Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 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. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 1. #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. The video was not available, and the meeting was joined in progress. Bruce Steves, Jones, Steves, Grassi speaking for the applicant. There will be noise attenuation through possible plantings. Wetlands will be a separate application with the subdivision. Tony asked if there would be ownership options with the conservation easements/lands; whether they can be dedicated to some other entity. Saratoga Plan has been contacted, and the applicant is amenable to that discussion. Mark's list was read into the record while the video was not recording. Tony asked if lot lines would need to be redrawn if some other entity like Saratoga Plan wanted to take over the conservation easement. He noted that the applicant is going to the ZBA for variances and is concerned that it may complicate that application. Bruce said they’re thinking they would square off lot 14 and the lot on the other end (there are only 13, they’ll be renumbered) so they meet the minimum zoning requirements. It wouldn’t be the entire 18.2 acres that constitute the conservation easement in the deed restricted area, but it would be the bulk of that. They have to leave a small portion of the constrained lands on the lots to meet setbacks. Any wetlands left on a lot will have a conservation easement. Bruce said the ACOE will require deed restrictions as well. Dominick Arico, P.E., Arico Associates said the conservation easement is happening whether Saratoga Plan owns the property or not. Mike King made a motion for a Negative SEQRA Declaration for the Lexington Road/Bemis Heights Subdivision. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: M. King-Y, K. Mayo-Y, T. Stellato-Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, A. White-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried. Mark Pingel made a motion to reaffirm a positive advisory opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals conditioned on the most recent plan which includes 13 homes. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: M. King-Y, K. Mayo-Y, T. Stellato-Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, A. White-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried. Mark Pingel, Chair said the board will plan on a preliminary and final plat review for subdivision when the applicant returns. 2. #20250273 20 Skyward Dr. Land Disturbance Activity. Land Disturbance activity permit to provide for a proposed 120,000 sq. ft. warehouse building and associated site work in the Industrial - General (IND-G) District. (20220180) 3. #20250271 20 Skyward Dr. Site Plan. Site Plan Review of a proposed 120,000 sq. ft. warehouse building and associated site work in the Industrial - General (IND-G) District. (20250273) John & Mike Munter represented the application. John displayed a site plan map for the project which borders Geyser Road, Skyward Dr., and Old Geyser Rd. that heads to the railroad tracks and the new south entrance to the 120,000 sq. ft. warehouse. There’s tractor trailer access to the building on the west side. Outstanding items: - Reference was made to a section of road to be paved that was originally left out. - Planting plan – better screening on south end of the site. Added trees that will help to beautify the site and help with wind, sound, etc. (in the triangle between Old Geyser and Geyser). - Workshop discussion – green energy, wetlands, trees, traffic. - Traffic – when the subdivision was approved in 2017 there was a stipulation that when the last site is developed an up-to-date traffic study would be performed. Creighton Manning did a 2025 traffic study that updates the actual size of the buildings to be built versus projected build-out. The study takes into account the actual traffic from the former SKS Bottling (now Green Mountain Electric) using traffic counters during the month of August. The conclusion is that the traffic counts are much lower than what was projected and they’re not in failure mode on any aspect of the traffic count. - Green energy – no end user for project yet but use green energy practices to implement green energy such as design the roof structure to accommodate the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 30, 2025 - Page 2 of 6  additional load for solar panels and infrastructure to support it. They are an authorized distributor/dealer for New Core products, the biggest recycler of steel in the United States. The majority of the structure will be a New Core product that has the most recycled materials in it that you can have in a structure. It will be a state-of-the-art building so everything that can be put in it will be at its highest efficiency. Joe asked if the people renting or buying install the solar. John said the property will be available for lease or sale and it will be dependent on the end user. Tony asked if they considered a geothermal district where they would develop a geothermal well field and be the utility operator providing geothermal heating and cooling to multiple properties. John said it would be complex because there are a lot of individual ownership structures and various levels of need for heating and cooling. Bill asked if the applicant will be building to suit an end user. John said this is basically having the site shovel ready. Mark Pingel, Chair outlined what the board would be discussing tonight: - Accept Lead Agency status. - SEQRA determination - Land disturbance permit - Site plan review Joe Ferrante made a motion to accept Lead Agency Status for the proposed project at 20 Skyward Dr., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: M. King-Y, K. Mayo-Y, T. Stellato-Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, A. White-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried. Possible SEQRA discussion items: Mike asked for clarity on how the project will progress once