Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 11, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:04 P. M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Gary Hasbrouck; Skip Carlson; Susan Steer ABSENT: Adam McNeill, Secretary; James Helicke STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS: #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. #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. #2817.1 ADELPHI HOTEL EXPANSION, 19-23 Washington Street, area variance to construct a banquet facility, additional hotel rooms and renovate the existing stone mansion; seeking relief from the minimum frontage build out Requirement in the Transect-6 District. #2824 KINGS TAVERN KITCHEN, 241 Union Avenue, use variance to expand the nonconforming bar/tavern use of the property to include food service; seeking relief to provide a kitchen within the existing building in the Urban Residential-3 District. #2792 STONE BUILDINGS, 68 Weibel Avenue, area variance to maintain existing buildings; seeking relief from the build-to, minimum frontage build-out and minimum two-story requirements in the Transect-4 District. #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:  1. #2830 KLEINHAUT AND ABERG RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 12 Ashton Lane, area variance for construction of a fireplace to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard and minimum 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. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance to construct a new single-family residence; relief from the minimum front yard, rear yard and maximum principal building coverage in UR-3, January 12, 2006 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED APPROVED Minimum total side yard setback 12 feet 9 feet 3 feet (25%) Maximum principal building coverage 30% 38% 38.5% Additional .5% (total 28%) Applicant Mark Kleinhaut, owner Mr. Kleinhaut stated they are proposing a 6’ x 3’ bump out to accommodate an 18 square foot fireplace. The location of the fireplace on the west wall is the only feasible location within the family room of the residence. Placement of the fireplace on the east wall is not feasible due to the location of existing stairwells. The north and south wall are also not feasible due to placement of existing windows, doors and hallways. This bumpout for the fireplace is consistent with the residential designs and will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood. Most of this added structure will be concealed behind a 6 foot solid wooden privacy fence already in place. Minimum permeability of 25% is met. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. 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 a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA Meeting scheduled on May 18, 2015. 2. #2831 TRACY NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, 62 Van Dam, area variance to demolish an existing single-family residence and build new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard, minimum side yard setback (west), minimum side yard setback (east), and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 11, 2015 - Page 2 of 11 Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard 10 feet 3 feet 7 feet (70%) Minimum side yard 4 feet 1 foot 3 feet (75%) Minimum side yard 4 feet 1 foot 3 feet (75%) Minimum total side yards 12 feet 2 feet 10 feet (83%) Maximum principal building coverage 30% 38.34% 8.34% (27.8%) Applicant: Darren and Lisa Tracy The applicant recently purchased this property with the intent of rehabbing the building or possibly demolishing the building and rebuilding. After examination of the building it became evident that we will need to demolish the current structure and rebuild. Our intention is to rebuild the new building for all intents and purposes to look exactly like the existing building to fit in with the existing structures, shapes, size, scale and rhythm. The existing building does not conform to lot requirements. The lot is 25’ wide and 2,376 square feet where a 60’ lot width and 6,600 square foot lot area is required. The replacement home will be in the same footprint or slightly smaller than existing. Access to the property is via Exchange Alley. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, questioned if the applicant obtained quotes regarding renovation versus rebuilding. Mr. Tracy stated he is a licensed engineer and has been in the trade for over 30 years. I am a consultant and we have a family construction business. So, I am pretty well qualified to determine the cost and I did provide an estimate of cost for the DRC application. We did provide a copy to Susan Barden, Senior Planner. Mr. Tracy stated that he and his wife like old homes and they have rehabbed a condemned building in the past and had it registered on the National Register of Historic Places, individually. We do not like to tear down buildings but this building is so far gone it is beyond realistic repair. The required two parking spaces will be permeable pavers or equivalent. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman requested a permeability calculation as well as revised building coverage calculation. 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. James Smith, 60 Van Dam Street. I have similar setbacks in our home. I am in favor of the application. We do have two concerns, some consideration given to the sewer lines which are shared between the two buildings off the street. Also, we have an infant and we are concerned regarding lead paint on the building being demolished. NEIGHBOR INPUT: Letter from Mary K. O’Donnell, 82 Crescent Street, dated May 7, 2015. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA Meeting scheduled on May 18, 2015. 