Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, JULY 31, 2025 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Mark Pingel, Chair called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mark Pingel, Chair, Alex White, Jennifer Johnson, Michael (Mike) King, William “Bill” McTygue, Tony Stellato ABSENT: Kerry Mayo, Joe Ferrante STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, City Counsel, Amy Valyou, Principal Engineering Tech, James Sallaway, City Engineer. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Mark Pingel made a motion to approve the June 12, 2025 meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Joe Ferrante. Vote: 5-0, motion carried. 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. #20250202 Excelsior Ave. Site Plan Extension. Site Plan approval extension for a multi- family residential project in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) district. Susan said this is an application for an extension of a site plan approval for a multi-family residential project on Excelsior Ave. (Beacon Communities). This is the second and final extension of an additional 18 months for the approval. If approved, the new expiration date would be April 30, 2027. The applicant is in the process of securing necessary financing to complete this project. Alex White made a motion to approve an extension of approval for a multi-family residential project of a mixed-use project on Excelsior Ave. Saratoga Springs, NY to December 18, 2026. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, J. Johnson-Y, B. McTygue-Y, T. Stellato-Y, A. White-Y. 5-0, motion carried. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 2. #20250202 Park Place and Cottage St. Final Subdivision. Final Plat review of a proposed two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Mike King entered the meeting at this time. Mark Pingel, Chair said the applicant will talk about additional details from the Design Review Board deliberation. The board will discuss the project with the applicant and then take comments from the public. The Public Hearing remains open after a previous meeting. After public comments there will no longer be any exchange back and forth between the board and public. Matt Hurff, Frost Hurff Architects said after their last meeting with the planning board they had two meetings with the DRB to discuss the building in detail. They asked for modifications which the applicant provided resulting in a favorable advisory opinion from the DRB. Matt presented the plans that have been approved by the DRB: • Context of scale – pattern of single-family residences to the south and east, higher level of density to the north and west. • Their building would not be the highest or largest building but would be a larger building within the neighborhood. • For comparison, the applicant has 125 ft. of frontage on Park Place for their building, and the Beagle School has 134 ft. of frontage. A building on the corner of White and Cottage has approximately 120 ft. of frontage (only 95 ft. of it is a full 3-story building). There is an apartment complex on Cottage that is approximately 103 ft. long. The church building is 94 ft. long. The convent on Park Place is 104 ft. long. • The blocks to the south and east are zoned as UR-2 and UR-3 and the area of the proposed project is zoned UR-4, which envisions and allows for a higher level of density to include “single-family, two-family and multi-family residential uses”. • An image of the city from 1888 shows single family units to the south and east and the area of Cottage St. is characterized by larger buildings. It was a logical extension of the UR-4 zoning. • The footprint of the applicant’s proposed building is larger than the hotel that was previously on the site. The height between the two is similar. • West side - Franklin Square (substantial multi-family building next to single-family residences). Woodlawn St., Clinton St. East side – Crescent Ave., Nelson Ave., Regent St. and White St. (down the street from the subject property) all show the same relationship/proximity of larger buildings near smaller single-family homes. • 3-D and shadow casting models were presented. • Per DRB suggestion they added windows to the north end of the building. Kirsten Catellier, Studio A presented the planting plan: • Trash plan – submitted plan to the city. The residents will store their trash cans in their individual garage spaces and place their roll off cans outside of the garage doors on trash day. The HOA will have a service that will roll them to the curb and return them to the courtyard at the end of the day for the residents to place back inside. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 31, 2025 - Page 2 of 17  • Landscaping to meet the side buffer requirements – added a considerable buffer along the left property line and around the back of the building to meet the zoning requirements. • Added a potential location at the front of the building for a transformer (buffered with the planting plan) with an alternative pole location at the street dependent on coordination with National Grid. Details of the transformer – 150 KVA on the pole if possible. The plantings they are proposing are red roses – two varieties, ornamental grasses, and inkberry. This can be discussed further at site plan review. • Street trees along Cottage St. and Park Pl. are compliant with the City Forestry Management plan and are a species that can be grown underneath power lines. The diameter of the trees will be detailed later and will be 6 ft. height. • There was a snowmelt detail added to the driveway from the road down into the parking area. • Traffic letter submitted by Lansing Engineering providing their findings. Matt Huntington, Studio A gave an update on the engineering review by the city: • Focused on utilities, stormwater inverts – all comments were answered. • The remaining item is the completion of the water and sewer report. Additional hydrant testing is required and currently being scheduled with the city engineer. No issues are anticipated as the projected design flows for the water and sewer are both at maximum at about 5 gallons per minute peaking factor. The 10” sewer line they will be connected to on Park Place is capable of 600 to 700 gallons per minute. Bill McTygue said this should be checked because it may still be a 4” main which would be substandard and not acceptable. • There will be a dedicated generator for the pump system to be designed and discussed later. Applicant needs to provide location, enclosure and sound reading. Matt said if it needed to go outside the building it would go into the mechanical area next to the condensers on the northwest corner of the building. • There’s a 25-year stormwater plan with the pump station as a backup plan. The plan needs to be fully designed; what direction the water flows, etc. There was a discussion about having a 100-year design. This item will be discussed further during site plan review. Comments from Public Hearing: 1. Eve Mulholland, 17 Whitney Place – not opposed to multi-dwelling unit but this particular design is excessive in size, needs to be scaled down. She would like to see engineered results (light beams) of how large this will look in this space. Noted the DRB’s comment that “the windows in the mansard roof help to mitigate the height” translates, in her opinion, to meaning excessive height. 