HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260606 176 Meadowbrook Rd Area Variance Public Comment (3)Outlook
Fw: Opposition to Meadowbrook Rd parcel - 167.-3-5
From Susan Barden <Susan.Barden@saratogaspringsny.gov>
Date Mon 11/2/2026 2:10 PM
To Mark Graham <Mark.Graham@saratogaspringsny.gov>
Public comment for 176 Meadowbrook.
Susan B. Barden, AICP
Administrator, OPED
City of Saratoga Springs
susan.barden@saratoga-springs.org
518-587-3550 ext. 2493
From: Leslie Collman-Smith <collmansmith@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2026 3:31 PM
To: Susan Barden <Susan.Barden@saratogaspringsny.gov>
Cc: Thomas Smith <smittyepic@optonline.net>
Subject: Opposition to Meadowbrook Rd parcel - 167.-3-5
Warning: Unusual sender <collmansmith@gmail.com>
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking any
actions.
Dear Members of the Saratoga Springs Town Board and Zoning Board of Appeals,
My husband and I are writing as concerned residents of Meadowbrook Rd in Saratoga Springs to
formally register our opposition to the requested zoning variance for the property known as 167.-3-5.
The variance came suddenly, with only a brief notice posted on the property last week, leaving us
minimal time to respond.
The proposal to build on a lot with only half the required street frontage and 30% of the required rear
setback violates our town’s established zoning laws because it fails to meet minimum lot-size
requirements and should be denied.
Our town’s zoning code exists for a reason: to preserve the character, safety, and infrastructure
integrity of our neighborhoods. Granting a variance of this magnitude sets a dangerous precedent and
directly contradicts the core principles of responsible land use for several reasons:
Severe Undersizing and Density: Given the parcel's steeply sloped topography, with gullies and
elevation drops on 3 sides, the lot is fundamentally too small to support the development. Our
neighbor has told us that the applicant himself stated he has only 0.85 acres of buildable land, making
11/2/26, 2:21 PM Mail - Mark Graham - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQAOqRmCoJukRKgVkiHOABty…1/2
it a negative building lot. Allowing a structure on this lot would severely alter the aesthetic of our
community.
Inadequate Frontage: Reducing frontage by 50% is not a minor adjustment; it is a drastic departure
from the neighborhood standard of 60 feet. Frontage requirements ensure proper spacing, aesthetic
uniformity, and vital sightlines for traffic safety.
No Self-Created Hardship: To qualify for an area variance, an applicant typically must demonstrate an
unnecessary and unique physical hardship. In this case, any "hardship" is purely self-created by
attempting to build a structure that the land physically cannot accommodate under current, lawful
zoning rules.
If this variance is approved, it will render our zoning protections meaningless, signaling that standard
lot and frontage requirements are entirely optional.
We respectfully urge the Board to uphold our community standards, protect our neighborhood's
character, and deny this variance request. Thank you for your time, leadership, and dedication to
preserving the integrity of our town.
Sincerely,
Leslie Collman-Smith and Thomas Smith
163 Meadowbrook Rd
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
11/2/26, 2:21 PM Mail - Mark Graham - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQAOqRmCoJukRKgVkiHOABty…2/2