town of ballston planning board · planning board has the jurisdiction to approve or disapprove...

of 39 Town of Ballston Planning Board February 27, 2019

TOWN OF BALLSTON PLANNING BOARD

Monthly Meeting: February 27, 2019

Present: John VanVorst, Chairman James DiPasquale Patrick Maher Audeliz Matias, Vice-Chair Nicole Rodgers Dan Shorey Dave Blair, 1st Alternate Sophia Marruso, Senior Planner/Storm Water Management Officer Kathryn Serra, PE Matt Chauvin, Esq. Members of the General Public ABSENT: Laura Muschott Brian Theriault, Building Inspector

Chairman VanVorst stated the Preserve at Summerhill is withdrawn from tonight’s Planning Board agenda for this evening. Chairman VanVorst called the February 27, 2019 meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. The Chairman asked for a motion to the January 30, 2019 minutes. Page 2, 5th paragraph strike “positive” referral from the Town Board to the Planning Board. Chairman VanVost said, “The Town Attorney contacted him to assure him that it was not a positive referral – it was just a “referral.” Page 9, 10th paragraph strike “$1,000” change to “$100,000.00” MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion to approve the January 30, 2019 meeting minutes as amended. Ms. Rodgers seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.


Chairman VanVorst reviewed the agenda. OLD BUSINESS: Stonebridge PUDD (Area B) Stonebridge Drive; 239.-34-1-18 Site Plan Review –20 condominium units Scott Lansing with Lansing Engineering was present on behalf of Pigliavento Brookview Ct., Inc. Stonebridge PUDD Area (B) Site Plan. Mr. Lansing stated this is a preliminary submission and requests the Board’s consideration for approval of the project. Mr. Lansing stated the proposal is located on Stonebridge Drive with a total of 2.23 acres; two parcels. 0.82 acres on the West side 1.41 acres on the East side. Mr. Lansing stated it’s zoned Stonebridge PUDD, which was adopted in December 4, 2007. Mr. Lansing stated the applicant is proposing what is entirely in accordance with the PUDD requirement with everything outlined in that ordinance. Mr. Lansing stated the applicant is proposing 20 condominium units; one 8-unit building located on the west side and three 4-unit buildings located on the east side. Mr. Lansing stated all the units would be two stories in height with two to three bedroom units. Mr. Lansing provided a photograph representing the proposed units proposing to be built on this project. Mr. Lansing stated each unit would have an individual driveway, garages and parking onsite with a total of 64-spaces. Mr. Lansing stated public water, sanitary sewer are available on Stonebridge Drive and storm water management.


Mr. Lansing stated the existing sidewalks, streetlights and street trees along the frontage would be maintained and additional plantings for enhancements; 49% greenspace overall for the site. Mr. Lansing stated since the last submission, has received preliminary comments and did provide a full plan as far as utilities, grading, and layout materials for the project. Mr. Lansing received comments from Ms. Serra and Ms. Marruso. Mr. Lansing stated C. T. Male had five comments (comment 1) Our prior comment letter stated that the proposed driveways should be re-configured to work with the existing boulevard along Stonebridge Drive. As previously shown, many of the driveways would be located so that the boulevard’s tree planting strip prevents legal left turns into or existing the driveways. This would result in illegal or dangerous maneuvers necessary for the residents to utilize their driveways. The revised plans show a significant portion of the existing median being removed to accommodate this project. The Planning Board has the jurisdiction to approve or disapprove this change, given that the median was required under the previously-approved subdivision plan. The removal of the median now creates a very wide road (40-feet) when compared with the rest of the roads in the subdivision, where the average road width is 24 feet. It is suggested that the Planning Board review the prior subdivision approval to determine the design reasons for this median. It is likely that the median served two purposes, the first being aesthetic given that Stonebridge Drive is the main boulevard into the neighborhood, and the second being for traffic calming. It is suggested that the applicant document why common driveways or having some entrances off Lakewood Drive are not being proposed. Providing fewer driveways off Stonebridge Drive or adding driveways off the side street would fit the existing roadway layout better.

Mr. Lansing stated the original concept provided by the applicant kept the median in place; a drawing shows the boulevard coming in from Lake Road, with a concern about access to the units and people being able to make left-hand turns into driveways. Mr. Lansing stated the existing conditions shown on the aerial photo are alternate routes around this roadway; if someone wanted to take a left hand turn into a driveway, where they could drive around and be able to take make a right turn into the driveway. Mr. Lansing stated the applicant feels that is something that is a possible and appropriate for the project, but the Board has expressed concerns. Mr. Lansing did reach out the Highway Superintendent of what could be done


Mr. Lansing stated Mr. Whalen’s preference is to remove the boulevards in front of the units. Mr. Lansing stated as far as access maintenance, Mr. Whalen felt that it would be a much more preferred option for him if they were removed and easier for snow removal. Mr. Lansing stated with the removal of the medians that does obviously provide unrestricted access to all the units and allows rights, lefts and everything to the units. Mr. Lansing stated it maintains the esthetically pleasing aspects of a boulevard and that the boulevard extends all the way down to Lake Road, which is the primary main entrance to the project and extends up far into the project. Overall, it is a relatively small portion of that overall boulevard area. Mr. Lansing stated the comment from CT Male did outline the applicant for considering potential options for the median; one was to provide common drives for the condominium units. Mr. Lansing stated we did look at that with the driveways and the parking space outside of the garage, there is really not the opportunity or the ability to pair driveways together and share driveways; even if driveways were shared, it would still be somewhat of a conflict with the medians on the project. Mr. Lansing stated that is something that we did not investigate further. Mr. Lansing stated there was also a suggestion by CT Male to take a look at Lakewood Drive access; the end units are close to Lakewood Drive with a potential to have the driveways go out into that area. This does not eliminate conflicts with the boulevard throughout the length of it. Mr. Lansing stated the applicant is suggesting this as a possible mitigation for the removal of the medians, which is preferred by the applicant, and perhaps the striping of where the medians were. The Highway Superintendent would be accepting of; would be something that he could plow and require minimal maintenance. Mr. Lansing stated also something that would identify the travel lanes on each side allowing cars to cross over the striping and get in the driveways and have full access to the driveways. Mr. Lansing stated that is the preference and the proposal to eliminate the medians as shown on the plan as requested by the Highway Superintendent and provide some striping as the Board sees fit. Mr. Lansing stated the applicant is looking for input from the Board this evening. Mr. Lansing stated the second comment from CT Male; Pipe sizing calculations for roof drain piping have been provided and it was noted in the


comment response letter that two (2) pipes were upsized to 8” diameter. Mr. Lansing stated we will amend those two pipe lengths to go from 6” to 8”. Mr. Lansing stated there was a request to add spot elevations at the corner of Building 4. Mr. Lansing stated spot elevations will be added. Mr. Lansing stated a request to add a catch basin structure in the mailbox pull-off area. Mr. Lansing stated the applicant does not feel that is necessary and would like to leave out and have the mailbox area pitching towards the roadway, towards the gutter line on the other side of the road. Mr. Lansing stated this would be another structure for the Highway Department to maintain without serving real purpose and feels it is a very small drainage area and can work with CT Male. Mr. Lansing stated the last comment was relative to street lights on both sides. Mr. Lansing stated the demolition plan does outline two existing light poles that are will be taken down, but are shown on proposed plan to be relocated; conflict with the mailbox pull-off area driveway – simply taking those down and putting back up in very close proximity. Ms. Serra asked Mr. Lansing if he minded if we poll the Board and have a discussion about the median because she does not think that it has been resolved and that is a significant issue. Mr. Lansing asked to finish the rest of his comments and then have a discussion. Mr. Lansing stated he felt the planning comments were mostly technical in nature and some were redundant. Mr. Lansing stated the first one was relative to street lights and did just go through. Mr. Lansing stated there was a question on when the open space dedication was completed. Mr. Lansing stated it was completed between 2012 and 2013; checked the tax maps and the County Map Viewer and that was conveyed at that time. Mr. Lansing stated there was a comment on clarification of conveyance of HOA language if that was done. Mr. Lansing stated that was not done and needs clarification on.


