Meader Lane - A new proposed Subdivision at Round Lake Road and MacKenna Court

NOTICE:  Public Comments Open during Public Hearing on August 28th, 2019 at 7:30pm Removed from agenda by applicant 8-28-19 - watch for rescheduling

257 Round Lake Rd

(Meader Lane Residential Subdivision)

25 Single Family homes

This on the Agenda for the August 28, 2019 Town of Ballston Planning Board Meeting at 7:30pm.

This was first before the Planning Board in March of 2019 and last tabled on June 24th, 2019.   The applicants are now calling this the Meader Lane Residential Subdivision.  This is in the Watershed Overlay Protection District.  Josh McGee and Marcus Magee owners and applicants for the Meader Lane Residential Subdivision are proposing a total of 26 lots. Of the 26 lots, 25 are proposed single family lots and lot 26 is proposed as reserved green space.
Tom Suozzo, Project Engineer with Cedarwood Engineering and Jeffrey Anthony, RLA with Studio A presented at the last meeting in June.

Proposed lot sizes

Total Acreage of Site: 33.97 Acres

Total Non-Build-able:  15.56 Acres

Three stormwater management ponds are proposed for storage and infiltration. The Round Lake Road basin is located at the northern end of the property near Round Lake Road and is in Rhinebeck soils. The South East basin is located below lot 9 south of the proposed connector road near the east property boundary in Rhinebeck soils. The South Central basin is located at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac in Deerfield soils.

Meader Lane Residential Subdivision will be provided with municipal water service. The water service will be provided by extending the Burnt Hills-Ballston Water District #2 to this subdivision. 

The sewer collection system will be connected to Saratoga County Sewer District #1 (SCSD#1). The proposed sewer system will consist of 25 individual exterior grinder pumps connected to a low-pressure force main network. The force main network will connect to the Benedict Road Residential Subdivision wastewater collection system.

COMMENTS AND ANSWERS

Cedarwood Engineering stated in a letter to Chair VanVorst (on file in the Building Department office) that this is a compilation of all responses to concerns and comments made to date by the Planning Board.  BNU has noticed that during recent Planning Board Meetings the board members reference the comment numbers when addressing issues rather then explaining the topic.  This puts the public at a disadvantage and uninformed.  For transparent governing this should be posted for the public to view.  Below are the comments and their assigned numbers for referrence.

COMMENT 1:
The prior comment letters by C.T. Male included comments that some of the lots may not be considered buildable given the presence of wetlands on the property. Some attempts have been made to revise the lot layout, however, Lots 2 and 3 still contain a significant number of wetlands. The applicant shall provide the area of the lot that is considered buildable for consideration by the Board. There is also no proposed grading on the lots, which could further limit the buildable area of these lots.

RESPONSE:
Original Response: We believe there is sufficient buildable area provided for all lots including lots 2 and 3. The grading plan to be provided with the next submission will indicate all buildable areas.
First Revised Response: Large scale drawings for Lots 2 & 3 are enclosed and show grading and proposed house location.
Second Revised Response: Locations of lots 2 & 3 have been adjusted as shown on drawing P‐2.

COMMENT 2:
The applicant shall provide information on who will own Lot 26 and the lot along Round Lake Road that contains a proposed stormwater management area.

RESPONSE:
Original Response: The HOA will own and maintain all proposed storm water management areas including all of Lot 26.
First Revised Response: The drawings have been updated to include labeling for who will maintain ownership of said lots.
Second Revised Response: No updated response.

COMMENT 3:
The applicant should be aware that the Town requires test pits every 500 feet along the proposed road alignment as part of the roadway design.

RESPONSE:
Original Response: The required roadway test pit information will be provided with the next submission.
First Revised Response: Test pits have been preformed and data has been provided on sheet R‐1. Second Revised Response: No updated response.

COMMENT 4:
Sheet P‐1: The lot size/statistics table shall indicate the proposed setback dimensions.

RESPONSE:
Original Response: Sheet P‐1 will be modified to include proposed setback dimensions. First Revised Response: Setback dimensions have been added to sheet P‐1.
Second Revised Response: No updated response.

COMMENT 5:
The location of the proposed stormwater management facilities at the SW and SE corners of the project site are not favorable. The Town does not desire to take over stormwater management areas that are in the rear of homes due to issues with long term maintenance. In addition, the plan does not show any way for the SW stormwater management area to be accessed off the end of the cul‐de‐sac, without impacts to the NYSDEC wetland buffer.

