Saratoga Springs Board reviews garage addition proposal amid neighborhood objections

The Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals convened on July 14, 2025, to discuss an application for an area variance concerning a proposed addition and detached garage at 65 Fila Street. The meeting began with architect Matt Herr presenting the requested variance, which would allow for a total lot coverage of 51%, exceeding the district's maximum of 40%. Herr provided comparative data showing that neighboring properties had lot coverages ranging from 58% to 76%, indicating that the proposed coverage was consistent with the area.

The board had previously requested additional information, which Herr provided, including an advisory opinion from the Design Review Board (DRB). The DRB found the mass and scale of the proposed garage appropriate but advised against placing the addition on top of the existing historic structure, citing concerns about maintaining the property's historic character.

During the public hearing, several residents voiced their objections. Andy Williams, a neighbor, expressed concerns about the size and scale of the proposed garage, arguing that it would negatively impact the neighborhood's character and threaten nearby historic trees. He emphasized that the application inaccurately represented the garage's dimensions and raised issues about the potential environmental impact, including increased runoff and loss of green space.

Leslie Laban, another resident and architect, echoed these concerns, highlighting the need for the board to adhere to zoning ordinances. She argued that the proposed variance would create a substantial increase in lot coverage and adversely affect sunlight exposure for neighboring properties. Laban suggested that the applicant could achieve their goals by reducing the garage's size.

After public comments, the board discussed the application further. A motion was made to approve the variance, citing that the applicant had demonstrated that the benefits of the project could not be achieved by other means and that granting the variance would not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character. The board acknowledged the substantiality of the request but noted mitigating factors, including the lack of available adjacent land for purchase.

The meeting concluded with the board's decision to approve the variance, balancing the applicant's needs with the community's concerns. The next steps for the project will involve further compliance with zoning requirements and potential adjustments based on ongoing community feedback.