Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 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, Joe Ferrante, Vice Chair, Kerry Mayo, Michael (Mike) King, William “Bill” McTygue, Tony Stellato, Alex White ABSENT: STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, City Counsel, Amy Valyou, City Engineer. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: Note: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any applications that appear to be ‘approvable’ without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the ‘consent agenda’ and dealt with individually. 1. #20250675 53 Putnam St. Site Plan Extension. Extension of a previously approved site plan in the Urban Core (T-6) District. Susan said this was site plan approval for a proposed mixed-use building at 53 Putnam St. It was approved September 27, 2023, and is due to expire on September 19, 2025, if not extended. The applicant is in the process of arranging necessary financing to complete this project. The extension approval would be for an additional 18 months with a new expiration date of March 19, 2027. Bill McTygue made a motion to approve an extension of Site Plan approval for a proposed mixed-use building at 53 Putnam St., Saratoga Springs, NY to March 19, 2027. The motion was seconded by Joe Ferrante. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, K. Mayo-Y, B. McTygue-Y, T. Stellato-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, M. King-Y, Alex White. 7-0, motion carried. 2. #20250603 1 Kaydeross Ave. West Lot Line adjustment extension. Extension of a previously approved lot line adjustment in the Gateway Commercial – Rural (GC-R) District. Susan said this lot line adjustment was approved administratively by the Planning Board Chair on May 23, 2024. The approval is for one year and would have expired on August 22, 2025, if not extended. This is the first extension being requested and if approved, the new expiration date will be August 22, 2026. Stephanie Ferradino represented the applicant and said they have an agreement with the Davis family, who are being represented by Matt Jones, to not consolidate the lots until the applicant owns the property. They are expecting the real estate closing to happen at the end of the month. Bill McTygue made a motion to approve an extension of approval for a lot line adjustment at 1 Kaydeross Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY to August 22, 2026. The motion was seconded by Joe Ferrante. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, K. Mayo-Y, B. McTygue-Y, T. Stellato-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, M. King-Y, A. White. 7-0, motion carried. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 3. #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. Mark Pingel, Chair said this is site plan review and the board is not required to take public comments. Several neighbors in attendance requested an opportunity to comment, and the Chair permitted their remarks, noting that such input offers valuable information to the board. Matt Jones, Attorney with Jones, Steves, and Grassi represented the applicant. Also present for the applicant Sybil Newell, Executive Director of Rise and Jason Dell, Lansing Engineering. Matt said the City Council scheduled a special meeting last Tuesday night with one agenda item only which was for Rise to adopt a resolution as the first step toward adopting a final resolution for a payment in lieu of taxes – a tax device which induces developers to construct in the City of Saratoga Springs. It’s very important to Rise and the City Council who voted four in favor, with no one opposed and one abstention. Jason Dell, Lansing Engineering presented changes made based on comments from the planning board, city engineering and public: • Addressed comments from engineering to date: Extended water main and provided a hydrant further to the west on Finley. Upsized the 6” water main to an 8” that would be extended down Finley. Revised the curb cut for the project by reducing the width of the access drive from 30’ to 26’ and further to the city standard of 22’ with 5 ft. radiuses. Included additional right-of-way trees between the sidewalk and the Right-Of-Way • Addressed comments from the neighbors and city & planning board: Vegetative buffer – originally showed banked parking around the perimeter of the parking lot. They have revised that plan and moved the banked parking over to the triangle where they will add 19 stalls opposite the existing parking to the west. There will be a cut- through road across the triangle as well as additional sidewalk from Finley headed north as was requested by board members. There will still be approximately 5 banked parking spaces in the buffer of the new facility. They added sidewalk from the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 11, 2025 - Page 2 of 13  proposed main building to the sidewalk on Finley. They are also proposing an additional crosswalk to accommodate people coming across the sidewalk and walking straight on through to the other side of the triangle and to access that parking lot. The applicant has committed to providing additional evergreen plantings within the wooded area to further enhance the buffer. Mike King asked about a future path in the northwest corner. Jason said a path at that location would lead to private property and present legal issues. Mike asked if there