Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2012 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck; George “Skip” Carlson; Shirley Poppel STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Joe Scala, City Attorney, City of Saratoga Springs CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7: 15 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: 6. #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. 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. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Lisa Bates Agent: Alisa Dalton, Attorney The Board has requested information regarding permeability. The agent for the applicant stated the permeability is 54% which meets the 25% requirement. PUBLIC HEARING: 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 7:18 P.M. Keith Kaplan presented the following motion: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Lisa Bates 20 Mitchell Place Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 20 Mitchell Place, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.53-1-72 in the Inside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City, as amended to permit the construction of a side porch addition to an existing residence in a UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 16th and 23rd days of April 2012. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following area variances for the following amounts of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT EXISTING PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LOT COVERAGE- PRINCIPAL BUILDING 30% 33% 46% 16%, OR 53% OVER REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK 25’ 7’ 7’ 18’, OR 72% FRONT YARD SETBACK 10’ 0’ 1’ 9’, OR 90% City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 23, 2012 - Page 2 of 10 As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The existing portion of the house has a preexisting non-conformity with district requirements. Due to the configuration of the building and its proximity to property lines on the south, east and north sides, the Board notes it is not possible to add a porch onto any other side of the building. The applicant has noted that a positioning of the proposed porch with need for lesser variance (i.e. an alternate proposal not reaching as far to the front or to the back) would result in diminished aesthetic appeal and residential character. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. In terms of rear and front setback, this proposal continues or is slightly less than the existing degree of encroachment over the setback requirement. The applicant notes that the project will result in an aesthetic improvement and helps make the building look more like a residence and less like a commercial property, which was its former use. 3. All three variances are substantial, however given the uniqueness of the building’s positioning on the property and the small lots noted in the Mitchell Place neighborhood, the Board finds the lot coverage and two setback variance requests to be reasonable. Furthermore, the Board has set a condition below to mitigate the degree of further lot coverage by prohibiting an accessory building on the property. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. There will be an increase in impermeability, however the property will still exceed the district requirement of 25%. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created as the applicant wishes to build this addition. However, this is not fatal to the application. Condition: No accessory building will be permitted on the property. Seconded by Skip Carlson. 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; George "Skip" Carlson, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 2. #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 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 23, 2012 - Page 3 of 10 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. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we have received additional information from the applicant's attorney. SEQRA: Action appears to be Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Aime and Thomas Richards. Agent: John Hayko, Mancini and Hayko, Attorneys at Law. Mr. Hayko stated the letters were submitted due to issues which came up at the meeting last week which focused on what transpired prior to Mr. & Mrs. Richards purchasing the property. This is one of the few remaining through lots. UR- 3 homes along George Street are uniformly located along the street line. The applicant is in a difficult position with the zoning law between two zones on this property. There is no intent to further subdivide the buildings. Discussion ensued regarding the parking. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will act on the interpretation tonight but not the variances. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this application. Beth Johansson, 37 George Street. My big concern is regarding density. Peter Davis, 28 George Street. Asked will this remain as two single family dwellings. Bill Moore, Chairman stated that is what the applicant is requesting. Beverly Lazar Davis, 28 George Street. Is opposed to the application. Illegally built. Parking is a concern. Bill Door, 69 Union Avenue. I support this application with the stipulation there will be two single family dwellings on the property. Russ Pittinger, 19 George Street. I am in favor of this project. Correspondence received: Petition started on April 16, 2012 – in favor of the application – 13 signatures. April 17, 2012 letter David Fuscus, 85 Union Avenue. April 17, 2012 letter via email from Larry Weber, 35 George Street. April 23, 2012 letter Nick Gangi, 25 George Street. April 23, 2012 letter Jim Martinez, 15 5th Avenue. April 23, 2012 letter James Brophy Jr. April 23, 2012 letter via email Ralph and Gail Willner-Giwerc. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 23, 2012 - Page 4 of 10 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing on the interpretation at 8:00 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution on the interpretation: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Thomas and Aime Richards 73 Union Avenue Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Regarding the premises identified as tax parcel 166.69-1-32, the applicant has appealed from the Building Inspector’s determination that area variances would be required to convert the existing accessory building at 24 George Street to a second principal building upon extension of the zoning district boundary line to encompass the entire parcel under the UR-4 designation. The extension of the boundary line is permissible under Section 240-2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The application states, “As zoning designation has changed, structure, converted to residential use by previous owner, is “pre-existing and non-conforming” and may be utilized as second residential building on subject parcel without need for further zoning relief”. However, upon review of this application and a previous application made by prior owners of the property in 2001, the board finds no clear evidence that the 24 George Street building was ever properly converted to residential use. Documents in City files show only authorization to use the building as a detached garage. Testimony from the current applicants indicates only their belief that residential use had been allowed. As to the record, the board finds nothing to clearly indicate any lawful residential use for the building at any time. The board must conclude that the 24 George Street building currently has status as a detached garage only. Residential use would require relief in the form of an area variance, since the UR-4 designation would allow the residential use sought, subject to dimensional requirements. On the facts and evidence presented, the request for interpretation is denied. Seconded by: Keith Kaplan. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated this leaves the door open for the area variances we have been discussing. I think we if we had ruled in favor of the request for interpretation or to overturn the Building Inspector's finding I do believe that would short circuit the proper process to seek a variance. A variance is appropriate in this case considering the document trail. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he agreed. 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; Shirley Poppel, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will discuss the requested variances at the May 7, 2012 meeting. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 23, 2012 - Page 5 of 10 4. #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 meeting, the public hearing was opened and the item was adjourned to March 5. 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. The application was heard on April 16 and adjourned to April 23. Additional documentation has been provided. 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%) Applicant: Tom and Rachel Uccellini Agent: Kyran Nigro, Attorney Mr. Nigro stated at the last meeting the Board requested copies of the Hollowood contract as well as the Uccellini's contract. Also requested was a copy of the notarized affidavit of Alice Braim as well as an internal rate of return calculation assuming that the $25,000 Brimhall offer was a valid opportunity for the owner at that time to realize any rate of return. All of that information has been submitted. Additionally and because the public hearing is going to remain open until the 7th of May, 2012 I am requesting to submit one additional piece of information. I was able to learn only today that the adjoining parcel at 296 Caroline Street that was sold to the Brimhalls was purchased back in 1951 for $7,300. It was sold to the Brimhalls back in September of 2009 for $255,000. For the Board's edification I did an internal rate of return calculation for that piece as a comparison. I also ran a calculation for the lowest market value offer that the Braims had for this piece before the Uccellini's and that was for $67,000 also last year. Those returns are 6.29% and 7.16% respectively. Copies were distributed to the Board. 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. Carol Ann Maguire, 294 Caroline Street. Financial material will be submitted to show if in fact the acceptance of the undeveloped land was purchased and that this lot was merged with the adjacent properties all the way back to 1923. This has always been a yard which enhanced the adjacent property next to it. What we did we took the fair market value of what the price of the undeveloped land would have been if you purchased it together, you will come out with a fair market value for the land you will not come out with an undue hardship for the land. Material submitted to the Board. We have eight court cases which substantiate our arguments that this does not rise to a use variance it is reasonable return on the original investment. Additional written paperwork submitted to the Board for the Board's review. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 23, 2012 - Page 6 of 10 Gail Rodriguez, 71 5th Avenue. I moved into my home 3 ½ years ago because I fell in love with the area. Especially the green space. I looked at the vacant lot on Grainger Avenue and was told it was not a buildable lot. If a home is built on this substandard lot a precedent will be set. Diane Redbord, 65 Fifth Avenue. The two properties referenced in the argument are 70 and 110 years old and clearly zoning was totally different at that point. It is very important to understand what is today. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Correspondence received since the last meeting: Letter from Carol Ann and Paul Maguire, dated, April 16, 2012. Letter from Diane Redbord, dated April 16, 2012. Letter from Jodi and Joseph Brimhall, dated April 16, 2012. Letter from Carole Cogan, dated April 16, 2012. Letter from Franklin Rapp, dated April 16, 2012. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the application will be adjourned until the May 7, 2012 meeting, awaiting additional information requested from the applicant. 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 member 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 and exited the meeting at 8:30 P.M. DISCLOSURE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he met Tom Frost at a party. They had no discussion concerning Siro's or any Zoning Board of Appeals Business. There is no need for recusal. The following correspondence was received by the Zoning Board of Appeals: Letter from Mike and Kim Billok, 132 Nelson Avenue, dated April 23, 2012. Letter from Larry King, 126 Nelson Avenue, dated April 23, 2012. Letter from Rose Tait, 164 Lincoln Avenue, dated April 23, 2012. Applicant: Siro's Agents: Tom Frost, Architect – Frost/Hurff Architects Mr. Frost stated this property is not highly visible only from approximately five property owners or so. We are not talking about sound any more. The visual aspect of this is much less significant to a good percentage of the neighbors. Up until now we have been speaking about sound. Everyone has an opinion and everyone is affected by it. Not everybody is City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 23, 2012 - Page 7 of 10 affected by the appearance of the wall. That does not mean that the appearance of the wall doesn't have an affect on the neighborhood but I think it is a direct effect on many of the neighbors just substantially less than the issue of sound. We maintain that we would like to be able to leave the framework up that is there all year around and install a rubber acoustical sheeting behind it in time for the upcoming Derby and leave that up all the way through the end of the race track meet. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone had any further questions. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:37 P.M. Keith Kaplan presented the following resolution: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF Racing Restaurants of America 168 Lincoln Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Involving the premises at 168 Lincoln Avenue, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.77-4-4 in the inside district on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for modification of an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City, approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 29, 2011 and filed on July 1, 2011, to permit the installation of a 6.5’ acoustical wall to be installed upon and attached to an existing 8’ high fence, and public notice having been given of a hearing on said request held on various dates including April 23, 2012. Whereas the Board had imposed a condition within that variance specifying the applicant to disassemble the acoustical wall within 14 days of the conclusion of the annual period allowed for outdoor entertainment under the terms of the property’s renewable Special Use Permit, and whereas the applicant’s representative from the firm of Frost Hurff Architects has stated, in the request for modification sent as a letter to the Board on November 28, 2011 that adherence to the condition, due to the fence’s acoustical and structural requirements, combined with the height from the ground, has been found to involve “a major effort to disassemble/remove and to assemble/erect. It is assumed that this annual process will adversely affect the integrity and life of the acoustical material, the structural members and various fastening devices used to assemble the screening structure.” The applicant has since clarified, after public comment and discussion in public meetings held with this Board, that the “Acoustifence” rubber sheet acoustical material is not contemplated for year-round installation; rather, the components of the acoustical wall that are being requested for modification to allow year-round installation are the structural members that provide the framework for the Acoustifence. The Acoustifence material, or similar material if used for this purpose in future years, would be disassembled annually, as requested in the variance filed July 1, 2011 referred to above. The structural members have since been painted for aesthetic purposes. The board notes the challenges inherent in conforming to the conditions imposed by that motion are significant, and could create an imbalance between benefit enjoyed by the applicant and impact on the character of the neighborhood, as well as physical and environmental impacts on the neighborhood. The Board agrees that the removal of the Acoustifence material reduces those impacts, while allowing the structural members to stay in place does not unduly impact neighborhood character, nor do those structural members appear to create significant physical or environmental impact. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 23, 2012 - Page 8 of 10 Therefore, I move that this Board modify, as requested by the applicant, the language in the conditions requiring the removal of the “support structures,” as referred to in the July 1, 2011 area variance, specifically mentioned in part 2 of that variance resolution, as well as in the first two conditions listed in that resolution, to instead only require the removal of the acoustical material placed on and attached to those structural members. The Board maintains the conditions to remove that acoustical material, on an annual basis within 14 days after the end date allowed by Special Use Permit for outdoor entertainment. It should be noted that this modification does not affect the other conditions or requirements set forth in that resolution, including the requirements for the applicant to ensure an annual inspection be performed by the City Engineer or designee, to perform proper maintenance on the screening and support structures to ensure the desired acoustical mitigation is achieved, and for a maintenance plan to be on file with the Building Inspector. Seconded by Gary Hasbrouck. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Gary Hasbrouck stated he is opposed to the resolution. The original reason to start with was for sound purposes. They did their sound testing with the fence up and it pretty much solved the sound issues. As part of that we sat here and discussed ways to mitigate the sound issues. One of the things was to have the acoustical fence. One of the conditions was that it was up there, it did its job and it's time to come down. The idea of having the structure up all year round is unacceptable. It is a step too far in asking the neighbors to have to deal with the looks of that year round. When I voted for the resolution originally it was with the understanding that it would be removed. I took a look at what they used. Lag screws. Lag screws are not what you use when you have the intention of taking something down. Somewhere between the designer and the person who constructed this somewhere the process broke down. Bill Moore, Chairman stated I am guessing since there was no second to the motion initially that this Board is uncertain. I understand Siro's apprehension with up and down. Maybe we could make a compromise of up for the Kentucky Derby with the same parameters and then back down after Labor Day. That covers your special events, and the summer racing meet. Tom Frost stated just for clarification are we speaking of the rubber fencing and the structure. Bill Moore, Chairman stated yes. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated to add to those of Gary Hasbrouck. I also agreed with everything in previous meetings. I agree with everything Gary stated and so I am not voting in favor of this resolution. Taking into account both parts the neighbors do not want to hear four, or six or eight different times of the year the construction crew coming in and setting this thing up and taking this down. This is a good compromise. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he finds himself in an odd position. We are striving for a balance between benefit and impact we certainly do not want to see people taking down the fence multiple times within the year. Discussion ensued regarding the time frame for the installation of the fencing, the disassembling of the fencing. Bill Moore, Chairman stated that the resolution will be rewritten and the Board will officially vote on it at the May 7, 2012 meeting. Keith Kaplan made a motion to withdraw his motion. Seconded by Adam McNeill. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 23, 2012 - Page 9 of 10 VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Gary Hasbrouck made a motion to accept the March 5, 2012 minutes with corrections and additions as submitted. Seconded by Keith Kaplan. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 4-0 Adam McNeill, made a motion to accept the March 19, 2012 minutes with correction and additions as submitted. Seconded by Gary Hasbrouck. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 4-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN; There being no further business to discuss, Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 6-4-12 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 23, 2012 - Page 10 of 10