Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 9, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck, Skip Carlson; James Helicke, Susan Steer 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: #2820 WOJDYLA RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 119 George Street, area variance for bedroom and bathroom additions to an existing two-family residence; seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage, minimum side yard and total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. #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. #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. #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 CONGREGATRION & YESHIVA PARDES DORMITORY, 1 Veterans Way, area variance for expansion of the existing school including construction of an approximate 10,000 sq. ft. residential building; seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage requirement in the UR-1 district. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2818 HIGGINS PORCH EXPANSION, 100 Union Avenue, area variance for construction of an 88 sq. ft. front porch addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback, minimum side yard setback and total side yard setbacks in the Urban Residential-4 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance granted November 18, 2013 for relief from the minimum total side yard setback and minimum side yard setback and minimum side yard setbacks in an Urban Residential-4 zoning district for construction of residential additions. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet 24 feet 1 foot (4%) Minimum side yard setback: 20 feet 9 feet 11 feet (55%) Minimum total side yard setback: 45 feet 18 feet 27 feet (60%) Applicant: Richard Higgins; Christina Higgins Agent: Jane Sanzan The applicants are looking to accommodate an 88 square foot front porch expansion, to enable the applicant to have more space on the porch. The applicant will use materials which will be in keeping with those on the house currently. Due to the narrowness of the lot and the current location of the building any additions to side or front of the structure would require a variance. There are many large open front porches on Union Avenue. The proposed front yard setback appears to be consistent with other existing homes in the neighborhood. The proposed addition is both in keeping with the architectural character of existing house and porch and with the adjacent properties and porches it should have no adverse effects. A new section of concrete walk would be installed to go around the proposed addition. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DRC Historic Review is required. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:07 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. No additional information has been requested from the applicant. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the March 23, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. 2. #2819 166-168 JEFFERSON STREET RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS, 166-168 Jefferson Street, area variance for entry roofs and expanded patios to existing multi-family residences; seeks relief from the minimum side and rear yard setbacks in the Urban Residential-4 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: - Rezoning of property from UR-2 to UR-4 favorable advisory opinion to City Council December 7, 2005. - Site plan review approval December 10, 2014. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 2 of 21  REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback: 166 Jefferson 20 feet 12 feet 8 feet (80%) Minimum side yard: 168 Jefferson 20 feet 17 feet 8 feet (40%) Minimum rear yard setback: 25 feet 17 feet 8 feet (32%) Applicant: Steve Ethier, Owner, Developer Mr. Ethier stated he is looking for relief to provide coverage on the proposed patios. I am proposing this to give the door entrances to the patios some coverage from the elements, and perhaps to create some architectural elements such as a bump out to create some privacy. We are somewhat confined. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the applicant’s request. The Board questioned permeability and more complete plans regarding what this proposal and request is since it is the duty of the ZBA to grant the minimum amount of variance. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:19 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Bill Ussis, 283 Jefferson Street. Consideration should be given to the neighbors and close proximity of these homes to the neighboring properties. This application will be placed on the March 23, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda awaiting further information from the applicant. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: Bill Moore, Vice Chairman stated he did review the webcast and is informed to vote on all matters this evening. Skip Carlson, Board member stated he also reviewed the webcast and is informed to vote on all matters this evening. OLD BUSINESS: #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. Agent: Matthew J. Jones, Alex Besso, Attorneys-Jones Firm; Jay Stasak, Architect-Envision Architecture Applicant: Mark Baker, President, City Center; Board members Joe Dalton; Roger Goldsmith; Susan Farnsworth BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This application was heard at the January 12, 2015 meeting and adjourned to January 26, 2015 and further adjourned to February 9, 2015. The board requested additional information including alternatives to the height and placement of the proposed parking garage structure and any possible mitigation measures considered with the Mouzon House. The public hearing was opened on January 12, 2015 and remains open. The application provided four alternatives that were considered in response to the City Center’s request for proposals. A letter from Matt Jones, dated February 13, 2015 was submitted and provided to the Board. SEQRA: - Action appears to be a Type I action. - In addition to the ZBA, the Planning Board, Design Review Commission and the City Council, are involved agencies. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 3 of 21  - On July 1, 2014 the City Council initiated Coordinated Review and deferred Lead Agency status to the Planning Board. - ZBA deferred Lead Agency to the Planning Board on July 9, 2014. - The Planning Board issued a Negative SEQRA Declaration on December 10, 2014. PARCEL HISTORY: - DRC architectural review approval of roof mounted solar hot water panels for Mouzon House, 1 York Street, October 16, 2014. - Reaffirmation of DRC approval with clarification/revisions, November 19, 2014. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: 6.4.8 Solar Access No property owner may erect a structure or allow a tree or other flora to cast a shadow upon a solar collector Greater than the shadow cast by a hypothetical wall six feet high located along the property line between 8AM and 4PM EST from September 21 to March 21. Mr. Jones provided the Board with some background information and history on the project. A visual presentation was provided as well. The application states the effect of the variance is on a single property the Mouzon House and the impact of the shadowing on the 6 solar collectors amounts to a nominal financial impact. This is a unique application, and all the material facts are not disputed. The property is owned by the City of Saratoga Springs, which routinely would not go through such a process. In this case the City Attorney ruled that it is subject to the Land Use Boards, the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Board, and the Design Review Commission. This project entails the development of a 2.6 acres of City owned property. This project also includes consideration under the solar access provision of the City Zoning Ordinance. This project has become zoning non-compliant not on its own but by the actions of a neighbor. The application states that the proposed parking structure casts a shadow on the solar collectors at 28 feet. The project objectives were established by the City Center Authority, at the commencement of the RFP process. These are principally cost, efficient use of the land in consultation with City Council, efficient use of the land, and to provide for a connector and a minimum of 500 cars, and of course to be zoning compliant. We have provided correspondence to you outlining the five tests for an area variance and how these have been met. When you balance everything out you will see it weighs heavily in favor of the applicant. I know you have all read and studied the materials at great length. We will ask you to weigh all the factors and if all the tests for an area variance have been met we will ask you to entertain a resolution granting the variance from the solar access provision in the ordinance. Bill Moore, Chairman stated since our last meeting on January 26, 2015, we have received the following correspondence: NEIGHBOR INPUT: - Email from John Rockwell, 133 York Avenue, received February 9, 2015. - Email with attachment from Tom Denny, received February 9, 2015. - Email from Monique Smith, Phila Street, received February 9, 2015. - Email from Merrily Miller, 674 Crescent Avenue, received February 8, 2015. - Email from Bill Miller, received February 7, 2015. - Email from Peter Dorsman, received February 7, 2015. - Email from John Griffiths received February 7, 2015. - Petition from change.org submitted January 26, 2015. Bill Moore, Chairman stated per the Board’s request additional plans were submitted by the applicant: Mr. Jones stated the applicant did supply the Board with the following information. There were five responses to the RFP that the City Center Authority received in the Spring of this year. Our application is one of those. The other four the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 4 of 21 Zoning Board of Appeals requested and we did provide those over a month ago. They were LaChase; Pike; MLB; and UCI. Those four site plans that you have are not zoning compliant, and therefore we believe do not represent a reasonable alternative. An alternative that cannot be built is not an alternative. They do not meet the solar access requirement. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated we have not asked for additional information since the applicant’s last appearance before the Board and therefore I feel we have a complete application. Adam McNeill, Secretary asked if the applicant has approached the neighbor to purchase additional land. Mr. Baker stated the owner of the property is a combination of Blackstone and the Hilton. Conversation with the general manager stated they were not interested in building any additional parking in that area and they declined. James Helicke asked how the applicant arrived at this number of parking spaces. Mr. Baker stated the original information was obtained from a number of parking committees over the last ten to ten and one half years. Prior to the Woodlawn parking garage there was a 900 space deficit downtown area. The committees reviewed numbers which were projected in 2006 and stated a 263 deficit still occurred plus displaced parking with the construction of this garage and we arrived at 500 spaces. James Helicke asked whether the applicant had considered asking the City to make other changes to downtown parking in order to alleviate shortages as discussed at a recent public forum. Mr. Baker stated the forum did have some great ideas to be addressed by the City of Saratoga Springs regarding parking. James Helicke stated the Mouzon House will suffer with their solar panels being blocked. How are you trying to make this right and accommodate the Mouzon House property owners? Mr. Jones stated we accept the monetary impact the Mouzon House will suffer having the solar panels blocked to the amount of $11.00 per month. We understand that issue. The next step if we are allowed to continue, during site plan there is a lot of discussion concerning neighbors and mitigation. Susan Steer stated she did review the proposals which were submitted. As the applicant stated they all impeded the solar access. What I was concerned about was how you determined this. Was this due to the height of the projects being above 28 feet and how much difference would it have made with some of the projects being lower heights? Did some of them mitigate the solar access provision? What were the reasons some of these were not acceptable. Mr. Jones stated some of the proposals did not meet the build to lines. All the structures were 60 feet wide. Cost was another factor in determining which project was chosen. We do not have the authority to present the other RPFs to the Land Use Boards. We appeared before the City Council and presented this project we asked specifically for Land Use Board review. We received approval for this project to proceed through the Land Use Boards. Our proposal does make efficient use of the land. The City Council has no interest in moving a building to the south closer to Lake Avenue. Susan Steer stated the City Council recently applied for a $5,000 grant whereby they will allow 50 local businesses and residential homes to install solar panels. The entire City Council stated this was a priority for the City to encourage solar energy use. If the City is encouraging solar energy use why then would any business put their own money into this installation, when there is no guarantee? If we grant the variance here it would basically nullify that ordinance? Mr. Jones stated the City Council has instituted this solar access provision. This is the law that they want to have and the venue available. The applicant will then need to go through the area variance test to the satisfaction of the Zoning Board. If the applicant is not successful, the Zoning Board denies the variance. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 5 of 21 Susan Steer stated knowing that this provision exists I do not see that you have presented any alternatives to mitigate what is going to happen here. Mr. Jones stated you cannot mitigate the solar access interference without moving the building back 60 feet south, which flies in the face of those objectives established and for which we do not have any authority to present. Susan Steer questioned what the height of the building was based on? Mr. Jones stated the height of the building would be 28 feet in order not to compete with the solar panels. This project was designed by Jay Stasak’s group before we had any knowledge or consideration of solar access to 70 feet which is the maximum there. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:53 P.M. Bill Moore Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Jonathon Tingley, Attorney for the Pedinotti’s – Mouzon House Mr. Tingley provided additional documentation to the Board as well as two affidavits. There are also some technical consultant correspondences. A copy of the presentation was submitted to the Board along with the following: - 10/08/14 Applicant presentation - 06/2014 Traffic assessment - Maple Avenue view - Level 2, 3, 4, and 5 schematic - The City Center request for proposals - The applicants September 17, 2014 presentation - The February 9, 2015 letter of Mark Millspaugh with attachments* - Real property tax report for the City Parking lot including a tax map - February 2, 2015 FOIL acknowledgement from the City Center Authority - 4 Bid forms in response to the RFP - Aerial view excerpt from the proposal which was ultimately selected by the applicant - July 2014 applicant presentation - The applicant’s DRC application - Affidavit of Diane Pedinotti* - Affidavit of David Pedinotti* - Review letter of Saratoga Associates* *Indicates newly submitted items to the Board this evening. Mr. Tingley stated this project is incredibly important to his clients, and the impact it will have. One of the area variance tests is to weigh the benefit to the applicant weight it against the detriment to health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by granting the variance. The project objectives were established by the City Center Authority, at the commencement of the RFP process. These are principally cost, efficient use of the land, and to provide for a connector and a minimum of 500 cars, and of course to be zoning compliant, as well as a physical connection to the City Center, and a $10 million dollar budget. Mr. Tingley refuted the trip generation/traffic study assessment figures citing a usage of 228 parking spaces on a net basis. The connector which spans Maple Avenue is 3 or 4 stories high and creates a 99 foot wide tunnel. The Planning Board asked if the applicant would be willing to scrap the overpass and the parking associated with it. The applicant’s response was that the overpass was too important. In December the applicant returned with the same overpass only it City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 6 of 21 was reduced by 21 feet and remains 99 feet wide. When the RFP was issued it was stated in the RFP several times. It was referred to as other considerations. On the bid form they describe the project as a parking garage with a pedestrian bridge. 4 out 5 responses include a pedestrian bridge. The applicant chooses the only proposal which includes a multi- story vehicular overpass that is not a pedestrian bridge. It is that connector that is the sticking point. It is that connector which prohibits the garage from being moved back on the parcel, the building to be rotated and maintaining the height as tall as it is. Alternative plans will not affect the solar panels as much as the current project. The project wants to be zoning compliant. The building frontage should be on High Rock Avenue. The grade increase is 28%. The finished grade on the building is 270 feet. The highest point of the roof is 352.9 feet. The finished height is 82.9 feet. They are not zoning compliant. Parking structures should be set back 50 feet. If not there should be civic space located within the yard. The applicant’s civic space is the agora which is not within the yard. They are seeking to build above the average building height; they are seeking to avoid the setback and the civic space requirements. This structure casts 500 hours or so shadows on the Pedinotti’s solar collectors during the protected period. The applicants wish to use efficient use of the parcel. There are three parcels, one tax map parcel owned by the City and the other two parcels are to be leased 1.62 acres. They will use 1.62 acres no matter where they place the garage. Finally, with respect to the budget $10 million dollars. Four out of the 5 responses to the RFP were under the budget of $10 million dollars. I have provided the other four, one was $12 million, but the other four were under $10 million. There is no evidence which I have seen for a variance for them to stay within their $10 million dollar budget. What is the detriment to the neighborhood and the neighboring properties. The Mouzon house is incredibly close to the parking garage. They have provided some rendering of the garage but they have never taken a picture from York Street and provided a rendering of what it would look like. In the absence of a variance they would have to build something that was not so close. The multi-story parking deck has always been the sticking point in this application from the community’s