Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 13, 2013 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:15 P. M. PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman, Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Skip Carlson; Gary Hasbrouck, Oksana Ludd ABSENT: Shirley Poppel STAFF: 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. OLD BUSINESS: 1. #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. This appeal was heard at the April 22 meeting and adjourned to May 13. The Board requested an advisory opinion from the DRC. The DRC issued a favorable advisory opinion on May 1. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Planning Board Site Plan Review, approved Dec. 7, 2011. DRC Historic Review, approved Oct. 19, 2011. Planning Board Special Use Permit for a two-story mixed-use building, issued Sept. 27, 2011. Favorable Advisory Opinion from the DRC at May 1, 2013. Applicant: Anthony J. Swiatek, Leafarc, Inc. Agent: Adirondack Sign 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 7:19 P.M. Keith Kaplan presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Anthony J. Swiatek Leafarc Inc. 63 Spring St. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 63 Spring St, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcels 165.68, Block 1, Lots 47.1 and 48 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 allow an existing sign to be considered as a “building identification sign” under said Ordinance, in a Transect-5 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on April 22 and May 13, 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 relief: Type of relief: Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Building identification sign Signs considered to be Exemption from this 100% “building identification” signs requirement; allow must be incorporated into an attached sign to the facade be considered as a “building identification” sign Building sign wording Sign shall not identify any Sign identifies 100% tenant or occupant of the occupant, “Swiatek” structure As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. No other feasible means exist to achieve the desired benefit. One alternative on the first area of relief would be to alter the existing façade to incorporate the building information into it, thereby precluding the need for a variance. However, the Board notes that the façade design that includes the inset doorway and second floor balcony with the existing sign leaves little if any feasible space for a visually centered building identification sign. The applicant indicated that it was considered to put the building identification information onto the 1st floor tenant identification sign, however that sign already has business information on it for the other occupant. While putting all of the information now on two signs onto the 1st floor sign would preclude the need for the second area of relief as well, the Board notes that adding the “Swiatek” information to the existing 1st floor sign would require either expanding the size of that sign significantly, or greatly reducing the size of the existing lettering for the business information currently on that sign. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 2 of 18  2. This request will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties. No detriment to nearby properties has been demonstrated or evidenced to this Board with the sign in place. The Board notes that this sign is relatively unobtrusive, located as it is in an inset balcony area. 3. The variance is substantial relative to what is specifically allowed, however, the applicant notes that the signage is not large proportional to the façade; additionally, as noted above it is in an inset area which reduces the impact. 4. This request will not have an adverse physical/environmental effect on the neighborhood. The Board notes that leaving the attached sign in place, as opposed to having one etched or otherwise incorporated into the façade, represents no incremental environmental or physical impact. Similarly, the Board finds that the indication of the occupant information on this sign creates no adverse physical or environmental effect. 5. The condition of desiring building identification with occupant signage is self-created, however this alone is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: Design Review Commission Historic review required. Oksana Ludd 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; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 2. #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. This appeal was heard at the April 22 meeting and adjourned to May 13. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: - Area variance “for an existing approved accessory structure to be approved as a second principal building on one lot” approved 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 April 23, 2012 - 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. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 3 of 18 Applicant: Aimee and Thomas Richards 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 7:25 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Aime and Thomas Richards 73 Union Avenue Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 This application for interpretation follows a February 8, 2013 determination letter from the Zoning and Building Inspector relative to a May 7, 2012 variance from this Board. The interpretation concerns a condition in that variance that two principal structures shall remain single-family residences to be maintained on one lot with no future subdivision of land. There are currently two single-family principal residences on the property. The applicant now proposes to form a two-unit condominium – with each unit being one of the two existing principal buildings. The applicants sought a determination from the Zoning and Building Inspector that such a conversion would not violate the prohibition against further subdivision. The Zoning and Building Inspector declined to make that determination and the question now comes before the Board for review. The Board has reviewed the applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance as well as its prior resolution of May 7, 2012. The Board finds that the applicant’s proposal relates only to ownership. There are no zoning issues involved. 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; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 3. #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, minimum frontage build-out and two-story requirements of the Transect – 4 District. This appeal was heard at the April 8 meeting and adjourned subject to SEQR determination. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The applicant has submitted revised drawings in response to comments from the Planning Board through the environmental review of the project. A revised denial based on the site plan changes was provided. SEQRA: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 4 of 18  - Action appears to be an Unlisted Action – Exceeds the Type II threshold “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, per 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 (C)(7). - Part I of the Full EAF was submitted - Other involved agencies include the Planning Board (Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review) and Design Review Commission (Architectural Review). - The DRC deferred Lead Agency status to the Planning Board in anticipation of it being sought on April 3, 2013. - The ZBA deferred Lead Agency status to the Planning Board in anticipation of it being sought on April 8. - A Negative SEQR Declaration was issued by the Planning Board on April 22. PARCEL HISTORY: - Site Plan Review approval Sept. 8, 2004. - DRC Architectural Review approval Nov. 6, 2003. - Area Variance granted from the build-to, frontage build-out and two-story requirements of the T-4 “to construct five additional self storage structures” (totaling 24,300 sq. ft.) on Oct. 22, 2003. - Permanent Special Use Permit issued “to allow outdoor storage” (.30 acres) on Oct. 22, 2002. Applicant: Plaza 15 Storage, LLC Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney Don McPherson, LA Group Mr. Toohey gave a visual presentation to the Board on the project. 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 7:43 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Plaza 15 Storage, LLC 30 Old Gick Road Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Appeal #2696 From the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 43 Plaza Road, identified as Tax Parcel Section 153.00, Block 1, Lot 1.2, Outside District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York. WHEREAS, the appellant has applied for an AREA VARIANCE for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for construction of 4 single-story self storage buildings where there is a minimum 2 story requirement in a T-4 zoning district; minimum build to line variances; and minimum frontage build-out variances and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on April 8th and May 13, 2013. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 5 of 18 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 per submitted plans, be APPROVED: Required Existing Proposed Relief Requested Minimum Build-to 12’-18’ 105’ Min. 50’-59’ 32’ (400%) line Buildings B & C Minimum two- Two-story 55,200 sq. ft. one-story One-story (totaling 26,200 sq. ft. of additional one- story for all (preexisting 26,200 sq. ft.) story area for the 4 proposed buildings nonconforming) buildings 24,300 sq. ft. one-story (permitted by prior variance) Minimum frontage 50% 0% 0% 50% (100%) build-out: Buildings B & C 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant changed the original plans from 3 buildings with 2 long buildings fronting Route 50 to 4 buildings with a long and a shorter building with rear facades facing Route 50. The Planning Board requested these changes because of the perception that significant visual changes as viewed from Route 50 would have occurred affecting their SEQRA determination had the 2 longer buildings remained as first presented. Moving the buildings closer to the build-to line would reduce the variance request but would begin to remove the treed buffer which offers the visual buffer from Route 50. There was further testimony by the applicant’s representative that building a 2 story building would increase the amount of building seen from Route 50 and would not serve as a viable alternative. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The adjacent parcel contains a multi use commercial building which is consistent with the commercial usage on the subject property. Building A is located closest to an adjacent residential property. The applicant testified during the ZBA public hearing that Building A will be buffered by existing conditions from that residential property and that no further removal of that buffer would be necessary. It should be noted that this use was established prior to the change in zoning to T-4. The Board notes that granting this variance would actually have a positive impact on the neighborhood character because the buildings will be farther from the build-to line and also notes granting relief from the 2-story requirement will result in less visual impact. 