Chairman Doyle called the November 1, 2007 meeting to order at 7:30pm and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Doyle reviewed the agenda.

MOTION: Mr. Hayden made a motion to accept the September 26, 2007 as submitted. Mr. VanVorst seconded the motion and all present voted in favor except Ms. Eddy, Mr. Cwalinski and Mr. Rhodes who abstained. CARRIED.

CW Ventures, 6 Brookline Road & Route 67 for Site Plan Review and a Special Use Permit. Scott Lansing of Lansing Engineering was present to present the application to the Board. Mr. Lansing indicated that this was a continued presentation from the last meeting for a conceptual layout plan for the parcel. Mr. Lansing said that the overall parcel is 6.39 acres with an existing house and barn structure. Mr. Lansing said that outlined in the zoning ordinance on the special use permit are proposing 7 buildings; eight units per building for a total of 56 buildings overall. The vehicle access being proposed is a curb cut on Route 67 and another curb cut on Brookline Road an internal roadway within the parcel to service the buildings. Mr. Lansing said that the parking will be located around the individual structures. Mr. Lansing said that the proposal is two spaces per unit. There will be a small mailbox pull-off area for residents to get their mail. Mr. Lansing said that there are internal sidewalks being proposed.

Mr. Lansing said that water for the project will be served by the Ballston Lake District #2 with a water line along Brookline Road and Sanitary Sewer with a trunk line going through the parcel which bisects the front portion of the parcel to connect to the trunk line. The storm water will be managed on site.

Mr. Lansing said that comments have been received from the town engineer and have responded to the comments. Mr. Lansing indicated that an updated traffic study has been submitted which was prepared by Creighton Manning if there are any questions, Wendy Cimino, P.E., is available for questions.

Mr. Lansing said that since the last submission, the applicants have received a comment letter from the town engineer that a wetland permit would be required for the project. Mr. Lansing said as part of the wetland permit and as part of the project phase I archeological assessment would required as part of the project.

Mr. Lansing said that screening and buffering was also a comment and shifting the units slightly forward from the original plan.

Mr. Lansing said that the sewer reconfiguration was recommending that the sewer connection along the sewer line. There were requests on those hydrant replacements on the water line. Mr. Lansing said that there was a question of whether the storm management areas were sufficient in size and will size appropriately.

Mr. Lansing said that there has been a reconsideration of the dumpster locations.

Mr. Lansing said the last time relative to the renderings and after reading through the design guidelines the plain vinyl siding was prohibited and would be proposing textured grain vinyl siding.

Mr. Doyle asked if there has been any determination on what will be done with the rest of the site. Mr. Lansing replied no, the applicant still is considering the area for the traffic study and a car wash facility and a parking area for the existing structure.

Mr. Doyle said that this application has gone from a car wash to asking for a layout of the whole site now the application in front of the Board is for apartments and yet there has been no resolution the car wash part of the application to what will be done with the rest of the site. Mr. Doyle indicated that the town attorney is talking to the applicant’s attorney and was unable to get together during this period of time; this is still an open item.

Mr. Cwalinski referenced comment #6 from October 10, 2007 responding to Chuck Voss, Planner’s comments regarding a permit program expiring on March 18, 2007. Mr. Cwalinski said that the applicant’s response does not address this comment. Mr. Lansing said that this permit has changed after March 18, 2007; if the wetlands were filled in or had a contract prior to March 18, 2007. Mr. Lansing said that the applicant will be filing for a wetlands permit.

Ms. Eddy asked if demographics have been done as to who the tenants will be. Mr. Lansing replied no.

Ms. Eddy said that two towns people have approached her regarding the fact that the other end of Brookline Road with all the green space kids are playing ball in the parking lot. Ms. Eddy asked if the minimum open space area for this project. Mr. Lansing said that 35% for the parcel. Ms. Eddy asked is that including the wetlands. Mr. Lansing replied yes and it is currently showing 66%. Mr. Eddy asked how the size of the open space area on the northwest corner. Mr. Lansing replied 100’ x 100’. Ms. Eddy asked where the kids are going to play in the parking lot. Ms. Eddy asked how wet are the wetlands. Mr. Lansing said that he is not a wetland scientist and is not qualified, but are classified as ACOE uphill wetlands. Ms .Eddy said that that is exactly where kids are going to go because someone in building #7 is not going to like someone in building #3 who is playing in the space building a fort and hanging in the wetland area.

Ms. Eddy asked what the Board is asking the applicant to do about the car wash application. Mr. Lansing said that the applicant has tabled that application.

