Chairman Doyle called the June 20, 2007 meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Chairman Doyle reviewed the agenda.

1. Review of PUD and PUDD requirements. Mr. Doyle indicated that both Town attorneys’ are present to enter in to conversation and provide direction.

Discussion of the TND concept relative to application within the town. Mr. Doyle said that a TND concept in a PUD.

Mr. Doyle has collected this information from Town Historian, Rick Reynolds and from the Town of Malta and thought it would be helpful. Mr. Doyle said that it summarizes that the Town of Ballston is the "hub."

Vision for the Burnt Hills intersection at LakeHill and Route 50.

For example: setbacks

side walks

green areas

parking

Mr. Doyle said for example the CVS in Glenville does not have parking in front, but on the side the building. Mr. Doyle said that the placement of that building is very important on the piece of land.

Mr. Doyle indicated that Creighton Manning Engineering performed the traffic study for CVS and the Town decided to hire and individual traffic consultant named George Jacquemart was the creator and project manager on the Route 67 Study and all of the work at Malta corners and Northway entrance and exit. Mr. Doyle said that a letter was issued by Mr. Jacquemart indicating a problem of traffic at that intersection.

Any topic suggested by Board Members.

Mr. Cwalinski asked the definition of a PUDD. Mr. Pott said that a Planning Unit Development is a change of zoning. The law of zoning in New York refers to "spot zoning" has come up in cases; which does not differ from the rest of the zoned parcels around it. The PUD is a way of legitimately changing a zone for a larger area of land and exercising a great deal of control over it; so what goes on that parcel of land meshes is a benefit to the areas around it. Mr. Pott said some of the planning techniques like the TND are not a change of zoning. Mr. Pott said there is an ability not only to change the zoning, but to change the requirements of a particular zone.

Mr. Cwalinski asked if the PUDD has to in accordance with the Master Plan or Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Pott said that a PUD is a technique for development and allows for creativeness. Mr. Pott used the Schultz PUDD as an example; he quoted it as "the threshold of the Town" it’s carried out and it’s pictured with a delightful appearance and a well layout significant shopping and residential use and seems to fit in.

Mr. VanVorst asked if there was a size limit on a PUDD. Mr. Pott said it’s generally no more that what is needed to carry out the wishes of the development.

Mr. Reilly said there is no maximum, but there is a minimum.

Mr. Rhodes brought up the TND and said that if one hundred units were proposed the concept of a TND needs to be followed. Mr. Rhodes would interpret that over a hundred in that zone where a TND development and the PUD is offering an additional set or layer of review at the Town Board level, but the TND concept is a requirement for anything there. Mr. Rhodes said that is different from the typical PUD application which is a floating zone that could be used anywhere in the town.

Mr. Reilly said to refer to section 138-23 gives a fairly good definition.

Ms. Eddy asks if built as shown is there anything the Planning Board can do to hold the developer to build what they come to us and we approve.

Mr. Rhodes said tighter zoning regulations.

Mr. Reilly said that if it was a PUDD unlike straight zoning with an architectural zone or historical zone the Board does not have the control over the PUDD unless legislation is passed. Mr. Reilly said that the Town Board when the legislation is passed will make sure the DCR speaks to any issue architectural treatment; it is the extra layer of protection in the PUDD if the applicant and Town Board can agree on how specific. Mr. Reilly said that the Town Board can ultimately do what they choose. Mr. Reilly said that the Town Board can put what ever it wants in there. Ms. Eddy asked if the Planning Board suggests it. Mr. Reilly replied yes because it is part of the initial review by the Planning Board and the proposed legislation should be worded and suggests the following specific inclusions in that DCR; the Town Board can either agree with that or not.

Mr. Rhodes said that it can also be done with restrictive zoning rather than a DCR. Mr. Rhodes said that the ordinances can be reviewed by the Planning Board to make sure that the concerns to control the development is detail those could include Design Standards. Mr. Rhodes said most specifically in the TND, sight organization, bulk, orientation to the street and uses.

