Meader Lane Subdivision - 257 Round Lake Road - Notes

NOTES FROM ALL APPEARANCES BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD STARTING WITH THE FIRST:

MARCH 27, 2019
257 Round Lake Road
257 Round Lake Road; 249.-3-46
Major Subdivision – 25 Lots

John Lapper, Esq., Marcus Magee, Applicant, Tom Suozzo, Project Engineer with Cedarwood Engineering and Jeffrey Anthony, RLA with Studio A presented.
Chairman VanVorst stated for the record, what is the actual title of this project. Mr. Lapper stated 257 Round Lake Road. Mr. Lapper stated the applicant owns the property, proposing a Conservation Subdivision starting with an initial Sketch Plan tonight to present.
Mr. Lapper stated the Cluster Subdivision calculations have been submitted that shows the best case scenario would be 40-lots and a lot of the lots are far in excess of the 20,000 square feet minimum connecting the adjacent street. Mr. Lapper stated public sewer and water and avoiding the wetlands.

Mr. Lapper stated the applicant has submitted a non-jurisdictional letter from both NYSDEC and ACOE. Mr. Lapper stated Ms. Serra has a review letter where she asked the applicants to look at four lots that have a little bit of wetland and will be proposing some changes as we move forward; move the houses to address her comments. Mr. Lapper stated preliminary soil tests have been done and will need to do more before preliminary submission; wanted to hear the Boards comments to get started.

Mr. Anthony we (the Applicant) have been working on this project for several months and the project consists of approximately 33 acres. Mr. Anthony stated the calculations were performed for allowable density and subtracted all the wetlands - ACOE, NYSDEC or NYSDEC buffers and after eliminating them from the overall acreage totals 678,180 square feet of buildable area. Mr. Anthony stated the project proposes a common or municipal water and sewer system; 20,000 square foot lots are allowable in the Ballston Lake Residential Zoning District with both utilities. Mr. Anthony stated dividing that by 20,000 square feet, results in 801,553 square feet of buildable area; eliminating 678,180 square feet because of wetlands and buffer areas. Mr. Anthony stated it results in density - allowable 40-units or 40 lots. Mr. Anthony stated a 26-lot Conservation Subdivision is being proposed, of the 26-lots, 25 lots are single-family lots and one lot is a very large piece of property on the south end of the parcel, which is proposed to be non-developed or reserved to be maintained for the wetlands area. Mr. Anthony stated there is some buildable area on that 26th lot however, we (the Applicant) are not attempting to access it or do anything with it; will be left as a conservation area only. Mr. Anthony stated the project design is to take a roadway off Round Lake Road and come into the property and make a cul-de-sac at the south end of that roadway and have a side road come over and connect into the Benedict Subdivision, which there is an existing cul-de-sac at that point, which was planned in the previous development for the Benedict Subdivision; it comes right up to the property line and all we can assume is that it was planned to allow utility and access connections through there. Mr. Anthony stated since the applicant is proposing a Conservation Subdivision and 20,000 square feet is the lot requirement in the Ballston Lake Residential zone with water and sewer and half of the proposed lots exceed the 20,000 square feet; the other half are slightly lower – 17,000 to 19,000 square foot range.

Mr. Lapper stated of the four lots that were mentioned in the letter from CT Male, Lot #22 there is a really tiny ACOE wetland at the top and Lot #3 is the biggest one, but will look at that carefully.

Chairman VanVorst stated on the EAF page 2 B a. “Whether you need approval from the Town Board if the applicant is getting a waterline extension, will need approval from the Town Board – answer needs to be changed to “yes” Mr. Lapper stated yes, the Town Board is involved in the Lead Agency for that. Page 4, h. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any liquids, such as creation of a water supply, reservoir, pond, lake, waste lagoon or other storage? Mr. VanVorst stated that the answer should be “yes” instead of “no”. Page 13: h. Is the project site within five miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource? Chairman VanVorst stated the applicant answered “yes” and it lists - Peeble Island State Parks, Saratoga National Park, Saratoga Spa State Park and Mohawk River State Park and does not think any of those are within five miles of this project. Mr. Anthony stated it comes off of the NYSDEC Mapper and cannot change it, but you are correct. Chairman VanVorst stated the preliminary map does not show any of the neighbors; names, well and septic system locations. Chairman VanVorst stated on the next generation of maps would hope/expect to be located on the map. Chairman VanVorst stated it’s been the policy of the Planning Board for decades to create connectivity or potential connectivity between properties, which is the reason why there is a cul-de-sac that connects from Mackenna Ct. Chairman VanVorst stated when the Planning Board approved that project, we had it designed so there could be connectivity into this project because we (the Board) feels for the safety and wellbeing and benefit of the community that there be the ability to maneuver between properties and developments. Chairman VanVorst stated after having said that, would hope or expect the applicants to research whether there could be connectivity to the property to the west. Mr. Lapper stated we will look at that because it is not an existing road; maybe there should be Stub Street going that way too.

Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 8:41 p.m.

Robert Ward, 238 Round Lake Road stated this was Jack Meader’s property that passed away a couple years ago. Mr. Ward has spoken to Mr. Magee and his only concern is the storm water at the front of the project; across from that is another 30 acres that was part of the Meader parcel. Mr. Ward stated knowing that land pretty well, there are a lot of wetlands in that area and clay and asked where that storm water goes; there is an old creek to the north and to make sure that it goes to someplace other than to the north side of the road. Mr. Ward stated having Timber Creek about a half a mile to the east, there is a halo every night when you look to the west and not knowing what the lighting will be for this project and ask to take that under consideration. Mr. Ward does not think traffic is an impact here with about 5,000 cars that go up and down Round Lake Road a day (latest NYSDOT projections) and clearly evident from the 20 years living in our home there is a lot of traffic going back and forth. Thank you.

