Chairman Doyle called the June 27, 2007 meeting to order at 7:30pm and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Doyle reviewed the agenda.

MOTION: Mr. VanVorst made a motion to accept the May 30, 2007 as submitted. Ms. Cristy seconded the motion and all present voted in favor accept Mr. Rhodes who abstained. CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski made a motion to accept the June 4, 2007 minutes as submitted. Mr. VanVorst seconded the motion and all present voted in favor accept Mr. Rhodes who abstained.

CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski made a motion to accept the April 25, 2007 and the April 26, 2007 minutes as submitted. Mr. VanVorst seconded the motion and all present voted in favor accept Mr. Rhodes who abstained. CARRIED.

Jack France, Schauber Road, for a Minor Subdivision. John Gay of Northeast Land Surveyor was present along with Jack France to present the case to the Board. Mr. Gay said this proposal consists of four lots on a private gravel road.

Lot (1) consists of 1.988 acres

Lot (2) consists of 2.188 acres

Lot (3) consists of 1.869 acres

Lot (4) consists of 1.853 acres

Mr. Cwalinski said that a 500ft. pull-off is required for emergency vehicles.

Mr. Cwalinski said that the Design Standards require that the proposed homes be screened in the Ballston Lake Waterfront District. Mr. Cwalinski also asked that the parking area for the pull-off should be a permeable material and to discuss it with the Town’s Storm Water Management Coordinator. Mr. Gay said that this application is at concept stage. Mr. Cwalinski asked for a cutting plan. Mr. Rhodes said a vegetation buffer of the lake.

Mr. Johnson asked if this will also be covered under Site Plan Review as well as a Minor Subdivision.

Mr. Reilly concurred that it will also need Site Plan Review with each individual lot.

Mr. Rhodes said that the site plan can be modified. Mr. Rhodes asked if the waste water treatment systems will work the proposed lots. Mr. Gay replied he feels they will. Mr. Rhodes asked the condition of the soils. Mr. France replied after going down 3ft. you will hit rock and said that his own waste water treatment is a transvac system.

Mr. France said that his plan is to sell a lot every two years.

Mr. Rhodes said that the overall disturbance of the four lots is less than five acres.

Mr. Rhodes said that it will require erosion and sediment control.

Mr. Gay said that the SWPPP is required over one acre.

Mr. Rhodes said to amend the site plan review process; modify as required.

Mr. Gay said that the Town does not have standards to follow for a gravel road regarding fire vehicles and moving vans etc.

Mr. Rhodes said that in general the Town Planning Board to approve design and the Town Engineer to approve.

Mr. Doyle asked Mr. Gay is he is confident that the septic systems will work on this proposed lots.

Mr. Johnson requested that perc test and deep holes tests are required per lot.

Mr. Rhodes said the one is required. Mr. Johnson replied that on a Minor Subdivision it requires one test per lot.

Mr. Doyle reiterated that this application is concept only.

Mr. Doyle went through what the Board is requested from the applicant:

Road

Bypass

Pull-off

Subdivision guidelines

Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing 7:55pm

Mr. Doyle asked Kathryn is she is satisfied. Ms. Cyr replied yes.

Mr. Doyle left the public hearing open.

Application tabled.

AJ Signs, 805 Route 50 for Site Plan Review. Tom Wheeler was present on behalf of Shank and Falvey to construct a sign and place in the exact location as the present sign.

Mr. Cwalinski asked if the applicant reading section 138-33 of the zoning regulations; size regulations of the sign.

Mr. Wheeler said that the sign will be placed 35ft. from the center line of the road; 15ft. from the edge of the road (minimum) of the existing location. Mr. Rhodes said that 15ft is the property line; more than edge of the road.

Mr. Wheeler said that 48" is not esthetically pleasing

Mr. Rhodes asked the height of the letters. Mr. Wheeler replied 1 ½".

Mr. Rhodes said that the sign would be 25% smaller at 48" proportionally versus 25% larger.

In theory 25%

6" Letter

40 mph

Mr. Rhodes said that in depends on speeds; thruway

Mr. Wheeler said that it ranges from 12" to 48" for business names; horizontal (able to see from miles away).

Ms. Eddy asked if the numbers would get smaller. Mr. Wheeler replied yes.

Mr. Doyle said that the Design Standards need to be met and feels that 48" is sufficient.