Mr. Rhodes said that the Planning Board needs someone to guide them with experience TND development guiding applications through the process providing recommendations to the Planning Board. Mr. Rhodes said the way this code was designed is to change the way that this town does develop. Mr. Rhodes said that he feels most people would like to a two car garage; that is just what the market says.

Mr. Doyle said that the Town Board can change the zoning.

Mr. Rhodes said that the Town Board already approved the zoning.

Mr. Doyle said that he does not want to change the character of the Town.

Ms. Eddy said that people are complaining about new development and it is growing everywhere and it’s "cookie cutter stuff" and it looks like Clifton Park.

Mr. Rhodes said that the conversations from the Comprehensive Plan that the TND were discussed at length and was voted in by a majority of that committee and by a majority of the Town Board. Mr. Rhodes said that the recommendations of the consultant were to focus the density on that location; many different factors to take the burden off of the rural areas.

Mr. Doyle asked the Board if they are comfortable with the TND; should it be changed or is it fine the way it is.

Mr. Rhodes said that it is very loosely written and it was left that way because there was not time to create a model ordinance or detail it out by professionals.

Mr. Doyle said that there are advantages and disadvantages of TND with the closeness, two stall garages and what will happen with the third car. Mr. Doyle traveled to Crescent Ave. in Saratoga Springs in February 2007 after a snow storm and reminded him of Scotia or Mont Pleasant there were cars all over, snow banks and one neighbor blowing snow from his driveway onto the neighbor’s porch or into the driveway and it looked disorganized.

Mr. Doyle would like the idea of saving open space and less asphalt and fewer pipes in the ground.

Mr. Rhodes said that this TND is a bonus density concept. Mr. Rhodes said the question is, once you get into that hybrid are you really meeting the intent of the zone. Mr. Rhodes said that with site organization a lot of the topics that are being discussed can be abated, but it comes down to the mindset where those two partners are needed. Mr. Rhodes feels the Board ourselves from discussion to whether the TND fits, because the decision was already made. Mr. Rhodes said it comes down to what is important to make sure that it works.

Ms. Eddy said that the concept is "nifty" and where this particular one wants to go is a great place for it. Ms. Eddy said that it is not changing the central concept; it’s not the CVS on Lake Hill. Ms. Eddy said not everyone has to have a two car garage. Ms. Eddy said the whole idea of a one car attached garage can be done with a TND and then have an option to build a detached garage in the rear of the property. Ms. Eddy does not want to see anymore town homes; "they all look like barracks." Ms. Eddy asked for something intermediate on one floor for seniors or for young people who are single. Ms. Eddy would like a manageable size and the snow removal is the Boards job to figure out where it needs to go. Mr. Rhodes said that snow is a problem for two months out of the year.

Ms. Eddy said that people that live like this are going to have a sense of community. Ms. Eddy said that this is a throw back to the 50’s.

Mr. Doyle said that it appears to be that these homes are generally more of a transient type; five to ten years.

Ms. Eddy asked Mr. Knox the average life span at Beacon Hill. Mr. Knox replied a hand full.

Mr. Rhodes said that with the fuel costs rising people do not want the square footage to maintain or heat and are willing to accept a little less and better organization in the floor plan. Mr. Rhodes feels that more people will want to live there; rather than be tied to there house for the entire weekend.

Mr. Skip said that there is a discussion that something is planned that is presented to the Board.

Mr. Doyle replied Stonebridge which is a PUD.

Mr. Pott suggested merging some of the concepts of the TND.

Ms. Eddy said that there seems to be resistance of the concept of the TND.

Mr. Rhodes said that there is no one with experience counseling the Board. Mr. Rhodes read through the last record and it was clear without a lot of discussion regarding what the TND is. Mr. Rhodes feels that the Board needs an individual with experience to lead the Town with first application to make sure the ordinance is clear, consistent and meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning.

Mr. Pott said when the concept of the cluster zoning came about; cluster development New York State produced a good video illustrating this concept and had a good visual of where one had been built.

Mr. Rhodes said that this Town needs to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a consultant with experience to come on board to get this done properly. Mr. Doyle said that he would take that up with the Town Board. Mr. Rhodes said that the Board needs someone that has actually done a TND.

