Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Clifford Van Wagner, Chair; Jamin Totino, Vice-Chair; Amy Durland; Philip Klein; Dan Gaba; Howard Pinsley ABSENT: Suzanne Bernardi-Cleary STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Mark Schachner, Planning Board Attorney, joined the meeting at 8:15 PM. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Clifford Van Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING Clifford Van Wagner stated the proceedings of this meeting are being taped for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. REPORT ON ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS BY THE CHAIR There are no actions by the chair. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED PROJECTS: ADJOURNED AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST 10.042 THE MEWS, 60 Weibel Avenue, review of site plan of mixed use builidng in the Transect-4 District. 10.052 CDJT WORKFORCE HOUSING, Citywide, City Council request for an Advisory Opinion for review of Zoning Amendment Proposal request for workforce housing. 10.040 WASHINGTON COMMONS, Washington Street and Central Avenue, sketch (site) plan discussion of a mixed use building in the Transect-4 District. 10.058 SIRO'S 168 Lincoln Avenue, special use permit for outdooor entertainment in the Institutional – Horse Track Related District. Adjourned to March 9, 2011. ADJOURNED – WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 10.049 166 JEFFERSON STREET, 166 Jefferson Street, site plan review of 10 unit residential building in the Urban Residential-4 District. 10.028 CELLCO-VERIZON CELL TOWER, 81 Nelson Avenue, SEQRA evaluation of potential environmental impact for a new 90' monopine telecommunications tower and associated equipment in a Urban Residential-2 District. 10.027 307 GRAND AVENUE MULTI-FAMILY, 307 Grand Avenue, public hearing on special use permit for multi-family housing in the Transect-4 District. 10.031 307 GRANDE AVENUE MULTI-FAMILY, 307 Grand Avenue, review of site plan for multi-family housing in the Transect-4 District. ANNOUNCEMENT OF UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS/AGENDA WORKSHOP: Planning Board Caravan scheduled for March 7, 2011 at 4:00 P.M. Planning Board Workshop scheduled for March 7, 2011 at 5:00 P.M. Planning Board Meeting scheduled for March 9, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Clifford Van Wagner gave this opportunity to allow citizens to address planning issues not on the scheduled agenda. MaryBeth Delarm 96 Quevic Drive, Saratoga Springs. I was told by an employee of City Hall that a portion of the Beaver Pond Project papers were found in another office at the other end of the City Hall building. I just want to make sure that the papers we filed are in the file and on record. The maps and soils were unsuitable to build single family dwellings per the USDA. I am turning my original information over to the Board to ensure their inclusion in the file. 10.058 SIRO'S, 168 Lincoln Avenue, special use permit for outdoor entertainment in the Institutional Horse Track Related District. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated that this application has been adjourned to March 9, 2011, but due to the fact that public notice that has already been issued we will open the public hearing this evening. PUBLIC HEARING: Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, opened the public hearing at 7:18 PM for Siro's application for a special use permit for outdoor entertainement in the Institutional Horse Track Related District, and asked if anyone would like to speak regarding this application? None heard. The public hearing will remain open. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – February 23, 2011- Page 2 of 16  LATE ADJOURNMENT: 2. 10.013 WHITE FARMS ROAD BED AND BREAKFAST, 66 White Farms Road, public hearing for special use permit for six room corridor bed and breakfast in a Rural Residential-1 District. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 3. 08.051-2 ROSEBROOK SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION, Carriage House Lane, sketch plan for 4 lot subdivision in the Suburban Residential-1 District. Applicant: Renee Rosebrook Agent: John Witt Construction SEQR: No SEQR required with sketch plan discussion. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated subdivision was approved by this Board on November 12, 2008. This subdivision was filed with the County and is a legal subdivision. No decision will be rendered on this application this evening. Mr. Witt is here to ask for an amendment for the subdivision. This is a sketch plan presentation tonight. He is here to discuss alternatives. John Witt, representing Renee Rosebrook. Mr. Witt gave a visual presentation and overview of the site. Some restrictions were placed on the property, which has made them more difficult to sell. Mr. Witt gave a visual presentation of three options and reconfigurations of the property making better use of the conservation subdivision. There are no substantial changes related to protected open space with these three options. Option 3 could provide slightly more wooded open space to the rear of Lot #1 in exchange for less protection of grass and slight vegetation area on the Carriage House Lane frontage. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the re-calculation of the open space percentage should be completed with any subdivision amendment application. Keeping the buffer along Clement Avenue is valuable for screening purposes but questionable as far as open space value is concerned. Clement Avenue access is recommended directly across from the Hospice entrance or offset at a distance of 150 feet or more. Lot #4 per Fire Chief Williams and City Engineer Paul Male, stated the home will have to be equipped with a residential fire suppression system designed by a professional, including a sprinkler system, water storage and emergency pump with generator. Discussion ensued among the Board as to the preference for which configuration is most acceptable to the Board. Philip Klein stated he preferred Option #2 with the offset driveway. He does prefer a curb cut on Carriage House Lane. Jamin Totino stated he is between Option #2 and Option #3. Regarding Option #3 and the existing home on Lot #1 and what is already being mowed. To me this comes up to an enforcement issue. The homeowner is used to mowing that area even if we do plant trees along the property line or install a split rail fence to delineate Lot #1 and Lot #2. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – February 23, 2011- Page 3 of 16 Amy Durland stated she did not support this subdivision originally. Of the three Options that are presented, l give you credit for Option # 3 does give you the most contiguous open space. If we look at our conservation analysis the first time, the item that most characterizes the principal upon which we were trying to make our decision for the subdivision is the amount of contiguous open space. If we choose Option #3, Lots #2 and #3,even though the lots are contiguous, they would almost certainly choose to put buffers in. The idea that you would put a split rail fence there would mean you would sacrifice some of that internal contiguous open space. If I were to choose I'd choose Option #3 which has some merit. To be clear, I did not support this before because of reasons that are still there. However, I do appreciate the fact that you did come up with some creative thoughts about it. Dan Gaba stated he likes the additional conservation area in Option #3. He would like to see plantings that extend all the way down the property to Carriage House Lane Clifford Van Wagner, likes the curb cut on Carriage House Lane and also likes the offset on Lot #3. He would encourage the beginning of some plantings that will delineate lots and provide as much open space as possible. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated the applicant must keep at least 35% open space in total on all four of the lots. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated Mr. Witt will now go back to the applicant and decide if they wish to amend the application for the subdivision incorporating some of the ideas and suggestions of the Board. When this is in place they will be on the agenda once again. Board recessed at 7:55 PM Board reconvened at 8:15 PM Mark Schachner, attorney for the Planning Board joined the meeting at 8:15 PM. 05.057.2 BEAVER POND VILLAGE, 98 Geyser Road, final review of 85 lot subdivision in the Rural Residential-1 and Urban Residential-1 Districts. Applicant: Saratoga East Avenue Associate, LLC Agent: Dan Ruzow, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna Chad Cooke, Boswell Engineering Terresa Bakner, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna January 21, 2004 , April 21, 2004 and October 20, 2004 the Planning Board held sketch plan discussions on this proposed subdivision. On December 7, 2005 the Planning Board classified this project as an "unlisted action” and decided to initiate coordinated review with a request to be lead agency. On January 11, 2006 the Planning Board voted to establish itself as lead agency. On January 18, 2006 the Planning Board issued a "positive declaration". The applicant submitted a draft scoping document on January 25, 2006. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – February 23, 2011- Page 4 of 16 On February 2, 2006 the Board released a draft scoping document to the involved agencies and the public. The Board held two public scoping sessions on February 14, 2006 and Thursday, February 16, 2006. On March 15, 2006 the Board adopted a final scoping document for the DEIS. On April 4, 2007, the DEIS was accepted for public review. A public comment peirod was held from April 4, 2007 to May 3, 2007. The Planning Board held two public hearings – April 30, 2007 and May 3, 2007. In January 2008, the applicant submitted a Draft FEIS for review. Additional items and corrections were identified by the Chazen Companies on behalf of the Planning Board. On February 27, 2008 the Planning Board requested a status update from the applicant. On June 4, 2008 the applicant submitted a revised FEIS for review. On June 30, 2008 the Planning Board held a meeting specifically for the Beaver Pond Village application to review the FEIS. On July 17, 2008 the applicant submitted a revised SWPPP. On August 6, 2008 the applicant submitted additional information including an 84 lot alternative and corresponding data for insertion into the FEIS. On August 12, 2008 the applicant submitted responses to a memo from the Planning Board consultants. On September 3, 2008 additional materials were submitted by the applicant in response to comments from the Planning Board on August 13th and in response to a memo from staff and consultants. On September 10, 2008 the Planning Board deemed the FEIS complete. The FEIS was submitted by the applicant on October 17, 2008 and subsequently distributed to involved and interested agencies. THe FEIS