[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6677242,"mediaKeyId","2255884-01d6a5cc42a70df0c91e475534ec1637","parentId",2255884,"title","Motion to approve single‑car garage at 328 Caroline St fails after board raises questions about permeable driveway","audioSeconds",1309,"startMs",1734000,"endMs",3043000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255884-01d6a5cc42a70df0c91e475534ec1637&start=1734&end=3043","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255884-01d6a5cc42a70df0c91e475534ec1637/thumbnail_1734000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6677242/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Motion-to-approve-singlecar-garage-at-328-Caroline-St-fails-after-board-raises-questions-about-permeable-driveway","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6677242-5af8c93c3b265ff1fff84e13b397c6cc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771201013&Signature=PTNdAB706ofpW9T4cVUYyU~1odttaNNniEI3kRqO1-dUI4iiAsvzSIJZo2krSgCCGRET89d7j2jBkgHRUJcgeJeiF85r8ohuoEC~c9B2c4VnR-bmjkJHlei8Wxr7SCMj4Rp87ELUIDUvwNX6CDTHBJQulZ1-qqxq9xkgTSD7zzUzI7qquDKScSJwyHSeZeJje0NzaoMK8hJBpwU0dBNnVMH4KMhchEgycBSdBSas0~qVqcx9gWdPhjRyx3EVabEGHCe~zIEcd-inQjGcfOv-0vw-GaqQxH9XZrBLIeY1xj7Bl~oFuRT6DW1gbo42NBrixNPJJTWqhYDHa0O8pVtJ7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Saratoga","date","2025-02-10T00:00:00Z","article","The Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 10 discussed an appeal by Dan and Tracy Zanata seeking area variances to construct a single‑car garage and driveway at 328 Caroline St. The application sought relief for increased principal coverage, reduced rear and side setbacks and other dimensional variances. The board spent substantial time on whether a proposed permeable driveway could be treated as pervious for zoning calculations.

City staff told the board that permeable pavement may be counted as impervious unless the applicant can “materially demonstrate that the effective infiltration rate of the surface meets or exceeds 1.1 inches per hour.” The building and zoning inspector said the applicant’s recent submittal lacked sufficient manufacturer or installer documentation proving an infiltration rate at that level.

“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,” a city staff member said, describing the UDO standard staff relied upon.

Board members debated options. Some said a condition requiring the building department to verify permeability before issuing a permit would be adequate; others wanted the proof in hand before voting. Multiple board members said they were wary of relying on a future owner’s choice (for example, applying a seal coat) that could negate permeability over time.

After deliberation, a motion that would have approved the requested variances — with a condition that the driveway be permeable as agreed with the applicant — failed. The roll call recorded three board members voting in favor (Shaffer Gaston, Otis Maxwell and Gage Simpson), three opposed (Christopher LaPointe, Jonah Cohen and Bridal Dailey) and one abstention (Amanda Dema). The chair noted that a motion not carrying within the statutory period results in an automatic denial but the applicant may submit revised materials or an amended resolution during the allowable post‑hearing window.

What this means: the board indicated it would be inclined to approve the project if the permeability question were resolved to staff and board satisfaction before a decision, or if the applicant returned with clearer specifications and documentation. Staff and board discussed conditioning an approval on submission of manufacturer and installer specifications demonstrating the required infiltration rate; the board also discussed whether to require a named installer or a manufacturer warranty.

Public comment included a neighbor’s attorney asking for time to review a late architectural revision; the board kept the public hearing open in other pending matters and discussed procedural options for the applicant to provide additional information within the statutory timeline.