Mr. Rhodes gave specific details of the model ordinance, site organization, usage, standards, distance between common elements; for example a sixth of a mile between a residential pockets and open space to encourage that type of pedestrian connectivity and provide resources at a reasonable distance where people are actually going to use them. Mr. Rhodes said a restrictive option of three different types of ways to handle a garage. Mr. Rhodes said that they are definitely not on the sidewalk, single car garage towards the rear of the building, carport attached, single or double car garage all the way to the rear of the property to remove that mass from the pedestrian elements and the zero lot line configuration where the building was at the property line on one side of the property, but what happened on one side of the neighbor was that is their lawn and there was the ability to claim the 15ft. setback which is multiplied by 30 on every project. Mr. Rhodes said there is a way to organize the site individually with each buyer, but it is prescribed what is able to be done.

Mr. Doyle asked for a copy. Mr. Rhodes said he will send a link.

Mr. Doyle said that traveled to Rotterdam and there was a development of this nature with the garages to the rear; one and two stall. Mr. Doyle said that the garages were not the standard 24’ x 24’ they were 20’ x 20’.

Ms. Eddy asked if there were sidewalks. Mr. Doyle replied yes and each house had a light post. Ms. Eddy asked setback from the sidewalk. Mr. Doyle replied 30ft. and there were two vehicles and the second vehicle was blocking the sidewalk.

Mr. Rhodes has a concern with blocking the sidewalk and said that having an individual that has been through a TND process that can answer that question and say can eventually can fill up that space and people are going to have to decide consciously to collectively get in the same car to visit the destination; changing the way we typically do things based on development that maintains the scale of residential rather than accommodating of once a year parking to guide you through.

Mr. Doyle said that when discussing the right person moving into the neighborhood it has got to be an individual that does not require a shed or a swimming pool; it’s a little different than what you find in "suburbia."

Mr. Cwalinski asked that there be no pack rats, respect their neighbors, do not create noise, do not park cars along the sidewalk and shovel their sidewalk.

Mr. Rhodes said that the fact is if people don’t buy it, the developers are not going to build it. Mr. Cwalinski said that it is market driven. Mr. Rhodes said that typically what is done with codes is you attempt it before you throw it out.

Mr. Rhodes believes that there is a different market and there will be homes for people that want the space and want to have as many garages, but also believe that there are a lot of people that want to down size and there will be people that cannot afford a three hundred thousand dollar house or perhaps a two hundred thousand dollar house.

Mr. Doyle has a concern that this will be creating a problem.

Mr. Cwalinski said that the market will decide.

Ms. Eddy said that this is almost a point of fashion.

Mr. Doyle said that he will take the initiative and find an individual with experience.

Mr. Rhodes said that he would like to a Request for Proposals (RFP) to be issued so the Board can see qualifications so a recommendation can be made for hiring. Mr. Doyle is in agreement.

Mr. VanVorst said that there is a requirement for a mixture of commercial in these residential areas. Mr. Rhodes replied yes. Mr. VanVorst said that if our apprehension is that potentially these units may not be marketable then there is not going to be the support of commercial as well, so there is failure on both sides. Mr. VanVorst said the way the initial one is designed, it is going to be hidden not drawing from outside communities to these commercial businesses; so there is no support system there.

Mr. Rhodes said you will if properly designed.

Mr. Rhodes said with the right person supplying market data support. Mr. Doyle said that a market survey is probably available. Mr. Rhodes said that the applicant should not have to pay for this service this is a short coming in our zoning that was never properly quantified. Mr. Doyle agrees.

Ms. Eddy asked Mr. Pott’s opinion.

Mr. Pott said that it was passed over very quickly.

Mr. Doyle said that it was something that was not completed on our Comprehensive Plan and need to finish and to educate the Planning Board through this process. Mr. Doyle does not believe this is a direct expense to the applicant. Mr. Rhodes said reviewing of their application as it relates to the TND. Mr. Rhodes said that the general model ordinance the Town should be implementing. Mr. Rhodes said that the zoning that is less detailed. Mr. Rhodes would like to take that piece where it needs to go by both educational Planning Board and Town Board and get the model ordinance into the code at least a guideline and then be able to draw upon as a resource for this application or as a parallel.

