Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board adopts SEQRA negative declaration for Regeneron water‑main work with permit‑language edits
Summary
After discussing trenchless vs. open‑trench methods and edits to the resolution to match the FEAF and agency permits, the Planning Board adopted a revised negative‑declaration resolution for Regeneron’s off‑site water main.
The Saratoga Springs Planning Board adopted a revised SEQRA negative declaration for Regeneron’s proposed off‑site water main and associated site work after clarifying language to match the project FEAF and applicable permit conditions.
Board members and the applicant’s technical representative discussed language in the resolution that originally said disturbance to regulated wetlands would be "minimized and eliminated through the use of trenchless methods." The applicant’s representative explained the project will use directional drilling where practicable (directional drill within the 100‑foot adjacent area of a state wetland) but will require an open trench through a Class C stream (Geyser Brook) for a section of the installation. The board asked that the resolution explicitly mirror the FEAF language describing both directional drilling and the necessary open‑trench segment and require restoration in accordance with agency permits such that no permanent loss of stream or wetland area occurs.
Members also asked for a clear commitment on tree replacement (or, if off‑site planting is impractical, equivalent carbon‑neutral mitigation), and asked for explicit language addressing potential 34.5‑kilovolt and 115‑kilovolt transmission facilities so the public record documents whether those lines supply residential customers; staff confirmed the 115 kV line referenced is not used to provide residential power.
After edits, the board member who moved the resolution described it as the negative declaration "as modified at tonight's meeting." The motion was seconded and the board voted unanimously to adopt the resolution.
The board recorded the procedural clarifications on wetlands disturbance, restoration commitments tied to agency permits, a tree‑replacement/carbon neutrality provision, and a bike‑pedestrian connection commitment that the applicant said would be incorporated during subsequent review.
No substantive conditions altering the project's scope were added; the board's edits were framed as corrections to ensure the resolution matched the project FEAF and permitting approach.
