Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:02 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: #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. #2865 BOUGHTON GARAGE, 1 Alger Street, area variance to construct an attached garage with second-story Master suite addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback (Alger), minimum total side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirement in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: Alger St 10 ft 7.8 ft 2.2 feet (22%) Minimum total side yard setback: 12 ft 11.4 ft .6 feet (5%) Maximum principal building coverage 30% 55.5% 25.5% (85%) Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated the property has three fronts, no basement with 3 bedrooms and no storage. The applicants would like to increase their storage and would like to add a bedroom. They are requesting several variances. Due to the location of this property it is difficult to develop. We are minimizing the size of the garage width to reduce the Bolster Lane variance. This does not allow for garage door widths necessary to fit the owner’s cars. Reconfiguring the garage to exit onto Bolster Lane and narrowing the garage that way does not work because a building to the northwest across the lane limits the required turning radius to back out. No additional land is available for purchase. Adding a second story to the existing home and attached carport to store the cars does not work making the home 110 ft long with the addition. The existing neighborhood developed in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. It is very dense with most homes located very close to the road as well as close to each other. The lot is very narrow and long necessitating any addition to extend the house in the proposed location. The two story addition is architecturally compatible with the existing one story home. The site will remain 28% permeable which exceed the 25% requirement. This preexisting, nonconforming house coverage is at 41.3%. A home with a detached garage may cover 40% in this zone. This application which requests 55.5% only deviates by 15.5% which is not substantial. The existing driveway along Alger Street will be removed and seeded for more green space and permeable area. No large or significant trees will be removed. The catch basin which exists at the north of the property will remain. Susan Steer stated going to 55% coverage on the lot concerns her. Perhaps providing the Board with the lot coverage of other homes in the area would be helpful. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the agents applicant if her clients would be agreeable to a condition on the resolution noting no accessory structure. Ms. Yasenchak stated her clients would be acceptable to the condition. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:24 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 scheduled for December 7, 2015. 2. #2866 D’ORAZIO ADDITION, 5 Foxhill Drive, area variance to construct a residential addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-1 District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 23, 2015 - Page 2 of 13 SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback: 12 feet 4 feet 8 feet (67%) Applicant: Mr. Marino D’Orazio Mr. D’Orazio stated they are requesting a first floor family room addition to the right of the home. The relief from the minimum side yard setback may be considered substantial at 67%. The proposed addition is 18’ x 20’. The applicant states that the house and addition would be well within 20% of square footage allowance for the property lot size. There are no alternatives available. The family room needs to be on the first floor on this side of the house, no other location is possible. My neighbor does not have any windows on the side of his home where the addition will be placed. Mr. D’Orazio stated the applicants are requesting this addition to add more space to their home. A discussion ensued among the Board members concerning the placement of the addition. Also the applicant was questioned whether the addition could be smaller, maybe more narrow, and the substantiality of the variances. Mr. D’Orazio stated they need more space. They stated two pine trees will be removed. Landscaping will be done following construction. Skip Carlson questioned the permeability of the site. A request was made of the applicant to provide this calculation to the Board. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman requested more detailed drawings and a survey. Perhaps a detailed site plan and floor plan of the house would be helpful. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:37 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated if the applicant could provide the information requested to staff. We will prepare and present a resolution at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for December 7, 2015. 