Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 22, 2013 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:01 P. M. PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman, Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck; Skip Carlson; Shirley Poppel, Oksana Ludd STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney 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: 2. #2721 THE YARD, 23 Church Street, area variance for proposed site improvements associated with a new outdoor eating and drinking establishment; seeking relief from the build-to-line and minimum frontage build-out requirements in the Transect-6 Urban Core District. Adjourned until September 9, 2013. 6. #2712 LLOYD ROOF, 12 Newark Street, area variance for construction of a front patio roof to an existing single family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-1 District. Adjourned to September 9, 2013. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2720 BLUESTAR ENTERPRISES GARAGE, 18 Diamond Street, area variance to maintain a detached garage as constructed; seeking relief from the maximum accessory building coverage requirement in the Urban Residential-3 District. RECUSAL: Bill Moore, Chairman stated he has recently worked on this project and therefore needs to recuse himself. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman assumed the duties of the chair. 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 accessory building coverage 10% 11.68% 1.68% (16.8%) Minimum setback principal to accessory building 5 feet 3.5 feet 1.5 feet (30%) Applicant: Steven Ethier, Principal in Blue Star Enterprises; Chuck Nace Mr. Ethier stated this is a very small parcel. Chuck Nace the project coordinator performed construction on the wrong garage. The applicant is looking for relief in the form of an Area Variance. Letters were forwarded from the neighbors. This was not intentional. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:19 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. John Vandeveer, 20 Marion Place has concerns regarding the parking. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated the following correspondence received by the Board: John Jordan, email correspondence was received on May 15, 2013. John Jordan, Jean Cummings, email correspondence was received on July 18, 2013. The above individuals are co-owners of the property next door. Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated the City Engineer was copied on the complaints regarding possible runoff. Tim Wales, City Engineer requested that the site be stabilized. Grass and sod was proposed to help with drainage and runoff and to control erosion. A building permit has been issued. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:25 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. Motion in the Matter of the Appeal of Bluestar Enterprises 18 Diamond Street Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 32 Greenfield Avenue, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, identified as tax parcel 166.53-1-73 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 construction of a detached garage in the Urban Residential – 3 District and public notice has been duly given of a hearing on said application held on July 22, 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 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, July 22, 2013 - Page 2 of 14 the following variance for the following amounted of relief: Required: Proposed: Total Relief Requested: Maximum accessory 10% 11.8% 1.8% (18%) building coverage: Minimum setback principal 5 feet 3.5 feet 1.5 feet (30%) to accessory building: As per 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 considered removing all of the eaves from the structure, however that would only reduce the lot coverage down to 10.3% and still require an area variance. 2.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character in that it is characteristic of homes in the neighborhood to have a detached garage. 3.) The relief may not be considered substantial at approximately 17%, but can be considered substantial from the minimum setback from principal to accessory building requirement. 4.) The construction will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The applicant identifies 46% of the lot will remain permeable, which exceeds the minimum 25% in the district. 5.) The applicants’ desire to seek a variance is self-created, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Discussion ensued regarding water runoff to the adjacent property and possibly placing a condition on the resolution. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Bill Moore, Chairman recused MOTION PASSES: 6-0-1 Bill Moore, Chairman resumed his position as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman resumed his position as Vice Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 3. #2714 ANW HOLDINGS, INC. 27 Jumel Place, area variance for a proposed seven-unit condominium project; seeking relief from the minimum lot size and average lot width, maximum principal building coverage and minimum front and rear yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. The uses on the site are varied a ballet school and two apartments. It appears that the use of the property has evolved exceeding what is permitted by variance. The existing structure appears to be pre-existing non conforming. The conceptual site plan identifies seven structurally attached (by privacy wall) single-family residences on one lot and individually owned (condo units) with the remainder of the property held in common. SEQRA: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, July 22, 2013 - Page 3 of 14 Action appears to