Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, DECEMBER12, 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 said that this would be Patty Morrison’s last meeting as her term has ended. Patty called out and thanked Leah, Susan, James and the board members individually in appreciation for their talents and for working with them. She said she appreciates the community members’ passion to do good things and for coming to meetings and speaking up. As a sendoff to Patty, Chuck read a letter to Commissioner of Public Works, Hank Kuczynski and to City Hall. Title 5 of the Saratoga Springs City Code indicates that the Commissioner of Public Works shall have the responsibility to inventory, construct and maintain city land. There are instances as a Planning Board where we have seen this board make recommendations to the City Council and particularly the Commissioner of Public Works. Typically, the instances have been where a project infringes on a right-of-way or city owned land. At the November 14, 2024 meeting of the Planning Board, Project #20240682, the subdivision of land at 25 New St., was contemplated. If you’re unfamiliar, 25 New St. is a piece of land between the Price Chopper Plaza on Ballston Ave. and the Railroad Run Trail. The uniqueness is that between the lands controlled by the applicant and Railroad Run is a city-owned piece of land. Today that segment of land is treed, and the Planning Board hopes that the city will ensure that it remains that way. The generation of this request comes from Patricia (Patty) Morrison. Patty originally joined the board in November of 2022 to complete the term of a resigning board member. Patty has been an ardent supporter of historic properties, advocate for pedestrian accommodation and inclusion, and in planting, or in this instance, preservation of trees. We would ask the city to delineate the area as a no-cut buffer with appropriate signage. Patty’s term will expire at the end of the month and the board finds making this request the most appropriate of sendoffs. Respectfully requested, the Saratoga Springs Planning Board. 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. 1. 20240041 35 Caroline – Height bonus. Consideration of height bonus action associated with a redevelopment (mixed-use) project in the Urban Core (T-6) District. Chuck explained how the bonus structure in the city works. Projects are eligible for a height bonus based on affordable housing or energy efficiency. In this instance the applicant is seeking a height bonus based on affordable housing. The DRB has approved the mass and scale of the project, and this board will recommend the height bonus amount. Chuck Marshall made a motion to approve a height bonus for the building at 35 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Bill McTygue. 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. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 2. #20240551 453-457 Broadway. Site plan review of an addition to an existing mixed-use building to include 15 new residential units in the Urban Core (T-6) District. Chuck Marshall, Chair said the site is more commonly known as Cooperstown and Compton’s. The project has received Design Review Board approval. Matt Brobston, LA Group represented the applicant and gave a rundown of the project:  Compton’s building will not be changed at all. They will attach the proposed building adjacent right up to it and then have a connection on the second level above Compton’s.  Long Alley is in the back with access to the parking garage and city parking.  They are looking to remove some land out front as part of their civic space and make utility connections on Broadway. As part of the civic space, they will improve the right- of-way and the streetscape. They will increase the size of the planters and landscaped islands over what currently exists and add 2 large trees, 2 benches, a bike rack along the frontage, and a trash can.  There are no utility connections in the back, but they will be demolishing what’s there and putting a building in its place.  Showed layout for first floor and civic space. There will be a new building behind and above the Cooperstown.  The trash will be located toward the rear of the property.  The two apartments above Compton’s are in the process of being renovated.  There will be three additional stories above Cooperstown Distillery. One apartment in the front, 2 mid building and 2 in the rear on each floor. There will be a total of 19 units. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – December 12, 2024 - Page 2 of 14   The connection between the Cooperstown and Compton apartments will start on the second floor and continue for all levels. The current stairway in Compton’s is being redone and will carry through to all levels. That will be the main entrance to all the apartments in both buildings.  Mark asked about the open L-shaped area between Compton’s and the second building. Matt said there are existing escapes (decks and fire escapes from the second and third level) that will remain on the back side of Compton’s. They take their deliveries to the back of the building so that won’t be changing.  Matt showed the utilities plan. Purple lines are for existing water lines that service first floor businesses in both buildings and will remain fully functioning. Yellow lines are the current sanitary connections for each structure. The green line is the new sanitary that will take all the residential flow from the apartments in both buildings and combine and have a new connection out. Ten feet from the green line is the blue line which is a new water line that will service the apartments above. Bill asked for clarification of the sewer line placement. Matt added that the two buildings will be combined and have one owner.  