ZBA reviews variance request to convert 13 Wizzwall Lane storage building into two-family dwelling

The Saratoga Springs City Zoning Board of Appeals on April 28 reviewed an application to convert an existing storage/garage at 13 Wizzwall Lane into a two-family dwelling in the UR3 zoning district. The applicant, represented by Nick Falco of Reconstruction, asked for multiple area variances tied to lot size, setback, lot coverage and permeability.

The applicant said the proposal is the same variance package previously submitted and approved in an earlier cycle and that no new variances are being requested. "We're not requesting any additional variances at this time, just the, the same, resolution as before," Nick Falco said. Falco described the existing building as a storage barn the team intends to renovate and showed floor plans and elevations to the board.

The variances listed in the application included: minimum lot size required 8,000 sq ft, proposed 3,996 sq ft (relief requested 4,004 sq ft); minimum average width required 80 ft, proposed 60 ft (relief 20 ft); maximum principal coverage required 40%, proposed 69% (relief 29%); front setback required 10 ft, proposed 2.2 ft (relief 7.8 ft); rear setback required 25 ft, proposed 9.9 ft (relief 15.1 ft); interior side setback required 5 ft, proposed 0 ft (relief 5 ft); minimum total side required 12 ft, proposed 9 ft (relief 3 ft); minimum permeability required 30%, proposed 20% (relief 10 percentage points, described in the application as a 33% reduction relative to the requirement). Falco noted an earlier typo in the application permeability figure and clarified the proposed permeability should be 20%.

Board members focused their questions on permeability and the proposed parking. Otis Smitting, a ZBA member, said he had reviewed the prior approval and flagged the drop in permeability as uncommon: "I did notice, both then and now, is the reduction in permeability, which is something we don't see very often." Chair Chamber (Zoning Board of Appeals) and other members said they would favor reducing impervious surface even if it meant limiting an additional parking space: "I'm much more amenable to a 25% variance for not even having a parking space if it significantly improves the permeability of a lot," the chair said, adding that water management was a higher priority than an extra parking space on a tight lane.

The applicant told the board that if parking strips or permeable pavers were used, the project could move closer to the board's preference: with two permeable parking strips the plan would reach about 17% permeability; without the optional left-side parking the permeability would be about 24.5% (closer to a 25% target discussed by the board). Falco said the left-side parking area was optional and that permeable strips or pavers could be used to increase permeability if the board preferred to reduce impervious cover.

The board opened a public hearing for the item but no public comments specifically on this application were recorded before the board concluded discussion. Board members instructed the applicant to run calculations and return with an updated permeability figure and with options that would achieve improved permeability (for example eliminating the optional parking area or using permeable pavers). The board set a follow-up for its next meeting on May 12 and indicated that additional changes could be considered then.