perspective. That is in the SEQRA record. That is why the applicant modified the connector. In terms of the impact on the Pedinotti’s the combined mass, orientation and proximity to the Mouzon House will seal it off into a dark corner of the City. The garage is going to cast shadows on the solar collectors during the protected period. Diane Pedinotti has signed an affidavit that indicates by the mere proposal of the garage they have lost one event at least that would create approximately $8,000 to $10,000 in revenue. That is before the garage has received a single approval. David Pedinotti has signed an affidavit where he states that he went to a June 2014 public information session of the City Center Authority and after they presented the current proposal absent the modification of the connector he spoke during the question period and asked do you realize that this project could put us out of business? The response from the City Center Authority representative was I am aware of that. That is an admission that this design will impact the neighboring property. In terms of other alternatives we submitted a Saratoga Associates review letter which said the same building, same height, width and length can be relocated on the property in a way that does not cast shadows on the solar collectors. That assumes that they need it to be five floors. There is another alternative provided by Saratoga Associates provided that stated it would cast a shadow but only 19 minutes of shadow on December 21, 2015 the most problematic day of the protected period. That proposal includes a pedestrian bridge which is what actually cast the shadow. A question arose at the last appearance before the Board if you put one parking deck on the existing surface parking that would result in 518 spaces which include 80 to the south which leaves 438 spaces which can be obtained by putting a parking structure on the 1.62 acre parcel as stated by Mark Millspaugh. Moving the structure to the 130 feet farther south and three levels of parking would generate 477 parking spaces which include 80 to the south 397 on the 1.62 acres and a pedestrian bridge would be feasible. Some conversation has stated wait until site plan. The problem with site plan is that the Planning Board does not have the authority to require the applicant to do offsite improvements. All they are looking at is the boundaries within the site plan. This cannot be considered or required for mitigation. If the area variance is granted, these impacts will result regardless of the site plan review. We are assuming there is a nice vegetative area between the parking garage and the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 7 of 21 Mouzon House and site plan will address that. It will not however, reduce the height of the structure, rotation of the building, moving the building to the south, and it won’t say you wanted a pedestrian bridge so have a pedestrian bridge. On this record I believe the application has to be denied. One thing this Board must consider is that is this the least variance that can be granted and still achieve the applicants objective. We have just walked through the objectives, I think there is a lesser variance, evidence supports a lesser variance and the applicant is not willing to accept it or seek it. Tonight we are asking you to tell the applicant to go back to the drawing board and reconfigure this project so that it does not impact the Mouzon House as much as this plan does. A denial will be upheld because there is enough evidence in the record to support a denial. David Pedinotti, 38 Pinewood Avenue. My family and I are owners of the Mouzon House. We have been in the business for 21 years. We try to be as sustainable as we can. In those efforts we have grown our own herbs, we recycle, and compost. In 2012 I completed an application for solar panels on the restaurant. We obtained a permit in 2013 and in 2014 we replaced the roof and the solar panels were installed. We had no idea about the solar access provision in the City and I just want to state that on the record. When we viewed the presentation in 2014 the plans were complimentary to the Mouzon House. This presentation seems to want us to disappear. Please consider us. James Stedman, Crommelin Drive. I do not have any vested interest in the Mouzon House you all have a responsibility to uphold the spirit and letter of the law as it relates to the solar panels. The applicant presents no remediation and wish us to capitulate. The City has made it clear they are very much in favor of solar energy. Bill McTygue, York Street. I have taken the opportunity to speak to the City Council and the other Land Use Boards at various times. I have some history serving on many Boards and redevelopment committees in the City, as well as retired Supervisor of Public Works. We have a tremendous opportunity with this parcel. I do not think we have raised the bar high enough. I believe this project has lowered the bar too low, and violates the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan which calls for retail, civic activity along a busy commercial street. I think the City Council and other Land Use Boards have fumbled the ball. This project should have never reached the ZBA. Let’s get the parking but let’s do it right and make it something we can be proud of. Nancy Holtzman, Crommelin Drive. This is an opportunity. We have a need for parking. Stand alone parking garages are not what is being built any longer. We have an opportunity to applaud sustainability and solar panels which is the wave of the future. This is an opportunity for the City to be progressive and community minded regarding parking. A proposal should include community, sustainability and puts Saratoga in a position we were in with the Library when people were coming from all over to see how community oriented it was. Susan Farnsworth, 105 East Avenue. The Downtown Business Association is in agreement with this project. They however, would not be in favor of it if they were to put in retail establishments on the lower level. I would encourage the Board to think of the huge number of businesses that are on Broadway. We cannot be thinking about one business we have to think about the whole. Roger Goldsmith, Saratoga Resident, Saratoga Business Owner and Member of the City Center Authority. We need a variance to alleviate the solar panel provision. The project was zoning compliant before the installation of the solar panels on the Mouzon House. We need to focus with the project at hand. Traffic is the name of the game. Dianne Pedinotti, owner of the Mouzon House. Saratoga is growing, it is being developed and we need to grow beyond Broadway. This area is prime for development. To slap up a parking structure flies in the face of good urban planning. This whole issue is about the solar panels. The City stated we could have them. Jennifer Liedig. This affects more than just the solar panels, it is a huge structure. You don’t think everyone else will suffer from solar deprivation. The garage will cast a shadow no one has ever seen. The word craftsmanship is demeaning to the residents of Saratoga Springs. The applicants in this instance are dead wrong about the parking garage. I believe the applicant has not exhausted all options and possibilities. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 8 of 21 Aaron Pedinotti, 53 York Avenue. This project speaks of bad planning. I am against this proposal. It will put us out of business. Harry Moran, Sustainable Saratoga Chairman. We have been on the record for over two years regarding our concerns for the design and the process surrounding the proposed City Center Parking Structure. We realize the issue before the Boards surrounds the shading of the structure on the solar panels at the Mouzon House. Promoting access to clean and renewable energy technologies is a very important part of our mission and we respectfully request that this Board be firm on this issue. Businesses who take the initiative to reduce their impact on the environment should be commended and their rights defended. It is the responsibility of this Board to thoroughly explore all possible alternatives to avoid or mitigate the adverse impacts. Bill Ussis, 283 Jefferson Street. Has anyone considered putting solar panels on the walkway or on the parking garage stairway tower or in some way let the Mouzon House have use through a contract of harnessing the solar energy in that manner. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: - Saratoga County Planning Board decision “No significant Countywide or Intercommunity Impact, dated January 26, 2015. - Planning Board Subdivision and site plan approvals required. - DRC architectural review approval required. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:04 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further comments from the Board. Gary Hasbrouck stated what he is concerned about was the presentation of new information at the meeting. What has been past practice is the Board receives the information prior to the meeting. James Helicke stated he does have some serious concerns regarding this application. Mr. Helicke stated he would like to review the information which was presented this evening. Procedurally, I feel it would be prudent for this Board to vote on this application at the next meeting. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated I look upon an application from the standpoint of the applicant. The public does not have the ability to dictate the terms and the pace of this Board. I have heard a lot of sincerity and passion from the public. I do not wish to discount that or treat it lightly. What we are here to discuss is Section 6.4.8 the casting of a shadow on a solar collector. We are here to discuss the merits of this application on the granting of a variance. Susan Steer stated she is relatively new to this and is not familiar with the procedures that usually occur in terms of the timeline. I do appreciate that we are only looking at the solar access provision in terms of granting a variance. However, any information which comes to us during a public comment period either in verbal or written form I believe is important for us to look at. Whether or not, you are in agreement, or not. We were not given a lot of information from the applicant about other projects and it was only when we asked for that information several times were we actually given the proposals provided to the City Center from the RFP’s. We also were never given a copy of the RFP to see what that actually provided. I think that has a bearing on whatever decision we make today, and I think it is important to see that information whether or not it was timely or not. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated the purpose of the public meeting is for relevant information to be presented. Whether it is an engineering document or whatever. In regard to empirical evidence that may point out inconsistencies with the application it is relevant. One of things I am done with is when one or two or three members of the Board receive advice of Counsel and it is not presented to the Board as a whole. I would like to have the benefit of that information because it City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 9 of 21 helps me to make an informed vote. With the information presented by Mr. Tingley,its length and attention to detail, I am not comfortable voting on this issue this evening. Bill Moore, Chairman stated I would like to say there has been so much information submitted this evening and public comment as well, even though the public hearing is closed, I would like to take time to digest this information and I would feel more comfortable voting in two weeks. I would feel better if the entire Board is ready to vote. Bill Moore, Chairman polled the Board and it was determined 4-3 that the majority of the Board would like to wait two weeks for a vote, noting the public hearing is closed. James Helicke stated Board member Adam McNeill raised some concerns earlier and at a previous meeting and it would be a good idea if we met with counsel to discuss any legal concerns he has. I don’t want one of our members voting having legal questions unresolved. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will meet with counsel before the next meeting. #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. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Accessory structure Unfinished and Finished and habitable 100% (residential):Second story uninhabitable space space of proposed space Applicant: Patricia Daley, owner Ms. Daley stated she would very much like to construct a two car garage in her backyard and have an office space upstairs. The proposed floor plans show proposed amenities such as a gas fireplace/stove unit, half bath and a counter with service sink. It is unfeasible to establish the office in the existing house, as there is not enough space for office and related storage and equipment. The proposed 28’ x 28’ two car garage would be compliant with district requirements. Adam McNeill questioned the change to the neighborhood. Ms. Daley stated the neighborhood is a mixed residential, multiple residential and commercial area. There will be no adverse or environmental effects on the neighborhood. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:27 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak regarding the application. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 10 of 21 Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:28 P.M. Adam McNeill presented the following resolution: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF #2811 Patricia Daly 28 West Circular Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 28 Westbury Drive in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.75-1-22 in the Inside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit finished/habitable space in an accessory structure in the UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 9th day of March 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 variance for the following amount of relief: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (RESIDENTIAL): UNFINISHED AND FINISHED AND 100% SECOND-STORY OF PROPOSED GARAGE UNINHABITABLE SPACE HABITABLE SPACE 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 desires to create an office in the attic of a detached garage. The city code does not allow any type of finishing work which would create a habitable area in the attic of a detached garage in a UR-3 district. Finish work, to be performed, includes the installation of a ½ bath, insulation, and a heating system. The applicant explored the possibility of converting part of the existing two-family house for this purpose, but found that there was not an appropriate amount of room to accommodate the office and related storage and equipment. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The detached garage is a permitted structure and meets the dimensional requirements of the district. 3. The relief requested is substantial. Since the code does not allow finished space in an accessory structure, allowing even limited finished space is considered substantial. 4. The construction will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The application states “the garage structure will be the same whether the 2nd floor is storage or home office used by the owner only.” 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship, however self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: This variance is conditioned upon the improvements not creating an accessory apartment in the accessory building. Specifically, no complete kitchen or full bath and no overnight stays will be allowed. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 11 of 21 Susan Steer 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; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 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. This application was heard at the February 23, 2015 meeting and adjourned to March 9, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. RECUSAL: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, recused from this application. Applicant: Jeanne D’Agostino Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated we were before the Board two weeks ago. At that time you did ask for additional information. Information was provided to the Board which included 3 options for the lot if the barn was taken down and what could fit on the lot if that was done. Ms Yasenchak did review the three options with the Board. Applicant provided some comparables and examples of barns and carriage houses on alleys. Permeability is 40.4%. James Helicke stated the concern he has now is parking and the alley access. 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. Sue Rodems, 84 White Street. It is a tiny parcel with a large structure on it. It is a non-conforming lot. Ms. Rodems he is not in favor of this project. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will leave the application open until the next ZBA meeting on March 23, 2015 when a resolution will be prepared and presented. Susan Barden, Senior Planner returned to the meeting. 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. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 12 of 21 This application was heard at the February 23, 2015 meeting and adjourned to March 9, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America 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. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:00 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF JAMES E. KILDUFF and KATHLEEN O’CONNOR 54 WHITE STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 54 White Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 165.76-2-18 on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance for construction of an expanded foyer entry and new entry porch, seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on February 23 and March 9, 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 following variance for the following amount of relief, Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Minimum Front Yard Setback 10 feet 8.8 feet 1.2 feet (12 percent) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1.) The applicants have demonstrated that alternative configurations were explored, but were not viable. The application states: “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.” 2.) The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character, or detriment to nearby properties. The proposed addition is set back farther than the existing house, which is only 5.7 feet from the property line. The application further states: “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.” 3.) The variance is not substantial at 1.2 feet or 12 percent. Moreover, the application notes that the existing porch is preexisting, nonconforming at 9.1 feet, and the 0.3 foot difference is “relatively minor.” 4.) The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 13 of 21 effect on the neighborhood. The applicant has estimated that 68.5% of the site will remain permeable, adhering to the district’s 25 % permeability requirement. The application states that no large trees will be removed for the project. 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, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 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. This application was heard at the February 23, 2015 meeting and adjourned to March 9, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The Board requested additional information, which was submitted on March 3, 2015 and forwarded to the Board members. Agent: Andrew Frasier Mr. Frasier stated he provided the Board with the requested permeability calculations. Photos were also provided for the Boards review. 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. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:07 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF MICHAEL AMO and NIKI LEE ROWE 48 WEBSTER STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 48 Webster Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 166.77-2-19 in the Inside Tax District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for area variances for construction of a covered walkway attaching the existing single- City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 14 of 21 family residence to existing detached garage and seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage and minimum total side yard setbacks in the Urban Residential-2 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on February 23, 2015 and March 9, 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 following variance for the following amount of relief, Maximum principal Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: building coverage 30 percent 47.6 percent 17.6 percent (59 percent) Minimum total side yard setback 20 feet 12 feet 8 feet ( 40 percent) 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 application states that, as a result of work on neighboring property, water began to accumulate on the walkway and freeze in the winter causing “unsafe walking conditions.” The only means to avoid a variance would be to detach the walkway from the house and garage, a scenario that would not achieve the benefit sought by the applicants. 2.) The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character, or detriment to nearby properties. The project does not fundamentally change the existing garage or residence, but only adds a covered walkway between the two structures. The application asserts that the project is a “minor change” that is “consistent with other property structures” nearby. The covered walkway will also remain open on both sides, mitigating the impact of the additional building coverage. 3.) The request for relief from the maximum principal building coverage requirement may be considered substantial at 59 percent, However, this relief is largely because the proposed the walkway connector results in the garage being considered attached to the principal building. The existing house already covers 28.7 percent of the lot and the garage covers 15.7 percent, a combined total coverage of 44.4 percent. The walkway connector will only increase combined lot coverage by an additional 3.2 percent. Likewise, the relief from the minimum total side yard setback is required because the walkway connector results in the garage being considered attached to the principal building. 4.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The applicant has estimated that 40.7 percent of the site will remain permeable, adhering to the district’s 25 percent permeability requirement. 5.) The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: No additional accessory buildings on the site. Adam McNeill, Secretary seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 15 of 21  Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 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. This application was heard at the February 23, 2015 meeting and adjourned to March 9, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. 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. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:12 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF #2813 Keith Ferrara 27 Westbury Drive Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 27 Westbury Drive in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 164.16-2-13 in the 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 an addition to an existing single-family residence in a UR-1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 23rd day of February and the 9th day of March 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 variance for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK 30’ 25’ 8” 4’ 4” (14%) 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 explored an alternative design, but it did not meet the original design’s intent. The addition became City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 16 of 21  less deep than anticipated, encroached on existing setbacks, created a conflict with existing windows on the second floor of the existing floor, and interfered with the function and access to the existing home. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant notes that this proposed addition is located at the rear of the property, is one story and view of the new addition will be limited. The quality of construction and design will be consistent with the existing home and neighborhood. 3. The variance is not substantial at 14%. 4. The variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The site would remain permeable by exceeding the minimum 30% required in the district and no clearing of existing trees will be required. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed addition, but 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, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 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. This application was heard at the February 23, 2015 meeting and adjourned to March 9, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Susan Barden, Senior Planner rectified a statement she made at an earlier meeting regarding the status of the smaller lot. 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. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:19 P.M. SEQRA: The Board reviewed the short EAF form. No large or important areas of concern noted. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 17 of 21  Bill Moore, Chairman made a motion for a SEQRA Negative Declaration. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL #2815 Eric and Emma Broadwin 12 Stratton Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 131 Lincoln Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being Tax Parcel Section 166.77, Block 1, Lots 30 & 32, Inside District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York. Whereas, the appellant having applied for an area variances for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for minimum mean lot width for two building lots in a UR-2 zoning district; and public notice has been duly given of a hearing on said application held on February 23rd and March 9, 2015 Whereas, in consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution that the requested area variances for the following relief or lesser dimensions, be approved: Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Minimum mean lot width: Parcel A (existing house lot) 60 feet 55 feet 5 feet or 8% Minimum mean lot width: Parcel B 60 feet 56.58 feet 3.42 feet or 6% 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The applicant wishes “to perform a boundary line adjustment so that two existing tax parcels are reconfigured into two single family parcels with the existing house adopting a Lincoln Avenue address and the new single family home to use the 23 Murphy Lane address”. The applicant indicated he has tried to purchase additional land on the northwest side of the property to no avail. No other land is available due to the neighbor’s house being 3’ from the property line. 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, “Attached as Exhibit A is a listing of the 41 parcels in the vicinity of the applicant’s land. These lots, although in two zones, have 33 lots that do not comply with the “mean width” requirement. Of the 33 lots that do not comply, parcel “A” and “B” are wider than all the other non-compliant lots.” The Board notes that several other nearby properties use Murphy Lane as their property’s primary access. 3. The request for relief may not be considered substantial. Both variance requests are minimal in both actual measurement and % of relief requested. 4. The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 18 of 21  The applicant notes “adequate municipal services exist in the area, and no additional traffic to be introduced to Murphy Lane.” 5. The difficulty may be considered self-created. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. Skip Carlson seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. James Helicke deferred to the Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board, placing a house on an alley, as it relates to sidewalks, lighting and streetscape. Discussion ensued among the Board, regarding adding a condition to the resolution for streetscape amenities. It was the consensus of the Board to not condition the resolution. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, opposed MOTION PASSES: 6-1 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. This application was heard before the Board on February 23, 2015, and adjourned to March 9, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. 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. Dr. Judy Harrigan, 649 North Broadway. Dr. Harrigan stated the variance application has changed dramatically since the last application. 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. A very clear statement as to what is allowed would be appreciated. Tim Monahan, Gallarneau Builders representing the Cohen’s. The application before the Board is the same application which was before the Board in 2011. The intention for the use is a TV/recreation area. No bathing facilities are requested. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:40 P.M. Keith Kaplan presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Alan Cohen 3420 Stallion Lane Weston, FL 33331 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 19 of 21 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 655 North Broadway, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being Section 165.36, Block 1, Lot 12, Inside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City, to permit the construction of finished and habitable space within an accessory structure in an Urban Residential-1 District and public notice having been given of a hearing on said application held on the 23rd day of February 2015 and the 9th day of March 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 requested area variance for the following relief: AREA VARIANCE DISTRICT REQUIREMENT RELIEF REQUESTED - Finished and habitable space Not permitted 100%, Complete relief in an 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 there are no feasible alternatives on the site and that there is no other available space in the existing structure that could be converted in to additional recreational space. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The proposal to convert a portion of an existing accessory structure into habitable space is interior only. Conditions will accompany this resolution to limit use of the space to preclude a second dwelling unit and therefore limit the impact on the neighborhood and district. 3. The Board notes this variance is substantial insofar as it is asking for complete relief; however, the habitable space variance’s substantiality has been mitigated by the conditions, see below, limiting kitchen and bath facilities. 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 include habitable space in the accessory structure. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created due the applicants’ desire to build habitable space in the accessory structure; this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: No bathing facilities, no complete kitchen facilities beyond small refrigerator and microwave and no overnight stays. Adam McNeill seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there is any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 20 of 21  MOTION PASSES: 7-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion to approve the November 17, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes. James Helicke seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; Susan Steer, abstained MOTION PASSES: 6-0-1 Gary Hasbrouck made a motion to approve the November 24, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes. Adam McNeill, Secretary seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, abstained; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, abstained MOTION PASSES: 5-0-2 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 4/27/15 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 9, 2015 - Page 21 of 21