December 19, 2018 Jenkins & Scotchbush Major Sub-Division

Jenkins & Scotchbush

Major Sub-Division Sketch Plan Proposal

at the Town of Ballston Planning Board Meeting

Notes taken by a town resident on December 19, 2018

New York Development Group - Site Plan Review – Major Subdivision

Scotchbush Rd. & Jenkins Rd SBL #256.1-7

Public Hearing Scheduled

Privilege of the floor is limited to 5-minutes per person

Note: This was recorded to assist note taker in accuracy and blank areas represent “not audible”.

Sketch Plan Proposal

 “Good evening. My name is Scott Lansing, with Lansing Engineering firm, representing the Preserve at Summer Hill. What we’re going to do tonight is a conceptual introduction of this project to the Planning Board. Our goal here this evening is to obtain input from the Planning Board, and then advance the preliminary and final design for the project.

For the boards reference, the parcel is located on the corner of Jenkins Road and Scotchbush Road. The overall parcel is approximately 60.75 acres, it is zoned hamlet residential. The hamlet residential zoning does have a minimal lot size of 30,000 sq. ft. with public water. This property would be served by public water. As far as surrounding uses, I believe the image up on the screen does a great job of showing what does surround the project. We have vacant land off towards the western side and southwestern side, to the south we have Silver Lane, to the east we have Scotchbush Rd. and a little bit past Scotchbush Rd. is Evergreen Ct. and then to the north we have Jenkins Rd.

As far as the data that we have for the parcel, we do have a wetland survey that has been performed by a wetlands scientist. We also have a boundary survey and a topographic survey.

As far as the existing conditions on the parcel, the parcel is mostly wooded. There is one house located on the northern section with frontage on Jenkins Rd. that was recently constructed and that is the current owner of the parcel.

As far as proposed conditions, we are proposing a conservation residential sub-division. Everything that we are proposing is in accordance with the zoning ordinance. We are not asking for any variances or waivers or anything of that nature. Everything is per the zoning ordinance.

The first part of the project would be preservation of that homestead lot in that the house that was recently constructed would be sub-divided off. That would be on a lot that is approximately 13.75 acres, a rather large lot associated with that.

The balance of the land, we are proposing a single-family residential sub-division. All of the __ density determination that we have done for the project is focused on that land only, it does not include the homestead lot. So, it is a conservative analysis as far as the number of lots that are permitted on the project. So, for a density determination, the overall parcel that we are developing is 47 acres, again, subtract out that homestead lot, the portion that we’re focused on is 47 acres, not the overall 60.75. We have slopes over 20%, approximately 1.7 acres…and wetlands and streams approximately 16.36 acres, that leaves us unconstrained land of approximately 28.94 acres. As I mentioned before, the underlying zoning of hamlet residential outlines 30,000 sq. ft. per lot, so the 28.94 acres divided by 30,000 sq. ft. per lot gives us a maximum density of 42 lots on the project and again, that’s not including the homestead lot. We feel that a conservative amount is for a parcel. It’s permitted up to 42 lots, the actual size is 29 lots, 30 if you count the homestead lot. The 29 lots on the section that we are proposing for development on minimum lot size would be 15,000 sq. ft., the frontage would be 65 ft. minimum, 20 ft. front yard setback, 5-foot side-yard set-back, and __ ft. rear yard setback. Associated with these plots, we are proposing a roadway, 1700 ft. linear feet of roadway that would be proposed to be designed and constructed in accordance with town standards. We would be proposing that road for dedication to the town.

As far as utilities, water/storm and sewer…we are proposing an extension of public water to the project. There is currently a water main on Jenkins Rd. that we are proposing to tap into. That line would come down Scotchbush Rd., come in on our proposed roadway, and serve all of the residents with water. Looking at that line, we are very confident that line will provide adequate fire protection and adequate domestic use as well. As far as storm water, we are proposing the storm water basin in the southwest corner of the project, it appears that is the lowest spot of the parcel, we have everything draining to gravity to that storm-water management area. Sanitary sewer would be individual waste water treatment systems. We have performed tests at some sights. An area we are proposing we hold…__, a sandy knoll, we have done testing on site with the NY State Dept. of health, so they could witness results. We did have good results. We will have mostly conventional systems, we might have a couple of shallow systems scattered in the project.