Mr. Pott asked if this concept answers some of the problems with the Master Planning and Zoning of the citizens of the Town who no longer maintain the larger house and the land with it and wants to have something smaller to move into the last couple of years before a nursing home. Mr. Pott asked if they are priced so they are reachable.

Mr. Rhodes said allegedly by the fact that you are increasing the base density and offsetting the improvements that are required. Mr. Rhodes said that roughly one per acre in that zone multiplying by a factor of 12; Mr. Johnson said a max 12 per acre. Mr. Rhodes said that the theory behind the intensity would offset the expenses to allow a mixture of costs by not requiring these large lots of land to be consumed as of one of the biggest costs in development.

Mr. Doyle said that the Board will look for direction and finish the zoning ordinance. Mr. Doyle said that the Board will move ahead with the TND technical designs. Mr. Doyle said that he would have to discuss the RFP with the Town Board.

Mr. Doyle brought up architectural detail within the PUD. Mr. Rhodes said that he would like to hear that from the person that has a lot of experience from "cradle to grave" of the TND and would expect whatever consultant has that experience would be able to do both the site layout and the architectural.

Mr. Doyle said that people should have a choice. Mr. Rhodes said that it is part of the TND.

Mr. Reilly said that is certainly an education on curb appeal. Mr. Reilly said that a proper consultant with a specific background in the ordinance with an educational background.

Mr. Rhodes said that schedules and timelines are crucial and would like to see the Board go through the RFP and RFQ and have someone selected in a matter of weeks.

Mr. Doyle said that an RFP quotes would be back within two weeks.

Mr. Doyle received data showing a proposed round-about at the intersection of LakeHill Road and Route 50 and the concern was a closed restaurant, repair facility, strip mall and vacant gas station with a very small piece of land.

A further discussion was held on cleaning that area up in the town.

Mr. Doyle said that should CVS come back to the Board, some of the basic questions would be is setbacks, the building location, sidewalks, green area, and parking. Mr. Rhodes said it is already in the zoning; all the answers to those questions.

Mr. Doyle replied yes, the question, does the Board want to change it. Mr. Doyle said that it is more attractive if there is a curb at the end of the road and have a little grass to put the snow on and a sidewalk and a little grass around the building and even one row of parking.

Mr. Doyle referred to Malta four corners having a gazebo, diner, and a bad situation with a Stewart’s store.

Mr. Doyle asked for suggestions.

Mr. Rhodes asked for history back to the table and has already has this discussion during the Comprehensive Plan and the development of zoning and discussed very specifically regarding whether they should be guidelines or standards which now becomes zoning that is approved by the Town. Mr. Rhodes said yes, the Planning Board does have the flexibility to waive those zones, but the closer you get the business districts of Burnt Hills and Ballston Spa, the less flexibility to have in its interpretation. Mr. Rhodes said that it was created by the Town Board as an ordinance and have been offered the ability to grant variances, but when the code says that when the parking cannot be out front means that the Board can consider. Mr. Rhodes said that when you start thinking about what the Board wants to see there it is already spelled out unless there is a big reason for not doing it. Mr. Rhodes said that the purpose of having the tight zoning ordinances that the Board is empowered to implement is that a couple of very positive commercial developments will "spur" the redevelopment of that corridor and be the best for that corridor. Mr. Rhodes said No. (1) that intersection is one of the things that have prohibiting a lot of redevelopment. Mr. Rhodes said that finally had someone that would actually contradict some of the findings that the consultants traffic studies and said that it’s a positive step for the review of applications. Mr. Rhodes said that now the Board is looking at the possibility of not having to accept these traffic studies that say; it fails, but that is fine, but let’s have our building. Mr. Rhodes said indicated that piece is out of there. The second piece is really can we be conscious or legally just decide to throw away the zoning ordinances and literally say can’t have parking out front the buildings have to be near the road and have to have sidewalks. Mr. Rhodes said that the Board was discussing the grass storage strip between the edge of the curb to the sidewalk is required and the only difference is the parking in front. Mr. Rhodes said to have a discussion regarding what we want is not really something the Board should be having.

