Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (FINAL) THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Mark Torpey, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:08 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Mark Torpey, Chairman; Janet Casey; Clifford Van Wagner; Jamin Totino; Abigail Wolfson, Alternate; Amy Durland; Todd Fabozzi ABSENT: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Justin Grassi, Counsel for the Land Use Boards ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded 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. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED PROJECTS: ADJOURNED PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 1. 15.049 LANDS OF STONE, 68 Weibel Avenue, sketch plan review of office, retail, and multi-family residential in the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood (T-4) District. 2. 16.040 WEST AVENUE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, 106-120 West Avenue, Special Use permit for mixed-use development within the T-5 Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 3. 16.025 MENDENHALL SUBDIVISION, 101 Old Schuylerville Road, 4-lot preliminary conservation subdivision within the Rural Residential (RR) District. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS/AGENDA WORKSHOPS: Planning Board Caravan, Monday, March 20, 2017 at 4:00 P.M. Planning Board Workshop, Monday, March 20, 2017 at 5:00 P.M. Planning Board Meeting, Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: None heard. A. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. 17.011 TNT FIREWORKS, 153 & 161 Broadway, Special Use Permit for temporary tent for sale of Fireworks within the T-5 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action with no further SEQRA environmental review required. BACKGROUND: Mark Torpey, Chairman stated this application is for a temporary Special Use Permit for retail to sell fireworks from a temporary tent structure. The time frame is from June 20 through July 5, 2017. DRC Architectural review is also required for the application. Applicant: TNT Fireworks Agent: Robyn Curran, TNT Fireworks Ms. Curran stated she is representing TNT Fireworks. We are asking for a Special Use Permit for the sale of fireworks June 20 through July 5, 2017 dates which is compliant with New York State. This is the third season we are selling. We do abide by all NYS safety rules, regulations and laws. The Department of Homeland Security does come and check the site. Amy Durland questioned the sites used in the previous years and the new state laws. Ms. Curran stated we have had tents in Clifton Park, one on 146 and 146A. One in Colonie. One in Latham. We do have many tents in the Walmart Parking lots. Ms. Curran provided the Board with some background information on the State Law. Clifford Van Wagner provided some history of the Planning Board decisions for projects proposed in the Gateway to the City, noting the length of time needed to succeed with a Special Use Permit. There are six criteria the Board uses to determine the viability of a Special Use Permit. I believe a 75 ft wide tent in the Gateway to the City is not compatible with the standards which we have held other applicants to in this area. It is inappropriate. Clifford Van Wagner stated he is ready to make a motion to deny this application. Jamin Totino stated he seconds that motion and is also in favor of this denial. I do not believe it is in harmony with the neighborhood. Amy Durland stated in terms of the zone which is T-5 and in terms of the Comp Plan there are very specific requirements in the zoning ordinance and general conditions in the Comp Plan that I do not believe this application meets. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the parking lot is in very poor condition, and I am concerned with the entrance and the exit from the site as well as the proximity to Canfield Street which is a residential neighborhood. Justin Grassi, Counsel to the Land Use Boards suggested the Chairman open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:21 P.M. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Aileen Harris, 131 Hamilton Street. Ms. Burns stated she feels this is not appropriate for this area. She is not in favor of this application. Mark Torpey, Chairman, closed the public hearing at 7:23 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 9, 2017 - Page 2 of 10 Clifford Van Wagner made a motion in the matter of the TNT Fireworks, 153 & 161 South Broadway Special Use Permit application be denied. I find that this proposed project is not in harmony with and does not promote the general purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The density, intensity and compatibility of the use with the neighborhood and community character is totally inappropriate. It does not allow for safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular access, circulation and parking and lighting, noise, traffic is totally incompatible with the neighborhood and again contradicts the standards we held the other seven applicants to in the course of 12 years. Jamin Totino seconded the motion. There are other parts of the City where this could possibly work. Amy Durland stated there was also a committee developed several years ago specifically to review that area of South Broadway to generate ideas for appropriate development of that area. It is a very sensitive area of the City. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor of the denial; Jamin Totino, in favor of the denial; Abigail Wolfson, alternate, in favor of the denial; Amy Durland, in favor of the denial; Todd Fabozzi, in favor of the denial; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor of the denial; Janet Casey, in favor of the denial MOTION TO DENY: 7-0 2. 