3) The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The application states “the use has almost no impact on traffic on Gick Road/ Jones Road.” The application also states “No noise or vibration is generated from this site and the lighting will be placed within the site so that it does not impact adjacent neighborhoods.” 4) The relief requested for all 3 requested variances is substantial. However, the existing structures are either pre- existing nonconforming with regard to the T-4 requirements or received similar relief to what is now being requested. The application states “The variances are not substantial in that based on the placement of each new building the project site will move toward compliance with the Zoning Code as each new building more clearly conforms to the setback requirements then do the existing structures.” 5) The difficulty may be considered self created. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 6 of 18 Approval conditioned on Planning Board Special Use Permit and Site Plan approval. Approval conditioned on Design Review Architectural approval. Board notes the Saratoga County Planning Board approval letter dated 4/24/13. Skip Carlson 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; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 4. 97 BALLSTON AVENUE TOWNHOMES, 316-318 Ballston Avenue, area variance to construct attached townhomes on separate lots; seeking relief from the average side yard setback requirement for each of the 12 units in the Transect – 4 District. This appeal was heard at the April 8 meeting and adjourned subject to SEQR determination by the Planning Board. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: - The Planning Board will be considering the modification and possible reaffirmation of their prior SEQR determination on May 8, 2013. - The ZBA deferred Lead Agency status to the Planning Board for their continuation of acting Lead Agency for this project. - Planning Board issued a Negative SEQRA Declaration on Jan. 25, 2012. - DRC deferred Lead Agency status to the Planning Board on Jan. 5, 2012. PARCEL HISTORY: - DRC Architectural Review approval May 16, 2012 - Planning Board Special Use Permit “for 12 units of multi-family residential use” issued Jan. 25, 2012. - Planning Board Site Plan Review approval with conditions on Jan. 25, 2012. Applicant: Steven Ethier, Steve O'Shea 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 7:57 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 7 of 18  IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Stephen P. Ethier and Stephen O’ Shea Ballston Avenue Town Homes Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Appeal #2697 From the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 316-318 Ballston Avenue, identified as Tax Parcel Section 178.41, Block 2, Lots 15, 18, 19 and 20 Inside District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York. The appellant has applied for AREA VARIANCES for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for the construction of attached townhomes; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement for each of the 12 units in the Transect - 4 district and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on Monday, April 8, 2013 and Monday May 13, 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 and plans, be APPROVED: 316 Ballston: Side yard setback: Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Corner unit Ballston and Peck Avg. 12’ Avg. 6’ 6 ft. (50%) Side yard setback: Each of four middle units Avg. 12’ 0’ 12 ft. (100%) Side yard setback: End unit Avg. 12’ Avg. 9’ 3 ft. (25%) 318 Ballston: Side yard setback: Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Corner unit Ballston and Ellis Avg. 12’ Avg. 6’ 6 ft. (50%) Side yard setback: Each of four middle units Avg. 12’ 0’ 12 ft. (100%) Side yard setback: End unit Avg. 12’ Avg. 9’ 3 ft. (25%) 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The planning board approved the construction of the two six-unit buildings, one on each of two existing lots. There is no other feasible means to subdivide while maintaining the approved plan without the requested variances. The application states, “Applicant considered selling the units as condominiums, but condominiums are extremely difficult to finance”. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character. The project obtained a special use permit and site plan review by the Planning Board as well as Architectural Review by the DRC; subsequent subdivision of land would not change the approved plan other than each of the 12 units would be on individual lots. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 8 of 18  3) The relief could be considered substantial; however, the site plan that was approved providing for two six-unit buildings on two lots, met the requirements of the district. The relief requested is for each townhouse unit to be on its own lot. 4) The variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The site layout is proposed to remain as approved. 5) The difficulty is considered to be self created. This, however 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 April 18. 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; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 NEW BUSINESS: 5. #2700 THOMAS ADDITION, 46 Hathorn Boulevard, area variance for construction of an approximate 750 sq. ft. residential addition to existing single family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback (west side) and minimum total side yard setbacks in the Urban Residential – 1 District. SEQRA: - Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Bill and Gloria Thomas Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America The applicant is proposing to increase access due to recent physical disability. The applicant is increasing the size of the master bath, adding a new walk in closet, a new kitchen, and a new deck with a handicapped lift. Ms. Tonya Yasenchak gave a presentation to the Board and reviewed the considerations for an area variance. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback: (west side) 12’ 8.1’ 10’ 2’ (17%) Minimum total side yard setback: 30’ 20.5’ 22’ 8’ (27%) City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 9 of 18 Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:10 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. We will have a resolution prepared for our meeting next week. 6. #2701 OLDENBURG DECK, 144 Woodlawn Avenue, area variance for construction of an approximate 210 sq. ft. deck on the rear of the existing residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard (north side), minimum total side yard setback and maximum (principal) building coverage in the Urban Residential – 3 District. Applicant: Aimee Oldenburg Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance approved 7/16/2009, “to remove existing rear entry porch and replace with larger, covered porch and construct a new two-story carriage house/garage”. This approval was not acted upon and has expired. The applicant is proposing the installation of a new deck. Ms. Yasenchak reviewed the considerations for an area variance. A previous request for an area variance has expired. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATION: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback: North 4 feet 0’ 2.4’ 8.2 feet (68%) Minimum total side yard setback: 12 fee .6’ 6.5’ 5.5’ (46%) Maximum building coverage – principal 30% 32.3% 40.7% 10.7% (36%) building: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 10 of 18 Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:17 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next meeting on Monday, May 20, 2013. 7. #2702 STRANBURG ADDITION, 10 Russell Street, area variance for construction of an approximate 270 sq. ft. residential addition to the rear of the existing residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setbacks (both sides), minimum total side yard setbacks, minimum rear yard setback and maximum (principal) building coverage in the Urban Residential – 2 District. DISCLOSURE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he has a good friend who lives next door, Mr. Nixon. He has no financial interest in this application and there is no need for recusal. Applicant: Eric and Susan Stranburg Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America SEQRA: 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. PARCEL HISTORY: ZBA approval “to construct a 226 sq. ft. one-story addition on the rear of the existing single-family residence” approved Dec. 13, 2010. The approval was not acted upon and has expired. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELILEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback: north 8 feet 2.8’ 3.5’ 4.5 feet (56.25%) Minimum side yard setback: south 8 feet 2.6’ 3.3’ 4.7’ (58.75%) Minimum total side yard setback: 20 feet 5.4’ 6.8’ 13.2’ (66%) Minimum rear yard setback: 25’ 21.9’ 13.2’ 11.8’ (47%) Maximum building coverage – principal 30% 53.5% 62.8% 32.8% (109%) building: The applicants are requesting a small addition. A bathroom on the first floor of the house and a home office/den. This will be a 8 x 21 foot addition. Ms. Yasenchak reviewed the conditions for an area variance. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:28 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 11 of 18 Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Josh Nixon, 8 Russell Street. Mr. Nixon is in favor of this application. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. We will have a resolution prepared for our meeting next week. 8. #2703 MILLER GARAGE ADDITION AND DECK, 26 Jumel Place, area variance for construction of a second-story addition containing habitable space and upper-floor deck to an existing single-story detached garage; seeking relief from the maximum (accessory) building coverage and to permit habitable space in an accessory building in the Urban Residential – 3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum building coverage – accessory building: 10% 12.47% 2.47% (24.7%) Applicant: John Miller Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Mr. Miller currently has a detached garage and we are before you to obtain use of the second story for his woodworking hobby. He is adding a small extended roof and upper deck. The area will be insulated, windows and heating will be installed. Two variances are requested for the accessory building. Gary Hasbrouck questioned the use of power tools in this area and noise affecting the neighbors. Also the condition written into the resolution regarding no accessory apartments. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman was also concerned regarding the use of power tools before 8 AM or after 9 PM and would like to have that conditioned into the resolution. Discussion ensued regarding the City’s Noise Ordinance which is already in place. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:40 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this application. Sherry Gray, 38 5th Avenue. I just want to thank the Board for being mindful of garages which are turned into illegal apartments. These are heated with propane with illegal water and sewer. Bill Moore, Chairman stated Susan Barden, Senior Planner will research the noise ordinance. 