January 29, 2020 Planning Board Meeting Notes

TOWN OF BALLSTON

Planning Board Meeting

Notes taken by a town resident

January 29, 2020 @7:30

Present:       John Van Vorst, Chair

                    David Blair, Board Member

                    Patrick Mahar, Board Member

                    Audeliz Matias, Vice Chair

                    Laura Muschott, Board Member

                    James DiPasquale, Board Member

                    Michelle Dingman, Secretary

                    Jacquelyn Poulos White, Town Attorney

                    Kathryn Serra, CT Male

                    Jenny Lippman, MJ Engineering

                    Members of the public

                    Absent Board Members: Nicole Rodgers

Chairman Van Vorst announced that there are no minutes from the December 18, 2019 meeting.

The application by Daniel Scaring for 976 Route 67 was tabled earlier today.

OLD BUSINESS

Thomas Benuscak - Public Hearing Not Scheduled

Goode St. Tax ID# 238.-1-39.12

Major subdivision proposed 12 lot subdivision.

Paul Olund with Environmental Design Partnership presented on behalf of the applicant, Thomas Benuscak, for the 12-lot Subdivision approved on Goode Street. Olund stated the applicant is before the Board to ask for another 90-day extension.  Mr. Olund stated there are no changes to the subdivision plans.

Another 90 day extension granted, unanimously.

1417 Saratoga Road - Public Hearing Continued

1417 Saratoga Rd. Tax ID# 228-1-48.32, 228-1-2.1 and 228-1-48.112

The applicant proposes to construct a mixed-use development

Large proposed development spanning over three parcels and roughly 34 acres within two zoning districts – Business Highway-1 and Hamlet Residential.

The property now has open fields, existing residence, wooded areas, fair amount of wetland located on the rear northern pieces; approximately 16 acres of wetlands on the property.

The proposal is for a mixed-use community with about 1200’ of frontage combined between Brookline Road and NYS Route 50. There will be multiple story buildings.

Building (1) on the southern edge of the parcel closest to the intersection a drive-thru restaurant.

Buildings (2) and (3) would be developed as a mixed-use plaza; provide patio space in the front for restaurant facilities, wide sidewalks, extensive landscaping within the parking lot areas.

Building (4) located on the north and west, would be a residential building consisting of 64 apartment units.

Joe Dannible, with Environmental Design Partnership, LLP presented 1417 Saratoga Road on behalf on The BDC Group and their application Also at the table was Dan Quiri, traffic engineer and Derrick from Cotler Architecture.  Also, in the room is Cosmo D. Marfione, the President and Managing Partner of The BDC Group.

Mr. Dannible gave a brief overview of the project:

The project it located at Rt 50 and Brookline Rd over two parcels.

29,000 sq ft. of mixed-use commercial buildings located in 4 separate buildings and 64 residential apartment units located to the west or rear portion of the property.

Mr. Dannible stated that they now meet all the parking demands both for commercial uses and residential uses on site.  They are no longer asking for a waiver as they added an additional 5 feet on the other side of the parking area at the drive through restaurant.

This very large project trips the thresholds and will require a special use permit.

Section 138-94 Special Use Permits, identifies four criteria, that shall be considered in the granting of a Special Use Permit (SUP). Below is the 4 requirements followed by the applicants response on how they think they meet the criteria:

Criteria 1.) The use shall be of such location, size and character that it will be harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the district in which it is situated and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of adjacent districts.

The applicants stated that the site is situated at a four-way intersection controlled by a traffic light and bound to the east by Saratoga Road (NYS Route 50), to the north by commercial properties and a recently developed apartment community, to the west by an apartment community, and to the south by Brookline Road (Saratoga County Route 60). All of the proposed uses within the Community are zoning compliant. The progression of the site layout is as prescribed within the BH-1 design standards. The proposed commercial properties present their main fa9ade to the existing and proposed streets. The proposed residential uses have been placed to the rear of the site and provide a transition and buffer for the state highway and proposed commercial uses to the existing apartment community located to the west. A three story, 90,000 SF residential apartment building was recently constructed on lands adjacent to and north of the subject parcels. That structure has an approximate building area which is more than double the size of the combined structures proposed in the 1417 Mixed-Use Community. For this reason, the Applicant believes the location, size, and character of the proposed Mixed-Use Community is in harmony with the other development in the district and will not be a detriment to the adjacent properties

Criteria 2.) The location and size of the use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved or conducted in connection therewith, its site layout and its relation to streets giving access to which shall be such that traffic to and from the use and the assembly of persons in connection with it will not be hazardous or inconvenient to the neighborhood or conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood.

A traffic study has been prepared by the Applicant and thoroughly reviewed by the town's designated engineer. The traffic study indicates that the proposed improvements will minimally impact the existing road networks and that those road networks will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. Therefore, the proposed community will not be hazardous or inconvenience the normal traffic of the neighborhood

Criteria 3.) The location and height of building, the location, nature and height of the walls and fences and the nature and extent of landscaping on the site shall be such that the use will not hinder or discourage the proper development and use of adjacent land and buildings or impair the value there of.

The applicant states that the appropriately sized and placed landscaping buffers are proposed as prescribed in the BH- 1 design standards. The site layout provides an overall green space for the total parcel area, 34.5 acres, of 81% and 65% for the portion of land within the BH-1 Zoning District.

Additionally, the proposed internal parking area green space is 18%. The green space percentages proposed far exceed the zoning district and design standard minimums. The proposed three-story buildings are similar in height to the adjacent Peak Point apartment community. The placement of the residential apartments, vast greenspace, landscape buffers and compatible adjacent uses will not hinder the proper development of or impair the value of the adjacent properties.

Criteria 4.) The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served, and appropriate use of neighborhood property will not be substantially or permanently injured, subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, as deemed necessary to promote public health, safety and welfare.

