Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board pauses SEQRA review of Stewart's redevelopment, requests spill plan, updated trip counts and streetscape options
Summary
The board reviewed a long‑running Stewart's redevelopment proposal, pressed the applicant on potential petroleum spill risk to nearby Loughborough Lake, and paused SEQRA Part 2 pending a site‑specific tanker/offloading spill prevention plan, an updated trip‑generation baseline, and further streetscape/setback options to respond to neighbor concerns.
The Saratoga Springs Planning Board on July 18 continued review of a large Stewart's redevelopment proposal and paused the SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) Part 2 evaluation to request targeted follow‑up materials rather than reach a determination at this meeting.
Ryan Rubadoux, Stewart's designer and project coordinator, summarized a project history that dates to 2021 and described the revised proposal: the developer removed a previously proposed car wash, proposes a ≈4,500‑square‑foot convenience store footprint (larger than the city’s existing Stewart’s stores) and a 3,000‑square‑foot tenant space, and has reduced the number of fuel dispensers from nine to six. Rubadoux said the firm also proposes to maintain a wooded area along the north side of the site as a permanent buffer and noted existing license agreements with National Grid for adjacent hard‑surfaced areas used for parking and turnarounds.
Board members focused on three substantive areas before concluding staff lacked sufficient detail to finish Part 2: (1) water‑quality and spill risk to Loughborough Lake, (2) the age and relevance of the traffic analysis, and (3) how the building orientation and setback would affect streetscape and neighborhood character.
On water quality and public safety, a board member pressed for a specific, site‑level contingency plan addressing the risk from tanker truck unloading and potential spills. Stewart's described standard industry controls (double‑walled underground tanks with interstitial brine monitoring, oil separators, manual shutoff valves) but did not provide a site‑specific tanker/offloading spill prevention and response plan during the meeting; the board requested one.
On transportation, multiple board members agreed the existing trip‑generation analysis (dated February 2021) should be updated. The applicant had earlier removed the car wash from the proposal — a change that may reduce trips — but board members said an updated trip‑generation baseline is needed to decide whether a more detailed traffic study is necessary.
On community character, the board discussed whether the building should be pulled back from the street, changed orientation, or otherwise redesigned so the streetscape aligns better with neighborhood expectations; members recommended that the applicant explore alternative layouts and coordinate with the Design Review Board so the Planning Board and DRB provide consistent guidance.
The Planning Board resolved to pause completion of SEQRA Part 2 and asked Stewart's to return with the requested materials (site‑specific spill prevention/response plan for tanker operations, an updated trip‑generation calculation/traffic baseline, and consideration of streetscape/setback alternatives) before the board resumes its review. No formal determination or votes on the project were taken at this meeting.
Next steps: Stewart's will supply the requested documents; the Planning Board indicated it will reconvene Part 2 review once the submission is complete and may coordinate further with the Design Review Board on facades and massing.
