Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Large Variance Continued topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board presses applicant on permeability, shed removal and design changes for large Nelson Avenue variance request

Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals · July 8, 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

A proposal for a two‑story garage with living space at 12 Nelson Avenue requires numerous substantial variances on an undersized RR lot; the applicant was asked to consider permeable paving, removal of an unpermitted shed and modest plan reductions and to return with detailed calculations and material specifications before July 22.

Brandon Ferguson of Environmental Design Partnership presented a plan July 8 for a two‑story garage with living space at 12 Nelson Avenue that requires multiple, substantial area variances because the site is undersized for the RR zoning district (0.31 acres vs. typical 2 acres). The board did not vote and instead asked for additional documentation and potential design changes.

Ferguson said the existing house and lot configuration leave little buildable area without variances. The application requests relief on rear and side setbacks, total side yard and accessory setbacks, and shows a proposed impermeable area of about 71.3% compared with the district's minimum (75% per the current code). Board members questioned whether permeable pavers or other materials could raise effective permeability and whether removing an unpermitted shed in the rear would improve the numbers. "If you could take a look at a couple possible scenarios that might get that number just even as close as you can get it," the chair said.

Staff told the applicant that credits can be considered if the applicant demonstrates a maintenance plan (e.g., five‑year maintenance regime) for permeable materials; the board asked the applicant to send documentation of proposed materials and maintenance for staff review. The applicant agreed to consult with the architect and return with revised plans and supporting data before the next meeting. The board emphasized it prefers applicants to reduce the amount of relief requested if feasible and requested digital plans and neighborhood comparables be uploaded for staff review prior to July 22.

Status: continued pending submittal of detailed permeability calculations, demonstration of maintenance plan for any permeable paving proposed, clarification about accessory structures (shed) and any shed removal, and any reduced building dimensions the applicant can offer.