Mr. Rhodes asked the inability for a place to play with small children drive the market. Mr. Rhodes asked if the planned recreational facility plan nearby; the trail up-to Brookline. Mr. Rhodes said that town trail along the existing; planning one along the utility easement.

Ms. Serra said that CT Male is looking at the trail conceptually taking the bike path to Outlet Road and continue north along the gas line and railroad line and stub it in the vicinity of Curtis Lumber. Ms. Serra indicated that someone would need to cross Brookline Road go down Tiffault Road in that direction. Mr. Rhodes asked crossing only at Brookline at the easement. Ms. Serra said that it is hard to tell and would have to cross Brookline Road. Mr. Rhodes said that if this is project that is being planned, provisions for pedestrian and bicycle access to that facility would be incorporated and to address some of those recreational issues. Ms. Eddy asked getting people safely across Brookline. Mr. Rhodes said across or along it to the other section of that route. Mr. Doyle said that a sidewalk to that particular area. Mr. Rhodes said a multi-use trail or sidewalk some type of facility to make sure that it is safe in separating along Tiffault, but Mr. Rhodes said that area has too much turbulence at that intersection, but going up the street would work better.

Mr. Rhodes said shared parking would enable by provision the project through an easement. Mr. Rhodes said that the area still needs to be landscaped since it is currently residential, but if it ever does get triggered for redevelopment, shared parking is ideal so that should be enabled. Mr. Rhodes would like to see that storm water management areas pulled from the frontage along Route 67; should not be putting those types of utilities along the front and does not feel it is the best foot forward of development. Mr. Rhodes said that if there is another place to locate that facility, it should be sought out.

Mr. Rhodes said that it needs to be clear that the applicant is not proposing a car wash nor is the Board considering approval of a car wash. Mr. Rhodes said that the applicant is giving the Board a concept plan that was asked of them and calculating the trips of the impacts based on that proposed development. Mr. Rhodes said that the Board should be reviewing it as such, but the Board is not approving a car wash in this application.

Mr. Lansing said that the storm water management area will possibly be moved to the center portion of the project.

Mr. Hayden asked if there is a reason for seven buildings and if one could be deleted and creates more green space. Mr. Lansing said that the green space requirements have been met.

Mr. Cwalinski asked if there have been any thoughts been given to snow removal. Mr. Lansing said there is an area for stockpiling and it will be removed off site.

Mr. Rhodes asked the applicant to show the Board a concept that gave reasonable levels of impact so a segmetic review is not being created. Mr. Rhodes said that the applicant has given the Board a proposal which included all the provision in the traffic studies which included other environmental assessment related documents. Mr. Rhodes said whether the Board likes the project or not, the Board cannot ask for a concept for every thing they chose or can they. Mr. Reilly does not disagree with that and it is somewhat transmuted through the process and first looking at a car wash and now looking at the concept on the remainder of the what was first proposed. Mr. Reilly said that the Board cannot ask the applicant to do every possible permitted use there and showed that date has been incorporated all that data in the studies and move forward and made clear if and when an approval is given does not include the car wash nor is the applicant asking for that.

Mr. Doyle would like to know how this can be tied into a recreational trail, but to provide space for the residents to make it a livable situation. Mr. Lansing said that the open space plan exceeds the requirement.

Mr. Rhodes said that the whole purpose behind this type of density enabled buyer zoning so there would be some type of centralized recreational pockets developed and maybe a recreational pocket that would be close, but needs to be linked and then it could be preserved. Mr. Rhodes said that the whole purpose behind allowing this additional density is to get the betterments identified along the route, sidewalks for pedestrian linkage to some common open space areas and that trail alignment is definitely open space linear park. Mr. Rhodes said that this would be an exchange for the density that is being proposed if the project includes those betterments then it should include that density, without those features, the density should be reconsidered. Mr. Lansing said that the proposal is showing internal sidewalks to provide linkage. Mr. Rhodes indicated that Mr. Lansing should be able to research the recreational programs in the area; the Zim Smith Trail is close and the concept is there facilities enough for active recreation and find it and link it.

Mr. Rhodes would offer preliminary approval on the apartment complex provided the applicant were sufficiently address the comments that were brought up at the meeting and the project did not include the car wash anymore with all of the impacts were carried through for final SEQR determination.

Mr. Reilly asked concept or preliminary. Mr. Doyle replied concept. Mr. Rhodes replied concept.

