Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2014 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:01 P. M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck; Skip Carlson; Oksana Ludd; James Helicke STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs 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: #2747 CONGREGATION & YESHIVA PARDES DORMITORY, 1 Veterans Way, area variance for expansion of the existing school including construction of an approximate 10,000 square foot residential building; seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage in the UR-1 district. Adjourned to April 28, 2014. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2759 ANW HOLDINGS, INC., 27 Jumel Place, area variance for construction of seven detached single-family residences; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback, maximum principal building coverage and maximum height for a residential fence in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Negative SEQRA Declaration issued October 28, 2013. PARCEL HISTORY: October 28, 2013 area variance application approved "to construct a seven unit condominium development. September 11, 2013 favorable advisory opinion issued by the Planning Board. February 8, 2013 applications for Van Zandt "Ballet School" withdrawn by the applicant.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 January 11, 2010 applications for Malta Montessori School withdrawn by the applicant.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 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 a 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 PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF APPROVED REQUESTED Maximum principal building 30% 43.5% Max 46% Additional 2.5% coverage: 7 units (total 53%) Maximum principal building on one 1 7 No change None lot Minimum front yard setback: (two 10 ft. 5 ft. 1 ft. Additional 4 ft. buildings) (total 90%) Minimum rear yard setback: (two 25 ft. 6 ft. No change None buildings) Maximum height residential fence: 6 ft. 8 ft. 2 ft. (33%) Applicant: John Witt Mr. Witt, applicant requested one new variance and one modification. Requesting the height of the fencing to be changed from 6 feet to 8 feet for additional privacy. The modified request for a front setback of 1' is what currently exists and consistent with surrounding homes. The average coverage request of 46% is necessary for the option of adding additional back porches on the homes. Permeability exceeds the minimum at 35.10% and parking accommodations are onsite. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Saratoga County Planning Board referral required. Site Plan Review required. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 21, 2014 - Page 2 of 14 Diane Redbord, Fifth Avenue, stated her concern is cars pulling out, and she questions if line of sight would be impacted by the increase in the height of the fencing. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Email received 04-21-14 from Sandra Cohen. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. The Board will prepare and present a resolution at the next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting scheduled for April 28, 2014 at 7:00 PM. 2. #2761 RELLA-BIRNBY RESIDENCE, 63 Fifth Avenue, area variance for construction of an approximate 540 sq. ft. rear addition to the existing single-family residence, seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback and minimum total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback: 12 feet 9.1 feet 8.5 feet 3.5 feet (29%) Minimum total side yard setback: 30 feet 17.5 feet 27 feet 3 feet (10%) Agents: Brett Balzer, Christine Nickerson, Balzer Tuck Architects; Mr. Balzer provided a video presentation of the project. As part of the application a portion of the existing structure will be demolished. Demolition will include the one story sun room and one story mudroom, creating a two story addition in this location. Ice and snow issues are to be resolved with the new addition. The requested variance is not substantial because the addition on the East side will not extend past the roof line of the existing house. The total side yard setbacks taken to the addition would be more in compliance than what currently exists. The proposed addition would increase by approximately 320 sq. ft. The lot is pre-existing nonconforming with regard to the average lot width requirement in the UR-1 minimum is 100' and existing is 55'. The substantially reduced lot width may make conforming to the side yards and total side yard setbacks difficult. The proposed addition is in the same location as the addition constructed in 1945. The proposed addition would not be visible from the street and therefore, should not produce an undesirable change to the neighborhood character. The proposed addition in both its character and placement in relation to the existing structure will complement the mass and scale of the existing house. The variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood because the proposed design will exceed the minimum requirements for permeability – 48% compared to the minimum 30%. Keith Kaplan questioned if any alternative designs were considered. Mr. Balzer stated the other alternatives considered did not meet the needs of the family. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:28 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 21, 2014 - Page 3 of 14 Diane Redbord, Fifth Avenue, next door neighbor stated she is total support of this project. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will leave the public hearing open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on April 28, 2014. 