Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FINAL THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2024 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Chuck Marshall, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Charles (Chuck) Marshall, Chair, Mark Pingel, Vice-Chair, Bill McTygue, Anthony (Tony) Stellato, Mike King, Patty Morrison & Kerry Mayo. ABSENT: STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, City Counsel, James Sallaway, City Engineer. Chuck Marshall, Chair asked that the Board take a moment of silence to reflect on the recent loss of city planner, Beige Berryman. She will be sadly missed. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Mark Pingel made a motion to accept the meeting minutes from September 26, 2024. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. The vote was from the 4 board members present at the September 26th meeting. P. Morrison-Y, M. Pingel-Y, K. Mayo-Y, M. King-Y. Motion carried 4-0. 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. #20240590 400 Louden Site Plan Unitarian Universalistic Congregation. Site plan review for construction of an 8,844 sq. ft. place of worship and associated site work in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Jeff Anthony, Studio A represented the applicants. Jeff said they received comments from the board to reconsider the site plan for the church and developed three options/alternatives:  Reduced parking down to 40 spaces  Reconsider the circulation system –dedicated exit lane removed to reduce paving.   Reconfigured the site plan to save more of the mature trees.  Walkway – added a graded, grassed-surface connection from the church parking lot to Bog Meadow Run.  Comments from City Engineer – taken care of as shown on the submitted drawings.  Still outstanding letter from Saratoga County Sewer District authorizing connection. Letter being written and the County will provide drawings and information for the connection itself which will be added to the final set of mylars and drawings to be submitted to the city. Chuck asked about the sidewalk extension that was discussed at the last meeting. Jeff said he extended it as far as possible without going into the preserve area. He said they did provide a painted crosswalk at the end of the path from Bog Meadow Run to their parking lot along the west side of the parking area. Chuck asked Susan if there was anything formally in place regarding off-site parking during special events that exceed the parking capacity. There is not and it will not be a condition of approval. Tony said he sees a potential conflict between the one-way and two-way traffic where the drop off loop dumps into the parking lot. Jeff said they will add a do not enter sign at the end of the parking lot. They can also stripe out the last bay for a turnaround if the parking lot is full. Mark said the applicant has been very patient and responsive to the board’s comments and it’s a good plan. Other board members agreed. Chuck said a place of worship is an authorized use in a rural residential district with a special use permit. The SUP for the church was issued in 2023 along with a SEQRA determination issuing a negative declaration. Chuck Marshall made a motion to approve the site plan for the Unitarian Universalistic Congregation Church at 400 Louden Rd., Saratoga Springs, NY with the conditions that the Saratoga County “Will Serve” letter be added to the file and the parking space closest to the church be striped for no parking to accommodate turnaround. The motion was seconded by Patty Morrison. Vote: C. Marshall–Y, M. Pingel–Y, B. McTygue-Y, T. Stellato–Y, M. King-Y, P. Morrison–Y, K. Mayo-Y. 7-0, motion carried. 2. #20230378 239 Washington St. and West Ave. Land Disturbance Activity Permit for site work including filling and grading approximately 2.5 acres to provide for future development in the Neighborhood Commercial (T-5) District. Susan Barden said prior to the meeting she presented the board with a letter from Sustainable Saratoga and an email from Patrick Cogan from the workshop. Patrick’s email said that based on the revised scope of the proposed land disturbance a land disturbance permit will still be required. The revised project as proposed will no longer require a watercourse wetland permit. Chuck asked Stephanie to indicate the new amount of disturbance for review purposes because the EAF was not amended. Present for the Applicant: Stephanie Ferradino, Attorney, Greg Mohr – Owner’s Representative, LaBella Team: Barbara Beall, Senior Wetlands Scientist, Sean Farrell, Civil Engineer/Land Development. Stephanie said the land disturbance permit is required for any disturbance to topsoil. The property is located in the Neighborhood Commercial District which was previously the T-5 district. The NC District favors mixed-use development, a balance of residential and non- City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 14, 2024 - Page 2 of 12 residential uses. Stephanie addressed some of the neighbor’s comments from the last meeting:  Property behind them was “forever wild”. Stephanie said that has never been the case. She had a business on West Ave., and it was zoned similarly 25 years ago.  