The Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals met Oct. 27 and approved four area‑variance requests while leaving several other applications open for more information or additional review.

The board approved area variances for: a porch addition at 122 North Street (appeal of Jason Duolio), placement of HVAC compressors at 19 Aurora Avenue (applicant James Hamilton), a two‑lot subdivision at 52 York Avenue (applicants Colin Christovich and Minette Carley) and a new single‑family house at 131 Bridal Avenue (applicants Kim and Mike Southern). Vote tallies and key findings are listed below. Several other applications — including projects at 116 East Avenue, 112 Fifth Avenue and 253 Nelson — remained under review or had public hearings left open for additional documentation.

Why it matters: the decisions affect front‑yard and side‑yard setback rules, lot‑coverage limits and driveway width standards in established neighborhoods, and set precedents the board pointed to when weighing similar requests in the future.

What the board decided (details)

122 North Street (area variance — porch addition)
- Outcome: Approved (7–0).
- What was requested: An area variance in the UR‑3 district to allow a front/setback porch where the district requires 10 feet and the proposal was 3.5 feet (relief requested approximately 6.5 feet / ~65%).
- Board rationale: The board found the applicant demonstrated alternatives were infeasible, noted existing homes on the block with similar porches and setbacks, and concluded the porch would not create an undesirable change to neighborhood character though the variance is substantial.
- Next steps: Permit review to follow; building permit work on the house was already in process according to the applicant.

19 Aurora Avenue (area variance — HVAC compressors)
- Outcome: Approved (7–0).
- What was requested: An area variance in the SR‑1 district to permit HVAC compressors closer to the side lot line than the 5‑foot accessory side setback (proposal ~3.2 feet; relief ~1.8 feet / ~36%).
- Board rationale: The board concluded alternatives were infeasible, found similar installations in the Oak Ridge development and determined the proposal would not cause significant adverse impacts.

52 York Avenue (two‑lot subdivision)
- Outcome: Approved (7–0).
- What was requested: Variances for both new lots where the minimum lot area and minimum average lot width in UR‑3 could not be met (proposed lots approximately 5,450 sq ft vs. 6,600 sq ft required; proposed widths ~50 ft vs. 60 ft required; reliefs ~16–17%).
- Board rationale: The applicants showed no adjacent land was available to create compliant lots; planning‑board and county referrals were noted in the record (negative SEQR/negative declaration and a county advisory of no significant intercommunity impact) and the board found the proposal aligned with neighborhood pattern.

131 Bridal Avenue (area variances for new single‑family home)
- Outcome: Approved (5–2).
- What was requested: Multiple variances including maximum combined lot coverage (district 40%; proposed ~49% — relief about 9%), rear setback (25 ft required; proposed ~20.8 ft), total side setbacks, and driveway percentage (district 25%; proposed ~37.5%).
- Board discussion highlights: The board heard a multi‑meeting record (planning‑board review and a planning‑board modification were referenced). Board members asked for neighborhood comparables for first‑floor footprints and driveway widths; several members said the lot is undersized (a product of a prior subdivision) and that surrounding lots already have high coverage, which mitigated concerns for some members. One frequent concern among board members was the location of auxiliary equipment (air‑conditioning condenser and backup generator); the applicant stated they would eliminate one requested variance and move equipment to the rear, which the board incorporated into deliberations. The motion passed 5–2 (two members opposed).

Applications continued or left open for more information

116 East Avenue (area variances for additions): Public hearing remains open. The applicants (represented by architect Keith Buff and homeowner Robert Massey) presented two additions to expand living space. Board members requested additional comparables for footprint and lot sizes and asked the applicants to quantify impacts and to return at the Nov. 17 meeting with supplemental materials.

112 Fifth Avenue (new single‑family residence): Continued. Applicants presented a revised plan intended to reduce footprint, and the board asked city staff (planning/zoning) to verify impervious‑paver credit and confirm percentage calculations before the board takes a final vote. The application remains continued to allow verification from staff.

253 Nelson (pool and equipment shed; area variance for combined coverage): Public hearing remains open. Applicant sought a small (approximately 7×13 ft) heated, in‑ground pool and an equipment shed that together would bring combined lot coverage modestly above the UR‑3 district 40% limit (proposal ~43%). The board asked the applicant to provide neighborhood comparables (aerial/parcel viewer images and survey data) and to justify the shed size or demonstrate whether a smaller shed would allow compliance.

2 North Circular (fence height): Continued / public hearing left open. The board discussed whether portions of the existing fence sit directly on a retaining wall and whether the visual effect differs on the residential versus commercial sides; members requested the applicant appear at a future meeting to clarify how the fence sits relative to the wall and whether partial 6‑foot vs. 8‑foot sections would address concerns.

Votes at a glance (items recorded on the meeting agenda)
- 2025009 (122 North St) — porch area variance — Approved 7–0
- 20250776 (19 Aurora Ave) — HVAC compressor placement — Approved 7–0
- 20250736 (52 York Ave) — two‑lot subdivision — Approved 7–0
- 20240987 (131 Bridal Ave) — new single‑family home variances — Approved 5–2
- 2025896 (116 East Ave), 20250743 (112 Fifth Ave), 20250785 (253 Nelson) and 20250738 (2 North Circular) — public hearings left open or applications continued to Nov. 17 for additional materials or staff verification

Context & next steps
The board repeatedly asked applicants for consistent, measurable comparables (first‑floor footprints, lot sizes, aerials and parcel‑viewer data) and asked staff to confirm impervious/permeable paver credits where applicants asserted them. Several applicants were directed to return to the Nov. 17 ZBA meeting with supplemental materials; others may require revised denial letters or additional local review before permits can be issued.

The board’s decisions hinge on the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) standards for setbacks, lot coverage and accessory setbacks; approvals carry standard conditions (plans as submitted or lesser dimensions) and will be followed by permit review and inspections. The board also recorded planning‑board and county advisory outcomes in the record where applicable.

The ZBA’s next scheduled meeting is Nov. 17, 2025.