HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250738 2 North Circular Street 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
Amanda Demma
Jonah Cohen
Otis Maxwell
Chris LaPointe
Steve Harrigan
Chris Maslak (Alternate)
#20250738
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
Matthew and Jacquelyn Neuringer, the Applicant
2 North Circular Street
Saratoga Spring, NY 12866
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Springs Building Inspector determined that certain application
involving the premises at 2 North Circular Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York (“City”) being
tax parcel number 165.44-1-77.1 (the “Zoning Denial”) pursuant to Section 9.5(J)(2) of the Unified
Development Ordinance of City (“UDO”).
WHEREAS, the Applicant appealing such Zoning Denial, has applied for an area variance under the
UDO of the City to provide relief from enforcement action and permit the already-existing, non-conforming
fence in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District, and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on
said application held on September 15, 2025, September 29, 2025, October 27, 2025 and December 8, 2025.
WHEREAS, in consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicants with detriment to the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, I move for following area variance with the following amount
of relief:
Type of Requirement District
Requirement
Proposed Relief
Requested
East Fence & Wall Height
(Catherine St.)
6’ 11’ (comprised of a 5’
retaining wall and 6’ fence)
5’ (83%)
South Fence Height
(Burke Funeral Home)
6’ 8’ 2’ (33%)
NOW, THEREFORE, as per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, that the East Fence & Wall
Height (as modified) and South Fence Height be APPROVED for the following reasons:
1. Achievability by Other Means. The Applicant has demonstrated that the benefit of having the existing
fence located upon the retaining wall cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the Applicant
without alteration of existing pool-related improvements.
2. Undesirable Change. As exists, the non-conforming East Fence is inconsistent with the overall
character of the UR-2 District and the Applicant has not provided any comparable support for similar
structures. The Board notes that the Applicant has submitted several letters by surrounding neighbors
in support of the structure, including support letters from Burke Funeral Home and Joseph Conlon,
the adjacent property owners. As a result, the Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance
would not create an undesirable change and detriment to nearby properties.
3. Substantiality. The requested variances are substantial. The relief requested for Fence Height is
significant. The Board believes that the impact of substantiality of the relief granted for the East Fence
Height is mitigated by its location upon the retaining wall and that when viewing the fence from the
interior of the property line, the fence would appear to be 6’ in height, rather than the actual 11’ height
of the wall and fence in its aggregate and relief would be consistent with the UDO’s maximum fence
height of six (6) feet. The South Fence is along a property line abutting an existing commercial use
Page 2 of 2
and, therefore, could be allowed at the requested height (8’) in the UDO for fences between
commercial and residential districts.
4. Adverse Effect or Impact. The Fence Heights, as approved, will not have a significant adverse
physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district.
5. Self-Created Difficulty. The Applicant’s alleged difficulty is considered self-created insofar as the
Applicant has already constructed a non-conforming fence conflicting with plans provided in
connection with the Applicant’s issued 2021 building permit.
Dated: December 8, 2025
Passes by the following vote:
AYES: 6 (G. Simpson, B. Dailey, J. Cohen, A. Demma, C. LaPointe, S. Harrigan)
NAYS: 0
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, six members of the Board
being present.
SIGNATURE:
CHAIR