TOWN OF BALLSTON PLANNING BOARD

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 25 TOWN OF BALLSTON PLANNING BOARD Monthly Meeting: Present: John VanVorst, Chairman Patrick Maher Audeliz Matias, Vice-Chair Laura Muschott Nicole Rodgers Dave Blair, 1 st Alternate Sophia Marruso, Senior Planner/Storm Water Management Officer Matt Chauvin, Esq. Members of the General Public ABSENT: James DiPasquale Dan Shorey Kathryn Serra, PE Chairman VanVorst called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman VanVorst asked for the corrections to the February 27, 2019 minutes. No corrections to the February 27, 2019 minutes. MOTION: Ms. Rodgers made a motion to approve the February 27, 2019 minutes as submitted. Mr. Blair seconded the motion and all voted in favor; Ms. Muschott abstained, was not present at said meeting. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS: Thomas Benuscak Goode Street; Major Subdivision/Proposed 12-lot Subdivision Renew preliminary approval/approved 5/30/2018 Paul Olund with Environmental Design Partnership, LLP presented on behalf of the applicant, Thomas Benuscak for the renewal of the approved 12-lot subdivision on Goode Street.

2 Page 2 of 25 Mr. Olund stated the applicant is requesting an extension on the approved 12-lot subdivision; there are issues with making a water connection for the project and has yet to be resolved. MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion the approval for the Benuscak Subdivision be extended for 90- days, the period ending July 14, 2019 and will need to request another extension at the June meeting if the applicant needs to go past that. Ms. Rodger seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. Stonebridge PUDD (Area B) Stonebridge Drive; Site Plan Review 20 condominium units Laura Muschott ( Member) recused herself. 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 final submission and there are no changes relative to density or configuration of the buildings. 20 condominiums units. 1 8-unit building on the west side. 3 4-unit buildings on the east side. All served by public water, public sewer, utilizing the existing storm system, existing sidewalk, street lights and street trees along the frontage of the property. Mr. Lansing stated the primary change since the last meeting was relative to comments from the regarding the roadway; there is a boulevard in this particular section. Mr. Lansing stated we had coordinated with the Highway Superintendent and the thought at the time, was to eliminate the median in the middle and pave over that area; there was concern expressed about the width of the roadway and traffic calming. Mr. Lansing stated the applicant has come up with a configuration in which will eliminate the boulevard; eliminate the medians in the middle however, the roadway will be narrowed so the roadway width along the frontage of the units will be approximately 26 and does widen out a bit, as it transitions through the boulevard; 26 is consistent with the roadways in the balance of the project. Mr. Lansing stated this is the most expensive option, we do feel that it is the best option for achieving the goals; traffic calming, narrow roadway and still have access to all the units without trying to traverse around the boulevard area. Mr. Lansing stated all technical comments have been addressed and received a sign-off letter from CT Male dated March, 25, 2019 The most recent submission addresses our prior technical comments. The Town Highway Superintendent prefers the option to remove the median from Stonebridge Drive near the project and

3 Page 3 of 25 narrow the roadway to match the remainder of the subdivision. The site plans have been revised per this option. Mr. Lansing stated with that, feels the applicant has addressed all the outstanding comments on the project and here tonight to requests the Board s consideration of preliminary and final approval of the project. Chairman VanVorst said, Last week there was a meeting between Joe Whalen, Highway Superintendent, Kathryn Serra, PE., CT Male, Town Engineer, Jessica from CT Male, Sophia Marruso and myself to discuss this issue about the different options, and the best way to proceed. Chairman VanVorst stated they asked Mr. Whalen, Highway Superintendent to be here tonight to explain his position and he had a conflict, but he did send a statement and had Mr. Maher read it into the record. John we had a meeting regarding this last week and Kathryn was present along with yourself. Aesthetically the medians are nice but to maintain and plow around they are not by any means a pleasure to deal with. Removing the medians allows the highway department to plow the roads easier and more efficiently. It allows us to clear the roads without an obstacle in the center of it and also will allow the resident not to have to go around them when leaving their homes. Currently the department in order to plow in between the medians has to use a pickup truck because the larger plow truck 10 wheelers cannot maneuver between them being they have a much larger wheel base. Maybe there can be additional aesthetics such as trees and grass placed outside of the roadway on the edges along the sidewalks and not an obstruction in the roadway making it easier for the highway department to maintain along with making it easier for residents to maneuver through in the winter months and also allow it to be aesthetically pleasing. Chairman VanVorst asked Mr. Lansing if he is happy with Mr. Whalen s position. Mr. Lansing replied yes, the applicant is happy with it. Chairman VanVorst stated there is a public hearing this evening, but wanted to address a couple things before the public hearing is opened. Chairman VanVorst stated he wanted to respond to some comments that were made either through to me or at the public hearing last month. 1. They had not heard anything mentioned here tonight about the issue that we brought up back in November regarding the flooding of our property. Chairman VanVorst stated to address, the answer if your property is not a part of this application, our job is to make decisions on the application before us and don t have the authority to resolve the problems on your property. 2. How could you in good conscious allow any further development?