Michele Stamas, 8 Mackenna Ct. stated she sent you a petition/letter today. Chairman VanVorst stated we received that this afternoon; it’s a little hard for us (the Board) to evaluate something like that last minute, but will definitely go through it and respond.  Ms. Stamas stated anything we talk about would not be considered repeating. Chairman VanVorst stated no, go ahead.
Ms. Stamas stated we have several problems with this proposed second entrance coming through our cul-de-sac – first one being it is a cul-de-sac. We had no idea that there was any intention to connect to another residence and that certainly would have had a huge impact on every single one of us purchasing a home there. It’s built like a cul-de-sac and has the middle section like a cul-de-sac and if there was ever any intention to extend that, it would not have been constructed that way. Ms. Stamas stated safety is another concern and this is going to add quite a bit of traffic with the 25 homes, potentially 50 cars a day. In addition to that, with the outlet onto Round Lake Road, feels there is going to be a quite a bit of cut through traffic or potential for cut through traffic; specially from the new Timber Creek going in across from us on Benedict Road. Ms. Stamas stated the impact this will have on the assessment and values of our homes; some of us paid premiums for those lots on that cu-de-sac. Ms. Stamas stated in her opinion that is a proven fact in some ways that because it is such a small street and small community, it’s very desirable for most people and that impacts the price of the home as a resale value of the home. Ms. Stamas stated we have propane and were initially were told we would have natural gas brought into the location and apparently there were not enough houses to justify that and from what she understands, there will be natural gas brought in to the development and would like to be able to have that run into ours as well, if this does go forward. Ms. Stamas stated the reason to have those two entrances is a safety factor and the need for emergency vehicles to get in and out and have two access routes to do that. Ms. Stamas stated the majority of any emergency vehicles will come from Round Lake Road and come down from the other side and come in at that location; does not understand the necessity to have that second inlet – it’s only 25 homes there. Ms. Stamas asked the Board if they had any questions about the letter submitted. Chairman VanVorst stated he read it, but has not had a chance to break it down and digest it – we will respond. Ms. Stamas asked how you will respond.

Chairman VanVorst stated basically two ways; can either email you will some responses, but if I do that, it is just me personally and thinks it would be preferable for there to be a response/consensus from the Planning Board at the next Planning Board meeting.

Mr. Chauvin stated it would be appropriate for us (the Board) to provide a copy of that to the applicant; many of these concerns that were raised bordering on technical in nature and might be best to forward that to the applicant and ask that they provide a comment for review and response. Mr. Chauvin stated the Board need not comment and to treat this as sufficient public comment and did not provide a direct comment to every bullet point that was presented to you; certainly those are concerns and take under advisement and evaluate your comments that we review your application as we move forward and are in the very early stages of the presentation. Mr. Chauvin stated that the applicants getting a written response of the concerns that were raised and providing a copy to them and to the residents would be the best first step and the Board can evaluate both sides in that context on how you evaluate this project.

Chairman VanVorst thanked Mr. Chauvin for his very wise input.

Ms. Stamas stated she also has the signatures of all residents. Chairman VanVorst asked to leave that with Mr. Chauvin, Planning Board Attorney.

Eric Connolly, 84 Lancaster Ct stated the conservation subdivision has read a bit in the Comprehensive Plan and his understanding one of the goals of a conservation subdivision is to preserve a significant part of the land to be usable; that’s a swamp back there – just want to point that out.

Richard Leonard, 13 Mackenna Ct. stated we would be losing our safety in Mackenna Ct.; many of our families have children with the oldest being 11 years old down to a newborn and one the way in a few months. In terms of having second entrance for their safety would be compromising our safety; now that the weather is nice they are out in the road with only nine houses – traffic is pretty much nonexistent. If there are cars coming through with 25 houses its potentially 100 cars a day and the “nosey neckers” would be checking out the new houses and the people cutting through and would be sacrificing our children’s safety. We all talked about why we moved into that neighborhood because we would let our children go out and play, and not worry about them, but have less concerns with them starting to ride bikes, ride on their scooters; so to sacrifice our families safety for someone else;– how fair is that and we were never notified. Mr. Leonard stated “Mackenna Ct. is a court and as far as he knows, it is a cul-de-sac, not a throughway for getting access to somewhere else.” Mr. Leonard stated the Town names the streets and if that is the case, we were kind of mislead moving into this area – the neighbors would of thought twice of moving there. Mr. Leonard stated no study has been done on our part and sure the value of homes just dropped and for the next 30-years, we are all paying more than what we should be. Mr. Leonard stated that last gentleman was right, that is a swamp back there and in terms of that little storm water in the corner did have good access to it – that is right next to my back yard and just put a deposit down on a swimming pool. Mr. Leonard asked if anyone has a pool and you probably don’t have a little storm water management area with all sorts of flies and mosquitos when you are trying to enjoy your pool. Mr. Leonard stated the biggest thing for us is safety; it’s a nine home community and we are all friends. Mr. Leonard stated he was the first home and has been there since December 2017 and for a little more than a year, as everyone moves in, our families have gotten close and had their first annual picnic last summer. Mr. Leonard stated there was never an inkling of ever being a through road going through there and most of us would not have moved there having small children because we did come from places where there was traffic and wanted to get away from that. Mr. Leonard would like to ask that if this ended up going through, we would want some of a safety study done and any other study that would prove that putting that road that went through our neighborhood is the safest way. Mr. Leonard stated we are not against the building over there; it’s just having the road going through. Mr. Leonard stated his property is right to the right of that storm water management area that does not have access. Thank you.