Mr. Doyle feels that the proposed sign is to "busy" and would like to see a new sign that fits the Town standards.

Mr. Doyle is looking for signs that are close to the ground. Mr. Doyle said that it is only a two lane road with a 40mph area. Mr. Doyle reiterated what Ms. Eddy said that you will need to watch the numbers; whether it is on the mailbox or the house. Mr. Doyle said that it does not have to be that large and our standard does not allow it to be that large; develop a sign that meets our standards or come in with compelling information that this company does not have a sign of this size; it will have an effect on their business.

Mr. Rhodes suggested showing pictures of settings that don’t work; prove to the Board why.

Mr. Wheeler said that the simple fact of readability. Mr. Wheeler said that this will be one of the smaller signs in that strip of highway. Mr. Doyle said that is the standards; and they all will look that way.

Mr. Wheeler asked who wrote the standard. Mr. Doyle said that the Town Board based on the size sign they wanted. Mr. Wheeler asked their if background is in the sign business. Mr. Rhodes said that it was the Planners that wrote that standard. Mr. Doyle said that it is how fast you are traveling, how large the letters have to be, and what you can read.

Application tabled.

NISHA-9 Roma International Properties 1402 Route 50, For Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit {Concept}. Albert Mugrace and Javaid Tarar were present to present the case to the Board. Mr. Mugrace said there is an existing gas station at the present location and the proposal includes a store (mini-mart) approximately 4400 sq. ft. also a 20ft. x. 40ft. or 800 sq. ft. carwash. There is also a 120ft. x 24ft. location for a canopy with five pump stations and the parking and the arrows show drive through extend south east side back to the north side and out.

Mr. Mugrace said that a plan has been proposed for landscaping. The green space is proposed at 13%, paved area at 76% and the building area at 11% of the total site. Mr. Mugrace indicated that 40 spaces are required, but only will use 24 to 26 spaces with 2 handi-cap. Mr. Cwalinski asked to repeat which includes 10 under the canopy. Mr. Cwalinski said that you have 14; required to have 40. Mr. Mugrace replied yes.

Mr. Mugrace said that the applicant is presently working on engineering the activities; public water on the project, septic system on the property with intention to connect to the County Sewer to the west north west manhole.

Mr. Mugrace said that the storm water management and run off is being investigated and the site will be increasing the paving by 10%.

Mr. Cwalinski said that there is an error in the deed; it refers to Galway.

Mr. Cwalinski asked for a fence around the dumpster and screening and to bury the propane tanks.

Mr. Cwalinski went through the Design Standards and refers to 2.17; requires the building to be parallel to Route 50. The parking to be on the side of the building and the one parking lot bound on Brookline Road; which does not meet the Design Standards.

Mr. Cwalinski asked where the HVAC will be located. Mr. Mugrace said on the top of the building and the building will be screened.

Mr. Rhodes said that it needs to be screened, but to check.

Mr. Mugrace presented a front elevation of the proposed building to the Board. Mr. Rhodes asked if there was an entry every 75’. Mr. Mugrace said that there was a main entry and there is a secondary entry for a separate area; transfer area. Mr. Rhodes said that the building is 84’ long so there is not 75’ between entries and broke up the roof lines and encourages canopies.

Mr. Rhodes asked about the remaining sides. Mr. Mugrace said that the material will be masonry material. Mr. Rhodes asked if it will be a blank wall or will there be windows. Mr. Mugrace said that there was no need for windows. Mr. Rhodes said that it is required by the Design Standards.

Mr. Rhodes said that the code will allow one bay of parking, but not what it being proposed. Mr. Rhodes said that this is not the only project in front of the Board having a problem with vehicle circulation for carwashes to meet Design Standards so it should meet them. Mr. Mugrace said that it is not just a carwash; inside the building will be a Subway Shop and a Dunkin Donuts.

Mr. Rhodes said that the parking requirements need to be calculated based on not only just retail, but food service preparation.

Mr. Hayden asked where the employees will park. Mr. Mugrace said in the front.

Mr. Rhodes asked if the storm water management will be proposed underground. Mr. Mugrace said that

it is being work on at the present time.

Mr. Rhodes asked Ms. Cyr the criteria in redevelopment in chapter (9) 25%; Ms. Cyr replied yes. Mr. Rhodes said that you do have storm water management you used to have pre and post development, but for redevelopment sites there is a different standard.

Ms. Eddy asked the applicant to delineate.