The applicant may submit the requested permeability documentation (manufacturer specs, installer procedures and infiltration testing or other proof) for review; if the evidence meets UDO standards, the board indicated it could consider an amended motion within the allowed period or reopen the public hearing for a vote.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Saratoga - ZBA - Feb 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 10 discussed an appeal by Dan and Tracy Zanata seeking area variances to construct a single‑car garage and driveway at 328 Caroline St.","taxTitle","Saratoga Springs City, Saratoga County, New York","taxId",7807,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6677247,"Saratoga zoning board questions whether carriage house at 190 Fifth Lake Ave should be treated as second dwelling",940,8000,948000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255884-01d6a5cc42a70df0c91e475534ec1637&start=8&end=948","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255884-01d6a5cc42a70df0c91e475534ec1637/thumbnail_8000.jpg","/articles/6677247/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Saratoga-zoning-board-questions-whether-carriage-house-at-190-Fifth-Lake-Ave-should-be-treated-as-second-dwelling","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6677247-b36e533248d44ec62bd361a0c479a5c0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771201013&Signature=Jhbjamzsq2GSOpX~RP1QcRTXgqaj~oltIOOmEX~8FIXJotRGKhnU~~K8lRiE0G1I6pOb3I5piixwxVjStbgrcSuOrUNO3DUBpKQuL9YkrqscL5lrD5COJsXRqpnCLDmArnXSOpIomXzGdLSZCLj8A95H7oOF~IQFPROiYT1BX40EdNjnorAt3s-0A~eWbzM3LZ~YzTpz2MZb4MzVAAsnHyViHdFGo0Jd-gDz6b3jMQ8GPbr-mRMAFwK~G8dqs7h52yEIFdam7W3czcvUJ-CDa1Tdr52g93XI2yiQ5bkGP-2PuwgiZ2ENvSG8JUQMBZ~nqjVYJl1s7KNmvjmYlFcRyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","An applicant representative told the Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 10 that friends who bought 190 Fifth Lake Ave in July intend to replace an existing carriage house with a new, code‑compliant two‑story structure to provide an office upstairs, living space downstairs and “ideally … a shower in it.” The representative said the owners do not intend to add a kitchen or rent the unit.

The dispute before the board centered on classification: zoning staff recently concluded the finished two‑story space with bathing facilities was closer to a principal (second) dwelling than an accessory structure, which would change what relief is required. “When we looked at this with the zoning and building inspector recently … it was closer to a principal structure than an accessory structure,” a city staff member said, citing finished space throughout and a full first‑floor bath.

Why it matters: if the city treats the carriage house as a second dwelling it triggers additional dimensional relief — including lot width and rear‑setback standards — that the property at 190 Fifth Lake Ave likely cannot meet without further variance requests. If it remains an accessory structure, the board generally can condition approval to prohibit kitchens, overnight stays or other features that would make it a principal dwelling in practice.

Board members asked for neighborhood comparables and alternative plans. Shaffer Gaston (board member) said he would need “to see some comparable properties in the vicinity” showing similar rear setbacks and lot widths to find the proposal “in keeping with it.” Otis Maxwell (board member) recommended the applicants consider altering the footprint to create space for a parking stall and reduce the need for a large rear setback variance. Christopher LaPointe (board member) and others suggested the owners could instead install a half‑bath, which in their reading might avoid the variance process entirely. LaPointe asked how “married” the applicants were to a full bath and noted a half bath could change the classification.

City staff described specific relief that would be required if the structure is treated as a second dwelling — including additional parking and larger lot‑size minimums — and flagged that the property is in the UR‑3 district and is undersized for a two‑family use. “For the accessory dwelling unit, there’s one additional parking space that’s required,” a staff member said.

The board repeatedly asked the applicants to provide: (1) neighborhood comparables showing other properties with similar setbacks or dual dwellings; (2) alternate site plans showing a modest forward shift of the carriage‑house footprint to reduce rear setback variance; and (3) confirmation of parking arrangements. The applicant representative said the proposal could be shifted forward a few feet and that removing an existing unsafe exterior staircase would increase clearance from the rear lot line.

