Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 27, 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; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Skip Carlson; Susan Steer ABSENT: Gary Hasbrouck, James Helicke STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Deputy 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. #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. Application has been withdrawn. #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. #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 requirement in the Transect-4 District. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2842 STEWART’S SHOPS FREEZER ADDITION, 87 West Avenue, area variance for a freezer addition to an existing Convenience store; seeking relief from the build-to-line, minimum frontage build-out and minimum two-story requirement within the Transect-5 District. Applicant: Stewart’s Shops. Agent: Chuck Marshall, Real Estate Representative for Stewart’s. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PROJECT HISTORY: -Planning Board site plan review approvals in 1982, 1985, 1994 -ZBA approval for a sign in 1991. -ZBA approval for new construction in 1994. -DRC architectural review approval in 1994. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum two-story Two-story One-story 5286 sq. ft One story addition 61 sq. ft. One story addition of 61 sq. ft. 100% Build-to: 0-12’ 95’ 125’ to addition 113’ to addition Frontage build out 70% 0% 0% 70% (100%) Mr. Marshall stated the applicant is proposing a 61 foot addition. We are taking over 7ft. 4in. of the current Cudney Cleaners space. A copy of the floor layout was provided to the Board. We will then relocate the customer access bathroom and add an additional bathroom. In order to achieve that we will need to relocate our freezer to outside. We did receive DRC approval. In taking over the additional space from Cudney’s we will relocate their door from a corner access door to a front door. A door pane and a window pane will be swapped out to achieve this. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the frontage on West Avenue to calculate the relief. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:16 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. John Casey, owner of the West Hill Shopping Plaza. He would like to see a copy of the plans. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Resolution will be presented at the end of the meeting. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Saratoga County Planning Board referral was received “No significant County wide or Inter Community Impact”, issued on June 23, 2015. City Planning Board site plan review is required. DRC architectural review required. 2. #2843 McCLELLAN REO, LLC, 70 Lake Avenue, use variance modification from previously granted real estate office to office and medical office in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type I action. A long form EAF should be submitted. Coordinated review is required with the Planning Board. Planning Board site plan review is required. PARCEL HISTORY: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 27, 2015 - Page 2 of 14 Use variance for real estate office granted April 27, 2006 with conditions including “waiver of parking to result in two spaces, including one handicapped-accessible space”. The request for medical office/clinic has been withdrawn. NOTIFICATONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Saratoga County Planning Board decision of July 16, 2015 “No Significant County wide or Inter Community Impact” with comment. City Planning Board site plan review is required. Applicant: Bruce McClellan, Principal, McClellan REO. Agent: John Carusone, attorney. Bill Moore, Chairman, stated the ZBA is treating these types of applications as new use variances. We have been requiring proof of what houses sell in the area, as well as what property rents are in the area. Mr. Carusone stated in 2006 this Board granted a Use Variance/Area variance for real estate office. We would like to amend this to general office, but not medical. This property is located across the street from the fire house. In fact Lake Avenue has become more commercial since 2006, with the construction of the Hampton Inn, and the Pavilion Grande. We have provided a history of the listing prices. No offers were made at all. Other considerations were entertained but were determined to be unfeasible. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned the applicant regarding a number of issues. The number of parking spaces which currently exist is converting to a 2 family a viable option. More of an understanding of the neighborhood around to Circular Street. Comparison of homes in the area. Has the property been advertised as a single family residence? Lack of reasonable return. Mr. Carusone stated there are currently 4 parking spaces on site. A two family home is not an option since we only have 4,176 sq. ft and 8,000 sq. ft is required. The property was advertised as a commercial real estate office. Susan Steer stated the real estate values have gone down but seem to be going up again. In terms of reasonable financial return maybe this year you could market it as a single family home. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the marketing of the property. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:34 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. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on September 14, 2015. OLD BUSINESS: 1. #2791.1 FOX RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 72 Union Avenue, an area variance for an addition to an existing multi-family residence and installation of parking; seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage and from the minimum setback to parking in the Urban Residential-4 District. SEQRA: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 27, 2015 - Page 3 of 14 Action appears to be an Unlisted Action. An Unlisted Action occurring within a Historic District is elevated to a Type I action. Planning Board, (site plan review) and DRC (historic review) are involved agencies. Agent: Jesse Boucher, Kodiak Construction This application was heard at the July 13, 2015 meeting and adjourned to July 27, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any questions or comments from the Board. None heard. 