Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230378 Washington Land Disturbance Public Comment (49)Outlook Fw: Comments - Washington St. and West Ave Land Disturbance Activity Permit - 20230378 From Susan Barden <Susan.Barden@saratoga-springs.org> Date Wed 1/8/2025 3:30 PM To Julia Destino <Julia.Destino@saratoga-springs.org> From: fenton@nycap.rr.com <fenton@nycap.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 11:50 AM To: Susan Barden <Susan.Barden@saratoga-springs.org> Subject: Comments - Washington St. and West Ave Land Disturbance Acvity Permit - 20230378   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. Hi Susan. The online form wouldn’t accept the entire text of my comments. Could you send them along to the planning board? I reviewed the part of the video of the 12/12 planning board meeting pertaining to the application for a land disturbance activity permit on the Mohr property. At one point, in response to his question, a board member was told that the board should confine their review to the requirements of the UDO and not be concerned about the changes to NYSDEC wetlands regulations that took effect on January 1, 2025. However, though the UDO is a little confusing in its use of the terms “wetland” and “jurisdictional wetland,” much about wetlands in the UDO hinges on federal and DEC jurisdiction. Therefore, the new regulations have a significant bearing on the board’s review of the application. The UDO definition of a jurisdictional wetland is, “An area of land that is characterized by hydrophytic vegetation, saturated soils, or periodic inundation, which is classified as a wetland or by either the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.” 13.7.D.3.b. provides that an application for a land disturbance activity permit must include a soil erosion and sediment control plan with, “All watercourse, wetlands, rock outcrops and other important land features (including all 100 year federally designated flood hazard and New York State regulated wetlands).” Changes to the Environmental Conservation Law and associated regulations pertaining to wetlands have reduced the size of jurisdictional wetlands from 12.4 to 7.4 acres. Not an issue here, but there are new protections for smaller wetlands of “unusual importance,” as defined in the law and regulations. The list of criteria that would qualify a wetland of any size as one of unusual importance includes a location within or adjacent to an urban area, as defined by the United States census (Saratoga Springs qualifies), and that it was previously mapped by DEC as a wetland on or before December 31, 2024. Though it may be that only the more northerly wetland was previously mapped, both are within the Saratoga Springs urban area. Of course it 1/9/25, 11:30 AM Mail - Julia Destino - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADI5NDIzZGRiLTQwNjEtNGM1MS05ZmQxLTUyZTNkMzFiZDJiZQAQAG9Yn%2F4CJEmBn5tJvsibJ…1/2 is important that a DEC representative clarify the applicability of the new regulations to the Mohr property. A slide presented by the applicant’s representative suggested that, “proposed regulations have no legal effect.” However, information available on the DEC website indicates that the regulations are no longer simply proposed. They have been adopted and took effect on January 1. The regulations lay out criteria for exemption, and it does not appear that this project meets any of them: 664.1. Applicability (a) This Part applies to all wetlands regulated under the Freshwater Wetlands Act, whether regulated by the department or by a local government… (c) Where a property owner or applicant received, prior to January 1, 2025, either a freshwater wetlands permit issued by the department or a letter from the department notifying them that their freshwater wetlands application is complete, the project may proceed under the freshwater wetlands jurisdictional determination issued by the department prior to January 1, 2025, until expiration of the issued permit. (d) Where a property owner has commenced, or plans to commence a project on a parcel that did not require a freshwater wetlands permit prior to January 1, 2025, and has a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the project which has been accepted by a lead agency pursuant to Part 617 of this Title prior to January 1, 2025, has received a negative declaration for a Type I or Unlisted actions pursuant to Part 617 of this Title for the project prior to January 1, 2025, or has received written site plan approval from a local government for the project prior to January 1, 2025, this Part shall not be applicable to such parcel until the following dates: (1) July 1, 2028, for projects determined to be Major projects pursuant to section 621.4 of this Title. (2) January 1, 2027, for projects determined to be Minor Projects pursuant to section 621.4 of this Title. Many of the parts of the UDO that refer to wetlands became outdated on January 1, including the boundaries of the Watercourse Protection Overlay District. It appears that now the smaller wetland on the southern part of the property should be included. Nevertheless, if the 2 wetlands on the Mohr parcel fell under DEC jurisdiction on January 1, and since State law prohibits filling regulated wetlands, the board should not issue a land disturbance activity permit that authorizes the filling of either wetland. In addition, if both wetlands on the Mohr parcel are now subject to the new DEC regulations, would the proposal not require a watercourse/wetland permit? Thanks, Rick Fenton 23 Lefferts St 518-421-7098 1/9/25, 11:30 AM Mail - Julia Destino - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADI5NDIzZGRiLTQwNjEtNGM1MS05ZmQxLTUyZTNkMzFiZDJiZQAQAG9Yn%2F4CJEmBn5tJvsibJ…2/2