There will be a metal louvered dumpster enclosure in the rear of the building. They calculated an 8-yard dumpster for trash and a 2-yard dumpster likely to be used for cardboard and recycling, and the currently used grease dumpster for Compton’s will remain. Pickup will be weekly.  Deliveries and loading currently take place at Long Alley and will continue. That will be noted in the final drawings.  Tenant parking: some spaces underneath on the first floor that will be rented to tenants that have apartments. The majority of the other tenants will park in the city lot just behind the buildings. Chuck noted that there is no parking requirement in the Urban Core. Bill said he likes the significant upgrade to the streetscape that they are proposing, it will really enhance that side of Broadway in front of the two buildings, especially the larger caliper trees that will be planted. Patty asked what the caliper of the trees would be. Matt said they will discuss that with the city arborist, but they will be larger caliper. She asked if there would be an elevator and Matt said there would be. Kerry asked if there would be covered bike parking. Matt said yes, underneath the cover of the parking deck. The area will house 8 to 10 bikes. Mark said he has conditions for approval: Deliveries via the alley needs to be on the drawings, the caliper of trees = 6”, bike parking orientation and size needs to be called out. The Board performed SEQRA on the project. 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. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – December 12, 2024 - Page 3 of 14  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 for a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA. 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. Chuck Marshall, Chair said a Public Hearing was not required for the application, but he asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak. There were no comments. Chuck Marshall made a motion to approve site plan approval for 453-457 Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: 1. A note be added to the plans indicating that delivery will be made via the alley. 2.The plantings on Broadway will be 6” minimal caliper. 3. The bike orientation and location be switched on the first floor/ground level with a minimum storage for 8 bikes. 4. The lots be consolidated to ensure common ownership because of shared public utilities. The motion was seconded by Mike King. 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. 3. #20230378 239 Washington St. and West Ave. Land Disturbance Activity Permit for site work including filing and grading approximately 2-5 acres to provide for future development in the Neighborhood Commercial (T-5) District. Stephanie Ferradino represented the applicants, David and Greg Mohr. The LaBella Team, Barbara Beall, Senior Wetlands Specialist and Sean Farrell, Civil Engineer/Land Development were also present for the applicants. Stephanie gave a rundown of the history of the land disturbance request:  Originally proposed 2015.  May 31, 2023 Application.  June 2023 – request for updated wetlands information.  January 2024 – DEC issues notice of change to wetland regulations.  March 2024 (NYSDEC) August 2024 – ACOE.  Planning Board – October 2024, November - modify application to remove Watercourse Wetland Permit. Stephanie said they were allowed on site to meet with some of the property owners to talk about concerns related to some pictures that had been circulated to the city regarding some significant trees located on the site and ownership. She said while walking around the site today they noticed that the vacant property has been used by some of the neighbors for dumping items such as pumpkins and Christmas trees. She said the compromises made by her client have impacted him financially by about 1.5 million dollars. Some of the changes they’ve made are:  Removal/saving of specific trees.  Modify plans to save 58% of what they otherwise hoped would be useful property.  Offered the property for sale to neighbors. (heard nothing back) City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – December 12, 2024 - Page 4 of 14   Offered to plant trees on neighboring properties. (heard nothing but keeping conversation open). Slide showing significance of having trees closer to you versus further away. Reasoning – some neighbors may find it easier to ignore some future project if they have some trees in the back of their property. The applicant would be willing to entertain that.  The initial application was to clear 6.3 acres. Modified to 2.6 acres and fill isolated wetland only.  