HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230716 Regatta View Area B Phase III Modification of Approval Condt Application**HANDWRITTEN APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED**
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
PLANNING BOARD
�/ C
✓ ITY HALL - 474 BROADWAY
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866-2296
•,�C9RPORATG0 TEL: 518-587-3550 X2533
www.saratoga-springs.org
APPLICATION FOR:
PRELIMINARY V FINAL SUBDIVISION
(FOR OFFICE USEI
X5DIt6
(Application #)
g Z3 2
(bate eceived)
(Project Title)
Check if PH Required
Staff Review
Property Address/Location: Regatta View/Area B Phase III - MODI FICTION OF APPROVAL CONDITIONS
Tax Parcel #: 180.54-2-44
(for example: 165.52-4-37)
Total Acres:
APPLICANT(S)*
Name Peter Belmonte
Address 1743 Route 9, Clifton Park
Phone
(518) 791-1100
Email peter@belmontebuilders.com
Zoning District: P U
FIRR/SR - Conservation Design Required
Land to be Subdivided Into: Lots
OWNER(S) (If not applicant) ATTORNEY/AGENT
Nadine Shadlock
Identify primary contact person: Iiiiiii Applicant ❑ Owner ❑ Agent
12 Van Rensselaer Blvd., Albany
(518) 281-6977
Nadine@nadineshadlock.com
* An applicant must be the property owner, lessee, or one with an option to lease or purchase the property in question.
Has a previous application been filed with PB for this property? NO F-1 YES J - l
If YES, include Application TYPE Final Subdivision and DATE: 11/7/19
Does any City officer, Does any City officer, employee or family member thereof have a financial interest (as defined by
General Municipal Law Section 809) in this application? YES NO x If YES, a statement disclosing the name,
residence, nature and extent of this interest must be filed with this application.
I, the undersigned owner or purchaser under contract for the property, hereby request Subdivision consideration by the
Planning Board for the identified property above. I agree to meet all requirements under the Unified Development
Ordinance for the City of Saratoga Springs.
Furthermore, I hereby authorize members of the Planning Board and designated City staff to enter the property
associated with this application for purposes of conducting any necessary site inspections relating to this application.
Peter Belmonte Digitally signed by Peter Belmonte
Applicant Signature: Date: 2023.08.22 12:31:33-04'00' Date:
If applicant is not current owner, owner must also sign.
Owner Signature:
Peter Belmonte Digitally signed by Peter Belmonte
Date: 2023.08.22 12:31:41-04'00' Date:
Application Fee: Make checks payable to the "Commissioner cf Finance".
REFER TO THE CURRENT FEE WORKSHEET INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
Revised 8/2022
Check City's website (www.saratoga-springs.orq) for meeting dates.
August 7, 2023
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mark Torpey, Planning Board Chairman
& Members of The Planning Board
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board
City Hall- 474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
RE: Regatta View Area B Phase III- Application #20190084
Request for Modification of Approval Conditions
Dear Planning Board Chairman;
As you may know, Belmonte Builders is the developer of the above referenced portion of
the Regatta View subdivision (the "Project"). As will be set forth herein, I am writing to request
a modification of the conditions of the final approval of this Project, only relating to the
proposed walking path.
Final approval of this Project was granted on November 7, 2019. Attached is a copy of
the Minutes, attached as Exhibit A. As set forth in the Minutes, a walking path was proposed (the
"Walking Path"), with two potential locations, one alternative was to locate within an HOA open
space area, owned and controlled by my company (the "HOA Path"), the second alternative was
to be located on the lands of the NYS Department of Transportation, which would require not
only a NYS DOT permit, but also construction of the path to NYS DOT standards as far as
design, engineering, path width and materials (the "DOT Path"). The Notice of Decision was
issued on January 27, 2020 (the "NOD"), with a copy of the NOD attached as Exhibit B. The
NOD states:
"Board preference to relocate the ......path within State DOT ROW adjacent to Union
Avenue, per DOT approval. Alternatively, if path to be located on HOA lands, it shall be
modified with connections to NYS ROW..... as per plan presented at Nov. 7 meeting."
The preference for the DOT Path alternative was clear from the Planning Board Meeting
and NOD issued. As will be set forth in detail below, my Company, and my development team,
engineers, surveyor and attorney, have spent the last three and a half years attempting to secure
the necessary permits and approvals from NYS DOT, all to no avail.
During this period, the DOT path preference was reinforced on all occasions. Out of
respect for the City Planning Department, and this Board, I continued pursuit of the DOT Path
alternative. This is despite a significant disparity in cost which as of 8/27/21 was as follows:
- DOT Path estimate: $115,000
- HOA Path estimate: $25,000
Ongoing communications with the City Attorney Vincent DeLeonardis and Planner Susan
Barden affirmed the DOT Path preference. My engineer designed, redesigned and modified
submission packages to DOT. The path was required to be widened, the surface specification
was more stringent and pavement required thicker, slight variations in elevation needed to be
eliminated to meet DOT specification. Ongoing costs for the repeated redesigns, revisions to
drawings, and submission of new plan sets, plus repeated follow-up with little, if any, dialogue
or feedback from DOT. My engineer's calls were not returned. City Planning was aware of these
occurrences over this period of years. Susan Barden offered to assist, and I believe did call DOT,
but her efforts did not change what we had been experiencing. No improvement despite her
repeated efforts to contact DOT. During the course of our diligent efforts, three different DOT
representatives reviewed this matter, a new DOT representative would be assigned, the
predecessors moved to new positions or retired, and the process continued to start over again.
As above. in August of 2021, communications with the City Attorney and Planner resulted in a
request for my attorney to summarize the status and issues. With the sums to be offered by the
City, whereby the City would offer to reimburse my Company by offset from recreation fees
paid by the Project, to a total of $90,000.00 to cover the significant cost disparity between the
HOA Path and the DOT Path, with the DOT Path cost being $115,000 and the HOA path being
$25,000, resulting in the difference of $90,000, as well as to mitigate the escalating costs of the
DOT Path. Attached as Exhibit C is a copy of the DOT Path Summary provided to the City
Attorney on August 27, 2021. It was clearly communicated at all times by City planning that the
DOT Path was to be the priority and path to be constructed.
On October 6, 2021, my attorney forwarded details of the cost estimate for the DOT Path, as had
been requested by the City Attorney. Attached as Exhibit D.
Thereafter, by email dated October 29, 2021, the City Planner affirmed the DOT Path is the
preferred choice, and that my Company was to contribute a $21,000.00 in lieu of fee, in place of
constructing the DOT Path, with the City put the DOT Path out to bid, and the City would
undertake constructing the DOT Path. Attached as Exhibit E. I accepted this offer by the City to
pay the $21,000 in lieu of fee, and allow the City to have all materials relating to the pursuit of
the DOT Path, and allow the City to construct it.
On November 9, 2021, by email my attorney forwarded to the Planner copies of all DOT
materials as had been requested, with a request to clarify where the $21,000.00 check was to be
delivered. Attached as Exhibit F. My CFO, Barbara Wood, also reached out to the City to
confirm where the check for $21,000 should be delivered; nor was a response ever received by
my CFO.
