[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6628052,"mediaKeyId","2722735-6e58ed3b5597162a586d31f10e43dd21","parentId",2722735,"title","Planning board adopts negative declaration for Stewarts project and issues favorable advisory opinion to ZBA","audioSeconds",3813,"startMs",5345000,"endMs",9158000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2722735-6e58ed3b5597162a586d31f10e43dd21&start=5345&end=9158","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2722735-6e58ed3b5597162a586d31f10e43dd21/thumbnail_5345000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6628052/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Planning-board-adopts-negative-declaration-for-Stewarts-project-and-issues-favorable-advisory-opinion-to-ZBA","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6628052-7b81a7fbee2956ce82b8a219857090e4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771180158&Signature=L9QocHzYoSbpq0vZHgYSbX5K8ph2OSZYFz9nRVNYXeA54y9VRhHDX0GDaf-OxVuJo7k44bzYX4Vq-wwYMNW5rYRto9~Z3Jo0QXqRHiZBMcXCS9qLsixXJWqqvyFPl1SpQYS6wHbrOdUdtwF4RJPCEkW671bYUNphx8Dxg8qNoGGpMaj6wMMiBPAqUQLbw4XwaDmgAPrXGsnkCz89rFf9gX30O17DPoAAgtUKhjsY2w1dRwV5MXp3Sl216vvh1py6z-YNP7S7xyVPytkWha2yErf10nWhOAd4RktNktESnCOVQqN9M-e46-GTmSEhVJ9mUh52Lx0mznAAZrXj5r2WVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Saratoga","date","2025-03-20T00:00:00Z","article","The Saratoga Springs City Planning Board concluded coordinated environmental review for a proposed Stewarts convenience store, canopy and commercial tenant spaces at 31–33 Marion Avenue, adopting a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) and issuing a favorable advisory opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) on the variances the applicant is seeking.

What the board reviewed: Planning staff presented Draft Part 3 of the long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and a set of engineering materials the applicant provided addressing spill containment for petroleum and stormwater management. The board’s earlier Part 2 review had identified potential “moderate to large” impacts for transportation and potential impacts on a nearby critical environmental area (Loughberry Lake). The applicant provided details on a spill-containment system and on-site storage capacity for fuel tanks: the applicant stated below-ground storage in a 15,000-gallon tank plus two 6,000-gallon sections (totaling 27,000 gallons of storage across tank sections) and described a containment/detention approach for stormwater that includes an impermeable liner and an engineered containment area.

Traffic and pedestrian access: The board reviewed traffic comments and discussed sidewalk extension and two pedestrian crossings to provide safe pedestrian access between the residential neighborhood and the site. Staff and members said any new crosswalks, sidewalk alignment and other traffic-calming measures would have to be coordinated with New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and the County where applicable during subsequent site-plan review.

SEQR finding and advisory opinion: After a discussion and minor wording revisions to Part 3 (to emphasize safe handling practices and coordination with DOT), a member moved to accept Part 3 as modified and adopt a negative declaration; the motion passed. The board also voted to issue a favorable advisory opinion to the ZBA on the area variances the applicant will seek (setback relief for the store, canopy and other site elements, and relief from a provision requiring fueling stations to be at least 250 feet from residential zoning in some circumstances). The board’s advisory opinion included guidance that the applicant coordinate sidewalk and crossing designs with NYSDOT and that a portion of adjacent land to the north was being preserved (a proposed conservation or restriction) so it should not be considered available for future fueling uses.

Procedural notes: Planning staff and the applicant noted additional reviews remain (site plan review, design-review board review, and any required permits from DOT). The board’s negative declaration pertains to the EAF Part 3 findings at this stage and does not substitute for subsequent site plan or design review, all of which may include additional conditions.

Quotations (selection):
- On spill containment, an engineer for the applicant described the proposed system as \"an arch system with impermeable 30 mil pond liner\" sized for stormwater/detention and spill control.
- \"The applicant has modified the application to include crossing crosswalks and extension of a sidewalk, and will coordinate with DOT,\" a board member summarized during the Part 3 discussion.

