Planning board hears hours of neighborhood concern over proposed 71‑unit supportive housing at 26 Findlay Street

The Saratoga Springs Planning Board on a busy night heard detailed presentations from developer representatives for a proposed 71‑unit affordable and supportive housing project at 26 Findlay Street and more than a dozen neighbors who said the site and nearby blocks are already “oversaturated” with social‑service facilities.

The applicant, nonprofit RISE, represented by attorney Matt Jones and executive director Sybil Newell and supported by engineer Jason Dell (Lansing Engineering) and consultant Mike Newman (CST Housing), presented an updated site plan intended to respond to board and neighbor comments. RISE said the project would combine workforce housing (units for households up to roughly 60 percent of Saratoga County area median income) with supportive apartments reserved for people diagnosed with psychiatric disabilities and that supportive services would be provided on a scheduled basis.

Why it matters: Neighbors said the block that includes Findlay and Adelphi streets is already a concentrating point for short‑term shelters, drop‑in services and other facilities; they warned that building more permanent units at this site could exacerbate traffic, pedestrian safety and neighborhood character concerns unless the board requires mitigation. The board paused a decision so it could gather more objective data needed for its SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) review.

What the applicant told the board

Matt Jones, attorney for the applicant, reviewed procedural steps already taken and noted a council resolution supporting a payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑taxes (PILOT) device that the city council adopted recently, an element the developer says strengthens project feasibility. Engineer Jason Dell described plan edits since the last appearance: the water main extension was upsized from 6 to 8 inches and an additional hydrant location added; access drive widths were reduced to the city standard (22 feet with 5‑foot radii); additional right‑of‑way street trees and a sidewalk connecting to the building were added; and the applicant reconfigured “banked” (future) parking so the vegetative buffer on the site perimeter would be less impacted. Dell said the applicant committed to additional evergreen plantings in the wooded buffer and that two subsurface stormwater treatment systems will detain large storm events.

Sybil Newell, RISE executive director, described the resident profile RISE expects: about half the units as workforce housing for households at or below 50–60 percent of area median income and half set aside as “supportive housing” for people diagnosed with psychiatric disabilities. Newell said supportive housing is permanent housing with wraparound services and “is not transitional” and added, “the requirements for supportive housing are that we see the individual once every three months; depending on need we will see them up to every day.” She said RISE operates similar programs regionally and that many residents are employed or volunteer in their communities.

Concerns from neighbors and the board

Dozens of neighbors spoke during a lengthy public comment period, citing safety, traffic and tree‑loss concerns. Speakers said Findlay/Adelphi is a short thoroughfare used by trucks, that the proposed 30 parking spaces for 71 units appeared inadequate, and that a playground on site could increase pedestrian conflicts at a street currently used by large commercial vehicles. Several speakers urged the board to examine existing police calls for service, to require a traffic or pedestrian safety study, and to require the city to review crosswalks and signage at Findlay and Broadway. Neighbors also raised worries about losing a wooded buffer and identified bird species they said use the woods.

Board questions and next steps

Members of the Planning Board pressed the applicant on several technical issues: whether the applicant had the necessary permission from neighboring property owners to intercept roof drainage from the adjacent Wind Supply building (applicant said permission was not yet finalized but not a “deal killer”); whether downspout and overflow details would be engineered for scuppers; and how the applicant intended to preserve the tree buffer (board discussed a “no‑cut” buffer note or conservation easement). The applicant agreed to add details and to provide a lighting and landscape plan that covers the triangular parcel across the street that is shown for possible future banked parking.

After public comment the board debated SEQRA items. Several members said they were not yet satisfied that they had objective data on neighborhood “behavioral load” — meaning police calls, camping, or other outdoor disturbances that neighbors attribute to the nearby shelter and drop‑in services — and whether the proposed housing would increase or decrease those public‑space behaviors. Some board members asked staff to collect police blotter data and other objective metrics; the board also asked RISE to provide data from comparable supportive‑housing projects (for example, call volumes, management approach, or other measurable outcomes) so the board can evaluate neighborhood impact. The board left the application open and asked city engineering and planning staff to return with a list of specific data requests and for the applicant to provide analog projects and follow‑up engineering details. No vote was taken on site plan or SEQRA at the meeting.

Ending

The board concluded that it will use the short SEQRA form to identify discrete issues to study in more depth (noting pedestrian safety, tree/buffer effects and the broader neighborhood service footprint as items to be clarified) and requested that neighbors provide any written data to planning staff. The board scheduled no final action and asked staff to solicit the specific information outlined above so members can complete their SEQRA review at a future meeting.

