[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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",6607067,"mediaKeyId","2956581-23c0f89e975d0f5ef093f26a42fde123","parentId",2956581,"title","Beagle School seeks to consolidate two locations; public hearing opened and held open pending county referral","audioSeconds",1012,"startMs",1470000,"endMs",2482000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2956581-23c0f89e975d0f5ef093f26a42fde123&start=1470&end=2482","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2956581-23c0f89e975d0f5ef093f26a42fde123/thumbnail_1470000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6607067/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Beagle-School-seeks-to-consolidate-two-locations-public-hearing-opened-and-held-open-pending-county-referral","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607067-3dcce2ecb61e67f790937667712730d2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445690&Signature=o5Q1KfMqz2oiJcgVKbCdxrYGrmpqMQTReEctcqpAaMM-HXk8rj4IeXLykg6JTFUmUQ9NHgNlxrpDybDy7IcsjONAaiVmUJb75qMQB~x2VBtUKbbgLhPOI6R6Dz6WwOMl1P-I~qPFXENjRpZXKWt42Qk1SzMDSbhoCFtptzZBjubthoIGsaLw3Ibm0YdCZCL2DWbgYSy2pa2OW9NIUzH1qR-g8PckJXEa4R5ORyFjtYouJ68YY1QkgWR7dxAEb-7~-pTRWcGfUgBgNY5--ygtAUrINjIHm5hfR9nub~1oT2RRFrg3DcokagJ2veIbhkcNkkO5CgSb3UZ8Ju07PPWjjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Saratoga","date","2025-04-10T00:00:00Z","article","The Beagle School (preschool) sought a modification of its special‑use permit to consolidate two locations into a single expanded Regent Street site. The project would add one classroom and accommodate 16 additional students overall; the board reviewed a modest addition and reorientation of a gated play yard, replacement of aging play structures, and a proposed off‑site shared parking agreement with at least one nearby property.

Key project points

- Enrollment and operations: the school currently serves about 80 students across two locations; the consolidation would allow both programs (“Big Beagle” and “Little Beagle”) to operate at the Regent Street site with staggered arrival and departure times (staggered starts 8:30–9:30 a.m. and staggered pick‑ups 3:00–3:30 p.m.) to reduce overlap at arrival/dismissal.

- Physical work: proposed work included an ~800 square‑foot addition for a classroom, filling in an existing deck to create interior storage, relocating a shed/playhouse from one yard corner to another, replacing play equipment, and shifting a short fence line to enlarge a gated courtyard and create a clearer main entrance.

- Parking: the site plan showed two or four small on‑site spaces and proposed a shared parking agreement with a nearby church and Empire State College to meet local parking requirements for the additional classroom capacity. The applicant stated the shared parking agreement is currently an owner‑to‑owner arrangement (not a deed restriction); the board asked the applicant to clarify and document the shared‑parking commitment.

Public comment and board concerns

A nearby resident (Dan Maney, 108 Regent Street) urged the board to address drop‑off and street safety on Regent Street, citing past near‑misses and congestion during drop‑off times. Board members and the applicant discussed safety measures including police enforcement, crossing guards, traffic calming, and potential short‑term and physical measures (signage, temporary enforcement, or design changes to reduce conflicts). The board also asked the applicant to document incidents or safety data relevant to the neighborhood’s concerns and to consider physical measures to calm traffic or otherwise improve safety on Regent Street.

Procedure and next steps

The board opened and closed public comment for the special‑use modification but left the public hearing formally open because the application triggered a county referral (board staff noted a 239‑m type referral and county review was pending) and additional materials were required. The board reviewed the proposed site plan as a Type 2 action and discussed parking and drop‑off solutions; members suggested that the applicant document outreach to city/public safety for enforcement or traffic‑calming help and provide any evidence about incidents or near misses.

