[{"_1":2,"_135":-5,"_136":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111,123],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6550062,"mediaKeyId","5418296-ca4a10d8791c7375ba012cc11d40b58d","parentId",5418296,"title","Votes at a glance: Design Review Board actions, July 16, 2025","audioSeconds",6807,"startMs",106000,"endMs",6913000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5418296-ca4a10d8791c7375ba012cc11d40b58d&start=106&end=6913","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5418296-ca4a10d8791c7375ba012cc11d40b58d/thumbnail_106000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6550062/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Votes-at-a-glance-Design-Review-Board-actions-July-16-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6550062-3fe5f10a00cf237dead6ec7dd14a5c5f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175334&Signature=UDGW5wQwPmMNotLPnu4Ia7sAfy-NATAi-vmnSH2PUCiZluSWwOvFcZ1BPVAjg6d185YIXVfEzyt6tT4PQny0nlCoPs3ywnHa6n8avSIdCiuwUujc8iP-Im2vR7og9km7XPDXLEXgNJneZs7kVZdDfeqXRjFyFOmkdS0tnHjBrOdXlEID0SERuV0qcxSb78~n0G7TqtncYoYwcT2VFC-KRkRLGAD-Z6jeCXf6tJA3R6YyZMMxyHR~kg-TrQr~vYc8mHBu40mKSE4NOURO3PDBCCm95EmoAxQt37FceEW-hcWODuk005jZyDAlEVRkQu6ZoeeQoLhMUxgWFyR61sKw2w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Saratoga","date","2025-07-16T00:00:00Z","article","The Saratoga Springs City Design Review Board took the following formal actions on July 16, 2025. This summary lists each motion recorded at the meeting with outcome and any conditions; it does not attempt to paraphrase extended discussion.

- Approval of June 11 meeting minutes: Motion made and seconded; chair announced the minutes passed. (Motion: approve minutes. Outcome: approved.)

- Consent agenda — 68 Ballston Avenue (Boxley Service signage): Motion to approve wall-mounted sign in Neighborhood Center/NC district; seconded and passed. (Motion: approve 68 Ballston Avenue signage. Outcome: approved.)

- Trimarchi driveway decision (115 Circular Street): Board read its decision addressing a court remand (Appell v. Trimarchi) and affirmed its prior decision as read into the record; the chair recorded an abstention and stated the motion passed. (Motion: read decision and affirm prior approval consistent with court remand. Outcome: approved; abstention recorded.)

- 179 Nelson Avenue (ductless air-conditioning, UR3 district): Approved with condition that exposed conduit be painted to match the house; applicant may use screening to minimize visibility. (Motion: approve exterior modifications with paint-to-match conduit condition. Outcome: approved.)

- 54 Ash Street (roof-mounted solar, Arts & Culture District): Approved with administrative approval required for conduit layout and materials; conduit must be paintable and applicant to submit schematic of conduit/equipment locations. (Motion: approve with administrative conduit/materials review. Outcome: approved.)

- 90 Washington Street (exterior modifications to commercial structure, T5 district): No applicant present; board tabled the item to next meeting. (Motion: table to next agenda. Outcome: tabled.)

- 198 South Broadway (exterior HVAC/multi-split installations, Neighborhood Center district): Applicant present; board requested specifications, stands or details for platforms, and conduit routing and will require additional information before approval. (Action: board requested details; no final approval recorded.)

- 202 Lake Avenue (porch and facade modifications, UR3 district): Board provided guidance (prefer in-kind repair, retain cheek walls, square lattice, prefer flat-seam/asphalt roof over tall standing seam, replace vinyl handrail with metal) and requested further tests and drawings; no vote taken. (Outcome: guidance; applicant to return with additional information.)

- 326 Finley Street (new construction/mass & scale and demolition, UN district): The board completed SEQRA (Part 2) review and issued a negative declaration, approved demolition of an existing non-significant commercial structure, and approved the new three-story project as submitted, with the condition that the perimeter fence be made of a natural material. (Motions: SEQRA negative declaration; approve demolition; approve materials/mass/scale with fence-material condition. Outcomes: all approved.)

- Adjournment: Motion made and seconded; meeting adjourned.

