Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2016 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; 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: #2882 BEYER SUBDIVISION, 199 West Circular Street, area variance to provide for a two-lot residential subdivision; Seeking relief from the minimum lot area requirement in the Urban Residenital-2 District. Application adjourned to April 25, 2016. #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. Adjourned to April 25, 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 April 25, 2016. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the Board has set some new standards for applications before the Board. Applicants may approach the Board with their presentation, sketches, and materials. Upon the opening of the public hearing the applicant will return to their seat in the audience. All comments are requested to be of approximately 4 minutes in duration to help facilitate the meeting. All materials/correspondence/concerns may be submitted to the ZBA prior to the meeting. ADDRESS TO THE BOARD FROM COUNSEL: 1. #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. Mr. Tony Izzo distributed correspondence received this afternoon at approximately 3:30 P.M. from attorney James Fauci, Ballston Spa. It is addressed to the Mayor Joann Yepsen, and Bill Moore, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Fauci on behalf of the applicant, Ms. D’agostino asks several things. First, Ms. D’agostino asks for no additional relief whatsoever from the ZBA. No further action is required. The word withdrawal does not appear in this correspondence. I left a message for Mr. Fauci inquiring if this is indeed a withdrawal. Mr. Fauci is present this evening. He will clarify this shortly. Other points made in the letter state the relief Ms. D’agostino received in the March 23, 2015 variance provides her with all the authority she needs to do exactly what she did to the building and the property. Finally, she calls for the withdrawal of stop work order issued in this matter. If someone wishes to withdraw an application before the Board, they certainly can do so. There are factual as well as legal issues raised in this letter. I have not had the opportunity to comment on this in length. If in fact there is a withdrawal of the application, the Board has no further business, but the Building and Zoning Inspector may have a great deal to say about the conclusions and the facts in this. I may have to do some research and I will keep the Board informed. We appear to have a withdrawal. I will at this time ask Mr. Fauci to speak now concerning this application. Mr. James Fauci stated there is a lot of information in that letter. Mr. Chairman and members of the Board I would respectfully request that this application be withdrawn at this time. Ms. D’agostino is not asking for any additional relief at this time. Mr. Izzo stated the legal issues now involve the Building and Zoning Inspector. I will keep the Board informed. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2856.1 MOORE HALL, 28 Union Avenue/35 White Street, initiation of coordinated SEQRA review for proposed demolition of an existing dormitory building and construction of 26 dwelling units in an Urban Residential-4 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type I action. Coordinated review is required. Involved agencies include the Planning Board for site plan review and the DRC for historic review. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance application to convert the existing dormitory building to a 53 unit apartment building; seeking Relief from the minimum lot size and minimum parking requirement in the Urban Residenital-4 District. Application adjourned. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Planning Board site plan review. DRC Historic Review. Saratoga County Planning Board referral is required. DISCLOSURE: Bill Moore, Chairman disclosed that Mr. Bonacio built his home over a year ago. He has no financial interest in this application and there is no need for recusal, disclosure only. Applicant: Sonny Bonacio Agent: Michael Toohey, attorney Mr. Toohey stated the applicant is here this evening asking for Lead Agency Status to be deferred to the Planning Board and the DRC for coordinated SEQRA review. We will appear before the DRC and Planning Board returning to the ZBA with a complete application. A brief review of this project was provided to the Board as well as a visual presentation. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 11, 2016 - Page 2 of 14 This site includes 4 tax parcels, approximately 190 feet high and 300 feet wide. This project is consistent with the UR-4 District. 18 unit condos are proposed, two buildings containing duplex structures will be connected by foundation walls. A single family structure is also proposed, as well as a triplex. A total of 26 units on the property all will have more than adequate parking provided on site. Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion in the matter of the application of Moore Hall, 28 Union Avenue to send this application for review to the DRC and the Planning Board. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there is any further discussion. 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 James Helicke made a motion in the matter of the application of Moore Hall, 28 Union Avenue to defer SEQRA Lead Agency status to the Planning Board should they choose to seek it. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there is any further discussion. 