HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220202 31-33 Marion Area Variance NODPage 1 of 2
CITY OF SARATOGA
SPRINGS
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY HALL - 474 BROADWAY
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866
518-587-3550
WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG
Gage Simpson, Chair
Brendan Dailey, Vice Chair
Shafer Gaston
Amanda Demma
Jonah Cohen
Otis Maxwell
Chris LaPointe
Chris Maslak (Alternate)
Robert West (Alternate)
#20220202
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
Stewart’s Shops Corp.
2907 Route 9
Malta, New York 12020
From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises 31-33 Marion Avenue in the City of
Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.5-4-5 on the Assessment Map of said City.
The applicant having applied for area variances under the 2012 Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the
demolition of an existing service station and construction of a new convenience store, 3,000 square feet of tenant
space and a vehicle fueling station (the “Project”); and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said
application on April 25, 2022 and held open until the public hearing was closed on July 14, 2025.
In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of
the community, I move that the following area variances for the following amounts of relief:
TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT
DIMENSIONAL
REQUIREMENT
PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED
FRONT SETBACK - CONVENIENCE STORE 40’ 14’ 26’ (65%)
FRONT SETBACK – FUEL CANOPY 40’ 23’ 17’ (42%)
FRONT SETBACK – RENTAL SPACE 40’ 30’ 10’ (25%)
REAR SETBACK – FUEL CANOPY 25’ 2’ 23’ (92%)
REAR SETBACK – RENTAL SPACE 50’ 42’ 8’ (16%)
VEHICLE FUELING STATION PROPERTY LINE
DISTANCE 250’ FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
NOT PERMITTED PERMITTED 100%
As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons:
1. Achievability by Other Means: The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other
means feasible to the applicant. The applicant wishes to construct the convenience store, 3,000 square feet
of tenant space and a vehicle fueling station. The applicant notes it has considered other alternatives, but
they were deemed undesirable. The board notes no additional property was available for sale that would
alleviate the need for the variances requested.
2. Undesirable Change: The applicant has demonstrated that granting these variances will not create an
undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant provided
Page 2 of 2
several comparable properties and there will be no significant changes in neighborhood context. The
variances will allow for a project that is generally consistent with previous and current uses of the property
as a fueling station, but will improve the property and make it more consistent with neighborhood context
and current comprehensive plan objectives.
3. Substantiality: The Board finds the requested variances are substantial, but notes the character of the
neighborhood mitigates this concern as the proposal is consistent with previous and ongoing uses of the
property itself. The variance for the property line distance from a residential district is further mitigated by
the fact that the fueling station will be no closer to residential districts than the historical and current
fueling stations have been located as the variance is only necessitated by the merger of the previous three
tax map parcels for the property into a single tax map parcel. The front setback variance is also further
mitigated by the competing requirements of the design district.
4. Adverse Physical or Environmental Effect: The Board finds that these variances will not have adverse
physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood. Permeability requirements will be met. The
establishment of a conservation easement will also mitigate environmental impacts.
5. Self -Created Difficulty: The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as it is the applicant’s desire to
construct a new convenience store, 3,000 square feet of tenant space and a vehicle fueling station, but this
is not necessarily fatal to the application.
NOTE: Planning Board issued a Negative SEQRA Declaration on March 20, 2025
CONDITIONS:
1) Applicant shall encumber a portion of the property with a conservation easement restricting future
development to provide a buffer between commercial uses on the property and residential uses to the north
and west. The final location of the easement area shall be determined by the City of Saratoga Springs
Planning Board during its site plan review. The conservation easement, in acceptable form to planning staff
and City Council, must be recorded in the Saratoga County Clerk’s Office prior to issuance of any building
permits for the project.
It is so moved.
Dated: July 14, 2025
Passes by the following votes:
AYES: 6 (G. Simpson, B. Dailey, J. Cohen, S. Gaston, O. Maxwell, A. Demma)
This variance shall expire 18 months following the filing date of such decision unless the necessary
building permit has been issued and actual construction begun as per the Unified Development Ordinance.
I hereby certify the above to be a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the City of Saratoga Springs on the date above mentioned, seven members of the Board
being present.
SIGNATURE:
CHAIR