Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2012 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:27 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; George "Skip” Carlson; Gary Hasbrouck; Shirley Poppel; Oksana Ludd STAFF: Joe Scala, City Attorney Susan Barden, Senior Planner ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being taped for the benefit of the secretary. The minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, therefore, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2677 INDEPENDENT TOWERS HOLDINGS, 84 Weibel Avenue, extension to previously granted use variance for a new telecommunications facility in the Transect 5 Neighborhood Center District. This application was heard at the November 5, 2012 meeting, the public hearing was opened, and adjourned to the November 19, 2012 meeting. Use variance to permit the construction of a telecommunications facility; consisting of one cell tower (monopine) at a maximum height of 402 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) with an additional maximum 8 feet in height for optimal camouflaging in a T-5 Neighborhood Center District. Approved May 23, 2011, filed May 27, 2011; approval will expire November 27, 2012 if not extended. SEQRA: No new SEQRA action with application to extend approval. Applicant: Dan Schweigard, Independent Tower Holdings Mr. Schweigard's company has acquired the rights to continue with the construction of this tower. The original proposed tower owner let its option on the leasehold expire so the landowner needed to reach an agreement with a new tower company. This took time for negotiation, due diligence and finalization of terms and plans for further processing with the City and its boards. There have been no significant changes on the site, in the neighborhood or within the circumstances upon which the original variance was granted. There have been no changes to the use of the property surrounding the proposed site. The property upon which the site is proposed has not undergone any changes, vegetative clearing, additions or any other type of improvement on or near the proposed site location. The area continues to be underserved by wireless communications services and thus the facility is still necessary. We would like to extend the Use Variance in order to continue the permitting process. We renoticed everyone both 250 feet and 500 feet distance. 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 7:30 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF Independent Towers Holdings, LLC 11 Herbert Drive Latham, New York 12110 Based on submitted evidence that the application for an extension of a granted variance does not differ from the original application and approval, other than the name of the applicant in this case, and that there have been no significant changes in the condition of the property or neighborhood warranting otherwise, the board moves that the application of Independent Towers Holdings, LLC for an extension for the premises at 84 Weibel Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, and identified as tax parcel #153.00-1-12 originally granted on May 23, 2011 and filed May 31, 2011 for construction of a telecommunications facility; consisting of one cell tower (monopine) at a maximum height of 402 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) with an additional maximum 8 feet in height for optimal camouflaging in a T-5 district be approved. The Board specifies that the variance approval be extended for an additional 18 months from the date of the variance expiration, with the new expiration date to be May 31, 2014. The variance shall expire on May 31, 2014 unless the necessary building permit has been issued and actual construction begun as per Article 8.5.1 or otherwise further extended. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. 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; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 2. #2678 VANJAN CABARET/OLD BRYAN INN, 123 Maple Avenue extension to previously granted area variance for construction of an addition to the existing restaurant in the Transect-6 Urban Core District. This application was heard at the November 5, 2012 meeting; the public hearing was opened, and adjourned to the November 19, 2012 meeting. SEQRA: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 19, 2012 - Page 2 of 12 No new SEQRA action with application to extend approval The applicant states funding and approval by business partners delayed the beginning of construction. There have been no significant changes on the site, in the neighborhood, or within the circumstances upon which the original variance was granted. The application indicates that no changes to the proposed size of the addition since the approval. They respectfully request an 18 month extension. 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 7:32 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. Appeal #2678 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF Vanjan Caberet DBA Olde Bryan Inn 123 Maple Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Based upon submitted evidence that the application for an extension of a granted Area Variance does not significantly differ from the original application and approval, and that there have been no significant changes in the condition of the neighborhood warranting otherwise, the board moves that the application of Vanjan Caberet, DBA Olde Bryan Inn for the premises at 123 Maple Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, and identified by tax parcel no. 165.4-1-31 located in a T-6 zoning district originally granted on April 25, 2011 (Filed April 27, 2011) for construction of an addition to an existing restaurant be APPROVED, and that the variance approval be extended for 18 months from the date that such resolution would have expired if not extended, October 27, 2012, with the new expiration date to be April 27, 2014. The variance shall expire on April 27, 2014 unless the necessary building permit has been issued and actual construction begun as per Article 8.5.1 or otherwise further extended. The applicant states the reason for the extension is because “funding and approval by business partners was delayed the beginning of construction.” Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. 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; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 3. KERN ADDITION, 16 Second Street, area variance for construction of additions to an existing single-family residence including an attached garage; seeking relief from the minimum front and rear yard setbacks, minimum side yard setback (west and east sides) and total side yard setback, and maximum lot coverage for the principal City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 19, 2012 - Page 3 of 12  building requirement in the UR-1 District.. This application was heard at the October 15, 2012; and November 5, 2012 meetings; the public hearing was opened on October 15, 2012 and remains open. The board requested design alternatives that could be considered of those that were considered and determined to not be feasible and why. SEQRA This appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Greg and Rebecca Kern Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Required Existing Proposed Total Relief Requested Maximum building coverage principal building 20% 23.12% 34.82% 14.82% (74.1%) Minimum front yard setback 30 feet 12 feet 12 feet 18 feet Minimum rear yard setback 30 feet 34.9 feet 27 feet 3 feet (10%) Minimum side yard setback – west 12 feet 12 feet 6.1 feet 5.9 feet (49.17%) Minimum side yard setback – east 12 feet 19.7 feet 3.7 feet 8.3 feet (69.17%) Minimum total side yard setback 30 feet 31.7 feet 9.8 feet 20.2 feet (67.33%) Ms. Yasenchak reviewed the project for the Board. Several plan variations were submitted for the Board review. This is not an undesirable change in the neighborhood. This is very consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Discussion ensued regarding the amount of variances requested and to try to reconfigure project to help alleviate a variance or two if possible. 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 7:37 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Gregory and Rebecca Kern 187 Daketown Road Greenfield Center, New York 12833 from the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 16 Second Street, Saratoga Springs, New York 12866, identified as Tax Parcel Section, 165.28-1-15 Inside District of said city. WHEREAS, the appellant has applied for AREA VARIANCES for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for maximum building coverage for a principal building and relief from minimum front, side, rear and total side yard setbacks in an Urban Residential – 1 zoning district; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on October 15th, November 5th and 19th, 2012. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 19, 2012 - Page 4 of 12 WHEREAS, in consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution that the requested AREA VARIANCES for the following relief or lesser dimensions, as described in the submitted application, be APPROVED: Required Existing Proposed Relief Requested Maximum building coverage-Principal 20% 23.12% 34.82% 14.82% (74.1%) building Minimum Front Yard Setback 30 feet 12 feet 12 feet 18 feet (60%) Minimum Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 34.9 feet 27 feet 3 feet (10%) Minimum Side Yard Setback: west 12 feet 12 feet 6.1 feet 5.9 feet (49.17%) Minimum Side Yard Setback: east 12 feet 19.7 feet 3.7 feet 8.3 feet (69.17%) Minimum total side yard setback 30 feet 31.7 feet 9.8 feet 20.2 feet (67.33%) 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The board asked the applicant to consider other plans which would reduce or eliminate some of the variances. The applicant provided 4 alternatives in a document prepared for the applicant by Engineering America (dated Oct. 29, 2012) which the applicant considered but deemed to not be feasible to the applicant. The various options included moving the master bedroom further to the rear, detaching the garage, moving the attached garage forward, and reducing the size of the master bath and closets while still moving the master bedroom further to the rear. Each alternative was rejected by the applicant due to the reduction of rear yard space, inadequate master bath and closet space, too much driveway, additional variances required for habitable space above a garage and rear yard setback for an accessory structure, and a driveway which did not offer enough parking spaces. The applicant testified that access to the rear yard for maintenance purposes can still be achieved through the use of compact size equipment which is smaller in width than the Side Yard Setback to the West. The principal building is already pre-existing and nonconforming. Any addition to the principal building would add to that condition. None of the 4 alternatives presented changed the relief requested for the principal building coverage materially with the exception of the option including the detached garage. That option would have required 2 additional variances for the garage and still would have not eliminated the principal building coverage variance. Minimum front yard setback was pre-existing and would have remained unchanged by the 4 alternatives. Relief from the side yard setback to the East is reduced only in the detached garage option and in the option which leaves the applicant with inadequate parking. Relief from the minimum total side yard setback is reduced by all 4 alternatives but leaves the applicant with the detrimental conditions mentioned previously. The applicant also noted in the application “the benefit sought cannot be achieved by purchasing land as there is no available land to purchase.” 