Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board issues favorable advisory opinion for 52 York variances; asks applicant to preserve trees
Summary
The Saratoga Springs Planning Board voted unanimously to issue a favorable advisory opinion to the Zoning Board on variances for a proposed two‑lot subdivision at 52 York, and adopted a negative SECRA finding. The board asked staff to require existing‑conditions and development plans and to work with the applicant on preserving substantial trees.
The Saratoga Springs Planning Board voted unanimously to issue a favorable advisory opinion to the Zoning Board on requested variances for a proposed two‑lot subdivision at 52 York and adopted a negative SECRA (short environmental assessment form) declaration.
The action matters because the variances would reduce minimum lot size and width in the Urban Residential‑3 district — changes that would enable the property owner to create two lots with smaller dimensions than the UDO standard. The Planning Board emphasized that future subdivision review will require more detailed plans and conditions addressing trees and design standards.
Board Chair Mark (Planning Board chair) opened the discussion by noting the application was for coordinated review and an advisory opinion to the Zoning Board on variances associated with a two‑lot subdivision in the Urban Residential‑3 district. Planning Department staff explained the UDO minimum lot size in the district is 6,600 square feet and minimum lot width is 60 feet; the proposed lots would be about 5,450 square feet with a 50‑foot width.
Planning staff and several board members observed similar variances had been granted nearby — for example, variances approved for 131 Middle Avenue — and pointed out adjacent lots and a majority of lots in the tax map area are nonconforming. The board recorded concern that property owners sometimes clear trees before seeking approvals. Board members asked staff to request that the Zoning Board or the applicant document existing trees (photographs or a plan) so tree preservation can be considered at subdivision review.
The board completed the SECRA short form on the record and a board member read a motion: “Based upon the information provided in part 1 of the SECRA short environmental assessment form and analysis of the information provided in part 2 of the SECRA short environmental assessment form, I make a motion for a negative SECRA declaration since the project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment.” The motion passed unanimously.
After the SECRA declaration the board made and adopted a motion to issue a favorable advisory opinion to the Zoning Board with two clear requests: (1) the applicant must submit an existing‑conditions plan and a development plan when the subdivision application is filed, and (2) staff and the board want an opportunity to work with the applicant to preserve substantial trees on the site where feasible. Susan (Planning Department staff) will draft formal advisory language and communicate the board’s concerns to the applicant.
The board stressed that, if variances are granted by the Zoning Board, a separate subdivision application will return to the Planning Board for full subdivision review and conditions. The advisory opinion does not itself approve a subdivision or authorize site work.
Meeting context: the applicant was not present; the board proceeded with the advisory opinion under coordinated review rules and recorded the recommendations to be included in the official advisory opinion letter.
No enforcement or timeline commitments were made beyond the condition that subdivision materials (existing conditions and development plans) be submitted at the time of subdivision review.