Mr. Doyle said the Board does have that ability and should look at the options and make sure we are getting what is the absolute best for the Town of Ballston.

Mr. Rhodes recommends having proper advice of someone that understands Design Standards of commercial development and also their assistance of review of these applications.

Ms. Eddy said that the Board has to be very careful not to set a precedent and made Tom "toe the line." Ms. Eddy asked Mr. Cwalinski how the corner of LakeHill and Route 50 will look. Mr. Cwalinski said that he can see Dan’s cleaned up, the strip mall; line bulldozers from one end to the other, gas station; possible green space and what ever building is built should be the same style.

Mr. Simpson asked if this intersection is a candidate for a round-about, and asked if there is enough room to do what was just discussed. Mr. Doyle replied yes; there is enough room. Mr. Rhodes concurred and said there is more than enough room than you think.

Mr. Doyle said that an individual consultant take a look at this and laid in a round-about at this location. Mr. Doyle said that there needs to be some property given to the state from the corner.

Mr. Pott said that one of the things that make our present round-abouts safe is the site line. Mr. Pott feels that without moving all those buildings out to get the site line, there will be an accident waiting to happen.

Mr. Doyle feels it is possible. Mr. Rhodes said from an engineering standpoint it fits.

Mr. VanVorst said that his biggest objection is the fire department; it doesn’t belong there. Mr. Johnson said that it is not going anywhere. Mr. Johnson said that the fire department just put $60,000.00 for a new heating system and new roof. Mr. Rhodes asked why it doesn’t belong. Mr. VanVorst because of what Mr. Doyle said the emergency vehicles cannot get in and out of during peak traffic hours. Mr. Rhodes agreed because part of that intersection fails.

Mr. Rhodes asked why this Planning Board needs to have an opinion of what should or should not go there. Mr. Rhodes said it is what the market will bare as long it will meet zoning requirements. Mr. Rhodes said that one item with development is the fear of change, and a lot of that is there is no real way to judge whether the proposed development is going to be consistent with the expectations since most of the people do not know what they should be expecting and Mr. Rhodes position with proper council and should put together something using the existing zoning that is in place that people can be proud of that will spur economic development of that corridor and abate the negative problems with the intersection without saying you must build something that looks like the Olde Homestead. Mr. Rhodes said that you may not be able to do that with a CVS that is up to them, but the architectural standards and guidelines are specific to say; this is what would fit. Mr. Rhodes said that a transportation study has been conducted and says mitigation needs to be done to get that scale to work; changes that are required for the configuration. Mr. Rhodes said that now you know what the future development of that intersection will be and you can shape development to match that. Mr. Rhodes said that we now have another piece of the puzzle and what do we do to fix that intersection, now we know. Mr. Rhodes said site organization the placement of the buildings would be in accordance with the code that is approved because it talks about how to break up the façade that make it not a typical commercial structure; without saying don’t build us another Old Homestead. Mr. Rhodes said it is a natural to fall back into the fear of change because there isn’t the experience to make an informed decision.

Mr. Cwalinski said that his concern goes further south of that intersection because that is the gateway of this town.

Mr. Pott would like to see a de-emphasis of development of that intersection because the State of New York is not going to do anything of its own with it and does not have the money for it. Mr. Pott said that all the properties are so close to the road it would cost the state a lot of money through eminent domain or what other taking mechanism to acquire those to do anything significant Mr. Pott said that there are children coming from three of the major schools from the town and many walk short distances, but would like to see something of that visually as well as from a traffic standpoint. Mr. Pott spoke with a Pharmacist at CVS and said that CVS likes corners and loves to build on a corner. Mr. Pott said that it creates a problem from a site line. Mr. Pott said that there is another piece of property to the south which would accommodate the project.

