The Saratoga Springs Planning Board spent the bulk of its meeting on a site-plan application for 26 Findlay Street, a proposed 71-unit mixed supportive and workforce housing project proposed by RISE.

The board heard a presentation from the applicant team and then more than a dozen residents who live near the site, most of whom urged the board to slow the review and gather more data about traffic, safety and environmental impacts. Planning staff and the applicant agreed to return with additional information requested by the board.

Why it matters: The project would add a significant number of multifamily units near an area that already hosts several social-service facilities. Neighbors said the concentration of shelters and service providers has generated pedestrian-safety problems, encampments and frequent police responses; they urged the board to evaluate whether a new development would increase public-safety or quality-of-life issues.

What the applicant and its consultants said
Matt Jones, attorney for the applicant (Jones, Steve & Grassi), introduced RISE representatives and the project engineer. Jason Dell of Lansing Engineering described recent plan revisions: the team has narrowed a vehicle access drive to the city standard, added a new hydrant and upsized a water main, added a sidewalk connection across a small triangular parcel, and reconfigured “banked” parking so that fewer trees would be removed along the site perimeter. Dell said final plan cleanups and minor detail updates remain.

Sybil Newell of RISE described the planned unit mix and management model. She said the project would reserve about half the units for supportive housing for people diagnosed with psychiatric disabilities and the other half as workforce/affordable units up to 60% of area median income. Newell said RISE operates similar projects across the region, and the organization expects most tenants will not have cars; the applicant has proposed 35 on‑site parking spaces and said its experience shows roughly half of tenants register vehicles. Development consultant Mike Newman (CST Housing) told the board the project’s financing and operating assumptions have been reviewed by state funders and investors.

Public comments and concerns
Residents who live on Spa Drive, Prospect Drive, Livingston Street and nearby blocks described repeated instances of people sleeping outdoors, occasional fights and discarded waste. Multiple speakers worried about adding a 71-unit building immediately behind single-family backyards, citing a 45-foot roofline that would be visible from nearby homes and the loss of a wooded buffer. Several speakers raised safety concerns because Findlay/Adelphi is used by tractor-trailers and drivers stop to accelerate near proposed pedestrian crossings.

Speakers also raised environmental concerns: one resident said he had noted federally protected species in the woods; staff said the applicant supplied a habitat assessment and noted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state databases had been checked and that available assessments found “no effect” on identified species.

Board response, SEQRA and next steps
Chair Mark Pingle led a detailed SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) discussion. The board used the short-form SEQRA checklist to identify issues it wants analyzed further. Several items were flagged as moderate-to-large and set for follow-up: community character and the potential for the proposal to affect observable behavioral issues in public (the board asked for data), pedestrian safety and traffic impacts near the site, and certain ecological items flagged by the public.

The board directed staff and the applicant to collect and deliver targeted information before the next review: police calls-for-service and other public-safety data for the neighborhood; comparable post-occupancy data from similar supportive-housing projects; engineering detail and final drainage and lighting plans for the triangle and the additional banked-parking area; documentation of any required agreements with adjacent property owners (notably a roof-drain connection to the neighboring Wind Supply property); and a request to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) about high-visibility pedestrian treatments for the proposed mid-block crossing. The applicant agreed to pursue examples and comparables for other RISE projects and to provide more engineering detail on the roof scupper/downspout connection to Wind Supply and on overflow backup provisions.

Traffic and pedestrian safety
Board members and staff emphasized pedestrian-safety concerns because of heavy truck traffic on the nearby streets. The applicant offered to contribute funds to a city‑held escrow for future pedestrian-safety improvements at intersections off-site (Broadway and Boston/Findlay were mentioned). The board said it would ask DPS to consider whether mid-block signage, high-visibility markings or other measures would be appropriate and requested the applicant show the proposed treatments on updated plans.

What the board did not do
The board did not vote to approve or deny the site plan. Instead it recorded specific information requests and scheduled further review. Board members said the additional datasets would help the board decide whether the project, as designed, would lead to significant adverse impacts that require mitigation or redesign.

Where this goes next
The applicant will provide the additional data and revised drawings; staff will post materials for public review. The board indicated it will re-open the application for deliberation once the requested data — particularly police call logs and comparables from similar projects — and engineering clarifications are available.