2. Marlene Wood, 23 Park Place – distributed 4 sets of copies of photos and the survey for her property to the board. A “1998 Sanford map” (I think she meant 1888 Sanborn Map) shows that nothing has been built close to her house in the last 200 years so there’s lots of greenspace there. Photo shows what they will see from their kitchen (brick wall once new building is built). She’s concerned about the snow load on the roof on the side of her house with no sunlight in wintertime. 3. Jason Thorud, 22 Park Place lives directly across the street (UR-2 zoning) from the subject property. He measured the building on Woodlawn with a measuring wheel and City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 31, 2025 - Page 3 of 17  it’s 113 ft. long and 60 ft. deep. The Collamer building is 150 ft. long and 100 ft. deep. The building is too big and tall and will look right over his house. 4. James Lloyd, 12 Cottage St. is concerned about the density on Cottage St. which is a narrow street. Sat on his porch from 1:30 to 2:30 and counted the cars going by on Cottage St.; there were 9. From 5:00 p.m. to 6 p.m. he counted the cars going by on Cottage St. and Park Pl. Cottage had 15 cars and Park Pl. had 71. They’re proposing the entrance to be on Cottage St. which will ruin the ambiance of the street. He submitted Sanborn maps up to the 1970’s to show how big the proposed building is in relation to the five blocks around it. 5. Richard Frank, 18 Cottage St. asked when the last building was built within the “ring around the city” that was cited during the applicant’s presentation. The lot seems a little small for the density of the project. The DRB’s decision was in favor but not unanimous. The applicant will plant trees, but many big old trees have already been removed from the lot. It’s hard to see how the parking or trash is going to work in the basement. The traffic study referenced “Stepping Star” dance studio but that was over 20 years ago. He would like to see the shadow study for 3 to 4 pm in the winter and see the project scaled back. He recognized that the changes that have been made are very good, and it looks like a high-quality building. 6. Lars Anderson, 20 Park Pl. said the proposed building is too large. He noted that the size of the structure is relative to the subdivision where a panhandle was added to the property line to avoid the need for variances. He believes there’s a mandate within Saratoga County to make all subdivisions or property lines very simple and straight. 7. Nick Cristo, lives at 25 Bradley Circle, Halfmoon said that Saratoga County is the focal point for growth between Global Foundries and other industry coming to the area. Many of the concerns being discussed such as snow load, etc. are taken care of by State Code. The area needs sustained growth. He said the city is doing a good job. 8. Ally Dockum The building is too big and does not create a neighborhood environment as suggested by the applicant. The building that was cited on the corner of White and Regent is not a huge building anymore; it’s a 2-story condo building. Clinton St., Woodlawn and Excelsior are not Cottage St. or a one block street. She appreciates that they’ve talked about snow removal, trash and electricity. She asked why the applicant can’t compromise with the neighborhood. She feels bad about the house right next door; maybe they could move the building over and not affect the neighbor. 9. Zoe Nemer, lives at 136 State St. but her mom is one of the owners of 7 Cottage St. If this project gets approved it would help to provide the funds necessary for her and her 5 siblings to have the opportunity to attend good colleges. 10. Dave Martin, Caroline St. lived in Saratoga his whole life and his dad was a businessman in town. He said the presentation was great and it’s a beautifully designed building. It’s great to see architecture like that in the city; it makes the city a beautiful place to live. Saratoga is the only growing county in New York State. It’s a great project! 11. Vince Laterra, Sr. talked about people wanting to move in and close the door behind them. It’s a new project that’s trying to capture the old 1900 design and it fits in perfectly. The only constant in this world is change. 12. Mickey Mahoney, 55 White St. resident for 33 years said he appreciates the neighbor’s comments and the work that they’ve done. What the woman at 23 Park Place had to say strikes him the most. He can’t imagine waking up and suddenly finding this sized building 11 or 12 ft. from my single-family home. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 31, 2025 - Page 4 of 17 13. Dave Guarino, 21 Park Pl. said most of the neighbors and himself are objecting to the mass and scale of the building. He presented and submitted a petition with over 60 signatures to modify or reject the proposal. The comparisons presented by the applicant are mostly over 150 years old and one is no longer there. Nothing on this scale has been built in their neighborhood; it’s all downtown scale. He presented his proposed project two doors down that was recently rejected by the planning board because of density. He was looking for 4 units out of the 7 allowed. This proposed project will fill the lot entirely with no green space. The irregular lot line allows them to minimize the setbacks and maximize the coverage on the lot. They need a better setback from the neighbor at 23 Cottage St., or they will be devaluing their property. The mansard roof line makes the building look overwhelming. There are no other 3 story buildings on the street. He could fit 4 of his homes inside the proposed building and his house is the largest one on the street. He has concerns about snow removal and how the city will handle that. The applicant/developer/neighbor moved into this property 3 years ago, put up a big white fence and has shown no interest in integrating into the neighborhood. It appears this is just a big development project for them. They removed at least 5 large oak trees from the property that were 6 ft. across. They should look at building an appropriate building/buildings. 