On November 16, 2021, the Planner called my attorney, and suggested a reduced scope for the
DOT Path, in light of work DOT would perform at intersections, and indicated if I were to agree
to this, the City would reimburse me $50,000.00 in Rec Fees to cover the increased cost due to
DOT requirements, see attached as Exhibit G. I was willing to cooperate with this subject to the
Planner serving as the point person with DOT, and my receipt of the DOT permit, but it was
indicated by my attorney that absent certainty as far as both the receipt of the DOT permit and
the City reimbursement of $50,000.00 in Rec Fees, the alternative already committed proposal of
the $21,000.00 in lieu of fee, with the City constructing the DOT Path would be the way we were
proceeding. My attorney followed up on November 26, 2021; no reply was received confirming
the alternate suggested. Attached as Exhibit H.
During 2022, ongoing dialogue with the Planner focused on her attempting to reach DOT
representatives. My company continued to expend funds in pursuit of the DOT permit. My
attorney was requested to create an easement for the DOT Path to the extent it entered on the
HOA Lands, which she did. However, we never reached any point at which my engineer had any
hope of getting the DOT permit, nor did we ever receive any commitment from the Planner/ City
Attorney/ City as to the City's willingness to commit to any resolution that we had been lead to
believe would be agreeable.
By letter dated October 31, 2022, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit I, my attorney wrote to
the Planner affirming that as of the date we had been working on securing the permits and
approvals from DOT for three years without success. It was also confirmed that the professional
fees incurred by my Company then exceeded the cost to have constructed the HOA Path
alternative of $25,000.00. It was confirmed my Company would provide the Plans and
applications made to DOT, as well as the easement my attorney drafted, to the City to allow the
City to pursue the DOT Path.
My attorney followed up but no reply was received from the Planner until December 19, 2022,
when a meeting was suggested but never convened. In March 2023, my attorney, called the
Planner and again raised concluding this matter consistent with the October 31, 2022 letter. The
Planner suggested we make this application to the Planning Board explaining the extraordinary
efforts in which we had engaged, now for three and a half years, and request a modification of a
single condition of the approval: the requirement of a Walking Path.
Please accept this as my request for a modification of the Walking Path condition of the approval
as follows:
Eliminate the requirement for the Walking Path at this Project.
o My company has already expended in excess of $25,000.00 to secure the
approvals and permit from NYS DOT.
■ As referenced above, this sum exceeds the total cost to have constructed
the HOA Path.
■ No funds remain to construct any Walking Path, neither the HOA Path nor
the DOT Path.
As an alternative I suggest that the sidewalks constructed along both sides of the Project
road, Dartmouth Way, be deemed to satisfy the intent of the Walking Path, in that it
achieves greater walking continuity to the south as had been expressed in the NOD.
o Additionally, there are sidewalks on Dartmouth Drive, which extend to the south
to Dyer Switch Road, and to the north to Regatta View Drive, same as either
Walking Path alternative.
M
o The sidewalks also present an advantage the Walking Path would not have had, in
that the sidewalks will be maintained year round, and not just seasonally as the
case with the Walking Path. Additionally, the sidewalks are illuminated extending
the period of usefulness of the path during times of year with shorter daylight
hours. Additionally, there is an abundant shoulder along Union Ave., providing a
similar function of opportunity for walking and biking, as a Walking Path would
provide.
In conclusion, I respectfully request the Planning Board's consideration of this request, which I
believe is a fair and just result for all parties in light of the foregoing circumstances.
Thank you.
CC: Tony Izzo, Esq., City Attorney
Susan Barden, Principal Planner
4
Very truly yours,
Belmonte Builders LLC
By: Peter Belmonte Builders Corp.
By: Peter J. Belmonte, Jr.
Peter J. Belmonte, Jr., President
i°GA .SAf PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES (FINAL)
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2019
•/"`'�RPORATEO �9\y• 6:00 P.M.
RECREATION CENTER
CALL TO ORDER: Mark Torpey, Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG:
PRESENT: Mark Torpey, Chairman, Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman, Bob Bristol, Ruth Horton,
Sara Boivin; Lexi Bonitatibus; Todd Fabozzi
STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs
Vince DeLeonardis, City Attorney, City of Saratoga Springs
ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING:
The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are
not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording.
A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES:
Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the end of the meeting.
B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
NOTE: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any application that appear to be "approvable" without need
for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wished to further discuss any proposed consent agenda
item, then that item would be pulled from the "consent agenda" and dealt with individually.
NONE AT THIS TIME.
C. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION
1. 20170994 2017.040 FADEN MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT, corner of West Avenue and Station Lane,
Coordination of SEQRA Review for a new mixed -use project in the Transect-5 District.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated what is before the Board this evening is coordination of SEQRA Review. This is an
unlisted action. Involved agencies include the ZBA, DRC and DEC. A long form EAF has been submitted by the
applicant. This proposed project is a mixed -use project, including 9,440 square feet of retail and 49 apartments in two
buildings. This is a continuation of a pending application. Applicant has submitted a revised plan. Current plan has
buildings located out of the NYSDEC wetland buffer area.
Agent: Scott Lansing, Lansing Engineering
Applicant: Russ Fadden
Mr. Lansing stated they are before the Board to present the conceptual layout plan to the Board, obtain feedback
working toward approval for a Special Use Permit, Site Plan Review and final approval for the project. A visual
Exhibit A
presentation of the site was provided to the Board. This is parcel is 1.99 acres and is vacant, at this time. We are
proposing a mixed -use development both commercial, retail and residential apartment units. The project features two
buildings. Building 1 is facing toward West Avenue, which is a four-story building. The first floor would be mixed
commercial/retail with an eating and drinking establishment proposed for the southern end of the building, Floors two,
three and four will house 27 apartments approximately 1,000 square feet in size. Building 2 facing toward Station Lane is
a three-story structure, apartments only, no retail. 22 apartments are proposed for this structure approximately 950
square feet in size. We are also proposing garages on the backside of the buildings. Primary access is from Station
Lane and secondary access from West Avenue which would be a right turn in from the access point. Seven on -street
parking spaces will be provided on West Avenue, and seven parallel spaces on Station Lane. The remainder of the 114
parking spaces are provided along the side and rear of the buildings. Dumpsters are positioned on the rear and
northwest corners of the site. Streetlights, street trees and sidewalks will be installed and will meet city standards. Mr.
Lansing reviewed access and circulation of the site to the Board. The applicant will provide recreational contributions in
lieu of recreational space. There are plans for open space and parks in this area as part of other projects. A civic space
area is proposed at the corner of Station Lane and West Avenue. We will access public water and sewer. Storm water
will be managed on site with infiltration practices.
Mr. Lansing stated he will address some concerns from the agenda workshop, Regarding the build out along the
frontage of West Avenue between 0-12 feet marks. We will push the building forward and meet the 70% build out
requirement. Along Station Lane, being the secondary road, we do meet the frontage requirements for the secondary
building. We believe the project complies with zoning requirements. There was conversation concerning moving out of
the DEC buffer area and the applicant has complied with the Boards suggestion and request. The sidewalk may be in
the buffer area and we will have additional conversations with the DEC. Concerning the sanitary sewer and the sewer
cost sharing. There are proposed improvements to the pump station on Station Lane. The applicant is aware of that
and has been involved with cost sharing aspect and is willing to contribute his share. The newly proposed sidewalk
along Station Lane will connect with that proposed by the Askew project. The Board did request elevation drawings and
those are being completed and will be provided to the Board.
