Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:05 P. M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG PRESENT: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck, James Helicke, Susan Steer ABSENT: Bill Moore, Chairman, 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: #2774 COMPLEXIONS SIGN, 268 Broadway, area variance to install wall signs/banners; seeking relief from the maximum number of wall signs, maximum extension from the building and to permit banner signs in the Transect-6 District. #2777.1 CITY CENTER PARKING GARAGE, surface parking lot bound by York Street, High Rock, Lake and Maple Avenues area variance for construction of a parking structure, seeking relief to impede solar access to a neighboring property in the Transect-6 District. #2811 DALY GARAGE, 28 West Circular Street, area variance for construction of a detached 784 square foot two- story, two-car garage with finished space, seeking relief to permit finished/habitable space in an accessory structure (residential) 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. #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. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2807 MURPHY LANE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, Murphy Lane/ South Alley, area variance to convert an existing barn structure to a single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum lot size, minimum average lot width, maximum principal building coverage, minimum front yard, rear yard, and total side yard and minimum parking requirement in the Urban Residential-3 District. 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 lot size: 6,600 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. 4,100 sq. ft. (62%) Minimum average lot width 60 ft. 50 ft. 10 ft. (17%) Minimum front yard: 10 ft. 3.1 ft. 6.9 ft. (69%) Minimum total side yard 12 ft. 11.4 ft. .6 ft. (5%) Minimum rear 25 ft. 15.7 ft. 9.3 ft. (37%) Maximum principal building coverage: 30% 44.1% 14.1% (47%) Applicant: Jeanne D’Agostino Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated we are here to discuss a piece of property on South Alley or Murphy Lane. It is deeded both ways. We have 2,500 square foot of existing lot size where an existing barn currently exists. The applicant would like to purchase and renovate the barn into a home. It is pre-existing and non-conforming and it does not conform to any of the setbacks. Parking is an issue and we are currently working on some on site parking which will only require a variance of one parking space. We would like to take a portion of the barn and place parking in the barn and this would put the parking on the lot. Additional sketches of the proposed parking plan were provided to the Board. This would be an open carport type of situation. We did find some comparables in the neighborhood and this information can be provided to the Board. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the current building inspector denial does not reflect the new proposed parking plan. Discussion ensued regarding the number and scale of variances required, and dimensional relief. The Board referred to the City Code regarding a non conforming lot size. Ms. Yasenchak provided the Board with information concerning the advantages to using the existing structure versus a demolition and rebuilding a smaller home on the property. Cost is a consideration. Also, the barn is a landmark, it is an accessory to the other buildings in the area, and it is on an alley giving it a farm carriage house look. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated it is the Board’s responsibility to give the least amount of relief as possible. Adam McNeill, Secretary, requested information showing what a house on this parcel would look like without requiring relief. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Cynthia Behan, White Street. The barn is on the alley behind our home. We can see it from the kitchen windows. The barn is on a small lot. A big building on a small lot. It is asking for a change in use from an accessory structure to a single family residence. The alleys are all filled with barns. We will set a precedent if we allow a change from accessory structure to a single family home. It will impose on the privacy of the neighbors. Please consider the neighborhood. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals - February 23, 2015 - Page 2 of 17 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Additional information was requested from the applicant. The applicant will return before the Board at the next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting on March 9, 2015. 2. #2810 KILDUFF/O’CONNOR RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 54 White Street, area variance for an expanded foyer entry and new entry porch to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-3 District. 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 front yard setback 10 feet 8.8 feet 1.2 feet (12%) Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated the applicants are requesting to expand the first floor of the home into the current porch area and add a new porch on the front of their home. They will be closer to the front property line in doing so. The request may not be considered substantial at 12%. The existing porch is preexisting nonconforming at 9.1’. The difference between the existing condition and proposed is only .3’ or 3.6” which is relatively minor. Reconfiguring the addition to span more towards the east causes the addition to not align with the main body of the 2 story portion of the house. This results in a non-consistent architectural aesthetic. The addition is setback further than the existing house 8.8’ from the front property line, while the existing house is 5.7’ from the same. Many other homes in this community are located close to the front lines; this project continues to be consistent with the style, character and aesthetic of the neighborhood. The site to remain permeable would exceed the minimum 25% in the district proposed is 68.5%. No large trees will be removed for this project. No environmental issues should arise from this project. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing t 7:58 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open until the March 9, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting at which time a resolution will be prepared and presented. 3. # 2812 AMO/ROWE RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 48 Webster Street, area variance to construct a covered walkway attaching the existing single-family residence to the existing single-family residence to the existing detach garage; seeking relief from the minimum total side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-2 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals - February 23, 2015 - Page 3 of 17  REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum principal building coverage 30% 27.6% 1.7% (5.7%) Minimum total side yard setback 20 ft. 12 ft. 8 ft. (40%) Agent: Andrew Frasier Mr. Frasier stated the applicant is proposing a covered walkway to the garage. The request for relief from the maximum principal building coverage may not be considered substantial at 5.7%. The relief from the minimum total side yard setback is required because the walkway connector results in the garage being considered attached and setbacks for the principal building would need to be met. The application indicates that following work on the neighbor’s property, water began to pool on walkway and freeze in the winter resulting in unsafe walking conditions. The only way to avoid a variance would be to detach the walkway from the house and garage, which may not provide the benefit sought. The covered walkway is a roof structure that is open on the sides; therefore, the possible impact of the additional building coverage may be somewhat lessened. It is unclear how much additional impermeable area would be added to the site. The specifics on the elevation plan identify removal of a rear section of bluestone walkway and install concrete walkway and steps. The site would remain at least 25% permeable. James Helicke requested a revised denial and a view of the proposed project from the rear of the home as well as permeability calculations. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:55 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open until the March 9, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at which time a resolution will be prepared and presented. 4. #2813 FERRARA RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 27 Westbury Drive, area variance to construct a 232 sq. ft. addition to an existing single-family residence to the existing detached garage; seeking relief from the minimum rear yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum rear yard setback 30 feet 25’8” 4’4” (14%) Applicant: Brett Balzer, Dennis McGowan, Balzer + Tuck Architecture Mr. Balzer stated the applicants are requesting dimensional relief off the rear of the home. This home sits in a single family subdivision. The sunroom addition proposed is 16 x 14.6 square feet. The request is for the rear yard setback City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals - February 23, 2015 - Page 4 of 17 seeking 4’4”. The agent for the applicant indicates that design alternatives were considered but they either did not meet the design intent or they conflicted with the existing house layout. It does not appear that the addition would be visible from the street. The agent’s applicant stated along with its location the addition is a single story and the existing residence will obstruct the view of the majority of the new construction. It does not appear that there are any neighbors to the rear that the addition would be visible to. The quality and construction and design will be consistent with the existing home and neighborhood, the intention is to enhance the current home functionally and visually. The site to remain permeable would exceed the minimum 30% in the district at proposed 72%. No clearing of existing trees will be required. The footprint is minimal. NEIGHBOR INPUT: Adam McNeill, Secretary stated the following correspondence was received by the Board: -Email from Michael and Rita Fischer, 28 Westbury Street, received on February 32, 2015. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:05 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open until the March 9, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting at which time a resolution will be prepared and presented. 5. #2814 BELMONTE BUILDERS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, 7 McKenzie’s Way, area variance to install a window well to a single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-2 District. 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 5.5 feet 2.5 feet (31.25%) Minimum total side yard 20 feet 14.9 feet 5.1 feet (25.5%) Applicant: Peter Belmonte, Belmonte Builders Mr. Belmonte stated this request is to provide a window well that will be located flush with grade providing a sub-terrain installation. The requested variance is not substantial due to its very limited footprint of 17.5 square feet and being located flush with grade. It is the owner’s desire for safe enjoyment of the basement space which necessitates the installation of the E-gress window well per NYS code. Alternate placement of the window well has been considered, however, due to the site grade, the proposed location will facilitate the best possible grading/drainage. There will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood character. The desired sub-terrain E-gress window well is installed flush with grade, its presence is very limited and does not extend upward or obstruct anyone’s view. No adverse physical or environmental effects would result in the installation of a 17.5 square foot (each) at grade window well. PUBLIC HEARING: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals - February 23, 2015 - Page 5 of 17 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:12 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open until later in the evening when a resolution will be presented. 