could be a conservation easement so the trees remain in the north and west since they can’t have a path and how can that buffer be protected should the property be sold. Susan said they could do a no-cut buffer and note the dimensions on the plan if it’s amenable to the applicant. Leah said if the site plan is filed in the County Clerk’s office a future purchaser would do a title review where the site plan would be accessible, but that information would not automatically be put in the deed. Susan said a no cut buffer line can be added as a condition of approval and the applicant would need to retain their site plan in the approved condition. Any cutting in that area with the exception of dead and diseased trees would result in an enforcement action. Tony asked if the applicant could consider moving the sidewalk on the triangle area to the north on the plan to be in line with the property line. Jason said there’s a fence there that they wish to maintain. If they build the banked parking in the future and it’s a problem, they can consider it then. Tony said Winn Supply currently has roof scuppers that flow off the edge of the building onto the applicant’s property. The detail shows that there will be downspouts installed that will direct the water into the street and asked if Winn Supply agreed to do that. Jason said there’s no agreement in place but right now it’s free flowing onto the property and it would be in everyone’s best interest to convey the drainage away. If Winn supply is not willing to work together on the issue then the applicant would collect the water on their property and convey it. Tony said the downspout scupper from the roof needs to be engineered so that if it plugs there’s an overflow provision at the top so the water can still go by. Kerry asked if the board could require signage at the mid-block crosswalk. Susan said that could be a request to DPS. Kerry suggested plantings in the triangle area to spruce up the neighborhood. Sybil said they would like to do some nice plantings and possibly a pollinator garden with a bench. Mike added that the area could use some stormwater management as well. Joe referred to a workshop discussion about additional crosswalks. Mike suggested it get added to the list for DPS to consider as well as a sidewalk between Finley and Ballston Ave. It should be considered and be a possible condition of approval. Bill asked about the stormwater plan. Jason said they have submitted a detailed stormwater pollution prevention plan that shows two subsurface systems that will be built below the parking lot and will put the water back underground. Bill asked the applicant about their lighting plan which will include decorative lights along the street front. Jason said they provided a lighting plan that includes outside shields and downward facing fixtures. They will be adding lighting similar to what will be at the new facility for the parking lot that’s currently being constructed. Mark Pingel, Chair presented City Engineer Amy Valyou's report: • Landscaping and other site plans should match and there are open issues. • Trees should not be planted over grinder pumps (will be shifted to the side, drawing needs to be fixed). • Grinder pumps on the apartment building; why two? Jason stated that it was for redundancy purposes. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 11, 2025 - Page 3 of 13  • Right of way trees and streetlights should be included in the site layout. • There are no callouts for forced main. Jason – 2” forced main. • No water connection to the amenity building is shown. (Jason will update). Mark Pingel, Chair opened the meeting for public comments. 1. Don Hughes, 8 Livingston St. said his issue is over-saturation of government supported facilities all located on Adelphi St. and Finley St. (one street, different directions 2 names) less than 2 10ths of a mile long and the main truck route for all of the tractor trailers coming into the city. This information was shared by Mr. Hughes at the last meeting “The 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”. Even if the homeless shelter closes (was suggested to happen) the problem will only get worse with the proposed Rise apartment building. Knowing who will be occupying the building is important to the welfare of the residents. Tree removal, grade variations with large removal of earth, installing retaining walls will potentially damage the roots of existing trees. He noted that the design consultant for the applicant said their budget was limited when he spoke to the DRB, which is concerning. He noted locations around the city that would be less costly to develop. He has visually identified 17 Federally protected birds currently inhabiting the woods at this location. Mr. Hughes submitted the list of birds and a copy of the letter he sent to the Governor. 2. John Constantino, 8 Prospect Dr. is concerned about the safety of pedestrians along the proposed sidewalk and crosswalk with the tractor trailer traffic along that route. John asked why the 71 parking spaces aren’t going to be built out right away; why just 30? There will be a playground and could possibly be drugs being distributed there. Who will be watching out for the kids? He asked the board members if they would approve this project if it were in their neighborhood. 