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The application states “the variances will allow this house to be renovated and upgraded in exterior character and size to increase property values. No windows are proposed on the west side of the master addition to allow for neighbor privacy. The rear yard is increased to have less of an impact on neighbors to the south.” 3. With the exception of relief requested for the rear yard setback, the relief requested is substantial. It should be noted that the front yard setback variance, though substantial, is pre-existing and is not changing. The City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 19, 2012 - Page 5 of 12  application states “the rear setback to the garage (when attached) increases from 2.3’ to 27.0’. The west side setback at 6.1’ is comparable to the west neighbor’s setback.” 4. The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The application states “the overall resulting permeability of the lot will only be reduced by 2.6%.” The overall permeability will exceed the district requirement of 30%. The application goes on to say “the main roof of the new garage drains to the front & back, reducing runoff towards the adjacent property to the east.” 5. The difficulty may be considered self created. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: No accessory structures will be allowed on the property. Skip Carlson seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he appreciated the applicants submission of alternative design plans. He believes the applicant could have chosen alternative plans which would have reduced the amount of relief requested and for this reason he will be opposing the application. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, opposed; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-1 4. #2670 UCCELLINI RESIDENCE, 45 Granger Avenue, area variance to construct a single family residence on a vacant parcel; seeking relief from the minimum lot size requirement, minimum front and rear yard setbacks and maximum lot coverage for the principal building requirement in the UR-1 District. PARCEL HISTORY Previously a use variance was required from an area variance for relief from the minimum lot size requirement, an area variance that would affect a change in density. Application was withdrawn on September 17, 2012. Use and Area Variances withdrawn 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 March 31, 2004. Appeal of the Building Inspector's denial that a use variance would be required to construct a single-family residence. From the Building Inspector's denial, "According to Section 240-2.4 the minimum lot area (12,500 sq. ft.) applies to this lot, which according to the survey contains only 6,289.62 sq. ft. of land. Since prior to 1961 and up until 1980, this lot was owned in common with the premises at 65 Fifth Avenue, which has a lot area of 8,000 sq ft. The combined total area of land prior to 1980 was only sufficient for one single-family residence." This application was heard at the October 15 and November 5, 2012 meetings; the public hearing was opened on October 15, 2012, and closed at the November 5, 2012 meeting. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 19, 2012 - Page 6 of 12 Additional correspondence received from: Mary Kay Cogan Natale, received November 5, 2012. Maureen E. Cogan Blaum, received November 5, 2012. SEQRA: This appears to be a Type II action. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum lot size: 12,500 sq ft 5,851 sq. ft 6,649 sq. ft. (53%) Maximum building coverage principal building 20% 31% 11% (55%) Minimum front yard setback 30 feet 2.7 feet 27.3 feet (91%) Minimum rear yard setback 30 feet 6 feet 24 feet (80%) Applicants: Thomas and Rachel Uccellini Adam McNeill presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Tom & Rachel Uccellini 72 Union Avenue, Apt. 15 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Application #2670 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the vacant parcel, referred to as 45 Granger Avenue, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 166.13-2-9 in the inside district on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance under the current Zoning Ordinance of said City, effective October 4, 2012, to create a building lot and permit construction of a single family home in an UR-1 District and public notice has been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 15th of October and 5th of November and was closed on November 5, 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 Proposed: Relief Requested: Dimension: Min. lot size 12,500 5,851 sq. ft. 6,649 sq. ft. (53%) Max bldg. coverage –principal bldg 20% 31% 11% (55%) Min. front yard setback 30 feet 2.7 feet 27.3 feet (91%) Min rear yard setback 30 feet 6 feet 24 feet (80%) As per the submitted application and