Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Gary Hasbrouck; Skip Carlson; James Helicke; Susan Steer ABSENT: Adam McNeill, Secretary 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: #2856 MOORE HALL, 28 Union Avenue/35 White Street, area variance to convert the existing building to a 53 unit Apartment building; seeking relief from the minimum lot size and minimum parking requirement in the Urban Residential-4 District. #2852 STARLING RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION, 134 Crescent Street, area variance to construct second-story Expansions to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-2 District. #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. #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. #2821.1 TROJANSKI BUILDERS MODIFICATION, 10 Doten Avenue, modifications of a previously approved area variance for a new single-family residence; seeking additional relief from the minimum side yard setback, minimum total side yard setback and minimum average lot width requirement in the Urban Residential-4 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance to permit the construction of a single-family residence, granted April 13, 2015. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF APPROVED REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback: South 20 feet 14.1 feet 13.5 feet 6.5 feet (32.5%) Minimum side yard: North 20 feet 14.6 feet 14.5 feet 5.5 feet (27.5%) Minimum total side yard 45 feet 28.7 feet 28 feet 17 feet (37.77%) Minimum average lot width 100 feet 75 feet 74.67 feet 25.33 feet (25.33%) Applicant: Dave Trojanski, Trojanski Builders. Agent: Alex Beso, Attorney, Jones Firm Ms. Beso stated the applicant was before the Board in April of this year. At that time we received area variances for individual and total side yard setbacks as well as minimum average lot width. At the time the requested relief was based upon deed descriptions and a subdivision map filed in the County Clerk’s office. When the preliminary survey was completed, it came to light that the actual lot width is only 74.76 feet. Similarly when we had our as built survey completed, both the individual and total side yard setbacks were not in conformance with what was granted by this Board. We are here requesting additional relief so that it matches the as built dimensions as well as the actual lot width. The dimensions of the home have not changed. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the applicant concerning the amount of the discrepancy. Mr. Trojanski stated when the survey was originally performed it was winter and there was difficulty obtaining the exact dimensions. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M. 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 7:11 P.M. Keith Kaplan. Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 9, 2015 - Page 2 of 8  #2821.1 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Trojanski Builders 18 Division St, Suite 401 Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 10 Doten Ave in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 178.44-3-26.1 in the Inside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for a modification of an area variance approved on April 13, 2015 and issued April 16, 2015 by the Zoning Board of Appeals of said City to permit 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 9th day of November 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 APPROVED CURRENTLY TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL APRIL 13, PROPOSED (INC. PREV. APPROVED) REQUIREMENT 2015 MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK- SOUTH SIDE 20’ 14.1’ 13.5’ 6.5’ OR 32.5% MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK- NORTH SIDE 20’ 14.6’ 14.5’ 5.5 OR 27.5% MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK 45’ 28.7’ 28.0’ 17’ OR 37.8% MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT WIDTH 100’ 75’ 74.7’ 25.3’ OR 25.3% 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 noted by the Board in the previously issued variance resolution, the lot width in this case creates difficulty with conforming to the district side setback requirements. The proposal minimized the degree of non-conformity in the design of the house and attached garage. The board noted also that purchasing adjacent property was not an available option to the applicant in this case. This modification request stems from the fact that the lot width is approximately 4 inches smaller than previously stated. This change in lot width does not decrease the validity of the points noted by the board with respect to design alternatives or feasibility of purchasing land. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. This change from the original application does not significantly change the balance sought between benefit to the applicant and impact on the neighborhood or district, nor does it change the Board’s finding that “the applicant’s decision to opt for single-family use of this parcel combined with the context of the neighboring blocks’ zoning, the proposed residence is not impactful on neighborhood character or detrimental to neighbors.” 3. The Board notes this modification is very slight and would not be considered substantial. It does note that the original variances were found to be substantial at 25 to 36%, and noted mitigating factors such as lot size, lot depth and neighborhood context. Those factors are still in place; therefore the Board does not find the substantiality problematic. 