No formal action or vote was taken. The board left the public hearing open and asked the applicants to return with comparables and revised plans; the board suggested submitting materials about one week before the next hearing (scheduled for March 3).","An applicant representative told the Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 10 that friends who bought 190 Fifth Lake Ave in July intend to replace an existing carriage house with a new, code‑compliant two‑story structure to provide an office upstairs, living space downstairs and “ideally … a shower in it.”",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6677237,"Zoning Board roundup: two variances approved, several hearings continued (Feb. 10, 2025)",870,3190000,4060000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255884-01d6a5cc42a70df0c91e475534ec1637&start=3190&end=4060","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255884-01d6a5cc42a70df0c91e475534ec1637/thumbnail_3190000.jpg","/articles/6677237/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Zoning-Board-roundup-two-variances-approved-several-hearings-continued-Feb-10-2025","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6677237-0c38ea4e3f69f7c9ef671956572d4288/orig.mp4?Expires=1771201013&Signature=RbngEP8vLXmNkaYA0FeSK6TyC-G170IWGA1wb8vJ2JAazPKJhatdj2LLI4kMtb2X0-OGpzXAqFxvpF6BlRu-SCVyDxeq48md79dkTaqBt2RztAzPLbVsFtKeNQz8nIkqI4wqTGlJbfPh6AqHZ7lIf9zwGNOO9RZ2KmZLwt1Bw3Taun8xLh7GVx0~SWjgjxN0783WOlJEgRzAGuMD1yaAzygvvO~dFvXe-9Hny~t7~qltxQY--H69MTEo2cC-GkRafUjDd75d8SBCqi7FZQU3LtOYAvQYq9vJchk~Z7zUXrGc89vWxG2lIWxFkV0PFDXdjusctbIBFyHlp~t0gzUpzA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 10 heard multiple variance applications. Two matters recorded final approval votes, several other matters remained open for additional evidence or comparables, and one motion failed.

Votes at a glance

- 49–51 Bridal St (draft motion 20240977): The board approved an area variance to permit a detached garage in a split zone. Roll call: Jonah Cohen, Shaffer Gaston, Otis Maxwell, Amanda Dema, Christopher LaPointe, Bridal Dailey and Gage Simpson voted in favor; one board member abstained (Christopher/“Chris” in the record). Motion carried. (Identifying application materials and comparables were provided and reviewed.)

- 147 Jefferson St (draft motion 20240976): The board approved a rear addition variance. The motion passed 7–0. The decision notes the lot is preexisting and undersized and that the applicant provided neighborhood comparables; the property must meet minimum permeability and the record includes a note about sidewalks per UDO Section 18.5.A.

Items left open or otherwise discussed

- 83 Fifth (area variance for renovation in UR‑1 district): The applicant (Anthony Caruso, Caruso Builders) presented a remodel proposal that largely stays in the existing footprint. Several board members requested neighborhood comparables showing similar side‑setback dimensions. The public hearing remained open; the board asked the applicant to email comparables and plans before the March 3 meeting.

- 190 Fifth Lake Ave (carriage house): The board debated whether the rebuilt carriage house should be treated as an accessory structure or as a second dwelling (see separate article). The public hearing was left open for additional neighborhood comparables and alternate plans.

- 328 Caroline St (Dan and Tracy Zanata): A motion to approve variances for a single‑car garage and driveway failed after the board was split over whether the applicant had provided sufficient documentation to count the proposed driveway as permeable. The applicant may submit additional permeability documentation for staff review and the board could reconsider within the statutory window.

Procedure and next steps

Several applicants were asked to submit additional documentation — neighborhood comparables, revised site plans, or manufacturer/installer specifications for permeable pavement — typically one week before the next meeting, scheduled for March 3. For applications where a motion did not carry, the board and staff noted applicants can submit amended materials within the statutory period for reconsideration.

The board’s decisions and directions were read into the record and will be incorporated into written notices of decision and staff files.","At its Feb. 10 meeting the Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals approved variances for detached garage proposals at 49–51 Bridal St and a rear addition at 147 Jefferson St, left several other hearings open for additional materials, and discussed multiple area variance requests.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Motion to approve single‑car garage at 328 Caroline St fails after board raises questions about permeable driveway

Saratoga zoning board questions whether carriage house at 190 Fifth Lake Ave should be treated as second dwelling

Zoning Board roundup: two variances approved, several hearings continued (Feb. 10, 2025)