Zoning Board of Appeals

2014 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 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; Oksana Ludd; Gary Hasbrouck, Skip Carlson, James Helicke STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney arrived at 7:20 P.M. 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: #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. #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. NOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman and Board member Skip Carlson both indicated they did view the web cast of the December 8, 2014 meeting and feel comfortable with voting on all the applications. OLD BUSINESS: 1. #2799 STEWART'S SHOPS ADDITION, 30 Church Street, area variance for construction of a 475 sq. ft. addition to the existing building; seeking relief from the build-to-line, minimum frontage build-out and minimum two-story requirements in the Transect-6 District. Applicant: Chuck Marshall, real estate representative for Stewart's This application was heard at the December 8, 2014 meeting; the public hearing was opened and the application was adjourned to December 15, 2014. The public hearing remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. DISCLOSURE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman disclosed he did have a brief conversation with Mr. Marshall, they did not discuss the pending application and therefore no recusal is necessary, simply a disclosure. 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 7:06 P.M. Skip Carlson presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Stewart’s Shops Corporation 30 Church Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 30 Church Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 165.59-1-16 in the Inside Tax District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance for construction of a 475 sq ft addition to the existing building, seeking relief from the building-to line, minimum frontage build-out, and minimum two-story requirements of the Transect-6 zoning district; public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on December 8 and 15, 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 Relief Requested Minimum Build-to 0-12 feet 106 feet 136 feet to addition 124 feet line Minimum two- Two-story One-story (2585 sq. ft. in One-story addition of One-story addition of 475 sq. story excess of 1500 sq. ft.) 475 sq. ft. ft./1560 sq. ft. cumulative (100%) Minimum build-out 70% 0% 0% 70% As per 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 to the applicant. The applicant states “Due to the size of the parcel and current development we would need to rebuild the shop to meet the front setback.” Even if the 475 sq. ft. addition was located in the front of the existing building it still would not meet the build-to and build-out requirements. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. This site has been developed since approvals for the shop were granted in 1978. A 475 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the building should not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. The addition will also help square off the look of the building. 3) The relief may be considered substantial at 100% for each variance. The relief is mitigated by the fact that the City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 15, 2014 - Page 2 of 16  store is preexisting nonconforming with the T-6 requirements. 4) The Applicant has demonstrated that the variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. In addition to the construction of the building addition the proposal includes replacement of all sidewalks and upgrade to LED lighting. These improvements would provide positive physical and environmental effects on the neighborhood. There is no demand for a second story on the property as the additional space could increase the demand for parking which is at a premium in the neighborhood. 5) The request for relief 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; 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 NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Saratoga County Planning Board response – "No significant County-wide impact" issued December 12, 2014. 2. #2801 NELSON TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE, 152 & 154 Elm Street, area variance for demolition of two existing single-family residences and construction of one two-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width and minimum lot size requirements for a two-family residence in the Urban Residential-1 District. Applicant: Teresa Nelson & Edmund Smythe This application was heard at the December 8, 2014 meeting; the public hearing was opened and the application was adjourned to December 15, 2014. The public hearing remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:12 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL #2801 Thresa-jan Nelson & Edmund Smyth 152-154 Elm Street City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 15, 2014 - Page 3 of 16  Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises 152 &154 Elm Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 165.74-2-50 in the Inside Tax District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to permit the demolition of two existing single-family residences and construct one two-family residence, seeking relief from the in the UR-3 zoning district; public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on December 8 and 15, 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 Proposed Relief Requested Minimum lot size: Two- 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft. (25%) family Minimum average lot 80 ft. 50 ft. 30 ft. (37.5%) width: Two-family As per 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 to the applicant. The applicant states that they did consider renovation the existing buildings, however not only was this not financially feasible to the applicant, it still left the property with two buildings that were not in compliance with respect to side yard and lot coverage zoning requirements. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties in that the applicant is proposing to construct a two-family residence in a neighborhood of two-family residences. The board further recognizes the applicant will be removing two buildings that are in disrepair and construct a two-family that is more in character with the neighborhood. 3. The relief may be considered substantial, however demolishing two single-family residences on lone lot and replacing with one two-family residence results in the same density. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that the variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district in that this property will not exceed the amount to remain permeable or change any curb cuts on the property or change any traffic patterns with relation to accessing the property. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. James Helicke seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 15, 2014 - Page 4 of 16 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 3. #2802 CROCKER RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 35 Greenfield Avenue, area variance to provide for a single-family building lot; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width and minimum lot size requirements for the vacant lot and from the minimum average lot width requirement for the house lot in the Urban Residential-1 District. This application was heard at the December 8, 2014 meeting; the public hearing was opened and the application was adjourned to December 15, 2014. The public hearing remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Al Turkheimer, 158 Woodlawn Avenue. Questioned how tall the building will be. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:18 P.M. Oksana Ludd presented the following resolution. #2802 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Ralph Crocker 35 Greenfield Avenue Saratoga Springs, New York 12866, from the Building Inspector’s denial for the same premises, identified as Tax Parcel No.: 165.36-1-14.1 and 165.36-1-15.1 in the inside district of the City. The Applicant has applied for an area variance to provide for a single-family building lot seeking relief from the minimum average lot width and minimum lot size requirements for the vacant lot and from the minimum average lot width requirements for the house lot in the Urban Residential-1 zoning district, and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on December 8, 2014 and December 15, 2014. In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution that the requested area variances for the following relief or lesser dimensions, as described in the submitted application, BE APPROVED Type of Requirement Required Proposed Total Relief Requested Minimum Average lot width: 100 feet 74 feet 26 feet vacant lot (26%) Minimum lot size: vacant lot 12,500 square feet 11,454 square 1046 square feet feet (8%) City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 15, 2014 - Page 5 of 16  Minimum Average lot width: 100 feet 85 feet 15 feet house lot (15%) 1. The Applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. Both of the existing lots are substandard with regards to the minimum mean lot width requirement; therefore any lot line adjustment between the two available lots would not alleviate the need for the variances. Additionally, there is no additional land available for purchase which would eliminate the need for these variance.. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties. Both of these lots have existed as separate lots prior to Applicant’s purchase. The vacant lot adjoins a condominium development and construction of a single family home on the vacant lot will not have an undesirable change. Additionally, lots across the street are smaller than these two lots and therefore the construction of a house on the vacant lot, which is larger than those across the street will not create an undesirable change. As such, granting the variance will not have a negative impact on nearby properties. 3. The minimum width for the vacant lot at 26% may be considered substantial, but is mitigated by the fact that these are historical lots and the residence can be constructed without the need for any variances for side, front or rear setback requirements. The minimum lot size of vacant lot at 8% and the minimum lot width for the house lot at 15% would not be considered substantial. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that the variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The Board notes that this variance is only to create two buildable lots and not construction if proposed. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created in that the Applicant desires to create to buildable lots, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Notifications/Approvals/Conditions of Approval: None Adam McNeill, Secretary 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 4. #2803 MCINTYRE RESIDENCES, 110 Regent Street, area variance to construct two single-family residences on a recently subdivided lot; seeking relief from the minimum side yard and total side yard setbacks for the proposed main house; minimum average lot width and minimum side and rear yards for the proposed carriage house (second principal building); minimum side yard and total side yard setbacks to maintain a wood patio on the existing house at 28-32 White Street in the Urban Residential-4 District. This application was heard at the December 8, 2014 meeting; the public hearing was opened and the application was adjourned to December 15, 2014. The public hearing remains open. Applicant: Steven McIntyre City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 15, 2014 - Page 6 of 16 DISCLOSURE: Bill Moore, Chairman stated that he does know Mr. McIntyre; however, this will not preclude him voting impartially on this application. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Dave Guarino, lives two lots down. There are five old trees on the property what will the status of those be. Mr. McIntyre stated two trees will be taken down and 3 will remain. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:25 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. #2803 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL Steven McIntyre 111 Regent Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 110 Regent Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 165.76-2-7.2 in the Inside Tax District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for minimum mean lot width, minimum side yard setbacks, total side yard setbacks, and a rear yard setback in an UR-4 zoning district for construction of a new single-family residence and for an existing single-family residence; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on December 8 and 15, 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 or lesser dimensions, be approved: Required Existing Proposed Relief Requested Minimum mean lot width: Carriage house 100 ft. 0 feet 100 ft. (100%) Minimum side yard setback: Main house 20 ft. 17 ft. 3 ft. (15%) Min. total side yard setback: Main house 45 ft. 40 ft. 5 ft. (11%) Min. side yard setback: Carriage house 20 ft. 12.5 ft. 7.5 ft. (37.5%) Min. rear yard setback: Carriage house 25 ft. 5 ft. 20 ft. (80%) Min. side yard: Existing house lot 1 20 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft. 17 ft. (85%) Min. rear yard: Existing house lot 1 25 ft. 19.5 ft. 19 ft. 6 ft. (24%) 1. The applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. In regards to the overall plan to construct a single family house on the newly created lot 2, the applicant testified that he could have built a multi-family building for a higher density usage of the property. The applicant notes, “The side setbacks are significant in the UR-4 zone making it difficult to design a home compatible with the immediate neighborhood.” The carriage house requires complete relief because of the applicant’s desire to maintain a habitable accessory structure. Side yard and total side yard setbacks for the proposed house on lot 2 are due to the applicant’s desire to create a finished basement City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 15, 2014 - Page 7 of 16  which requires emergency access windows with window wells extending into those setbacks. The Board finds safety consideration for emergency egress from the basement good reason for approving those areas of relief. The existing house requires side and rear setback relief due to an existing wooden patio not visible from the street. The wooden patio has been constructed a ground level but is considered a structure even though it is not attached to the existing house. The Board supports the applicant’s desire to maintain the existing wooden patio and will not require the demolition of any part of that structure. The carriage house could have been moved forward but would have increased the amount of side yard setback relief required for that structure due to the shape of the newly subdivided lot 2. The application states, “Placing the carriage/guest house in the back left corner of property…preserves two significant trees and provides no additional inconvenience to the neighbors.” 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 states, “The carriage house and site plan have been carefully designed to preserve the character of the neighborhood. The placement of the carriage house minimizes impact to neighborhood and the design incorporates details associated with the main home and surrounding homes.” 3. The relief requested may be considered numerically substantial in 4 of the 7 areas of requested relief. Minimum mean lot width relief for the carriage house is required due to the desire of the applicant to maintain a habitable accessory structure. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the outside of the carriage house will remain the same regardless of the intensity of its use. The rear setback for the carriage house is mitigated due to the similar setbacks of the neighbor’s out building in the immediate area. The substantial side yard setback for the existing house on lot 1 is due to the ground level wooden patio. Although numerically substantial, the low profile nature of the structure mitigates the impact to the neighbor on lot 2. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The site plan identifies the permeable surface to be approximately 77%, exceeding the district requirement of 15%. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. 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; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, opposed MOTION PASSES: 6-1 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. Applicant: David Guarino City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 15, 2014 - Page 8 of 16 Agent: James Snyder, Attorney This application was heard at the July 14 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. The application was heard at the November 17, 2014, and November 24, 2014 meetings. At the November 24, 2014 meeting the Board requested an updated Zoning and Building Inspector's denial. The revised denial was distributed at the December 8, 2014 workshop. NEW INFORMATION PROVIDED: Revised plans dated September 26, 2014, revised denial, Planning Board advisory opinion, DRC advisory opinion, Josh Dulmar, arborist report. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type I action – substantially contiguous to Congress Park-Casino-Circular Street. National Register District (across Regent St.) Coordinated Review 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 I of the long form was submitted. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Saratoga County Planning Board referral required – response "No significant county wide or intercommunity impact" with comment, dated July 28, 2014. City Planning Board site plan review required. NEIGHBOR INPUT - 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 St., dated September 22, 2014. - Letter from Beverley Mastroianni, 125 Regent Street, dated October 8, 2014. - Letter from Stephen O'Shea, 7 Cottage Street. - Email from Meagan Lyons, 18 Park Place, received November 10, 2014. - Email from Robert and Christine Toole, 215 Regent Street, received November 11, 2014. - Letter from Jim Lombardo, 35 Park Place, dated November 13, 2014. - Email from Kathryn Oppedisano, November 14, 2014. - Letter from Zita Ryan, Realtor, 159 Woodlawn Avenue, dated November 14, 2014. - Letter from Andrea Gardner, 105 Regent Street, dated November 17, 2014. - Letter from John Carusone, dated November 19, 2014. - Letter from Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation dated November 1, 2014. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 15, 2014 - Page 9 of 16 Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated this was reviewed at the last workshop. New plans and drawings were submitted. A revised denial was provided along with Steven Shaw’s comments. Mr. Guarino reviewed the revised plans which were submitted which will allow more trees to be saved. 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. John Carusone, attorney for the neighbors opposing the project. Mr. Carusone reviewed Section 240-12.2 of the prior Zoning Ordinance from 1990. He spoke regarding the average width, and the number of variances. I believe the number of variances is much higher than is shown here. Regarding saving trees, no written plans have been shown. Mr. Robert Toole, Landscape Architect, Regent Street. I oppose this application. There are 8 large trees on the property. These are specimen trees as well as Landmark Trees. They are in what was an extensive grove of trees. The city arborist did visit the site and made recommendations. However, many of these trees would be affected by this construction. All these trees are very vulnerable to minor disturbances. This project threatens all trees on the property, also the measure of the threat can be applied to this proposal. I would like to request that we be allowed to show the potential damage. Kurt Hayner, Rexford, NY. I own three homes in Saratoga Springs. I am an engineer and have worked with Linda and Dave and they are perfectionists. This project meets the requirements of the comprehensive plan. Steven O'Shea, 7 Cottage Street. It is not a good plan; these units are not in character with the neighborhood. Curb cuts are dangerous. This will have a significant impact on the neighborhood. Ann Trainor, 77 Regent Street, stated these applicants have a different vision for the neighborhood. The Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation does not support this project. We request no variance be issued. We would like to preserve this corner of our city. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman, closed the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. SEQRA: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the Board will now review SEQRA. A revised Part I was submitted by the applicant on November 21, 2014. The Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed Part II of the SEQRA Long Form. No large or important areas of concern were noted. Gary Hasbrouck made a motion for SEQRA Negative Declaration. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 15, 2014 - Page 10 of 16 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 was any further discussion. None heard. Oksana Ludd presented the following resolution. Appeal #2778 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF David Guarino and Linda Haner 21 Park Place Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the Zoning and Building Inspector’s Denial (most recently revised Dec. 8, 2014) for the premises at 21 Park Place, Saratoga Springs, New York, identified as Tax Parcel No.: 165.84-1-1 in the inside district of the City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of the City to construct (2) detached two- family residences (per emailed Dec. 11, 2014 schematic) and (1) detached garage on a lot occupied by an existing three-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback for both two-family residences and maximum principal building coverage requirements for the combined three principal structures in the Urban Residential – 4 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on July 14, September 22, November 17 and 24 and December 15, 2014. In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the applicant with the 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 such lesser amount, as described in the submitted application and plans revised Nov. 24, 2014 (updated Dec. 11, 2014), BE APPROVED Type of Requirement Required/ Proposed Total Relief Requested Permitted Maximum Principal Building Coverage: 25% 27.8% 2.8% (11.2%) Three principal buildings combined Minimum Front Yard Setback: Two-family fronting on Park Pl. 25 feet 16 feet 9 feet (36%) Minimum Front Yard Setback: Two-family fronting on Park Pl. 25 feet 16 feet 9 feet (36%) 1. The Applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The buildings could be moved back on the lot to conform to the minimum front yard setback; however, as the applicants indicate, “It would also make the location of the front of the building inconsistent with the setback of the buildings on the north and south side of Park Pl.” In addition, the two new two-family residences were placed on the site in a way that would avoid additional tree removal. Similarly, the applicants provided an analysis of comparable principal building coverages in the neighborhood showing that, out of 32 nearby properties, 9 currently have principal building coverages equal to or greater than the subject requested variance. In addition, while smaller footprints could provide the same desired interior square footage, the buildings would need to be higher (third story) which would not be consistent with the neighborhood. In light of that, the subject request does not appear to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 15, 2014 - Page 11 of 16  2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting of these variances will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicants provided an analysis of where many of the existing, neighboring buildings are located in relation to their respective front property lines, showing that 15 residential properties reasonably near to the subject property have front yard setbacks less than the district requirement. It is this Board’s determination that the proposed front yard setbacks for the new structures do not substantially conflict with the historic layout and existing streetscape of the neighborhood. The DRC provided a favorable advisory opinion on November 5, 2014 stating, “The proposed overall mass and scale of the project, the architectural styling, and the proposed materials would not be inconsistent, nor incongruous, with the surrounding neighborhood”. 3. The requested relief from the front yard setback may be considered substantial at 36%; however, the requested relief is consistent with the location of other structures in the neighborhood as evidenced by the submitted street survey identifying neighboring homes’ relationship to their respective front property lines. The Board notes the responses received from the County Planning Board, City Planning Board, the Design Review Commission and the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation, none of which find the requested dimensions unacceptable. 4. The applicants have demonstrated that the variances will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The plans identify 42% of the site would remain permeable, which exceeds the minimum 15% required in the district. The Board is sympathetic to the concerns expressed by neighbors as to a possible increase in traffic on these local streets, concerns with the two additional curb cuts and the backing out of cars from the site on to both Regent and Park Pl. These site layout concerns, together with any remaining concerns about trees on site, can be appropriately considered by the Planning Board during site plan review. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created, however, this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: County referral response, “No Significant Countywide or Intercommunity Impact” with comment, dated July 28, 2014. While DRC Historic Review is not required in this case, the applicant’s Nov. 13, 2014 response to the considerations identified in the DRC’s advisory opinion shall be incorporated into the final design of the project. Other approvals: Planning Board site plan review is required James Helicke 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 6. #2782 BROWN & DAVIDSON ACCESSORY BUILDING, 10 Perry Street, area variance to finish the interior of a City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 15, 2014 - Page 12 of 16  shed; seeking relief to permit finished/habitable space in an accessory building in the Urban Residential – 3 District. This application was heard at the September 8, 2014 meeting, the public hearing was opened and adjourned to September 22, 2014. The board asked the applicant to provide floor plans of the building. The application has been further adjourned at the request of the applicant. The public hearing remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the applicant has reworked plans and is now a conforming structure. Applicant: Charles Brown & Lally Davidson The applicant stated revised information was submitted to the Board as well as floor plans. Additional photographs were supplied to the Board. Mr. Brown provided a brief overview of the project. Lack of space within the existing three-family residence to provide for additional living space. The basement is only 5.5' in height. The current application indicates that the constructed accessory structure would be compliant with the district requirements. The new structure replaces a decrepit shed of comparable size that was nonconforming 2.5' from the property line. The building is barely visible from surrounding street and is surrounded by trees. Permeability on the lot would remain above the minimum 25%. The applicant is requesting to install a heating system and a half bath. NEIGHBOR INPUT: - Letter from Diane Parisi, 14 Perry Street, received September 3, 2014. - Letter from James Naples, 12 Perry Street, dated October 27, 2014. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding this application. Suzanne Kwasniewski, I am familiar with this property. I support this project. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented at the January 12, 2014 meeting. The public hearing will remain open until that time. 7. #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. This application was heard at the October 20, 2014 meeting. The board requested that the applicant provide floor plans of the building. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be an unlisted action. An Unlisted Action occurring within a Historic District is elevated to a Type I action. - Planning Board site plan review and DRC historic review are involved agencies. - On October 20, 2014 the Board initiated Coordinated Review and deferred Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board. - The Planning Board issued a Negative Declaration on December 10, 2014. PARCEL HISTORY: City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 15, 2014 - Page 13 of 16  - Area variance from the minimum parking requirement, February 1978. - Site plan review approval, March 1978. Agent: Jesse Boucher, Kodiak Construction. Mr. Boucher stated the applicant is before the Board for two variances, for a freestanding pool structure and residential building. Information requested from the applicant has been provided. Architecture of the proposed addition in keeping with the historic architecture of the existing multi-family residence. The addition is setback more than 100' from Union Avenue and would be visually blocked from that perspective by the proposed two story pool house. The site to remain permeable would be 31% exceeding the minimum 15% in the district. The proposed additions would displace 9 existing parking spaces. One new parking space is required for the additional unit. The applicant's agent has submitted that parking spaces would be added to the site to conform with the 22 parking space requirement. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Saratoga County Planning Board response, "No Significant Countywide or Intercommunity Impacts, dated December 8, 2014. - Planning Board site plan review. - DRC historic review. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains open. 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 January 12, 2015 meeting. The public hearing will remain open. 8. #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. New information was provided by the applicant via email received November 20, 2014. The application was further adjourned to December 8, 2014. The Board requested additional information including the average height of similar residential antennas. The application was further adjourned to December 15, 2014. The public hearing remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Bill Moore, Chairman stated additional information requested has been supplied. Discussion ensued regarding the alternative designs proposed by Mr. Roupas. City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 15, 2014 - Page 14 of 16 Neighbor Input - Letter from Christine Miller, 3 Daggs Lane, dated November 16, 2014. - Letter from Donald Mowbray, 9 Daggs Lane, received November 19, 2014. - Letter from Robert Townsend, 23 Doten Avenue. - Letter from Sean Walmsley, dated November 23, 2014. - Petition in opposition, signed by 34 neighbors, dated November 23, 2014. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman, opened the public hearing at 9:57 P.M. Sean Walmsley, spoke regarding alternative locations for the antenna, and discussing a more accommodating placement. Discussion ensued regarding having the least impact on the neighbors regarding choice and placement of the antenna, attaching the antenna to the home or a freestanding antenna. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney exited the meeting at 10:30 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:41 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Theodore C. Roupas 326 Ballston Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 36 Doten Avenue, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 178.52-2-1.12 in the Outside Tax District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance for construction of a 14-28 Mhz beam antenna and seeking relief from the maximum width, maximum depth and maximum extension beyond the building requirements for a building-mounted antenna structure in the UR-2 zoning district; public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on October 20, November 24, December 8 and 15, 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 Proposed Relief Requested Maximum width building 6 feet 21 feet 15 feet (250%) mounted (antenna structure) Maximum depth building 6 feet 32 feet 26 feet (433%) mounted (antenna structure) City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 15, 2014 - Page 15 of 16  Maximum extension beyond 6 feet 18 feet 12 feet (200%) building (antenna structure) As per submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: The board is persuaded by evidence that the applicant’s proposed broadcasting band is a band in common use by amateur radio operators across the United States and by additional evidence that the proposed antenna is of a common type and size used for this broadcast banc. In light of this, the board is left to consider reasonable limitation and reasonable negotiations with the applicant on the issue of the antenna’s impact on adjacent properties. The board has reviewed both case law and authorities from the Federal Communications Commission and finds that the impact may be reasonably mitigated by the imposition of the following conditions: Structure must be bracketed to the house. The tower shall be erected as close as to the center peak of the house, which allows the structural integrity of the tower and no more than 12 inches from the overhang of the roof. The antenna shall not exceed 588 sq. ft. with the longest portion not to exceed 32 feet. If the tower ceases to be used at this location, the antenna must be removed within 60 days of cessation of broadcasting activities. Base of structure must be painted the same color as the residence in order to conceal the base of the structure. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. 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, abstained; James Helicke, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0-1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of Meeting Minutes was deferred to the January 12, 2015 meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 2/23/15 City of Saratoga Springs Zoning Board Minutes – Monday, December 15, 2014 - Page 16 of 16