Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2013 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:03 P. M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Gary Hasbrouck; Shirley Poppel; Oksana Ludd ABSENT: Adam McNeill, Secretary; Skip Carlson STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs 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. APPLICATIONS ADJOURNED TO FEBRUARY 11, 2013 5. #2672 VAN ZANDT "BALLET SCHOOL" 27 Jumel Place, use and area variances to permit two additional residential units and an additional educational/training facility, while maintaining the ballet uses and from the minimum parking requirement in the UR-3 District. Application adjourned to February 11, 2013. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2680 KERAMATI/LEVINSON RESIDENCE, 27 Granite Street, area variance to demolish existing single family residence and rebuild new single family residence; relief from the minimum front yard setback (Vermont and Granite Streets) and relief from the maximum building coverage for the principal building requirement in the UR-3 District. Applicants: Bahram Karamati/Ruth Levinson Agent: Ben Nathan, Witt Construction SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback Vermont 10 feet 7.6 feet 2.4 feet (24%) Minimum front yard setback Granite 10 feet 3.1 feet 6.9 feet (69%) Maximum lot coverage 30% 47% 17% (57%) 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 7:06 P.M. Oksana Ludd presented the following resolution: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Bahram Keramati and Ruth Levinson 1511 Peaceable Street Ballston Spa, New York 12020 Appeal #2680 from the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 27 Granite Street, Saratoga Springs, New York, identified as Tax Parcel No.: 165.43-1-26 in the inside district of the City. The Applicants have applied for an area variance for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for a corner lot regarding the minimum front yard setback (Granite), minimum front yard setback (Vermont) and maximum building coverage (principal building) for demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence in an Urban Residential-3 zoning district, and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on January 14, 2013 and January 28, 2013. Action appears to be a Type II action, “Granting of an area variance(s) for a single-family, two-family or three- family residence” and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review per 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 (C)(13). In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicants with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution that the requested area variance for the following relief, as described in the submitted application, BE APPROVED Type of Requirement Required Proposed Total Relief Requested Minimum Front Yard Setback (Vermont) 10 feet setback 7.6 feet 2.4 feet (24%) Minimum Front Yard 6.5 feet setback Setback (Granite) (per §2.3B of Zoning 3.1 feet 3.4 feet (52%) Code) Maximum Lot Coverage 30% 47% 17% (57%) 1. The Applicants have demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The current structure is nonconforming with the front set back on Vermont Street at 3.5 feet and the front set back on Granite Street at 3.6 feet. Renovation of the existing structure would maintain these non-conforming front yard setbacks. The Applicants have indicated that renovation of the existing structure is not feasible and propose to construct a new principal building with an increased front yard setback on Vermont Street and a substantially equivalent front yard setback on Granite Street. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, January 28, 2013 - Page 2 of 7  Applicants propose to construct the principal building in accordance with the 1,200 square foot minimum first floor area requirements for a UR-3 zone. With the addition of porches and an attached garage and the lot being smaller than the minimum lot size for this district, Applicants have requested a variance for the maximum lot coverage. Due to the size of the lot and the need to meet other area and bulk requirements for the UR-3 zone, Applicants have demonstrated that that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. 2. The Applicants have demonstrated that granting these variances will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties. Applicants provided documented evidence that minimum front yard setbacks of residences in the area are consistent with the requested variances and that granting the variance for maximum lot coverage will not impact on nearby properties. 3. The relief requested may be considered substantial, but is mitigated by the fact that most of the nearby residences have similar front setbacks and the requested relief is in keeping with the general character of the neighborhood. The relief from the maximum building coverage is substantial at 47% for the principal building; however, it is in part because of the desire to attach the garage. This district would permit a combined building coverage of 40% (principal building 30% plus accessory structure 10%). Additionally, by locating the new principal building further from the front lot lines than the existing structure with open porches along both sides, the visual impact of the new structure located within the front yard setbacks will be minimized. 4. The Applicants have demonstrated that the variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The Applicants have represented that the overall permeability of the lot is 50%, which exceeds the 25% required in this district. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created in that the Applicants desire to construct a new residence rather than renovate an existing non-conforming structure; however, this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition of Approval: Applicants agreed that as a condition of approval, no accessory structures will be located on the lot. Neighbor Input: None 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; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 5-0 3. #2681 STARKE/BRESLIN ADDITION, 100 State Street, area variance to construct a second story addition to the existing single family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback (State Street and Greenfield Avenue) in the UR-3 District. SEQRA: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, January 28, 2013 - Page 3 of 7 Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback (Greenfield) 10 feet 0 feet 1 foot 9 feet (90%) Minimum front yard setback (State) 10 feet .21 feet 6 feet 4 feet (40%) Applicant: Martha Starke/William Breslin 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. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:14 P.M. Shirley Poppel proposed the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Martha Starke and William Breslin 100 State Street Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Appeal #2681 from the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 100 State Street, Saratoga Springs, New York, identified as Tax Parcel No.: 165.43-3-47 in the inside district of the City. The Applicants have applied for an area variance for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for the construction of a second story addition to the existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setbacks in an Urban Residential-3 zoning district, and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on January 14, 2013 and January 28, 2013. In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicants with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution that the requested area variance for the following relief, as described in the submitted application, BE APPROVED: Required Existing Proposed Relief Requested Minimum Front Yard Setback (Greenfield) 10 feet 0 feet 1 foot 9 feet (90%) Minimum Front Yard Setback (State) 10 feet .21 feet 6 feet 4 feet (40%) 1. The Applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The application states, “We love on a very small plot (.06 acre) with no possible expansion on the first floor”. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, January 28, 2013 - Page 4 of 7 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character. The application indicates that architecturally the addition would improve the aesthetics of the existing house adding character to the house and the neighborhood. 3. The application states, “The variance is not substantial.” Because it is a small room added to the second story of an existing structure. The existing front setbacks are nonconforming with regard to the district requirement; the proposed addition would not encroach any further into existing front yard setbacks. 4. The variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The addition would not create any additional impermeable area. The application indicates that no site work would be necessary and no removal of trees required. 5. The difficulty may be considered self-created; this however is not necessarily fatal to the application. 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; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 5-0 4. #2674 JC BEEKMAN LLC SUBDIVISION, 192 Beekman Street, area variance for a two lot subdivision of land creating a lot for construction of a two family residence; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width requirement in the UR-3 District. RECUSAL: Gary Hasbrouck, Board member recused himself from this application. SEQRA: Proposed action appears to be an Unlisted Action. The Board issued a negative SEQRA declaration. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor of negative declaration; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor of negative declaration; Shirley Poppel, in favor of the negative declaration; Oksana Ludd, in favor of the negative declaration MOTION PASSES: 4-0 Keith Kaplan Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF JC Beekman LLC 192 Beekman Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, January 28, 2013 - Page 5 of 7  Application #2674 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 192 Beekman Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 165.50-3-58 in the Inside Tax District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance for a two-lot subdivision of land creating one additional lot for construction of a two-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width requirement in the UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 5th day of November, 2012, the 14th day of January, 2013 and the 28th day of January, 2013. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, compared to the detriment to the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood or community that would occur if the variance were to be granted, I move that the area variance for the following amount of relief: Minimum average lot Required: 80 feet for a Proposed: Total relief requested: width: Proposed lot 2 two-family residence 50 feet 30 feet (37.5%) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The applicant notes that “the subject property is bordered by a partial rear yard of a single family residence, a greenhouse and a plumbing company. None of these properties are for sale. Obtaining enough property to meet the 80 foot width requirement would require all three property owners to sell part of their properties.” The applicant addresses the “balancing” concept further concerning building a single family residence that would require only 10 feet of relief (17%) from the district requirement of 60 feet of lot width when he states “…with a greenhouse on one side and a big blue plumbing distribution company on the other side, we decided it was not feasible to site a single family house on the lot.” 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character, or detriment to nearby properties. The neighborhood contains a diverse number of uses including single family, two-family, three-family and commercial. 3. The relief of 30 feet or 37.5% may be considered substantial. This relief is mitigated somewhat by the limited number of multi-family units in the neighborhood that meet the 80 foot frontage requirements. 4. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The applicant notes that “a two family structure would fit comfortably on the subject property…and would exceed the district requirements for permeability.” The applicant submitted a survey that shows a ten foot driveway width that meets the City standard for a residential driveway. The applicant’s survey shows proposed lot “2” would provide permeable area of 49% of the lot, which exceeds the district requirement of 25%. It is noted that the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board issued a favorable advisory opinion on the 192 Beekman Street project on January 10, 2013. “The Planning Board is favorable to the consideration of the request being made and feels the site can adequately accommodate additional development. Municipal water and sewer can service both lots.” The advisory opinion was supported by a 5-0 vote of the Planning Board. 5. The request for relief from the minimum average lot width requirement in the UR-3 District may be considered a self- created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: Subdivision approval by the Planning Board is required. Oksana Ludd seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, January 28, 2013 - Page 6 of 7 None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 4-0 Resolution was amended to note: Subdivision approval is required. VOTE: Ayes all – nayes none. MOTION PASSES: 4-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Shirley Poppel made a motion to accept the November 5, 2012 meeting minutes as submitted. Keith Kaplan, seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to accept the November 19, 2012 meeting minutes as submitted. Oksana Ludd seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 4-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:31 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 2/25/13 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, January 28, 2013 - Page 7 of 7