The applicant states driving lanes have been designed to accommodate turning maneuvers for all fire trucks for the responding fire company. Fire hydrant placement is such that no portion of any building is further than 300 feet from a hydrant, which exceeds the NYS Building code minimum requirements by 100 feet. Traffic studies have been completed which demonstrate safe operating sight and stopping distances for entering and existing vehicles are provided. A comprehensive SWPPP has been prepared in accordance with the NYSDEC Design Manual to protect downstream watersheds. Appropriate sanitary sewer and water supply capacities will be verified prior to the issuance of any final plans.

Archeological studies have been completed and OPRHP has confirmed that the project will not have an adverse impact on historic resources. The proposed project continues to meet or exceed all minimal requirements to assure the health, safety, and welfare of the adjacent neighborhood and proposed community.

The main comments at the last meeting concerned emergency vehicle access particularly the fire aerial apparatus truck. Mr. Dannible provided turning templates

At the foremost concerns from the public at the last meeting were about traffic. The town’s reviewing engineer for traffic sent a review letter and has agreed that all comments have been addressed and no litigation is necessary to elevate any potential traffic impacts associated with this project this project.

Another concern was project density.  Dr. Dannible stated that they believe this project is zoning compliant, meet all the parking demand, no longer asking for a waiver, and meets and exceed all the green space requirements.

They will be applying to the Army Core of Engineers and DEC as a joint permit application for disturbing wetlands.

David Blair:  You talked about connectivity to Brookline Apartments.  Will there be an actual road or sidewalks coming in from the Brookline Apartments to this facility? I believe a lot people walk through that field to get to the bus stop.  Will the resident be able to walk down from that other complex to get to the bus stop?

Dr. Dannible:  What we are proposing is not for everyday vehicular connection. Vehicles will not be able to traverse through the site unless there is an emergency.  There is no reason why residents from Brookline cannot walk through this site.

James DiPasquale:  Looking at the architectural plans in preparation for this meeting I had a question.. In the business highway 1 isn’t there a height restriction? Isn’t it 40 feet?

Kathryn Serra:  Correct

James DiPasquale: It appears to me looking at this drawing that this building here is approximately 60 feet tall.

Mr. Dannible:  60 feet to the peak of the roof?

James DiPasquale:  I assume level 1 is the ground base and the peak is at 54 feet 7 inches which is more than 40 feet.

Mr. Dannible:  The business design standards in our opinion is for primary street but that is certainly something I can look at.

James DiPasquale:  Both buildings are more than 40 feet assuming I read the drawings correct.

Mr. Dannible:  You read the drawings correct.  We went through the design requirements and we felt it was more tailored for commercial buildings that required a minimum of 50 percent grading of the ground story and minimum heights which are typical for multifamily.  We felt that these design requirements were more aimed towards commercial buildings and primary street facing facades.

James DiPasquale:  I assume this is another safety issue relative to the capabilities of the Eagle Matt Lee Fire Department.

Kathyrn Serra:  Jim let me just clarify that normally you only ask CT Male to review the building architecture.  It is as requested by the board.  My presumption was in my comment letter was would the board like CT Male’s architect to perform a review for this particular application.  We do not automatically provide that review.

Patrick Mahar:  given the size of the project, I would be in favor of that.

Mr. Dannible:  Further speaking to that comment.  Peak Point residential community located adjacent to this are also three-story buildings and also have very similar peak roofs and looking at them from the road as well as these architecture rendering, they appear to be very similar in size and height.

John Van Vorst: I agree

Kathryn Serra:  Just to let you know, Eagle Matt Lee Fire Department does have the equipment to service that. This is an fyi – they, the fire department is ok with that.

James DiPasquale:  Have they seen this? This is dated January 6, 2020. This is the first time I have seen this height.

Kathryn Serra: A very conceptual rendering was provided for previous meetings and that is what I provide to them.

Audeliz Matias:  I was going to point out the height also.  The other thing is my concern is still the density of the project and green space.  I know you say you have plenty of green space but that green space is because of the unusable land in the back.  If you look at the main density of the project, there is not much green space there except for two areas where you have the storm water basin.  That brings another question, do we really want both storm water basins right in the front of the two main roads? What is going to happen when they are full and yucky?

Mr. Dannible:  The basins that are closest to Brookline and Route 50 are both infiltration basins.  They will be maintained, they can be mowed, they can be landscaped at the edge and maintained as grass and shallow depressions along that area.

Audeliz Matias:  They are still an unusable space. My point still is the part you are calling green space, to me they are not.  You cannot build on wetlands.

Mr. Dannible:  On the property within parcels two and three only which is the business highway 1 zone and everything in the front of the site where the development is occurring have a green space percentage of 65 percent which is a lot more than required.  We also exceed the required green space within the parking areas.

Audeliz Matias: That is just it.  The small spaces in the parking spots and the weird shaped corner you will have because of the drive through business and the storm water basins is pretty much it.

James DiPasquale:  one question, page 10. Is the project within 2000 feet of a New York State DEC environmental site remediation database?  You filed out “No” but as I heard the Valero site did have issues.

Kathryn Serra:  This is actually auto populated from DEC records.  I suggest Mr. Dannible do a re-check of that.

John Van Vorst pointed out two more questions on the EAF that needed attention Page 5 C ii was blank and Page 7 J is answered no but completed as it was yes.

Kathryn Serra:  Jacky and I today discussed today that the best course of action for classifying this action is as type one.  The threshold that DEC holds on commercial properties and this is considered commercial, states if there is more than 10 acres of disturbance and there is 11 acres. Therefore, If a designation is made tonight for the board to become lead agency that the designation be a type one, not unlisted.

The other question I had was since traffic was a large point of discussion at the last meeting and again there is a traffic professional here from BHB does the board want to hear any kind of summary because basically the town traffic consult agreed with the applicants that this project requires no traffic mitigation on its own.  It is up to you.

John Van Vorst: I think it is a good idea more for the public.

Kathryn Serra:  At the town agenda meeting last night I did my annual spiel to the board about having a traffic GEIS.  It is very difficult as your town engineer to understand that because the town does not have a town wide GEIS for traffic unless the project is significant in size such as the Walmart Project it does not require mitigation on their own.  It is very difficult to convey to the public that do actually drive through that intersection every day.