8:45 P.M. The board recessed. 8:47 P.M. The board reconvened. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 12 of 18 The noise ordinance was reviewed by Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney and the hours are 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:48 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF John Miller 26 Jumel Place Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 26 Jumel Place, identified as Tax Parcel Section 166.13, Block 1, Lot 50.1, Inside District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York. WHEREAS, the appellant has applied for an AREA VARIANCE for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for exceeding the permitted activity or use of an accessory structure and for exceeding maximum accessory building coverage in an Urban Residential – 3 zoning district; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on May 13, 2013. 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 Proposed Relief Requested Permitted use of accessory Uninhabitable space Habitable space Limited use of habitable space in a structure-private garage private garage Maximum (accessory) building 10% 12.47% 2.47% (24.7%) coverage 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The application states, “By nature of a woodworking hobby, it’s best to have it separate from the house so as not to disturb the family’s children. Therefore, the basement or an addition to the house is not an option.” The application also states “additional land is not available for 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 garage addition would contain “conditioned habitable area on the upper floor of the detached garage for hobby space/wood working.” The board’s concern is that the use of the attic of the garage does not expand to include an accessory apartment or be improved to include overnight accommodations. Based upon pictures submitted in the application, it appears other houses in the neighborhood have detached garages of similar size and amenities. The application also states “there are no houses in close proximity to the existing garage. Therefore, any noise should not be heard.” 3) The relief requested is substantial. Since the code does not allow finished space in an accessory structure, allowing even limited finished space is considered substantial. The maximum building coverage for an accessory structure would appear not to be substantial. The application states that of the 190.2 square feet of relief being sought, “154 square feet of that coverage is the new front roof area…” City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 13 of 18  4) The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The application states, “all use of the 2nd floor is contained inside and no large trees will be removed for this project.” 5) The difficulty may be considered self created. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: This variance is conditioned upon the improvements not creating an overnight living area or accessory apartment. Specifically, no kitchen or bathing facilities will be allowed. The plumbing shall be limited to the half bath. Oksana Ludd seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he is still requesting additional hours of restriction for the use of power tools. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, opposed; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-1 9. #2705 STACK PATIO ADDITION, 80 Greenfield Avenue, area variance for construction of a covered patio addition at the rear of the existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the maximum (principal) building coverage in the Urban Residential – 3 District. SEQRA: 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. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance from the maximum (principal) building coverage (35%) “to construct a detached single family residence” was approved Aug. 2003. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING/PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF APPROVED REQUESTED Maximum (principal) building 30% 35% 39% Additional 4% (11%) or coverage: 9% total (30%) Applicant: Dave and Christine Stack Agent: John Witt A visual presentation of the project was provided to the Board by Mr. Witt. The applicants are looking to construct an outdoor entertainment area in the rear of the property which will connect to their patio. A review of the area variance conditions was conducted by Mr. Witt. This cannot be seen from the road. The new path will be a permeable path. This is a pretty straightforward application. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 14 of 18 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:03 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:04 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF David and Christine Stack 80 Greenfield Avenue Saratoga Springs, New York, 12866 Application #2705 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 80 Greenfield Avenue, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel 165.35-2-52 in the Inside Tax 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 construction of a covered patio addition at the rear of the existing single family residence in a UR-3 district and public notice has been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 13th day of May, 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 (principal) Required: Existing/previously Proposed: Total Relief Requested: building coverage: 30% approved: 39% Additional 4% (11%) or 35% 9% total (30%) 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 application indicates that there are no other feasible means stating, “The house already exceeds the lot coverage and there is no other land available to purchase.” 