3. Lance Walley, 14 Pleasant Dr. agreed with his neighbors that the saturation of the neighborhood is uncharacteristic, and they will be eliminating a natural buffer when they take down the majority of the trees. The proposed building will be 45 ft. tall, and the neighbors will be looking over their fence at that. He agreed with the over saturation and said that Rise is subsidizing 17 units on West Circular St. and have submitted a block grant. The comprehensive plan for the city drafted in 2014 says “actively promote affordable housing of all types and tenure throughout the city and avoid over concentration in any one area to reduce the potential for isolation of income groups”. 4. Kathy Angelo said they will be looking at an empty parking lot and will likely consider putting up a fence that will be costly. She’s concerned about safety and the influx of people. She volunteers at the Café Lena several times per month and when she comes home there are sometimes disheveled people wandering the streets who she does not recognize. She walks downtown in the morning and there are people sleeping on the street and fields with beer bottles and cans strewn about. There’s a small path that she takes to avoid going all the way around to Spa Dr. and often finds garbage, old clothes, books, coffee cups, etc. There will only be one person City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 11, 2025 - Page 4 of 13  overseeing 71 units at Rise. She said she is fearful of the proposed situation that won’t be managed. 5. Don Benfer, 15 Prospect Dr. said there were two action steps mentioned at the last meeting; 1. The board would walk the neighborhood for a visual versus just photos. 2. The board would visit the Rise facilities in Ballston Spa. Did those action steps happen? 6. Lauralie Brennan lives at 24 Spa Dr. and attends Saratoga Springs High School. She said she tends to walk home after school and often sees people wandering around and cigarettes and vapes, etc. on the streets. It won’t be a safe place for kids, especially with truck traffic. Currently, from her backyard she can hear yelling from the homeless shelter. Once more trees are removed they will be able to see and hear anything going on at the new apartment building. 7. Aerial Vitello, 24 Spa Dr. agreed with her neighbors and pointed out that constructing a large apartment building in their back yard will fundamentally change the character of their neighborhood. When she moved in it was a quiet residential neighborhood. Traffic, intersections and crosswalks will be dangerous because of sight constraints for drivers. 8. Marianne Needham, 20 Spa Dr. has lived there for many years and has always walked her dog up Spa Dr. and down Adelphi. She has witnessed fights even in the middle of the winter in the road. She’s concerned about the safety of the people in the middle of a very narrow drive. The truckers can’t see them because most of the time they’re wearing black and don’t have anything on them like a flashlight to show they’re there. She is concerned about the safety of several single elderly ladies living alone on Spa Dr. and the young families moving in with children. 9. Molly Irvine, 8 Spa Circle is a single mother of a 7-year-old who just started riding his bike. She won’t let her son ride his bike on Finley now and definitely not when the new county shelter is built or a 71-unit apartment building. How does the city plan to control the traffic, camping in the park along Fenlon, people wandering around the bus stop and coming up to people’s car when they’re dropping off the kids at the bus stop. Transitional housing is important, but it doesn’t have to be on one street right by the park. Mark Pingel, Chair thanked everyone for their comments. Joe asked about the proposed shelter on West Circular St. Mark said he didn’t think the board would consider government construction. Susan said there are some exemptions, and she wasn’t sure if it was reviewed by the zoning officer. Sometimes there is an advisory option and review, but they’re not required to go through a formal review. Mark Pingel, Chair explained that the planning board in some ways is constrained during this process in how they make their decisions. They have a set of regulations SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) that requires the board to consider environmental issues but calls out economic and social impacts as well. Bill asked who the projected residents would be. Sybil said 50% would be affordable housing up to 60% of the area median income for 2025. Saratoga County data says for 1 person household - $48,780 max (23.45 per hour). Examples of those jobs are warehouse operations at Target, chemical packaging at AgroChem, warehouse specialist at ACE Hardware, evening front desk agent, patient care technician at the Well Now Urgent Care, Medical Receptionist in Gansevoort, Inventory Photographer at Saratoga Honda, etc. Those workers could afford to live in this affordable City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 11, 2025 - Page 5 of 13 housing which is also called workforce housing. The other 50% is supportive housing reserved for individuals diagnosed with a psychiatric disability (mental illness) such as schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, obsessive compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, bi-polar disorder, etc. Each individual is capable of living independently in an apartment, provided they receive periodic support to ensure adherence