HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260606 176 Meadowbrook Rd Area Variance Public Comment (2)To: Saratoga Springs Zoning Board
From: Faye and James Mihuta
Date: November 1, 2026
Re: Addi�onal comments on variance request for 176 Meadowbrook Road
We would like to add to and summarize the concerns we expressed in our previous
email concerning parcel #167.-3.5 as we collect our thoughts during this short 7 day
no�ce period. Our property at 170 Meadowbrook Road, which we bought in 1977,
borders this parcel on its western and southern boundaries. Since at least the 1970s,
this small ,oddly shaped, triangular strip of land has been atached by deed to the
property across the road, now designated as 169 Meadowbrook and used by the
previous and present owners as some overflow parking space for social events. The
applicant’s exceedingly substan�al request for a variance to build a residence on this
small parcel is shocking to us.
The shocking numbers speak for themselves. This Rural Residen�al area is zoned for 2
acres. The variance request is for 0.85 acres, 57% relief of the required acreage. In
terms of square footage, 87,120 square feet are required. The request is for 36,965
square feet. 57% relief on the acreage requirement is huge. This parcel is not a flat
triangular piece of land. It consists of very challenging eleva�on changes, so we
ques�on the validity of 0.85 acres of usable land. The northeast corner of this triangular
parcel is actually part of the embankment that supports Meadowbrook Road, on the
southern border the land slopes down at about a 45 degree angle and there is a drop-off
on the east side.
To squeeze out enough space for a residence, the applicant is reques�ng 50% relief on
the front setback, seeking a 30 foot rather than 60 foot setback. He also seeks 50% relief
on the required 100 foot rear setback. The applica�on itself describes this litle strip of
land as oddly shaped, sub-standard in size and non-conforming. We agree! It is not a
viable building lot. This applica�on is shocking in its request for such excessive amounts
of relief from the Rural Residen�al zoning ordinances of Meadowbrook Road.
The applicant states the variance will produce no undesirable change in the character of
the neighborhood. We strongly disagree. Our neighborhood is the one mile stretch of
Meadowbrook Road from Dyer Switch to Stafford’s Bridge. You will not find any homes
built in recent years with 30 foot front setbacks and none on such a small parcel,
including in the two prominent developments off of Meadowbrook—The Meadowbrook
at Saratoga and the one on Beacon Hill. The zoning requirements have been adhered to.
Gran�ng this variance would take us back to the �me when there were few if any zoning
ordinances in Saratoga’s Rural Residen�al areas. It would take us back to the 1950s
when the homes close to the road on the western end of Meadowbrook were built.
These homes are not comparable to those in our neighborhood. The city of Saratoga
Springs passed zoning ordinances in 1971 to prevent this very type of building.
The stated purpose of the Rural Residen�al zoning ordinances is to help “to preserve
open space and Saratoga Springs’ rural character areas.” The construc�on of a building
with its well and leech field would require the clearing of a major percentage of mature
trees on this parcel. A residence squeezed onto this litle strip of land with its
challenging eleva�on drops would most certainly diminish the character of the area. If
you approve this applica�on, this building will look like an a�erthought, a mistake and it
always will.
People frequently comment on how lovely this area of Meadowbrook is, with its
woodlands, wetlands, nature trail, and though�ully designed and placed homes with
substan�al setbacks from the road. It is a beau�ful, major corridor into and out of the
city of Saratoga Springs and our sincere hope is that it can remain that way.
As long-�me residents of Saratoga Springs, we share with you a vested interest in the
careful development of our city. We implore you to help us maintain the character of
our neighborhood on Meadowbrook and vote against this excessive variance request.
Respec�ully submited,
Faye and James Mihuta