Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 6, 2016 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:11 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Susan Steer; Adam McNeill, Secretary; James Helicke; Cheryl Grey, alternate ABSENT: Gary Hasbrouck; Skip Carlson STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs 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: #2896 ICE HOUSE TENT, 70 and 72 Putnam Street, area variance to erect a permanent tent; seeking relief from the Minimum two-story, build-to-line and maximum frontage build-out requirements in the Transect-6 District. Application adjourned. #2980 BARLOW RESIDENCE, 2 Cherry Tree Lane, area variance to construct an attached garage and breezeway to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirements in the Rural Residential District. Application adjourned. #2889 CDJT DEVELOPMENT MULTI-FAMILY, 124 Jefferson Street, use variance to convert an existing 6-unit senior housing development to multi-family residential including workforce housing; seeking relief from the permitted uses in the Urban Residential-2 District. #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. #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. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2894 LAWRENTZ HOME OCCUPATION, 126 Crescent Street, area variance to construct a detached garage with second story music studio, seeking relief to permit a home occupation within a residential accessory structure in an  Urban Residential-2 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: -Building permit issued for garage. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: -Area variance to permit the home occupation within an accessory structure and not within the residential structure. “The activity shall be conducted entirely within the structure and shall occupy no more than 15% of the total floor area of the residential dwelling units”. Applicant: Robert Laurentz & Joan Sterling Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney Mr. Toohey stated it is the applicant’s request to finish the second story of the garage for a music studio including sound proofing. Mr. Laurentz is an acoustic guitarist as a hobby. A workshop or studio facilities for artists and composers is a permitted home occupation except that it is located within an accessory structure. A home occupation can occupy maximum 15% of the total floor area of the residential dwelling units which is 480 sq. ft. The space in question is 325 sq. ft., well below the maximum allowed. The present structure contains a one car garage. That space was not adequate for their vehicular needs and, as a result they are constructing a detached garage. The existing detached garage is permitted. Utilizing the second story within the garage for a use other than storage requires an area variance. This use will generate only very limited additional traffic and certainly no more than normal residential traffic. There are no cooking facilities proposed for this space. The powder room does not contain a shower or bathtub. No signage is required or needed for this application. A listing of 10-15 surrounding neighbors in favor of the application have been submitted to the Board. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the dimensions of the powder room. Mr. Kaplan spoke regarding conditioning the resolution concerning the bathing facilities and kitchen area, as well as no overnight stays. Two variances are required one for habitable space and one for a home occupation. Discussion ensued regarding habitable space and the addition of plumbing. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:36 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 keep the public hearing open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting on June 20, 2016. 2. #2897 CITY COTTAGE, LLC LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, 23 Jumel Place and 178 East Avenue, area variance to provide for a lot line adjustment between two lots, seeking relief from the minimum lot size and minimum average City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 6, 2016 - Page 2 of 15  lot width requirements for one of the lots in the UR-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be Unlisted. A short form was submitted. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum lot size 6,600 sq. ft. 9,311 sq. ft. 6,461 sq. ft. 139 sq. ft. (2%) Minimum average lot width: 60 ft. 40.3 ft. 37.13 ft. 22.87 ft. (38%) Applicant: Cody Wojdyla Agent: Libby Coreno, Carter Conboy Ms. Coreno provided a visual presentation to the Board. Mr. Wojdyla and one of his neighbors seek to do a lot line adjustment. Prior to obtaining a lot line adjustment we do need to obtain relief for the 23 Jumel Place property, which will be the giving owner. Once the transaction occurs it will become a nice rectangular lot. A review of the area variance considerations was provided by Ms. Coreno. The applicant is requesting a 139 sq. ft. area variance which is approximately 2% deviation from the minimum lot size requirement for a 1 unit property in the UR-3 zoning district. The applicant has explored alternative to seeking a variance such as manipulating the boundary line to increase the square footage of the property to surpass the 6,600 sq. ft. threshold, however the proposed alternative would result in the creation of a sliver of unusable land, whereas this requested area variance would create a symmetrical rectangular lot. The Wojdylas have a 2 unit property and increasing the lot size from nonconforming 5,814 sq. ft. to conforming 8,664 sq. ft. would provide for this use. Currently this property has two single family residences. The applicant could apply for an area variance to permit two principal structures, two single families on this one adjusted lot. It would provide more square footage to the Wojdyla lot it would not remedy the current situation lawful, if the garage apartment is not determined to be preexisting nonconforming. Due to the minimal nature of the relief requested, there will be no adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood. DISCLOSURES: Adam McNeill, Secretary stated he does live in the neighborhood. No need for recusal, simply disclosure. Susan Steer stated she does work with Martha Dexter, no need for recusal simply disclosure. Susan Steer questioned the legal status of the garage apartment, and if the Board can make a decision on a property with a violation. Staff will enlist the opinion of Deputy City Attorney Tony Izzo. 