17.015 PITNEY COMMUNITY FARM, West Avenue, Proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD), Request for Advisory Opinion, and Initiation of Coordinated SEQRA Review from the City Council. BACKGROUND: Mark Torpey, Chairman stated this is a 166 acre Pitney Farm. An effort is being made to create a PUD and a long term community farm. A conservation easement is currently held by the City of Saratoga Springs that provides for permanent restrictions and considerations for uses and activities on overall property. The proposed PUD is located within the designated “Agricultural Resource Center Area” portion of the conservation easement. Proposed PUD consists of 11.69 acre portion of tax parcel 178.-1-49.1. The City Council has determined that the petition has merit for review and has requested an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board and the DRC as required by the Zoning Ordinance. We had an opportunity to visit the site and review the structures. We also had some discussion at the workshop. I requested Mike Ingersoll to provide the Board with an overview of the project. Applicant: The Pitney Community Farm Agent: Mike Ingersoll, LA Group, Owner-Principal; Andrew Moniker, LA Group; Jim Martin, Planner; The Arnold’s, Chairman of the Board for the Pitney Community Farm; Barbara Glaser, Advisory Committee Mr. Ingersoll stated he will provide an overview of the project as well as address some concerns voiced by Sustainable Saratoga whose correspondence was received today. There is a tremendous amount of enthusiasm in the community to get this project moving forward. We are hoping to actually get in the ground this Spring. Prior to this plan there was a plan that did not come to fruition. There was a lengthy conservation easement that the City Council adopted with the input of the City’s Open Space Plan. Based on the Master Plan, the group put through a plan which we showed what could happen on a portion of this property. Largely what we are seeking to do after this was adopted is to align the zoning so that we can get permits and Planning and Zoning Board approvals because right now it is zoned residential. We are forced to create a zone which does not exist in the City. Zoning criterion which cannot be applied to the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 9, 2017 - Page 3 of 10 business plan of the farm. It is a unique situation. There is a comprehensive conservation easement that is very restrictive and dictates what we can do. A visual presentation of the proposed project was provided for the Board’s review. The applicant is not asking for re-zoning. We are only speaking of the 11 acre parcel only. The remainder of the 166 acres is largely open fields. Visual views of the site and the country overlay diagrams were also provided. We are also in the country overlay zone which we are obliged to accommodate. A visual map of the ASA the Agricultural Stewardship Association was provided and put together with the city. It shows all the parcels discussed, and designates where the crops will be located. It also designates where a farm or silos or farm production can be located. This area was deemed the Agricultural Resource Center. We cannot have community farms without the proper zoning. Mr. Ingersoll provided a visual of the Conservation Easement noting this dictates what can be placed here and what is permitted. Mr. Ingersoll reviewed what is allowed in the area under review, the 11 acres which has been deemed the Agricultural Resource Center. The current zoning which is residential allows us to pursue a PUD. Under current zoning 70 residential homes could be built here, if you go by the Comprehensive Plan 40 residential units could be built. We are currently restricted to 3. Residential use of the property has been stripped away to become agricultural. The current farm is in the Rural Residential Zone which does allow all agricultural activities for farming. We are in the UR-2 zone which we share with the cemetery. Our master plan is imbedded into the conservation easement. Our hope is that the buildings which exist today be repurposed and reused. If needed to be rebuilt they will be rebuilt in kind. We will be adding a 30 foot buffer to this area abutting our closest neighbor. All the larger structures proposed were kept to the rear. This is a dream for an education facility, a learning facility that could someday house a market. Also we would like to add a B & B which is allowed under current zoning. We would also like to have the ability for farm housing for employees. The parking we need is for events and seasonal. We will be using permeable type pavement and grass. New water lines will be installed for both service and fire protection. A visual presentation of the proposed entrances was reviewed for the Board. Views of the proposed community garden locations and future farm buildings. Mr. Ingersoll provided information and reviewed the Planned Unit Development Objectives to determine if the PUD has merit. 1. Provide for a development pattern of mixed-uses consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Provide for a more efficient arrangement of land uses, buildings, circulation systems, infrastructure and open space than otherwise possible under current zoning. 3. Provide for diversity in residential housing opportunities at varied economic levels, but this is not a residential project. Todd Fabozzi questioned if the residences were noted on the Plan. Mr. Ingersoll stated there can be only three residences within this triangular area and they are noted. Sandy Arnold, Board Chair of the Community Farm stated for the whole project the easement allows 4 residential units. Two are allowed in the triangle area, not to exceed 1500 square feet each. The other two which are allowed would be in the rear 35 acre portion which is not being discussed this evening. 4. Provide for uses and amenities that fulfill an identifiable community need. 5. Provide for enhanced open space and the preservation of natural resources. 6. Prevent soil erosion and enhance the preservation of trees, outstanding natural topographical and geological features. 7. Enhance integration of transportation systems including vehicular, pedestrian bicyclist and transit. 8. Minimize adverse impacts of land development upon neighboring properties. 