Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2013 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck; Skip Carlson; Shirley Poppel; Oksana Ludd 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. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2682 INDEPENDENT TOWERS HOLDINGS, LLC TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, 84 Weibel Avenue, area variance for placement of a telecommunications tower in the T-5 District, seeking relief from the minimum height of the tower setback to rear and side yards. PARCEL HISTORY: Balloon float November 26, 2012 as requested by the Planning Board. Planning Board site plan review consideration and recommendation to ZBA, January 9, 2013. Use variance extension approved November 19, 2012. Use variance approved May 23, 2011 to permit the construction of a telecommunication 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. ZBA issued SEQR Negative Declaration April 11, 2011. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Dan Schweigard. Mr. Schweigard reviewed the project for the Board. This application is a request for an area variance for placement of a telecommunications tower with a monopine screening to look like present vegetation, seeking relief from the minimum height of the tower setback to rear and side yards. Discussion ensued regarding the current height of the tower, and proposed location. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:06 P.M. 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 7:07 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Independent Towers Holdings, LLC 11 Herbert Drive Latham, NY 12110 Involving the premises at 84 Weibel Ave, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being Section 153.00, Block 1, Lot 12, Outside 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 telecommunications facility in a T-5 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on February 25th, 2013. 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 requested area variance, for the following amounts of relief: Type of Requirement District Proposed Relief requested dimensional requirement Minimum side yard setback Height of tower 65’ 48’, or 42.5% (113’) Minimum rear yard setback Height of Tower 60’ 53’, or 46.9% (113’) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions be granted for the following reasons: 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. As noted by the applicant, other sites on the property that would not require as much or any dimensional relief were evaluated. “These locations included the area in the opposite (southern) back corner of the lot and the center of the parcel. The alternative locations were concluded not to be feasible, as these alternatives would have required significant grading and /or re-configuration of the existing parking area resulting in more impacts (sic) the existing facilities.” The Board notes there is a synagogue on this site which requires adjacent parking, limiting the potential choices for sites on this parcel. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The Board notes the telecommunications facility will be camouflaged as a tree to blend in with the area; this method of mitigating impact to the character of the neighborhood was evaluated by the Board in the previously granted use variance and the change in siting in the revised site plan since that variance was granted does not, in the Board’s view, result in the creation of City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, February 25, 2013 - Page 2 of 8  significant, if any, adverse impacts to neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. 3) The variance requested is substantial, however the Board notes that the camouflage of the facility as a pine tree reduces the visual impact of the encroachment over setback lines. Furthermore, the placement of this project 60 feet from rear property line and 65 feet from side property line still provides, in the Board’s view, adequate spacing from neighboring properties, which, as noted by the applicant include a cemetery’s wooded buffer and other wooded areas. 4) This variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. As noted above, the Board notes that the camouflage of this project to resemble a pine tree reduces the visual impacts; the Board is not aware of adverse impacts to the land or other environmental impacts from the revised siting of this project as requested by the applicant. Environmental impacts under SEQRA were evaluated by the Board during the use variance approval process. 5) The variance does not appear to be self-created; as noted by the applicant, the siting requires a variance due to a change to the zoning code that was enacted after the use variance to site a telecommunications facility on this site. As noted by the applicant, at the time of the granting of that use variance, the current proposal would not have otherwise required dimensional relief to be granted by this Board. In any case, self-creation would not be by itself fatal to this application. Notes: Co-applicants are AT&T and New Cingular Wireless Planning Board issued a consent recommendation for the site location on 1/9/13 Conditions: Planning Board site plan review and approval is required Design Review Commission architectural review is required 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 Agenda was heard out of order awaiting representation for Item #2. OLD BUSINESS: 3. #2684 FINGERPAINT MARKETING SIGN, 395 Broadway, area variance for construction of two wall signs, seeking relief for placement above the first floor level of the building and sign lettering to exceed the maximum height requirement in the T-6 District. No one present for this application. PUBLIC HEARING: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, February 25, 2013 - Page 3 of 8 Bill Moore, Chairman; stated the public hearing remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman; asked if anyone would like to speak regarding this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. Oksana Ludd presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Fingerpaint Marketing 18 Division Street, Suite 414 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Appeal #2684 From the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 395 Broadway, Saratoga Springs, New York, identified as Tax Parcel No.: 165.59-1-88 in the inside district of the City. The Applicant has applied for an area variance (i) for construction of two wall signs, seeking relief for placement of the sign above the first floor level of the building and (ii) for sign lettering to exceed the maximum height required in the T-6 zoning district, and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on February 11, 2013 and February 25, 2013. Action appears to be a Type II action, “construction or expansion of a primary or accessory/appurtenant, non-residential structure or facility involving less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance” and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review per 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 (C)(7). In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicant 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 and plans, or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED: Type of Requirement Required Proposed Total Relief Requested Wall signage placement not to extend above first First floor level Above first floor level Above first floor level floor level: Broadway wall sign Wall signage placement not to extend above first First floor level Above first floor level Above first