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. The public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for June 20, 2016. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 6, 2016 - Page 3 of 15 NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: -Planning Board lot line adjustment required. OLD BUSINESS: 3. #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. This application was heard at the April 11, 2016 meeting and adjourned to April 25, 2016. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The applicant provided additional information including a revised map showing overhangs and an amended submission requesting relief from the maximum principal building coverage requirement. 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 rear yard setback 25 1.1 ft. 23.9 ft. (95.6%) Minimum side yard setback 4 feet 2.1 ft. 1.9 ft. (47.5%) Maximum principal building coverage 30% 33.5% 3.5% (12%) Applicant: Chris Armer All information requested was obtained from the applicant. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. DISCLOSURES: Cheryl Grey stated she does know Chris, he is an acquaintance. No need for recusal simply disclosure. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he also knows Chris, no need for recusal, simply disclosure. Cheryl Gray questioned the proximity to the rear property line and if any consideration has been given to moving the project forward somewhat. Most homes on the street are built closer to the road. Discussion ensued concerning the placement of the home on the property and alternative designs entertained by the applicants. Susan Steer stated she is not in favor of this application due to the fact that it is too close to the neighbors and it is imposing. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing remains open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for June 20, 2016. 4. #2856.1 MOORE HALL REDEVELOPMENT, 28 Union Avenue/35 White Street, area variance for proposed demolition of an existing dormitory building and construction of 26 dwelling units; seeking relief from the minimum lot size per dwelling unit, minimum side, (each) and total side yard setbacks (18 unit condominium building), minimum rear and side yard setbacks (2-unit carriage house), minimum front side and total side yard setbacks (3-unit row house), minimum rear, yard setback (1-unit carriage house), maximum principal building coverage (Union Avenue and City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 6, 2016 - Page 4 of 15  White Street parcels) requirements in an Urban Residential -4 District. This application was heard at the May 23, 2016 meeting and adjourned to June 6, 2016. The public hearing was opened and remains open. DISCLOSURE: Bill Moore, Chairman stated Bonacio Construction built his home two years ago. SEQRA: - Action appears to be a Type I action. Coordinated review is required. Involved agencies include the Planning Board for site plan review and DRC for historic review. - On April 11, the ZBA initiated coordinated SEQRA review and proactively deferred lead agency to the Planning Board if they should seek it. -On April 20, the DRC proactively deferred lead agency to the Planning Board if they should seek it. -On May 12 the Planning Board issued a Negative Declaration for the project. 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 Residential-4 District. Applicant: Sonny Bonacio, Bonacio Construction; Larry Novik, Anthony Bonacio, Bonacio Construction Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney; Brett Balzer, Balzer Tuck Architecture; Mike Ingersoll, LA Group Mr. Toohey stated the applicant reviewed the application and reduced the number of units from 28 to 26 and reduced the number of variances to the extent possible. The project attempts to use the concepts that were previously approved to construct condominiums consistent in mass, scale and design with the neighborhood while proposing a use of the land that is economically viable to finance, build and sell. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the economics of the projects and why a reduction in the number of units is not feasible. Mr. Bonacio stated when the financial aspect of the project was laid out, we reviewed the threshold number of $700,000 and we looked at other condominium projects adjacent and in the area. Whenever we take a unit out we step out of the comfort zone of the neighborhood comps. We cannot go below 26 units and be comfortable with the financing and the comps we have in the neighborhood. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the traffic on North Alley. Mr. Ingersoll, LA Group explained the cross traffic in this area. No new thresholds were triggered during the traffic study on the alley. Mr. Ingersoll provided reasoning why other alternatives for ingress and egress would not be feasible for this project. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the Board is short members tonight. It is the applicant’s choice to move forward with a vote tonight or to postpone the vote until a fuller Board is present. Mr. Bonacio stated he would like to move forward with a vote tonight even with a small presence on the Board. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 6, 2016 - Page 5 of 15 Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Brian Rodems, 84 White Street, would like to see the variances contingent upon the demolition of the building. Also he questioned the timeframe for demolition. NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT: - Letters from Richard Upton, 61 North Lane dated May 23, and May 26, 2016. -Letter from Merodie Hancock, President, Empire State College, dated April 11, 2016. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: -Planning Board site plan review and lot line adjustment (consolidation of parcels) required. -DRC Historic Review required. -Saratoga County Planning Board referral required – response of “No Significant County Wide or Inter Community Impact” dated April 28, 2016. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:35 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. 