Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2016 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Skip Carlson; James Helicke; Susan Steer; Oksana Ludd, alternate; Cheryl Grey, alternate ABSENT: Gary Hasbrouck 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: #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. #2807.1 MURPHY LANE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, 39 Murphy Lane, area variance modification for proposed changes to a previously approved barn conversion to single-family residence; seeking additional relief from the minimum front yard and rear yard requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. Adjourned to March 21, 2016. #2759.1 ANW HOLDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 27 Jumel Place, area variance to demolish existing structure and build seven-unit condominium project; seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage, minimum front yard setback and maximum height for a residential fence requirement in the Urban Residential-3 District. Adjourned to March 21, 2016. #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. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2877 DUGAS POOL HOUSE, 65 York Avenue, area variance to construct a pool house; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement for an accessory structure in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Notice of violation issued August 3, 2015,”No permit on file for pool house, do not use, stop work”. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback: 5 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft. (60%) Applicant: Mark Dugas Mr. Dugas stated this construction of a small pool house was built too close to the neighbor’s property by a few feet. I did not take into consideration any zoning regulations at the time I began construction. The structure is a nice looking structure. The adjoining property owner wrote a letter stated he does not have a problem with this construction or its location. A copy of the email was provided to the Board for the file. It does have a concrete floor and is approximately 10 x 14 sq ft in size. Photographs were provided to the Board. The pool house is located behind the house in the rear of the property on a 205’ deep lot. It is not very visible from the street. The site exceeds the minimum 25% permeability requirement. Adam McNeill, Secretary read the following correspondence into the record: Dated January 22, 2016 From: Mr. Garth Briscoe, 63 York Avenue, Saratoga Springs, New York Please convey to the building department that as the adjoining property owner at 63 York Avenue I am okay with the location of your pool house. It appears to be a well constructed building, and the design is congruent with your house and adds visual appeal to your well maintained back yard. If the Planning Department wishes to reach me I can reached anytime. Telephone number was provided. Discussion ensued concerning the amount of relief requested, the lack of a CO for the pool, and the fencing. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:28 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Susan Davis, neighbor. I want to speak to Mark’s honesty and integrity. This was truly something he was not aware of. It is a very deep lot. It is not highly visible from the street. This is something honestly he was not aware of. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. We will meet again in two weeks and a resolution will be prepared and presented at that time. Bill Moore, Chairman asked the applicant to provide the type of fence he will be installing at the next meeting. OLD BUSINESS: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 7, 2016 - Page 2 of 10  2. #2876 BENTON SUBDIVISION 58 Fifth Avenue, motion for an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board for a two-lot residential subdivision; relief required from the minimum average lot width (both lots) requirements in the Urban Residential-2 District. RECUSAL: Bill Moore, Chairman recused himself from this application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman assumed the duties of the Chair. Oksana Ludd, alternate assumed the duties of an alternate Board Member. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated this application was heard at the February 22, 2016 meeting and adjourned to March 7, 2016. The public hearing was opened and remains open. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated we will leave the public hearing open until we complete the SEQRA review. SEQRA: Action appears to be unlisted. Applicant has submitted a short EAF. The Board reviewed the short EAF submitted by the applicant. No large or important areas of concern were noted. The Board reviewed the SEQRA Short EAF Part II. No large or important areas of concern were noted. Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion for a SEQRA Negative Declaration. Skip Carlson seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:38 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 7, 2016 - Page 3 of 10 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2876 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF The Rosemary H. Benton Trust 58 Fifth Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Zoning and Building Inspector involving the premises at 58 Fifth Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.13-2-45 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 provide for a two-lot residential subdivision in a UR-1 district and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on February 22 and March 7, 2016. 