Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FINAL THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2024 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Chuck Marshall, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M. PRESENT: Charles (Chuck) Marshall, Chair, Mark Pingel, Vice-Chair, Bill McTygue, Anthony (Tony) Stellato, Mike King, Kerry Mayo & Patty Morrison. ABSENT: STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, City Counsel, James Sallaway, City Engineer A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: Note: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any applications that appear to be ‘approvable’ without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the ‘consent agenda’ and dealt with individually. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 1. #20240250 247 Kaydeross East. Preliminary plat review of a three-lot conservation subdivision in the Rural Residential (RR) District. 2. #20240747 125 High Rock Ave., the Mill Final Subdivision. Final plat review of a proposed 3-lot subdivision in the Neighborhood Commercial (T-5) District. 3. #20240727 225 Clinton St. Final Subdivision. Final plat review of a proposed 2-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) District. 4. #20240614 Lexington Road/Bemis Heights Subdivision Area Variance. Consideration of advisory opinion to the ZBA for an area variance associated with a proposed subdivision modification in the Rural Residential (RR) District. 5. #20230378 Washington St. and West Ave. Land Disturbance Activity Permit and Watercourses/Wetland Permit. Land disturbance activity permit and watercourse/wetland permit for site work including filling and grading of approximately 6-acres to provide for future development in the Neighborhood Commercial (T-5) District. __________________________________________________________________________ 1. #20240250 247 Kaydeross East. Preliminary plat review of a three-lot conservation subdivision in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Chuck Marshall, Chair said this application was considered by the planning board 2 weeks ago and there were two outstanding items. 1. Connection to the Riley farm access point. 2. Final plat draft conservation easement. The County reviewed the material and decided there’s no countywide impact. Katie Loffman, Studio A Landscape Architecture & Engineering. Katie refreshed the board on the proposal. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence, and contains slopes of 15% & 16%, US Army Corps jurisdictional wetland and active farmlands. They are proposing to further subdivide the lot into three lots, each with a single-family residence that will be serviced by on-site individual wastewater treatment systems and a municipal water connection. The sites will be accessed by a private driveway extending from Kaydeross Ave. with an eventual connection to the Riley Farm Development to ensure that emergency vehicles can circulate the site. Katie submitted the final plat plan from the surveyor to Susan. Chuck asked Katie to walk the board through the timeline for the Riley Farm connection. Someone speaking from the audience (developer, owner?) said the connection can’t be made until a house is 75% built and the road is dedicated. Dedication timing? Conversation took place with staff and the person in the audience with no mics. Bill M. clarified that the applicant intends to keep his portion private and the long-range vision for the subdivision next door will be a public road. Leah said the road is fully shown on the map and that’s all they need for the preliminary plat. Chuck Marshall made a motion for preliminary plat approval for a three-lot subdivision at 247 Kaydeross East, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Bill McTygue. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, M. Pingel-Y, K. Mayo-Y, B. McTygue-Y, P. Morrison-Y, T. Stellato-Y, M. King-Y. 7-0 Motion carried. 2. #20240747 125 High Rock Ave., the Mill Final Subdivision. Final plat review of a proposed 3-lot subdivision in the Neighborhood Commercial (T-5) District. Chuck Marshal, Chair said this application was previously reviewed as a two-lot subdivision and received several extensions. They are currently proposing a 3-lot subdivision. During the workshop the applicant was asked to provide guidance on whether or not the subdivision line can extend through a building; and to explain the distinguishing factor for going from 2 to 3 lots. Dave Carr, LA Group & Tom Roohan represented the applicant/ownership group (Roohan family). Dave said they are seeking a 3-lot subdivision at the Mill which covers 3.8 acres. It is currently one lot that crosses over High Rock to a small parking lot. It’s one tax parcel and is bordered by Excelsior Ave. to the north, High Rock Ave. south, High Rock Spring, and the city park to the west. He said the 2-lot subdivision was approved 2022. Dave showed the 2- lot subdivision split and the way the 3-lots will be split. They are proposing to split the subdivision through an existing building and at an existing wall. They will be separating the religious institution and gym from the larger part of the building which consists of several office spaces. Dave said Tom Roohan redeveloped the Van Raalte Mill in 2000 after a lot of City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 10,, 2024 - Page 2 of 17 remediation to allow the project to happen. Tom met with Patrick Cogan regarding subdividing through the existing building and concluded that the main concern was about the fire rating. Tom Roohan said the reasoning behind the 3-lot subdivision is they thought it would be a good opportunity for people to own their own business where their business is located. Tom said Patrick viewed the subdivision through the building the same as a condominium or townhouse property line. Dave said each half of the building has their own utility connections – water, sewer. Chuck asked if there was a proposed easement between lots 2 and 3. Dave said easements were approved for the two-lot subdivision, so they will be modified to be cross lots for all three businesses. Tony S. asked if there were any agreements for lots 1 and 2 who share the same building. Tom said if repairs were needed, they could be done independent of the other business. Mark P. asked about a small piece of vacant property on the map. Dave said it’s landscaped space with some parking spaces. Bill M. said Tom has done a good job of rehabbing and maintaining the mill, and he’s been very cooperative with the trail project in giving up property so that could be accomplished. Bill said this subdivision is good for the city, neighborhood and the businesses’ future ownership of the building. Chuck Marshall, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:21 p.m. regarding the 125 High Rock subdivision. Hearing no comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 6:21 p.m. Chuck reviewed the SEQRA: SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. 6. Cause increase in use of energy – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Chuck Marshall made a motion that a Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA be issued for 125 High Rock Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Patty Morrison. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, K. Mayo-Y, P. Morrison-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0 Motion Carried. Chuck Marshall made a motion for final plat approval for a three-lot subdivision at 125 High Rock Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Bill McTygue. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, M. Pingel-Y, K. Mayo-Y, B. McTygue-Y, P. Morrison-Y, T. Stellato-Y, M. King-Y. 7-0 Motion carried. 3. 20240727 225 Clinton St. Final Subdivision. Final plat review of a proposed 2-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) District. Chuck Marshall, Chair said the subdivision property bounds a private driveway owned by the Wesley Community. The applicant was asked at the workshop to provide information as City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 10,, 2024 - Page 3 of 17 to whether or not a crosswalk could be installed in the right-of-way along Clinton St. and to see if a landscape border could be installed on their side of the street that adjoins the Wesley. John Cannie, Attorney represented the applicants, Karen and John Harvey. John said they received a positive recommendation from the planning board to the ZBA for variances that have now been received for what is going to be Lot 2. The property is on the corner of Clinton St. and Embury St. (a private street). John showed site photos and responded to board/staff comments:  The applicant should consider min. front yard setback reduction for future development on lot 2 – the average of the front yard setbacks of 225 Clinton (26.7 ft.) NS 231 Clinton St. (TBD). This will need to be established on the final plat prior to submission. See 3.3 B.2. The applicant is going to confirm the 231 Clinton setback, and with the consent of the board, modify the setback as permitted in section 3.3(B)(2) on the final plat.  The proposed driveway to lot 2 should be reduced in width from 15 ft. to 10 ft. (min. for residential driveway). Applicant is willing to make the change on the final plat. John said they would like to only reduce it at the entrance because the intention is to eventually have a two-car garage.  The proposed dwelling on lot 2 does not meet the standards for a single-family dwelling in Art. 8, “Front loaded attached garage limited to 40% of building façade line or 24’, whichever is greater. The final plat will be modified to reduce this and will just show a building envelope. The garage is 22’ wide, inside the 24’ requirement.  Streetscape. Because Embury Drive is a private street – akin to a driveway – no streetscape improvements were proposed. The applicant feels that it is not their responsibility to provide streetscape improvements that are not truly public benefits as the driveway is private. The applicant would consider adding two trees similar to street trees on the frontage but would prefer not to as present or future owners might prefer something more prominent like a hedge.  Crosswalk across Embury Dr. Because Embury Drive is a private driveway, the applicant does not feel it’s their responsibility to provide a crosswalk at that location. Protection of pedestrians across a private street should be the responsibility of the owner of that street.  Sign for Wesley. The applicant will provide an easement for the sign. Chuck Marshall, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:31 p.m. regarding the 225 Clinton St. subdivision. Brian Nealon, CEO Wesley Community said he would agree with not adding any trees at the corner on Embury Dr. and Clinton because it could cause difficulty with sight distance pulling out from Embury Dr. Chuck Marshall, Chair hearing no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 6:35 p.m. Board Comments: City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 10,, 2024 - Page 4 of 17 Chuck M. said from his perspective the addition of a house at that location does not warrant the applicant putting in a crosswalk. It’s a two-lot subdivision, not multi-family and they’re not increasing pedestrian activity. The other board members agreed with Chuck. Chuck said he’s fine with the 10 ft. driveway at the curb cut and then widening to 22 ft. A condition would be that the widening would begin on the house side of the boundary line. The board members agreed with Chuck. Chuck said he understands that no landscaping should be added near the corner of Clinton & Embury. Mike K. commented but inaudible, no mic. Tony S. asked what was in the upper right-hand corner of Lot 2 that looks like a driveway. John said it’s a proposed pedestrian curb ramp that is currently a bus stop. Tony asked if CDTA needed to be consulted about the pedestrian ramp. John said he didn’t think so because it’s actually an improvement for them and is in the city right-of-way. Kerry asked for clarification on the new street trees and streetlights. John said there will be 2 streetlights, and 2 street trees added on Clinton St. Patty asked the applicant to explain the setback. John said the provision in this zone allows you to modify the setback, which is currently 30 ft., if the two neighboring properties have a mean setback that’s shorter. Chuck said it can be made a condition of approval if it meets the mean and if not, they will have to come back for approval just for the setback. Susan not using mic. Inaudible. Bill M. said the city should supply the energy cable to the two city-standard decorative streetlights that are being added on Clinton St. There was a discussion about the city removing the cobra light at the corner. Chuck Marshall made a motion for final subdivision approval at 225 Clinton St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: 1. The driveway will be 10 ft. at the street and widening at the house side of the property line. 2. The pedestrian ramping where the bus stop is perceived shall meet DPW approval and be approved administratively. 3. A note shall be placed on the plans requiring connection to the City’s electricity for the two streetlights. 4. The setback for Lot 2 shall be the mean of the two neighboring properties, 225 and 231 Clinton St., or conform to the 30 ft. of the district. 5. An easement shall be granted for any appurtenances regarding the Wesley sign. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, M. Pingel-Y, K. Mayo-Y, B. McTygue-Y, P. Morrison-Y, T. Stellato-Y, M. King- Y. 7-0 Motion carried. 4. #20240614 Lexington Road/Bemis Heights Subdivision Area Variance. Consideration of advisory opinion to the ZBA for an area variance associated with a proposed subdivision modification in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Dominick Ricco, Ricco Associates represented the applicant, Art Curto. Dominick said his client is looking for a recommendation to the ZBA for revision of phase 3 of the Independence Square Subdivision that was approved in the 1970’s. There were 39 building lots (40 with the rear park area). Dominick said when his client purchased the property they discovered a lot of wetlands. The property had not been maintained and had a beaver dam at one end. He said they’ve worked for two years with the ACOE to delineate the wetlands. They were allowed to remove the beaver dam which reduced the area, but they can’t reduce it any further. Dominick displayed a survey map of the property including the delineated wetlands. They are looking to reduce the 40 lots to 16 lots which would allow for a road off the corner of Bemis. The project is named Bemis Point and would consist of 16 residential lots. They are seeking 52 variances, but Dominick said it’s really only 3 – setback from the road (presently City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 10,, 2024 - Page 5 of 17 100 ft.), side yard setback (30 ft. total, minimum can be 12), and lot area (12,000 sq. ft.). He said the planning department is having the applicant request variances for every setback for each property. Dominick said they will only be disturbing 3.5 acres of property, and the remainder will remain ACOE wetlands. The lot sizes are a minimum of 8,000 sq. ft. with a few at 10,000 sq. ft. depending on the curvature of the road. There’s a pump station at the corner for sewers and the infrastructure is in place based on the 41 lots for water. The soil disturbance will be minimal so there won’t be any stormwater retention ponds. The road will be paved. They’re in the process of getting a disturbance permit from the ACOE to cross wetlands. Chuck Marshall, Chair said the board visited the site and met with the ZBA at the last workshop. The following items need to be addressed before the project can move forward for consideration:  A plan for fire apparatus routing is needed because it doesn’t appear that a fire truck could turn around.  