floor level floor level: Division wall sign Maximum letter height: Broadway wall sign 18” 27” 9” (50%) Maximum letter height: Division wall sign 18” 27” 9” (50%) City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, February 25, 2013 - Page 4 of 8 1. The Applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. Applicant intends to use the prior tenant’s location since renovation of the exterior of the building is not feasible. The prior tenant sign was located partially above the first floor level of the building. The prior tenant’s removal of their sign caused cosmetic damage to the building. The Applicant’s installation of their sign in the same location as the prior tenant’s sign will conceal the damage to the building caused by the removal of the prior tenant’s sign. The outside façade of the building does not lend itself to installation of a sign in any location except the partially above first floor level. Use of letters less than 18” would make the sign difficult to read and not be feasible due to the location of the existing sign. Applicant’s existing logo includes a larger 1st letter. To preserve the integrity of Applicant’s logo and to make the sign readable at a distance, the larger first letter is necessary. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting these variances will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties. Applicant will be using the same sign location as the prior tenant and, therefore, the installation of the Applicant’s sign will be consistent with prior use of the sign location and will not create a change to the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. 3. The relief requested for placement of the wall sign above first floor level is not substantial being only two (2) feet above the first floor level. The maximum letter height variance may be considered substantial at fifty percent (50%), but is mitigated by the fact that only one (1) letter of the sign will exceed the maximum permitted height. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that the variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. Reverse channel lettering, which is required in the T-6 zone, will be used for this sign to minimize any significant light spillage beyond the building or impact on the neighborhood. Applicant has indicated that the letter sizes and the sign placement is consistent with other signs in the area. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created in that the Applicant desires to use the existing sign location rather than renovate the exterior of the building and to use their existing logo, however, this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: Saratoga County Planning Board issued a decision of “No Significant County Wide or Inter Community Impact” on Feb. 21, 2013 Design Review Commission Historic Review and approval required 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. #2685 LAZORCHAK ADDITION, 331 Caroline Street, area variance for demolition of an existing attached carport and construction of a residential addition and carport to an existing single-family residence in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, February 25, 2013 - Page 5 of 8 Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Kristen and Mike Lazorchak AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATION: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: 30 feet 9 feet 10.5 feet 19.5 feet (65%) (Caroline) Maximum principal building coverage: 20% Unknown 30% 10% (50%) SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Mrs. Lazorchak stated their home is very small approximately 1,000 square feet. This was previously a rental, however now they will make this their permanent home. They will demolish the existing carport and add a living room a second bathroom and entryway and add a new carport. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:32 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:33 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Kristen & Mike Lazorchak 331 Caroline Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 ZBA #2685 From the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 331 Caroline Street, Saratoga Springs, New York 12866, identified as Tax Parcel Section, 166.14-2-41 in the Inside District of said City. The appellant has applied for an AREA VARIANCE for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of 1st floor addition in a UR-1 district; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on February 25, 2013. 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 VARIANCE for the following relief or lesser dimensions, as described in the submitted application, be APPROVED: Required Existing Proposed Relief Requested City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, February 25, 2013 - Page 6 of 8 Min. front yard setback: (Caroline): 30 feet 9 feet 10.5 feet 19.5 feet (65%) Max. principal building coverage: 20% Unknown 30% 10% (50%) 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The applicant indicates that “other options would have encroached on the Schuyler Drive setback in a similar fashion, as well as require removal of more trees and a new curb cut”. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties as the proposed addition will keep the home similar to the size and nature of other homes in the neighborhood. Also, the front yard setback along Caroline Street would continue to be approximately aligned with the adjacent properties. 3) The relief may be considered substantial; however, the existing front setback (Caroline) is nonconforming with regard to the district requirement; the proposed addition would not encroach any further into the existing front yard setback. 4) The construction will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. Access to the lot will remain on Caroline Street, and the proposed construction will leave 63% of the lot permeable, more than double the 30% required in this district. 5) The applicants’ desire to request a variance from the minimum front yard setback and building coverage requirement may be considered a self-created hardship, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: Applicant to provide calculations confirming resulting 63% permeable coverage or more on site Detached accessory structures will not be permitted on the property Oksana Ludd seconded the motion. Bill Moore 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 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Adam McNeill made a motion to accept the minutes of the December 17, 2012 meeting as submitted. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. VOTE: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, February 25, 2013 - Page 7 of 8  Bill Moore, Chairman, abstained; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, abstained; Shirley Poppel, abstained; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0-3 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to accept the minutes of the January 14, 2013 as amended. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. 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 Keith Kaplan made a motion to accept the minutes of the January 28, 2013 as amended. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, abstained; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, abstained; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0-2 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:39 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 3/25/13 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, February 25, 2013 - Page 8 of 8