Mr. Cwalinski asked where the green space is located.

Ms. Eddy asked how the food deliveries will be made. Mr. Mugrace replied in the back door. Ms. Eddy asked where do you proposed to park them. Mr. Mugrace said that there is an area designated no parking.

Mr. Rhodes asked about the proximity of the curb cuts to the intersection are a hazard point. Mr. Rhodes said that moving that building closer might make it easier to do that.

Mr. Rhodes asked if this application is also a subdivision.

Ms. Eddy asked if adjacent property is also owned by the applicant. Ms. Mugrace replied yes. Ms. Eddy said that there is room to maneuver. Mr. Mugrace said somewhat. Ms. Eddy said that the Board has rules to follow which then by natural selection means the applicant is suppose to follow. Mr. Eddy has a concern for a lack of parking. Mr. Mugrace said that he would bank the parking.

Mr. Rhodes said that there is a section of the code that allow the applicant to demonstrate banking and requires the applicant to show proof and classify uses and then it can be bank; if you can demonstrate that you can build it.

Mr. Doyle said that the parking needs to be justified and explain take a better look at the proposed operation.

Mr. Rhodes said that the code is clear on the process and to show where you are going to build it and how it meets the Design Standards.

Ms. Eddy has a concern for employee parking as proposed and feels that it needs to be reconfigured.

Mr. Rhodes asked the applicant to provide sidewalk detail. Mr. Doyle asked for space.

Mr. Mugrace said the applicant is proposing sidewalks on the Brookline Road side. Ms. Eddy would prefer the sidewalks on Route 50.

Mr. Doyle recommends to the applicant to allow open space on the property.

Mr. Rhodes said that the applicant needs to show future location of where the landscape will be located and how the trees are going to be with the curbing and where the parking will be and how to get the store to the front out by Route 50.

Mr. Rhodes said that this whole project will be completely thrown out. Mr. Rhodes said that the plan will be substantially revised in order to meet the Design Standards. Mr. Rhodes said that 117ft. setback versus 35ft.; big difference.

Mr. VanVorst asked what is done with the waste water from the carwash. Mr. Mugrace said that there is equipment that purifies that water after it is used. Mr. VanVorst said that it is taking contaminants out. Mr. VanVorst asked what is being done with the contaminants. Mr. Mugrace said that they are shipped out. Mr. Cwalinski asked where are the contaminants stored until they are shipped. Mr. Mugrace said in 55 gallon drums and an appropriate disposal service will pick up.

Mr. Doyle asked the applicant to provide the manufacturer of the automated carwash system with a schematic and general literature. Mr. Doyle also said that the County also handles waster water.

Mr. Hayden said that one part of the application said that it will be a 24/7 operation and other part is a 5:00am until 11:00pm or 12:00am; what will the hours of operation be. Mr. Mugrace said it depends on the future of the business. Mr. Hayden asked if it will be an automatic carwash. Mr. Mugrace replied yes.

Mr. Doyle went through a list of item that was discussed:

Parking location

Number of parking spaces/slots

Show how to handle parking

Designated employee parking

Banking (parking)

Landscaping

Sidewalks

Building location relative to Route 50

Driveways and intersections

Mr. Cwalinski asked the applicants to read through the Design Standards.

Mr. Rhodes said that the applicant is reorganizing and redeveloping the site which meets you need to bring the site into conformance with typical Design Standards, Safety Criteria and Zoning.

Mr. Doyle asked if the applicant received CT Males comments. Mr. Mugrace said that they were in receipt.

Mr. Rhodes asked if this application was a subdivision. Mr. Mugrace replied that it is a lease line.

Mr. Doyle said that if the applicant has questions regarding Design Standards to contact CT Male.

Application tabled.

Omnipoint Communications, 887 Route 67 for Site Plan Review. Kevin Savage was present on behalf of Omnipoint Communications also known as T-Mobile. Mr. Savage said that this application is before the Board to install a wireless facility at 887 Route 67. Mr. Savage said that the proposal is to install six antennas at a 240ft. level on the tower which will require a 10ft. x 16ft. concrete pad which is located in the fenced area. Mr. Savage said that there are adequate utilities on site; power and telephone for use following the construction phase of the process which will take four to five weeks and only expect to maintenance once or twice a month on the cabinets.

Mr. Savage said that a copy of the structural analysis is included and will support two antenna loads and the short EAF form for the Board’s review. Mr. Savage said the site plans show the particulars of the project.