The applicant is “flying through the application” to beat the wetland regulations that will possibly take effect in January of 2025. Stephanie noted that they made their application in 2023 when the regulations had not been promulgated. The first viewing of the application was the advanced notice of the changes from the DEC issued in January of 2023 (7 months after the application). They are trying to diligently proceed with the application because the changes in January will affect their pending application. The reasons for the delay have been within the jurisdictions that were reviewing the wetlands and re-confirming things that had been confirmed in 2015.  Site cannot be used for industrial purposes – Stephanie said she mis-spoke at the last meeting and apologized for any reference that indicated that the site could be used for industrial purposes. The site will be used in a manner that is consistent with the zoning.  Rationale for pursuing the application – provide flexibility and increase the value and marketability of the property in knowing what area of the land can be developed. It will avoid a requirement for a feasibility analysis for any future buyer and prevent the loss of land with the new regulations that are coming up, which would have an impact on the value of the property. Stephanie said at the October 10th meeting the plan proposed clearing 6.3 acres. In response to board and neighbor comments, they have revised their proposal by cutting the clearing by more than half and limiting the disturbance to 2.6 acres. The revised proposal would fill .45 acres of isolated (not connected to other sources) wetland. It’s not jurisdictional from any perspective – Army Corp, DEC or the City’s map. Stephanie showed the modified map and how they have responded to the comments from October 10th. There will now be a significant green buffer and a swale. Stephanie spoke to the following comments from October 10th:  Preserve northern wetlands – maybe a future walking path.  “Waterfront property” – jokingly spoken but understandable that it is of significant value to be able to enjoy the wildlife in your backyard. More active and significantly larger wetlands will remain as they are.  Vegetative buffer between homes and the developable area.  Removed the berm that was discussed at the last meeting which would hold back water and added a swale. This will allow the large wetland to receive offsite drainage from the neighborhood.  City maintenance of the culvert – James will follow up to make sure the culvert is cleaned out.  The new plan would prevent any access from West Ave. Watercourse wetland permit -The wetlands are not ACOE or DEC jurisdictional, which leaves the city watercourse protection overlay district map to govern. Code enforcement said with the new revised plan showing only the isolated wetlands being filled in, it’s no longer necessary for the applicant to seek a watercourse and wetland permit. Stephanie said there was discussion at the last meeting regarding whether the applicant was required to show what kind of development they would be doing on the site in the future. Stephanie researched the UDO and analyzed the type of applications that come before the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 14, 2024 - Page 3 of 12 planning board. There were three specific categories for planning board application requirements:  Project specific approvals (require building/structure specific plan) – Special Use Permit, Site Plan, PUD Site Plan, Temporary Use Permit.  Land division approvals (require map of boundaries, no development plan required) – subdivision, lot line adjustment.  Clearing and grading approvals (no site plan) – land disturbance, watercourse/wetland permit. Pertinent to this application. UDO 13.7A Purpose relates to “site preparation” which this application falls into because they are proposing to change the natural topography of the site and will be removing/disturbing the topsoil. All of the requirements for this application have been met by the applicant. Stephanie said a revised SWPPP was sent to James given the reduction in the land mass that will be affected. Stephanie noted that the proposed regulations that will become effective in 2025 will have no legal effect on this pending application. Chuck clarified that the total land disturbance would be 2.6 acres not 2.5 and that any subsequent action beyond a land disturbance permit would require a new SEQRA determination. Bill M. said this revised application allows the board to consider something that’s much more manageable. The details for the buffer along the eastern line will need to be discussed. There was a discussion about watercourse maintenance. Sean Farrell said the flow on and off of the property will not be disturbed. Bill asked James if a need for maintenance of the city’s storm system was identified. James said he spoke with the owners of the adjacent properties who said they were okay with maintaining the area next to them up to the inlet pipe. Beyond that, the city has not inspected it further. He said visually it appears to be okay with no blockages, but they can do a full flush if it gets backed up or the neighbors ask that they respond. Patty