Discussion ensued among the Board with the applicant concerning reducing and/or reconfiguring the parking.
Todd Fabozzi suggested moving the buildings closer together creating a streetscape on both sides of the corner.
If some parking spaces could be reduced, and the buildings connected providing a plaza type green area providing
a space for tenants creating a more urban feel and a gathering space for the people who live there.
Mr. Lansing spoke regarding the design of the building and their thoughts on providing convenience for retail customers.
Susan Barden, Principal Planner shared some comments from Traffic regarding parking on West Avenue. This project
will be before the Board for Special Use Permit and final site plan where this information can be further discussed.
Mark Torpey, Chairman requested the applicant review their parking demands and see if parking demands can be
reduced and perhaps provide an updated traffic study.
Mr. Lansing stated there is a bus stop in this location and a bus stop enclosure. Also, in the civic space some type of
train related theme is being considered and in the plans.
Ruth Horton made a motion in the matter of the Faden Mixed -Use Development, corner of West Avenue and Station
Lane that the Planning Board coordinate SEQRA Review and request Lead Agency Status from other involved agencies
the DRC and DEC. Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman seconded the motion.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard.
VOTE:
Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman, in favor; Bob Bristol, in favor; Todd Fabozzi, in favor;
Ruth Horton, in favor; Sara Boivin, in favor; Lexie Bonitatibus, in favor
MOTION PASSES: 5.0
City of Saratoga Springs —Planning Board November 7, 2019 -Page 2 of 7
2. 20190604 THE GLUETT HOUSE BED AND BREAKFAST 2 Clement Avenue, permanent Special Use Permit
for a neighborhood Bed and Breakfast within an Urban Residential-1 District.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the application before the Board is for a Special Use Permit for a Neighborhood Bed and
Breakfast in the UR-1 District. This is a Type II SEQRA action. The public hearing remains open. This request is for a 5
room Neighborhood Bed and Breakfast with a resident host. Seven parking spaces are required and will be provided on
site.
Applicant: Robin Lauder, LLC
Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney
Mr. Toohey stated the applicant is before the Board for a Neighborhood Bed and Breakfast in the UR-1 District. This is a
permitted use with a Special use Permit. A visual presentation of the neighborhood was provided to the Board. As
suggested by the Board we did host a neighborhood meeting. 27 invitations were sent, and 7 property owners attended.
There was an attempt to have a conversation. The neighbors had two solutions — one was for the owner to move into
the property and utilize it for their own purpose, the second was the neighbors stating they will buy the property from the
current owners. None of these were acceptable by the current owners. No variances are required for this project.
This is no larger than any home in the area and a review of ingress and egress to the site. No new entrances or exits
are being created. Mr. Toohey reviewed the criteria for a Special Use Permit and provided an overview of what currently
exists in this Residential Neighborhood-1 and Residential Neighborhood-2 Districts. This area is characterized by single-
family residential uses with moderate density two family. A mix of housing types is present. Small neighborhood scale
commercial uses exist as well as the operation of a law office in this residential neighborhood.
Sara Boivin reviewed all the current Bed and Breakfasts that operate in Saratoga Springs. There are currently no
existing Bed and Breakfasts operating in the Urban Residential-1 District. She feels it does not fit in this low density
area.
Lexie Bonitatibus seconded Sara's comments.
Mark Torpey, Chairman reviewed several items to consider for the Special Use Permit.
-Two-year renewable Special Use Permit.
-Operational only April through October.
-No indoor or outdoor activities, such as weddings, showers, business meetings, catered events, etc.
-Maximum of 10 adult's occupancy.
-1 Kitchen.
-No food deliveries to the site.
-Directional signage.
-Conform to the City's noise ordinance of 9:00 P.M.
Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the location of the proposed B & B as compared with the location of
other B & B's in the City. Also, further regulation by the City will be necessary.
Todd Fabozzi discussed the location of Air B & B's in the City which is currently unregulated. He spoke regarding what
short term rentals happen during summer in the City. He believes the standards for a special use permit have been met.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application.
City of Saratoga Springs— Planning Board November 7, 2019 - Page 3 of 7
Sharon Byrne, 247 Clinton Street. There are no B&B's in the UR-1 zone and there never have been. This needs
further investigation by the City Council before a use is granted in perpetuity.
Nadine Shadlock, Counsel for owners of 124 State Street. She agrees with Board members regarding no B&B's in a
UR-1 District. This is a very low -density neighborhood. I have submitted correspondence to the Board. This will change
the character of the neighborhood.
Rob Coughlin, 54 Greenfield Avenue. I am an attorney. There is an impact on the density and intensity of the
neighborhood. This does not enhance the quality of life for people in this neighborhood.
Susan Barden, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs read the following correspondence received by the Board:
-Letter from Rob Coughlin, dated October 17.
-Letter from Nadine Shadlock, dated October 16.
-Letter from Jennifer McMahon, dated September 30.
-Letter from Jill McMahon, dated September 30.
-Letter from Dr. And Mrs. Roger Saillant, dated September 26.
-Email from Thomas Burkly, received September 14.
-Letter from Jennifer McMahon, received September 13.
-Letter from Jill McMahon, dated September 16.
-Letter signed by five neighbors dated July 22.
-Email from MaryAnn and Brian Wager, received July 26.
-Email from Gordon Boyd, received July 25.
-Email from Betsey Olmsted, received July 25.
-Email from Nancy and Tom Burkly, received July 24.
-Email from Rob Coughlin, received July 24.
-Email from Sue Hensley -Cushing, received July 23,
Mark Torpey, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:45 P.M.
Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman made a motion in the matter of the Cluett House Bed and Breakfast application that the
application for a Special Use Permit be denied based on the neighborhood incompatibility and its location is too far
removed from any economic center pieces of the city. The economic viability comes into question with regard to the
neighbors and this residential district. Sara Boivin seconded the motion.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard.
VOTE:
Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman, in favor; Bob Bristol, opposed; Lexie Bonitatibus, in
favor; Todd Fabozzi, opposed; Ruth Horton, in favor; Sara Boivin, in favor
MOTION PASSES: 5-2
7:50 P.M. The Board recessed.
7:55 P.M. The Board reconvened.
3. 20190084 REGATTA VEIW AREA B PHASE III SUBDIVISION Union Avenue/Dyer Switch Road/Regatta View
Drive, 24-lot residential subdivision within the Regatta View Planned Unit District.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated this is in the Regatta View Neighborhood. A continuation of the Planned Unit
Development. A 24-lot residential subdivision is proposed. This is a Type I SEQRA action before the Board. We have
determined based on research by city staff that this is a modification of an existing subdivision which was approved in
City of Saratoga Springs —Planning Board November 7, 2019 - Page 4 of 7
1996. We will look at this as a modification to an existing subdivision. As part of the Board's responsibility we will
reaffirm the previous SEQRA decision before engaging in the subdivision modification approval.
Vincent DeLeonardis, City Attorney stated a meeting was held with Patrick Cogan, Building -Zoning Inspector and they
did provide to the applicant and applicant's agent their unanimous determination that this application was in fact a
modification of a previously approved subdivision. There was a SEQRA determination done in the 1982 and reviewed
and reaffirmed in 1996. There were no roadway determinations made at the time of the 1996 subdivision.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated it would be helpful to the Board since this is a modification to see what was proposed in
1996 and what is currently proposed.