3. #2760 9N MEDICAL BUILDING, LLC, 373 Church Street, area variance to construct a 9,800 sq. ft. medical office building seeking relief from the minimum two story requirement in the Transect-4 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be an Unlisted Action. A short EAF was submitted. Planning Board special use permit and site plan review are required. DRC Architectural review is required. PROJECT HISTORY: - 377 Church Street, Saratoga Surgical Associates, area variance from the build to and frontage build-out requirements (13,000 sq. ft. medical office building is setback 30') approved October 29, 2007. - 377 Church Street, Saratoga Surgical Associates, site plan review approved July 11, 2007. - 377 Church Street, Saratoga Surgical Associates, special use permit issued May 16, 2007. -373-377 Church Street, Saratoga Surgical Specialists Property, two lot subdivision approved May 16, 2007. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum two-story: Two-story One-story (28') One-story No two-story (100%) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: - Saratoga County Planning Board referral required. - City Planning Board special use and site plan review required. - DRC architectural review required. Applicant: Fresenius Medical, Bonnie Conrad Agent: Mike Ingersoll, Matt Brobston, LA Group; Tony Bonacio, Bonacio Construction Mr. Ingersoll provided the Board with some background information on the parcel. This is a 1.3 acre parcel. A visual presentation of the project was provided to the Board. A review of all the setbacks and elevations were also provided to the Board. This building will become a dialysis center. The relief may be considered substantial at 100%; however the elevation drawings illustrate the look of a two story building and the height is 28'. The medical office to the west is a two story building and the height is 33'. To minimize the variance perception from Route 9N the building will be constructed taller than a typical single story building. The applicant's business performs efficiently in a single story structure as patients, equipment, medication and staff requires service on the same level, therefore a two story structure is not feasible. All other dialysis centers are constructed using the one floor only plan. 49 parking spaces are required. The site plan shows 37 provided and the applicant will be sharing the parking with the adjoining lots/offices. Mr. Ingersoll stated the character of the neighborhood would not change as the building will be placed as required and the exterior would be designed to resemble the previous buildings. The final subdivision plans identify a 15' sensitive area around the dollhouse and a note stating the structure within the area shown shall not be removed. The proposed site plan shows the dollhouse relocated to the back east corner of the property. Ms. Conrad, Fresenius Medical provided the Board with some background information on the company Fresenius. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 21, 2014 - Page 4 of 14 There are numerous sites throughout the Capital District. The idea is to have all the services on one floor. The staff needs to have accessibility to the patients, and equipment which needs to be monitored very closely throughout the day. The way this layout is presented we can view everything that is happening in the facility. There will be a training area provided for patients who would like to do dialysis at home. The idea is to have access to all of the staff and patients at all times, due to the critical condition of the patients visiting this facility. SEQRA: Bill Moore, Chairman made a motion to defer Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board for this project. 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; James Helicke, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 7-0 Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:47 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. Following your appearance at the Planning Board we will place this application back on our agenda for a determination on the area variance. 4. #2758 EUROPEAN WAX SIGN, 177 Ballston Avenue, area variance for installation of a wall sign, seeking relief to permit more than one wall sign for a single tenant space and from the maximum area of a sign in a Highway General Business District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: - DRC Architectural Review approval for "Total Tan" wall sign (32 sq. ft.) granted March 5, 2014. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 21, 2014 - Page 5 of 14  REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum number of wall signs for a single tenant space 1 2 1 (100%) Maximum size of wall signs: (two 80 sq. ft. (2 sq. ft. for each linear 86.38 sq. ft. signs combined) foot of building frontage) (54.38 sq. ft. and 6.38 sq. ft. (8%) 32 sq. ft) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: - Saratoga County Planning Board referral is required. - DRC Architectural Review is required. Agent: Terry Mizner, Saxton Signs Mr. Mizner stated he appeared before the Board with a sign presentation for Total Tan. The applicants have split the store area in half. Two signs are necessary. The relief is to allow two signs where only one is permitted. Mr. Mizner stated if the applicant were to make the sign smaller it would not fit in with the other tenants’ size of signs. The DRC Architectural approval is required. The signage is internally illuminated with individual letters. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning if the two businesses are separate business with two separate entrances. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:03 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. Bill Moore, Chairman requested a layout of the plaza, specifically where the entrance doors are located to each business, due to the confusion with the separation of the two businesses the European Wax and Total Tan. The application will be heard at the May 12, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 5. #2762 IRUN LOCAL SIGN, 18 Congress Street, Suite 3, area variance for installation of a wall sign, seeking relief to permit installation of a wall sign on a building façade without street frontage in the Transect-6 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: -DRC architectural review approval March 5, 2014 for the freestanding sign panel and Hamilton Street wall signage. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 21, 2014 - Page 6 of 14  REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Wall signs located on an elevation with no street frontage: Parking lot elevation (east side of the building) 0 1 1 (100%) RECUSAL: Adam McNeill, Secretary recused himself from this application. Applicant: Anthony and Jamie Mastroianni, owners. We are requesting an area variance for a wall sign on an elevation with no street frontage. This is a unique situation. An awning sign would be permitted over the entrance similar to Best Cleaners on this elevation. The business has a wall sign on the Hamilton Street façade and a space on the freestanding sign. Awning and window signs would be permitted. Lighting will remain the same as existing with goose neck lighting. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Saratoga County Planning Board referral required. - DRC Architectural Review is required. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:28 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 scheduled for April 28, 2014. OLD BUSINESS: 6. #2708 CELLCO/VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, 2202 Route 50 South, use and area variance for a new telecommunications facility including a 110' high stealth tower; seeking relief for the use and from minimum setback to the tower in a Highway General Business District. Adjourned to April 21, 2014 This application was heard at the February 24 meeting. The Board requested an advisory opinion from the DRC with regard to the proposed disguise of the tower (monopine or silo). In addition, the Board requested that the applicant consider the existing Canadian Pacific Railway tower as a collocation opportunity. This information was received March 3. Proposed telecommunications facility, including a 110' high stealth monopine tree tower and 12' x 30' equipment shelter. Host parcel includes H&V Auto/Enterprise and is located within the Highway General Business (HGB) District. The property is located within Gateway Design District 1A. The intent of the district is to encourage appropriate development while preserving and maintaining a rural "Country" character in this gateway area – to complement the natural conditions of the neighboring Saratoga Spa State Park. The property is adjacent to INST-PR district including lands of Spa State Park. SEQRA: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 21, 2014 - Page 7 of 14 Part 1 Long EAF: The Board should accept Lead Agency Status. 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, 2013. The ZBA initiated Coordinated SEQR review and sought Lead Agency status on September 9, 2013. Action appears to be an Unlisted Action. Other involved agencies include Planning Board for Site Plan Review and DRC for Architectural Review. PROJECT HISTORY: - Use variance application submitted April, 2013 for a 95' high tower. - At the September 9 ZBA meeting the Board requested the wetland delineation report referenced in the EAF and a completed visual EAF addendum. As well as a balloon float that could be witnessed by the Boards and staff. - An October, 2013 balloon float, "determined that a 95' tall structure would not sufficiently clear the existing surrounding trees". Applicant: Verizon Wireless Agent: Scott Olsen, Attorney; Rick Andress, Radio Frequency Engineer, Verizon Wireless Mr. Olsen stated the applicant appeared before the Design Review Commission on April 16, 2014. The Zoning Board of Appeals requested an Advisory Opinion from the Commission to get their input on the type of structure they deem appropriate for this location. The applicant was proposing a tree tower and the Design Review Commission after discussion decided the silo looked more appropriate for this location than the tree tower. The applicant's agent provided the Board with a photo simulation of what the DRC would like to see in this location. Mr. Olsen reviewed the uses for the Highway General Business District. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the visual impacts of the application. A suggestion was made to have a joint meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Design Review Commission to discuss this application. It was the consensus of the Board to defer this application until the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on April 28, 2014. No additional information was requested from the applicant. Site plans will be forwarded to the Board by the applicant's agent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Bill Moore, Chairman made a motion to approve the March 24, 2014 minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals as amended. 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; James Helicke, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 7-0 RECUSAL Bill Moore, Chairman recused himself from this application, and exited the meeting. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 21, 2014 - Page 8 of 14 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman assumed the duties of the chair. 7. #2749 569 NORTH BROADWAY, LLC EXPANSION, 569 North Broadway, use and area variance for expansion of an existing medical office use; seeking relief to convert a portion of the second floor space from residential to medical office and from the minimum parking requirement in the Urban Residential-4 District. This application appeared before the Board at the February 24, 2014 meeting. The public hearing was opened at that time and remains open. The application was adjourned to March 10, 2014. The application was then adjourned to March 24, 2014, at the request of the applicant. Additional information requested from the applicant was supplied to the Board on March 18, 2014. DISCLOSURE: Board Member Gary Hasbrouck disclosed that he was noticed on this application since he does own property in this area. He has no financial interest in this application and there is no need for recusal simply disclosure. SEQRA: The Zoning Board of Appeals issued a SEQRA Negative Declaration on March 24, 2014. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:05 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following Use Variance resolution. Appeal #2749 In the Matter of the Appeal of 569 North Broadway LLC 569 North Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the Building Inspector’s determination for the application of 569 North Broadway, LLC for a use variance for the premises at 569 North Broadway (tax parcel 165.44-1-45) to permit the expansion of an existing dentist’s office; seeking relief to allow an expansion of a use not permitted in the UR-4 district and having heard testimony at public hearings initiated February 24th, March 10th, March 24th, and April 21st, 2014, be approved based on submitted plans because the applicant has demonstrated and proven all 4 standards of hardship as follows: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that this property cannot realize a reasonable financial return on initial investment for any currently permitted use on the property. The applicant wishes to expand the dental practice to the 2nd floor of the subject premises by converting the currently vacant 7.5sf’ upstairs apartment to medical office use. As per submitted documentation, the value of the land and improvements on the existing parcel currently owned or controlled by the applicant totals $800,000. The first floor of the subject property has been a dental practice for over 20 years according to city records and applicant testimony. A “determination letter”, dated August 23, 2007, established this as a nonconforming medical office use. The applicant contends that unless the allowed expansion is granted, the current dental practice will cease to be a viable entity in the future due to technology innovations which allow for expanded services to patients. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 21, 2014 - Page 9 of 14 The second floor apartment will not provide a reasonable return on investment for the other uses allowed in the district. A private school, religious institution, bed & breakfast, rooming house, senior housing, senior assisted care facility, convenience store <2000 sq’, home occupation, family day care and group family day care would require greater square footage than the 7.5sf’ available for use. Further financial analysis of the viability for each of these uses is not applicable due to size constraints. The applicant provided a Supplemental Narrative dated 3/24 as an addendum to the original application. References to that Narrative will be noted as SN-3/24 hereafter. As noted in SN-3/24, moving the dental practice to another location is not feasible. This analysis is required since the applicant maintains that denial of expansion would make the current practice less than a viable entity in the future. The applicant provided CRMLS (Capital Region Multiple Listing Service) commercial property for lease listings for locations within reasonable proximity to his current location. Each property was not on the ground floor and had limited to no parking available for patients. The SN-3/24 also states, ”The Doctor practices Dentistry and lives on the parcel. Such a location cannot be easily replicated, and, certainly, no similar parcel is available. A relocation would result in a complete change of character for the “local” dentist business Dr. Osinski operates at present, and would negate the very premise upon which the property was purchased: As a combination residence/dental practice.” The Board concludes relocation of the practice to a location within a reasonable distance of the subject property would result in a financial hardship for the applicant due to lack of patient parking and reasonable patient access to a new location. A redesign of the first floor dental office was considered as an alternative to granting the variance. In consideration of the redesign, the applicant listed several procedures currently referred outside the practice requiring advanced technology equipment needing to be incorporated within the existing space. SN-3/24 includes these procedures as being periodontal treatment; repair of recession defects, laser recontouring, disease elimination; surgical placement of dental implants; bone grafting/gum grafting/isolation and application of growth factors; and oral surgery among others. The applicant states, “All of the above procedures generally take about 3 hours to perform, plus patient recovery time.” The applicant concludes in SN-3/24, “The size of the largest operatory currently used in the existing space is not adequate to expand scheduling these services beyond Friday