The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20230378 Washington Land Disturbance Public Comment (56)Outlook Fw: Online Form Submittal: Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment From Julia Destino <Julia.Destino@saratoga-springs.org> Date Wed 1/15/2025 12:35 PM To Mark Graham <Mark.Graham@saratoga-springs.org> this one too, same place Julia Des no Planner City of Saratoga Springs 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Phone: 518-587-3550 ext. 2533 From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 10:04 AM To: Julia Des no <Julia.Des no@saratoga-springs.org>; Susan Barden <Susan.Barden@saratoga-springs.org> Subject: Online Form Submi al: Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment 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 Michael L DeLorenzo Email Address md001i@yahoo.com Business Name Field not completed. Address 13 Central Ave City Saratoga Springs 1/15/25, 2:04 PM Mail - Mark Graham - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQALzY%2B7sARelAuDyQpnMTs…1/2 State NY Zip Code 12866 Phone Number 5857272746 Project Name 239 Washington St Land Disturbance Project Number 20230378 Project Address 13 Central Ave Comments As my comments are too large to fit in this text field, please see the attached document with my comments and concerns. Kindly, Mike Attach Photo (optional)Letter to the Planning Board - 20250114 rev A.docx Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 1/15/25, 2:04 PM Mail - Mark Graham - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQALzY%2B7sARelAuDyQpnMTs…2/2 To the Saratoga Springs Planning Board, I write to you as a concerned neighbor regarding the proposed land disturbance permit at 239 Washington Street (Project 20230378 Washington Land Disturbance). Saratoga Springs, celebrated as the "City in the Country," exemplifies a harmonious balance between its dynamic urban core and the surrounding rural landscape. This balance is at the heart of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which emphasizes sustainability as the guiding principle for future development. The Plan prioritfzes investments that yield long-term benefits, enhancing economic opportunitfes and community well-being while safeguarding the natural and human resources essentfal to the City’s identfty. The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) directly reflects this vision by establishing policies to encourage orderly development, protect public health and safety, and preserve the character and natural resources of the community. Specifically, the UDO's stated purpose underscores the importance of safeguarding natural resources, protectfng the environment, and preserving Saratoga Springs' heritage. These policies align seamlessly with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which promotes sustainability, historic preservatfon, and thoughtiul development as the foundatfon for a vibrant, livable, and economically resilient community. The proposed land disturbance permit at 239 Washington Street runs counter to these principles, and I respectiully urge the Board to consider how this project deviates from the UDO's purpose and the broader goals of the Comprehensive Plan. While Sectfon 13.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) allows for land disturbance permits, the intent and requirements outlined in this sectfon are not being adhered to in this case. Contradiction with Ordinance Purpose The stated purpose of the land disturbance actfvity permit is to “protect the City’s natural environment by minimizing adverse effects which site preparation and associated construction activities may have on soil, water, and vegetative resources.” The ordinance clearly tfes land disturbance actfvitfes to site preparatfon and constructfon. However, the current proposal does not include any such actfvitfes. It simply seeks to make the site “shovel ready” by removing trees and filling in wetlands, causing significant environmental harm without any specific development plan or offsetting community or economic benefits. This directly conflicts with the purpose of the permit, which emphasizes resource protectfon— not destructfon. Lack of Subdivision or Site Plan Sectfon 13.7 of the UDO also states, “To the extent practicable, the Planning Board shall coordinate review of the land disturbance activity permit with associated subdivision or site plan review applications.” This provision ensures that environmental impacts are evaluated within the broader context of a development plan. In this case, no subdivision or site plan has been submitted, leaving the Planning Board without critfcal informatfon to assess the project’s full scope and impacts. By proceeding without these plans, the Board risks setting a dangerous precedent, enabling applicants to bypass proper review and “piecemeal” projects through the approval process—an actfon that may violate New York State Department of Environmental Conservatfon (DEC) regulatfons on segmentatfon. Requiring a site plan would align with Sectfon 13.5 of the UDO, which outlines necessary details for proper evaluatfon. Without such a plan, the Board cannot accurately assess essentfal aspects, such as the adequacy of buffers, environmental mitfgatfon measures, or community impact. Approving this project without a site plan undermines the intent of the UDO and opens the door for future applicants to exploit this process. Premature Action Regarding DEC Review The project proposes filling in a 0.45-acre wetland and removing trees, actfons that would result in significant environmental damage: • Wetland Destructfon: Wetlands are critfcal for flood preventfon, water filtratfon, and wildlife habitat. Destroying this wetland would eliminate these essentfal functfons and increase flood risks in the surrounding area, partfcularly given the watershed's history of flooding. • State Protectfons: As of January 1, 2025, wetlands of any size in urban areas are protected under updated state regulatfons. This wetland, located in an urban area, falls under these protectfons. Grantfng the permit without addressing these new regulatfons would violate state law. The Board’s recent consideratfon of the chair’s conditfonal approval, pending the DEC’s 90-day review of updated wetlands regulatfons, is deeply concerning. Sectfon 13.5(E)(2) of the UDO mandates that decisions comply with all provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The proposed conditfonal approval circumvents this requirement, effectfvely prioritfzing expediency over due diligence. Because of the potentfal for the site’s wetlands to fall under new state protectfons, the prudent course of actfon is to wait for the DEC review before making any decisions. The applicant has admitted there is no prospectfve buyer, and this project has been under discussion for 10 years. Given this, there is no urgency to approve the permit. A 90-day delay to ensure compliance with updated regulatfons is reasonable and necessary. Inconsistent Positions and Lack of Justification I also draw your attentfon to the Planning Board’s detailed meetfng minutes from October 10, 2024. At that tfme, multfple board members expressed valid concerns about the lack of a development proposal: • Mike said, “without a development proposal, it’s incredibly hard to support this.” • Mark said “he’s struggling with Stephanie’s comment that “there’s no plan for development” and “that’s why we have land disturbance”. How does this proposal facilitate development in the future and leaving the site in its current condition prevent that?” • Kerry said, “he agrees with Mike and Tony. He said it’s not helpful that the applicant is comparing a shovel ready site to large industrial sites like Global Foundries. He said a residential developer can envision this site and build a site plan.” • Patty said, “she appreciated hearing that the Mohr’s are good neighbors and hearing the public comments. She said she agrees with the concerns that have been expressed by the other board members. She said to just clearcut the property without a plan is a non-starter for her. There have been instances where projects have been changed to keep areas that were originally going to be removed. She said making this property shovel ready is a very negative way to approach this project.” • Bill M. said, “the area is zoned Neighborhood Commercial T-5 District and boarders a residential district along Outlook Ave. He said if there was an application before the board for a mixed-use property, they would be looking at buffers along the protection zone along the residential area. Without a project how do they know where to draw the line for buffers. He said the board is in a real dilemma having to approve a project that they know nothing about. They can’t just clearcut the property on speculation. He said he’s listening to both sides and there’s a genuine frustration here. He said he has nothing at the moment that signals a solution.” • Chuck Marshall said, “the board has repeatedly heard from concerned neighbors that there is no plan and the large extent of proposed disturbance. It’s his understanding that it’s the planning board’s discretion and authority to limit both of those concerns.“ Since October 2024, there has been no substantfve change to the project scope or documents to address these concerns. The project remains a proposal to destroy natural resources without providing any economic or community benefits. What has changed in the Board’s perspectfve to warrant reconsideratfon? Request for Denial The intent of the UDO is to balance development with environmental protectfon. Without a site plan or subdivision proposal, this project offers no framework for assessing its impact or aligning it with community needs. It violates the ordinance’s intent, causes clear environmental harm, and disregards procedural requirements. Approving this permit would not only violate the spirit of the UDO but also set a troubling precedent for future applicatfons. I urge the Planning Board to deny this permit, ensuring compliance with the UDO intent, proper evaluatfon under SEQRA, and alignment with the DEC’s pending wetlands regulatfons. Protectfng Saratoga Springs’ natural resources and ensuring transparent, thoughtiul development is essentfal for the long-term health of our community. Very respectiully, Michael DeLorenzo 13 Central Ave