Mr. Rhodes said that you just brought back all the typical trappings of the incorrect way plan a safe intersection. Mr. Rhodes went on to discuss transect zoning and want to bring the buildings closer along the street to do the side friction to calm traffic. Mr. Rhodes said that the further away to pull that development from a congested intersection to actually create more turbulence you want to cause focus to what is going on. Mr. Rhodes said that you want to bring masses of the buildings closer to those streets as far as the State DOT the first thing is widen and exactly the opposite of what is needed in that area. Mr. Rhodes said that the traffic study is framing for the development to work a change in that intersection at a mitigation which is requiring the entire SEQR to fix the problem; then just void it. Mr. Rhodes said that if they move that building, a couple of parcels down, you are still going to have the same problem it will not be at the problem area, which means the focus is now taking off mitigation. Mr. Rhodes said it is a great opportunity to really say here it is let’s fix it and set the record that says here is the way we are going to fix it and then move forward. Mr. Rhodes said if this application does go down the road we have already framed it and a round-about in this area are much safer than any signalized intersection than you will find for pedestrian connectivity in the school district; it’s second to none. Mr. Rhodes said that you are now only crossing one lane of traffic. Mr. Rhodes would rather embrace the discussion of how we are going to resolve the problem area if they choose to move, lets not loose focus from fixing this problem area.

Mr. Pott likes the idea of having a pocket park on that corner so there isn’t some mega store there with bright lights with driveway cuts with traffic running in and out. Mr. Pott said it does nothing but exacerbate the problems. Mr. Pott said if there is a decrease in the turbulence of traffic that will be moving it closer in. Mr. Rhodes said that he is not talking about a CVS, but a building.

Mr. Doyle said that a drug store is important, but the traffic study has done a lot of the drive by and stop on the way home from work. Mr. Doyle does not see that rush of people and does not see the parking lot full. Mr. Doyle feels that if they increase the prescription drug area by 200 sq. ft. that will solve the problem.

Mr. Rhodes said that the Board needs help interpreting the Design Standards so the Board is making the proper decision based on educating interpretation of what they say and have someone answer the very specific questions that are being brought up.

Mr. Doyle said that the Board needs direction from a professional.

Mr. VanVorst brought up the Brookline Carwash and said that no one on the Board wants it to there. Mr. Doyle said there were discussions about that project regarding an office building. Mr. Doyle cannot envision a strip mall or carwash.

Mr. Reilly said that the area is zoned that way and it is a permitted use and there are design guidelines to follow whether it is a carwash or a CVS. Mr. Reilly said that there are tools to work with to shape it and form it. Mr. Reilly said that the Planning Board has certain powers as the legislative body, so an avenue of this is an absence is eminent domain acquiring these properties is the Towns desire to for the applicant to design the proposal.

Mr. Pott said that the Planning Board has the legitimacy to turn down the applications.

Mr. Pott asked about applicants needing more information and returning every month.

Mr. Cwalinski said that quantifiable information.

Mr. Rhodes said that the Board is asked for in pieces because the Board does not have someone chunking up the things that the Planning Board needs to consider. Mr. Rhodes said that proper council will allow us to educate ourselves above the potential ramifications of doing the things that are being discussed. Mr. Rhodes said that the correct person working for the town or the team working for the town will give us the knowledge needed and discussion items to collectively to come a decision.

Example: On Middleline Road there was a team of consultants from the State that was designing that roadway the people did not want the intersection of Route 50 realigned; they were in favor on the skew and changed the character and were not in favor of the vertical curves. Mr. Rhodes said that "we got what we asked for." Mr. Rhodes said that there are drawbacks to that and there will be glass on the pavement at the intersection of Route 50 and Middleline Road and skid marks at the vertical curves that don’t have adequate site line and you need to have someone that works for the Town to say "you do have a say, but you also might get what you are asking for."

Mr. Rhodes said that help is needed to triage the applications to make sure that they are complete and put a summary together that talks about the major items for discussion and considerations for the items that don’t fit and things that would be needed to show for proof to be able to answer the question about potential options.

Ms. Cristy asked if applicants followed the rules and regulations could they be turned down.

