Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Joe Ferrante, Vice Chair called the meeting to order at 6:15 P.M. PRESENT: Joe Ferrante, Vice Chair, Kerry Mayo, Michael (Mike) King, William “Bill” McTygue, Tony Stellato, Jennifer Johnson, Alex White ABSENT: Mark Pingel, Chair 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. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 1. #20250605 28 Garfield Ave. & 34 East Broadway Subdivision. Final plat review of a three- lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Doug Heller, LA Group represented the applicant. The project is located on Garfield Ave. across from the intersection of E. Broadway St. (east/west) and Chloe’s Way (north/south). The three parcels total .55 acres. The lot is located in an archaeologically sensitive area, and they have received a “no impact” from SHPO. The site is also located within an endangered species area where two different types of butterflies were identified, both of which require a Karner blue habitat and that habit is not found on this site. Along the west side is Garfield Ave., a city owned street. Along the north side is a non-conforming lot and a larger lot where there was a home that was demolished. The third lot has an existing house that is proposed to be taken down within the next few months. Per the UDO if you have a non-conforming lot and you own all the lots it’s considered one lot and a subdivision is required. They are proposing three zoning-compliant lots 63 ft. wide by 125 ft. deep and 7,900 sq. ft. Doug noted that the city is planning to reconstruct Garfield Ave. next year. Once the house was demolished in 2017 the city stopped maintaining the road. They are proposing to extend the sidewalk along E. Broadway and add street trees there and along Garfield Ave. They will be extending the city sanitary and water down Garfield Ave. to service the three parcels and the plan has been reviewed by city engineering and signed off on. Board comments/questions: Bill asked if there would be a new fire hydrant for the utilities. Doug said yes at the end of the new main line mostly for flushing purposes. The sanitary will have a manhole at the end for cleaning out purposes. What’s proposed for drainage? Something should be installed for runoff and surface drainage. Streetlights on Garfield? Susan said there would be streetlights on E. Broadway but not Garfield. Alex suggested a metal or wood guardrail at the end of the street. Reflective delineators were also suggested. No curbing is proposed. Amy said there’s no curbing on E. Broadway St., so DPW was ok with no additional curbing at that location and no new curbing on Garfield Ave. The city is proposing to reconstruct Garfield Ave. into an alleyway with a hydrant at the end possibly with a short turnaround (not decided). The travel width of the alley is 20 ft. with no curbing or streetlights. The right-of-way width at this location is 40 ft. Kerry – is there a way to save some of the big oak trees? Doug said some are being saved on the periphery and they will be adding seven street trees. Jen said it was a nice use of the space and asked to have the planting plan described. Doug said they’re proposing 4 street trees along Garfield Ave. and 3 additional trees along E. Broadway between the sidewalk and road along the greenbelt. They will be city approved trees – crab apple, yellowwood and redbud. Mike asked if there would be a pedestrian light on E. Broadway. Doug said that’s up for discussion. There’s an existing cobra light and across the street at the intersection of Chloe’s Way there’s a pedestrian light. There are no further pedestrian lights along E. Broadway headed east. It was decided that the cobra light would remain, and one pedestrian light would be added with the appropriate spacing on E. Broadway. Mike asked why the sidewalk was not aligned with the existing sidewalk to the west. Doug said typically because the city wants sidewalks right along the edge of the property line. Mike suggested pushing the house back 10 ft. to save some of the trees. Doug said that would push the houses closer to the neighbors in the back. Mike asked the applicant to work with staff to locate the trees and move the building lots around to save some of the trees. He also agreed with Doug’s idea of donating trees elsewhere in the city to make up for the large trees being removed. Susan said there’s a calculation for tree removal of significant trees; the DBH is replaced with the same caliper of tree. It could be considered as a condition of approval that if any of the significant trees need to be removed they would be replaced in-kind. Mike said another consideration is to build the house on the bottom lot in the same configuration as the existing house, with the same driveway and have it face E. Broadway. It would save all of the trees in the lower left-hand corner. Tony asked if there was anything from the fire department about the alley access to the 3 lots. Susan said no but it’s her understanding that DPW is going to request a turnaround at the end of the road. Tony said the need for Garfield Ave. to be improved is created by the subdivision. Should the cost fall on the city or the developer? It should be discussed with DPW. He would like to see pedestrian scale lighting on Garfield for safety reasons. Joe Ferrante, Vice Chair opened the meeting to public comments. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 25, 2025 - Page 2 of 13 Warren Bundy, 45 Doten Ave. said his property borders part of the northeast corner of the proposed subdivision and there are several large trees angled over with a lot of dead wood. This is a safety concern as well as the low hanging powerlines. He has concerns about drainage off of the property coming to his and his neighbor’s property to the east and suggested it go off the front of the property to the sewer. Privacy is a concern; they have a pool and it’s currently completely private. Warren said he likes the planned layout of the houses; it gives the neighbors ample backyards. A turnaround on Garfield may be difficult because there’s not much space. He suggested the board walk along the site to look at the trees. He would be ok with one or two lights toward the middle section of Garfield, so it won’t bother the neighbors. Scott Barefoot,14 Shaw lives on the west side of Garfield and said that side hasn’t been addressed by the board. New lighting on Garfield will shine into the backyards of the houses on the west side of the street. There’s no lighting there now and the city isn’t concerned about it being a safety issue. Bill said the new standard for the light they’re proposing is an LED light with the focus on downlighting. Scott said arborvitae planted along the west side of Garfield would help to beautify the area and would lend to privacy. Joe asked Susan to clarify the status of the land preservation on the west side of Garfield Ave. Susan said there is quite a bit of vegetation along Garfield, and you likely can’t see the 40 ft. wide right-of-way so it’s unclear where the rear property line is compared to the right-of-way. This will remain as it is and the alleyway construction will not interfere with it. Jack Schriber also lives on Shaw and agreed with his neighbor that he would prefer not to have streetlights along Garfield. The owners of the new homes could put in attractive driveway lights that would provide all the light necessary. A row of fast-growing arborvitae on the west side of Garfield would be appreciated by the residents on Shaw and the new homeowners on Garfield perhaps more than street trees. When Garfield is being reconstructed it would be great if they could minimally disturb the greenery that’s there. Victoria Courty, corner of Doten & Taylor “the pump station lady”. Her concern is whether the existing infrastructure can handle all of the new construction in the area and the size of the homes. Four motors on the pump station had to be replaced this year because there’s so much new construction. Warren Bundy suggested that DPW check the rating of the pumps and check what the volume is and what it can handle. Amy said it’s a reasonable request because the site plan isn’t laid out yet. Doug said because there were two houses and they’re only adding one more they didn’t see the need for a downstream analysis. Amy will bring it back to James to consider the new houses. Many of the pump stations are being refurbished and it may be on the list. Bill said the pump stations get inspected once a week and it would be up to DPW to upgrade the station based on the flows. Bill asked that the caliper (minimum 3”) of tree be noted on the plans with the trees that are being planted along the tree line. There was a discussion about the no-cut buffer on the west side of Garfield: it will remain as it is. Because it’s in the city right-of-way, any additional plantings would be up to DPW. Leah clarified that the 40 feet of buffer is land owned by the city as opposed to being what you would typically consider right-of-way. The applicant should not be directed to place plantings in the city owned land as a condition. Amy added that to place trees on the west side of Garfield closer to the street would impede the water lines. Susan proposed that the applicant identify major trees on the property and replace any that have been removed with new trees of equal caliper. The applicant can return with a plan for DPW approval for the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 25, 2025 - Page 3 of 13 new road and look at appropriate planting at that time. It could be reviewed administratively by the chair if the board is ok with that. Mike and Tony said they would like to see a drainage plan to address run-off on neighboring properties. Joe Ferrante, Vice Chair closed the public comments. The board 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 impact. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Jennifer Johnson made a motion for a negative SEQRA declaration for the 28 Garfield Ave. & 34 East Broadway Subdivision. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: J. Johnson-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, K. Mayo-Y, A. White-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7- 0, motion carried. Joseph Ferrante made a motion to approve the subdivision at 28 Garfield Ave. & 34 East Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: 1. Drainage plan with DPW. 2. Trees and lights to be approved administratively by the Chair. 3. One additional pedestrian streetlight be placed on E. Broadway. 4. Significant trees be identified. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: J. Johnson-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, K. Mayo-Y, A. White-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried. Alex White left the meeting prior to 26 Finley at approximately 7:30 2. #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. Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair said Rise will present first to address public comments and planning board comments/concerns from the last meeting. There will then be a public comment period (new comments, not what’s been addressed), SEQRA review (from where the board left off previously) and site plan review. Justin Grassi, Attorney with Jones, Steves, Grassi Justin gave a rundown of the project timeline: • May 2023 – DRB Demolition Permit City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 25, 2025 - Page 4 of 13  • May 2025 – City Council Approval of Letter in Support of Project • July 2025 – DRB Mass and Scale Approval • August 21, 2025 – Saratoga County Planning Board Decision No Significant County- wide Impact • September 9, 2025 – City Council Approval of proposed project PILOT Justin cited several instances where affordable housing is promoted in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan and the updated 2024 UDO. He noted that Saratoga Springs has received a Certification for “Pro Housing” from Governor Hochul’s Pro-Housing Community Program which allows certified localities exclusive access to up to $750 million in discretionary State funding. Justin reiterated that this project is being evaluated by the planning board as site plan review and not a special use permit because the use is permitted. Jason Dell, Lansing Engineering listed the changes that have been made since the project was first presented: • The building was further to the east with more room between the building and the drive aisle/parking stalls. The front building and central courtyard area were more toward the center of the site. Based on meeting with the neighbors, everything was moved as far east as possible and away from the neighborhood. • Neighbors requested at least 30 ft. of wooded buffer, and the applicant accommodated 33 ft. • Parking was initially placed along the western and southern edges of the lot. In response to neighbor’s concerns, parking has now been banked in the triangle portion of the property and there’s no potential for the buffer to be cut into in the future. • Retaining walls were added along the access aisles into the facility to reduce the amount of grading that would have been necessary which enabled them to keep additional trees. • Committed to planting additional evergreens where warranted. • Added no-cut buffers to the plans; 25 ft. no-cut along the western side and 50-60 ft. on the southern side. • Addressed the board’s concern about mobility and pedestrian accommodations. In the beginning they added a crosswalk and sidewalk that extends around the triangle, north of Finley St. After discussions with the board the applicant added a crosswalk and sidewalk through the triangle from Finley extending to the north. • Added a walkway along the western part of the site connecting the rear apartment building to the sidewalk up front for a more direct connection. • Added a sidewalk extending north along the northern side of Finley to the northwest over to the County property. • Added plantings along and between the sidewalk and road. • Added significant green space in the triangle area which is currently mostly comprised of asphalt and surrounded by fence and trees, and reduced the impervious area from 0.47-ac to 0.20-ac. Site Plan Revisions since the last meeting: • Added a sidewalk to be built in front of AIM property extending west to the county property. • Added a potential connection to the property to the east as requested. (noted on the plan) City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 25, 2025 - Page 5 of 13  • Provided a lighting plan for the additional parking area. • Crosswalk signage to indicate reflective signage. • Provided drainage provisions for the Winsupply – not a direct connection. • Show potential landscaping with the triangle. • Addressed all remaining engineering comments. • Using a subsurface stormwater management system as opposed to permeable asphalt (requires more maintenance) and doesn’t hold up as well as regular asphalt. • Added constructed parking spaces on the triangle (still banking 51 stalls out of 107). • Need to obtain permission from AIM Services to build a sidewalk in front of their property. • Water management at the triangle – will consider a dry well in the middle of the triangle and will also commit to working with DPW to look at the existing drainage issue at the triangle. Justin Grassi on continuation of SEQRA analysis Part 2, question 3: SEQRA Item 3. Impair character or quality – provided submissions that were made to the city that are available to the public and Board: 1. Eight market studies that evaluated supportive housing – 2 in NYC and 6 in smaller cities and towns. Summary: supportive of a determination that there’s a small or no impact on the community character. Property values have consistently increased, and the implementation of supportive housing and care has led to a reduction in emergency service responses, including ambulance, fire, and police interventions. 2. Data submitted relating to current Rise facilities showed that the vast majority of requests for emergency services are made by Rise staff and are dealt with inside the facility. Rise asks that sirens not be used when they respond to their facilities so the response would be considered a traffic trip at most. Supportive services have 24/7 on-site staff, unlike some other affordable housing complexes in the city. The applicant submitted a management plan: • Security measures – overnight staff on site, security cameras monitoring inside and outside the building visible to the staff and controlled access. • Law enforcement collaboration – the applicant met with the chief of police and commissioner of public safety and asked what their concerns were relating to other housing complexes and they were: the lack of security cameras and controlled access and inability to enter without fobs, clearly marked unit numbers, and a point of contact for follow-up; all of which are being provided