Dan Quiri:  In Summary we went through all of BFJ comments and we found that there were no changes to the results that were previously found.

          Mr. Quiri showed a power point presentation.

David Blair: You have showed new trips.  The new trips are related if you do this project.  If your boss came to and told you he was going to give you a 15% raise, would you find that substantial?

Mr. Quiri: That is not how it works.

David Blair:  In my mind I find 130 trips on top of the 700 hundred that was there is a substantial increase.

James DiPasquale: The only find I have noticed in that area and using it every day is that light seems to be very synchronized.  I have never waited more than 30 seconds.

Audeliz Matias:  Not if you are making a left turn, right?

James DiPasquale: I plan my trips not to make a left turn.

John Van Vorst: There are two exceptions to that. One is if there is a graduation at SPAC and the other is if there is major concert.

Kathryn Serra:  Generally speaking, applications in the town result in a no impact to traffic.  Only the Asphalt and Walmart are the only two projects in the past 30 years that required mediation on their own to state highways.  If the board takes lead agency on this, after that is when the DOT would start reviewing traffic study by BHV.  Would it help in your decision making in the future if there was correspondence from the DOT discussing this?  They do provide correspondence unless you ask for it.  I can definitely reach out to the regional engineer.  They tend to not want to get involved unless you ask.

Public Hearing:  1417 Saratoga Road

Ruth Osterlitz, Magnolia Lane.

This is the Planning Board for the whole town, and I want to remind you that this planning for the whole town.  I believe this project is too big for this town.  There is a letter on record from the Supervisor of this town stating his concerns over the size of this project also.  I understand that the applicant does not live here, and he may not know, and I am not sure when you were last on the property but the vacant lot is not vacant anymore, that there is a gas station there.  I want to point out that I am not comfortable with the traffic report.  I believe that this report is thorough, and it is about this particular area and like I said, this is the town planning board and it effects the whole town.  In the 2016 Regional Traffic Study showed that the intersection close to this proposed development at Brookline and Route 67 is reaching capacity and relatively minor changes in the traffic volume have the potential to create a noticeable difference. That was 4 years ago and predates 40 residential units on Mourningkill Road, 36 residential units at Kasey Pass not to mention the apartment building down the road at Peak Point you have mentioned earlier. I would like to ask the board to keep this tabled and that you keep the public hearing open.

Scott Draina, Outlet Road.

Simply I think that the size and the scope of this project does not fit the rural character of this town.  This applicant is only being heard because of something that I have mentioned before and is worth mentioned.  They believe that they have found a loophole in our zoning with a spelling grammatical error in a table that allows them to be here as a subdivision when this project really belongs as a Planning Unit Development or design and we should be making them follow a PUDD design and not allow them to continue as a major subdivision.

Dennis Pokrzywka, Ballston

I remember this from the last Planning Board Meeting, and it looks like they addressed many of the concerns.  I am still a little bit unclear on the traffic study.  I cannot make sense of the numbers on the traffic counts since I am not a traffic engineer and perhaps, we ought to take DOT up on kind of an overview of the analyst.  A summary for the public.  It is hard to make sense of these charts from the back of this room.  It is not clear to me how they addressed the 2005 Comprehensive Plan or the old DOT plan.  We know we have 7 failed intersections as defined in the last traffic study. Perhaps we need a whole new traffic GEIS, I did hear her spiel as she put it.  The whole Planning Board should take that into consideration.  I would hate to slow progress down but maybe you ought to take a look.  The entire corridor.  You have to look at all the projects together.

John Van Vorst: Do we want to declare lead agency?

Patrick Mahar: I am comfortable with that.

Patrick Mahar:  I will make a motion for the Town of Ballston Planning be declared Lead Agency for SEQR for this type one action.

Seconded by James DiPasquale

Passes

We will send out the coordinated review information and hopefully receive some information from DOT to allow to proceed.

Mr. Dannible:  I would like to ask you to deem the application complete. If the application is not complete will the board identify what information is needed.

Kathryn Serra:  So, you mean complete for that? I have list of stuff from the comp letter, some information they will need as SEQR progresses.  I think your question is ambiguous.  The application has deemed complete as it has been presented to the board at each step. Your sketch plan was deemed complete, your concept plan was deemed complete, this submission was just considered, the preliminary submission was deemed complete.  Really applicants do not make to the Planning Board unless their submissions are complete.

James DiPasquale: We agreed we are getting an architectural review and a few other things and we need to wait for that information.

John Van Vorst: I do not think we are anywhere near appoint where we can say you satisfied all our requirements.

Kathryn Serra:  What I think he is asking is - has he submitted the appropriate site plan information? There is information that needs to be presented as the project progresses.

Mr. Dannible: Is there any more information that the board is looking for above and beyond what is identified in the review letter?

James DiPasquale:  Something could always come up.

John VanVorst:  Yes, something could come up, but we have a good handle on it.

Jackie White:  Is the public hearing still open?

John Van Vorst: Yes.

Preserve at Summerhill - Public Hearing Continued

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

Note: 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.

The 2019 town board has approved 4:1 a water extension to this area for the project before PB approval.

There has been no positive feedback from the community and many comments on record from neighbors regarding loss of wildlife habitat, increased traffic, high water table, how 29 more septic systems will effect nearby shallow wells, and the existing federal wetlands are not labeled on any of the maps provided by developer.

The Chair of the Planning Board recused himself from this application on July 31, 2019 for a conflict of interest.

Scott Lansing of Lansing engineering presented.  Also present as well was Geoffrey Knox and Mary Elizabeth Slevin from Stockli Slevin LLP attorney for applicants.

Mr. Lansing stated that he thinks the board is familiar with this project and he has been coming here for quite some time and will not go into the background of this project.