Mr. Lansing stated there was a question about the median in the boulevard, which he has gone over in length and a request to add silt fence to the plans. Mr. Lansing stated there was an acknowledgement that renderings and building material were submitted with the package and the acknowledgement that the project does meet the setbacks; height and parking requirements outlined in the PUDD and acknowledgement of additional plantings that were added to the plans. Mr. Lansing stated there was additional detail that was requested regarding the wall packs will be typical residential style wall sconces on the sides of the garage doors, typical to any other residential structure – can add a note to the plans. Mr. Lansing stated there was a statement that no signage was proposed. Mr. Lansing stated the project does not include any additional signage to identify the project. Mr. Lansing stated there was a statement that the traffic evaluation was provided and the staff was referring to CT Male for any comments on that; estimating that the traffic assessment was appropriate. Ms. Serra stated the public has concerns about the traffic. Chairman VanVorst has a copy of VHB’s report and asked Mr. Lansing to read into the record. Ms. Serra asked if Mr. Lansing could just summarize the table and to reiterate, asked the applicant to look at the original traffic study that was done for the PUDD for Area (B). The assumption was made that it be a commercial use, which generally results in higher trip generations than a residential use. Mr. Lansing stated there was a traffic evaluation performed by VHB Engineering, dated January 8, 2019. The evaluation in general goes through the trip generations for the project and also compares to the original approval, which contemplated commercial development in this area. Mr. Lansing skipped to Table #1 on the second page – Table #1 Stonebridge PUDD trip generation the summary for Area (B) for the AM peak hour the trips entering for the approved PUDD (not this proposed development), but what was originally contemplated approved PUDD. Entering are 64 trips current condominium proposal outlines 2 trips for the AM peak hour entering and for exiting.


The approved PUDD (original plan), not what is proposed here, outlines 52 trips exiting, for the current condominium proposal is 7 trips. The total trips for the approved PUDD AM peak hour is 116 for the current condominium proposal is 9, with a difference of 107 trips; less in the current proposal, versus what was originally contemplated as a part of the original Stonebridge project. The PM peak hour entering for the original was 66 - the current condominium proposal is 7, exiting. The original PUDD was 108 - the current condominium proposal is 4. Approved was 174 and the current proposal is 11 with a difference of 163 less trips with this proposal, compared to the original contemplated development for that area. Ms. Serra stated she pulled the Traffic Study for the Desrosier Subdivision, which was the only subdivision approved after the PUDD that could possibly send trips to Stonebridge; understanding that the majority of that traffic from that subdivision would go to East Line Road. That project the AM peak hour trips were 50, again, mostly going to East Line Road and the PM peak was 63; would still leave a significant reduction in trips, even if we assumed half the trips from Desrosier went down through Stonebridge. Ms. Serra stated this is what the Board asked the applicant to provide and feels it is representative of what was originally assumed the PUDD with commercial use versus residential. Chairman VanVorst asked if the Board agrees with the traffic report. The Board agrees. Ms. Serra stated she is not convinced that there has been a solution that the Board has discussed. Ms. Serra stated that she worked on the original PUDD with Chairman VanVorst and Ms. Matias and her recollection is that boulevard is intended to be an esthetic and traffic calming boulevard. Ms. Serra stated removing the median and putting striping on, does not change the width of the road. Ms. Serra stated if you took the median out of the road, it would be 40’ wide; the standard town road is 24’ and would be a change to the originally approved subdivision.


Mr. Maher stated this was not in the PUDD language. Ms. Serra stated it was not in the approved subdivision. The PUDD was approved in 2009 and the subdivision in 2010/2011. Ms. Serra stated a median is not the best for flowing, but does have other purposes and at this point, is not convinced that there is a good answer and would like the Board to discuss. Mr. Maher asked Mr. Lansing with his discussions with the Highway Department, it sounds like they were agreeable to this. Mr. Lansing stated yes, to the removal of the median. Mr. Maher stated for essentially the ease of plowing. Mr. Lansing stated ease of maintenance and to achieve the goals to address the concerns of some of the Board members having access to the units. Ms. Serra stated the applicant asked if they could remove the median, and the Highway Department said yes. Mr. Blair stated you have to clean in between each break in the median and is even harder for them to plow; a median is a way to slow down traffic. Mr. DiPasquale stated at our previous meeting, the Board mentioned concerns about the boulevard and as far as access to the property, is a balance between the Highway Superintendent, who is responsible for maintaining the roads and a discussion on esthetics. Ms. Serra stated this proposal is making a modification to the previously approved subdivision, which generally the Board does not take lightly. Mr. Maher stated the way the condominiums are laid out, will not work with the median there. Ms. Serra stated unless they were to utilize Abby Lane, Lakewood Drive and the Grid, which occurs frequently in more developed suburban areas where you cannot make a left hand turn into a driveway and go to the next intersection and turn around. There needs to be a discussion at this point, as to whether their engineer has effectively other than that comment, have no comments and have address all other prior issues.


Ms. Marruso suggested it might be worth the Board discussing, as you are evaluating whether or not keeping the medians is appropriate and supports the traffic towards and trying to balance needs between safety and ease of access as well as traffic calming and street esthetic, it might be worth having a discussion about what alternatives exist to create those impacts. In different applications, is not saying what is appropriate here, but have to evaluate, but other strategies for traffic calming include, provide on street parking, and provide additional street plantings – there are some treatments that can be made to streetscapes that also execute traffic calming. Mr. Maher stated you could also restrict the access depending on what side the median you are on coming in and out of your residence. Mr. DiPasquale asked if the Board knows how strongly the Highway Superintendent feels regarding the boulevard. Ms. Serra stated she knows that this was the first boulevard that was proposed and they were not a fan given the fact it is a bit harder to plow. Ms. Serra agrees with Ms. Marruso that there are ways to create a visual buffer that might allow for turning; feels the presentation is to get rid of the median and move on – there needs to be something in-between. Mr. DiPasquale stated at prior meetings, the Board had concerns with access to driveways with the median and trying to look at the traffic flows. Mr. Shorey stated given the fact that the applicant is considering removing the median, would have no objection to more trees where appropriate for people entering their driveways just to occupy some of that space. Ms. Serra stated she would like the applicant to possibly consider other options; plantings and bump outs and has a problem with a 40’ road (striping). Ms. Serra stated the residents have made it clear that there are issues with traffic and not comfortable as the Town Engineer to simply saying remove the median out; due diligence by the applicant to show other options that work better. Ms. Serrra stated 40’ is essentially a 2-lane road with a turning lane. Mr. VanVorst asked if there was data for the amount of traffic that goes through there down.


Mr. Lansing stated he did not have any data on that. Mr. Blair stated based on the trip generations, does not sound like it would affect that many people moving in here that would allow and maintain that passageway. Ms. Serra stated if we were to keep the median and require people turning left to go around. Ms. Serra stated there are many driveways that do not have issues. Ms. Serra stated she is concerned with the terms of the design; a vehicle making a left onto ongoing traffic of 20’, where 90 percent of the time it works, but the one time it doesn’t – it’s an enforcement issue. Ms. Serra stated we have an opportunity to do this right; whether we say, “Keep the median, restrict the turns or do the other option of something else.” Mr. Lansing stated the way it is now the applicants are comfortable if the medians are left, but their preference is to remove them and is the Highway Departments preference as well; plan shows the network of streets is rather tight and is not a long detour to go around and once somebody were to move in and get in the habit of making a right hand turn, go around and make a right into their driveway. Mr. Lansing stated trip generation is low for the project and a small half re-routing of those trips would meet the capacity of any of those roadways. Mr. Lansing stated the applicant is ok either way; we are just looking for guidance from the Board on what is preferred by the Board so we can address the concerns and implement them into the plan. Mr. VanVorst asked would it be possible for the applicant to design a couple options for the Board to review and consider. Mr. Lansing stated we would like some guidance on what those options would be of what the Board would like to see. Mr. Lansing stated there is not an opportunity for on-street parking. Mr. Lansing stated eleven trees are proposed to be taken down and proposing to plant 13 new trees. Mr. Lansing stated there are the sidewalks and street lights.


Mr. Lansing stated the striping helps identify those two lanes giving it a traffic calming effect as well; striping does allows vehicles to pass over that and easier for the Highway Superintendent to maintain as well. Mr. Lansing stated that was the applicant’s proposal and if, there are any other proposals, would be happy to look the over; two options are to leave the median in place and have people drive around or take them down and possibly stripe. Mr. Maher stated given the configuration of what is there and the way they are to be constructed, other than leaving the medians there or having people make a right or left, does not know what else should be proposed. Mr. DiPasquale stated it comes down to esthetics and the Highway Superintendent thinks it’s easier to maintain; it’s a trade-off versus the value of the esthetic. Ms. Serra stated if the Board agrees that the median can be removed, her suggestion would be to narrow the road, which requires moving infrastructure and catch basins; striping the road will not clam traffic and not esthetically pleasing. Ms. Serra said, “A do nothing option is worth a discussion.” Chairman VanVorst polled the Board of their opinion. Mr. DiPasquale stated he does not have a firm opinion and believe it’s the esthetics and would defer to Ms. Marruso; balance the practicality of the Highway and want to do what is the easiest to remove the snow versus the esthetics – does not have a strong feeling one way or the other. Mr. DiPasquale stated narrowing the pavement was brought up and asked how it would fit in with all the sidewalks. Ms. Rodgers stated she echoes Mr. DiPasquale comments and would like to see another option just based on what Ms. Marruso and Ms. Serra have said; there are other options. Ms. Marruso stated the function of a bump out might be kind of similar in terms of creating that affect; accompanying on-street parking and defer to the Town Engineer; a bump out is just an extension of the curb. Mr. DiPasquale asked if the sidewalks would move. Ms. Serra stated the sidewalks would stay and widen the green space.