to medical appointments, bill payments, use of coping skills, housekeeping responsibilities, medication management, and other daily activities. Supportive housing requires Rise to meet with each individual at least once every three months, or more frequently as needed. There are 30 care managers within a block, and NYS guidelines say that 15 to 20 is a reasonable case load for staff to client ratio. Supportive housing is permanent, not transitional; its affordable housing combined with wrap around services – key features are affordable rents (with a rental subsidy that Rise provides). Apartments integrated into the community are a huge aspect of supportive housing, so clients aren’t isolated. The primary emphasis is placed on stability and recovery, and licensure is not required since this is not classified as a mental health facility. These accommodations are apartment units, with several specifically designated for individuals with disabilities. Rise has been doing supportive housing since the 1980’s. There are several people living in an apartment building on West Circular St. The owner wants to sell the property and develop it, and Rise wants to keep it so they can keep the rent affordable. The people who currently live there have been there for 10 or 15 years or more, in supportive housing, living their lives. Many of them have jobs, volunteer, etc. The block grant application would be to help to subsidize that property. The priorities of the block grant are to preserve affordable housing in the city. There are no other residential mental health programs in this neighborhood. The nearest one is 1.5 miles away on Circular St. Rise runs all of the residential mental health programs in the City of Saratoga Springs and the vast majority in the county. Most of the neighbor’s concerns have been regarding behaviors exhibited by the street homeless or the shelter homeless people. That is not who they are bringing here. These people have a home and will not be sleeping or fighting on the street, camping in the woods or rifling through garbage. This will be permanent housing, not a homeless shelter. There are government funded locations such as AIM (group home on Finley St.) where 9 residents live between the ages of 48 and 72. They are all non- ambulatory and can’t leave the house without staff support and all have developmental and/or physical disabilities according to the CEO. The Adelphi St. Shelter is not permanent housing and is not specifically mental health related. It will permanently close as of January 1, 2027, at the very latest. The proposed Shelters of Saratoga on Ballston Ave. is not permanent housing and not specifically mental health related. It does not currently exist and may never exist. Code Blue on S. Broadway is not permanent housing and not specifically mental health related. That is not the permanent location as the owner recently passed away and the property is up for sale. The mental health clinic and Rise services are non-residential support services. The purpose of the apartments they are proposing is to help provide stability and for people to move on with their lives. It will be a huge benefit by getting people off the street and giving them a place to live. Sybil is also concerned about truck traffic where the new crosswalk was proposed. It was added because the board suggested it. In response to the public comment about building all of the parking now, Sybil distributed a survey of 15 properties built by the same developer that shows the number of units and parking spaces built. About 50% of the tenants in the building have registered vehicles. She noted that crime, substance abuse and domestic violence as suggested by public comments does not discriminate based on race or class, it’s in affluent neighborhoods as well. The more you see people on the street, the more you will see the problems they’re experiencing. Their goal is to City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 11, 2025 - Page 6 of 13 get people off the streets by providing housing. Mental illness and psychiatric disability do not equate to criminal. Mark asked Sybil if she knew where the people who are being serviced and exhibiting observable behavioral characteristics were coming from. Sybil said they are usually street or shelter homeless. They are likely in this specific area because of the homeless shelter on Adelphi and Union. There are also people camping in tents now that they’ve been pushed from downtown. Bill said the county bought the property on the corner of Ballston Ave. and Finley and the future of the property remains in the hands of the county. The county would not have to come before the city board with their plans. The current S. Broadway Code Blue facility and the facility on the corner of Union St. and Adelphi are going away. Bill pointed out that there are other workforce housing projects currently underway in other neighborhoods in the city; Jefferson St. & Crescent Ave., Excelsior Spring Park is moving ahead with workforce housing. Regarding truck traffic on Finley St., Bill agreed that these large trucks don’t belong in the inner city, and he’s stressed that with the City Council. The city needs to get together with the State of New York and get the trucks out of the inner city. Joe asked if there was support for people who lost their job. Sybil said the people in the affordable housing side don’t require