by the applicant. Emergency services will respond to calls without lights and sirens. • On-Call Systems: residential (supportive housing for residents’ needs), maintenance (urgent building issues), clinical (staff assistance & decision making) and executive team on-call 24/7 (leadership support & emergencies). The on-call systems are off- site. The on-site people are residential on-call maintenance, clinical staff, and an emergency on-call staff that’s rotated. • Maintenance & Building Operations: maintenance requests-residents can email for routine matters. Maintenance on-call-urgent building needs. • The main campus is directly across the street to monitor the facility. • Independent monitoring with regular inspections with homes and community renewal to confirm that the guidelines are being met. • September 23rd Rise received a response regarding their Riverview facility in Corinth from the Senior Asset Manager for Homes and Community Renewal “the property City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 25, 2025 - Page 6 of 13  looks wonderful and seems to be in good order. The files were perfect, and the physical property was clearly being maintained and cared for, the residents seemed happy, and I appreciate all of your services you are providing them”. Board comments: Bill – Likes the idea of increasing the buffer and eliminating the line of cars that would have been parked along the west side. Commended the applicant for their actions and sensitivity to the concerns of the neighbors. Mike – asked about the management plan, annual certification and renewals and if the neighbors could participate in that process. Could it be a condition of approval? How does the city check in annually? If the neighbors are negatively impacted, how would that be addressed? Leah said it’s not really a city issue. The site plan will be discussed tonight, and this is a permitted use. The Board is considering if the site is developed in a way that is successful in implementing sound planning concepts. The broader impacts are considered under SEQRA. Joe asked Amy if the updated plans for the triangle had been submitted and they had. Amy looked over the plan and questioned the comments that said, “drainage improvements to be coordinated with DPW”. Jason said per NYSDEC regulations for a redevelopment project, if an impervious area is reduced by 25% there’s no need for stormwater management practices for a project. In this case the impervious area is being reduced by more than 50%. It was brought up that there’s drainage issues at the intersection that could be alleviated during construction, and a dry well could be installed if needed. Amy asked if it was all one elevation because it has been plotted but not surveyed. Jason said there’s a fence around the area but as part of the final plans it will be surveyed with some spot grades to ensure that they can drain it into the dry well. The applicant will meet with Amy to discuss the drainage in the flat area and sidewalk on the upper portion of the triangle. Susan noted updated traffic comments: 1. Pedestrian streetlight - there’s currently one on the south side and the traffic department would like to see one on the other side of the mid-block crosswalk, as well as advance warning lights on both sides of the street in advance of the mid-block crosswalk. 2. Replace the crosswalk at Union with curb ramps. Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair opened the meeting for public comments limited to what is being discussed tonight. Aerial Vitello, 24 Spa Dr. said she appreciates the effort that’s been put into preserving the buffer and green space, but it doesn’t change the fact that this is a big 71 unit building that’s going to change the character of the neighborhood. There’s a buffer now where this building is proposed and it’s preserving the neighborhood. It’s becoming a social services campus. The development of this project will create more noise and light pollution because of the additional people living there. The timeline presented showed that this was developed very quickly and didn’t give residents much time to know what was going on. There was poor communication about the development. The building has not been made smaller; it’s still a 3- story building. The intersection will be more dangerous with the current large truck situation and additional pedestrian traffic. Lauralie Brennan lives at 24 Spa Dr. said more trees are being planted to make the buffer wider and that likely won’t help much because the lot is very open with lots of light pollution. It doesn’t really matter what the use of the building is, it’s just too big and will change the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 25, 2025 - Page 7 of 13 character of the neighborhood. Many people have already moved out because of the big buildings. The crosswalk is an issue with pedestrians and truck traffic. The Chair asked Bill if he had any further information regarding truck traffic. Bill said getting the truck traffic out of that neighborhood as well as all of the area west of Broadway needs to be resolved. He said he’s spent considerable time bringing the issue to city council and others in government about 53 ft. tractor trailer trucks passing through the city; they’re not local deliveries. Saratoga Springs is a convenient crossroad in the northeast from points north and west. He remains hopeful that an alternative plan can be developed to get these trucks off the city streets. Bill said he will continue to move the issue forward and is waiting for the next round of local elections to take place and get all of the stakeholders to the table, including the department of transportation, which is key in helping to develop an alternative route for these trucks. Don Hughes, 8 Livingston St., said Finley St. is very narrow and with the added pedestrian traffic and trucks on this street it will be a dangerous situation, and the city will be responsible if something bad happens. 