Chairman VanVorst stated a bump out makes for an irregular curb and has to be more of a nightmare for the Highway Department than a median. Ms. Marruso stated there certainly would be consequences to that, but presumably the bump out would be happening in lieu of the median. Ms. Marruso stated regardless of what direction we go with the road construction, there is kind of a proportionate relationship between the esthetic value and the maintenance and responsibility that falls on the Highway Department. Usually something that is less complicated and easier to maintain, might not provide you with all the esthetics you want. Ms. Markus stated what is redeeming about this neighborhood, is the infrastructure that is in place, lighting and sidewalks that you don’t always get with new development that does really enhance throughout the neighborhood. Ms. Marruso stated without the medians feels there is redeeming esthetics and value to what is there, but can appreciate the concern over the really wide uninterrupted, unregulated block of pavement. Ms. Marruso stated she has seen this in application with new loop road configurations and a higher density development; there are options that exist. Mr. Blair stated he would want to leave the median there or narrow the road on way if its bump outs or narrowing the road altogether just to slow traffic down. Ms. Matias stated she agrees with Mr. Blair and leaving the median as is and making the residents turn around if they have to and stripping down the mean would be a total disaster. Mr. Maher stated to leave the median in as is. Mr. Shorey stated his feeling is to get rid of the median, plant more trees and if you want to slow down traffic you would put a sidewalk all the way down on the side of the three units and then put a crossover and sidewalk in front of the one unit and put a cross across it. Chairman VanVorst stated for this issue maybe next time could come up with a couple of options besides the two extremes that were discussed tonight. Ms. Marruso stated it would be worth having a meeting with the Highway Superintendent directly to review those; the Board is sensitive to wanting to make sure that you are putting in place infrastructure that can be maintained. Ms. Marruso stated a lot of Mr. Whalen’s concerns are represented through Ms. Serra and me, but if the Board feels more comfortable, the applicant could get something from Mr. Whalen.


Mr. DiPasquale stated that is an excellent point just to see how strongly Mr. Whalen’s thoughts are. Ms. Serra stated Mr. Lansing did a storm water analysis in the January submission. Mr. Lansing stated CT Male’s previous comment outlined that everything looked good and was not totally necessary, since we were conveying to the existing infrastructure that had an active NOI (Notice of Intent) in place. Ms. Serra stated the applicant is coming in under the existing SWPPP and existing permit for Stonebridge PUDD. The original design of Stonebridge for the streets and large storm water management areas that are constructed. Ms. Serra stated that Area (B) was included in the original design. The original design was to drain the storm water management to Area (1). The original SWPPP assumed there would be 10.6 acres of impervious surface in Area (B); applicant proposing 6.5 acres. Ms. Serra stated she concurs with the applicants statement that the existing infrastructure on Stonebridge Drive and the existing storm water management area were sized to handle run-off proposed for the project, as long as all the run-off from this project is proposed to drain into the proposed drainage system on Stonebridge Drive. Ms. Serra stated she would like the Chairman to discuss the issues that are not related to this Area (B) that have been brought up by residents. Chairman VanVorst said, “There is obviously a problem in the development with drainage and the cause of that problem is not sure where the responsibility lies, but it needs to be resolved and the problem we have as a Planning Board, is that in an ideal world, those issues should not impact this application because they are two separate issues. Chairman VanVorst stated for the Board to proceed without addressing some of those issues, would be error on our part; although does not know how much control and authority we have and don’t know what kind of answers we would be looking for from you as to how to address some of those issues – do you have any input.” Mr. Lansing said, “Could I ask what the issues are, we are not aware of any issues.” Ms. Serra stated it’s related to the existing wetlands that are located to the north and east of the condominiums on Stonebridge Drive and behind the residences’ that are on the inner loop of Lancaster Ct.; they have spoken to the Town Board and the Planning Board.


Ms. Serra stated the current proposal for Area (B) does not send more onto that existing wetland. Ms. Serra stated questions were brought up, were the homes on Lancaster Ct. installed/constructed per the original SWPPP; the original SWPPP assumes that all of the roof run-off would drain toward Lancaster Ct. and enter the closed drainage system. Ms. Serra stated based on aerial imagery, all of the roofs on those homes drains in the back; we do not know the gutter system or how that run-off drains. Ms. Serra stated we (the Board) are trying to ascertain an issue brought up by the public of an issue with a drainage complex on the property in Area (B). Ms. Serra stated the site plan in front of the Board complies with the previously approved SWPPP, but the question is, what was built next to it, was that built to the original SWPPP. Ms. Serra said, “It’s a little bit of a code enforcement issue, but at this point, we need to bring it up because it has frankly been brought to our attention for a few years and was brought up at the Town Board meeting last night.” Chairman VanVorst asked Mr. Lansing if he has a response. Mr. Lansing stated he does not and if the first that he has heard of this issue and as far as the proposal in front of the Board, we do show gutter plans and downspouts that surround the entire units; all drainage will go to the infrastructure of the roadways. Mr. Lansing stated this particular plan does outline specifically how that is handled either by code enforcement or construction; does not know about this particular issue and is the first time hearing it tonight. Chairman VanVorst stated to the best of your knowledge, there is no way that any of construction and development of the property the application presents could impact what is already a poor condition on Lancaster Ct. Mr. Lansing stated no, our plans specifically outline downspouts and pipes around the structure to capture all the roof run-off from sidewalks and convey it to the main roadway; this would not have any impact on that. No comments from Board members, Ms. Serra or Ms. Marruso. Chairman VanVorst stated a public hearing is scheduled for this evening for this project and will remind everyone of the public hearing rules: Five minutes to speak. A warning at four minutes. No foul language/cursing or inappropriate comments. No back and forth between the public and the applicant. Any questions that are asked will be answered, but probably not this evening.


Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. Barbara & Jeff Beers, 107 Lancaster Ct. stated at the November meeting, presented to the Board pictures of our property and the flooding that is going on, both at our home, and at our daughter’s home at 105 Lancaster Ct.. Ms. Beers stated she spoke with Jed Hayden from NYSDEC and he advised her, when its 12.4 acres or larger, NYSDEC does require a buffer between a building and the wetlands. Ms. Beers stated in Stonebridge, that is not the case, we are less than 12.4 acres, so therefore, we come under the ACOE who do not require a buffer. Ms. Beers stated however, Mr. Hayden did tell her is that most Towns will require a buffer even if it is not required by the ACOE. Ms. Beers would like to know if the Town of Ballston does have a buffer in place. Ms. Serra stated they do not. Ms. Beers asked what the reason is that you don’t feel a buffer is necessary for the protection of the residents; if there was a buffer in place, our homes probably would not have been built there. Ms. Beers stated she has not heard anything mentioned here tonight about the issue that we brought up back in November regarding the flooding on our property; that has not been addressed as to how that is going to be alleviated, if in fact, you go ahead with this proposal. Ms. Beers stated her husband has had to go outside and chop ice all behind us and try to get the water to flow away from our home so our basements don’t flood. Ms. Beers feels if the condominiums go in, they are going to be removing all that vegetation; it’s behind us that slows the water down right now and if that is the case, the water is going to rush right into our yard and we won’t be able to prevent the flooding of the basements. Thank you. Regan Morency, 20 Stonebridge Drive stated she would like to speak on behalf of John Murphy of 40 Lancaster Ct. in regards to the flooding in his basement and his yard. Ms. Morency stated Mr. Murphy has had to have somebody come in because it has been evaluated that he complained about water entering around the window in his basement (in the rear of his house) and was found to be that the grade was too high and the grade needed to be level to the bottom of the window. Ms. Morency stated they are elderly and not able to make it here, but they have also have issues with water flooding into their home as well. Ms. Morency stated she would like to speak about the traffic; it’s not a super highway – it’s a neighborhood where her children live and putting marks and lines in the middle of the road is not appealing. Ms. Morency stated as much as you (the Board) don’t think that maybe that one guy that is 20 years old that lives in that condominium will do the wrong thing and turn around and just go whichever way he wants to down the road – it happens right now more often than you think and her children are two and four years old and would really like to not see them get hit by a car by some 20 year old kid zooming down the road going the wrong way because he is late to work and does not want to worry about her children and to consider that and what happen in our neighborhood. Thank you.


