Zoning Board roundup: two variances approved, several hearings continued (Feb. 10, 2025)

The Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 10 heard multiple variance applications. Two matters recorded final approval votes, several other matters remained open for additional evidence or comparables, and one motion failed.

Votes at a glance

- 49–51 Bridal St (draft motion 20240977): The board approved an area variance to permit a detached garage in a split zone. Roll call: Jonah Cohen, Shaffer Gaston, Otis Maxwell, Amanda Dema, Christopher LaPointe, Bridal Dailey and Gage Simpson voted in favor; one board member abstained (Christopher/“Chris” in the record). Motion carried. (Identifying application materials and comparables were provided and reviewed.)

- 147 Jefferson St (draft motion 20240976): The board approved a rear addition variance. The motion passed 7–0. The decision notes the lot is preexisting and undersized and that the applicant provided neighborhood comparables; the property must meet minimum permeability and the record includes a note about sidewalks per UDO Section 18.5.A.

Items left open or otherwise discussed

- 83 Fifth (area variance for renovation in UR‑1 district): The applicant (Anthony Caruso, Caruso Builders) presented a remodel proposal that largely stays in the existing footprint. Several board members requested neighborhood comparables showing similar side‑setback dimensions. The public hearing remained open; the board asked the applicant to email comparables and plans before the March 3 meeting.

- 190 Fifth Lake Ave (carriage house): The board debated whether the rebuilt carriage house should be treated as an accessory structure or as a second dwelling (see separate article). The public hearing was left open for additional neighborhood comparables and alternate plans.

- 328 Caroline St (Dan and Tracy Zanata): A motion to approve variances for a single‑car garage and driveway failed after the board was split over whether the applicant had provided sufficient documentation to count the proposed driveway as permeable. The applicant may submit additional permeability documentation for staff review and the board could reconsider within the statutory window.

Procedure and next steps

Several applicants were asked to submit additional documentation — neighborhood comparables, revised site plans, or manufacturer/installer specifications for permeable pavement — typically one week before the next meeting, scheduled for March 3. For applications where a motion did not carry, the board and staff noted applicants can submit amended materials within the statutory period for reconsideration.

The board’s decisions and directions were read into the record and will be incorporated into written notices of decision and staff files.