is available for review on the website, the library and the planning office. The Notice of Completion was completed on October 17, 2008 after receipt of the FEIS. The Planning Board held a public hearing for the subdivision review on October 29, 2008 and closed public hearing on April 29, 2009. Preliminary subdivision approval granted with conditions June 10, 2009. Preliminary subidivision approval extension granted until June 11, 2011. November 23, 2010 – Planning Board members deemed final subdivision plat provided is "substantially in agreement" with the preliminary approved plat. Per Code, formal public/notice City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – February 23, 2011- Page 5 of 16 hearing requirements have been met for project as currently propsoed, any further public notice was at the discretion of the Board. SEQR: Planning Board prepared and accepted a Final Environmental Impact Statement as complete at its September 10, 2008 meeting. Planning Board issued a Positive Findings Statement for the proposed project on May 13, 2009. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the applicant is here tonight for final review. At the last meeting we spoke about such items as the conservation easement, the open space management plan, the declaration covenant and also the homeowner's association. Mark Schachner, Planning Board attorney stated that we have come a long way. The applicant has satisfied all legal concerns that we have expressed. We went through all the documents with a fine tooth comb. We did have very substantial concerns which were addressed and documents revised and addressed appropriately and successfully. It has been a very laborious process and I think the applicant has done a very good job addressing all concerns of a legal nature and done so successfully. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated some outstanding issues that remain to be discussed. Phasing, the water line and sewer lines, the road being roughed in for the entirety of the project, wetland mitigation as well as protection for the Karner Blue Butterfly and protection of the archeological site be done up front before any construction begins. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated some areas of concerns the Board might look at is the Phasing of the Project. The Board does not have to grant phasing. The sewer connection is to be provided for the project with Section 1. Water connection from Geyser Road- also want to see prior to Section 1 completion? Wetland mitigation area, trail construction, karner blue habitat area, archeological area protection all recommended at tangible point front end, for example prior to the first building permit of Section 1. Due to the amount of homes to be built and the state of the economy there may be some complexity and confusion regarding different developers purchasing different sections with buildout over several years. Recommendation that a letter of credit be established at time the individual phases move forward. Trails, and the ability to be accessed through roughed in roads while construction is occurring. The waiver that is being requested from the Subdivision Regulations Article 5, Section 2B (7) requested "When dead end streets are permitted, either temporary or permanent, they shall serve no more than fourteen (14) residential dwelling units nor be longer than 600 feet..." Areas and conditions to consider all conditions made at the time of preliminary approval still apply. Amending preliminary approval condition to reflect ACOE permit, DOH approval to be received prior to signature of final plans. Metes and bounds description to be included with Schedule A of Conservation Easement be included as sheet within subdivision plans. Trail constructions, wetland mitigation, archeological protection measures be completed prior to issuance of the first building permit or other more tangible trigger? Waiver from Subdivision Regulations Article 5, Section 2B. (7) temporary turn around length. Letter of credit to be established for each section based on current cost estimate of section. If the Board agrees to Section plan, proportional recreation fees to be paid at each section. Speed limit signs posted at 30 mph to be included within plans per Public Safety. Also question regarding the sidewalk which is located along the project frontage on Geyser Road. This was a part of the applicant's preliminary approval in terms of on the plan. There is a small portion, basically a gap which this project surrounds. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – February 23, 2011- Page 6 of 16 Discussion ensued regarding the ability to provide for that connection across the Geyser Road frontage to make for a logical continuous pedestrian connection. Chad Cooke, Boswell Engineering stated this is in the County right of way so I do not see why this could not be connected across this parcel. DISCLOSURE: Dan Gaba, stated that he does own rental property at 23 and 44 Quevic Drive. Philip Klein questioned the roughing in of the road and what that would entail in Phase I. Chad Cooke, Boswell Engineering stated basically this is connecting Section 1 to Section 2. As part of the construction of Section 1 would be the installation of sewer lines out to the County Road. Roughing in would be what they would have to do to install the sewer lines, removing trees, and fill in of some undulations. It will be accessible by foot only. National Grid will also be done in phasing. There will also be a