asked what the plan is for road access to the property. Stephanie said they haven’t figured that out yet but there is available space that is connected to the Mobil station which is under common family ownership. Patty asked if there was an inventory of the trees. Susan said the applicant submitted an existing conditions plan and a photo log identifying the trees. A precise inventory will be submitted. Regarding the buffer, Patty asked if any of it could be saved in addition to what would be added. Stephanie said she didn’t think so because of the swale that they’re putting in. Kerry asked what the buffer would consist of. Sean said at this time the plan is for a row of arborvitae but they’re open for suggestions from the board. Stephanie noted that should the property be sold and developed in the future, in depth site plan review will be required. Kerry said he would like to see a denser buffer than what is proposed. Chuck noted that optimally the goal is to put in a swale to get water off of the neighbor’s property which will take out some of the buffer. Mark asked Sean to outline specifically how the swale would make it better for the neighbors. Sean explained that the water movement will be improved by the swale (least resistant path) directing the water to flow more freely into the northern wetland. Mark agreed with Patty that a tree inventory is needed and with Kerry that a denser buffer/visual barrier is needed. He would also like to make sure that the swale is as effective as possible with a flow analysis provided by the applicant. Tony said he has not seen a revised SWPPP. Sean said it was submitted to James. Tony agreed with Mark that he would like to see proof that the swale will be an improvement in drainage for the neighbors. He’s concerned that while the swale provides better conveyance of the water, it won’t have the storage volume for overflow water that the wetland that’s being filled in currently has. He would prefer that the flood storage City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 14, 2024 - Page 4 of 12 capacity of the site not be reduced. Sean said they are required to calculate the flow according to DEC standards for 1 year, 10 year and 100-year storm events (how many inches of rain for each event). In a one-year storm they are less than 1 (.5) CFS (cubic foot per second). A garden hose is about 1.5 to 2 ft. per second. For a 10-year storm (pre- development) there’s 1.5 CFS coming off the site. A 100-year event is 5.3 CFS. Sean explained to the board how storm events are measured. Sean said soil types also affect the flow rate – good soils = lower rates. The soil at this site is good and of a sandy consistency. Bill said there’s a significant city storm drain infrastructure that exists in this neighborhood on Outlook Ave. that could be utilized to improve surface and ground water issues that are causing wet basements for the neighbors. Mike asked if it would be possible for the board to approve the permit, but nothing gets done until the property is sold and there’s a project brought forth for site plan review. The applicant took a break, and the Chair took questions/comments from the audience. John Haas, 29 Outlook Ave. said there’s a berm on his property line and on his side of the berm water flows really fast in the swale to the culvert. He said on the map at the end of the row of proposed arborvitae is a blue line which is water and is on his property. He has very large pine trees that are going to be disturbed and could fall on his house because of how wet the soil will become with the water running behind them. He said the soil is not sand, it’s clearly clay, mud and bedrock and he asked that the PB members come and take a look at his property. He said there’s an easement on his land for the city’s stormwater system which works well but this proposal will push all of the water onto his property and it’s not acceptable. John said the applicant needs to provide more clarity about future proposals – what type of development will be there, buffers, etc. Elizabeth Reardon, 11 Outlook Ave. represented families at 9, 10, 13 and 15 Outlook Ave. and read a letter stating their reasons for opposing the project:  EPA says swales in conditions like Outlook Ave.; shallow bedrock, poor drainage and high-water tables, create safety hazards and environmental risks.  Indicated the applicant is rushing the application to avoid new regulations.  Artificially split the project to see what would potentially stick with the board.  Minimizing the impact this would have on this land in the future.  Looking for a quick sale once they have marketable land and not being a responsible neighbor for the community.  