On October 30, 2019 the board did provide a SEQR negative declaration and also on the same night we also did received preliminary approval.  With that approval we were able to submit to the New York State Department of Health. Through the course of their review and comments there were not any changes to the project as far as lay-out and number of lots.  We did receive technical sign off from CT Male Associates dated January 2, 2020 and that is essentially it.  We would like the Boards consideration for final approval.

Kathryn Serra:  Would you mind for the record discussing the review with Department of Health on the subjects. Particular concern was that there was an assertation made about existing wells proximal to this project.  I reviewed the correspondence it but if you would for the record explain what has transpired since October.

Mr. Lansing: The property is to the south of the entrance to the property, the lands of Kuscek. We did contact that property owner and we did not go out to the site. They did indicate that they have a well point located in the basement of their home. They did not give us the specific location, so we conservatively put a well located 10 feet out from the home.  Since that point and time there was another well placed on that property by that property owner about 10 feet off the property line to the south of the project.  We did have surveyors go out and locate the exact location of that well and we have placed it on the plans and we have provide the appropriate separation distances to the septics. It has been reviewed and given approval by Department of Health.

Public Hearing Summerhill Residential Subdivision

Ruth Osterlitz, Magnolia Lane

I would like to remind the board that this is another wetland parcel project.  These are the same developers under a different name that are responsible for the mess at Stonebridge which I am sure you are all familiar with near wetland.  I would also like to point out that the Chairman of this Board has a conflict of interest with this but now he is sitting here, and I am not sure how there is an expiration date on that?

Scott Draina, Outlet Road

I would just like to remind everybody for the record that this is in the Hamlet and that according to the zoning in the hamlet this project should really be a TND and it is being proposed as a conservation subdivision.  Pointing to the map here that they populated with all these beautiful green trees is what they are proposing is to conserve is this area here around all the homes (Mr. Draina pointed the wetland area) which is actually swamp land and not beautiful green trees it is wetland and so it is not buildable anyway. I am requesting the board deny this project due to the fact that this project does not belong as a conservation subdivisions. In article 10 of our zoning that describes a conservation subdivision, in section 104-28 it says the purpose and intend of a conservation subdivision is to preserve the rural character in the rural district.  This is not in a rural district; it is in a hamlet.  In section 104-30a says shall apply to major subdivision in a rural zoning district. Again, this is not a rural zoning district, it is in the hamlet. In section 104-30a3 says that the application should provide an conservation analyst which paraphrasing without reading the entire zoning, shall include inventory maps that describe the land to be conserved and show a value of that land to be conserved that the board then has discretion on deciding if that is a value to the town.  I am wondering if the board really does feel comfortable providing a value to the swamp land that they are conserving here.  I will read section 104-30a3e – it says the board shall deny any applications for subdivisions requiring compliance with this section that does not include a complete conservation analyst sufficient for the board to make its conservation findings. On all of that, I again ask the board to deny this and not give them final approval.

Chris Buckley, Kelly Meadow Road

I agree with the previous speaker.  This development does not fit the characteristics of this area of town and I do not think Jenkins Road and Scotch Bush can handle this additional traffic.

John Van Vorst: How does the board feel about voting on final approval?

Patrick Maher: I would be I favor of that

I would like to make a motion that the Town of Ballston Planning give final approval to The Preserve at Summerhill Residential Subdivision as detailed on the layout materials and grading plan dated January 8, 2020.

Any second?

James DiPasquale:  I will second.

John VanVorst: Any discussion?

James DiPasquale:  I would like to enter a point of discussion for the record whether it should be handled just in the course of this discussion or attached to a resolution and that  throughout the course of this project the Planning Board did due diligence and evaluating the project over all specifically related to the 29 lots on what I would call a cul-de-sac whereas the code limits the cul-de-sac to 21. That was mitigated through the design of the entrance with the boulevard and due diligence was accomplished with the safety aspect with the cul-de-sac through feedback from the town highway superintendent that he did not any problems with the configuration as well as the Burnt Hills fire department who felt that the configuration did not infringe on the safety of the houses on the cul-de-sac.

Patrick Maher:  I would just like to make a brief amendment to my motion that Michelle pointed out to the park and rec fees as well

John Van Vorst:  All in favor?

3 ayes were heard and 1 opposed heard, no roll call made

John VanVorst:  and so, it passes

Ruth Osterlitz, Magnolia Lane:

Can the Attorney make a note that I object to John Van Vorst making any ruling on this?

Jackie White:  Me to make a note? It would be reflected in the minutes.

Core Tech Industrial Corp. - Public Hearing Scheduled

2 McCrea Hill Rd SBL #228.3-59.2

Site Plan Review for a 14,190 sq. ft. addition to existing building with added parking

The last time this was before the PB was December 18, 2019.  The existing building is 28,000 sq ft and the applicant wants to add a 14,190 sq ft addition.  They have asked for parking space waiver since they will only have 5-10 employees. They need more space due to an expansion of business.  The space is for product.  There is no proposed water or sewer in the addition.

Jamie Easton of MJ Engineering presented Core Tech expansion of lot A of 2 McCrea Hill Road.  We were in front of the board last month with a preliminary concept plan we then progress to full engineering plans.  We received CT Male’s comment letter and most of the 12 comments are of engineering in nature and I do think it will change the design.  The board now has full design drawings.

Kathyrn Serra:  The only item that would be a concern with the board and adjourning property owners as with every other application with this property is that northern line that adjoins residential with an industrial use.  I would like to preserve the buffer as much as possible.  Other than that, my comments were very technical.

No one spoke during the public hearing.

Adjourned for the applicant to address the comments from CT Male

NEW BUSINESS

Benuscak - Public Hearing Not Scheduled

486 Garrett Rd SBL #

Site Plan Review & Special Use Permit-proposing 10 townhouse apartments over 3 buildings

Paul Olund with Environmental Design Partnership presented on behalf of the applicant, Thomas Benuscak for a project located close to the intersection of Garrett Road and Ballston Avenue in the northern part of town.  The board actually looked at this site earlier, but we came out with a new concept plan based on the new zoning for townhouse apartments.