Phased approach to not clear more than needed. Phase 1 – Limits of Disturbance. Looked at property to see what trees could be saved. Identified trees to be removed (green tape), trees to keep (yellow caution tape), orange tape placed by neighbor where the trees were questionable. There were 4 trees marked with orange tape – 2 really tall pines on the Mohr property that neighbors initially wanted saved but decided should come down because of the swale. Phase 1 will be cleared to grade and fill the site, create a swale and retain significant trees where possible. Phase 2 – Identify limits of future area to be developed and return to the planning board with development plan. Barbara Beall said they completed a tree survey on the site in October of 2023. The survey was to supplement the aerial photo to show where the large trees were and if the center of the site was relatively open and devoid of trees in the southern part. They marked trees at 4” DBH (diameter breast height) or larger using the aerial photo and GIS mapping. Barbara said after the November meeting the board wanted to see the significant trees on the site. She said there were 27 trees on the site that were 4” in diameter. The UDO states trees that are more than 4 inches in diameter should be mapped, so they took 27 trees off (yellow dots that were removed from figure 1 to figure 2). The trees were categorized as follows:  greater than 4” to 8”  greater than 8” to less than 12” (yellow or lime green trees)  significant deciduous as anything equal to or greater than 12”  large coniferous greater than or equal to 12” and less than 24”  significant coniferous equal to or greater than 24” Barbara said after the workshop they had a meeting with the neighbors at 29 Outlook Ave. The applicant had a surveyor come out and stake the property’s boundary especially along the east side where they are adjacent to property owners. They had the surveyors pick up any trees that were within 20 ft. of the property boundaries east and west of the eastern property boundary. They identified the two large pine trees (larger than 24 DBH) mentioned previously that were on the Mohr property and a maple tree at 29 Outlook that’s on the neighbor’s property. As a result of the surveyor’s work along the property boundary the following trees were identified as in or out (they happen to be in):  13 trees on applicant’s site: 4 black locust, 2 Eastern cottonwoods (deciduous trees on southern part), group of smaller white pines, 2 deciduous and 1 white pine that’s greater than 12”. Barbara said as a result of this review, they removed all of the black locust trees regardless of their DBH because they’re an invasive species. There’s a tree west of the entrance that was marked as a significant deciduous tree. Barbara said based on this survey, they are cutting 26 trees (6 species) on the site that are greater than or equal to 12” DBH. There are 22 significant trees and 4 pines that are between 12 to 24” size. Within the Line of Distance (LOD) they’re retaining the five trees with the blue squares around them (on the map) that were in Phase 1 LOD that they later on decided would be significant for screening, they could City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – December 12, 2024 - Page 5 of 14 extend the screening of coniferous and deciduous and large deciduous’ a little further to the south. They are also retaining 52 trees equal to or larger than 12” DBH in two areas – northeast and southwest corners. In summary they are retaining 20 species of trees, 382 trees outside of the LOD (the area next to the large wetland to the north). There are 13 black locusts in that area that will not be cut. Inside the LOD they are retaining 88 trees (77 natives, 11 black locust), 12 species. They are retaining 90% of the significant conifers on the site (26 out of 29 are large), 95% of the conifers that are big but not significant. Retaining 70 out of 74 trees, 89% of significant deciduous trees (161 out of 180 trees). Barbara said if you look at all the native trees on the site equal to or greater than 12” DBH, they’re retaining 257 trees out of 283 or 91%. For all the trees on the site, they retain 470 trees (446 native and 24 invasive – all size classes) and 20 species. Because they are preserving 8 times the number of trees to the number being cut, they will get a landscape credit under the UDO11.9D. Stephanie said in addition to that they are proposing to plant all along the property line for additional screening behind the swale in phase 1. They are also planting trees to screen some of the neighboring commercial properties. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: Stephanie went to the site on December 11th after a significant rain event (2-2.5”) to see if the water was flowing properly into the drainage pipe, which it was. Sean Farrell showed a map of the existing conditions for stormwater. The swale is currently on both neighbors’ and Mohr’s property and the capacity is 11.3 CFS. The proposed swale, which will be kept on the Mohr property about 6’ off of the property line, will have capacity of 19.6 CFS (42% increase) and a 44% increase in travel time (getting the water through the swale and offsite. Sean said they submitted the revised SWPPP to the city who have reviewed it and agreed with his findings. He and James also did an analysis on the existing 18” pipe that’s accepting flows. On a 100-year event they are 5.3 CFS to the existing 18” pipe which has a 12.4 CFS (57% remaining capacity in the pipe as it is today and under the graded condition). Recap:  Preservation of 58% of the required clearing area from the original application.  Preservation of vast majority of significant trees – 22 cut on 2+ acres.  Improve stormwater movement on adjacent properties by accepting flow from them.  