14. Barbara Lombardo, owned and lived at 35 Park Place for more than 40 years. She said she wishes to dispute the DRB’s 5-2 opinion that the mass and scale of the proposal is not inappropriate for this location. She talked about the square footage comparison on White St. and said it was not a fair comparison. The square footage is much more than the neighborhood residences as shown tonight and cited in a letter dated June 10th from Jason Thorud. She mentioned that the Preservation Foundation weighed in at the DRB meeting endorsing the project as appropriate and noting that the applicant is a Foundation board member. The apartment and condo comps are not really comparable. Site plan issues – where will the snow be dumped – need clarity. The location and number of trash bins – where will they be lined up. The transformer will need more than roses to buffer in the winter. The trees will only be 6 ft. tall – merely aspirational. The greenspace will be gone – how will that affect the stormwater? 15. Martika Wolfe, 37 Park Pl. submitted a letter in May. The development is too massive for the lot. The developer is referencing to the north when it should be Park Pl. and Cottage St. Based on what the neighbors have said the project doesn’t fit within the neighborhood. Many of the letters in support of the project state that the project “complies” with zoning; it should do more than comply, it should help develop the neighborhood so that it fits in with the historic character. 16. Jane Weihe, 44 White St. 1870 Victorian cottage since 1978. Need a more appropriate size project. She referenced a Bonacio project that was being protested in the past and he came up with a much better project. 17. Jim Gavin, 8 Laura Lane said there have been a lot of comments about the height and the size of the project and he feels they are appropriate. The building code of the city agrees with that as well as the DRB. The comment by a speaker saying, “this will change the ambiance of Cottage St.” he sees homes that are getting tired and are in need of freshening up. If this project adds to the dignity and class of the neighborhood do not fight the change in ambiance but embrace it. 18. Ms. Sterling, 126 Crescent St. said this project does not impact her directly just when she tries to walk down the street every day on the piece of property that the owner refuses to maintain – trim their trees, shovel their walk in the winter, etc. The building City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 31, 2025 - Page 5 of 17  is oversized and there’s no area for children to play. It won’t attract families. She asked the board to listen to the residents who are most directly impacted and do what they are asking them to do. 19. Matt Hurff submitted 22 letters in support of the project on behalf of the applicant. Mark Pingel, Chair asked Leah if the public comment should remain open. Leah said if the board is seeking additional information from the applicant or wishes to have further discussion they can choose to leave the public comment open. If not, it would be appropriate to close the public comment on the subdivision. Mark said they will leave the public hearing open at this time. Leah reminded the board and the public that because the public comment is still open, it does not mean any further comments will be heard at this meeting. Mark asked the board for comments on the project to see if they can get to SEQRA review. • Mike said he was struck by the comments about the applicants/owners of the property not shoveling their snow or maintaining their property, they erected a large fence and cut down all the trees. He’s in favor of moving on to SEQRA. • Alex agreed they should move on to SEQRA. • Tony commended the neighborhood for their comments being on point. He also commended the applicant on doing some really good work with the DRB – changing the façade, etc. There’s still work to be done in terms of community character; the shadowing of 23 Park Place; height and proximity to that house, the Cottage St. façade comes out to the street and takes up too much of the lot. The other buildings in the neighborhood are set back further. He has concerns with what the courtyard, which is now 4 stories, will look like from Cottage St, the setback of the building compared to the property to the north (the current owner who is subdividing), the retaining wall on the north property line that’s connected to the building with hardscape is too much structure too close to the lot lines, the transformer in the front yard is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Need some substantial landscaping – what needs to be put back? • Bill said utilities and support elements for the building would be discussed at site plan review. The examples that were shown for the large buildings/row houses – Woodlawn Ave. abuts the Urban Core of the downtown – one block off Broadway. The same for the row house structure on Clinton St. is against the downtown where they want to see that density. Cottage St. and Park Pl. is a unique corner; Cottage St. is more like a residential alley environment as a narrow street and the board has worked with beautiful structures on these types of streets. The proposed building is too much for the lot and he wants to know if the applicant is open to working with the board before they decide on the subdivision. Bill reminded the board that they worked out a solution for the subdivision for two single-family homes that were built on the corner of Regent St. and Park Pl. The design of the proposed building is beautiful and high-quality, but they can work better toward a solution that meets the needs of the city and the desires of the neighborhood. • Mark said item number 3 speaks to community character on the short form SEQRA. He went to several of the properties that the applicant has shown as precedent for their proposal. He took pictures of the examples and inserted them into the 3-d drawing that the applicant has displayed (the heights were the same), Circular St. (4 apartment units) in the drawing leaves about 20 ft. on either side. Regent St. building (4 apartment units) inserted also leaves about 20 ft. on each side. Woodlawn is the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 31, 2025 - Page 6 of 17  widest building and has about 10 ft. left on one side. It’s also in the Urban Core, not UR-4 or 3. Mark took the footprint from the 3-story brick building on Cottage and White St. and superimposed it on the proposed footprint and it’s about half the size. The footprint from the Bonacio building was the only building in the immediate area that’s as big as the proposed footprint. The board needs to look at the rationale for “neighborhood compatibility” and looked at the following: Spacing: most properties have more generous spacing between buildings. He was unable to find anything in the area that was as narrow as the space between 23 Park Pl. and the proposed building. Frontage: this would be the widest main street frontage of any building in the immediate vicinity. Footprint: it appears this will be the largest footprint in this zoning district. Mark explained the SEQRA process. If there’s a moderate-to-large finding on any of the questions then more analysis is needed. This form will be used to see if additional materials will be needed for the applicant. 