Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2013 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:03 P. M. PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Gary Hasbrouck; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Oksana Ludd; Shirley Poppel ABSENT: Skip Carlson STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs SALUTE TO THE FLAG ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS: #2737 ROOD & RIDDLE MODIFICATION, 63 Henning Road, Use Variance Modification and area variance for expansion of an existing equine medical care facility, seeking modification of a previously granted use variance and area variance from the minimum parking requirement in the Rural Residential District. Adjourned to January 13, 2014. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2740 LEHMANN POOL HOUSE, 52 Jenna Jo Avenue, area variance to finish the interior of an existing pool house, seeking relief to permit finished space in a residential accessory structure in the Suburban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Applicant: Wolf & Monica Lehmann Mrs. Lehmann stated they are requesting an area variance to finish the interior of an existing pool house for year around use. They are looking to add heat and make it a habitable space for year around use. This is for recreational purposes. Birthday parties, pool parties, sleep over parties, after ski family area. Adam McNeill stated traditionally in an accessory structure like this it is very rare that we allow a full bath. A half-bath but not full baths in an accessory structures. Also has the Homeowners Association approved what you are doing. We request verbal or written approval prior to the January 13, 2014 meeting. You can submit that information to staff as soon as possible. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated we probably will impose a condition this variance by adding no overnight stays. Discussion ensued regarding imposing the no overnight stay condition. It was the consensus of the Board to request an opinion from the Deputy City Attorney regarding wording in the resolution. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:22 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 drafted for our next meeting on January 13, 2014. OLD BUSINESS: 2. #2736 WHEELER POOL, 12 Liz Ann Drive, area variance for maintenance of an above-ground pool; seeking relief to permit the pool to be located in the front yard in the Rural Residential District. This application was heard at the December 9, 2103 meeting and adjourned to the December 16, 2013 meeting. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore, exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Robert S. Wheeler, Jr. Bill Moore, Chairman stated information regarding permeability was provided to the Board. Mr. Wheeler stated he appreciated the Board reviewing the area variance request. A privacy fence 6 ft tall would be the only solution. Discussion ensued regarding fencing. Mr. Wheeler stated there are some concerns. If we put up a 6 ft privacy fence there is no way to visually see to watch the children. I was thinking of a landscape berm. A very large berm with arborvitae planted to screen the pool.' We thought a natural landscape type barrier would be more attractive than a fence. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he is not comfortable with this application. Fencing in this area can be a maximum height of 5 feet. There are no alternative given. I am not comfortable with the drawings submitted being so off scale. If I have a scale drawing of the pool and the berm or the hill. I am very uncomfortable using this drawing. Considering this is December would the applicant like to take a few weeks and come up with a plan of what you would like to do. Do you want to come back to us in a month with what a landscape architect might have come up with and what would make everyone happy. In its present form I cannot vote in favor of this application. Mr. Wheeler stated he would like to adjourn the application for several weeks to pursue all options. He will return to the Board at that time. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 16, 2013 - Page 2 of 6 3. #2738 MULLAN DECK, 111 Fifth Avenue, area variance for expansion of an existing rear deck; seeking relief from the minimum side yard, minimum total side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. This application was heard at the December 9, 2013 meeting and adjourned to the December 16, 2013. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Staff could not find a permeability calculation from prior applications. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains open. Does anyone in the audience wish to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:04 P.M. Shirley Poppel presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Daniel Mullan 111 Fifth Avenue Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 from the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises at 111 Fifth Ave., identified as Tax Parcel Section 166.14, Block 4, Lot 9, 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 expansion of an existing rear deck; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback, minimum total side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential – 1 district; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on Monday, December 9, 2013 and Monday, December 16, 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 Relief Requested Minimum Side Yard Setback 12’ 5.5’ 6.5’ (54%) Minimum Total Side Yard Setback 30’ 12.5’ 17.5’ (58%) Maximum Principal Building Coverage 20% 26% previously granted Additional 1% 27% total 7% total 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The application states that there is no land available for purchase on either side of the house. The deck is on the rear of the house and the east side of the deck does not extend to or beyond the existing attached garage. The application indicates that the existing house was built in the late 1950’s and is preexisting nonconforming with regard to the setback requirements of the district. 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 indicates the deck does not extend past the existing house and is in the rear; therefore, it should not be visible from the street. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 16, 2013 - Page 3 of 6  3) The variance is not substantial as the side yard setback and total side yard setbacks would not encroach further than that which exists and principal building coverage is increased by only 1%. 4) The variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The application states, “The variance will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood, but will in fact further enhance the neighborhood. The house with the extension of the deck will exceed the 30% permeable surface area required in the district.” 5) The hardship is considered self-created difficulty. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. 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; Shirley Poppel, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 4. #2739 HENS ADDITION, 51 Walnut Street, area variance for a second story addition to an existing single family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-2 District. This application was heard at the December 9, 2013 meeting and adjourned to December 16, 2013. The public hearing was opened and remains open. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains open. Does anyone in the audience wish to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:14 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2739 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Christopher Hens 24 Walnut St Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 51 Walnut St, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.73-2-19 in the Inside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 16, 2013 - Page 4 of 6 The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence in a UR-2 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 9th and 16th days of December 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 MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK 8’ 5’ 3’ OR 37.5% 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 alternate placement of an addition on this residence, particularly on top of the single story area to the south of the existing two-story portion of the house, is not feasible because of engineering concerns with the structural integrity of that alternate area. These concerns preclude adding weight to that area, and, per the applicant, it may necessitate rebuilding that section entirely at a future time. Continuing the line of the existing second story avoids that engineering problem. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant notes that the design fits in with the style of neighborhood houses. The Board notes that the addition, placed as it is to the rear of the existing portion of the second story of this home, is unobtrusive and would have minimal neighborhood impact in terms of visual mass and scale. The Board further notes that the continuation of the existing setback encroachment is not impactful on neighborhood character as it is still less than what currently exists in terms of encroachment by the first floor, rear section of the home with respect to the side setback line. 3. The side yard setback variance is substantial; however, as noted above it is a continuation of an existing pre- existing nonconformity, and that the first floor rear section encroaches further over the setback line than what is proposed here. As noted by the applicant, under this proposal the footprint of the house would not change. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The proposed amount of permeable surface will not change as this is an addition to the second floor; in any case the permeability for this parcel, currently at 61%, exceeds the district requirement of 25%. The Board further finds that the physical impact of the continuation of the second story would be minimal; again the proposed addition is not easily seen from the street and there does not appear to be a significant effect from the potential blocking of sunlight in this case. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed addition, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Adam McNeill 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; Shirley Poppel, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 16, 2013 - Page 5 of 6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 18, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss, Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 1/27/14 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 16, 2013 - Page 6 of 6