Scott Draina, Outlet Road stated he is listening to the nearby neighbors speak about safety and traffic and for every one of these new developments that goes in whether it’s a subdivision, conservation subdivision or PUDD, that is how the rest of the residents in this Town that have already lived here for decades; that is how we feel every time one of these new ones go in. Mr. Draina stated he still lives on Outlet Road and had the entire road to himself and would bike up and down the entire mile and felt like the lake was his own; used to go down and catch frogs and turtles and would never be able to trust that my son could do that without getting hit by a car; can’t even trust him to cross the road and get the mail. Mr. Draina stated when he is driving around Town and drives past all these new developments, all of their storm water management basins are put out by the main road and start to see storm water basin after storm water basin as he drives through the Town and that does not add to the character and the aesthetic and feel of our Town. Mr. Draina stated when the empty swamp holes are filled with mosquitoes, bug and cattails; they are not beautiful lagoons with fountains, waterfalls and wildlife in them – they are eyesores. Mr. Draina stated he does not think that they should be right out on the main roads and should be tucked into these projects and part of the project – not out there for the rest of the Town to have to drive by and see all the time. Mr. Draina stated that is something for the Board to consider please.

Chris Gilroy, 6 Mackenna Ct. stated that he wanted to add to some of the opinions that were stated earlier about Mackenna Ct. and is opposed to connecting Mackenna Ct to the proposed 257 Round Lake Road Subdivision.  Mr. Gilroy feels as though we invested a significant amount of money as did all the other neighbors to purchase those homes in turn invested into the Town of Ballston and that decision may not have been made had we known that there would be a connecting roadway and would be no longer considered a traditional cul-de-sac. Mr. Gilroy stated we base that opinion based on the advertising by the builder, which did not come from the Town, but with that being said, there was the design of the construction of the roadway, which is a cul-de-sac as the applicant had initially addressed. Mr. Gilroy stated he assumes the builder for Mackenna Ct. built the roadway and assumed the design was approved by the Town and based on the fact that the design of the roadway was a cul-de-sac and had a realistic expectation that would remain a cul-de-sac with only one entryway for the life expectancy of that development. Mr. Gilroy stated he does not know who names the roadway, but the classification of the roadway as a court, to me, also implies that it would remain a cul-de-sac. Thank you.

Chairman VanVorst adjourned the public hearing for tonight at 8:59 p.m.

Chairman VanVorst stated when the Planning Board evaluates a project, we do not know whether there is ever going to be development in the property next to it, but we suspect that there is a good possibility that it will happen and we make provisions for either scenario. Chairman VanVorst stated when Mackenna Ct. came before us as a Planning Board, we encouraged them to design it so that, there would be the potential for connectivity if that ever developed. Mr. VanVorst stated if it didn’t, then there would be the cul-de-sac at the end of the roadway in order to provide for a turnaround and emergency access. Chairman VanVorst stated the other comment was about safety; does not know how Mackenna Ct. is numbered, but if the first house coming into Mackenna Ct. off of Benedict Road was to have an emergency, that blocked the roadway, then the rest of the residents would have access to their property either ingress or egress through this new development that they would not have if there was no connectivity. Chairman VanVorst stated there would be a greater degree of safety.

Mr. Blair stated if Mackenna Ct is blocked, seeing a lot more fires going on in residential homes, which is kind of close and one just happened last week. Mr. Blair stated if this access is there and Mackenna Ct. is blocked in the front, fire trucks will have access to get to your home now and save your asset, rather than not being able to get there and help you – there are plus and minuses’ looking at it both ways.

Chairman VanVorst stated there is a Town ordinance that there is no light spillage onto adjoining properties; you may see something reflected off of the clouds at night in the sky, but the lights from this property by statute, cannot go across the property line onto the neighboring property. Chairman VanVorst asked if the applicant had comments.

Mr. Lapper stated we will respond to the petition and understand the neighbors’ concerns and will everything we can to satisfy them. Mr. Blair stated once you have an opportunity to read the neighbors’ concerns about access and have a place for their kids or the residents of this subdivision, you have some open space and talked about a swamp and have seen some types of boardwalks go through swamps where you might be able to access that; this open space could be used for the residents of Mackenna Ct. and your subdivision. Mr. Lapper stated we will look at that. Mr. Maher stated we (the Board) have no control over who gets or doesn’t get natural gas service; that is National Grid and the density of the development does not meet the guidelines that they would have, they will not bring it to you because they have a cost benefit for that. Mr. Maher stated at some Page 23 of 25 Town of Ballston Planning Board March 27, 2019 point there may be 25 homes built there, National Grid may look at it and may extend the main to your homes, but we have no control over that and it’s National Grid’s purview.

Chairman VanVorst stated we have no control over how the roads are named; it’s the applicant job not the Towns job. Chairman VanVorst stated one thing he would ask from the applicant at the next submittal, to use some imagination to come up with a method of discouraging traffic from going through the connectivity to Mackenna Ct. Chairman VanVorst stated that speed bumps are not going to work because the Highway Superintendent is going to discourage that, but there has to be a way of calming traffic enough so people will no use it as a cut through. Application tabled.

