HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210781 Trimarchi Driveway Modifications NOD
Page 1 of 2
Tamie Ehinger, Chair
Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair
Chris Bennett
Leslie DiCarlo
Jeff Gritsavage
Geoff Wood
Karen Cavotta, Alternate
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
D ESIGN R EVIEW B OARD
❖
City Hall - 474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
Tel: 518-587-3550 x.2517
www.saratoga-springs.org
NOTICE OF DECISION
In the matter of the application
#20210781
Trimarchi Driveway Modifications
115 Circular Street
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
involving Historic Review of driveway replacement within the Urban Residential-3 District, tax parcel #165.60-2-43.1,
within the City of Saratoga Springs.
In accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617, the Design Review Board classifies this request as a SEQR:
Type II action – exempt from further SEQR review
And, in accordance with the objectives, standards and guidelines contained in the Unified Development Ordinance
Article 240-13.9 Architectural Review Applicability and Approval Standards, the Design Review Board issues the
following decision on July 16, 2025:
This letter decision of the Board follows the April 3, 2024 Decision and Order of Hon. James E. Walsh, Justice of the
Supreme Court, Saratoga County, in a proceeding brought under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and
titled David W. Appel, Jr. v. City of Saratoga Springs, Dominick Trimarchi and Amanda Tucker.
On September 1, 2021 the Board approved the application of Dominick Trimarchi for a pre -installed paved driveway
surface at his property at 115 Circular St reet. Mr. Trimarchi’s adjacent neighbor, David W. Appel, Jr., challenged the
Board’s approval in his Article 78 Petition. The City responded on behalf of the Board and city employee Amanda
Tucker. After several court conferences which produced no resolution, Judge Walsh remanded the matter back to this
Board, stating that it “did not comply with (its) own professed requirements, which required color photographs showing
the entire area in question. The Judge stated that “the photographs submitted in support of the application were not in
color and did not show the shared nature of the driveway.”, and also raising a concern as to “whether the permeability
of Trimarchi’s premises now exceeded limits imposed by the city code.”
Judge Walsh emphasized that the Board indicated no waiver of these criteria, and did not articulate any reason for
waiving them or deviating from them, Accordingly, the approval was vacated and the matter remanded to the Board for
further action consistent with the Court’s decision and order.
At its May 14 regular meeting, the Board again discussed the matter and heard comments from both Mr. Trimarchi and
Mr. Appel. The board also reviewed additional information in the form of a letter provided shortly thereafter by Mr.
Appel. The Board now finds as follows:
Page 2 of 2
1. With respect to the photographs, the Board reviewed the Historic Review application submission requirements
that existed at the time the application was submitted. The application did in fact include color photographs of
the applicant’s driveway, however it did not include photographs of the adjacent property. However, in the
Board’s review of any application, and in preparation for the Board meetings, the Board members may visit the
subject property in person or view images of it on online mapping sites, and an informal poll of past and present
Board members who participated in the 2021 approval indicates that several Board members did one or the
other of those actions. The Board therefore concludes that they obtained sufficient knowledge of the site, and
that the information that might be contained in any additional photographs was not of sufficient significance to
be a determining factor in the application.
2. Regarding the criteria of permeability, the Board has reviewed Section (7.4) of the Zoning Ordinance, which
stated the powers and authority of the Board at the time of the issuance of the approval, and has found nothing
therein that vested the Board to consider as part of its review the permeability of a portion of any parcel or tract
of land or its effects the effects of permeability on any adjoining lands. To the contrary, it appears that at the
time of the approval such authority was is vested in the (Zoning Officer) pursuant to section (9.0 ) of the
ordinance at the time of the approval.
The Board therefore finds that under the circumstances regarding discussion of the content of the photographs and
the state of permeability onsite, or any specifically stated waiver of either criteria, did not occur since they had
otherwise dealt with them by operation of established procedure or by operation of law. After more than three years
since the approval, the Board is sympathetic to the still ongoing dispute between the neighboring property owners,
but it must refer them to other agencies, departme nts or courts for assistances in resolving it.
Approve as submitted
Record of vote:
motion to approve made by TEhinger, seconded by L DiCarlo: passed 5-0
In favor: TEhinger, LDiCarlo, RDuBoff, JGritsavage, K Cavotta,
Abstain: G Wood
Chair Received by Accounts
cc: Building Department
Accounts Dept.
Applicant/Agent