As far as the open space, we are proposing deed restricted open space, approximately 28. 17 acres. On the drawing is a rendering. Pretty much where the trees are… is shown on our lot is where the deed restricted open spaces are shown. There are good solid buffers to surrounding property owners.

As far as wetlands and __ basin, we are not proposing any wetland impact as part of this proposal.

Let me tell you what we are proposing. We did receive a comment from planning staff. First, potential trough connections to adjacent development. We did look into adjoining properties to see if there were any possibilities for connections south onto Silver Lane. There is actually a paper street that extends up towards a parcel. Just past that paper street there is a fairly extensive army corps of engineer ___, there are some slopes also coming up to the parcel, so we did not identify or, we are not proposing any sort of connection to that point. As far as the connection there, it would be around a significant __ impact, trying to be environmentally responsible and not impact a __.

The other ___ was relative to the Boulevard entry. Being sure that that would got the highway superintendent would be in agreement with, and also location of the storm-water management area…. also making sure the highway supt. would be in agreement with that location and access to that location.

First off, we had an informal meeting with the highway superintendent as far as the Boulevard entry. As long as the island is depressed such that when its plowed, the turf on the center island isn’t ripped up, he was ok with it and as long as the geometry is acceptable to him as far as the width and the dimensions of the boulevard…. he seems to be comfortable with that. We have provided a sketch to him with the section with the width, the median, the configuration of the median and he appears to be accepting of that.

As far as our location of the storm-water management area, that is as we proposed, that is the best location for that storm-water management area. It is at the lowest spot and services the entire project in that one single location. We had a concern with how it is accessed and how adjoining property owners can be noticed that that is a driveway and it is not something that is their property that they can encroach on or park on or things of that nature, so what we proposed is along that driveway …..to put boxwoods on each side of that driveway. Mr. Whalen seemed to be in agreement with that as well.

That’s essentially it for this project. We’re here tonight for questions and comments from the board. Thank you very much.”

Discussion:

Mr. Pasquale: “Who would own the conservation area?”

Mr. Lansing: “Each individual lot would be deed restricted. So, all the lots that go out to the outer limits of the property, but just about every single property would have a deed restricted area where that will be.”

Ms. Matias: Who is going to enforce that these conservation areas are left alone? How are you going to know? Someone could just clear it up?

Mr. Chauvin, Esq: If no one complains to the town, the town won’t know if someone cuts down conservation area.

Mr. Mahar: What is a minimum size?

Mr. Shorey: In CLP-1 it says the minimum lot area is 30,000 sq ft.

Mr. Lansing: We’re using conservation lot size.

Kathryn Serra: agrees this is confusing, there should be something on that table that shows that under the subdivision allowed by zoning, we are allowed to create a smaller lot

Mr. Shorey: Looking at SAP-1, that drawing doesn’t agree with the drawing I already cited so please check that.

Alternate planning board member: Look at the setbacks for lot 23 and lot 24.

Ms. Matia: Are there two phases? And what is the purpose of the boulevard entrance, it is double-wide initially and then it becomes narrower.

Mr. Lansing: it looks nicer that way, and it meets the fire code for access and is NY State compliant.

Ms. Matias: What about mailboxes?

Mr. Lansing: There will be a central area for mail.

Kathryn Serra: The planning board is not the one that decides water extensions, that would be the town board.

Mr. VanVorst: With regard to 3C4B, what police? It lists the Ballston Spa police department. That’s wrong.

Van Vorst: With regard to C, what fire and emergency services? This in not correct.

Mr. Van Vorst: On p. 6, E3, it says water goes to the Alplaus Kill and to the Mohawk River. That’s wrong. I believe it goes to the __Creek.

Mr. Van Vorst: on p. 11, E2E, drainage states on __ site soils are well drained, and moderately drained. It should also say soils are poorly drained.

Mr. Van Vorst: wants connectivity thru projects. A connection to Silver Lane should be possible. Wants more effort on getting connection. Maybe try to bet a permit from the Army Corp of engineers? Maybe a stream crossing?

