Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 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; Susan Steer; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck; Skip Carlson; Cheryl Grey, alternate ABSENT: James Helicke STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney Steve Shaw, Zoning and Building Inspector Mark Schachner, Attorney, Land Use Boards 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: #2844.1 SBDT VENTURES, 60 Franklin Street, area variance to accommodate the as-built condition of a new single- family residence; seeking additional relief from the maximum principal building coverage, minimum front yard setback, minimum side yard (each) setback and minimum total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-4 District. Adjourned to December 12, 2016. #2915 OBSTARCZYK GARAGE, 147 Spring Street, area variance to construct a detached, two car, two story garage, seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback and minimum distance between accessory and principal structure in the Urban Residential-3 District. Adjourned to December 12, 2016. #2910 PET LODGE OF SARATOGA, vacant lands on the east side of Route 9/South Broadway (tax parcels nos. 191.8- 1-1-6), coordination of SEQRA review and area variance to construct a pet boarding facility and associated site work in the Tourist Related Business and Rural Residential Districts. Adjourned to December 12, 2016. #2925 SOUTHERN SUBDIVISION, 124 York Avenue, area variance associated with a proposed two lot residential subdivision; seeking relief from the minimum lot size and minimum average lot width requirements for each of the lots in the Urban Residential-3 District. #2778.1 GUARINO/HANER EXTENSION, 21 Park Place, area variance extension for construction of two (2) two family residences; relief from the minimum front yard setback and maximum principal building coverage granted December 15, 2014. #2880 ARMER/DESORBO RESIDENCE, 117 Middle Avenue, area variance for additions to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side and rear yard setbacks and maximum principal building requirements in the Urban Residential-4 District. #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. #2891 BALLSTON AVENUE PARTNERS SUBDIVISION, 96 Ballston Avenue, area variance to provide for a proposed 22 lot subdivision and construct 22 townhouse units; seeking relief from the minimum lot size and minimum average lot width requirements for each of the proposed lots, minimum side yards, minimum total side yard and maximum principal building coverage requirements for each of the townhouse units in the Urban Residential-2 District. NEW BUSINESS: 1.#2921 REGATTA VIEW, LLC RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, NYS Route 9P, Dyer Switch Road and Regatta View Drive, interpretation appeal from determination of the Zoning and Building Inspector that the Interlaken PUD legislation fails to provide proof of compliance for the proposed development. This application was heard at the October 24, 2016 meeting and adjourned to November 7, 2016. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The application was adjourned to November 21, by the applicant’s request. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Application submitted to the Planning Board for site plan review for 12 townhouses (24 total units) and associated site work for a 6 acre parcel in Zone B of Interlaken PUD. -Interlaken PUD legislation passed by City Council July 6, 1982. -Amendments to the PUD legislation in 1996 and 1997 for Zone BB. -Interlaken PUD legislation – most recently amended February 4, 2003. -Planning Board approved PUD site plan/subdivision for Regatta View – for 64 lots – (6/19/91) -Planning Board approved (09/25/96) re-subdivision to 89 lots with 93 units. -Sketch plan site plan review was sought for 20 single-family residences in 1998, a commercial center in 1998 and 26 single-family residences in 1999 - Most recently, in November 2005 a sketch site plan for 40 units on 33 lots. NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT/CORRESPONDENCE: -Affidavit submitted by David Carr, dated October 18, 2016. -Letter from Thomas Curley, dated October 22, 2016. -Email from Bruce Morrow, received November 1, 2016. -Email from Nancy Goldberg, Vice President Interlaken Board, received November 7. -Email from Kitty Gelberg, 8 Regatta View Drive, received November 7. Applicant: Peter Belmonte, Principal, Regatta View, LLC Agent: Matthew J. Jones, Attorney for Regatta View LLC; Dave Carr, Principal, LA Group Mr. Jones stated he has provided additional information as well as a concept plan to Steve Shaw the Building Inspector as well as the City Engineer. Mr. Jones stated he will not review the four arguments presented at the October 24th meeting. Mr. Jones stated he believed those four arguments had been settled in 1991 when the mylars were executed and 338 building permits were issued following that involving some 20 Planning Board members who had reviewed City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 21, 2016 - Page 2 of 18 the various applications after 1991. In 1991 the Planning Board was successful in reconstructing the overall concept plan which we reviewed at our last appearance. Mr. Jones stated he will illustrate there is enough information concerning this project. I will just narrow the focus that there is sufficient evidence for the Interlaken PUD and more specifically Zone B Phase III, and is our application zoning compliant. Mr. Carr reviewed 1996 plan approved. A visual presentation was provided to the Board outlining the area and the subject of this application, reviewing the zoning in the area. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the Three Phases: - Phase I was residential. – which was built. - Phase II was the marina – was not built. - Phase III subject of the current request/application. Mr. Jones provided meeting minutes from February 4, 2003 and submitted them into the record. Mr. Jones spoke concerning an issue raised by Nancy Goldberg. In 2005 Peter Belmonte appeared before the Planning Board on a Boccellini application sketch plan. Geoff Bournemann was quoted in the minutes stated that there was a chance that the Planning Board erred in approving the Regatta View in that they clearly changed the Open Space Concept. Documents were provided to the Board including information which was being discussed by the City Council concerning this Open Space Plan in 1982. The City Council did not appear at least in the minutes move forward on this plan. The law which was adopted was only two paragraphs. A copy of the approved plan for Regatta View does not show the 19 acres of housing and 42 acres of open space. It shows a full subdivision of 1/3 of an acre lots. Did the council take action to make this a zoning compliant application in 1982? The answer is yes. They acted on the PUD 2nd amendment on May 7, 1996. This was amended twice. The following year amended again on March 18, 1997. Again amended on February 4, 2003 and that was the B/Marina application. The amended action taken last Tuesday is totally unrelated. Mr. Jones reviewed again what the minutes stated and noted additional paperwork, the sketch plan of the Interlaken PUD was filed with the City Engineer at that time. Mr. Jones stated on October 27, 2016 I observed in the file drawer of the City Engineer the overall concept plan. This is a sketch plan and is in the office of the City Engineer. I questioned the possibility of additional paperwork, sketch plan or concept plan filed and did research in trying to locate said paperwork along with the City Engineer to no avail. There is only one and have not found another. That is the law of the PUD which is what the City Council acted in 1996 and not changed in any of the subsequent amendments in 1997, in 2003 and again last Tuesday. Here under the law do you have enough information to determine if an application is compliant. In the fall of 1996 Regatta View was adopted by the Planning Board four to five months after the City Council adopted the concept plan. That depicts single family homes 93 units on 89 lots. It is a single family concept on significantly larger lots than in a City. Mr. Carr stated he did work on this plan in 1991 while in the employment of EDP. We created this plan and received final approval for the single family lots in 1991 and returned the next year for further approvals. Peter Belmonte came into the picture in 1995 after the former owner was in financial trouble. At that time I was employed by the LA Group and when Peter Belmonte assumed ownership he hired the LA Group. So, I have been involved in this since the late 1980’s with two firms. Mr. Carr stated Phase III is a mix of duplexes and fourplexes. Interlaken came first. It was felt it would be a good transition from residential. Mr. Belmonte came in and approval was secured it stated on the plans reserve for future development. When Mr. Belmonte had other ideas for this area to be developed, he would return for site plan approval. Mr. Jones had Mr. Carr explain what was planned prior for this area versus the current proposed plans for this area to be developed. Mr. Carr stated about 40-50 units were conceptually planned at that time, setbacks and buffering from Union Avenue. Access from within the site none off Union Avenue. No area and bulk schedule. Condominium units were proposed. A plan was prepared and presented to the Planning Board on May 19, 2016 for this application this year. Mr. Jones stated the fourth argument is that the Planning Board does not have the legal authority to amend a PUD. There is no question about that. That is not what is going on here tonight. This is the law. That plan complies with the PUD site plan and there is no way to argue around that. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 21, 2016 - Page 3 of 18 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated in reviewing the maps which were provided and noting the differences. The Phase I portion is very different and questions what is changing over time. Can you point us to written descriptive codified language that says Phase III is such and such and describing what Phase III is about? Mr. Jones stated we have described it in considerable detail. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated this is a PUD and there is all kinds of information I am looking for language to hang our hats on and address the point made and we as a Board can conclude whether Mr. Shaw correctly concluded on the situation at hand. Mr. Jones stated he provided this information to Mr. Shaw two days ago. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman anything specifically stating or testimony stating what Phase III is going to be in language from the Planning Board. Mr. Jones stated yes, Mr. Belmonte stated he would let the market decide knowing what the parameters are in this area. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the problem where does this fit in. Where specifically this concept map is tied to the approved PUD that would be helpful and language would be better. I would like to see something that refers to this specifically. Mr. Jones stated what refers specifically is the PUD itself, by telling you there is this sketch plan and is the one that is the law. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he is trying to draw a direct connective line between the picture and the words. Mr. Jones reviewed the 10 PUD’s which exist in the City and where the sketch plans for those are located. Some are attached and some are not. Some are located in the City Engineers office and some are located elsewhere in City Hall. Our PUD looks exactly like the other PUD’s. There is no doubt that this is the sketch plan for the Interlaken PUD. I do not believe Steven Shaw was aware this was filed in the City Engineers Office. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned Mr. Shaw if he was aware of the drawings existence when you wrote your letter. Mr. Shaw stated he was aware of the drawings existence, but I was not aware that we had it on file anyplace here. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned if you knew it was on file here would you still have made the statement that you couldn’t find supporting documentation. Would you have written the letter the way you had written it or would you have written the letter differently. Steve Shaw, Building Inspector stated I think I would have taken the time to meet with the Planning and Zoning Staff and discuss the ramifications of that being on file with the City Engineer’s Office and whether or not it was consistent with the written legislation in terms of how things fit together. My biggest problem is I felt like I had puzzle pieces and they didn’t look like anything fit together. I have not had discussions with the Planning and Zoning Staff. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated with the addition of seeing this here and that the information was here on site do you still feel there isn’t adequate support. Steve Shaw, Building Inspector stated he feels that it is suspect at this point. I don’t know the ins and outs of the law. I feel this is what we are getting into and into legislation. At that point if I had that conversation with the Planning and Zoning Staff then I would be speaking with our counsel. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 21, 2016 - Page 4 of 18 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated our task here is to establish the reasonableness of the letter. Our charge is to interpret. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Planning Board stated one of your questions was had you fairly or accurately characterized your charge. And I think you characterized your charge as to the reasonableness of the Building Inspector’s determination. While in other contexts you are charged with deciding if things are reasonable to be simplistic and blunt your charge here in light of the applicant’s appeal of the Building Inspector’s determination is do you agree with the Building Inspector’s determination, or do you disagree with the Building Inspector’s determination. Or, do you agree with the applicant’s contention that the Building Inspector’s determination is incorrect or disagree with the applicant’s contention that the Building Inspector’s determination is incorrect. There is no law that states this has to be a static cast in stone determination. If the Building Inspector wishes or is inclined to consider the light of new evidence, the Building Inspector can assert and has the right to allow the Building Inspector to take another look and this is perfectly appropriate to do this. It is appropriate to hold off a determination until the Building Inspector has done so. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the additional review of information presented on this application. Steve Shaw stated he would be willing to review and look at additional information submitted and have discussions with Planning and Zoning Staff. Discussion ensued concerning Phase III and the possible expiration date. It was the consensus of the Board to have Steve Shaw, Zoning and Building Inspector review the information submitted. This application will return before the Board on December 12, 2016 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. Linda Burns, President Interlaken Homeowners Association. Rural Residential Zoning in this area with two acre lots. We are concerned this zoning is not being adhered to. We believe the time has lapsed for this project. Nancy Goldberg, spoke concerning the open space plan and has been memorialized in the City. She suggested this application return back to the City Council. Bruce Morrow, Regatta View. Mr. Morrow is concerned regarding the vagueness of the zoning. The law was not property executed. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. The application will return before this Board on December 12, 2016. NOTE: Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards exited the meeting at 8:20 P.M. 2.#2931 LAKE LOCAL, 550 Union Avenue, consideration for coordinated SEQRA review for expansion and construction of eating and drinking establishment, marina and docks and tourist accommodations in the Water Related Business and Rural Residential Districts. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 21, 2016 - Page 5 of 18 RECUSAL: Susan Steer, Board member recused from this application. Agent: Mike Ingersoll, Owner/Partner, LA Group Mr. Ingersoll stated tonight is a brief introduction of what the applicant’s desire is. In this particular instance we have an application which requires Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit from the Planning Board and Design Review Commission approval, and Zoning. A visual presentation of the site was provided for the Boards review. Multiple properties have been purchased and they will be merged. Mobile homes were removed. This is a unique and challenging piece of property. Area variances were discussed. An Inn and a Bed and Breakfast will be built into the bluff on the property. No parking relief would be required. The restaurant would be demolished and rebuilt. There will be additional buffering and plantings as well as storm water management. Bill Moore, Chairman questioned if the Board has any issues in deferring SEQRA Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board. It was the consensus of the Board to defer SEQRA Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion in the matter of the Lake Local, 550 Union Avenue that the ZBA defer SEQRA Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there is any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Cheryl Grey, alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 NOTE: Board Member Susan Steer resumed her position on the Board. 