Distance to Lake Ave. (Tony will explain)  In order to entertain SEQRA there has to be a clearing and grading plan that shows the level of vegetative removal. Bill M. said it’s a big ask for an area that’s surrounded by wetlands. He’s concerned about the drainage as it exists in addition to stormwater runoff. When walking to the site it’s apparent that all of the drainage will come down to the corner, the lowest spot in the neighborhood. Dominick said he has it planned out; there’s an existing culvert that discharges in the area and collects and discharges whatever drainage comes from the existing development. Dominick pointed out other drainage on the map that’s being brought back into the wetlands. The site will sit about 8 to 10 ft. higher than the wetlands and is shown on the grading plan that he will provide. Bill said the board saw an open channel at the site that flows to the south and is behind where the new homes will be built. Dominick said the channel won’t be disturbed, it flows south and out to the Northway. Bill said the wetland will fill up before it gets to the Northway. Dominick agreed that when it gets to the wetlands it will be a slower drain. They have permission from ACOE to maintain the area where the beaver ponds were and to keep them from being rebuilt. If the city wants them to restrict some of the catch basins so they release at a slower rate they could do that. Chuck said under city or state guidelines you are allowed to maintain the current course of stormwater drainage; you just can’t discharge at a faster rate. Dominick said in a residential subdivision that doesn’t apply until there’s over 5 acres of disturbance. In a commercial subdivision it’s an acre. Bill said the proposed smaller lot sizes will cause additional problems with the rules and regulations in that corner of the city when it comes to the new zoning standards. Patty said the board’s looking at a whole new project. This is a rural residential district that’s intended to accommodate low density residential development. The property was originally platted in the 1970’s and the UDO has been updated with significant changes. This property is now rural residential and sits in the greenbelt which calls for development to have a rural character. It was pointed out at the site visit that the 3 sites along the Northway would clear the vegetation and open it up disturbing the rural character. Patty said the property was purchased 5 years ago and the economics should have been discussed at that time. She understands there were 41 lots approved but they wouldn’t be allowed to be developed today and feels the ask is excessive. Patty read the public comments that were submitted and agrees that the lot sizes are substantially different from City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 10,, 2024 - Page 6 of 17 the established neighborhood, they have failed the wetland argument, haven’t justified a higher density, and she has concerns about traffic. The property likely wasn’t purchased before because of all the conditions on the site. Kerry asked Susan to clarify the board’s goal for the project tonight. Susan said this is an area variance application and the ZBA initiated coordinated SEQRA review and proactively deferred Lead Agency to the planning board. One item tonight is to seek Lead Agency status, it’s a type 1 action with other involved agencies, and to identify any additional information that’s needed for future SEQRA analysis. The second item is to give an advisory opinion to the ZBA. If the SEQRA negative declaration is issued and the area variance is granted by the ZBA it will return to the planning board for submission modification. The planning board needs to perform SEQRA and give an opinion on the variances sought before the ZBA can act. Chuck said tonight the board is declaring Lead Agency status for coordinated review and will provide information to the applicant needed for the planning board to make a SEQRA determination. Dominick asked for clarification of what he needs to provide to the planning board. Chuck said the PB will not see the grading and clearing plan, they will see the proposed subdivision map and the 1970’s subdivision approval. The layered plans that have been developed should be submitted to Susan and will be given to the PB when they return. Mark P. said according to the memo sent from Susan to the PB, the applicant has three options: 1. Build the approved subdivision, which will involve updated regulatory changes. 2. The applicant can submit a new subdivision application under rural residential. 3. They can apply to the PB and ZBA for modification to the existing subdivision. The applicant is doing number 3, which makes rural residential and the comprehensive plan irrelevant. Mark said the subdivision needs to be judged under the old rules where the property is zoned R-1. It is zoned UR-1 now. UR-1 allows for 4 lots per acre and there are 9.5 acres that are developable. Mark said from what he sees on the plan, a lot of the buffering to the Northway will be taken out, the lots are 2/3rd of the size of the UR-1 lots, and the setbacks are significantly different than what is required in R-1 and UR-1. He said he will be opposed to giving a positive recommendation to the ZBA considering the current set of plans. Chuck said the buildout of the 41 lots has a potential for a larger environmental impact, and although the 16 lots would have hurdles to overcome, the plan seems less problematic to the elements. Tony S. said the applicant needs to check the distance from Lake Ave. to the end of their cul-de-sac to make sure that a one-way ingress and egress are acceptable for a fire truck turnaround. Dominick said it should be measured from Lexington. Tony disagreed and said the chokepoint is at Lake and Lexington because if that were blocked, there’s no other way in. It is being checked into. Tony agreed with Bill on the drainage issues. He said in looking at the aerial map, it appears there’s a connection under the Northway to Spring Run/Bog Meadow Creek which has been plagued with issues. By further reducing the wetland area that supports that system and adding impervious area to it, it has to be looked at very carefully. He said as a planning board they do have the discretion to ask for a full SWPPP, and they would like to see mitigation for peak flow and water quality in accordance with the NYS design manual. Tony said it’s not a requirement, but he would support the request by the planning board. Chuck said the PB would not require that until the variances are granted. He said the amount of impervious area is dependent on the number of lots. Tony said they