support services. She noted that they are not-for-profit, so they work hard to not evict people by offering reasonable payment options, etc. Joe asked if there was an annual accounting of the tenant’s income to be sure they’re meeting the threshold for workforce housing. Mike Newman CSC housing, Development Consultant working with Rise said his company has developed many similar projects throughout NYS and has never seen a building go into the red. He said if a tenant’s income increases then their rent goes up. Thirty percent of their income goes toward rent. The goal is to keep people in their home. Joe asked if there was a way to evaluate people for previous crimes or violent tendencies. Sybil said they do not serve sex offenders, they check the registry, and they screen people for violent offences. They are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Mark asked if the supportive housing would be in perpetuity. Mike N. said the project will be subject to a regulatory agreement, so it remains affordable for forty years after which the building may need rehab. They may have to go through the refinancing again and Rise is required to establish a reserve to keep the building in good operating order. Mike K. asked if veterans with PTSD and elderly used their facilities. Sybil said Saratoga County has a wonderful program specifically for veterans. Rise does also service veterans and older people but it’s not a care facility for the elderly. The board proceeded with SEQRA review. SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. Question in public comments questioning if the comp plan is being followed. The UDO is an interpretation of the comprehensive plan, and the CC area encompasses several different zoning districts. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. 3. Impair character or quality…. – moderate to large. Waiting for data. 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 – September 11, 2025 - Page 7 of 13  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. SEQRA Item 3. Impair character or quality – will this complex contribute to the behavioral load? Mark asked that any written data from the public in this regard be submitted to Susan for public and board review. After a lengthy discussion it was decided that the board would like the applicant to provide data indicating what the neighbor experience has been like at other like installations. SEQRA item 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic – Susan said there is information in Part 1 that speaks to traffic but no specific traffic study. Mark asked Mike K. what data they should request for traffic. Mike said there should be a crosswalk on Broadway and Ballston Ave. and make the proposed crosswalk to the triangle with paddles. There should also be a discussion about a sidewalk down to Ballston Ave. Tony said the pedestrian concern is valid; the project will create pedestrian traffic. The sidewalks should be contiguous to where people are going. Tony suggested requesting a narrative from the applicant’s engineer that provides an overview of pedestrian flow to and from the facility and beyond. Jason stated that the applicant has agreed to place funds in escrow to support the construction of crosswalks at Broadway and Ballston Ave. Susan said it needs to be stated in the board’s Notice of Decision what they want planning staff to do and what it’s for. Mark said with the addition of the escrow, this item on the SEQRA will go to “no, or small impact”. SEQRA item 6. Cause increase in use of energy… – moderate to large. Susan said they are proposing solar on the roof. Can be discussed at site plan. Change to “no, or small impact” on SEQRA. SEQRA item 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - moderate to large. Review endangered bird study. Susan said it’s in the EAF and is identified as “study complete with no impact”, but the city would like that information from DEC. Jason said they’ve done a threatened and endangered assessment that’s included for SEQRA review and the stormwater pollution prevention plan and requirements for the general permit. Mark asked about the Federally protected species. Jason forwarded the study to Susan showing that the Federal databases were referenced in the habitat study basically stating there was no impact. Change to “no, or small impact” on SEQRA. SEQRA item 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - moderate to large. Mark said there is a change in the use or intensity of the land, however, it’s zoned for this type of development. Change to “no, or small impact” on SEQRA. Mark Pingel, Chair said the open SEQRA item 3, “Impair character or quality” resulted in an action item to get data from the public, city staff research on police call logs, and the applicant to provide information about similar projects that have been built and their effect on the neighborhood. There’s a set of traffic action items that will be part of the conditions, crossings and voluntary contribution, signage, downspout and roof scuppers, landscaping and lighting plan for the triangle. The board will continue to push the city on crosswalks on Ballston Ave. and Broadway. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 11, 2025 - Page 8 of 13 4. #20240614 Lexington Rd./Bemis Heights Subdivision Area Variance. Consideration of SEQRA review for a proposed subdivision modification resulting in 14 single-family residential lots in the Rural residential (RR) District. Mark Pingel, Chair said it’s his understanding that there was an analysis done by the city engineering staff, and SEQRA needs to continue to be addressed and completed prior to the zoning board action. The subdivision will be discussed after that. Dominick Arico, P.E., Arico Associates represented the applicants Art and Debra Curto. Dominick listed the Water and Drainage Related Impacts:  All remaining potential moderate to large impacts under SEQRA related to Water/Drainage issues.  Based on the SWPPP provided and the updated drainage plans submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer’s Office at a meeting with the Applicant on July 24, the Applicant submits that the remaining potential impacts identified as potentially “moderate to large” should be changed to “no, or small impact may occur”. Dominick addressed NYSDOT comment concerning proposed Lot No. 1 – The applicant received a comment letter from the city engineer just prior to the meeting. Dominick said he’s not sure how it could affect the drainage and environmental conditions of Lake Lonely a few miles away. They will be filling in a 600 sq. ft. area to help build a plateau around the house. Otherwise, none of the wetlands are being disturbed and they will be maintaining the same drainage pattern in the same drainage area. Mark said traffic can be changed to no, to small impact if the applicant agrees to traffic signs. It will be a condition of the subdivision. Dominick agreed. Mark asked Amy to summarize the letter that resulted from her meeting with James Salaway and Bill McTygue that raised concerns about Lot 1. This will be discussed with the city engineer and at site plan review. Amy said it’s a post construction management discussion. Mark read the letter into the minutes: “In regard to the DOT letter dated July 3rd for the Lexington Road project, Amy Valyou, EIT Principal Engineering Tech, needed to recuse herself from the review due to a conflict of interest. I, James Salaway, PE City Engineer, reviewed the letter and have the following comments and recommendations under Section 3a.: I am in agreement with the consideration to remove the home on Lot 1, to limit construction of that area to decrease the risk of any possibility of contaminated runoff from construction into the stream and wetlands which eventually run into Lake Lonely. If a conservation easement is put forth, a proper agreement indicating limits maintenance, etc. will be required, DPW would need easement access for urgency conditions for beavers, etc. but would not maintain this easement. Under Section 3e. stop signs would be needed (already completed) and a traffic study and noise study would be needed (were submitted) by the applicant to the city. As stated above, the removal of home 1, in my opinion, would be an acceptable compromise to allow SEQRA to proceed barring any legal consultations say otherwise as well as conformation from the planning board that all other aspects of SEQRA have been satisfied. A legal consultation will also be needed to understand how the conservation easement would work. One item that City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 11, 2025 - Page 9 of 13 DPW and DEC have been working on is a stormwater control facility maintenance agreement document (attached). Amy Valyou can relay any additional information or questions that may come up during discussion, and I will do additional review if necessary.” • Mark said he doesn’t understand the rationale for having Lot 1 removed from the plan. Bill said there are drainage concerns because of the tight situation with the subdivision being surrounded by wetlands, its proximity to the Northway, an important buffer with tree cutting to accommodate a structure, and the exposure to the corner off of Lexington and Bemis Heights. That particular corner is the primary point of discharge for the entire subdivision. Bill said the installation of a new 36” culvert under the roadway indicates that this is a major water channel that flows into the wetland that flows into the drainage area along the Northway. Bill said they concluded that trying to accommodate a home on that relatively small parcel would barely fit without disturbing the adjacent wetland and encroaching on additional tree disturbance and invading the buffer. Bill agreed with the engineers that the project would be significantly better if that area was left undisturbed. After reviewing the drainage plan, Bill said he's comfortable with the engineering design on the rest of the project. Mark asked if a culvert would be required without a house being built there. Bill said it would. There is no culvert there at this time. Amy spoke to the stormwater management and said the culvert would be added so the current situation is not disturbed and to keep the flow going in that direction. Tony said there would be wetlands all around the home, and even with maintenance agreements in place, it’s not likely the wetlands will survive years of lawn cuttings, etc. He has similar concerns with Lots 5 and 13. Tony noted that the city would own the culvert and asked who would own the outflow channel; ongoing maintenance will be required. Dominick said the city would have an easement. Susan said the city’s engineer’s office is requesting a basic SWPPP and post construction plan and management for their review. The conservation easement and the AIM management plan within the easement would require the property owner to consult with the ACOE before handling any beaver issues or maintenance with regard to that. Dominick said by them adding the culvert they will be improving the current drainage situation and the wetlands are well protected from the potential home on the lot. He noted that the ACOE is requiring a conservation easement regardless of what the PB requires. Mark asked the board if they wanted to issue a negative declaration on SEQRA with the one open issue of drainage. Susan noted that while drainage is the main concern, the board has other issues to address. 