Enables real time understanding of impacts prior to actual buildout. “Opportunity to learn” and to make modifications before coming before the PB for development of the site. The board took a 7-minute break. Chuck Marshall, Chair took questions/comments from the audience. John Haas, 29 Outlook Ave. said the reiteration the applicant brought to the table last Thursday (workshop) was a little less catastrophic in scope but there’s still no plan for development. They will be streaming water through an arbitrary swale (various feet wide) only a few feet from his property line. What happened to the 50 ft. Buffer? Now it’s a 6 ft. buffer. “When it’s all done, guarantee it’s a 1-foot buffer”. Not addressed: the high-water table, shallow bedrock under the land under consideration. He said the two large pine trees on Mohr’s property were initially left out of the tree survey because they didn’t want to pay to City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – December 12, 2024 - Page 6 of 14 take them down. He said he and his neighbors want them removed because a steady stream running through the roots will cause them to fall on their houses. He said the stakes that were put in the ground recently by the applicant are still wrong. He said his stake is from a certified survey and theirs is a GIS map. He said the stake they put in is a foot closer to his house than it should be. He questioned the applicant’s expert’s integrity. He requested that the board deny this application as it is based on false information. They should be held to strict regulations about the accuracy of the maps and the proposed plan. The applicant needs to come before the board with an actual development plan not just a “desperate last- minute plan to decimate a parcel of land for potential future development that’s wet, landlocked and has no public access to it”. The applicant is trying to get in under the changes in the wetland laws. They don’t care about the neighbors. Who should he call when this doesn’t work? Laura Benton, 42 Outlook Ave. said the original 2023 site disturbance application relies on the two determinations by the DEC and ACOE and they are not updated from 2002 and 2013. The determination only lasted for 5 years, and Laura could not find where those had been updated. She has emailed both departments under the FOIA and has not received a response. This site application can’t be done without valid permits from DEC and ACOE. Laura suggested a second opinion from Cornell University, who put out the new stormwater manual “2024 Design Manual for Stormwater” information she obtained on the City’s website. Cornell University offers a program where they will work with any municipality and review stormwater applications. The City’s law says you make modifications to the site disturbance if they’re appreciable. The changes to the swale and no updated permits are big changes. She suggested that the application be paused, a second opinion be sought and/or a new application be submitted. What is the urgency? If this doesn’t work out it will affect everyone. Laura said she hand-delivered pictures and her research to the board on Monday with a flash drive and asked that it be given to all of the board members. She also sent it to Sustainable Saratoga and anyone who was on the address string. She also submitted photos of events that have happened along the street over the past 6 months. Mike asked if the board should address the updated permits first. Chuck said both the DEC permit and ACOE letter are dated 2024 and are in the laser fiche reference file. Chuck reminded everyone that the application is for the land disturbance permit. Under the UDO/Zoning Ordinance the applicant is entitled to seek this permit. They are not required at this time to propose a full buildout of the plan. Their only obligation is the land disturbance permit and associated information. That is the action by which the board will evaluate SEQRA and the action that will be contemplated. Dave Hrebenach, 18 Outlook Ave. said this property was part of jurisdictional wetlands and continued after West Ave. was installed. In early 2000 DOT decided to remove that culvert, and that is a challengeable action. The DOT is required to get a DEC permit in order to do that work. Dave said the DEC permit and ACOE letter only talked about the existing status stating that they are not jurisdictional. They did not assess the DOT action to sever the tie to jurisdictional wetlands. He also questions the documented dumping of asphalt, car engines, etc. For these reasons, an environmental short form is not in depth enough. Elizabeth Reardon, 11 Outlook Ave. also represented families at 9 and 13 Outlook Ave. Elizabeth said Stephanie falsely represented discussions with neighbors and community outreach. Residents at 9, 15, 13 & 11 have not been approached about purchasing the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – December 12, 2024 - Page 7 of 14 property or about discussing tree options for the border. Regarding the starting point for the swale, she thought it was starting at 9 and going down to the lower part or upper part of Outlook but tonight it’s showing it going to 13 and 15. Other thoughts and comments:  Documented and submitted proof last night of 4” of standing water in her backyard from the rainfall from yesterday with similar flooding at 9, 15 and 13 Outlook.  The continual changing plans and incorrect property lines coupled with theoretical water management solutions are concerning.  Asked for proper accurate planning, third party verification, comprehensive solutions and future maintenance plans for the manmade swale.  Asked the board if they were in the neighbor’s shoes would they feel comfortable, considering the ever-changing proposal, with the land disturbance plan, the removal and management of the trees and the minimum privacy measures.  They respect Mohr’s right to develop a plan, it just shouldn’t come at the expense of existing homeowners who have invested their lives and savings in this community.  