Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Mixed Use Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

ZBA clears mixed‑use plan tied to Sperry’s after SEQR negative declaration

Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals · July 22, 2024
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

The board found no significant environmental impacts and approved a front‑buildout variance for a mixed‑use project that preserves Sperry’s restaurant and adds apartments above; an easement constraining the lot was central to the board’s finding that the requested relief was mitigated.

Representatives for a proposed mixed‑use project that would keep Sperry’s restaurant and build apartments above told the Zoning Board the site is constrained by a wide municipal easement that carries significant storm and sewer infrastructure along the parcel’s west edge. Dave Carr of the LA Group and George Olsen of Olsen Associates said the easement limits where the building can be placed; Carr said the client bought Sperry’s in January to tie the parcel to an adjacent, previously approved multi‑story building. The team said combining parcels later in the site‑plan process would reduce the effective variance to minimal levels.

The board completed an uncoordinated SEQR (short form) review and, after answering the 11 short‑form questions, adopted a negative declaration, finding no moderate or large environmental impacts. Board discussion noted the project would retain the Sperry’s façade and that the applicants plan roughly 40–45 apartments across the combined parcels once fully designed. The board also emphasized coordination with design review and the planning board on height bonuses and design details.

After SEQR, the board voted to approve the area variance for minimum build‑out percentage (UDO required 80%, proposed 63%, relief ≈17%), citing the easement as a limiting factor that made the requested relief the smallest practicable. The motion passed 5–0.