4 Page 4 of 25 Chairman VanVorst stated this development was approved ten or eleven years ago; it s allowed by the law that is in existence now. Chairman VanVorst stated there was a comment about a Thomas Field making a comment about expired wetlands delineation and storm water work. Chairman VanVorst stated we have our Town designated engineer and the applicants engineer, both are in agreement that including our legal team that it is not necessary do a new SWPPP and that the wetland delineation has not expired. Chairman VanVorst stated these are the experts we depend on and we are going to go with their recommendation. Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Chairman VanVorst stated last month there was a little bit of a back and forth with a Mrs. Brandt about an that she had sent to me it was sent, but to building@townofballstonny.org Chairman VanVorst stated he does not know what building that was, but it was not forwarded to me and did respond to that to the best of his ability. Chairman VanVorst stated if Ms. Brandt is here this evening and would like to be first, would be glad to hear from you. An audience member stated that Ms. Brandt is not here this evening. Chairman VanVorst stated on the back of the agenda are the public hearing rules. Eric Connolly, 84 Lancaster Ct. stated he is representing the neighbors. Mr. Connolly stated our HOA is in the process of being formed; very close, but not there yet. Mr. Connolly is representing the large group of neighbors who believe that this could impact them negatively. Mr. Connolly stated through our contacts at Clark/Biggs/Meyers Engineering firm, had asked them if there was an expert Ecologist who could potentially help us to determine if in fact, those two lots should be built on. Mr. Connolly said, This gentlemen looked at the two lots; NYS wetland maps and they were not wetlands (Lots A and B), but also looked at the NYS soil maps and stated that the soil maps are often more accurate than the wetland maps and in an stated, there seems to be quite a bit of wetness in the soil there and could not promise anything. Mr. Connolly received a quote of $ to do field testing, not on the property, because it s private property, and could produce a report and make some pretty good determination on whether that soil in fact, should be developed on given all the development that has taken place. Mr. Connolly stated the neighborhood believes that the wetlands have possibly changed and the storm water drainage study was not done accurately the first time were perhaps, when the developers developed the PUDD, the plans were not followed exactly and if not followed exactly, you have different storm drainage issues. Mr. Connolly said, We believe there are significant issues going on there and would love for the Town of the developer to pay for this testing and would be done at adjacent properties. Mr. Connolly stated there is a group of us even without the HOA formed, who are willing to pay for this to be done. Mr. Connolly said, What we are asking for is the Town and the Town Board to give us a window of about a month and a half and hope that reports

5 Page 5 of 25 would come back sooner, the HOA would be formed and can decide if they want to pay for it or not. Mr. Connolly stated our expert states, if they do come back wet, paperwork will be filed with NYSDEC and NYSDEC has the authority to communicate with the Town and basically shut the whole project down. Mr. Connolly stated we are hoping that it is in everybody s best interest, the Town and the developer; one entity owns the land and about to sell to Pigliavento Builders and do not want to see a lot sold on the intention that it is going to be developed, only to have NYSDEC come in and say, Hey, you can t develop this land, not to mention all the storm drainage issues and possible shifting of wetlands. Mr. Connolly stated respectfully, we are going to request that a month and half window moratorium to get this done and to share the results with the Town. Mr. Connolly stated he spoke with Supervisor Szczepaniak last night to let him know that this would be presented at the meeting tonight asked if he could circle back to him. Mr. Connolly stated Supervisor Szczepaniak stated sure, he is interested, but not opposed to a moratorium, but he definitely wanted the s input on this situation. Mr. Connolly stated this is kind of where we stand with it. Thank you for your time. Jill Strock, 64 Lancaster Ct. stated with all respect to the law, Town representatives should be held to the highest regard in government. Ms. Strock stated there was a comment made at the last meeting that we are local government. Ms. Strock stated government s foundation is based on local government and change begins at local government. Ms. Strock asks that as local officials that represent our Town, that not only, on a Town, County, State and Federal level, that the issue that was just referred to as; it s the residents issue with water issues is not a residential issue, it is a Town issue. Thank you. Alec Buniak, 35 Lancaster Ct. stated he heard and acknowledged that both the Town engineer and the attorney s determined that the purview of the SWPPP was unnecessary, but would ask if the engineers have been out to the site to look at the land over the last few weeks. Chairman VanVorst stated he did not have an answer. Mr. Buniak stated the reason he asks is because it is his understanding based on discussions with other Civil Engineers that he works with; if a SWPPP is developed properly and executed the way it should be, it should prevent a build-up of water in areas where you would not want to see the water build up. Mr. Buniak stated we have excessive evidence that there is buildup of water in a number of areas. Mr. Buniak stated when it was warm two weekends ago, had taken some photos and there is literally a river of water running out of Area (B); it starts up in Area (A), flows through Area (B) and comes back out onto the western side where one of the residents discussed a lot of issues in their backyard. Mr. Buniak stated he hears the argument and would disagree the SWPPP is for a better lack of words, sufficient as-is because we are seeing an excessive amount of water and have plenty of evidence to show that. Mr. Buniak stated he understands that Area (B) is separate from Area (A), but it seems to be coming out of Area (B) and to be taken under consideration. Thank you. Chelsea Buniak, 35 Lancaster Ct. stated she has been reviewing some things the Board has approved from the first time when all of this was done; one of the things that should have been taken into consideration is the impairment of the character, quality of the important and historical archeological, architectural, esthetic resources of existing community or neighborhood character. This median is part

6 Page 6 of 25 of our character and understands that the Highway Department feels that, at this moment, would be easier to take it out, it s already in place and it is important to us. Ms. Buniak stated by putting the needs of one developer and 20 new residents ahead of 97 current residents in these homes, thinks that the Board is sending a terrible precedent; people can come in and change things to suit their needs. Ms. Buniak stated she thinks that they have also proposed a shared mailbox area and a place to pull up on this busy main road, which is not a great idea; you are going to have people in and out of cars in the middle of traffic and does not think that is safe or best for anybody new or existing residents. Ms. Buniak stated she did not think that it would really be appropriate to proceed while the Board is not taking these things into consideration. Thank you. Regan Morency, 20 Stonebridge Drive stated there have already been multiple car accidents within the neighborhood itself so having a mailbox area where people can come in and out is not safe for our kids. Ms. Morency stated we live in a community and elect you to keep our community safe and having people that are transient come in and out, pull into mailboxes, pull out of mailboxes is not what is best for kids; we are a neighborhood of children and families with young kids getting on and off the bus do you want people pulling in and out of the mailbox area and not giving consideration to all the other people on the road, sidewalk and walking around. Thank you. Chairman VanVorst stated we (The ) are not elected, we are appointed and because we are appointed, we can be disappointing. No one else wished to speak. Chairman VanVorst closed the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. Mr. Lansing stated the central mailbox area is something required by the US Postal Service; there is a pull-off area for that mailbox kiosk it s striped and separate from the main travel lanes and will not block any traffic. Chairman VanVorst stated the Board at a point, is looking for reaffirming the SEQRA Findings from December MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion that the Reaffirm the SEQRA Findings from the original PUDD submission approval dated 12/4/2007. Mr. Blair seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion that the Site Plan for The Stonebridge PUDD Area (B) as depicted on LMG-1, dated March 6, 2019, be approved. Mr. Blair seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. Ms. Muschott ( Member) returned to her seat on the Board.

7 Page 7 of 25 The Spinney Group 60 Middleline Road; PUDD Sketch Plan Conference Scott Lansing, PE with Lansing Engineering is here before the Board representing the Spinney at Ballston Lake and Morgan Ruthman, proponent for the project. Mr. Lansing stated the ultimate goal for this evening is to review what has been done since the last submission on the project. Mr. Lansing stated the overall layout configuration of the proposed project remains the same 41 buildings 264 active adult apartments Community Center Clubhouse (6,000 SF) Outdoor gazebo Pool Community garden Dog Park Trail connection Sidewalks Facilities garage Storage units for residents use only Five single-family lots along the perimeter of the property Mr. Lansing stated the front portion of the property is zoned Business Highway-2 and are proposing as part of the PUDD to have that remain consistent with the uses in that underlying zoning. Mr. Lansing stated the last submission the applicant made was in hopes of getting a SEQRA Determination from the ; the applicant did provide a lot of documentation to help with the SEQRA Determination, conceptual storm water analysis, and archeological investigation with the sign-off from SHPO, a Traffic Impact Study with all BFJ comments addressed, habitat studies sign-offs from NYSDEC and US Fish and Wildlife and have addressed the comments from both the Town designated Engineer and Town Planner. Mr. Lansing stated there was an Agricultural Use Summary and did go through and outline and feel there are no significant impacts to agricultural lands. Mr. Lansing stated the two items that were modified since the last meeting are relative to the PUDD Ordinance; height of the commercial structures and did make that amendment and some adjustments/refinements to the language for the signage.

8 Page 8 of 25 Mr. Lansing stated the biggest comment at the last meeting was some clarification on the community benefit for the project and outlining that in an easier fashion so the Board could understand that better. Mr. Lansing stated the biggest benefit to the project is in the applicants opinion is the inherent proposal itself; it is a senior housing and there is a void in the current market within the Town of Ballston and feel this product helps to provide a place for people to age and place within the community. Mr. Lansing stated first and foremost the applicant feels it is the benefit of the project, but beyond that, the applicant is proposing the sanitary sewer as a public benefits. The applicant obviously needs to extend sewer to the project to have sanitary sewer service, but are proposing above and beyond that and upgrade the size of that line to provide additional capacity for the area. Mr. Lansing stated at the last meeting the applicant had two different options. 1. A connection to the Ballston Lake Sewer and outlined what we felt was the community benefit amount associated with that; unfortunately there have been some challenges with the Ballston Lake Sewer and has been tabled for the time being and has been removed from our options and focusing on the second option. 2. The sanitary sewer going up NYS Route 50, down McCrea Hill Road and across to Curtis Lumber to the area of the trunk line. Mr. Lansing stated what we have identified along that sewer route, up NYS Route 50, down McCrea Hill Road towards Curtis Lumber is a 6 force main and our project would only require just barely a 4 force main. Mr. Lansing stated the applicant is proposing to upgrade that line from a 4 force main to a 6 force main and have provided cost estimates for that proposed upgrades and the size of that line. Mr. Lansing stated a 4 force main would cost approximately ($1.329 million) and a 6 force main along the same route would cost approximately ($1.468 million). Mr. Lansing stated the public benefit identified from the difference of the cost for those two force mains is approximately $169,250.00, which equates to about $ per senior housing dwelling unit that is being proposed for the project. Mr. Lansing stated that is the dollar amount associated with that and as far as the physical available capacity, that the additional line would provide the amount of excess capacity, would serve approximately 604 residential units or approximately 1.9 million square feet of commercial/industrial space or some combination of those two items.

9 Page 9 of 25 Mr. Lansing stated as far as community benefits for this project, there were some mention of other PUDD s and what their community benefits were and would like to outline part of the KATZ PUDD. Provided sanitary sewer improvements. Mr. Lansing stated the Stonebridge PUDD and the Abele Wood PUDD. Each one provided $100, independently totaling $200, overall. Mr. Lansing stated we (the applicant) feel the $169, that is being proposed associated with this is on par or above other projects; similar in size and similar in nature that has been provided in the Town and feels that is appropriate and reasonable of a community benefit that the applicant is proposing. Mr. Lansing stated that addresses questions from the last meeting and the applicant s goal is to see if the Board has any other comments and would like to obtain a SEQRA Determination and work towards a SEQRA Determination from this Board to get referred back to the Town Board and pursue the PUDD process with the Town Board. Thank you very much. Chairman VanVorst stated he hates to disappoint you Scott, but until this water issue is resolved, does not think that the is in a position to make a SEQRA Determination. Mr. Lansing stated ok, and asked, could we get feedback from the Board if there are any other outstanding items, so that when and hopes that the water issue does get resolved, could come back before the Board and hopefully streamline things and work with this Board to get that determination and go back to the Town Board. Chairman VanVorst stated his personal opinion is the other major hurdle is negotiation over public benefit and does not know that this Board or I personally are in a position to negotiate that. Chairman VanVorst stated in conversations with the Town Supervisor who has made some suggestions and recommendations and stated that Mr. Ruthman is aware of some of those conversations. Mr. Ruthman stated no. Chairman VanVorst asked if Mr. Chauvin was aware of those conversations. Mr. Chauvin stated he has not been privy to the conversations with the Supervisor and it may be fruitful for the applicant to schedule a meeting with Supervisor Szczepaniek to take the comments into consideration, but have not been made aware of any of the comments.

10 Page 10 of 25 Mr. Lansing stated we do understand the Town Board is ultimately the entity that will approve the PUDD and approve whatever community benefit they feel is appropriate, but we are obviously working towards a referral from the back to the Town Board. Mr. Lansing stated it was a request at the last meeting to clarify what the public community benefit is so that we could provide that referral to the Town Board. Chairman VanVorst stated the is capable of negotiating and coming to a conclusion on public benefit, but does not think that it is the s job; it s more the Town Boards job. Chairman VanVorst stated until that is resolved to their satisfaction, your satisfaction and the Planning Boards satisfaction, does not know what more we can do. Mr. Maher stated his personal opinion on the proposed benefits thinks it is substantial and the 6 force main proposed is consequential and be taken into consideration. Ms. Matias thanked the applicant for showing the calculations and everything included in the package. Ms. Matias stated the applicant is calculating the dwelling units, the commercial space and will not know until the senior center is built. Ms. Matias asked if the applicant knew how many dwelling units there are now on that path and/or commercial space that is there that might benefit; is that built already in that corridor or is it something beyond what is built now in that corridor. Mr. Lansing stated there are existing homes along that corridor; the existing homes are definitely less than 604 and the majority of commercial/industrial facilities are on McCrea Hill Road and that already connected to sanitary sewer; this is above and beyond those and are not going to have those flows going into this line and taking away capacity of this line. Mr. Lansing stated the estimates for the excess capacity and line are based on engineering principles of what that line can physically handle and are very confident in that. Mr. Lansing stated the estimate of 604 residential units, is based on the typical flow for a residential unit and stated quite honestly those numbers are quite conservative and there could be more than the 604. Mr. Lansing stated the commercial/industrial is based on typical flows; on average 1.9 square feet of commercial or 604 residential units or some combination of those two. Mr. Chauvin stated what the applicant is proposing has indicated a substantial public benefit, this Board, does not have an obligation to narrow down to the finest points what the final public benefit

11 Page 11 of 25 will be for this project. The Board may refer or not refer a negative or positive referral to the Town Board. The project in whatever form you (the Board) feels comfortable with in doing so, at that point in time, feel is the best possible public benefit and may simply refer it this is the public benefit that the applicant is proposing. Mr. Chauvin stated he does not want the Board to get too far in the weeds in determining whether or not this is the final look of things and understands that you (the Board) have given some look to exactly what the applicant is proposing and does not want to have to have a final determination. Chairman VanVorst stated the timeline is that this application cannot go back to the Town Board before approval until the provides the SEQRA Determination. Mr. Chauvin stated you (the Board) must make the SEQRA Determination. Chairman VanVorst stated we (the Board) cannot make the SEQRA Determination until this water issue is resolved. Mr. Chauvin stated that has been the position of the Town designated Engineer, Town Planning Department and the Town Board has articulated the concerns about that and there are concerns in that regard and also has concerns from a legal perspective about a SEQRA Determination with a referral under the circumstances at this time, do not have a final answer on the water issue. Chairman VanVorst stated that is a few months down the road. Mr. Chauvin stated he did not know the exact time frame. Chairman VanVorst stated it s a minimum of three to four months. Mr. Chauvin stated perhaps the applicant has a better finite idea of the time frame. Mr. Ruthman stated the oral argument on that appeal is April 25, 2019 and typically the decision is rendered sixty days after the oral; by the middle or the end of June or beginning of July. Mr. Ruthman said, To Matt s point, we spoke on the phones last week and think he has raised a lot of good points and not clear that the SEQRA Determination is not necessarily required for the s referral back to the Town Board, but he could be right and if that is the case, would like to know the base of that insertion is and moreover the issue he mentioned earlier regarding referral to the Town Board on a conditional basis and feels that would be appropriate. Mr. Ruthman stated he eluded to previously, the Town Board when a past resolution in referring us to the, January 9, 2018; essentially set forth the criteria for by which our application was going to be judged.

12 Page 12 of 25 Mr. Ruthman stated there is a lawsuit pending regarding access to municipal water that is obviously under appeal and was successful of the trial court level. Mr. Ruthman stated the Town Board has not rescinded the existing extensions, even though, obviously the State has requested them to do that. Mr. Ruthman stated the Town Boards determination to make an extension, is really a political determination, it s not a determination related to the existence of the infrastructure. The Planning Boards purview is to make an assertion as to whether there is infrastructure in place, which would service this project the answer is yes. Mr. Ruthman stated from a legal standpoint, there are concerns about the conditionality of that referral should the wish to proceed in that fashion. Mr. Ruthman stated our presence here tonight was just to narrow the issues down and aware of the water issue litigating in that case and understands the Town s proceeding accordingly, but if we could narrow the issues down and part of the reason was to discuss the public benefit issue and to make sure that the was comfortable. Mr. Ruthman agrees with Mr. Chauvin s point, to have a meeting with Supervisor Szczepaniak to have him provide input on how to be proceeding with the and for the to proceed accordingly for us (the Applicant) to be referred back to the Town Board where Supervisor Szczepaniak is going to have a further opportunity to modify any analysis the has been made regarding the public benefit seems a little circular in nature. Mr. Ruthman stated it s a little appropriate in nature for the to make a determination based on what the relevant criteria is under the zoning code is and then, at that point, the Town Board can make any modifications they deem appropriate at that time. Mr. Ruthman stated he respectfully requests that we (the Applicant) be given some consideration in that regard; if in fact the SEQRA Determination is a prerequisite for the s referral to the Town Board, would certainly abide by that; if in fact, that is a prerequisite. In the meantime, just wanted to have an opportunity to discuss the public benefit issue and hopefully we are able to narrow the issues down, come back in a few months after the water issue is resolved, then at least will know where we stand because that will be the remaining issue. Mr. Chauvin stated just to respond as to the basis of my assertion that this Board must make a determination as to SEQRA prior to referring back to the Town Board. The Town Board has designated

13 Page 13 of 25 this Board as Lead Agency for that purpose; somebody is going to make that decision and it was decided that the is going to have to make that decision. Chairman VanVorst stated that it is incumbent on us (the Board) to abide by the legal counsel that has given us direction. Ms. Matias stated in the past, the Board asked applicants to prove to us that the project could run even if they didn t get the water extension, but that is not the case and does not feel comfortable that we can move forward; we don t have that information. Mr. Ruthman stated there was Timberline Creek project, which was approved and given a Negative Declaration prior of the extension of the water district; there is some precedent in the Town for a Negative Declaration prior to a water district extension. Ms. Matias stated the applicant before the Board this evening Benuscak keeps doing an extension. Mr. Ruthman stated he is aware of Benuscak; it s a different project that is being referred to, but yes, you are correct, that project was wells and municipal water. Ms. Matias stated we asked the applicant to shows wells and septic and this is not what we have here before the Board. Mr. Ruthman stated correct, but is just noting that there is a precedent for what I referred to. Chairman VanVorst stated in that case, the Town Board was the Lead Agent. Mr. Ruthman asked in the Timber Creek. Chairman VanVorst stated yes and it became challenging; that s why the Town Board determined that the would be the Lead Agent in this application; you are not comparing apples to apples there are two separate things. Chairman VanVorst stated it appears as though we are three to four months away and there is plenty of time for discussion and negotiations to take place so that we, as a, are more comfortable with all the benefits. Chairman VanVorst stated other than that, does not see much of a hurdle, other than the petition that has been field against you (the applicant) by the neighbors and know that you have been making progress with regard to that. Chairman VanVorst stated he did not know and asked if Mr. Ruthman could inform the Board if there has been any resolution to that.

14 Page 14 of 25 Mr. Ruthman stated we have had very productive discussions about the project, the nature of the project with the neighboring property owners; does not know if they intend on withdrawing the petition or not, but stated that if there are ways for us to adequately address those concerns, will hopefully do that. Mr. Ruthman stated we want to make sure that this project works for the Town and us (the applicant). Mr. Ruthman stated if it does not work for the Town, then we need to be cognizant of the Towns profile, neighboring community and neighboring property owners are trying to articulate. Chairman VanVorst stated that he suspects that without resolving those issues and having that petition withdrawn, that you (the Applicant) are probably not going to get approval from the Town Board. Mr. Ruthman stated yes maybe that is something that would be appropriately addressed at the Town Board level. Chairman VanVorst stated he agrees. Mr. Ruthmam stated we intend on doing that. Mr. Ruthman stated in the meantime, just to follow up on one of your comments, which alluded to the next couple of months being used to further negotiate the public benefit. Mr. Ruthman stated his understanding from that comment that the is not comfortable with the public benefit analysis that has been presented tonight. Chairman VanVorst stated that he knows there is a differing of opinions and polled the Board. Mr. Blair stated he is going to go through this a little bit more and looking at the quantity of the linear feet there is a difference between the 4 and 6 quantities for the linear foot; applicant to explain why there is over a half a mile difference on the two of them. Mr. Lansing stated as far as the analysis for the cost of the 4 force main; basically took it as running a 4 force main from the project all the way down and all the way up NYS Route 50 and not utilizing the section of 6 force main as being installed as part of the Katz project and did not feel it was appropriate to go from a 4 to a 6 then back down to a 4. Mr. Lansing stated we are running more 4 lines so there are higher costs for the 4 thus, decreasing that community benefit amount; we thought that was a conservative way to analyze it. Mr. Lansing stated as far as the 6 line, we (the Applicant) would absolutely use that 6 force main and install as part of the Katz project that is what that is used for and not counting that as something we are taking credit for it is already in the ground.

15 Page 15 of 25 Mr. Lansing stated our numbers are conservative as far as what the community benefit amount is. Mr. Blair stated in principal stated this is a pretty good explanation of what the public benefit is. Ms. Rodgers stated she agrees with Mr. Blair and what Mr. Maher stated earlier, at first blush, based on what we have here, it does appear to be a substantial benefit and would like to look at it a little further, but at first blush, it makes sense. Laura Muschott stated she feels based on the history of past public benefits; it s on par with that. Ms. Matias stated this information was helpful, understanding and assuming the values are correct. Mr. Maher reiterated what he said earlier and is a substantial public benefit going forward; have to be cognizant with the precedent that has been set by past PUDD approvals. Chairman VanVorst said, You know how I feel and feel there is a little bit more meat on the bone. Mr. Ruthman appreciates the feedback and that is why we (the Applicant) came tonight and want to understand where we (the Applicant) are in light of the water issue; if the is so inclined that we would come back at the appropriate time, but in doing so, it would be helpful as to where we stand. Mr. Ruthman stated in the meantime will continue to discuss with Mr. Chauvin, Supervisor Szczepaniak and Ms. Marruso as well. Application tabled. NEW BUSINESS: 257 Round Lake Road 257 Round Lake Road; Major Subdivision 25 Lots John Lapper, Esq., Marcus Magee, Applicant, Tom Suozzo, Project Engineer with Cedarwood Engineering and Jeffrey Anthony, RLA with Studio A presented. Chairman VanVorst stated for the record, what is the actual title of this project. Mr. Lapper stated 257 Round Lake Road. Mr. Lapper stated the applicant owns the property, proposing a Conservation Subdivision starting with an initial Sketch Plan tonight to present.

16 Page 16 of 25 Mr. Lapper stated the Cluster Subdivision calculations have been submitted that shows the best case scenario would be 40-lots and a lot of the lots are far in excess of the 20,000 square feet minimum connecting the adjacent street. Mr. Lapper stated public sewer and water and avoiding the wetlands. Mr. Lapper stated the applicant has submitted a non-jurisdictional letter from both NYSDEC and ACOE. Mr. Lapper stated Ms. Serra has a review letter where she asked the applicants to look at four lots that have a little bit of wetland and will be proposing some changes as we move forward; move the houses to address her comments. Mr. Lapper stated preliminary soil tests have been done and will need to do more before preliminary submission; wanted to hear the Boards comments to get started. Mr. Anthony we (the Applicant) have been working on this project for several months and the project consists of approximately 33 acres. Mr. Anthony stated the calculations were performed for allowable density and subtracted all the wetlands - ACOE, NYSDEC or NYSDEC buffers and after eliminating them from the overall acreage totals 678,180 square feet of buildable area. Mr. Anthony stated the project proposes a common or municipal water and sewer system; 20,000 square foot lots are allowable in the Ballston Lake Residential Zoning District with both utilities. Mr. Anthony stated dividing that by 20,000 square feet, results in 801,553 square feet of buildable area; eliminating 678,180 square feet because of wetlands and buffer areas. Mr. Anthony stated it results in density - allowable 40-units or 40 lots. Mr. Anthony stated a 26-lot Conservation Subdivision is being proposed, of the 26-lots, 25 lots are single-family lots and one lot is a very large piece of property on the south end of the parcel, which is proposed to be non-developed or reserved to be maintained for the wetlands area. Mr. Anthony stated there is some buildable area on that 26 th lot however, we (the Applicant) are not attempting to access it or do anything with it; will be left as a conservation area only. Mr. Anthony stated the project design is to take a roadway off Round Lake Road and come into the property and make a cul-de-sac at the south end of that roadway and have a side road come over and connect into the Benedict Subdivision, which there is an existing cul-de-sac at that point, which was planned in the previous development for the Benedict Subdivision; it comes right up to the property line and all we can assume is that it was planned to allow utility and access connections through there. Mr. Anthony stated since the applicant is proposing a Conservation Subdivision and 20,000 square feet is the lot requirement in the Ballston Lake Residential zone with water and sewer and half of the proposed lots exceed the 20,000 square feet; the other half are slightly lower 17,000 to 19,000 square foot range.

17 Page 17 of 25 Mr. Anthony stated proposing larger lots give them more road frontage and not trying to squeeze lots in; half the lots are over the 20,000 square feet and the other range between 17,000 and 19,000 square feet. Mr. Anthony stated cultural resources has been completed and cleared with SHPO; phase 1a and 1b. Mr. Anthony stated a Wetland Biologist has been onsite and has flagged both ACOE and NYSDEC wetlands. Mr. Anthony stated we have had a Wetland Biologist from the ACOE and NYSDEC on the site and received letters of non-jurisdiction, which stated, no impact to their wetlands. Mr. Anthony stated there will be no wetland permitting on this project according to the proposed plan presented to the Board. Mr. Anthony stated since the application is at Sketch Plan, still need water, sewer and storm water engineering, but wanted to come before the Board for their comments. Tom Suozzo with Cedarwood Engineering stated we have done some preliminary evaluation of the site and do not see any monumental challenges to dealing with the storm water, connecting to the sanitary sewer and bringing in water through the municipal system. Mr. Suozzo stated storm water will be dealt with very similar to the Benedict residential site however, will make that determination after doing field test and permeability testing; consistent with the requirements of SWPPP s and things of that nature. Mr. Blair stated the plans show access to the ROW to storm water management areas, but it does not show significant access to get to those areas and is a concern. Mr. Lapper stated it will have to be shown on the next iteration of the plans. Mr. Anthony stated for the storm water area at the east end of the site will provide a ROW coming between those two lots; one down at the bottom near the cul-de-sac and should have access to that and the one up at Round Lake Road. Ms. Matias stated in the comment letter from CT Male, comment #3 mentions the high amount of the wetlands and noted that this was just going to be a deed restriction. Ms. Matias is concerned with Lot #2 and Lot #3; let s be realistic, who reads their deeds no one. Ms. Matias stated for her that is always an issue because you are trusting people to understand the situation with the wetlands. Mr. Lapper stated this has been designed with a 60 front setback, which is probably not beneficial to the future residents because it limits their backyard and since it is a cluster subdivision, have the ability to vary that. Mr. Lapper stated it might be better to come back with 40 front setbacks for all the homes and give them bigger backyards; on those four lots, would move it away from the wetlands and will probably present it that way when we get to preliminary.

18 Page 18 of 25 Mr. Lapper stated of the four lots that were mentioned in the letter from CT Male, Lot #22 there is a really tiny ACOE wetland at the top and Lot #3 is the biggest one, but will look at that carefully. Chairman VanVorst stated on the EAF page 2 B a. Whether you need approval from the Town Board if the applicant is getting a waterline extension, will need approval from the Town Board answer needs to be changed to yes Mr. Lapper stated yes, the Town Board is involved in the Lead Agency for that. Page 4, h. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any liquids, such as creation of a water supply, reservoir, pond, lake, waste lagoon or other storage? Mr. VanVorst stated that the answer should be yes instead of no. Page 13: h. Is the project site within five miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource? Chairman VanVorst stated the applicant answered yes and it lists - Peeble Island State Parks, Saratoga National Park, Saratoga Spa State Park and Mohawk River State Park and does not think any of those are within five miles of this project. Mr. Anthony stated it comes off of the NYSDEC Mapper and cannot change it, but you are correct. Chairman VanVorst stated the preliminary map does not show any of the neighbors; names, well and septic system locations. Chairman VanVorst stated on the next generation of maps would hope/expect to be located on the map. Chairman VanVorst stated it s been the policy of the for decades to create connectivity or potential connectivity between properties, which is the reason why there is a cul-de-sac that connects from Mackenna Ct. Chairman VanVorst stated when the approved that project, we had it designed so there could be connectivity into this project because we (the Board) feels for the safety and wellbeing and benefit of the community that there be the ability to maneuver between properties and developments. Chairman VanVorst stated after having said that, would hope or expect the applicants to research whether there could be connectivity to the property to the west. Mr. Lapper stated we will look at that because it is not an existing road; maybe there should be Stub Street going that way too. Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. (the public hearing rules are located on the back of the agenda). Robert Ward, 238 Round Lake Road stated this was Jack Meader s property that passed away a couple years ago. Mr. Ward has spoken to Mr. Magee and his only concern is the storm water at the front of the project; across from that is another 30 acres that was part of the Meader parcel. Mr. Ward stated knowing that land pretty well, there are a lot of wetlands in that area and clay and asked where that

19 Page 19 of 25 storm water goes; there is an old creek to the north and to make sure that it goes to someplace other than to the north side of the road. Mr. Ward stated having Timber Creek about a half a mile to the east, there is a halo every night when you look to the west and not knowing what the lighting will be for this project and ask to take that under consideration. Mr. Ward does not think traffic is an impact here with about 5,000 cars that go up and down Round Lake Road a day (latest NYSDOT projections) and clearly evident from the 20 years living in our home there is a lot of traffic going back and forth. Thank you. Michele Stamas, 8 Mackenna Ct. stated she sent you a petition/letter today. Chairman VanVorst stated we received that this afternoon; it s a little hard for us (the Board) to evaluate something like that last minute, but will definitely go through it and respond. Ms. Stamas stated anything we talk about would not be considered repeating. Chairman VanVorst stated no, go ahead. Ms. Stamas stated we have several problems with this proposed second entrance coming through our cul-de-sac first one being it is a cul-de-sac. We had no idea that there was any intention to connect to another residence and that certainly would have had a huge impact on every single one of us purchasing a home there. It s built like a cul-de-sac and has the middle section like a cul-de-sac and if there was ever any intention to extend that, it would not have been constructed that way. Ms. Stamas stated safety is another concern and this is going to add quite a bit of traffic with the 25 homes, potentially 50 cars a day. In addition to that, with the outlet onto Round Lake Road, feels there is going to be a quite a bit of cut through traffic or potential for cut through traffic; specially from the new Timber Creek going in across from us on Benedict Road. Ms. Stamas stated the impact this will have on the assessment and values of our homes; some of us paid premiums for those lots on that cu-de-sac. Ms. Stamas stated in her opinion that is a proven fact in some ways that because it is such a small street and small community, it s very desirable for most people and that impacts the price of the home as a resale value of the home. Ms. Stamas stated we have propane and were initially were told we would have natural gas brought into the location and apparently there were not enough houses to justify that and from what she understands, there will be natural gas brought in to the development and would like to be able to have that run into ours as well, if this does go forward. Ms. Stamas stated the reason to have those two entrances is a safety factor and the need for emergency vehicles to get in and out and have two access routes to do that. Ms. Stamas stated the majority of any emergency vehicles will come from Round Lake Road and come down from the other side and come in at that location; does not understand the necessity to have that second inlet it s only 25 homes there. Ms. Stamas asked the Board if they had any questions about the letter submitted. Chairman VanVorst stated he read it, but has not had a chance to break it down and digest it we will respond. Ms. Stamas asked how you will respond. Chairman VanVorst stated basically two ways; can either you will some responses, but if I do that, it is just me personally and thinks it would be preferable for there to be a response/consensus from the at the next meeting.

20 Page 20 of 25 Mr. Chauvin stated it would be appropriate for us (the Board) to provide a copy of that to the applicant; many of these concerns that were raised bordering on technical in nature and might be best to forward that to the applicant and ask that they provide a comment for review and response. Mr. Chauvin stated the Board need not comment and to treat this as sufficient public comment and did not provide a direct comment to every bullet point that was presented to you; certainly those are concerns and take under advisement and evaluate your comments that we review your application as we move forward and are in the very early stages of the presentation. Mr. Chauvin stated that the applicants getting a written response of the concerns that were raised and providing a copy to them and to the residents would be the best first step and the Board can evaluate both sides in that context on how you evaluate this project. Chairman VanVorst thanked Mr. Chauvin for his very wise input. Ms. Stamas stated she also has the signatures of all residents. Chairman VanVorst asked to leave that with Mr. Chauvin, Attorney. Eric Connolly, 84 Lancaster Ct stated the conservation subdivision has read a bit in the Comprehensive Plan and his understanding one of the goals of a conservation subdivision is to preserve a significant part of the land to be usable; that s a swamp back there just want to point that out. Richard Leonard, 13 Mackenna Ct. stated we would be losing our safety in Mackenna Ct.; many of our families have children with the oldest being 11 years old down to a newborn and one the way in a few months. In terms of having second entrance for their safety would be compromising our safety; now that the weather is nice they are out in the road with only nine houses traffic is pretty much nonexistent. If there are cars coming through with 25 houses its potentially 100 cars a day and the nosey neckers would be checking out the new houses and the people cutting through and would be sacrificing our children s safety. We all talked about why we moved into that neighborhood because we would let our children go out and play, and not worry about them, but have less concerns with them starting to ride bikes, ride on their scooters; so to sacrifice our families safety for someone else; how fair is that and we were never notified. Mr. Leonard stated Mackenna Ct. is a court and as far as he knows, it is a cul-de-sac, not a throughway for getting access to somewhere else. Mr. Leonard stated the Town names the streets and if that is the case, we were kind of mislead moving into this area the neighbors would of thought twice of moving there. Mr. Leonard stated no study has been done on our part and sure the value of homes just dropped and for the next 30-years, we are all paying more than what we should be. Mr. Leonard stated that last gentleman was right, that is a swamp back there and in terms of that little storm water in the corner did have good access to it that is right next to my back yard and just put a deposit down on a swimming pool. Mr. Leonard asked if anyone has a pool and you probably don t have a little storm water management area with all sorts of flies and mosquitos when you are trying to enjoy your pool. Mr. Leonard stated the biggest thing for us is safety; it s a nine home community and we are all friends. Mr. Leonard stated he was the first home and has