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… - moderate to large. 3. Impair character or quality…. – moderate to large. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - moderate to large. 6. Cause increase in use of energy… – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - moderate to large. 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… - moderate to large. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. In Summary: Questions 2 and 3 relate to 23 Park Place; the notion of what Cottage St. is and what it will become; when UR-4 abuts UR-2 the board should be able to consider the stepdown to UR-2. Alex said they should find out the surrounding zoning next to the example properties that were presented by the applicant. Mark said that information may already be available to the board. It’s not an action item for the applicant yet. Item 5 – the traffic study says there’s no problem. There are 6 covered and 5 uncovered parking spaces and 6 additional spaces available with a lift = 17. The board questioned whether the accessible space is in front of an owner’s garage door and how that would work. Action item – reduce the parking to a total of 11 parking spaces, 5 outside and 6 inside and rethink the location of the accessible space so that it’s not blocking an owner’s garage. To be shown in the drawings. Item #7 the board needs to see reports before they can be evaluated. Water and wastewater treatment (could be a 4” main on Park Pl.) is an engineering issue. Item#10 Stormwater – asked for a 100-year analysis, how to accommodate emergency power – generator? What’s the stormwater capacity out on the street? Matt said the pump itself is a redundant system, the primary drainage plan is the permeability of pavers being installed. Even if the pump were to fail, there would still be drainage. The applicant will provide calculations with the city engineer to analyze the stormwater and explain accurately to the board. Action items: 1.Look at impacts on the homeowners at 23 Park Pl. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 31, 2025 - Page 7 of 17 2. Implication of Cottage St. being a unique alley type environment and consider the step down from U-R4 to UR-2. 3. The cited buildings appear to be smaller in their context than in this context. Reconsider the frontage extent. 4. The drawings should change to reflect the appropriate number of parking places and should be clear as to how the accessible spot will be truly accessible. 5.The engineer said there is only a 4” main so there’s an implication for fire safety. 6. Discussion between the applicant’s engineers and city engineers relative to stormwater handling. 3. #20250203 Park Place and Cottage St. Site Plan review of a proposed multi-family dwelling including 6 residential units and associated site work in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Not discussed. 4. #20250451 67 West Ave. Special Use Permit. Special Use Permit to reuse the existing building and site for a marijuana dispensary in the Neighborhood Commercial (T-5) District. Dave Carr, LA Group represented the applicant. Also present, applicants Derrick Alonsen and Adam Feldman. Dave said the property is under contract and they are seeking a special use permit for a marijuana dispensary which would be located within the existing building. Part of their request is that the site plan be a condition upon approval, so they know that the use is approved before they go to the expense of a site plan. The site is 1.27 acres and is bounded by West Ave. to the east, a vacant property to the south, post office parking lot to the west and a vacant lot that the city hopes to turn into a park in the future. Surrounding the site there’s a gas station and convenience store at the corner, Shirley’s, an ice cream parlor, law office and a commercial center almost directly across the street. Dave displayed photos of the existing building looking to the south, which includes a car sales operation with a special use permit that’s set to expire. The applicant has spoken to them, and they plan on extending their SUP and will remain in the back of the building. One of their conditions is site plan approval so they will likely piggyback on the applicant’s if successful. The front of the building used to house Adirondack Appliance and before that it was the home of the Saraspa Rod and Gun Club. A photo of the south side (rear) of the building shows that the building is very long and narrow and once was a shooting range. The applicant is looking to locate the dispensary in the center of the building. The auto shop would remain, and the front of the building has about 1600 sq. ft. of commercial space that does not have a user at this time but will likely be retail. The parking lot is striped to show there’s sufficient parking for those 3 uses. The edge of the existing parking to their property line is 30 ft., 85 ft. and 65 ft. The current master plan shows about 50 ft. from the edge of the pavement to where the future park would start. Derrick said the interior of the store will be in the middle part of the building and he showed photos of the aesthetics and a customer flow map. They have approval from the State to use a point of sale (POS) system called Dutchie. Dutchie checks the IDs at the door and integrates well with the city for taxes and keeps inventory. There will be security at the entrance with 3 to 5 employees (one being general management) on the showroom floor at all times. The budtenders will help customers place their order and the product will be put together in the separate inventory area and passed through a window, paid for and out the door. The goal is to have people get their product and move along. The operators involved have run other dispensaries. There will be a minimal amount of cash in the register at all times, $300 to $500 dollars. Once it hits a certain amount, the money will be brought to a City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 31, 2025 - Page 8 of 17 drop safe. When that hits 5 to 10 thousand dollars it leaves the store and goes to Trustco. “Brivo” programmable fob entry will secure all restricted areas. ADT sensors will monitor doors, windows, and motion to ensure comprehensive protection throughout the premises. Mark said no SEQRA is required. Bill asked what was happening with the dispensary that was proposed on Washington St. Susan said the approval lapsed. Bill said he has no problem with the proposed use, and this will be an opportunity to spruce up the building. There’s plenty of parking. Tony asked about the status of the car dealership’s special use permit. Susan said the board granted approval based on a certain amount of time that they would return for site plan review. Their special use permit will expire if they don’t submit a site plan by next Wednesday. Dave