Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2025 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Mark Pingel, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mark Pingel, Chair, Alex White, Mike King, Anthony (Tony) Stellato, Kerry Mayo. ABSENT: Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair, Bill McTygue STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, City Counsel, Amy Valyou, Principal Engineering Tech, James Sallaway, City Engineer. 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. #20250203 Park Place & Cottage St. Site Plan Review. 7 Cottage Street, consideration of request for advisory opinion from the DRB for a proposed multi-family dwelling including 6 residential units and associated site work in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Mark Pingel, Chair said the planning board decided at the last meeting to seek an advisory opinion from the Design Review Board regarding Park Place & Cottage St. but failed to put it into a motion and are doing so tonight. Mike King made a motion to seek an advisory opinion from the Design Review Board regarding a multi-family dwelling at 7 Cottage St. and Park Place, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, A. White-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, K. Mayo-Y. 5-0, motion carried. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 2. #20240614 Lexington Rd./Bemis Point Subdivision Area Variance. Consideration of SEQRA and advisory opinion to the ZBA for an area variance associated with a proposed subdivision modification in the Rural Residential (RR) District. 20220180 Mark Pingel, Chair said they will perform SEQRA on this project and it’s a Type 1 action/long form. He asked that the applicant update the board on any changes since the last meeting prior to beginning SEQRA review. Bruce Steves, Attorney at Jones, Steves & Grassi, and Dominick Arico, Project Engineer, Arico Associates were present to represent the application. Bruce said since the last meeting they submitted a Noise Report from Barton & Loguidice May 20th, and a Groundwater Report dated May 14th. Dominick summarized that no ground water was found (not speaking into the mic). The noise report says that removing the trees will increase the decibel level slightly (an undetectable level) but adding homes will reduce it again. Kerry asked Susan about the folder of zoning denials. Susan said the project is coming to the PB because of an area variance that was needed. The denials that are in the file folder are the building and zoning Inspector denials from the issuance of a building permit. It identifies the variances that are required. She said one of the actions the board will need to take is an advisory opinion to the ZBA on the areas of relief. Mark said one open item was that the zoning inspector had not yet assessed the variances. Susan said that has happened and the result was the same as what’s on the most recent plans. Susan said in the description it identifies 16 single families not 14 and there may be other changes that should be identified in the Part 1 of the SEQRA by the applicant. SEQRA, Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 2: 1. The proposed action may involve construction on or physical alteration of the land surface of the proposed site. Yes. 1a. no, 1b. no, 1c. no, 1d. no, 1e. no, 1f. yes, medium to large - Erosion. There’s construction adjacent to wetlands and no stormwater management plan or engineering report have been provided. This concern can be mitigated with the submission of a SWPPP., 1g. no. 1h. other – no comments. 2. Impact on geological features. No, or small impact. 3. Impacts on surface water. Yes. 3a. no, 3b. no, 3c. no, 3d. Yes, 3e. no, 3f. no, 3g. no, 3h. Yes, 3i. no, 3j. Yes, 3k. no, 3l. other-none 4. Impact on groundwater No, or small impact. 5. Impact on flooding Yes. 5a. no, 5b. no, 5c. no, 5d. Yes, 5e. Yes, 5f. no, 5g. Other impacts – none. 6. Impacts on air – No, or small impact. 7. Impact on plants and animals – No, or small impact 8. Impact on agricultural resources - No, or small impact. 9. Impact on aesthetic resources - No, or small impact. 10. Impact on historic and archeological resources - No, or small impact. 11. Impact on open space and recreation - No, or small impact. 12. Impact on critical environmental areas – No, or small impact. 13. Impact on transportation – No, or small impact. 14. Impact on energy – No, or small impact. 15. Impact on noise, odor and light – Yes. 15a. no, 15b. no, 15c. no, 15d. no, 15e. no, 15f. yes – the action may result in removal of noise attenuation for the adjacent neighborhood. Tony said the noise letter is brief and high level, makes general statements City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 22, 2025 - Page 2 of 8  and doesn’t provide output. It doesn’t give facts and data to evaluate. He said one statement of concern in the letter is the primary source of noise “is the I-87 northbound and southbound segments that are closest to the residence where the trees will remain”. Tony said he’s not sure that’s true, and the primary source might be further to the south where trucks begin to decelerate at I-87 exit 15 (14). The board asked the applicant to identify trees, but the noise study was done from an aerial study. The subdivision that the applicant submitted has a survey reference from CT Male from 1977, so the tree information is likely inaccurate. The report needs to be looked at in more detail. 