Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 23, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:06 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: #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 CONGREGATION & 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: #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. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum principal building coverage 30% 31.64% 37.57% 7.57% (25.23%) Minimum side yard setback: to garage west 4 ft. .9 ft. .9 ft. 3.1 ft. (77.5%) Minimum total side yard setback: 12 ft. 17 ft. to exterior stairs to .9 ft. 11.1. ft. (92.5%) second floor Agent: Matthew Hurff, Partner, Frost Hurff Architects Mr. Hurff stated the applicants are proposing bedroom and bathroom additions to their existing two-family home. The expansion of the bedroom could not be located elsewhere on the property. The additions both bedrooms and bathrooms add only 130 square feet to the lot coverage or 2%, which represents a relatively minor change to the neighborhood. The bedroom addition 123.5 square feet will fill in an open area between the house and garage attaching the two structures. The relief associated with the garage now being attached and therefore needing to meet the setbacks for the principal structure may be considered substantial at 77.5% and 92.5% respectively. However, the location of the garage on the property and its proximity to the property lines would not change. The amount of relief seems deceivingly large because of the inclusion of the garage/storage building as now part of the principal structure. When the existing detached garage is added to the principal structure it adds 247 square feet or 4%. This is a small addition with a minimal physical presence on the existing property. The site would remain at least 25% permeable. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman, opened the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone would like to speak regarding this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for April 13, 2015. #2821 TROJANSKI BUILDERS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, 10 Doten Avenue, area variance for proposed construction of a single-family residence, seeking relief from the minimum average lot width, minimum side yard setback (each side) and minimum 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. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback 20 feet 14.08 feet 5.92 feet (29.6%) Minimum side yard: 20 feet 14.59 feet 5.41 feet (27%) Minimum total side yard 45 feet 28.67 feet 16.33 feet (36.29%) Minimum average lot width 100 feet 75 feet 25 feet Agents: Alexandra Besso, Attorney, Jones Firm representing Trojanski Builders Michael Catalfamo, Attorney for the property owners Mr. Catalfamo provided the Board with background information concerning the lots on Doten Avenue. These lots have been in existence for over 111 years. In 1994 3 of these lots were conveyed to the Bornsteins from Mr. McHale. A year later they acquired 4 of these lots from Mr. Verro. After the last acquisition the Bornsteins wished to construct a residence, which was to be located on the first 3 lots. However, the design and size of the home on the parcel did not permit convenient construction on the site with 75 feet of frontage or width provided. It appears the advice which was offered from their attorney and the building inspector was to break off 25 feet of the 4th parcel and utilize as well as the three parcels to construct their home, and they did that. They did not include a merger provision in the deed and as a result that 25 foot wide strip of property did not become incorporated into the three parcels beneath it which they built their home on. They have continued to receive separate tax bills for that 25 x 79 foot parcel. The Bornsteins home is City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 2 of 20 situated on lots 97, 98 and 99 and 100. They entered into contract to sell the remainder of the lots to Trojanski Builders the remainder of the lots 94, 95 and 96 and in the process of reviewing title it was determined there was a need for a variance request which is the subject of the application before you this evening. Ms. Besso, attorney for Trojanski Builders stated they are before the Board seeking three variances. Area variances for new construction on a lot that while narrower than required could provide for a new single family residence that meets the district requirements and could be considered substantial. The applicant did seek to purchase additional land. However, they were unable to do so. The applicant would only be permitted to construct a structure no greater than 30 feet in width, which is not desirable. If the property were zoned UR-2 similar to the others on Doten Avenue then the variances would not be required. No adverse physical or environmental effects would result in the construction of a new single family residence that encroaches into the side yard setbacks. If the relief was denied then no structure would be built and the parcel would remain undeveloped. The site will remain 81% permeable which exceeds the 15% required in the district. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman requested the applicant provide information on why the house could not be designed differently so as not to require variances. James Helicke questioned the applicant’s agent if additional development on the lot is proposed. Ms. Besso stated the applicant is currently proposing to build a single family home on the lot. Bill Moore, Chairman requested a copy of the tax map. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:58 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished speak regarding this application. John Wainwright, Crescent Street. I live to the east of the proposed lot. The home looks nice and generally appreciate it. Concern was voiced regarding the arborvitae along the property line as well as disturbing the numerous mature trees. Would like to have as many trees saved as possible. Can the agreement be conditioned to state no additional second dwellings be built. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for April 13, 2015. 