approved. John said they will most likely clear the property and do the site work next summer up to the point of construction beginning and getting a building permit; a potential user can see and understand very clearly. Once there’s a tenant they will actually build the building. Mike said there’s been concern raised in the past with an applicant clearing land that may end up vacant for many years. Mike noted that there was a discussion about Geyser Road and the bike path and the railroad road. Mark said that’s not under the city’s jurisdiction, it may be referred back to the county. Kerry said he has no issues with the project. He was comfortable with the site visit the board did in the spring and the project has improved from there. Tony – responding to Mike’s concern about the land disturbance; this applicant has shown a site plan for a distribution facility that will look pretty much like what the board has been given. He’s comfortable with granting the land disturbance permit to get ready for the site plan that was presented. Bill agreed with Tony and with the plan as presented. John noted that this site plan meets the zoning requirements for maximum use of the site. If an end user comes in and they don’t need everything approved then the applicant will return to the board with a modified version to be approved. Mark said his issue for SEQRA is the extent of the clearing. He agreed with the other board members to move forward. The board reviewed the Type 1, long form SEQRA 1. The proposed action may involve construction on or physical alteration of the land surface of the proposed site. Yes. 1a. no (test holes done, no water table hit), 1b. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 30, 2025 - Page 3 of 6  no (will improve the slope of the berm in some places), 1c. no, 1d. no, 1e. no, 1f. no, 1g. no. 2. Impact on geological features. No, or small impact. 3. Impacts on surface water. No, or small impact. (letter from wetland biologist showing no designated wetlands). 4. Impact on groundwater – No, or small impact. (John any company with environmental impact would have oversight) 5. Impact on flooding - No, or small impact. 6. Impacts on air – assume no, or small impact because there will be a condition that certain criteria will be met. If the final tenant requires an air emissions permit from the state they would have to return and readdress SEQRA as a condition of site plan. 7. Impact on plants and animals – No, or small impact. (DEC letter, habitat assessment) 8. Impact on agricultural resources - No, or small impact. 9. Impact on aesthetic resources - No, or small impact. 10. Impact on historic and archeological resources - No, or small impact (SHPO letter) 11. Impact on open space and recreation - No, or small impact. 12. Impact on critical environmental areas – No, or small impact. 13. Impact on transportation – No, or small impact. (traffic study) 14. Impact on energy – Yes. 14a. No, or small impact, 14b. No, or small impact, 14c. No, or small impact, 14d. No, or small impact. 15. Impact on noise, odor and light – No, or small impact. 16. Impact on human health – No, or small impact. 17. Consistency with community plans – No, or small impact. 18. Impact on Community Character – No, or small impact. Mark Pingel, Chair said no public hearing is required for the action being taken tonight but public comment will be allowed. William Engleman, resident for over a year and address is general delivery Saratoga Springs. He lives two miles away and noticed the sign on Skyward Dr. regarding this meeting. He referred to the endangered and threatened species letter from DEC dated February 5, 2025, and a second letter from DEC Region 5 regarding SEQRA and that the Planning Board serve as Lead Agency. The July 8, 2025 letter has 3 categories/topics one of which is endangered and threatened species stating, “potential endangered and/or threatened species have been identified in the project area and a habitat suitability survey may be required”. How will this discrepancy between the letter from February 5th and July 8th be resolved? As of 5 pm today there was no further discussion or resolution from DEC and nothing reconciling the two letters. John noted that DEC has made this determination four times; 1. Subdivision approval, 2. SKS Bottling approval, 3. Approval for the eastern site, 1 Skyward, 4. 20 Skyward. Mark Pingel said the question is whether within the 5 months from when the determination letter was issued to the time the lead agency letter came in, is there any data that suggests that there were substantive changes to the environment for this site. STRAW poll vote: Bill, the correspondence initially received served the board’s need for the record. This second letter appears to be a form letter. He is satisfied with the February letter and in favor of moving forward. Alex, Joe, Kerry and Mark agreed with Bill. Tony and Mike disagreed. Vote 5-2. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 30, 2025 - Page 4 of 6 Mark said the board has been quite thorough in the reasoning that the February letter was the decision. Bill said the confusion was created by DEC by their own department; the February determination is sufficient. Tony agreed that it’s probably a mistake but feels the board needs to run this to ground. Kerry said it’s just a bureaucratic back and forth thing and the board should move forward. Mike is with Tony. Mark believes the board should proceed because there’s nothing substantive in the July letter that changes the determination from February. Susan said the board can have the applicant contact DEC for clarification and ask that an updated letter be submitted as a condition of approval. Mike said he could agree with that condition and move forward. Mike King made a motion for a Negative SEQRA Declaration for the proposed project at 20 Skyward Dr., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: M. King-Y, K. Mayo-Y, T. Stellato-N, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, A. White-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 