Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2012 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck; George “Skip” Carlson STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7: 07 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being taped 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: 7. #2653 CASE GARAGE ADDITION, 53 Walton Street, area variance to construct second story to an existing detached garage for living space, seeking relief to exceed the defined use of a garage in the Urban Residential 3 District. 8. #2628 5 EAST BROADWAY SUBDIVISION, 5 East Broadway, area variance for a proposed three lot subdivision; seeking relief from the minimum mean lot width requirement for each of the three lots in the Urban Residential-2 District. 9. #2526 SUNOCO SIGN, 154 South Broadway, use variance to re-brand existing gas station signs and canopies in a Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District; seeking relief from the maximum number of signs per parcel. 10. #2507 SIRO'S RESTAURANT, 168 Lincoln Avenue, interpretation and use variance to operate restaurant year round in an Institutional Horse Track Related District seeking relief to exceed the 90 day restriction on the operation of the eating and drinking establishment. 11. #2355 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP AND VERIZON WIRELESS, 252 Washington Street, use variance for construction of a telecommunication facility in a Transect-5 District. NEW BUSINESS 1. #2655 BATES RESIDENCE, 20 Mitchell Place, area variance to construct a porch addition to an existing residence; seeking relief from the minimum front and rear yard setbacks and from the maximum lot coverage requirement for the principal building in the Urban Residential-3 District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum lot coverage 30% 33% (10%) 46% 16% (53%) principal building Minimum front yard 10 feet 0 feet (100%) 1 foot 9 feet (90%) setback Minimum rear yard 25 feet 7 feet (72%) 7 feet 18 feet (72%) setback SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Lisa Bates Agent: Alyssa Dalton, Attorney The applicant is requesting an area variance for an already non conforming property. The old Nichols Garage. It is a very commercial looking building as the recent photographs submitted to you indicate. The objective of Lisa Bates, who has done work before on Mitchell Place in renovating commercial properties to look more residential, is the ability to construct a porch addition to run the length of the side of the building. To look more residential, more conforming to the neighborhood and more aesthetically pleasing. The Board reviewed the standard questions for an area variance request. Also discussion included permeability and storm water management issues. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. The Board will have a resolution at the April 23, 2012 meeting. 2. #2656 WEIBEL AVENUE APARTMENTS, 60 Weibel Avenue, use and area variance to erect wall and freestanding signs; seeking relief for placement above the first floor level of the building for wall (tenant) signs on the west, east, north and south elevations of the building, relief to permit two wall (tenant) signs on the north façade of the building (an elevation without street frontage), and relief to permit a second freestanding sign where only one is permitted per parcel in the Transect-4 District. DRC Architectural Review approval of mixed use development on June 15, 2011. Planning Board Site Plan Review approval on June 8, 2011. Planning Board Special Use Permit issued for 116,000 sq. ft mixed use development on September 9, 2009. USE VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Two freestanding signs where one is permitted per parcel. Two wall (tenant) signs to be placed on a façade without street frontage. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 16, 2012 - Page 2 of 11 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Placement of Not extend Above first floor level To allow placement of sign above the first floor level wall sign on the above the ("but remains below the total of 17 tenant signs: 5 on the Weibel Avenue building first floor level second floor windows") façade the "Road A" façade (east elevation), 4 on the of the building PBA elevation) and 2 on the north elevation. SEQRA: This is a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Sonny Bonacio Agent: Sean Corp, Balzer & Tuck Architecture The applicant is looking for signage on the building. The signage is being proposed by creating an area above the stone base. Approximately 18 inch high tall signs that do exceed approximately 6 inches above the second story. This is very similar to what we did on East Avenue. Information was provided to the Board regarding what the signage will look like. All of the commercial space is located at the southern end of the building. The second portion of the application is in regard to signage on the building. There will be 6 signs on the Weibel Avenue façade and 4 on the PBA elevation side and 2 on the north elevation. Also, we are proposing two freestanding signs where one is permitted per parcel on the corner of Weibel and the PBA road, and one which is a freestanding directory sign located on "Road A" as you turn into the parking lot. Two wall (tenant) signs are to be place on a façade without street frontage. Both signs meet the zoning code for a road less than 40 mph. Skip Carlson asked the agent for the applicant if there was a master plan for signage for the entire development. Right now you are just proposing signage for the Building B which is somewhat complete. Sean Corp, agent for the applicant stated that they are probably going to wait until the project is completed. Building A and Building B signage is unknown at this time depending upon the tenants. The remainder of the project does not have signage. Skip Carlson questioned if the applicant thought about any type of awnings in this project. Sean Corp agent for the applicant stated there are no plans for awnings at this time and the owner is not providing them. Skip Carlson questioned any type of illumination. Sean Corp, agent for the applicant stated over each storefront where there is a potential for a sign there is also a gooseneck type lamp provided. There is an area for signage provided. Individual tenants will have to appear before the DRC for individual signage. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the possibility of requesting an Advisory Opinion from the DRC before proceeding with this application. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he would prefer to have a complete sign package proposed for the entire project. The Board is not disagreeing with what signage is needed or what the applicant is looking for in terms of signage however, this would prevent the applicant from returning before the Board for the remainder of signage. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion for an Advisory Opinion to the Design Review Commission. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 16, 2012 - Page 3 of 11 Seconded by Adam McNeill. VOTE: Ayes all. Nayes none. MOTION PASSES: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:37 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Bill Moore, Chairman stated this application will be adjourned to the April 23, 2012 meeting. 3. #2654 RICHARDS CARRIAGE HOUSE, 73 Union Avenue, interpretation and area variance to maintain, as converted the existing detached carriage house (accessory building) as a second principal building on one lot; seeking relief from the minimum front and side yard setbacks for the carriage house, relief from the maximum lot coverage for both principal buildings combined, and from the minimum front and side yard setbacks to required parking spaces in the Urban Residential-4 District. This application is appealing the Building Inspector's determination (December 22, 2011) that area variances associated with a principal building would be required prior to conversion of an existing accessory building to a second, principal building. A building permit was issued for the carriage house, which met the district requirements (UR-3) for an accessory building. A subsequent Certificate of Occupancy (02/28/02) was issued for the "newly erected detached garage" with the condition. "This certificate allows a detached garage as accessory to the principal building with no dwelling units allowed". Historic Review to connect the existing residence to the carriage house was approved October 15, 2008. It does not appear that this approval was acted upon; therefore, the approval would have expired. - Area Variances "to convert the accessory detached garage building into a second, single-family residence principal building in an Urban Residential-3 and Urban Residential-4 districts" were denied March 7, 2001. SEQRA: Action appears to be Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum lot coverage 25% 27% 2% (8%) principal buildings Minimum front yard setback 25 feet 12.2 feet 12.8 feet (51%) building one (George St.) City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 16, 2012 - Page 4 of 11 Minimum side yard setback: 20 feet 6.2 feet 13.8 feet (69%) building one (north side) Minimum front yard setback 25 feet 20 feet 5 feet (20%) to parking (George St.) Applicant: Aime and Thomas Richards Agent: John Hayko, Mancini and Hayko, Attorneys at Law Mr. Hayko stated the applicant is looking to maintain as converted the existing detached carriage house as a second principal building on one lot, seeking relief from the front and side yard setbacks for the carriage house. Discussion ensued regarding setbacks, amount of relief requested and the setting of a precedent. Bill Moore, Chairman, stated what the plan shows is a three car garage. It has two half baths on the first level and one half bath on the unfinished second level. Plans state for use as a garage. The Chairman stated the problem is we are not here to forgive your non due diligence. The Certificate of Occupancy clearly states the use is for a garage. My quandary in the whole thing is I do not want to set the precedent to go ahead and do what you want to do. Everything was in the file. There was some due diligence called for and I don't believe we are here to approve non due diligence in your purchasing the property. Mr. Hayko stated the self created hardship not being fatal to the application is something he would like to discuss. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we are talking about a building that was specifically stated to be a garage, fixed over to principal living space and not approved. It was built without any inspections. So that is not ambiguous that is built without approval. Mr. Hayko asked why then did the City not in the beginning when this person came before them explain to them how they could do this. This is their job. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he could not answer that question. There is no way to answer that question. The person you purchased it from knew the plans and knew what was supposed to be in that building and went ahead and did whatever they wanted. We are still saddled with the issue that this is not the correct use of the building as approved. There are specific denials. There was a zoning variance which was denied to do this. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:02 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience is interested in speaking regarding this application. Nick Gangi, 25 George Street. I have lived here over 20 years. There has been some question over the history. I have seen the property go through a lot of iterations over the years and I have gotten to know Mr. Fox very well. Many neighbors including myself appeared before the Design Review Commission as we watched this structure go from a 30 x 60 foot massive 26 foot building at the back of his building to an L shaped 40 x 60 foot building to what it is now, which is a 40 x 40 foot garage. The upstairs was a play area for his children. This was approved and then Mr. Fox came before the Zoning Board of Appeals to make the upstairs living space. That was denied. He appealed it a month later and it was denied again. Future use was the always the issue. My big concern now is future use. Ralph Loner, 29 George Street. I am really in here to support everything Nick Gangi said. We are in total agreement. Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated she received a voice mail message this date from: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 16, 2012 - Page 5 of 11 Beverly Lazar Davis, 28 George Street. She is opposed to the application and has concerns for increased traffic on George Street. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. The Board will reconvene next Monday, April 23, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. OLD BUSINESS 4. #2650 WATKINS, NOLAN FUTURE RESIDENCE, 153 Union Avenue, interpretation and area variance to site future development on proposed lot 2; seeking relief from the minimum front yard and total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-4 District. Applicant: Bill Watkins, Lisa Nolan PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains open. Bill Moore Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:12 P.M. Keith Kaplan presented the following resolution: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF William Watkins and Lisa Nolan 153 Union Ave/84 Phila St Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Regarding the premises identified as tax parcel 166.69-3-22, specifically the portion of said parcel noted as Lot 2 on page 6 of the pending area variance application signed and notarized February 1, 2012. The applicant having requested that the Board determine: 1) whether the Assistant Building Inspector or any similarly designated individual acting in the role as Building Inspector1, has the authority to refuse to refer a variance or variances requested in an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and 1 For the purpose of this Interpretation, to avoid confusion, all references made to the Assistant Building Inspector will use the term “Building Inspector,” with respect to the events of this application, since that individual was duly authorized to act as Building Inspector and the City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance refers to the Building Inspector in the sections referred to throughout this Interpretation. The Board notes that the applicant has not asserted that the Assistant Building Inspector’s non-referral of the Lot 2 setbacks would have been valid had the non-referral been the action of a Building Inspector. Therefore, the use of a generic “Building Inspector” title is in place here merely to simplify the narrative with both the applicant and the Board having agreed that for this purpose, there is no legal or procedural distinction. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 16, 2012 - Page 6 of 11 2) in the eventuality that the Board finds the Building Inspector does indeed have the authority to refuse a referral, whether the level of information presented in this case was, given facts presented by the applicant, sufficient to enable the Building Inspector to issue a denial, thereby invalidating the decision to refuse the referral in this case and which in turn would enable the Board to rule on the variance or variances in question. The Board has been given the authority to make these interpretations under Zoning Ordinance section 240-14.3 A. Furthermore, relative to question 2 above, the Board has, under section 240-14.4 F (2) (b), the authority to “…reverse, affirm, wholly or partially, or modify any order, requirement or decision, as it deems necessary, in any case referred to it, and therefore shall have all the powers of the Building Inspector from whom the appeal was taken.” Given the nature of this request for interpretation as being interdependent, i.e. the Board only would need to rule on the second question if the Board found the Building Inspector does have authority to refuse to refer a requested variance, the Board will rule on the questions in order as follows: 1) The Board finds the Building Inspector did indeed have the requisite authority to determine whether a violation exists and therefore to determine whether or not to refer a matter to the Zoning Board. This authority stems from section 240-13.3 C(3) which states, “Whenever in the opinion of the Building Inspector, after proper examination and inspection, there appears to exist a violation of any provision of this Zoning Ordinance, or of any rule or regulation adopted thereto, he shall serve a written notice…” etc. The question of whether the Board finds “proper evaluation and inspection” occurred in this case will be discussed below in question 2. However, as to the question of the authority of the person designated by the City in this case to serve as Building Inspector for this application, and his level of authority to decide what is and what is not a violation, the Board finds that his “opinion” as referred to in the Ordinance and whether “there appears to exist a violation” also as referred to in the Ordinance does include the Building Inspector’s judgment as to whether a proposed set of setback measurements rises to the level of a violation. In this case, the Building Inspector’s opinion held that there was insufficient information to issue a notice of violation. The Board’s span of authority follows the Notice of Violation in that under section 240-14.4 F (2) (b), the same section referred to above that gives this Board authority to rule on question 2, also aligns the Board’s authority to overrule the Building Inspector’s Notices of Violation, with the Building Inspector’s authority to issue those notices. In other words, if an applicant’s proposal is not in the Notice of Violation, then the Board lacks a basis for formulating and issuing a resolution to approve or deny that proposal; there simply is no administratively authorized and issued written violation to appeal. 2) The Board additionally finds the information provided by the applicant was indeed, as noted by the Building Inspector, insufficient in this case to issue a Notice of Violation. As noted above, the Building Inspector’s role is to properly examine and inspect and then formulate an opinion as to whether “there appears to exist a violation of any provision of this Zoning Ordinance, or of any rule or regulation adopted thereto…” The criteria used by the Board to evaluate the reasonableness of the Building Inspector’s examination and inspection of the facts at hand include a theoretical consideration of two scenarios: a. an application in which the applicant presented the Board with a relatively deep lot, as in this case, with a plan showing a house occupying the setbacks in the front and sides as described by the applicant for “Lot 2,” with the house depth going up until the rear setback line- in other words a house much larger than any of the other nearby houses on the north side of Union Ave being used as benchmarks for this one in the application materials, and b. an application in which the applicant presented the Board with the same relatively deep lot, with a plan showing a house occupying the setbacks in the front and sides as described by the applicant for “Lot 2,” with the house depth as the minimum among the other houses on the block being used as benchmarks by the applicant. These two extremes serve a purpose of contrasting the impact on the character of the neighborhood as well as the substantiality of the request and the physical and environmental effect of the proposal. As a Board, we City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 16, 2012 - Page 7 of 11  would not have enough information to deliberate on, if presented with a application for this property that had been referred by the Building Inspector with only the dimensions of the front and side setbacks. Therefore, the Board finds that the Building Inspector judged reasonably and applied proper evaluation and inspection, in declining to include on the Notice of Violation the Lot 2 side and front yard variances requested by the applicants. Seconded by Gary Hasbrouck. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0. 8:25 P.M. The Board Recessed. 8:34 P.M. The Board Reconvened. 