barricade installed to indicate the construction area. Philip Klein also stated a letter was received by Mollie Gagne who is interested in the Karner Blue site located off of Geyser Road and what you had in mind for the screening or protection of that site? Chad Cooke, Boswell Engineering stated there will be a chain link fence installed to keep out animals and people and also to protect the site. There will be signage, and some screening. Howard Pinsley, stated he has reviewed this project from start to finish reviewing plans and notes. He is comfortable weighing in on this application. In going through the open space management plan for five years the developer will be responsible for the wetlands. However, there is nothing listed for anything else. Dan Ruzow, attorney for the applicant stated under the HOA agreement the builder is still responsible until a sufficient number of lots are sold. Amy Durland stated I am looking at the conservation easement, under the section of restrictions still identifies that there should be no construction of roads or trails. Terresa Bakner, Whiteman Osterman and Hanna. This is set up is by a Reservation of Rights. They state in the beginning of the document all the things that you not allowed to do and then they state excepting where they reserve those rights in subsequent paragraphs. Mark Schachner stated that there is a subsequent paragraph which addresses this issue. Amy Durland stated nonetheless this is a rather convoluted way to get to the point that you are going to be building trails, etc Terresa Bakner stated that the conservation easement was developed by Sol Ewing, Counsel to the North American Land Trust. They have proceeded this way in all their conservation easements because they perceive it to be the most protective. Amy Durland stated given that we are representing the City on this issue, this should be for the benefit of the City which we are representing. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – February 23, 2011- Page 7 of 16 Mark Schachner, stated legally the protection that you are worried about Amy is afforded. I would not draft it in that order. I did not, in fairness to our review, if a goal was accomplished in a way was effectively protecting the City of Saratoga Springs and it could be done in a different order we did not make them change the order. As long as the interest was adequately protected. Terresa Bakner stated on page 6, paragraph 3 it is stated clearly that the following activities and uses shall be permitted on the protected property. a). new walking trails, boardwalks, pedestrian bridges and similar nature viewing areas maybe cleared, installed or constructed and may thereafter be used maintained and replaced. It is clear that those things are allowed. They are also shown on the subdivision plat as well. Amy Durland stated she did see it and still believes it is somewhat of an inconsistency in the document. Again, in a couple of sections in the document it states new walking trails are allowed and in another section it says there shall be no construction of roads or trails. To me it makes no sense. For the sake of clarity and for the sake of future actors within this whole project, it probably would make sense to strike that provision or amend it in someway so that it is not creating what seems to be an inconsistency. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman, stated I disagree. Mark Schachner asked Amy Durland if she would be more comfortable if in those places it said subject to the provisions of paragraph whatever it is, if that would make you more comfortable with it there is certainly no problem with doing that from my perspective as Planning Board Counsel. Amy Durland stated I am not sure what the appropriate response would be. Whether it would be simply striking it or clarifying it and concluding a provision that typically refers to other sections but I am indicating that I believe it is an odd inconsistency in the document. I absolutely understand that legally speaking it appears to pass muster but I do think it is confusing and on the face of it odd. Also, could someone answer what protection during construction of that Karner Blue Habitat site would be. Terresa Bakner, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna stated we are doing this first in the first Phase. It will be fenced immediately. It will be protected. The fencing is part of the OSMP. The chain link fencing is also what was requested by Kathy O'Brien, and is what the DEC prefers to see. Amy Durland stated her only concern is that they are maybe somewhat vulnerable to construction vehicles and construction activity as it is going in and out for such a long period of time. Has that been taken into account at all? Terresa Bakner, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna stated the chain link fence which will be installed as well as the signage will indicate that it is a nature area and is to be preserved will protect that area. Both the HOA under the declaration is bound to make sure that the OSMP is being followed and the North American Land Trust as well under the conservation easement as the holder will be monitoring that area. That provides for the long term making sure that the fence is still in place and that the area is not being misused. Amy Durland stated her concern is not so much that dogs or people will go through. It is the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – February 23, 2011- Page 8 of 16 construction dust, it is the