You can see from the plan here we are proposing two building clusters totaling 10 apartments.  We have a two-way driving access from Garrett Road.  The apartments themselves are going to be one story and approximately 1200 square feet each. The tenants are basically seniors.  We put together the plan in conformance with the latest hamlet residential zoning schedule.  This is conceptional and basically wanted to get the boards initial reaction on this project and we did get a comment letter back from CT Male. Does the board have any questions?

David Blair:  You brought up that you will be using the new Hamlet Residential Zoning but isn’t part of the new zoning that says senior housing can only on Route 67.

Kathryn Serra:  There is a provision in the new zoning for senior housing districts.  The Senior Housing District is almost a sudo PUDD allowing more density for Senior Housing.  This is just a straight up multi-family application.

Paul Olund:  I don’t not want to mislead the board by calling it senior housing. The applicant intends to gear it towards seniors because this type of housing he feels there is a good market for.

Patrick Mahar:  But he is not going to strictly market it to seniors.

Paul Olund:  It will be up to his discretion. He wants seniors because they are quiet. It is on one level, easy maintenance.  It will be private, it will kind of be similar to Council Meadows but that is different type of administration because that is subsidized.  The character of it is somewhat similar as it is all on one level.

John van Vorst:  You are intending to put sidewalks in, am I right?

Paul Olund: Yes, both in the site and also public sidewalks along Garrett Road.  That does lead into the comment from CT Male and that the applicant would consider as part of this district the importance of having sidewalks and tying into the insisting sidewalk down to Ballston Avenue.  The applicant would be willing to looking into that is it about 150 feet from his property frontage down to that intersection.

John Van Vorst:  and it is going to go to the west as far as where?

Paul Olund:  I would say as far as the parking lot entrance to the high school, that is probably another 50 feet. So, in addition to the approximating 400 feet of frontage sidewalk for this project the applicant would consider an extra 200 feet of sidewalk.

John Van Vorst:  so, it would go past the property line to the school to the driveway?

Paul Olund: Correct.

Kathryn Serra:  So, is the applicant is willing to do that?

Paul Olund:  Yes, he has looked into that. Consider that usually when you put a sidewalk in like that there is drainage and we would have to get approval from the highway department obviously since this is a town road.  Sometimes people think putting in a sidewalk is easy, but you have to definitely respect the drainage of the road. It does not appear that there is anything out of the ordinary that would make it too expensive.

Kathryn Serra:  agreed, that is why and I think the Planning Board would agree with me that we are really pushing for the sidewalk connection.  Last spring the school district and the town had us prepare a feasibility study for inter connectivity and this was one of them.  So, if this is something that could be done be this particular developer that would assist with both the district and the town.  I have walked that area and there are fewer drainage issues then some other places.  This is actually a feasible location. There are many cases where it is not feasible for ask applicant to put in a sidewalk because there are slopes and drainage ditches.

James DiPasquale: As far as snow removal, who is responsible for snow removal? 

Kathryn Serra:  The property owner is responsible for snow removal from sidewalks in the town. There would need to a discussion with the property owner Darcy Wells with regards to that because there will be an extension past her property but obviously the applicant is responsible to do that and hopefully the School will maintain the sidewalk since they want sidewalks.

James DiPasquale: I drove by that property and there is a utility pole, it that going to be a problem?

Paul Olund:  There may be enough space to go in between but usually you have to go around.

Kathryn Serra:  Can you make the site plan work to accommodate the set back?  That is a little bit different than the old zoning.  Basically you have be 2- to 30 front the road.  You would have to move the building up closer to Garrett Road.

Paul Olund:  usually you can meet the set back and that causes problems but this time we want to go beyond it.  There were some reasons for that.  It is basically the property itself.  The area in the front the topography is low and we felt it would be better to have the buildings back further as we worked with the grading and when we develop our storm water management plan because we have a low point here and along in there. (Mr. Olund pointed to the areas on the drawing) Just from the standpoint of maybe having a buffer.  Thirty feet is not much room it you wanted so some kind of screening to have a buffer from the road and this would give space for that.  We felt the intent of a 30 feet max is for when you have an urban area and this is more of a transition area between these houses on Ballston Avenue.  The school is here, and the cemetery is across the road.  We felt having a setback a farther would not be detrimental to the intent or the character of the area.  It is kind of a unique scenario in terms of where our lot it is located relative to what is typically meant be a hamlet residential lot with a 30-foot set back.

David Blair:  In my opinion you kind of want to have your cake and eat it too.  You want to use the new zoning and put 10 units on here, but you don’t want to follow the zoning.  My opinion if the zoning calls for between 20 – 30 foot lets try and do it.

Kathryn Serrra:  I would just suggest if council could research how the new zoning is written in regard to the past.  Before you have granted waivers to this “go to” line.  Is the same procedure in place that the board is used to for when the applicant seeks set back or “go to” line waivers?  I am not share if the board can consider waivers.

Paul Olund:  I prepared this simple scaled elevation that represents what this development would look like when you are looking south off a Garrett Road.  It gives you an idea of how the buildings are situated, the driveway entrances, the areas that will be landscaped and the vegetation that is going to remain in place.  That gives you an idea of how it will look.  The buildings are not going to be facing Garrett Road. We feel that with landscaping in the front we can soften things up making this quite attractive aesthetically and visually and fit into this site well.

Audeliz Matias:  In many projects we are asking for that kind of thing and I like how you set up the buildings in a way that there is green space all around.  I am good with that space.

James DiPasquale: Maybe it will be helpful next time if there may be a consideration to deviate from the 30 feet you could show us where the Wells house is.  The house on the corner so we can get a better idea.

Paul Olund:  We are kind of at a transition zone here that is between the school, cemetery and the village proper.  That is why we felt this was appropriate.

James DiPasquale:  I would like to see the distance from the Wells house to Garrett Road.  That would be helpful.

Paul Olund:  Are there any questions on the rendering?

