Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260091 Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Subdivision Modification Public Comment (7)Outlook Submission for Distribution and Public Record – April 23, 2026 Planning Board Meeting (#20240614, #20260090, #20260091 Lexington Road / Bemis Heights Subdivision) From Independence Square <independencesquaressny@gmail.com> Date Wed 4/22/2026 12:42 AM To Mark Graham <Mark.Graham@saratoga-springs.org> 7 attachments (8 MB) Zoning Statement.docx; Not Vested Excerpt.docx; 3-26-26 p6 Meeting Minutes.pdf; 2022 p5 No Vested Meeting Minutes.pdf; RR x 2 PB draft agenda 04 23 26 rev. 2.pdf; RR Final Subdivision.pdf; Zoning Map.jpg; Caution: This is an external email and may have suspicious content or subject. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments. When in doubt, contact IT. Dear Mr. Graham, I am writing to provide the attached document regarding Project #20240614 (Lexington Road Subdivision), Project #20260091 (Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Subdivision Modification), and Project #20260090 (Watercourse/Wetlands Permit), which are currently before the Planning Board. The attachment requests that the Board defer final plat action and clarify, for the record, whether this proposal is being reviewed as a continuation of a prior UR-1 approval or as a new subdivision subject to current Rural Residential (RR) zoning. As outlined, the Phase 3 portion was never constructed, no meaningful site work occurred, the current applicant is not the original developer, and the proposal reflects a materially different layout. The submission also notes that the property is identified as RR in the City Zoning Map, prior and recent Planning Board minutes, and the applicant’s materials. Supporting documentation is included in the attachments titled: “3-26-26 p6 Meeting Minutes,” “2022 p5 No Vested Meeting Minutes,” “RR Final Subdivision,” “Not Vested Excerpt,” and “RR x2 PB Draft Agenda 04-23-26 Rev. 2.” It further states that density and SEQRA review should be based on current RR zoning and actual buildable land. I respectfully request that this submission be distributed to all members of the Planning Board and included in the official public record. Thank you for your time and consideration. 4/22/26, 8:05 AM Inbox - Mark Graham - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQAGmNlnXa8i1KuoEi1DqeIT8…1/2 Sincerely, Caroline Reals 2 Bemis Heights Dr. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 4/22/26, 8:05 AM Inbox - Mark Graham - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQAGmNlnXa8i1KuoEi1DqeIT8…2/2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 2026 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Mark Pingel, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mark Pingel, Chair, Tony Stellato, Alex White, Kerry Mayo, Mike King ABSENT: Joe Ferrante, Vice-Chair, William “Bill” McTygue STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Amy Valyou, City Engineer, Michael Tuller, Principal Planner, Mark Schachner, Attorney, Miller Mannix (via remotely) A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: Note: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any applications that appear to be ‘approvable’ without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the ‘consent agenda’ and dealt with individually. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 1. #20260093 129 Circular St. Special Use Permit for a historic carriage house conversion to a single-family residence in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Mike Tuck, Balzer Tuck Architecture represented the applicants who are seeking to convert a historic carriage house to a second residence on their property. The applicant presented to the DRB last spring regarding exterior modifications to the structure, doors and windows, and received approval. The initial plan was that the carriage house would be a recreational area with a powder room. They would now like to make it a full bath upstairs which would require a zoning variance, or to convert it to a single-family residence because of the historic nature of the carriage house, which is what they chose to do. Built around 1832, the residence and carriage house are located in the Eastside Historic District. During the DRB process the Historic Preservation Foundation submitted a letter indicating that it is a contributing structure to the Historic District. The neighborhood is a mix of single-family and multi-family residences. The west side of the carriage house faces the parking lot to the fire department, and the south side faces a single-family detached garage, the north side has a 60 ft. setback to the neighboring property. Vehicular access is through a private driveway off of Circular St. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 26, 2026 - Page 2 of 13 There will be no change to traffic patterns, increased demands on infrastructure, or changes to the footprint of the existing building as a result of this project. Mark Pingel, Chair said a Public Hearing is required because the request is for a Special Use Permit. There were no comments from the public, and the Public Hearing was closed. Board Comments: Mark said there was a question at the Workshop about the organization of the driveway. Mike Tuck said they submitted a site plan to the Board illustrating that west on the driveway there’s two parking spaces that could be for the main house. As you pull forward there’s an additional parking space for the carriage house if necessary. Mike K. asked if the two land lots on the parcel were of concern to the Board. Susan said there’s no construction contemplated so it’s not a concern for the Board prior to considering this application. Tony noted that this was Madame Jumel’s house and that it has a very interesting history. Tony Stellato made a motion approve a Special Use Permit for 129 Circular St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: T. Stellato-Y, M. King-Y, K. Mayo-Y, M. Pingel-Y, A. White-Y. 5-0, motion carried. 2. #20260089 67 West Ave. Saratoga Integrity Auto LLC. Site Plan review for use of a portion of the building and site for vehicle dealership – enclosed only in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 3. #20260141 67 West Ave. The Igloo. Site Plan review for a reuse of an existing building and site for a marijuana dispensary and two commercial tenant spaces in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. Matt Brobston, LA Group represented the cannabis dispensary and the land owner of the parcel. The application submitted by the LA Group will be the one considered for site plan for the dispensary and dealership. The property is the site of original Rod and Gun Club for the city and is the reason for the length of the building which was to accommodate a shooting range inside. More recently it was Adirondack Appliance warehouse and showroom. Matt showed photos of the existing condition of the site. They will be increasing the porosity on the site by removing one of the entrances on West Ave., eliminating a curb cut, creating more greenspace along the streetscape on West Ave., and eliminating a loading dock that was used for loading and unloading appliances. The entrances will be at the northerly end of the parking lot, and they will be re-grading due to slopes, and adding two trees. The plan was updated to include dumpster locations and a bike rack. With the combined uses, 27 parking spaces with two handicap accessible spaces are required. The south side of the parking lot will accommodate a loading area and employee parking only. The public parking area will be separate from the loading/employee area. The landscaping will be updated along the foundation of the façade on West Ave. The building use will be divided with the Auto Sales (2,775sf & 6 parking spaces) to the left, the Dispensary in the center (1,925sf & 6 parking spaces) and a space for possible eating and drinking (1,530sf & 15 parking spaces) on the right (based on most intense use for parking). There are spaces at the front that could be banked (10) if the use were not an eating and drinking facility. Susan said if banked parking is built later, the applicant must return to justify more parking. Banked parking is for applicants that want to provide less parking than is required, and a means for them to show that they can meet the required spaces if necessary in the future. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 26, 2026 - Page 3 of 13 Mark Pingel, Chair asked how the Board could approve the SUPs without the Auto Sales Dealer applicant being present; the two applicants have not fully coordinated with each other. Susan noted there’s a county response from last Thursday asking for additional information. They only reviewed the information for the indoor car dealership without the site plan for the marijuana dispensary and they would like to review them together. The County Planning Board commented in December of 2023 that there was concern about the size and volume of the auto transport carrier for the vehicles being sold and the flow of such a carrier on the site. They requested the site plan information that addresses access deliveries and flow around the site and how the multiple uses within the building will function concurrently – shared infrastructure, shared parking, access drives, loading areas, etc. as well as potential operational conflicts and how they will be mitigated. Matt said he was disappointed that he had not heard the County comments before this meeting because now there’s no way for them to move forward tonight. He was also disappointed that the plan he presented tonight was not submitted to the County Planning Board for consideration; it feels like tonight’s meeting was a waste of time for him and the Planning Board. Matt asked if there were any questions or comments from the board that they can work on and present at the next meeting. Kerry asked about the southern curb cut. Matt said they’re showing it on the plan as it exists now with a center turn lane on West Ave. It will be used for loading and unloading vehicles (related to the County’s question). He will give a further explanation of the loading dock turning movement and employee parking at the next meeting. Tony asked where used oil, etc. will be stored – inside or outside. If the storage is outside it needs to be shown on the site plan. He would like a narrative on the existing and proposed stormwater drainage. Mike K. would like to see three bike racks – two in the “U” and one on the west side. He would appreciate anything they can do to share or bank parking spaces. Mark – banked parking – what’s the plan? The board needs delivery clarity before and after. How will the doors be used? He asked about the existing curb cuts. Matt said the curb cuts will remain. Mark asked them to clarify the bike racks on the site plan. They need an analysis of the delivery scenarios on the south side. Mark noted that removing some impervious surface would be great and might allow for another tree. The applicant should be cognizant of outside waste storage; should there be any they would have to return for board approval. The board needs more information on where water runoff will go. The shared users need to talk to each other so the county PB and this PB can get one story at one time. Tony said outside storage would apply to tires and anything outside being stored that gets hauled away. It should be stored inside or shown specifically on the plan unless it’s inside the trash enclosure. 4. #20260062 33 Marion Ave. Stewart’s Site Plan. Site plan review of a proposed 4,500 sq. ft. convenience store and gas pumps, 3,000 sq. ft. commercial tenant space, and associated site work in the Gateway Commercial Urban (GC-U) District. Libby Clark, Attorney represented the applicant. Also present, Chuck Marshall, Stewart’s representative. SEQRA was completed, area variances were granted, demo and architectural review are complete, and county comments have been submitted. Libby displayed the revised site plan layout. The significant change is that the parking was eliminated and the interconnect from the bank was added. There’s a conservation easement that will be provided to the northern edge of the property. The ingress and egress are through the curb cuts that are shown – some on a National Grid license, but the majority of the development is on Stewart’s parcels. Revised architectural plans show revised elevations in response to Tony Stelatto’s previous request. Some of the changes from the last meeting with the PB are City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 26, 2026 - Page 4 of 13 in response to the meeting with the DRB – materials (now stone along the bottom), color, and orientation changed. As requested by the Board, Libby presented a revised crosswalk and sidewalk location plan, and revised architectural plans and renderings. A detailed sketch of the location of the mechanicals and landscaping east of the store were presented. DOT – the trees are to remain on private property and the Sternberg lighting to be added in the right-of- way. Chuck Marshall – NYSDOT – future buildout and the relationship to Maple Dell as you travel into the less dense corridor. Pink on the map represents what will be installed in the future by Stewart’s and the green color is what will be installed for this project. The yellow represents improvement by the city in the future. At the intersection of Marion Ave. and the Arterial there’s an existing pedestrian crossing in place (currently land with no place to go on the north side). Libby – fencing – the DRB recommended black with no slats but understanding that fencing is the PB’s purview. Stewart’s will comply with the DRB’s recommendation with regard to the dumpster. In conversation with the neighbors to the north on Marion, Stewart’s offered to build a fence (375 ft. of conservation area) (their existing stockade fence is on Stewart’s property). Stewart’s proposal was to extend their fence and via lot line give the residents the property in perpetuity. The neighbors prefer that Stewart’s install a stockade fence (130 ft.) on the northern boundary of Stewart’s property, before the conservation easement begins because “we don’t want to look in to your site and see it”. In that case, Chuck said they prefer the 6 ft. black chain link because it matches the DRB request. He said a 6 ft. fence to the woods doesn’t make sense because the neighbor’s concern is lateral vision into the site, but their soffits are 12 ft., and their porch is 10 ft. – they’ll see the lights regardless because the fence is only 6 ft. high. DRB’s request for black chain link was only for the dumpster fence. Libby said this new fence came up from a neighbor comment. Chuck said they’ll do whatever the Board decides. Chuck said one of the neighbor’s comments was that there’s quite a bit of debris in the conservation area. It will be removed before the project commences. There’s 350 ft. of trees between Stewart’s and the neighbors on Marion. Libby said there needs to be a gate on the fence at the rear of the mechanicals. Tony would like a fence/screen wall high enough to hide the mechanicals (6” above). Chuck said if a taller screen wall can be administratively approved by the DRB Chair, Stewart’s will go 6” over the top of the mechanicals. Mark recalls SEQRA discussion about crossings and the Board was very close to SEQRA Part 3 until there was agreement that there would be a sidewalk all the way up to the north on Stewart’s property, and a crossing on Avenue A and Maple Dell (subject to DOT approval). DOT has proposed a different plan, but they should be asked if they would agree with the plan the planning board and applicant came up with and agreed to. The conversation has to be had. Chuck said DOT’s comment was that the city has to ask for it, which Stewart’s would fully support. Chuck noted that the conservation area would then have a sidewalk through it with no one to maintain it. Tony said Stewart’s would be responsible for maintaining according to the streets and sidewalk code. He corrected his previous statement citing City Code Chapter 203, Streets and Sidewalks, snow and ice