The neighbors deserve more than being an experiment to see if the water management plan gets close enough in the destruction of this natural habitat. These board decisions will have a lasting impact on our properties and livelihoods if these plans are approved. Eliza Bianco, 27 Outlook Ave. said there’s a newly placed stake that appears to mark what is presumed to be the end of her property line. She has a recent survey of her property that shows that this line is completely different than what is currently there. With these discrepancies, additional time should be taken to resolve these issues before any action is taken. The property line is now within 6 ft. and the swale would be directly on her property. Her survey shows her property line is past the current ditch. Eliza said she’s concerned about the root system of a very large oak tree on her property being compromised by the swale. She said the oak tree and surrounding woods were a significant factor in their decision to purchase the home. If the new swale comes between the oak tree and the giant pine tree that’s now going to be saved, it seems with all of the land disturbance it could affect their root systems. She would like some assurances that these trees will continue to stay healthy. Eliza said these uncertainties jeopardize the long-awaited renovation they’ve been planning. The lack of information and the effect on water flow makes it impossible for them to confidently move forward with their plans. She respectfully demands the following before any plan moves forward:  Does the recently placed stake on her property match her professional survey that was done?  Will the massive oak tree on her property survive the planned disturbance? Benjamin Papa, 15 Outlook said the stake on his property is also incorrect. It backs up to the Phase 1 proposal that was proposed. He said the pictures that were shown have clearly been disingenuous from the start. The first slide shows the distance of trees within a person’s visual blocking. Something in front of your face versus further away changes your visual orientation. Not once did they say how many houses are impacted by the change in landscape that they’re proposing. He said the number of trees they are proposing to save are included in the phase 2 proposal, this appears disingenuous. They plan to save the trees in phase 1 and take them down in phase 2. The applicant should state how many trees they will be saving in the phase 1 area. He said Stephanie took the water picture on the slide at City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – December 12, 2024 - Page 8 of 14 7:00 p.m. but it was dark out at 6:00 p.m. How is that possible? Benjamin feels they are already planning phase 2 and are not being truthful about their plans. Chuck Marshall, Chair said the board would address the comments. Regarding the jurisdictional component; they have letters from the ACOE and DEC and it was identified as not being on the City’s water protection map and identified as isolated by DEC. That’s what led to the removal of the northern wetland leaving only the southern wetland for disturbance. This is what changed the nature of the application from a wetland application to only a land disturbance application. He reiterated that this application is only for land disturbance and no other phases. Regarding the neighbor’s request to seek outside status or approval through Cornell University or a designated engineer; the City’s engineering office has reviewed the SWPPP more than once and provided commentary to the board. Mike said in reading the land disturbance activity permit it says, “to the extent practical the planning board shall coordinate review of the land disturbance activity permit with associate subdivision or site plan review applications”. How should he interpret that? Chuck said he interprets it that the site plans are the plans that are in front of the board and the activity is the land disturbance permit. The code enforcement officer has deemed that the land disturbance permit is an appropriate application for the board to review. There’s no plan subsequent to that that’s required. Tony said his questions regarding stormwater were addressed in a letter from James to the board, so he won’t discuss that any further. He said he understands that this is a land disturbance permit but because there’s no time frame for redevelopment, the board should consider that this site plan could be permanent or at least semi-permanent. Tony said he appreciates all the work the applicant has done with the tree survey and obtaining the landscape credit for saving a significant amount of trees. He said the board needs to look closely at the side yard buffer requirements between a residential neighborhood and a commercial property. The land disturbance permit should be treated as a commercial development. He wants to make sure the requirements of Article 11 are met in this instance. If they are, he thinks he could get to a place to vote yes on the project. Mark said he’s concerned about the discrepancy about the survey stakes. He said if the board can’t know that the plan is accurate, they can’t vote for it yet. That issue has to be resolved because a few feet can make a difference in terms of flooding. He agreed with Tony that the current plan could be in place for 10 years so the visual barrier for the neighbors needs to be put into place. Mark asked Sean if there’s a detailed drawing for the swale. Sean said yes, the grading plan shows those details and has been submitted. Sean and Stephanie talked about the method used for surveying. They did not stake the corner; they staked the line which could look like a discrepancy but isn’t. Mark asked Leah if the board approved the