John Van Vorst:  One comment on the Environmental Assessment Form, page 1 item number 2.. does the proposed action require permit or approval or funding from any other government agency?  I believe you also need approval from the Village for water and sewer.

Paul Olund:  Yes, absolutely.

John Van Vorst:  There is no public hearing yet but as this progresses there will be an opportunity for the public to have input in this.  Anything else Paul?

Paul Olund:  Overall, the site plan, number of units, density, what we are proposing, the use etc. are you ok with that other than a set back issue to resolve?  How can I resolve that issue to move forward in regards with the setback issue?

John Van Vorst:  Yes.  We will need clarification from legal.

James DiPasquale:  Are you asking if the concept is ok?

Paul Olund:  Yes

John Van Vorst: I am assuming that if it is necessary for you to meet the zoning that you would only have to move one of the three buildings closer

Kathryn Serra:  In the past the board has generally asked the applicants to show what it would look like if you met the setbacks.

Daniel Scaring - Public Hearing Not Scheduled

976 Route 67 SBL # 216.-2-42

Site Plan Review - 3 Story 48,000 sq. ft.

The applicant removed from the agenda earlier today.

Note: The project site is located on the southern corner of Route 67 and Dominic Drive. The site is currently a single-family home on 1.04 acres. There is a Dollar General nearby.

According to papers filed with the planning board, Mr. Scaring proposes to construct a 3-story 48,000 sf self-storage building.

Access to the proposed development would be provided by one new curb cut on Dominic Drive. The proposed driveway is 35’ wide providing sufficient area for tractor trailer style moving trucks to enter/exit.

The zoning requires is 50 percent green space on that parcel.  The lot area coverage includes any impervious surface in the new zoning and this site plan does not meet that.  They will need to come back with a site plan that meets zoning

John Schaffer -Public Hearing Scheduled

17 Kelley Meadow Rd SBL # 248.-1-81.1313

Minor Subdivision - create 3 single family building lots

Chad from Ingalls & Associates representing John Schaffer for a minor subdivision on 17 Kelly Meadow Road.  The current zoning is rural district and it’s allowed use a single-family dwelling and the lot size without public water and sewer is 80,000 sq. ft.  We are proposing a three-lot subdivision and the smallest lot is 160,000 sq. feet and we are going to have on site wastewater disposal and wells.

James DiPasquale:  Lot three at the end of Kelly Meadow Road is that a common driveway?

Chad:  Yes. There is an easement there that allows the two on the end to share access.

James DiPasquale:  going back to the 1990’s I remember some drainage issues on Kelly Meadow Road.  I would like to confirm that the house, driveway and septic will not contribute to further run off on the adjacent properties as all the wetlands drains off the left side.

Chad:  Were we are showing the house is up on a high spot and it drains to the wetlands. We were on the site looking to where the best spot is to put the house.

John Van Vorst:  On lots 1 and 2 you have the radius of the wells and in both cases, it crosses the property line and there is no indication of where the neighbors septics are.

Chad:  The lots in the south part actually the wetland continues on into those lots and unless someone builds a septic in wetland, we were under the assumption that we were ok.

John Van Vorst:  Well I believe the board agrees with me that order for us to grant approval we need to verify that.  That is something we require.

Chad: Ok

Kathryn Serra: In the past the board has accepted let’s say the location of the well or septic does not show up on the scale of your map, they have accepted a note referencing the location of the well is “this” far from the property line.  Really more for the record. Again, this is not something CT Male normal reviews as a minor subdivision, but I cannot find any information on any existing wells and septics.

Chad: yeah that was hard.

Kathryn Serra:  That is a requirement of subdivisions.

John Van Vorst:  on the Environment Assessment Form page 3 number 14 because that is a large field/meadow I think it should be marked agricultural grasslands.

James DiPasquale:  I remember at some time this had an agricultural exemption.

Public Hearing 17 Kelly Meadow Road

Janet Clark and Jamie Clark, 220 Scotch Bush Road

I would like to address the comment you brought up.  That field that he speaks of was rural agricultural.  We owned the whole 62 acres before it was subdivided and sold to Mr. Komoroske and then he sold to John Schaffer.

The first I would I like to address is that I was never notified that these people were on my property.

Jamie Clark:  There are survey markers on our side of the property

Janet Clark:  They have walked through and mapped out their wetland carter and I do not have a problem with that but why was I never notified?  The stakes I believe unless they are monitoring points are in the wrong spot.  Do you remember the lot line adjustment?  We moved the line back to the stone wall.  When I originally thought of keeping the acreage when I lost my husband and the rest of this it was only fair to move it back to the stone wall to give access to the back of the property.  When we did that, the stone wall became the divided line.  There were tags on my side of the property. I was never notified.  What if somebody got hurt on my property and came after me? You do not know my personal story, but I fought for ten years since I lost my husband and this property.  So please, I am very shaky and want all aspects of this looked into. The wetland corridor, I want to make sure nothing that happens in this adjacent field on Scotch Bush is going to impact down here (pointed to map) because I also need to ask for two building permits and a subdivision in my 8 acre lot. I can address that now; it is in the beginning stages before I got this certified mail.  That would need me to reference the septic part that he is representing for John. I have copies of a map that shows scotch bush, may I address you? This map is showing off Scotch Bush, his map shows off Kelly Meadow.

John Van Vorst:  Yes

Patrick Mahar:  Is this a property dispute?

Janet Clark:  No, when you are saying you want to know about septics.  I need to put a septic in up here (points to map) and he needs to know that for when he is designing the house here (map). This is Scotch Bush and I assuming he wants to put two houses here.  I am looking to subdivide this here. (pointing to map)

Patrick Mahar:  That is a separate application and not before the Planning Board so we cannot hear it.

Janet Clark: It is but when I asked for the proposed house I do not know where the septic is going to go.

Patrick Mahar:  we cannot address that.

John Van Vorst:  That application is not before the Planning Board, we cannot address that.