Outcome: Planning board adopted the SEQR negative declaration and issued a favorable advisory opinion to the ZBA; both votes carried. The project will proceed to ZBA and then to site-plan and design review with the noted coordination requirements.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Saratoga - Planning Board - Mar 20, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Saratoga Springs City Planning Board adopted a SEQR negative declaration for a proposed Stewarts convenience store and gas canopy at 31–33 Marion Avenue and issued a favorable advisory opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals after reviewing Part 3 of the long EAF and containment/traffic materials.","taxTitle","Saratoga Springs City, Saratoga County, New York","taxId",7807,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6628062,"Neighbors press board on parking, safety for 2-lot subdivision at 16 Marion/2 Avenue A; hearing left open",3967,158000,4125000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2722735-6e58ed3b5597162a586d31f10e43dd21&start=158&end=4125","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2722735-6e58ed3b5597162a586d31f10e43dd21/thumbnail_158000.jpg","/articles/6628062/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Neighbors-press-board-on-parking-safety-for-2-lot-subdivision-at-16-Marion2-Avenue-A-hearing-left-open","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6628062-c387639ae0e10a435249f9d4a9dc9756/orig.mp4?Expires=1771180158&Signature=IJHI9b-4o2DRVWJyWbExOdeL-a21zN6Xg0BjIboJNy3f~rXGh6FhtH48x-UpOuyTW-xoXgd282Q5gS4q7Y0yahQHVjhDLKYAO9o5mSbEM5HaUQhjaD2RroSWm~9g3DgLHpq1yWkDfNleP72jSm~bqZD~tNL5RjlNQr46YXyfr1taHBaowHvuaroaZK~doM9EGL-M8ZpxUwGBZAgUYjEUYsX5eRFqNCnuwtwSPuI2CUDqICVPEtXJwjIzjDymZRG6mv3VQgZYuVwsM~JMyGl6r3aGkGBYd13YcizXQymM-aSoK2~A9onRssrMWLomsxMfAnX685A0EYDipjXmSlZyTw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs City Planning Board reopened public comment and continued review of a proposed two-lot subdivision affecting 16 Marion and 2 Avenue A after neighbors raised safety concerns about on-street parking, narrow pavement and emergency access. The board asked the applicant to prepare revised drawings showing options to add off-street parking or otherwise mitigate the impact; the public hearing was kept open and will continue at a future regular meeting.

Why it matters: Neighbors and planning board members said existing pavement conditions and the street’s geometry make on-street parking potentially hazardous for emergency vehicles and pedestrians, and that the board must weigh a mix of public-safety, tree-protection, and parking needs before final action.

What happened: The applicant’s representative, Tonya Yacenchoak, an engineer, told the board the project had earlier received a positive advisory opinion from the planning board, zoning-board variances and a design-review clearance for a limited demolition. The subdivision, as advertised, would split an existing property to create two lots and includes streetscape improvements (new curb, green strip, sidewalk and street lighting) where the curb is shown at the current edge of pavement. The planner’s packet and a licensed surveyor’s map note the existing pavement measures 22 feet in many places; one planning board member who measured the corner at Marion Avenue reported 26 feet there but agreed the pavement tapers to 22 feet nearer the house.

Neighbors described the street as a narrow thoroughfare used as a cut-through. Resident Renee Talia said, “This is, for me, a safety issue first and foremost,” and asked the board to consider ambulance and fire access and the presence of elderly residents. Neighbor John Iacopone said he had measured the traveled lane and found the active roadway narrower in winter.

Options discussed: Board members and the applicant explored multiple responses:
- Add a single off-street parking space on Lot 1 by removing a mature, split-trunk tree and planting larger replacement trees on the site, a solution some board members favored as a compromise; the applicant said tree removal costs about $1,500 and proposed upsizing two new street trees by 1–1.5 inches caliper to offset removal.
- Reconfigure the lot line and driveway locations so Lot 1 could use a wider, double-width driveway shared across a property line, which would likely require a zoning variance and could create maintenance complications for future owners.
- Lengthen an existing driveway on Lot 2 to fit an additional car, avoiding a shared-driveway arrangement.