Applicant: Belmonte Builders
Agent: Matthew J. Jones, Attorney, Jones-Stieves
Mr. Jones stated what they will be reviewing this evening is the 1996 approval of the 89 single family lots know as
Regatta View. The Board imposed conditions such as side yard setbacks, lot coverage, and building heights. The
Board will be provided a chart how that compares with what is currently proposed. In 1996 there were area bulk
requirements for those 89 single-family lots. The plan is identical, the configuration is identical, and we do not want the
1996 conditions to apply today and request a modification of what was originally approved in the PUD site plan in July.
Secondly, we had a meeting and received an email today from DPW noting their concerns. We will address those. A
change which was requested has to do with the trail, how and where it ends. These are minor changes which were
approved in July.
Mr. Mitchell provided a visual of the plan configuration which is the same which has been presented previously. Also,
how it looked in 1996 with the setbacks and area requirements as well as the conditions that were set for the project.
Mr. Jones reviewed the changes which were made to the lot configuration, the lots are smaller, and the building heights
have gone from 35' to 45'. Side yard setbacks have been changed from 10, to 8'.
Mr. Mitchell provided a visual and layout of the approved trail. The applicant is attempting to stay out of the DOT Right -
of -Way, per the feedback we have received. It is more useful if we continue up to Dyer Switch Road. Our concern
remains the same regarding the ownership issue of the DOT Right of Way. We have reached out to the DOT and have
not yet received a feedback. What we are proposing is for the Board to approve the application with two options.
Approve it if the way we have presented remaining out of the DOT Right of Way but also approving an alternative
configuration that is in the DOT Right of Way. We are happy to go that route. We do not want the homeowner's
association to be saddled with the ownership obligations of that DOT Right of Way. The sidewalks become a challenge,
one regarding ownership, one concerning placement in the DOT Right of Way without the vertical curb. This is a
challenge since that requires an 8-foot separation which puts the sidewalk behind the ditch.
Susan Barden, Principal Planner, discussed the usefulness of the sidewalk for the neighborhood not just the immediate
property owners. It should be visible and accessible. As with any city sidewalk it would have to be maintained with
regard to repairs.
Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the placement of sidewalks and ownership for maintenance and
upkeep.
Mr. Mitchell reviewed the comments from Al Flick, DPW concerning the ownership of stormwater and infiltration chamber
systems in the Right of Way. These plans can be conditioned to the satisfaction of the DPW.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application.
City of Saratoga Springs —Planning Board November 7, 2019 -Page 5 of 7
AJ Bozogian, 12 Flying Dutchman Way. He does like the location of crosswalk. It seems the Board could re -visit the
issues set forth by the Supreme Court since this is now a modification of a previous subdivision.
Mark Torpey, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:22 P.M.
Mark Torpey, Chairman reviewed some of the issues before the Board. The utility easement is to be to the satisfaction
of the City Attorney. No cut buffer noted on the plans which relate to the Flying Dutchman area and 9P and should be
noted. Dartmouth Way is to become a full city street.
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the Board should reaffirm the 1996 SEQRA Determination.
Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman made a motion in the matter of the Regatta View Area B Phase III Subdivision, Union
Avenue/Dyer Switch Road/Regatta View Drive to reaffirm the previous 1996 Negative Declaration noting there are no
additional impacts that would warrant a re -analysis of the SEQRA. Bob Bristol seconded the motion.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard.
VOTE:
Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman, in favor; Bob Bristol, in favor; Lexie Bonitatibus, in favor;
Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Ruth Horton, in favor; Sara Boivin, in favor
MOTION PASSES: 7.0
Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the Board will now vote on subdivision approval with the following conditions:
-Final review by the City Attorney on the conservation easement language to be finalized.
-Outstanding DPW issues to the satisfaction of the Commissioner DPW and the City Engineer.
-Final agreement approval with DOT and the City of Saratoga Springs relative to the pathway and how it can provide
greater continuity to the south. The Board prefers the design to provide greater continuity to the south.
- Planting specifications and spacing to be addressed with the City arborist.
-Dartmouth Way to be constructed to City standards.
-Site statistics as presented with 5' setbacks.
-Recreation fees as required.
-No cut buffer policy as noted in the conservation easement.
Ruth Horton made a motion in the matter of the Regatta View Area B Phase III Subdivision modification, Union
Avenue/Dyer Switch Road/Regatta View Drive to approve the application with the conditions as noted by the Chair. Sara
Boivin seconded the motion.
Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard.
VOTE:
Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman, in favor; Bob Bristol, in favor; Lexie Bonitatibus, in favor;
Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Ruth Horton, in favor; Sara Boivin, in favor
MOTION PASSES: 7-0
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES:
Mark Torpey, Chairman made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of the September 19, 2019 meeting as
submitted. Ruth Horton seconded the motion.
City of Saratoga Springs —Planning Board November 7, 2019 -Page 6 of 7
VOTE:
Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman, abstained; Bob Bristol, in favor; Ruth Horton, in favor;
Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Lexie Bonitatibus, in favor; Sara Boivin, in favor
MOTION PASSES: 6-0-1
Mark Torpey, Chairman made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of the October 3, 2019 meeting as submitted.
Ruth Horton seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman, in favor; Bob Bristol, in favor; Ruth Horton, in favor;
Todd Fabozzi, in favor; Lexie Bonitatibus, in favor; Sara Boivin, abstained
MOTION PASSES: 6.0-1
UPCOMING MEETINGS:
Planning Board Caravan, Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:00 P.M.
Planning Board Workshop, Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 5:00 P.M.
Planning Board Meeting, Thursday November 21, 2019 at 6:00 PM.
MOTION TO ADJOURN:
There being no further business to discuss Jamin Totino, Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:37 P.M.
APPROVED 12-12-19
Respectfully submitted,
Diane M. Buzanowski
Recording Secretary
City of Saratoga Springs —Planning Board November 7, 2019 • Page 7 of 7
G4
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
s
MARK TORPEY, Chair
PLANNING BOARD
JAMIN TOTINO, Vice Chair
m
0
ROBERT F. BRISTOL
City Hail - 474 Broadway
TODD FABOZZI
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
RUTH HORTON
-�QRPoanTEo
Tel: 518-587-3550 fax: 518-580-9480
SARA BONIN
,91h.
www.saratoga-springs.org
LEXIE BONITATIBUS
AMY RYAN, Altemate
SHAWNA JENKS, Alternate
NOTICE OF DECISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION APPLICATION #20190084 OF
REGATTA VIEW AREA B PHASE II
UNION AVE./DYER SWITCH RD./REGATTA VIEW DR.
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866
Involving the premises with tax parcel # 164.20-1-50, in the City of Saratoga Springs, on an application for a
25-lot final residential subdivision within the Interlaken PUD with the Planning Board who met on
November 7, 2019 and made the following decisions) with a 7-0 vote (In favor. Torpey, Totino, Bristol,
Fabozzi, Horton, Boivin, Bonitatibus):
I . In accordance with SEQRA regulations 6NYCRR Part 617 identified no new or different impacts with the
proposed further subdivision of lot 90 that had not been previously considered based on the statement of
findings from the PUD site plan approval for Regatta View for Zones B, D and E approved on September
25, 1996 and issued a reaffirmation of the prior Negative SEQRA Declaration issued in 1982 for the
Interlaken PUD.
