HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190117 Eberlein Subdivision Correspondance (7) ERLING
Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
February 6, 2020
Ms. Leeanne Raga via email: ragalt(aanycap.rr.com
50 Ruggles Road
Saratoga Springs,New York 12866
Subject: Proposed Development Review
Eberlein Subdivision
42 Ruggles Road, Saratoga Springs,New York
STERLING File #2019-73
Dear Ms. Raga
As requested, Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C. (STERLING)has performed additional review of
documentation submitted to the City of Saratoga Springs (City) Planning Board for the proposed Eberlein
Subdivision located at 42 Ruggles Road. Specifically, we reviewed the following obtained from the
Planning Board website:
• January 27, 2020 submittal by Ingalls &Associates consisting of Subdivision Plans dated January
21, 2020 and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) dated January 24, 2020.
• Historic Planning Board Documentation from 1999 consisting of 15 pages.
January 27,2020 Submittal
As stated in our January 7, 2020 letter and in accordance with New York State Education Law, all plans,
specifications, plats, and reports must be stamped with the seal of a Professional Engineer. No official of
the state, or any city, county, town, or village shall accept or approve any plans, specifications, plats, or
reports that are not stamped. Saratoga Springs City Code also require the seal of a Professional Engineer
on final subdivision plan submittals (§241 Appendix F). The reviewed drawings and SWPPP are not
stamped, and the extent that the submitted information was reviewed and prepared under the supervision
of a Professional Engineer is unknown. Without the required seal, the submitted information cannot be
approved by the Planning Board.
The following comments are specific to the SWPPP and Site Plan Drawings and reiterate some of the
same comments from our January 7, 2020 letter that remain unaddressed:
SWPPP Comments:
• The SWPPP references the outdated New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-15-
002), which has been superseded by the current permit (GP-0-20-001). The SWPPP should be
reviewed and updated as necessary for compliance with the current permit.
• The submitted SWPPP includes a filled out Notice of Intent, which implies that the project
intends to obtain permit coverage. If that is the case,the SWPPP needs to be revised to include all
necessary content, such as contractor certification statements, detailed inspection criteria,
practices for steep slopes, and a completed MS4 Acceptance Form.
• The SWPPP represents a post-construction stormwater management practice in the form of a
"basin"that will "attenuate stormwater flows". As required by the General Permit with respect to
"Serving our clients and the environment since 1993"
24 Wade Road ♦ Latham,New York 12110 ♦ Tel: 518-456-4900 ♦ Fax: 518-456-3532
E-mail: sterling@c@sterlingenvironmental.com • Website: www.sterlingenvironmental.com
Ms. Leeanne Raga February 6, 2020 Page 2
post-construction stormwater management practices, the SWPPP must include applicable sizing
and performance criteria for the basin consistent with the New York State Stormwater
Management Design Manual, and include inspection and maintenance requirements for continued
effective operation after construction.
• The included Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in Appendix E is mostly blank and should
be replaced with the current project EAF.
Subdivision Drawings:
The following comments are specific to the submitted Subdivision Drawings dated January 21, 2020:
• The plans should be updated to include the following:
o Indicate the proposed electrical service alignment.
o Indicate the proposed heating method and tank location if using oil.
o Add a cut/fill analysis to determine net import or export needs.
• Neither of the percolation test pits occurred in the proposed septic leach field, and clay was
identified as shallow as 50 inches below the ground surface. The proposed grading plan indicates
a cut in a portion of the leach field and the two test pits occurred at differing elevations that might
not correlate to the location of the leach field. The City Engineer should confirm that the test pits
satisfy applicable Department of Health septic design criteria.
Historic Planning Board Documentation
Results of a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request to the City provided 15 pages of Planning
Board documents from 1999 related to the parcel that is proposed for the current subdivision. The
documents indicated that the subject lot was a portion of an "illegal subdivision" that was "apparently
subdivided in 1973 without benefit of a subdivision approval from the City." The 1999 subdivision
application sought to "legitimize" the subject lot. Based on the 1999 documentation, it appears that the
1999 subdivision for the subject lot pre-dated the City Conservation Subdivision Law. Therefore, the
subject lot has not been considered in the context of a Conservation Subdivision, including a
Conservation Analysis.
Because of this development history and the location of the lot in the Rural Residential District,
completion of a thorough Conservation Analysis is critical, and required by City Code. The intent of the
Rural Residential District is "to provide low density residential and agricultural uses in order to preserve
open space and a rural character. Limiting topography, soil condition, slopes and lack of public
infrastructure also warrant the low densities." (Ch. 240 Article 2) To date, it appears that a complete
Conservation Analysis has not been submitted that describes "the importance and current and potential
conservation value of all land on the site." (§241-12B.2.b)
Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on our supplemental review, we provide the following conclusions and recommendations for your
discussions with the Planning Board:
• A complete Conservation Analysis has not yet been submitted that establishes the conservation
value of the entire parcel and the impact of the proposed development. The Planning Board
should require the Applicant to submit a complete Conservation Analysis meeting the
requirements of the City Code to allow the Planning Board to make a final determination as to
which land has the most conservation value.
Ms. Leeanne Raga February 6, 2020 Page 3
• The Planning Board should enforce the requirement that all submitted plans, specifications,
plats, and reports must be stamped with the seal of a Professional Engineer. This serves as a
protection to the Planning Board by ensuring that all material being reviewed has been prepared
under the supervision of a licensed professional.
• The Planning Board designated engineer should render an opinion regarding the need for a
SWPPP. Based on the project scope, permit coverage and a SWPPP is not required by City
Code or State Regulation; however, by submitting a SWPPP with post-construction stormwater
management practices, the Applicant is representing that they intend to obtain permit coverage.
If permit coverage is going to be obtained, then all conditions of the permit must be met
including required content of a SWPPP.
Please contact me with any questions.
Very truly yours,
STERLING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, P.C.
Andrew M. Millspaugh, P.E.
Vice President
Andrew.Millspaugh@sterlingenvironmental.com
Email
cc: Amanda Kukle
S:\Sterling\Projects\2019 Projects\Eberlain Subdivision-Ruggles Road-2019-73\Correspondence\2020\2020-02-06Eberlein
Subdivision ltr.docx