Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260186 69 Outlook Ave. Area Variance Other PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2026 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Mark Pingel, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mark Pingel, Chair, Tony Stellato, Mike King, Joe Ferrante, Vice-Chair, William “Bill” McTygue, Kerry Mayo ABSENT: Alex White STAFF: Susan Barden, Principal Planner, Amy Valyou, City Engineer, Michael Tuller, Principal Planner, Leah Everhart, City Attorney A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: Note: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any applications that appear to be ‘approvable’ without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the ‘consent agenda’ and dealt with individually. C. PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NOTE: Agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 1. #20240456 182 Excelsior Final Subdivision. Final plat review for a two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Mark Pingel, Chair said this is a reapplication for a subdivision. Andy Brick, Brick Law Firm said they worked closely with the Preservation Foundation to save and relocate the historic home and carriage house on the property and convert them into condominiums. Apartments have been built behind the structures and look very nice. The project had many moving parts, and they missed the deadline to request an extension of subdivision approval. The approval was for a two-lot subdivision separating the condominium parcel from the apartment parcel. Although the subdivision was approved in March 2024, the required paperwork was not filed with the county within the one-year timeframe, so the approval lapsed. Everything is now complete: the condominium offering plan has been approved by the Attorney General, the owner is ready to begin selling units, and the City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – June 18, 2026 - Page 2 of 16 apartments are being rented. The applicant is seeking reapproval of the March 22, 2024, subdivision approval. Mark Pingel, Chair asked if there were any comments from the public on this application. Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed. Board comments: Bill asked Leah if the application was currently under a legal challenge. Leah said there was no pending litigation that she’s aware of. Tony – project looks great! Leah noted that SEQRA review was already done and not necessary to do again. Bill – the project accomplished important historic preservation of the two buildings; it’s a real success story and speaks well to the applicant and the due diligence of the board and Foundation. It turned out great! Mike King made a motion to approve the subdivision at 182 Excelsior, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Joe Ferrante. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, B. McTygue- Y, J. Ferrante-Y, T. Stellato-Y, K. Mayo-Y. 6-0, Motion carried. 2. #20260186 69 Outlook Ave. Area Variance. Advisory opinion to ZBA on an area variance from the minimum lot requirement for a proposed 3-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential District. Mark Pingel, Chair said this is an advisory opinion to the ZBA and SEQRA review for a 3-lot subdivision. The applicant is requesting 3 lots, which are almost compliant with the UR-2 land area requirements of 6,600 sq. ft. Currently there is a single piece of property with about 175 ft. of frontage, and they are requesting 60 ft. (1 at 55 ft.) of frontage for each of the three lots. The Board reviewed SEQRA. SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land.. No, or small impact. This is the intent of the zoning. For advisory opinion – 1. Consider whether one or two lots are more appropriate for this subdivision. 2. Consider the substantial trees on the lot. If it’s a 3-lot subdivision, there’s no way to save any of the trees. If it’s 2 lots there’s an opportunity to preserve a number of the trees. Mike – the average frontage on the block is 87 ft. and the next block is 69 ft. There are a couple of 50 ft. wide lots two streets over. A 60 ft. or 55 ft. wide lot would not be completely out of character in his opinion. Sixty feet of frontage is allowed in UR-2, and the city wants density, subdivisions, and more housing. For those reasons he supports the 3-lot subdivision. It’s not a change in use and does not affect the character or quality of the existing community. Tony – his advice to the ZBA is it’s a 5 ft. deviation from the ordinance but not significantly out of scale or out of place in the neighborhood. He’s not convinced that more trees will be saved with 2 lots versus 3 based on the current information provided. He would give a favorable recommendation to the ZBA. Joe doesn’t see the need to go to 3 lots; he’s in favor of splitting it back to 2 lots, which would also increase the density and trees would be saved along the property line. Kerry – sees no, or small impact for items 2 and 3 of SEQRA in City of Saratoga Springs – Planning Board Minutes – June 18, 2026 - Page 3 of 16 looking at the context of the neighborhood. When something is built it will change the single parcel either way. Trees can be replaced. He’s in favor of moving forward with a favorable advisory opinion to the ZBA to go to 3 lots. The trees that need to be removed can be replaced with new trees on the property. Bill – clarified that the one existing house would be demolished. He’s in favor of the proposal for one 55 ft. lot and two 60 ft. lots. There are similar instances in the neighborhood where they do have less than 80 to 100 ft. lots. Mark said there was a public comment on the city’s website in opposition to the 3-lot subdivision. The commenter provided a detailed frontage analysis saying the character of the neighborhood on Outlook would change, and this would create a precedent for the two lots that are immediately across the street with about the same frontage. They said the 5 or 6 lots immediately south are 90 to 100 ft. frontage and this subdivision would now create a series of 60 or 55 ft. lots running north along Outlook up to Church and will impair the character of the existing community. Mark agrees with Tony’s observation about the trees and whether it’s two or three lots a number of trees will be removed. It should be noted to the ZBA and when it comes back to the PB for subdivision the board can use the same approach they used on the previous application. 3. Impair character or quality… No, or small impact. As discussed in #2. 4. Impact on environmental qualities …. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic…No, or small impact. 6. Cause increase in use of energy… – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. 12. Are disadvantaged communities impacted at a greater rate by environmental concerns (Map shows no identified disadvantaged communities in this area) No, or small impact. 13. Will the action cause or increase a pollution burden within a disadvantaged community… No, or small impact. Mike King made a motion for a favorable Advisory Opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the subdivision at 69 Outlook Ave, Saratoga Springs, NY as proposed. The motion was seconded by Kerry Mayo. Vote: M. Pingel-N, M. King-Y, B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-N, T. Stellato-Y, K. Mayo-Y. 4-2, Motion carried. Mike King made a motion to approve a Negative SEQRA Declaration for the proposed subdivision at 69 Outlook Ave. Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Tony Stellato. Vote: M. Pingel-Y, M. King-Y, B. McTygue-Y, J. Ferrante-Y, T. Stellato-Y, K. Mayo- Y. 6-0, Motion carried. 3. #20250174 52 York Ave. Subdivision. Final plat review of a proposed two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential District. Mark Pingel, Chair said the applicant is seeking subdivision approval. He noted that the tax map and drawings that were provided show that the property immediately adjacent to 52 York was identically subdivided. It appears there are opportunities to improve the neighborhood with this subdivision. On Middle Ave. there’s a gap in the sidewalk and when 52 York installs the sidewalk they can also install a tree in the tree belt on Middle Ave. and York Ave. Mark said if the applicant agrees with that then he would be in favor of approving the subdivision.