Mr. Rhodes would like to bring up two specific parcels the carwash parcel and CVS parcel; neither of those applications meets Design Standards as are in our code. Mr. Rhodes said that Mr. Reilly correctly said "you cannot just take no for no reason" it’s why that stuff is there so you can shape the development so it fits that is why the code talks about putting buildings where they are so it’s not an automobile dependent so it’s not focused of two. Mr. Rhodes said that if the Board understood what the design standards really were there would be a better way of interpreting or handling the applications.

Mr. VanVorst said "right at the beginning you had for an example a carwash didn’t you articulate to applicant that what they were asking for didn’t fit the design standards and keep coming back; is that our fault or theirs." Ms. Cristy said that is our fault. Ms. Eddy said that Mr. Rhodes knows more than the rest of the Board, because he is an engineer and has said on more than one occasion it does not meet the Design Standards. Ms. Eddy said that the Board needs to understand what the design guidelines do; they are the backbone. Ms. Eddy said that the Board is ignorant.

Mr. Cwalinski asked what purpose does Chuck Voss, Planner serve. Mr. Doyle replied how much we want Chuck Voss to work. Mr. Doyle said he is willing to have all of it. Mr. Rhodes said that he has tried and has not done it successfully and we need to move on.

Ms. Eddy said that it goes beyond just Chuck Voss and does feel that there is a strong basis, knowledge and support to do our job the way we should. Ms. Eddy said that the Board needs help and we need help that doesn’t have an ego involved and feels there is something going on between CT Male and applicant’s and whether it is turned in on time or not. Ms. Eddy said that she is not the professional CT Male is and expects to have professional support.

Mr. VanVorst said that it is not the Boards job to massage these through the Design Standards and feels it is the job of the applicant to understand the Design Standards and apply. Ms. Eddy said how can you both judge to make a decision, if you don’t understand the Design Standards. Mr. VanVorst said that he said that we should not understand them. Mr. VanVorst said that it is not out job during the Planning Board meeting to tell them why as much as it is for them to understand it. Ms. Eddy said that it’s submitted to us a correct application and we shouldn’t even have it at the meeting until it is a correct and complete application.

Mr. Rhodes said that if it meets the Design Standards the building should be positioned so it is going to allow logical development of adjacent lands and will not look out of place and will not be a box. Mr. Rhodes said who cares what is in that building also long as the intensity is going to be supported by the infrastructure. Mr. Rhodes said that the intensity of the development which is based on the use needs to be mitigated by the engineer. Mr. Rhodes said that we need to start putting form first rather than function because we are more worried about what size the pipes are rather than providing the correct input to the applicant so they can meet the Design Standards. Mr. Rhodes said that the Board does not have someone listing the short falls for the spot on implementation. Mr. Rhodes said the developer is trying to get their project approved and trying to get it approved an inexpensive as possible and will interpret the Design Standard whatever you can so the project gets approved. Mr. Rhodes said even so far to say your parking is an "outdoor use" and "outdoor patio." Mr. Rhodes said that it is a position to be made. Mr. Rhodes said that it is a clear distinct interpretation of the code and what the applicant is proposing and does not think that the Board ever saw that in either Chuck Voss’s review of the project or whoever else was involved on the project. Mr. Rhodes said wouldn’t that allow you to say the parking is an outdoor use and permitted under the Design Standards and obviously isn’t so why don’t we just relocate the facility to another portion of the property or not. Mr. Rhodes said that it would have saved a lot of people’s time and money and aggravation.

Mr. Pott said that the Design Standards affect their use and occupation of the properties.

Mr. Rhodes said that it comes down to training the Planning Board and helping with the implementation.

Mr. Rhodes said that there is an RFP drafted for that.

Mr. Doyle asked if there are any new items that need to be discussed or comments.

Mr. Doyle said that he will get help from the TND process and also general planning help.

Mr. Rhodes said that he would like to focus that on someone who has a lot of experience with implementation of commercial design standards that would really include someone with a strong back ground with zoning code implementation, landscape development and architectural features. Mr. Rhodes said that some single person source person that could help with the implementation that cannot be found in an average Planner.

Mr. VanVorst asked about the sound system.