Will impact neighborhood with flooding issues. Disturbance will force them to pay more out of their pocket with flood insurance costs, decreasing property values and requiring additional mitigation systems, all while destroying natural protections that have served the community for centuries. Avery Hrebenach, 18 Outlook Ave. cited Amendment #4 of the UDO “a site plan shall include existing conditions or a tree plan depicting the species, size, location and condition of any existing significant trees (defined as hardwoods greater than 12” in diameter or conifers greater than 24” in diameter)”. Any trees that will be disturbed or significant trees that will be removed are subject to “Article 11.9F, tree replacement or mitigation”. He suggested a full SEQRA should be sought. Avery said he’s against separate permits to clear the land and develop the land because there have been instances where land was permitted to be cleared for one purpose and then a permit was issued for something different than what was initially City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 14, 2024 - Page 5 of 12 intended. He said he doesn’t see a viable access road to the property except right up against their property lines. Lisa Elovitch, 20 Outlook Ave. said the wetlands in this zone may be covered under 6NYCRR part 664 a new law that will go into effect in January of 2025 to protect small wetlands that are important to the eco system: 1. Elimination of regulatory maps – even if this particular wetland is not currently on a regulatory map it may still be considered under the new law. 2. Regulation of smaller wetlands is considered under the new law. 3. Criteria for wetlands of unusual importance – multiple salamander species, wood frog, rare plants, presence of watersheds prone to significant flooding, location within urban areas, habitat for endangered or threatened species and provisions of water quality benefits. 4. Expanded adjacent areas in the regulated buffer zones known as the adjacent area and amount of feet. The purpose and intent of the new law includes enhanced water quality, flood control, wildlife habitat, preservation, climate resilience and protection of smaller at-risk wetlands. Lisa said if there’s not been a jurisdictional determination by DEC as to whether these wetlands meet any of the 11 criteria under the new law, then the board should delay their decision until that determination has been made. Chuck said there’s a letter from DEC in the project file and the finding is based on what is currently adopted as the law. Lisa said considering the new law is coming into effect within weeks, it seems a decision could be held off until then. Especially considering the proposal lacks clarity. Chuck said the board is considering a land disturbance permit, not evaluating on a speculative nature what could come in, nor is the applicant required to say what might come in. Laura? 42 Outlook Ave. said all the blocks around their area have significant drainage issues. To direct the water where there’s already a high-water table with flooding basements and drainage issues and taking away a water storage basin will not be helpful and may lead to lawsuits. She said the topography has been discussed but not the geology of the area which has a high limestone base where the water goes down very slowly. Laura said she’s had contractors say they wouldn’t touch Outlook Ave. with the drainage issues they have. She said it’s the groundwater that needs to be addressed. Kristin Ostrander, 32 Outlook Ave. (corner of Outlook and Division) said she has a sump pump working full time in the spring and is not sure what will happen if the wetland basin is filled in. Where will the extra drainage go, especially since it’s already an issue? Eric Schenone, 23 Outlook Ave. said the lowest point on the street is his house. He said he would appreciate it if the board would come out and take a look at the properties there. To allow them to fill in the wetland basin the water will have nowhere to go. There are “shovel ready” properties nearby that just look out into space. If the applicant is allowed to clear the land to be shovel ready, he will be looking at a row of arborvitae and then dumpsters from the neighboring businesses. Frieda Miller, 10 Central Ave. looks directly down Outlook Ave. at the end of this project. Frieda said when she walks around the block, she can hear the drainage from the sewer system all year round, not just when it’s raining. She’s concerned that even with the proposed swale they’re not taking into consideration how much volume will actually be City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 14, 2024 - Page 6 of 12 coming through that area. She said the impact of clearing the buffer that provides for a safe haven for the children playing will affect the entire neighborhood. Kelsey Flannery, 9 Outlook Ave. said she can personally attest to the fact that there are hazardous things buried where the applicant is proposing to dig. She has three large bins of car parts, engines, glass, etc. that they dug up when they put in a fence around their property. She agreed with others that there’s bedrock and very poor drainage on Outlook. Jeremy Annese, 42 Central Ave. said there are 25 pre-high school aged kids between Outlook and Central avenues. They are already a cut-through street between Church and Washington and drivers speed through the neighborhood. The noise boundary that the current trees and vegetation provide for the neighborhood is necessary to protect the neighborhood from the sounds of West Ave., the train station and other businesses. Chuck Marshall, Chair said the board has two paths – ask for additional information or attempt to make a decision based on the information that they have. He recommended that the board perform SEQRA at a minimum to help to identify what if any additional information is needed. It is an unlisted action and would require the short form EAF. Patty asked why the long form is not required when space for water volume is being removed. Chuck said stormwater analysis is not a component of the long form. Mark said he’s reluctant to vote tonight. Chuck said they can ask for additional information. The board’s decision is on the land disturbance permit as codified in the UDO under 13.7. Chuck Marshall, Chair said the planning board will perform a SEQRA Review on the land disturbance permit. SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. No additional information is required. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. The board needs the analysis showing that the fill to the wetland and the drainage does not adversely affect the runoff. Tony said he would like the opportunity to review the revised SWPPP and to ask questions based on that review. Mike said if the land is clear cut there will be a significant change in the use of this land. Mark noted that this is a T-5 zone and not a forever wild area. It’s allowed to be developed, but it will make a significant change. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. Chuck said the T-5 is zoned for development. Mark said if this was a site plan, buffer and noise mitigation would be discussed, and he thinks that’s how the board should be looking at the land disturbance permit. Chuck asked the board to determine what the applicant can offer to address the concerns. Sean said the wetland pocket is being filled in and a swale is being created and sized to handle the adverse effect of filling in the wetland. He said in creating the swale they will also be giving relief to the back of the homeowner’s properties that currently drain to the applicant’s property. Chuck noted that there is no hydrologic connection to the isolated wetland which is what DEC based their determination on. 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. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 14, 2024 - Page 7 of 12  8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. (have letter from SHPO) 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - (SWPPP & stormwater plan) 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… (SWPPP & stormwater plan) 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Chuck Marshall, Chair asked the board to weigh in on what is needed to render a SEQRA determination and a decision on the land disturbance permit, just as it pertains to land disturbance and not speculating what might be built there in the future. Bill said the main concern is drainage. He suggested that the applicant build the infrastructure to get the drainage into the City’s system. Sean said the drainage goes to the north into the un-isolated wetland and then to the east into the inlet structure. Bill explained how the drainage comes to the inner city; the storm drain system flows south on Outlook Ave. across lots to Bensonhurst, then along the south side of the elementary school, through the westside playground/recreation field and winds its way out to the intersection of Beekman St. and Washington St. It then heads east on Washington and dumps into the storm drain system in the city. Tony asked James if it’s possible for the pipe to handle the new flow. James said the isolated wetland held the water to a certain point and it eventually made it to the drainage. Once the wetland is filled in, the swale will expedite the water to the conveyance system to get the water to the culvert quicker. Tony asked if the applicant could provide further details to address the board’s concerns. Sean said they submitted a basic SWPPP that does not go into the detail that is being requested by the board because it wasn’t required. They were only required to show erosion control numbers. He said the previous SWPPP did evaluate the pre and post conditions and showed those values in the revised SWPPP. Further details including swale sizes and volume can be analyzed and provided to the board. Patty said she would like an inventory of the number of existing trees and number of significant trees. The buffer area affects the neighbors and needs to be better defined. Kerry said he would like to see a buffer that mimics the existing half acre of brush, trees, wetlands, etc. from a sight and sound mitigation standpoint. Mark said he understands that site access will not be allowed off of West Ave. for future development but said he would like it explained how they would access the property during the land disturbance construction and what impact it will have on the neighbors. Mike said he would like the applicant to figure out how to fill in the wetland and get the water to the culvert without disturbing the rest of the site. He doesn’t think the site should be cleared with no prospective proposal. Mark agreed with Mike and said if the land were to remain fallow and disturbed incrementally it would allow for any issues that arise to be fixed before a site plan comes before the board. Mike asked the neighbors in the audience how they felt about fixing the water situation. There were inaudible comments from the audience, not speaking into the mic. Leah asked if the board is asking the applicant to identify the smallest amount of area from which trees would need to be removed in order to fill the wetlands. The board agreed that’s what they’re asking for. Bill noted that the last segment of the pipe could be sized up from 18” to 24”. He pointed out a section of Washington St. is state jurisdiction and not a city road. The city’s jurisdiction ends around Newton Ave. Chuck Marshall, Chair summarized what is needed from the applicant:  Revised SWPPP and analysis from DPW back to the board.  