Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2014 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:02 P. M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Skip Carlson; Oksana Ludd LATE ARRIVAL: Gary Hasbrouck arrived at 7:08 P.M. ABSENT: James Helicke 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 finish the interior of a shed; seeking relief to permit finished/habitable space in an accessory building in the Urban Residential – 3 District. #2792 STONE BUILDINGS, 68 Weibel Avenue, area variance to maintain existing buildings; seeking relief from the build-to, minimum frontage build-out and minimum two-story requirements in the Transect-4 District. #2791 FOX RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 72 Union Avenue, area variance for construction of two additional residential units to an existing multi-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum lot area requirement for the 15th unit and from the maximum principal building coverage requirement in the Urban Residential-4 District. #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. #2786 RITE AID REDEVELOPMENT, 60 West Avenue and 242 Washington Street, area variance for redevelopment and expansion of the pharmacy and associated sign package; seeking relief from the build-to and frontage build-out requirements in the Transect-5 District. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2796 PAVOLDI TWO-FAMILY ADDITION, 75 Lake Avenue, area variance for construction of a second dwelling unit addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback, side yard (each side) setbacks and total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-4 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet 11 feet 14 feet (56%) Minimum side yard setback: west 20 feet 8.2 feet 11.8 feet (59%) Minimum side yard setback: east 20 feet 4.2 feet 15.8 feet (79%) Minimum total side yard setback 45 feet 12.4 feet 33 feet (73%) Applicant: Nick Pavoldi, Owner Agent: Galarneau Builders Mr. Pavoldi stated they are proposing the construction of a second dwelling unit addition to an existing single-family residence. The plan is to renovate the current home and build a second family unit on the back. Review of setbacks by the Board. The lot is pre-existing non-conforming with regard to the minimum average lot width requirement. The existing house is pre-existing non-conforming with regard to the minimum side yard setback and front yard setback requirements. The property is located in a transition area between single and two-family residential district and urban core. Four parking spaces will be allocated off the alley. Discussion ensued regarding feasible alternatives as well as the amount of permeability of the parcel. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:16 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting on December 8, 2014. OLD BUSINESS: 2. #2800 PICKETT POOL, 589 North Broadway, area variance for installation of an in-ground pool; seeking relief from the maximum accessory building coverage in the Urban Residential-1 District. RECUSAL: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman recused himself from this application. This application was heard at the November 17, 2014 meeting and adjourned to November 24, 2014. The public hearing was opened and remains open. PUBLIC HEARING: 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, November 24, 2014 - Page 2 of 15 Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:19 P.M. Skip Carlson presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF DANIEL T. PICKETT III 589 NORTH BROADWAY SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 589 North Broadway, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 165.44-1-74 in the Inside Tax District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance for installation of an in-ground pool; seeking relief from the maximum accessory building coverage in the Urban Residential-1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 17th day of November, 2014 and the 24th day of November, 2014. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, compared to the detriment to the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood or community that would occur if the variance were to be granted, I move that the area variance for the following amount of relief : Maximum Accessory Building Required: 8% Proposed: 10% Total Relief Requested: Coverage: 2% (25%) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1.) The applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The applicant reduced the size of the carriage house to 6.4%. With the addition of the pool, generator and condenser units, the total area for accessory structures will be 10%. The application states that “reductions in size of the pool will not result in a functional design.” 2.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character, or a detriment to nearby properties. The application states “the general scheme and building topography of the main house, carriage house and landscape improvements are consistent with other properties within the North Broadway UR-1 District.” 3.) The relief of 2% for maximum accessory building coverage may be considered substantial at 25% of total relief requested considering that the principal structure has already been given a variance of 2% or 20% of relief. This brings the total site coverage to 32% when 28% is allowed in the district. This relief is somewhat mitigated by the fact that 48.8% of the site remains permeable, well above the district minimum which is 30%. 4.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The applicant notes that the relief for an in-ground pool is not visible to neighbors as an above ground pool would be. The applicant also states that “the relief is consistent with neighborhood massing and scale.” 5.) The request for relief from the maximum accessory building coverage in an UR-1 District may be considered a self- created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Oksana Ludd, abstained; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0-1 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 24, 2014 - Page 3 of 15 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman resumed his position on the Board. 3. #2797 MCCUE GARAGE, 308 Caroline Street, area variance to finish the second-story of an existing detached garage to habitable space; seeking relief to permit finished/habitable space in an accessory structure in the Urban Residential-1 District. This application was heard at the November 17, 2014 meeting and adjourned to November 24, 2014. The public hearing was opened and remains open. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:23 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2797 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Bernard and Mary Theresa McCue 308 Caroline St Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 308 Caroline St, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being Section 166.13, Block 2, Lot 18, 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 finished and habitable space within an accessory structure in an Urban Residential-1 District and due public notice having been given of a hearing on said application held on the 17th and 24th days of November 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 area variances for the following relief: Description of applicant request: District Total relief Requirement: requested: Allow Finished and habitable space in an Not permitted 100% accessory structure: 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 desired purpose for the finished and habitable space in the detached garage is to allow space for a recreation room and home office. The principal structure is small and the garage is too far from the house for attachment of the structures to be practicable. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. It should be noted that the accessory structure in question already exists, and the neighboring property on the east side is an elementary school. Per the applicant, “the proposed renovations would be negligible in comparison and barely noticeable by neighbors or from the road.” The board notes the proposal includes a kitchen sink and a half-bath, and finds this is consistent with the recreation room City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 24, 2014 - Page 4 of 15  and home office proposal described by the applicant. The board does not find this proposal impactful on the neighborhood or district, particularly with the incorporation of the condition noted below, precluding full kitchen and bath facilities. 3. The Board notes this variance is substantial insofar as it is asking for complete relief; however, it should also be kept in mind that the habitable space variance’s substantiality has been mitigated by the condition limiting the kitchen and bath. 4. This variance will not have adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. No physical changes to footprint of structures or to permeable surfaces have been made in order to host these activities. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created due the applicants’ desire to have finished and habitable space in the accessory structure; this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: No Bathing Facilities, no full kitchen facilities, e.g. oven, dishwasher. Skip Carlson 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; Oksana Ludd, abstained; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0-1 The Board recessed at 7:30 P.M. The Board reconvened at 7:32 P.M. 4. #2795 HERZOG FENCE, 142 Lake Avenue, area variance for construction of a residential fence; seeking relief to exceed the maximum height for a residential fence in the Urban Residential-3 District. This application was heard at the November 17, 2014 meeting and adjourned to November 24, 2014. The public hearing was opened and remains open. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:28 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2795 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF John Herzog and Hetal Amin 142 Lake Ave Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 142 Lake Ave. in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.53-1-4 in the Inside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 24, 2014 - Page 5 of 15 The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of a fence adjacent to a swimming pool area at a single-family residence in a UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 17th and 24th days of November 2014 and the 8th day of December 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 Proposed Relief requested dimensional requirement Maximum Height Residential Fence 6’ 8’ 2’ or 33% 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 while vegetative screening was contemplated, “the distance from pool to east property line in not enough to allow room for the size of effective vegetation.” The applicants describe the desired 8’ high fence as the height required to provide sufficient privacy in the pool area. The Board notes the applicant has revised the proposal to limit the amount of fencing exceeding district height limits to the section on the east side. 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 this proposal limits the higher section of the fence to that section adjacent to the east neighbor’s property. The board also notes letters of support from several neighbors most immediately affected by the proposal. 3. The Board finds this variance request, at 33%, to be substantial. However, this is reduced in significance by the Board by the fact that this fence request is a relative matter; a fence needs to be placed at this location due to the installation of a pool at this residence. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. A fence is required around a pool in any case, so there is no incremental ground disturbance. The board finds no incremental effect on the environment on or around this property, from this proposal. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed fence but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he objects to the height of the fence on Lake Avenue. 6 ft tall is high enough, it will be an eyesore, and he cannot support this application. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, opposed; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Oksana Ludd, abstained; Adam McNeill, Secretary, opposed; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor MOTION FAILS TO PASS: 3-2-1 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 24, 2014 - Page 6 of 15 Matter tabled to the next meeting. 5. #2794 CHAUVIN FAMILY DENTISTRY SIGN, 403 Lake Avenue, area variance for construction of a freestanding sign; seeking relief from the maximum size of such sign for a commercial use in a residential district in the Rural Residential District. This application was heard at the November 17, 2014 meeting and adjourned to November 24, 2014. The public hearing was opened and remains open. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman, closed the public hearing at 7:41 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2794 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Chauvin Family Dentistry 403 Lake Ave Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 403 Lake Ave, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being Section 166.0, Block 2, Lot 20, Outside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City, for dimensional relief for a free-standing sign, in a Rural Residential District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on November 17th and 24th, 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 area variance for the following relief: AREA VARIANCE Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Maximum size of free 4 sq. ft 18 sq ft 14 sq ft or 350% standing sign As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. No other feasible means exist to achieve the desired benefit. Adequate signage is required to identify the business. The location is a busy intersection, and the applicant notes the current conforming sign has poor visibility from the road particularly because Lake Ave is at 45 miles per hour at that location. Since wall signs are not permitted, a variance of some kind would likely have been needed even with a different signage solution. 2. This request will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties. The applicant notes that the surrounding properties are commercial in nature. The size of the sign appears to the Board to be reasonable, to enable easy and safe visibility and identification of this business at a busy commercial intersection. The Board notes that this intersection has a long history of continuously differing greatly from the rural and residential character envisioned in the district goals, as the intersection only has commercial properties on it and there are no residential properties located adjacent to the subject property. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 24, 2014 - Page 7 of 15  Accordingly, given the speed limit of 45 miles per hour on Lake Ave where this property is located, the proposed sign at 18 square feet, is well within the size guidelines given on the table in Zoning Ordinance section 6.1.5.3 (D), which allows up to 40 square feet for non-residential districts other than transect zones. Furthermore, no detriment to nearby properties has been demonstrated or evidenced to this Board. 3. The variance is substantial at 350%. The Board weighs the substantiality of the variance against the objective and agrees with the applicant in this case that the 4 square foot limitation is insufficient, and the commercial nature and speed limit of the location mitigates this substantiality. 4. This request will not have an adverse physical/environmental effect on the neighborhood. Since the proposal is for the sign to stay in a similar location as the existing one, it is reasonable to conclude that there will be no significant incremental impact from the new sign. As the applicant notes, the sign is located closer to the building than to the intersection, in a position that reduces the possibility of a blocked view. 5. The condition of desiring new signage is self-created, however as stated above, the Board notes that this intersection differs greatly from the rural and residential character envisioned in the district goals, which is a condition that pre-dates this business and this sign proposal. Furthermore, self-creation is a consideration and not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: Design Review Commission Architectural Review is 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; Oksana Ludd, abstained; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0-1 6. #2798 PASEK PORCH, 21, State Street, area variance to construct a front porch addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard and maximum principal building coverage requirement in the Urban Residential-3 District. This application was heard at the November 17, 2014 meeting and adjourned to November 24, 2014. The public hearing remains open. 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. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:47 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Daniel and Jenny Pasek City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 24, 2014 - Page 8 of 15  21 State Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 21 State Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 165.43-2-20 in the Inside Tax District, on the Assessment Map of said City, The appellant having applied for an area variance for construction of a front porch addition to an existing single-family residence, seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback and lot coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on November 17 and 24, 2014, In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following variance for the following amount of relief: Required: Existing: Proposed: Total relief requested: Minimum front yard setback: 10 feet 0 feet 0 feet 10 feet (100%) Maximum principal building coverage: 30% 36% 6% (20%) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1.) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The application states that “The benefit of building a wraparound porch will be both aesthetically attractive but also return 21 State St. to its original look”. 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 notes that restoring the home to its original look will improve the character of the neighborhood. The applicant has conceded to a condition that no future accessory structures would cover more than 4% of the lot area (260 sq. ft.). 3.) The variance may not be considered substantial; the application includes a historic photo that illustrates that a similar sized and configured porch were original features of the home. 4.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. It appears that the minimum site to remain permeable (25%) would be met. 5.) The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Notifications, Approvals and Conditions of Approval: The applicant has conceded to a condition that no future accessory structures would exceed 4% of the lot area (260 sq. ft.). Seconded by Skip Carlson Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Oksana Ludd, abstained; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 24, 2014 - Page 9 of 15  MOTION PASSES: 5-0-1 The Board recessed at 7:50 P.M. The Board reconvened at 7:57 P.M. 7. #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 applicant's request. The application was further adjourned to September 22, 2014 at the applicant's request. On September 22, 2014 the Board initiated Coordinated Review and sought Lead Agency Status and requested an advisory opinion from the Planning Board. The public hearing was opened on July 14, 2014 and remains open. New information provided: Revised plans dated September 26, 2014, revised denial, Planning Board advisory opinion, DRC advisory opinion, Josh Dulmar, City arborist report. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type I action – substantially contiguous to Congress Park-Casino-Circular St. National Register District (across Regent Street) - Coordinated Review is required. - Planning Board is an involved agency – site plan review required. - ZBA Initiated Coordinated Review and requested Lead Agency status on September 22, 2014. - Planning Board deferred Lead Agency status on October 8, 2014. - Part 1 of the Long Form was submitted. PARCEL HISTORY: - Site Plan review approval March 3, 1987 for site improvements associated with construction of a third residential unit in the R-4 district. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: Park Place – two unit 25 feet 18 feet 9 feet (36%) Minimum front yard setback: Park Place-two unit addition 25 feet 16 feet 9 feet (36%) Maximum principal building coverage: combined 25% 27.8% 2.8% (11.2%) Per revised plans dated September 26, 2014. Applicant: Linda Haner and David Guarino Agent: Mike Toohey, Attorney; Frank Owen, site engineer. Mr. Toohey stated the applicant provided information which was requested by the Board. One is a guestimate of lot City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 24, 2014 - Page 10 of 15 coverages of properties in the neighborhood, and the second part had to do with a concern the opponents, specifically Mr. Carusone had with regard to this project in that the building which is on the southeast corner was connected as the City allows buildings to be connected with the existing 1885 structure. What we have done regarding this concern is we have disconnected that building. We have connected the two buildings that are on Park Place so that there is no different variance being requested. The concern about the pre-existing non-conforming structure to the rear has been eliminated. Mr. Toohey explained how the lot coverages of properties in the neighborhood were obtained. Bill Moore, Chairman stated since the City did not have the web cast of the last meeting available until today Board member Oksana Ludd was unable to view the web cast. Board secretary, Adam McNeill did view the web cast but has not had time to digest the information and does not feel comfortable voting on this application this evening. Discussion ensued regarding alternative designs as well as moving forward with SEQRA review. Adam McNeill, secretary stated a letter was received by the Board on November 19, 2014 from Mr. John Carusone, attorney for the neighborhood. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:19 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Mr. Carusone, attorney for neighborhood homeowners stated in order to make a determination you need an application, a denial and a hearing following a notice. So this is a new application in a sense. I found out this afternoon at 4:30 P.M. that there had been a change. I haven't had much time to review this or discuss it with my clients. The issue that we have to grapple with is if you have more than two principal buildings on one lot which is not ordinarily allowed except in certain designated zones. Each of those principal buildings, including the accessory buildings, have to be viewed as if they were on a subdivided parcel, so that the dimensional requirements of each those principal buildings together with the accessory buildings are met. At first glance at this new drawing I just do not think that the applicant is correct. We need to see the denial. I believe the denial will be different, because it fundamentally changes the whole way we set this up. We need to look at what is the front yard, where is the mean width, I am not even sure where you measure the width. Is it along Park or is it along Regent. These are the things the building inspector needs to look at. I met with him and Susan Barden this afternoon. We need to see how he looks at this and his denial. For this reason I do not feel it would be appropriate for this Board to review SEQRA. I also requested an updated Arborist report because his report was done without the benefit of reviewing plans. I did forward drawings which Bob Toole had completed for his review. The trees are definitely an impact on the SEQRA. I would like the Board to postpone the SEQRA evaluation this evening. Beverly Mastroianni, 125 Regent Street. The traffic on Regent and Park Place is very heavy, several schools, churches and the soup kitchen. Anything which will increase traffic is a concern. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding reviewing SEQRA. It was the consensus of the Board to request a new denial from Mr. Shaw. The Board postponed SEQRA to December 8, 2014. The application was adjourned to December 8, 2014. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Saratoga County Planning Board referral required – response No significant countywide or intercommunity impact with comment dated July 28, 2014. - City Planning Board site plan review is required. NEIGHBOR INPUT City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 24, 2014 - Page 11 of 15 - Public comment received at the July 14, 2014 and September 22, 2014 meetings. - Letter from "The Neighbors of 21 Park Place" including 50 signatures dated September 8, 2014. - Letter from Johanna Anderson, 20 Park Place, dated September 18, 2014. - Letter from Dan Maney, 108 Regent Street, dated September 22, 2014. - Email from Meagan Lyons, 18 Park Place, received November 10, 2014. - Email from Robert and Christine Toole, 215 Regent Street, received November 11, 2014. - Correspondence from Andrea Gardner, 105 Regent Street, dated November 17, 2014. - Correspondence from Jim Lombardo, 35 Park Place, dated November 17, 2014. 8. #2789 THE HAMLET SIGNAGE, 46 Marion Avenue, area variance to install wall (tenant) signs, seeking relief to permit installation of signs on elevations without street frontage in the Transect-5 District. Agent: Todd Curley, Prime Companies. This application was heard at the October 27, 2014 meeting and adjourned to November 17, 2014. The public hearing was further adjourned to November 24, 2014 awaiting County Planning Board response. The public hearing was opened October 27, 2014 and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Saratoga County Planning Board response No significant countywide or intercommunity impact with comment regarding building frontage. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he still has reservations regarding 16-18 signs on this building. The applicant also stated a directory sign will be proposed in the future. This is far too many signs in my opinion. A sign package should have been proposed and presented with the project. I cannot support this application. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this resolution. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:42 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. #2789 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF The Hamlet Signage 46 Marion Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 24, 2014 - Page 12 of 15  From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 46 Marion Avenue, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 166.30-2-12 in the Inside Tax 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 installation of signage on a commercial building in a Transect-5 District, and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on October 27th and November 24th day of 2014. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, compared to the detriment to the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood or community that would occur if the variance were to be granted, I move that the area variance for the following amount of relief: Installation of wall (tenant Required: Proposed: Total Relief Requested: signs on elevation without street frontage: East 0 7 7 (700%) elevation (parking lot) Installation of wall (tenant) sign on elevation without 0 1 1 (100%) street frontage: South elevation As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1.) The applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The applicant states that they did consider placing lettering on interior glass doors and windows facing the parking lot, however this signage would be very small and hard to view. 2.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties in that the signage will mostly be hidden from view from the surrounding neighborhood. 3.) The relief requested can be considered substantial at 700% and 100% respectively, however this is mitigated by the limited ability the surrounding neighborhood has to view the proposed signage. 4.) The construction will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district in that the “halo lighting for the proposed signage presents an extremely soft look at night.” 5.) The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation 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, opposed; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-1 9. #2788 ROUPAS ANTENNA, 36 Doten Avenue, area variance to construct a freestanding antennae structure; seeking relief from the maximum height and depth requirements for such structures in a residential district. This application was heard at the October 20, 2014 meeting and adjourned to November 23, 2014. The public hearing was opened on October 20, 2014 and remains open. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 24, 2014 - Page 13 of 15 New information was provided by the applicant via email received November 20, 2014. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. NEIGHBOR INPUT: - Letter from Christine Miller, 3 Daggs Lane, dated November 16, 2014. - Letter from Donald Mowbry, 9 Daggs Lane, received November 19, 2014. - Two letters from Sean Walmsley, 5 Richard Avenue, dated November 24, 2014. Applicant: Theodore Roupas Mr. Roupas provided the Board with additional information concerning the antenna, and how it could be installed. Three different installation choices were presented for the Board’s information. Tony Izzo provided information from the Federal Communication Commission. Limited pre-emption. Strong Federal interest in promoting amateur communication. The FCC tries to create a balance between local zoning ordinances and federal interest in promoting amateur communication. No strict guidelines are provided by the FCC regarding minimum standards to be applied. FCC is the agency who sets standards for how much electromagnetic emission is acceptable from a radio antenna. Mr. Izzo stated the FCC recognizes the fact that local communities may wish to preserve residential areas as livable neighborhoods may adopt zoning regulations that forbid the construction and installation in a residential neighborhood a type of antenna that is commonly and universally associated with those that one finds in a factory area or industrialized complex. An amateur radio operator does not have the right to any size or shape antenna they wish. There can be some reasonable regulations. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any questions from the Board. Gary Hasbrouck requested several pictures of ham radio operators antennas on their homes in residential neighborhoods in a 30 mile radius. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing has been opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Dave Karandy, 34 Doten Avenue. Opposed to the antenna size. Antenna is quite large considering the size of the lots. Robert Townsend, 23 Doten. This is a very serious matter more than just aesthetics. Numerous impacts on the neighborhood. Research on the internet reveals there are issues. Damien Kasey works at a group home in the area. He brought a resident who lives in the group home in the area. The resident is very worried about the visual view. Victoria Cordy – Concerned regarding aesthetics, and the view from her home and her front porch. She also feels the property values in the area will decline. Consideration of health and well being. Mark McSweeney – 3 Richard Avenue. I Look right onto Thad's house. Patio is looking at the radio tower. Our lots are small. Concerned regarding wireless connection and home devices. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 24, 2014 - Page 14 of 15 Alice Townsend, 23 Doten. She is concerned regarding electronic interference. Sean Walmsley, 5 Richard Avenue. He studied the application and circulated a petition. This is an undesirable change in the neighborhood. This application is opposed by most of the people who live in the neighborhood. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he will leave the public hearing open and adjourn this application to December 8, 2014. Mr. Roupas addressed some of the concerns the neighbors have such as the size of the antenna and camouflaging techniques, property values are not affected by ham radio antennas according to what research shows. Antenna elements are thin and can be painted. I will not be listening to people’s telephone conversations, this is not possible with this antenna. Antenna will not be used that frequently. Amount of usage would not be that great. Electromagnetic radio waves run approximately 1000 watts which is low compared to some. Mr. Roupas did ask his neighbors for forgiveness. He does care about all neighbors. Does not wish to make enemies and he does care about them. Appreciate the Board taking the time to hear this application. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the application will be adjourned for two weeks. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 3/9/15 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, November 24, 2014 - Page 15 of 15