No final special‑use decision was made; the board indicated it will return the application for decision after county review and once the applicant submits the requested parking documentation and safety/traffic information.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Saratoga - Planning Board - Apr 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Beagle School proposed consolidating Little Beagle and Big Beagle into an expanded Regent Street facility, adding one classroom and 16 students; the board opened a public hearing on the special‑use permit modification and left it open pending county review and receipt of additional materials, including parking arrangements.","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},6607070,"Board grants site plan approval for three‑unit building at 142 Henry Street with conditions",246,1260000,1506000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2956581-23c0f89e975d0f5ef093f26a42fde123&start=1260&end=1506","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2956581-23c0f89e975d0f5ef093f26a42fde123/thumbnail_1260000.jpg","/articles/6607070/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Board-grants-site-plan-approval-for-threeunit-building-at-142-Henry-Street-with-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607070-f036316dd2b2ceac445ea83a05ce5ae9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445690&Signature=TRU7EEb-izcspFG-ZMCXanJ7ohyUBnlryQBqiOxv65W6llVDwIxxPTn0ffhtcfyzRO864QxottZECfLnYYs5jiMYhtEgmJ4zAMT9SmmYVbqTXdRdXSogD-VKVXbZqmdyVz2Ljvx6s5Arvu0lntHFW2nu-oluK0iyMjgT0a25yAuG~x5SmX~I3Y~i685PI5OBUMNPrK6rsTsyIfWV2l4gfax1ZgMFMJZUNasWwaULD86tvHDeW3RHs4up2KGWpBm6sa~Nzcyuwp82FQsBs3XbD61hge4PvwCBpGov~vJCc0ZLLcPL0kXPnSfyg~c2nAyD1m2UIZ2jCbLHoXnsBSDG4A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Board reviewed a site plan for a three‑unit residential building proposed for 142 Henry Street (adjacent to the Modern condominium). The applicant, LA Group, presented a stepped building that fits the sloped lot and provides three garage spaces on multiple levels with three residential units above.

Project description and constraints

The parcel is constrained by topography: the site drops roughly 20 feet between Henry Street and Bank Alley, and a National Grid transformer and related easement encumber the property near the mid‑slope. The proposed design steps the building into the slope: a first‑floor unit with garage and porch facing Henry, two mid/upper units accessed from a driveway off Bank Alley, and a mix of retaining walls varying from about 2 to 4 feet to create usable terraces and maintain stability.

Board comments and conditions

Board members generally supported the concept and characterized the proposal as a positive infill project for an underused, stone‑covered lot. The principal technical concerns and items the board asked the applicant to address were:

- Transformer screening and easement coordination: the applicant must document coordination with National Grid and show screening, a retaining solution and any easement modifications required to support a retaining wall next to electrical equipment.

- Streetscape elements: the board asked the applicant to show an appropriately placed street tree and at least one streetlight along the Henry Street frontage, subject to DPW approval and location constraints caused by a water main in the park strip.

- Retaining wall planting: the applicant will provide planting plans for the retaining walls and any exposed wall faces to soften the appearance in the public view.

- Tree protection and species sizing: the applicant will identify and label significant existing trees that will be retained, and the board requested minimum caliper for new street trees (applicant agreed to city standard or a two‑inch DBH minimum on their property).

Administrative path and finalization

The board agreed the proposal is eligible for site plan approval and directed staff to compile a checklist of remaining technical items. The board voted to approve the site plan with the list of conditions and authorized further administrative review and DPW sign‑offs (including streetlight/tree placement and any required easement adjustments). No environmental Type I issues were identified; the project was characterized as standard site plan review in the transcript. The board asked staff to prepare a final decision document incorporating the conditions and to work with DPW and the applicant for administrative sign‑off.","The board moved to approve a three‑unit residential site plan for 142 Henry Street with a list of conditions including transformer screening, a dedicated street tree and streetlight, retaining‑wall planting, and identification of protected trees; final administrative sign‑off to follow.",{"_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},6607078,"Sketch plan review: applicant proposes mixed‑use building at 54 Church, board raises zoning and safety issues",275,485000,760000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2956581-23c0f89e975d0f5ef093f26a42fde123&start=485&end=760","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2956581-23c0f89e975d0f5ef093f26a42fde123/thumbnail_485000.jpg","/articles/6607078/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Sketch-plan-review-applicant-proposes-mixeduse-building-at-54-Church-board-raises-zoning-and-safety-issues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607078-0e2f1c9a4ee804b5601c47a6e6594226/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445690&Signature=KJEWIr1cMb3swz0kXRH6H7WTU6otqsO1u6DafO1pNr-RpsWy1tKgUToRozDGgTs37zIRBMKbq6uL3JiHwy3UV6Kku-~3990o84Suwn4wMTqnV7zNdkMAGmtK3Tb-ZFxhSh2ZNQF2qO7sDydjW8fYSYbn6LS3A4XaFMChlZStdt-7wynFaMYgkMRAXyMu1i4vjuWcN8vqN8nkpmP0iPZ9yWh0VISJOrGvyb4ClwAbrB6ioYGexph5Q9OYhzRfUTEIZQlm96P2ehdQHDhX4Qubq~IZJ2BgeDaCh7Bo4BMXdwV4yy9DmgPrbi24OmOO-qZiJ-Khvf8Kk8bPifHoisSAUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Board received a sketch plan from the owner of 54 Church Street proposing to redevelop a former gas station and convenience store site into a mixed‑use building with commercial space on the ground floor and apartments above.