2856.1 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Moore Hall, LLC 18 Division Street, Suite 401 Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 28 Union Avenue and 35 White Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.76-1-32,33,34.13,40 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 permit demolition of an existing dormitory and construction of a total of 26 dwelling units within five buildings in an Urban Residential-4 district and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on May 23 and June 6, 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 lot size per dwelling unit: 78,000 sq. ft. 56,192.4 sq. ft. 21,807 sq. ft. for 26 units Maximum 18 units 8 additional units (28%) Minimum side yard setback: west for 18 unit 20 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. (50%) condo bldg. Minimum side yard setback: east for 18 unit 20 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. (50%) condo bldg. Minimum total side yard setback: 18 unit 45 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. (55%) condo bldg. Minimum rear yard setback: North Ln. for 25 ft. 16 ft. 9 ft. (36%) two-unit condo (west side) Minimum rear yard setback: North Ln. for 25 ft. 16 ft. 9 ft. (36%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 6, 2016 - Page 6 of 15 two-unit condo (east side) Minimum side yard setback: east for two-unit 20 ft. 11 ft. 9 ft. (45%) condo Minimum rear yard setback: North Ln. for 25 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. (60%) one-unit condo Minimum side yard setback: west for one- 20 ft. 14 ft. 6 ft. (30%) unit condo Minimum side yard setback: east for one-unit 20 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. (50%) condo Minimum total side yard: one-unit condo 45 ft. 24 ft. 21 ft. (47%) Minimum front yard setback: White St. for 25 ft. 5 ft. 20 ft. (80%) three-unit bldg. Maximum principal bldg. coverage: Union 25% 52.39% 27.39% (109%) Ave. parcel Maximum principal bldg. coverage: White St. 25% 39% 14% (56%) parcel 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. Two alternative plans were considered. The first was a similar plan approved in 2006 for demolition and reconstruction of 18 condo units. The applicant determined that that plan was no longer feasible due to changes in the real estate market and the price that the units would need to be sold for in today’s market. The application states, “This project attempts to use the concepts that were previously approved to construct condominiums consistent in mass, scale and design with the neighborhood while proposing a use of the land that is economically viable to finance, build and sell”. The most recent plan was for the reuse of the existing dormitory structure for 53 apartment units. The reuse of the existing structure was determined to not be feasible due to neighborhood concerns as to traffic and parking impacts from the dense residential project. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The existing building is vacant, is in disrepair, and constitutes an eyesore. Its architecture is also inconsistent with neighborhood character. With regard to the buildings, the DRC stated in their SEQRA deferral that the mass and scale were compatible with the neighborhood. The application states, “The removal of a vacant Moore Hall and construction of those residential units will be to the benefit of the nearby properties and be significantly more consistent with the streetscape of Union Avenue and White Street”. The applicant responded to stated neighborhood concerns as to the possible impacts of the previous project on increased amount of traffic and traffic circulation in the neighborhood with a project with 27 fewer units. The traffic will be dispersed between North Lane (servicing the Union Ave. buildings) and White Street (the row house and one-unit carriage house). 3. All areas of relief requested may be considered substantial; however, the existing building and site are preexisting nonconforming and the proposed buildings are more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The application states, “The building on White Street is generally in line with other structures on that side of the street…The placement of the structures on North Lane are also consistent with neighboring improvements”. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 6, 2016 - Page 7 of 15  4. The board concludes this variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood or district. The amount of the site to remain permeable, as identified in the submitted application, is 33.53%, which is in excess of the required minimum 15%. This project eliminates the need from relief from the minimum parking requirement – all parking required will be located on site. Stated concerns with regard to access and traffic circulation will be considered during site plan review process. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, as the application states, “The adaptive reuse of the legal preexisting, nonconforming structure did not appear to be consistent with the wishes of many neighbors…As a result the construction of an economically viable project consistent in mass and size with the neighborhood had to be designed”. Notes: SEQRA Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Board on May 12 Saratoga County Planning Board issued “No Significant County Wide or Inter Community Impact” issued April 21 Planning Board site plan review and lot line adjustment required DRC historic review required Seconded by Cheryl Grey. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Discussion ensued among the Board the number and amount of variances requested. James Helicke stated he will support this application. While he has concerns regarding the number and amount of relief requested, he realizes the difficulty of the development of this site. Consistent with the neighborhood character. Adam McNeill, Secretary, spoke regarding the Board members dedication and time which is volunteered. He spoke concerning the public’s dialog and discourse which occurred during this application. The attitude and berating of Board members both vocally and through social media was not appreciated nor warranted. Susan Steer stated all of the Board Members have felt attacked, unfairly, as this application made its way through the Boards. I will support this application. The applicant has listened to the neighbors while keeping with the architectural flavor of the area. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he appreciates and supports what was said by Adam but is conflicted. As a whole he is supportive of this project, but by keeping the one unit building within this project creates or exacerbates six of the fourteen variances. Therefore he will not support this project. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the developers made concessions and did whatever it took to develop this property. Lack of neighbor attendance states that it has made the majority of the neighbors acceptable to the project. I will fully support this project. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning placing a time frame on demolition and having application #2856 withdrawn. It was the consensus of the Board an 18 month time frame which is a standard time frame is fine. Also it will be up to the applicant to withdraw their application. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, opposed, Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Cheryl Grey, alternate, in favor; James Helicke, in favor City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 6, 2016 - Page 8 of 15  MOTION PASSES: 5-1 3. #2892 RUTHMAN RESIDENCE, 3 Garside Road, area variance to construct a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirements in the Green Acres PUD. This application was heard at the May 23, 2016 meeting and adjourned to June 6, 2016. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman stated additional information requested was received from the Department of Environmental Conservation with a letter. 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 9:00 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2892 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Rex and Elisabeth Ruthman 14 Aspen Heights Slingerlands, NY 12159 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 3 Garside Drive in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 180.17-1-19 in the Outside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of a single-family residence in the Green Acres PUD and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 23rd day of May and the 6th day of June 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 variance for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK 17’ 15’ 2’ OR 11.8% 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 property includes serious grade changes further removed from Garside Drive, thereby greatly limiting the choice of locations for the front of the proposed residence without forcing the need for a great deal of fill and grading work. Additionally, if the house was to be sited further back from the roadway, it would significantly encroach on federally designated wetlands. Per the applicant, avoiding the wetlands while avoiding encroaching on the setback would not allow for sufficient space for a home. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 6, 2016 - Page 9 of 15  Finally, the applicant notes there is no land available to purchase that would mitigate this setback problem. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicants note that the structure planned would be consistent with other residences in the immediate area, some of which deal with the grade change in a manner similar to the subject proposal. Furthermore, the applicant notes that, given this is a lake house area, sitting the home closer to Garside means sitting it further from the lake. By doing this, the home is less likely to block a neighbor’s view or disrupt their privacy. 3. The Board notes this requested setback variance, at 11.8%, is not substantial. 4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The Board notes that by granting this relief, less environmental disturbance will take place than if the house had to be sited further back, since less earth will be required to be moved and built up. Furthermore, the portion of the property closer to the lake is designated federal wetlands; by granting this variance, construction is moved further away from this area. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed residence, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: Permit from Army Corps of Engineers issued June 2. James Helicke seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Cheryl Grey questioned if the applicant is now able to move the property further back to where he wants to be and he will be within the 17 foot requirement. My main concern is that he will have to do all the parking in the front of the house. He can move the home 2 feet. I feel that the whole area is very tight and anything he can do even 2 feet for parking will help. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Cheryl Grey, alternate, opposed; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-1 4. #2895 NEEDHAM/KILMER RESIDENCE, 37 Greenfield Avenue, area variance to construct a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum rear yard, minimum side yard (each), minimum total side yard and maximum principal building coverage requirements in an Urban Residential-1 District. This application was heard at the May 23, 2016 meeting and adjourned to June 6, 2016. The public hearing was opened and remains open. PARCEL HISTORY: -Area variances associated with a previous lot line adjustment approved on December 15, 2014. Applicant: Judith Needham City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 6, 2016 - Page 10 of 15 Ms. Needham stated the only new information she can provide is the letter from Jim and Cheryl Gold, 199 Woodlawn Avenue. They are the only rear neighbor. He really likes this plan. 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 9:10 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF JUDITH NEEDHAM 37 GREENFIELD AVENUE SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 37 Greenfield Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.36-1-15.1 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for area variances to construct a new single-family residence in the UR-1 Zoning District and public notice having been duly given of hearings on said application on May 23 and June 6, 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 Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 25 feet 5 feet (17%) Minimum Side Yard Setback 12 feet 11 feet 1 foot (8%) (West) Minimum Side Yard Setback 12 feet 8 feet 4 feet (33%) (East) Minimum Total Side Yard 30 feet 19 feet 11 feet (37%) Setback Maximum Principal Building 20% 32.8% 12.8% (64%) 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 proposes to construct a new single-family residence on a nonconforming lot. The Applicant “explored City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 6, 2016 - Page 11 of 15  numerous designs” but states that all exceeded the minimum lot coverage requirement and side yard and rear yard setbacks. The Applicant desires a first floor master suite to accommodate the homeowner’s health concerns thereby making the first floor larger than it might otherwise need to be. The Applicant attempted to purchase land and/or easements from the neighboring properties but was unsuccessful. 