Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 109 Ludlow Garage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves 109 Ludlow garage variance with drainage and maintenance conditions
Summary
The ZBA approved a variance to replace a dilapidated garage with a connected garage at 109 Ludlow, 6–0, after the board required a drainage plan, gutters directing runoff away from neighbors and fire-rated construction on the side closest to the adjacent property.
Saratoga Springs’ Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously July 13 to grant an area variance allowing a replacement garage attached to a single-family house at 109 Ludlow, but only after adding conditions to protect neighbors from stormwater and other construction impacts.
Attorney Ryan Kelleher and architect Sue Davis presented a revised design that reduced the garage depth (a ‘notch’ reduced the length in the variance area from 26 feet to 24 feet) and included a continuous gutter and subsurface drainage plan. The architect said alternatives—moving the garage, building a detached structure or radically altering rooflines—would either harm the homeowner’s primary design goals or cause greater visual and functional impacts for nearby properties.
Neighbor Therese (Terry) Keenan of 111 Lake Avenue did not oppose the application but requested enforceable protections: removal of a fence that limits snow removal near shared property lines; a topographical engineering plan showing surface drainage and grading; and reassurance that demolition would not damage adjacent foundations. “We are concerned about stormwater runoff as well as snow removal,” Keenan told the board, asking that any drainage plan be reviewed by the city engineer and placed on the public record.
The board’s draft motion, introduced by Board Member Otis Maxwell, included findings on the hardship, alternatives, neighborhood character and environmental impacts and concluded the relief was warranted with mitigation. Board members discussed whether to make the drainage and gutter plan an enforceable condition rather than a note; the board ultimately added a condition requiring implementation of the applicant-provided drainage plan, construction of the proposed gutter/subsurface drainage system to move runoff away from neighboring foundations, and fire-rated construction on the north side with no permitted openings.
The clerk recorded a unanimous vote of approval, 6–0, and the board noted building-permit review may require additional plan changes (including code-compliant egress and potential structural or waterproofing measures). The board advised the applicants to work with the building and engineering departments during permit review to finalize details.
What’s next: The applicant must follow the approved plans, provide the drainage details called for in the condition and comply with building-permit review. The board’s approval is contingent on those implementation measures being completed as submitted.