kinds of construction impact that this area might be particularly vulnerable to that a chain link fence will not protect against. Terresa Bakner, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna stated in terms of the stormwater pollution prevention plan itself the plan provides for watering, keeping the soil wet during construction so you do not have blowing dust. Also within the Karner Blue Butterfly area itself if you walk out there today it is currently very sandy because it is subject to people's intrusion. People's ATV's, bicycles, things like that. One of our plans is to using as part of the OSMP is to plant it with the appropriate species of plants for the Karner Blue Butterflies and that will in essence anchor the soil and and deal with that trouble as well. Right now it is experiencing a good deal of erosion. Under our proposal it will be vastly improved. Amy Durland questioned the status of Lot #85. Lot #85 contains the mitigation wetlands. At one of the last meetings there was some mention of a portion which I took to mean beyond mitigation wetland. Lot #85 having additional property within that lot being included within the conservation easement. Terresa Bakner, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna stated the protected property will be covered by the conservation easement. On Lot #85, Lot #85 is not being made part of the Homeowners Association declaration and covenant, that is the only difference. The conservation easement there for Lot #85 is protected property and is subject to the conservation easement. Lot #85 is a mosaic of uplands and wetlands. Amy Durland stated there has been no conservation analysis of Lot #85. As much as I am pleased that there is some portion of it that has been declared to be part of the conservation easement I am not quite sure where that came from. The Planning Board never engaged in a conservation analysis of Lot #85. Terresa Bakner, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna stated the Army Corp of Engineers and the DEC both viewed that as very positive mitigation for their processes. So typically the Army Corp of Engineers on property that is owned by the applicant and when I say upland wetland mosaic, the wetlands were fully identified on Lot #85. There are some areas of uplands but they are interspersed. The agencies view those as very valuable because you have animals that go into the areas between the uplands and the wetlands and so they liked it. That was one of the reasons why we said well we cover that with the conservation easement. There are letters of communication between all the agencies and the applicant has supplied these to the Board. Mr. Ruzow, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna and attorney for the appplicant stated that there was a conservation analysis of the entire project completed. It is a plan sheet with aerial views and is part of the application. It is part of this record. Amy Durland stated I have repeatedly talked about and made comments from the beginning about Lot #85 and that a conservation analysis has to be undertaken. I have made the point repeatedly that in order to not miss opportunities to create connections with the contiguous state park property and that we should do it. I have never gotten a response that it has already been done. In my opinion I myself feel that I have not engaged in a conservation analysis of Lot #85 when we have looked at the property and we analyzed it, we have always looked at the other portion of the property. I am not aware that we ever looked at Lot #85. Mark Schachner, Planning Board Attorney stated he believes that Amy is quite correct. The City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – February 23, 2011- Page 9 of 16 decision was made for better or for worse and endorsed by a majority of the Board but not all of the Board that that would not be required on Lot #85 because that it was not proposed for development and because there is an applicant commitment to not propose it for development for a defined period of time. I am quite sure that Amy is correct and she has certainly made this comment repeatedly that what we all call conservation analysis undertaken by the Board as part of a conservation subdivision has not been done inclusive of Lot #85. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated because Lot #85 is not part of this application and that segmentation was resolved. Jamin Totino stated an email was received this date from Donald and Linnea Peters regarding the stormwater drainage pond, and it being close to their home. They worry about insects close to their home, standing water and mopsquitos. Chad Cooke, Boswell Engineering stated it is a micropool detention pond. There will be 4 feet of water in the micropool. It is part of what is required by the DEC. There will be enough water movement in the permanent pool so that it does not breed mosquitos. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated the Board also received this date a letter from Mollie Gagne, as well. Any further questions or comments from the Board? Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated in conversations with the City Engineer as this project is requested to be phased, we recommend establishing an amount for a letter of credit when the phase is actually requested to begin, rather than have the City Enginner try to figure out a letter of credit for the entire project. Also a letter of credit in its entirety be requested for the roughed in of the road, as well as the sewer and the water. Terresa Bakner, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna stated that the applicant will attempt to keep the trails open during construction. The construction area will be fenced off with orange construction fencing. Only if it is unsafe to allow people to access it for a temporary period of time would we shut one end of the trail at a time. Signage will be posted. Any further questions or comments from the Board. Mark Schachner addressed Amy Durland’s question regarding confusion and inconsistency. The applicant's counsel correctly and appropriately pointed to a portion of the relevant language where it says new walking trails, boardwalks, pedestrian bridges, etc. may be cleared and installed, etc. the legal ease that preceeds it does say except for the Karner Blue Butterfly management area and notwithstanding any of the covenants or restrictions in this conservation easement. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman questioned the Board as to what their comfort level is regarding the proposed wording as proposed by Mark Schachner. The consensus of the Board is that they are fine with the wording as it stands with no changes. Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman stated that therer have been in excess of 16 to 18 Planning Board members involved in this process. It started in January of 2004. People have come and gone. Planners have come and gone. The one constant, Mark Schachner has been here. I would like to commend the neighbors in Geyser Crest who have held us to a higher standard. A City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – February 23, 2011- Page 10 of 16 lot of the changes that have come about in this application are as a result of their input. I would also commend the applicant and their agents for sticking with this process which is now approaching seven years and two months. Clifford Van Wagner proposed the following motion: NOTICE OF DECISION In the matter of the application #05.057.2 for a final subdivision for Beaver Pond Village 98 Geyser Road Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Involving the premises at 98 Geyser Road, in the City of Saratoga Springs, on an application for final subdivision in an Urban Residential-1, and Rural Residential-1 districts with the Planning Board who met on February 23, 2011 and made the following decision(s): WHEREAS, Saratoga East Avenue Associates, LLC (the “Applicant”) seeks final plat approval for an 85-lot residential subdivision to be known as Beaver Pond Village, including the construction of approximately 84 homes, with related and ancillary improvements including roads (collectively, the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the proposed Project site is located south of Geyser Road and west of Route 50 in the City of Saratoga Springs, and consists of two parcels, one of which is zoned UR-1 (“Parcel 1”) and the other of which is zoned RR-1 (“Parcel 2”); and WHEREAS the application has been subject to the following steps over the course of project review:
On January 21, 2004, April 21, 2004 and October 20, 2004 the Planning Board held sketch plan discussions on this proposed subdivision.
On December 7, 2005 the Planning Board classified this project as an “unlisted action” under SEQRA and decided to initiate coordinated review with a request to be lead agency.
On January 11, 2006 the Planning Board voted to establish itself as SEQRA lead agency.
On January 18, 2006 the Planning Board issued a “positive declaration”. The applicant submitted a draft scoping document on January 25, 2006.
On February 2, 2006 the Board released a draft scoping document to the involved agencies and the public. The Board held two public scoping sessions on February 14, 2006 and Thursday, February 16, 2006.
On March 15, 2006 the Board adopted a final scoping document for the DEIS.
On April 4, 2007 the DEIS was accepted for public review.
A public comment period was held from April 4, 2007 to May 3, 2007.
The Planning Board held two public hearings – April 30, 2007 and May 3, 2007.
In January 2008 the applicant submitted a Draft FEIS for review. Additional items and corrections were identified by the Chazen Companies on behalf of the Planning Board.
On February 27, 2008 the Planning Board requested a status update from the applicant.
On June 4, 2008 the applicant submitted a revised FEIS for review.
On June 30, 2008 the Planning Board held a meeting specifically for the Beaver Pond Village application to review the FEIS.
On July 17, 2008, the applicant submitted a revised SWPPP.
On August 6, 2008 the applicant submitted additional information including an 84-lot alternative and corresponding data for insertion into the FEIS. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – February 23, 2011- Page 11 of 16 
On August 12, 2008, the applicant submitted responses to a memo from the Planning Board consultants.
On September 3, 2008 additional materials were submitted by the applicant in response to comments from the PB on August 13th and in response to a memo from staff and consultants.
On September 10, 2008 the Planning Board deemed the FEIS complete by a 6-1 vote.
The FEIS was submitted by the applicant on October 17, 2008 and subsequently distributed to involved and interested agencies.
The Notice of Completion was issued on October 17, 2008 after receipt of the FEIS.
The Planning Board held a public hearing for the subdivision review on October 29, 2008 and closed public hearing on April 29, 2009.