said they can get an extension, and he has urged them to do that. This applicant (owner) plans to move forward with a site plan and will discuss a monetary agreement with the car dealership regarding the site plan. Alex said he has site plan concerns: proximity to the intersection and possible future park planned north of this property. Susan said the park plan was uploaded in the application materials for the board. As part of the Intrada project on the west side of the post office, they offered a conservation easement of 12 acres to the city that extends to a large area to Station Lane and West Ave. Much of this is wetland and the city accepted it for the purpose of active and passive recreational opportunities. There were 4 projects in different stages of development at that time who would all contribute to development of this area in 2017. The rec commission identified a need in this area for recreational opportunities and have developed a master plan to identify some passive and active improvements to the area. When this application and proposed use was submitted staff looked at the proximity to the future park because it is adjacent. They contacted John Hirliman, Director of Recreation to find out how they feel about this use adjacent to the park and they were not supportive. Mark stated it's a permitted use, but there is an issue with the park rec's lack of support. Susan said the city has accepted the conservation easement and they have begun to look at a master plan for the park. Mark said the site plan interface looking north would be important and there would be no consumption on the property. Alex is concerned about the location and proximity to the proposed park. He said he would like more information from the rec commission to elaborate on their concern and the justification. Dave said the setback for schools is 500 ft and 300 ft. for a church measured property line to property line. There’s no requirement for a separation from a park from the state licensing. Bill said these facilities are staffed and controlled by state law, with more restrictions than any liquor store. Mark said because a marijuana dispensary is a permitted use and there are no restrictions, the board should focus on how to make it difficult to get to this location from the park, which can be discussed during site plan. He recommended that the board consider a temporary permit to be consistent with what was done with other dispensaries and allow them to make sure that the way the dispensary is working is consistent with what’s in the best interest of the city. It gives them the ability to continue to work with the recreation committee in terms of additional conditions or actions that are necessary to make the two installations compatible. Leah said to keep in mind that this is subject to public hearing. Public Comment: Devin Klender, resident 21 whistler Ct. owner and operator of a cannabis facility located in Queensbury, NY said he plays an integral role between the farmers and shops such as this one in manufacturing and distributing finished goods. He, along with 35 employees, supports the establishment of a shop of this size in their hometown. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 31, 2025 - Page 9 of 17 Gordon Boyd, 99 State St. is in support of the proposal and long overdue development that cannabis is available legally. With regard to the park, something that doesn’t exist shouldn’t be used to prevent something that can exist, especially in a way that generates revenue for the city which may help to commence the development of the park. Caroline McFadden 5 White Pines Blvd. said she works with Derrick and has been working with this project on the State level. Derrick is the father of an 8-year-old son which would be of mind to him with the park next door. He would never do anything that would jeopardize children in any way. Working with the recreational department to make sure this is done correctly will always be first of mind and we will work in tandem with them so that everything goes accordingly. Mike King made a motion that the board hereby determine that this project constitutes a SEQRA Type 2 action and no further SEQRA review is warranted. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, B. McTygue-Y, T. Stellato-Y, A. White-Y. 5-0, motion carried. After discussion, the board decided to issue a 12-month Special Use Permit. Dave asked that the renewable be 18 months considering time constraints. Susan said the marijuana dispensary on Weibel Ave. was 12 months from certificate of occupancy. Concerns were raised about the traffic on West Ave. and will be discussed further at site plan review. Mark Pingel made a motion to approve a 12-month, temporary Special Use Permit for a marijuana dispensary at 67 West Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY that begins once the applicant receives a Certificate of Occupancy. The motion was rescinded. Mark Pingel made a motion to issue a temporary Special Use Permit for the marijuana dispensary at 67 West Ave. for the period of 12 months from issuance of the certificate of occupancy with the condition that a site plan be submitted within 6-months and approved prior to CO. The motion was seconded by Alex White. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, B. McTygue-Y, T. Stellato-Y, A. White-Y. 5-0, motion carried. 5. #20250302 3 Unlimited Dr. Land Disturbance Activity permit to provide for a proposed 17,000 sq. ft. warehouse addition and associated site work in the Industrial – General (IND- G) District. The video glitched and I was unable to record the beginning of the presentation. John Munter represented the applicant and showed an aerial photo of the existing building and where they propose the 17,000 sq. ft. addition. Most of the area is impervious and the existing stormwater design is capable of handling any runoff as this changes from impervious ground to impervious roof. The expansion will not entail any tree clearing. The buffer that exists to the east and north may require some brush trimming in order to clear back the work area. John displayed an engineer’s design of the site plan showing the proposed addition. They will be adding two additional overhead doors to the existing building and the addition will have two overhead doors. There will be no additional production lines/people or increase in traffic with the new addition. It’s overflow storage area for seasonal products that are currently stored outside depending on seasonal conditions. They will be storing products they already handle such as rock salt/ice melt products, a calcium-based ice melt product, powder melt and Combotherm – a blend of calcium and rock salt. They will be packaged in ready-to- use bags. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 31, 2025 - Page 10 of 17 Mark said SEQRA is required and site plan review. The land disturbance is a component of their site plan because they will be disturbing over ½ acre (.78). Public Comment: None Comments from the County: • Internal movement of larger vehicles – applicants demonstrated that the actual movement of the truck in the area will not be any different than it is now. • Access for emergency vehicles and firetrucks within the development – if trucks can move then the turnaround space would be there for emergency vehicles. The board had no questions for the applicant and moved on to SEQRA review. SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. 6. Cause increase in use of energy… – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… No, or small. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Tony Stellato made a motion to approve a Negative SEQRA Declaration for 3 Unlimited Dr., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Bill McTygue. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, B. McTygue-Y, T. Stellato-Y, A. White-Y. 5-0, motion carried. 6. #20250301 3 Unlimited Dr. Site Plan for a proposed 17,000 sq. ft. warehouse addition and associated site work in the Industrial – General (IND-G) District. Bill McTygue made a motion to approve the site plan as presented and the accompanying Land Disturbance Permit for 3 Unlimited Dr., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Alex White. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, B. McTygue-Y, T. Stellato-Y, A. White-Y. 5-0, motion carried. 7. #20250566 33-35 Caroline St. Site Plan. Introduction and discussion of a proposed mixed- use project consisting of 25 dwelling units, approximately 5,000 sq. ft. retail, and associated site work in the Urban core (T-6) District. Charles Gottlieb, Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna represented the applicant, Oldest Lighthouse, LLC for a proposed mixed-use project at 33-35 Caroline St. Also present are the applicants Cronin Dempsey & Eric Brodwin, William Christopher of 868 Architects. The project engineer who is not present is Bohler Engineering. This project has received DRB approvals for demolition, mass and scale and architecture. The applicant will have to return to the DRB for signage approval once tenants are selected. The applicant was approved for a height bonus from the planning board in December of 2024. The applicant will be providing City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 31, 2025 - Page 11 of 17 one affordable unit within the complex. There are 25 dwelling units above the ground floor, two retail spaces on the ground floor, one retail space will be 2,396 sq. ft. the other 2,670 sq. ft., 36 parking spaces on the project site that will be below grade. The project site consists of three parcels, with a lot consolidation plan in progress. The applicant has full approval from the State Historic Preservation Office noting that there will be no adverse impacts on the surrounding historical district and no archeological concerns; this was a previously disturbed site. No area variances are needed and there were no objections from the Saratoga County Planning Board. Charles stated that this is the applicant's initial presentation to the planning board, following an extensive review with the DRB. Staff comments are pending while a third- party engineer reviews the applicant’s geotechnical, water, and sewer reports. Once they receive those comments they will respond and be prepared for the September meeting of the Planning Board. William Christopher outlined the proposed mixed-use project: • Retail will be concentrated on the first floor. • The project will fill the corner site from property line to property line. • Heated sidewalks will be installed to avoid snow buildup. • Two vehicular elevators are available to transport cars to their parking space. Valet parking. • Parking space noted with an “X” are tandem. • Several retail entrances along Caroline St. and Pavilion Pl. Residential and vehicular entrances on Pavilion. • Central staircase and elevator in the middle of the building. • First through fourth floors are the same footprint. • Fifth floor is stepped in on all four sides. • Penthouse level is two units and is stepped in further. • Mechanical deck on sixth floor with elevator access up to the roof. All venting will go through the roof. • Grade change from Caroline to Pavilion – drops down 3.5 ft. There will be pedestrian access point via a ramp and a vehicular ramp on the other side. • Acoustical treatment to the exterior wall will be at a higher level than usual. • Details presented for construction, windows, structural drawings, etc. Bill McTygue noted that there will be a large construction project across the street so construction schedules will need to be coordinated, staging areas, etc. Tony asked if the trash room would service the residents, restaurant and retail space. William said the room is big enough to service the residents. Once they know who will be leasing the retail space they will provide trash storage within the building. Trash pickup will take place in the ramp. Tony asked whether they would have gas as well as electricity. William said the building is heated with electricity, but the restaurant may want gas for cooking. Tony said the board will want to see where the bank of gas meters will be on the building. William said the transformer will be in a cement vault with a steel cover on top located below the sidewalk on Pavilion. They are in discussions with National Grid at this time. There’s no generator proposed at this time, but the applicant will discuss it with the fire department. Tony said the board would want to see some streetscape beyond a sidewalk from curb to building. Sternberg lighting would be needed on Pavilion (2) like what’s on Caroline St. Mike said planning staff have an idea of widening the sidewalk on Pavilion and it should be looked into by the applicant. He asked about bike parking. William said it will be inside by the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 31, 2025 - Page 12 of 17 entrance and there are 12 tandem spots. There will be charging stations along the driveway with bicycle parking for the residents and public. Mike suggested the applicant consider reducing the number of indoor parking spaces and utilizing some of the city parking lots. Mike asked about the public civic space. Susan said there’s public civic space (5% on or off site) and recreational land (fee in lieu - residential unit) dedication for this project (combined 10% of lot area). Mark asked Susan where the board is in terms of their process. Susan has requested additional information from the applicant to determine completeness of the application for review by the planning board at a meeting in the future. The SEQRA will be short form and no variances are required. Amy Valyou asked for clarification about the stormwater going into the 8x10 culverts that run diagonal to the site. She would also like to see a phasing construction plan, the sidewalk plan to city standards, and a lighting and tree planting plan. Amy will give the applicant her written comments. Bill McTygue asked the applicant to consider locating the transformer in the driveway to get it off the sidewalk to avoid problems with snow removal machinery. William said they will have heated sidewalks that should minimize the amount of snow build up, but they will consider Bill’s request. 