Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 18, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:03 P. M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, 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: #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. #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. #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. OLD 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. This application was heard on May 11, 2015 and adjourned to May 18, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. 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. 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 7:06 P.M. DISCLOSURE: Adam McNeill, Secretary stated he had an opportunity to view the webcast of the entire ZBA Meeting on May 11, 2015. He feels comfortable voting on the items on the agenda this evening. James Helicke, board member has also had an opportunity to view the webcast of the entire ZBA Meeting on May 11, 2015. He feels comfortable voting on the items on the agenda this evening. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. #2830 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Mark Kleinhaut and Erika Aberg 12 Ashton Lane Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 12 Ashton Lane in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.66-2-50 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 an addition to an existing single-family residence in a UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on the 11th and 18th days of May 2015. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 18, 2015 - Page 2 of 13 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: Previously approved: Proposed: Total relief requested: Minimum total side yard 3 feet (25%) setback 12 feet 9 feet Maximum principal building coverage 30% 38% 38.5% Add. .5% (total 28%) 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. Other feasible locations were considered, however placement of existing structures such as stairs and windows prohibit the applicant from locating a fireplace on those sides of the residence, leaving the proposed location as the only viable option to the applicant. 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 applicant notes, “a bump out for a fireplace is consistent with residential designs and will have no adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood”. 3. The board notes this variance could be considered substantial with both areas of relief at or over 25%; however, the proposed new construction is relatively small in nature at 18 sq. ft. 4. The board concludes this variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed addition, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; 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 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. This application was heard on May 11, 2015 and adjourned to May 18, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The Board requested that the applicant submit a principal building coverage calculation including roof overhangs and a proposed permeability calculation. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 18, 2015 - Page 3 of 13 SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Darren and Lisa Tracy Bill Moore, Chairman stated the Board requested some revisions and additional information and it was provided to the Board. 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 7:12 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2831 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Darren Tracy PO Box 3230 Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 62 Van Dam St, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.51-2-68 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 the demolition of an existing residential structure and the construction of a new single-family residence in a UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 11th and 18th day of May 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 DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REQUIREMENT MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK 10’ 2’ 8’ OR 80% MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK- EAST 4’ 0’ 4’ OR 100% MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK- WEST 4’ 0’ 4’ OR 100% TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK 12’ 0’ 12’ OR 100% MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE 30% 43.3% 13.3%, OR 44.3% RELIEF 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 Board notes that given the size of the lot (2376 square feet) and its width (25 feet), that any residence to be built would require major dimensional relief. A house on this parcel would have to be far smaller than the proposed house to comply with maximum lot coverage and total side yard setback requirements; this is not felt by this City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 18, 2015 - Page 4 of 13  Board to be a reasonable alternative. Another alternative, not demolishing the current structure, which is clearly in poor condition, is not seen as a feasible alternative for two reasons: 1) Per the applicant, given the severity of the problems, it would not be cost-effective to try to perform the repairs. For instance, the foundation has serious problems and while the applicant informed the Board that he considered jacking up the house so he could work on the foundation, it did not prove to be a workable idea. 2) While the pre-existing nature of the current encroachments over setback boundaries does not require the furnishing of a variance for a renovation, not demolishing an unsafe structure in order to avoid variances would be an undesirable outcome in this case. Furthermore, on side setback and lot coverage, per the applicant there is no adjacent property that could be purchased that could minimize the variances. 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’s proposal is to build a residence that emulates the design and placement of surrounding properties. By emulating those properties, his proposal for this parcel will continue to reflect the same neighborhood character as before. The Board also notes per review of surrounding properties, locating the front of the house further back to comply with front setback requirements would make the proposed house set further back than its neighbors, which would put the house outside of the neighborhood context. Finally, as noted below, this proposal is subject to Design Review Commission review. 3. These variances are substantial. However, it should be kept in mind that the proposal’s front setback is consistent with the other houses on Van Dam St and the dimensional relief required is consistent with the existing house. The Board finds no substantial incremental impact to this project, which mitigates its substantiality. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The proposed amount of 54% permeable surface will more than meet the district requirement of 25%. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to replace this building, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Notes: Design Review Commission approval required. 