Paul Simpson said that a lot of items have been covered and the least is understanding your own documents to help you accommodate the development in this town. Mr. Simpson asked how did it get this bad and how did it get this far behind.

Mr. Rhodes said that we have been having this same conversation for a long time and is the first time we all have been around a table talking about it to it. Mr. Rhodes said that we have been recognizing our short comings ever since the first code came in and this is the first time we have had an opportunity to really expound upon them.

Mr. Doyle said that the application would be forwarded to the Planner at the beginning of the month. Mr. Rhodes said that thought that would work, but it didn’t.

Mr. Simpson said that there was a comment earlier about a round-about being pedestrian friendly. Mr. Simpson said that you want to cross those five round-a bout’s from here to Route 9. Mr. Rhodes said that two lane round-about’s are two different things and let me very clear. Mr. Rhodes said that you are only going across two lanes on those which is better than what it was now in that application in Burnt Hills; single lane round-about; only looking left when crossing. Mr. Simpson said where do you go? Mr. Rhodes said that you should never be in the middle and that is the problem. Mr. Simpson said that you put yourself in that intersection at 2:15pm- 2:45pm when the buses are running. Mr. Rhodes said that there is signalized control and people are looking at the signal rather than the pavement and someone decides there is a gap for a left hand turn and strike the pedestrian and think they have a safe entry. Mr. Rhodes said that every instance you look at the statistics that the biggest injury or the highest accident location is at a signal because of the number of potential conflict points.

Ms. Eddy asked "when do you make a run for it between 2:15pm and 3:45pm because it’s all the time there will be circling around.

Mr. Rhodes said that he would be happy to sit down and how you why it works; you will have to trust me that it does.

Mr. Simpson said before you get started in this design concept, if you have people that can convince the general public that is the way to do it, have a general meeting of the community, have it now, and now and not at the end like this water district which we just went to and had that meeting been done two years ago you might not of had the opposition of the water system.

A further discussion was held on round-about’s.

Mr. Simpson said that Mr. Pott talks about deemphasizing the development of that intersection which he thinks is finite. Mr. Simpson said that the people who are coming to you as a Board want just the opposite of this, their big store.

Anne Pierce said that with a TND and a PUD and you have to be idealistic that they only have one car garage. Ms. Pierce said that you are talking about single people buying these places with roommates that help them pay the mortgages. Ms. Pierce said that there will be three bedrooms they will want two roommates which increase the cars and then there will be sheds you need to put in the deeds you can’t park boats and rv’s. Mr. Simpson said that everyone is coming back to the Zoning Board for variances.

Mr. Rhodes said that this is the code that supported by the Comprehensive Plan Committee and all the people that advocated to the Planning concepts that were developed by Saratoga Associates are following through are smart growth; now say that won’t work because people don’t live that way.

Ms. Pierce say that a comment was made to have fashionable neighborhoods; fashionable in Saratoga because they have a place to walk to.

Ms. Pierce mentioned Stewarts buying property on Balltown Road and moving the firehouse.

Ms. Southworth said that these large corporations tell us that they don’t have plans that fit our design standards; they have alternate plans. Ms. Southworth feels the Board should make them meet our standards.

Jeff Knox appreciates the Board for coming out this evening. Mr. Knox said that they will make this a more marketable project and to be done right. Mr. Knox will be traveling to Massachusetts to look at three TND’s. Mr. Pott asked Mr. Knox to bring back photos back to the Board. Mr. Rhodes asked Mr. Knox to hire a consultant. Mr. Knox said that he does not like to be part of an experiment they are expensive if they don’t work. Mr. Knox wants to make sure it is done right.

Mr. Booth said that the application moved for with the Town Board expeditiously. Mr. Rhodes said that you are going to have the ability to hire consultants quicker than the Board will. Mr. Booth said if the applicant brings a consultant on Board with the Town will that have a conflict.

Mr. Rhodes said that which is exactly what will happen if they are both qualified it shouldn’t be problematic; they should have the same education to be able to work together to both help us understand that the Town is getting what they are suppose to be getting.

A further discussion was held on TND "New Urbanism"

Meeting adjourned 9:17pm

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman