TOWN OF BALLSTON PLANNING BOARD

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 14 TOWN OF BALLSTON PLANNING BOARD Monthly Meeting: Present: John VanVorst, Chairman Audeliz Matias, Vice-Chair James DiPasquale Patrick Maher Laura Muschott Nicole Rodgers Daniel Shorey Sophia Marruso, Senior Planning/Storm Water Management Officer Peter Reilly, Esq. Kathryn Serra, P.E. Members of the General Public ABSENT: James DiPasquale Brian Theriault, Building Inspector Chairman VanVorst called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman VanVorst reviewed the agenda. Chairman VanVorst asked for corrections to the January 24, 2018 minutes. MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion to accept the January 24, 2018 minutes as written. Mr. Shorey seconded the motion and all voted in favor; Ms. Muschott abstained, was not present at the January 24, 2018 meeting.

2 Page 2 of 14 OLD BUSINESS: Stewart s Shop Corporation 810 NYS Route 50; Site Plan Review New Store Chris Potter with Stewart s Shop Corp presented. Mr. Potter stated since the last meeting, Stewart s received their requested variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals greenspace and front yard setbacks on Lakehill Road and NYS Route 50. Mr. Potter stated he met with the neighbor at 115 Lakehill Road to discuss the removal of the fence and planting of additional trees. Mr. Potter stated some of the fence has been removed; 82 remains - 31 trees proposed to be planted on Stewart s property. Mr. Potter stated the plan shows six trees to be planted on the neighbor s property once the clearing is done and construction starts. Mr. Potter stated Stewart s will meet with the neighbors to discuss the best placement of the proposed trees to provide the best screening for the property. Mr. Potter stated Columnar Norway Spruce trees are proposed and grow up-to 15 a year and should provide adequate screening. Mr. Potter stated the plans that the Board have are not the most current because Stewart s met with NYSDOT today and received additional comments. Mr. Potter stated NYSDOT changed the right-in, right-out design slightly. Mr. Potter stated NYSOT did not want the mountable curb so the fuel tanker can no longer exit out onto NYS Route 50. Mr. Potter stated NYSDOT felt that was not safe for pedestrians crossing on the sidewalk. Mr. Potter stated the plan has been revised and brought it to NYSDOT design standards for a right-in, right- out - losing four parking spaces and additional greenspace because of the radii NYDSOT wants for the driveway. Mr. Potter stated four parallel spots were lost out beyond the canopy and will now be requesting a waiver for those four spaces.

3 Page 3 of 14 Chairman VanVorst stated the greenspace has increased. Mr. Potter stated the greenspace did increase to the required 35%. Mr. Potter said The fuel tanker will have to come in off of Lakehill Road that will park and nose up to the curb towards NYS Route 50 and have to back down into the delivery area and then exit out onto Lakehill Road. Ms. Serra asked about delivery options for fuel. Mr. Potter said, Ideally it would be scheduled due to the fuel tanker backing up on the lot. Mr. Potter stated confirmation was received from NYSDOT they are in agreement with the updated plan. Mr. Potter stated there are four waivers being requested: Four parking spaces. The location of the parking having the multiple rows of parking in the front. Transparency of the building. The sidewalks not being 8 wide. Mr. Potter stated the site is still adequate for the number of parking spaces. Mr. Potter stated there were 15 Stewart s Shops built in 2017, averaging 30 parking spaces; two shops had rental units and had 39 and 41 parking spaces. Mr. Potter said, He feels they are probably ok with the 33 parking spaces proposed. Mr. Potter stated he will work through the additional minor comments from C. T. Male. Ms. Serra stated one comment from BFJ mentioned the Traffic Impact Study resulted in time changes to the traffic light on Lakehill Road and NYS Route 50. Ms. Serra asked if the applicant could put the signal timings on the site plan. Ms. Serra stated the Building Department will need something from NYSDOT saying that signal timing changes are acceptable prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