2. Issued final approval of a 25-lot subdivision (including 24 single-family residential lots and I lot that includes
common lands to be held by the Regatta View HOA) as per the requirements set forth in the City of
Saratoga Springs Subdivision Regulations with the following conditions:
• The final plan and conservation easement language shall reference the Planning Board's Conservation
Area and No -Cut Buffer Policy.
• Final conservation easement language to be approved by the City attorney.
• Final plans shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Cit-ys designated engineer and DPW.
• Dartmouth Way to be a public street and built to city standards.
• Board preference to relocate the 8 ft. wide asphalt pedestrian path within State DOT ROW
adjacent to Union Ave., with connections to existing pedestrian improvements, per DOT
approval. Alternatively, if path to be located on HOA lands, it shall be modified with connections
to NYS ROW at Regatta View Dr. and Dyer Switch Rd. with crosswalk on Regatta View, per plan
presented at Nov. 7 meeting.
The applicant is required to complete the following as per the City of Saratoga Springs Subdivision Regulations:
• Deliver a letter of credit or cash escrow as a performance guarantee to the City for required on- and
off -site improvements.
• Submit a fee in lieu of recreational lands of $2,000 for each new residential lot per Appendix A of the
Subdivision Regulations.
• Submit two (2) mylar and two (2) paper copies of the final approved subdivision plat for signature by
the Planning Board Chair.
• File the signed final subdivision plat with the Saratoga County Clerk within sixty-two (62) days as
provided in Article 3, Section 32 of General City Law.
This approval shall expire if not enacted within 180 days as set forth in the City of Saratoga Springs
Subdivision Regulations Article II, Section I. D.15.
Exhibit B
20190464 Regatta View Subdivision q�'
Page 2
an 27 2020
Date Chair
cc: Building Inspector, DPW, DPS, Accounts Dept. Applicant, File
LAW OFFICE OF NADINE F. SHADLOCK
12 Van Rensselaer Blvd.
Albany, New York 12204-1609
518-281-6977
nadine®nadineshadlock.com
nadineshadlock.com
NYS Certified Women Owned Business Enterprise
NYC Certified WBE - NYSUCP DBE - SBA WOSB
SBA HUB Zone Certified SBC
To: Vincent DeLeonardis, Esq.
From: Nadine Shadlock, Esq.
Date: August 27, 2021
RE: Regatta View: Subdivision Pathway along Route 9P
On December 18, 2020 the Regatta View project development team, Joe Dannible P.E., Nadine
Shadlock, Esq and Peter Belmonte (the "Applicant") had a conference call with Vincent
DeLeonardis, Esq. and Susan Barden regarding the pathway along the easterly boundary of the
Regatta View subdivision and the two alternatives approved by the Planning Board. One
alternative approved is entirely on lands of the project, and the second more expensive
alternative, which is preferred by the City, is located within the NYS right of way (the "ROW")
of Route 9P and subject to NYSDOT jurisdiction. This application to the City Council is made to
request that the City consider covering the increased cost between the two alternatives which
totals approximately $90,000.
The approximate cost for the first alternative, entirely on the HOA lands, is $25,000.
The second alternative, which is believed to provide a significant public benefit to the residents
of Saratoga Springs by extending a safer off -road route from Fish Creek/ Saratoga Lake further
into the City, thereby not only enhancing safety but also increasing walkability and connectivity.
Based on this the applicant has pursued this option, which has proven to be both an exhausting
and significantly more expensive alternative than anticipated, with a total cost approximately
$115,000.
The reason for the increased cost for the NYSDOT alternative is that being located within the
ROW, NYSDOT is requiring the pathway be constructed to meet all NYS specifications.
Modification to the design to accommodate this standard required by DOT includes, but is not
limited to: increase the width of the pathway from 8 ft to 10 ft, increasing the thickness of the
subbase for the path, more conservative longitudinal and cross slopes by reducing the slope from
2.0% to the DOT required limit of 1.5%, relocation of proposed cross walk to closer to Route 9P,
which requires modification or replacement of existing an existing culvert, installation of a
pedestrian activated crosswalk signal that is linked to the existing traffic signal at the intersection
of Route 9P and Regatta View Drive. The estimate for the necessary design service revisions,
Exhibit C
permitting and installation cost for this alternative is as indicated above, $115,000, with the
majority of this cost attributable to the pedestrian activated signals.
Therefore, the difference between the City preferred NYSDOT path ($115,000) and the original
path to be located on project lands ($25,000) is an increase of $90,000. The applicant is
requesting the City Council to consider allocating funds to offset the significant cost increase for
the City's preferred pathway. The applicant understands that the estimates provided are
preliminary and NYSDOT is currently completing signal and cross walk improvements at this
intersection, which could potentially reduce some of the costs. As a result the applicant is
requesting the City cover the actual increased cost of the work for this DOT pathway up to a not
to exceed total of $90,000.
Nadine Shadlock
From: Nadine Shadlock
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 152 PM
To: Vincent DeLeonardis
Subject: Regatta View Subdivision- Pathway along Route 9P
Attachments: City Council. Request for Reimbursement for Increased Cost. DOT Path. 08.27.21.pdf
Vince,
Good afternoon. A note to follow-up on my telephone message to your office of moments ago. I am
writing to confirm the result of our efforts with NYS DOT on the design and cost estimate for the path to be
located within the NYS DOT right of way. This has proven to be a lengthy and challenging process to reach the
point of having numbers for the cost to locate the path in the DOT ROW.
Attached is a summary describing our call of back in December, the two alternatives approved by the
Planning Board and the City preference for the path to be located in the DOT ROW. Also summarized are the
changes that DOT has required to the original design, as well as the cost differential.
I would appreciate it if you could review this summary and let me know of any questions. Thereafter, we would
like to be placed on the City Council Agenda to allow this request to be considered.
Thank you for your courtesy and assistance on this matter.
Nadine
Nadine Feiden Shadlock, Esq.
518-281-6977
Nadine Shadlock
From:
Nadine Shadlock
Sent:
Wednesday, October 6, 2021 3:45 PM
To:
Vincent DeLeonardis
Cc:
Susan Barden
Subject:
RE: Regatta View Subdivision- Pathway along Route 9P
Attachments:
2021-10-06 Shared Use Path Cost Estimate.10.06.21.pdf
Vince,
Good afternoon. As follow-up to your note below, attached is a copy of the details of the cost estimate
for the DOT Path alternative for Regatta View.
Please let me know of any questions, or if anything further is needed.
Thank you!
Nadine
Nadine Feiden Shadlock, Esq.
518-281-6977
From: Vincent DeLeonardis <vincent.deleonardis@saratoga-springs.org>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 20212:39 PM
To: Nadine Shadlock <Nadine@nadineshadlock.com>
Cc: Susan Barden <susan.barden@saratoga-springs.org>
Subject: Re: Regatta View Subdivision- Pathway along Route 9P
Nadine,
I have discussed this with Susan, who will be reaching out to the Planning Board Chair to determine
whether he is comfortable administratively recommending the use of rec fees toward this
project. Please forward documentation supporting the costs contained in the summary you have
provided. Ultimately, if recreation funds are used, it will require Council approval.