Also in accordance with SEQRA regulations, the Planning Board issued a Positive Findings Statement for the proposed project on May 13, 2009 by a 4-2 vote.
On June 10, 2009, The Planning Board made written findings identifying the conservation values protected and the reasons for protecting such land located within the Rural Residential-1 parcel by a 4-2 vote.
Preliminary subdivision approval was granted with conditions on June 10, 2009 by a 4-2 vote.
Preliminary subdivision approval extension was granted on June 10, 2010 until June 11, 2011.
November 23, 2010- Planning Board members deemed final subdivision plat provided is “substantially in agreement” with the preliminary approved plat. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board hereby makes the following findings, determinations and certifications: A. The conservation easement as modified and with North American Land Trust as grantee is satisfactory to the Planning Board. B. The completion of the Open Space Management Plan as modified is satisfactory to the Planning Board. C. The NYSDEC permit was received October 8, 2010, fulfilling a requirement of preliminary subdivision approval. D. The Planning Board hereby grants approval of the Applicant’s Final Subdivision Plat per the requirements set forth in the City of Saratoga Springs Subdivision Regulations subject to the following conditions: 1. Project sectioning plan is approved by the Planning Board with conditions: a) Water and sewer connection for extent of project are to be made prior to the completion of Section 1. b) All Trail construction, Karner Blue protected area, wetland mitigation; archeological protection measures are completed prior to issuance of the first building permit. c) Letter of credit to be established for each section based on current cost estimate of section. Note on cover sheet of plans added to this effect. d) Recreation fees to be paid prior to signature of each Section. Note on cover sheet of plans added to this effect. 2. Metes and bounds description to be included within Schedule A of Conservation Easement shall be included as a sheet within subdivision plans. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – February 23, 2011- Page 12 of 16  3. Speed limit signs posted at 30 mph to be included within plans per Public Safety comment. 4. Approvals and/ or permits from the US Army Corps of Engineer and NYS Department of Health must be received prior to Planning Board signature of plans for the first phase. 5. As noted within preliminary subdivision approval, Lot 85 is not part of the present application proposed for development and would be subject to an independent application and SEQRA review for any future proposed development. Per applicant’s commitment, no future application will be brought forward for at least 4 years from final approval by the Planning Board- February 23, 2015. 6. The balance of all remaining consultant fees shall be paid by the applicant. 7. The final complete plat shall be filed unsigned with the City Clerk and Planning Department within 12 months of final approval by the Planning Board. E. The Planning Board waives the application of Appendix H of the Subdivision Regulations (which requires Urban Local Streets to have pavement widths of 28 feet) as per Article VII of the Subdivision Regulations to the portion of Jane Street measuring ± 860 feet from its intersection with Quevic Drive. This section of Jane Street shall have pavement width of 24 feet. The intent of this waiver is to reduce storm water runoff and wetlands impacts resulting from the Project. F. The minimum tangents and cross-slope requirements are also waived as suggested by the City Engineer and as per Article VII of the Subdivision Regulations due to the lower speeds and curvilinear roadways and the Board finds that: 1. Granting of the exception or waiver will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare. 2. The conditions of the request are unique to the property and not generally applicable to other property. 3. The relief sought will not vary provisions of the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. G. The maximum length of a temporary turnaround exceeding 600 feet and serving more than 14 residential dwelling units per Article V- 2. B (7) as related to construction of proposed Sections II, III, IV and V is also waived as recommended by the City Engineer and as per Article VII of the Subdivision Regulations. 1. Granting of the exception or waiver will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare. 2. The conditions of the request are unique to the property and not generally applicable to other property. 3. The relief sought will not vary provisions of the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. H. The applicant is required to complete the following for each approved Phase as per the City of Saratoga Springs Subdivision Regulations: • Deliver a letter of credit or cash escrow as a performance guarantee to the City for required on- and off-site improvements as required by the City Subdivision Regulations. • Submit a fee in lieu of recreation of $1500 for each new lot as per Article V, Section 240- 5.10. City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – February 23, 2011- Page 13 of 16  • Submit two (2) mylar and two (2) paper copies of each phase of the final approved subdivision plat for signature by the Planning Board Chair. • File the approved section of the final subdivision plat with the Saratoga County Clerk within sixty-two (62) days as provided in Article 3, Section 32 of General City Law. The signature of a duly authorized officer of the planning board shall constitute a final approved plat. This approval shall expire if the first phase is not signed