For several motions the transcript records seconders by name (for example, \"Seconded by Mr. Gritsavage\" in some instances and \"Seconded by Mr. Wood\" elsewhere). Where a named seconder was recorded in the transcript it is reflected in the minutes above. Several votes were recorded by voice (\"All in favor? Any opposed?\") and the transcript does not include a full roll-call tally for each motion; recorded abstentions (for example, in the Trimarchi decision) are noted above.

Full written decisions and administrative conditions (for example, the conduit schematic for 54 Ash and fence material specification for 326 Finley) will be filed with the Planning Department and recorded in the board's minutes and permit files.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Saratoga - Design Review Commission - Jul 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of motions, outcomes and key conditions from the Saratoga Springs Design Review Board meeting of July 16, 2025.","taxTitle","Saratoga Springs City, Saratoga County, New York","taxId",7807,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6550067,"Design Review Board discusses porch repairs and materials at 202 Lake Avenue; board urges in-kind replacement for key features",530,2966000,3496000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5418296-ca4a10d8791c7375ba012cc11d40b58d&start=2966&end=3496","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5418296-ca4a10d8791c7375ba012cc11d40b58d/thumbnail_2966000.jpg","/articles/6550067/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-discusses-porch-repairs-and-materials-at-202-Lake-Avenue-board-urges-in-kind-replacement-for-key-features","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6550067-c8b89efee71f4b78b36d43bd23f4c85a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175334&Signature=aA0T72oLG-feY1tqvsw9uM~8P-6VmPfZbq~ePT~L4ztOpzPgBk7GogcbaqFeEzf65Hu69Y8S1UKma9VqBSCfTOIH4L4NZyFiSHNLAKvt7heReWxw~aVkO6ab8GcvgoOlOC0gR5dloBxJ8prZQUUmkUr0YOLX6m5mb3OH3U0JQa-J-1v2qPTqKqxBIG1gXj4iQfJGYdnQ2j3NdInOyt-3b2j8zN8qgD6Zl-lE3XTWhR4hrPy4OmNPm57HwuTidp09v3FF8YUBUQMYnv-cjEQIPFa4YE2MHp2b5v8n6KeMO6LgSc6t8p3AIfTc-3rlTTsA115K3b~O8B5keXBh30aY3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs City Design Review Board on July 16 reviewed proposed exterior modifications at 202 Lake Avenue that include reroofing a north-facing porch, adding a non-structural boxed wood column for symmetry, replacing lattice and trim with historically appropriate square lattice, and addressing pilasters that previously were parged with concrete.

Applicant Antonia Yasenchak (Engineering/American Y Engineering) described replacing failing porch roofing with new material and requested the board's guidance on whether the concrete parged pilasters and cheek walls should be retained or refaced with stone or brick. She provided precedent photos of nearby houses (for example, 172 Caroline/172 Lake Avenue and a house near the military museum) where similar treatments had been approved.

Board members broadly agreed on several points: they do not support removal of the cheek walls; they prefer repair or in-kind replacement where feasible; they recommended square-lattice patterns rather than diagonal lattice; and they suggested a flat-seam or in-kind asphalt roof rather than a tall standing seam metal roof. Several members cautioned that cladding the pilasters in stone or brick could alter proportions and character-defining features and advised the applicant to \"chip away\" the parging to verify underlying materials before committing to a veneer.

There was not a formal vote on the application at this meeting. The board requested additional information, urged the applicant to test the pilaster substrate, recommended a metal handrail (or simple pipe/wrought-iron alternative) to replace the current vinyl railing, and asked for more detailed drawings of proposed changes and materials for future review. The Preservation Foundation had submitted a letter (delivered late) echoing similar guidance in favor of repairing in-kind and avoiding incongruous material changes.