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 2. #2883 ASHTON GARAGE, 149 Grand Avenue, area variance to construct a detached garage; seeking relief from the maximum accessory 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 Maximum accessory building coverage 10% 11.4% 1.4% (14%) DISCLOSURE: Bill Moore, Chairman stated that his office performed an appraisal on this property approximately one year ago. No need for recusal, simply a disclosure. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman disclosed that on a site visit to the property he was met by Mrs. Ashton who allowed a review of the site at the rear of the property. No discussion was had concerning the application. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 11, 2016 - Page 3 of 14 Applicant: Bob and Tina Ashton Mr. Ashton stated they are before the Board this evening for the construction of a detached garage with a carport. This is pretty standard footprint for a garage. There is no other way to protect 2 cars minimally from the weather with minimal visual impact. The applicants would also like to insulate and place drywall upstairs over the garage for storage. There will be electricity but no heat. Placing the exterior staircase within the structure would eliminate the need for the variance but would not provide enough room in the garage for parking the vehicle. The garage design with the carport is compatible with the existing house on the lot and surrounding structures. Designing the garage to be an attached garage would not work due to the circulation of the lot. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:26 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting Scheduled for April 26, 2016. 3. #2884 TRUECUTZ BARBER SHOP, 44 Jefferson Street, use variance to permit a barber shop; seeking relief from the permitted uses in the Urban Residential-2 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be an Unlisted Action. A short EAF will need to be submitted. PARCEL HISTORY: Use variance to “erect and operate a grocery store” approved June 12, 1946. USE VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: UR-2 permits single-family residences. UR-2 permits principal permitted uses/structures by issuance of a special use permit and site plan review. Private schools, religious institutions, neighborhood B&B, neighborhood rooming house, senior housing, senior assisted care facility, cemeteries. Financial hardship on the property. The applicant has provided documentation from the listing agent that the property marketed for two 6-month periods-for grocery, deli or small office – and the property could not be sold. The listing were included in the application noting a list price of #130,000 reduced to $125,000, then $99,000 to $92,000. The applicant indicated that the hardship is due to competition with Five Points convenience store in close proximity. The current owners and previous owners have tried three times unsuccessfully to use the property for a convenience Store and they both believe in a large part their failure is due to the competition from Five Points. The current property Stated that is unreasonable to use the property residentially – there is no kitchen, and one very small bathroom with No shower. The property is in no way suitable for a family to live in and the money it would cost to make it suitable for A family to live in would be close to if not more than the current appraised value of the building. The Applicant provided a contractor’s estimate to covert the existing building to a residence would cost no less than $80,000 not including labor. The applicant indicates property maintenance issues stating the property has been vacant for the past few years. It has been broken into and vandalized. Our proposed hours are considerably less than that of City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 11, 2016 - Page 4 of 14  what was already permitted and has been since 1945. Less traffic and parking impacts to the neighborhood. The property has had three convenience stores within the past 10 years. The success of another convenience Store of the same kind whose success will negatively affect the financial return of the property. NOTICATIONS/APPROVAL/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Planning Board site plan review is required. NEIGHBOR INPUT: -Correspondence dated March 9, 2016 received from Paul Feldman, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Housing Authority. -Correspondence dated March 5, 2016 provided by Maura Pulver, owner of Saratoga 5 Points Market and Deli. -Statement in support provided by Michele Daus, owner of Shear Magic Salon, 41 Park Place. -Statement in support provided by James Durstewitz, 37½ Madison Street. -Statement in support provided by Frank Sicari, 48 Jefferson Street, dated March 9, 2016. -Statement in support provided by Jonathan Lane 46, Jefferson Street, dated March 7, 2016. -Statement in support provided by Ashley, owner of Brown Dog Pet Spa, 42 Park Place. -Statement in support provided by Brian Finn, 34 Jefferson. -Statement in support provided by Mary Thompson, 39 Madison Street. -Statement in support provided by Ann Marie Kenyon, 56 Jefferson Street, dated March 7, 2016. -Statement in support provided by Molly Inscho, 36 Jefferson Street. Applicants: Lamar Washington; Casey James Mr. Washington stated Mr. James and himself are looking to turn the current use into a barbershop. This is a commercial building. We have spoken to all neighbors. My partner and I are both college graduates and have all necessary licenses required to open this barber shop, which would be our dream. Everything is ready to go. We will clean up and improve the look of the neighborhood. Our shop would be a 4 chair operation. There are 5 parking spots. The hours of operation will be less impactful than what was there previously. We will be open 7 days per week. Sunday and Monday hours 12pm-5pm. Tuesday through Saturday 10am-8pm. Discussion ensued regarding proposed use variance request. The Board requested an interior floor plan to be submitted to staff for circulation to the Board members. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:58 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Molly Inscho, 36 Jefferson Street. I am in favor of this application. Tonya Yasenchak, applicant agent for another project on the agenda this evening. Familiar with this property. I would like to encourage these young men with their entrepreneurial spirit. I did look at this property with a client several years ago, to turn it into a residential use. It did not work for them. I know their contractor and he is very accurate with his calculations. This type of business does require inspections by the State of New York. This is a nice addition to this property. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for April 26, 2016. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 11, 2016 - Page 5 of 14 4. #2885 CARR RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 13 Oakland Drive, area variance to construct additions to an existing single- family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback (Oakland Drive), minimum front yard setback (Lawrence Street) and maximum principal building coverage in the Urban Residential-1 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 Maximum principal building coverage 20% 25% 5% (25%) Minimum front yard setback: Lawrence 30 feet 17 feet 13 feet (43%) Minimum front yard setback: Oakland 30 feet 22 feet 8 feet (27%) DISCLOSURES: Bill Moore, Chairman disclosed that he has known Dave Carr for many years. He has no financial interest in this application and is able to render an impartial decision. Susan Steer disclosed that Mrs. Carr was her son’s teacher years ago. Applicant: Dave and Donna Carr Mr. Carr stated this house has been in the family since its construction in the early 60’s. We are requesting a modest expansion of the home. The requested variances are not substantial since the existing lot is substandard and the existing house currently sits within the two front yard setbacks. Our intention is to sell our current home and move to this home. We are looking to downsize. We feel we are improving the home and would like to keep the original feel of the home. We will be turning the basement into habitable space. We have 1100 square feet of living area, and the proposed principal building coverage is 2,480 sq ft. The two larger additions are to the rear of the property. The two smaller additions on the front are architectural and match the existing façade. We investigated placing a second story on the existing footprint but felt it was out of character with the existing neighborhood which is mostly one story ranches. Discussion ensued concerning the possible additions to the home, lot coverage and permeability. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:22 P.M. Mary Naughton, I live across the street. It would be wonderful what the applicants plan to do. I am all for it. The backyard perhaps would like to be more private. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting Scheduled for April 26, 2016. 5.#2880 ARMER/DESORBO RESIDENCE, 117 Middle Avenue, area variance for additions to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback and minimum rear yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 11, 2016 - Page 6 of 14 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: FROM PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback 4 feet 2.8 to 3.1 feet 5% (25%) Minimum rear yard setback: 25 feet 1.4 to 2.1 feet 13 feet (43%) DISCLOSURE: Bill Moore, Chairman disclosed he has known Chris for many years, I have no financial interest in this application and can render an impartial decision. No reason for recusal, simply disclosure. Applicant: Chris Armer and Teri DiSorbo The applicants indicate that they have purchased this property approximately one year ago, knowing it was a substandard lot. The existing building was very close to the lot lines and this was verified by a survey. We are looking to turn this property into a usable single family home by the addition of a second story and a very small addition to the left side of the building, which is a little over 4 feet to make that a usable room, and to the front of the property an additional 4 feet. That does bring us closer to the property line in the rear. Attempts were made to contact the rear property owner who has an oversized lot to see if there was any interest in selling a portion of the lot. My attempts were unsuccessful. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the requested variances and the amount of relief requested. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:35 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting Scheduled for April 26, 2016. OLD BUSINESS: 7. #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: FROM PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum yard setback: Front: (Alger St) 10 feet 7.8 feet 2.2 ft. (22%) Maximum building coverage: Principal Building 30% 54% 24% (80%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 11, 2016 - Page 7 of 14 Applicant: Lauren Boughton Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Mrs. Boughton stated they purchased this property 8 years ago. We have a young family. We have outgrown our home. We do not have full basement. We are on shale. We do not have a garage for our home. We would like to build a garage for storage. We love the neighborhood and would like to raise our family here. We are looking to add a two car garage with a master suite, over the garage. No additional land is available for purchase. We have attempted to reduce the coverage by adjusting the garage a little smaller and shortening the roof overhangs. We are at 54% total coverage. Permeability is at 34%. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:47 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF LUKE A. BOUGHTON 1 ALGER STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 1 Alger Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.43-3-18 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to construct an attached garage with a second-story master suite seeking relief from front and side 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 from November 23, 2015 through April 11, 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 Minimum Front Yard 10 feet 7.8 feet 2.2 feet (22%) Setback (Alger Street) Maximum Principal 30% 54% 24% (80%) 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 construct an attached two-car garage to be used for parking and storage along with a master suite on the second floor. Due to the existing lot size, the fact that the residence is already in nonconformance with the existing zoning requirements, and no additional land is available for purchase, construction of any type of addition would require multiple variances. The Applicant explored other options City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 11, 2016 - Page 8 of 14  including detaching the garage, but the proposed design is the only one that would permit safe access from the garage to the house. The Board notes that the applicant has recently modified the proposed design to slightly reduce coverage from the original application, and to remove a proposed shed to reduce the size and number of the variances requested. 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 neighborhood is densely constructed and most residences are located close to one another and near the roads and sidewalks. Constructing the garage at this location would be consistent with the neighboring properties. Furthermore, building coverage for several neighboring properties exceed 50% as depicted in the applicant’s supporting documentation. Based on this information, while the Board finds this proposal to be at the upper end of the range in the neighborhood, it is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The Board notes that further relief would be inconsistent with neighborhood character. 3. The request for relief for maximum building coverage is substantial, but this due to the fact that the residence is currently in nonconformance with existing zoning requirements. The residence presently covers 41.3% of the lot and the addition would increase coverage to 54%. However, if the garage was detached, the Applicant would be permitted to build an accessory building covering 10% of the property, without requiring a variance for coverage. This would result in 51.3% coverage. The Board finds the incremental coverage of 2.7% resulting from this application to be insubstantial. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The Applicant has stated that portions of the existing driveway will be removed and reseeded, a catch basin to the north of the property will remain to facilitate site drainage, and no large or significant trees will be removed. The lot permeability will be 28% which exceeds the zoning district’s requirement of 25%. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship due to the applicant’s desire to construct this addition. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: No additional accessory structures. The applicant has agreed to forego the shed depicted in the plans submitted. Gary Hasbrouck 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, opposed; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-1 8. #2879 FARINA/WEXLER RESIDENCE, 179 Nelson Avenue, area variance to construct a rear porch addition to an City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 11, 2016 - Page 9 of 14  Existing two-family residence; seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage and the minimum rear yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. This application was heard at the March 21, 2016 meeting and adjourned to April 11, 2016. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Applicant: Jeff Farina & Karen Wexler Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated the applicant is before the Board for a one story addition to a porch. The addition is 8 feet which brings it to 13 x 10 which is consistent with the above porch. The Board requested minimizing the addition to 6 feet, which does not meet their needs. However, they are willing to modify the plan to 7 feet versus 8 feet as proposed. This brings a 10.2 foot rear setback and this brings the lot coverage to 31% now. Conceptual elevations were provided as per the Board’s request. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:02 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF JEFFREY FARINA AND KAREN WEXLER 179 NELSON AVENUE SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 179 Nelson Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 166.69-1-38 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to construct a rear porch addition to an existing two-family residence and seeking relief from 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 March 21 and April 11, 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 Minimum Rear Yard 25 feet 10.2 feet 14.8 feet (59%) Setback City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 11, 2016 - Page 10 of 14 Maximum Principal 30% 31% 1% (4%) 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 states, “An addition to the side of the house is not architecturally consistent with the existing home” and “(An) addition to (the) north is difficult due to roof lines”. The applicant did reduce the addition a foot as per revised plans received April 4, which reduced the request from the rear yard setback. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant states, “The porch addition will barely be seen from the street”. In addition, DRC Historic Review is required. 3. The request for relief from the minimum rear yard setback is substantial at 59%, but this is due in part because the current setback is nonconforming at 16.5 ft. The applicant did reduce the length of the addition and decreased the request for relief from 62% to 59%. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The application states, “No trees will be removed for the porch expansion”. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship due to the applicant’s desire to construct this addition. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: Accessory structure(s) limited to 9% of lot or maximum +/- 493 sq. ft. Note: DRC Historic Review Adam McNeill, Secretary 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, opposed; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-1 9. #2881 SARATOGA SPRINGS DENTISTRY, 286 Church Street, area variance to erect a freestanding sign; seeking relief from the maximum size for such sign in an Urban Residential-2 District. The application was heard at the March 21, 2016 meeting and adjourned to April 11, 2016. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Agent: Daniel Roicki, Adirondack Sign Company City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 11, 2016 - Page 11 of 14 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:13 P.M. Skip Carlson presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF SARATOGA SPRINGS DENTISTRY 286 CHURCH STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 286 Church Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.49-1-3 in the inside tax district on the assessment map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance to erect a freestanding sign; seeking relief from the maximum size requirement for such sign in the Urban Residential – 2 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on March 21, 2016 and April 11, 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 Existing Proposed Relief Requested Requirement Maximum square footage 4 sq. ft. 17 sq. ft. 16 sq. ft. 12 sq. ft. (300%) freestanding sign: 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. The applicant stated that “alternative designs within the code have been researched but due to the limited size (of the sign allowed) and traffic on this roadway (Church Street) visibility issues could cause traffic problems for (new) patients and danger to others on Church Street” The applicant further states, “the effectiveness of a 4 square foot sign would be nonexistent”. 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 current sign has been in place for a number of years and the new sign design fits well with the neighborhood architecture. 3. The variance of 12 sq. ft. or 300% relief may be considered substantial. However, the new designed sign is smaller by one square foot than the current sign. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 11, 2016 - Page 12 of 14  4. The relief requested will not produce any adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The application notes a comparable size freestanding sign in the neighborhood as well as similar office buildings in the district that have varied and nonconforming signs. 5. The request for relief may be considered self-created. The self-created difficulty is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: Approval contingent on prior approval or no county impact issued by Saratoga County Planning Board per required referral. Note: DRC architectural review required Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Discussion ensued regarding the lack of a formal response from the Saratoga County Planning board. It was the consensus of the Board to proceed with the application this evening. 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 10. #2689.1 REJUVENATION HOMES MODIFICATION, 30 Lafayette Street, area variance modification for constructed changes to a new single-family residence and detached garage; seeking additional relief from the minimum rear yard and minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings in the Urban Residential-2 District. RECUSAL: Board member Susan Steer recused from this application. This application was heard at the March 21, 2016 meeting and adjourned to April 11, 2016. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a fireplace has been observed on the property but is not noted on the survey. This is located back by the retaining wall. There is no representative present for this application this evening. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the addition of the fireplace/firepit. The Board needs more information, and this should be noted on the survey. The survey should be updated to determine the location of the firepit. It was the consensus of the Board to table this application for two weeks. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Keith Kaplan, made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 7, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes as submitted. Adam McNeill seconded the motion. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 11, 2016 - Page 13 of 14 VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, opposed; Cheryl Grey, opposed; Gary Hasbrouck, abstained; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-1 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 14, 2016 ZBA workshop. Susan Steer seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; James Helicke MOTION PASSES: 4-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 5/9/16 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 11, 2016 - Page 14 of 14