Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Temporary Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies proposal to open 53 Putnam as a temporary public park, urges cleanup and non‑public beautification
Summary
An applicant proposed converting remediated 53 Putnam into a temporary pocket park while development is delayed. Board members and neighbors raised maintenance, safety and liability concerns; the board unanimously denied public‑access park approval and recommended the owner clean and beautify the site (fenced pollinator or art installations) as alternatives.
The Saratoga Springs Planning Board unanimously denied an application to open 53 Putnam Street as a temporary public park, citing unresolved safety, maintenance and liability concerns raised by board members and neighbors.
The applicant/presenter (Speaker 11) described a plan to activate a remediated brownfield as a family‑friendly pocket park and said he had written feedback from DEC staff. Planning staff (Speaker 5) and board members, however, said the file did not yet contain the formal DEC change‑of‑use plan and the detailed work plan that DEC requires; staff said DEC must review and approve any proposed change of use and that the applicant still needed to submit a park plan for DEC review.
Several neighbors and stakeholders raised objections during public comment. Tom Rowan (Speaker 12) — a nearby property owner — said maintenance has been inconsistent for years and warned that an open park would attract misuse: "It would not be maintained," he said, adding that private‑property maintenance near Broadway has been a recurring problem. Multiple board members also cited liability and safety concerns for public access, and some suggested alternative, non‑public ways to improve the lot's appearance, such as fenced pollinator plantings, artwork visible from the sidewalk, or controlled, programmed events.
After deliberation the board voted to deny the interim public‑park application and recommended the applicant address maintenance and site improvements and consider non‑public beautification options that would not change the property's long‑term approved use. The board clarified that the denial concerned public access and did not rescind prior development approvals for the site; it recommended the applicant pursue civil‑works/maintenance steps that would improve the site's appearance while preserving future redevelopment options.