4 Page 4 of 14 Ms. Serra asked if the applicant received any legal permission to go onto the neighbor s property; it s been a gentleman s handshake at this point. Mr. Potter said, At this point, it s been a gentleman s handshake. Ms. Serra asked if the neighbors gave Stewart s permission to go onto their property. Mr. Potter stated yes, and one of the owners is present this evening. Ms. Serra stated the Site Plan does show work offsite and would like to keep it as simple as possible. Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Tim Bachand, stated the dotted line around the property is the drainage ditch classified as a NYSDEC (C or D) stream. Mr. Bachand stated he is asking that the back corner be 50 away from his property line and does not want it any closer. Mr. Bachand stated its NYSDEC enforced and knows that the applicant has been to ACOE. Mr. Bachand asked for some kind of wording that the setback is 10 or 20. Mr. Bachand said, He would like some legal terminology if ever he were to build back there. Mr. Reilly stated he does not understand what Mr. Bachand is asking for. Ms. Serra asked if it is about the required separation. Mr. Bachand said, The drainage line the applicant is proposing to move the dotted line is classified as a stream. Mr. Bachand stated it includes a 50 build-to line to that stream. Ms. Serra stated no, the only regulatory build-to line is to wetlands, not steams - streams are NYSDEC wetlands; it s a 100 separation. Ms. Serra stated this has nothing to do with setbacks;

5 Page 5 of 14 obviously you have setbacks to property lines and cannot build a building in a wetland or a stream, but can build up to the edge. Mr. Bachand said, You are building a gas station in the wetlands; it is technically still listed on the old Town maps as wetlands. Ms. Serra said, She understands, it a common misconception that people don t understand, that s why it s regulated as a State wetland and not streams; that s just how it is. Mr. Bachand said, The hydrology map from Saratoga County shows wetlands over the parking lot. Mr. Bachand asked if there was a way the applicant could move the telephone pole to the back of the property to clear the site line back there. Chairman VanVorst stated he did not think that was a issue. Chairman VanVorst closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Ms. Marruso asked if the waivers need memorializing prior to granting approvals. Mr. Reilly stated it can be done by right of motion. Mr. VanVorst stated it will be included in the motion. MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion as depicted on Site Plan S-2 dated 2/27/2018 be approved with the following waivers to be granted: two (2) parking waivers - number of spaces, a second row, transparency, 8 width of the sidewalk requirements, note to be included on the Site Plan that confirms the timing of the signal at Lakehill Road and NYS Route 50, addressing engineering comments from the C. T. Male letter dated 2/26/2018 and written confirmation from NYSDOT that the signaling changes have been completed. Ms. Matias seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS:

6 Page 6 of 14 David VanDerwerker 72 Connolly Road; Site Plan Review Demo existing structures and building a new single-family residence. David VanDerwerker presented. Mr. VanDerwerker stated he received the requested variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. VanDerwerker stated he is here this evening to talk about the location and the use of a holding tank in lieu of a leach field or some other means as a temporary solution until the sewer becomes available on Connolly Road. Mr. VanDerwerker stated the existing house was built in 1918, which is structurally inadequate; the flooring, no foundation and the basement is a dug hole where the furnace is located. Mr. VanDerwerker stated the septic system is non-functional and has been inspected by Stone Industries; it s a hole in the ground surrounded by rocks and has been used since 1918, until this past September when the resident moved out. Mr. VanDerwerker stated he is proposing to install a new well; a dug well exists. Mr. VanDerwerker stated it will be a year round residence for his family. Mr. Maher asked if the applicant received C. T. Male s comment letter (see below) 1. This project is proposing use of a 2,000 gallon holding tank in lieu of a conventional septic system. Our comments on the use of this holding tank are the same as those outlined in the project notes provided by Sophia Marruso, Town Planner. Below is a summary of these notes: NYSDOH Appendix 75A.10 contains a provision for the allowance of a holding tank but only as follows: The use of holding tanks shall not be permitted for new home construction except where occupancy of a home is permitted while the sewage treatment system is under construction. Tank size shall be based upon five days design flow or 1,000 gallons, whoever is greater and meet the same construction as a septic tank except that the