Speakers (selection)
- Mark Pingle, Chair, Saratoga Springs Planning Board (government)
- Matt Jones, Attorney, Jones, Steve & Grassi (business/agent for applicant)
- Sybil Newell, RISE (nonprofit applicant representative)
- Jason Dell, Engineer, Lansing Engineering (engineer for applicant)
- Mike Newman, Development consultant, CST Housing (developer consultant)
- Susan (last name not stated), Planning Department staff (government)
- Amy (last name not stated), city engineering staff (engineer, recused from some review)
- James Salloway, P.E., City Engineer (government)
- Don Hughes; John Constantino; Lance Wallley; Pati Angelo; John Benfer; Lorelei Brennan; Bridall Vitello; Mary Ann Needham; Molly Irvine (residents/public commenters)

Authorities cited or consulted
- State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) — referenced by planning board and staff
- City Council resolution (payment in lieu of taxes / PILOT) — referenced by applicant as relevant to project financing and incentives

Clarifying details extracted from meeting
- Proposed units: 71 total (applicant statement)
- Parking planned: 35 on-site spaces (applicant parking survey; applicant said ~50% of tenants register cars)
- Unit targeting: about 50% supportive housing (individuals with psychiatric diagnoses) and 50% workforce/affordable units up to 60% AMI (applicant)
- Applicant staffing/monitoring: supportive-housing model includes periodic check-ins (minimum quarterly; higher frequency if needed); applicant described staffing ratios used in other properties
- Applicant financing: state tax-credit and block grant mechanisms were discussed; applicant said investors and state reviewers scrutinize pro formas and operating assumptions
- Applicant committed to provide comparable post-occupancy data from similar projects and to work with staff on drainage, lighting, and scupper/downspout engineering details

Proper names (excerpt)
- RISE (nonprofit organization)
- Lansing Engineering (engineering firm)
- Jones, Steve & Grassi (law firm)
- CST Housing (development consultant)
- Wind Supply (adjacent property referenced for roof-drain connection)
- City of Saratoga Springs

Community relevance
- Geographies: Findlay Street / Adelphi Street area; Spa Drive; West Circular; Ballston Avenue
- Impact groups: residents of nearby single-family homes; current street‑homeless population; tenants targeted for supportive and workforce housing
- Funding: tax credits, block grants referenced by applicant

Meeting context
- Engagement level: many public commenters (12+), extended applicant presentation, lengthy board deliberation; item occupied the meeting’s primary time slot
- Implementation risk: medium — project depends on financing approvals, easements/permissions from adjacent landowners (roof scupper connection), and possible DPS approvals for pedestrian treatments
- History: project previously reviewed by board (applicant returned with refinements and with a City Council resolution supporting PILOT incentives)

Searchable tags:["supportive housing","RISE","Findlay Street","site plan","pedestrian safety","SEQRA","parking","Saratoga Springs"]

Salience
- overall:0.85
- overall_justification:Major local housing and public-safety concerns were raised and the proposal would add a sizable number of units to a concentrated area of social-service facilities; the board flagged multiple SEQRA topics requiring more data.
- impact_scope:"local"
- attention_level:"high"

Topics:[{"name":"housing","justification":"Proposal is a 71-unit supportive and workforce housing project; central to the meeting.","scoring":{"topic_relevance":0.98,"depth_score":0.90,"opinionatedness":0.05,"controversy":0.85,"civic_salience":0.92,"impactfulness":0.88,"geo_relevance":1.00}}],

discussion_decision":{"discussion_points":["engineering refinements to reduce buffer impacts","pedestrian safety near Findlay/Adelphi","cumulative behavioral/public-safety impacts"],"directions":["Applicant to provide comparable post-occupancy data from like projects","Staff to assemble police call-for-service data and public submissions","Applicant to provide final drainage, lighting, and roof scupper engineering details; seek written permission for cross-property work"],"decisions":[]},

actions":[{"kind":"other","identifiers":{},"motion":"No final vote; board requested additional data and plan revisions","mover":"not specified","second":"not specified","vote_record":[],"tally":{},"legal_threshold":{"met":false,"notes":"No formal action taken; direction for additional submittals"},"outcome":"no_action","notes":"Board requested police call logs, comparable project outcomes, finalized engineering drawings for drainage and roof scupper connections; applicant to pursue permissions and provide materials."}],

provenance":{"transcript_segments":[{"block_id":"t-343","local_start":0,"local_end":120,"evidence_excerpt":"Having taken care of the the short ones, let's turn our attention to, 26 Finley.","tc_start":"00:05:43","tc_end":"00:07:03","reason_code":"topicintro"},{"block_id":"t-10123","local_start":0,"local_end":80,"evidence_excerpt":"So that means that what we do now is to collect data... we will get some more data from analysis that, that some of the public has done.","tc_start":"02:48:43","tc_end":"02:49:23","reason_code":"topicfinish"}]}