Elizabeth Theilman, 20 Lancaster Ct. stated she is speaking on behalf of her neighbors, the Christians, who live reside at 26 Lancaster Ct., their basement also flooded due to the poor grading. Ms. Theilman stated their backyards were graded improperly and had to regarded their backyard and pay for all the expenses due to the poor grading done in their backyard. Michelle Brandt, 15 Stonebridge Drive stated she is really appalled to hear that the Town did not know about the water and Mr. Lansing as well. Ms. Brandt stated she has the documentation back from August 2015 when her basement flooded. Ms. Brandt stated she moved in, in May, when the property she purchased was flat before it was built on. Ms. Brandt stated when she moved in, a month and a half later, a week after her daughter was born her basement had 8” of water in it. Ms. Brandt stated her backyard is constantly a pool of water right down the center the way that it was graded; unless she has five days in a row, 80 degree weather, her kids have to be out there barefoot or in their rain boots to not get soaked. Ms. Brandt stated the property next to hers is also constantly soaking wet. Ms. Brandt stated that Mr. Lansing came out with the Town Planning Board Chairman as well as Mr. Thomas Johnson, Building Inspector to review her property, at which time; they told her they were going to work with Traditional Builders to address her issues, to no avail. Ms. Brandt stated she had a one month old and was headed back to work and kicked and screamed as much as she could, but the builder was unwilling to help her - the Town was unwilling to help me. Ms. Brandt stated the only thing the Town was able to agree to get the builders to do, was to create a trench and the property next to hers to relieve water, which is still there to this day. Ms. Brandt stated the quantity of water and the amount for the need of the trench, the water has broken through, where it was supposed to stop through the stone and goes out to your street and has been doing that now for about three or four years, which she believes is against code to have running water, mud and dirt to be running out into the drains, sewers and no one seems to mind. Ms. Brandt stated if that trench goes away, or property is built on fears for what will happen to her basement. Ms. Brandt stated her home that was built with her husband was supposed to be her forever home to raise her family and cannot finish her basement, with fear that it will flood, especially until property is built on next door. Ms. Brandt stated she has documentation from Traditional Builders and the Town from back then and no one seems to see the issue, when the issue is clearly still there because the trench is still there to this day, which maintains water every single day. Ms. Brandt stated if you come in the spring, you will see a pond essentially that is creeping up on the entire property line and that is a lot that one can built their home on right now. Ms. Brandt stated she sincerely consider you (the Board) to come visit our houses, see what we are seeing in the spring before you (the Board) approve more properties to be built, to give families and homes who are spending their money in the Town of Ballston to think that they are getting one thing and have an expectation to be completely broken. Mr. Brandt stated and when they come to you for support, and help, and the builders that you have allowed to build here, do not follow through with what they have said they are going to do that you support us because there is nowhere else to go. Ms. Brandt stated at this time, it is really


heartbreaking to hear the conversations about traffic and removing the median. If the Town felt as though there was an esthetic purpose to it back in 2010, when it was approved, does not even know why it is even a conversation right now. The traffic flow in our development is an issue now, there are 55 more homes being addressed and understand on paper it says, that there is not, but there are people who are not stopping at the stop sign and coming out of the townhomes, no one is there patrolling the traffic. The speed that is going through the development, no one is patrolling how fast people are going and now you are going to add more homes and more driveways. Ms. Brandt stated she seriously hopes that after all of these issues come to light, would be willing to help us fix the grading. Ms. Brandt stated when Mr. Lansing was there in fact, looked at the site map of the entire development and at that time, was questioning the foreman “Mike” as to why other homes were not built according to the site map. Ms. Brandt stated he had a short quick answer at that time for everything that was asked; it did not address the answer as to why it did not match the site map. Ms. Brandt stated with that being said, have asked the Town for Traditional Builders to put a sidewalk in at the exterior of her property; it’s the only corner without a sidewalk and have people trying to push strollers, walking, running and not get on and off her property and is told she cannot have that because it is not on the site map, but yet the site map was not abided by to begin with the building structure. Thank you. Eric Connolly, 84 Lancaster Ct. stated he has some visuals that he would like to show all the residents and the Board and were part of a FEMA committee; aerials of the neighborhood. Mr. Connolly stated while it plays, wanted the Board to look at the properties in question, just north of 105 Lancaster Ct. and 104 Lancaster Ct. homes you are going to see a water channel to the right of it. Mr. Connolly stated he is waiting for Dennis to pull up the video. Mr. Connolly stated there was a resolution that was passed by the Town Board “Resolution 18-177” it was a motion required to consider the proposal from CT Male Engineering for drainage improvements at 107 Lancaster Ct., Ballston Lake in the amount of $7,600.00, this is only the survey and engineering fee. Kathryn and Joe state that the amount that the Town will need to fix this is $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 and this should be a learning lesson for the Planning Board as this involves building near the wetland threshold. Mr. Connolly stated they spent a lot of time on that last night talking about the importance of water quality of Ballston Lake. Mr. Connolly stated that we are really close to all of the state wetlands. Mr. Connolly stated the ACOE has been assisting in this process. Chairman VanVorst does not see the relevance of this video to this application. Mr. Connolly stated the relevance is to highlight where exactly the water is running and why it is coming into these properties.


Chairman VanVorst stated that may be, but it does not impact this site, it impacts the site, off-site. Mr. Connolly stated no, it impacts this site and would not bring it up and not trying to disrespect anybody. Mr. Connolly stated it’s relevant to discussion, but its ok, if we cannot show it, we cannot show it. Mr. Connolly stated he had Thomas Field from Ryan Biggs/Clark Davis Engineering who was very gracious to come down to site and spent an hour with him walking the block that you don’t want us to show. Mr. Connolly stated that Mr. Field said that wetlands can absolutely be created and moved as of result of development and there should be a re-evaluation of the wetland and the SWPPP. Mr. Connolly stated that we could not FOIL the original plans for the PUDD, but have not found that information yet, but stated he will, on when the wetland delineation and the SWPPP that were actually passed. Mr. Connolly stated here is the visual of the property – you’re coming up Stonebridge Drive from Lake Road and the right of that townhouse, is a huge drainage ditch that has to be a hazard for residents (all rocks and wide open) that runs along the right side of 107 Lancaster Ct. as the aerial view keeps going, it cuts through the woods and the condominiums they are going to build are right there (very little room) and the drainage continues and can see it right on the right of that driveway where the construction is. Mr. Connolly stated that all these townhouses have gutters or no gutters and all the water comes off the roof lines and thinks that is what is causing a lot of the extra excess water. Mr. Connolly stated that Ms. Beers has an excellent point that if we remove all those woods and vegetation right there, then the problem regardless of gutters on these new townhouses or condominiums, there is going to be an effect on the water flow because of the removal of the trees and all the vegetation. Mr. Connolly stated given the current lack of conformity, flooding, damage, expired wetlands and SWPPP, because to our knowledge, wetland delineation and a SWPPP expire two to five years depending on the situation and believe these were done 12 years ago. Mr. Connolly stated we believe this is a liability for the Town, residents and the developers; for these reasons, we the residents of Stonebridge respectfully request the Town to pass a short term eight (8) month moratorium or until all the new environmental studies are redone and the engineering is re-looked at. Mr. Connolly stated we also called the Town, builders and the engineers to fix the issue at 107 Lancaster Ct., 105 Lancaster Ct., 15 Stonebridge Drive and the other Stonebridge property that was mentioned with the elderly folks. Thank you very much for listening. Tracey Keyser-Messing, 44 Lancaster Ct. thanked the Board for listening to us. Ms. Keyser-Messing stated she and her husband moved up her a year and a half ago from downstate, we recently retired and spent five years looking in the Saratoga area for a home and went to several communities and decided on Stonebridge for the esthetics. Ms. Keyser-Messing stated her husband fell in love with the lamps, streetlights and sidewalks and we were assured when


we were planning on building and talking with Lynn Johnson that everything would stay the same and did not know they were going to do more building. Ms. Keyser-Messing stated we are one of the last homes to be built on Lancaster Ct. and paid over $400,000.00. We are on a fixed income and disappointed and confused as to the plans were this way one year and a couple years later are considering changing the plans and does not know if anyone on the Board lives in this development. If they were to put their life savings, would be emotionally involved in this and would not readily and rapidly make a decision for it to all go away. Ms. Keyser-Messing stated she has water issues and was assured by Mike, Manager of Traditional Builders, that these are air tight homes and the first year had water in the basement and this past summer spend thousands of dollars to get the backyard regarded. Unfortunately, we have an empty lot that is for sale next to our house and the water this year comes in that way and her neighbor who has been dealing with terminal illness has done nothing with their backyard, they hope to, but currently her neighbor has to drive to her mailbox because its hazardous and all ice. We have a river that runs from our backyard onto Lancaster Ct., fills up with ice and she does not have a storm drain there – so it just sits. Last winter Bob with Traditional Builders came over and was watching me chop the ice and a big river gushed out onto the street. Ms. Keyser-Messing stated she has had Ms. Marruso and Brian Theriault come over and look at it, we have written letters to Traditional Builders, called and texted Mike and never hear anything- no one has gotten back to us and are just asking for common civility of a response after spending so much money. Ms. Keyser-Messing stated would like the Board to before they start any new problems, bought under false pretenses, were told that every way we see, it is the way it’s going to stay and this is really disheartening to us and have pictures if the Board wishes to see them. Thank you. Mr. Chauvin stated to be clear for the record, this Board did not make any representation that what you saw was how things were going to stay and there would be no further development. Mr. Chauvin stated he is very sympathetic to that issue and live in a different area with water problems in his own basement. Mr. Chauvin stated that is between you and the developer who built that subdivision of your home and these other homes that are on Lancaster Ct. particularly. Mr. Chauvin stated this applicant is not being brought forth by that builder by that developer, it’s a different entity. Mr. Chauvin stated this Board does not have anything to do with that component and did not make any representations about the future development of that site and any problems you have in that way, would have to be addressed with the developer. Ms. Keyser-Messing stated she was confused by what she was hearing plans, at this time, with the Planning Board, and few years later, fast forward and they are changing the plans. Chairman VanVorst stated we are all very sympathetic with all of these problems that residents are having in this neighborhood, but the Planning Board did not cause these problems and we


cannot solve them, it probably is going to end up in some court somewhere and if that is the case, it’s an association neighborhood, you obtain a good lawyer because whoever you go up against, already has a lawyer. Chairman VanVorst suggests that is your best alternative, but we (the Board) cannot resolve your problem and to go on hearing these problems over and over again, is not helping. Ms. Keyser-Messing stated part of her concern is that we bought and the boulevard was in place. Mr. Maher stated are charge as a Planning Board is to look at this application as presented and have a SWPPP that was designed and put together when the PUDD was approved back in 2007. It took into account actually more than what is being proposed here. Mr. Maher stated all the homes on Lancaster Ct. and Stonebridge Drive were designed per the SWPPP, now how they were constructed, we don’t know and have no control over that and cannot go back in time to fix that and we certainly sympathize with your plight, but we can’t address those issues – there is nothing we can do about that. Ms. Keyser-Messing stated she understands that, but how many times do you want people to come up and say, “Please leave the median in the same spot.” Mr. Maher stated we are going to address that and are charged with looking at this application; essentially in a vacuum. Ms. Keyser-Messing asked who checks the builders. Mr. Chauvin stated this is a public hearing and cannot make a record of your comments; we have to record this and have to follow procedure. Chairman VanVorst stated if you send us email, they will be responded to. Ms. Brandt stated she and her husband have sent multiple emails about the sidewalk and basement and have not gotten one response back accept for Mr. Johnson back in 2015. Jill Strock, 64 Lancaster Ct. stated they live next to the new development of townhouses that is under construction, under a new builder; not Traditional Builders. Ms. Strock stated when we moved in July 25th, we did not have running water behind our home. A new builder has now built these homes and we now have a complete stream behind our home – now we look to two builders that have property that has been impacted by the water. Ms. Strock welcomes anyone to walk behind the properties of 64, 66 and 68 Lancaster Ct. definitely during our season to have full running water is an indication of a problem. Ms. Strock stated she would like the


Planning Board to review the Comprehensive Plan that was documented in 2005 of what Town agenda or goals were as a Town. It speaks to the rural esthetics of this community. 1. What is the neighborhood feel that was behind this project? 2. Now we are looking for the needs of the additional condominiums. Ms. Strock stated we need to be real and to be looking at the economic growth of what this Town has seen, and does new housing actually support economic growth when we have numerous properties that are vacant, that are still available. Ms. Strock stated we are an award winning school district and ask for bus safety to be part of that. If we are asking for a road to be extended to 40’, as part of that traffic study, would like to know what the bus safety for those children that live on that street and how that is affected – that will be considered a “3-lane” and that does come with responsibility of the Planning Board to thoroughly review that. Ms. Strock stated she chose to move into this community because we felt that it still had a hometown feel within Saratoga County. It is a unique part of the Town and to not maintain it, feels it does not speak to the Comprehensive Plan in 2005 and asks the Planning Board to actually review that again. Ms. Strock stated works in community service and work with the underserved population; this Town has a very diverse community and are we serving all of our community members in the same light as we are in this community and goes back to affordable housing and what is available. Ms. Strock stated when this project was approved, what data was looked at now during this project; data is available through NYSDOH. Thank you and ask the Board to take all of these comments seriously and consider all of them. Chairman VanVorst stated to Ms. Brandt that he went back through all his emails and there is not one. Ms. Brandt stated she sent multiple emails the contacts for the Town Board and her husband reached out to her through text to ask if their emails were went through and nobody responded. Mr. Chauvin stated if you are emailing the Town Board that is not this Board. Ms. Brandt asked if Thomas Johnson is on this Board or part of the committee. Ms. Serra stated he is the retired Building Inspector. Ms. Brandt stated would he (Mr. Johnson) have been part of the dialogue for this committee at that time. Ms. Serra stated it would depend. Chairman VanVorst stated he cannot answer that, he (Mr. Johnson) is retired.


Karen Hollowood, 76 Lancaster Ct. stated to follow up on what Mr. Connolly was talking about, when we did present all of our issues to the Town Board last night, they were more sympathetic and were considering the moratorium. Ms. Hollowood stated to follow up on Mr. Maher’s point of the SWPPP and the water delineation that were done for the existing PUDD, which we know where more than the two to five years that is normally taken into account, either that storm water SWPPP was done incorrectly, or something has changed. Ms. Hollowood stated she also have a swampy backyard and had to bring in a basement contractor because she has a sump pump that runs every ten minutes – there is something very wrong here. Ms. Hollowood stated the SWPPP was wrong or something changed, water delineation was wrong or something changed. Ms. Hollowood stated we don’t know what those are, we are not Civil Engineers and are not contractors, but what we do know, is there is a huge problem in this development and before anything else happens, before anything else is done, this needs to be addressed – that is why we are asking for a moratorium and asking for it to be addressed, not ignored, not to have us spend 10 to 15 thousand dollars on basement mitigation on brand new homes. Ms. Hollowood stated we are just clearly asking to address the existing problem, does flow downhill, does go into the NYSDEC regulated wetlands, does impact the watershed in Ballston Lake, are all interconnected, impacting the Town and there should be a priority. Thank you. Chairman VanVorst asked Ms. Serra if there are any regulated NYSDEC wetlands on this property. Ms. Serra stated on this property no, but across Lake Road is Ballston Creek. Chairman VanVorst stated we as a Planning Board, are powerless to do anything about a moratorium. David Pierce, Member of the Saratoga County Water Quality Coordinating Committee stated when this PUDD developed Stonebridge, it was in the realm of a Traditional Neighborhood Design and did not know if the condominiums fall within the thought process and the design principles that whole zoning was developed for. Dr. Pierce stated to consider all the concerns that homeowners have stipulated tonight, is curious if the Planning Board Members are satisfied that the application meets all the stipulations contained in the Watershed Protection Overlay District Regulation. Dr. Pierce stated there is a provision in the Watershed Protection Overlay District Regulation paragraph 138-27.7 (12) Waivers to the provisions of this section may be granted at the discretion of the Town of Ballston Planning Board if the Board is reasonably assured that the proposed site development activities and alterations will not result in stormwater runoff impacts on surface or groundwaters within the Watershed Protection Overlay District.