Speakers

- Mark Pingle, Chair, Saratoga Springs Planning Board (government) - Matt Jones, Attorney, Jones, Steve, Grassi (applicant counsel; business) - Sybil Newell, Executive Director, RISE (nonprofit) - Jason Dell, Engineer, Lansing Engineering (business) - Mike Newman, Development consultant, CST Housing (business) - Susan, Planning Department staff (government) - Don Hughes, Resident (citizen) - John Constantino, Resident (citizen) - Lance Walley, Resident (citizen) - Eppie Angelo, Resident (citizen) - John Benfer, Resident (citizen) - Lorelei Brennan, Resident (citizen) - Bridal Vitello, Resident (citizen) - Mary Ann Needham, Resident (citizen) - Molly Irvine, Resident (citizen)

Authorities

- statute: "State Environmental Quality Review Act"; referenced_by: ["discussion of Part 2/3 SEQRA review"]

Actions

- No formal action (no motion or vote) on site plan or SEQRA; board requested additional information and left SEQRA open for further study (outcome: no_action; notes: "board requested police records, comparable project data from RISE, engineering clarification on drainage, scuppers and buffer conservation easement options").

Clarifying details

- project_size: 71 units (stated by applicant) - parking_proposed: 30 parking stalls initially shown (applicant stated most tenants do not have cars based on comparable properties) - supportive_units: ~50% of units designated for supportive housing (for people diagnosed with psychiatric disabilities) - workforce_units: remainder targeted to households up to ~60% AMI (cited 2025 Saratoga County AMI example for a one‑person household in discussion) - buffer_commitment: applicant committed to additional evergreen plantings in wooded buffer (detail: exact species/quantity not specified) - stormwater: two subsurface stormwater systems proposed to manage runoff and detention (applicant engineer)

Proper_names

[{"name":"RISE","type":"organization"},{"name":"Lansing Engineering","type":"organization"},{"name":"CST Housing","type":"organization"},{"name":"Findlay Street","type":"location"},{"name":"Adelphi Street","type":"location"},{"name":"State Environmental Quality Review Act","type":"other"}]

Searchable_tags

["supportive housing","affordable housing","planning board","Findlay Street","public comment","SEQRA","pedestrian safety","stormwater"]

Salience

{"overall":0.78,"overall_justification":"Large proposed housing project with supportive units in a neighborhood already hosting social services; high public interest and potential policy implications; board deferred decision pending data.","impact_scope":"local","impact_scope_justification":"Project affects an immediate neighborhood and city streets; impacts are primarily local.","attention_level":"high","attention_level_justification":"Lengthy public comment and contested community concerns; requires further regulatory review.","novelty":0.42,"novelty_justification":"Supportive housing projects are not unprecedented locally, but the concentration in this neighborhood and public reaction raise novel local debate.","timeliness_urgency":0.64,"timeliness_urgency_justification":"Council and applicant actions (PILOT resolution) make near‑term decisions likely; board requested data before SEQRA continues.","legal_significance":0.41,"legal_significance_justification":"SEQR procedural steps and need for potential conservation easement and cross‑property permissions; but no immediate land‑use law change cited.","budgetary_significance":0.35,"budgetary_significance_justification":"Project uses tax‑credit/PILOT financing; financial details affect feasibility but not a municipal budget vote tonight.","public_safety_risk":0.62,"public_safety_risk_justification":"Neighbors emphasized pedestrian and truck conflicts on local streets; board asked for traffic/pedestrian safety analysis.","affected_population_estimate":200,"affected_population_estimate_justification":"71 units with household sizes could affect roughly 150–250 residents; estimate approximate.","policy_stage":"proposal","policy_stage_justification":"Applicant is in site plan/SEQRA review stage.","follow_up_priority":9,"follow_up_priority_justification":"Board requested quantifiable data (police calls, comparables, engineering clarifications) before SEQRA continues.","fact_check_risk":0.16,"fact_check_risk_justification":"Most factual items are technical details provided by applicant or staff; risk is low but public claims need corroboration by records.","uncertainty":0.56,"uncertainty_justification":"Several outstanding items (drainage permissions, drainage responsibilities, traffic/pedestrian mitigation, buffer protections) require follow up."}

Engagement_forecast

{"newsworthiness":{"national":0.04,"regional":0.18,"local":0.85,"justification":"High local relevance with intense resident turnout; regional interest limited to housing policy observers."},"notify_recommendation":{"audience":"neighborhood","reason":"Significant local public comment and unresolved safety/traffic questions; notify immediate neighborhood and city council","audience_regions":[],"justification":"Local neighbors and council likely want prompt updates."},"predicted_interest":{"national":0.02,"regional":0.22,"local":0.9,"justification":"Local stakeholders and housing advocates will follow story."},"predicted_click_through":0.24,"predicted_read_time_minutes":6.2,"predicted_shares":8}

Graph_signals

{"jurisdictions":["US-NY-SARATOGA"],"ontology_topics":["affordable_housing","supportive_housing","site_plan_review"],"entities":[{"id":"rise","name":"RISE","type":"organization"},{"id":"saratoga_planning_board","name":"Saratoga Springs Planning Board","type":"government"}],"events":[]}