Mr. Rhodes moved for concept approval of the residential portion of this application that the future plans do not include the car wash however, the important discussions on hand that the Planning Board of putting recreation linkage relocation of review of the site components will be addressed at preliminary design. Ms. Eddy seconded the motion.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:08pm

Robert DeSarbo, 6 Rolling Brook Drive asked the distance of green space behind the proposed apartments. Mr. Lansing replied 30ft. Mr. DeSarbo indicated that the homes on RollingBrook Drive do

not have large back yards which had setback requirements that were put on. Mr. DeSarbo asked if the Transportation Supervisor at the School with the buses pulling in and out with the anticipation of children moving in and what there comments were. Mr. DeSarbo said when the application was first submitted as a car wash and the Board asked for a concept with regard to the other portion of the

property suddenly this concept has gone into a full blown package which indicates that it is some sort of "back door" coming in here. Mr. DeSarbo cannot see how this project can move forward as a concept and then move forward with permission granted and become an actual project than the original application that was mitigated is for a car wash is a "back door".

Francis Cappiello, 946 Route 50 said that when traveling morning, afternoon to that area she indicated that she has to say her prayers. Ms. Cappiello indicated that the town does not need more housing which will bring more buses and where will the money come from; taxes. Ms. Cappiello said that the bus drivers need to get paid and also think of the children and the danger on the road and will the buses are able to go through. Ms. Cappiello indicated that this is too much population in one little area. Ms Cappiello does not feel the town needs another car wash. Ms. Cappiello said that you have to think of the safety of the children and children will run in the road and the road is well used; safety, extra police to patrol and lights. Ms. Cappiello asked the total number of apartments. Mr. Lansing replied 56. Ms. Cappiello said that with total 112 cars. Ms. Cappiello also has a concern for traffic, children and their safety.

Matthew Baker, 2 RollingBrook Drive has a concern with the 30ft setback and does not feel that it is enough room pushed to the back of the property. Mr. Baker asked if the special use permit application was still required for the project. Mr. Rhodes said that it is still required. Mr. Baker asked about the stone house. Mr. Lansing indicated that it will stay. Mr. Baker asked if the car wash application is tabled why not spread the other seven buildings over the property and get the space and set backs; why is the corner being saved for future development.

Anne Pierce, 110 Lake Road asked how many visitor parking spaces are proposed. Mr. Lansing said there are two spaces per unit. Ms. Pierce said that there is no assigned visitor parking. Mr. Lansing said no. Ms. Pierce asked where does a visitor park. Mr. Lansing replied in one of the spaces.

Ms. Eddy asked Mr. Lansing to address CT Males comment #3 regarding the screening. Mr. Lansing said that the buffers have split the buildings and there will be a no cut preservation area which will enhance with supplemental pines. Ms. Eddy indicated that it is still to come.

Anita DeSarbo, 6 Rolling Brook Drive asked about property values and assessments for those who reside at RollingBrook Drive.

Application tabled.

Nisha – 9/Roma International Properties, 1402 Route 50 for Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit [Concept]. Albert Mugrace was present to present the application to the Board. Mr. Mugrace indicated since the last meeting that several drawings have been prepared. Mr. Mugrace indicated that a

traffic study has been conducted and distributed to the Board. Mr. Mugrace said that there were concerns with the landscaping plan due to drainage. Mr. Mugrace said that a grading plan has been provided.

Mr. Doyle asked if the client has any plans for hiring a Professional Engineer when the process moves forward regarding storm water management, sewer line and water supply. Mr. Mugrace indicated that the applicant has done studies with the engineers and waiting for their comments. Mr. Doyle asked if the drawings will be signed. Mr. Mugrace indicated that the drawings will be signed.

Mr. Mugrace indicated that comments were not received from CT Male. Mr. Doyle indicated that there was a comment letter which was dated October 24, 2007. Ms. Eddy asked the applicant if they were in receipt of the response to your traffic study from the town’s engineers. Mr. Mugrace replied no.

Mr. Doyle said that the Board is spending a lot of review time of this project and after talking to the town engineer are having difficulty meeting the design standards.

Ms. Eddy said that there are several items that the Board has yet to receive and some of them come off the application and have been asked for by CT Male for two months and have not had a response from the applicant. Mr. Cwalinski has compiled a list of items that need to be addressed and cannot move forward until these item are addressed (see attached). Mr. Cwalinski said that boundaries of property to be plotted to scale were asked for twice June 22, 2007 and October 24, 2007 by CT male. Mr. Cwalinski said that owners of adjacent parcels. Ms. Eddy indicated that the whole property needs to be delineated. Mr. Rhodes asked Mr. Cwalinski if he went through the minutes from the meetings. Mr. Cwalinski has a concern with plowing the snow over a raised curb. Mr. Rhodes said just for points of clarification this is information which has been information gone over in the prior meetings which has not been addressed with a couple new comments. Mr. Rhodes asked if this site still not organized to meet zoning. Mr. Cwalinski has a concern with a parking space which is in the middle of traffic flow.

