State court remand sends 115 Circular Street driveway back to Design Review Board; neighbors raise permeability and drainage concerns

A state-court decision has sent the design-review approval for driveway work at 115 Circular Street back to the Saratoga Springs Design Review Board for further action. At the May 14 meeting the board reviewed the judge’s order, heard public comment from an adjacent neighbor and decided to table the matter while members re-examine the record and prepare a written finding addressing the court’s two questions.

Judge Walsh’s order (quoted aloud to the board at the meeting) found the board’s earlier approval “arbitrary and capricious” because the application record submitted to the board did not include required color photographs showing the full area in question and did not show the shared nature of the driveway. The judge also noted questions in the record about permeability and whether the board had considered or waived applicable permeability limits when it issued the earlier approval; he remitted the matter to the board “for further action consistent with this decision and order.”

Owner/applicant representation said color photographs and a licensed survey documenting perimeter and permeability have since been submitted to the city. A neighbor, David Appel, urged the board to look more closely at permeability, drainage and the configuration of the two adjacent driveways, saying the paved surface has altered drainage, led to standing water on his property and that the survey submitted after the original approval contains mathematical errors. The applicant said a licensed survey is on file with the city showing compliance at the time of the application and noted that the city’s permeability standard has since changed.

Board members confirmed they would not introduce new evidence at the remand stage but must explain whether they considered color photographs and whether permeability fell within the board’s authority at the time of the original action. Several board members said they would review the record, refresh their recollections (many current members also served in 2021) and be prepared to make a written statement explaining their reasoning and whether they would have waived any requirements at the time. The board asked staff to assemble the original application materials, pre- and post-work photos if available, and the survey documents for review.

The board did not issue a new approval. Instead it tabled the item pending members’ review of the record and the preparation of language responding to the court. Board counsel offered to provide advice to members on the record and on drafting an appropriate written response; staff said it will prepare the prior application file and any supplemental materials for the board’s review.

Quotes: "Accordingly, as it is evident that the DRC did not follow its own regulations ... the decision to approve based on this application was arbitrary and capricious." — Judge Walsh (quoted to the board during the meeting).

"Permeability is not in our wheelhouse. We merely look at the material and determine whether or not it's appropriate to the context of the neighborhood." — Tammy Inger, Chair, Design Review Board.

Next steps: The board requested staff assemble prior application materials (including pre-work photographs and surveys) and asked members to review the record so the board can prepare a focused written decision addressing the court’s two questions. The board expects to revisit the item after that work is completed.