application in 2024 and the legal status of the wetland changes in 2025, will the application then have to conform to the 2025 laws. Leah said sometimes applicants that come before this board need approval from other entities and it may not be given. It doesn’t invalidate this board’s approval under the City’s UDO. The applicant may not be able to go forward with what they had planned if they don’t get all the approvals they need. Kerry asked if there’s something that shows the landscape plan from the viewpoint of a property owner. Stephanie said they looked at the requirements of the UDO and provided the landscaping per the requirements set forth in Section 11. Stephanie displayed the Landscaping Plan for Phase 1. The new swale is in purple, the old swale is in light blue. The trees are about 15 ft. off the property line. Sean said the code requires 30 ft. maximum City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – December 12, 2024 - Page 9 of 14 distance between the trees and on average they are proposing 25 ft. Kerry said he would like to see the trees closer together. Tony said the code requires 1 shrub every 3 lineal ft. Stephanie said they can move the trees closer together and plant a shrub every 3 ft. Kerry asked James to talk about his letter to the board regarding the SWPPP. James said based on the information he saw in the SWPPP for the .45-acre wetland - grading, swale, calculations including going into the 18” inlet pipe, and the pre and post development plans before any work has begun, they have these set conditions for the 1-, 10- & 100-year storm. The post development conditions are keeping it exactly the same. There’s no change and that is okay by DEC (they allow no change or improved change as the requirement). The stormwater will still flow into the new swale that they proposed instead of being contained a little bit more in the wetland. It will flow quicker into the swale and to the inlet pipe. Kerry said he would like to see more details on how they plan to screen the properties. Patty said she appreciates the applicant’s willingness to listen and do the work, make the changes to move the project forward. She also appreciates the neighbors being involved and engaged because it helps the process. Patty asked for clarification regarding the green area that is not currently being developed and asked if it could be in the future. Chuck said that’s not part of this application. What is the tree offset for the removal of the 22 trees? Stephanie said they offset them per the UDO’s plan which is a one-to-one ratio. If you save a significant tree, you’re allowed to cut a significant tree. They’re saving 8 times that amount. Patty disagreed and said she didn’t read it that way and said if they remove a significant tree, they should replace it with the same. Susan said it doesn’t specify in the UDO what a significant tree needs to be replaced with, but it has been the board’s practice to require that. Patty asked what protection plan is in place for the trees that were highlighted, e.g. the oak tree. She said Kerry addressed the buffer and shrubbery. Bill said there’s been significant rainfall, snowmelt and runoff over the past 48 hours throughout the entire region. Gilbert Road is under water and Outlook is not, which indicates that the city’s drainage system seems to be working. Outlook does have a high-water table because there’s a layer of soil on top of a significant layer of rock and the water gets trapped. If you have a basement the water finds the easiest path into the cavity that exists in the earth which is a basement. Sometimes those drainage issues can be resolved with underground pipes and some engineering techniques to grab the water that’s trapped above the rock shelf. These things could be accommodated and engineered in the future to help alleviate some of the ground water issue. Regarding the buffer, Bill said he thinks it’s easier for the board to understand a no-cut buffer along the property line. He believes the applicant has no intention of putting a swale on someone else’s property. The surveyors will work out the property boundaries. He asked if there was a way to establish tree cutting that accommodates the swale to work properly and efficiently. Stephanie said if they move the swale in on the applicant’s property, they won’t be able to capture the water on the neighbor’s property. The swale needs to be close to the neighbors in order to provide a benefit to their properties. Tony said the significant trees on the west side shouldn’t count toward the trees being removed along the buffer. Bill said no trees should be cut on the west side of the swale because that’s the buffer. Tony said what they ask for needs to look like it’s completed, and it needs to satisfy the requirements of the buffer between those two districts. Patty asked what the maintenance plan would be for the swale. Chuck said the SWPPP has maintenance protocol in it. Chuck said he went to the site last night while it was still raining and this morning when it wasn’t. On 9 through 13 Outlook the problem with the water on the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – December 12, 2024 - Page 10 of 14 neighbor’s side of the berm is because the berm is mounded and prevents the water from going anywhere and those back yards are wet. He said 25 and 23 Outlook don’t have fencing and their yards are slightly dryer than some of the adjoining properties because the water is getting to the natural course. Chuck Marshall, Chair proposed moving forward with SEQRA and reminded the board that they are only evaluating the land disturbance permit. Susan said they have a revised part one of the EAF that was submitted in September. 