Mr. Rhodes indicated in the last meeting minutes Mr. Hayden had concerns with site circulation and the fact that that there are overly wide lanes and should be addressed which increase conflict points. Mr. Rhodes said after reading the minutes it appeared that some direction was given regarding compliance with zoning and wants to know if that happened; did this application meet the design standards. Mr. Doyle indicated that it meets the setbacks. Mr. Rhodes said that it does not even come close. Mr. Doyle asked which part the application does not meet. Mr. Rhodes said the minimum building line which has to be at least twice. Mr. Doyle said the maximum is 50ft. and its 40ft. Mr. Rhodes said to the building not the pump. Mr. Doyle said to the canopy. Mr. Rhodes indicated in the design standards it talks about buildings fronting and no more than one bay of parking and the automobile usage not being in the front.

Mr. Doyle indicated that it made more sense to have the pumps in the front than in the back. Ms. Eddy said that at one time. Saratoga County said to use the entire parcel. Mr. Rhodes asked if a traffic consultant review this site.

Mr. Doyle suggested to Mr. Mugrace to talk to Mr. Tarar and have a professional engineer involved designing the site and has it meet the design standards because the towns traffic consultant does not agree with your traffic consultant. Mr. Doyle said that the site needs some major modifications to the site.

Ms. Eddy asked for an overall development plan of the site and a projected concept of the balance of the property. Mr. Tarar indicated that there are no plans for the balance of the property.

Mr. Reilly said that there are numerous sign violations at this site as a matter of course and this Board will not hear any applications on a site that is not in compliance. Mr. Reilly said in between now and the next appearance before the Board, we expect the site to be brought into compliance as far as signage. Mr. Reilly said that it is not going to slow the progress of the application down before it is heard again the signs have to be taken down. Mr. Reilly said that there are numerous signs that do not comply with

zoning it has been an issue for months if not years. Mr. Doyle said you cannot have a loose standing sign.

Mr. Mugrace said at the last meeting the applicant was approved for a concept. Mr. Doyle said that the Board came to the conclusion the canopy over the pump and the connecting canopy to the building would be considered as one structure.

Mr. Cwalinski asked what the propane tank used for. Mr. Mugrace said that it is used to fill smaller tanks.

Ms. Eddy asked to reconfigure the ingress and egress to make it a little less treacherous.

Ms. Serra will fax the necessary comments to the applicants on November 2, 2007.

Application tabled.

Wayne Wheeler, 844 Route 50 for Site Plan Review. Mr. Johnson indicated that the Board had a question about the parking the map shows one parking space for 400 manufacturing is correct in what the applicant is proposing. Mr. Johnson said that the Board had a question on the food service out front which is classified retail; not a restaurant no sit down dinner allowed. Mr. Johnson said that area is about 100sq. ft. and the retail is one parking space for 100sq. ft.; take the total building square footage 3288 and subtract of 100 which total 3188 and divide 400 equal 7.9 which equal 8 spaces plus the 1 for the retail space equal 9. Mr. Doyle indicated that the applicant conforms to the parking. Mr. Johnson said that the handi-cap spaces are included.

Mike Brooks of Tommell and Associates was present to on behalf of Wayne Wheeler for the continuation of the site plan review for the 22ft x 36ft addition at 844 Route 50. Mr. Brooks said proposed addition will have gable ends with windows and siding to match the existing building. Mr. Brooks said that the Mixed Use District narrative waivers were added.

Ms. Eddy asked if the sandwich sign is in compliance. Mr. Johnson said that the one sign is in compliance any extra signage would not be in compliance. Mr. Rhodes said that it should be replaced with a sign that it is compliance or removed.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:55pm

Mr. Doyle closed the public hearing 8:56pm

Mr. Rhodes asked if there will be any exterior lighting proposed. Mr. Brooks replied no.