4. Lance Walley 14 Pleasant Dr. submitted two foil requests; one for responses for a different location on the same street and the second for the volume of truck traffic on the street. Will there be a second stop sign to go along with the second crosswalk that’s being installed by the developer? The trucks are 53 ft. vehicles that are extremely large and dangerous, especially with the increase in pedestrian traffic. Susan said city staff and the traffic division have asked for a light on the other side and advanced warning signs to alert cars to the mid-block crossing. The current plan doesn’t show the new enhancements or comments from the department of safety. Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair closed the Public Comment period. The board moved on to a continuation of the SEQRA review. Susan said the board had paused on question #3, will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community: Joe said 3 issues questioned for Item #3 at the last meeting were 1. Is the impact of the project resulting in excessive calls for emergency services? 2. Will these calls impact the neighborhood? 3. Overconcentration of homeless shelters. Leah said there are two issues; there’s a homeless population due to existing services that are specifically for homeless people. What’s being proposed is distinctly different. Joe said considering the research that was done by Mark, Susan, himself and Tim Cole, Commissioner of Public Safety, and information that was provided by Rise and the public, he proposes that the project has no, to small impact on the quality of the existing community. Bill noted that this neighborhood is located in the inner core of the community surrounded by commercial activity to the east and west. The streets within this neighborhood create their own environment with many trees that are complemented by the State Park at the south end. This is not a rural part of the city; it's surrounded by commercial activity and this district in the UDO reflects that. The project meets the zoning requirements within the UDO. Rise is a local organization and has a proven track record for these facilities. All of the research and information regarding this project have been uploaded and is available to the public. SEQRA item 3. Has been changed to no, or small impact. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 25, 2025 - Page 8 of 13 Jennifer Johnson made a motion for a negative SEQRA declaration regarding 26 Finley St. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: J. Johnson-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, K. Mayo-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Site Plan Review: Mike asked if flashing lights could be added to the mid-block crossing and if Rise would cover that cost. There’s a hill, many trees and it’s dark in that area. Flashing lights would help to address the neighbor’s concerns. Jason said they would cover the cost of a flashing beacon. Bill recommended that the sidewalk crossing the triangle not be flush with the blacktopped parking lot. He would like to see the parking lot graded to accommodate a curb and a dry well. Jason said they will work with DPW to look at that and add whatever drainage is required. Tony agreed with Bill about the sidewalk and ice buildup with water sheeting across. He suggested that the sidewalk be on the other side where it can be curbed and raised above the parking lot. Jason said the applicant would like to keep the sidewalk lined up where they have it now. Susan said the no-cut buffer should be identified, showing dimensions and what can be removed, like dead trees. If dead and diseased trees are removed they are to be replaced with pine trees. Bill asked where the curbing will be at the triangle. Jason pointed it out on the site plan. The final plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer’s office. Bill also mentioned the very detailed management plan that was presented to the board and how significant it is. Sybil said they are non-profit developers, and their goal is to keep people stable and healthy in their homes. The management plan is as much for Rise as it is for the community. Joe Ferrante made a motion to approve the site plan for a proposed multi-family dwelling consisting of 71 dwelling units and a 3,000 sq. ft. amenity building at 26 Finley St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: 1. A no-cut buffer be noted on the plans and only dead or diseased trees can be removed and then replaced with evergreen trees. 2. The comments provided by the traffic division of DPS be incorporated into the plan with the suggested change of the mid-block crossing to include a flashing beacon. 3. The applicant shall submit a complete landscape & stormwater management plan for the triangle property at the corner subject to administrative approval by DPW. 4. Approval of the final plan set by the engineer’s office. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Vote: J. Johnson-Y, M. King- Y, T. Stellato-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, K. Mayo-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 3. #20250601 24 Fifth Ave. Special Use Permit. Special Use Permit for conversion of an existing accessory structure to a carriage house dwelling in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Dennis McGowan & Nathan Violette, Balzer Tuck represented the applicants Tim and Lisa Higgins. They are proposing to convert the existing carriage house into a dwelling unit including a first-floor entry up to the second floor living space. The existing carriage house is a 3-bay garage with a staircase up to the second level. All of the modifications will be made within the existing envelope of the building. The carriage house was built in 1899 and is shown on the 1909 Sanborn map and listed as a stable. There was a lot-line adjustment approved in 2021 where two parcels were re-connected into a single parcel. It’s now a single- family dwelling unit to the north and a carriage house to the south. Board comments & questions: City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 25, 2025 - Page 9 of 13 Bill asked how many units were planned in the carriage house. Dennis said just one, upstairs. It will be an open space with a bathroom. The garage bays below will not be changed. The only changes to the exterior of the building will be to replace windows that are in disrepair and add an interior swinging door to what is an existing hayloft door. Ingress and egress will be on Ludlow St. at the intersection with Tipton. There’s also a parking space off of Tipton on the applicant’s property (4 parking spaces including the garage). Bill noted that these alley settings are unique to Saratoga's history, and he approves of the proposal. Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair opened up the Public Hearing for comments. Kenneth Hateman, 46 Ludlow St. (corner of Ludlow and Madison) said his property abuts the carriage house. His concern is that the changes to the carriage house could make it rentable or an Airbnb. This project came before the ZBA on February 1, 2021, as a home office change with a little different configuration. They were seeking a variance because there is only 1 ft. between the carriage house and his property and about 3 feet between the lower portion and his property. He’s not certain that a zoning variance was ever approved. He just doesn’t want it to be a rental property. Dennis said that application was made and abandoned. There was no variance given. This application is being submitted under the new UDO. Leah said she’s not sure if short-term rental is allowed but the special use permit is being sought for a very specific use that is allowed. Susan said she’s not sure if the short-term rental legislation that was passed last year would allow this property to be eligible for a short-term rental. Dennis said he’s not aware of the rules in place for short-term rentals but unless this board has given this type of restriction to other properties it won’t be put into this resolution. It doesn’t appear that this board has put restrictions on dwelling units in the past. Bill said there’s a concern within the community about the housing stock being bought and turned into short term rental units. The city needs more permanent type housing for families. Dennis said this property is owned by a family and they have no intention of renting it. They also won’t restrict themselves because they comply with the UDO. Sherry Grey, 38 Fifth Ave. said she sent a letter to the city that had been addressed. She was on the ZBA when the applicant applied for a variance in 2021 and the terminology regarding short-term rentals would not have been part of the resolution; the ZBA did not have that authority. She noted that this approval stays with the property and under new ownership the configuration of the carriage house could change. She’s concerned because the entire block from Ludlow to East Ave. is single family homes with no apartments. The first block of Fifth Ave. from Nelson to Ludlow has three multi-unit houses; one has an apartment and two are multi-unit (all pre-1980’s). Madison Ave. also has some multi-unit houses. She doesn’t feel this is an appropriate use for what was a carriage house. This property is the only carriage house on the alley that is across the alley from the main house and very closely abuts the neighbor’s property. Kenneth Hateman said this went to the ZBA in 2021 because of the setbacks and how close they were to adjacent properties. He questioned if they would have to go before the ZBA again. Leah said it’s her understanding that whatever was being proposed in the past violated whatever restrictions were in place in the past. What the applicant is currently seeking is fully code compliant. A variance would only be necessary if they violated the law with what they are seeking to do with the property. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 25, 2025 - Page 10 of 13 Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair closed the Public Hearing. Board comments: Leah asked if the board members were concerned about the property being used as a more permanent secondary residence or a more typical apartment rental – month to month, year to year; and they said it was not problematic to them. The potential concern is that the property may be used as a short-term rental in the future. Leah clarified that this is a single lot and there’s a structure on it that doesn’t need any approval. Short-term rentals are allowed in this area subject to registration or permitting requirements. Susan said this is new in the UDO and the desire is to possibly reuse these historic structures that are part of the fabric of the community for something other than the storage of vehicles. Susan read the standards that must be met: Has to be historic (on local, state or national register) and be a conversion of an existing carriage house or barn, has to be on the same lot