9. Provide for a more economically viable and environmentally sustainable land use pattern than would be possible through the strict application of other Articles of this Chapter. Mr. Ingersoll reviewed what the Planning Board’s evaluation of the project would entail as well as the permitted uses. Mr. Ingersoll stated there will be fundraising events here and there will be groups here. We have limited ourselves to approximately 9 events per year. This will be reiterated when the application comes before the Board for a Special Use Permit. A view of the Country Overlay Map was provided which denotes compliance of this project with that map. The Comprehensive Plan Designation by Use Map, our project does not match what is being proposed. It is our position that City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 9, 2017 - Page 4 of 10 when you look at the Comprehensive Plan the land use categories are not zoning districts; they are broader than the zoning districts. The boundaries of the land use categories maps are intentionally not precise. They are guides for land use categories. We did not ask to modify the Comprehensive Plan Map. PUBLIC COMMENT: Harry Moran, Chair, Sustainable Saratoga. We are very supportive of the Pitney Meadows Project. We are in general agreement that the 11 acre triangle area should be rezoned from Urban Residential to a Planned Unit Development District. We do believe the proposed PUD is compatible with many of the policies of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan, we believe it is not compatible with the 2016 Land Use Map in that same document. All zoning must be compatible with the future Land Use Map of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan. The PUD institutional uses are not compatible with the residential requirements of this land use category. We believe the Planning Board needs to conclude that the PUD is not compatible with the 2016 Land Use Map in the 2015 Comprehensive. The applicant needs to request a map amendment to the 2015 Comprehensive Plan, from RN-1 to CMU. Brian Harrison, resident of Saratoga Springs I am assisting the farm. It is a wonderful project. The City Council ultimately determines the land use policy with the advice of the Planning Board. The easement is there forever and those uses are documented. Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned how the PUD and the ASA will work together. Mr. Ingersoll explained this relationship for the Board. Funding will be set aside for the funding of ASA. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated first we need to provide an Advisory Opinion to the City Council. As this project proceeds we will need to be responsible for Site Plan Review for each phase. Amy Durland stated the applicant should not feel defensive concerning the remarks from Sustainable Saratoga. They are supporting this project. It is merely a housekeeping issue with regards to this project aligning with the Comprehensive Plan Designations and the pursuit of a map amendment. A suggestion that the narrative in the law align with the table just for the sake of consistency. Also, concerning the listing of Agro-tourism, it does not appear correct in its being listed as a use. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the City Council has also requested SEQRA Lead Agency Status. Clifford Van Wagner made a motion to defer SEQRA Lead Agency Status to the City Council. Janet Casey seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Abigail Wolfson, Alternate, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we have received a large amount of good information. I would like to take some time and digest and review this information, and walk through it’s review in a more efficient way. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 9, 2017 - Page 5 of 10 Jamin Totino stated this is a super exciting and wonderful project. No problem with the PUD approach. Janet Casey stated she seconds everything Jamin stated. This project is a wonderful project. It is an unusual project and I am not concerned with it being precedent setting. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated perhaps the Map Amendment change would be the way for the applicant to proceed. It might be the best way to anchor this so there is no question down the road. Amy Durland questioned why the applicant would not pursue the Map Amendment. Discussion ensued concerning the feasibility of a Map Amendment and its current zoning. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we have not requested any further information, just requesting time to review and digest what was presented. 8:40 P.M. The Board recessed. 8:45 P.M. The Board reconvened. 3. 17.012 PET LODGE, NYS Route 9/Broadway, Special Use Permit for a pet boarding facility within the Tourist Related Business (TRB) and Rural Residential (RR) Districts. BACKGROUND: Property has split zoning – Tourist Related Business on frontage, RR on the rear. Proposed use animal kennel permitted within the RR and not in the TRB. Site consists of a total of 6 contiguous lots totaling 1.59 acres split between TRB adjacent to RR in the rear. Adjacent property to the North is INST-PR, Saratoga Spa State Parkland. Planning Board issued a SEQRA negative declaration on December 8, 2016. ZBA granted required area variances minimum side yard (North and South) and total side yard setback requirement in RR. Article 78 has been filed by Iris Lu (March1), adjacent property owner in regards to the ZBA’s action. Legal Counsel has provided that special use permit can legally be considered by Planning Board with understanding that continuing forward is at the applicant’s own risk. Additional materials provided include an Avoidance Plan including provisions that include calling for a deed restriction to protect the existing foundation. SHPO correspondence received regarding their acceptance of the avoidance plan and proposed conditions. Within SEQR review, conversation related to layout, location of building setback from Route 9, curb cut proposed and any ability to share with adjacent property/City paper street Pratt Street. Owner not currently interested in sharing access. Justin Grassi, Counsel to the Planning Board stated the City was served and an Article 78 was filed, challenging the approval which the ZBA had granted. However, that does not impact the Planning Board. Those area variances were granted so the Planning Board can act on the application so long as the application is complete. We do not need to be concerned with the litigation going on with the ZBA. The applicant is proceeding at his own risk. Current approvals could be modified following the litigation. Todd Fabozzi questioned the number of variances granted and the type. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated two area variances were granted. Minimum side yard setback, minimum total side yard setbacks for the building and an area variance for minimum parking requirement, and City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 9, 2017 - Page 6 of 10 Minimum total side yard setback to the parking spaces. Todd Fabozzi questioned since the group of parcels crosses two different zoning districts one which it is compatible with the zoning and one which it is not, how are we to judge this project without a use variance. Justin Grassi, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated the code provides that the City can shift the applicant’s request for a boundary for a zone by 100 feet. One of the variances may have extended that. It is the City’s position that it is an area variance since it is requiring dimensional relief. Discussion ensued concerning the driveway and the basis of the Article 78. Justin Grassi stated since this has passed zoning it is considered a zoning compliant project. It is simply up to the Planning Board for Special Use Permit. Applicant: Pet Lodge, Matt Sames Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney; Jamie Easton, MJ Engineering Mr. Toohey stated we are looking to introduce an animal kennel facility with the Tourist Related Business District and Rural Residential Districts. We have obtained all the variances required by the City of Saratoga Springs to allow that use. A visual presentation of the proposed site as well as the surrounding parcels was provided to the Board reviewing the zoning and what uses are allowed in these districts. Mr. Toohey explained how the sitting of the building was chosen and the facility placement as well as the receipt of area variances from the ZBA. Mr. Toohey reviewed the Evaluation Criteria for Special Use Permits. The applicant will be requesting a waiver of sidewalks on this project. No sidewalks currently exist in this area. Mr. Toohey provided copies of letters from neighbors from four different Pet Lodge locations citing no issues or problems with them as neighbors. Amy Durland stated at the workshop that the City Engineers voiced concern regarding the clay soils which exist in this area. He stated these types of soils are bad hydrologically for the wetlands and the possibility of a need for a raised system for waste water. He also stated that the concern is of such that it could affect the viability of the project. Mr. Easton stated no soils have been tested in this area to confirm the City Engineers concerns. A raised bed septic system would need to be designed at this project site. This is very similar to the Hibachi Restaurants located behind it. Knowing that this system passed the Department of Health specifications and regulations in this area most likely the dirt next door using the same design system would also work at our site. If the soils are as bad as the City Engineer stated there are other technologies out there to solve this problems at the site. It is more costly but there are systems available. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning buffering, waste water treatment, wetlands, and removal of trees on the site, and signage. Justin Grassi, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated we have not received a response from the Saratoga County Planning Board concerning this project. Per staff this was referred on February 8, 2017. I recommend that the Planning Board not act on this application without a response to the referral or 30 days have passed. Amy Durland requested when the applicant returns she has requested further information concerning the clear cutting and tree retention plan as well as more specifics about the clay soil and options and how they would affect the site. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:34 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 9, 2017 - Page 7 of 10 Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Charles Bryner, DVM building 2 doors down. I have four parcels which is near this space. I drive that road all the time. This road is not as flat as it looks. Dr. Bryner stated he moved into his home in 1970. The percolation in this area is terrible. Most people in this area did not touch this property because it was a lemon with water in the rear and water in the front. I own a non-conforming pre-existing home. No expansion or remodeling is allowed. No building could meet the requirements for a septic system. Dr. Bryner questioned the number of staff people. Dr. Bryner questioned the method of disposal of water used to clean kennels and floors, etc. This is the gateway to the City and the City has plans for the gateway which does not include a boarding kennel. Many of my neighbors are also concerned. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we are awaiting the referral from the Saratoga County Planning Board. The public hearing will remain open. We will see the applicant in two weeks. Board member Jamin Totino exited the meeting at 9:44 P.M. Janet Casey questioned if there were certification standards for this type of business. Mr. Toohey stated not that he is aware of. Amy Durland proposed several questions from the agenda notes. If a front elevation of the proposed building be provided? Have clearing and grading limits been established? Perhaps the applicant’s agenda can provide this information to the Board. Mr. Easton stated he can provide the information to the Board. 4. 