RESPONSE:
Original Response: The HOA will own and maintain the stormwater management areas. The Southeast stormwater management area has a 20 ft access road and an easement will be provided to the town. The Southwest stormwater management area is not needed and will be eliminated from the plans. The Northwest stormwater management area is accessible from the proposed Meader Lane roadway.
First Revised Response: We understand that the town will be maintaining the stormwater retention basin associated with the roadway and must have access. The SW corner basin has been removed from the drawings. The SE corner basin has been moved adjacent to the road to provide for ease of access for the town.
Second Revised Response: No updated response.
COMMENT 6:
On the subdivision plans, for the names of the property owners, it is suggested that “formally” be replaced with “formerly.”

RESPONSE:
Original Response: The correction will be made on the next submission. First Revised Response: Correction has been made.
Second Revised Response: No updated response.

COMMENT 7:
The two lots off MacKenna Court that are immediately adjacent to this project have the owners listed as “Lands now or Formally of John Paul Builders.” The ownership should be revised to include the current property owners. The plans should show the location of the homes on these lots.

RESPONSE:
Original Response: The town clerk will be contacted to obtain all current owners names and those names will be included in the plans. The plans will also be revised to show the location of the homes on these lots.
First Revised Response: Lot ownership labeling has been updated to reflect current ownership. Drawings have been updated to reflect the location of the houses on the subject lots.
Second Revised Response: No updated response.

COMMENT 8:
At the March 27, 2019 Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board Chairman asked the applicant to come up with a method of discouraging traffic from going through MacKenna Court. The plans provided for this submission contain no information on how MacKenna Court will be modified when this project connects to that roadway.

RESPONSE:
Original Response: Applicant will provide and install a ‘Slow‐ Children at Play’ sign.
First Revised Response: Based on comments received during the planning board meeting of 6/24/19 we are proposing the following to discourage through traffic into MacKenna Court. The existing cul‐de‐sac will be converted into a roundabout as shown on drawings, additional signage will be included to discourage through traffic.
Second Revised Response: Per comments received during the in‐person meeting between Jeff Anthony of Studio A, C.T. Male and the town we are proposing the following changes to accompany the cul‐de‐sac already proposed: the width of the road has been reduced, and a curve has been added to the layout of the extension of MacKenna Court.

COMMENT 9:
The Conceptual Green Infrastructure and Stormwater Analysis Report does not contain information on the sizing of the stormwater management areas to provide for peak runoff (10 and 100‐year storm) attenuation. As presented, it is not possible to determine if enough space has been allocated for the stormwater management areas.

RESPONSE:
Original Response: The peak runoff calculations for the 10‐ and 100‐year storm events will be provided with the next submission. Sizing information for these events will also be included with the next submission along with proposed grading and construction details.
First Revised Response: Sizing has been provided for the 10‐ and 100‐year storm attenuation. Second Revised Response: No updated response
COMMENT 10:
In Sections 2.1 and 4.0, it is mentioned that the WQv and CPv are calculated based upon enhanced phosphorous removal requirements for the site. The engineer should be aware that Chapter 10 of the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual “Enhanced Phosphorous Removal Standards” does not apply to this project since the property is not located within a phosphorous limited watershed. Even so, the Town does not object to the applicant designing their project around these more stringent standards if the applicant desires.

RESPONSE:
Original Response: If enhanced phosphorus removal standards do not apply to this project, we will no longer be applying the more stringent phosphorus standards.
First Revised Response: No updated response.
Second Revised Response: Enhanced phosphorus removal standards have been kept for added treatment.

COMMENT 11:
The Green Infrastructure Plan indicates that 21.15 acres of “conservation of natural areas” are proposed. It is not clear where these areas are located and those areas shall be noted on the plan. As the project progresses, any area designed as a “conservation area” shall be deed restricted.

RESPONSE:
Original Response: Conservation of natural areas will be clearly indicated on the plans. As the project progresses, any area designated as a conservation area will be deed restricted.
First Revised Response: No updated response. Second Revised Response: No updated response.

COMMENT 12:
Section 2.2.2 of the report mentions that “A number of lots naturally drain towards the back of the property, away from the proposed stormwater collection system and towards the project boundaries. These are lots 20 through 25.” Rain gardens are being proposed at the back of these properties. Rain gardens provide runoff treatment, not detention, so it is not clear how the project will attenuate peak runoff rates from these lots if the lots drain away from the stormwater collection system.

RESPONSE:
Original Response: Rain gardens will be replaced with bioretention areas for storm water systems. First Revised Response: Rain gardens have been replaced with bioretention areas as shown on plans. Second Revised Response: No updated response.

