The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20230378 Washington Land Disturbance Public Comment (5)Outlook Online Form Submittal: Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment From noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Date Tue 10/8/2024 10:07 AM To Julia Destino <Julia.Destino@saratoga-springs.org>; Susan Barden <Susan.Barden@saratoga-springs.org> 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. Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment SUBMIT COMMENTS REGARDING CITY PROJECTS Thank you for submitting your comments. Your feedback will be forwarded to the City's Planning Department and Land Use Board members. NOTE: Comments submitted later than 12:00 noon on the day before the Land Use Board meeting may not be reviewed prior to their meeting. All comments will be added to the project file in the Planning Department. Land Use Board Planning Board Name David Hrebenach Email Address davehrebenach@gmail.com Business Name Field not completed. Address 18 Outlook Ave City Saratoga Springs State NY Zip Code 12866 Phone Number 518-681-0492 Project Name Washington St. and West Ave. Land Disturbance Activity Permit and Watercourse/Wetland Permit Project Number 20230378 Project Address 239 Washington St Saratoga Springs, NY Comments Please refer to the attachment for my 2-page public comment Attach Photo (optional)Formal Statement to the SS Planning Board re Mohr Property.pdf 10/8/24, 10:19 AM Mail - Julia Destino - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADI5NDIzZGRiLTQwNjEtNGM1MS05ZmQxLTUyZTNkMzFiZDJiZQAQAOv10ey1rGxPoA4g40jwLRk…1/2 Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 10/8/24, 10:19 AM Mail - Julia Destino - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADI5NDIzZGRiLTQwNjEtNGM1MS05ZmQxLTUyZTNkMzFiZDJiZQAQAOv10ey1rGxPoA4g40jwLRk…2/2 Public Comment - Washington Ave. Land Disturbance Plans Submitted by Dave and Patty Hrebenach of 18 Outlook Ave. We’re 26-year residents of Saratoga Springs and 3-year residents of Outlook Ave. A signiflcant factor in choosing the Outlook Ave area was the added environmental beneflt of a protected forested wetland across from us. We fully planned and expected the land to be forever wild. Below are the technical points I have regarding the regulations and requirements associated with the parcel in question. • NYSDEC Letter (March 13, 2024). NYSDEC states whereas the parcel in question doesn’t at this time fall under the jurisdiction of DEC, the State warns: “… Be advised that changes to Article 24 regulations are expected in January of 2025. Information regarding wetland mapping and jurisdictional determinations may be subject to change when new regulations go into effect.” Given NYS’s warning that the regulations will change in 3 months, any decision regarding environmental or wetland parcel usage should be delayed until those critical changes are known. The January revision will establish a category of “Small wetlands of unusual importance “ deflned by 11 criteria, several of which appear to be applicable. Further, the letter states that one basis on which NYSDEC came to their decision was that the wetland was not “required” to be mapped, however the coming revision will change this from a requirement to a guideline. [NYS Freshwater Wetland Act Article 24 revision January 2025] • Any attempt to divorce a permit to clear land/wetland from a permit to development land is incongruous. The service and value of the wetland forest can’t be determined unless compared against the alternative use. • Although the 7-acre parcel is designated as T-5 commercial/residential, it has historically been protected as an area containing NYSDEC & USACE forested wetland. The wetlands were protected for their environmental beneflt which has not changed as a result of this administrative technicality. I would maintain that the city still has the authority to directly apply the same original wetland protection criteria for “preserving the environmental, social and economic value of the parcel”. • Development of the parcel will absolutely have a signiflcant negative impact on surrounding home values along Outlook and Central Ave’s. For people who originally purchased property adjacent to wetlands that were protected, is there any recourse for those who would quite possibly be loosing $10,000 to $20,000 in property value? • In line with a range of City plans and directives ensuring the maintenance of a ‘city in the country’ (e.g. the comprehensive plan, open space plan, green city plan, greenbelt initiative, etc). this parcel serves as a buffer between residential and commercial lands and the destruction of which by the placement of 7 acres of additional commercial property will result in the destruction of this buffer zone going against these city policies and plans along with causing a devaluation of residential properties for the entire south end of both Outlook and Central Ave’s. Questions/Challenges for the permitee: • Please clarify why this isn’t a SEQR Type II action requiring a full EIS? This parcel which was historically all wetland and then subject to decades of unmonitored C&D and garbage dumping (ref. Mohr sponsored Archaeological Investigation), and currently adjacent to a car garage, carwash and gas station isn’t being fully characterized for the presence of hazardous wastes. • Please clarify how actions are in line with the Saratoga Springs Conservation Area Protection & No Cut Buffer Policy adoption. • Has a Wetland Disturbance Permit under Section 13.6 of the wetland standard been issued? • Regarding the parcel owners proposed grading and drainage plan: o It states that the 1, 10, and 100-year runoff fiow will be equal to existing conditions. How can that possibly take into account the existing inflltration of forested wetlands compared to a proposed commercial development? If its intended to characterize expected runoff of the empty graded earth parcel, that would be mischaracterizing the planned intent of selling and developing the land. o In connection to the above the plans proposed stormwater detention volume decrease from 6.06 acres to 1.35 acres. Where is this storm surge going? The property outfall swale is already backing up in the city storm drains and fiooding adjacent residents’ basements during high fiows. o Does the owners grading plan account for (and pay for) any city storm drain over capacity along with flnancial assurance for any/all resultant fiooding of adjacent residents? • A last note about the increasing needs for more realistic land use planning, I understand that the USACE and NYS are now reviewing and revising the 100-year fioodplain maps due to the increasing number of record-breaking high precipitation rain events. Also, numerous Federal agencies are being tasked to develop or adjust sustainability plans to account for this trend. Many northeastern areas are re -estimating 100-year fioodplains to as much as an equivalent to 1000- year plains. Should our planning board begin taking into consideration these re calculations? I understand the insurance companies are doing so. 6 NYCRR Part 664, Freshwater Wetlands Jurisdiction and Classification https://dec.ny.gov/nature/waterbodies/wetlands/freshwater-wetlands-program