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski motioned to name The Town of Ballston Planning Board the Lead Agency in the SEQR process. Mr. VanVorst 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. Mr. Hayden seconded the motion. CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. VanVorst made a motion to accept this proposal and that there will no violation of the sign ordinance in the town. Ms. Eddy seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Wayne McCormick, 387 Middleline Road for a Minor Subdivision. Mike Brooks of Tommell and Associates were present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Brooks said that the applicant is proposing a two lot minor subdivision in the rural district. The existing lot has three main structures a house, abandoned houses in front which will be removed with plans to construct a new dwelling in the rear of the property. Mr. Brooks said that parcel #1 will have two acres with 80ft. of frontage and parcel #2 will have 21.9 acres will have 114 of frontage. Mr. Brooks said that the proposed house there is an existing stream crossing in the back in the middle off to the one side of the lot. Mr. Brooks said that there are proposed septic and well onsite which meet DOH requirements.

Mr. Brooks said that there will be no new curb cuts on Middleline Road.

Ms. Eddy asked if the proper permits were applied for to put the culvert in. Mr. Brooks asked the culverts that cross down. Ms. Eddy replied yes. Mr. Brooks said that to my knowledge that was there along time ago. Ms. Eddy asked how long the applicant has owned the property. Mr. McCormick replied 2000. Mr. Eddy replied the culverts were there; this is an active stream and you did not put the culverts in. Mr. McCormick said that he did not put the culverts in. Ms. Eddy asked if he hired anyone to put the culverts in. Mr. McCormick replied no. Ms. Eddy has a concern for an old concrete well that the top has been pushed off and would like to have a top placed back on.

Ms. Eddy asked Mr. Johnson because of the "dip" is there are problem with the fire trucks getting up and down the "dip". Mr. Johnson needs to see a cross section.

Mr. Doyle said that the entrance needs to be upgraded.

Ms. Eddy asked Mr. McCormick if he is running a business at that address. Mr. McCormick replied that he owns a tree business.

Mr. McCormick indicated that he would put a stipulation in the subdivision; "forever wild" for the remainder for the property.

Mr. Johnson wanted to address the business aspect that the zoning has made an interpretation that the actual parking of vehicles itself does not constitute operating a business in order to consider it a business one would have to conduct a business at the site and have people come to the site. Mr. McCormick said that all of the business is performed off site there is commerce at 387 Middleline Road.

Mr. McCormick said that he would donate any of the beams or remains of the building.

Mr. Cwalinski said that the applicant will need driveway pull offs to be in accordance to section [104-12] paragraph (O).

Mr. Rhodes asked if a SWPPP has been performed.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 9:10pm

Mr. Doyle closed the public hearing 9:11pm

No one wished to speak.

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

Mr. Rhodes asked if minimum frontage is needed where ever a building is built or if a building is created. Mr. Rhodes asked when creating a flag lot where there is an existing building cause a nonconforming lot. Mr. Rhodes said that the existing building will have a 114ft. will that existing building to remain. Mr. Johnson said with a flag lot a minimum of 60ft is needed; aggregate. Mr. Rhodes said building line. Mr. Johnson said that a flag lot is 60ft. aggregate a lot width of 175ft. is the mean taken from the front to the rear and the mean distance of the average. Mr. Rhodes asked the building line. Mr. Johnson said that the building line represents the lot width it does not say the lot width is 175ft. is calculated by taking the average of the front and the rear. Mr. Rhodes said potentially someone could create a 60ft. frontage on Middleline Road and put a building that is 20ft. wide in it. Mr. Johnson said that he does not see where there is any frontage called for it in the code or in the chart. Mr. Johnson said that all it says it lot width. Mr. Rhodes asked if it talks about setback from the lot in front of it. Mr. Johnson said that it has to have a 100ft. setback in front of it. Mr. Rhodes thought that was where it was defining the building line. Mr. Johnson did not see where it was being defined.

Mr. Rhodes said that if the Board is not creating a noncompliant lot or allowing or enabling someone to build in the flag portion in the future.

Mr. Reilly said that for any subdivision that is being proposed, to include a flag lot that all housing must be shown on the plat. Mr. Reilly said that the housing envelope must be at a minimum of a 150ft. from any other proposed housing envelope or existing house and a minimum front yard setback of 100ft, taken at the closet rear yard property line of the abutting parcels. Mr. Rhodes said that the building envelope that is being shown is not compliant with the code. Mr. Rhodes said that it is an existing building and a variance would be an option or this would be an accessory structure not a house.

Mr. Rhodes suggested reconfiguring the lot lines and an easement across the existing gravel driveway. Mr. Johnson said that you would need 30ft. Mr. Rhodes asked if a portion of the property could be taken just to meet the minimum lot configuration and do an easement across the gravel driveway and have a shared driveway opportunity then this building will be attached to the entire parcel which will be 194ft. minus 20ft. Mr. Johnson said that you cannot go down to 20ft.