3. #2867 PEROXYCHEM SIGN, 24 Freedom Way, area variance to construct two freestanding signs; seeking Relief from the maximum one freestanding sign per parcel requirement in the Industrial-General 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 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 23, 2015 - Page 3 of 13 Maximum number of freestanding signs per parcel 1 2 1 (100%) Applicant: Helen Kane, Plant Manager Agent: Robert Kaiser Ms. Kane states they are asking for a variance for the installation of two freestanding signs. The signage is the same for both of the proposed signs with the exception that one will have the street address of the plant. We are asking for two signs because the option of placing the signage on the building is problematic. The placement on the front of the building is blocked by a railroad that has been extended to receive the materials used in the purification process. There are two to three rail cars. Also there is a pipe structure all in front of the face of the building. We want to identify our site. Two freestanding signs would not look cluttered on a 5 acre lot. Directional signs can identify entrances and exits but not business names or logo. The extra sign will ensure that deliveries in large trucks do not miss Freedom Way causing them to back up and/or turn around at the end of Duplainville Road. Freedom Way is a new street, fully constructed, however, it is not on the GPS. We are awaiting the street sign. The freestanding signs are slightly smaller in area 19.5 sq. ft than the maximum permitted of 24 square feet. Also the height of the signage is not as tall 5’ versus 12’ which is permitted. One sign will be placed at Duplainville Road and Freedom Way. Landscaping will provided around the signage in the spring. Mr. Kaiser stated the sign will be illuminated during the nighttime hours. It will be 5’6” above the finished grade on both signs. The only difference is the one on the corner of Duplainville and Freedom Way will have the address on it. Skip Carlson questioned how the signage will be lit. Mr. Kaiser stated the sign will be internally illuminated with white LED’s. The lettering is 6 ½ inches in height. The speed limit on this road is 30 MPH, so we do not need large identification for these vehicles. Limited vehicle traffic at night. Skip Carlson questioned how many vehicles are expected per day. Ms. Kane stated roughly three vehicle shipments per day maximum. The facility is designed to be able to accommodate three supply shipments per day. We will be a 24/7 facility, with 14 employees. The facility is totally fenced in and will be either badge accessible or we will be able to remotely allow entrance. There will not be random traffic coming through. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he recommends putting the address on both signs, due to the size of the Industrial Park. Ms. Kane stated they could do that. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:51 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will prepare and present a resolution at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for December 7, 2015. 4. #2582.3 DEMASI AND DUNN SINGLE FAMILY, 27 Garside Road, area variance to demolish existing structure and construct a new single-family residence, seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback, minimum total City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 23, 2015 - Page 4 of 13  side yard setback and maximum principal building requirements in the Green Acres PUD. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: -Original approval was granted on November 22, 2010. -Area variance extension granted March 19, 2012. The application was not further extended and expired November 24, 2013. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum principal building coverage 15% *15.5% .5% (3%) Minimum side yard setback 10 ft. 4 ft. 6 ft. Minimum total side yard setback 20 ft. 14 ft. 6 ft. The original approval did not include relief from the maximum principal building coverage requirement and the floor plan submitted with this application identifies 14.9%. DISCLOSURE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman disclosed that Dr. DeMasi is his physician. He has no financial interest in this application. There is no need for recusal, simply disclosure. Applicant: Jim DeMasi Dr. DeMasi stated the proposal which is being requested and the one requested three years ago for the principal living space have remained unchanged. The change is in the garage from a side load garage to a front load garage. I have included in the information provided information from the HOA that permits that size garage without any setback requirements. Also included is the approval from the HOA. The second floor of the initial proposal has been changed from 4 bedrooms to 2 bedrooms with a reduction in the roof size. Principal living space will remain unchanged. The garage was changed from a side load to a front load. Attempts at various designs failed due to the narrow and unusual lot dimensions. The fact that the lot is extremely narrow makes it difficult to comply with the side yard setbacks. Every effort has been made to assure that the profile and roof line will be attractive and in keeping with the lake aesthetic. The new home will be in compliance on the front and rear and is located so that it will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:57 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 23, 2015 - Page 5 of 13 Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will prepare and present a resolution at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for December 7, 2015. OLD BUSINESS: 