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 7:36 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2791.1 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Tom Fox 72 Union Avenue Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the Building Inspector’s determination for the same premises, identified as Tax Parcel Section 165.76-1-15, Inside District of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York WHEREAS, the appellant has applied for an AREA VARIANCE for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for Minimum front yard setback to parking and a modification to a previously granted variance for maximum principal building coverage in a UR-4 zoning district in order to construct a two-unit apartment addition and an attached indoor pool structure; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on July 13th and 27th, 2015 WHEREAS, in consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution that the requested AREA VARIANCE and MODIFICATION for the following relief or lesser dimensions, be APPROVED: Area Variance Granted Jan. 12, 2015: Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Minimum lot area: 15th unit 3,000 sq. ft. 2,160 sq. ft. 840 sq. ft. (28%) Maximum principal building coverage: 25% 29.2% 4.2% (16.8%) Area Variance Modification: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 27, 2015 - Page 4 of 14  Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Maximum principal building coverage: 25% 32.17% Additional 2.97% total 7.17% (28.68%) Minimum front yard setback – to parking: 25 feet 5 feet 20 feet (80%) 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The application and submitted supporting documentation states, “Our January 2015 application requested a primary structure coverage of 29.22% lot coverage based on constructing the pool and gathering space in a separate accessory structure. Unfortunately, the accessory structure was deemed inappropriate for the Union Avenue Historic District and a request was made by the DRC to place all proposed construction in one addition, at the rear of the property. We have modified the plan, reducing the size of each space (pool, gathering, apartments). In doing so, we have minimized the requested primary structure lot coverage to 32.17%.” In regards to the parking variance, the Board notes the current existence of front yard parking within the setback area. The applicant has indicated that there will be no further encroachment into the setback area than what currently exists. The applicant noted no other property is available for purchase and no other space on the property is available for parking lot expansion. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The application states, “The use of the project remains in-character with the nearby properties as residential rental units. Our efforts with the DRC ensure compliance with the City’s architectural standards and the Planning Board’s negative declaration on SEQRA.” The Board notes that subject area contains a mix of single, multi-family, light commercial and educational uses. 3) The relief requested for parking may be considered substantial. However, the applicant will be providing adequate off-street parking despite the expansion of the footprint of the principal building. The expansion of the footprint of the principal building may be considered substantial. However, the previously proposed accessory structure will now be included in the overall principal building coverage. The application states, “…that overall build-out remains below the combined 40% for principal and accessory structures.” 4) The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. Minimum percent to remain permeable requirements are met. 47% of site is to remain permeable which is above the district requirement of 15%. 5) The difficulty may be considered self-created. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: Future accessory structure(s) limited to 7.83% coverage to come to total principal and accessory coverage of 40%. Note: Planning Board and Design Review Commission Approvals Adam McNeill seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 27, 2015 - Page 5 of 14  Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 5-0 2. #2844 SBDT VENTURES, LLC SINGLE-FAMILY, 60 Franklin Street, area variance for a lot line adjustment and to construct a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum mean lot width requirement for the lot and minimum front yard setback, minimum side yard (both sides) setback, minimum total side yard setback, minimum rear yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-4 District. Applicant: Tony Bonacio, Sandy Lewis Agent: Michael Toohey, attorney This application was heard at the July 13, 2015 meeting and adjourned to July 27, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be Unlisted. The applicant has submitted a short EAF. DISCLOSURES: Adam McNeill, Secretary stated he has watched the webcast of the previous meeting and feels comfortable voting on this application. Susan Steer stated she has also watched the webcast of the previous meeting and feels comfortable voting on this application. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any questions from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE ZBA: Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated a letter was received by the Board from Michael Mastropietro, President of the Franklin Square Condominiums II dated July 20, 2015 in support of this application. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:13 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2844 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF SBDT Ventures, LLC City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 27, 2015 - Page 6 of 14  18 Division St Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 60 Franklin St. and a sliver of 66 Franklin St. in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcels number 165.59-1-51.2 and a portion of 165.59-1-52.1 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 a lot line adjustment increasing 60 Franklin St., and the construction of a single-family residence in a UR-4 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 13th and 27th days of July 2015. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following area variances for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT TO RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK- SOUTH SIDE 20’ 2.9’ 17.1’ OR 85.5% MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK- NORTH SIDE 20’ 12.4’ 7.6’ OR 38% MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK 45’ 15.3’ 29.7’ OR 66% MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK 25’ 14.8’ 10.2’ OR 40.8% MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT WIDTH 100’ 55.4’ 44.6’ OR 44.6% MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE 25% 31% 6% OR 24% 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. As for the side yard setbacks, the applicant notes that the lot width being 55.4 feet, the house would have to be less than 10 feet wide in order to conform to the district total side yard setbacks. The side setbacks individually also appear to be unavoidable; to conform on one side would be impossible without reconfiguration, which would then either cause greater front yard encroachment, or cause the rear yard to no longer conform. Per the applicant, a reconfiguration of the floor plan to have less of a footprint on the first floor would prevent proper circulation of foot traffic in the house and also result in lost functionality such as a first floor bedroom. Furthermore, per the applicant, the current design is in proportion with the neighborhood; a smaller home would not be consistent with the homes around it, and as noted above, would still not fully preclude the need for dimensional relief. As for the lot width itself, there is no feasible means to mitigate this variance. Purchasing additional property is not feasible to the south due to the placement of the house to the south on its property, and on the northern side the lot is being widened somewhat due to the lot line adjustment. As it is, the current amount of adjustment is as large as it can be without creating a lot width problem for parcel 165.59-1-52.1. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant furnished information on lot widths and home widths in the neighborhood; the Board concluded that this proposed lot line adjustment and residence construction would be consistent in scale and size with the other homes around it on both sides of Franklin St. Therefore, the Board finds this proposal not significantly impactful to neighborhood character. 3. The Board notes these variances are substantial at 24 to 85.5%, however, given the consistency with the neighborhood character brought up in the previous point, the property variances are not significant in impact. Furthermore, with the inclusion of an attached garage on this property and the condition included below in this resolution to limit total principal and accessory structure coverage to 40%, the impact of these City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 27, 2015 - Page 7 of 14  variances on the neighborhood will be further limited, thereby mitigating the effect of the substantiality of the variances. 4. Given the 48% permeability where 15% is required, the board concludes this variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district; also see condition below regarding neighboring trees. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to change the lot line and construct the proposed house on this property, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions/Notes: a) Accessory structure size is limited to 9% of lot coverage, bringing maximum allowed total principal and accessory structure lot coverage to 40%. b) DRC Historic Review required. c) Applicant to submit to Building Department a plan for protection of trees along south property line during excavation. Susan Steer seconded the motion. SEQRA DECISION: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the Board has reviewed the SEQRA short EAF Part I. No large of important areas of concern were noted. The Board reviewed SEQRA short EAF Part II. No large or important areas of concern were noted. Bill Moore, Chairman made a motion for a SEQRA Negative Declaration. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion concern the resolution which is on the table. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 5-0 The agenda was heard out of order. 5. #2846 SEFCIK RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 222 East Avenue, area variance to construct an addition to an Existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum total side yard setback requirement in the Urban City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 27, 2015 - Page 8 of 14  Residential-1 District. This application was heard at the July 13, 2015 meeting and adjourned to July 27, 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. Agent: Jesse Boucher, Kodiak Construction Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: 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 7:57 P.M. Skip Carlson presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Jonathan Sefcik 222 East Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 222 East Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 166.13-2-42 in the inside tax district on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance to construct an addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum total side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage in the Urban Residential – 1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on July 13th and 27th, 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: Existing: Proposed: Total Relief Minimum Total Side Requested: Yard Setback: 30 feet 3.3 feet 27.1 feet 2.9 feet (9.66%) Maximum Principal Building Coverage: 20% 25% 28.3% 8.3% (41.5%) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 27, 2015 - Page 9 of 14  1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Neighbors on both the north and south side of the property do not have land available that can be sold to the applicant. The applicant notes that “the width of the addition has been narrowed to 22’ to provide the least practical width for the addition to minimize the impact on side setbacks. The length of the addition has been shortened to the least practical length for providing the necessary living space and associated furniture placement and traffic patterns, minimizing the impact on principal structure lot coverage.” 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 states that “with all of the construction taking place on the rear of the structure, no change will occur in the character of the neighborhood. The style of the addition is in character with the existing structure and neighboring properties.” 3. The relief from the maximum principal building coverage may be considered substantial at 8.3% over the required limit or 41.5% in total relief requested. This is mitigated by the fact that the existing structure is at 25% and the requested relief is for an additional 3.3% over what is existing. The applicant states that the new lot coverage “is the minimum area required to make the project possible in its most efficient form.” The requested total side yard setback may be considered significant on its own, but is well within the side setback total created by the existing structure, minimizing any negative caused by the proposed addition. 4. The relief requested will not produce any adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The addition is consistent as a single family addition in the neighborhood, the addition is in the rear of the property and the vegetation on each side of the property serves as a buffer to neighboring properties. The applicant states that “no new noise or light pollution will be created by the use of the new addition.” 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. 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; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 5-0 6. #2845 NAHILL FRONT PORCH, 121 Circular Street, area variance for a front porch addition to an existing multi-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback (Circular Street), minimum front yard setback (Caroline Street) and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. Applicant: Roberta Nahill This application was heard at the July 13, 2015 meeting and adjourned to July 27, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 27, 2015 - Page 10 of 14 Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PUBLIC HEARING: 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 8:01 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF ROBERTA S. NAHILL 121 CIRCULAR STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 121 Circular Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.60-2-40 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to construct a new front porch, seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirements and the maximum principal building coverage in the Urban Residential – 3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on July 13th and 27th, 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 Front Yard Setback 10 feet 1.1 feet 8.9 feet (89%) (Caroline Street) Front Yard Setback 10 feet 7.4 feet 2.6 feet (26%) (Circular Street) Maximum Principal 30% 45.7% 15.7% (52%) Building Coverage 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 residence is in a historic district and the purpose of the project is to restore the Circular Street section of the porch to its original design as depicted in a 1910 photograph. This design creates a porch that is functional, City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 27, 2015 - Page 11 of 14  visually appealing, and flush with existing porch on the Circular Street side of the property. Restoration to the original design could not occur without approving these variances. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. Most of the residences in the neighborhood have full front porches and this project would actually make the residence conform more to the historic nature of the residences in this neighborhood. 3. The request for relief may be substantial at 89%, 26% and 52%, but this is due to the fact that the residence is currently substantially in nonconformance with existing zoning requirements. The design extends the existing porch on the Caroline Street side of the residence and therefore is the same as the existing nonconforming setback. Also, there is only a minimal increase in the existing nonconforming setback requirement on the Caroline Street side of the property and the maximum principal building lot coverage requirement. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The permeability is 25.8% which exceeds the district’s requirements of 25%. 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; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will present a resolution on the following application: 1. #2842 STEWART’S SHOPS FREEZER ADDITION, 87 West Avenue, area variance for a freezer addition to an existing Convenience store; seeking relief from the build-to-line, minimum frontage build-out and minimum two-story requirement within the Transect-5 District. Applicant: Stewart’s Shops. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:07 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 27, 2015 - Page 12 of 14  #2842 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Stewart’s Shops Corp. PO Box 435 Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 87 West Ave. in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.18-2-6 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 construction of an addition to an existing convenience store in a T-5 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 27th day of July 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 REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM TWO-STORY CURRENT ONE STORY OF 5286 SF 61 ADDITIONAL SF 100% BUILD-TO-LINE: WEST AVE. 0-12’ 160’ TO ADDITION 148’ FRONTAGE BUILD-OUT 70% 0% 70% OR 100% RELIEF As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicants have demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicants. The applicants note that the existing building being added to is pre-existing non-conforming. Meeting the two-story or frontage build-out requirements would require demolishing the store and reconstructing it in a different configuration and in a different location on the property. The board finds this course of action to be not cost-beneficial, to adversely impact the tenants in the rental portion of the property, and also to fail to provide the customers of the shop with refueling area in front of the store. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The proposed additions are small, and in a highly commercial area. The board finds the addition to be consistent with the commercial context of the neighborhood, and since it is quite minor in size and scale, it is not significantly impactful to the neighborhood. 3. The Board finds these variances, while substantial on a percentage basis, are not substantial when considering the minor incremental nature of adding 61 square feet to an existing building of 5225 square feet. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district, as the footprint will only change slightly to the extent of the small addition area. As noted above, this area has a very commercial theme. 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. Note: Saratoga County Planning Board ruled “no significant county wide or intercommunity impact” in its ruling dated 6/23/15. Susan Steer seconded the motion. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 27, 2015 - Page 13 of 14 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; Skip Carlson, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 5-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of Meeting Minutes was deferred to the September 14, 2015 meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 9/14/15 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 27, 2015 - Page 14 of 14