Mr. Rhodes does not interpret the code to say that you can have a flag lot to put a building in a flag and that if essentially what is happening.

Mr. Rhodes said that the applicant can have a constraint parcel in the rear as long as the Planning Board approves a private road. Mr. Rhodes indicated that it is a subdivision standard that the Board can waive. Mr. Rhodes suggested a private road that the applicant can without creating a noncompliant lot which is set up with easements rather than property lines then that building setback issue goes away which is a private road that the Board is approving. Mr. Rhodes said that there will be 18-ft. where ever there would be a building. Mr. Rhodes indicated that it would go through the middle of lot one where that existing gravel driveway and would get extended into lot two. Mr. Rhodes said that it would get expanded into 194.5ft. across that frontage; the private road will traverse across private property with no lot lines will be through an easement line. Mr. Rhodes said that it could be in lands of common ownership. Mr. Rhodes said that it would be a subdivision, but instead of the flag lot that the applicant is creating this lot 2 line in the rear would extend across which would create a land locked parcel access given by a private road. Mr. Reilly asked each building envelope lot 2 in the rear. Mr. McCormick asked if these issues are due to the width of where the existing garage is located. Mr. Rhodes replied yes it is on a 114ft. wide and it needs to be 180ft. and then also the existing building to remain is on 80ft. where today the applicant is on 194ft. the applicant is placing it on 80ft. Mr. Rhodes explained that there is 80ft. where the building is located and the question is, can the applicant build in the flag. Mr. Johnson said that is the way it is written in the code.

Mr. Doyle asked the Board if the plan should be left as shown.

MOTION: Mr. VanVorst made a motion to approve the subdivision as shown on the map 2007- 0068 dated October 3, 2007 that includes no further subdivision and a $500.00 park and rec fee. If a SWPPP is required that it be completed and delivered to the Storm Water Coordinator. Mr. Rhodes seconded the motion and all presented voted in favor. CARRIED.

JAF, LLC, 318 Charlton Road for Sketch Plan Conference. Mr. Fantauzzi was present along with John Fantauzzi to present their application to the Board. Mr. Fantauzzi is proposing "dress up" the existing facility in the front and tear down the existing structure and replace with a pre-engineered metal building to use as a storage type facility "flex use" as many as four tenants. Mr. Fantauzzi said to finish off the building as such time as leasing it.

Mr. Fantauzzi said that the square footage of the building without the overhangs is less than 12,000sq. ft.

Mr. Fantauzzi said that this current building does not meet the setbacks on each corner and does agree to bring the building into compliance to meet the setbacks to readjust the configuration of the building; make the building shorter and deeper. Mr. Fantauzzi said that the usage of the building would be storage auxiliary business, mercantile and small office area. Mr. Fantauzzi said that parking would be in the front due to the 53ft. trailers hauling the pipe in the ally ways.

Mr. Cwalinski said that this is in a rural zone area. Mr. Fantauzzi said that there is already a use variance granted 1987. Mr. Fantauzzi indicated that there is an application in front of the ZBA for a use variance to allow the office use in the front in addition to the storage use.

Mr. Rhodes said that the expansion or the conversion of the storage area that is dilapidated is a conversion is an extension to the nonconforming use. Mr. Reilly said that a use variance was given in

1988 for the existing house to be used for offices was noted that the surrounding uses were industrial it was specifically noted that the variance did not extend to the pole barn.

Mr. Rhodes asked if there is a way that the metal building can be softened. Mr. Rhodes said that there could be a way to create using some non steel non reflective materials to turn that into less "in your face." Mr. Rhodes said that there is a way to incorporate traditional materials into this plan to make it more compatible with the rural area; incorporate wood and stone as well. Mr. Fantauzzi suggested a textured panel. Mr. Doyle suggested breaking up the roof line; additional structure in the front.

Ms. Eddy suggested a façade with steps to the peak. Mr. Doyle suggested false windows. Mr. Fantauzzi said that this is being proposed at the southern exposure. Mr. Rhodes said not to forget at about ends of the buildings.

Mr. Cwalinski asked how the 12 parking spaces were derived. Mr. Fantauzzi said this was appropriate for the building. Mr. Cwalinski said that there is parking requirements based on the type of business. Mr. Fantauzzi said that this facility will be used for a storage facility. Mr. Cwalinski does not see this type of use. Mr. Fantauzzi replied warehouse. Mr. Fantauzzi said that there are a total of 24 parking spaces. Mr. Doyle indicated that the Board encourages shared parking. Mr. Cwalinski referred the applicant to the shared parking section 138-56 paragraph (b). Mr. Rhodes indicated to justify your staffing and to possibly bank the last piece so if parking became a problem in the future.

