Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Gage Simpson, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: Gage Simpson, Chair, Brendan Dailey, Co-Chair, Shafer Gaston, Otis Maxwell, Chris LaPointe, Amanda Demma, Jonah Cohen ABSENT: STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, Jackie White, City Attorney ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. ZBA APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: PROCEDURAL BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: 1. #20250524 17 Tommy Luther Dr. Area variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence in the Suburban Residential (SR) District. Variances sought for 17 Tommy Luther Dr.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REAR SETBACK 30 FT. 15.3 FT. 14.7 FT. Mark & Lisa Larkin represented the application. They are seeking relief to enclose with a screened porch their existing porch, the rear steps leading to the patio, and the patio over to the north side. They would like steps that go down from the back of the patio and need a variance because the regulations have changed since they originally built the porch and patio. They have spoken to their neighbors who are fine with their plan. They are located on a dead-end street and are surrounded by woods so they can’t be seen from the road. They would like to be able to enjoy the outdoors with the screened-in porch. Jonah verified that there would be no change in the impermeable surface. He asked if there were any comps from the neighborhood with a similar encroachment. Lisa said there are other screened porches but they’re not aware of the boundaries for those homes. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing was closed at 6:44 p.m. Jonah Cohen made a motion to approve an Area Variance for 17 Tommy Luther Dr., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Vote: G. Simpson-Y, B. Dailey-Y, A. Demma-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, J. Cohen-Y. 7-0, motion carried. 2. #2025052614 Ritchie Pl. Area Variance for additions to an existing single-family residence in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Variances sought for 14 Ritchie Pl.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAXIMUM COMBINED 28% 31% 3% COVERAGE% FRONT YARD SETBACK 30 FT. 14FT. 16 FT. (54%) SIDE 2 - SETBACK 12 FT. 10 FT. 2 FT. (15.8%) TOTAL SIDE 30 FT. 24.5 FT. 5.5 FT. Mary Dooley, owner, represented the application and is seeking relief to renovate the front porch (16’ relief front yard setback) because it’s pulling away from the house and is in disrepair. The porch is grandfathered, but once renovations begin the foundation may not support the new porch and would need to be replaced and require a variance. She will be rehabbing the kitchen and the enclosed back porch. The floors are 2 inches out of level and are not built to today’s standard, which will require a variance. At the back of the house, in the same footprint, she would like to add a second story for a main bedroom and bath which may require a new foundation built to today’s standard to hold the first and second floors (2 ft. relief side 2 setback and 2nd story relief). Otis said he’s concerned about variances attached to a considerable increase in mass and scale of a structure. He said the applicant’s house is smaller than other houses in the neighborhood and this addition would likely bring it up to a comparable size. He asked the applicant to bring documentation (pictures, etc.) showing that they have a similar mass and scale to what is being proposed. Shafer clarified that the work being proposed would be 100 % within the existing footprint. Gage noted that with the addition of the second-story bedroom and bath above the kitchen, 324 sq. ft. will be added to the total square footage making it 1,485 sq. ft. Brendan agreed with the request for comps. Mary said she currently lives in Virginia and asked if she could email the pictures to Susan. Gage said that is acceptable and suggested she could also take a screen shot of Google Maps showing the size of the house compared to other properties. Mary has submitted letters from her neighbors to the city as well. Susan noted that the new covered patio will be outside of the existing footprint (+96 sq. ft.). Amanda advised the applicant to check the Saratoga County Property Assessment page for property lines and neighborhood details. Chris noted that the lot was undersized by almost half. Mary agreed and said all of the lots on her street are 50 ft. across. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 15, 2025 Page 2 of 8 Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing will remain open. 3. #20250534 169 Union Ave. and Morton Pl. Area Variance. Modification to a previously approved area variance for a detached carriage house in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Variances sought for 169 Union Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REAR YARD SETBACK 25 FT. 5 FT. 20 FT. (80%) MINIMUM AVERAGE WIDTH 80 FT. 50 FT. 30 FT. MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL 40% 46.5% 6.5% COVERAGE MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY 25% 15% 40% PERCENTAGE Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America & Y Engineering represented the applicant, Mr. Grossman. Tonya said the property at 169 Union also wraps around Ludlow and around to Morton Pl. The applicant received variances last year for coverage and side setback for the construction of a new carriage house. One of the variances was what they thought was front setback to the alley and found out it’s for the rear setback and not front. Tonya noted that when they were before the DRB last year for approval there was significant discussion about the carriage house being placed 10 ft. back from the alley rather than in alignment with the other buildings that were along the alley, which would be more within the historical context of the neighborhood. Conversely, the ZBA felt it was one less variance the applicant would be asking for so they took it out of the equation and the building was moved. The owner now agrees that the carriage house would look better closer to the alley, so they are seeking a variance to do that. Tonya showed an aerial view of a 2-car garage/carriage house with an apartment above located at 155 Union, two doors down, that received a variance in 2019 to be built 5 ft. from the property line. Photos show the neighboring structures along the alley with 5 ft. frontage. Tonya noted that the setback for the garage that was removed was 1.7’ and 2’. Brendan asked if there would be gutters on the carriage house. Tonya said there won’t be gutters but they will have gravel and grass around it. Chris asked about the number of parking spaces because 1.5 is needed per dwelling unit, requiring 3 spaces. The applicant can make a permeable parking space by the garage. Tonya will return with the calculation for permeability. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing will remain open. 4. #20250734 17 Walnut St. Area Variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 17 Walnut St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 15, 2025 Page 3 of 8 TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. SIDE YARD SETBACK 8 FT. 3.3 FT. 4.7 FT. (NORTH) MIN. TOTAL SIDE YARD 20 FT. 12.4 FT. 7.6 FT. SETBACK Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America & Y Engineering represented the applicant. Tonya said the applicant was before the board in 2021 with a similar project; removal of an existing garage and an addition to the house so they could have a first-floor master suite and a small mudroom entrance into the house. In 2021 they were asking for an additional variance because the addition at the time included a large rear porch that would be closer to the north property line, but that has been removed and is not included in the new downsized plan. Everything else is the same on the plan. They are asking for a variance for the setbacks along the south because they are close to the existing garage. The property owner purchased an additional 10 ft. of land. They are not asking for anything more than what was approved in 2021. Tonya said they’re asking for 2 variances; 1. total interior side setback 11.5 ft. (20 ft. required) because the northern side of the existing house already sits at 1.5 ft. There is no addition proposed on the northern side, the entire addition is on the south side. 2. Minimum interior side 2 ft. (8 ft. required). The 2 ft. is not the addition; it is to bring the existing house into compliance. Susan said the existing house is 2.8 ft. from the property line so they may not need a variance, but Patrick Cogan will have to review it and identify if it needs to be removed. Gage noted that it would be the total side because they are doing the work on the south. The side that the work is being done on has the 10 ft./9ft. (existing house not square & property line goes in) because of the additional land that was purchased. Brendan summarized that the garage would be demolished, they will build a one-car, one-story garage with storage space above that will be connected to the house with a bedroom at the rear. He asked if there was a stormwater plan. Tonya said there is not, because they are 9 or 10 ft from the property line to the drip edge. Tonya said they are also requesting a variance for a 14 ft. wide (27%) driveway which will be more than the 25% allowed. Gage Simpson, Chair said moving forward they will need the determination from Patrick on the side yard setback. The applicant will return for the September 29th meeting. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 p.m. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing will remain open. 5. #20250736 52 York St. Area Variance associated with a proposed two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Variances sought for 52 York St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM LOT SIZE 6,600 SF 5,450 SF 1,150 SF (17%) MINIMUM AVERAGE WIDTH 60 FT. 50 FT. 10 FT. (17%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 15, 2025 Page 4 of 8 Collin Christovich & Monette Carli, presented as owners of the property. Collin said the lot is a through lot connecting York and Middle Ave. They purchased the home to up-size after the birth of their baby and have renovated and are ready to move in. Their existing lot at 52 York is larger than needed at 10,901 SF (6,600 required in UR-3). They would like to subdivide the property into two lots by dividing the property in half making each lot 5,450 SF (50 ft x 109 ft). Both lots would connect to existing sidewalks and utilities. Their intention is to sell the second lot after a successful subdivision. The applicant said both lots would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Collin showed comps for recent subdivisions that were granted at 124 York Ave. (MLS 6600/5279=20%, MW 60/48=20%), 10 Avery St. (MLS 6600/6400=3%, MW 60/50=17%). Collin said all but one of the neighboring properties are undersized with respect to width so there’s no opportunity to purchase more land to come into compliance. They studied 145 neighborhood properties to determine the character of the neighborhood and found the following: • 90% nonconformance by minimum width and area. • 68% Nonconformance by minimum area only. • 81% Nonconformance by minimum width only. • 46% Smaller than proposed subdivision by area. • 68% Less than or equal to proposed subdivision by width. Collin stated that, according to the tax map, there are two residential through lots between York and Middle Ave. The remaining lots have been divided in a manner similar to the current request, resulting in increased consistency throughout the neighborhood. Gage said he doesn’t have any concerns. It’s comparable with the neighborhood. Shafer questioned the rear setback requirement should the proposed garage be built post subdivision. The possible future garage is not being considered with this application. Jackie noted that State and City law requires that subdivisions be referred to the Planning Board for a written recommendation. Also, uncoordinated SEQRA review is required but the ZBA can ask for coordinated review with the Planning Board. Brendan Dailey made a motion to defer Lead Agency to the Planning Board for coordinated SEQRA review. The motion was seconded by Jonah Cohen. Vote: G. Simpson-Y, B. Dailey-Y, A. Demma-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, J. Cohen-Y. 7-0, motion carried. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing will remain open. 6. #20250738 2 North Circular St. Area Variance for installation of a wall and fence in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 2 North Circular St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED EAST FENCE WALL HEIGHT 6 FT. 13 FT. 7 FT. SOUTH FENCE WALL 6 FT. 8 FT. 2 FT. Jacqueline Neuringer, owner represented the application. The fence was installed in 2021 by one of the area’s leading fence contractors and the applicant was assured that all city requirements; height, location, etc. were being met given the property is located next to a commercial business (funeral home). The fence has been well received by all adjacent neighbors, and they have submitted letters of support to keep it as is. Jacqueline read a portion of one of the neighbor’s letters “I am writing in support of Matthew and Jacqueline Neuringer’s fence variance request to ensure that the fence currently installed is maintained at its current City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 15, 2025 Page 5 of 8 location and height which is along the property line of my property. The fence is really attractive and provides great security and safety. The fence in its current form also acts as a buffer from the heavy traffic noise on Route 50”. Jacqueline said the fence is necessary because of the commercial property adjacent to hers on the southern border (funeral home), sloping topography on the other border, and the presence of a retaining wall along the eastern property line. Per the UDO, the fence height and wall height need to be combined, and the fence company claims they were unaware of the requirement. Even if the fence were to be reduced to 4 ft., the combined fence and wall would still exceed the UDO limit. It would not be possible to move the fence back from the property line because it would intersect with the pool filtration and heating system and would not address the aesthetic and safety issues for the neighbors. The fence provides important safety and security in a dense residential area adjacent to the high-traffic corridor of Route 50 and the funeral home that operates seven days a week. The fence is decorative, not industrial, and replaced a dilapidated structure that was on this lot. Amanda asked if plans were submitted to the city for the fence. Jacqueline said they did a large project and hired reputable people so she’s assuming that it was done. They worked with the fence company to determine the fence type, height and location. Amanda asked what it would cost to move the fence and bring it into conformance. Gage asked the applicant to return with an estimate of what it would cost to move the fence and bring it into compliance. Susan said it’s her understanding that the fence on the plan as part of the pool permit was shown as setback from the retaining wall, not to be placed on top of the retaining wall. Brendan said he lives in the neighborhood and many of the properties slope toward Route 50 and have unusual fences that are built into the slope. In his opinion it doesn’t take away from the character of the neighborhood. The retaining wall is there, and he would hate to see them have to move the fence an inch. Chris asked why it took four years for this to come to the attention of the building inspector. Susan said it was the recent final inspection for the project that identified the need for a variance. Gage said the applicant should demonstrate the hardship with additional information; letters from Neighbors, correspondence with the fence company, and the cost to move the fence into compliance. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 8:02 p.m. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing will remain open. Continued Business: 7. #20230590 177 S. Broadway Stewarts Demo & Construction. Area Variance to permit the expansion and construction of Stewart’s Shops establishment in the NC/T-5 District. Variances sought for 177 S. Broadway: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT#3 ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. BUILD-OUT % ON 70% 14% 56% LINCOLN AVE. MIN. BUILD-OUT % ON S. 70% 0% 70% BROADWAY FRONT SETBACK TO S. WITHIN 0 TO 12 FT. 36 FT. 24 FT. (100%) BROADWAY MINIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 24 FT. 19.5 FT. 4.5 FT. FREE-STANDING SIGN 12 SF 24 SF 12 SF City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 15, 2025 Page 6 of 8 Susan said following a discussion at the workshop, some of the variances described above may not be needed if additional information is provided. Libby Clark, Attorney for the applicant. Also present, Ryan Rubado for Stewart’s. Libby presented the most recent rendering of the proposed project and a timeline of the project. Originally the project had a special use permit for a gas station with a canopy and building and area variances that were granted to Mobil in the 1970’s. Additional variances were granted in the 90’s for underground tanks. In 2022 they began seeking to relocate the building and parking, but to keep the gas canopy at the front. In October 2023 it was determined by Patrick Cogan that the application should begin with the DRB because of the demolition of a structure in the rear of the property, which ultimately delayed the project. Demolition was approved by the DRB with conditions and now the applicant is returning for the stated zoning variances. Libby noted that the Planning Board also issued a sketch plan approval for post demolition that went through a 10-month process. Libby presented the new proposed site layout: • T-5 or NC Neighborhood District: a wide variety of residential and nonresidential uses in a moderate intensity mixed-use environment. • Store is set