The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20250907 75 Clinton St Area Variance Public Comment (5)Outlook Online Form Submittal: Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment From noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Date Fri 7/10/2026 12:49 PM To Mark Graham <Mark.Graham@saratogaspringsny.gov> External sender <noreply@civicplus.com> Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions. Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment SUBMIT COMMENTS REGARDING CITY PROJECTS Thank you for submitting your comments. Your feedback will be forwarded to the City's Planning Department and Land Use Board members. NOTE: Comments submitted later than 12:00 noon on the day before the Land Use Board meeting may not be reviewed prior to their meeting. All comments will be added to the project file in the Planning Department. Land Use Board Zoning Board of Appeals Name Patricia M Morrison Email Address PatriciaMarieMorrison@gmail.com Business Name Saratoga Springs City School District Address 67 Union Street City Saratoga Springs State NY Zip Code 12866-4409 Phone Number 5188597347 Project Name 75 Clinton Street Area Variance Project Number 20250907 Project Address 67 Union Street Comments Dear ZBA Members, I’m here to oppose the requested variance for a 12-foot wall, which I believe clearly fails the legal standards this Board is required to apply. Attached are photographs of the wall illustrating the massive scale of this structure. 7/13/26, 10:20 AM Mail - Mark Graham - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQALUIr77MTHxMix22yJsbknU…1/2 The applicant purchased a home with a backyard directly adjacent to a roadway. Traffic noise was not an unforeseen condition — it was readily observable. The failure to assess that condition before purchasing the property constitutes a self- created hardship, which by law weighs heavily against granting a variance. While I understand concerns about noise and privacy, those concerns do not justify disregarding zoning requirements. This was not an innocent mistake. The applicants are well aware they live in the Architectural District. They previously appeared before the Design Review Board and were explicitly directed to construct fencing in-kind and subject to review. They knew the rules. After receiving a written code violation, rather than removing the non-compliant structure, they chose to retain counsel and seek a variance. Question #9 of the application asks whether an active violation exists — it does — and that fact alone should carry significant weight in your deliberations. Functionally, this may be called a fence. Legally, a 12-foot structure is not a typical fence — it is an oversized screening structure or wall. The applicant is requesting a 100% height variance, which is substantial by any standard. This fence also appears to meet the definition of a spite fence, erected not for reasonable enclosure but to block and dominate the neighboring environment. That is not a purpose zoning relief is intended to serve. Precedent will allow others to construct 12- foot barriers. The cumulative impact would fundamentally alter the character of this corridor and the gateway to our city. Granting this variance would reward knowing noncompliance, undermine the Architectural District, and weaken the integrity of our zoning Attach Photo (optional)75 Clinton Street Letter and Pictures.pdf Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 7/13/26, 10:20 AM Mail - Mark Graham - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQALUIr77MTHxMix22yJsbknU…2/2 Patricia Morrison 67 Union Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 patriciamariemorrison@gmail.com June1, 2026 ZBA Board Members City Hall 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Re: 75 Clinton Street, Fence Area Variance Dear ZBA Members, I’m here to oppose the requested variance for a 12-foot wall, which I believe clearly fails the legal standards this Board is required to apply. Attached are photographs of the wall illustrating the massive scale of this structure. The applicant purchased a home with a backyard directly adjacent to a roadway. Traffic noise was not an unforeseen condition — it was readily observable. The failure to assess that condition before purchasing the property constitutes a self-created hardship, which by law weighs heavily against granting a variance. While I understand concerns about noise and privacy, those concerns do not justify disregarding zoning requirements. This was not an innocent mistake. The applicants are well aware they live in the Architectural District. They previously appeared before the Design Review Board and were explicitly directed to construct fencing in-kind and subject to review. They knew the rules. After receiving a written code violation, rather than removing the non-compliant structure, they chose to retain counsel and seek a variance. Question #9 of the application asks whether an active violation exists — it does — and that fact alone should carry significant weight in your deliberations. Functionally, this may be called a fence. Legally, a 12-foot structure is not a typical fence — it is an oversized screening structure or wall. The applicant is requesting a 100% height variance, which is substantial by any standard. This fence also appears to meet the definition of a spite fence, erected not for reasonable enclosure but to block and dominate the neighboring environment. That is not a purpose zoning relief is intended to serve. Finally, this application raises serious concerns about precedent. Members of this Board — and residents along this same roadway — would now be entitled to construct similar 12- foot barriers. The cumulative impact would fundamentally alter the character of this corridor and the gateway to our city. Granting this variance would reward knowing noncompliance, undermine the Architectural District, and weaken the integrity of our zoning code. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Board to deny the application. Thank you, Patty