The Board has agreed to the concept and softening the roadside and parking.

Daniel C. Gibson, 9 Diamond Road for Sketch Plan Conference. Daniel Gibson was present to present the applicant to the Board. Mr. Gibson is proposing to subdivide a six acre lot into two three acre lots. Mr. Gibson is proposing to build a smaller home on the new lot. Mr. Gibson said that the parcel slopes down gently to the pond and would like to build the house toward the southern exposure; passive solar house. Mr. Gibson indicated that the lot width is 201ft. which meets the requirement.

Mr. Hayden asked if there will be switching of properties with the barn. Mr. Gibson said the barn will remain with the property which is currently a wood shop.

Mr. Cwalinski said that there are several items missing on this plan; waste water disposal. Mr. Gibson said that there is a septic on the original house. Mr. Gibson said that the architect will design a similar septic system for the other piece of property.

Mr. Johnson asked the Chairman if the Board should consider if the plan meets the definition of a flag lot. Mr. Rhodes asked the minimum lot width in that zone. Mr. Johnson said that the lot width is 175ft.

Mr. Gibson said that one house will be behind the other. Mr. Rhodes asked if the way these lines have been laid out to converse the natural features in the residential district. Mr. Gibson said that he is trying to maintain some of the trees. Mr. Rhodes said that it could be considered a conservations subdivision to maintain some of the existing road character. Mr. Gibson indicated that he would try and leave the existing barn.

Mr. Gibson said that there is an orchard there. Mr. Cwalinski asked how long has that orchard been in existence. Mr. Gibson said 18 years, but there was an orchard years prior. Ms. Eddy said that the

applicant needs to go to the Department of Health for their water supply because of the orchard. Mr. Doyle asked Mr. Gibson when he planted the apple trees. Mr. Gibson replied 20 years ago. Mr. Doyle said that there is a concern with arsenic contamination of the soil. Mr. Doyle indicated to the applicant to have the soils tested for arsenic. Mr. Gibson asked where the arsenic comes from. Mr. Doyle replied the original orchard.

Mr. Doyle asked the Board if they concluded this is a conservation subdivision or should this have 175ft. of frontage because a flag lot is not allowed in this district. Mr. Rhodes asked the total frontage on the lot. Mr. Gibson replied 400ft.

Mr. Cwalinski does not feel that it is a flag lot because if you read the definition three things have to be true as to the "a lot so shaped as designated that the main portion of the lot set back to the street or the road of which it fronts and is situated behind one or more lots and is connected such to such frontage by a narrow strip of land"; Mr. Cwalinski does not feel that a 100ft a narrow strip of land. The Board is in agreement with Mr. Cwalinski.

Mr. Rhodes would like to compound that to make sure that 100ft. is not the magic number for all other applications. Mr. Rhodes said that the applicant has sufficient land or cause a non standard property line to be installed that does meet zoning, but by making it a little more conventional it will make it a better subdivision for this district and it could be a considered a conservation subdivision.

Mr. Doyle asked the consensus of the Board should be as shown on the map. The Board replied yes. Mr. Doyle replied to the applicant that he has conceptual approval.

Zuritis Construction, 9 Lazur Road for Site Plan Review. Michael Zuritis was present to present the application to the Board. Mr. Zuritis was present representing J&M construction. Mr. Doyle asked the applicant if he received a copy of the town engineers comment letter. Mr. Zuritis replied that he did receive the comment letter. Mr. Zuritis is here this evening to request site plan approval for a single family residence to be built on lot #5 LakeView Estates. Mr. Zuritis said that there were two

engineering comments that were received from CT Male one comment was a concern that the proposed residence might be visible from the lake. Mr. Zuritis said that you cannot see the house from the lake it is separated by 800ft. of treed wetlands.

Mr. Rhodes asked the visibility from the lake. Mr. Zuritis said there is no visibility from the lake.

Mr. Zuritis said that the test pit data will be added to the final map.

Mr. Zuritis indicated that the roadside lots on Lake Road are part of the Water Front District. Mr. Rhodes asked what zone is this located in. Mr. Johnson replied Ballston Lake Water Front. Mr. Rhodes asked if flag lots are allowed. Mr. Johnson said this was an approved subdivision before the zoning change. Mr. Rhodes said that there is a three year time line. Mr. Johnson said that it is three years from 2006. Mr. Zuritis said that this subdivision has an approved private road which is maintained by the Homeowners Association.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 10:05pm

Mr. Doyle closed the public hearing 10:06pm

No one wished to speak.

