Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA upholds building inspector: Stewart's project at 3133 Marion must meet fueling‑station separation rules
Summary
The Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals on July 14 upheld the building inspector’s determination that Stewart Shops’ proposed convenience store and fueling station at 3133 Marion Avenue must meet a zoning requirement that no fueling‑station property line be located within 250 feet of an abutting residential district.
At its July 14 meeting the Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals upheld an administrative determination that Stewart Shops’ redevelopment proposal at 3133 Marion Avenue must comply with a zoning provision that prohibits a vehicle-fueling station property line from being located within 250 feet of an abutting residential district.
The board reviewed the site’s history: three formerly separate tax parcels were merged into one parcel on March 6, 2024 (documented in the hearing record), and the zoning boundary between the Tourist Related Business District and the UR‑2 district previously coincided with internal lot lines. The zoning provision (UDO section 2406.3.3.B.3) requires that no property line associated with a vehicle fueling station be located within 250 feet of an abutting residential district.
Nut Graf: The board found the ordinance language clear and unambiguous and concluded that the merger of the parcels created new property lines and therefore the proposed project must comply with the 250‑foot separation requirement. The ZBA resolved that the inspector’s February 13, 2025 determination stands and that Stewart Shops’ project will require an area variance from that separation standard to proceed.
The board also discussed project-specific relief for front- and rear-setback dimensions for the convenience store building, fuel canopy and tenant space; the board’s written resolution enumerated the specific variances the applicant would need if it wished to proceed — including very large relief percentages for several setback items — and included conditions requiring a conservation easement to buffer adjacent residential areas. The applicant was advised that planning‑board site‑plan review, filing of the conservation easement and pertinent county/state reviews are prerequisites to permitting.
Ending: The board’s resolution upheld the building inspector’s interpretation and required Stewart Shops to pursue area‑variance relief for various setback and separation standards; the resolution passed unanimously, and the board attached a set of conditions including a requirement that the conservation easement be recorded prior to issuance of building permits.
