Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2013 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman, Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Skip Carlson; ABSENT: Gary Hasbrouck, Shirley Poppel, Oksana Ludd STAFF: Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs SALUTE TO THE FLAG 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. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS: 5. #2696 PLAZA 15 SELF STORAGE EXPANSION, 43 Plaza Road, area variance to construct three additional self storage buildings to the existing self storage use of the property; seeking relief from the build-to line and minimum two-story requirements of the Transect-4 District. Adjourned to May 13, 2013. 6. #2697 BALLSTON AVENUE TOWN HOMES, 316-318 Ballston Avenue, area variance to construct attached town homes on separate lots; seeking relief from the average side yard setback requirement for each of the 12 units in the Transect-4 District. Adjourned to May 13, 2013. 7. #2688 REJUVENATION HOMES, 24 Lafayette Street, area variance to reconfigure three existing lots #24, 25 and 30 into two lots #24 and 30 and construct a new single family residence and detached garage; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width requirement, minimum front, one side, total sides and rear yard setbacks, minimum setback between principal and accessory buildings and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-4 District. Adjourned to May 13, 2013. 8. #2689 REJUVENATION HOMES, 30 Lafayette Street, area variance to reconfigure three existing lots #24, 26, and 30 into two lots #24, 30 demolish a portion of the existing residence and construct an addition and a detached garage; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width requirement, minimum one side, total sides and rear yard setbacks, minimum setback between principal and accessory buildings and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-4 District. Adjourned to May 13, 2013. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2699 RICHARDS CONDOMINIUMS, 73 Union Avenue, interpretation of condition of previous approval to create two condominium units on the property in the Urban Residential-4 District. DISCLOSURE: Bill Moore, Chairman stated he would like to disclose that he played golf with Aime Richards at an event. He has no financial interest in this application. This is merely a disclosure. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance for an existing approved structure to be approved as a second principal building on one lot approved on May 7, 2012. Interpretation appeal 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 denied on April 23, 2012. Historic Review to connect the existing resident to the carriage house was approved on 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 a Urban Residential-3 and Urban Residential-4 districts were denied on March 7, 2001. Applicant: Tom and Aime Richards. Agent: Joseph Walsh, Walsh and Walsh Attorneys at Law Mr. Walsh brought the Boards attention to the wall where he has placed definitions from the ZBA concerning this application. These were also handed out to the Board members as well. Mr. Walsh would like this to become a part of the record. "The two principal structures shall remain single family residences to be maintained on one lot with no future subdivision of land." ZBA May 11, 2012 Variance Grant. "Subdivision" is defined as "an area of land divided or re-divided into two or more lot, plots, sites or other divisions of land for sale or for building development." Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance Appendix A Definitions. "Lot" is defined as "a parcel of land…" Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance, Appendix A Definitions. "Land" is defined as "any ground, soil or earth whatsoever…"; and "… the solid material of the earth, whatever may be the ingredients of which it is composed, whether soil, rock or other substance". Black's Law Dictionary "Common elements, unless otherwise provided in the declaration, means and includes: (a) The land on which the building is located…" R.P.L. §339-e(3) Definitions. "Common interest means the (i) proportionate, undivided interest in fee simple absolute,… in the common elements appertaining to each unit, as expressed in the declaration." R.P.L. § 339-e(5) Definitions. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 22, 2013 - Page 2 of 10  The common elements shall remain undivided and no right shall exist to partition or divide any thereof, except as otherwise provided in this article. Any provision to the contrary shall be null and void." R.P.L. § 339-i(3) Common elements. The applicant is appealing the Building Inspector's interpretation of a condition of approval "The two principal structures shall remain single family residences to be maintained on one lot with no future subdivision of the land. Area variance approval was for an existing accessory structure to be approved as a second principal building on one lot. The applicant is looking to create two condominiums. Discussion ensued regarding the approval which was previously granted and the applicant's current request. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated what is holding him back right now is the precedent setting of this application. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated here is something to keep in mind. There are two different concepts, one is ownership of land versus the use of land which municipalities regulate through zoning ordinances. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:36 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Nick Gangi, 25 George Street, I have lived in my home for 22 years. The Richards are the third owners. I have followed the evolution of this property. I am concerned for the future use of this property. Gail, 29 George Street. I share all the concerns of Nick Gangi. I am also concerned for the future use of this property. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will leave the public hearing open. We will return in two weeks and we will have a resolution at that time. 2. #2698 LEAFARC, 63 Spring Street, area variance to maintain a building identification sign; seeking relief for such sign to not be incorporated within the façade of the building and to identify the tenant or occupant of the structure in a Transect-5 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Planning Board Site Plan Review, approved December 7, 2011. DRC Historic Review, approved October 19, 2011. Planning Board Special Use Permit for a two-story mixed use building, issued September 27, 2011. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Building identification sign that is not incorporated within the façade of the building and which identifies the tenant or occupant of the structure. Applicant: Anthony Swiatek, Leafarc, Inc. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 22, 2013 - Page 3 of 10 Agent: John Natale, Adirondack Sign; John Roicki, Graphic Designer Mr. Natale, stated Mr. Swiatek hired a local person to manufacture a sign. He thought this agent took all the necessary steps to ensure this sign was authorized and legal. We initially reviewed the construction of the sign, and the installation to ensure it was properly done. I then contacted Susan Barden, Senior Planner and at that time we realized the building identification sign was placed on the second floor and out of place. The best approach would be an area variance. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:47 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 7:48 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented a resolution. Adam McNeill seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he would like to send this application to the Design Review Commission for an advisory opinion before approving this sign. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to withdraw the motion. 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; MOTION PASSES: 4-0 Bill Moore, Chairman made a motion to request an advisory opinion on this application from the Design Review Commission. 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; MOTION PASSES: 4-0 PUBLIC HEARING: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 22, 2013 - Page 4 of 10 Bill Moore, Chairman re-opened the public hearing at 7:59 P.M. The public hearing will remain open. OLD BUSINESS: 3. #2686.1 HOME OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD, 394-402 Church Street, area variance to construct a senior assisted care facility and senior housing units on the property; seeking relief to permit more than one principal building on a lot and from the maximum lot coverage for a principal building requirement in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Planning Board accepted SEQRA Lead Agency status for the environmental review and issued a Negative SEQRA Declaration on February 27, 2013. ZBA deferral of Lead Agency status to the Planning Board on February 11, 2013. DRC deferral of Lead Agency status to the Planning Board on February 6, 2013. PARCEL HISTORY: This application was heard at the April 8, 2013 meeting. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The application was adjourned to April 22, 2013. Planning Board approved a proposed 13 lot residential subdivision, April 9, 2008. Applicant: Home of the Good Shepherd, Denise Cote. Agent: Jason Tommell, Tommell and Associates; Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated the Saratoga County Planning Board referral was received which stated no significant county wide or intercommunity impact. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:03 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience would like to comment on this application. None heard. Skip Carlson presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF THE HOME OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD 394-402 CHURCH STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 394-402 Church Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 165.9-3-Lots 1-15 and 99 and portion of 165.-2-2.1 in the Outside Tax District, on the assessment Map of said City. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 22, 2013 - Page 5 of 10 The appellant having applied for an area variance to construct a senior assisted care facility and senior housing on the property; seeking relief to permit more than one principal building on a lot and from the maximum lot coverage for a principal building requirement in the Urban Residential-1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 8th day of April, 2013 and the 22nd day of April, 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 community that would occur if the variance were to be granted, I move that the following variances for the following amounts of relief: Maximum Number of Principal Required: One Proposed: Seven Total Relief Requested: Buildings on One Lot: 6 (600%) Maximum Building Coverage- 20% 24% 4% (20%) Principal Building(s): 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 explored two alternatives before submitting the requested variance. The first alternative was to create seven individual lots with access and easement across all of the lots. Additional variances would still need to be obtained for various sub-standard lot sizes and side-yard restrictions. The second alternative was a larger scale structure which was deemed by the applicant not to “provide appropriate scale or optimize benefits available through creative design.” 2.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting the variance will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character, or detriment to nearby properties. The main building would be along the frontage with the smaller cottages located at the rear of the site closer to, and more in scale, with the abutting single-family residential neighborhood to the west. The main building housing the assisted living facility would align with the existing similar use directly to the east and would be of similar size. The applicant states “The proposed design will provide a transition between these structures and a new, similarly scaled structure and adjacent residences. The Senior Apartments are designed to be smaller scale…This should provide a transition between the larger buildings and the existing residential homes on Evergreen Drive.” 3.) The request for relief could be considered substantial in regard to permitting six additional principal buildings; the applicant states that “the existing condition is an approved 13 lot subdivision of 13 single family homes and the resulting variance will result in seven structures or a 46% reduction in buildings.” 4.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. There is only one curb cut proposed off of Route 9 and the private street would join the existing access to the east as well as connect to the existing senior housing abutting at the rear of the property. The applicant has provided a calculation showing that 54% of the site would remain permeable, which exceeds the minimum 30% for the district. 