Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2016 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; 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 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: #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. #2933 PLAZA 15 STORAGE, LLC, vacant parcel off of Jones Road/Plaza Road (private road), consideration for Coordinated SEQRA Review for construction of a 70,000 sq. ft. self-storage building; seeking relief from the frontage build-to and build-out requirements in the Transect-4 District. #2932 DEVALL CARRIAGE HOUSE, 59 Franklin Street, area variance for construction of a three-car carriage house with a second story dwelling unit; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback (Cherry St.) and minimum side yard setback. #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. #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. #2876.1 BENTON SUBDIVISION, 58 Fifth Avenue, consideration of rehearing of a previously determined area variance application for a two-lot subdivision in the urban residential-1 district. RECUSAL: Bill Moore, Chairman recused from this application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman assumed the duties of the Chair. PARCEL HISTORY: -Area variance for two-lot subdivision-approval motion failed to pass on March 7, 2016. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATION - NEW APPLICATION: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum average lot width: Lot 1 100 feet 91.5 feet 8.5 feet (8.5%) Minimum lot size: Lot 1 12,500 sq. ft. 9,150 sq. ft. 3,350 sq. ft. (27%) Minimum average lot width: Lot 2 100 feet 75 feet 25 feet Minimum lot size: Lot 2 12,500 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. (40%) Minimum total size yard setback: Existing house on proposed lot 1 30 ft. 10.3 ft. 19.7 feet (66%) Maximum principal building coverage: Existing house on proposed lot 1 20% 32% 12% (60%) AREA VARIANCE – ORIGINAL APPLICATION: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum average lot width: Lot 1 100 feet 90.8 feet 9.2 feet (9%) Minimum lot size: Lot 1 12,500 sq. ft. 9,149 sq. ft. 3,351 sq. ft. (27%) Minimum average lot width: Lot 2 100 feet 75.7 feet 24.3 feet Minimum lot size: Lot 2 12,500 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. (40%) Minimum total size yard setback: Existing house on proposed lot 1 30 ft. 13.6 ft. 16.4 feet (55%) Maximum principal building coverage: Existing house on proposed lot 1 20% 28.6% 8.6% (43%) Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman reviewed the criteria for rehearing an appeal previously determined by the ZBA. Discussion ensued concerning hearing the applicant’s presentation. Agent: Michelle Anderson, Anderson Burns, Attorney for the applicant. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 2 of 19 Applicant: Tom Roohan, Managing Partner, 519 Broadway, LLC Ms. Anderson stated the application was submitted to the Board as a new application. The side yard boundary line has been adjusted which is a significant issue and why the application was initially denied. Ms. Anderson stated there is case law concerning this. Mr. Roohan stated there are completely different parties in this application and his contract is subject to ZBA approval. Susan Steer stated we are really looking at the one issue which is to hear this application. We are not looking at the merits of the variance request. As Ms. Anderson stated because the boundary line has changed that in and of itself is a material and meaningful change. Ms. Anderson stated in reviewing the minutes of the previous application, the side yard boundary line was an issue and affects the treatment of the application. It is a new application. Discussion ensued concerning the areas of relief requested and lot size. Dave Carr, LA Group stated it is possible that the relief requested could be a small amount. Perhaps the overhangs were not included. Susan Steer made a motion in the matter of the Benton Subdivision, 58 Fifth Avenue, this application is not substantially similar, there is information provided to note a material change, so therefore we will consider this a new application, a rehearing would not be appropriate. Adam McNeill, Secretary seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Ms. Anderson read the following into the record, moreover it is for the Board to determine, whether or not changed facts or circumstances are presented and in so doing it may give weight to even slight differences which are not easily discernible. VOTE: 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: 6-0 Bill Moore, Chairman, resumed the duties of the Chair. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, resumed the duties of the Vice Chairman. OLD 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 on November 7, 2016. The application was adjourned to November 21, 2016 by the applicant’s request. The application was heard at the November 21, 2016 meeting and adjourned to December 19, 2016. The public hearing remains open. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 3 of 19 Steve Shaw submitted a supplemental letter to his determination letter to the Board. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Application submitted an application 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. This application was not forwarded to the Planning Board for their review because the Zoning and Building Inspector determined “A review of all available documentation does not show a clear path to any specific configuration, use, density or any other project detail”. 