HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260079 328 Caroline St Area Variance Zoning Determination 05.05.2026Richard Roman
From:
Richard Roman
Sent:
Tuesday, May 5, 2026 12:49 PM
To:
Bruce Steves
Cc:
Susan Barden; Mark Graham
Subject:
328 Caroline Street _ ZBA Zoning Review
Bruce,
We are following up on our recent phone conversation regarding the Zoning Determination for the previous
application compared to the current one submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Our review has identified
inconsistencies in the Architectural Plans previously submitted, particularly concerning the dimensions of the
overhangs, such as the eaves of the proposed addition, which were only referenced in relation to the garage.
The attached revised plans now accurately display the dimensions of the new structure, measured from the
overhangs, aligning with the maximum combined coverage percentage outlined in the zoning determination
denial. This updated information reflects the necessary adjustments for the variances required. I have included
both sets of architectural plans and related materials for your review. Please reach out if you need any further
assistance.
Respectfully,
Richard Roman
Zoning Administrator
City of Saratoga Springs
474 Broadway, Suite 32
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Tel: (518) 587-3550 ext. 2534
no- ne
328 Carcline 328 Carcline
St_Appl# 20240&... St_App�` 202600...
Property
Address:
File # 3690
Zone:
UR-1
Occupancy:
R
Project Type:
RES
Dwelling Units:
1
Stories:
2
Const. Type:
Add/Alt
Water Service:
ZBA: Yes
DRB: No
ROOMS:
BR:
BATH:
FIREPLACE:
328 Caroline Street
Area For Fee:
0
Fee per SQ FT
$
0.35
SF Fee
$
-
Base Fee
$
175.00
Total Fee
$
175.00
Amount Paid
$
-
Balance Due
$
175.00
Questions:
SBL: 166.14-1-16
Min Lot Size:
Min Avg Width:
Max Combined Coverage %:
Yard Setback - Front:
Rear:
Side 1:
Side 2:
Total Side:
Corner Side:
Max Height:
Accessory to Front:
Accessory to Side:
Accessory to Rear:
Max First Floor Elev:
Max Impervious %:
APP # 20240837
Zone Req
Approved
Variances
Proposed
Variance
Numeric
Variance
Percent
12500
6053
6447
51.6%
100
64
36
36.0%
28%
37%
564
9.3%
30
54
OK
OK
30
19.2
10.8
36.0%
12
6.9
5.1
42.5%
12
31.7
OK
OK
30
38.6
OK
OK
25
25
100.0%
40
OK
OK 1
30
57
OK
OK 1
5
6
OK
OK 1
5
15
OK
OK I
4
1
OK
OK r
50%
45% 1
OK
OK
'ENC
'ENC
I/A
I/A
let. Garage
let. Garage
let. Garage
/A
Lot Width
64 Lot Length
94
Total Coverage
2259
Zone 1 Length
33 Zone 1 Width
36 Principle
Zone 2 Length
24.8 Zone 2 Width
9.8 Principle
Zone 3 Length
12 Zone 3 Width
5 Ft. Cvd. Porch
Zone 4 Length
24 Zone 4 Width
14 New Det. Garage
Zone 5 Length
18 Zone 5 Width
24 New one story familyroom add
Area Calculation: Basement
First Floor
Front Porch
Rear Porch
Garage
Second Floor
Total 0
Driveway width (10.4.D)? 20.9'
Existing sidewalk? Yes Is new sidewalk required (Section 18.5)? No
Front Door faces street (Section 8.4.KK.2.a)? Yes
front loaded garage width (Section 8.4.KK.2.d)? 12'
front facade has at least 10%transparency (Section 8.4.KK.c)? Yes
A final survey will be required to verify zoning compliance.
*Applicant to convert existing driveway to permeable material reducing impervious area by 1,190 SF.
The applicant is required to provide specification sheets that detail calculations and installation information for
the permeable pavement to verify that it will qualify under Section 21.4.1.3 of the LIDO.
ZONING AND BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIAL
OF APPLICATION FOR LAND USE AND/OR BUILDING
APPLICANT: Dan and Tracy Zanatta Tax PARCEL No.: 166.14-1-16
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 328 CAROLINE STREET
ZONING DISTRICT: URBAN RESIDENTIAL 1 (UR-1) DISTRICT
This applicant has applied to use the identified property within the City of Saratoga Springs for the
following:
Applicant seeking to construct a detached garage for one vehicle and a single -story
family room extension on the southern side of the residence with porous asphalt
driveway.
This application is hereby denied upon the grounds that such use of the property would violate the
Unified Development Ordinance article(s):
Article: 3 Section 3.1.0 (UR-1) Residential District & Table 3-A — (UR-1) Residential Districts
Dimensional Standards.
As such, the following relief would be required to proceed:
❑ Extension of existing variance ❑ Interpretation
❑ Advisory Opinion required from Saratoga County Planning Board
❑ Use Variance to permit the following:
Area Variance
ensional Requirements:
From
To
Relief Required
Max. Combined Coverage W
28'%
36.75%
8.7%
Rear Setback — New Add:
30'
19.2'
10.8' — 36%
Interior Side Setback:
12'
8.4'
3.6' — 30%
NOTE:
ZONING AND BUILDING INSPECTOR DATE
Gage Simpson, Chair the Public Hearing will remain open.
CONTINUED BUSINESS:
3. #20240837 328 Caroline St. Addition and Garage Construction. Area variance to permit the
construction of a single -car garage in the Urban Residential —1 (UR-1) District.
Variances sought for 328 Caroline St.:
TYPE OF REQUIREMENT
ZONE REQUIREMENT
PROPOSED
RELIEF REQUESTED
MAX. COMBINED COVERAGE%
28%
37%
9.3%
REAR SETBACK — NEW ADD.
30 FT.
19.2 FT.
10.8 FT (36%)
MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK
12 FT.
6.9 FT.
5.1 FT. (42.5%)
MAX IMPERVIOUS %
50%
64%
14.4%
Ben Nathan represented the applicants. Ben said they submitted revisions following the last
meeting.
Richard Roman said the building and zoning inspector reviewed the information that was submitted
regarding permeable surface and the specifications are supposed to align with NYS stormwater
management design. The zoning officer found that what was submitted was not sufficient, such as
what manufacturer is installing it according to the specifications shown. He felt there was not enough
information, and it was ambiguous in the proposal. The denial determination for 64% imperviousness
was made based on section 21.4.1.3 of the UDO. Susan read the definition for impervious surface
coverage "permeable pavement is permitted but will be calculated as impervious surface unless it can
be materially demonstrated that the effective infiltration rate of the surface meets or exceeds 1.1
inches per hour". She said the detail of the asphalt pavement has not provided the infiltration
calculation to identify it as actually being permeable.
Gage summarized that the applicant needs to provide additional manufacturer's details about what
the pavement is and how it relates to the infiltration rate in the UDO.
There was a discussion between staff and board members about how to move forward with approval
with conditions. Jonah said he would like to see a proposal showing that the imperviousness is what
it is purported to be before giving approval. Otis agreed that the specs with the installation with this
particular contractor are necessary. Ben said that what he submitted was previously approved for
another project in Saratoga. He said the details that the city is looking for don't exist anywhere.
There are suppliers of asphalt and installers of asphalt and that's where it stops. There are no other
details readily accessible. Susan said they will have to prove that it has the proper infiltration rate
which is specific to the site. An alternative condition would be to note that specific relief that had
City of Saratoga Springs -Zoning Board of Appeals — February 10„ 2025 Page 4 of 6