About BNU

November 28, 2018 Town of Ballston Planning Board Notes


Town of Ballston Town Planning Board Meeting
Notes taken by a town resident on November 28, 2018

Old Business:
Rossi PUDD Hannaford Supermarket and Pharmacy Site Plan Review. Hannaford representatives brought the site plan review back to the PB based on a change in the Federal rules regarding wetlands. The new change gives the Army Corp of Engineers the authority to rule. There are two options available: to proceed with obtaining a permit from ACE or a more lengthy process for an exception based on the old rule when the approval was given. The PB unanimously approved the site plan contingent upon ACE permit approval. A letter will be submitted to Sophia to proceed with the permit application.
Kelley Farms Mixed Use TND, 253 Eastline Rd. Site Plan Review was presented to modify the previously approved plans from 10 buildings to 7. TC Male made minor comments. Overall the amount of green space was increased as the same 70 units are now condensed into 7 structures on a narrower area still adequate for storm management. The PB unanimously gave conditional approval pending provision of the location of the structures that were not clear on the aerial plan. The HOA will be responsible for lights/sign maintenance.

NOTE: Spinney Group 60 Middle Line Rd. mixed use community presentation was CANCELLED and will be put on the December 19th agenda. (From prior meetings: this is 62.79 acres, 81 highway zoning, 51 acres rural, 66% green space from Route 50 down Wakeman Road and up Middleline Rd. and includes 264 active adult apartments, single story ranch style primarily, 94% have garages. Community center, gazebo, dog park, trails, facilities garage for maintenance equipment, 60 storage units totaling 9,000 sq. feet. Changes since the last proposal: single family lots have been decreased from 12 to 5 and to be positioned along Wakeman and Middleline roads as a buffer, each with 240 ft. frontage. The decrease in single family lots is due to a State requirement in order to have well and raised septic instead of public sewer. The rest of the buildings will have public water and sewer, sidewalks throughout property, 3 buildings that are office retail complementary to active adults. Impact responses so far: Parks and Rec on 8/1/18 – no archeological impact; habitat study – bald eagle nesting nearby so signed off 10.11.18; fish and wildlife requires clearing to be completed by March 2019 because of bald eagle nesting; ordinance adjustments to square footage of storage units will be required; signage to be evaluated –monument sign to identify plaza businesses, tenant use has a code that will be followed. The public benefit was questioned. Spinney answered that there is an obvious shortage of senior housing in this area, and aging in place is the main goal. The sewer on Route 50 will benefit other parcels. The desirable option is to hook into the Lake Rd/Outlet Rd. sewer system – Spinney is working with Town Board to finalize. The agricultural
activity was outlined. The land was purchased in 2015. The previous owner died in 2008 and had intended to farm the land. In 2007, there were plowed rows and planting activity. The Middleline Rd. yard area had several pieces of farm equipment on it. In 2009, there was no activity and the equipment was no long on the property. In 2011, no activity and the equipment area was overgrown. In 2013, limited haying activity. Since 2014 there has been no activity so there is no impact to the agricultural area.
The Spinney representative is also the attorney for the company and represents Benuscak and Katz builders. The lawsuit filed and lost by NY Ag & Mkt is being appealed to the Appellate Court and will likely be decided in the Spring. This attorney feels that the litigation based on the preexisting agricultural comprehensive plan is not binding since there have been resolutions since then that are lawful and binding. He said that the viability of the project is dependent on the water decision, well water is not an option. He understands that Spinney would be proceeding at its own risk and acknowledged that the Town and the parties will be bound by whatever the court decides. A zoning change will be sought.
Vice Chair Mathias questioned conflicting wording in the proposal related to community access by the general public vs. being a private community. Spinney rep clarified that this was related to maintenance of the property by Spinney.
The Chair asked if the raised bed septic system is less expensive than sewer lines? Spinney rep noted that the primary business model is not predicated on the single homes. It is focused on the active adult community model. Spinney rep maintained that tying into the Outlet Rd. lake sewer system is optimal, as was the case with the Katz project.
The Planning Board will review the PUDD before the next meeting that Spinney Group plans to attend. If the Town Board approves it, then the site plan will come back to the Planning Board to review the details.)

New Business:

Stonebridge PUDD Area B. Site Plan Review was presented for 20 condominium units on the west side of the development, 1 building with 8 units and 3 buildings with 4 units each for a total of 46,464 square feet, 2 stories high and moderately priced for young professionals. Each unit will have its own driveway and garage, public water and well. Green space is 49%. Two current PB members were on the board when the original approval was given for the Stonebridge development project ten years ago. Communication received from residents indicated that the project wasn’t to change, but is now being proposed and an inquiry asked the PB to address why this was not proposed originally. The town engineering consultant noted that the outline included many uses – rental, condos, i.e “residential uses”, and/or commercial. Market forces and demand now dictate a “softer” use – residential, preferred by residents vs. a restaurant and commercial space. She noted that the Town Board went through zoning in 2007 and 2008 and at that time the applicant went through the approval process of overall development. This is the last parcel of that original proposal. A traffic and environmental impact study was already performed ten years ago.
Public Hearing comments (several Stonebridge residents in attendance, filled the chairs in the room):
* Condos, when not purchased and ultimately rented, produces transiency. The existing apartments already have increased traffic through the development without the same respect for the area as the homeowners have.
* The expectation in 2007 was that the parcel would be for commercial use. If it was made clear that residential use was a consideration, there would probably have been insistence of a cap on the number of residents.
* This will double the number of residences on Stonebridge Drive. Originally the square footage was the same as is proposed now, but residential use was not. In May of 2018 a 58 lot subdivision was approved with an outlet on Catherine Drive, which was not considered 10 years ago. There are now more vehicles, and still 24 single family lots. Request was made to postpone any action until the need can be better demonstrated.
* Two homes have flooded behind the parcel, from wetlands. Pictures were provided to the PB from one of the occupants.
* There are trees down the median of Stonebridge Drive, and condo residents would need to back onto the street one way. There is no additional area to park on the road as this would make the road impassable. Traditional Stonebridge development principles were based on the comprehensive plan.
* This parcel was originally approved with the intent of being commercial and included a park also. Condos that were originally built were not selling and are now rental with a transient population. The builder has changed and is now Pigliavento. The HOA is a private entity, has nothing to do with the PUDD, and has turned over its responsibility to the residents, who are just beginning to organize themselves and have not yet obtained legal representation. PB Atty Chauvin suggested that the residents consult an attorney for a remedy.
* The condos are proposed as two story buildings. The drawing is misleading. The backs of the condos are close to the backs of homes and no amount of foliage will be able to block the condo 2nd floor view, affecting the privacy for the homeowners and thus quality of life.
Vice Chair Mathias commented that the main purpose originally was commercial use. She asked if the traffic study might be revisited. The town engineering consultant will look back at the original study to see if it will make a difference and for clarification to the public. The trip document will be reviewed.
The PB agreed to proceed to the next level of drawings for review.

Briarwood Brooks Development LLC – 2 & 4 America Way, and 5 & 7 America Way. Lot line adjustments were unanimously approved to annex 750 square feet for these corner lots that were unsatisfactorily too small in the Mourningkill Rd. subdivision.
Jackson Property – Lot line adjustment was unanimously approved to annex two parcels all owned by Mr. Jackson to provide driveway access to his home on Waverly Rd. instead of through his tree farm.

Meeting was adjourned at 8:53 PM.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Popular Posts