3. #2832 BRADY NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, 99 Fifth Avenue, area variance to construct a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage requirement in the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 11, 2015 - Page 3 of 11  Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum principal building coverage 20% 24.3% 4.3% (21.5%) Applicant: Angela and Joseph Brady, Owners Agent: Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture Ms. Davis provided a visual presentation to the Board. An aerial view of the project was provided to the Board. The applicants are respectful of the mature trees and provided a view of surrounding homes. This application is for a new home on a very prominent street. There are many styles of home and many sizes in this UR-1 District. The home proposed is a French Country Style type story and a half home. Initial concept sketches were also provided. The driveway will enter off of Schuyler Drive with a 3 car garage requested. Over 20% lot coverage with the proposed project. The request for relief may be considered substantial for a vacant lot that is 14,220 sq. ft. – larger than the minimum requirement of 12,500 square feet in UR-1. The alternative would be to have a detached garage which would allow for 28% lot coverage. The granting of the variance will not be a detriment as the house is scaled appropriately and aesthetically pleasing. The garage is located off Schuyler Drive and does not conflict with the main entry facing Fifth Avenue. Addition of a sidewalk along Schuyler. Stone and stucco materials are chosen for this home. Discussion ensued regarding obtaining information on the homes 6 to the east and west and 12 across the street just for comparison. Susan Steer commented on the third stall of the garage. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he would be supportive of this if the resolution was conditioned for no accessory structure on the lot or future accessory structures not to exceed the remaining 3.7% of coverage that would be permitted on the lot. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:43 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA Meeting scheduled on May 18, 2015. 4. #2833 KIRBY BURNT HILLS REALTY, LLC NEW MULTI-FAMILIES, 6-14 Kirby Road, area variance to Demolish five existing four-unit residences, and construct two (2) twenty-seven (27) unit buildings; seeking Relief from the minimum lot size per dwelling unit, maximum principal building coverage and minimum Parking requirements in the Urban Residential-2 District. SEQRA: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 11, 2015 - Page 4 of 11 Action appears to be an Unlisted. Planning Board is an involved agency – site plan review required. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum lot size (sq. ft.) per dwelling unit: 3,000 sq. 74,052 sq. ft. 54 units 87,948 sq. ft. (118.8%) ft./dwelling unit: (162,000 sq. ft). Additional 30 units Minimum parking spaces per unit 1.5/du 81 spaces 54 spaces 27 spaces (33%) Maximum principal building coverage 25% 33% 8% (32%) Applicant: Kirby Burnt Hills Realty, LLC Agent: Aaron Frank, Frank Engineering Mr. Frank stated the applicant is seeking approval for the redevelopment of lots 6-14 Kirby Road. They will demolish existing 4 unit apartment building which is what currently exists, and build two 27 unit apartment buildings. The total site will contain 54 apartments on the current site which is 1.7 acres. The building architecture design and materials selected based on the surrounding areas. Gabled roof lines, hardy board siding, brick or stone finishes and landscaping to compliment the surrounding area as well. Buffering and screening will be provided for adjacent homes and townhomes. We will also provide 54 parking spaces, with 4 handicap spaces as well. The public water and sewer would be brought in from the roadway. The storm water would be handled on site through green infrastructure as required through DEC. The requested variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Across the street from this site are the Kirby Village Apartments and also the Home of the Good Shepherd. These uses are similar in look and feel as to what we are proposing. These are not restricted to any age group. One of the benefits to the site is the possibility of a bus line in this area. The design does compliment area. Bill Moore, Chairman, stated to be honest 54 units on this site will not get a yes vote from me. This is a high density corner and the fact that it is 3 stories in height. There is not another 3 story building in sight. The parking requirement 1 space per apartment does not leave any additional parking. I will not approve this project in its current form. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated I am not giving my opinion on height, but I agree the Planning Board does need to be involved in this. I am not supportive of the one parking space per apartment unit. Gary Hasbrouck stated this is too much density for this area. One apartment building with 27 units perhaps, but not two. Skip Carlson questioned from 20 residences to 54 units. I agree with my colleagues too much density. Susan Steer stated people are going to have more than one vehicle, traffic congestion. Do you have any ideas of what the apartment rents will be and the type of renters? Bill Moore, Chairman stated perhaps you would like to reconvene with the applicant and present the project back to the Board again at a later date. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:56 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 11, 2015 - Page 5 of 11 Judy Mahar, 32 Tompion Lane. HOA President. I am here to speak on behalf of 106 units, 13 of which will butt up against the proposed project parking lot. We object to the density, and to the height of the proposed buildings. Where will the snow be stored, where will everyone park. Traffic in that area is pretty bad right now. Perhaps a traffic study is in order. Some of the 13 units abutting the parking area did not receive notification of this meeting. Dennis Hodges, 13 Tompion Lane. HOA Vice President. This will affect our entire development. The density increase from 20 to 54 is a 2 ½ times density. Two buildings at a 3 story height is a real view influence from the back yards directly bordering this project. In addition you have asked for 5 feet setback requirements right up to our property line. Bulk of cars up to the fence. Strongly object. Home values will be affected. Setbacks are a major issue, as well as traffic. Teresa Newkirk, 62 Tompion Lane. I am against this dense of a building being constructed. The noise and traffic. It is not in character with the neighborhood. You are overshadowing backyards and lawns and landscaping as well as blocking the sun. The traffic is a nightmare. Against a project of this size. April Carson, 4A Kirby Road. Parking is an issue. More traffic creates a horrible condition. Bus stop previously located in front of my home, I asked to have it removed. It was bad. Additional noise is a concern. It is a nice neighborhood. Lynn Flanagan, 37 Jaiper Lane. I am against this proposed development. I would be negatively impacted by the development. The height of the structure will invade our privacy; removal of the mature trees on the property would make it impossible not to see this building. Concerned regarding water runoff due to the parking lot area. We are almost all owner occupied. Many of the owners are elderly. Our homes are a major asset. Carolyn Landsbury, 31 Jaiper Lane. My home will directly abut the property. I have 56 feet of fenced land. I have a beautiful lawn and spent hours and hours of time. I have a gorgeous mature tree right in the middle of my fence. That tree provides beauty for the neighbors and wildlife. I would be devastated. Richard Ives, 2B Kirby Road. I lived here before they built the nursing home. Concerned regarding the water pressure, which has decreased. Storm sewers become flooded often. Philip Klein, 29 Walter Drive. All these concerns need to be addressed. The first thing I would ask for is an incident report from the DOT or the Saratoga Springs Police Department concerning the number of accidents on Route 9N and Kirby. This is a horrendous corner. If the applicant does come back a traffic light is placed at the applicant’s expense. A two story building would help with the parking issue, give you a place to stack snow, the architecture is beautiful, but three stories does not belong there and not so close to the road. Items need to be addressed. Visual presentation on the screen would be helpful. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE: Correspondence received this dated from Bruce and Kathy Fleming Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open, the agent can meet with the client and we will wait to hear from you. 5. #2834 ALTMAN RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 103 York Avenue, area variance to construct additions to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback, minimum side yard Setback and minimum total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 11, 2015 - Page 6 of 11 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback 4 feet 0 feet .9 feet 3.1 feet (77.5%) Minimum total side yard setback 12 feet 25.5 feet 9.2 feet 2.8 feet (23%) Minimum front yard setback 10 feet 1.5 feet 1.5 feet 8.5 feet (85%) Applicant: James Altman, owner The applicant provided a survey map. They are proposing a two story addition on the single story footprint. The proposed structure encroaches into east side neighbors. We would like to wrap around the porch relocating the front door. A second story addition would likely be more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood than would a single story addition to the side and/or rear. We would like to turn this small home into a home we can grow into. No additional impermeable surface area would be added to the site. Discussion ensued regarding the requested variances and possible options. Susan Barden, Senior Planner informed the applicant that the rear second story deck and stairs are not shown on the survey. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:37 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Joan Nellhaus, 107 York Street. Reiterated her concerns which are listed in her letter. His lot is more than 100% larger than mine. Concerned regarding the integrity of her home which is 125 year old property. Reducing sunlight to her home. Problems with moisture in the basement. Impact on gardening and outdoor enjoyment. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Bill Moore, Chairman stated information has been requested from the applicant. If the applicant wishes to revise his plans and return at a later date before the Board. NEIGHBOR INPUT: Joan Nellhaus, 107 York Avenue correspondence dated May 11, 2015. 6. #2835 HICKEY SUBDIVISION, 10 Avery Street, area variance for a two-lot subdivision; seeking relief from minimum mean lot width and minimum lot size requirements for each of the lots in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be Unlisted. Applicant will need to submit a short EAF. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum average lot width: Lot 1 60 feet 50 feet 10 feet (17%) Minimum average lot width: Lot 2 60 feet 50 feet 10 feet (17%) Minimum lot size: Lot 1 6,600 sq. ft. 6,400 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft (3%) Minimum lot size: Lot 2 6,600 sq. ft. 6,478 sq. ft. 122 sq. ft. (2%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 11, 2015 - Page 7 of 11 Agent: John Witt, contractor Mr. Witt is proposing a subdivision. He has the property under contract. The lots are consistent with the adjacent homes and home across the street. The lots were merged without request. The applicant indicates no feasible alternatives. The other lots next door are both 50 feet and we are unable to purchase additional property. The lot would be improved with a new single family residence. Municipal water and sanitary are available to the proposed new lot. An additional curb cut off of Avery Street to the new lot would be required. 12 Letters from neighbors in support of the project were provided to the staff. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Per 8.4.6 City Planning Board advisory opinion required. Planning Board subdivision approval is required. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:51 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience would like to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the ZBA will refer this application to the Planning Board for an Advisory Opinion. Following the receipt of the Advisory Opinion this application will return before the ZBA. 7. #2836 LEVY RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 40 Franklin Street, area variance to construct rear deck and stair additions to an existing residence; seeks relief from the minimum rear yard setback, minimum side yard setback (east and west) Minimum total side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements 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 principal building coverage 25% 38% 13% (52%) Minimum rear yard setback: 25 feet 20.9 feet 4.1 feet (16.4%) Minimum side yard setback: east 20 feet 12.6 feet 7.4 feet (37%) Minimum side yard setback: West 20 feet 18.7 feet 1.3 feet (6.5%) Minimum total side yard setback: 45 feet 31.3 feet 13.7 feet (30.4%) Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Applicant: Christine Levy Ms. Yasenchack stated Ms. Levy owns the property at 40 Franklin Street. There is an existing small deck on the rear of the home which she would like to replace with 2 two story 12 x 12 decks so she can access it from the second floor. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 11, 2015 - Page 8 of 11 Originally there was a door at the second level which has been framed in. We have looked at other benefits. We have made the deck a size which is not huge but can accommodate some chairs and a table. We have located the stairs where it will not be obtrusive to people on the deck. No additional land is available for purchase. Neither deck would be visible from Franklin Street. The decks would not detract from the historic qualities at the front of the residence. The proposed project is simply restoring a previous character. No large trees will be removed for this project. The deck will be on piers; no substantial excavation will be required. The increased coverage of only 1% will cause no significant change in stormwater runoff. The property remains compliant with greater than 15% permeability. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -DRC Historic Review and approval required. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:01 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA Meeting scheduled on May 18, 2015. OLD BUSINESS: 8. #2828 HOLOWACH TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE, 133 Washington Street, area variance for conversion of an existing single-family to a two-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum lot size and minimum mean lot width requirement for a two-family in the Urban Residential-3 District. This application was heard at the April 27, 2015 meeting and adjourned to May 11, 2015. The Board requested submission of an updated survey showing the four required parking spaces for a two family. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA Action appears to be a Type II action, “Granting of an area variance(s) for a single-family, two-family or three-family residence”, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Agent: Matt Chauvin, Attorney Mr. Chauvin stated the applicants were asked to provide a sketch plan or survey showing the parking spaces could be accommodated on the site wholly without encroaching on the neighboring properties. We have provided survey copies to the Board. Also some photographs were also provided for the Boards review. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:07 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 11, 2015 - Page 9 of 11 Bill Moore, Chairman noted to the applicant’s agent the ability to table the application this evening to the next meeting due to the absence of 2 board members. Mr. Chauvin thanked the Chair, and stated the will proceed with the application this evening. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Mark Holowach 268 Broadway, Apartment 507 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 133 Washington Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.66-2-88.2 Inside District on the Assessment Map of said City. The Appellant having applied for an area variance for relief from the City Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot area and average lot width for a two-family residence in the Urban Residential-3 District in order to convert an existing single-family residence back to a two-family residence; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on April 27, 2015 and May 11, 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: Type of Requirement District Dimensional Existing/Proposed Relief Requested Requirement Minimum lot area: two- 8,000 sq. ft. 3,860 sq. ft. 4,140 sq. ft. (52%) family Minimum average lot 80 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. (50%) width: two-family 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. According to City records, the house was used as a two-family until it was converted to a single-family in 1995. The application states, “The applicant cannot purchase land from adjoining property owners”. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. The UR-3 zone allows two-family use on larger parcels and “is still classified on the city tax roll as a two family residence…” The neighborhood is characterized by multi-family and single-family properties. No physical changes to the exterior of the building are being proposed by the applicant. 3. The request for relief is substantial. However, this is mitigated by the fact no new exterior construction is planned for the conversion back to the two-family use and sufficient parking will be provided. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 11, 2015 - Page 10 of 11  4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. No additional impermeable area is to be added to the project. Although on-street parking appears to be available in the neighborhood, the applicant submitted documentation showing sufficient off-street parking is provided on-site. The applicant provided a copy of an easement showing they had access to the parking area through a neighboring property. 5. The difficulty may be considered a self-created hardship. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. Seconded by Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 5-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the May 18, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVAL 6/8/15 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 11, 2015 - Page 11 of 11