could do it based on a worst-case scenario. The applicant would need to provide enough information about the stormwater for the PB to do the SEQRA evaluation – the concept and methodology. Tony said Patty mentioned clearing limits to the Northway and he agrees that they’re right up to the Northway right-of-way and it’s going to open that up creating a noise impact on the new lots and existing neighborhood. Dominick said the main reason they are coming close to the buffer is to avoid wetlands disturbance. He said there’s still a significant buffer between the development and the Northway. Patty City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 10,, 2024 - Page 7 of 17 said when they walked the property and were shown the area where the houses will be built, there are trees there that will be removed. Beyond that there is land, but it’s not treed. Chuck asked Leah if during their SEQRA analysis the impacts would be measured on what they have rights to today versus proposed. Leah said because of the vintage of the subdivision, SEQRA review was not performed in the 1970’s. From the city’s point of view the SEQRA analysis would be based on what it is today and what the impacts would be if this plan were constructed. Tony said he’s not convinced that there won’t be a problem with the buffer to the Northway for noise impacts. He agreed with Patty that if they can’t build what’s approved then they have the UDO to deal with. Leah said that the Zoning Administrator has determined that the variances that are being sought will be what is required. The planning board does not have the authority to trump that decision. She said just like any other zoning compliant project that comes before the board; they are not obligated to approve them. Patty asked what triggered the report that was done in the zoning office. Leah said it was an effort to memorialize a determination that had already been made. She said it’s not a final written work, it was distributed as a draft and the board should not be concerned about it tonight. It should be considered when it’s provided to the board as a final determination. The applicant was told that subject to the variances that are being sought and what is being proposed, it is lawful under the zoning code. It doesn’t mean it has to be approved. Susan said the plan is consistent with the guidance that was provided by the Zoning/Building Inspector to the applicant. The variances are from the R-1 area and bulk schedule on the approved subdivision plat. There was a discussion about the zoning administrator and Zoning Officer’s authority. Leah said a draft letter was sent to the board in error and she suggested that the board not spend any more time considering it. Mike K. said it's his understanding that the planning board can weigh variances if they’re in a conservation district. Susan said if the board were viewing this proposal in a subdivision that was in a RR district, then conservation subdivision is required; this is a subdivision modification of a prior subdivision, not a conservation subdivision that goes through that analysis. Chuck Marshall made a motion that the planning board accept Lead Agency status for the application at Lexington/Bemis Heights, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: C. Marshall-Y, M. Pingel-Y, K. Mayo-Y, B. McTygue-Y, P. Morrison-Y, T. Stellato-Y, M. King-Y. 7-0 Motion carried. Mike K. suggested that the applicant consider making a loop road in the development similar to what was platted for the approved subdivision. Chuck Marshall, Chair summarized the items needed from the applicant for the board to consider:  Copies of the advanced plan that have not been shared with the board.  Fire apparatus routing.  Any IFC maximum from a dead end with single point regarding the fire code or building code should be examined as the distance to Lake Ave.  Clearing and grading plan.  Stormwater management concept should be evolved – how they will control the water quality and rate. Chuck asked if there was anyone from the public that wished to comment. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 10,, 2024 - Page 8 of 17 Kerri Herlick, 18 Lexington Rd. listed the following concerns:  Water/drainage. The neighbors on Bemis have sump pumps in their basements. Removal of the beaver dams helped but there’s concern about the maintenance of the that area (maintenance agreement). Permits?  Noise. Homes built close to the Northway won’t sell.  Number of lots that are being proposed. Their lots (Katie and neighbors) are all at least ¼ acre and have the frontage.  The proposed lots won’t have the same character and could change home values.  Increased traffic.  Opening up the back area. Julia Anderson, 8 Bemis Heights Dr. said she would be the next-door neighbor to the proposed lot 16. She said she can see and hear the Northway from her house and so will the new homes. Irving Metzger was the original developer of the neighborhood – Independence Square. He was initially given approval for 3 phases and was told at the end of phase 2 that he had to stop building. Julia said she contacted city hall and many of the people who worked there were no longer there, so they weren’t able to find out why he was told to stop. She and her neighbors are assuming it’s because of the high-water table in the area. There are many natural springs there. She’s concerned with increased traffic in the summer because of the proximity to the racetrack. Julia said trying to turn onto Lake Ave. at peak times of the day is almost impossible. She said the code requires more than one ingress egress to a development with more than 30 homes. Their development currently has one access and 64 homes. She’s concerned about what type of basements the new homes will have. There are investment buyers currently in the neighborhood where the homes are rented out and not well maintained. She’s concerned that could happen with the proposed new homes. Blake Herlick cited the Fire Code of NY 2020 appendix D Section 107 for the board to look at. Chuck told Dominick that they will circulate for Lead Agency Status which takes about 30 days with all of the involved/interested agencies. Susan said it’s not necessarily 30 days so the applicant should attempt to provide the information requested as soon as possible. 5. #20230378 Washington St. and West Ave. Land Disturbance Activity Permit and Watercourses/Wetland Permit. Land disturbance activity permit and watercourse/wetland permit for site work including filling and grading of approximately 6-acres to provide for future development in the Neighborhood Commercial (T-5) District. Stephanie Ferradino, Attorney represented the applicant. David Mohr represented the family. Also present from the LaBella team: Barbara Beall, Senior Wetlands Scientist, Sara Drury, Stormwater Specialist (one of the authors of the 2024 NYS Stormwater Design Manual) and Sean Farrell, Civil Engineer/Land development. Terresa Bakner (representing engineering side), Whitman, Osterman & Hanna. Stephanie said the property was purchased in 1978 and 1985 by the Mohr family. It’s located on the corner of West Ave. and Washington St. There are two parcels totaling 8.90 acres. The Mobil station (south) was built in 1985, and a two-bay garage was added in 1999. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 10,, 2024 - Page 9 of 17 After Mr. Mohr’s death in 2011 the property was passed on to his 7 children and wife. In 2013 the car wash was added, and the family has also acquired the liquor store. The property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (formerly T-5) and is described as a moderately intense mixed use in the UDO. Stephanie said they considered the potential for building on the site and noted that there is no greenspace requirement in the district as it’s zoned. It’s intended to be densely developed. Stephanie talked about the history of applications to the city:  The property was originally proposed before the planning board in 2015. An application was submitted that was the same as what is being proposed today – grade the property and prepare it to make it shovel ready. As in 2015, the family has no plan for development at this time. In 2015 a land disturbance permit was not available, but the current UDO provides one, which enabled the current application. The applicants are looking for the highest and best use of their land.  May 31, 2023, they made the new application under the Land Disturbance Permit with the intent to have a shovel ready parcel for mixed use development.  June 2023 the city requested updated wetlands information.  March 2024 – NYSDEC determination - waters were not jurisdictional.  August 2024 – ACOE determination - waters were not jurisdictional. Barbara Beall said in 1987 when the property was purchased the DEC didn’t regulate the wetlands on the property. The USACE didn’t regulate it either because it was in the “headwaters”. Barbara gave a history of wetland review – 1987-2004: 1987 – NYSDEC Wetlands mapped/filed for Saratoga County, Wetland S-47 opposite side of West Ave. 1999 – NYSDEC remaps wetlands in Saratoga County. NYSDEC extends Wetland S-47 mapping from the west end of West Ave. onto the northern part of Mohr property. 2001 – US Supreme Court – Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Federal Clean water Act (CWA) no longer regulates wetlands where the only connection to interstate commerce is migratory birds. Prior to 2002 =- Reconstruction of West Ave. Due to ineffectiveness, NYSDOT removes culvert conveying flow from Mohr property under West Ave. No longer flow from the Mohr property to the west side of West Ave. 2002 – Mohr hires The Chazen Companies. Coordinate agency wetland reviews of the property. Researched and asked that the Mohr property be considered non-jurisdictional because the culvert was no longer in place and because of the distance between the two wetlands, they were no longer working together. 2002 – April 30, Letter from NYSDEC. (Alan Koechlein). Agrees that northern wetland on the Mohr property is non-jurisdictional and will be removed from mapping due to lack of a culvert connection. 2002-2004 – Submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) by Chazen Companies. Demonstrating why wetlands on Mohr property are isolated under SWANCC. (two years for review). - In 2004, USACE finds southern Wetland 1 isolated (not regulated). - Northern Wetland 2 is regulated because it is “adjacent” to the large wetland west of West Ave. Barbara displayed a letter from DEC with an attached wetland map. Alan Koechlein wrote on the wetlands map “wetland inspected by the DEC on August 20th; it’s no longer regulated. Delete “toe” that goes onto the parcel on the Mohr site”. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 10,, 2024 - Page 10 of 17 Wetland Review – 2006-2014: 2006 – US Supreme Court – Rapanos v. United States. Waters not regulated under the Clean Water Act unless onsite wetlands have a “significant nexus” (i.e., connection with/impact) to downstream Traditionally Navigable Waters (Saratoga Lake, Kaydeross Creek). 2013 (about). David Mohr Re-retained Chazen. 2013-2014 Submittal to USACE – Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) under Rapanos. Chazen demonstrates why both wetlands on Mohr property are non-jurisdictional. - May 8, 2014, AJD issued aby USACE, both wetlands not regulated under CWA. 2014 – Chazen requests NYSDEC affirmation of Koechlein determination for Wetland S-47. - May 14, 2014, email from Kevin R. Bliss, Regional Deputy Permit Administrator. Letter from Alan Koechlein is still in effect. (2015 Mohr applies to the City of Saratoga Springs for a permit to fill wetlands) Stephanie said when they were preparing their presentation for tonight, she noticed that the wetlands had not been removed from the map as Alan Koechlein had noted on August 20th. She asked Barbara to explain the impact of the wetlands not having been removed from the city’s map. She added that the only reason they’re before the board is because the PB is the only one that have jurisdiction over DEC and ACE, neither of which are interested in the wetlands at that location. Barbara said she believes that because it was a handwritten note on the map by Mr. Koechlein, it didn’t get carried over when they went to electronic mapping. Mark P. asked about the planning board’s jurisdiction over the wetlands. Stephanie said the basis for the PB’s jurisdiction is the City’s stormwater map, which this property should not be on. She said they would still be here on the land clearing, but not on the stormwater. There was a discussion between the board members and Stephanie regarding the wetlands the board has jurisdiction over. Stephanie asked the board to keep in mind that if an error had not been made, they would not be having a wetland discussion but agreed with Mark that the planning board has jurisdiction over the wetlands using the City’s “Watercourse Protection Overlay District Map”. That map shows wetlands on the Mohr site, and because of that they fall under 13.6. Stephanie reiterated that she never said the planning board doesn’t have jurisdiction. Barbara displayed two pieces of correspondence from 2014 from the Army Corps of Engineers indicating that both wetlands are not regulated under the Clean Water Act and an email from Kevin Bliss indicating that they are going to hold to the Alan Koechlein letter. Wetland Review – 2021-2024 2021-2023 – Federal Definition of Waters of United States (WOTUS) in flux. - Draft regulations defining WOTUS issued January 2022. - January 24, 2022 – US Supreme Court agrees to re-hear Sackett case (enforcement action) and what should be regulated based on Federal definition with oral arguments Oct. 2022. - January 18, 2023 – Final Rule redefining WOTUS. - May 2023, Supreme Court issues Sackett ruling – the ACE should not be regulating any wetland that doesn’t have a connection via a continuous perennial or intermittent stream. - USACE reviews of JDs cease from May 2023 (when Stephanie came in with the Mohr permit) – October 2023 as Sackett moves through USACE system August 29, 2023 – City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 10,, 2024 - Page 11 of 17  Conforming rule issued (people uncertain about how this would play out because of strange language about what a continuous water/surface connection was). USACE implementation in NYS unchanged post-Sackett. 2022, March – NYS Legislature passes a law changing regulations NYS Wetlands mapping and classification. To go into effect January 1, 2025. 2022, December. David Mohr retains LaBella (aka Chazen) to complete land disturbance permit. - June 2023, City of Saratoga Springs requests updated NYSDEC and USACE Jurisdictional Determinations. 