The Saratoga Springs Planning Board on its regular meeting reviewed a coordinated review request for variances tied to a proposed two‑lot subdivision at 52 York and, with the applicant absent, issued a unanimous negative SECRA short‑form environmental finding and a favorable advisory opinion to the Zoning Board.

The variances seek departures from the Urban Residential 3 (UR-3) district minimum lot requirements. Planning staff reported the district minimums are 6,600 square feet for lot area and 60 feet for average lot width; the applicant proposed two lots of 5,450 square feet each with 50‑foot widths. The zoning board had initiated coordinated review and deferred lead agency status to the planning board while also requesting an advisory opinion on the variances.

Board members who reviewed the tax maps noted several nearby parcels are nonconforming and that variances of a similar or greater magnitude were recently granted for nearby properties, including 131 Middle Avenue. Planning Board Chair Mark (last name not specified in the record) said the immediate neighborhood contains many lots of similar size and that the requested variances are comparable to recent approvals. "If you look at the tax map, the immediately adjacent parcel has two lots that are almost identical to what's being requested," the chair said during the discussion.

Although the applicant did not appear, the board discussed conditions it expects at the time a subdivision application reaches the planning board. The board asked staff to inform the applicant that the planning board will require an existing‑conditions plan and a development plan at the subdivision stage, and that the board wants an opportunity to work with the applicant to preserve substantial trees on the site where feasible. Board members suggested photographic documentation of existing trees if the applicant proceeds with any clearing prior to formal subdivision review.

Actions taken included a motion for a negative SECRA short environmental assessment form declaration and a subsequent motion to issue a favorable advisory opinion to the Zoning Board, both adopted unanimously. Planning staff was directed to draft formal advisory language reflecting the board's concerns about tree preservation and to communicate those concerns to both the Zoning Board and the applicant.

The advisory opinion is a recommendation to the Zoning Board; any formal subdivision application will return to the Planning Board for design‑standard review, including tree protection and UDO compliance.

The board recorded that, should variances be granted, a future subdivision application will be subject to the UDO's design standards and to conditions the planning board establishes at that time.

Planning staff (Susan) will prepare the formal advisory letter and will include the two items specified by the board: (1) that the applicant provide an existing‑conditions plan and a development plan as part of any future subdivision filing, and (2) that staff and the planning board seek to work with the applicant to preserve substantial trees where reasonably feasible.