Mr. Cwalinski said that there were inconsistencies between the two site plans; with respect to the location of the equipment. Mr. Savage said that the one was created as a conceptual design and was sent to the landlord for review and approval.

Mr. Hayden asked if the new dishes will interfere with what exists there now. . Mr. Savage said no that there is no cause for interference as a requirement for our lease agreement to the American Tower to perform interference study to pay for our costs to confirm that there is not any issue with interference. Mr. Savage said that it is a routine standard now that the carriers are collocating on the same structure when possible.

Mr. Hayden asked the capacity on this tower. Mr. Savage said that it is at 88% capacity it depends on the engineering group specifically, but it will add up to 105%; depending on their load

Mr. Cwalinski asked if the enclosures will be weatherproof. Mr. Savage said that they are not a shelter and are the size of a residential refrigerator; one houses the radio and the other is a battery backup.

Mr. Rhodes said that the waivers are fine consisting of emergency zones, landscaping, boundaries, locations of easements, and does not warrant a boundary survey the landscaping and planting does not appear to be visible from adjacent properties.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes made a motion to approve the variances a mention above. Ms. Eddy seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

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

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

Chairman Doyle opened the public hearing 8:43pm

Geraldine Freedman asked the specifics of the location, height of the tower. Mr. Doyle said that it is an existing tower. Mr. Savage said that it is located at 887 Route 67 Curtis Industrial Park and it is 300ft. self support tower. Mr. Savage said that the application is to install antennas at 240ft.

Ms. Pierce asked if the antennas are proposed to have lights. Mr. Savage replied no.

Chairman Doyle closed the public hearing 8:45pm.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes made a motion to approve the application as proposed. Ms. Cristy seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Walter Katz, III, Outlet Road for a Major Subdivision. John Gay of Northeast Land Surveyors was present to present the case to the Board. The application that is being proposed is for a two lot subdivision consisting of lots (8) and (9) with lots widths of 200’ x 200’. Mr. Gay said normally this would consist of a minor subdivision; however several lots were previously approved by the Town which now creates lots 8 and 9 making this a major subdivision.

Mr. Gay said that the septic systems will be essentially being shallow fill systems. Mr. Gay said that there is a waterline easement.

Mr. Gay said that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has to be completed to discharge, a Storm Water Management Plan and Erosion Sediment Control Plan.

Mr. Gay said that that the improved section of the lots can now be directed into the existing Storm Water Management system for the project. Mr. Gay said that when the Storm Water Management was completed for the Health Care Facility it was determined that there is a lot of extra capacity in the Storm Water Management area to handle the two lots.

Mr. Gay indicated that a catch basin will need to be installed on lot #8. Mr. Gay replied that what are left will be Storm Water Management Plan and an Erosion Sedimentation Control Plan. Mr. Gay said that this will be required by DEC and these lots were over five of disturbance (7 lots) if they occurred before March 2003, but DEC said that Storm Water Management will need to be completed on lots (8) and (9).

Mr. Rhodes asked the applicant if the cumulative disturbance is being stored and treated or just what is proposed. Mr. Gay said that it is not cumulative because it they are treating or storing. Mr. Rhodes said that the applicant is only talking about pre and post development and water quality that is what is being proposed on these lots. Mr. Gay said yes because that is what DEC told them what to do. Mr. Gay said that they will be extremely small. Mr. Gay said that it will be done with a rain garden; a typical DEC acceptable practice. Mr. Gay said that there a Storm Water Management area it is oversized.

Mr. Rhodes asked if this is a Homeowners Association; owned by Katz. Mr. Gay said that it would be a contractual deal between the homeowner and Katz. Mr. Gay said that Katz would maintain and keep up the Storm Water Management area.

Mr. Cwalinski said that there was a typo soil data for lot #9 "says soil boring has to be 2; should be #1". Mr. Cwalinski said that a water contingency note on the map; and the lots will be service by municipal water. Mr. Gay said that this not was pulled off another map. Mr. Cwalinski said that on the checklist item (u) is checked off incorrectly. Mr. Gay said that a waiver would be asked for because they do not know where the house is going to be placed on the lot.

Ms. Eddy asked for a side load garage.

Mr. Rhodes asked the applicant to minimize some of the grading

Application tabled.

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Cristy seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Meeting adjourned 9:00pm

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman