Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:03 P. M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck; Oksana Ludd; James Helicke ABSENT: Skip Carlson STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney 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: #2782 BROWN & DAVIDSON ACCESSORY BUILDING, 10 Perry Street, area variance to construct and finish interior of a shed; seeking relief to permit finished/habitable space in an accessory building in the Urban Residential-3 District. Adjourned to October 20, 2014. #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 October 20, 2014. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2786 RITE AID REDEVELOPMENT, 90 West Avenue and 242 Washington Street, consideration of SEQRA Lead Agency for redevelopment and expansion of the pharmacy within the Transect-5 Neighborhood Center District. SEQRA: Action appears to be an Unlisted Action. In addition to the ZBA, the Planning Board will review this application for Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review, and the Design Review Commission will review for architectural review and are involved agencies. Coordinated review is recommended. Consideration for the Planning Board to act as Lead Agency. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Build to line: West Avenue 0-12' 32' 10" 20.83' (173.58%) Frontage build out: West Avenue 70% 52.23% 17.77% (25.39%) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: County Planning Board referral required. Planning Board special use permit and site plan review required. DRC Architectural Review required. RECUSAL: Board member Oksana Ludd recused herself from this application. Applicant: National Retail Properties, Inc. Agent: Matthew J. Jones, Justin Grassi, Attorneys for the Applicant; Jaclyn Hakes, MJ Engineering and Land Surveying Mr. Jones attorney for the applicant stated the applicant is looking to establish SEQRA Lead Agency Status. He provided a brief background of the site location, and property. The existing Rite Aid has been in operation at this location for 22 years. They are currently under contract to purchase the Touch Free Car Wash at 242 Washington Street which is contingent upon receipt of the necessary approvals. This will increase the size of the Rite Aid to approximately 8,000 square feet. Ms. Hakes, MJ Engineering provided a visual presentation of the proposed concept for the new project reviewing alternative designs, elevations, signage, as well as ingress and egress from the site. The applicants are researching opportunities for green infrastructure to the extent that the site affords. Mr. Jones requested SEQRA Lead Agency deferral to the Planning Board. Bill Moore, Chairman requested a motion to defer SEQRA Lead Agency to the Planning Board. Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion to defer Lead Agency to the Planning Board. 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; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Board member Oksana Ludd resumed her position on the Board. OLD BUSINESS: 2. #2783 SARATOGA VISION SIGN, 235 Washington Street, area variance for construction of a wall sign; seeking relief to permit installation above the first floor level of the building in the Transect-4 District. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, September 22, 2014 - Page 2 of 12 This application was heard at the September 8, 2014 meeting and adjourned to September 22, 2014. The Board requested a site plan identifying the location of the freestanding sign be submitted. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Washington Commons – Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals granted 09/29/2010. Washington Commons – DRC Architectural Review approval granted 10/06/2010. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Placement of wall sign Below first floor level Above first floor level. Permit placement above first floor level 100% NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Saratoga County Planning Board referral is required. DRC Architectural review is required. Agent: John Natale, Managing Partner; Daniel Roicki, Adirondack Sign Company Mr. Roicki stated the proposed sign will be a dimensional lettering reverse lit sign above the first floor level. Alternate locations were researched however the visibility will be poor and hard for customers to identify. The architectural design of the building with the receded entranceway would impede the visibility of a sign in that location. Mr. Natale provided an example of the proposed signage with proposed lighting for the Boards review. The signage lettering is close to the wall and provides a soft glow. This signage will be lit only during operating hours. Signage lighting will be on a timer. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding signage, lighting, placement, and other alternatives. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. John J. Houghey, 10 Outlook. He objects to the signage proposed. He stated he pays too much in taxes to have this signage in his backyard. It is wrong. James Butkis, 9 Outlook. Directional signage is not objected to. This will be a heartache for the neighbors imposing lighting in our living room and bedrooms. Mike Chusano, stated he went to the Springs to review their signage. Their signage is not as intrusive. Matt Miller, 10 Central Avenue questioned what is allowed on the first floor. Second floor signage is not needed, it is a burden to the residences behind this building. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, September 22, 2014 - Page 3 of 12 Ann Marie Verbal, 10 Outlook. Concerned regarding nighttime signage. Also there was supposed to be more of a tree barrier and buffering on the property line. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he does have a problem with the second floor lit sign. Alternative uses could work just as well. Discussion ensued regarding the amount of lighting in the parking lot, alternative placement design for signage. Concern by the Board regarding neighboring residential area. Perhaps another freestanding sign. Direction was given to the applicant. Perhaps putting the sign in an area on the building. Directional signage is allowed. It was the consensus of the Board that the agent would speak to the client. We will adjourn the application for two weeks. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the application will remain open and await additional information from the applicant. 3. #2785 HOSTETLER & HUIBREGTSE ADDITION, 9 Pinewood Avenue, area variance for construction of an approximate 350 sq. ft. two-story addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard and minimum total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-2 District. This application was heard at the September 8, 2014 meeting and adjourned to September 22, 2014. The Board requested a revised site plan showing the dimension of the addition to the side property lines. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback 8 feet 6 feet 2 feet (25%) Minimum total side yard setback 20 feet 18 feet 2 feet (10%) Agent: Thad Smith, Teakwood Builders Applicants: Renee Hostetler, Mark Huibregtse Mr. Smith stated the Board requested additional information regarding the Northside setback. This information was provided to the Board. Permeability calculation was also provided. NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT Karl Sleight, 7 Pinewood correspondence in support of the application. Tina Morris, 8 Pinewood correspondence in support of the application. Paul and Betty Bedrey, 11 Pinewood, correspondence in support of the application. Patrick Brundage, 156 East Avenue, correspondence in support of the application. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing has been previously opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, September 22, 2014 - Page 4 of 12 Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:06 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2785 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Renee Hostetler and Mark Huibregtse 9 Pinewood Ave. Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 9 Pinewood Ave. in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.46-2-78 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 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 8th and 22nd days of September 2014. 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 DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REQUIREMENT MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK (SOUTH) 8’ 6’ 2’ OR 25% MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK 20’ 18’ 2’ OR 10% As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicants have demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicants. The applicants note that alternative designs such as moving the addition further north along the back wall while compressing the shape to avoid total side yard setback encroachment were contemplated, however they were found to not be feasible due to the fact that moving the addition further to the north is precluded by the placement of the driveway as well as the location of a window on the back of the house. Furthermore, the shape change involved in such a redesign would cause the back of the house to assume a “tubular” look per the applicant’s contractor. The contractor also explained that functionality would be reduced by a change of this type. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The board notes that the addition, placed as it is to the rear of the home, minimizes impact to the neighborhood impact in terms of visual mass and scale. Furthermore, the applicants note that it is their intention to incorporate details characteristic to the existing house as well as those of the neighborhood homes, into the addition. 3. The Board finds these variance requests, at 25% and 10%, not to be substantial in this case. Furthermore, the Board notes that the variances requested are still less than those already grandfathered in for the existing house. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The proposed amount of permeable surface noted by the applicants, 44.7%, will exceed the district requirement of 25%. 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. James Helicke seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, September 22, 2014 - Page 5 of 12 None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 5. #2778 GUARINO & HANER TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCES, 21 Park Place, area variance to construct a two-family residence, a two-unit addition to an existing three-family residence and two detached garages; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-4 District. This application was heard at the July 14, 2014 meeting and adjourned to July 28, 2014. The application was further adjourned to September 8, 2014 at the applicants' request. The application was further adjourned to September 22, 2014 at the applicant's request. The public hearing was opened on July 14, 2014 and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type I action – substantially contiguous to Congress Park-Casino-Circular Street, National Register District, coordinated review is required. Planning Board is an involved agency. The Zoning Board of Appeals could seek Lead Agency Status. Long EAF was submitted per regulations. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL County Planning Board referral required. DRC Architectural Review required. Applicant: David Guarino Bill Moore, Chairman stated he believes the Zoning Board of Appeals should seek Lead Agency Status for SEQRA. Discussion ensued regarding deferring Lead Agency status to the Planning Board or should the Zoning Board of Appeals seek Lead Agency Status. Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion for the ZBA to seek SEQRA Lead Agency Status. Bill Moore, Chairman seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, opposed; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; James Helicke, opposed MOTION PASSES: 4-2 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. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, September 22, 2014 - Page 6 of 12 Steve O'Shea, 7 Cottage St. I feel this application is a substantial change to the neighborhood. Alice O'Brien, 23 Park Place. The numbers on the home are wrong. Tom Gardner, Duluth, Minnesota. I am a property owner in the City. Proud of the Board and the work that it does. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. The applicant will be on the agenda for the October 20, 2014 meeting. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Letter dated 09/14/2014 received from Johanna Anderson, 20 Park Place. Letter dated 09/22/2014 received from Dan Manny 108 Regent Street. 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. On September 8, 2014 the Board initiated the SEQRA analysis and progressed through much of Part 2 of the EAF. The Board requested a response from NYSHPO regarding any potential impacts the project may have on historic or archeological resources. SHPO response submitted to the Board as requested. This application was first heard at the February 24, 2014 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, 2014 and mailed to the Board. The DRC issued a favorable advisory opinion for a silo structure on April 15, 2014. Subsequently, the DRC and ZBA held a workshop to discuss the two disguises. At that meeting the DRC consented to reconsider the pine tree disguise if provided additional information including construction drawings of a similar well designed structure in the Village of Port Henry. Upon review of the additional information, the DRC issued a favorable advisory opinion for the pine tree on July 16, 2014. The public hearing was opened on February 24, 2014 and remains open. The proposed telecommunication facility, including a 110' high stealth monopine tree tower and 12' x 30' equipment shelter. The host parcel includes H & V Auto/Enterprise and is located within the Highway General Business (HGB) District. The property is located within the 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 Park. The property is adjacent to INST-PR district including lands of Spa State Park. SEQRA: Part 1 Long EAF identified "Yes" to the project site location in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYSHPO archeological site inventory. Additional information/clarification requested from applicant and/or SHPO. 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 SEQRA 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 the DRC for Architectural Review. PROJECT HISTORY: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, September 22, 2014 - Page 7 of 12 Use Variance application submitted April 2013 for a 95' high tower. At the September 9, 2014 ZBA meeting the Board requested the wetland delineation report referenced in the EAF, 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. The application indicates that the project is necessary to provide adequate and safe public utility/personal wireless service to this portion of the City for use by emergency personnel and the general public. The application states that the project will increase the applicant's wireless communications capacity and coverage which will help ensure that adequate levels of service exist for emergency and non-emergency wireless communications in the service area. The proposed facility will also permit Verizon Wireless to provide its 4G wireless service to the surrounding area. Applicant: Cellco/Verizon Wireless Agent: Jessica Vigers, Young and Sommers, Attorney for Verizon Wireless Ms. Vigers stated the applicant has worked with the DRC regarding the appearance of the monopine cell tower. We have worked with the City staff with the stormwater management program. We are now in compliance with the City's regulations. SEQRA: All information requested has been provided by the applicant. No large or important areas of concern were noted. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion for a SEQRA Negative Declaration in the application of the Cellco/ Verizon Wireless Telecommunication Facility, 2202 Route 50 South. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman, stated the public hearing has been previously opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:36 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2708 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, September 22, 2014 - Page 8 of 12  175 Calkins Road Rochester NY 14623 involving the premises at 2202 Route 50 South, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being Section 190.0, Block 2, Lot 7, Outside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for a use variance and area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of a telecommunications facility in a Highway General Business District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on February 24, April 21, September 8 and 22, 2014. 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 use variance to permit the construction of a telecommunication facility including a maximum 110’ high tower (95’ antenna centerline height) as well as area variances for the following amounts of relief: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum setback to property line (full height of tower): 110 feet 90 feet 20 feet (18%) west side Minimum setback to property line (full height of tower): 110 feet 85 feet 25 feet (23%) east side as shown on submitted plans and exhibits as resubmitted December 13, 2013 (consolidated record of submissions) and most recently revised August 14, 2014 be granted for the following reasons: 1) The applicant has provided an analysis of need for the proposed telecommunications facility. Cellco Partnership provided radio frequency propagation plots and analyses that demonstrate the absence of adequate coverage in this area. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that it has explored alternative means to derive the benefit it is seeking in order to minimize the degree of variance from the City’s land use codes, plans and goals. The law of wireless siting in New York is significantly different from conventional zoning law and principles. Cellular providers are held to the standard of public utilities (Cellular Telephone Co. v. Rosenberg, 82 NY 2d 364, 371 (1993)). The question is not whether a cellular provider can demonstrate unnecessary hardship, but whether there is a gap in coverage that needs to be filled and whether sufficient reasons exist for a particular facility in a particular location (Consolidated Edison v. Hoffman, 43 NY 2d 598 (1978)). Documentation provided by and statements made by the applicant indicate that the exploration of alternative options has taken place along three major fronts: location, height, and design. First, in terms of location, the applicant provided a “Radio Frequency/Site Selection Analysis” (as required per 240-6.3.2 B.3.a.) that included an examination of existing tall structures in the area for co-location opportunities as well as alternative site locations for a new facility. The applicant stated that there were no existing tall structures within the search area or throughout the southwest area of Saratoga Springs that would meet the required coverage and capacity objectives. The Board asked the applicant to consider the feasibility of collocating on the existing Canadian Pacific Railway tower. In response, the applicant provided an RF analysis stating that “the tower is too far south (0.9 miles south from the proposed facility) to satisfy coverage objectives.” The applicant noted that the search for alternative sites utilized information gathered during the search that had been done leading up to the July 16, 2009 approval by this Board of a tower on land across Route 50 from the proposed site, for SBA Wireless. The applicant notes that in that case, the failure to secure a railroad crossing easement made any sitting decision that would depend on a similar easement unfeasible. Based on the constraints of staying in the vicinity of the previously approved site but west of Route 50 to avoid the need for a railroad crossing easement, the applicant City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, September 22, 2014 - Page 9 of 12 identified two possible sites; the subject site and a site owned by Verizon New York, Inc. The latter site was found to have insufficient usable space on the property for this project. The subject site was seen by the applicant to not only have the space for the project, but also to have sufficient vegetation to screen the ground-based equipment associated with this project. This site also provided additional elevation of approximately 30 feet above the previously approved SBA location. Second, in terms of height, the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship is the minimum height to adequately service the gap for Verizon Wireless. This was summarized in the December 10, 2013 “Radio Frequency/Site Selection Analysis” prepared by Mr. Rick Andras, Verizon Wireless RF Engineer, and Mr. James Deloria, Project Manager, Verizon Wireless Site Acquisition. This analysis concluded that the proposed new wireless facility, with the height expected of 110 feet in total with the antenna height at approximately 95 feet, would be necessary to resolve the coverage deficiency existing in the Hutchins Road and surrounding areas of southwestern Saratoga Springs. The Board finds the evidence presented on this point to be relevant and persuasive. Included with the analysis were RF plots that supported this conclusion. Finally, design options to mitigate the visual impacts of this project have been duly considered. The SBA tower noted above was to be designed as a silo replica; in the new location, the applicant has proposed a “monopine” tree design to integrate with the wooded surrounding areas. The Board has consulted with the City’s Design Review Commission including a joint meeting between the two boards on appropriate stealthing techniques. After deliberation and review of a similar project in another municipality, the DRC issued an advisory opinion July 16, 2014 in favor of the proposed monopine design. 3) The applicant has established that the project will not have significant adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood or district. An initial balloon float was conducted on February 23, 2013 to test the view shed analysis, critical viewpoints were identified and photo simulations were produced to evaluate potential visual impacts from these areas. That balloon float led to the determination that the project as proposed at that time was at an insufficient height to properly clear surrounding treetops and that additional height was needed. Board members attended the subsequent balloon float on October 24, 2013 and have reviewed the photo simulations, and the Board concludes that there is no significant adverse visual impact from this proposed project. The Board notes that the remote location of this site relative to the publicly used portion of the main parcel, and the site’s wooded character, mitigates the adverse impact of the tower both to the neighborhood/district, and to the environment. The applicant has provided an opinion of a soil and hydrogeological consultant stating that that while Federal wetlands are present on the site, and in the vicinity of the project area, that no wetlands permits are required since no disturbance to those wetlands will occur. Additionally, the applicant has supplied detailed plans specifically identifying the specific trees that will be affected by the project as well as other trees in the project vicinity that will not be impacted. 4) While ordinarily self-creation and uniqueness of hardship are major criteria that are difficult to overcome when considering granting a use variance, a telecommunications facility is considered differently under New York State law; see the references above to the Cellular Telephone Co and Consolidated Edison cases. Area variance considerations: 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. As the application states, “Locating the tower in the northern portion of the lease area places the tower closer to existing mature vegetation that will serve to enhance the screening of the proposed communications tower”. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The property abuts NYS lands to the north and west City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, September 22, 2014 - Page 10 of 12  and a parcel owned by Verizon to the south and east. An encroachment into these setbacks of less than the full tower height would not adversely impact neighboring properties. 3) The relief requested may not be considered substantial at 18% and 23% respectively in this case. As the application states, “While a lower tower height could eliminate the need for the requested variances, such lower tower height would not provide the service necessary to eliminate the existing coverage gaps”. 4) The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The tower is designed to be disguised as a pine tree which will blend in with the rural character of the surrounding properties. The Board has conducted a review of part I and has completed Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form under SEQRA and has issued a Negative Declaration finding. 5) The difficulty may be considered self-created with respect to the area variance. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: The applicant shall submit a maintenance plan that the tower, accessory structures and site improvements are maintained as approved. This shall be filed with the zoning and building inspector prior to issuance of a building permit. Use variance expires with discontinuance of use/dismantling of structure. The applicant shall submit to the Board a letter of intent committing the tower owner and his/her successors in interest, to notify the zoning and building inspector within 30 days of the discontinuance of use of the tower (per 240-6.3.2 C.). This letter shall be filed with the zoning and building inspector prior to issuance of a building permit. Tower and accessory structures shall be removed within 4 months of the date of discontinued use (per 240-6.3.2 C.). In addition, restoration of the site to its previous condition shall be completed within 4 months of discontinued use. Notes: Saratoga County Planning Board issued a decision of “No significant county-wide or intercommunity impact” for the project on February 20, 2014. City Planning Board Site Plan Review required. DRC Architectural Review required. 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; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, September 22, 2014 - Page 11 of 12 Gary Hasbrouck made a motion to approve the September 8, 2014 minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals with corrections as submitted. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Oksana Ludd, abstained; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0-1 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 10/20/14 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, September 22, 2014 - Page 12 of 12