Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Saratoga ZBA hears neighborsconcerns over large variances proposed at 22 Avery
Summary
Applicant seeks four variances to build a garage with a guest suite and a pool at 22 Avery; neighbors raised drainage, snow and long-term rental concerns, and the board asked the applicant for alternatives and comparables before Dec. 2.
A representative for Bill and Anne Marie Sampson presented plans to build a rear garage with a guest suite and an in-ground pool at 22 Avery, telling the Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals the owners plan to live there and not rent the new space.
Trevor Flynn of Flynn Design Studio said the owners are retiring and bought the house to live in Saratoga; he told the board the design aimed to preserve on-site stormwater and neighborhood character. "I think one of the biggest concerns is that this will be an Airbnb which it will not," Flynn said, and later added, "They're not looking to rent to anyone." The proposal triggers four dimensional variances, including relief from minimum lot size, average width, rear setback and interior side setback.
Multiple board members pressed the applicant on alternatives that would reduce the size of the requested variances, such as changing pool orientation, narrowing driveways or removing the kitchen above the garage (which, by code, can create a separate dwelling). Several members asked the applicant to provide more specific comparables showing rear-setback distances for adjacent properties and to quantify current impervious area versus proposed change.
Neighbors who spoke during public comment described concerns about drainage and the effect of added roof/runoff on adjacent yards. "How many people are gonna be able to live in there eventually?" asked George Prot, a resident who said he has lived nearby for decades, citing tight lot lines and snow/runoff risks. Another nearby owner, Max Boritski, said he supported improvements but opposed establishing a second-family dwelling on the small lot.
The board left the public hearing open, asked applicants to submit alternatives and neighborhood comparables to staff, and set follow-up for the Dec. 2 meeting so members can review additional materials before making a decision.
