Planning Board

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2016 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Mark Torpey, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Mark Torpey, Chairman; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman; Tom L. Lewis; Clifford Van Wagner; Amy Durland, alternate; Ruth Horton, alternate LATE ARRIVAL: Jamin Totino arrived at 7:05 P.M. ABSENT: Howard Pinsley, Janet Casey STAFF: Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Boards ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED PROJECTS: ADJOURNED PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 1.15.049 LANDS OF STONE, 68 Weibel Avenue, sketch plan review of office, retail, and multi-family residential in the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood (T-4) District. 2.16.025 MENDENHALL SUBDIVISION, 101 Old Schuylerville Road, 4-lot preliminary conservation subdivision within the Rural Residential (RR) District. 12.023.4 CONGRESS PLAZA EMBASSY SUITES, 46 Congress Street, proposed site plan modification to eliminate vehicular access from South Federal Street in a Transect-5 Neighborhood Center (T-5) District. 16.038.1 PET LODGE, SEQRA COORDINATED REVIEW OF AN ANIMAL KENNEL USE, Route 9, SEQRA Coordinated Review in Tourist Business (TRB) and Rural Residential (RR) Districts. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS/AGENDA WORKSHOPS: Planning Board Caravan, Monday, November 21, 2016 at 4:00 P.M. Planning Board Workshop, Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:00 P.M. Planning Board Meeting, Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR: None heard. A. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1.15.004. OAKRIDGE PHASE 2 SUBDIVISION, MEADOWBROOK RD, Subdivision extension within the SR-1District. Applicant: Jeff Snyder, Oak Ridge LLC Agent: Dave Carr, LA Group SEQRA: No further SEQRA action is required with proposed extension. BACKGROUND: Subdivision approved by the Planning Board on November 5, 2015. Latest approval for subdivision extension expires on November 5, 2016. Application for extension was submitted prior to this date preserving approval. Requested new extension to February 5, 2017. After initial approval time period, 90 day extension may be considered by the Planning Board. Mr. Carr notes that the applicant is requesting an additional 90 day extension to complete the project, bringing us to February 5, 2017. Additional time is need for project for Letter of Credit to be issued, details of the conservation easement finalized with PLAN and City prior to final signature and filing of plans. Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Boards stated the Planning Board discussed the recreation fees wishing to earmark some of those fees for certain areas. Ultimately, we determined it was the City Council’s purview to determine this. The Planning Board can make a recommendation only. Mr. Carr stated the applicant has decided to bear the cost of completion leaving the recreation fees as is. The additional cost of the PLAN will be the applicants cost to bear. NOTE: Jamin Totino arrived at 7:05 P.M. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. Amy Durland, alternate questioned if the Planning Board reviewed the conservation easement. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner noted that the final condition noted that the conservation easement would be left to the approval of the City Attorney and staff. Clifford Van Wagner made a motion in the matter of the Oak Ridge Phase 2 Subdivision Extension, Meadowbrook Road that the application for 90 day extension be approved. Ruth Horton, alternate seconded the motion. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, abstained; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Ruth Horton, alternate, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Amy Durland, alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0-1 2.16.027 WEST AVENUE APARTMENTS, 246 West Avenue, Special Use Permit for construction of 16 multi-family residential units within the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood (T-4) District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 10, 2016 - Page 2 of 11 SEQRA: SEQRA negative declaration issued on May 22, 2008 was reaffirmed for proposed project on December 7, 2011, then on January 22, 2014. BACKGROUND: Special Use Permit for a total of 16 multi-family residential units was approved by the Planning Board on December 7, 2011. Approval is valid for 18 months. Applicant did not request an extension prior to the expiration of site plan approval. Project approved on January 22, 2014. Applicant allowed approval to lapse again. Potential developer of project has changed. Project currently proposes reduction to a single structure, but retaining proposed 16 units. Previously two structures and 16 units 3.16.028 WEST AVENUE APARTMENTS, 246 West Avenue, Site Plan for construction of 16 multi-family residential units within the Transect-4 (T-4) District. SEQRA: SEQRA negative declaration issued on May 22, 2008 was reaffirmed for proposed project on December 7, 2011, then on January 22, 2014. BACKGROUND: Site Plan for 2 buildings containing a total of 16 residential units was approved by the Planning Board on February 22, 2012. Approval is valid for 18 months. Applicant did not request an extension prior to the expiration of site plan approval. Project approved on January 22, 2014. Applicant allowed the approval to lapse again. The project currently proposes a reduction to a single structure still with 16 units. Previously two structures and 16 units. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated this project has been through several iterations and several prior approvals have lapsed. This project is now with a new developer and we will view the updated plans and changes. The Board has several concerns regarding this project one of which is the neighbors and the view shed issues. Also the density issue was raised concerning its location on West Avenue. We did request an Advisory Opinion from the DRC concerning SEQRA issues, they concentrated on Mass and Scale issues and did not really get into the community character issues which we were concerned with. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated received just today was the Advisory Opinion from the DRC. The Commission issued a favorable Advisory Opinion Mass and scale appears appropriate for what is expected to be seen along West Avenue in the future. Agrarian scheme of design is heading the right direction. As there will be additional review as project proceeds through DRC, the Commission is confident the project will continue to improve design in final details. This was a unanimous favorable advisory opinion. Applicant: John Luke Hodorowski, John Paul Builders, LLC Agent: John Lapper, Attorney; Matt Brobston, LA Group Mr. Lapper stated we are appearing before the Planning Board for the third time to receive approval for this project. Mr. Hodorowski is ready to build this project; he is under contract and is awaiting approvals. We have appeared before the DRC on three occasions with changes before they were satisfied with the project. We will review that. In general they wanted the project to return to the more agrarian look which was previously approved. They thought initially the scheme of the project was too New England coastal and nautical, and requested that be changed. Roof lines and balconies to be functional rather than just visual. Change what looked like barn doors on the side of the parking lot. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 10, 2016 - Page 3 of 11 The Planning Board wanted the parking to be hidden. As a compromise we added louvers to the top of the doors to provide light and air but it still accomplishes hiding the parking but maintains the agregarian look. We did not go back to the silo which did not work with the developers plan. It terms of how this fits in with the neighborhood we are confident it fits in with the YMCA, the small commercial motel next to us on the road and the residential homes in the rear with the addition of fencing and buffering in that area. Matt Brobston, LA Group stated he will review some of the changes which were made at our last appearance before the Planning Board back in September 8th. There were some modifications done to the site plan and the building. The building as per the DRC recommendations had the areas with the balconies become more functional. Previously, there was more straight lines on the building. There was little undulation in the roof lines. They wanted the building to return to the agregarian look previously presented. We returned to the project as it was previously presented minus the turret in the rear. We addressed these five areas. To shield the parking underneath the first floor. It appears more of a barn door than a flat stone wall which was previously shown. The plan basically has not changed from what was originally presented and approved many years ago. The basic design is the same as pertains to the parking entrance and exit. The outbuilding is now gone. The area to the rear will be landscaped heavily to provide additional screening. The neighbor, Mr. Hovey is here this evening. We did meet with him, and spoke concerning the trees on his property and the sitting of the trees in this area. Additional fencing was requested by the neighbor and Mr. Hodorowski is amenable to that. There will be one curb cut. A small civic space was included in the plan with benches, a bike rack and interpretive signage. Discussion was held previously concerning the additional connection with the Pitney Farm trail across the road. The applicant has agreed to that either now or in the future as part of this project. Water infrastructure a 12” water main will be extended from Congress along West Avenue to the front of this project as well as providing stubs to the existing houses we pass. We will allow a larger stub for development at Pitney. This project is in the T-4 zone extending to the north encompassing the motel, the residential properties and neighborhoods to our rear. This is the first building in this zone on this side which is being developed. Similar in density to what you might expect an apartment building to be in terms of bedrooms, not necessarily units. Mr. Brobston reviewed the current density in that neighborhood, and how it relates to this project noting its close proximity to the CRN district which it abuts. This is a smaller project than proposed earlier, adding to the diversity of the neighborhood which is a goal in the T zone. John Luke Hodorowski, developer stated average square footage is approximately 900 square feet averaged out. Similar projects have been constructed in Schenectady and Troy and we found the one bedroom model by far is the most popular. Rents in this building are around $1,800 to $2,000 per month. Membership to the YMCA will be an amenity to this building. A 2,000 square foot lobby on the first floor will include elevators, mailroom and storage units for the apartments. The parking will now be a fully enclosed mechanically vented parking area. Amy Durland, alternate questioned the applicant if porous pavement will be used as previously noted in the earlier plans. Also questioned the planting of street trees and how it complies with the regulations of the Transect zone. Mr. Brobston, LA Group stated the applicant will now be using asphalt maintaining proper drainage on the site. The street plantings will need to accommodate overhead power lines. Mr. Brobston reviewed the areas where the trees will be planted and noted additional tree plantings on the site. Mark Torpey, Chairman questioned if there was any comments from Mark Benaquista. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated Mr. Benaquista referred to the traffic study and the work done on the West Avenue corridor work performed. He referred to the capacity being appropriate to the size of the project. He did not put forth any additional issues. PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the public hearing has been opened and remains open. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 10, 2016 - Page 4 of 11 Dave Madden, 11 Gillman. My only concern is this puts additional pressure on the Gilman Avenue, Congress Street section. We ask that the applicant keep in mind the additional noise and lighting issues. This will increase the density in the neighborhood. Mr. Hodorowski explained the venting system of the garage regarding possible noise pollution. Also the sitting of the balconies was reviewed. There are no exits to the rear of the property near the residential neighbors. Lighting will be installed to prevent light pollution and intrusion on the neighbors. Clifford Van Wagner questioned the lighting in the parking areas. Mr. Brobston stated there are two 15 foot lights proposed for the parking area, down facing box lights with sharp cutoffs. No light spillage to the adjacent properties. There are also fencing and screening. Shielding on the lights can also be installed if lighting is still an issue once the project is completed. Clifford Van Wagner raised the issue of the trash hauler hours for trash removal from the dumpster. Mr. Hodorowski stated we want to be good neighbors. We do not hire out management of our properties. We will have our people on site if there is an issue. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning 9:00 AM pickup for trash. Adrienne Hovey, reviewed the current plan and had a concern regarding lighting as well as noise. Clifford Van Wagner questioned if the applicant would be willing to set aside some monies for additional buffering if once this project is complete the buffering is not sufficient. Mr. Hodorowski stated he is agreeable to that. Jamin Totino stated what he is concerned about is increasing the community space in the front of the building, including the addition of a bike rack. Mr. Brobston stated what is portrayed is not accurately depicted. There is more to the landscaping than on the plans. Discussion ensued concerning finalizing the plan and finishing off the letter of credit including the sufficiency of the landscaping and buffering plan. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there are any further comments from the audience. None heard. Mark Torpey, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:59 P.M. SEQRA: Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman made a motion to reaffirm the previously approved SEQRA Negative Declaration for this project. Tom L. Lewis seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 10, 2016 - Page 5 of 11 VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Ruth Horton, alternate, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Amy Durland, alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the Board will now move on the Special Use Permit with the only condition being garbage pickup to be scheduled after 9:00 am. Jamin Totino made a motion in the matter of the West Avenue Apartments, 246 West Avenue that the application for a Special Use Permit be approved with the condition as presented by the Chair. Ruth Horton, alternate seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Ruth Horton, alternate, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Amy Durland, alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the Board will now move on the Site Plan approval. We spoke about the following conditions: the lengthening of the stockade fence along the eastern side of the property to be extended further towards the YMCA; tree screening both on the eastern side of the property, and relative to the neighbors to the north; $2,000 in escrow for additional screening if necessary; 1 curb cut; Greenbelt trail connections with ramping, curb cut, striping and signage at a time to be determined by the City DPS; water main extension; mechanical garage venting; and appropriate lighting fixtures. Jamin Totino made a motion in the matter of the West Avenue Apartments, 246 West Avenue that the application for a Site Plan Approval with the conditions as presented by the Chair. Ruth Horton, alternate seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Ruth Horton, alternate, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Amy Durland, alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 10, 2016 - Page 6 of 11 8:08 P.M. the Board recessed. 8:13 P.M. the Board reconvened. 04.029.1 ICE HOUSE SITE PLAN MODIFICATION, 70 and 72 Putnam Street, site plan modification review in a Transect-6 Urban Core (T-6) District. BACKGROUND: Tent is proposed as a permanent structure. This would allow for it to remain standing longer than temporary structure time requirements. ZBA has approved variances from required two story requirement and minimum frontage: build out 80% required 33.2% approved. DRC approved structure for historic review. A requirement the Planning Board placed on the applicant was the removal of the tent. It was a violation and remained up longer than a temporary structure. The tent has been removed. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, no further review is required. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated we have met with the applicant’s agent several times. We have a motion drafted with several conditions. Kate Maynard, Principal Planner stated information was submitted by the applicant’s agent that she is unable to attend the meeting this evening. She did note in the email the applicant’s acceptance of the 2 year time frame for the temporary tent, and their acceptance of replacing the existing street tree, as well as the planting of the new tree along the frontage of the site especially on the library side. Cliff and I visited the site and we were able to see the streetscape. It appears there could be room for a street tree at the location near the library. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. Clifford Van Wagner made a motion in the matter of the Ice House Site Plan Modification, 70 and 72 Putnam Street that the application for a temporary tent be approved with the following conditions: the temporary tent will be allowed to be in place for a period of 2 years commencing with the Chairs signature on the approved modified site plan, the 2 year term is not renewable, one additional small species street tree from the City’s approved list to be planted at a point equally distant between the right gate post and the southern end of the fence, the existing street tree will remain. Jamin Totino seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Ruth Horton, alternate, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; Amy Durland, alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 5.16.034 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, Request for Advisory Opinion from the City Council. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 10, 2016 - Page 7 of 11 RECUSAL: Amy Durland, alternate, recused herself from this application after a discussion with Planning Board counsel Justin Grassi, due to her prior involvement with this plan and exited the meeting at 8:20 P.M. SEQRA: Action appears to be Unlisted. Short form Part I provided. BACKGROUND: In February 2005, the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Development (IZOD) Committee drafted an ordinance providing for affordable housing. The Committee was formed by Mayor Lenz in 2005 and consisted of members: Monte Franke, Chair; Sonny Bonacio, Amy Durland, Matt Gabryshak, Vilma Heramia. The Committee presented the draft text amendment to the City Council on April 6, 2006, following 30 meetings and 14 months of work. The proposed ordinance was not adopted at that time. This proposed amendment is essentially identical to that effort. The City Council determined that the petition had merit for review and forwarded for an advisory opinion on August 16, 2016. The ordinance would require developers of housing developments of 10 or more units to set aside up to 20% of the Units as affordable in sale or rental to households of modest income. Developers are given up to a 20% density bonus or right to builod more units on the same site, to offset the cost of providing these affordable units. This ordinance takes advantage of market forces and development capacity to produce affordable units that are inegrated into housing throughout the community. There are no State or Federal subsidies or actions in this program. There are manageable administrative costs to the City. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated there is no presentation by the applicant. We have had a previous presentation and information is on the web. Additional information requested has been received and reviewed. We have received a response from the County Planning Board and they have provided their thoughts on this. We have received a letter from the Saratoga Builders Association, so we have some feedback from them. We have some proposed new language for 2016 and also a red line version which was a 2006 version for comparison. Also, a Favorable Advisory Opinion from 2006 which the Planning Board provided for informative purposes was provided by Kate Maynard, Principal Planner, and a number of documents Sustainable Saratoga provided in response to several questions posed by the Board in an earlier meetings. We have received approval from the City Council for a 30 day extension in providing the Advisory Opinion. Discussion ensued among the Planning Board concerning the Advisory Opinion to the City Council. Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Boards stated this Advisory Opinion is simply to provide information to the City Council. Jamin Totino questioned the correspondence from the County which felt that the application was incomplete and their request for additional information. Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Boards stated that would be a question for the City Council to determine. Our only task is to provide an Advisory Opinion. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning proceeding with the request from the City Council, and the request from the County for additional information. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 10, 2016 - Page 8 of 11 Mark Torpey, Chairman stated again this is an Advisory Opinion to the City Council on the proposed zoning text amendment. Our responsibility this evening is whether this is consistent with Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Mark Torpey, Chairman referenced the 2015 Comp Plan Document and provided some guidance from this document as to what this plan provides for discussion concerning the above referenced items. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the guiding principals outlined in the Comp Plan Document. Clifford Van Wagner feels that this puts the onus on the developers. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated the zoning ordinance portion of this provides the developer with the ability to opt out of using the density bonus. It is completely voluntary on the part of the developer. With the proposal in front of us it is a requirement, but the applicant has the ability to request a variance from the ZBA, to not have to comply or adhere with that requirement. There is a pathway for exemption. The Planning Board has the ability to make a determination whether a 10 or 20% bonus is even appropriate based upon the design, layout, the size and design. So there is some flexibility that the Board is given to not adhere to 10 or 20% by definition. There is nothing in the City’s Comprehensive Plan that puts the onus or responsibility onto the developer. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning this portion of the zoning ordinance, the necessity of obtaining a use variance, the difficulty in obtaining a use variance versus an area variance. Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Board stated if you are speaking about a density requirement then yes it would be quantitative area variance they would be seeking not a use variance. Tom L. Lewis stated the intention behind this new code is to bring down the cost of housing. All a 20% density bonus does is lower land cost and the big cost is in the actual construction. Therefore, developers will not build without a good return on their investment. Residential is high risk and they are not going to do something which will reduce their profit and as a consequence of that is if they are forced to go through various hoops as to whether they are going to get it or not, if it reduces their profit then they will not build over 10 units and the consequence of that, is that it will actually raise prices because if there are less units and demand remains the same the cost will go up. If the council passes this it will have the opposite effect, this is just my opinion. Clifford Van Wagner stated he believes this is contrary to the zoning code. He feels what is being proposed is usurping the power of the Zoning Board of Appeals and makes this 100% contrary to the Zoning Code. They are the experts. Jamin Totino stated he has the same issues concerning zoning as Cliff. He feels this is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning portion is the part which troubles him. The setbacks and the heights are concerns. Something which is consistent with the zoning ordinance will make it stronger, this makes it weaker. In order for a project to be exempt from this plan they would need to appear before the Zoning Board for a waiver. Meanwhile we will be in position to waive other zoning requirements. My other issue is pulling out a section of what is in the UDO and dealing with it separately and out of context of the rest of the plan is bothersome. I see this as a floating PUD. Bob Bristol stated he has made his opinion on this fairly clear. Jamin has added some real thought to the process. City Council has really not done its homework on this project. It needs to test the economics; they have not tested any of the cost benefit aspects. They have not developed a program that is viable for developers. They have to do some proofing. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated what is in the Zoning Ordinance now is the ability on a voluntary basis to provide for the incentives, density bonuses for senior housing at 50%. The Planning Board has the ability to review and grant that through our special use and site plan review process. Also currently existing in the code the Planning Board has the ability for low and moderate income household’s affordable housing at 20% density bonus. None of those provisions City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 10, 2016 - Page 9 of 11 have ever been tested or exercised to really understand the power of the density bonus. The plan proposed is trying to flush that out. It is perfectly in line with the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is putting for the same tools we currently use. Mark Torpey, Chairman stated he would also like to add some additional information to the Advisory Opinion to the City Council. The Comprehensive Plan 2015 has in it a set of statistics in terms of what should be included as a starting point. The Planning Board issued a Favorable Advisory Opinion back in 2006 on exactly the same plan as is presented now. Clifford Van Wagner questioned what this has to do with what is being requested now. It is a different City Council, and a different Planning Board. This would be extraneous information. Justin Grassi, Attorney to the Land Use Boards stated the Boards responsibility is to answer the two questions the City Council has asked specifically. The code also provides we can add any additional information on the recommendation that we wish. Ruth Horton, alternate stated she would like to make a motion that the Planning Board issues an affirmative advisory opinion noting that the proposal put forth by Sustainable Saratoga is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Mark Torpey, Chairman seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, opposed; Jamin Totino, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, opposed; Ruth Horton, alternate, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, opposed; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; MOTION FAILS: 3-3 Justin Grassi, Attorney for the Land Use Board stated the opinion can be forwarded to the City Council noting the split vote or another motion can be presented. Discussion ensued concerning the vote. Clifford Van Wagner made a motion that the Planning Board issue a Negative Advisory Opinion to the City Council regarding adding this text amendment to the code noting it is incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan and has not been financially viable or tested. It is actually more restrictive to developers since that the intent of the proposal totally ignores the bulk area requirements concerning the height and the Zoning Board of Appeals decisions will be rendered not applicable and that the proposal takes the ZBA authority away and replaces it by waivers to the Planning Board which is totally contrary to the zoning code and also contrary to the new UDO ordinance. Tom L. Lewis seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 10, 2016 - Page 10 of 11 VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, opposed; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Ruth Horton, alternate, opposed; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, opposed MOTION FAILS: 3-3 Discussion ensued providing the City Council with information noting the split vote. Tom L. Lewis made a motion that this Board was unable to reach 4 votes for an Advisory Opinion and the Board strongly encourages the City Council to review the minutes and the webcast. Jamin Totino seconded the motion. Mark Torpey, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Ruth Horton stated she feels we should be more specific in our opinion. VOTE: Clifford Van Wagner, in favor; Jamin Totino, in favor; Bob Bristol, Vice Chairman, in favor; Ruth Horton, alternate, in favor; Tom L. Lewis, in favor; Mark Torpey, Chairman, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the November 22, 2016 meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Mark Torpey, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 11/22/16 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 10, 2016 - Page 11 of 11