Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 20, 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; Skip Carlson; Gary Hasbrouck, Shirley Poppel, Oksana Ludd ABSENT: Adam McNeill, Secretary 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. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED PROJECTS: 5. #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. Adjourned to June 10, 2013. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2709 BARON/CAVAYERO RESIDENCE, 203 Woodlawn Avenue, area variance for demolition of existing home and construction of a new single family residence; seeking relief from the maximum (principal) building coverage in the Urban Residential-1 District. Applicant: Keith Cavayero, Elysa Baron Agent: Scott Wallant, Architect SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance for an approximate 192 sq ft one story addition to the existing single-family residence approved on September 27, 2010. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS:  REQUIRED EXISTING PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF APPROVED REQUESTED Maximum (principal) building coverage 20% 21.7% 23.2% 30% 10% (50%) DISCLOSURE: Bill Moore, Chairman disclosed that he has known Dr. Cavayero for many years and done some projects with him; however, he has no financial interest in this application and can render an impartial decision. Shirley Poppel disclosed that she also has been friends with the Cavayero's for many years. She has no financial interest in this application and can render an impartial decision. The applicants would like to demolish the existing home and construct a new single family residence a more traditional two story home with an attached garage. The applicants will construct a new home and keep within the character of the neighborhood. Renovation was discussed however the applicants have water issues in the crawl space. Mr. Wallant gave the Board a brief overview of the project. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open and we will have resolution prepared for the June 10, 2013 meeting. 2. #2688 REJUVENATION HOMES, 24 Lafayette Street, area variance to reconfigure three existing lots (24, 26 and 30) into two lots (no. 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. Applicant: Todd Levinson, Owner Rejuvenation Homes The application was heard at the March 11, 2013 meeting; the public hearing was opened and remains open. The Board deferred Lead Agency status to the DRC for the environmental review and requested an advisory opinion. The DRC issued a Negative SEQR Declaration and issued a favorable advisory opinion on May 15. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type I action. The ZBA deferred Lead Agency status to the DRC on March 11, 2013. The DRC issued a Negative SEQRA declaration on May 15, 2013. Mr. Levinson stated they are returning following review by the DRC. Applicant explained the project to the Board. They are looking for an area variance to reconfigure three existing lots #24, 26 and 30 into two lots #24, 30. Also to construct a new single family residence and detached garage. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 20, 2013 - Page 2 of 12 Bill Moore, Chairman stated the Board will recess and we will have a resolution ready for presentation. The Board recessed at 7:53 P.M. The Board reconvened at 8:19 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone wished to comment on this application. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:20 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Rejuvenation Homes Inc. 203 Lake Ave Saratoga Springs NY 12866 Application #2688 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 24 and 26 Lafayette St, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel numbers 165.68-1-30 and 165.68-1-31 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 permit the demolition of two existing buildings and the construction of a new single-family residence and a detached garage in a UR-4 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 11th day of March and the 20th day of May 2013. The Board notes that there is a second, related application regarding tax parcel 165.68-1- 30, noted above, also referring to the demolition of the structure on that property as well as a portion of the structure on an adjacent property. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following area variance for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT MINIMUM MEAN LOT WIDTH 100’ 65’ 35’ OR 35% MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK 25’ 5’ 20’ OR 80% MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK 20’ 5’ 15’ OR 75% TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK 45’ 32’ 13’ OR 28.9% MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK 25’ 21’ 4” 3’ 8” OR 14.7% MINIMUM SEPARATION PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY 10’ 6’ 6.5” 3’ 5.5” OR 34.6% BUILDINGS MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE 25% 30% 5% OR 20% RELIEF As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Per the materials submitted by the applicant to the Design Review Commission on April 11, 2013, a variety of alternatives in addition to the current proposal, encompassing the variances requested here and on the related application, were considered including rehabilitation of all three existing structures, demolition of all three and replacement with three new ones, and rehabilitation of two structures and removing one. While the first of these options-a rehabilitation of the three structures-would result in maintaining pre-existing nonconformities City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 20, 2013 - Page 3 of 12  and therefore may have resulted in the fewest variances to be submitted to this Board, the Board finds that that option would actually result in a greater number of dimensional nonconformities and therefore be less compliant with district requirements than the current proposal. By reducing the number of structures and enlarging the lot sizes as it is proposed here, the properties become closer to meeting the district requirements. Additionally, there were fire safety and building code issues, as well as cost considerations that made rehabilitation infeasible. Furthermore, on lot width and side setback, as noted by the applicant, there is no adjacent property that could be purchased that could provide greater lot width and room for more side setback. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. While the buildings proposed for demolition are obviously of an advanced age and are listed as contributing structures, they are in an advanced state of disrepair, and they are very closely spaced. The board notes the replacement of those buildings by a new single building in a style consistent with the neighborhood, subject to review by the Design Review Commission, would be a positive contribution to the neighborhood. Additionally, neighborhood character would be advanced by the off-street parking made possible by the proposed driveway and garage set forth in the proposal, subject to curb cut approval by the city Department of Public Works. 3. Several of these variances, particularly the setbacks, are substantial, however, it should be kept in mind that the proposal’s front setback is consistent with the other houses on Lafayette St and the side setbacks are consistent with the density of the neighborhood, which is immediately proximate to the downtown district. The substantiality of front and side setbacks noted in this case exists to an even greater degree in the current configuration, in which lot #24 and lot #26 each have a residence on even smaller lot sizes than what is proposed. Therefore the board notes that the proposal will result in a decrease in scale of non-conformity with district zoning requirements, compared to what would be required if a substantial overhaul was proposed of the individual properties on lots 24 and 26. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The proposed amount of permeable surface of 45% will more than meet the district requirement of 15%. The board also notes this project includes the removal of a potential fire hazard of two wooden structures in disrepair in very close proximity. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to replace these buildings, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. 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; Skip Carlson, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 3. #2689 REJUVENATION HOMES, 30 Lafayette Street, area variance to reconfigure three existing lots (nos. 24, 26 and 30) into two lots (nos. 24 and 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. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 20, 2013 - Page 4 of 12 Applicant: Todd Levinson, Owner Rejuvenation Homes The application was heard at the March 11, 2013 meeting; the public hearing was opened and remains open. The Board deferred Lead Agency status to the DRC for the environmental review and requested an advisory opinion. The DRC issued a Negative SEQR Declaration and issued a favorable advisory opinion on May 15. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type I action. The ZBA deferred Lead Agency status to the DRC on March 11, 2013. The DRC issued a Negative SEQRA declaration on May 15, 2013. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Rejuvenation Homes Inc. 203 Lake Ave Saratoga Springs NY 12866 Application #2689 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 26 and 30 Lafayette St, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel numbers 165.68-1-29 and 165.68-1-30 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 permit the demolition of one existing building and a portion of a second existing building and the renovation and construction of an addition to a single-family residence, and construction of a detached garage in a UR-4 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 11th day of March and the 20th day of May 2013. The Board notes that there is a second, related application regarding tax parcel 165.68-1-30, noted above, also referring to the demolition of the structure on that property as well as the structure on an adjacent property. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following area variance for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT MINIMUM MEAN LOT WIDTH 100’ 65’ 35’ OR 35% MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK 20’ 7’ 13’ OR 65% TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK 45’ 37’ 8’ OR 17.8% MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK 25’ 22’ 8” 2’ 4” OR 9.3% MINIMUM SEPARATION PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY 10’ 6’ 4’ OR 40% BUILDINGS MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE 25% 26.2% 1.2% OR 4.8% RELIEF As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Per the materials submitted by the applicant to the Design Review Commission on April 11, 2013, a variety of alternatives in addition to the current proposal, encompassing the variances requested here and on the related application, were considered including rehabilitation of all three existing structures, demolition of all three and replacement with three new ones, and rehabilitation of two structures and removing one. While the first of these options-a rehabilitation of the three structures-would result in maintaining pre-existing nonconformities and therefore may have resulted in the fewest variances to be submitted to this Board, the Board finds that that City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 20, 2013 - Page 5 of 12  option would actually result in a greater number of dimensional nonconformities and therefore be less compliant with district requirements than the current proposal. By reducing the number of structures and enlarging the lot sizes as it is proposed here, the properties become closer to meeting the district requirements. Additionally, there were fire safety and building code issues, as well as cost considerations that made rehabilitation infeasible. Furthermore, on lot width and side setback, as noted by the applicant, there is no adjacent property that could be purchased that could provide greater lot width and room for more side setback. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. While the buildings proposed for partial and complete demolition are obviously of an advanced age and are listed as contributing structures, they are in an advanced state of disrepair. Furthermore, as noted by the applicant, the replacement of those buildings in a style consistent with the neighborhood, subject to review by the Desgin Review Commission, would be a positive contribution to the neighborhood. Additionally, neighborhood character would be advanced by the off-street parking made possible by the proposed driveway and garage set forth in the proposal, subject to approval by the city Department of Public Works. 3. Several of these variances, particularly the setbacks, are substantial; however, it should be kept in mind that the side setbacks are consistent with the density of the neighborhood, which is immediately proximate to the downtown district. The substantiality of lot width and side setbacks noted in this case exists to an even greater degree in the current configuration. Therefore the board notes that the proposal will result in a decrease in scale of non-conformity with district zoning requirements, compared to what would be required if a substantial overhaul was proposed of the individual properties on lots 26 and 30. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The proposed amount of permeable surface of 49.5% will more than meet the district requirement of 15%. The board also notes this project includes the removal of a potential fire hazard of a wooden structure in disrepair in very close proximity to another on at lot 24, the subject of the related application referred to above. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to replace and renovate the subject buildings, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions/Notes: Design Review Commission historic review is required. The DRC issued a favorable advisory opinion on this proposal on May 15, 2013. City DPW approval required for curb cut. Oksana Ludd seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Amendment to resolution in application #2688. Under #2 contributing structure to the historic district. Seconded by Gary Hasbrouck. VOTE: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 20, 2013 - Page 6 of 12 Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Shirley Poppel exited the meeting at 8:38 P.M. 4. #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. This application was heard at the May 13, 2013 meeting and adjourned to May 20, 2013. The Board requested submission of principal building coverage and percent permeable calculations. The public hearing remains open. Applicant: Bob Lippman – Co-applicant. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:39 P.M. Oksana Ludd presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Johanna Garrison 48 Bryan Street Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 From the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 48 Bryan Street, Saratoga Springs, New York, identified as Tax Parcel No.: 165.28-2-18 in the inside district of the City. The Applicant has applied for an area variance for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance regarding the minimum side yard setback in connection with demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence in an Urban Residential-2 zoning district, and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on May 13, 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 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, or lesser dimensions, as described in the submitted application, BE APPROVED: Type of Requirement Required Existing Proposed Total Relief Requested City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 20, 2013 - Page 7 of 12 Minimum Side Yard 8 feet 0 feet 5 feet 3 feet (37.5%) Setback (North): 1. The Applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The Applicant has indicated that renovation of the existing structure is not feasible and proposes to construct a new principal building to be situated on the lot to maximize passive solar benefits. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties. Applicant has indicated that granting this variance will preserve the current non-conforming setbacks and are consistent with other residences in the neighborhood. As such, granting the variance will not impact on nearby properties. 3. The relief requested may be considered substantial, but is mitigated by the fact that the nearby residences have similar or lesser side yard setbacks. Additionally, the requested relief will increase the existing side setback from 0 to 5 feet. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that the variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The Applicant has indicated that the new structure to be constructed will be in compliance with one side setback and the other side setback will increase from 0 feet to 5 feet, thereby having a positive physical effect on the immediately adjacent neighbor. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created in that the Applicant desires to construct a new residence rather than renovate an existing non-conforming structure; however, this is not necessarily fatal to the application. 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; Skip Carlson, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 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. This application was heard at the May 13, 2013 meeting and adjourned to May 20, 2013. The Board requested submission of principal building coverage and percent permeable calculations. The public hearing remains open. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:47 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 20, 2013 - Page 8 of 12 Skip Carlson presented the following resolution. Motion in the Matter of the Appeal of Bill and Julia Thomas 46 Hathorn Boulevard Saratoga Springs, New York, 12866 Application #2700 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 46 Hathorn Boulevard, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel 190.8.3-7 in the Outside Tax District, on the assessment map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance for construction of a residential addition to an existing single family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback on the west side of the property and minimum total side yard setbacks in the Urban Residential-1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 13th and 20th 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: Minimum Side Yard Setback: (West Required: Existing: Proposed: 10’ Total Relief Requested: 2’ Side) 12’ 8.1’ (17%) Minimum Total Side Yard Setback: 30’ 20.5’ 22’ 8’ (27%) 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 has reported that there is no available land to purchase. Additionally, the applicant reports that the reason for the addition is to “extend current living space to facilitate handicap mobility within the house.” In terms of construction, making the addition narrower to fit within the setbacks would limit accessibility. 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. The addition to the back of the house will only be visible to the adjacent neighbors. The house directly to the west has an addition in the rear of the house. The new addition to 46 Hathorn Boulevard will not extend to the depth of the building to the west. 3.) The relief from the minimum total side yard setback could be considered substantial. Mitigating this is the fact that the house and site are pre-existing, non-confirming and the lot is approximately 70 feet in a district with a minimum average lot requirement of 100 feet. 4.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The proposed house with the addition will cover 16.9% of the lot, within the 20% maximum coverage for the district. The applicant has submitted a calculation showing lot permeability is more than the 30% standard for the district. The applicant notes that “no large trees will be removed for this project and drainage is very good in the area with very sandy soil which limits substantial runoff. 5.) The request for relief may be considered self-created, but this is not fatal to the project. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 20, 2013 - Page 9 of 12 None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 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. ADJOURNED TO JUNE 10, 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. 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. This application was heard at the May 13, 2013 meeting and adjourned to May 20, 2013. The public hearing remains open. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:53 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. Motion in the Matter of the Appeal of Eric and Susan Stranburg 10 Russell Street Saratoga Springs, New York, 12866 Application #2702 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 10 Russell Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel 165.51-1-68 in the Inside Tax District, on the assessment map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for the 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 and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 13th and 20th 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: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 20, 2013 - Page 10 of 12 Minimum Side Yard Setback: North Required: Proposed: 3.5’ Total Relief Requested: 4.5’ 4.5’ 8’ (53.25%) Minimum Side Yard Setback: South 8’ 3.3’ 4.7’ (58.75%) Minimum Total Side Yard Setback: 20’ 6.8’ 13.2’ (66%) Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 25’ 13.2’ 11.8’ (47%) Maximum (Principal) Building Coverage: 30% 62.8% 32.8% (109%) 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 states, “There is no additional adjacent land available for purchase”. The applicant notes that the addition is to accommodate a first floor bath to bring house to modern standards. The existing house covers 53.5% of the lot; it is not possible to design any addition that would not further the encroachment. 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. The application states, “Adjacent properties have excessive lot coverage conditions” and “The addition of this project is consistent with the neighborhood”. The addition is at the rear of the property and would not be visible from the street. 3.) The relief could be considered substantial; however, all of the existing area and dimensional requirements are preexisting nonconforming. The Board notes that part of the proposal is the removal of a wood patio and shed. 4.) The variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The application states, “The shed and patio will be removed. This results in an overall final site permeability of 30.5% vs. the 30.4% existing”. 5.) The difficulty is considered self-created, but this is not fatal to the project. Conditions: No future accessory structures. Removal of existing shed and wood patio. 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; Skip Carlson, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to accept the minutes of the March 25, 2013 with corrections as submitted. Gary Hasbrouck, seconded the motion. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 20, 2013 - Page 11 of 12 VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, abstained; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0-1 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to accept the minutes of the April 8, 2013 with corrections as submitted. Oksana Ludd seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:07 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 6/24/13 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, May 20, 2013 - Page 12 of 12