Janet Clark:  If he puts a septic on that side (points to map) that is all going to impede everything towards me?

Patrick Mahar:  all septics need to be engineered.

John Van Vorst:  The Department of Health handles that ma’am.

Jackie White:  Some comments that are being made may be relevant and we are in a public hearing and the public has the right to address the board. But certainly, some things sound like they are delving in disputes or potential disputes and that is not in the purvey of this board.  The Board does not have to engage, you can listen to input.

Janet Clark: Concerns need to be addressed

John Van Vorst:  That is your opinion

Audeliz Matias:  The plans we have in front of us just are the boundaries that are stamped by a surveyor.  That is not us, if you have a dispute that is with them.

Jackie White:  could you provide a copy of that map in hand to the board since you have referenced it?

Janet Clark:  I do not have one but I can.

Chris Buckley, 10 Kelly Meadow Road

I would like to bring to the board’s attention that there are a lot of wetlands on this property.  8-10 years ago, a lot of us walked that property when it was under consideration for a town park.  It is a lot marsh land and swampy areas.  There are still issues with water collecting between 1 and 3 and 3 and 5 Kelly Meadow at the low land between those houses.  At one spot between 1 and 3 there is a little culvert under Kelly Meadow and there is still issues with that and on Scotch Bush that ditch has significant water in it at times. Those two houses on Scotch Bush would open up a can of worms.

John Thurber, 15 Kelly Meadow Road

To Chris’s point, I am on end where the cul-de-sac is and there is standing water, I would say 10 months out of the year in my neighbor’s yard at 11 Kelly Meadow Rd. It is wet right now, it is wet in the spring, it is wet in the summer.  I am not sure where the water comes from. I know the water does drain from that high point back towards our house.  My sump pumps run 12 months a year. My sumps are running right now. I would urge you all to make the septic drains back towards the north side of the property because it is going to come to my house.

Kathryn Serra:  Again, minor subdivision is not initially reviewed by the town designated engineer. Just sitting obviously, I would express that the adjoining well and septic does need to be shown and right to farm law is missing.  I would like to see a discussion about drainage and there is no information on here that clearly states the level of disturbance and whether or not you are above or below the threshold to need a permit. One suggestion that the board has the discretion to ask for some limited grading plans in cases like this.  To put in writing that what gets built is actually what the board sees. Sometimes a person purchases the property maybe does not want such a long driveway and what gets built is not what the board approves.  My suggestion is to ask for a basic grading plan, some discussion in what you are looking at in terms of impermeable surfaces, whether or not any thresholds are kicked. That is just my suggestion.

Public hearing adjourned at 9:40

Patrick Maher:  I think that would be asking quite a bit for a minor subdivision, I realize there is concerns but this is a minor subdivision with just 3 homes.

Kathryn Serra:  They are running close to an acre and we do not know if they are kicking the threshold then some sort of storm water mitigation would be required.  I would say I do not know where they are in terms of limit of disturbance.

Chad:  if you total all lots it is an acre but the chances of them being built all at the same time is low.

Kathryn Serra:  That is not relevant.  It is the disturbance of the project even you were to sell the lots off separately.

Chad:  right but it is less than 5 acres.

Kathryn Serra:  The town code does allow for the board at their discretion ask for some additional drainage information.  That is allowed in the town code.

David Blair: I think it is good idea for us to get that information if possible. It does not have to be in depth but at least give us an idea.  Just think what we asked Duane to do in Ballston Lake threshold and the neighbors have communicated concerns with it so we should address and make sure we do not have any issues going forward.

John Van Vorst:  It is obviously an environmentally sensitive area and we need to assure that it will be addressed properly.

Kathryn Serra:  If is turns out that it is 1.1 acre and it just requires a simple sediment control plan, that is fine but at least we have a record, but we do not have that information now. The other question is does the board want the location of the home in the plan?  We do have cases were the minor subdivision comes in and the home is in a totally different spot. Sometimes it creates confusion with the building department.

Chad: Here this is kind of specific because we did all the perk tests and the septic designed to be in an area and how the site falls around it pretty much is.

Kathryn Serra: Are you saying you do not have a problem with that?

Chad:  I do not have a problem with that, but people cannot really deviate from that.  Because there is wastewater and a well so there is not much change that can be made.  If there was public water and sewer, they would have free range and could pretty much do whatever they want but there is wastewater and a well.

Kathryn Serra:  What you are saying is that you are pretty much bought into the layout.

James DiPasquale:  Instead of trying to design this tonight, what we need to some information to confirm what we need.

Patrick Maher:  We need an inventory of what we need from the applicant.

Kathryn Serra:  Three things they need to provide to meet requirements for the subdivision are: right to farm law language, location of the adjoining well and septics, the total disturbance on all lots.

Chad:  As far as the layout is it not uncommon in municipalities where it is said upon whoever develops it is required that it has approved plans.

James DiPasquale:  What I was concerned about was even one step before that. I started out reviewing this project with an understanding and somewhat of a knowledge of this area and that there are drainage issues.  I was specifically concerned about lot 3 and that the placement of the house, the elevation of the house, and how it can be demonstrated that additional flow is not going to be introduced to adjacent properties.  We did hear after the fact that there are drainage issues.

Chad: I would supply a grading plan and that would answer this.

John Van Vorst: You have on your map an outline of a limit of disturbance and I assume that makes for a good building envelope.

Chad:  correct.

John Van Vorst: So, if you stay inside of that you should be ok, but we want that verified.

Chad: that is agreeable

Chad: Would you require a basic swip?

Kathryn Serra: Not necessarily. That is the board’s decision.

John Van Vorst:  Does the board want CT Male to review this?

Patrick Maher: No

James DiPasquale:  Well, we should know if we need CT Male to review it with the next submittal.

John Van Vorst: Ok

Sarah Engster - Public Hearing Scheduled

857 Route 50 SBL # 248.-2-59

Special Use Permit - to convert office space into an 8th rental unit

This is the old Ballston Lake Motel on Route 50 that was built in the 1950’s that has since been converted into 7 apartment units.  The parcel is 4.45 acres with 243' of road frontage. The new owner of this property wants to convert the old motel office space into an efficiency apartment. The unit will use the existing septic system.