Best regards,
Vince
Vincent J. DeLeonardis
City Attorney
Saratoga Springs City Attorney's Office
474 Broadway - Room 7
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
(518) 587-3550 ext. 2414
Exhibit D
From: "Nadine Shadlock" <Nadinena.nadineshadlock.com>
To: "Vincent DeLeonardis" <vincent.deleonardisa-saratoga-springs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 11:57:28 AM
Subject: FW: Regatta View Subdivision- Pathway along Route 9P
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if
it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links.
Vince,
Following up on my call of just now and note below. Please let me know any comments or if you would
like to touch base. We would like to move forward with the path at Regatta View while the season remains with
US.
Thanks!!
Nadine
Nadine Feiden Shadlock, Esq.
518-281-6977
From: Nadine Shadlock
Sent: Friday, August 27, 20213:52 PM
To: Vincent DeLeonardis <vincent.deleonardis@saratoea-sprines.org>
Subject: Regatta View Subdivision- Pathway along Route 9P
Vince,
Good afternoon. A note to follow-up on my telephone message to your office of moments ago. I am
writing to confirm the result of our efforts with NYS DOT on the design and cost estimate for the path to be
located within the NYS DOT right of way. This has proven to be a lengthy and challenging process to reach the
point of having numbers for the cost to locate the path in the DOT ROW.
Attached is a summary describing our call of back in December, the two alternatives approved by the
Planning Board and the City preference for the path to be located in the DOT ROW. Also summarized are the
changes that DOT has required to the original design, as well as the cost differential.
I would appreciate it if you could review this summary and let me know of any questions. Thereafter, we would
like to be placed on the City Council Agenda to allow this request to be considered.
Thank you for your courtesy and assistance on this matter.
I
Nadine Feiden Shadlock, Esq.
518-281-6977
Confidentiality/Privilege Notice: This e-mail communication and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and
confidential information from the City of Saratoga Springs and are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or
entity to which it has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or taking any other action with respect to the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Cost Estimate: NYSDOT Pedestrian Pathway
Item
Amount
Units
Estimated Cost
Total
Shared Use Path
Pavement
230
TON
$
95.00
$
21,850.00
Path Subbase (6"
Depth)
262
CY
$
30.00
$
7,860.00
Grading
530
CY
$
5.00
$
2,650.00
Seeding
0.38
AC
$
4,500.00
$
1,710.00
Rectangular Rapid
Flash Beacon
2
EA
$
15,000.00
$
30,000.00
MUTCD Compliant
Signage installed
6
EA
$
250.00
$
1,500.00
ADA Compliant Ramp
2
EA
$
600.00
$
1,200.00
Culvert Pipe
80
LF
$
12.00
$
960.00
Flared End Sections
2
EA
$
400.00
$
200.00
Xwalk Striping
300
LF
$
1.25
$
375.00
Curb Replacement
20
LF
$
40.00
$
800.00
Pavement
Replacement
90
CY
$
20.00
$
1,800.00
Roadway Basecourse
30
CY
$
50.00
$
1,500.00
3
CY
$
50.00
$
150.00
Storm Pipe Bedding
Silt Fencing 900 LF $ 3.25 $ 2,925.00
NYSDOT Traffic
Control 1 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
Total $ 78,180.00
Mobilization 1 ea $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
Contingency (10%) $ 7,818.00
Estimated EA
Engineering Fees (8%) $ 6,254.40
Total $ 97,252.40
Nadine Shadlock
From:
Nadine Shadlock
Sent:
Friday, October 29, 2021 4:57 PM
To:
Susan Barden
Cc:
Vincent DeLeonardis
Subject:
RE: Regatta View Subdivision- Pathway along Route 9P
Susan,
Thank you for our call of just now clarifying your note below. You are indicating the City prefers the
DOT route, and to that end is requesting Belmonte to contribute the $21,000 fee in lieu of constructing the path
on HOA Lands, by check to the Commissioner of Finance, with the City to then put the DOT routed path out to
bid, and shall pay for the construction of the DOT path.
You have asked that we provide a summary of status as far as DOT, drawings, work permit status and contact
person at DOT for this matter.
I will discuss with my client and report back.
Thank you!
Nadine
Nadine Feiden Shadlock, Esq.
518-281-6977
From: Susan Barden <susan.barden@saratoga-springs.org>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 20214:45 PM
To: Nadine Shadlock <Nadine@nadineshadlock.com>
Cc: Vincent DeLeonardis <vincent.deleonardis@saratoga-springs.org>
Subject: Re: Regatta View Subdivision- Pathway along Route 9P
Hi Nadine,
I met with Vince this a.m. and I apologize that we didn't call you then. We agree that the best way to
proceed is for the applicant to contribute a fee in lieu of construction of the trail/path to the City. Can
you provide the design of the trail, the status of the permit, and the contact person at DOT that you've
been working with?
Please let me know if you'd like to discuss further.
Best regards,
Susan
*Please visit our website for the new 2021 Application Forms and Fee Schedule.
Exhibit E
Susan B. Barden, AICP
Principal Planner
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY
518-587-3550 ext. 2493
From: "Nadine Shadlock" <NadineO-nadineshadlock.com>
To: "Susan Barden" <susan.bardenlcpsaratoga-s-prings.orq>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 1:49:51 PM
Subject: RE: Regatta View Subdivision- Pathway along Route 9P
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if
it*s a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links.
Susan,
Of course.
Thanks!
Nadine
Nadine Feiden Shadlock, Esq.
518-281-6977
From: Susan Barden <susan.barden a@sarato a-si)rings.ora>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 1:43 PM
To: Nadine Shadlock <Nadine@nadineshadlock.com>
Subject: Re: Regatta View Subdivision- Pathway along Route 9P
Hi Nadine,
Thanks for the additional information. Would you be available for a call with me and Vince tomorrow
to discuss further?
Best regards,
Susan
*Please visit our website for the new 2021 Application Forms and Fee Schedule.
Susan B. Barden, AICP
Principal Planner
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY
518-587-3550 ext. 2493
From: "Nadine Shadlock" <NadineO-nadineshadlock. com>
To: "Susan Barden" <susan.bardenCo),sarato a-springs.orq>
Cc: "Vincent DeLeonardis" <Vincent.deleonardis@saratoga-springs. org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 2:16:27 PM
Subject: RE: Regatta View Subdivision- Pathway along Route 9P
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining If
it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links.
Susan,
Thank you for your note below. The cost for the pathway on the HOA Land is on the site work budget
for the project with the asphalt pathway being 725 linear feet, at a cost of $21,000.
Please let me know if you would like to have a Zoom to discuss next steps.
Thank you!
Nadine
Nadine Feiden Shadlock, Esq.
518-281-6977
From: Susan Barden <Susan.bardengsaratoga-sprines.ore>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 20212:47 PM
To: Nadine Shadlock <Nadinegnadineshadlock.com>
Cc: Vincent DeLeonardis <vincent.deleonardis@saratosa-sprines.ore>
Subject: Re: Regatta View Subdivision- Pathway along Route 9P
Hi Nadine,
Sorry for just getting back to you on this. I have met with Vince and we would like to meet with you to
discuss further. Would you be available on Mon. late a.m. or afternoon? If not, please suggest a day
and time that work for you. We could conference call too if that's preferred.
In anticipation of that meeting, please provide estimated cost of the trail on HOA lands.
Thanks and best regards,
Susan
"Please visit our website for the new 2021 Application Forms and Fee Schedule.
