Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zba Votes Roundup topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

ZBA decisions: four area variance approvals and four continued hearings from March 3 meeting

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At its March 3 meeting the Zoning Board approved four variance items (195 Lake Avenue; 83 Fifth Avenue; 160 Fifth Avenue; 22 Avery Street) and continued public hearings on several other proposals including 56 Duplainville Road and 182 Grand Avenue.

The Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals on March 3 issued approvals for four area‑variance matters and left multiple other applications open for more information or required referrals. The board adopted motions and recorded roll‑call votes on the following matters.

195 Lake Avenue (application 20250048) — Approved (6–0) The board approved multiple area variances to permit a secondary dwelling unit on an undersized UR‑3 lot at 195 Lake Avenue. The adopted motion authorized relief for minimum lot size (8,000 required; 5,325 proposed — relief 2,675 sq ft or 33.4%), average width (80 required; 50 proposed — relief 30 ft), rear yard setback (25 required; 10 proposed — relief 15 ft or 60%), and for one off‑street parking space (3 required; 2 proposed — relief 1 space). The motion found the requested variances substantial but mitigated by the neighborhood context and noted the difficulty was self‑created but not fatal to approval. The measure passed unanimously, with six board members recorded in favor.

83 Fifth Avenue (application 20250047) — Approved (6–0) The board approved area variances to allow a porte‑cochere/portico and for renovation that includes a second‑story addition within an existing preexisting nonconforming footprint. The motion found no adjoining land available and concluded the addition would remain within the historic footprint; the board noted the requested variances were substantial but consistent with neighborhood precedents.

160 Fifth Avenue (application 20240859) — Approved (6–0) The board approved an area variance to replace and enlarge a rear deck in the UR‑1 district. The relief granted reduced the rear setback for the deck from the required 30 feet to 19 feet (relief 11 feet or 36.7%). The board noted widespread comparables along Fifth Avenue where decks or pools already extend close to or to the lot line.

22 Avery Street (application 20240848) — Approved (6–0) The board approved a single interior side yard variance (from 5 ft required to 2.5 ft proposed, relief 2.5 ft or 50%) to permit a planned addition. The motion said no adjoining land was available and that the addition in the proposed location is the most feasible option on the existing floor plan.

Items continued or left open (no vote March 3) • 56 Duplainville Road (20250114) — Regeneron requested a variance to permit barbed wire on industrial fencing; action deferred pending a county 239‑m referral. • 48 White Street (2025104) — Accessory/secondary dwelling variances; board asked applicant to provide revised coverage numbers and comparables and left hearing open. • 182 Grand Avenue (20250099) — Use‑variance request to legalize two‑family use; board requested appraisals, contractor estimates and market comparables showing the owner cannot realize a reasonable return from permitted uses. • 308 Oak Street (20250115) — Detached garage and stoop variances; board encouraged applicant to consider a smaller 1‑ or 1½‑car garage and to return with revised plans.

Votes and roll call Votes were recorded by roll call for the four approvals noted above. Where the transcript read the roll, the following board members were recorded as voting in favor of the approved motions: Christopher Lapointe, John (Jonah) Cohen, Amanda (Devon/Dema), Bridal (Brenda) Daley, Paige (Gage) Simpson, and one additional yes to reach a 6–0 tally on each passed motion. The transcript did not always list each voter by seat on every motion; the motions recorded unanimous board approval for each passed item.

Next steps Several matters were continued to the board’s March 24 meeting for further evidence, referrals or revised plans; applicants were instructed to work with staff and to submit the requested documentation in advance of the next hearing.