2023-2024 Preparations and re-submittal to the USACE and NYSDEC by LaBella. - March 13, 2024, NYSDEC issues Non-JD letter, “there are no DEC regulated wetlands or associated adjacent areas on the above-described parcel in the City of Saratoga Springs” and mentions the January 1, 2025 regulatory change. - August 29, 2024, USACOE issues AJD Letter – “U.S. Army Core of engineers has determined that Wetland No. 1, which is approximately 0.45 acres, and wetland No. 2, which is approximately 1.56 acres, are not waters of the U.S. and as such, work that would occur within these areas does not require Department of the Army authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.” Barbara showed slides of the wetlands on site, photos of Outlook Ave.; view north along at the catch basin inlet, view south at the catch basin inlet receiving flow from site, view west from the catch basin inlet that receives flow from site via drainage swale (looking toward Mohr property), view southwest at the east end of a drainage swale conveying flow from site to Outlook Ave., view southeast at inlet of a pipe conveying flow from the site to the catch basin, view northeast of the drainage ditch conveying flow from the site to the Avenue, view northwest of the northern wetland on the site from the drainage swale. Stephanie displayed a copy of the drainage easement for the lot where the drainage swale connects on the Mohr property. She said she noticed in the staff notes that the drainage easement was done in 2005, 20 years after the Mohr’s purchased their property and was in connection with a subdivision (Outlook). They suspect that when the culvert was closed that connected the Mohr property underneath West Ave. towards the railroad, they needed somewhere for the drainage to go and that lead to the drainage easement. The easement was granted by the owner of the subdivision to the City of Saratoga Springs, and it had nothing to do with the Mohr’s. Sara Drury talked about stormwater regulations and showed a map of existing conditions at the edge of the Mohr’s property to the easement. Sara said the water naturally flows there and showed a slide of the view northwest of the northern wetland on site from the drainage swale. She said this is an existing condition and not something that was created by the Mohr’s. Sara said they read the public comments and understand that groundwater, flow of water, and water in basements is a big concern. Chuck asked how the soil was classified as A in a wetland; typically, they’re C or D. Sara said they can be an A depending on the soil and water table. You could have great soil (sand) that soaks up the water with a shallow water table, like this location, and the water has nowhere to go. Sara said they have the ability to reshape the stormwater basin and provide a buffer/setback to the neighboring properties by screening with plants. She said right now the stormwater acts like a basin and their plan is to reshape it to make it function better. They are subject to a SWPPP (erosion/sediment control only) because they’re disturbing more than an acre. She said they are treating this as a full SWPPP, which is not required for this project, and reducing rates to the culvert under the 10- and 100-year storm plan. Sara said there’s also a concern from the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 10,, 2024 - Page 12 of 17 neighbors about future development and they can fix that by oversizing the basin using the planning measures in Chapter 4 of the design manual in table 410, and design for the worst- case scenario which would be commercial. Sara said whoever comes in later regarding that property will have to submit a full SWPPP of water quality and quantity. Stephanie explained further that when a SWPPP is done you are required to make it better than it was before you touched the ground. When another project comes in, they would be required to do the same. Chuck asked the owner of 29 Outlook Ave. to explain his experience with the stormwater easement and if he understood what it meant when he purchased his home. The owner said he was aware of the easement and was told that it was put there by the ACOE and that the city took their advice on what to do to connect it to the stormwater system. They were told not to disturb it. It was marked off with flags that are now gone. They said that the city would maintain it, but he has lived there 12 years and the City’s never been there. He said he and his neighbors go in twice a year with hip boots, rakes and shovels and open up the pipe into the city system. He said it has overflowed three times into his basement since they’ve lived there, and water from the Mohr’s property has come into his yard a few times as well. Chuck asked if they like the standing water. The owner said he does; he likes the wildlife there. He said if the swale were to be cleaned out it could easily handle a 100-year storm. Mark P. asked James if what the owner is describing is what the city is responsible for. James answered, inaudible, no mic. Bill M. said this is a drainage easement that should be maintained by the city and an inspection by the city engineer could determine if it’s working properly. James gave some background on the system: it’s an 18” pipe inlet that connects to the city’s storm system and immediately turns into a size 24” pipe. He said it’s fairly high capacity. He did a site visit, and it is overgrown and could use some maintenance. They did not check inside the pipe but can have DPW do that. Bill said it’s good that the facilities are nearby to help with future drainage. He said the groundwater issue and water in the basement is a complicated problem. Bill remembers when they blasted to put the swale in and said there’s a high rock shelf that could be allowing the water to sit higher, therefore creating a higher water table. He thinks grading the northern section could allow the water to flow to the inlet on Outlook. There was a discussion about the 4ft. berm in the 10 ft. buffer and whether it would create standing water. Sara asked if a swale along the property line that drains into the easement with a berm would help. Chuck said it would improve the drainage situation. Mike K. said he read somewhere that the old culvert under West Ave. would be reactivated. Sara said she was not aware of that. A person from the audience said the culvert connection was removed because it wasn’t draining. If it were to be put back in it wouldn’t solve the problem because it doesn’t function in that fashion. Chuck Marshall, Chair asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment on whether the presentation tonight addressed their concerns. John Haas, 29 Outlook Ave., said he does not see this as an improvement. Currently the water table is high, and his basement is dry. He said they’re proposing to take down hundreds of trees with no plan to build anything. It would make sense if the proposal were connected to a project. He said they currently have a buffer between them and West Ave. He said with the development on Station Lane they hear the trains as if they’re in their backyard. They hear the carwash noise all day. Removing the trees would take away the buffer. John said the applicant is trying to get this project approved prior to the changes in January because after that they won’t be able to do anything with the property. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 10,, 2024 - Page 13 of 17 Eric Schenone, 23 Outlook Ave. said he is located two properties down from John Haas and his house is the low point on Outlook Ave. They have managed to mitigate any drainage issues and he is struggling with the idea of filling in 2 acres of wetlands that are naturally controlling waters that have natural habitat and replacing it with an artificial retention pond. He said he described those and other issues in a letter he submitted to the board. Shona Rotondo, 39 Outlook Ave. said it was great to hear how the drainage issue could be addressed in a way that’s beneficial, but she agrees with other neighbors that there would be better support of the proposal if there were a project associated with it. She said her biggest issue is totally clearing out the land and removing the natural buffer they have right now. Shona said she needs to understand why they are doing this with no development plan in place. Dave Hrebenach, 18 Outlook Ave. resident for 4 years and the city for 26 years. Dave said he’s an environmental scientist/engineer and in looking at the maps he doesn’t see where the wetlands that are being discussed were originally part of the west side of West Ave. and part of waters of the United States unless they were illegally severed. He said the engineering drawing looks like it was set up to calculate the graded and filled area against the existing contours and absorption ability of the soil (75%). His concern is not seeing the stormwater flow with developed land which could overflow the existing city storm system. Dave said the Supreme Court made a ruling that took this out of jurisdiction and NYS has the ability to impose laws that are equal to or greater than as does the city. Dave said NYS is publishing their revision to the regulations in January and they likely will have more stringent definitions. They are adding a provision to account for designating small high-impact wetlands that would include 11 different factors. Dave said he understands that the contours were originally wetlands that went through decades of dumping and backfilling (archeological study refers to that), so they have no sample to show if there might be hazards there. He thinks there should be a tier 2 SEQRA report and a more serious evaluation. Lisa Elovich, 20 Outlook Ave. said she submitted written comments. Lisa said she would like to see them postpone this decision until they see if the wetlands are going to be covered under the new law which in being put in place in particular for smaller wetland areas. Lisa agreed with her neighbors that there needs to be a bigger plan in place rather than a small, segmented plan. Lisa said she, her daughter and neighbors are not in favor of filling in and grading the wetlands. Jenna Englestein, 43 Outlook Ave. said she shares the concerns a lot of her neighbors have, and she has also submitted written comments. She agrees that there needs to be a larger plan, especially if they’re going to destroy wetlands and the sound buffer. Chuck Marshall said the board has repeatedly heard from concerned neighbors that there is no plan and the large extent of proposed disturbance. It’s his understanding that it’s the planning board’s discretion and authority to limit both of those concerns. Leah said there is a provision in the UDO that concerns the planning board’s review, and she will look at it and provide guidance either by the end of the meeting or before the applicant is back on the agenda. Leah clarified that there are two permits being sought; the watercourse permit, which is necessitated by this proposal, and a land disturbance permit that covers tree removal and other earth works. Leah said it doesn’t necessarily end the exact same way for each permit. Chuck said the tree removal permit does not have to be granted in its entirety to City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 10,, 2024 - Page 14 of 17 the applicant. He said he doesn’t think the plan is developed enough to indicate what the limits of clearing and disturbance are. Terresa Bakner responded to the question of segmentation; she said they have look at likely future issues as a part of their review. They can’t speculate, but anything that would be done at that location would be allowed by zoning and would have to go through the required process. She said they are looking to have a shovel ready site that can be developed in the future in accordance with the zoning. Regarding comments about DEC regulations, right now they are proposed and have been subjected to a tremendous amount of comments. One comment has been about projects that are already in the works, which this project has been since 2013. DEC has indicated that they will be grandfathering projects for a period of time, and it will be a phased program. She said it’s not a prohibition, you will just have to apply for permits as it’s always been. Mark P. said if the planning board doesn’t grant the permits, then there is no project. Terresa said the planning board has a right to say yes or no. Terresa said based on what the state DEC has said they are hoping to adopt regulations by January of 2025. Sara Drury talked about the wetland protection area of the UDO and the three criteria an applicant is asked to meet:  Not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood water adequately. They will not adversely affect the stormwater on the property, they are benefiting it by storing water on the property and reducing runoff rates to the culvert.  Not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation in conformance with the substantive requirements of the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Construction Activities, most current version. The project is subject to a general permit and will have to do a SWPPP. All SWPPPs have to employ sediment control measures. During construction there will be methods in place in accordance with the DEC bluebook to stop sedimentation migrating onto the neighboring property. Once the site achieves final stabilization as defined by DEC the temporary measures are removed and it’s stabilized.  Include appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures that minimize the impact of the encroachment on wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report. As previously discussed, the applicant is willing to provide buffering and plantings and seed mix that is specific for situations where there could be inundations of water. Sara reminded the board that with regard to stormwater, the board refers to the design manual and the permit. The city does not have its own regulations for stormwater; they rely on the state. The applicant has met the requirements of Article 17 of the UDO. Mike K. asked what the board was doing tonight. Chuck said the applicant would like approval but that isn’t happening tonight. At a minimum they will be leaving with design modifications. Mike clarified that the “project” right now is to cut down all the trees, build a berm & swale and a (not) pond to be able to flush all the water through the culvert under Outlook Ave. The project is to clear the site and figure out how not to inundate the surrounding properties with water. Mike said it’s his understanding that the applicant submitted to the city in 2015, and the city denied them because they didn’t have a project. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 10,, 2024 - Page 15 of 17 Stephanie said the UDO changed to allow the new application. Leah said not every municipality regulates these pre-construction activities on a site. The City of Saratoga Springs does regulate them by requiring applicants to come before the planning board for certain permits. These activities are not required to be tied to a proposed development project under the UDO. She said what’s before the board are complete and full applications. Mike said without a development proposal, it’s incredibly hard to support this. Tony S. asked for more information about the 2015 application. Tony asked Leah if she agrees with Teressa regarding segmentation and that it’s not a problem in this instance. Leah said segmentation is the division of the SEQR review process into two or more parts to limit the amount of impact any one part has so as not to trigger the environmental impact statement requirement. That would be the concern about segmentation. SEQRA does not require that you evaluate impacts from a purely speculative future development project. Leah said another way to address that is to evaluate the impacts using a “worst case scenario” using the full buildout allowed under the zoning code. She isn’t certain that the 75% meets that but it doesn’t appear that there’s a segmentation issue and that the applicant has some project that they’re not disclosing. Tony said with respect to the watercourse permit; the procedure is problematic for him because it says, “the filling of the wetlands are prohibited” and “the planning board’s discretion is limited” allowing encroachments into the buffer (requires 50 ft. buffer for all non-DEC wetlands). He said Stephanie says the map is wrong and information was not carried over correctly. He said that the map should be corrected by the city so the property can be removed from the watercourse protection area. Then they will only be required to get a land disturbance permit. Tony said he feels the board’s hands are tied with issuing the watercourse permit right now under the UDO. Chuck said there’s an existing development on the southern boundary of the property and he feels the northern wetlands with a swale should be preserved and utilized for water quality. Development in the area of the isolated wetland that’s already been acknowledged as non- jurisdictional pursuant to the ACOE would be aligned with no access off of West Ave., access only through existing driveways, etc. Chuck said with the Inclusion of the swale and utilization of the northern wetland as the water quality, he’s getting more comfortable with that idea. Understanding what the revised SWPPP would be, limits of disturbance to the southern wetland, etc., he could see an action/project evolving from there, but he would not be in support of the overall disturbance of the wetland. Terresa commenting from the audience. Inaudible. Mark P. said that the project descriptions in the SWPPP caught his attention; pre- development watershed conditions: the pre-development project site is covered predominately by woods. Post-development: the post-development project is covered predominately by grass. Mark said he’s struggling with Stephanie’s comment that “there’s no plan for development” and “that’s why we have land disturbance”. How does this proposal facilitate development in the future and leaving the site in its current condition prevent that? Stephanie said it enables a future developer to understand exactly what the city will allow and where. It makes the property shovel ready so that a potential developer knows what they can build there. Stephanie cited the Global Foundries site in Malta that was shovel ready. Mark proposed another way for the board to approve this would be to say we don’t want you to cut down any trees or make any changes to the wetlands now, but we will permit these changes within the property when you present us with a plan. It was agreed that the board could not approve the application in that manner. Chuck clarified that what Mark’s looking for is limited disturbance now. Terresa talked about a previous project that she worked on with Tony where a site was made shovel ready and responded to his question of the “benefit” of that. She mentioned an example of where trees could only be cut down between October and April where there was a bat habitat. She said that’s what is done at all of the industrial City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 10,, 2024 - Page 16 of 17 parks to make a site shovel ready. If they don’t do it, there’s no guarantee that you can develop in the future. Mark said his opinion about the wetlands has shifted because there will be a second chance for the planning board to review a future project. He still has concerns over groundwater versus depth after hearing Dave Hrebenach’s comments as an environmental engineer. Mark said he’s not convinced that there is any weight to the non- jurisdictional phrasing that the applicant has been using. The planning board has jurisdiction; the fact that DEC and the ACOE doesn’t, is irrelevant to him. It takes no weight from him wanting to evaluate this proposal on its merits. Terresa said they would like to address that issue when they supplement the record with regard to stormwater. She said with what she read the planning board’s authority specifically relates to DEC wetlands and ACOE wetlands. It does not independently carve out a new definition of wetland under the wetland regulations. Mark said to Tony’s point, it’s on the map so everything else is irrelevant. Stephanie said that will be supplemented with their next submission. Kerry said he agrees with Mike and Tony. He said it’s not helpful that the applicant is comparing a shovel ready site to large industrial sites like Global Foundries. He said a residential developer can envision this site and build a site plan. Stephanie said they’re not intending to change anything. The property is zoned mixed-use development. Patty said she appreciated hearing that the Mohr’s are good neighbors and hearing the public comments. She said she agrees with the concerns that have been expressed by the other board members. She said to just clearcut the property without a plan is a non-starter for her. There have been instances where projects have been changed to keep areas that were originally going to be removed. She said making this property shovel ready is a very negative way to approach this project. Patty asked if the property was going to be sold in the near future. Someone from the audience answered but was inaudible. She said it could be a better project if there was a plan in front of the board, but it doesn’t make the property more valuable to just clearcut it. She said the regulations for the wetlands and no plan for the property are concerns. Bill M. said the area is zoned Neighborhood Commercial T-5 District and boarders a residential district along Outlook Ave. He said if there was an application before the board for a mixed-use property, they would be looking at buffers along the protection zone along the residential area. Without a project how do they know where to draw the line for buffers. He said the board is in a real dilemma having to approve a project that they know nothing about. They can’t just clearcut the property on speculation. He said he’s listening to both sides and there’s a genuine frustration here. He said he has nothing at the moment that signals a solution. Patty Morrison made a motion to deny the application. Stephanie said the applicant is withdrawing their application from the planning board’s consideration and will resubmit with more information. Leah said the applicant is seeking to have this matter adjourned so they can submit additional materials to the planning board. Patty Morrison withdrew her motion. Leah said the applicant can return with additional information and the board will have an opportunity to conduct SEQRA review. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Kerry Mayo made a motion to adjourn the meeting at approximately 10:15 p.m. The motion was seconded by Patty Morrison. All in favor, motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON OCTOBER 24, 2024. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 10,, 2024 - Page 17 of 17