A tree inventory as defined in Article 21 of the UDO to identify the significant trees (caliper, diameter measurement).  A plan for a buffer that mimics the existing half acre of brush, trees, wetlands, etc. from a sight and sound mitigation standpoint. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 14, 2024 - Page 8 of 12   Applicant to identify the smallest amount of area from which trees would need to be removed in order to fill in the wetlands.  Erosion sediment control that shows the access configuration during the proposed disturbance. 3. #20240682 25 New St. Subdivision. Preliminary plot review of a proposed 20-lot subdivision (resulting in 36 new residential units) in the Urban residential -3 (UR-3) district. Andy Brick, the Brick Law Firm represented the applicants Bill McNeary and sons. Walt Whitman, the Engineer, was also present. Andy said they are proposing a 20-lot subdivision at 25 New St., a 6.5-acre rectangular strip of land located behind the Price Chopper Plaza on Route 50 and between the plaza and the Railroad Run multi-use trail. On the opposite side of Railroad Run the applicant controls .77 acres of woodland that they are seeking to incorporate into the project to utilize as their open space. The 20 lots would consist of 18 duplex units and a dog park/playground on the New St. end of the project. The proposed storage area on the back has been removed from the plan based on comments by DPW and it will be a turnaround area at the far end of the project that can be utilized by firetrucks and city plows. There are no historic structures or wetlands on the site to be considered. The traffic study that was performed shows 17 trips into the New St. corridor in the A.M. and 21 trips in the P.M. and will not have an impact on the traffic capacity in the area. The development will be a public street (28 ft. wide) with a cul-de-sac at the end for turnaround for firetrucks and plows and will have on-street parking. Each unit will have driveway parking, but they wanted to include on-street parking for guests and visitors. The initial plan is to utilize the development as a rental project controlled and owned by a single owner with the properties being rented. The park area would be controlled and owned by the single owner. Each unit is on a single lot which would allow flexibility in the future for each unit to be sold as a townhome and/or condominium. They have a 20’ wide filed emergency access easement from the adjacent neighbor (top right on the plan, owned by NYS) that would access the turnaround. Walt displayed maps of the existing conditions and an aerial view/zoning. The utilities, stormwater and filtration systems will be directed underneath the pavement. There will be trees on the street side per the UDO. There’s a gas line that runs along the south boundary line that services the plaza that has a fence along that section. There’s a water connection on New St. that they are considering looping in with Aleta St. or Joseph St. The applicant has spoken with the Saratoga County Sewer District about connecting with the sanitary sewer interceptor along Railroad Run. Walt displayed the landscape plan showing where the tree plantings begin and the fencing over the underground utilities ends. Chuck asked if it was just open to Railroad Run. Walt said yes and the chain link fence will come down. Walt showed renderings and talked about the recreation space with a gazebo and bench area, playground, and a dog park with a split rail fence with wire behind it. Mike asked if the .77 acres was going to be donated to the city. Andy said if it’s going to be counted toward their open space, they can permanently restrict it, but if the city wanted it they would donate it. Mike noted that there were no paths from the development to Railroad Run. Andy said once the fence is removed, the residents will have direct access to the trail. Mike said part of the charge of the board is to increase connectivity. He added that he would like to see some lighting for Railroad Run. He lives nearby and walks the path, and it’s pitch black at night. Tony asked what would happen to the park if all of the units were sold and it became private. Who will keep it up? Andy said a condition of approval could be that if the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 14, 2024 - Page 9 of 12 rental converts to a for sale product, prior to the first sale the applicant would have to submit a HOA orphan plan to the Attorney General which would account for the park becoming the responsibility of the