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 residence will architecturally resemble the neighboring homes and will be in similar size and scale. 3. The request for relief for maximum principal building coverage at 32.8% may be considered substantial since only 20% is permitted, however this is offset by the fact that the garage is attached to the home and similar variances for maximum principal building coverage were granted for neighboring properties. The Applicant notes that if the garage was not attached, the Applicant would be permitted a total of 28% coverage for a principal and accessory structure. The Board further finds that the request for relief from the minimum rear yard setback at 5 feet (17%), the two minimum side yard setbacks at 1 foot (8%) and 4 feet (33%), and the minimum total side yard setback at 11 feet (37%) are not substantial since much of the setback encroachments are due to overhangs. The Applicant notes that the design of the residence is “in harmony with the character of the side neighbors and that more than 50 feet of open space remains on each side.” 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. According to the Applicant, the residence “will be architecturally in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood” and the Applicant intends “to leave as many trees as possible and increase maximum green space.” The Applicant will resolve “any existing grade and run-off problems” and will utilize energy and water efficient technologies. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: No accessory structures. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he cannot vote in favor of an application without any attempt to present other designs. Especially since this is new construction. DISCLOSURE: Cheryl Grey stated she did have a conversation with Jim Gold in his yard and he is in favor of this application and how it affects his property and privacy. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, opposed; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Cheryl Grey, alternate, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-1 5. #2893 223 LAKE AVENUE, LLC HANDICAP RAMP, 223 Lake Avenue, area variance to construct a handicap ramp to an existing business; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-3 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 6, 2016 - Page 12 of 15  District. This application was heard at the May 23, 2016 meeting and adjourned to June 6, 2016. The public hearing was opened and remains open. No additional information was requested from the applicant. PARCEL HISTORY: -Use and area variances for the commercial kitchen/deli. Applicant: Rod Stewart, DVM 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 9:22 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. #2893 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF 223 Lake Avenue, LLC 162 Woodlawn Avenue Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 223 Lake Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being tax parcel number 166.46-2-59 in the Inside Tax District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance for construction of a handicap ramp to the front entrance of the building, seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback and lot coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on May 23 and June 6, 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: Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Minimum Front Yard Setback (Lake Ave.) 10 feet 0.35 feet 9.65 ft. (96.5%) Maximum principal building coverage 30% 32% 2% (7%) 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 application states that a ramp on the east side of the property would interfere with parking and would also require a handicapped person to make two turns on the ramp to enter the building. According to the applicant, the proposed ramp is the only “practical way for the length of the ramp to be extended to allow access into the public space of the building.” City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 6, 2016 - Page 13 of 15 2.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character, or detriment to nearby properties. The board finds that the construction of the proposed ramp represents a positive change by allowing handicap persons and others better access to the business. 3.) The variance may be considered substantial; however, the existing placement of the structure in close proximity to Lake Avenue is preexisting, nonconforming. The installation of the ramp is mandated by code requirements that did not exist at the time the building was constructed. The ramp will leave the sidewalk unimpeded and its impact is not substantial relative to its overall benefit to the community. 4.) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood, but will instead improve the physical environment by improving accessibility for those with mobility issues. 5.) The board notes that the request for relief is only partially a self-created hardship. The requirement for the ramp was imposed following of the construction of the building and will benefit the health, safety and welfare of the community. Adam McNeill, Secretary, seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning lot coverage, substantial variance relief. Cheryl Grey questioned if the applicant had considered using the second door entrance for the ramp allowing it to come down into the parking lot. It would be less awkward. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: -Saratoga County Planning Board referral received this date no countywide or intercommunity impact. -DRC Architectural Review required. APROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of Meeting Minutes was deferred to the June 20, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Board convened in Executive Session to speak with the City Attorney at 9:30 P.M. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 1/9/17 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 6, 2016 - Page 14 of 15