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. Some board members disagreed. Chuck said today the land is vacant. Tomorrow the land will be vacant. The activity of clearing the trees is a regulated activity through the SWPPP. 3. Impair character or quality of the existing community…. – Moderate to large. There was lengthy discussion about the level of 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… - Moderate to large 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… moderate to large 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Leah read the directions for a Part 3 SEQRA: For every question in part 2 that was answered moderate to large impact may occur, or if there is need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact, please complete part 3. Part 3 should in sufficient detail identify the impact including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce the impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact may or will not be significant. Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting, probability of occurring, duration, irreversibility, geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short term, long term and cumulative impacts. Mark said he doesn’t know how the board can proceed with everything that needs to be put together and the review required to answer the questions. Leah said the board doesn’t need to complete this tonight if they’re not comfortable doing it. She explained the process if the board wants staff to draft something: the board would still go through the same process tonight. They have to have a discussion tonight so that staff knows what to draft. Leah said the approach the board should take is to look at the question that was answered moderate to large, identify the impact or impacts your concerned with and then talk about the elements of the project that have some bearing on the significance of that impact. Discussion on SEQRA, Part 2 moderate to large items: 3. Does the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community. The visual impact (what will actually be seen instead – the applicant’s property on the west side) is the community characteristic component. The satisfaction is the treed buffer. Chuck City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – December 12, 2024 - Page 11 of 14 said to him it’s like any other instance where there’s a residential boundary bordering a commercial boundary. Chuck talked about the visual impact of the required fence in the UDO. He said the fence would be a further version of an impoundment (water needs to get underneath it). Chuck read the requirement: “a solid fence or wall a minimum of 6’ and a maximum of 8’ in height must be erected along 100% of the yard length. Tony said he thinks if the board determines that the fence is a detriment to the outcome, they may have discretion to change the requirement. Susan said there are exceptions to landscape plans if they meet some or all of the following standards: 1. There are unusual topographic constraints and are site restrictions on the site. 2. Existing plant materials, walls, fences or the topography of the site and its surroundings make the required landscaping or screening even less necessary but meet the intent of the ordinance. 3. The exceptions would preserve existing on site stands of trees and/or other plant materials. 4. Exceptions to the requirements are needed to accommodate additional site amenities. 5. The exceptions improve ingress or egress to the site. The board agreed that the fence would not be required according to these exceptions. Chuck said the landscaping as proposed does not mitigate the visual or community character concern as proposed. Leah said the standard the board is weighing is whether the visual impact is significant. Tony said if the board identifies the deficiencies and asks for a revised plan for the purpose of SEQRA, could they determine that the applicant addressed the board’s request, and without seeing that plan could they determine that the applicant meets what the code requires, and will that mitigate the impacts? Leah said if the board finds there are no significant adverse environmental impacts after doing this review, they can adopt a negative declaration, get to the underlying application and impose additional conditions on that approval if they think that better addresses and better mitigates than what the applicant is proposing. Tony said because it’s an unlisted action can they do a conditioned negative declaration. Leah said no, that would have required a full EAF and coordinated review in order to do a conditioned negative declaration, so that’s not applicable. The board is deciding whether or not what’s being proposed, including any verbal amendments to the application that the applicant has made tonight, if there are any significant environmental impacts. If the board finds there are no significant environmental impacts, they can go back to the application, and with their authority under the land use disturbance review in the UDO, impose additional conditions if they think that greater modification can be had. Chuck said the direction forward is that the applicant must revise the landscape plan in order to mitigate the impacts. 9. Does the proposed action create an adverse change to natural resources; wetlands, water bodies, ground water, air quality, flora or fauna. 