HOA. Tony asked if the issue about the length of the cul-de-sac had been resolved. Andy said the length of the road hasn’t changed but the initial response from DPW was that the turnaround would resolve their concern about having two access points. He said before they had the turnaround, they had three hammerheads all within 600 ft. There was a discussion about the city owned fence and maintenance. There is ongoing discussion with DPW about reducing the width of the right-of-way so that the development owner could keep and maintain a privately owned strip with the fence and the arborvitaes where the gas line cuts in. This could be a nature way responsibility in the future. Chuck said Tony’s questions addressed a lot of his concerns, but he would like the dog park and park to be city owned facilities, particularly if the city is going to maintain a road that benefits only a small group of houses. He said he supports the introduction of low scale lighting on Railroad Run. Mark asked if there could be an affordability element to the proposal, the city needs it. He has concerns about what the Empire neighbors see and would like to know what the residents in this proposed development will see. Kerry said he would like to see public connectivity to Railroad Run. Patty said she has concerns about the city not keeping the buffer on Railroad Run. She asked for clarification about the HOA agreement and maintenance of the park once the units are sold. Chuck asked Leah if the city attorney reviews HOA offerings before they’re sent to the Attorney General. Leah said if the board wanted the City Attorney to review it before it goes to the Attorney General it could be a condition of approval. Although, there’s no triggering event that tells the city you’ve sold the property. Leah said she thinks there is a way to fine tune the wording in the conditions so that if the property is sold a HOA will have to be in place that includes responsibility for the parks. Andy said they have no objection to a notification requirement as a condition. Patty asked if it’s possible to make a connection to Aleta through the easement and make it a through street. She said the intersection is hazardous now and that may be beneficial. Andy said they have no control over that easement, it’s for emergency access only. He said they could possibly put a gate up and pave it if the fire department required it and label it for emergency access only. They couldn’t open it up to the public. Regarding lighting the trail, Patty said they need to be mindful of the neighbors on the other side of the trail. Patty asked about the removal of 1.3 acres of trees in order to build the development and if there is any offset for that. Susan said there is a section on tree mitigation and replacement for significant trees that would be removed as part of the project. Patty asked about the Frosted Elfin butterfly that was identified as an endangered species on the site. Andy said their wildlife expert is looking at it to confirm whether the Elfin and Karner Blue exist on the site. There was a discussion about the location of the dog park for private versus public benefit. Andy said they are proposing to locate the park at the front for two reasons: 1. If it becomes a public city owned park it would be better to have it located closer to the entrance. 2. The bend in the road at the entrance does not allow for any other duplexes to be located there but the dog park is fine. Susan said they can ask the head of recreation if this would be something the city would want to acquire. Mike said it would be nice to have a connection between the dog park and Railroad Run. Bill asked how wide the tree belt will be. Answer: 5 ft., which will be great for snow storage. Andy noted that if the city were interested in the park, it doesn’t have to be a dog park, it could be whatever the city’s interested in. Chuck Marshall, Chair opened the Public Hearing. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 14, 2024 - Page 10 of 12 Ann Haller, 90 Elm St. said her house backs up to the bike path and the access path to Joseph St. and all of the rainwater meets at the sewer in front of her house and backs up onto her lawn. She hopes that consideration is being given to drainage at the new development. Regarding lights on the bike path, Ann said she would prefer not to be surrounded by lights. She has a streetlight at the front of her house. She said lighting lower to the ground for safety reasons would be okay. She would not be in favor of a connection from the bikeway to the plaza in line with the Joseph St. access because it would basically create a 4-way intersection that would be a hazard. She said it appears by the diagram that there are better places to connect. Ivoch Chukhlomin, 94 Elm St. said he gets flooding in the basement and his sump pump works almost non-stop, so the issue of water needs to be addressed for this new project. He said no one (potential buyers) is going to want to look at the back of the Price Chopper. He said the traffic will increase with this project and change the character of the neighborhood. Ivoch said Price Chopper at times has refrigerated tractor trailers for overflow refrigerated items