be a unlisted action. Part I of the Short EAF has been submitted with Revisions to Part l. Part II will need to be completed by the Board. PARCEL HISTORY: February 8, 2013 applications for Van Zandt "Ballet School" withdrawn by the applicant. November 5, 2012 application for use and area variances to permit two additional residential units and an additional educational/training facility, while maintaining the ballet school and two apartments permitted by prior variance. January 11, 2010 applications for Malta Montessori School withdrawn by the applicant. November 2009, application for an interpretation and use variance modification; alternatively, a new use variance for Malta Montessori School. The interpretation request was that the proposed use was a modification of the existing use variance granted September 23, 1996 for a ballet school and two apartments. The modification of the use variance was a request to remove the word "ballet" so as to allow a school and two apartments. Modification of a condition of the approval that specifies the hours of operation for the ballet school from 3:00 PM to 7:30 PM., Tuesday through Saturday; and to 8:45 PM one evening. Alternatively, a new use variance was requested to use the property as a School for children ranging in age from 3 to 12 and two apartments. November 6, 1996 Planning Board Site Plan approval. September 18, 1996 Use Variance approved to convert the existing building into a ballet school and two apartments. September 18, 1996 Area Variance approved for minimum front yard setback, minimum side yard setback, minimum rear yard setback and maximum percent of building lot coverage. July 10, 1980 Area Variance approved to construct a covered loading dock addition to the existing Adirondack Stihl building. October 14, 1957 ZBA issued favorable advisory opinion to the City Council for rezoning request by Tarrant Manufacturing. January 5, 1953 ZBA issued an unfavorable advisory opinion to the City Council for rezoning request by Tarrant Manufacturing. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum principal building coverage: 30% 49.4% 43.58% 13.58% (45.27%) Minimum lot size: for 7 units 46,200 sq.ft. 34,765.50 sq. ft. 34,765.50 sq. ft. 11,434.5 (24.75%) Minimum average lot width: for 7 units 420 ft. 150.5 ft. 150. 5 ft. 269.5 (64.17%) Minimum front yard setback: 10 ft. 1 foot 0 ft. 10 ft. (100%) Minimum rear yard setback: 25 ft. .7 foot 6 ft. 19 ft. (76%) DISCLOSURE: Adam McNeill stated he does live in this neighborhood. He has no financial interest in this application, therefore there is no need for recusal, just disclosure. Applicant: John Witt, Owner, President of ANW Holdings. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, July 22, 2013 - Page 4 of 14 Mr. Witt stated he has this property under contract. This is a great neighborhood. I looked at what could be done with this property. A visual presentation as well as an overview of the project and what his plans are was provided to the Board by Mr. Witt. Mr. Witt gave the Board a quick overview of what his plans are for this property. He is proposing seven single family condominiums which are connected with walls and landscaping. The units will range from 1600 square feet up to 3,000 square feet. Each unit will have their own driveway and garages. Additional parking behind the buildings, using permeable pavers to aid in drainage. A total of 22 parking spaces. Small private yards will be provided for each condo. These will all be built and sold at the same time. The size of the homes will be the same as the houses in the neighborhood. There will be a HOA which would take care of the maintenance. We plan on demolition and asbestos abatement during this demolition. Permeability will be 35.82% for this project. Oksana Ludd stated she was concerned regarding the number of units being proposed in a UR-3 District which allows one and two family homes. This will be a 7 unit building. Discussion ensued regarding the amount of relief requested, alternative designs. Recommendations were made for perhaps designing a smaller project. Neighborhood comparables were requested by the Board. Financial information. Comparison between this building and the new proposal. Case study regarding overall size and how it impacts the neighborhood. Discussion among the Board regarding requesting an advisory opinion from the Planning Board. Saratoga County Planning Board referral is also required. SEQRA SEQRA was deferred. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:27 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Sam Broughton, 206A Lake Avenue. He is concerned regarding the removal of trees and privacy issue. Sandra Cohen, 208 Lake Avenue, home back onto the back property line. The number of people is a concern. Trash removal sound emanating over the fence. Verticality issue is a great concern. Richard Ball, 7 Granger Avenue. In favor of this project, current project is a rat trap. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Bill Moore, Chairman requested an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board regarding the ANW Holdings, Inc., application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes all. Nayes none. MOTION PASSES: 7-0 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, July 22, 2013 - Page 5 of 14 1. #2718 GIOIA DECK, 2 Beach Court, area variance for construction of a deck; seeking relief from the minimum front and rear yard setback requirements in the Water's Edge PUD District. This application was heard at the July 8, 2013 meeting and adjourned to July 22, 2013. The Board requested a response from the HOA regarding the proposed deck. The public hearing remains open. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman, stated the public hearing remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman, asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this application. None heard. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated we are in receipt of a letter form the Waters Edge HOA. The size of the deck was decreased with the repurposing of current shrubbery. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:45 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. Motion in the Matter of the Appeal of Linda Gioia 2 Beach Court, Water’s Edge Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 2 Beach Court, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel 193.29-2-19 in the Outside District on the assessment map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City, as amended to permit construction of an expanded deck in the Water’s Edge PUD and public notice has been duly given of a hearing on said application held on July 8, 2013 and July 22, 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 the following variance for the following amounted of relief: Required: Proposed: Total Relief Requested: Minimum rear yard 25 feet 15 feet 10 feet (40%) setback: As per submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1.) The applicant had demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The applicant considered constructing a patio instead of a deck, however the excessive slope of the land and existing retaining wall limit the option of a patio instead of a deck. A larger deck was considered, however the width of this proposal was limited by the Water’s Edge Architectural Control Committee and therefore eliminated the need for a front yard setback. The applicant has indicated that there is no land available for purchase. 2.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, July 22, 2013 - Page 6 of 14 character or detriment to nearby properties in that most residences in this community have decks on the same side of their homes. 3.) The relief from the minimum rear yard setback could be considered substantial at 40% of relief requested. 4.) The construction will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district as the proposed deck addition should not block any neighbor’s view of the lake. 5.) The applicants’ desire to receive a variance from the minimum rear yard setback is self-created, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. 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; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 2. #2717 GEORGE ADDITION, 85 York Avenue, area variance for construction of an addition to an existing residence; seeking relief from the minimum rear yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential – 3 District. RECUSAL: Oksana Ludd recused herself from this application. This application was heard at the July 8, 2013 meeting and adjourned to July 22, 2013. The Board requested a calculation verifying that the percent to remain permeable would be met. The public hearing was opened and remains open. 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 8:50 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Jesse and Alexandra George 85 York Avenue Saratoga Springs NY 12866 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, July 22, 2013 - Page 7 of 14 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 85 York Avenue, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.45-2-44 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 to permit the construction of a roof structure to attach a garage to a residence in a UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 8th and 22nd days of July 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 following area variances for the following amounts of relief: Type of Requirement District Proposed Relief requested dimensional requirement Minimum Lot Coverage- Principal Building 30% 30.57% .57%, or 1.9% over required Rear yard Setback 25’ 17.5’ 7.5’, or 30% 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. The Board notes that both the applicability of the 25 foot rear yard setback requirement, and the proposal’s exceeding the 30% lot coverage maximum, are triggered by attaching the garage to the residence since the setback for accessory structures is less than for a principal residence and the accessory structure footprint would be otherwise measured separately from the principal portion of the home. While the option exists to detach the structures, it would not meet the needs of the applicant to provide covered access from the garage to the home. The applicant has further noted that the positioning of the residence, and the desire to connect the residence to the garage, leads to the rear yard setback encroachment; i.e. the garage cannot be moved forward to conform with the rear yard requirement for a principal residence. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. As it is the vestibule that triggers these areas of relief, the Board concludes that there is little impact on neighborhood character caused by the vestibule, which runs from the rear of the main area of the home. 3. The rear setback variance is substantial, however given the fact that there would not be an encroachment if the garage was detached, there does not seem to be incremental substantiality to the proposal by attaching the structures. The vestibule area is not large and it is the act of attaching it that requires relief. The lot coverage request is found to be insubstantial. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. There will be 58% permeability, which will exceed the district requirement of 25%. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created as the applicant wishes to build this addition. However, this is not fatal to the application. Adam McNeill seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, July 22, 2013 - Page 8 of 14 VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, recused MOTION PASSES: 6-0-1 Oksana Ludd resumed her position on the Board. 3. #2716 LESTER GARAGE, 57 Oak Street, area variance for construction of a detached garage; seeking relief from the maximum accessory building coverage requirement in the Urban Residential-2 District. This application was heard at the July 8, 2013 meeting and adjourned to July 22, 2013. The Board requested a calculation verifying that the percent to remain permeable would be met and an assessment of existing three-car garages in the neighborhood. 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 8:57 P.M. Skip Carlson presented the following resolution. Motion in the Matter of the Appeal of Charles Lester 57 Oak Street Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 (#2716) From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 57 Oak Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel 165.66-3-41 in the Inside Tax District, on the assessment map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance for construction of a detached garage; seeking relief from the maximum accessory building coverage requirement of the Urban Residential-2 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on July 8, 2013 and July 22, 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 the following variance for the following amounted of relief: Required: Proposed: Total Relief Requested: Maximum Accessory 10% 12.1% 2.1% (21%) Building Coverage As per submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, July 22, 2013 - Page 9 of 14 1.) The applicant had demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The applicant considered various designs, including three individual garage doors. The applicant is desirous of having tool boxes at the end of the garage to work on vehicles and the applicant possesses multiple vehicles that necessitate a larger structure. The applicant also added a staircase that is 3 feet by 15 feet. 2.) The applicant noted that “the design of the garage is in-character with the design of the residence and surrounding residences.” Additionally, the applicant provided photos of garages of similar scope and design in the neighborhood. 3.) The relief, at 21%, may be considered substantial but the applicant points out in the application that the existing garage is being removed from the property. 4.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood as the area will continue to be used for residential garage space. The applicant has provided an additional drawing and calculation that with the addition of a lengthened driveway at 1200 sq. ft. and the larger garage, the site plan identifies 58% of the property to remain permeable, which exceeds the 25% required in the district. 5.) The request for relief may be considered self-created, but this is not necessarily fatal to the project. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 4. #2719 BYRNE TENNIS COURT, 251 Clinton Street, area variance to install a tennis court; seeking relief from the maximum accessory building coverage requirement in the Urban Residential-1 District. This application was heard at the July 8, 2013 meeting and adjourned to July 22, 2013. The Board requested a calculation verifying that the percent to remain permeable would be met and revision of the application to include a proposed 10 foot high fence. 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 9:01 P.M. Shirley Poppel presented the following resolution. Motion in the Matter of the Appeal of City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, July 22, 2013 - Page 10 of 14  Dr. Brian Byrne 251 Clinton Street Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Appeal #2719 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 251 Clinton Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, identified as tax parcel 165.51-1-68 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 install a tennis court; seeking relief from the maximum lot coverage for the accessory building requirement in the Urban Residential – 1 District and public notice has been duly given of a hearing on said application held on July 8, 2013 and July 22, 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 the following variance for the following amounted of relief: Required: Proposed: Total Relief Requested: Maximum accessory 8% 12.8% 4.8% (60%) building coverage: Maximum height for a 6 feet 10 feet 4 feet (67%) residential fence: As per submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1.) The applicant had demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The application states, “To conform to a USTA regulation tennis court it is not feasible to reduce the size of paving area”. “The application states, “10’ end fencing will help keep straying balls on Byrne property”. 2.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character. The application states, “The lot where court will be placed is screened by solid board fencing and heavily treed.” “Little or no visibility from street or abutting lots”. The applications states, “The adjacent property of Skidmore College contains thousands of feet of similar or identical chain link fencing”. 3.) The relief could be considered substantial at 60%, however, there are two existing accessory buildings on the property; therefore, the relief requested is cumulative. The tennis court itself would cover 10.8% of the lot. The application indicates that the relief for the fencing is not substantial, “Only a portion of total fencing will be 10’ high”. 4.) The variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The application states, “All runoff will be contained on the existing lawn surrounding the court”. The applicant confirmed that 70% of the site would remain permeable, which exceeds the minimum 30% in the district. The application indicates that no adverse effects would occur, “Views from off property are screened by surrounding trees”. 5.) The difficulty is considered to be self-created. This, however is not necessarily fatal to the application. Adam McNeill, Secretary seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, July 22, 2013 - Page 11 of 14  Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 7. #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. This application was heard at the May 13 meeting and adjourned to May 20, 2013. The application had been further adjourned at the request of the applicant. The Board requested additional information including feasible alternative, elevation drawings of other perspectives, comparables of lot coverages in the neighborhood, and a streetscape view including the proposed house. 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. NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY: 73 Fifth Avenue – area variance for construction of a carport to be attached to the east side of the existing residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard, total side yard setbacks and maximum percent lot coverage for the principal building in an Urban Residential-1 District – withdrawn by the applicant 09/17/09. 73 Fifth Avenue – area variance "to demolish existing rear porch and patio and construct a new single-family residence" – relief from the minimum side yard, total side yard and front yard setbacks – approved 07/25/05. 81 Fifth Avenue – area variance to demolish existing rear porch and patio and construct a one-story addition – relief from the minimum side yard and total side yard setbacks and maximum lot coverage – principal building – approved 03/15/2005. 80 Fifth Avenue – area variance to construct additions (approximately 174 sq ft.) to the existing house in order to enlarge the master bedroom, enlarge the garage and add an open deck to the residence" – relief from maximum lot coverage (principal), front yard, rear yard, side and total side yard setbacks – approved 07/08/1998. 56 Fifth Avenue – area variance to construct a single story addition for a family room, eating area and a small exterior deck (approximately 750 sq. ft) relief from the maximum lot coverage (principal building) in UR-1 approved 04/12/95. 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 & Michael Basone City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, July 22, 2013 - Page 12 of 14 Agent: John Witt, Construction. Mr. Witt provided the Board with a visual presentation of the modified home project. Changes have been made to the plan. Some streetscapes were provided in this presentation which the Board requested. We have reduced the overall mass of the house and the lot coverage. Also the massing of the street was provided to the Board per their request. Initially our first presentation showed a 39.2% lot coverage then 35.8% and now down to 33.5%. We have 18 inch overhangs on most of the house. It does meet the permeability. 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. Joseph Brady 95 5th Avenue & 99 5th Avenue. I am the largest owner of lots in this area. This is a great neighborhood The front setbacks are really what has set the character of the neighborhood. Tom Roohan, 70 5th Avenue. My aunt owned property at this address. My father refused to sell this piece of property at the full price because the potential buyers wanted to tear down the home and rebuild. All homes fit nicely together. This project will affect the neighborhood. Mike Toohey, Attorney. I am here representing some of the neighbors who oppose this application. I am questioning the change of the plans on such short notice. The purpose of the zoning code is designed to create neighborhoods with certain common traits or uniformity. This area has common traits regarding the front yard setbacks. The standards for an area variance have not been addressed. Mr. Toohey provided the Board with some background information. This buyer knew exactly what they were buying when they purchased the lot. Mr. Toohey informed the Board that they were not uninformed buyers. Mrs. Basone has had more than 19 years of real estate expertise. She has received many accolades in her career. Mr. Toohey reviewed the standards required for an area variance. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we have requested some additional information. The public hearing will remain open. The next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting is scheduled for September 9, 2013. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Adam McNeill made a motion to accept the minutes of the June 10, 2013 meeting 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; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 24, 2013 meeting as submitted. Shirley Poppel seconded the motion. VOTE: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, July 22, 2013 - Page 13 of 14  Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, abstained; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0-1 Adam McNeill made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 8, 2013 meeting 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; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion to adjourn. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:21 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 9/23/13 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, July 22, 2013 - Page 14 of 14