plans, or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. According to the City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 19, 2012 - Page 7 of 12  application, the purchasing of additional land in order to minimize or eliminate the variance request was explored. The applicant approached the landowner to the west; “during that conversation, Mrs. Cogan stated that she is unwilling to sell us any of her land.” The applicant also reduced their request for relief from the minimum lot size requirement by completing a survey wherein the surveyor concluded the size of their lot to be 835.5 square feet larger than previously thought. The applicant considered detaching the garage; however, it was determined that doing this was not a viable option as there is habitable space designed for the space above the garage. While detaching the garage may reduce the amount of variance with respect to maximum principal building coverage, it would require an additional variance to permit habitable space above a detached accessory building. The applicant was also questioned whether it was feasible to reduce the size of the house in order to reduce the amount of relief requested. The applicant testified that by reducing the size of the house, the family room would lose the usefulness for which they had intended. The applicant was also questioned regarding the size of the garage. The applicant testified that a 24 foot wide garage was necessary for “allowing 2 cars to park next to each other and still allow doors to swing open.” 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. This lot would not be out of character with the neighborhood, given the varying lot sizes within the neighborhood. The Board requested that the applicant provide documentation by way of a portion of the tax map identifying existing lot areas in the neighborhood. The Board concluded that the size of this lot would not be out of character with the neighborhood. The applicant desires to build a single-family home among other single family homes within a district which permits single-family residences as principal permitted uses and convert an empty lot, which is unique for this neighborhood, into a lot with a single-family home. The majority of this urban neighborhood is characterized by a mix of large and small homes on conforming and preexisting non-conforming lots as well as a mix of homes built close to the lot boundaries, while others are set back significantly from the street. The plans for the subject property contain a structure which will not divert from those characteristics. Also, the application states “we have made changes to the exterior of the house … so as to better fit the look and feel of other homes located in the neighborhood.” While the house would be situated 2.7’ from the front property line (where 30’ is required) the substantial width of the ROW on Granger Avenue (62.45’) provides the illusion that the house is set back much further from the road. The Board notes that much opposition has been expressed by neighbors especially with regard to this criterion, the Board has considered these comments and, based on the factors noted above, concludes that construction of a single-family residence on this lot would not result in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. 3. All items of this relief can be considered substantial of total relief requested. However, given the narrow nature of this lot, any single family home built, regardless of size, would require substantial variances. Any structure built on this lot would require a substantial variance due to the measurement of the depth of the lot being exceeded by the required setbacks. The board notes the applicant was able to reduce the amount of relief required from the minimum lot size requirement as a result of the revised survey. The total building coverage that would be permitted in the district would be 28% (20% for a principal building and 8% for an accessory building). The applicant, by attaching the garage, exceeds the maximum 20% by 11%; City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 19, 2012 - Page 8 of 12  however, if they detached the garage, they would still be requesting 3% beyond what would be allowed on the lot for the overall building coverage. In addition, the applicant has consented to a condition that no accessory structures would be permitted on the lot. The Board finds that attaching the garage to the house is the preferred site design for this smaller lot because consolidation of structures will provide the appearance of a larger lot with more substantial side yards. 4. The construction will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. As the application states “the minimum permeability for this lot is 30%. Once [we] complete the driveway, sidewalk, and the house, in addition to the roof line, 51% of the lot will remain permeable within the property’s boundary lines”. Keeping the development compact on the lot by attaching the garage reduces the impermeable coverage of the lot. Public water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer lines are available for this lot. The lot has 167.5 feet along Granger Ave., providing adequate separation distance between residential driveways. 5. The applicants’ desire to create a building lot and construct a single family home is self created. This is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: 1. The applicant has agreed to not allow any accessory structures on the lot and therefore no accessory structures shall be allowed on the lot. 2. The applicant shall obtain, either by quitclaim deed from the City or by other proof of ownership, title to such land as may be required to conform his property to the boundaries in the survey dated August 30, 2012. 