8. #20250533 26 Finley St. Site Plan. Site plan review of a proposed multi-family dwelling consisting of 71 dwelling units, a 3,000 sq. ft. amenity building, and associated site work in the Urban Neighborhood (T-4) District. Alex White recused himself from this project. Mark Pingel, Chair said the board would not be able to take any action on this project tonight because they are awaiting a response from the Saratoga County Planning Board. Jason Dell, Lansing Engineering represented the applicant, Rise Finley St. Residential project. Jason gave an outline of the proposed project: • L-shaped 3.86-acre parcel at 26 Finley St., Spa Dr. to the east and the Hilton Garden, Panza’s and Winn Supply along Finley. Currently occupied by an old, abandoned auto shop up front and along Finley that will be demolished. • Located within the Urban Neighborhood zoning district which allows for multi-family dwellings. A letter was submitted via email to the city by the applicant stating why they feel the project is an allowable use and meets the intent of the zoning and UDO. • Proposing a 71 unit, 3-story structure, footprint 25,500 sq. ft. in the rear and a 3,000 sq. ft. amenity and office building up front along Finley St. • The apartment building will consist of one and two bedrooms and studio apartments. • The amenity building will consist of office space, workout area and meeting rooms. • There will be a patio and small playground area between the two structures. • Parking areas are to the rear along the western and southern side of the building. • The applicant received a positive recommendation from the DRB for the project. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 31, 2025 - Page 13 of 17  • The project site will be accessed off of Finley St. on a 26 ft. wide access road to the rear parking area of 107 spaces per Code. They are proposing to build 37 stalls and to bank 70 stalls. The majority of the residents in the facility typically do not have cars and they are looking to maximize the buffer area between the facility and the neighbors to the west and south. • They are proposing an 8 ft. high fence that will go along the western side and southern side of the parking lot per the UDO that will provide a barrier to the side and rear of the building. • There will be a dumpster enclosure and a shed to store maintenance equipment toward the end of the parking lot at the rear of the building. • There will be a generator for emergency power between the two buildings. The mechanicals will be inside the “L”. • Sidewalks are proposed throughout the site to connect the apartment building to the amenity building as well as connect to the proposed sidewalk that will be constructed for the project along the triangle on the opposite side of Finley. • Proposing a crosswalk on the south side of Finley to the new sidewalk on the north to provide a safe crossing point for residents of the facility and the city. • The UDO requires a 10 ft. buffer. To address concerns by the neighbors they pushed the building and the access road as far to the east as possible providing a 33 ft. buffer between the property line and the back side of the 8 ft. high fence. On the southern side between the property line and the back side of the fence at the closest point they are at 81 ft. • Per the UDO additional tree planting is required in front of the fence and they are working with the landscape architect to address a difficult planting area near the retaining wall. • Water supply, sewer and stormwater – intend to connect to the sanitary sewer located in the intersection and flows to the north via low pressure force main and grinder pumps, water system – will extend the water main further up Finley and will tie into the facility at the north side of the amenity building, stormwater runoff will be collected by a catch basin and storm sewer system and directed to one of two subsurface stormwater systems. Mike was not using mic. Inaudible. Tony asked if the existing tree buffer runs behind the houses on Spa Dr. and follows around Livingston and if it’s mostly on the Rise property. Jason said a significant amount of the trees are on the residential properties to the east. The majority of the tree line to the south is on the Rise property and will be preserved in the buffer area. Tony said they appear to be mostly deciduous trees along the buffer and asked if they could supplement with some evergreens to break up the winter scene. Amy Valyou said the water main is set to be 6” but per the DOH it has to be an 8” main. The service line is okay at 6”. They would like a fire hydrant at the end of the run, across from where the sidewalk will start on the triangle. The curb cut for the driveway, did the fire code request 30 ft. radius? Per city standards it’s 5 ft. radius with a 22 ft. opening. Jason said they laid it out using a firetruck and a turning template pulling into the site. The larger radius is so they’re not hopping curbs with the firetruck. The city engineer will take a look. There doesn’t City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 31, 2025 - Page 14 of 17 appear to be any lighting or trees proposed from the sidewalk to the roadway. Amy will provide written comments to the applicant. Mark Pingel, Chair opened the meeting for public comment. 1. Don Hughes, 8 Livingston St. – his concerns are location, management and greenspace. This area of Saratoga is saturated now with special needs population. When facilities were closed across the state they were cognizant of not over-saturating an area and this area is over saturated. Code blue shelter has 75 beds, proposed 125 bed county code blue shelter, low value shelter 35 beds, high rise and Rise’s headquarters and their new home-based program, day programs for the homeless and the Saratoga County mental health clinic, AIM residential facility, Shelters of Saratoga Offices, Shelters of Saratoga Route 9 supported housing units for the homeless and now a 71 bed facility in a small proximity. For the past 3 years his neighborhood has had people going through their garbage cans, threatening neighbors and swearing at people who don’t give them money when they’re panhandling on the streets. In 2024 the police department responded 304 times to the affordable housing complex, 159 times to the homeless shelter, 954 times to Woodland Ave. parking lot, and according to the mayor the police respond twice a day to the homeless populations every day of the year. It’s overly saturated and compromises the safety of the residents on a daily basis. A large percentage of this population are not from Saratoga; they’re from all over the state and country. The Design Review Board did not provide residents with adequate notification of this proposal. There have been petitions signed with more than 50 signatures and there are more coming. Infrastructure has not been addressed; it will impact on police, fire and EMT’s as well as taxes and property values. With Medicaid cuts across the board, how will these people be supported? He’s concerned about greenspace being removed and replaced with cement and asphalt. There are other locations in the city that are already clear cut and could be repurposed for this facility. 