3.#2929 EMPIRE RUN SIGNS, 130 Excelsior Avenue, area variance for construction of a wall sign and a freestanding sign; seeking relief from the maximum size for the freestanding sign and for placement on a building façade without street frontage for the wall sign requirements in the transect-5 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 size freestanding sign: 12 sq. ft. 24 sq. ft. 12 sq. ft. (100%) Wall sign placement of building façade On façade with street frontage On façade without street frontage (100%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 21, 2016 - Page 6 of 18 Agent: Daniel Roicki, Adirondack Sign Company Mr. Roicki to enlarge their freestanding sign to 24 sq. ft. this will provide better visibility approaching Marion Avenue from Route 50. The letter size will be increased from 6-7inches in height to 12-14inches in height. Also we are proposing a store sign on the parking lot side of the building which is the front façade of the building. Gary Hasbrouck requested a photograph of the proposed signage from the intersection for both requested signs. Cheryl Grey, Alternate questioned the size of the temporary signage. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman requested several iterations of the sign in different size dimensions. Mr. Roicki stated he will provide the requested information to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:37 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated additional signage requests trigger an additional variance. Information concerning the additional variance was requested from the applicant’s agent. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. The applicant has been asked for additional information. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for December 12, 2016. 4.#2875.1 PERRON CARRIAGE HOUSE, 35 Greenfield Avenue, Area variance to finish the interior of an existing carriage house; seeking relief from the requirement that accessory structures (residential) be limited to unfinished and uninhabitable space in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: -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, approved 3/7/16. -Area variance to provide for a single-family building lot, approved 12/15/16. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Accessory structure (residential) defined: Unfinished/uninhabitable space Finished/habitable space 100% Agent: Susan Davis, SD Atelier Architecture We appeared before this Board in April of 2016 regarding the addition proposed and part of that agreement was we retained an existing carriage house, relocated it, and stabilized it significantly. Structurally it was in very tough condition. At that time we submitted to the Building Department a set of construction drawings back in June. We were issued a permit. The permit noted the second floor was to be insulated and sheet rocked and also a powder room installed. In City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 21, 2016 - Page 7 of 18 September we were notified that we needed to obtain a zoning variance, because although it states permissible uses for an accessory structure it is a little confusing the way the table is structured it talks about permitted accessory uses but that doesn’t mean permitted accessory uses for an accessory structure. We are here to rectify the situation even though a permit was issued. The client also stated he would like to use this structure as a studio/workshop and potentially a place to live while his home undergoes renovations. He is very much aware this is not allowed as a second residence but he would like to have the ability to do this. He is also requesting a shower be added to the powder room plans in the accessory structure. We are not looking to make this an apartment. Photographs were provided for the Boards review. We have in addition to stabilizing the structure, retained some of the original features, replacement in kind with trim work and exterior siding. We are unable to proceed forward with some of the work until we obtain further approval. This would allow us to complete work on the carriage house and the slab. We do not require any setback relief, we are here for the use and to continue the process to move forward. Susan Steer stated we have been presented with many applications for permission to create habitable space in an accessory structure. As far as I am aware we have never permitted the accessory building to be permitted for overnight stays. If the Board does not grant permission for the overnight stays does your client wish to pursue the project in completing the 2nd story into habitable space without the shower. Ms. Davis stated the applicant would like to proceed. Susan Steer stated at the present time you have no plans for a kitchen area, just a full bath and shower. Once you turn this into a structure which can be used as a residence what is to stop it from continuing. That is our problem here is setting a precedent. This is a tricky application. Ms. Davis stated originally this space was to be finished with merely a powder room and that permit was issued. The applicant requested to pursue this as a temporary residence. Susan Steer stated she would not approve the shower in this space, and would have a condition stating no overnight stays in the finished space. Mr. John Pierre Perron, applicant, stated he would like to turn this area into a workout area/gym and it would be nice to have a shower available in this space. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he concurs regarding the overnight stays. Gary Hasbrouck spoke concerning not turning this space into an apartment. We have approved showers in these types of areas but no kitchen facilities and no overnight stays. Cheryl Grey, alternate, spoke concerning the previous application and what was granted for this site. She stated she is against the shower and overnight stays being allowed in this space. Ms. Davis spoke concerning the application and was presented to the Board concerning renovations and restoration of the carriage house. The applicant is being honest and forthright about what he is proposing for this site. Adam McNeill, Secretary spoke concerning accessory structures and what is permitted per the zoning ordinance. He is in favor of overnight stays in this particular application but to have it tied with the CO on the original home once issued, revoking the ability for overnight stays in the accessory structure. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman spoke concerning the precedent setting situation this presents. He is okay with the shower, but no overnight stays. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he is against overnight stays and is afraid of the precedent setting nature of this application. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 21, 2016 - Page 8 of 18 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:02 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. DISCLOSURE: Cheryl Grey, alternate stated she did have a conversation with Joe Moore concerning this. Joe Moore, I am the craftsman in charge with restoring this structure. I am anxious to get some areas of this project completed with the winter weather approaching. There is a plumber waiting for a permit and I would appreciate this being expedited. The building needs to be restored and we are in the process of doing that. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we cannot issue a resolution this evening due to improper noticing. Susan Barden stated the Board can discuss what will be allowed as far as plumbing and heating. Discuss ensued among the Board concerning whether a shower will be allowed. Bill Moore, Chairman polled the Board concerning how the Board will vote concerning what will be allowed in the powder room. VOTE: A 4-3 vote, no shower, no bathtub. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. 5.#2930 THE SPRINGS SIGNS, 60 Weibel Avenue, area variance for additions to two existing freestanding signs, seeking relief from the maximum size of freestanding signs in the Transect-5 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum size freestanding sign: North Entrance 24 sq. ft. 36 sq. ft. 12 sq. ft. Maximum size freestanding sign: South Entrance 24 sq. ft. 52 sq. ft. 28 sq. ft. Agent: Daniel Roicki, Adirondack Sign Company Mr. Roicki stated the applicant is proposing a directory attachment to the main signs of the North and South entrances of the Springs. The tenants are complaining to the owners they do not have enough road frontage with their 100 inch building signs which run parallel. They are looking to install a directory sign to help assist the direction of traffic, either north and south. Skip Carlson questioned the size of the proposed signs. Mr. Roicki stated the current sign on the North Entrance is 24 square feet and the new sign proposed is 36 square feet. The current sign on the South Entrance is 24 square feet and the new sign proposed is 52 square feet. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 21, 2016 - Page 9 of 18 Discussion ensued concerning the amount of relief requested. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:16 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 ZBA meeting scheduled for December 12, 2016. 6.#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 This application was heard at the April 25, 2016 meeting and adjourned. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The applicant submitted additional information on October 19, 2016. The public hearing has been re-noticed due to the length of time that the application has been pending. SEQRA: Action appears to be unlisted. A short EAF was submitted. PARCEL HISTORY: -City Council failed to consider the petition for a zoning map amendment from UR-2 to UR-4A, May 15, 2012. -Planning Board Unfavorable Advisory Opinion Issued to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment, April 25, 2012. -Site Plan Approval granted May 12, 2010. -Special Use Permit for up to Six Senior Housing Units issued January 13, 2005. 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 institution, neighborhood B & B, neighborhood rooming house, senior housing, senior assisted care facility, cemeteries -The maximum density would be two single-family residences on the property -All units would be market rate. -The applicant is requesting a use variance for multi-family with the public benefit of providing a portion of the proceeds of sale (10% or $20,000 totaling $120,000) to the Senior Citizens Center. -Per agreement with the Senior Center, the proceed would fund the “Community Connections” program, the mission of Which is to help seniors age in place in their residence of choice and maintain an independent lifestyle by matching Volunteers in the community with seniors in need to assist seniors with transportation, respite help, check ins, Chores, shopping, light household work which, by age or infirmity, the seniors may not be capable of undertaking on Their own behalf. -The application narrative identifies units marked for $325,000 in 2011. In 2012 listed for $327,900 reduced to $294,000 Listed in 2015 for $299,000? -Condo units listed for rent for $1,495.00 with option to purchase. From 2013-2015 units 1, 3, 5 & 6 were rented. Unit 4 was left as a model unit for showings City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 21, 2016 - Page 10 of 18 -Applicant indicated inability to rent/sell to seniors (55+) due to two-story units. -The application materials identify a projected loss of $360,000 on the project if each individual unit is sold for $299,000. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: -Planning Board site plan review required. -Area variance from minimum parking requirement – 12 parking spaces required (2 per unit) for residences – was 1 per Unit for senior housing. NEIGHBOR INPUT -Email correspondence from Nicole Buck, received November 17. -Email correspondence from Tracy Solarek, 41 Lake Avenue, received November 15. -Email correspondence from Annamaria Bellantoni, received November 16. -Email correspondence from Raymond Bryan, received November 17. -Email correspondence from George Koshuta, received November 17. -Email correspondence from Angie Sultan, received November 17. -Email correspondence from Mike Billok, received November 15. -Email correspondence from Diane Boylan, received November 16. -Email correspondence from Matthew Pappis, received November 16. Applicant: Charles Toohey Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney Mr. Toohey stated this is the most unique application I have ever presented. Mr. Toohey provided a history of this property for the Board. This project was approved 11 years ago. Mr. Jelenick could not obtain financing for the project. Mr. Toohey became involved in the financing for this project, eventually taking over the entire project prior to it being foreclosed upon. This project was a senior complex for seniors 55 years of age and older. Once completed there were many different attempts to sell the project, along with different realtors and different methodologies. These units were not built horizontally but vertically. This is not a layout seniors prefer. These apartments were built in a neighborhood without any close amenities for shopping, or bus routes which seniors want and/or utilize. There has been no ability to sell these apartment units. Six years have passed with a good faith attempt to sell these. They have not been able to sell units. A financial analysis was provided to the Board. We became aware of a program called Community Connections. We attempted to merge these concepts. Mr. Charles Toohey has agreed to give 10% of the proceeds of the sale of these units to the Senior Community Connections Program. There will be a minimum of $20,000 per unit donated to help seniors remain in their homes and in independent living. Mr. Michael Toohey reviewed the tests for a use variance. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated he is having difficulty with the self created hardship. Mr. Michael Toohey stated Mr. Charles Touhey stated he brought a project which was already approved. He merely came in as the financial component. He did not have any input on the design or construction. This is a circumstance he came into financially and not self created. We have provided for your review an agreement stated if our proposal is not met a lien can be placed on the property. Discussion ensued among the board concerning the self created hardship portion of this application. Cheryl Grey, alternate questioned if the homes could be redone to accommodate a first floor master suite. Mr. Michael Toohey stated the buildings do not lend themselves to this design. PUBLIC HEARING: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 21, 2016 - Page 11 of 18 Bill Moore, Chairman, opened the public hearing at 9:51 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Dick Eckert, Local Saratogian and a Volunteer Senior Citizen Center driver. This is a win, win situation. They will benefit and the seniors will benefit. Chris Warryl, I work in the Senior Support Group within the Adult and Senior Center. I work directly with the Community Connections program. This was launched in February 2015. Ms. Warryl explained the background of the program. The need is there. We have helped approximately 150 seniors with thousands of volunteer hours. I wholly support this program. Nancy Apier, recipient of the program. I go to the senior center daily. There are a lot of seniors who need help. Barbara Holton, a volunteer since 1962. She believes in this program, what the City needs is affordable housing for seniors. Sonia Kiskov, I am advocating for the Senior Citizen Center. I am a Nurse Practitioner, Physicians Assistant. The senior center saved my life following the death of my husband. They need so many things. The people who volunteer are heroes. Please remember there are an awful lot of people out there. Jillian Verdu, work at the Senior Center. I am an advocate. This program Community Connections has a very large area to cover. Many of these people are in rural areas. Having them able to stay in their homes is amazing. Alexandria Young, I live in Schuylerville. There are not many services in my area. This nice lady came to my home and she was wonderful and part of the relationship was she helped with so many things. It was great to have someone come in. I am so thankful. Augusta Martin, Volunteer Board Member of the Senior Center and Chair of the Development Committee. This is an incredibly innovative proposal and a solution which allows our seniors to stay in their homes much longer than they would be able to. We have more and more seniors who need help every day. Mary Lantini, Volunteer Board Member with Saratoga Senior Citizen Center. A huge fan of the Community Connections Programs. It is so important for our senior to age in place. I am a Saratoga Realtor. There is no way I could sell these units to a senior. Many young families would love this opportunity to purchase a home in this area. Lois Celeste, Executive Director of the Saratoga Senior Center. Thank you for taking the time to consider this. Thank you to Mike Toohey and Charles Touhey. Our seniors want to age in place. They do not want to leave their homes. Our program runs at a deficit. This is an incredible solution. Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated correspondence has been received by the Board and is posted on the website. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated this is similar to an exaction. An exaction is when you build something you shouldn’t have, but rather than tear it down, and start again, the government will exact a sum of money from you, to compensate for that. In situations where the building has been built because of some misunderstanding or miscalculation or whatever, there is some precedent in some New York cases for this type of situation. It doesn’t mitigate against reasonable return or impact on the neighbor. It is a valuable land use concept. Gary Hasbrouck questioned the basis for self creation. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 21, 2016 - Page 12 of 18 Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated self creation is purchase plus knowledge. The cases which have come down to us indicate that knowledge you knew directly or knowledge that you could have anticipated or found out via inquiry. Obviously the applicant in this case knew these were senior apartments. It is up to the Board to determine if there are some things he didn’t know or couldn’t anticipate or find out through a diligent search. These are all valid considerations. This will differ on a case by case basis. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the self creation issue. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the Board has not requested any additional information from the applicant. The public hearing will remain open and a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA meeting on December 12, 2016. 7. #2927 FOUST GARAGE, 8 Avery Street, area variance for an existing detached garage; seeking relief from the maximum accessory building coverage in the urban residential-3 district. This application was heard at the November 7, 2016 meeting and adjourned to November 21, 2016. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Additional information was requested by the Board and received by the applicant. Applicant: Brian Foust Agent: John Witt, Witt Construction Mr. Witt stated additional information was provided to the Board per their request following a presentation by Tonya with my office. We built the home and the garage in 2015. The applicant wanted to use the space over the garage. We designed the garage larger which put it over the 10% lot coverage. But the footprint of the garage stayed under the 10%. Adding in the overhangs it puts it at 11.6%. The comparables in the neighborhood were compiled and provided to the Board. A building permit was received and built according to the plans. I assume total responsibility for this error. Skip Carlson questioned how did you obtain a building permit? How can a permit be issued for something that is over the accessory. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, stated there is not a zoning table which provides an area and bulk schedule. In the plan the garage was built as proposed. The calculation was taken on that plus the overhangs and divided by the lot area. When the calculation was done it was 9.96%. 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. Dave Daggett, neighbor added a few comments. I don’t think the comparables that have been shown are bigger but of all of the 2 out of 10 which were shown are two stories and are legacy buildings over 70 years old. These are not real comparables. We were not told about this project. This dominates my skyline from my yard. Worried about storm water management, and runoff. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:36 P.M. Skip Carlson presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Brian and Kristin Foust City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 21, 2016 - Page 13 of 18  8 Avery Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 8 Avery Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel 166.37-2-59.2 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance for an existing detached garage; seeking relief from the maximum accessory building coverage in the Urban Residential – 3 District. Public notice having been duly given of a hearing on November 7th and 21st, 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 the following variance for the following amount of relief: Type of relief Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Maximum accessory 10% 11.27% 1.27% (12.7%) building coverage: As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the benefits cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The garage has been constructed. The applications states, “Due to an oversight, a building permit was issued on December 11, 2015 and it was not brought to our attention until September 22, 2016 that the garage is not in compliance with current lot coverage requirements”. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. The application states, “The existing single family home and detached garage are in keeping with the existing homes in the neighborhood”. 3. The relief may not be considered substantial at 1.27% over the 10% allowed for accessory building coverage. The combined area for principal and accessory coverage for the district is 40%. The application states that the house covers 25.29% and the garage 11.27% for a combined total of 36.56%, well within the district requirement. 4. The relief requested will not produce any adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The updated survey supplied by the applicant confirms 27% of the site is permeable, above the minimum 25% required in the district. 5. The request for relief is considered self-created. The self-created difficulty is not necessarily fatal to the application. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there is any further discussion. Gary Hasbrouck stated his concern is that the storm water be managed on site. Susan Steer stated she does not feel this is in keeping with the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood. It is significantly larger. There isn’t any drainage off the roof and I am concerned regarding runoff. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 21, 2016 - Page 14 of 18 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he is concerned regarding the second story. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, opposed; Susan Steer, opposed; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Cheryl Grey, alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-2 8.#2928 CHARLES SCHWAB SIGNS, 46 Marion Avenue, area variance for wall signs, seeking relief from the maximum number of wall signs on a façade maximum height of lettering and maximum extension of sign from face of the building requirements in the Transect-5 district. This application was heard at the November 7, 2016 meeting and adjourned to November 21, 2016. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Additional information was requested by the Board and provided by the applicant. Saratoga County Planning Board referral has been received noting no significant countywide or inter community impact. Bill Moore, Chairman stated additional information was requested and provided to the Board. Agent: Darla Dozel, Ray Sign Company Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the Board is in receipt of the photo simulations provided by the applicant’s agent. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. 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 10: 45 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Charles Schwab 46 Marion Ave Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 46 Marion Ave, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel 166.30-2-2 on the Assessment Map of said City. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 21, 2016 - Page 15 of 18 The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City, to install wall signs for a Charles Schwab office in a Transect-5 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on November 7th and 21st, 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 requested area variance for the following relief: Type of relief Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Wall sign maximum logo letter height- Marion Ave. 18” 24” 6” (33.3%) side Wall sign maximum logo letter height- parking lot 18” 24” 6” (33.3%) side As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. No other feasible means exist to achieve the desired benefit. The Board notes the configuration of the subject property is such that one side of the building on which the proposed signs would be placed, faces Marion Ave while the other side is the entranceway, which faces a parking lot. The applicant has requested the proposed sign sizing to be seen by Schwab’s clients either driving to the location or walking on the sidewalks in the area. The applicant has further noted the Charles Schwab corporate logo to be used on the sign is scaled in such a manner that the “h” and the “l” in the word “Charles” is taller than the other letters in the sign, and to change the height of the “h” and the “l” would require a proportional change to the height of the rest of the letters. The applicant has provided the Board with photo simulations of the signage with sizing that conforms to District requirements, as well as larger sizes. The original proposed size was larger and through the process of previewing the photo simulations, the Board concludes that having lettering designed with a height of 24” for the “h” and the “l” on both sides of the building minimizes the requested variance while allowing for needed visibility. 2. This request will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties. The Board concludes the proposed design and scale to be consistent with the signs on the other businesses nearby. The Board notes this is a mixed use area, with retail shops immediately adjacent within the subject building, a grocery store across the parking lot, and a mixed use building off to a side of the subject property. Furthermore, the signage is to utilize halo lighting, consistent with nearby signs. 3. The variance is substantial relative to district requirements, however, the applicant notes that the signage is architecturally fitting to the scale of the building and to nearby businesses. The board finds this to mitigate the substantiality. The board also notes that the logo height is to scale with the sign and is part of a corporate logo that cannot be altered. 4. The Board finds that this proposed sign represents no adverse physical or environmental impact. As noted above, the sign uses halo lighting and the Board finds that granting this dimensional relief will not cause a substantial adverse impact from increasing the amount of lighting and glare given off from the signage. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 21, 2016 - Page 16 of 18  5. The applicant’s desire for signage is self-created, however this alone is not necessarily fatal to the application. Notes/Conditions: • The Board notes that additional areas of relief requested, relating to a proposed blade sign, are not approved primarily due to substantiality of the relief requested and lack of consistency with the remainder of this mixed use property. • County Planning Board decision of “No Significant County Wide or Inter Community Impact” with comment issued Nov. 17. • Design Review Commission Architectural review required. Cheryl Grey, alternate, seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there is any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor; Cheryl Grey, alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 27, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting with additions or corrections as submitted. Cheryl Grey 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, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 1/9/17 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 21, 2016 - Page 17 of 18