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 1 100 feet 90.8 feet 9.2 feet (9%) Minimum lot size: Lot 1 12,500 sq. ft. 9,149 sq. ft. 3,351 sq. ft. (27%) Minimum average lot width: Lot 2 100 feet 75.7 feet 24.3 feet (24%) Minimum lot size: Lot 2 12,500 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. (40%) Minimum total side yard setback: Existing house on proposed lot 1 30 feet 13.6 feet 16.4 feet (55%) Maximum principal building coverage: Existing house on proposed lot 1 20% 28.6% 8.6% (43%) 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. An alternative was considered with regard to maintaining lot 1 as a conforming lot (12,500 sq. ft. and 100 ft. wide). This was determined to not be feasible because the remaining lot would only be 4,150 sq. ft. and 66.5 ft. wide and would make placement of a house on the lot difficult to meet the dimensional requirements of the district. In addition, the application indicates that there is no additional land that can be acquired, “The land to the north is a public street, the land to the south is the “Oklahoma Track” owned by New York State and there are existing homes to the east and west”. 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 included a portion of the tax map which shows the majority of the lots in the neighborhood are 75’ – 80’ wide and 100’ deep – most approximately 7,500 sq. ft. in size. The subsequent lots will be consistent with those along the south side of Fifth Avenue and maintain the historic pattern of the street as a whole. The new lot will be improved with a single-family residence similar to the other lots in the neighborhood. 3. All areas of relief requested may be considered substantial; however, nearly all of the lots in this neighborhood are preexisting nonconforming with regard to the UR-1 requirements for lots and single-family residences on the lots. 4. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood or district. An additional access (curb cut) off of Fifth Ave. will be City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 7, 2016 - Page 4 of 10  required to proposed lot 2. It is anticipated that a subsequent development would occur within the identified building envelope and be scaled appropriately to the diminished lot width and size. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to establish two lots, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: The Board notes that a warranty deed dated January 14, 1949 and recorded in the Saratoga County Clerk’s Office in Book 545 of Deeds at page 64 contains a number of conditions and restrictions relative to the construction of buildings and driveways, and other restrictions on the use of the property, and that subsequent deeds may exist that contain references to those conditions and restrictions. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as giving relief from any or all such private conditions and restrictions. Planning Board subdivision review required. Cheryl Grey seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Susan Steer stated she is not in favor of this application due to the creation of two substandard nonconforming lots. I have no issue with subdivision whatsoever, however in this current configuration I cannot vote in favor of the application. Oksana Ludd stated we do not have all the facts. One of the things we were trying to figure out is what is lot G-1? Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he reviewed the original deed showing two lots. I am looking at the character of the neighborhood. James Helicke stated the deed from 1949 which has unusual setback requirements. If you look at the map the way it is a garage has been added, immediately on the property line. So, these setbacks that were outlined in the deed are no longer being used. So in essence they have been using the entire parcel to fulfill the setback requirements. That is the way I interpret it. I do not see any evidence that this has been used as two parcels. Cheryl Grey stated in staying with the character of the neighborhood, the lot line not being perpendicular from front to back just bothers me a lot. I live on Fifth Avenue and every single lot line is a straight line. I just think it should be a straight line just like all the other on the street. Let’s bring that line in compliance. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Discussion ensued regarding the amount of lot coverage and accessory structures. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated a condition be placed on the resolution stated no accessory structure permitted on Lot #1. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, opposed; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Cheryl Grey, opposed; James Helicke, opposed; Oksana Ludd, opposed. MOTION DEFEATED: 4-3 Bill Moore, Chairman resumed the duties of the Chair. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman resumed the duties of the Vice Chair. Oksana Ludd was relieved of her duties on the Board. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 7, 2016 - Page 5 of 10  4. #2647.1 NELSON & WILEY PORCH, 317 Nelson Avenue, area variance to construct a screened porch addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum rear yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. This application was heard at the February 22, 2016 meeting and adjourned to March 7, 2016. The public Hearing was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were 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 hearings at 8:00 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Howard Nelson and Jeanne Wiley 317 Nelson Avenue SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 317 Nelson Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 166.37-1-22 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to construct a screened porch addition, seeking relief from the minimum rear yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential – 3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on February 22 and March 7, 2016 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 Rear Yard Setback 25 feet 20.2 feet 4.8 feet (19%) Principal Building 30% 33.5% 3.5% (12%) 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. As the application states, “Orienting the porch so that it comes out 16’ from the house doesn’t work because it would create a roofline with an undesirable pitch for snow loading”. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 7, 2016 - Page 6 of 10  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 porch is an addition to the rear of the existing single-family residence and would not be visible from the street. 3. The request for relief associated with the 160 sq. ft. porch addition is not substantial at 12% and 19%. A similar request was approved in 2012 that required more relief. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. As the application states, “The porch will not obstruct any views, nor does it change access to the property”. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Cheryl Grey 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; Skip Carlson, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 5.2875 PERRON RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 35 Greenfield Avenue, area variance to construct a three car attached garage to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback (Woodlawn) and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. This application was heard at the February 22, 2016 meeting and adjourned to March 7, 2016. The public hearing was opened and remains open. A revised site plan was submitted at the meeting that maintains the existing carriage house (to be demolished). It is to be relocated on the property. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF JEAN PIERRE PERRON 35 GREENFIELD AVENUE SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 7, 2016 - Page 7 of 10  From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 35 Greenfield Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.36-1-14.1 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to construct an addition to the primary residence and move an accessory structure, a carriage house, to a different location on the property in the UR-1 Zoning District and public notice having been duly given of hearings on said application on February 22 and March 7, 2016. In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicant with the 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 Minimum Front Yard 30 feet 5 feet 25 feet (83%) Setback: Woodlawn Ave. (residence) Minimum Front Yard 30 feet 8 feet 22 feet (73%) Setback: Woodlawn Ave. (carriage house) Maximum Principal 20% 27.2% 7.2% (36%) 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 Applicant desires to remove a portion of the residence and construct an addition that would include a new kitchen, mudroom and attached three-car garage and master suite. Due to the fact that the setback restrictions run through the existing residence and the property is a corner lot with two front yards, it is not possible to make any renovations to the residence without affecting the setbacks. The Applicant looked at many designs, but due to the lot shape as well as Applicant’s intent to maintain the historic integrity of the home, the proposed design was the only one that will allow the Applicant to construct a new kitchen with an attached garage/mudroom and master bedroom suite. The proposed design, in fact, imposes less on the setback restrictions than the home as it presently exits. With respect to the carriage house, the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation has determined that the residence and carriage house are “contributing buildings” to the Broadway Historic District which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and therefore supports an area variance “that would allow for the retention and relocation of the historic carriage house.” According to the Preservation Foundation, carriage houses “are important cultural resources of the history and development of our community.” The Applicant agrees and desires to move to the carriage house to another location on the lot. Due to the fact that no additional land is available to purchase to help mitigate the variance requests along with the fact that this is a corner lot with two setback requirements, the location selected is the only place that will fulfill the Applicant’s objective to maintain the historic integrity of the property and neighborhood. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 7, 2016 - Page 8 of 10  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 intends to maintain the historic nature of the home and the addition will be “architecturally compatible” to the existing house. It will also be “located on the lot where it will be least visible” and the Applicant intends to maintain as many trees as possible on the lot. The Preservation Foundation “appreciates the investment that the homeowner is making into his historic house and commends him for being willing to retain and relocate the historic carriage house rather than demolish the structure.” 3. The request for relief from the minimum setback requirements at 5 feet (83%) and 8 feet (73%) may be considered substantial, however this is due to the fact that the home is preexisting nonconforming at 4 feet (87%). In fact, the Applicant’s design lessens the amount that the residence will impinge upon the setback. With respect to the total lot coverage, 27% may be substantial, but any substantiality is offset by the Applicant’s willingness to preserve the carriage house and not demolish it. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The addition will be compatible with the style of the existing home and the Applicant intends to keep as many trees as possible. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: No additional accessory buildings other than the existing, historic carriage house 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; Skip Carlson, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 8, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with additions or corrections as submitted. Susan Steer seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Skip Carlson abstained; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 22, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 7, 2016 - Page 9 of 10 meeting with additions or corrections as submitted. Susan Steer seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, abstained; Skip Carlson abstained; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 4/11/16 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 7, 2016 - Page 10 of 10