6. #2815 BELMONTE BUILDERS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, 5 McKenzie’s Way, area variance to install a window well to a single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard and minimum total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-2 District. 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 5.4 feet 2.6 feet (32.5%) Minimum total side yard 20 feet 14.9 feet 5.1 feet (25.5%) Applicant: Peter Belmonte, Belmonte Builders Mr. Belmonte stated this request is to provide a window well that will be located flush with grade providing a sub-terrain installation. The requested variance is not substantial do to its very limited footprint of 17.5 square feet and being located flush with grade. It is the owner’s desire for safe enjoyment of the basement space which necessitates the installation of the E-gress window well per NYS code. Alternate placement of the window well has been considered, however due to the site grade, the proposed location will facilitate the best possible grading/drainage. There will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood character. The desired sub-terrain E-gress window well is installed flush with grade, its presence is very limited and does not extend upward or obstruct anyone’s view. No adverse physical or environmental effects would result in the installation of a 17.5 square foot (each) at grade window well. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:14 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open until later in the meeting. 7. #2816 BROADWIN RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 131 Lincoln Avenue and 23 Murphy Lane, area variance to create a new single-family residential lot; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width requirement in the Urban Residential-2 District. SEQRA: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals - February 23, 2015 - Page 6 of 17 Action appears to be an Unlisted Action. A Short Form EAF has been submitted. Planning Board lot line/subdivision approval is required. PARCEL HISTORY: - Area variance from the minimum average lot width associated with two-lot subdivision, April 2007. - Application pending – not formally withdrawn by applicant or determination by the ZBA. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum mean lot width: Parcel A (existing house lot) 60 feet 55 feet 5 feet (8%) Minimum mean lot width: Parcel B 60 feet 56.58 feet 3.42 feet (6%) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: - Advisory opinion from the Planning Board required per 8.4.6 - Subdivision approval from the Planning Board required Applicant: Eric Broadwin Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney Discussion ensued regarding subdivision versus a lot line adjustment to create a new single-family residential lot. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman suggested requesting an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney reviewed the portion of the General City Code pertaining to plats. Mr. Toohey provided a brief overview of the project located at 23 Murphy Lane. Mr. Broadwin owns these two parcels of land. Non conforming lots, are in fact legal lots in the City of Saratoga Springs, so as long as they were a separate lot on the date of the chapter. The effective date of this chapter is October 4, 2012. The smaller of the two lots became a legal separate lot on May 24, 1989. Tax parcel 32 was also an independent separate lot prior to October 4, 2012. We have two legal pre-existing non-conforming lots. What we are trying to do is merely reconfigure those lots. We have two lots we will end up with two lots. Lot #2 currently has a structure on it and historically vehicles have entered and exited this parcel off of Murphy Lane. There is a question if Murphy Lane is an alley. It is not listed on the Official Zoning Map of the City of Saratoga Springs as an alley. When we complete our boundary line adjustment we will have two lots that comply in all ways with zoning lots except for one criterion which is mean width. I have provided the Board with an analysis of 41 lots within the immediate area of this property. Of those 41 lots, 33 of them do not comply with the mean width requirement. That is 80%. When this neighborhood was built these were all 50 foot wide lots. The lots to the east and west do not comply with the zoning code of the City of Saratoga Springs. Reconfiguring these lots would not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character. We are asking for a 3.42 foot variance for the northern lot and 5 foot variance for the southern lot. Both lots will comply with all other setback requirements. The two lots being created will be larger than 33 of the current lots in this subdivision. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion from the Board. Discussion ensued regarding requesting an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board. It was the consensus of the Board an Advisory Opinion will not be requested from the Planning Board. PUBLIC HEARING: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals - February 23, 2015 - Page 7 of 17 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:12 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Joan Wong, 21 Murphy Lane. I have been here for many years. I have been looking at the empty lot for many years. There is no change in the character of the neighborhood with this project. No objection to this application. Jeff Rivet, 100 White Street. As far as Murphy Lane goes it is used for primary access for some homes on White Street. I do not have a problem with this application. Mike Winn, 13 Stratton Street. Aesthetically it will be nice to have a home there. We have lived here for 13 years. Dan Szot, Stratton Street. The lot has been vacant for over 18 years and it will be nice to have that lot used. Mandy Bittner, Murphy Lane. We use that Lane all the time. It will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open until the March 9, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting at which time a resolution will be prepared and presented. 