17.007 TEAKWOOD BUILDERS SHOWROOM, 75 Church Street, Special Use Permit for Commercial showroom within the Transect-5 (T-5) District. BACKGROUND: Existing structure formerly used as a gas station, and office use. Proposed re-use of the structure and new addition. Transect-5 District. Applicant: Jim Sasko, Teakwood Builders Agent: Matt Brobston, LA Group; Brett Balzer, Balzer Tuck Architecture Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned the type of variances which were granted by the ZBA. Mr. Brobston stated this evening they are here to discuss the Special Use Permit. At the workshop some discussion was held concerning the variances which were granted. AREA VARIANCES GRANTED: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Build-to-line 0-12 ft. 40 ft. 28 ft. (233%) Build-out-frontage Church St. 70% 0% 70% (100%) Minimum two-story 3,000 sq. ft. 3,235 sq ft. 235 sq. ft. (8%) Mr. Brobston provided a visual presentation of the proposed site and project to the Board. A majority of the site is paved noting the three curb cuts. Church Street is the site’s frontage. Parking is required to be behind first layer of the building. The Special Use Permit deals with the expansion of this 1800 square foot building to the rear of the site for an City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 9, 2017 - Page 8 of 10 additional 1800 square feet. The building does expand to the back and east side of the property. In keeping with the context of the building there will be an addition of two garage bays on the building. It does take up much of the green space. We will use some porous pavement in the parking area to help with storm water management and to green up the site. One of the things we did was to incorporate a hedge to screen the parking which is required by having parking within the first tier of the T-zone. We are tight on the site which is why the parking was oriented as such. You enter off of Church Street and exit off of Lawrence Street. The amount of traffic we do have 5-6 cars on site daily, with employees having full size trucks and contractors visiting the site. Ten parking spaces have been designated on site with one also functioning as an entryway to storage of supplies. 10 spaces on site with one new space created on Lawrence Street. Eleven is required. We are adding sidewalks. Curbing and street trees which are included as part of this project already exist. Todd Fabozzi questioned why the building couldn’t come up to the corner on both sides on Church and Lawrence, with better circulation on Church Street. Framing both streets with the building. Giving it more of an urban feel, and better fits in the T zone. Discussion ensued concerning the usage of the building and the reuse of an existing building. Mr. Balzer stated the idea was to keep the building architecturally with the gas station style. That is what drove the purchase of the building. The addition we are proposing to the east would not work to the west. It is much wider. Todd Fabozzi explained his idea for the siting of the building and how to work with the zoning in this zone. This is a very suburban plan. Mr. Balzer stated this would take away everything which drove the applicant to purchase this building. Retain this gas station feel, this retro style feel. Mr. Balzer stated they would like to retain the corner of the building and the feel that it has, retaining its flavor. We have received a letter of support from the Saratoga Preservation Foundation. This is a significant structure in our City and the fact that someone would like to retain its flavor is commendable. We have spent hours designing to our clients needs. It is not an easy flip. Discussion ensued concerning the style of the project urban versus suburban style. Janet Casey stated she appreciates what Todd is saying however she stated she would frame it differently. What we have to balance in all of these situations is on one hand what the zoning calls for and on the other hand the fact that you are saving a building. Sometimes we have to make some serious compromises about the zoning requirements in order to save the building or vice versa. My first reaction upon site visit was similar to Todd’s. I am very much persuaded by the saving of the building and the site lines here is a valuable thing to do. I am in favor of the design and I am seeing it as a balance. Clifford Van Wagner stated this still needs to be reviewed by the DRC for final approval. Saving this station is very important. Amy Durland questioned the proposed driveways location to Lawrence Street is too close to the intersection and that might be an issue, noting the comments from Public Safety. Mr. Brobston stated he had not seen those comments. We are proposing shrinking the curb cut down making it somewhat further from the corner. Todd Fabozzi questioned if the building is a historic structure. Mr. Balzer stated it is not a historic structure but it is deemed a contributing historic structure. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 9, 2017 - Page 9 of 10 Amy Durland stated this has plan has some advantages it moves the curb cut up even a few feet. It reduces the amount of parking fronting Church Street. It also opens up the southwest corner of the building which was identified as an important feature of your project which is not obscured by parking. I have a more favorable reaction to this particular layout. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman opened the public hearing at 10:20 P.M. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned if there are any questions or comments or conditions regarding the Special Use Permit. None heard. Clifford Van Wagner made a motion in the matter of the Teakwood Builders Showroom, 75 Church Street that the application for Special Use Permit be approved. Janet Casey seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Abigail Wolfson, Alternate, in favor; Amy Durland, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Janet Casey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the March 23, 2017 meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Mark Torpey, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 7/13/17 City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board – March 9, 2017 - Page 10 of 10