Chelsea Buniak, 35 Lancaster Ct. stated we understand the Board cannot determine who is at fault for the current issues occurring in our neighborhood, but we do ask how you could in good conscious allow any further development when this may only complicate our preexisting issues. The SWPPP was originally approved back in 2007, over 12 years ago, and are still having water issues now. Ms. Buniak stated as others have said, obviously something has changed in that time or it was not done correctly in the first place, but either way these issues do go hand in hand with the proposed plan on the properties – they all interconnect all together and is a problem and is not going to stop because the property line says so on lot (B). Ms. Buniak asked who is going to be holding the new developer accountable for these regulations, water management when nobody was there to hold our developer accountable for this – how will we know that this is not going to make our issues any worse. Ms. Buniak stated the removal of the boulevard really bothers her. Ms. Buniak stated Lansing Engineering would have you believe that this is all a portion of the boulevard, but it’s not small to us, we live there and is small town and country feel, that boulevard provides along with traffic safety and to take it away, for the convenience for the developer or the Highway Department, is not really fair to the people who live there and would really appreciate if the Board would take all the comments into consideration. Thank you. Charlie Burt, 50 Lancaster Ct. asked how many square feet is that total area of housing (building areas). Ms. Serra stated the building areas are 13,000 per floor totaling 26,000. Mr. Burt stated does this proposal fall within the HOA. Mr. Lansing stated the condominiums would be part of HOA. Mr. Burt stated he also has problems with water. Ms. Brandt stated to Chairman VanVorst that her husband did send an email. Chairman VanVorst stated it’s not on his list, sorry, maybe it went to spam. Chairman VanVorst stated he apologizes and are welcome to resend it and will do his best to answer it. Ms. Brandt stated it was sent to your AOL account.


Chairman VanVorst stated his email is [email protected] and cannot explain why it was not received. Chairman VanVorst adjourned the public hearing for this evening at 9:01 p.m. Mr. Chauvin stated at the previous meeting, the residents had articulated concerns for the use of these condominiums as perhaps, defacto apartment dwelling units rather than their intended owner occupation as defined by the word “condominium”. In effort to allay some of those concerns and to do our due diligence, would be asking the applicant for a copy or at least a draft of their Condominium Offering Plan (Cp 7) that would be filed with the NYSDOS, for purposes of establishing them as a Condominium Association that Mr. Lansing just referenced. Mr. Chauvin stated we can review that and ensure that the necessary safeguards to the extent that we are able are included in the language as a part of our review of the application because it would be impacting the use, intensity of the use and traffic generated. Mr. Chauvin stated that is something that would be appropriate for us to review and would ask for a copy of that be sent to his office prior to this Board making any final determination as to the approval or denial of the site plan application. Ms. Matias stated during the agenda meeting, Ms. Serra suggested we look at the application based on what we have for this area, but at the same time, could we look back at the SWPPP to see if it was actually done that way it should have been done. Ms. Serra stated correct, and was noticing that a lot of folks that spoke were in the (even number) homes on Lancaster Ct. and was under the impression that most of the drainage issues were on the inside of Lancaster Ct. based on the discussion she has had in the past with Mr. & Mrs. Beers. Ms. Serra stated that wetland complex and stream does flow behind Area (B). The grading for Area (B) does not send additional run-off to that area, but at the time of the agenda meeting, to see if we could ask the developer who would not be the builder of these homes, that are having likely improper drainage in their yards. Ms. Serra stated to look at inner circle of Lancaster Ct., not the outer circle; the drainage of Area (B) does not impact the residents on the other side of Lancaster Ct. to see if those homes were constructed in accordance with the approved SWPPP. Ms. Serra stated basically we are telling the applicant you can build here in accordance with the SWPPP that was done in 2010. Ms. Serra stated to clarify, SWPPP’s do not expire and have an NOI that is filed and can keep it open and don’t intensify the use and put more impervious surface, the SWPPP does not expire.

mailto:[email protected]


Ms. Serra stated they have demonstrated that Area (B) complies with the original intended area to be in the SWPPP, the question is, does other stuff next to Area (B), as built, not comply with the original SWPPP – there is not a definitive answer to that, because at face value, what is in front of the Board and the Town Engineer is not your drainage concern – it is what’s there. Ms. Serra stated she is going to tell you that she has no issue with the drainage off this project and we are trying to come to terms with that and helping the Board request something that maybe outside their purview without doing something that is so egregious that sets a precedent that every other project now needs to look at what is built next to it. Ms. Serra stated she does not know if there is an answer – it’s tough. Ms. Serra stated do we just look at Area (B) or do we ask the developer to look outside the area. Ms. Matias asked if there is any legal advice. Mr. Lansing stated can say with a very a very high degree with certainty the applicant for this particular project would not be very excited about looking at drainage, at outside parcels that they did not have any involvement in as far as the design, building, the enforcement, the SWPPP or anything of that nature. Mr. Lansing stated looking at the particular parcel, when you look at the undeveloped grading for both sides of the roadway, based on the grading we have and have provided; those grades go down towards the wetlands towards the low areas to the north, which ultimately contribute to potentially to some of this area. Mr. Lansing stated our proposed plan; we are capturing all that areas and sending it to the roadway. Mr. Lansing stated as far as a pre/post type condition, yes, we are adding impervious area, but taking away drainage area to those areas. Mr. Lansing stated in his professional opinion, this is an improvement to the drainage in that area and as far as the drainage analysis, thinks that most his applicant will want to do as far as look at outside areas. Chairman VanVorst agrees with Mr. Lansing and appreciates that input unfortunately; we can’t proceed without seeing some resolution to these issues because it cannot be ignored. Chairman VanVorst stated whether we can resolve it or not, is a whole other subject and does not think we can, but it can’t be ignored, so we have to proceed slowly in order to find a resolution. Mr. Lansing stated just to be clear; the Board is not clearly moving forward with this application even though it has no contribution towards those existing drainage problems that have been reported. Mr. Maher stated he does not agree with that statement. Mr. Maher stated he does not feel comfortable holding the applicant responsible before we move forward with this. Mr. Maher stated he agrees that it needs to be resolved, but does not think it has any bearing at all on this project.


Chairman VanVorst asked what does the rest of the Board think. Mr. Chauvin stated from a legal perspective, it would not be appropriate to tie one to the other as a contingent in that way; we can evaluate the site conditions and ask both the applicant, his engineer and the Town designated engineer for opinions as to whether this project, the site conditions within the boundaries of this project are going to negatively impact the areas outside the project. Mr. Chauvin stated we can ask this applicant to ensure that those site conditions will not worsen or contribute to any of these issues, but it would not be appropriate to say that we are not going to move forward with this application in that way and would caution you against that. Chairman VanVorst stated he probably did not articulate what he was trying to say – it is after 9:00 p.m. and begin to fade and apologize for that. Chairman VanVorst stated he does feel as though we are deliberately dragging our feet on this, but just don’t think we are ready to move forward. Mr. Maher stated we need to move forward on this; there is no reason to not move forward. Mr. Maher stated he completely sympathizes with all of the issues these residents are experiencing, but it has nothing to do with our evaluation of this application; if the issue needs to be resolved, it can’t be resolved here and not within our purview. Chairman VanVorst agrees, if we (the Board) had the power, we would. Ms. Matias stated there still are other issues. Mr. Maher stated we do need to move forward. Chairman VanVorst asked the Board to articulate what those outstanding issues are the boulevard. Ms. Marrsuo stated keeping or removing the median, impact to the street esthetic, balancing the maintenance fees and have a conversation with the Highway Superintendent to get some kind of a clear indication as the Board wants to see one or two other additional configurations for the Highway Superintendent to evaluate, might be productive conversation. If you want to move forward definitively knowing you are making design decisions that can be comfortably maintained going ahead, might be a good way to go ahead with that. Chairman Vorst stated to table the application for this evening.


NEW BUSINESS; Outlet Enterprises C/O Walter Katz, III 1184 NYS Route 50; 239.-1-88.1 Site Plan Review – Addition to existing building and additional parking David Bogardus, PLS with Northeast Lane Surveyors was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Bogardus stated the commercial site plan proposal is located at 1184 NYS Route 50 for a site plan amendment. Mr. Bogardus stated the proposal is to build 19 x 14” enclosed stairwell for access to the first and second floor, add seven parking spaces, a turn around, install a dumpster pad and add one yard light to the existing commercial medical center. Mr. Bogardus stated it does not impact the storm water management; only increases the storm water by a very small amount. Mr. Bogardus stated seven of the nine parking spaces were already included in the original SWPPP; adding one new parking space totaling 300 square feet. Chairman VanVorst stated the EAF page 2 8.b. - Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? Applicant answered “No”, Chairman VanVorst stated it should be “Yes”; there is a Bus Stop at the Corner of NYS Route 50 and Outlet Road and 9.c. – Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed action? Applicant answered “No”, Chairman VanVorst stated it should be “Yes” – the bike path is located on Outlet Road. Mr. Bogardus stated he will make the changes to the EAF. Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 9:20 p.m. No one wished to speak. Chairman VanVorst closed the public hearing at 9:20 p.m. MOTION: Mr. Maher motioned to name The Town of Ballston Planning Board the Lead Agency in the SEQR process. Mr. DiPasquale seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.