1. Impact on Land f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). Mark said this will be handled on the list of conditions for the subdivision. Leah said this is a type 1 action, not condition negative declaration category. The board wants to obtain verbal alterations to the application. Based upon those assertions by the applicant, the board has changed that item to “no, to small”. Tony said we need affirmation from the applicant that if they agree to do “X” we’ll move this from large to small. Leah said that was the better approach. Leah said they could move on to part 3 and discuss Lot 1 further. Mark said to be consistent with the city engineer’s recommendation it would be better to remove Lot 1. The applicant is resistant to doing that, so more quantitative analysis is required. Tony suggested that an additional conversation with James should take place to clarify any further requirements from the applicant. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 11, 2025 - Page 10 of 13 Leah said in the context of SEQRA the board doesn’t have to decide whether the lot is buildable or not, the board is reviewing what’s being proposed. The next step is to decide whether the outstanding item/items on the SEQRA Part 2 remain moderate to large or not. If they do then the board moves on to Part 3. Leah recommended that the board discuss Part 3 and then allow the attorney and staff to draft something and bring it back to the board at the next meeting. Mark agreed that the board should summarize the key points for staff to put together a response. Bill said the location of Lot 1 with respect to the rest of the existing subdivision and the amount of drainage that flows in close proximity to it would better serve as a retention area for all of the drainage that comes off the subdivision. It’s an appropriate area that should be designed for drainage. Mark said no further action would be taken tonight and they will have James attend the next meeting to work it through. 5. #20250587 63 Henning Road Site Plan. Site plan review for redevelopment of a horse barn at an existing equine hospital facility in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Matt Brobsen, LA Group represented the applicant. The site houses one of the premiere horse equine surgery centers in the Country. It’s a vital service for the horse industry in this town. They perform onsite imaging and surgeries and want to update some of the remaining buildings on site. A partial survey of the building shows that it currently houses a CT-scanner, x-ray machines and surgery bays. On the adjacent site there’s a septic system for those facilities, an existing barn with another septic system, a barn with an apartment and office spaces and temporary offices spaces. They are proposing to update the barn area and bring the other spaces inside and modernize. The existing 2-story structure would be taken down and replaced with a new structure. The emergency service for the equine business needs another bay to service animals on site in the existing structure close to the existing garage area. They will update the waiting area and move the parking around. There will be 4 new isolation stalls for sick animals. The new offices will be between those bays. The utility plan will reuse the existing sanitary line that goes to the barn that’s being torn down. They will install a new tank and connections to the new building. Stormwater will be collected along the back of the building and brought into the storm system that exists and is part of the previous plan. The new septic system (shown in red) is specifically for the four new isolation bays to wash them out and to keep contamination from the other bays. There will be 3 septic systems on the site. Matt showed the floor plan and exterior renderings for the proposed barn. Bill said it looks like a well-designed plan and a wonderful attribute to the city. Tony asked for an explanation of the septic design – Doug explained. Mark asked about medical waste versus other waste. Matt said there’s a series of dumpsters that separate medical waste from regular waste. There’s a stand of pines that will come down in order to install the septic system, but they will keep as many as possible. They will be moved if possible or replaced with similar trees if not. The tree replacement will be a condition of approval. Mike King made a motion that there is no new information for the proposed project at 63 Henning Road, Saratoga Springs, NY that would have an impact on the previous SEQRA determination. Joe Ferrante seconded the motion. Vote: M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, K. Mayo- Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, A. White-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried. Mark Pingel, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience and there were none. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 11, 2025 - Page 11 of 13 Bill McTygue made a motion to approve the site plan for 63 Henning Rd., Saratoga Springs, NY as presented with the condition that there be commensurate or relocation of plantings for what is being removed. Kerry Mayo seconded the motion. Vote: M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, K. Mayo-Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, A. White-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried. 6. #20250518 East Ave.-Covell Ave-North Ave. Final Subdivision. Final Plat review of a proposed 6-lot residential subdivision in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Doug Heller, LA Group represented the applicant. There are 3 parcels that make up .99 acres. Two lots front along North Ave., and the third irregularly shaped lot fronts all three streets. North Ave. and Covell Ave. are dead end streets. Water and sewers are available at North, Covell, and East Avenues. Doug showed a rendering of the proposed subdivision which includes six lots that are all zoning compliant at 70 ft. wide, 100 ft. deep and approximately 7,000 sq. ft. The two lots that front along East Ave. are a little larger. They are proposing the following: • Street trees along all three streets. • Streetlight on North Ave. & Covell Ave. There are existing streetlights on East Ave. • Sidewalk connection from Route 50 along the frontage on Covell Ave. and along East Ave. • A condition that the houses on the two lots on East Ave. will front East Ave. There was a discussion about extending sidewalks along East Ave. from North Ave. to Maple Ave. and adding a crossing at East Ave. to get to the other side of Maple Ave. Mike said it needs additional infrastructure signs and flashing lights to be organized with DPS. He suggested putting the sidewalk up to Maple Ave. and getting rid of the one proposed on Covell. Susan said Complete Streets suggested a continuous sidewalk along the right side, add a crosswalk at Maple Ave., and ask DPS about visibility of the crosswalk. Mike asked about the streetlights on the south side of East Ave. Doug said there are two cobra lights at each intersection. Mike asked that they add 2 pedestrian lights along East Ave. because of the sidewalk being added. Doug said they can move the streetlight from Covell over to East. He would like to stay away from the DOT right-of-way or on land between North and Maple. Tony said that Lot 5’s driveway should be flipped to the other side to get it away from the intersection. They considered shared driveways, but Doug said they typically don’t work with the shallow depth of the lots. Also, they’re on dead end streets with little traffic. Conditions for approval: • Houses front on East Ave. • Sidewalk from North Ave. to Maple Ave. No sidewalks on Covell and North. • No crosswalk on the drawing but discuss the crosswalk and the appropriate visibility signage with DPS. • Add 2 lights on East Ave. and leave the two lights on North and Covell. • Realign the Route 50 stub at Covell. Mark Pingel, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience and there were none. The board moved on to SEQRA review. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 11, 2025 - Page 12 of 13 SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. 6. Cause increase in use of energy… – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Kerry Mayo made a motion to declare this a SEQRA unlisted action. The board conducted uncoordinated reviews and after reviewing Part 1 of the EAF form and answering all questions in Part 2 of the EAF form that have no to small impact hereby finds that there will likely be no significant adverse environmental impacts and hereby adopts a SEQRA negative declaration for the property at East Ave.-Covell Ave-North Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. Mike King seconded the motion. Vote: M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, K. Mayo-Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, A. White-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried. Joe Ferrante made a motion to approve the subdivision at East Ave.-Covell Ave-North Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY as presented with the following conditions: Houses front on East Ave., sidewalk be installed from North Ave. to Maple Ave., no sidewalks on Covell Ave. and North Ave., no crosswalk on the drawing but discuss the crosswalk and the appropriate visibility signage with DPS, add two streetlights on East Ave., leave the two streetlights on North Ave. and Covell Ave., straighten out the Route 50 stub which crosses Covell Ave., and there shall be commensurate or relocation of plantings for what is being removed. Alex White seconded the motion. Vote: M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, K. Mayo-Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, A. White- Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried. 7. #2025-1 UDO Text Amendment – Commercial Mixed-Use District Development Bonus. Consideration of advisory opinion to the City Council for a proposed UDO text amendment to the process for determination of compliance with development bonus action. Tabled. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 11, 2025 - Page 13 of 13