Board direction and next steps: The planning board did not vote to approve the subdivision at this meeting. Instead members asked the applicant to prepare and submit revised plans showing one or more mitigation options (for example, a reconfigured driveway, an added off-street parking space, or a revised lot line), and to coordinate with the Department of Public Works/engineering to confirm the street width and implications for sidewalk and green-strip placement. Staff cautioned that some changes—particularly adding a second curb cut or exceeding the allowed driveway width percentage—may trigger the need for additional variances to the zoning board; board members asked staff to review that question.

The public hearing remains open; the applicant said he will consult with his client and submit amended drawings for the board and for DPW review. The board asked staff to treat those revised plans as the basis for further deliberation and to schedule the item for the next regular meeting once the revisions are available.

Quotations (selection):
- \"I was out of town for the February meeting because it was posted just it was on a consent agenda... I am here,\" said Tonya Yacenchoak, the applicant’s engineer.
- \"This is, for me, a safety issue first and foremost,\" said resident Renee Talia.
- \"The roadway is 22 feet today,\" said resident John Iacopone, describing measurements he made in winter.

What the board will decide next: The board will review the applicant’s amended plans, consider DPW’s measurement/engineering input on finished curb location and pavement width, and determine whether the subdivision can be approved administratively with conditions or whether additional variances or advisory opinions are required.","The Saratoga Springs City Planning Board reopened public comment and continued review of a two-lot subdivision at 16 Marion/2 Avenue A after neighbors raised safety concerns about street width, on-street parking and emergency access.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6628067,"Planning board OKs 18-month extension for 30 Caroline Street site plan",167,12000,179000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2722735-6e58ed3b5597162a586d31f10e43dd21&start=12&end=179","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2722735-6e58ed3b5597162a586d31f10e43dd21/thumbnail_12000.jpg","/articles/6628067/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Planning-board-OKs-18-month-extension-for-30-Caroline-Street-site-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6628067-31e837a5905dcdb27800bd994b536524/orig.mp4?Expires=1771180158&Signature=Tr2AvFvTO3RymQOPQQW5fWf4uxB8JHEfoPnpHAehWnl743x1s4ZckuK0wIVj53Mm-FxcL8IypxcRHFm5Y~lWJVarw2qOvK5CCQ1cSoIFI0pr-HyPLnfGaRD4uujE~x0EgHtWdS0CL4Z2PVL0rMkhyzZNbxGjWluVbxBZ-nINwHr9I1oOQmnJ7mtg7O6IL8nVMNaWDsEuOH7qbITs6kA1jH1lqHNyWPlZ7yO0D60nUddTyyHfg-qYufS4claYBxZbmV7gsEt~E9QCxpUabttcSM8i6f0vBUI9T~ExD1YzCiqkZjHI~nu4NQiGETVfzif5KmStDKSuLlkTW~5mIQvbFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs City Planning Board voted to approve an 18-month extension of site-plan approval for a mixed-use project at 30 Caroline Street, allowing work on the project to begin before a new expiration date of Sept. 1, 2026.

The item was handled on the board’s consent agenda. Planning staff summarized that the original site-plan approval covered commercial space at the first floor and 11 residential apartments in a T6 urban core district, and that the prior approval would have expired on March 1, 2025 if no construction had started. The applicant asked to extend the approval by 18 months; the board had earlier received the planning board’s recommendation to grant the extension.

Board member Bill moved to approve the extension; a second was recorded and the board agreed to the motion without further public comment. Planning staff noted that the final map had been signed by the chair previously and reiterated the new expiration date if extended would be Sept. 1, 2026. No conditions or dissent were recorded on the extension vote.