4. Given the large amount of green space remaining on this property and high permeability coverage noted originally, the board concludes this variance as modified will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 9, 2015 - Page 3 of 8  5. The alleged difficulty is still noted as self-created insofar as the applicant desired to construct the house on this property, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: As noted on the original resolution, the applicants submitted a signed affidavit stating, “We agree to not construct a multi-family use home on this lot”. Susan Steer seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there is any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 2. #2860 80 W. CIRCULAR, LLC SERVICE USE, 80 West Circular Street, use variance for a service establishment in the north end of the building; seeking relief from the permitted uses within the Warehouse District. The request is to maintain the warehouse uses on the property (as permitted) and provide for a service establishment within the space identified as tenant #3 Needlewurks – 3,060 sq ft. SEQRA: Action appears to be Unlisted. A long EAF was submitted. Involved agencies include Planning Board - site plan review required. Coordinated review is not required. PARCEL HISTORY: Notice of violation/cease and desist/notice to vacant issued August 4, 2015. Notice of violation for retail establishment-Serendipity, dated December 13, 2007 Site plan review and approval October 2, 1991 for Ambiance Unlimited (3,000 sq. ft. warehouse and accessory office space – front of building). NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVALS: Saratoga County Planning Board referral required. Planning Board Site Plan Review required. Applicant: Ben Aronson Agent: Michael Toohey, attorney The Aronson family has owned property in the City for over a half a century. An information packet was provided to the Board. Mr. Toohey provided a history of Railroad Run, and the area as well as the parcel prior to zoning. This property was originally purchased just prior to the inception of zoning in the City of Saratoga Springs. The Warehouse District permits with site plan approval administrative offices, self storage facility, light manufacturing, utility establishments, City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 9, 2015 - Page 4 of 8 warehouse, distribution plants and wholesale establishments. Joan Purtell’s letter indicates that she sent out 6,000 emails twice a month for the time they had the property listed. They never found anyone who wanted to utilize this property for its warehousing purposes. The only utilization they found for this property during the time they listed it was for Needlewurks which is an operation, closer to being a spa. It is an operation which runs from 12 noon until 8 PM, 7 days a week. It has very finite parking requirements. It generates no noise, no smoke, no nothing. It is a very well run quiet business on the north end of the property. Over the course of time other businesses have been there. Everybody has realized that no one is going to utilize that space for purposes of warehousing. It will just be vacant space occupying 22% of the building which runs from the north end to the south. This also eliminates 22% of the cash flow which could be coming in for renting this space. The City of Saratoga Springs early on designated this area as a Warehouse District. There was no traffic jams in the City at that time. The City is now rung with warehousing facilities for small warehouse users. These are placed in outlying areas because people do not want this type of traffic near core downtown. This is a unique building. The financial hardship is that this property cannot be utilized other than what we are proposing. Then we lose 22% of the income from the building. The most prominent portion of it no longer has a use and utilization. Two realtors have been unable to rent this space. The layout of the lands will prohibit 18 wheeler access. This is a historically unique problem. The building is not changing a bit. A limited use on the north end is a safer use for the community then attempting to figure out how trucks will be entering this facility. There is no room left for large vehicles to maneuver. It will enhance the community allowing a non warehouse use on this street in the City. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman I am struggling with the financial hardship of this application. I am aware of the uniqueness of the property as well. It is not a detriment to the neighborhood to go from warehouse use to service establishment. Request was made of the applicant for an appraisal of the property, and the market value of this property. Discussion ensued regarding the property usage past and present and determination of financial hardship. Mr. Toohey stated the concern that exists from City Hall is that they see something going on there, and they must make a determination what that use is. It is not good for the city to have this sitting there, when it is in the wrong zone. What we are trying to do is straighten this out. We cannot rent this as warehousing. The City of Saratoga Springs does not want this to be warehousing. This would be a disaster. Discussion continued regarding the consequences of approving this variance. It will be a pre-existing, non-conforming use, presumably on one end, NAPA, a warehouse in the middle, and service. It is conceivable there could be three uses in the one building. The variance is for only for the portion of the building. James Helicke stated he believes this is an issue that the Unified Development Ordinance people should take a look at this district. Mr. Toohey stated as I look at this history of how the City has evolved, and what was in there and what is there now, I don’t see this as an injurious use to it. Taking 1/5th of the building and I am losing money on it. That is a significant financial difficulty. You will not change the neighborhood at all. This is a unique application. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Bryan Carroll, 158 West Circular Street. I have some information. In the late 80’s I was an electrician. We used to go to this establishment to buy our supplies at Warren Electric for many years, located at the north end. The Aronson’s have done a great job keeping up the building. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the building is unique. We certainly would not want to turn a building back to warehouse in the middle of the City. The struggle is how we get to that point. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 9, 2015 - Page 5 of 8 OLD BUSINESS: 3. #2862 TRIFECTA DEVELOPMENT, LLC SUBDIVISION, 136 Lincoln Avenue, area variance to provide for a two-lot residential subdivision; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width (both lots), minimum lot size and minimum total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-2 District. This is a previously opened application. Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney Mr. Toohey stated in an area variance I ask if I can identify spots in which the request I am making already exists. If you go through the data you have already received there are lots both width and size wise that are significantly smaller than the lot we are proposing. It is a permitted use for this area of the city. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:30 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he had some hesitancy concerning creating substandard lots. In reviewing a past variance which I had written I became more comfortable with this application. In this case, this can work with side yard setbacks. SEQRA: Action appears to be unlisted. Applicant has submitted a short EAF. The Board reviewed Part II of the SEQRA Long EAF. No large or important areas of concern were noted. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion for a SEQRA Negative Declaration. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT: J.P. Spinelli, 135 Lincoln Avenue dated October 26, 2015. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Per 8.4.6 City Planning Board advisory opinion is required. Planning Board subdivision approval required. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 9, 2015 - Page 6 of 8 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:35 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. #2862 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Trifecta Development, LLC 57 Phila Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 136 Lincoln Ave, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.77-2-40 in the Inside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. Whereas, the appellant having applied for area variances for relief from the City Zoning Ordinance for minimum average lot width, minimum total side yard setback and minimum lot size requirement for a two-lot subdivision in an Urban Residential – 2 zoning district; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on October 18 and November 9, 2015. Whereas, 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: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT WIDTH – LOT 1 60’ 52’ 8’ (13%) MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK- LOT 1 20’ 18.8’ 1.2’ (6%) MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT WIDTH – LOT 2 60’ 48’ 12’ (20%) MINIMUM LOT SIZE – LOT 2 6600 SQ. FT. 6100 SQ. FT. 500 SQ. FT. (7.5%) 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 application states, “No land can be acquired on the two street fronts. There is no land for sale on the west or south side. Shifting the middle subdivision line only shifts the nature of the area variances that are being requested”. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The neighborhood is characterized by multi-family and single-family properties with similar lot widths. The applicant provided detailed information on 36 lots north and south of the subject property showing 25 tax parcels have widths of 50’ or less. Also noted are nine lots that are at or below 6,000 sq. ft. 3. The relief requested is not substantial. The application states, “By comparison to the size of the lots in this neighborhood, the requested variances are not substantial”. The Board notes that while the minimum average lot width for lot 2 may approach substantiality, the impact will be limited since, as noted above, many 50’ wide parcels exist within the neighborhood. 4. The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The application states, “With the driveway from the eastern most lot coming off of Adams Street, it will not introduce another curb cut onto Lincoln Avenue, the more heavily trafficked street”. 5. The difficulty may be considered self-created. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 9, 2015 - Page 7 of 8 Note: Planning Board favorable advisory opinion received Nov. 2nd. Planning Board subdivision Susan Steer seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of Meeting Minutes was deferred to the November 23, 2015 meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 1/11/16 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 9, 2015 - Page 8 of 8