5. The request for relief from more than one principal building on a lot and maximum lot coverage in an Urban Residential-1 District may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: The City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals received a referral from the Saratoga County Planning Board citing “no significant countywide or inter-community impact”. Conditions: City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board Special Use Permit, Site Plan Review, Lot Line Adjustment; and DRC Architectural Review Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 22, 2013 - Page 6 of 10 VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 4-0 4. #2695 SECURITY SUPPLY EXPANSION, 50 West Avenue, area variance to construct a 3,900 sq. ft. addition to the existing retail business; seeking relief from the build-to line, minimum frontage build out and two story requirements of the Transect-5 District. This application was heard at the April 8, 2013 meeting. The public hearing remains open. SEQRA: 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 consistent with local land use controls, but not radio communication or microwave transmission facilities", and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Saratoga County Planning Board referral is required. Planning Board Site Plan Review required. DRC Architectural Review required. PARCEL HISTORY: DRC Architectural Review of a wall sign, approved November 1992. Applicant: Kim Willey, Security Supply. Agent: Rob Frasier, LA Group. 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 8:10 P.M. Saratoga County Planning Board in correspondence stated no significant county wide or inter community impact. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Security Supply Plumbing and Heating 196 Maple Avenue Selkirk, NY Appeal #2695 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 22, 2013 - Page 7 of 10  From the Building Inspector’s Denial of Application for Land Use and/or Building for the premises at 50 West Avenue, Saratoga Springs, New York, identified as Tax Parcel No.: 165.14-1-41 in the inside district of the City. The Applicant has applied for an area variance for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance to construct a 3,900 square foot addition to the rear of the existing building used for a retail business seeking relief from the building-to line, minimum frontage build-out and minimum two-story requirements of the Transect – 5 zoning district, and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on April 8, 2013 and April 22, 2013. Action appears to be a Type II action, “Construction or expansion of a primary or secondary/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 consistent with local land use controls, but not radio communication or microwave transmission facilities” 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, BE APPROVED Type of Requirement Required Existing Proposed Total Relief Requested Minimum build-to line 0 to 12 feet 43.2 feet 43.2 feet 31.2 feet (260%) Minimum Frontage 70% 0% 0% 70% (100%) build-out Minimum Two-story; up to 7,567 square Additional 3,900 8,467 square feet total one-story two-story 3,000 sq. ft. foot one-story square foot one- area exempt story 1. The Applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The current structure is non-conforming. Applicant has explored alternate means to achieve benefit including demolition of existing structure, which is not practical because existing building is in good condition. Application also determined that building a second story on the existing building is not feasible because the existing building was not engineered to support a second story. Due to the size of the lot and Applicant’s need for delivery and storage of inventory at the rear of the current facility, Applicant has demonstrated that that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. 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 had shown that locating the proposed addition at the rear of the existing building will be out of sight of the general public and will match the existing building as an integral part of the existing structure. By enclosing an open storage and receiving area, the appearance of the area will be improved. Based on the foregoing, the granting the variance will improve the appearance of the property and will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or impact on nearby properties. 3. The relief requested may be considered substantial, but is mitigated by the fact that the current existing structure is non conforming. The minimum build-to line variance and the minimum frontage build-out variance are requested due to the location of the current structure on the site and not due to any construction proposed at this location. The variance for the additional one story 3,900 square foot addition is also requested due to current structure being one story and necessity of constructing an addition that conforms with the existing one story structure. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 22, 2013 - Page 8 of 10 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that the variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The Applicant has represented that the area where the proposed addition is to be constructed is currently impervious and that the addition will not increase impervious surfaces. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created in that the Applicant desires to construct a one story addition rather than demolish an existing non-conforming structure or re-engineer the current structure to support a second story structure; however, this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Approvals Required: Planning Board Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review; DRC Architectural Review Neighbor Input: None 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; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 4-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion to accept the minutes of the Joint Land Use Board Meeting on March 11, 2013 as submitted. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 4-0 Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion to accept the minutes of the March 11, 2013 of the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting as submitted. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 22, 2013 - Page 9 of 10  Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 4-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:28 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 6/10/13 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 22, 2013 - Page 10 of 10