Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2013 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:04 P. M. PRESENT: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Gary Hasbrouck; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Skip Carlson; Oksana Ludd; Shirley Poppel ABSENT: Bill Moore, Chairman STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs SALUTE TO THE FLAG ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. OLD BUSINESS: 1. #2735 MOORE NEW RESIDENCE, 75 South Franklin, area variance for new single-family residence and detached garage; seeking relief from the minimum total side yard setbacks, maximum accessory building coverage and to permit habitable space in a residential accessory structure in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, "Granting of an area variance(s) for a single-family, two-family or three-family residence and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. This application appeared before the Board initially on November 18, 2013. No further information was requested by the Board. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing remains open. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Paul Marrotto, 3 Blueberry Way. Member of the Principessa Elena Society for over 30 years. The variance before you tonight will negatively impact the operation of two commercial establishments and a four unit rental property. It effects the operation of a scrap yard, the Principessa Elena Society and the parking lot for the four unit apartment adjacent to the property seeking the variance. Snow removal will become an overwhelming and costly burden for our small Society. Suggests soil testing in this area. Also letter distributed to the Board from Michael Biffer, Building Inspector dated October 10, 2003. Tony Dawson, Molto Holdings which owns the Scrap Yard. He does not feel this is a UR-3 legal building lot. This is taking two substandard buildings lots and it still does not meet the 6600 square foot building lot requirements. Georgio Isini, current operator of the scrap yard. There would be a huge expense to change and open all three entrances to the scrap yard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:25 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2735 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF William Moore and Joan Salmon 492 Grand Ave Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 75 South Franklin St, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.66-2-59 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 single-family residence and a detached garage with habitable space on the second story in a UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 18th and 25th days of November 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 variance for the following amount of relief: Type of Requirement District Proposed Relief requested dimensional requirement Total Side Yard Setback 12’ 8’ 4’ or 33% Maximum Accessory Building coverage 10% 12% 2% or 20% relief Habitable space in accessory structure not permitted Home office / rec room 100% above garage 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 the adjacent vacant land is not available to purchase, and that alternate siting on the property was not feasible as it would entail setting the house far back from South Franklin Street, which the applicant notes would be out of character with the neighborhood. The inclusion of habitable space in the garage building was also evaluated by the applicant for alternatives: the design of the house, since it is limited by the size and dimensions of the lot, did not have space feasible in the main portion of the house, while basement lighting and egress would have been insufficient for the purposes sought by 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. As per information provided by the applicant on the neighborhood properties, the majority of properties adjacent and close to the subject parcel are either commercial or multi family. The applicant notes that the use across Cobb Alley is a scrap yard, and there is a multi family and commercial lot adjacent to the property. The Board finds that the siting of a single family residence in this neighborhood context will not create a detriment, but rather advance the intent of the UR-3 district, which is, quoting the City Zoning Ordinance part 2.1, Table 1: “To conserve, maintain and encourage single family and multi-family residential uses.” The Board further imposes conditions below on the habitable space requested by the applicant to ensure no overnight stays, or kitchen or bath facilities. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 25, 2013 - Page 2 of 4  3. The total side yard setback and habitable space variances are substantial; however, it should be kept in mind that they are due to the undersize preexisting nonconforming lot. The setback variances are needed due to the narrow space in which the house would be located, and the small size of the proposed main living space results in the applicant seeking finished space in the proposed accessory structure. The accessory building coverage is not substantial, particularly when the main house coverage of 25% is considered; as noted by the applicant, the total percentage of improvements on the parcel are 37% between the main and accessory structures, whereas 40% is allowed. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The proposed amount of permeable surface of 63% will more than meet the district requirement of 25%. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed residence and accessory structure, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions/Notes: No kitchen or bath facilities, or any overnight stays will be permitted in the finished space in the accessory structure. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Discussion ensued regarding habitable space. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the Board reviews and works off the Building Inspector's denial. We act as an appeal of the denial. Gary Hasbrouck stated the snow removal situation cannot be taken into account. Each private property owner is responsible for their own snow removal. Emergency access is viable through an alley and two other streets which can be used for access. Regarding the recycling yard it is incumbent upon each individual property owner to provide ingress and egress from their property. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he concurs with Gary Hasbrouck. The Board listens to the public comment, however, fact is that this is a vacant lot and has been a vacant lot there may have been things which were agreed upon, however it still remains a private parcel of property. I listened to other comments as well and I think in terms of the Biffer letter it is a buildable lot. Oksana Ludd stated she would like the public to understand what the Board can decide and what they cannot decide. Regarding the Biffer letter and whether this is a conforming lot or not is something this Board does not have the authority to make a decision on. We are statutorily restricted. The only thing we can decide is whether the denials which were issued by the Saratoga Zoning and Building Inspector have been properly addressed by the applicant in his appeal. It is not within our authority to say whether you can or cannot build. We can only say with what has been denied have you satisfied the requirements. Our authority is limited to the reviewing of the denials of the Zoning and Building Inspector. This is the limit of what we can do. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice 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 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 25, 2013 - Page 3 of 4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman deferred the approval of the minutes to the next scheduled Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on December 9, 2013. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss, Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 1/13/14 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 25, 2013 - Page 4 of 4