Susan B. Barden, AICP
Principal Planner
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY
518-587-3550 ext. 2493
From: "Nadine Shadlock" <Nadine nadineshad lock. com>
To: "Vincent DeLeonardis" <vincent.deleonardisCaD-saratoga-springs.orq>
Cc: "Susan Barden" <susan.barden()-sarato aq sgrings.orq>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 8:39:04 AM
Subject: FW: Regatta View Subdivision- Pathway along Route 9P
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining If
It's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links.
Vince,
Good morning. Just a note to follow-up on our communications below. Would a call or Zoom be helpful
to discuss any questions? We would like to commit to the choice of Path alternative this season, either the DOT
route or on the HOA lands, and commence work to accomplish.
Thank you for your courtesy and assistance on this matter.
Nadine
Nadine Feiden Shadlock, Esq.
518-281-6977
From: Nadine Shadlock
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 20213:45 PM
To: Vincent DeLeonardis <vincent.deleonardis@saratoga-sprines.org>
Cc: Susan Barden <susan.barden@saratoea-sprin s�.org>
Subject: RE: Regatta View Subdivision- Pathway along Route 9P
Vince,
Good afternoon. As follow-up to your note below, attached is a copy of the details of the cost estimate
for the DOT Path alternative for Regatta View.
PIease let me know of any questions, or if anything further is needed.
Thank you!
Nadine
Nadine Feiden Shadlock, Esq.
518-281-6977
From: Vincent DeLeonardis <vincent.deleonardis@saratoea-sorines ore>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 20212:39 PM
To: Nadine Shadlock <Nadine@nadineshadlock.com>
Cc: Susan Barden <susan.barden@saratoea-sorines.ore>
Subject: Re: Regatta View Subdivision- Pathway along Route 9P
Nadine,
I have discussed this with Susan, who will be reaching out to the Planning Board Chair to determine
whether he is comfortable administratively recommending the use of rec fees toward this
project. Please forward documentation supporting the costs contained in the summary you have
provided. Ultimately, if recreation funds are used, it will require Council approval.
Best regards,
Vince
Vincent J. DeLeonardis
City Attorney
Saratoga Springs City Attorney's Office
474 Broadway - Room 7
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
(518) 587-3550 ext. 2414
From: "Nadine Shadlock" <Nadine-nadineshadlock.com>
To: "Vincent DeLeonardis" <vincent.deleonardis(&-saratoga-springs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 11:57:28 AM
Subject: FW: Regatta View Subdivision- Pathway along Route 9P
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if
it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links.
Vince,
Following up on my call of just now and note below. Please let me know any comments or if you would
like to touch base. We would like to move forward with the path at Regatta View while the season remains with
US.
Thanks! I
Nadine
Nadine Feiden Shadlock, Esq.
518-281-6977
From: Nadine Shadlock
Sent: Friday, August 27, 20213:52 PM
To: Vincent DeLeonardis <vincent.deleonardis saratoea-sorines.org>
Subject: Regatta View Subdivision- Pathway along Route 9P
5
Vince,
Good afternoon. A note to follow-up on my telephone message to your office of moments ago. I am
writing to confirm the result of our efforts with NYS DOT on the design and cost estimate for the path to be
located within the NYS DOT right of way. This has proven to be a lengthy and challenging process to reach the
point of having numbers for the cost to locate the path in the DOT ROW.
Attached is a summary describing our call of back in December, the two alternatives approved by the
Planning Board and the City preference for the path to be located in the DOT ROW. Also summarized are the
changes that DOT has required to the original design, as well as the cost differential.
I would appreciate it if you could review this summary and let me know of any questions. Thereafter, we would
like to be placed on the City Council Agenda to allow this request to be considered.
Thank you for your courtesy and assistance on this matter.
Nadine
Nadine Feiden Shadlock, Esq.
518-281-6977
Confidentiality/Privilege Notice: This e-mail communication and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and
confidential information from the City of Saratoga Springs and are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or
entity to which it has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or taking any other action with respect to the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Confidentiality/Privilege Notice: This e-mail communication and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and
confidential information from the City of Saratoga Springs and are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or
entity to which it has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or taking any other action with respect to the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Confidentiality/Privilege Notice: This e-mail communication and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and
confidential information from the City of Saratoga Springs and are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or
entity to which it has been addressed. if you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or taking any other action with respect to the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Confidentiality/Privilege Notice: This e-mail communication and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and
confidential information from the City of Saratoga Springs and are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or
entity to which it has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or taking any other action with respect to the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return.e-mail. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Nadine Shadlock
From: Nadine Shadlock
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 5:23 PM
To: Susan Barden (susan.barden@saratoga-springs.org)
Cc: Vincent DeLeonardis
Subject: FW: Regatta View Trail
Attachments: Tina Crowley RE_ Regatta View, NY9P Saratoga Springs.pdf, 2021-01-xx Response Ltr to
T Crowley.docx; 2021-01-14 NYSDOT Multiuse Path.pdf, 2021-10-06 Shared Use Path
Cost Estimate.pdf
Susan
Good afternoon. Attached are the materials assembled by EDP, Joe Dannible, in connection with the
efforts to develop the DOT walking path.
Please let me know on the check to the City for the $21,000 in lieu of fee. As mentioned in my last note,
I am assuming we should direct it to you to ensure that it is properly applied when it reaches the City Finance
Department.
Thank you.
Nadine
Nadine Feiden Shadlock, Esq.
518-281-6977
From: Joe Dannible <jannible@edpllp.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 20213:59 PM
To: Nadine Shadlock <Nadine@nadineshadlock.com>; Peter Belmonte <peter@belmontebuilders.com>
Subject: Regatta View Trail
Nadine and Peter,
The plans for the sidewalk within the ROW were never advanced to the level of construction documents. We advanced
the plans far enough to develop a reasonable construction estimate.
Attached are the most recent plans.
We have never responded to DOT comments from october of 2021. (attached)
Draft responses were prepared as we developed the "estimate" of plans. (attached)
Cost estimate was prepared and submitted to the City (attached)
To progress the plans forward to a point where they can be competitively bid would require
1. Finalize Stage two permit details
Exhibit F
Response to Tina Crowley comments (she is no longer with NYSDOT)
Submit latest set of plans
2. prepare construction documents
• Construction document plans (close to final)
• Specification book (significant effort needed)
• preparation of full bid package. (significant effort needed)
In my opinion if the city wants to take on the bidding and management of the construction for this section of the trail
they should send out an RFP to qualified design firms using our plans as the basis of design. The selected firm will need
to prepare construction documents, specifications, preparation of the bid book and assist with the bid process. There
could be $15,000-$20,000 or more of work needed to get this project to the point where a bidder can be selected. EDP
can provide Survey information and preliminary design as well as any information with have in our files
Joe
Joseph C. Dannible, R.L.A.
Partner
Environmental Design Partnership
900 Route 146
Clifton Park, NY 12065
518.347.7142 (direct)
From: Nadlne Shadiock
To: Susan Barden (susan.barden saratoaa-cnrinas ara)
Cc: Vincent DeLeonardis
Bcc: Peter Belmonte (oeter(Mbelmontebullders.com)• RLA Joseph C. Dannible fldannible@edollo.com); Bart) Wood
(barbObbelmontebuilders.com)
Subject: Regatta View Walking Path
Date: Tuesday, November 16, 20218:22:00 PM
Susan,
Thank you for our calls of today. When we spoke early today you suggested a hybrid
approach of Peter making the pathway improvements on the land (the "Path Improvements"),
by picking up the path at the DOT ROW on the west side of Regatta View Drive and
continuing the path to connect with existing path, with DOT to potentially be willing to
complete the crosswalk improvements at the intersection (the "Crosswalk Improvements").
