Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board presses developer to pare 267 Lake Road plan, coalesces around 33-unit cap
Summary
Developers proposed subdividing a 58.29-acre parcel for 44 residences; the Town of Ballston Planning Board raised water-pressure, traffic and density concerns and signaled it would accept up to 33 units unless the applicant justifies 11 discretionary PDR credits.
A proposal to subdivide a 58.29+-acre parcel on Lake Road into 44 residences drew sustained scrutiny from the Town of Ballston Planning Board on June 24, 2026.
McPadden Builders presented the plan with Joseph Dannible of Environmental Design Partnership, who described layout revisions meant to preserve open space, relocate the entrance and reduce pavement width for safer plowing and traffic calming. The applicant said the community would be served by public water and sewer and that roadway and stormwater facilities would be offered for dedication to the town.
Board members focused on the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) request. The applicant seeks 22 PDR credits; as Michael Zuritis explained, 11 are guaranteed as-of-right (per the code) and 11 are discretionary bonus units that require the Planning Board's justification. Zuritis and others said the additional 11 units will require a written narrative and clear justification before the Board will approve them.
Town Designated Engineer Jenny Lippmann told the Board a water-extension request is pending before the Town Board and that system modeling showed a negligible impact to overall system pressure; she noted residential pressure standards are 40 psi. Lippmann said changes in the regional supply (sharing a Clifton Park Water Authority tank) likely altered hydraulic conditions and that MJ Engineering and the Town are conducting hydrant hydro-flow tests during pump-on and pump-off conditions to refine the analysis.
Traffic counts submitted by the applicant showed modest peak-hour trips (the traffic study cited about 17 AM and 24 PM peak-hour trips). Still, several board members said the proposed density does not fit the surrounding single-family character. "The density is too high," Board member Anthony Long said, urging fewer, single-family lots. Board member Andrew Collar said he preferred zero townhomes in single-family areas.
After discussion the Board coalesced around limiting the project to 33 townhomes (the by-right 22 units plus the 11 as-of-right PDRs or equivalent), while not formally prohibiting other configurations; the Board asked the applicant to submit the formal PDR application and supporting narrative, and to finalize the water-agreement documentation before returning for final action. The applicant also indicated conserved land was intended for dedication to the Town to enable future trail linkages, subject to deed restriction or other ownership mechanisms.
The developer said it will evaluate options (33 townhomes, 33 single-family homes or preparing a PDR justification) and return with the formal submissions and outstanding engineering responses.
Next steps: the Planning Board expects the applicant to file the PDR application and written justification, provide updated water-agreement documentation, and resubmit final materials for the Board's consideration.