COMMENT 13:
Appendix B‐ it is not clear if the depth to water table in the test pit profiles is the water level observed at the time of the test pits, or if it is indicative of mottling, i.e. the seasonally high groundwater table. The date of the test pit and infiltration tests shall also be noted in Appendix B.

RESPONSE:
Original Response: Those were observed water levels. The date of the infiltration of the test pit will be noted in Appendix B in the next submission.
First Revised Response: Clarification has been added to table and date of testing has been added. Second Revised Response: No updated response.
COMMENT 14:
Appendix B‐ For the southeast basin, the test pit log indicates the depth to the water table at 48 inches, but for the infiltration tests, “water in the hole at 24” is noted.

RESPONSE:
Original Response: A discrepancy was noticed in the field. Actual water levels were recorded. Engineer will go out and provide additional percolation tests in this area.
First Revised Response: Storm Basin has been moved from this area and new testing was performed. New soil data has been added.
Second Revised Response: No updated response.

COMMENT 15:
Sanitary Sewer Report: It is suggested that this report be provided to Saratoga County Sewer District #1 for their concurrence. We offer the following comments:

RESPONSE:
Original Response: The report will be provided to Saratoga County Sewer District #1 for its concurrence.
First Revised Response: No revised update.
Second Revised Response: The project has been submitted to the Saratoga County Sewer District for their review.

COMMENT 15a.:
Appendix A of this report shall include the location of the existing sanitary sewer infrastructure, as it is hard to follow in the text of the report.

RESPONSE:
Original Response: A drawing will be added to the report showing the location of the existing sanitary sewer infrastructure.
First Revised Response: Drawing has been added to report to clarify the location of existing sanitary sewer infrastructure.
Second Revised Response: No revised update.

COMMENT 15b.:
In the sewer sizing calculations, the “Benedict Road Subdivision” is referenced, however, it is not clear if the flows being used for the 2” LPSS on MacKenna Court are for the homes on MacKenna Court or for the whole subdivision, some of which does not flow to the 2” LPSS on MacKenna Court.

RESPONSE:
Original Response: The sewer calculations include flows from the entire Benedict Road Subdivision. First Revised Response: No revised update.
Second Revised Response: The new system will no longer be connecting through the 2” LPSS on MacKenna Court, a parallel 3” LPSS will be installed. The sewer report has been updated accordingly.

COMMENT 15c.:
The project is proposing low pressure sanitary sewer, so why are so many manholes shown proposed utility plans?

RESPONSE:
Original Response: Most of the manholes are provided for cleanouts.
First Revised Response: No revised update.
Second Revised Response: All manholes are labeled, they include air relief valves, end of line clean outs and cleanouts.

COMMENT 16:
Water Supply Report: This report shall be updated when the hydrant flow test and modeling is completed. The applicant should be aware that the Town may require the subdivision to be fed from MacKenna Court and Round Lake Road for looping and fire flow purposes.

RESPONSE:
Original Response: Flow test and modeling reports will be provided with the next submittal. First Revised Response: Still working on scheduling for someone to perform tests.
Second Revised Response: Hydrant test has been completed and the water report has been updated accordingly.
ADDITIONAL VERBAL COMMENT
From comments made during the June meeting asking that neighboring wells and septic fields be shown, only one lot was within close proximity that contained these utilities. This lot is located to the east of the Meader Lane entrance along Round Lake Road. Per the NYSDEC Design Standards for Intermediate Sized Wastewater Treatment System the only required separation distance is between the sewer line and the private well and is 50 feet.

Do you want to see MORE CONDOS in Ballston? August 28th, 2019 PUBLIC COMMENTS OPEN on more condos in Ballston

1451 ROUTE 5O

STEVENSON PARCEL SITE PLAN

SLB # 228.5-1-38

Note that this project is another in which planning board member Laura Muschott and the Planning Board Chair John Van Vorst will need to recuse themselves for conflict of interest.

Courtesy of the same builder that brought you this (see photo below) building right on the edge of Route 50 across the way from Tomaselli Court.

Just south of 1451 Route 50

Their next project in town will start by demolishing the home at 1451 Route 50 and then erect 16 condominiums, a parking garage and some more pavement.

1451 Route 50 property size is 1.18 acres.  This is only 51,247 square feet which is planned to have 16 condominium units and parking garage on it.  It is currently zoned Hamlet Residential District.

The applicant for the project, Mourningkill Properties, LLC, is currently developing the two properties located directly to the south on Route 50.