MOTION: Mr. Maher motioned to declare this an Unlisted Action under the SEQR process therefore will declare this a Negative Declaration under the SEQR process. Mr. DiPasquale seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion that the Site Plan amendments as depicted on drawing 19-003, dated January 4, 2019 be approved with the correction of the EAF. Mr. DiPasquale seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. Carlton & Mary Stephens & James W. & Judith Williamson 27 and 23 Mann Road; 215.-1-37, 36, 24.6 Lot Line Adjustment David Bogardus, PLS with Northeast Lane Surveyors was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Bodgardus stated the proposal is for 23 and 27 Mann Road; 23 (rear) have two parcels on land, one is a non-conforming parcel. Mr. Bogardus stated Stephens is purchasing property from Mr. Williamson to add more acreage to his existing parcel. Mr. Bogardus stated with the proposed Lot Line Adjustment shows Mr. Stephens having 1.3 acres and Mr. Williamson having two parcels that total 4.6 acres. Mr. Bogardus stated with the proposed Lot Line Adjustment, Mr. Williamson will have 2.8 acres and Mr. Stephens will have 4.1 acres meeting all the zoning requirements. Mr. DiPasquale stated there will just be two lots. Mr. Bogardus stated it’s an exchange of land between Stephens and Williamson; the property is being merged, will not create a new lot. Ms. Marruso stated would add from a zoning evaluation that we are improving on pre-existing non-conforming lots as a result of this action. Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 9:24 p.m. No one wished to speak. Chairman VanVorst closed the public hearing at 9:24 p.m.


MOTION: Ms. Matias motioned to name The Town of Ballston Planning Board the Lead Agency in the SEQR process. Mr. Maher seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. MOTION: Mr. Maher motioned to declare this an Unlisted Action under the SEQR process therefore will declare this a Negative Declaration under the SEQR process. Mr. Blair seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion that the Lot Line Adjustment for “Lands of James W. Williamson & Judith Williamson” and “Lands of Carlton C. Stephens and Mary Susan Stephens” as depicted on drawing 18-101, dated December 12, 2018 be approved. Mr. Shorey seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. Surinaer Cheema 1324 NYS Route 50; 228.-3-9.2 Site Plan Review – Amendment to original plans (Demo existing canopy and build new canopy) Richard Nolan, PE with Nolan Engineering presented on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Nolan stated he is before the Board for a Site Plan Amendment and received Site Plan Approval approximately a year ago for a new gas station to be built on the corner of Brookline Road and NYS Route 50 for his client. Mr. Nolan stated the original plan was to use the original canopy that exists however, the owner now wishes to build a new canopy; the new canopy will be parallel to the building; if existing canopy were to be used, would not be parallel to the building. Mr. Nolan stated the other change submitted to the Board is the original canopy is 90’ x 41’ and would like to keep the same length of the new canopy, but go to 44’ wide. Mr. Nolan stated no changes are proposed for signage on the canopy. Mr. Nolan stated due to some miscommunication on his part, the owner also wishes to center the canopy on the building and not just make it parallel, but a bit wider; drawings can be provided to the Building Department tomorrow, if the Board is not comfortable, would still like to get approval on what was submitted so the canopy can be ordered and then come back; makes sense to center the canopy on the building. Ms. Serra stated a plan was submitted that was 41’ wide and now asking for 43’.


Mr. Nolan stated 44’ and what was submitted to the Board was slightly askew from the center of the building. Ms. Serra stated the applicant submitted a plan showing 41’ and now asking for 44’, which is 3’ wider than what is proposed before the Board. Mr. Nolan stated from NYS Route 50, there will be no difference from what was approved when the applicant was last before the Board. Mr. Maher asked about the exterior esthetics. Ms. Serra stated it will be like Valero Gas Stations; light blue. Mr. Cheema stated the site work has already started and have already applied for the building permit. Mr. DiPasquale stated it’s an improvement and will look a lot better than trying to utilize the old one. Chairman VanVorst stated page 2 question 5. a. – Is the proposed action - a. A permitted use under the zoning regulation? Applicant answered “No.” Chairman VanVorst stated he believes it is permitted. Mr. Nolan stated he will address that with his Architect who filled out the EAF. Chairman VanVorst stated page 2 question 5. b. – Is the proposed action – b. – Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? Chairman VanVorst stated that was marked “No” as well. Chairman VanVorst stated page 2 question 17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non-point sources? Chairman VanVorst stated it was not marked either “Yes” or “No.” Ms. Serra stated she would defer to the previous application, which this is re-development and the only change to this application is to the canopy and all the site work is staying the same. Mr. Nolan stated that is correct. Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 9:31 p.m.


No one wished to speak. Chairman VanVorst closed the public hearing at 9:31 p.m. MOTION: Mr. Maher motioned to name The Town of Ballston Planning Board the Lead Agency in the SEQR process. Mr. Shorey seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. MOTION: Mr. Maher motioned to declare this an Unlisted Action under the SEQR process therefore will declare this a Negative Declaration under the SEQR process. Ms. Matias seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion to approve the Site Plan as amended and depicted on sheet S-101, dated February 6, 2019 as modified this evening formally by the applicant to reflect the centering of the canopy on this building and the corrections of the EAF. Ms. Matias seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. Ms. Serra stated the applicant obtained an original waiver for the design and would say all previous site plan considerations and waiver should follow the same; this is not a new application, just a modification to the site plan. Ms. Serra stated this is technically a new application, but everything that was previously approved, is still approved. Mr. Chauvin stated that all the pre-existing requirements still apply. Donald Dudley 933 NYS Route 50; 248.-2-18.1 Site Plan Review – Indoor Tennis Court Complex Donald Dudley and Frank Herba, with HERBA Consulting & Contracting, LLC presented. Mr. Dudley stated the Donny Dudley Tennis Foundation is a non-profit 501 (c ) 3 organization; the foundation was formed in memory of his son who was unfortunately killed in a car accident. Mr. Dudley stated has 38 years’ experience with tennis as a teacher, pro and college coach.


Mr. Dudley stated the foundations mission is to try to help kids in the capital district area, but is also that is going to be open to the public; operating under a different pricing schedule as a non-profit and will be much lower than competitors. Mr. Dudley distributed a program of the event every year for the Board to review. Mr. Dudley provided the Board with proposed building designs to review. Mr. Dudley stated there are two different style buildings being proposed for the Board to review. 1. Steel building with membrane fabrics 2. Traditional steel building Mr. Dudley described the two different types of buildings being proposed. A further discussion was held on the applicants prior applications to the Board for the project. Mr. Dudley stated there is nothing close to this proposed location every other facility is approximately 23 to 25 minutes away. Mr. Dudley stated six high schools are approximately 16 minutes to their doorstep. Mr. Dudley stated he also coaches at a college and has influence to bring people to this facility and has also reached out to the Glenville YMCA. Ms. Serra asked if the club structure is the same as what was proposed originally and is the intent still, to provide lessons to the youth or like all tennis clubs in the area. Mr. Dudley stated we are a non-profit and the mission is to focus on kids and the rates will be less; court rentals, group lessons, private lessons and members will be half. Mr. Dudley stated we have a promotion going on right now that usually $500.00 a year for adult membership and are doing a promotion for $150.00 a year; with a normal membership is around $200.00 to $225.00. Mr. Dudley stated we will come in below everybody. Mr. Herba stated he is working with Ray Koch, PE on this proposed project. Mr. Herba stated the proposed 120’ x 150’ building is positioned on the site with the 55’ on one side and 115’ on the other side. Mr. Herba stated 115’ is situated on the property to get a fairly long driveway for stacking capability for exiting the property.


Mr. Herba stated the parking is located on the northern side of the parcel. Mr. Herba stated maximum setback is 70’ and are proposing 55’ and 115’; applicant proposing to shorten that up with the swing of the driveway with the current curb cut. Mr. Herba stated the building is positioned on the site with potential for possible expansion in the future. Mr. Herba stated as far as occupancy, will have from four to eight people at one time and 17 parking spaces with room for expansion. Mr. Herba stated the proposal is well over the 35% green space requirement. Mr. Herba stated there was a question on site lighting and has provided a plan and can resubmit to the Board. Mr. Herba stated to remove one light in the back and have the two lights in the front going both ways, one in the middle of the building - between one and two foot candles; just outside the property line will fall to .2 to .1 foot candles per square foot. Mr. Herba stated at the back end of the parking, we could put a dumpster location. Mr. Herba stated the plantings are minimal at this point, more could be added. Mr. Herba said, “He cannot do the architecture on the building because he believes what will happen is Mr. Dudley will approach the steel company and they will put together a plan for the building and can finalize the site.” Mr. Herba stated there is an existing sign at the site. Mr. Herba stated CT Male noted there are existing conditions that need to be shown on the plan, which the applicant will provide. Mr. Herba stated he believes the topographic information is fairly accurate, which was done from the original survey. Mr. Herba stated the parcel is under and acre and will not need a full SWPPP. Mr. Herba stated if the applicant expands the building in the future, a full SWPPP will be completed.


