Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2013 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:08 P. M. PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman, Gary Hasbrouck; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Skip Carlson; Oksana Ludd; Shirley Poppel ABSENT: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman 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: 10. #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. Adjourned to October 28, 2013. NEW BUSINESS 1. #2729 JOLY FRONT PORCH, 22 Schuyler Drive, area variance for construction of a front porch addition to an existing single family residence, seeking relief from the minimum front yard and minimum side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. Applicant: Daniel and Julie Joly The applicant's agent confirmed that the porch would be 6' wide with a 1' overhang. The 17' dimension on the plot plan should identify the distance from the front property line to the overhang. Staff requested this dimension be changed on the plot plan to include the overhang. Plot plan submission is required at the projects completion to confirm compliance. 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 front yard setback 30 feet 17 feet 13 feet (43%) Minimum side yard setback 12 feet 6 feet 6 feet (50%) The applicant is looking to add a front porch to her home making it more aesthetically pleasing. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:14 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on October 28, 2013. 2. #2730 ELLWANGER HOME OCCUPATION, 80 Ash Street, area variance to maintain a home occupation in a detached garage, seeking relief to permit habitable space in a residential accessory structure (562.75 sq. ft.) and to permit a home occupation (291 sq. ft.) in an accessory structure in the Urban Residential-2 District. RECUSAL: Adam McNeill, Secretary recused himself from this application. SEQRA Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Building permit issued for a 24 x 34 two story detached garage. No heating or plumbing identified on the permit application. Building permit for garage was never closed out – required inspections and finalization of work not completed. Violation issued for an existing two-family residence that could not be legally confirmed as well as the presence of the home occupation. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL No bathing facilities. No kitchen facilities. Limitation of maximum 291 sq. ft. for the home occupation. Applicant: Steve Ellwanger, Sarah Derven Mr. Ellwanger stated they finished the flooring and painted the space without a permit. They are requesting an area variance to permit finished and habitable space in an accessory structure, and also to permit a home occupation in an accessory structure which a permitted accessory use that is to be conducted entirely within a dwelling. Mr. Ellwanger stated he has been operating his CPA office out of this space for several years. There is no signage out front and parking is available in the driveway. Clients are seen on an individual basis. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 7, 2013 - Page 2 of 14 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS To permit habitable space in a garage. "An unfinished and uninhabitable space in a detached structure… "(from Appendix A – definition of an accessory structure). To permit a home occupation in an accessory structure – "An activity conducted entirely within a dwelling…(from Appendix A definition of a home occupation). PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:26 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. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on October 28, 2013. Adam McNeill, Secretary resumed his position on the Board. 3. #2731 TEPPER CARRIAGE HOUSE, 28 Second Street, area variance for additions to an existing carriage house, seeking relief from the minimum front yards (two) and side yard setback requirements within 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. PARCEL HISTORY Area variance granted to permit the construction of an addition to an accessory building (a carriage house) on October 1, 2009. Two lot subdivision (718 N. Broadway) approved October 28, 2009. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: (Second St.) 10 feet 7 feet 3 feet (30%) Minimum front yard setback: (Bryan St.) 10 feet 6.5 feet 3.5 feet (35%) Minimum side yard setback: 8 feet 5.75 feet 2.25 feet (28%) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DRC Historic Review required Applicant: Jason and Tamara Tepper Agent: Brett Balzer, Justin Sabatini, Balzer-Tuck Architecture Mr. Balzer provided the Board with a visual presentation of the project. The proposed garage addition is an extension City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 7, 2013 - Page 3 of 14 of an existing nonconforming front yard. The proposed residential addition is less nonconforming with regard to the front yard setback (Bryan Street) than the existing carriage house. The pre-existing carriage house has been in place since the 1800's and it is our intent to preserve the character of that structure, with both the renovation and additions, in keeping with the architectural character of the neighborhood. Driveway relocated requires a permit from DPW. Site permeability will be 72% which exceeds the minimum district requirement of 25%. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: DRC Historic Review is required. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman, opened the public hearing at 7:42 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. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on October 28, 2013. 