7 Page 7 of 14 holding tank shall not have an outlet. Holding tanks are not acceptable for long term use on year-round residences. Ms. Marruso spoke with Kevin Kenyon with NYSDOH; NYSDOH would typically never allow the installation of a holding tank in lieu of a septic system. However, given the extension of sewer service to this area within a 2 year (or less) time period, an exception may be granted by the Town Board as the Board of Health, but only with stringent conditions that affirm the following: o Confirmation of a service contract for the regular and scheduled pumping of holding tank effluent o A plan requiring the applicant to confirm decommissioning of the holding tank upon connection to the sewer, and a required connection date after the sanitary sewer system is completed. 2. The septic design/holding tank plan shows a proposed well location. The plan shows a 50 foot separation from the proposed well to the proposed holding tank, which is code compliant. The plan, however, does not show the location of the existing septic systems on the neighboring properties. The new well is required to be at least 100 feet from any septic system or 200 feet if the system is upgradient of the well. The plan shall show the location of the septic systems on both adjacent properties to document compliance. Mr. Maher stated there were issues from the separation from the well to the neighbor s septic system. Mr. VanDerwerker stated he did not have a survey and has created a map from the tax map for the Board.

8 Page 8 of 14 Mr. VanDerwerker stated site A is what the Board discussed and site B could be an alternative. Mr. VanDerwerker said, The yellow square is basically where the septic systems are located today. Mr. VanDerwerker stated when he talked to the neighbors about the location of their septic tank, the neighbor said, It s kind of on the hill over there; less than 100 feet away. A further discussion was held on the locations of the surrounding septic systems. Ms. Serra stated there is no way the well can be located on the east side due to the location of the neighbor s septic system to the south. Ms. Serra stated the well is proposed in the north west corner and the two homes have very narrow lots; probably 50 wide ad come across Connolly Road to the area to the west. Ms. Serra stated the two homes do not have septic systems proximal to the applicant s property. Ms. Serra stated the property to the west, (DiCaprio) their septic system is on another tax

9 Page 9 of 14 parcel (they own) further away. Ms. Serra stated the only spot to be compliant would be putting the proposed well 50 from his holding tank and be 100 or more from the main septic system. Ms. Matias asked the location of the neighbor s wells. Ms. Serra stated their wells are shown in blue in the map provided by the applicant. Ms. Matias asked if 50 separation is allowed between wells. Mr. VanDerwerker stated there is no separation between wells. Ms. Matias asked if it s regulated. Ms. Serra stated typically a well can be put on a property line. Ms. Serra asked if the grinder pump will be located in the holding tank. Mr. VanDerwerker stated yes, after speaking to his Engineer, that is the proposal. Mr. VanDerwerker stated one of the comments from C. T. Male was to decommission the holding tank, which does not make any sense because why wouldn t you just put your grinder pump in the holding tank; the holding tank can act as a backup system and the grinder pump can work when it hits a certain level at 50%. Ms. Serra stated the decommissioning is mandated by the NYSDOH and will now have to come in front of the Town Board (Board of Health) to get permission to put in a holding tank; the Town Board acts as the Board of Health to grant a use waiver from the NYSDOH standards. Ms. Serra stated more than likely will require you (the applicant) to have a lot of stipulations for this permission. Mr. VanDerwerker said, Couldn t you call it something else; at that time, it s a backup system in other words, you drop your grinder pump into there and your grinder pump does not have to run on demand all the time; it s runs at the 50% mark.

10 Page 10 of 14 Ms. Serra stated you would have to see what is put in the Sewer Use Ordinance, which is DRAFT and not finalized as to what would be considered something that the Town or Saratoga County would allow. Ms. Serra said, We (the Town) are basically going off of the Saratoga County Sanitary Sewer System and is not permitted right now. Mr. VanDerwerker said, He does not understand why it wouldn t. Ms. Serra stated because it is not a normal set up for a grinder pump and wants to make applicants aware that is may not be as simple as you are thinking; it s out of the Towns control. Mr. VanDerwerker said, We shouldn t say what is required, but say, we will follow whatever requirement, at the time, at which it will occur. Ms. Marruso stated in discussing with the NYSDOH, what they were advising for us as a municipality to require is some type of holding tank would be used as a septic collector and what we need to figure out as a municipality, what condition we can draft to identify whether or not that will contain that is used or no longer being used for septic waste. Ms. Marruso stated based on that and not having the precedent, the concept of decommissioning and having some proof thereof. Ms. Serra stated the term decommissioning could be a fluid term at this point and could be completely removing it or reusing it. Mr. Reilly stated what is important at this meeting is that those conditions would not be voted on by this Board, but will be a Town Board decision. Ms. Serra stated the map makes sense to her and would just need to be validated by your Engineer on your final plan provided to the Town for approval. Ms. Serra said, The applicant will need to go to the Town Board (Board of Health) for the holding tank. Ms. Serra asked Ms. Marruso if a permit would be given without that waiver from the Town Board.