8. #2609.1 COHEN GARAGE, 655 North Broadway, area variance to finish second-story of an existing detached garage for recreation/movie room; seeking relief to permit finished/habitable space in an accessory structure (residential) in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: - Area variance granted May 23, 2011 for same relief. Approval was not acted upon and expired November 23, 2012. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Accessory structure (residential):Second- Unfinished and Finished and 100% story of proposed garage uninhabitable space habitable space Agent: Lou Gallarneau; Gallarneau Builders; Jason Tommell, Tommell & Associates Mr. Tommell stated this project is the exact same project as was approved in 2011. We are resubmitting all materials for the Boards review. This is finished second floor space for a recreation/movie room. The applicants are requesting a ½ bath upstairs and down in the garage. No full bathing and/or kitchen facilities are proposed. James Helicke questioned the bathroom both up and down. Mr. Galarneau stated the applicants are anticipating adding a swimming pool at some point in the future, and this would be an added amenity. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the existing garage is compliant with the district requirements and was approved by the DRC. The Board has approved similar applications with the stipulation of no bathing or kitchen facilities. PUBLIC HEARING: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals - February 23, 2015 - Page 8 of 17 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:25 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Dr. Judy Harrigan, 649 North Broadway. Dr. Harrigan stated the variance application has changed dramatically since the last application. A different verbal intent was stated which is to create living space for the son when he visits. Letters were submitted for the Board’s review. If the Cohen’s current area variance is approved for recreational use, then the same conditions imposed for their 2011 application must be included in the decision. Mark Howarth, 659 North Broadway, stated it is fairly clear what is being asked and what is being intended. There was a threat alongside this discussion. That is a concern. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE BOARD: Email from Mrs. Howarth received by the Board. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open until the March 9, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting at which time a resolution will be prepared and presented. 9. #1976.1 SARATOGA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL, 459-539 Lake Avenue, use and area variance modifications to construct a second-story addition and recreational facility; seeking to modify a condition of prior approvals limiting student enrollment at the school in the Rural Residential District. SEQRA: - Action appears to be an unlisted action – a short EAF was submitted with the application. - On January 22, 2003, the Planning Board as lead agent issued a Negative SEQRA Declaration for the Three phased project. - In November 2002 the ZBA initiated coordinated review and stated interest that the Planning Board should act a lead agency for the environmental review of the project. - DRC also deferred lead agency status to the Planning Board. - The Planning Board should continue with lead agency status for continuation of the environmental review of the Project. PARCEL HISTORY: - Use variance granted for the school February 26, 2003. - Site plan approval April 30, 2003. - Area variance granted June 10, 2003 - Architectural review approval October 2003. Applicant: Felice Karlitz, Director Agents: Libby Coreno, Attorney, Jones Firm; Don McPherson, LA Group; Bill McMorty, Construction Manager Ms. Coreno provided the Commission with a brief visual presentation of the proposed project. In January of 2003 the Planning Board as Lead Agent issued a Negative Declaration for all Three Phases of the project under SEQRA. The use variance was based on the following finding of fact to construct a new school for approximately 100 students; three buildings having a total of 42,000 square feet of area; a playfield; a playground; and parking for 70 cars. The area variance obtained was based on the above mentioned findings as well. In addition the area variance grants the relief associated with the project as shown on the submitted plans. We are requesting to increase enrollment to a total of 250 students and 35 staff members. No increase in square footage of the facility with the more than doubling of enrollment. Parking for 70 cars sufficient for the increased enrollment. This results in small increases in traffic trips, water usage per day, wastewater and storm water runoff, all of which are small and can be mitigated. Concerning all other environmental City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals - February 23, 2015 - Page 9 of 17 issues we believe we can stay in compliance as set forth in the 2003. Rendering of the buildings were provided to the Board for their review. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - County Planning Board referral required. - Planning Board site plan review required. - DRC architectural review required. Adam McNeill made a motion to defer SEQRA Lead Agency to the Planning Board to amend the SEQRA Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Board on January 22, 2003. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:56 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. John Westney, Queensbury. Daughter attends the school. The school is wonderful and I drive her down 5 days a week. I am in support of this application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open until the March 23, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting at which time a resolution will be prepared and presented. OLD BUSINESS: 10. #2089 BALL CORPORATION SIGN, 11 Adams Road, area variance for construction of a freestanding sign, seeking relief from the maximum size for such sign in the Industrial-General District. This application was heard at the January 26, 2015 meeting and adjourned to February 9, 2015. The public hearing was opened on January 26, 2015 and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - County Planning Board referral required - County response received on January 15, 2015 stated no countywide or intercommunity impact. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals - February 23, 2015 - Page 10 of 17  Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:00 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL #2809 Ball Corp 11 Adams Road Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 11 Adams Road, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 178.00 Block 1 Lot 51, outside 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 a freestanding sign in Industrial – General District and public notice has been duly given of a hearing on said application held on January 26th & February 23rd, 2015 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 variances for the following amounts of relief: Required: Existing: Proposed: Total relief requested: Max. area for wall signage: 24 sq. ft. 32 sq. ft. 32 sq. ft. 8 sq. ft. (33%) 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 applicant notes that any reduction in size of the existing and proposed sign would diminish the effectiveness of the entrance sign, as well as require an entirely new foundation and base. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties as the sign is replacing an existing sign with the same dimensions and scope. 3. The relief requested cannot be considered substantial as there is no change from the current signage. 4. The construction will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. No additional lighting is proposed. 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. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 11. #2808 EMBASSY SUITES, 46 Congress Avenue, area variance for two wall signs, seeking relief to permit more than one wall sign, to permit placement on a building elevation without street frontage, for placement above the first floor level City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals - February 23, 2015 - Page 11 of 17 of the building, to exceed the maximum size of signs, maximum height of lettering and to permit internally illuminated channel letters in the Transect-6 District. This application was heard at the January 12, 2015 meeting and adjourned to January 26, 2015. The Board granted approval of the “Embassy Suites” sign at 24” high on January 12, 2015. The Board requested an advisory opinion from the DRC with regard to the proposed “E” sign. The public hearing was opened on January 12, 2015 and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Donald McElroy, David Congdon, DCG Development Agent: Alex Besso, Attorney, Jones Firm Ms. Beso stated at the last appearance before the Zoning Board of Appeals on January 12, 2015. The applicant has applied for two wall signs, seeking relief to permit more than one wall sign, to permit placement on a building elevation without street frontage, for placement above the first floor level of the building, to exceed the maximum size of signs, maximum height of lettering and to permit internally illuminated channel letters. REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Installation of wall sign on elevation w/o street 0 1 1 (100%) frontage: East elevation Max. height letter: “Embassy Suites” 18” 24” 6” (33%) Max. height logo: “E” 18” 24” 6” (33%) PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:10 P.M. The Board recessed at 10:15 P.M. The Board reconvened at 10:25 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF DCG Development 240 Clifton Corporate Parkway Clifton Park, New York From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 46 Congress Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel 165-7-4 in the inside tax district, on the assessment map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance for two wall signs, seeking relief to permit more than one wall sign, to permit placement on a building elevation without street frontage, for placement above the first floor level of the building, to exceed the maximum size of signs, maximum height of lettering and to permit internally illuminated channel letters in the Transect-6 District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals - February 23, 2015 - Page 12 of 17 Public notice has been duly given of a hearing on said application on January 12, 2015 and concluding on February 23, 2015. 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 variance for the following amounts of relief: Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Installation of wall sign on elevation w/o street 0 1 1 (100%) frontage: East elevation Max. height letter: “Embassy Suites” 18” 24” 6” (33%) Max. height logo: “E” 18” 24” 6” (33%) Request for wall signs to be internally illuminated channel lit letters where only back-lighted opaque letters are permitted (“halo lighted”). As per submitted plans of lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1.) The board finds that the height of the letters is appropriate and proper given the speed of vehicular traffic on that side of the building and the distance of the passing traffic from the building façade. The placement of a sign on the parking lot elevation of the building (without street frontage) reasonably identifies the building. Because of proposed placement of the sign on the canopy it would be difficult to back light the sign; therefore, the internally illuminated letters are appropriate in this location. 2.) The applicant has stated that granting this variance will not cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The Board notes that other nearby signage exists comparable in size and construction to the signage proposed. 3.) The amount of relief is substantial; however, there is precedent in the community for commercial signage relief that is similar to the relief requested by the applicant. 4.) The applicant has stated that “there will be no adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood or district.” The intensity of light generated by the internally lit sign will be considered by the DRC within their architectural review jurisdiction. 5.) The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions/Notes: Saratoga County Planning Board issued a decision of “No Significant County Wide or Inter Community Impact” on January 9, 2015 DRC issued favorable advisory opinion for the “E” sign on Feb. 4, 2015 Adam McNeill seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals - February 23, 2015 - Page 13 of 17  James Helicke, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 RESOLUTIONS ON PREVIOUS HEARD APPLICATIONS THIS EVENING: 5. #2814 BELMONTE BUILDERS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, 7 McKenzie’s Way, area variance to install a window well to a single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-2 District. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:30 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL #2814 Belmonte Builders LLC 1743 Route 9 Clifton Park, NY 12065 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 7 McKenzie’s Way, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel 178.52-5-6, 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 install a window well to a single- family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential – 2 District and public notice has been duly given of a hearing on said application held on February 23rd, 2015 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 variances for the following amounts of relief: Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Minimum side yard setback: 8 ft. 5.5 ft. 2.5 ft. (31.25%) 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 applicant states, “alternate placement of the window well has been considered; however, due to the site grade, the proposed location will facilitate the best possible grading and drainage.” The application also states the owner’s desire to safely enjoy the basement space in the home which necessitates the installation of the E-gress window well. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The E-gress window well is installed flush with grade, has a very limited presence, and does not obstruct the view of neighboring properties. 3. The request for relief at 31.25% can be considered substantial but is somewhat mitigated by the window well being flush with grade. 4. The window well will have no adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. 5. The applicant’s desire to construct the addition is self-created. The self-created difficulty is not necessarily fatal to the application. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals - February 23, 2015 - Page 14 of 17  James Helicke seconded the motion. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 6. #2815 BELMONTE BUILDERS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, 5 McKenzie’s Way, area variance to install a window well to a single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard and minimum total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-2 District. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:30 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL #2815 Belmonte Builders LLC 1743 Route 9 Clifton Park, NY 12065 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 5 McKenzie’s Way, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel 178.52-5-7, 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 install window wells to a single- family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback and minimum total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential – 2 District and public notice has been duly given of a hearing on said application held on February 23rd, 2015 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 variances for the following amounts of relief: Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Minimum side yard setback: 8 ft. 5.4 ft. 2.6 ft. (32.5%) Min. total side yard setback: 20 ft. 14.9 ft. 5.1 ft. (25.5%) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The applicant states, “alternate placement of the window well has been considered; however, due to the site grade, the proposed location will facilitate the best possible grading and drainage.” The application also states the owner’s desire to safely enjoy the basement space in the home which necessitates the installation of the E-gress window well. A second window well was required due to a bedroom in basement and the required light and vent requirement of NYS Building Code. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The E-gress window well is installed flush with grade, has a very limited presence, and does not obstruct the view of neighboring properties. 3. The request for relief at 32.5% and 25.5% can be considered substantial but is somewhat mitigated by the window well being flush with grade. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals - February 23, 2015 - Page 15 of 17 4. The window well will have no adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. 5. The applicant’s desire to construct the addition is self-created. The self-created difficulty is not necessarily fatal to the application. Adam McNeill, Secretary, seconded the motion. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion to approve the January 12, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes as amended. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; Susan Steer, abstained MOTION PASSES: 4-0-1 Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion to approve the January 26, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes. James Helicke seconded the motion. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion to approve the December 15, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes. James Helicke seconded the motion. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; Susan Steer, abstained MOTION PASSES: 4-0-1 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals - February 23, 2015 - Page 16 of 17 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 3/23/15 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals - February 23, 2015 - Page 17 of 17