MOTION: Mr. Cwalinski 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.

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.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes moved for approval contingent on satisfaction of engineering comments and park and rec fees. Mr. VanVorst seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Karl H. Von Der Ahe, 3 LakeHill Road for a Lot Line Adjustment. Mr. Doyle indicated that the Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake School District is looking at purchasing a piece of property which adjoins their property on the east side of Stevens school. Mr. Doyle said that the concept is to provide another bus access to the bus garage and to allow the school to redesign the bus entrance and the normal motor vehicle to the front of the building. Mr. Doyle said that at the present time, they all merge together which makes it an unsafe condition and the school has been looking at a way to solve this problem. Duane Rabideau of VanGuilder and Associates was present on behalf of the applicants to present the application to the Board. Mr. Rabideau said that the Von Der Ahe parcel is 5.78 acres and will adjust the line so that it will adjust to 1 acre around their existing structure. The remaining land will annex to Stevens for a potential bus entrance.

Mr. Rhodes asked if a review has been done regarding the safety of that proposed access point which will create not only a "dog legged intersection", but an access point on a hill close to a dangerous intersection. Mr. Rabideau said that Ted Serbalik from Saratoga County looked at it. Mr. Rhodes asked

for site line. Mr. Rabideau replied yes. Rhodes asked, but not operation. Mr. Rabideau said capacity. Mr. Rhodes would like someone to look at this because he does not feel that Mr. Serbalik is going to review the "dog legged intersection" that this is going to create, but feels that this is going to be safe and has not felt it has been done. Mr. Rhodes said that if this project was not going to enable something else and was an annexation of land, would not have a problem. Mr. Rhodes said if you could tell him Mr. Serbalik was a Professional Engineer and have analyzed the safety then he would be satisfied. Ms. Eddy suggested the town’s traffic engineer review it. Mr. Rhodes feels that the town engineer is the best person for the job. Mr. Doyle feels that Mr. Serbalik should be talking to Joe Ritchey, Commissioner and the County should make a decision on how they should review this application. Mr. Rhodes said that when the Board is discussion access points it involves safety. Mr. Rabideau indicated that it is just an exit. Mr. Doyle said that the County should assure them that this is correct. Mr. Rhodes asked Mr. Doyle that the town’s consultant should not take a look at this application. Mr. Doyle asked if the town’s consultant take a look at the application. Mr. Rhodes said that he was recommending that the towns engineer take a look at this application. Mr. Doyle indicated that this can be done and have our traffic experts take a look at this application.

Mr. Doyle indicated that the solving the safety problem in front of the school, but not create another safety problem. Mr. Rhodes suggested the county look at the report which was given by the town’s engineer.

A further discussion was held on the School District providing a study and having BFJ reviewing the study. The Board also suggests the applicant provide traffic engineer review the site and provide a report for the Board and the town engineer to review. There are several concerns with the time of day, buses, elevations, and the offset of the intersection.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 10:20pm

Michelle Sestito, 7 LakeHill Road has a concern for safety and said that LakeHill Road is icy in the winter. Ms. Sestito is also concerned with the entrance being so close to her residence and bus traffic; noise.

Susan Sommer, 9 LakeHill Road has the same concerns and also the road that will be serving LakeHill Road; safety concerns.

Mr. Doyle said he would contact the schools attorney to provide direction on Planning Boards correction to the intersection traffic.

Application tabled.

Extra Innings, McCrea Hill Road for discussion on previously approved Site Plan. This is a request for fencing changes to the approved site plan. Previously proposed was a wood guide rail wood at the west end of the front parking area and the applicant would like to change to a 6’ high chain link rear area around the storm water runoff areas and adjacent o the wetlands. Mr. VanVorst said that there was some discussion during the application that that they may put an addition on the back end so that

would affect where they may put the fence. Ms. Serra said that the fence could be moved and that question is a moot point.

MOTION: Mr. VanVorst made a motion to approve this change. Ms. Eddy seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Eddy seconded the motion.

Mr. Reilly said that he hopes the school district will do the right thing, but the Board cannot treat this as a major subdivision or a minor subdivision it’s a lot line adjustment that meets all the requirements.

Mr. Rhodes said sure you can. Ms. Eddy said that she can vote no. Mr. Doyle said that the school board will do the right thing.

Meeting adjourned at 10:35pm

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman

Enc.