JUNE 24, 2019
257 Round Lake Road.

Subdivision 257 Round Lake Road;

249.-3-46 Cluster Subdivision proposed 25-lots

John Lapper, Esq., Marcus Magee, Applicant, Tom Suozzo, Project Engineer with Cedarwood Engineering and Jeffrey Anthony, RLA with Studio A presented.

Mr. Lapper stated the applicant was before the Board in March and since then, have submitted their preliminary application, received comments last week from CT Male; more soil tests will need to be performed. Mr. Anthony, RLA distributed a written response to CT Male’s comment letter.

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 amount 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.

Mr. Lapper feels this is sufficient and will provide grading’s for the Board and CT Male to review for next time.

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.

Mr. Lapper stated this will have a HOA for just those purposes; common areas will have trails and will be maintained by the HOA.

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.

Mr. Lapper stated test pits to be shown every 500’ along the road and will be get the test pits scheduled and provide the data to the Board.

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

Mr. Lapper stated that will be put on sheet P-1.

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.

Mr. Lapper stated the applicant did provide a 20’ access for one of the stormwater management areas on the east side; should be sufficient as an easement and maintained by the HOA to get to the stormwater management area on the south west corner. Mr. Lapper stated Ms. Serra stated access was not shown and it turns out, that it is not needed; will eliminate that stormwater management area (to be shown on the next set of plans).

On the subdivision plans, for the names of the property owners, it is suggested that “formally” be replaced with “formerly.”

Mr. Lapper stated there was a typo, which will be fixed.

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.

Mr. Lapper stated when this was done, the tax maps show the developer rather than the property owners on Mackenna Court and will be updated to show house locations and identify the adjacent property owners now.

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.

Mr. Lapper stated the Mackenna Court residents were concerned about traffic and in general thinks that most of the lots will be easier going right up through the subdivision rather than going through theirs to get to Round Lake Road. Mr. Lapper stated the applicant would propose to put a street sign – “Slow Children at Play.” Mr. Lapper stated that neighborhood is not any different than the one being proposed – signs showing an area with families and the cul-de-sac will help because it’s not a straightaway.

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.

Mr. Anthony stated those calculations will be put in the next submission and feel they will be sized properly.

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.

Mr. Anthony stated if it’s not necessary, the applicant will not do the Enhanced Phosphorous Removal.

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.

Mr. Anthony stated that “conservation of natural areas” will be clearly indicated on the plans as the project progresses. Any area a “conservation of natural areas” will be restricted.

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.

Mr. Anthony stated that rain guards will be replaced with bio retention areas for the storm water systems.

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.

Mr. Anthony stated those were observed water levels and will make clear in their next submission because it was not just looking at modeling.

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.

Mr. Anthony stated they did notice that discrepancy and thinks it might have been a semi confining layer; water was purged and does not think it was true ground water table and will go out and re-do those areas. If we find the same things there, will shift that basin to the west to get into an area of 48 inches of depth, if possible.

Sanitary Sewer Report: It is suggested that this report be provided to Saratoga County Sewer District #1 for their concurrence.

Mr. Anthony stated it will be provided SCSD#1. Mr. Anthony stated he called SCSD#1 on a few items.

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.

Mr. Anthony stated an 8.5” x 11” site plan will be clearly shown.

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.

Mr. Anthony stated it’s for the entire subdivision.

The project is proposing low pressure sanitary sewer, so why are so many manholes shown proposed utility plans?

Mr. Anthony stated a lot of clean outs were put in because if there is a problem, want it to be easy for the Town personnel to maintain the system. 

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.

Mr. Anthony stated flow tests and modeling will be provided with the next submittal and look at all the different options for alignment that the distribution system can run.

Chairman VanVorst stated he did not emphasize how important it is that the Board feel there needs to be some sort of traffic discouragement calming procedure to prevent people from going into MacKenna Court.

Chairman VanVorst was very disappointed that there wasn’t any significant effort put into presenting the Board with some options of what you could do to prevent that flow of traffic.

Mr. Lapper asked if there was something specific the Board had in mind.

Chairman VanVorst stated it’s not the Boards job to engineer your project, but it is your job to meet our satisfaction; the Board is not satisfied.

Mr. Lapper stated we will focus on that and the Board addressed the neighbors on about how the Town likes to have subdivisions interconnected, but typical traffic calming methods would be speed bumps, which sometimes the plows don’t like them, but does not mean you cannot do that.

Chairman VanVorst stated that probably would not be acceptable, but there are many other options.

Mr. Maher stated there was an extensive discussion about lots 2 and 3 at the agenda meeting and Ms. Serra has expressed her concerns on a couple of occasions if they were buildable; it’s going to be a high hurdle for the Board and really need to demonstrate those two lots are buildable with the level of wetlands in that area.

Mr. DiPasquale stated could demonstrate to the Board what you anticipate on building on lots 2 and 3 could anticipate on a larger scale.

Mr. Lapper stated that is a great idea and will do that.

Ms. Serra stated the Town does not want the storm water management basin behind homes and yes there is a proposed 20’ easement, but have issues with long term maintenance. Ms. Serra stated the Town is very vocal for the Town Engineer to say no.