1634.1 BRUNSWICK B&B FRONT PORCH AND SIGN, 143 Union Avenue, area variance for proposed construction of a front porch expansion and a new freestanding sign; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback and maximum size for a freestanding sign in a residential district in the Urban Residential-4 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: - DRC Historic Review for façade alterations, approved November 6, 1997. - ZBA area variances for front porch and ramp, approved October 29, 1997 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 3 of 20  REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet 4 feet 21 feet (84%) Maximum area freestanding sign: 4 feet 12 feet 8 feet (200%) Residential district No representative appeared for this application. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:46 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak regarding this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. #2823 CELESTE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, 32 Fifth Avenue, area variance to raise roof of an existing garage and use as living space; seeking relief from the minimum rear and side yard setbacks and to permit finished/habitable space in an accessory structure. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCES CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum rear yard setback 5 feet 2.3 feet 2.7 feet (54%) Minimum side yard setback 5 feet 3.1 feet 1.9 feet (38%) Agent: Matthew Hurff, Frost Hurff Architects Mr. Hurff stated the applicant is proposing relocating his office to the area over the garage which was built in 1915. The building has always been finished. The applicant is looking to raise the roof of the second floor enough for an office. His office is currently in the home. The applicant is seeking better use of an existing structure they are pre-existing nonconforming in the district. The existing floor plan shows a full bath on the first floor. The work when completed will be comparable in scale and character to adjoining and neighboring properties on the block. The project will have no impact on existing permeability, storm water runoff, or any other environmental factor within the neighborhood. This garage is not being used as a garage currently. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - DRC Historic Review is required. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if the applicant would be willing to remove the bathing facility in the garage. Mr. Hurff stated he will discuss with the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:57 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak regarding this application. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 4 of 20 Sherri Gray, 38 Fifth Avenue, neighbor. This is a garage connected to living space. He has rented his home and lived in his office. This is a narrow part of an alley. This would be an apartment. I am against this project. The Board requested the dimensions of the proposed office space. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. #2822 YITZHAK SHAHAR AND GKY REALTY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, 498 Crescent Avenue, area variance for new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement in the Suburban Residential-2 District. There was no representation for this application. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:05 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. OLD BUSINESS: #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. This application was heard at the February 23, 2015 meeting and adjourned to March 23, 2015. The public hearing was opened on February 23, 2015 and remains open. 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 agency issued a Negative SEQRA Declaration for the three Phased project. In November 2002, the ZBA initiated coordinated review and stated interest that Planning Board should act as lead agency for the environmental review of the project. The DRC also deferred lead agency status to the Planning Board. The Board should consider deferring lead agency status to the Planning Board for continuation of the environmental review of the project. The Board deferred lead agency status to the Planning Board on February 23, 2015. The Planning Board accepted continued lead agency status and approved amended Negative SEQRA Declaration on March11, 2015. 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. Agent: Libby Correno, Attorney, Jones Firm; Don McPherson, LA Group; Bill McMorty, Construction Committee City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 5 of 20 USE AND AREA VARIANCE MODIFICATION CONSIDERATIONS: 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 sq. ft. of area; a playfield, a playground, and parking for 70 cars. The area variance was based on the following findings – “to construct a new school for 100 students; three buildings having a total of 42, 000 sq. ft. of area; a playfield, a playground, and parking for 70 cars. In addition, the area variance grants the relief associated with the project “as shown on submitted plans. Request to increase enrollment to a total of 250 students and 35 staff members. Applicant’s intent is to then proceed with review of Building 2 site plan review and DRC architectural review will be required. Ms. Correno provided a brief visual review of the proposed project. Currently the school enrolls 106 full time students. Visual presentation included an overview of the current site, proximity to wetlands, and forested areas. Rendering of the buildings were provided to the Board. 87% of the site remains permeable. Prior to this expansion the original plan was a campus style feel. Currently we are proposing connecting the facility together to form an east and west wing. Due to the success of the school the enrollment is increasing to approximately 250 students. This results in small increases in traffic trips, water usage per day, wastewater and storm water runoff, all of which are small and will be mitigated. All other environmental issues we believe we can stay in compliance as set forth in the 2003 SEQRA Negative Declaration. More students on site under the existing metrics. 40% of the students are bused to school. 60% are driven to school. The proposed new project will be two stories and 8 classrooms will be fitted and completed. The remaining 8 classrooms will be framed but not finished. DEC forwarded correspondence regarding the wetland delineation boundary; they feel there will be no further intervention necessary. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing is open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Adam McNeill presented the following Use Variance resolution. APPEAL # 1976.1 In the Matter of the Appeal of The Saratoga Independent School 459 Lake Avenue Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 I move the application of The Saratoga Independent School for a modification of its existing use variance for a school operating at 459 Lake Avenue (tax parcel 167.-2-4.2) in the R-1 District thereby permitting an increase of 150 full-time students (total of 250 full-time students) and having heard testimony at public hearings initiated on February 23, 2015 and March 23, 2015, be approved based upon submitted plans because the applicant has demonstrated a rational basis for the proposed change. 1) On February 26, 2003, by unanimous vote, the Board granted a use variance and found that (a) the property is exempt from the requirement to demonstrate economic hardship because it is a public benefit; (b) the property is unique as “a 50 plus acre site”, predominantly wetland constrained parcel; (c) no adverse impacts will result “because only 7.9 acres of the 50 plus acres will be developed” and adequate screening will shield neighbors’ views. On the issue of self-created hardship, the school use was found to be exempt under New York State law. In making its determination, the Board used the following facts: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 6 of 20  1. The school would contain approximately 100 enrolled students; 2. Three buildings will have a total of 42,000 SF of area; 3. A playfield, playground, a parking for 70 cars would be constructed. 2) The applicant constructed the school first classroom building in 2004 after receiving site plan approval from the City Planning Board and undergoing architectural review from the Design Review Commission. 3) The applicant’s present application seeks to modify the factual findings of 100 students by permitting an increase of 150 full-time students for a total of 250, as well as an increase of staff from 15 to a total of 35. As part of the review process, the applicant has submitted the following information as a rational basis for the modification: a. Growth: The applicant has grown from its initial application in 2003 to a current enrollment of approximately 100 full-time students in its single classroom building. Most available space within the building is being utilized for instruction. The expansion of a two-story, second classroom building will provide immediate and necessary relief to the increasing demand for enrollment at the school. An updated traffic study was submitted by Creighton Manning Engineering which found that the levels of services on Route 29 and the site driveway would be consistent with current levels due to (1) staggered start times for classes; and (2) the use of buses and carpooling to transport students. Additionally, technical information was submitted concerning the adequacy of the well on site to provide water for the expansion, as well as septic capacity for the increase in enrollment and staff. Changes in storm water regulations will require additional permitting from NYSDEC for the second classroom building and multi- purpose building. b. New Programming: The applicant has begun a successful pre-Kindergarten program for area students. There are two classes a day in the morning and day, respectively, which provide early childhood instruction. At the time of the original approval, the applicant did not have a pre-K program and its creation represents a positive program addition for the school and the community. c. No Other Proposed Changes: Aside from enrollment growth, the school will operate under all other existing regulatory approvals granted in 2003. The original findings by the Board which will remain the same include the following: i. Phases I, II, and III of campus build-out which is comprised of two classroom buildings and one multi-purpose building. ii. 42,000 square feet of classroom, office, recreation and assembly space; iii. Vehicular access from Route 29 for buses and school traffic; iv. Outdoor playground and play field; and v. 70 parking spaces d. Open Space: School campus will remain over 70% open space with active wetlands used by the students for ecology. The school uses its constrained wetland areas for interactive experiences for its students for outdoor learning and curriculum. e. Public Benefit: Success of the school is a benefit to the community as a whole by providing a unique, independent learning environment for students from the greater Saratoga area. 4) The City Planning Board voted to issue an Amended Negative Declaration under SEQRA on March 11, 2015 with this Board having previously deferred lead agency status. The applicant will also need to obtain further City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 7 of 20  approvals from the Planning Board and the Design Review Commission in order to obtain a building permit for construction of the remaining two phases of the project. The Board concludes that a modification of the 2003 use variance granted to the applicant to permit an increase in enrollment to 250 full-time students is a rational under the circumstances demonstrated by the applicant. The Board also notes that the County Planning Board has issued a memorandum of “No County-wide Impact.” James Helicke seconded the motion. 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 Adam McNeill presented the following Area Variance resolution: APPEAL # 1976.1 In the Matter of the Appeal of The Saratoga Independent School 459 Lake Avenue Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 I move the application of The Saratoga Independent School for a modification of its existing area variances for a school operating at 459 Lake Avenue (tax parcel 167.-2-4.2) in the R-1 District thereby permitting an increase of 150 full-time students (total of 250 full-time students) and having heard testimony at public hearings initiated on February 23, 2015 and March 23, 2015, be approved based upon submitted plans because the applicant has demonstrated a rational basis for the proposed change. On June 4, 2003, by unanimous vote, the Board granted the following area variances: 1. Minimum Side Yard Setback for parking Phases I, II: 30 feet to 0 feet 2. Minimum Rear Yard Setback for Phase III building: 100 feet to 34 feet 3. Total Side Yard Setback (Phase II building): 100 feet to 92 feet In making its 2003 determination, the Board noted that the school would contain approximately 100 enrolled students, that there would be three buildings will have a total of 42,000 SF of area and that a playfield, playground, a parking for 70 cars would be constructed. The Board noted that the applicant met the 5-part statutory balancing test for the grant of the area variances and that the County Planning Board had issued a finding of “No Community-wide Impact.” 