5. #2648 UCCELLINI RESIDENCE, 45 Granger Avenue, use variance for construction of a single family residence; seeking relief from the minimum lot area requirement in an Urban Residential-1 District. This application was heard at the February 13, 2012, the public hearing was opened, and the item was adjourned to the March 5, 2012 meeting. The Board asked the applicant to provide additional information with regard to the lack of reasonable return on the property including documentation from the realtor of how and when the property was listed for sale. The applicant provided additional information on April 6, 2012. PARCEL HISTORY: Use and Area Variances withdrawn in August 2005. Use Variance for relief from the minimum lot area requirement and area variances from the minimum front yard, rear yard and maximum percent of lot coverage for the principal building. Interpretation denied on March 31, 2004. Appeal of the Building Inspector's denial that a use variance would be required to construct a single-family residence. VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum lot size 12,500 sq. ft. 5,025 sq. ft. 7,475 sq.ft (60%) PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains open. Applicant: Thomas and Rachael Uccellini Agent: Kyran Nigro, Attorney City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 16, 2012 - Page 8 of 11 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he is requesting documentation from the owner regarding the cost of maintaining the property and the affidavit from Mrs. Braim, which is not signed to be signed. Mr. Nigro stated Mrs. Braim is very ill at this time. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated we do need this information provided since the information you have provided is in direct conflict in what has come before us. It is a very important point of fact, whether or not offers have been made, what kind of offers have been made. Mr. Nigro stated he understands and he will make every effort to have the affidavit signed. He would like to direct the attention to the sworn statement from Attorney Lang where he indicates that he is representing the family and is familiar with the offers that have been made on the property and that there were no other written offers other than those which were supplied to this Board. Mr. Nigro stated he would like to bring to the Boards attention that real estate transactions require that they be in writing. So, there is no offer unless it is done in writing. Bill Moore, Chairman stated what might be helpful, since a $25,000 offer was in a letter and stated, so that it is something we have on paper, with a number to work the calculation for reasonable rate return out for us to say she purchased it for x, these are her expenses and this is what the rate of return would be if she accepted $25,000. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this application. Randall Royka, 54 Granger Avenue, stated he is concerned regarding the integrity of the neighborhood and the amount of variances requested. In the past he made an offer on this property and his intention was to have a community garden in this area. I never heard back from the Braims regarding my offer. Jodi Brimhall, 292 Caroline Street, I would like to address an offer my husband and I made to Tom Braim. I have a transcript of what transpired. Copies were provided to the Board. We entered into a verbal discussion with Tom Braim both in person and on the telephone offering $25,000. Copies of telephone records were also provided. Our vision was a gazebo and some gardens, perhaps a community vegetable garden. We never received a response from Mr. Braim. Arnold Redbord, 65 Fifth Avenue. Our property is adjacent to the property we are discussing. What are the setback requirements for a UR-1 district both for the front and rear. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs, replied 30 feet front and 30 feet rear. Mr. Redbord stated he brought some photos which demonstrate how narrow the lot is. One other matter I understand and perhaps you can clarify this it is my understanding that both the house I occupy and the house that Mrs. Braim occupied now owned by the Brimhalls both houses were constructed before Granger Street existed and that may account for why both houses seem to be closer to the road than what is now acceptable in terms of setbacks. So, I think that explains why the property on Caroline and the property on Fifth may not comply. Maureen Blaum, speaking for her mother, who lives on 288 Caroline Street. Mrs. Blaum provided some additional historical perspective. We were interested in purchasing this lot in 1988 and Mrs. Braim would not sell it at that time. This is a self created hardship, since she did have opportunities to make a reasonable return on the property. James Sperry, 257 Caroline Street, I am interested in maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood. Paul Maguire, 294 Caroline Street, I am concerned about the affidavit not being signed. We are concerned regarding maintaining the character of the neighborhood, and the uniqueness of the property. Carol Ann Maguire, 294 Caroline Street, provided information to the Board a series of documents from court cases stating why this does not rise to the level of a use variance, it speaks about reasonable return, it talks about uniqueness, City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 16, 2012 - Page 9 of 11 hardship and self created. Mrs. Maguire stated no use variance was ever issued on this property. Mrs. Maguire explained reasonable return on the property. Additional information will be provided to the Board via written communication. Diane Redbord, 65 Fifth Avenue, is concerned regarding the size of the lot. Adam McNeill stated a letter was received by the Zoning Board of Appeals from Franklin Rapp, 55 5th Avenue, dated March 6, 2012. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the lot area, lot coverage, open space, and the feasibility of the lot area. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he will leave the public hearing open. Bill Moore, Chairman requested the following information, the offer on the original application, a copy of the contract both the current contract and the contract with the Hollowood's, a signed application from the trustees, and a revised denial with correct zone. The applicants may return before the Board on April 23, 2012 or May 7, 2012, whichever is more convenient for the applicant to obtain the information requested. 6. 2616.1 SIRO'S RESTAURANT, 168 Lincoln Avenue, modification to a previously approved area variance for construction of a 14.5 feet high acoustical fence in an Institutional-Horse Track Related District. This application was heard on January 9, 2012 and adjourned to April 16, 2012. The Board requested that the applicant paint the structural members of the fence. The public hearing was opened on January 9, and remains open. The applicant's agent provided additional information including an alternative design for consideration. An area variance for construction of a 6.5 foot high addition of an acoustical wall to the existing 8 foot high fence, totaling 14.5 feet, relief of 6.5 feet in excess of the 8 foot maximum height of a fence, approved with conditions June 29, 2011. RECUSAL: Skip Carlson recused himself from this application. Applicant: Siro's Agents: Bob Sweeney, Attorney; Tom Frost, Architect – Frost/Hurff Architects CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The additional acoustical screening and support structures attached to the existing fence shall be used only during the operating dates as specified in the renewable Special Use Permit for outdoor entertainment. 2. The improvements as stated above shall be installed annually and disassembled following the aforementioned dates allowing for time as needed for construction. In no case shall the screening remain in place more than 14 days before or beyond the days permitted by Special Use Permit. 3. The improvements shall be inspected and certified by the City Engineer or his/her designee, as installed as designed by the project architect. Annual installation shall be inspected by the City Engineer or designee. 4. The applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for continued compliance of the structure, as approved to be accepted and enforced by the Building Inspector. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 16, 2012 - Page 10 of 11 The applicant proposes removal of the condition of approval that permits use of the 6.5 foot high acoustical screen and support structures in accordance with the operating dates specified in the renewable Special Use Permit for outdoor entertainment. Mr. Frost's letter dated November 28, 2011 stated the owners request the removal of that condition from the area variance approval because of the acoustical and structural requirements of this fence, combined with its height above the ground, it involves a major effort to disassemble/remove, and to assemble/erect. It is assumed that this annual process will adversely effect the integrity and life of the acoustical material, the structural members and the various fastening devices used to assemble the screening structure. Mr. Frost indicates there is a lot of work involved in putting up and taking down the structure. The longevity of the integrity of the screws. Structural integrity is questioned. It must be taken down in pieces. Discussion ensued regarding the assembling and disassembling of the structure, adverse effects on the neighborhood, and aesthetics. Gary Hasbrouck stated he visited the site again today. He also reviewed the correspondence from the neighbors. He asked what if Siro's simply turned the music down by 5 – 10 decibels. When I look at the whole thing you are looking for an exception and we already granted an exception, with conditions. Now you are asking for a modification on the condition for the exemption. I need to weight the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 10:03 P.M. Mike Billok, 132 Nelson Avenue. When it went up last year my wife and I thought we would rather have it up all year. We can see through it. It would look better to have it uniform and continuous. Clapboard on the outside. Correspondence received from the following neighbors. Sara and Bentley Boivin dated 04/15/2012. Larry King, 126 Nelson Avenue, dated April 14, 2012. Mike and Kim Billok, 132 Nelson Avenue, dated April 12, 2012. Rose Tait, 164 Nelson Avenue, dated April 11, 2012. Bill Moore, Chairman requested operating dates from the applicant. This application will be on the agenda for the April 23, 2012 meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss, Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 6/4/12 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 16, 2012 - Page 11 of 11