At Tuesday’s planning board meeting, four of the seven agenda items scheduled were related to the Luther Forest Technology Campus (LFTC). Two public hearings were held related to subdivisions of property and a land swap between the Luther Forest Technology Campus and the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority. The planning board approved both subdivision applications and the land swap with minimal input from the public.
The fourth item on the agenda, 11 amendments to the original LFTC Planned Development District No. 46, took substantially more time to go through and garnered more public comment, despite the fact that the item was not a public hearing.
Malta’s planning board heard a presentation from represent-atives of LFTC. Mike Ingersoll, of the LA Group, John Munsey, of C.T. Male, and John Lemery, an attorney for the Luther Forest Technology Campus Economic Corporation, spoke to the board about the reasons behind 10 of the 11 proposed amendments to the planned development district. Lemery was allowed to withdraw an amendment related to the Round Lake Bypass and the Route 9 gateway. In the midst of discussion related to an amendment related to a town-accepted recreational master plan, he asked to withdraw that amendment as well.
The planning board was reviewing the proposed amendments to offer comments or conditions for the town board to consider when it reviews the proposal.
The board spent much of its two-hour review discussing issues related to open space and recreation. LFTC wanted to change the method in which open space and recreation fees are calculated to use only occupied building space as opposed to the traditional town method of using total square footage to determine the fees.
Acknowledging that in some of the large buildings only about one-third of the building may be occupied, Munsey suggested that lengthy negotiations between LFTC and the town concluded with calculating based only on occupied space. Several board members were uncomfortable in offering a definition without being clear on the intent of the town board but all agreed to not approve that amendment.
Members of the public had a chance to speak about the trail connections from the LFTC site to the county Zim Smith Trail. Although the representatives agreed that such a connection was valuable and important to the area, they were also adamant that facilitating that connection was out of their control. Amendment No. 10 seeks to relieve them from a formal requirement to complete this connection.
We don’t control the real property involved, said Lemery. `There is no money in the budget. We can’t make it happen. It is not in the purview of what we can get accomplished.`
Director of Parks and Recreation Audrey Ball asked the planning board to recommend to the town board that the requirement remain, and asked that it suggest a completion date for the project. Noting the influx of funding that has come into the project from other outside sources, Ball said the funding needed to facilitate the design and construction of the proposed trail connection will come from somewhere else if it is left in the legislation.
`It’s got to remain in here or it will never get done,` said Ball. She went on to commend the Saratoga Economic Development Corporation for the job it is doing for the planning process involving businesses in the LFTC site, but reminded the planning board that the town must push forward the planning of community uses on the same site.
`You are making decisions that will impact the lives of all of us in this region,` said Julie Stokes, chairman of the board of directors for Saratoga P.L.A.N. Calling the Zim Smith Trail a critical component of the country trail system and the LFTC site as a means of connection to Stillwater, she said her organization has been working proactively to create an interconnected trail system.
`The planning board cannot look at this project in a bubble,` she said.
The planning board opted to recommend disapproval of this amendment calling the connection a `significant countywide intercommunity benefit that should be established as part of this project.`
While the planning board only offered comments on these items, the board listed a condition related to amendment No. 2 dealing with the water source for the first chip fab plant. The amendment calls for the initial water source be expanded to more accurately describe residential use for Pod 10, but also to identify Saratoga Water Services or another town-approved source to provide water for the construction, initial start up and as back up for the first fab. The Hudson River will continue to be the primary source of water but Lemery said, `The water line is not going to be completed by the time the company wants to start construction.`
`I do have a problem with fab one online without that water source,` said planning board member Bill Smith. While all board members agreed that the town would need to consider what might happen to the residential units currently using that service, it was also noted that at the time of site plan approval the applicant would need to demonstrate its ability to get the necessary water, either through the county water line or through the existing service prior to approval for building the chip fab.
The board listed as a condition for the town board’s review that when the Hudson River water source becomes available the first fab will begin using that as the primary water source and emergency connections between the Hudson River water source and the Saratoga Water Service will be made.
The town board should have the planning board recommendations in time for its December meeting, and will likely schedule a public hearing/workshop for sometime in January. “