Plattsburgh board approves front-yard parking variance for proposed South Catherine four-unit

The City of Plattsburgh Board of Appeals on April 14 approved a variance allowing parking in the front-yard setback and a reduced driveway aisle for a proposed single‑story, four‑unit building on South Catherine Street.

The decision matters because the variance permits paved parking where zoning calls for yard green space; board members conditioned the approval on the applicantʼs effort to preserve or add landscaping to soften the streetscape.

Applicant representatives described a single‑story, four‑unit apartment building with two‑bedroom units and associated parking. The applicant said the proposed layout places parking stalls just inside the 20‑foot front‑yard setback and argued other configurations (parking in the rear, shifting the building toward the south side yard) could not fit required 9‑by‑18‑foot stalls and maneuvering aisles without violating other setbacks. The applicant also said the design includes a north–south sidewalk to provide safe pedestrian access to unit entrances.

Board members and neighbors focused discussion on whether the parking location would harm the blockʼs character and whether the layout could be modified to preserve more green space. Commissioners asked whether flipping the parking behind the building or angling the building could free room for perpendicular stalls; the applicant said those alternatives either reduced required maneuvering space or would create long one‑way driveways that could create safety conflicts. Staff and the applicant noted the proposed strip between building and sidewalk is intended for landscaping and for window placement to avoid headlights shining into neighborsʼ homes.

A motion approved “appeal 2391” permitting parking in the front yard setback and allowing a 24‑foot driveway aisle (the code standard discussed was 26 feet). The motion included a request that the applicant, “to the best of his ability,” revise plans to shift or rotate the building/parking and add landscaping or green space along the south edge of the lot to reduce the visual impact of paved areas; the motion did not make the rotation a binding condition but asked the applicant to attempt those changes and resubmit revised drawings. The board recorded five affirmative votes and no negative votes; the motion passed.

Scott (staff member) reviewed zoning consistency and said the project is consistent with the zoning ordinance to the extent it meets the requested variances. The board noted that building and construction permits will still be required and that the project would not advance to planning review as part of this variance action. Public comment included at least one neighborhood business owner who expressed support for adding green space and praised recent nearby redevelopment efforts.

The board closed the public hearing and approved the variance with the landscaping/rotation request and the reduced aisle width noted in the motion. The applicant said he would revise and resubmit updated plan drawings showing any feasible adjustments to increase green space.

The boardʼs approval applies only to the variances discussed on the record; any change to the project that would affect other zoning standards or require additional approvals must come back to the city in the form of permits or additional applications.