4. #2732 SARATOGA NORTH LLC, 15 Maple Dell, use variance modification to convert 3,235 sq. ft. of existing business office space to medical office use; seeking relief from the permitted uses within the Tourist Related Business District. SEQRA: Action appears to be an Unlisted Action. Part 1 of the short EAF was submitted. PARCEL HISTORY: - Stewart's Shops Corp. and Saratoga North LLC petitioned City Council for zoning text amendment to add general office uses to TRBD, no action 2012. - Stewart's Shops Corp. and Saratoga North LLC petitioned City Council for zoning map amendment from TRBD to HGBD, no action 2012. - Use Variance to convert approximately 1,900 sq. ft of existing office space to medical office use in a C-3 district, granted June 18, 1998. - 1990 zoning changed from B-2P to C-3 which only permits Real Estate Office. - Site Plan modification approval granted January 10 1990 for medical office use with conditions in B-2P (Planned Business District). - Site Plan approval September 23, 1987 for professional office in B-2P. - B-2P provided for Professional Office and Rear Estate Office. Professional Office definition, "A room, wing or detached building housing the following occupations: Medicine, dentistry, law, architecture, engineering, optometrist, optician, podiatrist and similar professions". CONSIDERATIONS FOR USE VARIANCE MODIFICATION: - Existing Use Variance provides for 1,900 sq. ft. for medical office uses and a combined 3,232 sq. ft. for business/professional office uses. - TRB District permits only Real Estate Offices with Site Plan approval - Request for more detailed documentation as to the application narrative statement, "I have had a suite available since 5/31/2010 and have had numerous inquiries from medical professionals regarding the space. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 7, 2013 - Page 4 of 14 - Has the property been marketed for any of the other uses permitted in the TRB District (i.e., Real Estate Office) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Saratoga County Planning Board referral required City Planning Board Site Plan review required. Applicant: Dr. Richard Farrell, owner Saratoga Family Practice Dr. Farrell stated he has owned this property for approximately 17 years. He presented the Board with an overview of the building and his inability to rent out the units. He requested a use variance modification. He reviewed the parking spaces and the expenses he has incurred. Additional information was requested by the Board from Dr. Farrell. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:25 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Tracey Millis, 37 Maple Dell, President of the Maple Dell Homeowners Association. This will impact the neighborhood. Parking is a concern, as well as increased traffic. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals on October 28, 2013. OLD BUSINESS: 5. #2725 WEIBEL AVENUE APARTMENTS SIGNAGE, 60 Weibel Avenue area variance for installation of commercial wall and freestanding signage, seeking relief for placement above the first floor level of the building and on facades with no street frontage for tenant wall signs and to permit a second freestanding sign on the property in the Transect-4 District. This application was heard at the September 22 meeting and adjourned to October 7, the public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, "Construction or expansion of a primary or accessory/appurtenant, non-residential structure or facility involving less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance and consistent with local land use controls, but not radio communication or microwave transmission facilities", and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: ZBA Use Variance for two freestanding signs and similar wall (tenant) signage for building "B" approved May 7, 2012. DRC Advisory opinion to ZBA for the proposed signs issued May 2, 2012. DRC Architectural Review approval of mixed use development on June 15, 2011. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 7, 2013 - Page 5 of 14 Planning Board Site Plan Review approval on June 8, 2011. Planning Board Special Use Permit issued for 116,000 sq. ft. mixed use development on September 9, 2009. 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 8:31 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Weibel Avenue Apartments, LLC 18 Division Street Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Appeal #2725 From the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 60 Weibel Ave., Saratoga Springs, New York, identified as Tax Parcel No. 166.-2-3.2, Outside District of the City. Whereas, the appellant has applied for Area Variances for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for installation of commercial wall and freestanding signage, seeking relief for placement above the first floor level of the building and on facades with no street frontage for tenant wall sings and to permit an additional freestanding sign in a T-4 zoning district, and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on September 23rd and October 7th, 2013. Whereas, in consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution that the requested area variance for the following relief, as described in the submitted application, BE APPROVED Required: Proposed: Relief Wall sign placement not to extend above the first floor First floor level Above first floor level Requested: level: West elevation – max 6 signs 100% Wall sign placement not to extend above the first floor First floor level Above first floor level 100% level: East elevation – max 5 signs Wall sign placement not to extend above the first floor First floor level Above first floor level 100% level: South elevation – max 2 signs Wall sign placement not to extend above the first floor First floor level Above first floor level 100% level: West elevation – max 6 signs Wall sign placement on a façade with no street frontage: Street frontage No street frontage 100% South elevation – max 2 signs Wall sign placement on a façade with no street frontage: Street frontage No street frontage 100% North elevation – max 3 signs Max no. of freestanding sign per parcel 1 additional 3 total (2 approved per 1 (100%) prior variance) 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The application states, “We explored keeping the top of the sign band below the second floor but that limited the height of any signage to 12”, which we felt was small on a road with a speed limit of 40 mph.” The applicant’s representative also testified at the public hearing that adjusting the stone façade was not feasible due to the approval of the specific design City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 7, 2013 - Page 6 of 14 from the Design Review Commission. The applicant’s representative testified in regards to the plans of the adjacent parcel to the north. Specifically, he addressed a hypothetical build out plan which included a boulevard to access an undeveloped parcel north and east of the subject property as it related to the variance requested for relief from the street frontage requirement for wall signs on the north elevation. The north side placement would be facing that empty parcel in anticipation of this boulevard being developed. The proposed free standing sign would be contained within the project and not visible from Weibel Avenue. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting these variances will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties. The DRC issued a favorable advisory opinion for the proposed signage and noted “The Commission has reviewed the applicant’s signage request relating to the first of two buildings to front Weibel Ave. The DRC understands that the second building, to be located to the north of this building, is to be a ‘mirror- image’ of the reviewed building. As such, the DRC has no objections to the applicant continuing these sign details on the second building.” The signs proposed are consistent in location and design to those that were previously approved by ZBA and DRC. 3. The relief requested may be considered substantial. However, the application states, “The tenant signage will only project above the first floor level and will still be below the second floor windows.” 4. The applicant has demonstrated that the variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The Board concurs with DRC that no adverse visual impacts will be created by granting the variance. 5. The difficulty may be considered self-created. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: This variance is conditioned upon Design Review Commission Architectural Review for individual tenant signs. Skip Carlson seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 6. #2726 POKOIK GARAGE ADDITION, 766 North Broadway, area variance for an addition to an existing attached garage seeking relief from the minimum side yard setbacks requirement in the Urban Residential-1 District. Applicant: Davin Pokoik Bill Moore, Chairman stated a permeability calculation was provided by the applicant. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 7, 2013 - Page 7 of 14 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 8:38 P.M. Skip Carlson presented the following resolution. MOTION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF DAVIN POKOIK 766 NORTH BROADWAY SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 766 North Broadway, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 165.28-2-8.1 in the Inside Tax District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance for an addition to an existing attached garage, seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on September 23 and October 7, 2013. In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following variance for the following amount of relief: Minimum Side Yard Required: 12 feet Proposed: 7 feet 10 inches Total relief requested: 4 Setback feet 2 inches (35%) 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. The application states that “the primary goal [of the addition] is to provide garage space for a second automobile. Any other solution would have brought the garage addition out to the front, or would have required another driveway and curb cut.” 2.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character, or detriment to nearby properties. The proposed addition is an extension of an existing nonconforming setback. The application indicates that the second level is setback from the front of the existing garage to reduce its mass and visual impact. The application also states “the scale and style of the addition and its second level are in keeping with that of the existing house.” 3.) The variance may be considered substantial at 35% relief requested. The proposed addition is an extension of the existing nonconforming side yard setback of approximately eight feet. 4.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The application states “that the addition is primarily visible from the neighboring property to the north, but it should have no adverse effect on that property or on the neighborhood as a whole.” The applicant has provided a permeability calculation of 68% confirming that the minimum site to remain permeable would be exceeded. 5.) The request for relief the minimum side yard setback may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self- creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 7, 2013 - Page 8 of 14 Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 The agenda was heard out of order. Item #7 will be deferred to the end of the meeting. 8. #2708 CELLCO/VERIZON WIRELESS, 2202 Route 50 South, consideration of Coordinated SEQR Review for a new telecommunications facility in the Highway General Business Districtl. SEQRA: The Planning Board deferred Lead Agency status to the ZBA on September 25, 2013. The DRC deferred Lead Agency status to the ZBA on September 18. The ZBA initiated Coordinated SEQR Review and sought Lead Agency status on September 9. Action appears to be an Unlisted Action. Other involved agencies include Planning Board for Site Plan Review and DRC for Architectural Review. Agent: Scott Olsen, attorney for the applicant. Applicant: Verizon Wireless The Board has requested that the applicant provide Appendix B Visual EAF Addendum with any supplemental information that may assist the Board to review. A balloon float will be scheduled followed by the scheduling a joint meeting of the Land Use Boards. Identification of areas from which views may be important and where photos and photo simulations should be provided. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the Board is the Lead Agency for the environmental review of the project. Skip Carlson, Board member recused himself from this application. 