3. The applicant shall provide verification of filing of updated parcel deed and corresponding lot survey or plat with the Saratoga County Clerk’s Office. 4. A surveyor, licensed in the State of New York, shall provide a survey showing all required dimensions, and all approvals granted, to create a 35’ wide parcel as described in the above deed, containing no less than 5,851 sq. ft. The board notes a lot line adjustment may be necessary to proceed with this proposed project. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Discussion ensued regarding the amount of relief requested and wording of the resolution. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, opposed; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, opposed MOTION PASSES: 5-2 5. #2672 VAN ZANDT "BALLET SCHOOL", 27 Jumel Place, use and area variances two additional residential units and an additional education/training facility, while maintaining the ballet school and two apartments permitted by prior variance; seeking relief from the principal permitted uses and from the minimum parking City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 19, 2012 - Page 9 of 12  requirement in the UR-3 District. Applicant: Brett Van Zandt This application was heard at the November 5, 2012 meeting; the public hearing was opened, and adjourned to November 19, 2012. The board requested additional information including rental income and clarification of the financial documents previously submitted. Use Variance to permit use of the property as it's currently operating with two studio spaces (one for ballet instruction and one for karate instruction) and four residential units. The specific request is to permit an additional training/educational facility (karate school) and two additional residential units in addition to the uses approved by prior variance. "Ballet school and two apartments". AREA VARIANCE: Minimum parking requirement: Residences – 2 per unit; Educational facilities – 1 per 5 students (>16 years) plus 1 per 2 employees. It is unclear what the parking requirement would be for the karate school. 8 parking spaces are required for the four residential units. One parking space is required for employees. The current site plan identifies nine parking spaces onsite. PARCEL HISTORY: January 11, 2010 applications for Malta Montessori School withdrawn by the applicant. November 209, application for an interpretation and use variance modification, alternatively, a new use variance for Malta Montessori School. The interpretation request was that the proposed use was a modification of the existing use variance granted September 23, 1996 for a ballet school and two apartments. The modification of the use variance was a request to remove the word "ballet" so as to allow a school and two apartments. Modification of a condition of the approval that specifies the hours of operation for the ballet school from 3:00 PM to 7:30 PM Tuesday through Saturday and to 8:45 PM one evening. Alternatively, a new use variance was requested to use the property as a School for children ranging in age from 3 to 12 and two apartments. November 6, 1996 Planning Board Site Plan approval. September 18, 1996 Use Variance approved to convert the existing building into a ballet school and two apartments. September 18, 1996 Area Variance approved for minimum front yard setback, minimum side yard setback, minimum rear yard setback and maximum percent of building lot coverage. July 10, 1980 Area Variance approved to construct a covered loading dock addition to the existing Adirondack Stihl building. October 14, 1057 ZBA issued an unfavorable advisory opinion to the City Council for rezoning request by Tarrant Manufacturing. SEQRA This action is considered an Unlisted Action, the applicant will need to complete Part I of a short EAF. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 19, 2012 - Page 10 of 12 Mr. Van Zandt provided the Board with the information requested concerning income tax records. Discussion ensued with the applicant regarding providing tax records, records for expenses, leases for the commercial spaces, copy of appraisals, quote for demolition. The Board requested additional information from Mr. Van Zandt and requested he forward to staff for dissemination to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains open. Is there is anyone in the audience who would like to speak regarding this application. Jeff Nealon, 25 Jumel Place. This takes place 7 days a week. One thing after another. Summer school is 60 – 80 students and it goes for approximately 6 weeks. The neighborhood does not get a rest. Maureen Mahar, 5 Granger. This creates such chaos. Thanks to the Board for listening to the neighbors. Bill Moore, Chairman stated once the additional information is received, the application will be placed back on the Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 15, 2012 meeting minutes. Adam McNeill seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 UPCOMING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING: Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 3, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. MOTION TO ADJOURN. There being not further business to discuss, Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 1/28/13 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 19, 2012 - Page 11 of 12 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 19, 2012 - Page 12 of 12