as the principal dwelling. The Preservation Foundation has submitted a letter to the city stating that this is a historic carriage house. Any alterations to the building are required to go to the DRB for historic review and approval and no expansion of the existing structure is allowed. One additional parking space and a building permit is required for the conversion. Kerry noted that a new secondary dwelling could be built within two blocks of this carriage house, and it wouldn’t need to be historic. Leah noted that the board will be considering special use permit criteria on page 13-7 of the UDO. Joe summarized that the building meets the criteria for a secondary dwelling, it’s been deemed historic, it’s eligible for registration as stated by the Preservation Foundation. The board moved on to considering the special use permit criteria on page 13-7 of the UDO. Leah said this is a Type 2 action for SEQRA making it exempt from SEQRA review. Joe Ferrante made a motion to approve a Special Use permit for 24 Fifth Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Mike King. Following a discussion the motion was withdrawn by Joe Ferrante. Tony read the 6 Special Use Permit criteria on page 13-7 of the UDO. Joe Ferrante made a motion to approve a Special Use permit for 24 Fifth Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: J. Johnson-Y, M. King-N, T. Stellato-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, K. Mayo-Y, B. McTygue-N. 4-2, motion carried. 4. #20250586 16 Excelsior Spring Ave. & Audrey Lane Subdivision. Final plat review of a proposed two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Tonya Yasenchak, Y Engineering & Engineering America represented the applicant, Jessica Crawford who is seeking to create a new lot to the east of the property. The applicant received a zoning variance related to the setbacks from the existing house to the new rear property line and the existing house to the corner side along Audrey Lane. The applicant was before the planning board for an advisory opinion and SEQRA in the past. One of the concerns expressed previously by the board was regarding the driveway that goes out to Excelsior for the existing house and making access safer. The applicant has now moved the driveway over to Audrey Lane which is closer to the house and there’s a lot less traffic. A sidewalk is proposed for Excelsior Spring Ave. with the trees and streetlights as required. They are not proposing a sidewalk along Audrey because there are several trees on city property that they documented and would like to keep. They would like to add some street City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 25, 2025 - Page 11 of 13 trees on Audrey to fill in as well as streetlights. The new lot meets all of the requirements for a standard lot, and all of the required engineering information is listed on the plan. Joe Ferrante, Co-Chair opened the public comment period. There were no comments, and the public comment period was closed. Board comments: Jennifer said she likes the project and the greenbelt trail connector and asked for clarification of the 20 ft. driveway that was proposed. Tonya said when they last presented to the planning board there were concerns about the driveway coming out onto Excelsior, so they addressed that concern by moving the driveway over to Audrey. Bill asked about the in lieu of payment for the sidewalk. Susan said DPW has a plan to provide pedestrian/bike accommodations from Excelsior Ave. to Lake Ave. along Excelsior Spring Ave., possibly next year. It has not yet been determined what that will be (sidewalk or side path) or where it will be located (which side of Excelsior Springs Ave.). The idea is that the applicant will pay the fee in lieu fee for that sidewalk to be used for development of that larger plan. There was discussion about the proposed amount of payment in lieu of ($30,000) for the sidewalk versus a Letter of Credit. Tonya said they are proposing four new trees on Audrey and three streetlights that would not be included in the $30,000 and feel the fee is exorbitant to only be covering a sidewalk. Amy suggested that the applicant contact the business administrator and city engineer to get an exact figure for the fee in lieu of and what it includes; is it just the 200 linear feet of sidewalk (200 x 5 = 1,000 sq. ft.)? The fee in lieu of is only for Excelsior Spring and not Audrey Lane. Bill was not speaking into his mic for most of this discussion. 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. Jennifer Johnson made a motion for a negative SEQRA declaration regarding 16 Excelsior Spring Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: J. Johnson-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, K. Mayo-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Mike King made a motion to approve the subdivision at 16 Excelsior Spring Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. with the condition that the board accept the Fee In Lieu of for the proposed sidewalk. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: J. Johnson-Y, M. King-Y, T. Stellato-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, K. Mayo-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 6-0, motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 25, 2025 - Page 12 of 13 5. #20250674 67C West Ave. Saratoga Integrity Special Use Permit Extension. Extension of a previously approved special use permit in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. Tabled 6. #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 11:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – September 25, 2025 - Page 13 of 13