The Public Hearing opened at 8:23pm:

1. Tom Russell, 5 Acorn: spoke about how managing sewage around wetlands and preventing leach fields from infiltrating properties nearby that still have wells is a big concern, it’s a lot of sewage
2. Jim Schultz, 116 Scotchbush: he sent a letter on this to Sophia. 15 properties were left without access to water on Jenkins. 5 of those have shallow wells. The water is poorly drained, he puts a stick in it and water comes up. Density of this project is a big concern because of the nature of the soil, streams and wetlands.
3. Bernie Kuczek, 109 Scotchbush.: He was there when water testing was done. Water was pouring out. Everyday it smells like sewer there now because of the wetlands.
4. Stephen Merchant, Charlton Rd: Wildlife and greenspace, where is it all going to go? Is it in the ag district? (answer was no). It is disgusting to build that many houses there, you’re turning it into a Clifton Park.
5. Mark Osterlitz, 3 Magnolia Lane: The developers are lying when they call this a Preserve. Just tell the truth. This is not a preserve.
6. Nancy Heath, 23 Scotchbush: Safety concern. Scotchbush has been raised up several times. Theres no room for walkers. Also, all developments need two ways out, not one, right?
7. Tom Ogle, 84 Jenkins: There is a creek on Scotchbush, where does it go? It’s an unnamed creek. No one knew the answer.
8. Olga Stryjski, 17 Silver Lane: I lived here since 1968. Recently a tree died from the wetlands. Concerned about septics. Hers is the only one that is ok. The people around her have septic problems because of the wet soil. And there is deer and turkeys here. Where are they going to go?
9. Tom Stackey, 7 Silver Lane: Its beyond wet. Its poorly drained soil. Re: connections, doesn’t want connections. Likes his dead-end street, its safe for kids.
10. Jill Delucia, 98 Jenkins: grew up in Bh, it was mostly farmland. Now its unrecognizable. Traffic by Middle School is such that she’s afraid for the kids. Traffic is horrendous, too much traffic. Very very wet. She sloshed thru it with her dog when her dog ran away and she chased it.
11. Lisa Ashdown, 105 Jenkins: Likes the privacy and the nature. Naming it a preserve is wrong, it’s not a preserve, it’s the opposite.
12. Mike Lesniak, 92 Jenkins: Soil is not conducive for this.
13. Michelle Ogle 84 Jenkins: Traffic has to go somewhere, right? Forest Road is difficult now. There’s no good way to get out.
14. Jim Clevenstine, 6 Acorn: this is not staying with the character of the neighborhood, and the sewage concerns are huge.
15. Peter Solberg: the creek goes NW to SE and saturates the entire lower section. Suggests using the 5% Parks and Rec Fee for connection across Scotchbush to property that the school just sold on Jenkins.
16. Steve Walsh, 338 Kingsley: Inlaws live on Scotchbush, too much traffic, they can’t get out of their driveway.
17. ___, on Scotchbush: can the schools handle that increase in students, aren’t the classrooms at a max?
18. Tamara Russell, 5 Acorn: Wants to be able to walk her dog in her neighborhood, chose to move here 3 years ago because did not want a Clifton Park.
19. Mark Osterlitz (again): You need to seriously consider this because you would be building in wetlands, the town currently is dealing with serious problems in Carpenter Acres because the town allowed development on wetlands.
20. Scott Draina, Outlet Rd.: Trails and sidewalks can give people places to go. It’s very wet there. When bringing water in where there are septics it’s going to raise the water level higher. Maybe there’s an option of fewer homes?
21. Sue Robbiano, Kingsley Rd: It takes 12-14 minutes at this time to drive from Kingsley to the corner of Lakehill and Rt. 50, just to get to the redlight, during the hours of 430-615pm. Even though this is only 29 houses, this is too many cars. This board needs to start listening to us when we tell you we have too many people moving into this area, we have no roads.
22. Nancy Heath, 103 Scotchbush: the ticks are terrible there
23. Carl Thurnau, Woodside Drive: Horrendous traffic. All you have is a two lane road.
24. Jim DAuria, 66 Jenkins: Traffic is awful. People are cutting thru the Morris Ford dealership just to get around the traffic. It’s a circus
25. Kathleen Keeney, 105 Scotchbush Rd.: Has a shallow well. The soil can’t handle that sewage. It already takes her 20 minutes to get to I-87.

Public hearing adjourned at 8:48pm