The Saratoga Springs Planning Board accepted lead agency for SEQRA and approved site plan and land‑disturbance permits for a proposed 120,000‑square‑foot speculative warehouse at 20 Skyward Drive.

The motion for a negative SEQRA declaration — finding no significant adverse environmental impact from the project as proposed — carried 6–1 after board discussion about agency coordination; one member opposed. The board then unanimously approved both the site plan and the associated land‑disturbance permit. Approvals include three written conditions the board required before final sign‑off: that the applicant secure DEC clarification or reaffirmation about threatened/endangered species/habitat on the parcel, that any future requirement for a state air permit or state registration for the ultimately proposed tenant triggers return to the board for additional SEQRA review and any necessary permit conditions, and that the applicant execute a tree‑replacement/mitigation plan in consultation with city staff.

Why it matters: The property is in an established industrial park with existing utility infrastructure. The applicant told the board the goal is to make the site “shovel‑ready” so a future tenant can move quickly; site work and grading would likely occur next construction season, with building construction to follow once a lessee or buyer is identified. The board’s conditions are intended to preserve city oversight over new operational impacts that cannot be fully assessed until an end user is known.

Details from the record: Applicant representatives described the proposal as a single industrial structure of roughly 120,000 square feet with truck access on the west side and parking on the north. The applicant provided an updated 2025 traffic study (Creighton Manning) that used on‑site counts taken in August; the study concluded current traffic levels are lower than the 2017 projections used at subdivision approval and said no “failure points” were identified. The applicant also described roof framing sized to accept future solar and noted the building structure will rely on Nucor‑produced recycled steel; final mechanical and energy systems will depend on the eventual tenant and were not specified in the materials presented.

On habitat and agency coordination: The board reviewed a wetland delineation and a February DEC determination in the application file stating there was no likely adverse effect on listed species for this parcel. A later coordination letter from DEC, submitted by staff, noted that DEC identified the project area as one in which potential threatened or endangered species have been reported and suggested a habitat suitability survey “may” be required. A member of the public drew attention to the two DEC letters and asked the board to reconcile them. After discussion, the board took a straw poll and decided to proceed with the February determination as the operative finding but required the applicant to follow up with DEC to secure a clarifying or reaffirming statement for the record. The board’s decision and the conditions were recorded in the meeting minutes.

Air emissions and tenant‑dependent impacts: Because no tenant has been secured, the board could not fully evaluate potential industrial emissions. The applicants and staff agreed to a condition: if the final tenant’s operations require a state air permit or registration above thresholds that could change environmental findings, the applicant must return to the board and SEQRA will be revisited.

Tree replacement: The board required a tree‑mitigation plan tied to the applicant’s tree survey. The condition requires replacement of ‘‘significant’’ trees removed, measured by caliper and by species, with a minimum replacement caliper for new plantings (to be agreed with city staff); any off‑site plantings and the maintenance plan will be coordinated with the city arborist and recorded as part of the approval.

Vote tallies and next steps: The SEQRA negative declaration passed 6–1 (one member opposed). The site plan and land‑disturbance permit were approved unanimously, subject to the conditions above. The applicant agreed to provide DEC follow‑up documentation to staff; staff indicated the follow‑up could be reviewed administratively and brought back before the board if required.