The planning board’s action preserves the applicant’s site-plan approval while allowing time for construction to begin under the same site-plan conditions. If the applicant does not start construction within the extended period, the approval will again lapse and any further extension or reapplication will be required.","The Saratoga Springs City Planning Board approved an 18-month extension of site-plan approval for a mixed-use project at 30 Caroline Street, moving the approval expiration from March 1, 2025 to September 1, 2026.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6628056,"Planning board grants conditional final plat approval for 3-lot conservation subdivision; easement must be recorded before mylar filed",1092,4286000,5378000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2722735-6e58ed3b5597162a586d31f10e43dd21&start=4286&end=5378","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2722735-6e58ed3b5597162a586d31f10e43dd21/thumbnail_4286000.jpg","/articles/6628056/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Planning-board-grants-conditional-final-plat-approval-for-3-lot-conservation-subdivision-easement-must-be-recorded-before-mylar-filed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6628056-c8b7663d949365000c6d9d2ecd7d9a62/orig.mp4?Expires=1771180158&Signature=EKcUq12nZtMlvV0LvWADvX0kFtfXH0d-N--mYu3b~WtFwWu2d21vy~~ZdvA5TYiD~x8iBtp5kQ0LS0kz6p8dp4mPiL-3Dhz9MIvcWzHBeXcIILYTHcV2KgVO9yWgOlfYoq9ilYfSBVbkkZQbjVkcHleEgoucvLjHXf-nd2ji-eM7aTxUO4m5sBzdV4fCD1IHYrCfQlvEo0uMcMX-m~lqA3adogvTN6Xdm9rFhBnUBRVqlkvB9vZkCzZAiVLnjk28FuXeYG1nHOmkqVm~IsjziASiNRFYn0XWPHmQ3L81iY6z1-2-gCAra-1ZPCttzZ7Poqzd7fD11f-1LAxZpf3KWA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs City Planning Board conditionally approved the final plat for a three-lot conservation subdivision in the rural residential district (file referenced as No. 274), with several conditions including requirement of a fully executed, recorded conservation easement acceptable to city legal counsel before the final mylar is filed.

Background: The conservation subdivision proposes to preserve constrained lands (wetlands, steep slopes and stream corridors) while creating two new single-family lots in addition to an existing residence. Staff said the submission includes a draft conservation easement and that constrained lands and at least 50% of developable open space would be set aside as permanent open space as required by the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).

Conditions imposed: The board’s approval was conditional on a small set of items the planner identified during the final-plat review:
- Provide a table of zoning and site statistics including maximum building coverage, maximum impervious surface and maximum building height (staff suggested using suburban-residential thresholds where appropriate); the applicant agreed to provide square-foot figures for the proposed houses (up to 3,000 sq ft), driveways and pool patios.
- A fully executed, recorded conservation easement acceptable to city legal counsel must be in place prior to filing the mylar with the county; the city council may need to accept the easement if the city is named as a grantor.
- Staff will confirm that required dimensional standards and the stated future vehicular connection to Riley Farm Lane are reflected on the final plat; the connection was shown on the plans and the applicant agreed to the condition.

Vote and procedural notes: A motion to approve the final plat with the listed conditions was made and seconded; the board voted to grant conditional final approval. During discussion staff clarified that the fee-in-lieu for recreational land dedication is not required for this conservation subdivision under the UDO. The applicant agreed to return figures for proposed building and driveway square footage at a later date and to coordinate recordation of the conservation easement.

What comes next: Planning staff will verify that the conditions are met at the time the mylar is submitted; if satisfied, the city will process the filing with the county. The board listed the conservation easement execution and final technical details as required steps before the plat is finalized.

Quote: \"If you take action tonight and if someone makes a motion to approve, we would recommend inserting [the conservation easement condition] at that point,\" said planning legal counsel during the discussion to clarify the timing of the recorded easement requirement.","The planning board conditionally approved the final plat for a three-lot conservation subdivision in the rural residential district, requiring a recorded conservation easement acceptable to city legal counsel before the mylar can be filed and additional site statistics (building, driveway, pool square footage) to be provided.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning board adopts negative declaration for Stewarts project and issues favorable advisory opinion to ZBA

Neighbors press board on parking, safety for 2-lot subdivision at 16 Marion/2 Avenue A; hearing left open

Planning board OKs 18-month extension for 30 Caroline Street site plan

Planning board grants conditional final plat approval for 3-lot conservation subdivision; easement must be recorded before mylar filed