2.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting the variances will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties in that the proposed construction will be in the rear of the house and will be very difficult to see from the road or neighboring properties. 3.) The variance is substantial relative to what is specifically allowed, however, the applicant notes that the proposed construction is not large proportional to the existing house. 4.) The construction will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The site plan identifies 54% will remain permeable, which exceeds the minimum 25% in the district. 5.) The applicants’ desire to receive a variance from the maximum principal building coverage is self-created, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 15 of 18 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; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 10. #2704 BASONE DEMO, 75 Fifth Avenue, area variance for demolition of existing home and construction of new single family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback (both sides), minimum total side yard setbacks, minimum rear yard setback and maximum (principal) building coverage in the Urban Residential – 1 District. 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 side yard setback: (west side) 12’ 5.1’ 6.9’ (57.5%) Minimum side yard setback: (east side) 12’ 6.4 5.6’ (47%) Minimum total side yard setback: 30’ 11.5’ 18.5’ (62%) Minimum rear yard setback: 30’ 25.8’ 4.2’ (14%) Maximum (principal) building coverage: 20% 39.2% 19.2% (96%) Applicant: Pina and Michael Basone Agent: John Witt. This home was purchased for a summer home. Mold was discovered after the purchase. Health issues prevent them from living in this home. Mr. Witt provided the Board with a design of the new home. Renovation could not be done due to the poor foundation. Review of proposed residence. Variance is substantial but the new design is similar to the neighborhood. Mr. Witt reviewed setbacks and sizes of home currently existing on the street. Comparables on lot coverage of the current homes in the neighborhood. Additional sketch drawings were provided to the Board. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the home proposed. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:47 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 16 of 18 Richard Sellers, 73 5th Avenue. They are very happy Mr. Witt is doing the construction. Recently have gone through the same process. There is no reason they cannot build a smaller home on this lot. Bonnie Sellers, 73 5th Avenue. Does not feel this home is appropriate for the neighborhood. Mike Okby, 79 5th Avenue. I have lived here for 18 years. This home is too big for the lot. Lack of greenspace will completely change the character of the neighborhood. Joseph Raidy, 5th Avenue. I am not in favor of this project. The home is too large of a home for the lot. Rich Johns, 93 5th Avenue. I have been a resident for 30 years. It would be out of character. Against the proposed construction. Richard Hanson, 83 5th Avenue. I agree with my neighbors. The home is too big and out of character for the neighborhood. Sherry Gray, 58 5th Avenue. I am a preservationist. Any house being torn down is upsetting. Marlene Okby, live next door to this project. The neighbor’s carport will invade our privacy. Trees in the back yard which border both properties and I hope these will stay. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will leave the public hearing open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked Mr. Witt to provide the Board with additional information requested. 11. #2706 GARRISON RESIDENCE, 48 Bryan Street, area variance to demolish existing structure and construct new single family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback in the Urban Residential – 2 District. SEQRA: 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 side yard setback: (north 8’ Approx. 0’ 5’ 3’ (37.5%) side) Applicant: Bob Lippman and Joanna Garrison, owners Mr. Lippman stated the applicants are looking to demolish the existing home and replace it with a passive solar home. Specifications were provided to the Board outlining the position of the home to maximize the sun. They will preserve the character of the neighborhood. A 2,000 square foot home is being proposed. It will fit into the footprint. 48 Bryan Street is an older ranch style home which will be replaced with a modular home which will keep the basic footprint. The home will be a colonial with hardy siding. Mr. Lippman reviewed the considerations for an area variance. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. PUBLIC HEARING: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 17 of 18 Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 10:42 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this application. Tim Scherbatzgoy, 50 Bryan Street. Demolition is a concern, other than that no major concerns. Margaret Keyes, 44 Bryan Street. Requested copies of the plan. Concerned regarding blasting. Joanna Garrison stated M and J of Greenfield will be doing the demolition. It will be removed and graded. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be presented at the May 20, 2013. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred to the next meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 6/24/13 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 13, 2013 - Page 18 of 18