Applicant presentation

Tonia Yacenchuk (Y Engineering) described the property configuration: a narrow frontage on Clinton Street and broader frontage on Church Street (Route 9N). The site retains in‑ground concrete fuel tanks and recently installed pumps and lines from work completed within the last five years. The applicant proposed to place a new multi‑story mixed‑use building behind the existing pump area to preserve ongoing fueling operations during phased redevelopment, with a future possibility of adding a second building and courtyard. Proposed program was approximately 13 residential units across upper floors with ground‑floor commercial, and some limited on‑site parking and curb access retained to the fore.

Board concerns and required determinations

Board members and staff raised multiple issues that will need to be resolved before the project advances beyond sketch plan:

- Zoning and use: the board noted the Urban Core T6 (UCT) district requires buildings to meet 0–10‑foot build‑out and 80% frontage build‑out; the applicant acknowledged the lot does not meet those build‑out requirements and said variances would be required. Board members highlighted that gas stations are not a permitted use in UCT and the existing station is a preexisting, nonconforming use tied to an earlier special‑use permit; introducing residential uses alongside or above a fueling operation raises questions about whether the nonconforming status can remain or whether a use variance or new special permit will be necessary. The board advised the applicant to consult with the zoning/building officer for an administrative determination.

- Safety and setbacks: members asked for details about tank capacity and clearances. The board raised National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and state fire code setbacks for tanks and dispensers, and asked the applicant to document compliance; one member noted an ordinance requiring minimum separation of pumps from residences could be implicated.

- Streetscape and site orientation: multiple members recommended orienting a future building toward Church Street to meet UCT design standards rather than presenting a canopy/forecourt. Members suggested alternative layouts that would place the canopy and pumps behind the building, or use signage, to present a traditional street‑facing commercial façade consistent with UCT.

- Utilities and easements: the applicant explained much of the fueling infrastructure (tanks, pumps, fill lines and test fittings) is concentrated in a concrete pad near the Church Street frontage; removing or relocating those features would be expensive. The applicant noted an easement and adjoining property access that affect driveway layout and parking access.