This project will impact the Town of Ballston and is within proximity of homes on the following roads:

1400 block of Route 50/ Saratoga Road

Autumn Lane

Cindy Lane

Covered Wagon Court

Harold Street

Moonlight Drive

North Avenue

Pine Grove Avenue

Reita Street

Robert Drive

Springwood Meadows Drive

Sunset Avenue
Tomaselli Court

Based on the papers filed with the Town of Ballston, they plan to demolish the home on the property and construct two 8-unit condominium buildings and one 12-stall garage.  The condominium buildings will be a two-story design and the garage will be a single-story building.

Home at 1451 Route 50

The builder is claiming these 16 condos are in line with the Town's Comprehensive Plan by offering opportunities to vary the style and price of housing, developing in close proximity to services, installing a sidewalk on Route 50 to promote walkability, creating an appropriate transitional land use between the mixed-use development to the south and the single family detached housing to the north, and considering infill development and redevelopment activities instead of developing on green fields.

Site Plan Map of 1451 Route 50

The proposed condos will have an estimated total use of 3,200 gallons of Town of Ballston water per day as well as making an extension to the Saratoga County sewer main to provide sewer service to each of the individual buildings.

On May 29th Lansing Engineering presented a site plan to the Town of Ballston Planning Board.  The Planning Board made the following comments at the presentation:

Dalia Garcia, Planner, noted that per CT male a 10 foot setback is needed, and the site rule is 12 units per acre, therefore a maximum of 14 units is allowed, not 16 as proposed.

Ms. Mathias noted that question #14 of the analysis was not answered.

Mr. Shorey noted that the site statistics contain an error, saying 1.19 acres but should be 1.18.

Mr. Dipasquale noted that it should be clarified that the parking in the garage and the open space directly behind it are both for the same unit.
Ms. Mathias noted the following: 1) there should be something proposed to extend the sidewalk for the safety of the residents in answer to the lack of connectivity and grading issues, 2) snow removal on the south side needs to be addressed, and 3) screening on the north side, discussed last October, needs to be addressed, and 4) the County requirement of a maximum of 14 units needs to be addressed.

After the presentation, a public hearing was held (May 29, 2019).  The following comments were made:

Fred Whittredge, 2nd property to the north of the site asked if the driveway would be angled in to the site, asked if the building in the front was going to be far enough back. He spoke for his neighbor who is the person who lives next to the north side and said that nothing short of a 10 foot wooden solid fence with vegetation will be acceptable to him, and that “some time” would not be good enough for when to address the concern. He asked, “Is there no way to slow down apartments and condominiums? I’ve been watching it grow and grow.”

Peter Solberg, Charlton Rd noted he was on the PB when this project was initially proposed and had the following concerns:

1. Setbacks – if under 5 feet, no windows are allowed and therefore no egress, and would not meet the fire code

2. Emergency vehicles do not have access to the back of the front building – perhaps it could be made smaller

3. Much impervious surface and excessive storm water runoff

4. No screen on the north side driveway

5. Fire hydrants are not noted on the plan

6. Crosswalks should be considered

7. How will the rest of the area be accessed?

8. There are a lot of apartments – the PB might consider asking the developer to think about funds toward a crosswalk, as the taxpayers would need to pay for it if DOT doesn’t

9. Handicap ramps should be provided, but based on the plan this doesn’t look feasible

Frank Rossi Jr. – Saratoga Avenue stated the questions regarding connectivity, roads, etc are being addressed by the Church Avenue crosswalk going in as part of the Hannaford project and shouldn’t be thrown in to this project discussion.

· Scott Lansing addressed the concerns raised:

· The driveway lines up with driveway across the street.

· The front building location is 80 feet back from the road.

· He will work with the PB on the specifics for a high fence on the northern boundary.

· The site is fire code compliant – 70 feet in and 70 feet over, with sprinklers, more than adequate overlap

· Storm water solution will be addressed in the final proposal

· A hydrant will be addressed.

· ADA accessibility will be addressed with signage/markings.

Mr. Maher noted that this is currently a preliminary concept design, just as a reminder and not to discount any comments made during the public hearing.

Ms. Mathias noted the privacy on the northern end is important, as is meeting the maximum number of units and storm water mitigation.

Mr. Dipasquale requested additional information in the next meeting with a proposal from Mr. Lansing and to see what the neighbor’s input is, the one who lives on the northern boundary.

A motion was made to table. A preliminary plan will be brought to a future meeting.

This will be on the Planning Board Agenda again for August 28th at 7:30pm with public comments open. BNU encourages residents to attend and let their voice be heard.