July 31, 2019 Planning Board Meeting Notes

TOWN OF BALLSTON PLANNING BOARD MEETING

July 31, 2019 @ 7:30pm

Notes taken by a town resident 

Present:
John VanVorst, Chairman
James DiPasquale Patrick Maher
Laura Muschott
Dan Shorey
Dave Blair, 1st Alternate

Dalia Garcia, Planner/Storm Water Management Officer
Matt Chauvin, Esq.
Kathryn Serra, PE
Michelle Dingman, Secretary
Members of the General Public

Absent:

Nicole Rodgers, Audeliz Matias, Vice-Chair

Old Business

Core Tech Industrial – Public Hearing Continued

2 McCrea Hill Road. Tax ID # 228.-3-59.1

Proposal to build a 30,000 sq. ft. manufacturing building.

Summary: Proposal to build a 30,000 sf manufacturing building with associated parking and utilities on a currently vacant property.  Project was previously approved for two 15,000 sf warehouse buildings in 2016.

J. Easton, MJ Engineering and Land Surveying:  I have given you a revised pdf and construction drawings and we submitted my report.  Yesterday, the elevations from the architect were revised.  I understand due to the lateness of the submittal you will need more time to review.  The architect did look at CT Male’s consideration of the roman arch next door on the Webb building.  His idea would more concentrating applications at the corners of the buildings.  He wrapped the corners in the blue accent color to draw the eye from the size of the building.

J. Van Vorst:  There were corrections made to the environmental form but not the ones that I have pointed out.

J. Easton stated that it was overlooked and will make sure the corrections are done.

Kathryn Serra:  I am concerned with the very short distance between the toe of the slope from the north side of the building and the distance to the property line. Generally, we would like to see a minimum of 10 feet.

J. Easton: I have not looked at that. We will look at different options.

K. Serra: I cannot see a piece of equipment fitting in the five feet you have between the slope and the property line.  The planning Board cannot approve a project that would result in construction equipment on private adjoining property.

No one spoke during the public hearing.

Planning Board tabled the application.

Preserve at Summerhill - Public Hearing Continued

Scotch Bush Rd & Jenkins Rd SBL # 256.-1-7 Major Subdivision-30 lots

Summary: New York Development Group/Saratoga, LLC is proposing a 30-lot conservation subdivision within the Hamlet Residential zone at the Charles Morris property located on Jenkins Road.  The applicant is proposing the construction of 29 new single-family homes; there is an existing residence that would occupy the 30th lot.

J. Van Vorst and L. Mushcott recused themselves from sitting before this application.

P. Maher moved to board chair’s seat.

Scott Lansing of Lansing Engineering spoke for the NY Development Group

Water will be public water. The Town Board was to approve that last night at the board meeting but that has been delayed until the next meeting. We are down to one comment with the planning board.  That involves lot number 28.  Basically, where that driveway comes out there is a median on the boulevard that effects that driveway.  All the other driveways can turn either way, but the median is restricting left turns out.  We were able to shift things around so this lot can access thru the median.  We provided a turning template using a Toyota Landcruiser which we felt was a rather large vehicle as a model and it can easily maneuver around that turn around the median and exit out.  That is the first thing we provided to show that this will work.   The driveways have been shifted and the median.  Outside of that it my understanding that we have addressed all the comments from the town’s engineer (CT Male).  With that we are looking for feedback on the option and we would like the boards consideration for final approval. 

K. Serra:  There have been several meetings that the public has spoken of concerns regarding the fact the property is wet, and the ground water is high.  I believe the last meeting you attended, I expressed the need to see the soil testing and septic design.  You have provided that, and we have reviewed it and determined that yes in fact the portion of the property that the subdivision is going to be built generally does not encounter ground water and generally has good draining soils. You have provided septic system designs for all 29 lots.  We have reviewed that and have determined it meets state requirements.  Regarding that, we have not even started SEQR.  This application was for conceptual approval.  We did ask the applicant to do a lot more engineering then we normally require due to the public concerns.  The planning has only done a conceptual and I have only done a preliminary engineering that 29 lots can be built on this cul de sac.  The request for an approval is premature at this point.  I would like the engineer to go through soil testing and the septic design because the public would like to hear that.