1) The applicant constructed the school first classroom building in 2004 after receiving site plan approval from the City Planning Board and undergoing architectural review from the Design Review Commission. 2) The applicant’s present application seeks to modify the factual finding of 100 students by permitting an increase to 150 full-time students for a total of 250, as well as an increase of staff from 15 to a total of 35. As part of the review process, the applicant has submitted the following information as a rational basis for the modification: a. Growth: The applicant has grown from its initial application in 2003 to a current enrollment of approximately 100 full-time students in its single classroom building. Most available space within the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 8 of 20  building is being utilized for instruction. The expansion of a two-story, second classroom building will provide immediate and necessary relief to the increasing demand for enrollment at the school. An updated traffic study was submitted by Creighton Manning Engineering which found that the levels of services on Route 29 and the site driveway would be consistent with current levels due to (1) staggered start times for classes; and (2) the use of buses and carpooling to transport students. Additionally, technical information was submitted concerning the adequacy of the well on site to provide water for the expansion, as well as septic capacity for the increase in enrollment and staff. Changes in storm water regulations will require additional permitting from NYSDEC for the second classroom building and multi-purpose building. b. New Programming: The applicant has begun a successful pre-Kindergarten program for area students. There are two classes a day in the morning and day, respectively, which provide early childhood instruction. At the time of the original approval, the applicant did not have a pre-K program and its creation represents a positive program addition for the school and the community. c. No Other Proposed Changes: Aside from enrollment growth, the school will operate under all other existing regulatory approvals granted in 2003. The original findings by the Board which will remain the same include the following: i. Phases I, II, and III of campus build-out which is comprised of two classroom buildings and one multi-purpose building. ii. 42,000 square feet of classroom, office, recreation and assembly space; iii. Vehicular access from Route 29 for buses and school traffic; iv. Outdoor playground and play field; and v. 70 parking spaces d. Open Space: School campus will remain over 70% open space with active wetlands used by the students for ecology. The school uses its constrained wetland areas for interactive experiences for its students for outdoor learning and curriculum. e. Public Benefit: Success of the school is a benefit to the community as a whole by providing a unique, independent learning environment for students from the greater Saratoga area. 3) The City Planning Board voted to issue an Amended Negative Declaration under SEQRA on March 11, 2015 with this Board having previously deferred lead agency status. The applicant will also need to obtain further approvals from the Planning Board and the Design Review Commission in order to obtain a building permit for construction of the remaining two phases of the project. The Board concludes that a modification of the 2003 area variances granted to the applicant to permit an increase in enrollment to 250 full-time students is a rational under the circumstances demonstrated by the applicant. The Board also notes that the County Planning Department has again issued a memorandum of “No Community-wide Impact.” Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, seconded the motion. 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 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 9 of 20 #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. 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 applicant provided four alternatives that were considered in response to the City Center’s request for proposals. Letters from Matt Jones, dated February 13, 2015 and March 16, 2015 were 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. - 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. 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 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2777.1 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF The Saratoga Springs City Center Authority 522 Broadway Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at the location bounded by York Street, High Rock Avenue, Lake Avenue and Maple Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.52-4-45 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 cast a shadow on neighboring solar collectors in a T-6 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 12th and 26th days of January and March 9 and 23rd of2015. The Board notes at the outset that the section of the City Zoning Ordinance at issue in this application, section 6.4.8, differs from typical dimensional limitations in the Zoning Ordinance. Its wording clearly contemplates interference with solar collectors located close to the ground, rather than on the roofs of buildings, presumably since most rooftop collectors would be unaffected by adjacent buildings. It prohibits a specific and precise impact by one property on an adjoining property. Neither the size of the shadowed collector, nor the effect of the cast shadow on the collector’s efficiency, nor the location of the collector, is a factor in the prohibition. Only the size and duration of the cast shadow matters. The board’s purview is to analyze the applicant’s proof for an area variance, along with the arguments submitted in opposition, under this section of the Ordinance. It is not the function of the Board in this case to evaluate any other impact upon the shadowed property other than the casting of a shadow. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 10 of 20 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 DIMENSIONAL REQUESTED REQUIREMENT TO CAST A SHADOW ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY NOT ALLOWED ALLOW SHADOW TO BE 100% SOLAR COLLECTOR 1 PER 6.4.8 CAST BY PROPOSED BUILDING As per the submitted application (or lesser relief), be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicants have demonstrated the shadow cannot be mitigated by other means feasible to the applicant. The Board notes two alternative means of avoiding this variance that can theoretically be considered by the applicant: 1) Reducing the height of the structure to one that does not result in a shadow being cast; or 2) moving the project site to a location on the parcel that results in no shadow. As for the first alternative, the applicant notes that a height of 28 feet for this project would avoid the effect of casting a shadow on the neighboring property’s solar collector. Per the applicant, reduction in structure height from the 70 feet permitted in the district to 28 feet would eliminate three of the five levels of the structure, and consequently would reduce the number of parking spaces in the structure from approximately 480 vehicles to approximately 200 vehicles. The second alternative, to move the parking structure, was evaluated by an architectural firm which concluded that a move of the structure would not avoid casting a shadow on the solar panels, thus still requiring a variance. The granting of an area variance is an exercise in the balancing of impacts and alternatives. The Board notes that in addition to having evaluated whether the structure could be located differently on the subject property, the feasibility of moving the shadowed solar collectors, an alternative that would solve or greatly minimize the shadowed properties problem, and which is not proposed yet by either the applicant or the adjacent property owners, should be considered. Such a move has the potential to significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the need for a variance and similarly reduce the board’s need to analyze alteration or relocation of the applicant’s structure. The Board further notes the fact that the parking structure project was submitted to the City Building Department for review by the City land use boards in June 2014, several months before the submittal of the application by the neighbor for the installation of the solar panels that are the subject of this resolution. The parking structure project during its planning stages could not reasonably have been designed in a fashion to avoid casting a shadow in accordance with section 6.4.8, since the solar panels had not yet been applied for. Based on the above, the Board finds that reasonably feasible alternatives are not present in this case. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The Board notes that the T-6 Urban Core district permits structures to be a maximum of 70 feet high. By its nature, this request for relief has direct impact on the immediate neighbor. Since the structure has not yet been built, the economic impact of the shadow it would cast during the period covered by ordinance section 6.4.8 1 Full City requirement as noted in Zoning Ordinance section 6.4.8: “Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, 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 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time from September 21 to March 21.” City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 11 of 20  is a matter of estimation. Estimates have been provided to the Board based on “shadow studies” in which the direction of sunlight during different times of year has been applied into a calculation. The range of estimates of dollar impacts provided to the board has ranged from $10 per month, to several hundred dollars per month during the period between September 21 and March 21. The Board notes that the size, location and positioning of the solar panels are within the control of the impacted neighbor. Changing any of these factors will change the impact. The Board further notes that the impact of this variance to the neighborhood or district is by nature limited to the immediate neighbor. However, upon balancing the high cost to the applicant to reconfigure a structure that would be 60% shorter than otherwise permitted against the impact on the adjacent property, along with considering the fact that the project’s design pre-dates the application for the installation of the neighbor’s solar collectors, the board finds that the appropriate conclusion is to grant the variance. 3. The Board finds this variance request not to be substantial. This is not due to its percentage terms, since this is a matter of total relief. In this case, substantiality is, as is commonly done under state law, viewed in terms of impact. The impact to the applicant to modify the project sufficiently to conform to section 6.4.8 is significantly more substantial than the potential movement of the affected solar collectors. 4. This variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. As noted above, the impact of the violation triggering the need for variance is limited to the immediate neighbor. That impact is discussed above. The Board notes no further, physical or environmental effect relating to the variance requested under section 6.4.8 in this case. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. As noted above, the solar panels were applied to the City for permission to be installed several months after the applicant’s proposal was applied for. At the time the application was made, there was no zoning ordinance violation for the applicant to plan around. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Gary Hasbrouck stated the resolution adequately describes the situation we have here. He agrees with the motion. Skip Carlson stated he does not feel all the alternatives have been explored. He has great difficulty voting for this resolution. James Helicke stated he is opposed to this motion. He feels the deliberation is not about the parking garage. This revolves around the variance for the solar collectors. He agrees with Board member Skip Carlson that there are a number of alternatives which would achieve the goals of the applicant. He also feels there are ways to mitigate the impact on the Mouzon House. There is a detriment to the Mouzon House. Finally he thinks this a self created hardship since the garage will cast a shadow on the solar collectors and inhibit them. He will not be supporting this resolution. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated it is not in the purview of the ZBA to really weigh in on the viability or the appropriateness of a parking garage. We are limited to discussion surrounding the variance application and impact of the shadow that currently goes across the solar collectors on the property to the north. We have received a lot of public comment which was specific to the nature of this application and while I understand people’s feelings unfortunately that is a discussion which is more appropriate for the City Council or the Planning Board. Also, any type of financial impact that maybe felt by neighboring business is also not the purview of the ZBA. During the discussion at the last meeting it is my opinion there was information presented to us which would constitute a viable alternative that would mitigate if not eliminate the shadow cast on the solar collectors on the building to the north and in which case I believe there is lesser relief which could be applied for. In which case, I will not be supporting this resolution as it stands. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 12 of 20 Susan Steer, stated she would like to echo that the Boards responsibility is to look at the ordinance for the solar access. Not whether we like the project or not. The solar access provision has been a priority for the City, to encourage people with residential properties as well as businesses to borrow money to install these types of solar panels. In light of that I believe it is important for this Board not to negate or disincentivize people in this City from applying for these grants as well as installing them on their properties. Also, along this line in the RFP from the City Center they spoke about a pedestrian bridge in terms of the connector as well as maximizing the design, construction and operational efficiencies through the application of “green infrastructure elements and energy conservation measures where practicable and achieving a facility that is respectful of the surrounding buildings and architecture in the downtown area.” The casting of such a shadow on a neighboring property is consistent with their own guidelines. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he has a very strong opinion about this. We are looking at a very minor impact from this ordinance and creating a deleterious impact that is much larger to the applicant. We are supposed to be about balance. If the solar panels had been in place, legal, done and in place and locked in then it is up to the applicant to plan around it. I think the way this works is you put forth a proposal, it goes through the land use boards and gets approved, and somebody else can come in and install solar panels and derail it. I think to disproportionate and inequitable result. Before we vote for an inequitable result that is disproportionate and imbalanced we should look back to our mission which is to be balanced. This is grossly imbalanced if we do not allow this. Bill Moore, Chairman stated I agree. It has been tough to keep this application solely about solar panels and shadowing. I agree with the disproportionate argument that Keith makes. On our narrow scope of this I cannot see, and the way it is proportioned not approving it. It is unfortunate it happened in the dates and times it did. I wish the parties had done some mediation among themselves to come up with some alternatives. The alternative designs which were proposed we don’t know if those designs would have needed one variance, five variances or ten variances. Without that specificity I cannot tell whether those alternatives would be better or worse as opposed to this application which requires one. I have to support the resolution as it stands now. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, opposed; Adam McNeill, Secretary, opposed; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, opposed; James Helicke, opposed; MOTION FAILS: 3-4 Discussion ensued among the Board regarding whether the application should remain as an open application. Following the discussion a vote was taken concerning leaving the application open. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, opposed; Adam McNeill, Secretary, opposed; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, opposed; James Helicke, opposed; MOTION FAILS: 3-4 James Helicke presented the following denial resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF THE SARATOGA SPRINGS CITY CENTER AUTHORITY 522 BROADWAY SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 13 of 20  From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at the location bounded by York Street, High Rock Avenue, Lake Avenue and Maple Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 165.52-4-45 in the Inside Tax District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to cast a shadow on neighboring solar collectors in a Transect-6 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on January 12, January 26 and March 9, 2015. The Board notes at the outset that section 6.4.8 of the Zoning Ordinance only regulates the size and duration of the shadow cast on a solar collector on a neighboring property. The ZBA’s purview is to analyze the applicant’s proof for an area variance, along with the arguments submitted in opposition, under this section of the Ordinance. It is not the function of the Board in this case to evaluate any other impact upon the shadowed property other than the casting of a shadow. 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: Type of Requirement District Requirement Proposed Total relief requested To Cast a shadow on Not allowed per 6.4.8 Allow shadow to be cast by 100 percent neighboring property solar proposed building collector As per the submitted application, BE DENIED for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that the shadow cast by the proposed project cannot be mitigated by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant discussed alternative designs. However, the board received evidence to indicate that other alternatives exist that would achieve project goals and may minimize the variance sought. The proposed site of the garage is an undivided parcel of land of 2.8 acres that currently serves as a parking lot. With the exception of pavement, the property is undeveloped. The applicant does not own this property, which belongs to the City of Saratoga Springs. The applicant has applied to the City Council to explore development of a 1.6 acre section of this property for the purpose of constructing a parking garage. The applicant offers that additional alternative designs are outside the scope of their submittal because the City Council has not as of yet authorized them. However, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant is strictly prohibited, either legally or practically, from approaching the City Council with such additional alternatives. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated that granting this variance would not have an adverse effect on the neighboring Mouzon House and the operation of its solar panels. Because the construction of a project at the proposed height will cast a shadow over the solar collectors of the Mouzon House during hours specified by the Zoning Ordinance (from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time from September 21 to March 21), the solar panels will no longer able to function at current levels of operation. One estimate was submitted that the solar collectors would be shadowed for a portion of each day during the time period specified by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has not specifically agreed with this calculation, but has conceded that prohibited shadowing would occur. 3. The proposed variance is substantial. The applicant has provided an estimate of 28 feet as the maximum height that would allow full solar access for the Mouzon House. At 70 feet, the height of the project according to the applicant, the proposed project is more than twice the height permissible according to this solar provision of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board further notes that the applicant has made no effort to mitigate the impact that the proposed project would have on the solar collectors owned by the Mouzon House either by accommodating City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 14 of 20  these solar panels or by compensating for the solar panels or the benefits that the restaurant no longer enjoys due to the issuance of the proposed variance. Moreover, the applicant has not demonstrated a serious attempt to alter its plans in order to lessen the extent of this variance or its detriment to neighboring property. The Board notes brief statements made by both applicant’s counsel and counsel for the adjacent property owners indicating that neither party has given serious consideration to measures to eliminate or mitigate the impact to the Mouzon House’s solar panels by relocating them. In the absence of such information, the board is constrained to deny the request. 4. The Board notes that the Planning Board, which has assumed lead agency for this project, in the evaluation of impact on the environment, has issued a negative SEQR declaration for the project as proposed. 5. The request for relief is a self-created hardship in that the proposed project seeks to inhibit solar access to solar collectors that are in current legal operation. Susan Steer seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, opposed; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, opposed; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, opposed; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-3 #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. This application was heard at the March 9, 2015 meeting. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The application was adjourned to March 23, 2015. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:15 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF RICHARD HIGGINS 100 UNION AVENUE SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 100 Union Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 166.49-4-5 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Appellant having applied for an area variance for construction of an 88 sq. ft. porch addition, seeking relief from the minimum single side setback, total side setback, and front setback in the Urban Residential-4 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on March 9, 2015 and March 23, 2015. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 15 of 20  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: Type of Requirement District Dimensional Requirement Proposed Relief Requested Single Side Setback 20 feet 9 feet 11 feet (55%) Total Side Setback 45 feet 18 feet 27 feet (60%) Front Setback 25 feet 24 feet 1 foot (4%) 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 purpose of this addition is to “provide greater utility of the porch to the owner and guests.” Due to the narrowness of the lot and the location of the house on the property, no addition could be made without a variance. Further, there is no additional land that could be purchased to increase the lot dimensions. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. Many of the houses adjacent to this property have “large open-front porches” and the proposed front yard setback is consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. According to the Applicant, “the addition is modest and in keeping with the other properties nearby.” 3. The request for relief may be substantial at 55% and 60%, but due to the narrowness of the lot, accommodating an 88 sq. ft. extension to the front porch is a relatively insubstantial addition. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The proposed addition is in keeping with the architectural character of the adjacent houses and porches. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: Historic Review by the Design Review Commission. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 16 of 20  Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 #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. Additional information was provided on March 9, 2015. The application was further adjourned to March 23, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. RECUSAL: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, recused from this application. NEIGHBOR INPUT: Letter from Paul Tucker and Maggie Moss-Tucker, 22 Clark Street, dated February 7, 2015. Email from Dan Szot, 10 Stratton Street, received March 3, 2015. Email from Sue and Brian Rodems, dated March 3, 2015. Applicant: Jean D’Agostino Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated we were before the Board two weeks ago. We believe this application for converting the existing barn structure adds to the character of the neighborhood. We ask that you grant the necessary variances for this application. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. John Behan, neighbor. Concerned that the barn looms along his backyard. We are concerned as to what the plan is for the neighborhood. This is a small lot with a large barn on the property. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:27 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Jean D’Agostino 38 Warren St Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving a lot on the south side of Murphy Lane between Clark Street and Stratton Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.84-1-22, in the Inside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 17 of 20 The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the renovation and conversion of an existing barn structure to a single family house on the above-referenced lot in a UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 23rd day of February and the 9th and 23rd days 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 variances for the following amounts of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LOT SIZE 6600 SF 2500 SF 4100 SF, OR 62.1% MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT WIDTH 60 FT 50 FT 10 FT, OR 16.7% MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK 10 FT 3.1 FT 6.9 FT, OR 69% MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK 25 FT 15.7 FT 9.3 FT, OR 37.2% MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK 12 FT 11.4 FT 0.6 FT, OR 5% MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE 30% 46.5% 16.5%, OR RELATIVE RELIEF OF 55% MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT 2 PARKING SPACES 1 PARKING 1 SPACE, OR 50% SPACE As per the submitted application materials, be approved, after weighing the following considerations: 1. The Board notes the applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The board notes that there is a permitted use for this structure, that of an accessory building. However, the applicant is a contract vendee who is seeking the benefit of a principal residence; the board has evaluated this application based on that benefit. There are seven variances in question here, so the board’s conclusion on the consideration of other feasible means is based on the consideration of the individual variances as follows: 1. Principal building coverage: the lot size, at 2500 square feet, is such that the footprint of a house conforming to the 30% coverage requirement would be small (750 square feet including overhangs). This can be done if the barn is removed, which may be an undesirable effect as noted by the applicant on page 66 of the application “Tearing down the barn and starting new would cause a detriment to the neighborhood and community character.” The applicant does not seek to do this in the proposal as submitted. 2. Setback encroachments (front, rear, side). Given the rear-to-front dimensions of the property of 50 feet if fronting Murphy Lane, and the district requirements of 10 feet in front and 25 in back, conformity to both is quite difficult and would result in a very small structure. Total side setback of 12 feet could also be theoretically achieved with a smaller structure. A smaller structure obviously requires a removal of the existing barn, discussed above. It also would result in diminished utility as a single-family residence. 3. Lot width and parking: Per the applicant, land is not available to purchase on either side and that a parking easement on the western side of the property has been specifically ruled out after consultation with neighbors. 4. Lot size: The subject parcel is greatly undersized as a principal building lot; allowing it to be considered for a principal building on it cannot be done without a variance since it is held in common with the adjacent parcel. Land on the south boundary line is currently owned in common City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 18 of 20  on a separate parcel; however, a potential transfer of land appears to the Board to be not feasible due to the placement of a pool on that parcel. Per the applicant, “There is no adjacent land available for purchase.” 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 the barn has been in existence since 1900 and that the position of the building relative to the neighbors would result in it being less noticeable as a residence than otherwise, and that the barn and surrounding yard are visible now. The board also notes that the renovation work would improve the outward appearance of the structure, currently in disrepair. 3. The Board considered the substantiality of the proposed variances. The number of variances sought, and the substantiality of four of these in particular, when taken with the other considerations noted in this motion, are found to be large in this case. There are seven variances that would need to be granted to enable this project to move forward, and the lot size, building coverage, parking, and front setback relief would all need to be at least 50%. The rear yard variance of 37% is found to be substantial as well. The applicant notes and the Board agree in this case, that these are pre-existing conditions of the lot, and are therefore not avoidable. The board lot width relief sought of 16.7% is not substantial in this case, nor is the total side variance of 5%. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical and environmental effect on the neighborhood / district. Permeability requirements of 25% would be met. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created as the applicant wishes to designate this parcel as a principal building; however self creation by itself is not fatal to an application. Adam McNeill, Secretary seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, opposed; Susan Steer, opposed; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, opposed MOTION PASSES: 4-3 Susan Barden, Senior Planner resumed her position at the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, made a motion to approve the February 23, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, abstained; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, abstained; James Helicke, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0-2 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:45 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 19 of 20  Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 4/27/15 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 23, 2015 - Page 20 of 20