Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Saratoga Springs Zoning Board approves multiple variance requests, extends Pine Alley approval
Summary
At its Oct. 7 meeting the Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals extended an earlier variance for 11 Pine Alley and approved variances for a two‑family conversion at 128–132 Washington; several other applications were discussed and some hearings were continued for additional documentation.
The Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals approved several area‑variance actions at its Oct. 7 meeting and continued others for additional evidence and clarification.
The board granted an 18‑month extension for the area variance for 11 Pine Alley (matter 20240769), allowing the previously approved variance for construction of a single‑family home to remain effective through Sept. 27, 2025 unless a building permit is issued or the board further extends it. "I'm here as the owner of 11 Pine Alley, just seeking an extension on the initial application," said Matthew Shpancic, the property owner. The board found no change in neighborhood conditions and moved to extend the approval; the motion was read into the record and carried on an aye vote.
In continued business, the board approved area variances for the applicant at 128–132 Washington (matter 202400517), which seeks to convert combined parcels into a two‑family residence. Architect Sue Davis of SD Atelier Architecture told the board she had supplied neighborhood comparables and an updated site plan addressing parking and the historic front portion of the building. "We essentially wanted to point out, kind of how the other corner lots also have a precedent where they're over the rear yard setback," Davis said. The motion’s language specified relief "as per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions," staff confirmed DPW curb‑cut approval, and the board recorded the motion as carried 5–0 on roll call.
Other matters: - 132 Caderousse (enclosed porch): Contractor Justin Queen explained the client preferred a screened porch facing Lake Avenue because the rear yard is steep and largely obscured by mature pine trees; the board asked for confirmation of the correct setback classification (corner side vs. rear) and left the public hearing open for additional documentation (matter 20240726). "There’s a whole line of big pine trees…putting a screened‑in porch there, you’d be staring at a tree trunk," Queen said. - 47 Forest: Architect Michael Perry described how the lot’s irregular shape and size (about 8,694 sq. ft.) drove the need for multiple setback variances; board members expressed concerns about drainage and asked the applicant to supply photos of neighboring properties on Pinewood to document context. Owner Pamela Dake said site drainage runs straight down and does not flow over onto neighboring lots. - 26 Newton and 3 Sunrise: Applicants presented revisions that reduced or clarified variance needs; the board read draft motions and recorded favorable action language for resolution preparation.
Several items remained open for follow‑up: applicants were asked to upload neighborhood photographs, clarify plan sheets that had not displayed correctly in the staff packet, and confirm setback classifications where staff suspected a clerical error. The board noted the next meeting is scheduled for Nov. 18.
The meeting record shows the board read formal draft motions into the record and asked staff to correct minor errors (parcel and document references) before finalizing resolutions.