5. #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. DISCLOSURE: Bill Moore, Chairman stated Mr. Bonacio forwarded an email to him to distribute to the Zoning Board Members. I forwarded the email to the Board members. There was no communication back and forth. James Helicke stated he visited the site with staff. There were several neighbors as well as employees of Mr. Bonacio present and we asked questions of a factual nature. We did not discuss the application. I did speak to Mr. Bonacio this week concerning matters of busses in the City of Saratoga Springs. We did not discuss the substance of this application. This application was heard at the September 29, 2015 meeting and adjourned to October 19, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The applicant indicated that they would be providing a traffic study/parking analysis. This was received and was distributed to the Board. At the October 14, 2015 meeting the ZBA passed a Resolution requesting and Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board. The Planning Board considered the request at their October 29, 2015 meeting and provided a favorable advisory opinion. This project is an adaptive reuse of a dormitory building, which is considered preexisting, nonconforming in the district. The variances requested for the building are not required. The applicant submitted a traffic generation and parking demand analysis provided by Greenman-Pedersen Inc., and an analysis of available on-street parking at different times of day provided by Bonacio Construction. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance to construct connected multi-family buildings and connect single family buildings, for a total of 14 residential units granted October 23, 2006. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum lot area per dwelling unit 3,000/du 159,000 sq. ft. 56,192.4 sq. ft. 102,807.6 sq. ft. (65%) Minimum parking spaces 1.5/du 79 54 25 (32%) Adam McNeill, Secretary stated he would like to note the correspondence the Board has received: Russell Pittinger, 19 George Street, letter dated 11/8/15. Rick Fenton, letter dated 11/6/15. Rick Fenton, amended note dated 11/23/15. Beverly Mastroianni, 125 Regent Street, letter dated 10/22/15. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 23, 2015 - Page 6 of 13 Susan Rodehams, 84 White Street letter dated 11/1/15. Rich Frank, 18 Cottage Street, letter dated 11/19/15. Applicant: Sonny Bonacio, Bonacio Construction Agents: Michael Toohey, Attorney, Brett Balzer, Balzer & Tuck Architecture, Mike Ingersoll, LA Group, Rich Higgins, Owner, Norstar Development Mr. Toohey, provided a visual presentation of the site noting a truck being parked for several days in the same spot as well as noting the parking conditions at that time. A traffic view was provided of the site as well. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the adaptive reuse of structures within this City. We were asked if there was any other analysis which could be done with regard to this project. Some of the residents in the neighborhood suggested removal of the dining hall. We do take all the suggestions which are made very seriously. We spent a significant amount of time, effort and money to remove the front portion of the building and substituted in that space a parking lot. We heard from many people stating from a historic standpoint that was a terrible decision. What that does is present a loss of 16% of leasable space with a loss of $50,000 annually. This project is not viable with this solution. It is not physically possible, and financing is not available for this suggestion. We have appeared before the Planning Board and they accepted and agreed with this project. We tried to analyze this and we tried to rectify the parking problem. Mr. Ingersoll, LA Group visually reviewed the existing site survey. The parking lot as is does not comply with today’s standards. We have reviewed the lot to see how we can reconfigure it to conform to current regulations. Visual review of North Lane where 54 parking spots existed prior to zoning with 7 spots + 1 spot is equal to 47 cars versus 54. In the front where no parking currently exists we are proposing 9 parking spots totaling 56 car spaces. The Planning Board did not indicate any opposition to parking in the front. Mr. Ingersoll reviewed the parking proposal for the Board including the different types of materials which could be used instead of blacktop in this area. Mr. Toohey stated the applicant has appeared before this Board at least two times. We have provided a traffic analysis and a parking analysis as to the availability of parking. We have attempted to reconfigure this site to minimize the number of variances requested, we are adaptively reusing the building, we maintain the green space, legalize the parking as to the size and the space and we have utilized the space and varied the parking. Mr. Ingersoll stated the preservation of the existing building, and the existing parking is not dissimilar to existing properties. We are not invading on the residential component of the single family homes, there are mixed uses around the neighborhood. Mr. Toohey stated another issue which has come up is that the owner of this property should tear this building down. That is a statutory taking of this property by action of a governmental agency if that is what the City or the City Council would want to have happen. We have provided you with a history of this site; it is a pre-existing, non-conforming use. It has structural limitations that do not allow it to be expanded upwards. It is what it is. Every person in this neighborhood bought their homes after this building was constructed. Zoning was changed on this property. Most of the buildings in this neighborhood are multi-family residences. Rich Higgins, Agent, Norstar Development is the owner of this property. Mr. Higgins provided some background on the company who builds buildings and condominiums. We have probably built 5,000 condominium units, in four states, and Ontario. In 2006 we contracted with Skidmore for this property. It was rezoned and we designed a beautiful project however the building business collapsed. These units were very large units and were to sell between $500,000 and $1.5 million. We began selling units in 2008 however it was not a good time. We sat on this property. We met with Sonny several years ago. We had the building inspected for soundness, as well as integrity and began thinking about preserving the property. We did come up with repurposing the building had a great concept, and this proposal makes sense. This seems the only solution before us that made any sense at all. I do not have an alternative plan for this property. I am back at square one. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 23, 2015 - Page 7 of 13 Mr. Toohey stated we have attempted to the best of our joint abilities to address as many concerns as we can. We cannot make this building disappear. This building will not get better looking over time. It is not going to have another use that will be reasonable over time and it will sit there. Sonny Bonacio, Bonacio Construction. Mr. Bonacio stated over the last 20 years or so we have done a lot of repurposing and infill development. We are very proud of those projects. They assimilate themselves into the community. What else can we do with this project? I have met with the neighbors to discuss what could be done with this project, I appreciate their concerns, but I believe at one time this building was full of people. Without having any other long term solution for this building the only other thing is to let it sit there. We have a very sound proposal before the Board. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned the brick wall and screening for the parking area. Mr. Ingersoll stated additional screening will be provided for this area. Susan Steer questioned parking on the west side of the property. Has Empire State College been contacted concerning shared parking? Mr. Ingersoll stated they have been contacted three times and responded no, not at this time. Gary Hasbrouck stated he has driven in the area and has seen many spaces along the alley. 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. John Hayko, Mancini and Hayko law firm. Mr. Hayko stated he has been retained by several area residents. Mr. Hayko is looking for this Board to consider the applicants issues, rather than the specific issues which relate to the land. The history behind what has gotten us to this point today started with Skidmore College deciding not to use this building to house students. There has been a re-growth and revitalization in this area. Mr. Hayko provided some information on the process Mr. Higgins went through regarding this building in 2006. If we are looking at 53 units the variance will run with the building. The owner of this property will always be able to place 53 units on this property. The neighbors are concerned about pedestrian safety as well as traffic safety. Steve McIntyre, I30 Regent Street. My home is 15 – 20 feet from the building. I purchased this property in early spring of this year. If I had known 53 units would be proposed here I would not have purchased the property. Some figures were presented with regards to tear downs and redevelopment. Several examples of other projects which were torn down and redeveloped. This information was provided to the Board. Lillian, 8 Southeast Street, I have two younger brother and we live fairly close to the site. We are concerned regarding safety. The traffic even with all the parking spaces shown. It will negatively impact our neighborhood. Jeffrey Allen, 48 Union Avenue. Flow of traffic on North Lane. I travel this lane twice a day. I question the parking, additional traffic and the location of trash. Snow is another issue. Tom Fox, 72 Union Avenue. My truck was the truck in the photo. I was in LA for two weeks. No back out in the alley is allowed in Saratoga. Naomi Allen, 48 Union Avenue. Concerned regarding the density. Lighting is an issue as well. Pedestrian safety is a concern. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 23, 2015 - Page 8 of 13 Jeff BenDavid, 37 Clark Street. Moved here one year ago. We took time in buying our home. Guests and children visit in the summer. Do not have room for guests to park. Too much density in the neighborhood, concerned about the infrastructure. Alison Gotham, 48 White Street. 