Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 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; Gary Hasbrouck; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Skip Carlson; Oksana Ludd; ABSENT: Shirley Poppel STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Deputy 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. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2734 HIGGINS ADDITION, 100 Union Avenue, area variance for construction of residential additions to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard and total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-4 District. Applicant: Rick Higgins Agent: Michael Perry, Architect SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATION: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback: "patio/roof" 20 feet 8.5 feet 11.5 feet (57.5%) Minimum side yard setback: "bay/dormer" 20 feet 13 feet 7 feet (35%) Minimum total side yard setback 45 feet 21.5 feet 23.5 feet (52%) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: DRC Historic Review required. Mr. Perry stated the applicant is looking to add a master suite addition to the home which they purchased in 1998. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:05 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 November 18, 2013 meeting. 2. #2733 ARNOLD GARAGE, 795 North Broadway, area variance for construction of a two-story garage attached to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback 12 feet 9 feet 3 feet (25%) Maximum principal building coverage 20% 21.6% 1.6% (8%) Applicant: Jay and Alyssa Arnold Agent: Tom Frost, Architect Mr. Frost stated this is a fairly straightforward application. A two story two car garage which is essentially the size of a three car garage and connected to the main house with a mudroom connection. The applicants are interested in having an office up over the garage as well as an exercise room. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DRC Historic Review is required. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:12 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 November 18, 2013 meeting. OLD BUSINESS: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 28, 2013 - Page 2 of 13 3. #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 SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any additional questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:14 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Daniel and Julie Joly 22 Schuyler Drive Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 22 Schuyler Drive, Saratoga Springs NY 12866, identified as Tax Parcel Section 166.14 Block 1, Lot 10, Inside District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York. The appellant has applied for AREA VARIANCES for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for the construction of 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 and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on Monday, October 7 and Monday, October 28, 2013. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution that the requested AREA VARIANCE for the following relief or lesser dimensions, as described in the submitted application and plans, be APPROVED: 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%) 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The applicant stated that other means were not feasible as porch was designed to align with existing building, door and window. 1) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood. The application states, “It will add curb appeal to the neighborhood”. The proposed addition is an extension of an existing nonconforming side yard setback. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 28, 2013 - Page 3 of 13  2) The relief could be considered substantial; however, the proposed front porch addition is an extension of the existing nonconforming side yard setback of approximately 6 feet. The addition wouldn’t encroach any further into the existing nonconforming setback. The application states, “Only putting on 6 foot porch. It is small”. 3) The variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The application states, “Simple straight forward construction with materials and methods”. 4) The difficulty is considered to be self created. This however 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; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 4. #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. Applicant: Steve Ellwanger, Sarah Derven 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 7:18 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 28, 2013 - Page 4 of 13  IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Stephen Ellwanger and Sarah Derven 80 Ash St. Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 80 Ash St, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being Section 165.74, Block 1, Lot 49.2, 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 maintenance of a home occupation within an accessory structure in an Urban Residential-2 District and due public notice having been given of a hearing on said application held on the 7th and 28th days of October 2013. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the requested area variances for the following relief: AREA VARIANCE - Finished and habitable space Not permitted Total relief requested: 100% in an accessory structure: Complete - Accessory Building being Not Permitted Total relief requested: 100% used for home occupation Complete 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 applicant notes that there are no feasible alternatives on the site and stated that clients of his business could not be accommodated with meeting in his kitchen. Furthermore, this home occupation already is in existence, so changing to another site to host this business will cause economic losses to the applicant. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. It should be noted that the accessory structure in question already exists, and that this home occupation situated in that structure has been operating there for five years. There is no evidence to indicate that the past five years’ activities have resulted in incremental adverse effect on the neighborhood. As the applicant points out, this current use for the CPA practice is incidental and subordinate to the residential use of the lot, with visits from clients limited to one or two on average per day. 3. The Board notes this variance is substantial insofar as it is asking for complete relief; however, it should also be kept in mind that the business in question is a relatively small operation in terms of physical space, and when compared to the area of the house, this home occupation would fall within the acceptable range for size within the district. It is only because the business area is located in the accessory structure, that a variance is needed for the home occupation. The habitable space variance’s substantiality has been mitigated by the exclusion of plumbing and this resolution has conditions, see below, limiting kitchen and bath facilities. 4. This variance will not have adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. No physical changes to footprint of structures or to permeable surfaces have been made in order to host these activities. As noted above, the number of office visits by clients are relatively small, so traffic impact is light. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created due the applicants’ desire to maintain the existing home occupation in the accessory structure; this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: No Bathing Facilities, No kitchen facilities. Limit of current 291 SF area for this office and any other future home occupation listed under current Zoning Ordinance Section 6.4.3. Oksana Ludd seconded the motion. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 28, 2013 - Page 5 of 13 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, recused; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 5-0-1 Adam McNeill, Secretary resumed his position on the Board. 5. #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. Applicant: Jason and Tamara Tepper Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:27 P.M. Skip Carlson presented the following resolution. MOTION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF JASON AND TAMARA TEPPER 28 SECOND STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 28 Second Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 165.36-2-1 (rear of) in the Inside Tax District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance for additions to an existing carriage house, seeking relief from the minimum front yards (two) and side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-2 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on October 7 and October 28, 2013. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 28, 2013 - Page 6 of 13  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 Front Yard Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: 3 Setback: (Second St.) 10 feet 7 feet 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%) 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 “the front yard setback encroachments of the carriage house are pre-existing (circa 1800’s) and the proposed additions would not encroach beyond what is currently in place. The encroachment into the side yard setback is a result of providing an adequately sized two-car garage.” 2.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character, or detriment to nearby properties. The application states “the pre-existing carriage house has been in place since the 1800’s and it is our intent to preserve the character of the structure, with both the renovation and additions, in keeping with the architectural character of the neighborhood.” 3.) The variance may be considered substantial at relief varying from 28% to 35%. However, the proposed garage is an extension of an existing nonconforming front yard setback and the proposed residential addition is less nonconforming with regard to the front yard setback on Bryan Street than the existing carriage house. 4.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The applicant submitted a permeability calculation showing 72% of the site would remain permeable, well above the district requirement of 25%. 5.) The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: DRC Historic Review required Relocated driveway requires permit from DPW. 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; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 6. #2732 SARATOGA NORTH LLC, 15 Maple Dell, use variance modification to convert 3,235 sq. ft. of existing City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 28, 2013 - Page 7 of 13  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. Applicant: Dr. Richard Farrell, owner Saratoga Family Practice This application was heard at the October 7, 2013 meeting and adjourned to October 28, 2013. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Additional information which was requested was provided and forwarded to the Board. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we have had some discussion with legal counsel and we would like to provide a modification for this application. Discussion ensued regarding the modification of this application. It was the consensus of the Board to allow a modification of this application. Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion for a use variance modification for Saratoga North LLC, 15 Maple Dell. Gary Hasbrouck, seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Saratoga County Planning Board has issued a no countywide or inter community impact. 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 stated the public hearing will remain open. A modification resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals on November 18, 2013. 7. #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. This application was heard at the July 22 meeting; the public hearing was opened and remains open. The Board passed a motion seeking an advisory opinion from the Planning Board. Planning Board issued a favorable advisory opinion. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 28, 2013 - Page 8 of 13 The Zoning Board requested additional information with regard to feasible alternatives to the requested relief. The applicant provided an itemized list of land development costs and scenarios for fewer lots than proposed. The uses on the site are varied uses – "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 preexisting nonconforming. The current plan identifies seven single-family residences on one lot individually owned condo units with the remainder of the property held in common. SEQRA: This appears to be an unlisted action. Part I of the Short EAF has been submitted with revisions. 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 PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED 30% 43.58% Maximum principal building coverage: 7 units 13.58% (45.27%) 1 Minimum principal building on one lot: 7 6 (600%) 10 ft. Minimum front yard setback: (two buildings)5 ft. 5 ft. (50%) 25 ft. Minimum rear yard setback: (two buildings) 6 ft. 19 ft. (76%) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Any approval should be conditioned on expiration of existing use variances on the property. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 28, 2013 - Page 9 of 13 Saratoga County Planning Board referral is required. A decision dated September 20, 2013 states "No Significant County Wide or Inter Community Impact". Site Plan review is required. NEIGHBOR INPUT: Maureen Mahar, 5 Granger Avenue, dated October 7, 2013. Applicant: John Witt, Principal ANW Holdings. 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. Sam Broughton, 206A Lake Avenue, read letter from Sandy Cohen 208 Lake Avenue a copy of which was submitted to the Board. Voiced her concern and disapproval of the project. Mr. Broughton also voiced disapproval of the project. Deb Madison, 206 Lake Avenue. Against this project. Is concerned regarding snow and noise. Margaret Kelly, Prudential Manor Home and listing agent for the property. She provided a history of the listing of the property for the Board. Richard Ball, 7 Grainger. Mr. Witt does wonderful work and we approve of this project. A Petition signed by neighbors who abut the property was provided to the Board. SEQRA: Short form EAF was reviewed by the Board. No large or important areas of concern were noted. Keith Kaplan made a motion for a SEQRA Negative Declaration. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:07 P.M. Oksana Ludd presented the following resolution: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 28, 2013 - Page 10 of 13  ANW Holdings, Inc. of 564 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the Building Inspector’s Denial of Application for Land Use and/or Building for the premises at 27 Jumel Place, Saratoga Springs, New York, identified as Tax Parcel No.: 166.13-1-50.2 in the inside district of the City. The Applicant has applied for an area variance for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance applicable to the Urban Residential - 3 zoning district to construct a seven unit condominium development seeking relief from the maximum principal buildings permitted on one lot, maximum principal building coverage, the minimum front yard setback requirements for the two units fronting on Jumel Place, and from the minimum rear yard setback requirements for the two units located at the rear of the property, and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on July 9, 2013 and October 28, 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 or such lesser amount, as described in the submitted application, BE APPROVED: Type of Requirement Required Existing Proposed Total Relief Requested Maximum Principal Buildings 0ne (1) One (1) Seven (7) 6 (600)% on one lot Maximum Building Coverage 30% 49.4% 43.5% 13.5% (45%) Minimum Front Yard Setback for the 2 units fronting on Jumel 10 feet 1 foot 5 feet 5 feet (50%) Place Minimum Rear Yard Setback for the 2 units located at the 25 feet .7 foot 6 feet 19 feet (76%) rear 1. The Applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. This Board has been asked to consider several prior applications to redevelop this property. It is currently used for mixed commercial and residential purposes with a large cement structure, formerly a manufacturing facility, located on the property. The current use is not conducive to a residential neighborhood and the noise and traffic generated by the current use has been an issue of concern for many of the neighbors. The unique nature of this property and the prior failed attempts to arrive at a use for this property that is acceptable to neighbors, conforming with the neighborhood and economically feasible has demonstrated that the redevelopment of this property raises unusual and distinct issues. Not only has the Applicant explored alternate means to achieve the requested benefit including a smaller number of units which were evaluated and found to be economically unfeasible, but prior applicants have also attempted to use the structure for varied uses, all of which demonstrates that other alternatives have not been shown to be practical or economically feasible. The applicant has demonstrated that redeveloping this property from an unsightly cement structure used for commercial purposes into a seven unit residential condominium development is the best economically feasible use as shown on the proposed site plan for this property. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting these variances will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties. Applicant had shown that removal of the current cement structure and construction of a seven unit condominium will result in a development that substantially conforms with the residential homes in the neighborhood. The Applicant has demonstrated, and several neighbors have testified in support, that this redevelopment will have a very beneficial impact on the neighborhood. The granting of these variances will result in the removal of a varied use (ballet school), unauthorized use (karate school) and prior nonconforming use (manufacturing facility) and result in a conforming use which is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. We City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 28, 2013 - Page 11 of 13 note that the City Planning Board issued a favorable advisory opinion identifying that “This site can adequately accommodate development of this scale, and that the overall density proposed is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.” Based on the foregoing, the granting the variances will improve the appearance of the property and will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or impact on nearby properties, but rather a desirable and valuable change. 3. The relief requested may be considered substantial, but is mitigated by the fact that the current existing structure is non-conforming and by the fact that the lot, at 34,765.50 square feet, would accommodate either five single- family lots or four two-family buildings for total of eight residences. The requested variance, for seven units, is one less than the permitted 8 residences. In order to develop this property in a manner that is most conducive to current needs of our citizens, creating smaller free standing condominiums is beneficial. The construction of one continuous unit would have eliminated the need for a variance for seven units, but would not have resulted in a project that meets the current needs of some members of the community. The minimum front and rear setback variances are necessary to maximize the available parking and the need for service vehicles to access the property. Due to the non-conformance of the current structure and some of the existing structures in the neighborhood, these variances will not have a substantial impact on the neighborhood and therefore mitigates the substantial nature of the variances. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that the variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The Applicant has demonstrated, and several neighbors have testified in support, that this redevelopment will have a significant beneficial physical impact on the neighborhood. Not only will the current commercial use with resulting traffic and noise generated by such use no longer interfere with the quiet residential neighborhood, but the physical change to the property will be a significant improvement to the appearance of the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed construction will improve the permeability of the lot to 35.1%, in excess of the required 25%. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created in that the Applicant desires to re-develop this property in a manner that will meet the needs of residents of Saratoga Springs who are looking to down size and still create a development that conforms to the neighborhood as a residential development in an economic manner, however, this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Notifications/Approvals/Conditions of Approval: Prior variances are discontinued. Saratoga Springs City Planning Board site plan review is required – the Planning Board will address local concerns as identified by the Saratoga County Planning Board. Saratoga County Planning Board issued a finding of no significant county side or inter community impact. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 28, 2013 - Page 12 of 13 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 23, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with corrections or additions as submitted. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, abstained Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 5-0-1 Gary Hasbrouck made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 7, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with corrections or additions as submitted. Adam McNeill, Secretary seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, abstained, Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 5-0-1 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss, Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 11/18/13 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, October 28, 2013 - Page 13 of 13