P. Maher:  Yes, Scott can you summarize and address the resident’s concerns?

S. Lansing: The last time we were before the board it is my understanding that we got conceptual concurrence and we agreed to supply those septic designs and all that.  We have done that.  We did receive engineering comments and we   It is my understanding that we are at the right stage to advance SEQR.

P. Maher: I agree we can advance SEQR but cannot entertain approval this evening.

S. Lansing: As far as the wastewater treatment systems, all the of lots in the project will have individual wastewater treatment systems.  Basically, septic systems on each one of the lots. This is a reality subdivision and has more than 4 lots on less than 5 acres and does require NYS Department of Health approval.  In the early stages of the project we did test kits on the parcel.  The soils were appropriate.  All those test kits were witnessed by a representative from the NYS Department of Health and that is a requirement for a reality subdivision.  They witnessed all the test kits and we do have that data.  On general the soils are great sandy soils, good percolation, good distances from ground water.  All the systems are conventional systems or shallow systems. No raised systems at all.  We done a layout and design of every single lot in the project with the test kit data, peculation data, layout configuration of an appropriately sized system for each home.  Labeled all the separation distances. 

K. Serra:  Just to be clear: There are systems that are classified as shallow system. I believe that the depth of the shallow system is one foot on lot 29. So, there is fill.

P. Maher: The consensus of our opinion is that we did not want to move forward with the lot 28 driveway issue and set a precedence going forward to allow a blocked assess.  Now it looks like you have addressed that with a solution for us to review.

M. Chauvin:  I would ask that we speak with the Highway Superintendent about this multiple island design first.

K. Serra: I agree.  I am almost certain that this would be annoying to plow.

P. Mahar: This addresses our concern with access but now we have a new issue with plowing and maintenance

K. Serra: We are not sure this will be acceptable. Would the planning board accept this if it is ok with Joe?

J. DiPasquale:  We would need more than 15 minutes to give feed back on this new design for lot 28

Public Hearing 7:55 open for The Preserve at Summerhill

Eric Connolly, Lancaster Court:  I live on a street that have boulevards that they are tearing out soon because the town had plowing issues.

Is there a precedence for allowing more homes on a cul de sac by adding a boulevard?  The current zoning allows for only 21 homes max on a cul de sac.

K. Serra:  Yes, it has been done.

Eric Connolly:  Regarding lot number 5, Has the well location on the Kuscak property been confirmed to be properly set back?

K Serra:  They are in the process of contacting the landowner.  Sometimes it is hard to get people to let you on their property.

Eric Connolly: There has been a lot talk from the neighbors about how wet that land is, and I know that before permits will be issued that a second perc test will be required.  Will a representative from the NYS Department of Health witness the second test?

K Serra: Yes, that is mandatory

Carl Thurnau, Woodside Drive:  I am not privy to all the details of this project.  I would like to suggest to the board to be VERY careful in reviewing this project because of the interest in it.  Particularly as it parallels the problems that we have at Carpenters Acres.  The upper part of the project is fine and dandy and lower part is in trouble.  Particularly in this project they are going to have public water brought in – in addition to the water that is already there.  I recommend that the board carefully look at that situation.

Scott Draina, Outlet Road:  I just have a question about the name.  I find it ironic while I am driving around town and I pass these new developments that are called preserves. The Timber Creek Preserve – I wonder what is preserved there? What is preserved here besides the swamp that could not be built on anyways.  I wondering when people are choosing these names.. what are they thinking?

Jim Schultz, Scotch Bush Road:  I just express that I am disappointed. I have sent numerous letters; I have been to the meetings.  The feeling that the residents have and what I see is that the board is certainly developer friendly and taxpayer unfriendly.  Our water wells are in jeopardy. (Additional comment and detail on the water issue was inaudible to the note taker)

Olga Stryjski, Silver Lane: I have been here for 50 years.   I have water problems.  I lost a maple tree. This summer we have had water level up were we can not use our back yard.  We were very lucky that when put it a new septic system he told us we had good soil.  But other neighbors have had to spend an extra 5-10 thousand dollars for more dirt for their systems.  I am afraid for our creeks.  We have wet land.  You are going to ruin this piece of property.    I only have a short time, but people are going to be sorry in ten years.  There are deer, animals there.  People will be sorry; they are polluting our drinking water and they are afraid to say something.

Nancy Heath, Scotch Bush Road:  Since this is almost in my backyard. There are three different bodies of water through here.  My children used to play and fish in it.  I am worried that my shallow well in the cellar as well as several of my neighbors have shallow wells in our cellars.  What will happen when we have more run off from more septic systems in this area.

Eric Connolly, Lancaster Court:  Have anyone on the planning board walked this property?  Because maps are great but just curious if any of you have been on the property?

Board: No

Public Hearing closed 8:05

S Lansing: I would like to request that the board start the SEQR

Type one action to move forward.  The intent is for the Town of Ballston Planning Board be the lead agency.

New Business

Minor Subdivision Hahl – Public Hearing Scheduled

127 Middle Line Rd. Tax ID # 238.-2-83

Applicant is requesting to subdivide the property to create lot of 18.28 acres.

Summary: Richard Hahl, property owner and applicant, is looking to subdivide his property of 44.56± acres into two lots. Lot 1 will be 26.28± acres and Lot 2 will be 18.28± acres. Mr. Hahl purchased the property in 2003 from an approved eight (8) lot subdivision called Country Meadows. The subdivision was dissolved, and a single-family home was built to accommodate the new owners. The proposed minor subdivision won’t affect wetlands as they are only located in the South side of the property.

J. Van Vorst:  I am not 100 percent sure, but it looks like the pull offs are too far apart.  They need to be a minimum of 500 feet apart and it appears by scale that they may be more than 500 feet apart.  You will need to add a third pull off if that is the case.

Question number 9 on the environmental impact form was answered incorrectly

Question number 11 – add septic system as answer

No one spoke during the public hearing.

Town of Ballston Planning Board took lead agency.

SEQR - Negative determination

Approved with the condition that the driveway is town code compliant and the assessment form questions 9 and 11 be corrected.

Lot Line Adjustment Kise – Public Hearing Scheduled

2 Nates Court. Tax ID # 257.5-2-7.122

Applicant is looking to add 1,742.4 sq. ft. to said property on the North side.

Summary: Brian Kise, property owner at 2 Nates Ct. is requesting a lot line adjustment on the North side of the property to add 1,775± sq. ft. from Daniel Piper. Mr. Kise’s property currently is 1.15± acres, after the lot line adjustment, it will be 1.19± acres. Mr. Pipe’s property before the lot line adjustment is 1.14± acres, after the lot line adjustment, it will be 1.10± acres.

Duane Rabideau of Gilbert VanGuilder, Land Surveyors presented the LLA to the Planning Board

Simple LLA with no questions from the board. 

No one spoke at the public hearing

Planning board took lead agency, negative declaration for SEQR

Approved

Lot Line Adjustment Bloomer – Public Hearing Scheduled

116 Lakehill Rd. Tax ID # 257.10-2-56.2

Applicant is looking to add 2,491 sq. ft. to said property on the North side.

Summary: Gary Bloomer, property owner at 116 Lake Hill Rd. is requesting a lot line adjustment on the North side of the property to add 2,491± sq. ft. from Burnt Hills United Methodist Church. Mr. Bloomer’s property currently is 39,203± sq. ft., after the lot line adjustment, it will be 41,694± sq. ft. Burnt Hills Methodist Church’s property before the lot line adjustment is 40,000± sq. ft., after the lot line adjustment, it will be 37,508± sq. ft.

Duane Rabideau of Gilbert VanGuilder, Land Surveyors presented the LLA to the Planning Board

J. Van Vorst: The well and septic for the church is not mapped out.

From the back of the room:  The septic is in the middle of the courtyard in the back of the church and not near this lot line adjustment.  The Church is on public water.

Question 5 on the environmental form is marked no but should be marked yes. Corrected.

No one spoke at the public hearing

Planning board took lead agency, negative declaration for SEQR

Approved

Lot Line Adjustment Guyer – Public Hearing Scheduled

200 Blue Barns Rd. Tax ID # 257.-5-55

Applicant is looking to reduce 278,784 sq. ft. from said property and to add to neighboring properties located on the Northwestern side.

Summary: Richard Guyer, property owner at 200 Blue Barns Rd. is requesting a lot line adjustment on the Northwestern side of the property to reduce 6.45± acres from said property in order to add to the properties of Michael Philip, Kenneth Balderston, Walter Walsh and Samuel Miller.

Walter Walsh will receive 3.83± acres, current area is 0.34± acres, after the addition it will be 4.17± acres.

Kenneth Balderston will receive 0.95± acres, current area is 0.68± acres, after the addition it will be 1.63± acres.

Michael Philip will receive 0.87± acres, current area is 0.56± acres, after the addition it will be 1.43± acres.

Samuel Miller will receive 0.80± acres, current area is 0.75± acres, after the addition it will be 1.55± acres. Richard Guyer current lot area is 162.2± acres, after said LLA the lot area will be 155.8± acres.

Duane Rabideau of Gilbert VanGuilder, Land Surveyors presented the LLAs of all four properties adjacent to the Guyer land to the Planning Board

No one spoke at the public hearing but one resident which is a neighbor to the south at 196 Blue Barns Road wanted to come forward to look at the map.

Planning board took lead agency, negative declaration for SEQR

Approved

Minor Subdivision & Lot Line Adjustment Hayes – Public Hearing Scheduled

973 Benedict Rd. Tax ID # 249.-3-32.7

Applicant is proposing to create two lots (B and C) and to add 6,098 sq. ft. to Lot A on the East side.

Summary: Laural Hayes, property owner at 973 Benedict Road and applicant proposes to adjust the common division line on her house lot with the other lots owned by Ms. Hayes. The applicant is also proposing a 3-lot subdivision to create two single-family residential building lots. Lot A (1.86 acres) to include the existing home, well and septic system. Lot B (5.04 acres) and Lot C (5.36 acres) are proposed for construction of single-family residential lots. The three lots will have frontage on a private road.

This has been removed from the agenda based on new documentation submitted earlier today pertaining to ownership.  The town attorney has advised the planning board not to hear this matter until the legal matter is resolved.

McMahon Subdivision – Public Hearing Scheduled

Lake Road. Tax ID # 239.-2-38

Applicant is presenting a sketch plan review for a 6-family subdivision.

Summary:  Proposing to subdivide approx. 19 acres of land in to 6 lots for single family homes. Two of the proposed lots will have direct access to Lake Road and the other 4 will access via a common drive off Lancaster Court. Proposing to obtain public sanitary sewer and public water supply off of Lancaster Court which is part of a PUDD.

Duane Rabideau of Gilbert VanGuilder, Land Surveyors presented the sketch plan.

Mr Rabideau represents the Eric and Megan McMahon and is before the board for a sketch plan for a 6-lot residential subdivision.  Below is a close-up picture of the mapped lot lines in black.  This is location on the east side of Lake Road about 800 feet south of Outlet Road.  The parcel section lot and block number to be subdivided is currently a little over 29 acres in size with swampy lake front on west side Ballston Lake. The parcel crosses over Lake Road from the lake to a sub street before Lancaster Court opposite Katharine Court in the Stonebridge development.

Lots 5 and 6 are set up have road frontage of the sub street - the sub street off Lancaster Court

Lots 1, 2, have Lake Road frontage and lake access

Lots 3 and 4 are basically flag lots off Lake Road to have lake access

Access for lots 1 and 2 would be from Lake Road

Access for lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 will utilize a common driveway that will tie directly to Lancaster Court through the existing sub street across from Katharine Court. The sub street is not approved yet but is it set up. They intend to tie into the existing public water, sanitary sewer and natural gas that all run on Lancaster Court.

There will be four docks, the number of walkways over the wet land is yet to be determined.

K. Serra:  I have not seen a project that prosed new docks and walkways.  I would suggest that this should be part of this subdivision application and BL water shed district needs to be discussed. Do you know if this has been done?

Mr. Pierce (in audience) “When Eric Katz subdivided in 2016 he said he would not build a new dock and walkway but he did so someone would need to check the building department to find out who approved the dock and walkway and how it got through DEC and Army Corps.”

K Serra: I request that this be part of the approval process.