by the Planning Board Chair and filed at the County, within twelve (12) months as set forth in the City of Saratoga Springs Subdivision Regulations Article II, Section 1-D. Seconded by Philip Klein. Amy Durland stated I am not supporting the motion and these are my reasons: The conservation easement which the NALT which has participated in writing has too many exceptions to stewardship to the protected land. As holders of the easement, according to that document they may trigger and/or decide to include as exceptions to the conservation protections within the easement the following items: construction of utilities, use of pesticides, new subdivisions. If approved as the holder of the easement the NALT has indicated that they intend to use some of the project application representatives as "an arm of the NALT" in the stewardship and enforcement of the easement. When asked what training would be provided to this local "arm," it was indicated that the landscape architectural firm was "professional" and would not need training. I have concerns that this new role as holders of a conservation easement with little or no training may result in a relaxed standard of stewardship for the protected lands. In addition, the local agents of the project developers have been hired to protect the interests of their clients – the project developers – throughout the years of project review. To now summarily declare that this same firm will take on the role of being the local "arm" of the land trust charged with protecting the conserved areas of the project is insensitive to the role of stewardship that the Holder of easement must assume. While not dispositive in itself, the fact that the NALT is an unaccredited land trust concerns me. While many land trusts are unaccredited, the NALT is a nationally-based organization which has projects in various areas nationally. As such, without having a local base or reputation, one would think that they would have a heightened concern for adopting a national standard for excellence and ensuring the public trust, as accreditation is designed to do. Instead, as of the time they appeared before the Planning Board, they had not even registered or applied to engage in the accreditation process. In addition the conservation decisions had been made regarding lot 85 without the requisite input of the Planning Board regarding the identification of the conservation features of the property and I might add that based on a comment that we just saw at the beginning of the meeting today from one of the neighbors of the properties I agree about their traffic study comment but the passage of time necessitates a new traffic analysis especially given increased traffic volume in the area and increased development within Grande Industrial Park. Jamin Totino stated this project for me obviously I have spent a lot of time thinking about this as well as hearing a lot of information and arguments from neighbors, members and applicants and appreciate our attorneys guidance all the way through. For my perspective, I was interested in City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – February 23, 2011- Page 14 of 16 serving on the planning board was my interest in conservation subdivisions. When I look at lot #2 it not only meet the spirit of conservation subdivision but fully meets the regulations outlined in the City of Saratoga Springs and a lot of those aspects have been carried over to lot 1 that were not required to be brought over. In most if not all development there will be critics as there always will be. I think in the end this has developed into a very cohesive project that is going to serve the City of Saratoga Springs well and provides a great public benefit with the access to the conservation areas. I will support the motion based on those reasons. Philip Klein stated everyone has been out to the site. I would like to compliment the neighbors both pro and con. I think that we received some very good input. Very good hard questions that we were able to address and answer and the applicant was able to address and their concerns actually bore fruit. Many items were mitigated and changed in the site plan to bring it to this point. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, opposed; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; H. Pinsley, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor ABSENT: S. Bernardi-Cleary. MOTION PASSES: 5-1 Mr. Dan Ruzow, Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna thanked the Board for their patience, persistence, their counsel and planning staff new and old. Many improvements that have been made are positive and it makes a better project than we started with. We look forward its completion and the permits. We are comfortable where we are with this project and the ability to move ahead to bring new housing to Saratoga Springs that we can all be proud of. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Clifford Van Wagner, Chairman requested approval of minutes of the February 9, 2011, meeting with corrections and/or additions submitted. Dan Gaba offered a time change correction. Noted and will be corrected. Motion by Jamin Totino. Seconded by Philip Klein. VOTE: J. Totino, in favor; A. Durland, in favor; P. Klein, in favor; D. Gaba, in favor; Clifford Van Wagner, in favor ABSENT: S. Bernardi-Cleary ABSTAIN: H. Pinsley MOTION PASSES: 5-0-1 ADJOURNMENT City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – February 23, 2011- Page 15 of 16 There being no further business, Clifford Van Wagner adjourned the meeting at 9:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: March 23, 2011 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Minutes – February 23, 2011- Page 16 of 16