back from S. Broadway because of the external regulatory environment; requirements for Izon, gas canopies for the staff, the truck weight limitations on Lincoln Ave., the radius to turn tractor trailers taking a left onto Lincoln. There are a lot of site constraints. • Improvement - Mid-block sidewalk proposed connecting Lincoln to S. Broadway through the site. • Civic seating area/greenspace proposed at angled corner of Lincoln and Broadway. Libby said regarding the area variance relief for minimum building height, the applicant believes they can meet the requirement. With regard to the variance relief for the free-standing sign; Libby said this is a hybrid Stewart’s/Mobil partnership so signage for both is required. They are currently working on reducing the variance relief sought. Libby presented a corner store layout option, but it was rejected because staff couldn’t monitor the gas pumps, the pumps would be too close to homes on Lincoln (causing noise, lighting, and fire risks), tanker truck access would be blocked, and the store’s back would face the corner. Libby presented a rendering of the proposed building with a raised roof line with windows to give the appearance of a second story. There will be two main entrances so there’s an accessible, walkable entrance into the Stewart’s Shop. It won’t be necessary to cross the parking lot from Lincoln St. because it will have a primary pedestrian entrance. Libby showed renderings of the existing and proposed building façade and talked about the 5-part balancing test for an area variance: 1. Undesirable change – been a gas station since the 1970’s, not a significant change. 2. Alternatives sought – explored extensively with the DRB and PB and this is the outcome of those efforts. 3. Are variances substantial – two are based solely on pre-existing, non-conforming conditions. 4. Impact on physical or environmental conditions – Stewart’s is regulated by the State of New York for all environmental considerations. There is no SEQRA review on the application, but the demolition did go through SEQRA review. 5. Self-created hardship – the decision to relocate the store and reconfigure the site is self-created but the location and some of the site constraints are not. The board discussed the sign variance. The proposed sign will be smaller (24 SF) than the sign that exists (40 SF) but is a 100% variance in the zone. Libby said they’re working on getting the square footage down to 20. Gage said the board is going to ask for 24 SF and the applicant can make it smaller. Brendan asked about the process for the home that will be demolished on Lincoln Ave. Libby said they applied for demolition, the DRB deemed it historic but there was enough hardship to overcome the historic significance to take it down. Brendan asked if there would be a barrier between the residential home on Lincoln and Stewart’s and Ryan said there would be. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 15, 2025 Page 7 of 8 Jonah asked what the distance from the new building to the nearest residential property line would be. Ryan said 12 ft. and the existing house that will be demolished is 10 ft. Jonah said the building looks nice and is an aesthetic improvement to the current condition. In general, the board members agreed that it was a good presentation, and the new proposal is a visual improvement. Susan said the last time the applicant came before the ZBA they asked for an advisory opinion from the DRB and asked if that was still necessary. Gage thought they were sent to the DRB because of the historic nature of the building to be demolished. Susan said there are some conditions of approval in the DRB’s decision that were included in the application materials with regard to the redevelopment plan that should be reviewed by the ZBA members. Susan will provide background information to the ZBA before the next meeting. Gage Simpson, Chair re-opened the Public Hearing at 8:34 p.m. Geoff Wood, 26 Lincoln Ave. qualified his ability to comment by saying he’s a civil engineer who specializes in highway design, a licensed professional engineer, and licensed roadway safety professional who as a result of this project, was invited to become a member of the Design Review Board. He said the trapezoidal shape of the lot and how it gets smaller towards the back and the weight restriction for trucks on Lincoln Ave. make access into and out of this site problematic. It was previously suggested that maybe the weight limitations for trucks should be lifted. He stressed that there’s a difference between the weight and size of a truck, and the size of a truck is the issue when trying to make turning movements at the intersection of S. Broadway and Lincoln for vehicular traffic and pedestrians – it’s a safety thing. There’s a legitimate reason for the driveway layout and that dictates the potential location for a building. With regard to one of the items in the 5-part test – adverse impact to the immediate adjacent property – a proposal that would meet the zoning requirements would actually create a detrimental option that he doesn’t want to see pursued. He’s very much in favor of the latest proposal by Stewart’s. The size, shape and location of the proposed building will continue to shield his residence and other adjacent properties from the lights, noise, proximity to the fire hazard, the pedestrian traffic, etc. He continues to be in favor of the proposal including all of the setback and site variances. Regarding the square footage of the sign, he likes the idea of leaving the sign off of the Lincoln side of the building. Geoff said he’s been working with Ryan on some of the issues like noise, setbacks, shape/height/width of the building and they’ve been very accommodating to deal with. All of the condensers that would have been in the 10 ft. between his house and Stewart’s have been moved to the roof. He believes Stewart’s will be a very good neighbor. Gage Simpson, Chair the Public Hearing will remain open. The meeting was concluded at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 15, 2025 Page 8 of 8