Next steps

The board concluded the sketch plan raises substantial legal and design questions. Members suggested the applicant take the following steps before returning: obtain a formal determination from the zoning/building officer about the status of the existing nonconforming gas‑station use and whether adding residential use would be allowed without a use variance; provide NFPA/fire‑code documentation (tank capacity and required setbacks); engage DOT early regarding curb cut and sidewalk/visibility issues; and consider alternative building orientations that present a Church Street façade. No formal board action was taken; the sketch plan review meeting was advisory only.","An applicant presented a conceptual plan to convert the 54 Church Street gas station site to a mixed‑use building with ground‑floor commercial and upper‑floor apartments; the board flagged UDO build‑out requirements, nonconforming gas‑station use, proximity of underground tanks to residences, and advised working with zoning officer and DOT.",{"_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},6607083,"Planning board approves final plat for 16 Marion after reversing earlier approval; board requires two off‑street spaces for duplex",193,323000,516000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2956581-23c0f89e975d0f5ef093f26a42fde123&start=323&end=516","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2956581-23c0f89e975d0f5ef093f26a42fde123/thumbnail_323000.jpg","/articles/6607083/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Planning-board-approves-final-plat-for-16-Marion-after-reversing-earlier-approval-board-requires-two-offstreet-spaces-for-duplex","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607083-827d155788192788ea24a8523851c669/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445690&Signature=Us9Mc-Uu5-bUWgMxuN8A1ZmiteamN2lIJwnnXOJflyfVsikCuRPoDD0p~XYcXgf2bejwiNu-YHqnechbXitxcdJ0M8qiwLFA6Mg58x-1kJstgs9B9GT3mC4XJPeTyzgj4xTN-fEpJVNgAJ~R6th8BqelwOZ1YeQEi4gx8oL5VNaHHXFzHBJjTqpesobwMNE9qIyVMQ4oU8XfvJeq5Nabqo0g6tG7hA7BSlmzkF~UNJ1cWQmaOV-BuSH6ZVOs81Sd3IFuXUcwftZZn8B3fnSkeYCbzOZ-rZ6nREvMuUgdZgC4Szz8X0ckbnMXm4G4He7AbfFHAn1hcShQHKNj3lbsww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","After public comment and applicant presentation, the Planning Board voted to rescind a prior approval and then approved a revised final plat for a subdivision at 16 Marion that establishes 13 lots and requires two off‑street parking spaces for the two‑family residence.

Applicant presentation and neighbor concerns

The applicant (Tonia Yacenchuk / Y Engineering) presented two parking options for a two‑family building: Plan A, a street curb‑cut “parking bay” in front of the house that preserves a large tree and keeps pavement minimal; and Plan B, two off‑street driveway cutouts (two spaces) adjacent to the house that would remove a large tree. The neighborhood association and a resident (Deb LaCombe, 11 Marion Ave.) urged Plan B (two off‑street spaces) citing winter maintenance, safety and reliable off‑street parking.

Board discussion and votes

Board members debated consistency with surrounding street design versus preserving the large tree. Some members preferred preserving the tree and on‑street parking bays as traffic calming; others favored off‑street driveways to ensure two dedicated spaces per unit and to keep the curb line straight. After deliberation the board took two sequential formal actions: first it rescinded the previous subdivision approval to clear the record, then it approved the subdivision as shown in the drawing package with the parking plan that provides two driveways (one on each side of the two‑family residence). The board recorded the final vote as 4 in favor, 2 opposed. No mover/second names were recorded in the transcript.

Conditions and next steps

The board’s action included a finding that the modification constituted a minor revision to the prior SECRA/SEQR review (board found no new/unexpected impacts), and the decision incorporated the site changes shown in the approved drawing package. The board also instructed staff to reflect the change in final documentation and noted the need to clarify the record because of a prior public notice issue that had prompted the rescission.

Members present at roll call included Chair Mark Pringle and board members Alex White, Kerry Mayo, Tony Stellato and Mike King; Bill McTighe had recused earlier in the meeting but participated later in the quorum. The transcript did not provide a roll‑call vote by name; the board reported a 4‑2 tally.","The Planning Board voted to rescind a prior subdivision approval and approved a final plat for 16 Marion that requires two off‑street parking driveways for the duplex; the motion passed 4‑2.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6607088,"Planning board reviews Route 29 mixed-use proposal with traffic, wetlands and access questions",204,252000,456000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2956581-23c0f89e975d0f5ef093f26a42fde123&start=252&end=456","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2956581-23c0f89e975d0f5ef093f26a42fde123/thumbnail_252000.jpg","/articles/6607088/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Planning-board-reviews-Route-29-mixed-use-proposal-with-traffic-wetlands-and-access-questions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6607088-a795664677a2846b4498727f4491c05c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445690&Signature=k8q7QqwGqozeJBhh0z6WouLrjy2nH4EKj3mEsoLKm39VQ6Ezy0-hckZrx-xBjmL8ywE~oeH92IqlkguXLgZtxzzEYL2VqC6f6~UqtE6AhnfrCE4MO8Z8hGqaKDby8LqqtT3a7hPb43zN8eWl1W0WpHt58FqZmUeaTyON6l~~JZzrcliv5~13CqnE9s3l3AqU3DgWJq~EkmoYBk8B747qv4BaIXdyY50Pk8bgqrCMO0JlqWr2KBhtrguDHgZ4W7wXx7JZSERJmUX8E4nbco-UXBnc1ZtDG6LlEfNpMBjYH9bEkGy8nw1JkPhY4nSEG5tWHOEm~-u6cJ3e35D6QEp5Fw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Prime Companies representatives described a revised mixed-use proposal for a roughly 17-acre site along New York State Route 29 that would combine multifamily housing, row houses for sale, and a 110-room hotel, and include a range of amenities and connections to a planned nearby city park.