appointments, without rendering the office unusable to routine patient visits.” SN-3/24 goes on to explain the sanitation and set up procedures needed for each service rendered and how changing over from each procedure’s unique needs would create an inefficient and time consuming process. SN-3/24 specifically notes, “The distinction is between a standard room set-up for a general dentistry procedure that is disinfected, and used with sterile instruments versus a room that is designed and set-up more like an operating room. (specialized lighting, imaging, airflow, operatory chairs, etc.)” The Board concludes that a redesign of the existing space without expansion to the 2nd floor would result in a financial hardship to the applicant due to space constraints to incorporate advanced surgical equipment and techniques. The applicant supplied a “Profit and Loss” statement listing income and expenses along with supporting documents verifying the expenses of the subject property. In calculating the return on investment of the property should the variance not be granted, the subject property would need to be converted back to 3 rentable units in 2 principal buildings to comply with UR-4 zoning. Based upon applicant furnished CRMLS listings for apartments for lease, the SN-3/24 concludes, “…market rent of $1400 per floor for the front building and $1800 for the rear building, a total rent of $4600 per month or $55,200 annually for a three unit residential property can be expected.” Adding to the original $800,000 investment would be “an estimated cost of $65,000” to convert the 1st floor dentist office into a residential living unit. Also, “…conversion of the second floor from two City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 21, 2014 - Page 10 of 14  apartments into one, at an estimated cost of $5,000….”, brings the total applicant investment to $870,000. Based upon the $55,200 revenue minus the $25,681 in yearly expenses, this leaves a net income of $29,519/yr. This amount divided by an overall investment of $870,000 returns 3.39% for the applicant prior to debt service. The Board concludes the applicant would suffer significant financial hardship and would not realize a reasonable rate of return on his investment. The applicant also submitted CRMLS listings for 3 family homes for sale should the variance not be granted. The 3 family pricing ranged from $245,000-$420,000. The SN-3/24 anticipates the comparable sales price to be “445,000-620,000….allowing for an additional $200,000 in value due to the upgraded single family home…” Using the high end of the applicant’s range, a sales price of $820,000 could be expected. Using the above conversion costs and the $870,000 total investment, The Board concludes the applicant would suffer financial hardship from the sale and would not earn a reasonable return of his investment. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the financial hardship relating to this property is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood. The subject property is zoned Urban Residential-4 and consists of multi-family homes with a mixed use apartment/business office next door. There are no other medical use facilities in the neighborhood. The property is unique in that a separate single family home is located in the rear of the same property and is used by the applicant as his primary residence. The financial viability of the business on the first floor of the rental building on the property is interwoven with the use of the 2nd floor of the same building and ultimately with the single family primary residence. This is a unique circumstance shared by no other property in the neighborhood. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. As stated previously, this is a pre-existing non-conforming business acknowledged by the City in a letter dated August 23rd, 2007 from the building inspector to the property owner’s attorney. Another letter from the landowner’s attorney to the City reveals a dentist’s practice has been located at the premises since 1946. The current applicant has indicated that no exterior changes will be made to the property by converting an upstairs apartment into dental office space. The applicant also states “There will be no need for additional parking to meet the demands of the practice, as, no additional patients or additional doctors are needed to utilize this expansion.” The Board concludes that granting this variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 4. The applicant has demonstrated that the alleged hardship has not been self-created. As stated in the SN-3/24, the expansion of the practice is due to technological advances in treatments. Without purchasing the advanced medical equipment necessary to meet the needs of today’s dental patients, the practice would not be viable. The purchase of this equipment necessitates extra space which is not available on the first floor of the building and thereby forces the move of the administrative portion of the business to the available space on the second floor. The applicant testified that up until this year, this new technology equipment has been unaffordable. Recent competition from new suppliers of these products has brought down prices so as to make possible a reasonable return from investing in the equipment according to the applicant. The applicant provided documents relating to a specific piece of equipment he currently does not own but wishes to purchase. Due to competition from multiple suppliers, this item previously available for roughly $200,000 in 2012, is now available for $70-100 thousand dollars today. The applicant provided a copy of a study performed by Diringer & Associates dated May 2013 analyzing changes in the future of dentistry. The executive summary at the beginning of the study states, “Dentistry in the United States is in a period of transformation. The population is aging and becoming more diverse. The health care delivery system is changing rapidly with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Consumer habits are shifting with Americans increasingly relying on technology and seeking greater value from their spending. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 21, 2014 - Page 11 of 14  The nature of oral disease and the financing of dental care are in a state of flux.” As the study relates to this variance request, they find “With increased demand for value in dental care spending, practices will need to become more efficient. Health care reform and Medicaid expansions with an increasing emphasis on outcomes and cost-effectiveness will encourage alternative models of dental care.” The study also states, “As the need for dental services shifts more towards preventive services, increasing utilization of mid-level practitioners for many procedures may be cost-effective.” The study also noted, “The demand by purchasers to demonstrate value will increase costs of practice (e.g. upgraded technology) with decreasing reimbursements.” The study concludes with “Many challenges are confronting dentistry and the status quo is unsustainable.” The applicant states, “At present, the existing first floor space must be “refitted”, via the disinfection and conversion process, to accommodate either an operatory or exam space, but cannot be both simultaneously. This results in limited scheduling availability and a severe limitation on patient services. As such, the practice is in danger of becoming obsolete as its patients seek both cutting and conveniently scheduled/immediately available treatment elsewhere.” He also states, “Management software reflects 49 referrals for surgical procedures in 2013 that could have been performed if such a space existed.” The Board concludes that the expansion of the dentist’s office to the second floor apartment is proper due to technological advances and market driven forces not under the applicant’s control and therefore concludes this is not a self-created hardship. The Board notes that Planning Board Site Plan Review is required. Oksana Ludd seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Considerable discussion ensued among the Board members both in favor and opposed to the resolution. James Helicke questioned whether the applicant was unable to realize a reasonable return on the property and if the alleged hardship was not self created. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary; in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, opposed MOTION PASSES: 5-1 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated we will now move onto the Area Variance. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following Area Variance resolution. Appeal #2749 In the Matter of the Appeal of 569 North Broadway LLC 569 North Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the Building Inspector’s determination for the same premises, identified as Tax Parcel Section 165.44, Block 1, Lot 45, Inside District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 21, 2014 - Page 12 of 14 WHEREAS, the appellant has applied for an AREA VARIANCE for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for the Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirement in an Urban Residential – 4 zoning district for expansion of a medical office; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on February 24th, March 10th, March 24th and April 21st, 2014. WHEREAS, 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; be APPROVED: Required Existing Proposed Total Relief Requested Minimum off-street parking spaces: 15 10 10 5 spaces (33%) 12 required for the medical office use and 3 for the two residential units 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. A dentist’s office currently exists on the site and a separate use variance request is being made to expand that practice. The application states, “There will be no need for additional parking to meet the demands of the practice, as no additional patients or additional doctors are needed to utilize this expansion. There would be no new traffic, usage or demand upon street parking or local sidewalks and roads.” The applicant explored moving his practice as described in the use variance request and has determined he cannot do this without enduring significant financial hardship. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. No changes are being proposed to the exterior of the building including the parking arrangement. The applicant has testified this dentist’s office has been in existence for over 20 years. 3) The relief requested may be considered substantial. This is partially mitigated by the fact that this is a single doctor practice. The applicant notes, “…Dr. Osinki lives on the parcel, and therefore, only occupies 1 of the 3 spaces set aside for him: 2 residential and 1 office, since, his vehicle need not move between home and work.” 4) The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. No additional impermeable area is anticipated to be added to the project. 5) The difficulty may be considered self-created. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: City Planning Board site plan review is required Adam McNeill, Secretary seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 21, 2014 - Page 13 of 14 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 5/12/14 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, April 21, 2014 - Page 14 of 14