9. #2707 CELLCO/VERIZON WIRELESS, 35B Nelson Avenue (Saratoga Gaming and Raceway), use variance for a new telecommunication facility in the Institutional Horse Track Related District. This application was heard at the September 9, 2013 meeting and adjourned to September 23, 2013. The application was further adjourned to October 7, 2013 at the request of the applicant The public hearing was opened on September 9, 2013 and remains open. Proposed telecommunications facility, including a 103' high tower disguised as a television tower. Host parcel is Saratoga Gaming and Raceway, a 160 acre parcel within the INST-HTR District. SEQRA: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 7, 2013 - Page 9 of 14 Planning Board issued a Negative SEQRA Declaration on July 25, 2013. ZBA deferred Lead Agency status to the Planning Board on June 10, 2013. DRC deferred Lead Agency status to the Planning Board on June 5. Action was classified as a Type I action "any Unlisted action occurring wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, any historic building, structure, facility, site or district or prehistoric site that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or that is listed on the State Register of Historic Places. Property is substantially contiguous to Saratoga Race Track, which is on the State and National Registers. The track is a contributing property within the Union Avenue National Register District. Other involved agencies include Planning Board for Site Plan Review and DRC for Architectural Review. PUBLIC UTILITY VARIANCE STANDARD The application indicates the project is necessary to provide adequate and safe public utility/personal wireless service to this portion of the City for use by emergency personnel and the general public. The application states "Although wireless communications service currently exists in the general surrounding area, the service is not reliable and adequate in the proposed service area, especially during hours of peak use." "The project will increase the Applicants wireless communications capacity and coverage which will help ensure that adequate levels of service exist for emergency and non-emergency wireless communications in the service area." "The close proximity of this site to the areas major transportation routes and high density commercial, business and recreation areas will enable Verizon Wireless to target areas where service is needed most." "It will also help improve capacity at the existing surrounding sites to provide for a more reliable, safe and adequate service to the area." PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains open. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:49 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless 175 Calkins Road Rochester, New York 14623 Application #2707 From the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 35B Nelson Avenue, identified as Tax Parcel Section 179, Block 5, Lot 7, Inside District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York The appellant having applied for a use variance to permit the construction of a telecommunications facility consisting of one cell tower disguised as a television tower constructed up to a height of 103 feet in an Institutional Horse Track Related District (INST-HTR) and public notice having been duly given of a hearing held on September 9th and October 7th, 2013. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 7, 2013 - Page 10 of 14 The proposed action was identified as a Type 1 action for SEQRA. The ZBA deferred Lead Agency status to the Planning Board on June 10, 2013. The Planning Board issued a negative declaration for SEQRA on July 25, 2013. The County Planning Board, in a letter dated August 22, 2013, decided that “No Significant County Wide or Inter Community Impact” would be generated from the proposed project. WHEREAS, a cellular provider is held to the same standards as a public utility; WHEREAS, the Public Utility Variance Standard requires the determination of whether there is a public necessity to fill a gap in coverage, whether compelling reasons exist for a particular facility in a particular location, and that shared usage of an existing tall structure, including approved towers, is not feasible. Now, therefore, the Board hereby resolves the USE VARIANCE be approved for the following reasons: 1) The applicant has demonstrated a public necessity for filling a significant coverage gap at the proposed location. The application states “Although wireless communications service currently exists in the general surrounding area, the service is not reliable and adequate in the proposed service area, especially during hours of peak use.” The applicant testified at a public hearing on September 9th concerning the “capacity issue” which is also addressed in the application. The application states “The existing technology employed in wireless communications limits the number of wireless calls processed at an existing cell site to a finite number of calls at any one time. The number of calls capable of being processed at any one site is referred to as capacity.” The applicant provided credible evidence that during the summer, the population of the service area, including the flat track, required cellular services exceeding the capabilities currently being offered in that area. In regards to adequate service, the application states “From a coverage perspective, The SG&R (Saratoga Gaming and Raceway) facility is intended to provide an adequate and safe level of emergency and non-emergency Verizon Wireless communications services (in-building and mobile) along Nelson Avenue including the Saratoga Casino and Raceway and portions of the flat track.” The applicant provided Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 in Appendix 1 of their application comparing existing coverage vs. proposed coverage in the proposed project area. If the proposed tower is built, Exhibit 2 depicts the area surrounding tower as having an adequate level of service, specifically the “4G (700 MHz) Coverage.” In addition to 4G (700 MHz) service, the applications states that “the site must provide new Advanced Wireless Services (AWS, or 2000 MHz) coverage that approximates 700 MHz LTE coverage so that Verizon Wireless service is comparable at both 4G LTE and AWS frequencies in and around the target coverage area.” In regards to public necessity, the application states “The project is necessary to enable Verizon Wireless to provide adequate and safe public utility/personal wireless service to this portion of the City of Saratoga Springs, for use by emergency personnel and the general public.” The application goes on to say, “The project will increase the Applicant’s wireless communications capacity and coverage which will help ensure that adequate levels of service exist for emergency and non-emergency wireless communications in the service area. Many lifesaving/law enforcement agencies depend upon wireless communications for emergency information to provide for health, safety and general welfare of the public (as evidenced by the increasing number of 911 emergency calls made from wireless phones documented by the CTIA).” The Board finds the evidence submitted on this point to be credible and convincing. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that compelling reasons exist for siting the tower at this location and that no other feasible locations exist for shared usage on existing structures. The applicant has determined that “A new tower is the only viable alternative to meet the increasing wireless demand.” The application states “cellular radio is a “line-of-sight” technology. Cellular signals can only travel so far, City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 7, 2013 - Page 11 of 14  and are impeded by topography and vegetation.” The application also describes the “low power level” of the wireless transmissions and the relatively short distance those transmissions travel. The application also speaks to the “heavy usage associated with the operation of these devices” and that additional “fill in” sites are needed to “handle wireless traffic congestion.” The applicant explored alternative sites including collocating on other towers. The Sprint 100 foot tall Monopole Tower in the Saratoga Casino and Raceway was considered for collocation. The applicant determined this would not be feasible due to this location only being able to provide “new coverage and capacity only to the northeast quadrant.” The application goes on to state, “available height for Verizon Wireless would be well below the surrounding tree canopy to the south, west and northwest.” The application goes on to describe the “inefficiencies associated with the collocation on this tower.” In summary, the capacity for the targeted service area would only serve “ 1-of -3 sectors.” The application states, “there are no other existing towers or other tall structures of sufficient height located within or near the search area. Accordingly, collocation on an existing telecommunications tower or other tall structure is not a viable alternative…” The Board concludes the requested height for the tower is the minimum amount needed to satisfy the requirements of the service coverage area. The application states “The applicant’s RF engineer has demonstrated that an antenna height of 96 feet (antenna centerline) is the minimum required to elevate the antennas sufficiently high above the surrounding trees (which reach as tall as 80+/- feet) in the immediate area.” The application further states “…the facility is proposed to be designed with current stealth technology to minimize the potential visual impacts to the greatest extent practicable. The television tower structure is intended to be similar to the existing television towers located at the flat track.” Request for Use Variance approved. Conditions: Planning Board Site Plan Review is required. Design Review Commission Architectural Review is required. Notice of discontinuance and removal as per Zoning Ordinance 6.3.2 C. Adam McNeill, secretary seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 The Board recessed at 8:59 P.M. The Board reconvened at 9:20 P.M. *Agenda item #7 which was deferred to the end of the scheduled agenda. 7. #2728 SARATOGA PRIME PROPERTIES BUILDING SIGN, 135 South Broadway, area variance for installation of a wall sign (address identification), seeking relief for placement above the first floor level City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 7, 2013 - Page 12 of 14  of the building in the Transect-5 District. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. 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 8:42 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Saratoga Prime Properties 135 South Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Appeal #2728 From the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 135 South Broadway, Saratoga Springs, New York, identified as Tax Parcel No. 178.27-1-42 in the inside district of the City. The Applicant has applied for an area variance for placement of a building identification sign above the first floor level of the building in the T-5 zoning district, and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on September 23 and October 7, 2013. In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution that the requested area variance for the following relief, as described in the submitted application, BE APPROVED Type of Requirement Required Proposed Total Relief Requested Wall signage placement not First floor level Above first floor level Above first floor level to extend above first floor level 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the placement of the sign as requested is necessary for adequate identification of the business by motorists in the area, and that placement of the sign on other parts of the building would not provide reasonably acceptable visibility and would place applicant in a significant hardship situation. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting these variances will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties. The only variance requested is to place an otherwise compliant sign above the first floor level. The height of the lettering and the overall size of the proposed sign are in conformance. 3. The relief requested for placement of the wall sign above first floor level is substantial; however, the sign reveals only the address of the building and contains no advertising content or graphics of any kind. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 7, 2013 - Page 13 of 14 4. The applicant has demonstrated that the variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. As stated by the applicant at the public hearing the sign will not be illuminated in any manner. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created, however, this is not of itself fatal to this area variance application. Notifications/Approvals/Conditions of Approval: DRC Architectural 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; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Shirley Poppel, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss, Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 10/28/13 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 7, 2013 - Page 14 of 14