Mr. Lapper asked if it impacts a decision, because there is a HOA proposed and charged with maintaining that.

Ms. Serra stated no, it’s a Town road, the Town maintains; you will physically own a property that the storm water management practices are on an easement, but the Town feels that if the road is turned over to the Town, they will maintain infrastructures associated with the Town.

Mr. Lapper stated what he meant was, we can maintain the 20’ access area.

Ms. Serra stated if the Town has to clean that basin in 20 years, the owner of lot 19 might not be the same owner; have had a lot of issues with this and are trying to learn from prior design decisions that were made 15 to 20 years ago that are now becoming an issue for the Town.

Ms. Serra said, “We did make an applicant that was on the agenda tonight, lose a lot to move a basin.

Ms. Serra stated its consistent with other projects with putting the basin by the road where so it can be accessed.

Mr. Lapper stated we have the ability to lose that that if we had to obviously, it was located there because its next to the wetlands and at the low point where everything is naturally draining towards, but will look at that carefully and understand there is a possibility of losing that.

Ms. Matias asked who owns lot 26?

Mr. Lapper stated the HOA; all property owners will be members of. Ms. Matias asked if that trail only for residents.

Mr. Lapper stated not necessarily and have done other HOA’s where it is open to the public, if that is something important to the Planning Board.

Ms. Matias asked about liability.

Mr. Lapper stated its part of the insurance; the homeowners pay insurance and factored into what they pay for insurance.

Ms. Matias said, “If the neighbors from the other development want to walk over to the here, are they allowed to.”

Mr. Lapper stated if the Board tells the applicant what they would like to see, then we can do it that way.

Ms. Matias asked about parking.

Mr. Lapper stated parking is not something the applicant would propose.

Ms. Serra stated No Parking on Town roads between November 1st and April 1st.

Mr. DiPasquale stated for the next submittal, get a letter of approval or concurrence from SCSD#1 as it relates to the sewer flows especially with phase 1 of Timbercreek.

Mr. Lapper stated the applicant does have a letter as to capacity from the SCSD#1 Mr. DiPasquale asked that grants you capacity.

Mr. Lapper stated yes.

Mr. DiPasquale asked to include that letter in their next submittal to the Board.

Chairman VanVorst stated last month had pointed out errors on the EAF and have not seen a revised EAF.

Mr. Lapper stated that will be resolved.

Chairman VanVorst asked for location of wells and septic systems on neighboring properties for “Davies, Huebner and Meager” property. Chairman VanVorst stated he appreciates the fact that a paper street to the remaining Meager property and is there a possibility of connectivity to the “Huebner” property.

Mr. Lapper stated he thinks it is constrained by the wetlands.

Chairman VanVorst asked the applicant to demonstrate that it cannot be done.

Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m.

Five-minute limit. Warning at four-minute mark. If you have more to say, submit in

writing. All submissions will be read.

No foul language, swearing, cursing.

No insulting offensive remarks.

Don’t repeat already expressed comments.

Don’t expect a response to remarks tonight. No back and forth between public and applicant or Planning Board. All questions will be answered in time.

Dr. Pierce, 110 Lake Road asked if this whole project is located in the Watershed Overlay Protection District (WPOD).

Ms. Serra stated the front half of it is and back half if out, but thinks technically the way that zoning is broken up for the entire parcel - yes, as the project advances, would include that in the review.

Steve Wik, 11 Mackenna Court stated he wants to reiterated what was discussed at the last meeting and wanted to thank the developer for addressing the traffic reduction; personally to hear them say the cul-de-sac will slow them down, as a father of a three-year-old and a five month old, was very concerning. Mr. Wik stated not a single resident on Mackenna Court is in favor of a through road, this is incontrovertible and can verify that every resident signed a community offered petition, stating their opposition along with a laundry list of reasons. Mr. Wik stated not a single resident of Mackenna Court sees any net positive to the addition of a through road to the proposed development, in fact most residents have trouble seeing any scenario where a through road is beneficial in the long run. Mr. Wik stated the Town Planning Board members offer up poor and/or vague reasons in favor of the through road, such as connectivity. Mr Wik stated at the previous meeting, a Planning Board member presented a hypothetical situation, in favor of the through road falls apart on further inspection. The idea is that it would be beneficial to have two ports of entry for emergency vehicles in the event that one entrance is inexplicably blocked off or inaccessible, this is true and would be beneficial in the extremely rare event that an emergency in the development happens to coincide with an inexplicably blocked entrance. On the other hand, when you take no account of the increased risk by a child getting hit by a car, when there are 100 or more opportunities a day for it to happen due to the increase through traffic, most if not all parents, will gamble with an inexplicably blocked part of port of entry, combined with the rare emergency over their children lives; there are pros and cons with the through road and that the directly impacted residents of Mackenna Court believe that the cons outweigh the pros – does our voice not matter. Mr. Wik stated none of the Mackenna Court residents are opposed to the development, they are mainly opposed to a through road connecting to the development, it is likely that all residents would be satiated if the through road was simply eliminated from the plan. Mr. Wik stated the development plans could easily be modified with a low financial impact to the developer to eliminate the through road however, have not seen a Board member present this idea or even consider it and gets the impression that a through road is a forgone conclusion regardless of what the impact and residents think. Mr. Wik stated finally this situation is extremely disappointing to us all and has caused many of us to question our decisions to move and invest in our lives here and has led many of us to believe, that we were intentionally mislead by our builder (Hodorowski), into believing, we were paying more to live in a private cul-de-sac. We can only hope going forward that the Planning Board has a change of heart and realizes that there is a scenario where everyone wins, and that losing connectivity, that was never there in the first place, is not the end of the world.

