HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230008 Duplainville Site Plan and Land Disturbance Activity OSAC Letter To: Mark Torpey, Chair, Saratoga Springs Planning Board
From: Tom Denny, Chair, Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC)
Re: Proposed project on Duplainville Road, open space and natural resource considerations
Date: April 27, 2023
On Monday, April 24, 1 received your request for an OSAC advisory opinion on this project. Knowing that
the project will be on tonight's Planning Board agenda, I wanted to get you some preliminary thoughts,
but the short time frame has not allowed the committee to do a full consideration. We had a brief site
visit to Rip Van Lane with Susan Barden and Mike Dutre yesterday,joined by John Munter and,
serendipitously, by the Behuniaks (neighbors). The OSAC has had a brief email exchange this morning.
Please let me know whether you will need us to do a deeper dive for a future meeting.
As background, I might mention that the OSAC has been deeply involved over the past five years in
the writing of two companion planning documents for the city,the 2020 Natural Resources Inventory
(NRI) and the 2023 draft Open Space Plan,just submitted formally to the City Council. Our work on the
NRI in particular has broadened our perspectives on the interconnectedness of open space conservation
and the protection of natural and scenic resources. All this is relevant to the current project and
especially to the forested area along Adams Road.
Since the parcel involved is zoned Ind-G and the proposed use is a permitted one,the committee has no
comment on the overall project. Our purview centers on open space and natural resources protection,
and we concentrated our attention on how best to preserve the open space values and rural character of
the Adams Road frontage. Three sections from City documents seem most relevant to these issues at
this location:
1. The inclusion of Adams Road in the Country Overlay Area (2015 Comp Plan, COA map and
discussion, pp. 61-62; see also Section 3.2, esp. pp. 21-22,which addresses the value of
protecting "rural viewsheds of particular value"). The COA classification for Adams Road grows
out of its longstanding recognition of its scenic rural qualities, either as a Rural Road Corridor
(2023 draft Open Space Plan, map; 2020 Natural Resources Inventory, Section 11.5A; 2002 Open
Space Plan,goal 17) or a Scenic Vista (1994 Open Space Plan Map). The Comp Plan allows and
even encourages the Planning Board to consider open space values on projects in the Country
Overlay Area.
"Within the Country Overlay Area,the enhancement of natural resources and the open
space values present on a site, along with development tools to effect this enhancement,
should be added as items to be considered by the Boards when evaluating development
proposals. [...] The intent of this section is not to prohibit or permit any land use activity
but instead is to reaffirm that open space values be taken into consideration in
development proposals within the Country Overlay Area..." [2015 Comp Plan, p. 61]
2. UDO, Chapter 16.10 and 16.9f, which outlines design standards appropriate for protecting
"rural character" in Conservation Design. Although this industrial project is not subject to all the
standards of conservation design, chapter 16.10 from the UDO could provide the Planning
Board with some useful guidelines about open space values, especially about leaving "natural
landforms" (16.10A) and "existing vegetation" (16.10B) in their natural state.
3. Tree Preservation—Increasing recognition of the value of trees is evident in several city
planning documents, including the 2013 urban and community forest master plan and the 2020
Natural Resources Inventory(esp. section 8.3A). The LIDO, section 11.9A,gives clear guidance:
"Existing significant trees should be preserved to the maximum extent feasible." But a natural
forest is more than its significant trees; it is habitat and an ecosystem. The NRI has two
chapters of particular relevance (Chap. 7, "Land Cover& Ecological Communities", esp. 7.113,
which discusses habitat loss as a principal threat to biodiversity; Chap. 9, "The Greenbelt&
Open Space Conservation"). Again,the UDO sections on Conservation Design (esp. 16.9.C.2.f),
while not mandatory for this project, can provide sound guidance on desirable features of the
COA Adams Road frontage.
The brief, preliminary OSAC discussions have centered on what would be the best design of the roughly
105 feet area between the road and the storage lot for the pipes. The 105 feet figure is based on John
Munter's description: 15 feet of ROW north of the road plus the 90 feet of planed berm.
The OSAC was clear that the 15-foot ROW area should not be disturbed at all.
Two broad concepts were discussed for the remaining 90 feet of buffer,without reaching a
committee consensus:
1. Leaving as much as possible of this area in its natural state,which would create about 100 feet
of natural forest buffer. Possible additions were to plant a buffer of mixed evergreens along the
industrial storage area, or to construct the fence at this location.
2. Sticking to the planned berm approach. Concerns were raised about the use of a non-natural
fence to achieve screening, about the need for a guarantee regarding ongoing maintenance of
the fence, and about whether any berm could be more rolling and natural in appearance, rather
than a flat-topped linear berm.
From the perspective of open space values and natural resources protection, alternative 1 is the clear
choice. The forest is full of keystone tree species and will gradually, over decades,go through a natural
succession in which the pines die off and the oaks, maples, birches, hornbeams, etc. become dominant.
The planning board will need to assess the relative merits of the two concepts from the perspective of
buffering the site for the neighbors on the opposite side of Adams Rd.
And then weigh the conservation benefits vs. the buffering benefits.
Other points that came up in committee discussion included:
• Should the Planning Board impose a 30-foot height restriction on pipe storage as a deed
restriction?
• If I understood John Munter correctly, he said that the storage yard operation would be
restricted to 7 AM to 7 PM. This would largely minimize the need for screening from headlights.
Can the Planning Board mandate these operating hours as a condition of approval?
Please be in touch with any questions.