10. Does the proposed action increase the potential for erosion, flooding… Chuck said the wetlands should not be considered because they’re not on the city’s map and DEC and the ACOE have said they’re non-jurisdictional wetlands. Regarding water bodies and ground water, they have provided a SWPPP that has been reviewed and a licensed professional in the city engineer’s office has said the storm water control that the applicant is providing meets the standards. The receiving bodies are the same, and the amount of time that the water is being held is decreased because it’s filling in and going quicker to the inlet pipe. Mark asked if the SWPPP considers the removal of all of the natural water absorption City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – December 12, 2024 - Page 12 of 14 (anything that’s growing) and replacing it with dirt and a swale. Mark cited data that suggested that a large tree removes about 40,000 gallons of water a year/month/growing season? Leah clarified that Mark feels there’s going to be a change in the way that the site functions when it comes to the water but that he doesn’t really know how it will change or what the impact will be. Leah asked what the concern is. Mark said the word Tony used is transpiration (the evaporation of water from plants), the natural removal of water that every plant does. Leah asked if the concern is that there is less water absorption from roots and the water that would have been absorbed doesn’t have a place to go? Mark said yes. Bill said that standing water on the property that they’re looking to eliminate is significant. Surface water/shallow ponds are surcharging the water table there. There’s rock underneath and when it rains the entire neighborhood is surcharged and likely basements are flooded. He feels by eliminating the ponds it could be an overall benefit to the neighborhood. The applicant is suggesting moving the earth around enough with an engineering design to get the water so that it flows into the city drainage system. That seems like it will have a positive and practical environmental impact. Leah asked the board if there were any answers provided preliminarily in Part 2 that after delving into those impacts the board no longer thinks are even moderate to large and may now be no, or small impact. Chuck said in returning to the technical analysis for both #9 and #10, the SWPPP was submitted and the City Engineer said it conforms to the standards and as depicted will do what it says. He said he put “no” on Part 2 because there is no technical contradicting opinion. Bill asked if the board all agreed that it was a good thing that water would be removed from the site, and they all agreed. Leah said it appears that most board members feel the impact is positive and not negative at all for #9 and #10 so it doesn’t seem appropriate to be analyzing those two in Part 3. After discussion and reflection the board decided to change #9 and #10 to “no, or small impact” in Part 2 of SEQRA. Chuck asked the board members to weigh in on what they would require of the applicant with regard to the community character clause/landscape design in addressing #1 in the SEQRA Part 2: Bill said he doesn’t think a fence needs to be incorporated. That would be more appropriate if you’re dealing with a project. Patty said the buffer and tree replacement are her concerns. Kerry said he would like a buffer that you can’t see through on day one. Mark agrees with Patty on tree replacement. The neighbors’ trees that are near the boundary and may be affected by the construction of the swale need to be protected and the effect on the root systems has to be completely analyzed. He would like to get an understanding (sketch, drawing) of what the neighbors all along the boundary will see once this project is completed. Tony agreed that he wants to see a landscape plan for the required 10 ft.(minimum) wide, landscaped buffer area per 11.7b of the UDO and the trees saved within the buffer for the landscape credit. Trees outside the buffer could be identified and considered as well but show what’s inside the buffer and a planting plan. He agreed with Bill that the fence doesn’t make much sense at this location and the board should grant an exception. Chuck said if there’s any conflicting survey between the applicants and homeowners that will need to be remedied by the surveyors. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – December 12, 2024 - Page 13 of 14 Chuck Marshall, Chair said there has not been a decision rendered, and the applicant has been provided the following items:  Tree replacement protection plan.  An explanation of water impacting and traveling over roots and its potential impact.  Rendered plan/view from the eastern boundary of the project looking west to show treed buffer and be UDO compliant. Leah said if the board decides to act at a future meeting, they can address landscaping as a very clear condition of approval as a board. Tony added that maybe the applicant can address the survey issue at the next meeting so it can be put to rest. It might be a condition of approval that the applicant provide a survey. Mark said some of the neighbors have surveys. Chuck said LaBella’s survey conforms with the neighbor’s rod. There was a discussion between the board and the audience regarding surveys. Chuck asked that the neighbors who have surveys submit them to the city so they can be scanned into the record. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Patty Morrison made a motion to adjourn the meeting at approximately 10:15 p.m. The motion was seconded by Chuck Marshall. All in favor. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – December 12, 2024 - Page 14 of 14