16. Impact on human health – No. 17. Consistency with community plans – No. 18. Impact on Community Character – No. Public Comment on Community Character: Julia Anderson, 8 Bemis Heights Drive said she has continued concerns about the traffic, specifically taking a left onto Lake Ave. from Lexington. Susan said a stop sign is proposed at the corner of Bemis and Lexington where the road extends to accommodate the subdivision. Julia said the development is over 30 houses with only one way in and out which is a fire code concern. She asked if a formal application to the ACOE has been submitted or if it’s required. Tony cited the fire code section D.107 “developments of one- or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads”. The current subdivision predates this requirement, but by adding 14 more houses with only one point of access at Lake Ave. and Lexington Ave. seems like it could trigger the requirement. If it was all a new development it would need a second means of egress. Tony said it should be looked at further, he’s not comfortable with it the way it is. Leah said this doesn’t need to be a SEQRA issue for the board to seek input and guidance from code enforcement/fire services. Mark said the ACOE issue will be thoroughly reviewed. He said it’s his understanding that the applicant went to the ACOE, but they won’t take any action until the city clears it environmentally. Mark said if the ACOE says no then the PB can’t approve the application. If they say yes, then the applicant has to get a wetland permit with the city to be compliant. Leah stated that all relevant agencies must review this project before the applicant can proceed with construction. She added that the board could approve the application, but if the ACOE then denies it the applicant wouldn’t be able to get a permit, and the project couldn’t move forward. Mike said if the fire department hasn’t flagged this with the existing subdivision why should the burden be put on this applicant. Mark said this issue can be dealt with during subdivision review. Mike spoke to the residents from the neighborhood telling them that just because the traffic study says that the addition of 14 more houses in the neighborhood will be within acceptable parameters for traffic doesn’t preclude them from going to the city and asking for relief at that location. Kerry said #18 of the SEQRA relates to the advisory opinion to the ZBA and the lot sizes. Mark said his reasoning for the lot sizes not having an impact is that when the PB first saw the application the lots were small and there were a lot more of them. Area variances were requested for almost every lot. With this new plan the lots seem to be the same size as those in the existing neighborhood and are compliant with the exception of two lots. The setback relief the applicant is seeking appears to be quite large (around 40 ft.). The drawing shows an 11.5 ft. tree belt, 13.5 ft. setback and then the houses will be 5 to 10 ft. further back according to the drawing. From a practical road to the front of the proposed houses it’s within 5 ft. of the setbacks the existing neighborhood has and won’t affect the flow of the neighborhood. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 22, 2025 - Page 3 of 8 The board discussed the SEQRA items where the answer was yes:  1. The proposed action may involve construction on or physical alteration of the land surface of the proposed site. Yes. 1a. no, 1b. no, 1c. no, 1d. no, 1e. no, 1f. Yes, medium to large - Erosion. There’s construction adjacent to wetlands and no stormwater management plan or engineering report have been provided. This concern can be mitigated with the submission of a SWPPP., 1g. no. 1h. other – no comments. Tony said the applicant can likely mitigate the concern with a basic SWPPP but he still has a concern about water quality which will be discussed under another item.  3. Impacts on surface water. Yes. 3a. no, 3b. no, 3c. no, 3d. Yes, 3e. no, 3f. no, 3g. no, 3h. Yes, 3i. no, 3j. Yes, 3k. no, 3l. other-none. D. Construction within or adjoining fresh water or tidal wetland. H. Soil erosion & stormwater discharge – Tony said a basic SWPPP won’t cover this, and the applicant would need a stormwater engineering report in accordance with the NYS Drainage Manual that addresses the water quality issue. J. Pesticides for lawn care – Mike said it shows on the site map that the back half of everyone’s property will be in the wetlands area. Kevin Weed, Wetland Biologist, Gilbert Vanguilder Land Surveyors said the deed restrictions will include approximately 12 acres of wetlands and 6 acres of uplands that surround them (about 18 acres) that are not proposed to be impacted and that they are proposing to ACOE to be deed restrictions. The prohibitions include the use of pesticides and herbicides. Not only within the deed restricted area but also in proximity to the deed restricted area in such a way that they ultimately indirectly impact the deed restricted area itself. As part of the permitting process with ACOE it’s a requirement that deed restriction information and permit materials are provided to any purchaser of those