450 signatures were obtained in a petition. Density is a problem. The petition was provided to the Board. Beth Johannson, 37 George Street. Increased density is a concern. This is a very busy street. I am against this. Deidre Ladd, 113 Regent Street next to Beagle School. Pedestrian safety is a concern especially the children. This is an incredible amount of traffic area. Very unique area. I am against this project. Rob Wright, 37 Clark Street. I have three young children. Already a hairy place to walk with your children. There is congestion and traffic problem, along with the pedestrian safety issues which already exist. I am on the Complete Street Advisory Board. Several streets in this area are noted as being problematic already. Steve Mittler, 15 Stratton Street. We are going down the path of least resistance. Deny the variances. I am against the project. Density is an issue. Kathleen O’Connor, 54 White Street. I cannot believe the traffic. Concern regarding the volume of traffic. It is difficult to cross. Concern regarding density and safety of residents and children. John Boardman, 118 White Street. Unit density is the core of the problem. Lorraine Wright, 37 Clark Street. Concern regarding delivery vehicles, postal deliveries, UPS and Time Warner. This is an uncomfortable situation. Not a good fit. Julie Rogers, 15 George Street. I do not support this project. Burt Porter 14 ½ Cottage Street. Safety of the children in the schools in the area. This is a major variance and setting a huge precedent. Russ Pittinger, 19 George Street. I have forwarded comments to the Board and Commissioner Mathiesen. I am concerned about the public safety. Traffic and adequate parking are still an issue. Jeff Maney, 48 Union Avenue. Density issue is the main issue. It seems to be an all or nothing project. Suzanne Kwasniewski, 126 White Street. This project is far too large. Too much density. Consider the Quality of Life for the neighbors. Linda Whittle, 19 George Street. I find the variances being requested too large in scope and will have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. Density is an issue. Appeal to the millennial, cannot afford this options. Lot of children in this area. Sue Rodems, 84 White Street. Variances are too extreme. Hardship on the neighborhood. Beverly Mastroianni, 125 Regent Street. Extreme density. Effects the neighborhood and the safety of the children in the area. You are doubling the population of the block in one building. This is a serious problem. Dan Martin, 17 Stratton Street. Questioned if the Board has visited the site. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 23, 2015 - Page 9 of 13 Dennis Kramer, 47 White Street. We have so much foot traffic, it is a quiet neighborhood. We are concerned regarding the children. Susan Steer, stated the City Council does not have any decision making control over this project. We want you to know we are not rushing through anything. Listening to what the applicant is saying as well as the neighbors. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. No additional information has been requested. The application will be heard on the December 7, 2015 meeting. Board recessed at 10:10 P.M. Board reconvened at 10:15 P.M. 6. #2860 W. CIRCULAR, LLC SERVICE USE, 80 West Circular Street, use variance for a service Establishment (tattoo parlor) in the north end of the building; seeking relief from the permitted uses within the Warehouse District. This application was heard at the November 9, 2015 meeting and adjourned to November 23, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The Board requested that the applicant submit an appraisal of the property. The appraisal and the rent roll were submitted on November 12, and distributed to the Board. The Board requested staff provide information and research the status of the existing NAPA auto parts store. It appears that the use is considered lawful pre-existing nonconforming prior to NAPA the space was occupied by Johnson Automotive. The request is to maintain the warehouse uses on the property and provide for a service establishment within the space identified as Needlewurks, 3,060 sq. ft. SEQRA: Action appears unlisted. A long EAF was submitted. Involved agencies include the Planning Board – site plan review required. Coordinated review is not required. PARCEL HISTORY: Notice of violation/cease and desist/notice to vacate 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 APPROVAL: Saratoga County Planning Board referral required. Planning Board site plan review is required. Agent: Mike Toohey, attorney SEQRA: Part I of the Long EAF was submitted by the applicant and was reviewed by the Board. Part II of the SEQRA form was reviewed by the Board. No large or important areas of concern were noted. Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion for a Negative SEQRA Declaration. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 23, 2015 - Page 10 of 13 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 MOTION PASSES: 7-0 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 10:22 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2860 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF 80 W Cir, LLC 7 Hana Lane Monsey, NY 10952 From the determination of the Zoning and Building Inspector involving a portion of the premises at 80 West Circular Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.82-2-44 in the Inside District, on the assessment map of said City. The appellant having applied for a use variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to allow the use of a portion of the building (north end) of 3,055 sq. ft. for a tattoo parlor in a Warehouse District. As shown by the submitted application, supplemental documentation and oral presentation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and public hearing having been held on November 9 and 23, 2015 be approved because all four standards required to demonstrate unnecessary hardship have been proven by the applicant. 