The board emphasized maintaining defining historic features and proportions, preserving cheek walls, and using appropriate materials for lattice and handrails. The applicant and board agreed to return with more detailed specifications and test results showing what lies beneath existing parging.","Board reviewed proposed porch reroofing, column addition, lattice and pilaster treatments at 202 Lake Avenue; members generally opposed cladding original concrete piers and cheek walls but supported a metal handrail and simpler lattice and asked applicant to test underlying materials before committing to replacement.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6550072,"Board approves ductless air-conditioning installation at 179 Nelson Avenue with paint-to-match condition",275,634000,909000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5418296-ca4a10d8791c7375ba012cc11d40b58d&start=634&end=909","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5418296-ca4a10d8791c7375ba012cc11d40b58d/thumbnail_634000.jpg","/articles/6550072/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Board-approves-ductless-air-conditioning-installation-at-179-Nelson-Avenue-with-paint-to-match-condition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6550072-6c67a03361d05e4042061b7d57be9214/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175334&Signature=e-Ha-aOckpV~1KOq119pXMH5zYjMM~pWGmAdC6Ufc6rTB8TTnKpDfgchuvqEBhZYwVy~0a79fxRgp4GI8NQ90aee8rfzuFboT-W3tMGCV1SEr~KUTQTbMzslQLLiJoTant2GerjcN~1QeUC5eEHLCTCnCoDjXiK7krE6cd5mg~6j9WZ21R8dJTbk5aMVxKUbLh6ku5FP3PS17W1ynJvSZv91K2jLCU0H03w1n~xAzCcyCAsZpNIPiykTycBrsYDfTD~CxKFDF3RmTFLKI~U1EOeigNYHkhqGEeOhtbhyT2qsfCi8zKd-52Myripthrs2KyM6EYsUZrn1Ymj3qzE2pg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs City Design Review Board on July 16 approved exterior modifications to 179 Nelson Avenue to allow installation of a ductless air-conditioning system, with a condition that exposed conduit be painted to match the house and that homeowners may add screening (for example, a bush) where necessary to minimize visibility.

Architect Robert Decker presented revised conduit routing that moves most conduit close to corners and under the fence line where possible, and said the homeowner plans to paint the factory white leader pipe to match the house. Board members praised the redesign for minimizing visual impact; one member noted the units are tucked close enough to read as a second leader pipe in the siding and that one unit on the back porch is not visible from the street.

The board moved to approve the plans with the condition that conduit be painted the color of the house; the motion passed. No further public comment was offered at the meeting on this application.

The board recorded that the applicant had responded to prior feedback and revised conduit placement to reduce facade visibility. The approval included the paint-to-match condition for any visible conduit.","The Design Review Board approved installation of ductless split systems at 179 Nelson Avenue in the UR3 district, requiring that exposed conduit be painted to match the house and noting concealment measures.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6550077,"DRB approves rooftop solar at 54 Ash Street with administrative review of conduit layout",1078,1034000,2112000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5418296-ca4a10d8791c7375ba012cc11d40b58d&start=1034&end=2112","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5418296-ca4a10d8791c7375ba012cc11d40b58d/thumbnail_1034000.jpg","/articles/6550077/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/DRB-approves-rooftop-solar-at-54-Ash-Street-with-administrative-review-of-conduit-layout","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6550077-6dfc9e0dc09bffc6c1fa2a6f82e2a3db/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175334&Signature=SfRqzk0DKbXZ4kLhYL88z-m4F8OEFfA-keIwGhktfVehp3NeSHG4sYR9XFqCzeqQxTHExCIpxo9mzHIO7sLtenz9T7kEyetGTUyQUX72L8g4HKT-iT1pHjUv5gMRh9gJ8UrsNJy2yxTQtwFpgxcGauEMBJeLGIbkMrk-OhywH5pjScKWe2RtQjHYVIx6sJw~qWZtr79-TM2nhdpQh3uTv~YUPN2Y6SYmJ2uHMTldfDJ-NYeH3XC3gIiXEGqpP~kgOZd5pszrQSNu39dYuXnwFplgvgcMx1UlSQoCLuN1sIQaogm4yip9SQdC3mGBVsqmJkUfqswz50JP3ZpwNQK7SA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs City Design Review Board on July 16 approved a roof-mounted solar installation at 54 Ash Street in the Arts & Culture District, with conditions requiring administrative approval of conduit layout and materials and that exposed conduit be paintable and painted to match the house if necessary.

Applicant representatives from Plug PV (Jenny Whiteneck and Bob Vittengill) presented photos showing nearby examples of visible rooftop solar within one or two blocks, honeycombed the site views from public ways, and provided close-up images demonstrating a black-on-black panel installation and that panels sit approximately three inches above the roof. The applicant confirmed microinverters are used and that there will be a disconnect/shutoff mounted near the meter.

Board members expressed general support for rooftop solar in the historic district but asked for a pre-installation schematic showing exact conduit routing, inverter/disconnect location, and equipment mounting. One board member asked that conduit be paintable (not galvanized) and painted to match the house; another asked that the applicant avoid placing any components in front facades visible from the public right-of-way. The applicant agreed to provide specifications and a schematic prior to final administrative sign-off.

The board moved to approve the application with the condition of administrative approval for conduit layout and materials; the motion passed without recorded opposition.

The applicant said panels are placed to offset 100% of the homeowner's consumption and that a large tree in front will remain, which informed their panel placement. Microinverters on the roof were described; the shutoff/disconnect will be mounted near the meter on the Beekman side. The board requested site-specific schematics so the planning staff can confirm conduit and equipment locations and finalize administrative approval.","The board approved a roof-mounted, black-on-black solar array at 54 Ash Street, with a condition requiring administrative approval of conduit layout and materials and paintable conduit; applicant will supply a schematic showing final conduit and equipment locations.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6550082,"Design Review Board clears SEQR, demolition and mass-and-scale for 326 Finley Street with fence material condition",1716,4955000,6671000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5418296-ca4a10d8791c7375ba012cc11d40b58d&start=4955&end=6671","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5418296-ca4a10d8791c7375ba012cc11d40b58d/thumbnail_4955000.jpg","/articles/6550082/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-clears-SEQR-demolition-and-mass-and-scale-for-326-Finley-Street-with-fence-material-condition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6550082-db54a0bc7f9e67e11e422aeb84692007/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175334&Signature=bi-uPQ7wP~Dn06vEVgAh1Nle7eo2Q0H37OEG6WOAdbrjDu-ZtDbBnPdWxjcVq-fPH5kG12kaSbgjRhLYOvshmuIDHu42PxNxUouKugxkIUlPMtaUxDGSBqSkRmfCNzn01tQsaUxqaPjVrtd3imG594uBnykQOVsf4s2t7lSUofgALHHINf-OmUPT1B1kd3zhJ9o76FwC92-OaBtGBr7dbHjX66B0sRPVZ7gnLSt9A7ZnMzZrW~1flTmHYr32t5IsG3TeGA7iWSWJkvEbGmirTxNNK2Bj3HDWuS72oZXCc4u4XcTWQyH9RXF2LtB-I0LqCa5a1mSO-APzWOHRGFuZzQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs City Design Review Board on July 16 completed its SEQRA (referred to at the meeting as \"seeker\") review and approved the proposal for a new three-story residential building and associated one-story community/administrative building at 326 Finley Street, subject to a condition that the perimeter fence be constructed from a natural material.

The board first reviewed and completed the Part 1 and Part 2 SEQRA (6 NYCRR Part 617) environmental assessment form and issued a negative declaration, concluding the project would not cause any new large or important environmental impacts requiring a full Part 3 review.

Following that determination the board approved demolition of the existing non-significant commercial structure on the parcel and then voted to approve the new-construction application (materials, mass and scale) as submitted. During discussion the applicant described changes made after community meetings: moving the internal drive slightly east to preserve more of the tree buffer, banking (reserving) additional parking rather than building it now, replacing proposed vinyl shakes with a cementitious product (Nichia/Nichiha-style cladding), and adding an 8-foot perimeter fence plus supplemental tree plantings to strengthen the buffer between the new development and neighboring homes.

Board members asked clarifying questions about the banked parking mechanism, the fence material, and the preservation of existing trees in the buffer. City staff explained that the planning board would retain authority to require site-plan modifications if additional parking were later requested; any such change would return to planning review and could trigger further DRB review if it affected visual buffer or materials.

The board recorded approval of SEQRA negative declaration, demolition, and the project; the project approval included a condition that the fence be made of a natural material (the applicant indicated willingness to discuss wood or similar materials for the portion nearest neighborhood properties). The board also noted the applicant's outreach: two neighborhood meetings plus follow-ups with neighbors and engineering/landscape materials submitted to show the buffer would remain in large part.