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; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 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 Urban Residential-1 District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 18, 2015 - Page 5 of 13 This application was heard on May 11, 2015 and adjourned to May 18, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The Board asked the applicant to submit approximate principal building coverages in the surrounding neighborhood. DISCLOSURE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he did see Mr. Brady at a charity event. They did not discuss this project. It did not bias me in any way. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Angela and Joseph Brady, Owner Agent: Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture James Helicke questioned the lot coverage. Review of the lot size, house size and other homes in the area. In terms of square footage this home is quite large. Ms. Davis explained the footprint of the home requested by the applicant for the benefit of the Board. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated he watched the webcast, and questioned Mr. Brady’s comments on the square footage of the home, do you want the real square footage or what was supplied to the City. Can you please elaborate on that? Mr. Brady explained that square footage was not for this project, but for 95 5th Avenue. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned the second story of the home unfinished attic storage. It looks like an unfinished bedroom. Is this square footage included in the square footage of the home. Ms. Davis stated building coverage was what was provided. Additional mitigation would be needed to turn this into habitable space. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned the third bay garage is what puts this application over the square footage requirements for the lot was the third garage bay. I am having a hard time with that. Discussion ensued regarding the three bay garage. Adam McNeill stated the mass is a concern. Could the home be configured smaller to reduce the need for the variances. Ms. Davis spoke regarding what her clients proposed and would like to have in their home. Adam McNeill, Secretary asked what drove the applicants to go over the required amounts. Ms. Davis stated the applicants are requesting a three car garage. The applicants did work within the setbacks as much as possible. Ms. Davis stated it does not create a detriment to the neighborhood. Adam McNeill, Secretary spoke regarding the size of the proposed new construction being 30% larger than most of the homes in the area. He questioned the square footages of some homes in the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Brady stated it is a neighborhood where the smaller homes are being demolished and larger ones being built in their place. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 18, 2015 - Page 6 of 13 Adam McNeill, Secretary stated this is a vacant lot, has been vacant for at least 10 years, it is a blank slate. I am trying to understand what we are tasked with granting the minimum amount of variance. Questioned the square footage of other homes in the area. This home at 3500 square feet is substantial. Many members of the community and neighbors in this area have come out to speak regarding homes with considerable less square footage then this. I want to be sure to dot all our i’s and cross all our t’s. Mr. Brady stated lets address that. He spoke regarding the times the neighbors have come to speak out and requests for variances. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated their issues were with home present on the lots. He requested additional square footages of neighboring homes. Susan Steer questioned the third bay and perhaps adjusting the mudroom. Ms. Davis stated she has to work with her clients before she can make a determination. Susan Steer asked if the applicants would be willing to make some changes to their plans. Mr. Brady replied no, nothing. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the 17 homes that were provided in this neighborhood provide sufficient information. If the third building garage becomes detached there is no variance. 24% is not a big deal. They will accept the condition on limiting accessory structure. I do not see this as problematic. We have sufficient contextual information to make a decision. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated he appreciates what was said, however he still feels he would like additional information. Gary Hasbrouck stated this does not provide any detriment to the community. Skip Carlson stated he is prepared to vote this evening. James Helicke stated there is a question about the undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood going bigger, and bigger and bigger. I think it is substantial and I am leaning to voting in favor of this application. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing is open 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 7:51 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF JOSEPH AND ANGELA BRADY 95 FIFTH AVENUE SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 18, 2015 - Page 7 of 13  From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 99 Fifth Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 166.14-1-21 in the Inside Tax District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance for construction of a new single-family residence, seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage requirement in the Urban Residential-1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on May 11 and May 18, 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: Maximum principal building coverage 20% 24.3% 4.3% (21.5% relief) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1.) The applicants have stated that they have explored alternative designs, but alternative configurations would not address their practical difficulties. A smaller garage would not achieve the applicants’ reasonable need for parking for three vehicles. The applicants could build a detached garage of a similar size, but this configuration is not desired 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 applicants have shown that the house was comparable in size and scale to other homes in the neighborhood. The applicants have also asserted that the garage was also situated in order to have the least impact on the neighborhood. 3.) At 21.5 percent, this relief may be considered substantial for a vacant lot that is 14,220 square feet, larger than the minimum requirement of 12,500 sq. ft. in UR-1 district. However, this request is partially mitigated by the fact the applicant seeks only to cover 24.3 percent of the lot, whereas a hypothetical garage at eight percent lot coverage and residence at 20 percent might be legally constructed that would together cover 28 percent of the lot. 4.) The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated that the proposed house will otherwise comply with all other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 5.) The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: Accessory structures shall not exceed 3.7 percent of the lot. 