removal “the owner/occupant or person in charge of an improved or unimproved lot adjoining a city street shall remove the snow from the sidewalk”. This is not a city street, so they need to determine who maintains the sidewalks as part of the site plan approval. Chuck said it will be delineated in the conservation easement. If they are unable to get a grading easement from the family of the deceased (Healey property) resident, Stewart’s would be willing to install a sidewalk along the National Grid frontage providing that National Grid would allow that (Pointing on the map that doesn’t show up on the video). Mike K. – there’s no need to get permission from City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 26, 2026 - Page 5 of 13 National Grid because the right side of Marion is in the State right-of-way. Mike said everyone agrees that they would like to have sidewalks on both sides of Marion Ave. There’s an existing crosswalk at the Arterial. The Board would like 2 crosswalks: one at the southern end of Stewart’s property and one at Avenue A. Chuck said they will talk with DOT about a subsequent crossing at Avenue A. If it’s allowed, Stewart’s will install it and put a sidewalk on the eastern side. They will not be putting sidewalk on the western side. Adirondack Trust Bank has a kiosk that’s leased to them from National Grid who owns the parcel. Currently there’s an interconnect between the two parcels. Chuck said they showed parking at that location that was not counted in their parking space count, eliminated the interconnect and then reinstalled it. Mark said having an entrance from Stewart’s property could be helpful with some of the congestion in the area. Interconnections are a good thing. Tony feels that the DRB’s request to have a dumpster fence that’s see through is not a good thing. He said it should be a solid but not vinyl fence. Chuck said typically it’s a white vinyl enclosure which the DRB is opposed to. He said they could do a “sided” fence that matches the building. Tony asked if there would be a fence on the north side of the parking lot. Chuck said they didn’t show a fence, but he would do it if it’s required. Although, his solution is to give the neighbors their fence and the land and finish the length of it along their property. Tony said the conservation easement is green and is an enhancement to the site, it shouldn’t be hidden by a fence. Chuck said what they would propose is a 4 ft. black chain link fence to create a separation and keep litter from blowing into the conservation area. Susan asked if the Board would consider black chain link around the dumpster with additional landscaping. Tony said that would be acceptable, but he likes the siding idea better. Chuck prefers the siding. Mark’s list: Fence to the north – right now there’s a fence to the north on the conservation parcel. Chuck has offered to the neighbor to extend the fence and then give them the land via lot line so the entire fence would be on the neighbor’s property. Tony said the conservation easement enhances the entire area, not just the residential area, and that should be respected. The Board members agreed that they do not want a fence on the southern end of the conservation easement. What happens with the fence on the northern side is between Stewart’s and the neighbor. Dumpster fence – sided to match the building. Sidewalks – whatever sidewalks are on the eastern side and north of the National Grid parcel will be maintained by Stewart’s. Fence to the west – screen wall to either be administratively approved by the DRB chair at the height of the mechanicals or screened by landscaping. If the DRB doesn’t approve then the condition is that the black chain link fence would have to have additional landscaping. Gate to the east Conservation easement area to be maintained by Stewart’s. DOT – there will be a crosswalk either on the Healey’s property (with an easement) or the next property up. Chuck said they will communicate what the Board would like to see. If they’re not able to achieve them Stewart’s will seek to put a sidewalk on the eastern side from the Arterial to Stewart’s. Mike suggested that if the Healey property is not an option, that a crosswalk be built at Avenue A. Chuck will copy the city with any information being discussed with DOT. Susan asked that the site plan for the ATM minus the parking be included with the drawings. She said DOT will likely allow pedestrian streetlights in the tree belt and they should be included with the plans, subject to DOT approval. Add that the conservation easement will be City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 26, 2026 - Page 6 of 13 to the satisfaction of the Planning Board legal counsel and accepted by the City Council. Libby said she’ll send it to Tony Izzo, and they’ll work out the mechanics of the easement. Mike King made a motion for site plan approval for 33 Marion Ave. with the conditions mentioned above. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: T. Stellato-Y, M. King- Y, K. Mayo-Y, M. Pingel-Y, A. White-Y. 5-0, motion carried. 5. #20260090 Lexington Rd. and Bemis Heights Rd. Watercourse/Wetlands permit associated with a proposed subdivision modification in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Mark said there was a Negative Declaration for SEQRA, zoning variances were granted, and the County referral stating that the project “has no significant impact”, has been received by the city. Bruce Steves, Attorney Jones, Steves, Grassi and Dominic Arico, project engineer represented the applicant, Art Curto. NYSDEC has issued an individual water quality certification with respect to the project that allows ACOE to move forward with a final wetlands’ disturbance permit. It is Bruce’s recent understanding that ACOE is prepared to issue the final permit for the project. Bruce talked about the Watercourse Wetland Permit: • Proposing to fill .44 acres of Federal wetlands, two of the 8 areas are to accommodate the proposed roadway. • Approximately 69 linear feet of permanent perennial stream impacts. • One proposed temporary perennial stream impact of approximately 18 liner feet (where the culvert will go). • Everything outside the limits of disturbance, 17.81 acres, will be deed restricted. As part of the application restrictive covenants were submitted in the form required by the ACOE. Along with that, the applicant submitted a red line to show changes the applicant made to the restrictions that the ACOE would require to accommodate the concerns expressed by the Board at previous meetings: 1. Beaver dams – included language that affirmatively obligates the parcel owner on which a beaver dam may be located in the future to remove the offending beaver dam if it is causing or threatening to cause damage to property. The city has enforcement rites over all of the clauses along with the ACOE. 2.Pesticides & herbicides – the standard ACOE restrictions don’t allow their application within the deed restricted area. Language was added by the applicant that also prohibits such use within the developed area to the extent wetlands could be adversely impacted by their application. Mark asked how that was measured and who makes the determination about whether it has an adverse impact. Bruce said regardless of the language, any prohibition is difficult to enforce. They’re open to suggestions. • Slide shows 50 ft. Buffer (everything shaded in grey) from the Federal wetlands. There is no buffer from ACOE regulated wetlands on a federal level – no regulated adjacent area. The 50 ft. buffer comes from the UDO and that’s why the applicant is seeking a watercourse/wetland permit. 6. #20260091 Lexington Rd. and Bemis Heights Rd. subdivision modification. Final plat review of a subdivision modification resulting in 13-lots in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Bruce - Subdivision Considerations requested from the Board during the SEQRA Process: • Restrictive Covenants – covered • Beaver Dams – covered City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 26, 2026 - Page 7 of 13 • Pesticides and Herbicides – covered • Stop Signs – all-way stop sign proposed at the workshop (intersection of Bemis, Lexington & the new proposed roadway). Now included in the plan and submitted this week. • Stormwater Water Quality Basins – current proposal does not contain sidewalks; there’s not much room and the overall objective is to protect the wetlands. Dominic created a plan with a 5 ft. wide sidewalk on the westerly side of the road beginning at the pavement edge of the intersection, running along the length of the west side of the drive. There will be 18 ft. from the edge of the sidewalk to the garage. Dominic said anything greater than that they would have to push the houses back. The paved road is 24 ft. wide from wing curb to wing curb (2 ft. each side). Mike K. said none of the other streets in the existing development have sidewalks and he doesn’t see a reason to put them here. Bruce – maintenance of the 3 stormwater water quality basins – 1 on lot 13 and 2 on lot 2; In speaking with the city engineer and going through the form for maintenance agreement they typically use, they determined that for lot 13 it would be the obligation of the homeowner to maintain it, and the city has an easement which is built into the maintenance agreement in the event that the property owner does not fulfil those requirements. The city can come onto the property and maintain it and back charge the property owner. Susan said the city engineer was satisfied with the draft. It has to be reviewed by legal counsel. Dominic explained the process for the stormwater basin runoff and that maintenance will be fairly easy for a homeowner to maintain. The maintenance agreement states that the property deed will refer to this recorded agreement in the County Clerk’s office. • Fire Apparatus Access – confirmed by the fire department that the turnarounds are sufficient to accommodate the department’s fire trucks. Dominic, referring to a slide of a plan submitted to the fire department, said there’s a hammerhead at one end and a turn around. If a vehicle had to turn around, it would back up in, turnaround and go out. At the other end the truck could pull in forward, back up and extend out. • Additional Plantings for Noise Attenuation – removed lot 1 that was going to have a home on it. If the turnaround comes out there will be additional vegetation there. Mark asked Bruce to talk about the noise study that was done. Bruce said there was a noise study done and a supplement to the noise study. The conclusions were that there would not be a discernable increase in noise (taken from receptors within the existing neighborhood) as a result of this project. Tony asked for clarification on the 50 ft. UDO required buffer around the wetlands and cited the definition of the buffer in the UDO “it buffers an area of dimensional separation between land uses, buildings or structures which is undeveloped with installed screening and/or undisturbed and left in a natural condition”. Tony said he’s having a disconnect between the UDO requiring a buffer and buildings being put in it. Mark said that’s the purpose of the wetland permit. If there were no wetland disturbance there would be no need for a wetland permit. Because houses are going to be built in the 50 ft. UDO required buffer, there is an allowance for the encroachment to be decided by the Planning Board by approving a wetlands permit. Mark Pingel, Chair opened the meeting for Public Comment: Mary Rose Behan, 30 Lexington Rd. – letter on file under public comment. The noise study is being accepted and the Board agrees!? Pesticides – who will monitor? Realistically, who City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 26, 2026 - Page 8 of 13 will monitor pesticides going into the wetlands? Stormwater runoff – who monitors that the homeowner will do what they’re supposed to do? Where are we in the approval process? What’s left to be approved? Her main concern is wetlands and environmental. Mark’s responses: This Board has no jurisdiction on individual houses. Once a plan is approved by the Planning Board, any restrictions during the building process are handled by the Building Inspector. The UDO gives the PB the right to look at any application that wants to take a large plot of land and divide it. That’s what gives the PB the ability to ask the questions they’re asking. If there’s a subdivision, a public hearing is required. There’s been a lot of preliminary work and reviews that have been done on this project to help the Board make decisions that do not require public comment. There’s nothing that’s going to be built in the wetlands, but because it gets close to the wetlands the applicant is required to get a permit from the city as well per the UDO. Enforcement is one of the difficult areas for this process. Whenever this Board makes a decision, there are conditions of approval. Before the applicant gets their CO, a city inspector will make them comply with the conditions. If something happens in the future regarding use of the land someone has to complain or the city has to see it. The PB has no enforcement power. The Planning Board is doing the best they can for the city; there has to be development in order to prosper, as well as balance. Alex said they will not be setting a precedence with this wetlands permit. Every disturbance and impact is different and will be evaluated individually as they come up. Renee Russell, 8 Lexington Rd. has concerns about the stormwater area being left up to the homeowner to maintain. Her main concern is that there’s only one way to get in and out of the neighborhood. Maybe speed bumps could be installed to slow traffic. There are always cars parked on Lexington Ave. making it difficult to make left-hand turns. Julia Anderson, 8 Bemis Heights Dr. letter on file under public comments – concerns: Initially the applicant was conscious of keeping the lot and house sizes comparable to the current neighborhood of 68 homes. These lot sizes as drawn look comparable to the neighborhood, but what can be built on the lot is severely constricted with the wetlands and deed restrictions. She’s concerned about what that will do to the value of the rest of the houses in the neighborhood. Will there be foundations or slabs? How will that affect price point? Who will be building the houses? The engineer’s narrative says, “deep hole test pits of 8 ft. deep were conducted and no ground water or mottling were observed”. This is highly suspect given the extent of wetlands on the property and the identification of clay soils. When and where were these test sites conducted? Did anyone other than the applicant’s engineer witness these test pits? The city should require the credentials of the test pit witness and require the city engineer to be present at the test pits. The Lexington and Lake Ave. intersection is already difficult to turn in and out of the neighborhood. There was a recent serious accident at that intersection, and it cut off access to and from the neighborhood completely. A gap analysis should be conducted by the traffic engineer at the intersection during peak am and pm periods. The city should not proceed with any further approvals without more information on the full potential impact from the ACOE and DEC on the site wetlands. Snow removal will be challenging with the houses closer to the street and narrow street cross sections. The DPW should further evaluate this possible condition with respect to emergency access. Regina Reals, 2 Bemis Heights Dr. has concerns about compliance with Appendix D107 of the NYS Fire Code because the combined development will equal 81 single-family homes. Appendix D107 requires two separate fire apparatus access roads for developments exceeding 30 dwelling units unless an equivalent level of fire safety is provided (entire letter submitted into public record). When this information was shared with city officials they expressed that they were not previously aware of this concern. Before any approval is City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 26, 2026 - Page 9 of 13 considered, has a formal modification to Appendix D 107 been reviewed and approved by the Fire Department? If so, what equivalent fire protection measures are being provided? She asked that the Board not approve this application until this issue is clearly addressed on the record. Caroline Reals, 2 Bemis Heights is confused about how they determined there were 0.44 acres of wetland that will be disturbed and cited the law from January 2025 that protects unmapped wetlands. She’s curious if their determination is coming from the 1970’s or the recent law. The wetlands definition explains what exists in the area where this project would be built and it qualifies as regulated wetlands. Where is the recent mapping coming from because unmapped wetlands are also protected in the recent law. Leaving it to the neighbors about the use of pesticides shouldn’t be allowed. Dan Behan, 30 Lexington Rd. said a 6” cleanout at the bottom of the hill will not be enough. He and his neighbors have to keep (gutters?) clear just so the water has a place to go. Can only imagine what will happen at the bottom of the hill with a 6” cleanout. It won’t be effective. Mark Pingel, Chair asked Susan if the fire department is looking at this issue again. Susan said all of the applications are presented to the Department of Public Safety and the various divisions within that department, which include the fire department. The fire department provided initial comments when first presented with the application and will be taking another look after recently speaking with the neighbors. Mark said until that issue is decided the Board can’t continue. Tony said he read Appendix D107 into the record a few meetings ago and the board moved on SEQRA. Mark said there’s potential for new information, so the Board needs to address it. Bruce said this access proposal was before the fire department in July and they approved it. Remaining issues for Board discussion: Sidewalks are not required and all Board members agreed. Roadway - Mike said a 28 ft. roadway is too wide; the best way to slow traffic is to keep the street as narrow as possible. Dominic – the integral curb forms a drainage channel to collect the water and direct it to catch basins. It’s also about 3 inches taller and looks similar to a 2 ft. by 2 ft. channel. It keeps the road from eroding and controls drainage. Mike said if this is going to move forward, the width of the street should be revisited because it will address the speed which is a concern of the neighbors. The width of Lexington is 30 ft. wide. Mark asked for legal review of the proposed restrictive covenants so the board knows if more can be done from a deed point of view, and also options from an enforcement point of view. One way in and out is to be reviewed by fire department. The planning board is bound by the fire department’s decision. Alex – regarding herbicides and pesticides suggested a sign at the entrance of this portion of the neighborhood stating that herbicides and pesticides are prohibited and is enforceable by fines. This might mitigate it and help prevent it. Dominic said the ACOE permit requires a certain amount of signage along wetlands and conservation areas. Tony suggested a split rail fence along the wetlands could be looked at to create a physical barrier. Susan said the planning board has a no cut buffer policy that includes fencing and signage to delineate those areas physically. The board may want to add this to this plan. Mark said it will be added to the discussion list. Mark - regarding the line of sight on Lexington – there should be no parking signs along the road on both sides. Susan and neighbors should talk to DPS to put signs up. The applicant can consider speed bumps. Mark – take noise mitigation off of the list – noise study was gone through a number of times. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 26, 2026 - Page 10 of 13 The Public Hearing will remain open because a decision hasn’t been made on the subdivision. 7. #20260100 West Ave & Station Lane, West Station LLC. Special Use Permit for a mixed- use project including multi-family dwelling units on the first floor in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 8. #20230233 Station Lane site plan. Consideration of SEQRA review and site plan review for a proposed mixed-use project including 6,134 sq. ft. non-residential space and 76 multi-family residential units in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. Mark Pingel, Chair said the board needs to discuss SEQRA, a Special Use Permit and site plan review. Present: Scott Lansing, Lansing Engineers & Developers Paul Nichols & Walter Reidy Scott said the first sketch plan for the project was submitted in May of 2017. After working with the various boards, they were close to approval in June of 2020 and tabled the project due to COVID and project changes. They returned with the project in 2022 and met with the Planning Board in January 2025. The Planning Board was close to approving the project except the new DEC regulations came in to play and the applicant has DEC wetlands on the border of the property. It was a long process while waiting for an additional determination with DEC because there was a backlog. They received their jurisdictional determination in July of 2025. One of the changes since then is regarding commercial units along the front part of the parcel. They propose to reduce the commercial space along West Ave. by adding first floor residential behind the retail space which requires a special use permit. Existing conditions: • 1.99 acres located on the corner of West Ave. & Station Lane. • Proposing a single 4-story building • Underground level parking 60 spaces (57 standard & 3 handicap) 19 bicycle spaces. • First floor – commercial along the entire frontage of the first floor. The balance of the first floor is 13 apartments. • Second-fourth floor = 63 apartments (units) • Primary access is from Station Lane • 126 parking spaces – 8 parallel spaces along Station Lane (making it convenient for commercial parking) and the remainder are surface spaces in the back of the parcel. • Dumpster in back portion of the parcel. • Pedestrian access – sidewalks all around the facility. • Street lights & street trees • Amenity area on Station Lane and around the corner of Station Lane & West Ave. • Recreational contributions – park being developed on the south side of Station Lane and applicants will be paying a fee in lieu of providing park land on the parcel that was deemed appropriate given the development, and what was needed to develop that park on the south. • Water, storm & sewer: There’s public water, public sewer & stormwater is managed on site. • Initially there was 2,000 sq. ft. of commercial use along the front of the building and the board asked for that to be expanded. They added commercial spaces all along the front of West Ave. to the corner with Station Lane equaling 6,134 sq. ft. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 26, 2026 - Page 11 of 13 • Asking for a SUP for dwelling multi-family residential only structure (not proposing a residential only structure – proposing mixed) but still need a SUP for that. The commercial spaces from south to north are 2,513 sf., 2,250 sf & 1,380 sf. According to city code 12 parking spaces are required which are incorporated into the parking numbers for the site. Commercial frontage along West Ave. is most appropriate because West Ave. is identified as the primary street and is the most traveled and has the most visibility. Station Lane is the secondary street with less visibility. Another key component is the topographic relief on the parcels – West Ave. comes down about 6 ft. by the time it gets to the corner and another 4 ft. before it comes to the entrance on Station Lane. There’s about 10 ft. of reveal on the side of the building where the parking area is located. • 2 passageways go all the way through the structure and help connect the front of the site to the back. • West Ave. Retail Market Summary showed approximately 13,782 sf. of vacancies and another pending 6,945 sf that will be coming on the market very soon, making a little over 20,000 sf of vacant space right now in this corridor (Grand Ave., Washington & Route 9, in the general area). Alex asked what the percentage was for first floor vacancies. Paul Nichols said they didn’t take office space into account just store front, first floor commercial space. • Board comments: There was a discussion about West Ave. elevation and grade change going south to Station Lane. Concerns about maintenance, ownership and liability of the stairs at the corner that are in the city’s right-of-way. Mark said he doesn’t think the board can fully deal with the site plan until the right-of-way is settled. He said he’d like to get through SEQRA and the retail space issue tonight. SEQRA, Part 2, West Ave. & Station Lane: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. Discussion: Susan said a pedestrian crossing was previously discussed. Recent comment from traffic “the RFB pedestrian crossing on West Ave. looks good, however they need to add the advanced pedestrian warning signs on either approach”. “The ped crossing on Station Lane does not need a high visibility crosswalk it is stop controlled approach”. The applicant would pay for the RFB. 6. Cause increase in use of energy… – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Kerry Mayo made a motion to adopt a SEQRA Negative SEQRA Declaration for the project at West Ave. and Station Lane, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 26, 2026 - Page 12 of 13 Tony Stellatto. Vote: T. Stellato-Y, M. King-Y, K. Mayo-Y, M. Pingel-Y, A. White-Y. 5-0, motion carried. Discussion on Special Use Permit for non-residential (allowing residential on the first floor): Alex – 13,782 sq. ft. was included in the gross: the cannabis location is potentially sold, and 50 West Ave. was sold to an undisclosed buyer, so it would be safe to remove those two from the gross sq. ft. and assume they’ll be occupied. Pending vacancies are around 7,000 sq. ft. – the rate for frictional vacancies in commercial markets is typically around 5% to 7%. Another 6,000 sq. ft. is being proposed, which could be adequate because further growth is anticipated in this area. They could be adding another 5% to the total market of available square footage. Kerry appreciates that they’re using all of the frontage on West Ave. The 120 West Ave. mixed-use building was included in the Retail Market Summary and that looks like a relatively successful building that would be comparable to this project. That kind of building is what the UDO envisions for this corridor. He’d really like to see the commercial go all the way through; he’s not sure how desirable the apartments will be on the first floor behind the commercial space. Tony supports the reduction in commercial space and looks to the approval standards that the Board has to follow for a SUP (6) listed in the UDO. He can easily satisfy 5 of them. The one that stands out is the one that says they have to look at the Comprehensive Plan and compare it with what the applicant is proposing. The comp plan says it’s community mixed use. It doesn’t specifically give a percentage threshold; it just has to be consistent with the neighborhood and the needs of the community. He can go along with it, and feels it meets the standards for the SUP Mike would like the first floor to be either residential or commercial or start as residential that could be converted to retail when there’s more need for that. If the units on Station Lane were to be designed more like townhouses they would be easier to convert to retail in the future. Mark asked if by building residential it would prevent converting to commercial in the future. Paul - not speaking into the mic. Tony Stellato made a motion to approve a Special Use Permit for West Ave. and Station Lane to allow the commercial space on the first floor to be reduced to the amount shown on the current plan. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: T. Stellato-Y, M. King-Y, K. Mayo-Y, M. Pingel-Y, A. White-Y. 5-0, motion carried. Mark – items that are still open: Right-of-way for staircase/terrace and how the units on Station Lane should be presented. The right-of-way maintenance, etc. will be discussed at site plan review. Mike remarked that the staircase/terrace sharply encroaches on public space, making it less accessible. It also detracts from the ability to get into the retail shops. There’s a softer way to make that transition without compromising the parking garage. Tony said it’s a detriment to leasing the commercial space because it’s hard to get to and doesn’t engage with the street. Alex - regarding accessibility – many of the people frequenting these places will be local neighborhood residents living in the current residential and future residential apartments. It’s not a prime destination place like Broadway. This location offers a lot of parking to the rear of the property which will encourage people to enter the commercial space through the passageways going from the back to the front of the building. Tony hears what Alex is saying but there is potential for mini destinations within Saratoga Springs. City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – March 26, 2026 - Page 13 of 13 Mark said nobody’s objecting to the first-floor residential or to commercial space only on West. Ave.: they’re concerned about the interface between the building and the sidewalks on West Ave. and Station Lane. Sometime in the future they may want commercial space on the first floor all the way around and it will look better and be nicer. Mark said the smoothest way forward is for the applicant to get DRB approval and then come back before the planning board. Susan said the minutes can be provided and comments articulated to the DRB. Mark said the applicant needs to provide flexibility along the street, perhaps a townhouse treatment instead of sloping the area. He meets with Tamie Ehinger, DRB Chair, monthly and would like to get this project on the list for discussion. Scott said the applicant has a DRB advisory opinion and needs a path forward. Mark suggested they do some concept stuff and get informal feedback from staff. Now that there’s a SEQRA determination the DRB can act. It makes sense to go to the DRB with the planning board’s comments and then communicate back to the planning board. Mark and Susan will coordinate a meeting with Tamie. Mark Pingel, Chair adjourned the meeting. All in favor. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (FINAL) THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2022 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Mark Torpey, Chair, called the mee�ng to order at 6:01 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Mark Torpey, Chair; Kerry Mayo; Todd Fabozzi; Mark Pingel; Chuck Marshall; Bill McTygue; ABSENT: Ruth Horton STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards - arrived at 6:30 P.M. Page 5 Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated we had a discussion months ago regarding this applica�on. What we were looking at was if the applicant had a vested right in the previous approval. Our conclusion based on the facts was that no, the applicant did not have a vested right because before the previously approved subdivision was built out the law was changed. Original Do not use Leah Everhart, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated we had a discussion months ago regarding this applica�on. What we were looking at was if the applicant had a vested right in the previous approval. Our conclusion based on the facts was that no, the applicant did not have a vested right because before the previously approved subdivision was built out the law was changed. As a result, we take no stance whether you treat this as a new applica�on or amendment. As far as whether the applicant can lawfully construct what was previously approved if it violates the current law, we do not think they have a vested right to do that. City of Saratoga Springs Subdivision Checklist 1 Checklist Prepared By: __________________________________ Date: ____________ Listed below are the minimum submittal requirements as set forth in The City of Saratoga Springs’ Subdivision Approval (Article 14). The Planning Board reserves the right to request additional information, as necessary, to support an application. The Board also reserves the right to reject the application if these minimum requirements are not met. Please complete the checklist below and provide with your submission. REQUIRED ITEMS: CHECK EACH ITEM 1.Completed Subdivision Application 2.SEQR Environmental Assessment Form- short or long form as required by action. 3.Set of plans including: (3) large scale plans (sheets must be 24” x 36”, drawn to a scale of not more than 1”=50 feet) and (1) 11" x 17" copy. One digital version (PDF) of all submittal items printable to scale 4.Basic or Full Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan as required per Article 17 of the UDO. 5.Copy of signed DPW water connection agreement for all projects involving new water connections to the City system 6.Engineering Report for Water and Sanitary 7.Complete Streets Checklist 8.Project Cost Estimate for Letter of Credit (utilize City template) REQUIRED ITEMS ON SUBDIVISION PLAT, AS APPLICABLE: 1.Name of Subdivision 2.Property line survey prepared by a licensed land surveyor. Subdivision plat must reference such survey with all corners set and marked on plan. Reference NGVD 1929 datum. A copy of the original property survey must also be included. 3.North arrow and map scale PRELIMINARY/ FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL REQUIRED SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST 4 hard copies (1 w/original signature), 1 digital copy of ALL materials (all maps, drawings, or image documents as separate files) and Fee are required. CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS PLANNING BOARD CITY HALL - 474 BROADWAY SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866-2296 TEL: 518-587-3550 X2533 www.saratoga-springs.org 1a. Conservation Design (Article 16) if required City of Saratoga Springs Subdivision Checklist 2 5.Parcel tax map number 6.Site location map (with title block and map key) 7.Site vicinity map (all features within 300 feet of property) 8.Identification of current zoning district with corresponding dimensional standards 9.Building setback lines shown on plans 10.Title block with subdivision name; name and address of applicant; and name and address of property owner (if different) 11.Name, address and phone number of subdivision surveyor and/or engineer 12.Names of all adjacent property owners within 300 feet (include both sides of street) 13.Identification of size, material, elevations, and slopes of all existing and proposed utilities within 400 ft of site. 14.Parcel street address (existing and any proposed postal addresses) Yes No N/A 16.Identification of existing or proposed easements, covenants or legal rights-of-way on this property 17.References to all prior variances or special use permits 18.Existing and proposed contours and spot grades (at 2 foot intervals) extending to property boundary 19.Identification of all watercourses, designated State wetlands, Federal wetlands, buffers, floodplains, rock outcroppings, etc. 20.Identification of all existing or proposed sidewalks or pedestrian paths (show type, size and condition) 21.Location, design specifications and construction material for all proposed site improvements (drains, culverts, retaining walls, berms, fences, etc.) 22.Location and distance to fire hydrant 23.Erosion and sediment control plan – including designated concrete truck washout area 24.Approximate location, dimensions and areas for proposed lots and proposed public recreational land 25.Proposal for utility systems and lateral connections 26.Location and width of proposed streets 4.Location of proposed home on each lot including finish floor elevation to nearest tenth foot. 15.Incorporate the City's standard engineering details. 6 City of Saratoga Springs PLANNING BOARD City Hall • 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 518.587.3550 t i Mark Pingel (Chair) Joseph Ferrante (Vice Chair) Michael King Kerry Mayo William J. McTygue Tony Stellato Alex P. White Scott Trifilo (Alternate) PB Members •Please enter City Hall by the Broadway ramp door entrance. •The door is unlocked 1/2 hour before the meeting start time and is locked 1 hour after meeting start time. •For entry after 7pm, please use the buzzer outside of the Lake Ave. entrance. •Comments may be submitted up to 12PM on the day of the meeting using the Public Comment form on the Planning Department page. •To view the webcast live or once recorded, go to www.saratoga-springs.org PLANNING BOARD MEETING AGENDA Thursday, April 23 at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: 2. Possible Discussion Items: Note: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any applications that appear to be ‘approvable’ without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the ‘consent agenda’ and dealt with individually. 3. PB Applications Under Consideration - NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. Items for PB Next Agenda 1 20260098 56 Duplainville Rd Regeneron Sketch Plan 56 Duplainville Rd SEQRA Review and sketch site plan review for site improvements to redevelop the vacant Quad Graphics facility for use as a Regeneron pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in the Industrial - General (IND-G) District. 2 20260143 285 West Ave Sketch Subdivision 285 West Ave Sketch subdivision plan for a proposed two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential - 1 (UR-1) District. 3 20260141 67 West Ave The Igloo Site Plan 67 West Ave Site plan review for a reuse of an existing building and site for a marijuana dispensary and two commercial tenant spaces in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District.20250451 4 20260089 67 West Ave Saratoga Integrity Auto LLC Site Plan Review 67 West Ave Site plan review for use of a portion of the building and site for a vehicle dealership - enclosed only in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District.20230906 5 20250563 55 Union Ave Special Use Permit 55 Union Ave Special use permit for a hotel (under 20 guestrooms) in the Urban Residential -3 and 4 (UR-3 & 4) district. 6 20260094 29 Myrtle St Subdivision 29 Myrtle St Final plat review of a proposed 4-lot residential subdivision in the Urban Residential - 2 (UR-2) District. 7 20260090 Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Watercourse/Wetlands Permit Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Watercourse/wetlands permit associated with a proposed subdivision modification in the Rural Residential (RR) District. 8 20260091 Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Subdivision Modification Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Final plat review of a subdivision modification resulting in 13-lots in the Rural Residential (RR) District.20240614 Agenda Order Project #Project Project Location Project Description Project Index UPCOMING MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS Upcoming Workshops and Meetings: Workshop: April 16 at 5pm; Meeting: April 23 at 6pm ANNOUNCEMENT: If you are interested in supporting our community by sitting on a Land Use Board, please fill out the form on the City's website. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION •Due to unexpected circumstances, one or more of our members may need to participate remotely; if the meeting is remote or hybrid, please find relevant meeting details here. •A video recording of the meeting will be available here. GENERAL MEETING GUIDELINES 4/13/26, 2:27 PM (47) PB Agenda to Publish - Smartsheet.com https://app.smartsheet.com/dashboards/XvR8vVcqwf8JpX45wjrj6XP9QQpVGM4HrWRm4V41 1/2 The Planning Board reviews a wide variety of applications and its primary responsibilities include four land development decisions including New York State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR), Special Use Permit (SUP), Site Plan (SP) and Subdivision (SD). The rules regarding public input depends on the type of application before the Planning Board. SEQR and SP: The Planning Board reserves the right to allow public comment as deemed necessary. The total duration for all public comments should not exceed fifteen (15) minutes with each individual speaker limited to a total of two (2) minutes. SUP and SD: The Planning Board is required to conduct a public hearing with proper notice to all neighbors residing within 250 feet of the project. Each individual speaker will be limited to a total of three (3) minutes. For all applications: Speakers providing public input will be timed to ensure compliance. Applicants’ initial presentation to the Board will be limited to 15 minutes. Planning Board members are volunteers appointed by the Mayor to serve seven-year terms. Each member has a single vote and a quorum (4 or more members) is required to vote on an application. Note: This agenda is subject to change. Please check the website for latest version. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR SPEAKERS •All meetings are video recorded and webcast; please provide public input in a respectful manner. •Public input will occur after the Applicant has presented the project to the Planning Board. •Speak clearly into the microphone and state your name and address. •Speakers will be timed – two (2) minute limit for public comment and three (3) minute limit for public hearing. Be concise, it’s OK to speak for less than the time limit. •Individuals may not donate their allotted time to other speakers. •Face the Planning Board at all times, do not engage in direct discussions with the audience. • •Do not repeat points made by previous speakers. • •No laughing, heckling, speaking or clapping from the audience. •Comments to the Board should specifically relate to the application under consideration and be directly relevant to the evaluation criteria. • •It is best to identify a designated speaker to summarize comments from multiple individuals. •Written comments will be distributed to the Board and made part of the public record. •Please note that the Planning Board has no jurisdiction over code enforcement. •The Planning Board appreciates meaningful and thoughtful input from the community. To learn more about the application review process, please contact the City Planning Department. Susan Barden: 518-587-3550 x2493 susan.barden@saratoga-springs.org 4/13/26, 2:27 PM (47) PB Agenda to Publish - Smartsheet.com https://app.smartsheet.com/dashboards/XvR8vVcqwf8JpX45wjrj6XP9QQpVGM4HrWRm4V41 2/2 Dear Chairman Pingle and Planning Board members, For the record, I respectfully request that the Board defer final plat action on Project #20240614 (Lexington Road Subdivision), Project #20260091 (Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Subdivision Modification), and Project #20260090 (Watercourse/Wetlands Permit). Pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, I respectfully request clarification, for the record, regarding whether this proposal is being reviewed as a continuation of a prior UR-1 approval or as a new subdivision subject to current Rural Residential (RR) zoning. Under well-established New York land use principles, prior approvals do not create a continuing right to develop under superseded zoning absent substantial construction or meaningful reliance. Here, the Phase 3 portion of the original subdivision was never constructed, no meaningful site work occurred, and the last home in the broader project was built approximately in 1978. The current applicant is not the original developer, and the proposal reflects a materially different roadway layout, lot configuration, and overall design. On these facts, the application appears to constitute a new development plan rather than a continuation of a prior approval. This conclusion is consistent with the Planning Board’s September 29, 2022 minutes, in which Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated that the applicant does not have vested rights because the zoning change occurred before build-out. In light of that statement, the absence of construction, the passage of several decades, the change in applicant, and the substantial redesign, the basis for applying prior UR-1 zoning is unclear absent explicit and legally sufficient findings supported by the record. The record further reflects consistent identification of the property as being located within the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district in Saratoga Springs. The City Zoning Map designates the parcel as RR, the March 26, 2026 Planning Board minutes reference RR zoning (p. 6), and the applicant’s Final Subdivision Application identifies the zoning district as RR. Prior meeting minutes likewise reflect the Board’s understanding that vested rights were not established following the zoning change. Taken together, these materials indicate that current RR zoning governs unless the Board makes specific findings to the contrary. For the record, this application presents an unresolved issue as to whether it is being reviewed under UR-1 or RR zoning, and the record does not appear to identify a clear factual or legal basis for that determination. If RR zoning applies, then both density and dimensional standards must be derived from that district. While clustering may allow modification of lot layout, it does not permit the retention of a higher lot yield derived from prior zoning while compressing those lots into smaller, more intensive configurations. Any such approach would effectively apply UR-1 dimensional standards within an RR district without a clear statutory basis and would require careful explanation in the record. This issue is particularly significant given site constraints. Although the parcel contains approximately 21.78 acres in gross area, a substantial portion consists of wetlands and associated constrained land. As a result, the actual buildable acreage is materially less than the gross acreage. Any determination of permissible lot yield under RR zoning should therefore be based on a realistic assessment of buildable land, not total acreage, and should be supported by objective analysis in the record. If clustering is being considered, the record should include a conventional yield plan demonstrating the number of lots that could be achieved in full compliance with RR requirements, accounting for wetlands, buffers, setbacks, and other constraints. That analysis establishes the maximum permissible density. Without such a showing, it is difficult to identify a clear factual basis in the record supporting the proposed lot count. These issues directly affect environmental review under SEQRA. The applicable zoning framework defines the scale and intensity of potential impacts, including stormwater, infrastructure demand, and effects on wetlands and watercourses. If density assumptions are not grounded in the applicable zoning framework and site constraints, the environmental review risks being based on an incomplete or inaccurate project description, which may limit the Board’s ability to take the required “hard look.” Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Board: ● State whether the application is being treated as a continuation of a prior approval or as a new subdivision ● Identify the legal standard being applied, including any reliance on vested rights doctrine ● Confirm whether the property is being reviewed under current RR zoning ● Identify the factual and legal basis for the proposed number of lots, including whether that number is supported by a conventional RR-compliant yield analysis based on buildable land ● Provide a detailed explanation of how the current proposal is consistent with prior approvals, if that position is asserted ● Confirm that the SEQRA analysis reflects the correct zoning framework and corresponding development intensity Absent such findings, the record may not clearly articulate a rational basis for the zoning determination or the associated environmental review conclusions. For the avoidance of doubt, any determination to apply prior UR-1 zoning, or to approve a clustered layout under RR zoning that is not supported by a conventional RR-compliant yield analysis of buildable land, would benefit from explicit findings in the record addressing these issues.