Chairman VanVorst stated he does not normally respond, but has to say for the members of Mackenna Court, that the Planning Board very diligently planned not only Mackenna Court development, but the potential for any development in neighboring properties. Chairman VanVorst stated long before you were residents of the Town, these decisions were made and the project of Mackenna Court was designed purposely so there could be connectivity – it’s a purpose and a policy of the Town for decades.

Michele Stamas, 8 Mackenna Court stated she found another location in the Town that has a gate with a cul-de-sac similar to Mackenna Court that connects to an apartment complex located on RollingBrook Drive; is that something that could be looked at for a resolution.

Ms. Serra that particular project is a fire access road not a through road, which is why its gated off. Ms. Serra stated one is a NYS Fire Code Regulation and this is Town Code requiring connectivity between neighboring lots.

Ms. Stamas stated from what she understands it’s not a law or a requirement and something the Planning Board and Town Board can overstate.

Ms. Serra stated she cannot speak to that.

Ms. Stamas stated she is pretty confident and has spoken to an attorney and looked at some of the documentation and is not something that is set in stone and absolutely something the PB cannot overturn and the Town Board. Ms. Stamas stated she has spoken to two of the Town Board members and they agree, with the concerns the residents have and were sympathetic to.

Ms. Stamas stated the statement made that the residents will use the Round Lake Road entrance more. Ms. Stamas does not necessarily agree with that; as a current resident most residents take Benedict Road to get to Clifton Park and wishes there some type of study that could be done by the Builder or the Town to show how much traffic is going to run through their neighborhood – the children and safety is devastating to the community.

Lee Bennett, 5 Mackenna Court asked if there are plot plans and topographic map available to the public/residents to see exactly what the applicants are going to do, so we (the residents) have an idea of how that could impact us.

Mr. Chauvin stated the plans are accessible to you, if you submit a FOIL request, the Town Clerk will process that and provide you with the requested material; the map submitted will be available to you.

Mr. Bennett stated is there any potential for storm water to run down that road into our development particularly in the winter when the storm drains are covered with snow and ice. Mr. Bennett asked if the applicant is going to tap into sewer line that runs through Mackenna Court. Ms. Serra stated yes. Mr. Bennett asked if there any potential for their line being over pressurized because of the additional houses. Mr. Bennet said, “If I myself want to find a short cut to go somewhere, will take it and people who live in Timbercreek and work for GE are likely to cut-through.” Mr. Bennett stated planning ahead is a good thing, but if there are only 19 homes, do you really need it and should the Board reconsider it.

Melissa Russell, 9 Mackenna Court stated she is one of the three homes that don’t have children. Ms. Russell (the following information came from a Google search), which stated that cut-through traffic tends to operate at a higher speed and increases the likelihood of accidents and severity of injury. A pedestrian is going to twice as likely to die and be struck by a car following that 30mph, compared to 20mph; as speed increases, the drivers field of vision narrows, which makes it more likely that pedestrians will not be seen until it’s too late. A car traveling 30mph requires twice the distance to fully stop compared to 20mph. Ms. Russell stated when she puts this information up against the responses from Mr. Magee which states, we do not believe our design will diminish the safety of our area, which was after the last meeting when the residents expressed their concerns for safety. Ms. Russell stated “We cannot predict the next potential driving patterns of future inhabitance the future residents of 257 Round Lake Road will have direct access to Round Lake Road, which is the primary conduit for traffic that leads to I-87.  Ms. Russell states if parsed out, can predict future driving patterns and a Traffic Study would definitely help. Ms. Russell stated we have to consider the traffic on Benedict Road as Timbercreek phase 3 will be going in, and will have a lot of houses, and is already a busy intersection at Benedict/Round Lake Road; it’s banked so the line of sight is compromised as well and with that, the choice is our neighborhood. It depends on where you are going and which road you will take. Ms. Russell stated the Chairman said that a lot of the planning was done before we were residents and then said, “It’s already done.” Ms. Russell asked the Chairman to clarify, what is already done – “Is the through-street already done – has that decision been made.

Chairman VanVorst stated he cannot speak for the whole Board, but it certainly is the intention of the Board that that connectivity take place because, that has been the traditional policy of the Town of Ballston for decades and from your perspective, you don’t see the value in that, but from the Board’s perspective, we do.

Chairman VanVorst stated because we have made provisions for that and the applicant was aware of that when they decided to take the risk of buying the property and the neighboring property and to proceed with this development. Chairman VanVorst stated it adds to the value of their property having the connectivity and for the Board to now take that away, would be detrimental for them as well, and there are multiple reasons why the Board is pursuing that avenue.

The Board agrees.

Ms. Matias stated that connection was approved when your development was approved. Ms. Russell stated the question is to whether we use it or not.

Mr. DiPasquale stated maybe there are simple things to be done to mitigate the traffic speeds from 30mph to 20mph.

Ms. Serra stated there are many engineering ways to calm traffic; a sign” children present”, from her engineering experience, is not helpful at all; how many signs do you see as

you are driving down the road. There are many different engineering ways to have connectivity and also make deter residents (Abele Wood Timbercreek phase 1) who do not live in the neighborhood from cutting through.

