they are and put the topographic lines on the map. The Board is in agreement. Mr. Doyle asked the applicant to contact Michelle for their outline which will be helpful to the applicant which was used on another project. Michelle said that she would fax that information to Mr. Rabideau.

Mr. VanVorst said on the site location map it shows an easement. Mr. Rabideau indicated that it was a power line easement.

Mr. Cwalinski asked for the right-to-farm to be added to the map. The reference #2; oil and gas lease will there be drilling. Mr. Rabideau it was put there for reference.

Mr. Doyle said that if the Monaco’s decide to develop their land in the back, it would become a major subdivision.

Ms. Eddy asked if this land is in the rural district. This property is located in the Ballston Lake Residential District. Ms. Eddy asked if flag lots were permitted in that district.

Application tabled.

William Laisdell, 1427 Route 50 for Sketch Plan Conference. Mr. Laisdell was present to present the case to the Board. The applicant is proposing to purchase property at 1487 Route 50 and move an existing landscape company that is currently at 1487 Route 50.

Mr. Laisdell wants to create a display for his landscaping company throughout the whole property for the different areas of work; boulderscapes, plantings, paver brick entryway and bins for topsoil, mulch and ornamental stone. Mr. Laisdell said a small lot for equipment and in the future a small building to perform maintenance on the equipment. Mr. Laisdell said that his initial plan is to move in for next year; would not be able to build for another year. Mr. Laisdell indicated the reason for the move is that the land is in the process of being sold.

Mr. Reilly indicated that this property is currently owned by Gerard Goudreault. Mr. Laisdell replied yes. Mr. Reilly asked if the applicant is under contract. Mr. Laisdell replied yes. Mr. Reilly asked if there is permission from Mr. Goudreault to come forward before the Board. Mr. Reilly indicated that it is not needed tonight, but it will be needed to move forward. Mr. Laisdell’s real estate agent said that it will be provided and was subject to approval.

Mr. Cwalinski said that he liked the proposed drawing, but would like it to be larger.

Ms. Cyr addressed the applicant that a full site plan approval which would require CT Male’s review which would require storm water runoff. Ms. Cyr asked the applicant what would be added in terms of pavement, crusher run for driveway. Mr. Laisdell replied crusher run, pavers. Ms. Cyr asked if there will be a substantial amount of crusher run for the purpose of parking. Mr. Laisdell said there will be a good size area, but plan on grading it so it goes in a retention pond in the middle which will display for shoreline. Mr. Cyr said that this will display a detention basin on this project. Mr. Laisdell replied yes in the middle. Ms. Cyr said that if there is a disturbance of more than one acre you must comply with all of DEC regulations. Ms. Cyr recommends avoiding DEC thresholds; avoid a basin if necessary. Ms. Cyr said to try to plan the development to stay under one acre. Mr. Laisdell asked over an acre. Ms. Cyr replied if the applicant develops more than an acre a treatment pond with four bay outlets. Mr. Laisdell asked what you mean by develop over an acre. Ms. Cyr replied if you develop more than an acre. Mr. Laisdell asked what you consider developed. Ms. Cyr said land disturbance, paving just from the standpoint of what you want versus and once you kick that threshold the engineer has to make the recommendations to the Board to force you to comply with DEC regulations. Ms. Cyr said that it will require engineered plans.

Mr. Laisdell asked what would be the cost for the size of this proposal. Ms. Cyr said that what their firm would budget to do a storm water management plan for two to three acres full design with survey would be upwards of $45,000.00. Ms. Cyr said that a full storm water management plan, erosion control and runoff calculations and possibly use your landscape pond as an intermediate feature to actually make to the area that smaller. Mr. Doyle said to make a point of clarification that Ms. Cyr is not saying to hire the firm where Ms. Cyr is employed.

Mr. Doyle asked about the existing office space. Mr. Laisdell said that the residence will be converted into an office and will need to be remodeled. Mr. Doyle said that there is a sign ordinance and suggested that the applicants look at it.

Ms. Cyr asked the applicant to look at the Design Standards which relate to building setbacks, landscaping, and signage.

Mr. Cwalinski asked about if the pallets could be moved to the rear. Mr. Laisdell said that space is being shared with the Brachts. Mr. Laisdell said that he maintains the property; mows the lawn.

Ms. Laisdell asked if a Special Use Permit is needed. Mr. Reilly asked if Mr. Johnson has looked at this proposal. Mr. Reilly said that this is listed under retail sales; a permitted use. Mr. Reilly said that retail sale is an allowable use in the Mixed Use North and this is retail sales.

Application tabled.

Meeting adjourned 9:40pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman