Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260098 Regeneron SEQRA NOD Page 1 of 5 CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS P LANNING B OARD ❖ City Hall - 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Tel: 518-587-3550 www.saratoga-springs.org MARK PINGEL, Chair JOSEPH FERRANTE, Vice Chair KERRY MAYO BILL MCTYGUE MICHAEL KING TONY STELLATO ALEX WHITE SCOT TRIFILO, Alternate RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS FOR 56 DUPLAINVILLE ROAD IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED ADAPTIVE RE-USE OF THE EXISTING FACILITY BY REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. WHEREAS, the Saratoga Springs Planning Board (the “Planning Board”), in its capacity as lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), reviewed the initial development of the property at 56 Duplainville Road (the “Subject Parcel”) by the former owner thereof, Quad/Graphics LLC, pursuant to SEQRA and issued determinations of non-significance relating to the phased development of the Subject Parcel which included, but was not limited to, a 986,871+/- square foot industrial facility (907,574+/- of which was actually constructed) (the “Existing Action”); and WHEREAS, on February 3, 2026, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Applicant”), which purchased the Subject Parcel from Quad/Graphics LLC on September 26, 2024, applied to the Planning Board for sketch/site plan review of its proposed adaptive re-use of the existing facility and redevelopment of the Subject Parcel which includes both on-site and off-site improvements and modifications for purposes of operating the Subject Parcel as a pharmaceutical production facility (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, as and for its initial submission to the Planning Board of February 3, 2026, the Applicant provided (i) an application for site plan review dated January 30, 2026 seeking review of the Applicant’s master plan as a sketch plan for the Subject Parcel, (ii) a master plan prepared by C.T. Male Associates and dated December 16, 2025 (2 sheets), (iii) a duly completed Part 1 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (“FEAF”) dated January 30, 2026 and (iv) an Expanded Part 1 FEAF Narrative dated February 2, 2026 with annexed appendices, which together contain supplemental information and materials discussing the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project (collectively and as thereinafter modified, the “Application”); and WHEREAS, and the Applicant’s proposed site modifications may result in new or different impacts not previously considered during SEQRA review; and WHEREAS, members of the Planning Board visited the Subject Parcel on February 12, 2026 to observe existing conditions; and WHEREAS, at its workshop meeting of February 12, 2026, the Planning Board adopted a motion to initiate coordinated review of the Action and to reconfirm its status as lead agency under SEQRA; and WHEREAS, coordinated review letters, evidencing the Planning Board’s intention to continue as lead agency for the Action under SEQRA, were duly sent to the following agencies identified in the Application: Saratoga Springs City Council, Saratoga County Industrial Development Agency, Saratoga County Water Authority, Saratoga County Sewer District No. 1; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Department of Health, New York State Department of Transportation and United States Environmental Protection Agency; and WHEREAS, following the posting of public notice at the Subject Parcel in accordance with the City’s Unified Development Ordinance, the Applicant appeared before the Planning Board on February 26, 2026 to present the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, thirty (30) days passed without any of the involved agencies notifying the Planning Board of a desire to assume the role of lead agency; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of April 23, 2026, the Planning Board adopted a motion reconfirming its status as SEQRA lead agent; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the Application for purposes of SEQRA at its meetings of April 23, 2026, May 7, 2026 and May 21, 2026, solicited comments from the public at each meeting, and reviewed comment letters from involved and interested agencies, all of which were carefully considered by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, the Applicant made presentations to the Planning Board at its meetings of February 26, 2026, April 23, 2026, May 7, 2026 and May 21, 2026 and further made supplemental submissions to the Planning Board on March 17, 2026, April 15, 2026, April 22, 2026, April 30, 2026 and May 21, 2026, including the submission of an amended Part 1 FEAF dated May 18, 2026 reflecting modifications to the proposed Project made following the Applicant’s initial submission on February 3, 2026; all of which were duly considered by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the traffic assessment dated January 30, 2026 prepared by the Applicant’s consultants, Creighton Manning, and commissioned an independent review of traffic impacts associated with the Action by a City designated engineering firm, LaBella, whose report dated April 14, 2026 was carefully reviewed and considered by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2026, pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 239-M, the Saratoga County Planning Board issued a favorable recommendation to the Planning Board regarding the Action in which it concluded that the Action did not present any significant county-wide or inter-community impacts; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2026 the Planning Board finalized and confirmed its completion of Part 2 of the FEAF which it began carefully reviewing and completing at its meeting of April 23, 2026 and continued to review and complete at its meeting of May 7, 2026; and WHEREAS, a copy of Part 2 of the FEAF, in the form completed by the Planning Board, is attached hereto and made a part hereof as “Exhibit A;” and WHEREAS, the Planning Board wishes to make a written record of its rationale for certain responses contained within Part 2 of the FEAF as follows: (i). In response to Question 3(d) on whether “the proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body,” the Planning Board answers “no or small impact may occur” because although the Action calls for an off-site water main to be installed both beneath Geyser Brook and within the 100 foot regulated adjacent area to a NYSDEC freshwater wetland at the intersection of Geyser Road and NYS Route 50, disturbance to the regulated wetlands will be minimized and disturbance to Geyser Brook will be eliminated through the use of both directional drilling and trenching, with restoration, installation methods. Furthermore, the aforementioned work will be completed in accordance with conservation measures required by NYSDEC to permit the work such that any adverse impacts will be adequately mitigated. Therefore, any impacts will be small. (ii). In response to Question 6(a)(i), which considers whether the Action will result in “more than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide” being emitted, the Planning Board notes that the Applicant’s facility is anticipated to emit approximately 30,618 tons of carbon dioxide per year. Nevertheless, the Planning Board has determined that “no or small impact may occur” related to the emission of carbon dioxide because the Action is not expected to result in the emission of any other greenhouse gases at thresholds beyond those set forth in Question 6(a) of the FEAF, overall air emissions associated with the Action are not anticipated to rise to the level of a “major source” such that only an air facility registration with NYSDEC is required, air emissions will be controlled, regulated and monitored by NYSDEC, and air emissions generally, and the emission of carbon dioxide specifically, are consistent with small to mid-scale manufacturing operations which are supported by the setting for the Subject Parcel within the Grande Industrial Park. Therefore, while more than 1000 tons of carbon dioxide will be emitted over the course of a year, the overall impacts will be small. (iii) Question 6(c) inquires whether “the proposed action may require a state air registration, or may produce an emissions rate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 lbs. per hour, or may include a heat source capable of producing more than 10 million BTU’s per hour.” The Planning Board notes that a state air facility registration will be required as multiple heat sources, each having greater than 10 Million BTU’s per hour maximum heat input rating are contemplated by the Action. Nevertheless, the Planning Board concludes that the associated impact will be “no or small” because there are no anticipated emissions of regulated contaminants resulting from the Applicant’s production process (the only materials exhausted therefrom being air and water vapor), the heat sources capable of producing more than 10 million BTUs per hour are limited to as many as six (6) steam boilers, air emissions will be controlled, regulated and monitored by NYSDEC such that any adverse impacts will be adequately mitigated, and the requirement for state air registration is anticipated given the Applicant’s proposed use within the setting of the Grande Industrial Park. Therefore, the impacts associated with this heat source will be small. (iv). In response to Question 7(j), the Planning Board notes impacts resulting from “vegetation removal”, but concludes that this impact is small given that the Applicant has incorporated within the Action its commitment to replace trees elsewhere on the Subject Parcel or within City that are lost due to the Applicant’s redevelopment. This requirement can be imposed during subsequent review by this Board which is required before the proposed site redevelopment can progress. (v) In response to Question 13 on whether “the proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems,” the Planning Board finds that “No” impacts will occur as modifications to the Existing Action will reduce overall and peak hour vehicle trips below the threshold established during the prior SEQRA Review. Both the traffic assessment submitted by the Applicant’s consultants (Creighton Manning) and the traffic analysis prepared by the City’s designated engineer (LaBella) reviewed the current traffic conditions for roadways servicing the Subject Parcel and intersections that may be impacted by the Action in no-build and full- buildout conditions and reached the same conclusion, that the roadway network and impacted intersections will function appropriately notwithstanding implementation of the Action. In addition, the Applicant has incorporated within the Action its commitment to fund or install a bicycle/pedestrian connection through Veteran’s Memorial Park from Geyser Road trail to the facility. This requirement can be imposed during subsequent review by this Board. (vi) The Planning Board finds that “no or small impact may occur” with regard to impacts on energy under Question 14(a) (“the proposed action will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing substation”), Question 14(b) (“the proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a commercial or industrial use”) and Question 14(c) (“the proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity”). Concerning Question 14(a), the Applicant proposes to construct a new 115kV substation on the western side of the Subject Parcel at an unknown future date to service its pharmaceutical manufacturing use. The addition of the on-site substation will add resiliency to the facility’s power supply and to the power grid and will not result in a moderate to large impact. With regard to Question 14(b), notwithstanding the proposed new substation, the facility already has an existing electricity supply and the 115kV feed will come from existing power lines north of Duplainville Road across from the site, and to the proposed on site substation. Lastly, the anticipated electricity demand for the proposed Action is 13,100 MWhrs and thus exceeds the 2,500 MWhr threshold set forth in Question 14(c). The Planning Board notes, however, that although the SEQRA record for the Existing Action does not set forth the electricity required for Quad Graphics’ operations, there was some associated demand meaning that the Applicant is proposing an incremental increase in electricity and the whole of the demand is not inconsistent with small and medium scale manufacturing or industrial uses. Moreover, the Applicant has provided this Board with a letter from National Grid dated April 29, 2026 which reflects National Grid’s ability to service the Applicant’s initial need for electricity via an existing 34.5kV sub-transmission line that serves only the Applicant’s facility and thus will have no adverse impacts on any residential customers or other users and its willingness to work with the Applicant to facilitate the longer-term 115kV transmission service arrangement. On the basis of the foregoing, the Planning Board determined “no to small impact may occur” in connection with Question 14(c). Lastly, the Applicant has committed to powering its proposed parking garage using solar energy. As a result, the appropriate responses in FEAF Part 2 in reference to these areas of potential concern is “no or small impact may occur”. (vii) In Question15(f) regarding “other impacts” related to noise, odor and light, this Board initially noted “emergency generator noise impacts” as a consideration but finds that the associated impacts will be “no or small” based on the noise assessment submitted by the Applicant on March 17, 2026 which evaluated the perceptible noise at the southern boundary of the Subject Parcel closest to the nearest residential property on Adams Road and demonstrated that the perceptible noise without the generators is approximately 53.2 dBA which does not present a moderate to large impact and that the noise with all four (4) backup generators operating at the same time is approximately 68.25 dBA which, while a noteworthy increase from what typical operational noise would be, is mitigated by the fact that noise from the generators will be temporary in nature as their use would only be necessitated by a power outage or during infrequent maintenance. WHEREAS, this Board considered whether it was likely that new or different impacts might occur as a result of the propose Project and, finding that one or more such impact may exist, proceeding to take a hard look at all newly identified potential environmental impacts by carefully considering them in accordance with the criteria set forth at 6 NYCRR Section 6.17.7(c) and thoroughly evaluating their potential significance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Based on its review of the Action and an evaluation of the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur according to the criteria set forth in 6 NYCRR Section 617.7(c) and governed by the rule of reason, the Planning Board hereby reaffirms its previously issued Negative Declarations and hereby determines that the Action, including the proposed modifications, will not have any significant adverse environmental impact and the particular facts and circumstances do not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. 2. The Planning Board Chair is authorized and directed to indicate the Planning Board’s determination of non-significance by checking “Box A” of the Determination of Significance in Part 3 of the FEAF and signing Part 3 of the FEAF on behalf of the Planning Board. 3. The Administrator of the Office of Planning & Economic Development or her designee or the City’s Planning and Zoning Counsel are authorized and directed to file the completed FEAF as the SEQRA Negative Declaration for the Action and to distribute and publish any necessary documents or notices relating to this Negative Declaration in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. This decision was issued by the Planning Board on May 21, 2026 and passed 6-0 in favor: Pingel, Mayo, King, Stellato, White, Trifilo. May 29, 2026 Date filed with Accounts Dept. Chair