Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Driveway Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board stalls request to remove no-access restriction for 54 Kirby Road, asks for historic files and easement research
Summary
Property owner asked the board to remove a 2003 subdivision note that prohibits driveway access from Route 29; neighbors urged denial citing safety; board left public hearing open and asked staff and applicant to research the 2003 decision and the status of a state utility/railroad easement.
An owner of 54 Kirby Road asked the Saratoga Springs Planning Board to remove a subdivision condition recorded in 2003 that prohibits driveway access to Route 29 (Washington Avenue). The request prompted extensive public comment and a board decision to continue the matter while the city researches the earlier approval and the status of a state easement that may affect curb cuts.
Applicant Kevin Billington said his family bought the property several years ago and proposed a driveway and a new garage accessed from Route 29, across from Eastman Lane; he said the New York State Department of Transportation had given conceptual approval for a driveway opposite Eastman. Several board members and staff said the 2003 subdivision approval contained a written note restricting access to Kirby Road and cited long-standing concerns about access management on Route 29.
Neighbors and multiple residents at the hearing urged denial, citing safety on Route 29 (a heavily traveled, sometimes truck-filled route with recent pedestrian crossings) and telling the board that the prohibition was inserted to prevent additional curb cuts. Residents said the prohibition was part of an agreement at the time and they expected it to remain in place.
Board members asked staff to locate the 2003 planning-board minutes and notice of decision and to verify the provenance of the restriction. Tony Stiletto and others also flagged a perpetual utility/railroad easement running along the property that may prevent or complicate new driveway construction; they advised the applicant to obtain a survey and to consult the surveyor or Thompson & Fleming (the original engineer) about historical record details. The board left the public hearing open and asked the applicant to provide conceptual plans or a sketch drawing if he intended to pursue subdivision or driveway changes.
No formal vote on the removal request was taken; the board directed staff to research the 2003 file and the status of the easement and to return the matter to the board for further consideration.