Sarah Engster is presenting on behalf of 857 Route 50 llc on an application for a special use permit to convert what as formally used as office space of a former motel into a studio apartment.  It would be 282 square feet; parking would be directly in front of the unit as it is with the other seven units on the property. He anticipates that he would only being renting to a single tenant, however the maximum occupancy would be two additional tenants.  We do not anticipate any increase traffic and no need to increase use of water and will be connecting to the existing two septic systems on the property.

James DiPasquale:  In addition of adding a unit, does the owner’s business plan involve addressing anything the exterior?

Ms. Engster:  Yes, my client purchased this property in the summer of 2019, and it was in a significant state of disrepair at the time.  At the time of purchase, it was completely occupied.  I worked with the applicant and some members of your building department and one tenant had to be removed.  He is making significant improvements of the property. Currently only two units are occupied. Some have left and some we have evicted due to non-payment.  As of February 1st, only one unit will be occupied, and his plan is to renovate the entire building and changing the facade and has met and provided drawings to the building department.  This project will not change the face of the exterior. Long term, he is invested into this property.  He is aware that this property does not have the best reputation that preceded him. Even though he is completely renovating all the units, it is anticipated that rent will only be increased around $100 dollars for single bedroom unit. So, it will provide housing for the same demographic but new and improved.

Patrick Maher:  Tell him I said thank you.

David Blair:  I do not know a whole lot about the history of this building or what it has been over the course of time.  You talked that the applicant was going to use the septic systems that are there.  I do not know how old the septic systems are, the locations, the size of the leach fields and if they can handle all 8 apartments. We have no information on that in here and I would like to see that so we can determine if there is significant capacity there to take on these apartments.  When it was original built, was it built as apartments or a motel where they did not size the septics for full time use?

Ms. Engster:  The property is a converted motel. At one point is was a motel and it was converted and approved for seven units.  It is my understanding the septic are approved for 7 multi dwelling units.  I will be more than happy to provide that.

Audeliz Matias:  Right now, this is just an office.  Whatever function that office had is going to be lost. Is he planning on having the main office outside?

Ms. Engster:  No, the applicant owns rental properties throughout Schenectady County, Albany County and Saratoga County he will not be using this as his office.  He has never used that space as an office. For what I understand this was the office to the motel and maybe at one point used for storage.

David Blair:  Looking at this plan, I am assuming that gained access to apartment 7 through the office.  When that goes away, how would you access apartment 7?

Ms. Engster:  I have the full plan with me. (shows drawing) Currently at apartment 7 the entrance is in the rear of the building and a gravel parking area back there for two cars. As it is built right now there are two entrances on the proposed 8th unit.  He will closing up the entrance on the left side, sealing that up.  They will be only using the entrance on right side.

David Blair:  So, all of the apartments are one bedroom except for apartment 7 that will be a two bedrom?

Ms. Engster: Yes.

John Van Vorst:  On the applicant, it has the wrong zip code. It should be 12027 and it reads 12019.

There was a lengthy back and forth with the whole board on this matter until the atty asked them to move on.

Ms. Engster:  I will have to check on that.

John Van Vorst:  On the environmental assessment form number 9, Does the proposed action meet the or exceed the State energy code requirements.  We would hope it does but it is marked no.

Ms. Engster:  The answer is yes, that is a typo

John Van Vorst:   You are talking about do some remodeling, I am assuming that would be taking down the absolute sign?

Ms. Engster:  That is my understanding, that may be included but we have not discussed that yet.

John Van Vorst:  I am glad to hear you are going to clean up.   It turns out I recently discovered  that Chairman Lesniak and myself are on the  Debris Committee so this is something that I have been looking at more intensely.

Ms. Engster:    When he  first purchased the property there were some violations including parts cars from former  tenents   and he has had them removed.

John Van Vorst:  Has the building inspector, Brian looked at this and given his approval or that a step that  happens after here?

Ms. Engster:  He was told he would need the special use permit authorizing the weight apartment in order to move forward with the building permits.  They are working together. It is in the preliminary stages right now.

Public Hearing 10:04

Susan Karandy, 17 Forest Road

I live right around the corner but close as the crow flies.  We have had concerns for a long time on this property. My concern is and I am not sure if I misunderstand what she said, but I would hope they will be doing the facade.     Is that what you said?

Ms. Engster:    I was saying that there are no structural changes to the facade as far as this project is concerned.    I do know and the owner has showed me the facade drawings submitted to the building department.  There are changes planned to that.

Susan Karandy:  of course, we want the facade changed and I do not know about other people but I would like to know who this person is and what his other properties look like.

Patrick Maher:  That is not in our purvey.

Ms. Englster:  If there is a concern, he is trying to hide his identity, that is not the case.

Susan Karandy:  In the past there has been all this junk there, old cars, junk on their porches and this looks horrible.  We need to make sure this does not happen anymore. I do not know about anyone else but my concern is and giving a special use permit is fine but if the rest of this can’t be managed any better than it has been and I have not seen much change since he first bought it so I am leary.  I would also say we would really like know if those septics are currently up to date.

Ruth Vinciguerra, 25 Fruitwood Drive

There are wetlands right behind that red barn and Post Office and that is where I am right behind them.  That is what I am concern about.  My neighbor just had to have a septic and had to bring in a lot of dirt. I am concerned about septics draining out that way.   And the noise and the bad people from there – burning fires, chopped the woods down, shooting guns – I am glad they are gone.  (inaudible since the public was laughing and talking loud)  I am really concerned about the wetlands.

John Van Vorst:  We need an engineer’s report on the septic.

Ms. Engster:  Since the second he bought this he was getting violations and he has been working with the town. He has made substantial efforts and he is not proud of the way it looks, and he purchased it with the intention to investing in it and improving it.

Adjourned.