especially around holidays, that are very noisy from his location. He said it will be even worse for the new development. Elzbieta Lepkowska-White, 2 Joseph St. said it’s quite noisy from her location and she doesn’t think the buffer provided by the city will be adequate once the trees are removed for the new development. She questioned when the traffic study was done because the traffic has increased significantly in this area. She agreed with others who spoke regarding the drainage issues. Chris Cook, 8 Joseph St. said he was also speaking for his neighbors at 6 and 10 Joseph St. Chris said he has lived there since 1999 and there have been two presentations before city boards from then until now; a storage unit that failed and affordable housing that failed due to the density of the area. He said the refrigerated tractor trailers run through the holiday season non-stop. There is 3 a.m. garbage removal at the dumpsters that abut the plaza that won’t be buffered. At the end of Aleta St. there’s a substation to the right that they are proposing to gate off and create an element that has not been designed for traffic, cars and snow plowing. The idea of Railroad Run is a trail. Overflow of children, people using electric bikes, bicycles, etc. into that area through easements will make the area even more crowded. He said the traffic study was done 3/19 – 3/22/24, the wintertime, so summertime was not considered. The area where people wait to pick up people getting out of Espey will be gone. Chris mentioned that there will need to be abatement for the Mobil Station where tractor trailers and vehicles were serviced with oil changes, etc. He said the traffic data noted from 2020 to 2023 that there were 25 accidents. He said the sewer line will have more tie ins. The lighting at the plaza is very bright. There are people trespassing on property and the police can’t do anything about it because there are no signs. He questions if this is the place to put a development? Chuck Marshall, Chair said the Public Hearing will remain open. Andy said they place “no trespassing” signs on the property every year authorizing the police to enter the property and arrest anyone they find. He said their staff meet the police there routinely. He said the property is clean, there’s no indication of any contamination whatsoever. He said it’s his understanding that the groundwater flow from Joseph and Elm City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 14, 2024 - Page 11 of 12 actually comes from Joseph and Elm to their property. He said if it’s surface area flooding, they are controlling their stormwater management on site as shown on the plans. Chuck asked Leah if the board is measuring the impact of noise from the proposal or existing noise from adjacent properties. Leah said they could consider the impact of removing trees from the site that would lead to an increase in ambient noise. She said the board should consider if the duplexes will increase the noise impacts in the area. The marketability of the project because it’s behind the plaza is not something the board will consider. Chuck said he thinks the houses that will be built will act as a solid buffer and actually mitigate some of the noise the residents nearby are now experiencing. Bill said this section is zoned UR-3, Urban Residential and is an area that has grown but is within the extent of the urban area. He said there have been previous attempts to develop the lot and it seems the time has come for a residential solution and whatever the market will bear at that particular location. It will provide some much-needed housing stock in the community. Utilizing development opportunities on vacant lots that are still developable should be kept in mind. If there’s a drainage issue on Elm St. Ext. and Joseph St., there really shouldn’t be, and the city engineer should get involved. There should be adequate storm sewer that was developed along with the homes along Elm St. Ext. Patty said it could end up being a very nice project. She said she would like the trees that are planted to be of substantial size. She said she’s leaning toward no lighting on the trail. Kerry said he’s uncomfortable with the idea that it’s ok to have houses on one side of Railroad Run but not the other; and the idea that they would want to limit the use on Railroad Run. Mark said the drainage issue needs to be followed up. The traffic study could be updated to include summer traffic. He agreed with Bill that infill is an important element to the City’s growth. Chuck said his only comment is about the noise. Tony said he looked at the City’s noise ordinance and it seems that if noise is an issue here it’s an enforcement issue. The plaza owners may be compelled to do something if the noise levels are beyond what’s allowed. Mike said he thinks the project is cool. Chuck Marshall, Chair said when the applicant resubmits the requested materials the board will reconvene, and the public hearing will remain open. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Chuck Marshall adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON DECEMBER 12, 2024. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – November 14, 2024 - Page 12 of 12