Ms. Serra stated its not her job as the Town Engineer to design that, it’s the applicants engineer, but can tell you, and did ask in the CT Male comment letter, to provide some engineering alternatives for the Board’s consideration.

Ms. Serra stated we need to strike a balance between the street connecting through and making sure that it is not a cut-through for everyone that lives in this part of the Town.

Mr. Maher stated we are fairly early in this process and as we (the Board) work through this, will strike a balance that addresses your concerns and the developers.

Chairman VanVorst stated the Board is not unsympathetic to your position, but on the other hand, when Mackenna Court was designed and approved, the cul-de-sac purposely terminates at the property line for this very purpose.

Chairman VanVorst stated he is sorry that somehow you were uniformed or misinformed, but all along it has been the objective of this Board, and the policy of the Town, to facilitate connectivity between projects; it’s done all over the Town – this is not the only place in that Town that its done.

Chairman VanVorst stated the Board is going to do everything we can to strategize to discourage traffic from going through Mackenna Court.

Chairman VanVorst stated this public hearing will remain open and there will be further opportunity to respond and email.

Chairman VanVorst stated he apologizes that he has not responded to emails and has been overwhelmed with work, but will respond.

Chairman VanVorst stated to forward information to the builder and perhaps, they will respond.

Chairman VanVorst adjourned the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Application tabled.

AUGUST 2019
IT WAS ON THE AUGUST 28TH AGENDA BUT WAS REMOVED BY APPLICANT THE NIGHT OF THE MEETING. 
HERE ARE BNU NOTES FROM DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN FROM JUNE TO AUGUST:

257 Round Lake Rd

(Meader Lane Residential Subdivision)

25 Single Family homes

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.

OCTOBER 30, 2019
257 Round Lake Road
257 Round Lake Road; 249.-3-46
Cluster Subdivision – 25-lots

John Lapper, Esq., Tom Suozzo, Project Engineer with Cedarwood Engineering and Jeffrey Anthony, RLA with Studio A presented. Mr. Lapper stated since we were here last month, have submitted their full preliminary site plan/subdivision application. A petition was submitted to the Town Board and a map/planner report for a water district extension. Mr. Lapper stated they appeared before the Town Board last night and set a public hearing for their November meeting for the water district extension and submitted a detailed letter responding to a letter submitted by some of the neighbors. Mr. Lapper stated since that meeting, the Board has sent out the NOI to be Lead Agency; waiting for the 30-days to pass for the other agencies to cease to agree to that and hopeful at the November meeting will be able to address SEQRA. Mr. Lapper stated minor changes were made to the subdivision plan to address issues that were raised by the Board such as moving the storm water basin so they did not have a driveway road to it, reconfiguring some of the lots with rear yard proximity to wetlands, shown the calculation for the number of lots for the conservation subdivision.

Mr. Suozzo stated with regard to storm water, have the three basins and little bit of roadway that we do not pick up and are recommending a swirler be installed to treat the water before it goes beside this roadside ditch. Mr. Suozzo said, “As mentioned at the last meeting with regard to the roadway, proposes a round-about.” Chairman VanVorst stated that is not going to be called a round-about. Mr. Suozzo stated all signs have been corrected. Mr. Suozzo stated the water transmission is to connect at the stub at the Benedict Road subdivision, put an 8” water main; had an independent testing company perform a hydrant test, both static and flow and determined there is enough water for the average daily demand and to meet the fire flows.

Mr. Anthony stated the road has been swooped down to the south to make a more irregular or more difficult entrance into the cul-de-sac and also adding signage as requested. Mr. DiPasquale asked who will own the storm water basins.

Mr. Lapper stated it will be a HOA. Mr. Lapper stated in terms of the cul-de-sac design, the Board asked the applicant to address the calming of the thru traffic and think the proposal should be very effective and also visually; will be landscaped and create that environment where cars slow down – in general, people don’t speed through their own neighborhoods.

Chairman VanVorst asked the Board if they are in agreement with the applicants proposing on traffic calming. The Board agrees.

Mr. DiPasquale stated in his opinion, the 4-way intersection is fine. Mr. Lapper stated you certainly have the ability as a Planning Board, to allow that it’s discouraged in the code; we think that is another traffic calming measure because if it ever got built as a 4-way stop sign is just another requirement for cars to stop.

Chairman VanVorst stated he still has questions on the updated EAF. Page 4 D.1h, “does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any liquids.” Chairman VanVorst said, “I’m assuming detention ponds are being made and the answer should be yes.” Mr, Kortz stated if it results in a permanent pool, it is no. Chairman VanVorst stated it’s marked no.

Mr. Suozzo stated that is correct, we marked no because we don’t see it being a permanent water body, settle and percolate in; it can be changed if that is what the Board wants.

Chairman VanVorst stated that some detention ponds are designed to pool water.

Mr. Kortz stated yes and certainly would be something Ms. Serra would address when she goes through and addresses the technical comments.  Mr. Kortz stated it would only be considered a water body if it was designed to be a permanent pool. Page 8, ii, “Will the proposed action remove existing natural barriers that act as a noise barrier or screen.”

Chairman VanVorst stated he is assuming there is going to be some clearing.

Mr. Lapper stated yes.

Chairman VanVorst stated wouldn’t that clearing remove some natural barriers.

Mr. Lapper stated we addressed the requirement because this is a cluster subdivision and the other one was as well and need to have a 15’ barrier (one of the provisions in the cluster subdivision section of the code) where it abuts the adjacent neighbors.

Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 8:19 p.m.

Jeffrey Meyer, Esq. with Meyer, Fuller & Stockwell represents about a dozen of the property owners that live on MacKenna Court. In addition to the comments of our September 25, 2019 letter, at the last Planning Board meeting, which we don’t feel were adequately addressed, offer some additional comments.
1. This appears to not have been addressed; this subdivision is inapplicable for a cluster subdivision as it is not located within a rural district. The applicant pushes back and says, “no-no, everything is fine it is, but if you accept their argument, then the entire zoning law, all the dimensional, all the are requirements; essentially every restriction contained therein, is meaningless. Mr. Meyer stated any subdivision application could come in and say any leftover space is for conservation purposes and get to create their own subdivision with their own setbacks, their own lots sizes. Mr. Meyer stated he is arguing that is what is occurring at the moment. The zoning law clearly limits cluster conservation subdivisions to the rural district; it’s throughout Article X as a requirement, it’s included in the design requirements – the guidance that is offered to this Board when you consider a proposed conservation subdivision. Additionally, the proposed rewrite to the subdivision and zoning laws specially address this point, actually adds this district as one where you can now, or would be able to, if the law and the amendments pass would be able to propose a conservation subdivision. Mr. Meyer stated until that local law Page 18 of 33 Town of Ballston Planning Board October 30, 2019 becomes actual law, the proposed local law remains improper for this Board to consider this project a conservation subdivision.

Mr. Chauvin stated he disagrees with that interpretation, but most significant being both the granting over authority over section 278 of the Town law for the Board to the requirements as set forth in section 138 of the Town code. Additionally, go back to what we discussed on a number of occasions where there are ambiguities the way it’s written, must be construed to the least constricted means to the applicant/property owner bring the application before the Board; the code is conflicting and does provide that ability to very your requirement for this Board to require a cluster subdivision in the way it’s being proposed. In fact, the subdivision that Mr. Meyer represents, was created under the same terms by use of the same provisions of the code. Mr. Chauvin stated he would submit that it is appropriate for the Board to proceed and circumvent and it is not appropriate for the Board to consider dicta as to what the proposed zoning might be; we have to deal with what we have now.

Mr. Meyer stated 
2. The proposed traffic calming issues that are being proposed relative to this project are inadequate. The Department of Transportation in the State of Wisconsin conducted a nationwide study of available literature and found that signs, specially “Children at Play Signs” and other intended warning signs actually provide no beneficial impact, there is no change in driver’s habits, no reduction in speed or no reduction in crashes or incidence. A copy of the synopsis was provided to the Board. Mr. Meyer stated additionally, as it relates to traffic, we would request that the Board require a traffic study. To the impact along Round Lake Road and Benedict Road, but also to account for anticipated future development; 25/26 lots being proposed here, there is a site connect that can double or triple the amount of houses that would use these internal roads. The Board requires them to account for these things when considering waste water and water infrastructure and would request that the Board give traffic a similar consideration.

3. There was an additional omission to the Long EAF that was submitted, it failed to recognize the Town Board as an approval authority for the dedication of highway and any changes to proposed MacKenna Court. Mr. Meyer stated we request the Board take into account our comments of the previous letter; the Board is certainly still providing your informational and review authority and would hope that some of those considerations be carried forward and proposed revisions be followed up with the applicant.

Eric Connolly, 84 Lancaster Court stated he does not think this is a good plan because there is no off-street parking. If he were one of the owners on MacKenna Court whose house has this round-about (because it’s a round-about), in front of thir house and having a get together and cannot fit all the cars in my driveway – where are they going to park and is that going to cause a problem with people driving through and would object to that part of it. Mr. Connolly stated if we are calling this a conservation subdivision, there is nothing usable in that wetland and does not think anything has been proposed by the developer as far as a way to make that land usable as part of this development. Mr. Connolly stated for those two reasons objects.

Chairman VanVorst adjourned the public hearing at 8:27 p.m.

Mr. Lapper stated it’s appropriate in the code to have a cluster subdivision in the zone and there have been many cluster subdivisions in Ballston other than the rural/residential district, including the neighbors who are concerned about it – theirs’ is a cluster subdivision. Mr. Lapper stated Mr. Meyer said that the traffic calming measures don’t work, but obviously there is more than signs here; two pork chop islands that lead into that cul-de-sac to slow people down and stop signs which do work. Mr. Lapper stated the Town Board was named as an involved agency and noticed as one of the agencies that had to sign-off on the Planning Board as Lead Agency. Mr. Lapper stated we don’t think this rises at any level for a traffic report – 25 cars going onto Round Lake Road is a very minor traffic generation. Mr. Lapper stated there is still parking on the side of the road maybe not right in the cul-de-sac, but certainly where it is a straight road. Mr. Lapper stated the common area are passive recreation walking trails that would be accessed from the cul-de-sac in the subdivision.

Chairman VanVorst asked if the open space will be left wild or will there be clearing.

Mr. Lapper stated the upland area will provide walking trails in the summer and cross-country skiing in the winter; it’s an activity we do not have to worry about cars.

Chairman VanVorst stated this is designated for the residents of the community and not for the public. 

Mr. Lapper stated yes, the reason being did not want to provide parking and will be maintained by the HOA. 

Mr. Maher made a motion that the Planning Board give conceptual approval to this project “Meader Lane Subdivision” and Ms. Muschott seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Mr. Lapper stated a final detailed submission has been made to CT Male.