You indicated if Peter was willing to proceed in this manner, the City would be willing to
reimburse the $50K in Rec Fees already paid back to Peter to provide funds for the increased
cost of the path due to greater width and blacktop.
I discussed with Peter, and already shared this with you, which I now summarize.
• Peter is willing to work through the alternative you suggest, subject to:
o DOT Permits: DOT bifurcating the permits into two. One for the Path
Improvements and the second for the Intersection Improvements.
o We appreciate your offer to be point person with DOT and believe that
would be helpful to expedite this process.
■ With DOT not now committing to complete the Crosswalk
Improvements, absent bifurcating the Permits, we do not see the
Path Improvements as being able to be completed in any
immediate timeframe.
■ As indicated, subject to getting the permit to allow the Path
Improvements, Peter is willing to immediately commence work,
subject to weather.
o As far as monies, you indicated that $50K in Rec Fees will be reimbursed
to the project. We will use the $21 K in lieu of fees for the Pathway
Improvements, and use the $50K to the extent necessary to cover the
wider path, engineering needed to satisfy DOT and for the blacktop which
has significantly increased in cost. With any portion of the $50K not
needed to complete the Pathway Improvements to be returned to the City.
• You mentioned the possibility of awaiting Spring to complete this. As discussed, a
great deal of time and money has already been devoted to this DOT Path. We would
like certainty, and to know how this will be concluded now, and not await Spring to
determine this.
o If we cannot achieve certainty on this we suggest we can stay with
payment of the $21 K in lieu of fee to the City, to which we have already
agreed, which would place the responsibility on the City to construct the
path.
Please let me know how you would like to proceed. I am available for a call.
Thank you!
Exhibit G
Nadine
Nadine Feiden Shadlock; Esy.
518-281-6977
Nadine Shadlock
From: Nadine Shadlock
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 9:05 AM
To: Susan Barden (susan.barden@saratoga-springs.org)
Cc: Vincent DeLeonardis
Subject: Re: Regatta View Walking Path
Susan/ Vince
Good morning. I am following up on my recent call with Susan and confirming note below. We would like to solidify the
approach below to allow us to proceed with certainty on topic of the walking path at Regatta View.
Please let me know.
Thank you!
Nadine
Nadine Feiden Shadlock, Esq.
518-281-6977
nadine@nadineshadlock.com
On Nov 16, 2021, at 8:22 PM, Nadine Shadlock <Nadine@nadineshadlock.com> wrote:
Susan,
Thank you for our calls of today. When we spoke early today you suggested a hybrid
approach of Peter making the pathway improvements on the land (the "Path Improvements"), by
picking up the path at the DOT ROW on the west side of Regatta View Drive and continuing the
path to connect with existing path, with DOT to potentially be willing to complete the crosswalk
improvements at the intersection (the "Crosswalk Improvements"). You indicated if Peter was
willing to proceed in this manner, the City would be willing to reimburse the $50K in Rec Fees
already paid back to Peter to provide funds for the increased cost of the path due to greater width
and blacktop.
I discussed with Peter, and already shared this with you, which I now summarize.
- Peter is willing to work through the alternative you suggest, subject to:
o DOT Permits: DOT bifurcating the permits into two. One for the Path
Improvements and the second for the Intersection Improvements.
o We appreciate your offer to be point person with DOT and believe that would
be helpful to expedite this process.
■ With DOT not now committing to complete the Crosswalk
Improvements, absent bifurcating the Permits, we do not see the Path
Improvements as being able to be completed in any immediate
timeframe.
• As indicated, subject to getting the permit to allow the Path
Improvements, Peter is willing to immediately commence work,
subject to weather.
o As far as monies, you indicated that $50K in Rec Fees will be reimbursed to
the project. We will use the $21K in lieu of fees for the Pathway
1
Exhibit H
Improvements, and use the $50K to the extent necessary to cover the wider
path, engineering needed to satisfy DOT and for the blacktop which has
significantly increased in cost. With any portion of the $50K not needed to
complete the Pathway Improvements to be returned to the City.
You mentioned the possibility of awaiting Spring to complete this. As discussed, a
great deal of time and money has already been devoted to this DOT Path. We would
like certainty, and to know how this will be concluded now, and not await Spring to
determine this.
o If we cannot achieve certainty on this we suggest we can stay with payment of
the $21K in lieu of fee to the City, to which we have already agreed, which
would place the responsibility on the City to construct the path.
Please let me know how you would like to proceed. I am available for a call.
Thank you!
Nadine
Nadine Feiden Shadlock, Esq.
518-281-6977
LAW OFFICE OF NADINE F. SHADLOCK
12 Van Rensselaer Blvd
Albany, New York 12204-1609
518-281-6977
nading2nadineshadlock com
nadineshadlock.com
NYS CeWf ed Women Owned Business Farterprise
NYC CerHffed WBE - NYSUCP DBE - SBA WOSB
SBA MZB Zone Cer t(fied SBC
Nadine Feiden Shadlock, Esq.
October 31, 2022
VIA, ELECTRONIC MAIL
Susan B. Barden, AICP
Principal Planner
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY
RE: Regatta View- Multi -use Path
Dear Susan,
A note to follow-up on our recent communications regarding the "Multi -use Path"
at Regatta View (the "Path") and its status.
As you may recall, this phase of Regatta View received final approval on
November 7, 2019. The Notice of Decision dated January 27, 2020, confirms there were
two potential alternatives for the Path:
Board preference to relocate the 8 jl. wide asphalt pedestrian path within
Slate DOT ROW adjacent to Union Ave., with connections to existing
pedestrian improvements, per DOT approval. Alternatively, if path to be
located on HO,4 lands, it shall be modified with connections to NYS ROW
at Regatta View Dr. and Dyer Switch Rd with crosswalk on Regatta View,
per plan presented at Nov 7 meeting.
The Planning Board preference is noted in the above language, that the Path be located
within the DOT ROW. My client, Peter Belmonte has respected that preference and
worked with his engineers, the Environmental Design Partnership ("EDP"), for three (3)
years next week, to secure the DOT approval and necessary permit to construct this Path.
During this time engineering drawings of the Path have been created and revised ongoing
to comply with DOT requirements and, to the extent received, DOT comments. We are
actually now on our third DOT representative. Additionally, I drafted the easement,
which has been reviewed, commented upon and approved by the City Attorney.
Despite my client and his professionals, including me, working on this for 3 years,
we have no expectation of this being brought to conclusion in the near future. During this
Exhibit I
time professional fees have exceeded the sum estimated to construct the Path in the
alternate location, on the HOA lands, of $25,000.00. Significant time has been spent my
client on this, with none of these many hours included in this current total.
We respectfully request that the City of Saratoga Springs now undertake securing
the DOT approval and permit, and the construction of this Path. EDP is prepared to
deliver signed and sealed drawings to you. I will have the fully executed Easement and
TP-584 delivered to you.
We appreciate your consideration of the foregoing
Thank you.
'Feidyen
' e S dlock, Esq.
CC: Peter J. Belmonte, Jr.
Encl.: Notice of Decision