At a high level, the applicant said the plan includes two large multifamily “H” buildings comprising 344 units, row houses with rear garages for sale, a hotel (four stories, 110 rooms), courtyard amenities, and a mix of surface and concealed parking totaling about 751 stalls (including >400 garage/underground spaces). The proposal would provide a boulevard road to be designed to city standards and proposed to be turned over to the city; an internal U‑shaped road would remain private but built to the same standards. The applicant reported prior planning board review sessions over the past two years and said some previously proposed all‑residential layouts were revised to incorporate commercial frontage in response to board direction.

Board members directed staff and the applicant to pursue more detailed engineering and environmental materials before the board considers formal actions. The project will proceed through State Environmental Quality Review Act (SECRA) as a Type 1 action; the applicant said long‑form environmental review, engineering reports (traffic, stormwater, water/sewer), and design review board (DRB) work will be needed before site plan and special permits. The applicant also said Army Corps (wetlands) and New York State DEC permitting work already has been completed for some wetland disturbance and water‑quality approvals.

Key issues the board identified for follow-up

- Traffic and access: board members repeatedly flagged traffic analysis and queuing on Route 29, Station Lane and nearby intersections as among the primary review topics. The applicant said the traffic report limits left‑turn movements at the Route 29 entrance and modeled multiple intersections, and that the consultant will appear to answer technical questions. Board members said they will not accept the traffic study without independent scrutiny.

- Pedestrian connectivity and station access: multiple board members and the applicant discussed potential paths from the northwestern corner of the site to the adjacent train station parking and station area. Board members urged the applicant to provide clear pedestrian connections, including a potential path to the station parking lot and connections to the multi‑use path and the city park.

- Wetlands, steep slopes and variances: the applicant explained that wetlands and mapped steep slopes along Station Lane and the embankment near the railroad limit building placement and require area variances (steep slope variance, frontage/buildout variances) at the zoning board (ZBA). The applicant said some variance requests arise from physical constraints (wetland buffers and existing embankments) and are not self‑created.

- Grading and design impacts: board members asked about the grade differences between Route 29 and the site (the applicant described a >25‑foot drop in places and said the boulevard grade must meet a 3% maximum for the first 100 feet under city code). The applicant described how the courtyard and building foundations will step to accommodate exposed foundation walls and garage entrances.

- Park contribution and civic space: the applicant showed proposed pedestrian connections to a planned city park and said the project team has discussed potential contributions to the park rather than creating a separate on‑site civic parcel. Staff indicated further discussion with parks staff will be necessary.

Next steps and procedural notes

The board and applicant agreed the next formal steps are SECRA review (long form), DRB design review for building facades and hotel design, and ZBA consideration of area variances. The applicant will submit full engineering reports and the traffic consultant was expected to answer the board’s technical questions at a later meeting. The board emphasized that further details will be required on traffic, stormwater, pedestrian links to the train station and park, and the extent of proposed variance requests before any site plan or special permit decision.

No formal vote was taken; the meeting served to identify the primary issues the board expects to see addressed in subsequent submittals.","Prime Companies presented a revised plan for a 17-acre mixed-use development along NYS Route 29; the Saratoga Springs Planning Board identified traffic analysis, pedestrian connectivity, steep‑slope and wetland variances, and park connections as items for detailed review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Beagle School seeks to consolidate two locations; public hearing opened and held open pending county referral

Board grants site plan approval for three‑unit building at 142 Henry Street with conditions

Sketch plan review: applicant proposes mixed‑use building at 54 Church, board raises zoning and safety issues

Planning board approves final plat for 16 Marion after reversing earlier approval; board requires two off‑street spaces for duplex

Planning board reviews Route 29 mixed-use proposal with traffic, wetlands and access questions