Mr. Herba stated the applicant is aware of the septic system separations for the power and water lines coming in. Mr. Herba stated the applicant is looking for a conceptual approval from the Board to finalize everything for a final approval. Mr. Herba stated more details will be provided for the parking lot striping and handi-cap parking space. Mr. DiPasquale stated at the next submittal asked the applicant to provide renderings with proposed colors of what the building would look like from the road. Mr. Dudley stated the information that was passed out shows the steel building with flexibility on color. Mr. DiPasquale stated based on the information provided, is having a hard time of what this would look like from the road. Mr. Maher stated we need some kind of rendering, location, esthetics, what would be seen from the road, how is the building going to be laid out, location of windows and access points. Mr. Dudley stated he provided renderings. Mr. Maher stated it there needs to be on a plan that would be submitted to the Board for review with a floor plan and elevations. Mr. Herba stated a steel building with 35’ rear walls and a peak on the steel will be 45’, which does exceed 40’ and essentially have two 60’ courts; one on each side and a 30’ section in the center is going to have a recessed area in the front is what you will be seeing from the road. Mr. Maher stated that is what the Board needs to see. Ms. Matias stated if metal if better for the applicant, then narrow it down in terms of costs of what it might look like; the Board might have a better idea of what you’re proposing. A further discussion was held on the proposed building for the project. Ms. Serra stated the Town has architectural design standards and suggest having your Architect look at the design standards to have the building fit within the Town’s zoning.


Ms. Serra stated the architecture in the zones becomes an issue; the architectural treatment is what presents itself from the street. A further discussion was held on the design of the building. Ms. Marruso stated §138-12.3 has a list of permitted materials for architecture they include; Permitted facade materials: [1]

Common red brick. [2]

Architectural masonry units (colored, textured, painted). [3]

Natural stone, stone veneer, or cast stone. [4]

Wood. [5]

Siding of high-quality recycled product simulating a natural material.

Prohibited materials: [1]

Plain (bare) masonry units. [2]

Plain vinyl or metal siding. [3]

Imitation stone, plastic, composite, or resin products.

Ms. Serra stated the Board has approved many steel buildings, but basically not plain. Ms. Marruso suggested some kind of a treatment “like a knee wall.” A further discussion was held on other steel buildings built in the Town relative to their facades. Mr. Chauvin stated the Board is giving the applicant a bit of guidance on what you proposed. It is the applicants obligation to go back to the Town code to do your homework and to come in with a proposed plan that would conform, which then the Board will evaluate and give you further feedback. Mr. Chauvin stated we are not in a position where this Board can sit here and tell you what our code says, what materials there are to use – that’s on you (the applicant) to go home and come back through your professional to provide the Town with a project that you want us to consider; we can give you feedback, but what we have provided, is insufficient to allow us to give you focus or narrowed feedback that would be appropriate – we (the Board) cannot do your homework for you. Mr. Chauvin stated he understands this was a time issue.

https://ecode360.com/search/32133167#32133167









Mr. Herba stated we are looking for the Board to say, “They are ok with the concept and put a building in there that you are happy with.” Mr. Chauvin stated the proposed use is approvable in the zone; the size of the building that is being proposed is approvable in the zoning, the configuration of the building lot is approvable in the zone and the proposed parking is approvable in the zone. Ms. Serra stated one thing that Ms. Marruso and Mr. Chauvin let her know is that its approvable under the current zone, but not under the current zoning change. Mr. Chauvin stated we were discussing and the applicant referenced that you may wish to expand; any expansion proposed after the zoning change, would be an expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use and would not be approvable at that point in time without a variance, which given the very new zoning code, which would propose a maximum of 10,000 square feet and unlikely that such a large variance would be granted, but cannot tell you what the Board would do; they are their own entity. Ms. Serra asked if the applicant would have a problem showing an expansion area of the building and parking on your site plan so this does not become an issue in the future - if Mr. Dudley wants to expand. Mr. Herba stated we could propose a concept expansion plan and don’t want to get into the full SWPPP requirements. Ms. Serra stated there is a way to have an area to have storm water practices with a caveat that you have to do that in the expansion. Ms. Serra stated the applicant is coming in now for this development, if you were to do the expansion, you would show an area on your site that you can accommodate storm water. At that time, you would submit a full SWPPP to the Storm Water Management Officer. Mr. Chauvin stated prior to any commencement of any construction. Ms. Serra stated the applicant needs to allocate space for storm water management and green space. Mr. Herba stated the applicant is not going to come close to that 35% green space requirement. Ms. Serra stated your statistics table area would be your future project.


Mr. Chauvin stated it would be a phase development and have an obligation at that time, to proceed with the expansion and come in with a detailed site plan, SWPPP, but on the application where you are showing the expansion area as a phase 2, you would need to be able to show the ability to accommodate all the storm water management areas and the parking etc. Ms. Serra stated if the applicant gets conceptual approval prior to the zoning change, can the applicant still continue to build under the existing zoning or is there a grandfather provision. Mr. Chauvin stated there is a grandfather provision based on the application; the Town Board has established a cut-off of March 6, 2019 and would be grandfathered. Ms. Marruso stated the applicant is not affected. Mr. Chauvin stated no because the application was timely submitted and the fees paid; this application is being evaluated and will continue to be evaluated on the existing zoning. Chairman VanVorst stated the photometric plan stated .2 at the property line; it needs to be at zero because it is required by zoning to be zero. Mr. Herba asked if that can be done with screening. Ms. Serra asked shrubbery or down casting screens on lights themselves. Mr. Herba stated all the light would be cut off, but looks at the 78 watt light fixtures and cut that back and get much closer. Ms. Serra stated no vegetation to be shown to accommodate that. Chairman VanVorst stated page 2 question 9 of the EAF – Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? The applicant answered “No” Chairman VanVorst stated he believes the answer to be “Yes” Ms. Marruso stated a Special Use Permit was granted by this Board on February 22, 2017 and at that time, on how it was granted for outdoor tennis court; there was an associated condition that there be no exterior pole mounted lighting. Ms. Serra stated that was because the applicant wanted to do lighted courts; those would be much higher in wattage than a parking lot lights.


Ms. Marruso asked how to modify conditions of a Special Use Permit granted. Ms. Serra stated the Special Use Permit does not prohibit parking lot lighting, it prohibits outdoor lit courts with – that was the permission – it wasn’t unlighted outdoor courts, not parking lot lighting. Chairman VanVorst asked if this is an amendment or a new project. Ms. Marruso stated this is a new site plan application. Chairman VanVorst stated the old one would be thrown out then, wouldn’t it. Mr. Chauvin stated the Special Use Permit runs with the land and would have to look at the (has not looked at the 2017 application) based on the write up, believes that application to have been geared towards outdoor tennis courts and the condition was that the tennis courts have no accompanying lighting. This is not proposing an outdoor tennis court with accompanying lighting, this is proposing something different. If an outdoor tennis court were constructed on the property, it would not be permitted to have an outdoor accompanying lighting. Mr. Chauvin stated that is a very hair splitting way of interpreting that and would need to see the minutes from the Special Use Permit in order to fully determine whether or not there would be a restriction on parking lot lighting and it may be that it is silent as to that issue, and if that is the case, then this Board would be free to interpret the prior Board’s action in the likeable favorable to the applicant and would be required under the Law. Ms. Marruso stated it’s changing from and outdoor to an indoor use. Ms. Serra stated so the site plan itself should be amended. Ms. Marruso stated she would question that because that use was so specific. Mr. Chauvin stated if the Special Use Permit was specific to outdoor tennis courts, we are not dealing with an outdoor tennis court do not believe we have to and have to check the minutes. Chairman Vorst opened the public hearing at 10:15 p.m. Tim Murphy, 941 NYS Route 50 stated from his personal perspective his southern facing windows are going to see this and it’s a pretty substantial size building. Mr. Murphy stated he came two years ago and they were talking about no outdoor lights. Mr. Murphy stated most of the projects in that area have been residential and another issue is traffic, which is so


dangerous on that section of roadway. Mr. Murphy stated he would not like to see it built bigger in the future; the size of the building proposed is significant. Scott Draina, 10 Outlet Road stated he has a question about the interior and is this for personal lessons or will there be tournaments; people coming as an audience - a place for those people to watch and or park. Chairman VanVorst adjourned the public hearing at 10:23 p.m. for this evening. MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. DiPasquale seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 10:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L Dingman Planning Board Secretary

town of ballston planning board · planning board has the jurisdiction to approve or disapprove...

Documents