The applicants present included JT Pollard of Reform Architecture and engineering and landscape professionals who described tree spacing and grading adjustments. The board instructed that final details of fencing material and any further site-plan changes be coordinated with the planning department and would be reflected in site-plan and building-permit review processes.","The board issued a SEQRA negative declaration, approved demolition of a small commercial building, and approved the proposed three-story residential project at 326 Finley Street with the condition that perimeter fencing use natural materials.",{"_33":124,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":125,"_41":126,"_43":127,"_45":128,"_47":129,"_49":130,"_51":131,"_53":132,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":133,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":134,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6550085,"Design Review Board reaffirms driveway approval after court remand in Trimarchi–Appell dispute",165,230000,395000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5418296-ca4a10d8791c7375ba012cc11d40b58d&start=230&end=395","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5418296-ca4a10d8791c7375ba012cc11d40b58d/thumbnail_230000.jpg","/articles/6550085/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-reaffirms-driveway-approval-after-court-remand-in-TrimarchiAppell-dispute","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6550085-91f503bf111256662c823adf00dbf90a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175334&Signature=NVQ6yidAUPGljldAS1QSLKp-hPBwcdEAbvjZ3RknsocBaxTlSOt3ilgQdNMCa~bJ78U~eBFOkfv-qdP7bKuajYgeKANidLVzDFkbue8iF4j7Pd~915x65Ejjky2FBurhVmk4A6w-8ihnzLOC17WhJMl3YnzUiOsqMkmhOV980lM8m4AWnH2msK941HHFXYob5mk8iFsDlVlMKZVQfaGjhB-kxxmeFQ9vzK46IH3F4eI27B36GvMvdsEl5qJcNSe5cr3sRSw~RLwruUIYCDF4zVydOcKt6Aki5vY9p5MkoMUWF4Qe4gn2cBxm~oaKaY96jcaWucpYrqUGoqGjrpMVHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs City Design Review Board on July 16 read its decision on the Trimarchi driveway replacement, which had been remanded by Judge James E. Walsh of the Supreme Court, Saratoga County, and approved the board's prior decision with no change to the substantive outcome.

The action matters because the court vacated the board's 2021 approval and remanded the application after concluding the board had not complied with its own application requirements, particularly for color photographs showing the shared nature of the driveway, and raised concerns about site permeability relative to local code.

At the meeting the board summarized the court record and its own review. The board said the original 2021 application did include color photographs of the applicant's driveway but not of the adjacent property, and that some board members had visited the site or viewed online imagery in preparation. The board concluded those supplemental observations provided sufficient knowledge of the shared driveway configuration and that additional photographs would not have been determinative. The board also reviewed whether it had authority to consider permeability and concluded that, at the time of the 2021 approval, authority to enforce permeability standards vested with the zoning officer rather than the board. The board returned the neighbors to other agencies or courts for unresolved disputes over shared driveways and permeability.

The decision was read into the record pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 and the Unified Development Ordinance (article 240-13.9) as cited in the board's determination. After the motion was called, a member recorded an abstention. The chair announced the motion had been approved and the decision officially read into the record.

The board noted the dispute between neighbors remained active but said resolving some elements was outside the board's authority and recommended other administrative or legal remedies for the parties.

Trimarchi's property is at 115 Circular Street (tax parcel referenced at the meeting). The board specifically referenced the April 3, 2024 decision and order of Justice James E. Walsh in the Article 78 proceeding Appell v. City of Saratoga Springs, Dominic Trimarchi and Amanda Tucker.

The board concluded by entering its written decision into the record on July 16, 2025.

More procedural details about the court order and the board's reasoning are contained in the board's written decision read at the meeting; the board did not reopen the technical dispute about permeability or shared access but explained where regulatory responsibility lies.","The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board read a court-directed decision into the record and approved its earlier driveway replacement decision after reviewing additional materials and addressing the court's concerns; one member abstained.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Design Review Board actions, July 16, 2025

Design Review Board discusses porch repairs and materials at 202 Lake Avenue; board urges in-kind replacement for key features

Board approves ductless air-conditioning installation at 179 Nelson Avenue with paint-to-match condition

DRB approves rooftop solar at 54 Ash Street with administrative review of conduit layout

Design Review Board clears SEQR, demolition and mass-and-scale for 326 Finley Street with fence material condition

Design Review Board reaffirms driveway approval after court remand in Trimarchi–Appell dispute