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, opposed; Adam McNeill, Secretary, abstain; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 18, 2015 - Page 8 of 13  MOTION PASSES: 5-1-1 4. #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. This application was heard on May 11, 2015 and adjourned to May 18, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The Board requested an updated survey showing the second story deck and that eliminates the request from the minimum total side yard setback requirement. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: James Altman Mr. Altman provided revised changes and additional information to the Board. 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. Joan Nellhaus, 107 York Avenue. I have submitted correspondence previously to the Board. Worried about her home and this is very important to her. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF JAMES ALTMAN 103 YORK AVENUE SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 103 York Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 166.45-2-40 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to construct a second-story addition and a wrap-around porch to an existing single-family residence, seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback and front yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on May 11th and 18th, 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 Proposed Relief Requested Requirement City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 18, 2015 - Page 9 of 13 Side Yard Setback 4 feet 0.9 feet 3.1 feet (77.5%) Front Yard Setback 10 feet 1.5 feet 8.5 feet (85%) 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 increase the living space to accommodate the Applicant’s growing family. According to the Applicant, part of the addition would be built over the part of the residence that is one and one- half story and this particular design requires the minimal number of variances. According to the Applicant, no other feasible alternatives exist to achieve this goal because a one-story expansion only would “(1) result in more significant violations of additional setback requirements … (2) be more expensive, (3) look very out of character in the neighborhood, and (4) isolate the upstairs and downstairs bedrooms.” 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance would not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. With the addition, the residence would look more consistent with “the architectural style of the neighborhood” and would resemble other additions to properties that have been recently constructed in the neighborhood. The addition of a wrap-around porch would also resemble other porches in the neighborhood. 3. With respect to the side yard setback requirement, the request for relief may be substantial at 77.5%, but this is due to the fact that the side yard setback is currently in nonconformance with the district’s setback requirements. The construction of this addition would move the existing eastern side wall of the rear of the residence to the west so that it aligns with the front, two-story portion of the residence. The residence would no longer encroach upon the neighbor’s property. With respect to the front yard setback requirements, the request for relief may be substantial at 85%, but this is due to the fact that the existing porch is currently in nonconformance with the district’s setback requirements. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance would not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. Moving the eastern side of the addition westward onto the Applicant’s property would increase the distance between the Applicant’s residence and those residences directly to the east. While the construction of a two-story addition would increase the amount of shade on the neighboring properties to the east, it would “not be substantially more than exists today or if the setback was 4 feet” which is what is required by the district’s zoning ordinances. Further, extending the porch to the west would not effect that neighbor’s property since that residence is on the back of that property. 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; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 18, 2015 - Page 10 of 13  MOTION PASSES: 7-0 #2836 LEVY RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 40 Franklin Street, area variance to construct rear deck and stair additions to an existing residence; seeking 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. This application was heard on May 11, 2015 and adjourned to May 18, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA 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 8:08 P.M. Skip Carlson presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Christine Levy 28 Marion Place Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 40 Franklin Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.67-1-3 in the inside tax district on the assessment map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance to construct rear deck and stair additions to an existing residence; seeking relief from the minimum rear yard setback, minimum side yard setback (east and west), minimum total side yard setback and maximum building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-4 District. Public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on May 11 and 18, 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: Maximum 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%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 18, 2015 - Page 11 of 13 Minimum total side yard setback: 45 feet 31.3 feet 13.7 feet (30.4%) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the benefit sought, rear deck and stair access from both floors, cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The applicant has noted that no additional land is available for purchase. The lot width at 50 feet would only allow for 5 feet side yard setbacks, which would not achieve the benefit. The construction that meets the 25 foot setback in the rear would only result in a deck with 10.6 feet of depth and would not allow for a full run of stairs without a turn. 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 structures in the area are tight on lot coverage. Neither of the decks would be visible from Franklin Street and the decks would not detract from the historic qualities at the front of the residence. 3. The variances may appear to be substantial with three of the five areas of relief at more than 30%. However, the current state of the structure and lot are pre-existing and non-conforming and the variances requested are the smallest required to achieve the desired result. The proposed lot coverage of 38% is just a 1% increase over the existing lot coverage of 37%. 4. The relief requested will not produce any adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. No large trees will be removed, the deck will be built on piers and no substantial excavation will be required. Permeability is at 45.6%, well above the district minimum of 15%. 5. The request for relief is considered self-created. The self-created difficulty is not necessarily fatal to the application. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the June 8, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:10 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 18, 2015 - Page 12 of 13  Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 6/8/15 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 18, 2015 - Page 13 of 13