11 Page 11 of 14 Ms. Marruso stated she did not think that would be a wise. Ms. Serra stated she agrees. Ms. Serra stated she and Ms. Marruso will work with the Town Board to discuss this issue. Mr. VanDerwerker asked how to go about getting Town Board approval for the holding tank. Ms. Marruso stated to confer with the Town Clerk and believed she helped the last applicant who went to the Board of Health to secure the waivers. Ms. Serra stated would like to recall the discussion that it is not permitted by DOH unless there is sanitary sewer system under construction. Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. David Pierce, asked if the applicant has talked to anyone from the grinder pump companies to explain your situation to could come up with a design for a holding tank that eventually could house a grinder pump. Ms. VanDerwerker said, His Engineer from RK Engineering said he could get a submersible that would go in there. Dr. Pierce stated it would make sense to get a design and propose that to the Board of Health. Ms. Serra stated she agrees, but would remind the applicants Engineer that he should look at Saratoga County Sewer Districts current specifications for grinder pumps because that is most likely what the Town will adopt. Mr. Reilly stated this is an engineering issue and does make sense to get it out of the house and it doesn t run as often. Mr. VanDerwerker said, As a Mechanical Engineer, it makes perfect sense. Chairman VanVorst closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.

12 Page 12 of 14 Chairman VanVorst asked Ms. Serra if the Board feels comfortable proceeding. Ms. Serra stated yes, as long as the applicants Engineer add the drawing the applicant provided to the Board depicting the well and septic locations of the surrounding properties. Ms. Serra said, It might not be as straight forward with the Town Board (Board of Health) and has been more straight forward with the Zoning Board of Appeals and, but feels there will a lot of discussion at the Town Board level because it does have a bit of precedence. Mr. VanDerwerker said, He can live in the house right now and utilize the septic system that is there; that is not what he wants to do. MOTION: Mr. Maher motioned to name The 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. Rodgers seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion to approve the Site Plan as shown on the Septic Site Plan dated C-001 with the following conditions: the well location plan by RK Engineering needs to be updated and consistent with the information provided by the applicant today, which shows that the well can located in the north west corner of the property, which would be compliant with all the setbacks and go to the Town Board (Board of Health) requesting a waiver for a temporary holding tank until the public sewer system is complete. Mr. Shorey seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. Briarwood Brooks Development, LLC Lots 14, 15 & 16 Mohican Trail; , 15 & 16 Lot Line Adjustment eliminated Lot 15 Duane Rabideau with VanGuilder and Associates was present on behalf of the applicant.

13 Page 13 of 14 Mr. Rabideau stated applicant is requesting a Lot Line Adjustment between lots 14, 15 and 16 located in the Mourningkill Meadows Subdivision. Mr. Rabideau stated the original configuration of each of the lots is shown on the map. Mr. Rabideau stated the proposal is to take the northerly portion of lot 15 and annex it to lot 16 and the southerly portion of lot 15 to be annexed to lot 14. Mr. Rabideau stated the intent is to go from three lots down to two lots; the backyard is small and is having trouble selling it, so by doing this that gives a larger backyard and is a better situation going from three houses down to two. Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. No one wished to speak. Chairman VanVorst closed the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. MOTION: Mr. Maher motioned to name The the Lead Agency in the SEQR process. Ms. Matias 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. Shorey seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion that the Lot Line Adjustment among lots 14, 15 and 16 for Mourningkill Meadows dated January 9, 2016 map number BD be approved. Mr. Shorey seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

14 Page 14 of 14 MOTION: Ms. Matias made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Maher seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at p.m. 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michelle L Dingman Secretary