lots. The deed restriction line gets recorded on the subdivision maps so that it’s entered into the chain of title, and the ACOE requires that it’s listed in the deed as a restriction. The applicant will also be purchasing “in-lieu” credits where a third-party entity, in this case Ducks Unlimited, creates massive wetland areas in the same watershed. They’re high-quality wetlands that are designed in a way that they address watershed level conservation goals that ACOE has identified. Once the areas are constructed they allow applicants to purchase credits to offset impacts for their project. The money also goes to fund future wetland creation areas. Mark asked if there was a way to direct the flow from the houses away from the wetlands. Dominick said the water from the rear of the house will be directed to the front yards. Leah asked Gilbert if there were areas of lawns that could be sprayed because they’re not within the deed restriction. Gilbert said they are proposing to deed restrict all of the remaining wetlands and additional upland buffers around the wetlands. Mark said there are buffer areas against the wetlands on the drawing that will provide a boundary in addition to where the wetlands are. He said during subdivision the board can confirm in their conditions about the restrictions for pesticide use. Mike said during the subdivision process he would like the applicant to clearly articulate the “no build” zone and “no lawn” zone. Item 3 was changed to No.  5. Impact on flooding Yes. 5a. no, 5b. no, 5c. no, 5d. Yes, 5e. Yes, 5f. no, 5g. Other impacts – none. D. Modification of existing drainage patterns, and E. May change flood water flows that contribute to flooding. This is answered with the SWPPP and the NYS Drainage Manual. Mike said it should be made clear that “E” could contribute to flooding elsewhere, like Bog Meadow, and how that affect is attenuated. It should be explicit in the wording. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 22, 2025 - Page 4 of 8   15. Impact on noise, odor and light – Yes. 15a. no, 15b. no, 15c. no, 15d. no, 15e. no, 15f. yes – the action may result in removal of noise attenuation for the adjacent neighborhood. Mark said the board would like to see the raw data behind the conclusions that the sound engineer drew and to have a consulting engineer perform a peer review. Mark asked city engineers James Sallaway & Amy Valyou, in consultation with Tony, to look at it and decide if it needs to be sent out. Kerry agreed and said more detail is needed – map that shows trees to be removed and where the existing trees are. It was emphasized that the board is talking about protecting the existing community from noise level changes as a result of the new development being constructed. Mark said the board wants to see the model that was used for the noise study, mapping that was done, and to see the raw data that was fed into the model. He said they want to see the tree cut lines that reference back to the drawings. Tony noted that the survey is from 1977, and the tree lines shown on the map may not be accurate. Dominick said (from the audience, hard to hear) the survey was done 2 or 3 years ago. Significant trees will be dealt with at subdivision review. Mark said the board can’t close the SEQRA because more information is needed, and asked if they could still give an advisory opinion to ZBA. Leah said they can, the ZBA just can’t act on the application until the SEQRA review is complete. Mark listed the variances requested: 2 area variances and several setback variances, most needing relief of 18.5 ft. Mark said because they discussed the application extensively it seems appropriate to issue an opinion to the ZBA. Opinion:  Traffic – the traffic study suggests that traffic impact will be within acceptable bounds. From a fire safety point of view the planning board will ask the fire department and code enforcement to weigh in on whether the project complies with the NYS Fire Code appendix D section D107.1.  Cluster? No – working under the old ordinance so it’s not a cluster. There was discussion among the board about the idea of cluster zoning, but it was decided that the goal was to have the lot sizes consistent with the existing subdivision.  Proposed layout in the context of UR-1 District – the prior zoning as per the approved subdivision. Tony Stellato made a motion that the planning board provide a positive advisory opinion to the Zoning Board consistent with the 3 items mentioned above. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, A. White-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, K. Mayo-Y. 5-0, motion carried. Dominick asked if the basic SWPPP needs to include stormwater to get through the SEQRA at the next meeting because there’s a lot involved – final design, etc. Tony said the board can get through SEQRA with the applicant stating what they will be providing and their approach – existing and proposed hydrology, impact of peak flow on the downstream watershed and the wetlands and a water quality study of the water entering the wetlands. Mark Pingel, Chair summarized what the applicant will need for the next meeting:  Design approach for the stormwater.  Noise information in place. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 22, 2025 - Page 5 of 8 3. #20240534 663 and 673 Crescent Ave. Zoning Amendment. Consideration of advisory opinion to the City Council for a proposed zoning map and text amendment to change the zoning parcels (663 and 673 Crescent Ave.) from Rural Residential (RR) to Interlaken PUD. Tony Stellato recused himself from this application. Justin Grassi, Jones Steves Grassi, represented the applicants/owners Jon Weilbaker and Patricia Tuz. Justin showed a map of the site location. One 2.5-acre parcel with a home on it and a 1.1-acre parcel along Crescent Ave. Behind and around these parcels is the Interlaken PUD. The proposed text amendment would remove these two parcels from RR zoning and add them to the Interlaken PUD. This would remove the parcels from the two-acre lot minimum requirement, and they would meet the Interlaken dimensional requirements which is just under ¼ acre per parcel. Possibilities once the parcels are part of the Interlaken PUD could be to subdivide and sell off some of the land to existing owners in Interlaken to extend their backyard, lot line adjustment or a 3-lot subdivision. This is step one in the process, and if approved by the City Council the applicant will be back before the planning board for subdivision approval. Justin pointed out 4 lots that became part of Interlaken in 2016 after a positive recommendation from the planning board to the city council. Mark Pingel, Chair said there are some potential differences between this action and the 2016 approval. The 2016 action was done with the consent and cooperation of the HOA. Justin said they have had informal discussions with the HOA and explained that the HOA owns all the property in the Interlaken PUD and the residents own their home on top of that property. The applicant isn’t certain what they would like to do with the 3-lots (once approved and subdivided) and one requirement would be for the HOA to accept their land. There are other requirements/amendments with the Department of State that would be needed. Mark said in some of the notes regarding this application he saw something about a 9-lot subdivision being proposed. Justin said the informal discussion at this time is for the applicant to be able to build more than one home on the parcel. Susan said the 9 lots came up in one of the text amendments in zone BB. Justin said they do not intend to have 9 lots, potentially four. Mark said it seems it would be difficult to build on the “skinny” lot because of access. Justin said there’s no intent to subdivide for single family residences on that lot and his client would commit to that condition. Leah said they want to confirm which action will be required under SEQRA review and asked Justin to confirm absolutely that the applicant is not seeking more than 4 additional lots in the proposed subdivision. Justin confirmed there would be no more than 4 additional lots in the proposed subdivision, and any changes to the long lot will be boundary line adjustments with the HOA. Mike asked if the applicant considered subdividing the parcel under the RR zoning and seeking zoning variances for the smaller lots, with the argument that the lot size is consistent with the surrounding Interlaken PUD, and sell the remaining portion of the long lot, excluding the existing house, to the HOA. Justin said they would be very large variances (about 400%) and they are trying to be consistent with the zoning ordinance. It makes more sense to be part of the neighboring district that they probably should have been part of to begin with. The ZBA would ask if there’s a feasible alternative and that would be to join the PUD. Leah noted that the property could be within the PUD but doesn’t have to be part of the HOA. In this case, there won’t be a shared road, etc. because the existing property is on a public highway. The board needs to decide if it makes sense to make a zoning change to encompass these lots. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 22, 2025 - Page 6 of 8 After discussion among the board members and staff, it was decided that the board would make a positive recommendation to the City Council with the following conditions:  The applicant has no intention of developing the “skinny/long” lot. The intent is to contemplate some beneficial use. No further subdivision outside of separating the back portion from the front portion.  Regarding the HOA, the Council can address that, no concerns. When it comes to subdivision, the infrastructure plans need to be discussed.  The Council should count the number of parcels being considered and limit the subdivision to not more than 4 additional lots.  The zoning boundary behind the house should be drawn so that the two skinny lots remain RR, preventing development. If the applicant chooses to negotiate with the HOA, that’s something that can be considered in the future. There was discussion about the board’s ability to restrict development of the back parcel. There are several ways that could be accomplished and would be addressed during subdivision review. Leah added that in their recommendation to the City Counsel the board could note that the reason the applicant has indicated for the change in the text by 9 lots is not because they’re proposing 9 additional lots, but because a portion of that is correction of the zoning law. That would require the City Council to confirm how many lots there are. Mark suggested that the considerations for the 2016 approval be replicated in this decision. Susan said she would draft something for Mark’s review. She added that the City Council will be required to hold a Public Hearing where the HOA will be notified. Susan noted that there are approval standards that the board needs to consider in their recommendation to the City Council. Kerry Mayo made a motion to approve a positive recommendation to the City Council with conditions to be drafted by planning staff and submitted to the Chair for final approval. The motion was seconded by Alex White. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, A. White-Y, M. King-Y, K. Mayo-Y. 4-0, motion carried. Mark Pingel, Chair left the meeting. 4. #20250266 16 Excelsior Spring Ave. Area Variance. Consideration of advisory opinion to the ZBA for an area variance associated with a proposed two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Tonya Yasenchak, Y Engineering represented the applicant, Jessica Crawford. The subject property is on the corner of Excelsior Ave. and Audrey Lane and the applicant is seeking a two-lot subdivision of the property. The property to be subdivided is to the east of the existing house and would create one completely conforming lot. A zoning variance will be required because the property line to the east will be too close to the existing house for a rear setback. In previous zoning where there were two sides and two fronts they would have been conforming, but with the UDO and the frontage being Excelsior, the new line being created is not a side lot, it’s a rear lot, and will be too close. They are seeking a rear yard variance from the existing house to the new property line. Tony said there was discussion at the workshop City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 22, 2025 - Page 7 of 8 about a proposed sidewalk (on Audrey) for the future subdivision and ask for an advisory from Complete Streets Board about future intent for this area. Tony asked if there were any comments from the public. Jim Schnieder, 30 Elizabeth Lane said it’s a transition neighborhood with young families. The only way for pedestrians/bicyclists to get around is by walking/riding down Audrey Lane over to Excelsior Spring to St. Clement’s, to Eastside Recreation to downtown. This project will dramatically change the character of Audrey Lane because the street is very narrow and dangerous – two cars can’t pass side by side. Last October the neighbors did a survey to which there were 71 responses; 13% said they never go on Excelsior Spring Ave. because it’s too dangerous. Of the 39 respondents who said that they did go on Excelsior Spring, 62% said it was very dangerous, and they were scared being there trying to get to the Spring Run Trail. Access to the Spring Run Trail; 36% drive over to East Ave., 24% go to Roberts and Eureka. 49% said they do not use the downtown connector along Excelsior. 71% said the intersection of Victoria, Audrey & Excelsior Spring is extremely dangerous (even though it’s a 4-way stop, the cars don’t stop there). Some of the documents on the city’s website such as the 2022 Safe Routes to School (St. Clement’s), Excelsior Spring Ave. is identified as a safe route on the analysis map. The 2022 Complete Streets Advisory Board plan update calls for sidewalks on Excelsior Spring Ave. The 2020 Greenbelt Trail Excelsior Spring Ave. is a proposed trail connector. This project didn’t create these problems, but it will change the character of the neighborhood. If a sidewalk is proposed for Audrey, make it wider so that it’s a multi-use path that will connect the neighborhoods. There is intense residential development in the area. Tony said the board recognizes the opportunity here and has talked about discussing with the Complete Streets Advisory Board about the future plans for sidewalk and pedestrian connectivity and the subject will be considered during the subdivision application. Currently the ZBA has asked for an advisory opinion from the planning board on the variances. Kerry said it would be helpful to the applicant for the board to mention what they will be looking for during site plan review, such as changing the driveway. He said the board considers multi- use paths wherever feasible and going down Excelsior Spring is definitely high on the list. Kerry said he’s in favor of a positive advisory opinion. Mike said while he understands the frontage needs to be on Excelsior, he disagrees. He would like to see access on Audrey Lane; it would be safer, and the driveway would be shorter, which would reduce the impervious pavement. Mike said the house appears to be empty and he asked what the applicant had planned for that. Tonya said the owner will be making modifications, but the house will remain in-place. She noted that some neighbors have expressed their concern about adding a driveway to Audrey Lane because it’s a quiet street and there’s already driveways on Excelsior. Mike King made a motion to approve a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a zoning variance for 16 Excelsior Spring Ave. The motion was seconded by Alex White. Vote: T. Stellato-Y, A. White-Y, M. King-Y, K. Mayo-Y. 4-0, motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – May 22, 2025 - Page 8 of 8