6-1, motion carried. The board moved forward with site plan review: Mike – had earlier mentioned the bike path. Mark said he and Susan want to discuss with the County the signs along the Geyser trail. Susan talked with the county, and they don’t want to do just one sign they want to do them all at the same time. Mark feels that the dog leg deserves additional discussion. Susan and Mark will go to the county. Kerry – the site visit showed that the project is a distance from Geyser Rd., and he doesn’t see an issue with the screening. Tony said the site plan is good and he’s gone through everything in the file – the submission is complete, no issues. Joe looking at the green area along Skyward, between the parking lot and the street, it looks like the tree line is probably on the edge of the parking lot and asked if there’s any vegetation that can be saved in the green zone. John said no because of the required grading. There’s a large berm there because it was a sand pit and in order to balance the site and make the stormwater and everything work to meet SWPPP requirements, everything east of Skyward Dr. needs to be cleared to perform the grading work. Alex asked if anything further would be planted to the north. John said nothing added now. Screening was added when they did SKS. Alex said to keep the buffer there if it’s not impacted. John said there will be a natural boundary between the two properties. Bill clarified that the dog leg will be paved. There was a discussion about a road that’s on the applicant’s property that was approved to be utilized by the railroad. Legally railroad personnel are not allowed to cross private property to access their work zones, so they found out after the fact that the railroad couldn’t use the road. The applicant tried to turn the road over to the county, but they wouldn’t accept it. John said the road hasn’t been blocked off and if the railroad wants to use it they can. They would be willing to turn the road over to the county; a metes and bounds have been drawn up. Bill asked about the sewer/water service. John said the city’s forced main is in the original right-of-way and is already hooked in, the line has been run to the site and previously approved. Mark noted that the traffic study says there should be a stop sign at the right-angle entry to Geyser Rd. John said it’s already there. Alex said he understands sight lines and that they can’t plant up to the road but asked if there could be more shielding to the northern portion of the triangle. John said there’s a nice buffer that already comes out to the road. Mark said there doesn’t appear to be substantial growth in the triangle. He also noted that there is a need for stop signs instead of yield signs for bikes, which is the county’s responsibility. Mark asked how the city would be compensated for the trees that will be clear cut. Susan said the applicant can contribute to a city fund for trees and there are places where they can install trees. Mark said he would like to make it a condition of approval that the applicant work with staff to identify City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 30, 2025 - Page 5 of 6 the appropriate number of trees in compensation for the clear cutting. Susan said the applicant provided a tree survey that identifies the types and size of trees. They typically look at replacement of significant trees lost. If they look at the significant trees that will be removed they can quantify that to the replacement in caliper. Susan said they will also consider the caliber of trees that are being planted on site. Mark listed the conditions for site plan approval: • If a state quality air permit and/or registration is required, the applicant will come back to the board with information for further review. • The applicant will go back to DEC to reaffirm the findings of the February letter regarding endangered species. It will be administratively reviewed. • Leah drafted: The applicant to provide for replacement of all significant trees that will be removed by plantings shown on the plan and any additional replacement trees to be planted off site in consultation with the city. Full replacement occurs when the total caliper of the significant trees removed is equal to the total caliper of all replacement trees planted. Susan said the applicant will have to identify the healthy significant trees on the site that will be removed. If the board requires replacement trees be planted that won’t fit on the site, the city arborist will help to identify locations (city parks, etc.) where trees are needed. The applicant would purchase the trees from the nursery and install them. Bill suggested locations where the trees will be watered and maintained would be best for the first year. The conditions would have to be met before the application expires. Tony Stellato made a motion to approve the Site Plan and Land Disturbance Permit at 20 Skyward Dr., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: 1.If a state air quality permit and/or registration is required, the applicant will come back to the board with the pertinent information for the board to review, 2. The applicant will reaffirm DEC’s findings as stated in the February letter regarding endangered species; to be administratively reviewed. 3. The applicant to provide replacement of all significant trees that will be removed by plantings shown on the plan, and any additional replacement trees to be planted off site in consultation with the city. Full replacement occurs when the total caliper of the significant trees removed is equal to the total caliper of all replacement trees planted (minimum 3” per tree). The motion was seconded by Joe Ferrante. Vote: M. King-Y, K. Mayo-Y, T. Stellato-Y, M. Pingel-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, A. White-Y, B. McTygue-Y. 7-0, motion carried. Mark Pingel made a motion to adjourn the meeting. All in favor. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – October 30, 2025 - Page 6 of 6