2. Lauralie Brennan lives at 24 Spa Dr. and said if more trees are cut down the residents on her street will be able to see the facility. As of right now they can see the auto shop, so they will see the apartment building and light pollution at night. The area is oversaturated with the homeless. 3. Aerial Vitello, 24 Spa Dr. said she just found out about this project. She’s concerned about the size of the building and bringing in 71 units changes the character of the neighborhood. With the county services and homeless shelters, it’s already difficult and this large property will take away from the security of the neighborhood. They don’t have a lot of information about the population that’s coming in. The kids in her neighborhood have to walk to school because they’re close enough that there are no buses. It doesn’t seem safe. 4. Lance Wally, 14 Pleasant Dr. read from the Saratoga County Charter regarding affordable housing that says, “actively promote affordable housing of all types and tenure throughout the city to avoid over concentration and to reduce the potential for isolation of income groups”. Projects such as this are doing exactly that. The project will increase the concentration of affordable housing in a specific part of the city, which is not aligned with the county comprehensive plan. The city’s not providing affordable housing on the north side of the city like Lake Ave., East Ave., North Broadway or Excelsior. He would like the sponsor to address the search process to find this piece of property. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 31, 2025 - Page 15 of 17  5. Meg Gilmartin, 29 Spa Dr. reiterated what others had to say but the part about the trees is the most important to her. Most of the trees are deciduous and the rendering shown by the applicant is not accurate most of the year. There will be 3 stories looking right down into their yards. In one block there’s the county building where there’s drug treatment, very different population wandering the streets, trash, people being accosted, possible homeless shelter, code blue shelter, Rise building. It’s also a truck route. Enough in our neighborhood. It’s not about the design of the building; it’s about the population. 6. Sybil Newell, Executive Director of Rise. Spoke to address the neighbor’s concerns about the “population”. These are homes and apartments for people, not shelters or beds and not necessarily the homeless population. They’re attempting to make it so they don’t need so many sheltered beds. There are many affordable housing complexes throughout the city. Half of the project is affordable housing for the general community (earning up to $50,000 per year) and the other part is for people who may have disabilities but are capable of living generally independently with minimal oversight. 7. Don Benfer, 15 Prospect asked if there would be a way to look into how other Rise facilities have performed and how they were managed. Are they effective? The Ballston Spa Rise has a lot of problems, and they don’t want that repeated here. 8. Kathy Angelo is a retired social worker from Saratoga County and said Dominick Hollow, which was developed 3 or 4 years ago, has reported sexual abuse, rape, arson and domestic violence. She would like it clarified as to who’s moving in. When she first started working for the county there were many services offered and slowly they’ve been taken away. She’s concerned about the management and banking the parking. Mark Pingel, Chair talked about how to move forward. Susan said the county will have this on its agenda in August so the board should have an opinion from the County by the next planning board meeting in September. The board needs clarity on two issues: 1. Need to understand the difference between workforce housing and people with disabilities and other populations. 2. Site plan issues need to be addressed. Mike asked if the building could be moved even further north and east into the crook of the “L”. Jason said based on the grading and drainage characteristics – the water is being captured on their site and being pulled over to the stormwater management area and they’re right up against the setback for the front building and that change may require variances. It may be possible to move the rear building by an additional foot or two; however, this may raise drainage concerns between the property and the neighboring lot. Mike suggested that staff explore the county charter a bit more regarding saturation of various populations. Mark noted that the planning board doesn’t have any control over the county or city regarding its installations. Mike asked why they don’t just build the apartment building on the triangle they own next to the Rise house. Mike said the planning board is tasked with making sure this building, as an apartment building, fits in with the city requirements and does not look at the use beyond multi-dwelling. Mark said within SEQRA and site plan approval criteria the board can talk about compatibility, but it needs to be clarified to the board about building compatibility versus population. They need guidance on overconcentration and over saturation and how that may intersect with those criteria that they are allowed to consider when they make their decisions. Bill said there’s language in the UDO that talks about saturation with facilities that are otherwise government supported. Mark said he would like to read the language that allows the board to take this into consideration. Bill asked Sybil about City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 31, 2025 - Page 16 of 17 the status of the drop-in center at the corner of Union St. and Adelphi. Sybil said it’s temporary and was never intended to be permanent; they’re not sure they have funding past the end of this year. At the latest it will be closing by December 31, 2026. Mark Pingel, Chair summarized that the applicant has a site plan list. The board will be getting direct information about the population in this proposed facility. Talk further about what other Rise facilities are in operation and how they are doing. The board members will take a site visit. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – July 31, 2025 - Page 17 of 17