1. The applicant has demonstrated that this property cannot yield a reasonable financial return as demonstrated by competent financial evidence, if used for any permissible use. The applicant submitted the rent rolls for the property demonstrating that the existing tenant (Needlewürks) has a monthly rental of $3,214, with an annual rental of $38,568. The current tenant is the latest in a series of retail and services storefront businesses in this portion of the subject property. As per the applicant’s submitted materials, since the applicant’s family purchased the subject property in 1960, the north end of the building has housed the retail and office portion of a furniture store’s warehouse annex, a store operating in conjunction with a dairy business, a dress shop, a salon and a variety of other businesses. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 23, 2015 - Page 11 of 13 The application materials included a letter from a real estate broker and commercial appraiser, stating, “I must have shown it over 30 times during the entire period of the one year listing agreement…My campaigns went out to approximately 6,000 emails at intervals of twice a month…The only tenant that was even willing to take on the space was the current Tattoo Parlor”. Another commercial realtor observed, “The layout of the space, number of windows and difficult access to the overhead door would not make any sense for a warehouse user.” The board also notes that the positioning of the neighboring apartment structure and the limited space for access to West Circular Street makes the use of the northern end of the building infeasible for large trucks to maneuver. Therefore, the accepted use of warehouse is not feasible, nor has it generated the demand needed to enable the earning of a reasonable financial return. 2. The applicant has demonstrated the alleged hardship relating to this property is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood or district. As per the applicant, the existence of a Warehouse District is unique within this area of the City and it only comprises six parcels. Of the six parcels only a portion of the subject property is used for warehousing. This portion of the building is unique because there is an existing wall between the north end use and the middle warehouse use. The application states, “If you eliminated, the common wall with the warehouse space, you still could not get an 18-wheel truck to the loading door on the east side of the building”. As a result, the applicant has not been able to secure a tenant with a use that is compliant with those permitted within the Warehouse District. The application states, “If all permitted, reasonable uses, are eliminated, then the spaces rental value is $0”. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the requested use variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The requested use variance will not be inconsistent with prior uses for this portion of the building, which as noted above has predominately been retail. The application states, “Placing a warehouse use in this end of the building would introduce more large truck traffic in the West Circular Street neighborhood, which would have a negative impact on the neighborhood in which the property is located”. In addition, “The present use is low traffic…In a normal week there are approximately 80 customers”. The board has not received any evidence to date that the current use as a tattoo parlor has been, or would be in the future, incrementally adversely impactful to the neighborhood when compared to the theoretical use as a warehouse. 4. The applicant has shown that the alleged hardship is not self-created. As the applicant noted, “The building has been in the Aronson Family since before modern zoning (the board notes that this began in 1961, after the applicant’s family had purchased this property)…Back then, there was a demand for warehouse with associated office space”. Since that time, warehousing opportunities within the Grande Industrial Park and other outlying areas are more conveniently located to accommodate larger trucks. Notes: • Saratoga County Planning Board issued a decision of “No Significant Countywide or Intercommunity Impact on November 19, 2015. • City Planning Board Site Plan Review as may be required to implement the use variance. Condition: • This approval is limited to the 3,055 sq. ft. within the north end of the existing building with no future expansion. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 23, 2015 - Page 12 of 13 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 December 7, 2015 meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved 1/11/16 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 23, 2015 - Page 13 of 13