J. DiPasquale: This parcel is within the BLSD. The Sewer Project has not been built yet.  I am assuming you want the services from Lancaster Court for all 6 lots.

D. Rabideau:  At this point it is all up in the air. One of the reasons we have the common drive in here. (A lengthy discussion on the sewer pipe locations went on.)

 Public Hearing for McMahon Subdivision

Dave Pierce, Lake Road:  I am concerned about infringing on these wetlands and that is also a FEMA flood plain.  I would have the applicant keep that mind.  The other issue is that area of the lake the maximum depth is 20 feet. So, if you want to put a dock in there you want to come out far enough to use the dock you would have to make sure you do restrict other activities at the end of the dock.  The maximum length of a dock is 36 feet from the 251-foot elevation high water mark. So, if they think of putting docks in and when the Planning Board looks at this application, they should stick to a dock that cannot be any longer than what is established in the town ordinance.

Carly Marshall, 27 Lancaster Court:  My property is next to the parcel. I actually brought my property map because most of our property is wetlands I am trying to figure out how this could come through knowing that basically here is where the wetlands start and how they could build on this property.  We are concerned because this is proposed to connect to Lancaster Court, and this is all wetland.  It is all really wet.  We were told that this area would only have access from Lake Road when we bought our home.

Greg Dunford 187 Lake Road: First is - I received a flyer Saturday afternoon that this was going on.  There is no way that I only get 4 days’ notice to come without a chance to look at the map.

J. VanVorst: To defend that, the town is not obligated to notify you at all. We do that out of courtesy.

Greg Durnford:  Understand that in the past, when Eric Katz built next door to me, I received notice 2 and half weeks before the hearing.   I have lived here for 30 years. Just this past week when we had rain on Monday and Tuesday in July, I drove by I drove by there and there were three spots where water was flowing right out.  There is drainage there, but it comes out of Lancaster Court, it comes out of that development.  I have more water on my property now then I have ever had in the past. I had to put drainage at the top of my driveway and run it down. Joe Whalen came out and told me how to do it.  No one paid me to have to take care of this new drainage, no money from Chapel Hill or the development up there.  We have come to a point where we say, “enough is enough”.  You are trying to build houses in an area that a lot of people have looked at and backed away because of the water level.  I spoke to the owners at those times.  This is going to make other people’s properties more wet and it will run out to the lake.  I not a fan of how this would go in.

D. Rabideau:  The intent is these homes are for the applicant’s children

Greg Durnford:  His kids are 5, 3 and newborn. He has a long way.  I just want to say when Mr. Katz’s wanted to subdivide, he said the same thing, it was for his kids but then he sold lots to McMahon.  Now this parcel of McMahon and it’s the same story. That property is not develop-able.  I have dealt with it. No one is supporting me when I have water issues. Other than Joe Whalen who has told me things to do to help prevent and work through it.  You guys keep doing this and enough is enough. You can’t build there.  It’s not even a great location to come out of on to the road.  The McMahons and Katz’ go across that road at night to go swimming and one of these days with his 3 little kids someone is going to get hit. That is 40 miles per hour, not like Saratoga Lake where it is 30 mph. He put a light in because he is going to use it at night, not a good idea.

Eric Connolly, Lancaster Court

This past winter there was so much melting and water coming out on the road at that turn.  You can check with Joe Whalen, they had to put cones up.  I have come around that corner when there has been ice all over the road. So, there is a lot of drainage coming down there to lake.  The other thing I was curious about is; is the snowmobile trail near here?

K. Serra: Just north of where Outlet and Lancaster intersects.

Scott Draina, Outlet Road:  It is obviously a wet area. It is a sensitive area to build.  Even though there are some areas that are not technically classified as DEC wetlands I have to speculate that the difference between the wetland and not wetland has got to be minimal.  So, when you start building next to it you add run off from roofs, sheds, pools, pavements and all these impermeable surfaces that adds even more to the ground water to the neighbors and existing homes around there.

Adjourned public hearing at 8:59

K Serra:  This is purely sketch plan. If the property owner decides to proceed, I would like to see a preliminary draining and storm water design. The next submission I would to see that right off the bat, otherwise I can not see how the board can even proceed to conceptual until that is done.

Meeting adjourned.