Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 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; Adam McNeill, Secretary; 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: #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. #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. Adjourned 12/14/15. RECOGNITION: Board Member James Helicke made a motion in grateful recognition of Bill Moore’s continuing service to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the City of Saratoga Springs as well as an acknowledgement for his leadership of this Board. Bill has been very gracious as Chair and many of us look forward to serving with you in the future. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there is any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: 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: 6-0 NEW BUSINESS: 1. CONGRESS HOTEL, LLC, SIGNS, 46 Congress Street South, area variance for construction of freestanding and wall signs for Embassy Suites, request to seek advisory opinion from the DRC. Bill Moore, Chairman stated this item has not been duly noticed. The applicants will provide a presentation to the Board requesting an Advisory Opinion from the Design Review Commission. Applicant: Congress Hotel, LLC Agent: Tom Wheeler, AJ Signs Mr. Wheeler stated what the applicant is proposing is to have an “E” placed on the building. This is a Hilton property and this is one of their requirements to have the “E” signage on the building. This will be a reverse lit channel letter. A sample was provided for the Boards review. The building has window sills in a beige color and the applicant is attempting to duplicate the color and texture in the “E” to match the building. The size of the “E” is 84 inches or 7 feet. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, questioned if the size was too large. Mr. Wheeler stated that the portico does extend out front, and this will be up on the 6th floor. It is not overly bright. This does need to be seen from a distance. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated, he would like to see a computerized rendering with the 7 foot “E” and with smaller variations to see what size would actually fit the space appropriately. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there are any further questions or comments. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the proposed signage. Mr. Wheeler stated the applicant is also requesting a monument freestanding directional sign. The original proposed was too large and it has been reworked and a sketch of the proposed signage brought into conformance was provided for the Boards review. James Helicke stated we are also requesting a computerized rendering of the directional sign. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2015 - Page 2 of 11 James Helicke made a motion for an Advisory Opinion from the Design Review Commission. 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; 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. AVANZINO RESIDENCE, 25 Benton Road, area variance modification for constructed additions to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-1 District. Bill Moore, Chairman stated this is a previously granted area variance dated February 10, 2014. The applicants are requesting a slight modification. This is an as built modification in the amount of 4” after the original variance. Agent: Rich Martin, Northern Dean Mr. Martin stated he is here this evening on behalf of the applicants who are requesting a modification to an area variance in the amount of 4” to accommodate a 4” overhang in the front yard setback created by an existing garage with a new overhang. The setback was 6.3” and we are exactly 4” over the original overhang. Bill Moore, Chairman stated this is a simple modification, therefore no noticing is required. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. None heard. Skip Carlson presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Moira Avanzino 25 Benton Drive Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the Building Inspector’s determination involving the premises at 25 Benton Drive, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being Tax Parcel 166.14-2-39 in the Inside Tax District on the assessment map of said City. The appellant having applied for a modification to a previously approved area variance on February 13, 2014 under the Zoning Ordinance of said City for construction of residential additions to an existing single-family residence in a UR-1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on January 27 and February 10, 2014. 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 modification for the following amount of relief: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2015 - Page 3 of 11 Type of Requirement Required Previously Proposed Total Relief Requested Approved Minimum Front Yard Setback: 30’ 6.3’ 6’ Additional .3’ or 24’ Total Relief (Caroline) (80%) As per the revised plans submitted December 11 or lesser dimensions, be approved: Whereas, the applicant’s agent provided a letter indicating that “A few minor modifications were made to the plans during construction to simplify the addition and align existing & new roof soffits”. Whereas, the applicant’s agent further states, “During construction, it was found that the condition of the framing over the existing garage warranted removal…New trusses were installed and the overhangs were designed to match the existing house…In order to match the soffits of the new trusses, the overhang of the right garage roof resulted in being 4” closer to the property line than originally proposed”. Therefore, the Board determines this request to be a minor modification of previous relief granted on February 13, 2014. 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; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 7-0 OLD BUSINESS: 3. #2868 STEWART’S SHOPS ADDITION, 87 West Avenue, area variance to construct a 789 sq. ft. addition to the existing store, seeking relief from the build to line, frontage build out and two story requirements in the Transect-5 District. This application was heard at the December 7, 2015 meeting and adjourned to December 14, 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: -ZBA approval for freezer addition (61 sq. ft.) to an existing convenience store; relief from the build-to-line, Minimum frontage build out and minimum two story requirements approved July 27, 2015. -ZBA approval for new construction in 1994. -DRC architectural review approval in 1994. -ZBA approval for a sign in 1991. -Planning Board site plan review approvals in 1982, 1985, 1994. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2015 - Page 4 of 11 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing has been 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 7:24 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF STEWART’S SHOPS CORP. 87 WEST AVENUE SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 87 West Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.18-2-6 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to construct an addition seeking relief from the minimum two story, build to line (West Avenue) and frontage build out (West Avenue) requirements in the T-5 Zoning District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on December 7 and 14, 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 Existing Proposed Relief Requested Dimensional Requirement Minimum Two Story 2 Story 1 Story 1 Story 1 Story – (3,335 sq. ft.) (789 sq. ft. 789 sq. ft. addition addition) (100%) Build To Line (West 0-12 feet 95 feet 99 feet to 87 feet Avenue) addition Frontage Build Out (West 70% 0% 0% 70% (100%) Avenue) 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 Applicant desires to construct an addition to the rear of the store to improve the internal flow of the store. The Applicant made similar changes to another store and found that it did make such improvements to the internal flow. The Applicant also stated that the only place the addition would be feasible is at the back of the store because the business is also a gas station and construction on the West Avenue side of the property would impede traffic flow, parking and access to the pumps. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2015 - Page 5 of 11  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 surrounding properties are commercial in nature and the site has been developed this way since it was originally approved in the 1980s. A variance to construct a 61 sq. ft. freezer was approved in July 2015. No incremental impact on the neighborhood. 3. The request for relief may be substantial but this is due to the fact that the building is currently in nonconformance with the zoning district’s existing requirements. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The property is currently being used as a commercial business. The Applicant is planning on constructing fencing to help alleviate traffic and parking issues that might arise with its neighbor. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Notes: Planning Board Site Plan Review required DRC Architectural Review required James Helicke 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 4. #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. BACKGROUND: This application was heard at the September 28, 2015 meeting and adjourned to October 19, 2015. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The applicant submitted a traffic/study/parking analysis on October 14, 2105. At the October 19, 2015 meeting the ZBA passed a resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the Planning Board. The Planning Board considered this request at their October 29, 2015 meeting and provided a favorable advisory opinion. The applicant adjourned from the November 9, 2015 meeting. A revised site plan was received and distributed to the Board. The application and revised site plan were considered at the November 23, 2015 meeting and adjourned to December 7, 2015. The applicant requested further adjournment to December 14, 2015. This project is the adaptive reuse of a dormitory building, which is considered pre-existing non-conforming in the district. 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: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2015 - Page 6 of 11 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 connects single family buildings for a total of 14 residential units granted October 23, 2006. Mr. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated that following the submittal of this application for an area variance it was discovered another slightly different area variance would be required. I wanted the Board to know, the original application was for an area variance and the additional relief required is for an area variance. There are no known cases when an area variance request leads to the additional relief for area variances is inconsistent with state and local laws. No further notification is required per the research which I completed today. DISCLOSURE: Board member Gary Hasbrouck stated following the last meeting I went downtown for a drink and came upon the applicant. We socialized briefly and watched the football game. No discussion of the application took place. Also, the Saratoga History Museum had a fundraiser. I bumped into the applicant at this function as well. No discussion of the application took place. Board Vice Chairman Keith Kaplan stated he was also at the Saratoga History Museum gala as well. Mr. Hasbrouck as well as the applicant were in attendance as well as some of the guests in the audience, as well as City Council members. It was a very heavily attended event. We had no discussions about the application and there is nothing which would preclude me from voting on this matter. Board member James Helicke stated on Saturday he attended the City Council Meeting concerning Moore Hall. He did not discuss this application with anyone in attendance. Applicant: Sonny Bonacio, Bonacio Construction Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney; Michael Ingersoll, LA Group; Brett Balzer, Balzer & Tuck Architecture; Rick Higgins; owner Norstar Development Mr. Toohey wished all Board members a happy holiday season and thanked them for their service to the City. Mr. Toohey continued that this has been a very unusual project. It is not often that an applicant appears before the Board in which they have the proper zoning code designation for the use and utilization they want for the property, and they are doing something so clearly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We have repeatedly heard that there is a communal desire to have Moore Hall demolished. The use of the structure for our proposed use has not been well received by the neighbors. This is clearly not a one property UR-4 zone. We met trying to achieve a goal that is viable for us and is also consistent with the community goal. Every time we have appeared before this Board we have attempted to discuss this, because that is one of the parts of the Zoning Code and area variance requirements is that we must show we have attempted to move in a different direction. At great risk to this project, we are asking the Board this evening to table any discussion of the 53 unit project until the next meeting. We are asking you not to vote on the project this evening. We are going to ask the people in the audience who have been here consistently to also hold their comments on the 53 unit project. We will return in January when we are allowed to return. We can go through the project at that time. What we would like to do is show you a possible solution to this problem. We believe we have a reasonable mechanism with regard to on street parking, solve the problem with the 53 unit workforce housing project and to rid the community of Moore Hall. We would like to make a presentation to you requesting some input from the community. This will hopefully solve a problem. A visual presentation of the project site was provided to the Board. Mike Ingersoll, LA Group stated we were asked to look at alternatives and we have listened. We have heard about City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2015 - Page 7 of 11 traffic, parking, curb cuts, the previous project that Rick was the visionary on and densities. Mr. Ingersoll reviewed the prior requests and approvals including the demolition of the building, which was approved by Zoning, Planning and the DRC. Mr. Ingersoll reviewed the previous requests and approvals. Mr. Bonacio stated many members of the Board had not seen the previous renderings of this project which were approved. The project had 18 units. The square footages ran from 1737 to 4200. There was a total of 55,000 square feet of building which was to be constructed. Total number of bedrooms were 62. Total number of parking spaces were 37. Slightly over two parking spaces per unit. Minimum selling price was $1,050,000. There was 25% green space. We went back and took a look at the original project, which was approved. One of the members in the audience, who announced himself to be a licensed real estate broker, provided some calculations. Some of the calculations were correct, some were not. I want to review for both the Board and the public. Currently there are 25 units available. 16 of them priced above $900,000. That is not a typo. 1947 are the number of days they have been on the market. 38 High Rock Avenue, currently there are 14 units available, 9 are priced above $900,000. 3 units have been sold in the last 24 months, above $900,000. Average number of days on the market is 1825. Park Place Condominiums, 7 priced above $900,000. 7 sold in the last 24 months, average days on the market are 2190. 54 Phila Street, which has now sold out. There was 1 that sold over $900,000 and the average days on the market are 1825. Immediately we realized that the larger units were a real struggle to sell. The original project had condo units which were listed over $1 million. The numbers show this did not work then and it does not work now. We came with what we thought was a home run an adaptive reuse, introduce smaller workforce housing. We clearly underestimated the level of concern surrounding this project. We never stopped working to compromise on a plan that works for all parties. What we decided to do was to go back and look at the existing project that the neighbors clearly supported. We attempted to take the shell and the aesthetics of that project and mold that into a project that could work for today’s market. So what we are proposing is an amended purpose concept. 28 units. The total square footage of the units comes down as well as the square footage of the project built comes down, the number of bedrooms of the project comes down and the parking is at 1.8 per unit. The average sale price is under $700,000. This makes this a viable project. We reengineered the original project, basically coming up with the fact that it is the same size, it is more units, less bedrooms and less square footage to get a conversation going. Mr. Ingersoll stated we can still maintain the 25 foot setback. We would like to use the side yard and rear setbacks and take the unit count and divide the units up. However, the parking is essentially the same, it has been simplified. Mr. Ingersoll reviewed the parking spaces and availability. Access and egress from North Alley has been removed. We have managed parking for all cars on the site. Green space remains the same as was previously noted. We looked at what was originally proposed and we are proposing a new application. If well received this evening to travel through the land use boards for approval. Mr. Bonacio stated after reviewing the public comment periods on the tapes, we kept hearing over and over that the original project was liked. That it fit it. The Comprehensive Plan states clearly that companies such as mine look at projects like Moore Hall the way we did. The neighbors clearly have stated that this is not the way they wish this project to be developed. Our job is to find properties and come up with consensus and have good neighbors. I would challenge anyone to visit any of our project neighbors, knock on doors you will find out that after we are done building, while we are building and before we build we look for that input. Tonight we are offering a new plan. The original 2006 plan did not make sense due to the market. It doesn’t make sense right now. Our plan which does comport with the Comprehensive Plan the neighbors have made painfully clear they do not want. We have gone back to the drawing board, and what we are offering is a compromise which follows the essence of the original design. That is what we are asking the Board to discuss. I am imploring the neighbors for input on the alternative plan. This project is almost half the density of the previous plan. We listened. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he did have a major problem with the density as well. The adaptive reuse you have done at St. John Neumann, and the Mill, they all look great. The density was tough, but this appears to be a compromise. Would anyone on the Board like to comment on this? Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned the permeability, and access to the site. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2015 - Page 8 of 11 Mr. Ingersoll stated the permeability exceeds the required 15% more like 25%, however these are extremely preliminary drawings and calculations. Mr. Bonacio stated this is a complete new application which will go through all the Boards, Zoning, and Planning Board for site plan review and the DRC. Susan Steer stated she is very pleased to see the new project. No comments or questions at this point. Happy to see this project. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, stated he questioned many times removing an apartment off of each floor, remove the cafeteria, and lessen the number of units thereby reducing the parking needs. This solves the problem of the density and the parking. This takes that concern away. I am in favor of the idea of this project. James Helicke thanked Mr. Bonacio for this project. I had a great concern regarding the density. Thank you for starting a conversation and listening to the neighbors. I hope the neighbors look at this as an opportunity to discuss this project as well. Skip Carlson questioned the variances which would be requested. Mr. Bonacio stated they will require setback variances and a density issue is still present. Mr. Ingersoll stated it will be virtually the same variances granted in 2006 to Mr. Higgins. Gary Hasbrouck stated he liked the conceptual drawings which were presented this evening. I would like to see the details. It looks good. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:02 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Mr. Bonacio thanked everyone who contacted him and everyone he had conversations with. Mr. Bonacio provided the audience with business cards for ease in contacting him regarding questions or concerns. E. Thomas Richards, 73 Union Avenue. 32 year resident of this neighborhood. Mr. Richards stated this was never about Sonny Bonacio or his work. This was about the neighborhood and the density. This new plan is viable and workable. Congratulations on restructuring the plan, and listening to the neighbors. Kathleen O’Connor, 54 White Street. We would love to work with you concerning some of the traffic issues. Brian Rodems, 84 White Street. Lived here for over 25 years. Thank you for coming forth with new concept. Will Moore Hall come down? Mr. Bonacio stated if approved it will come down. Naomi Allen, 48 Union Avenue. Thank you for coming up with a very viable alternative. Knowing the quality of your work this will be very nice. John Kaufman, 44 White Street. Thanked the neighbors for coming out against this project. This looks like an enormous improvement. This really looks good. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2015 - Page 9 of 11 John Boardman, White Street. Congratulations to the applicant and his team in coming forward with a much improved design. Mickey Mahoney, 55 White Street. The new plans seem like a nice fit. Bev Mastroianni, 125 Regent Street. My issue was density and safety. Thank you for doing this. This really is a project that I think the neighbors can work with you on traffic patterns for safety. This is a great relief for everyone. Melinda Frye, 139 Lincoln. This is interesting and is fun to know that the process can work. Thank you. This seems to be a better fit for the neighborhood. Lorraine Wright, 37 Clark Street. Thank you, thank you, and thank you. I have looked at the building for 26 years. and would have continued to versus the initial proposed project. Thank you. Alison Bouck, 48 White Street. Thank you for listening to us. The other project was too much density. We also feel there are too many apartments in Saratoga. We are grateful. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will leave the public hearing open. We will file a new application and this new project will be renoticed. Mr. Toohey stated there will be two independent applications. One application for a demolition, one application for new construction. Thank you for your time. Bill Moore, Chairman made a motion to remove the following adjourned agenda items from the agenda: #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. Adam McNeill, Secretary seconded the motion. 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; City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2015 - Page 10 of 11  MOTION PASSES: 7-0 Mr. Izzo stated this Board issued a decision on application #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, on October 19, 2015. At the end of that decision the following statement was issued: “The variance shall expire unless the necessary building permit has been obtained.” This is the second time this type of sentence has occurred on a resolution, where technically no building permit was required, strictly an occupancy issue. Mr. Carusone, attorney for the applicant requested that the resolution be amended. I recommend that the Board instead insert “unless any necessary building permit “ Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to amend the aforementioned resolution inserting the word “any” for the word “the necessary”. Adam McNeill, Secretary seconded the motion. 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 Discussion ensued regarding the proposed Land Use Board Calendar 2016. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No meeting minutes provided for approval. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved 1/11/16 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2015 - Page 11 of 11