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. -Letter submitted by Paul Male, dated December 8, 2016. Applicant: Peter Belmonte, Principal Regatta View, LLC Agent: Matthew J. Jones, Attorney, Dave Carr, LA Group; Paul Male, Consulting Engineer Mr. Jones stated most recently the applicant has retained Paul Male former City Engineer and Building Inspector. Mr. Jones also reviewed the determination from which the appeal was taken. Mark Schachner most succinctly summarized the determination letter from Steve Shaw which stated I cannot tell from the 235 pages laid out and other materials and evidence I can’t tell what the zoning is in the Interlaken PUD or if it is zoning compliant. Mr. Jones stated what we hope to do is to tie up the ends and ask the Board to consider a resolution which states the overall concept plan which was adopted by the City Council by Amendment July 7, 1996 which states the substantial record provided by the applicant provides sufficient information to determine the intention of the City Council on the zoning requirements for the six acre parcel which is the subject of the appeal. The PUD site plan presented to the Planning Board and the applicant’s application of May 19, 2016 and attached to this application and the interpretation appeal is compliant with the zoning requirements of the Interlaken PUD and the determination of the building inspector dated August 11, is in all respects reversed. Essentially it states with that information you can determine zoning compliance. Steve’s determination of August 11th is reversed. As Mr. Male laid out in his letter as a matter of new information which is available to the Board now, which Steve Shaw did not have on August 11th, 2016 when he rendered his determination. That information which was presented at the previous meeting is the overall concept plan. That overall concept plan we discovered in the City Engineers office in the archives upstairs before we came to you this last time. We identified it with Tim Wales, City Engineer that it is on file in the City Engineer’s Office. As you will recall the language of the current Interlaken PUD which is on the City’s website outlines the sketch plan as a sketch plan on file with the City Engineer’s office. It is this overall sketch plan which is on file and contains Tim Wales, City Engineer’s signature. This is the overall concept plan adopted by the City Council, so it is the law. It was adopted on May 7, 1996 and became the law on that date. On October 12, 1991 the Planning Board Chair executed the Mylar, and that had persuasive authority for you. The Planning Board had tried to reconstruct the original PUD which was adapted by the City Council in 1982. We still feel that that is persuasive authority. But, it now goes beyond that. It is the law; it is the City Council’s work, May 7, 1996, that is the concept plan. Because of that information which the building inspector did not have and was unaware of as of August 11, 2016, he was unable to locate the original text of the original 1980 PUD. We now have something which is better than the text. This is more specific, this tells more than just area and bulk requirements, which would be height, City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 4 of 19 setbacks and maximum building coverage. It tells you a scheme of development, which does not otherwise exist in your zoning ordinance with the tables of area and bulk requirements. It tells how Phase III should be developed and what configuration they should take. It tells the nature of the development, it tells you townhouses and condominiums, very specific information. It depicts ingress and egress and buffering. Mr. Jones reviewed Mr. Male, consultants, position at the time of this initial development and reviewed the information submitted in his correspondence to the Board. Mr. Jones reviewed what is currently proposed and what was depicted in 1991. Precedent is important. In this analysis citing the Division Street PUD and the level of specificity in the PUD documentation versus the specificity in the Interlaken PUD. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned new materials received by the Board. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated a letter from Paul Male was received, as well as a supplemental memorandum from Steve Shaw regarding the overall concept plan. We do know this was signed by the Planning Board Chair and filed in the City Engineers Office with the Regatta View Subdivision in 1991. Mr. Jones questioned if Mr. Shaw saw the plan but did know it was adopted by the City Council. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated this was posted on the web and provided Mr. Jones with a copy of the correspondence. Mr. Jones stated that Tim Wales, City Engineer reviewed the materials in the City archives and he finds that this overall concept plan was filed with the City Engineer and was in the City Engineers archives and was available to Paul Male who reviewed it in 1996 and can be reviewed now. This is the Interlaken PUD sketch plan. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the question as I see it is Mr. Male, from the letter he submitted, and is being reiterated by Mr. Jones is that by being filed in this matter the concept plan is law. Do you as Counsel for the City agree with that statement? That having been filed in this manner, that it is law. Tony Izzo, Assitant City Attorney, stated Mark Schachner has been the attorney to primarily review this matter for this Board. Since he is not available this evening, I will attempt to answer. If it is something that has been located in the public record here in City Hall, and there is a valid reference made to it, certainly there is a lot to be said for reading them together. It can be found to be part and parcel of the legislation, sure. What type of conclusion are you looking for? Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the read that I had when this was found was that this was a sketch plan, it was among the items that were kept in an office somewhere but it did not necessarily mean that there was connectivity between legislation that was passed by City Council, and the image that has townhomes countenanced in this legislation. By this sketch plan being law, it indicates to me that its part of it and there is connectivity and that is what I am trying to get to. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning how the concept plan relates to the law. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated as a project progresses, a lot of documents end up in the file. Some with great significance others with little significance. You have to read the record in its entirety before you can get a sense of how important this document is to the overall eventual determination and that can be done. As long as the Board bases it on some reasonable standard the Board has the ability to weigh in and say on a scale of one to ten if it is significant or not significant. Susan Steer stated that Steve Shaw, Building Inspector has taken the position that there is insufficient evidence to make a determination. Mr. Jones provided clarification concerning the Interlaken PUD and the sketch plan on file with the City Engineer. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 5 of 19 Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated the dates appear to be appropriate. You have Paul Male’s testimony as to what he remembers seeing in the file. It’s a question of what the Board considers credible evidence. It seems apparent that this plan was in the file at the time of the City Councils decision. That is all I can conclude from what I am seeing. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated if there is connectivity between the sketch plan and the legislation. It means we should not ignore it. As I see it, it then becomes our judgments as Board members as to whether or not the pictures that are on this sketch plan get us there in terms of this is intended to be townhomes. Mr. Jones stated there are symbols indicative of what is being built there. This is something we need to grapple with. The case has been made that this is something we should consider. Discussion ensued with Mr. Male concerning the sketch plan and his recollection of such and what the symbols on the plans indicate. Mr. Izzo questioned Mr. Male if he had any recollection of discussing this document with any members of City Staff, or City Council members in 1996. Mr. Male stated he does not have any recollection. Adam McNeill questioned Mr. Male years back when this was used to build a single family homes that are present today, how procedurally at the time you would go from this concept plan to the 4 month later site plan. Was this used as a 50,000 ft example and the site plan was adopted after using this type of information that was approved by City Council. Mr. Male stated yes, this was the big picture plan and as the site got developed with more information, utilities, typography of the site and public hearings you went from one layout to the other as a result of input from all sources. Mr. Carr, LA Group provided some information concerning the PUD and how the plans change when a long period of time lapses prior to development. Discussion ensued concerning the acreage and amount of green space. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:09 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2921 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Regatta View, LLC 1743 Route 9 Clifton Park, NY 12065 From a determination issued by the Zoning & Building Inspector on August 11, 2016 involving proposed development of a vacant lot identified as tax parcel number 180.54-2-30 and located on NYS Route 9P, between Dyer Switch Road and Regatta View Drive in the Interlaken PUD. Background: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 6 of 19  In May, 2016, the applicant submitted an application to the City Planning Office for site plan review for 12 duplex townhouse buildings (24 townhouse units). Following the August 11, 2016 determination from the Zoning and Building Inspector, an interpretation appeal was submitted by the Applicant’s attorney requesting, “Determination that Planning Board approvals of May 16, 1990, June 19, 1991 and September 29, 1996 were valid and lawful approvals consistent with the provisions of the Interlaken PUD and that Applicant’s pending application to the Planning Board for PUD site plan approval is zoning compliant”. Decision: Whereas, the Zoning and Building Inspector determined that the applicant’s proposed development was not zoning compliant, stating, “it is my determination that none of the previously or currently submitted proposals sufficiently provide proof of compliance with the Interlaken PUD due to lack of information”. Whereas, Applicant’s attorney has submitted an appeal form and supporting affidavits and has appeared before this Board regarding the appeal of the Zoning and Building Inspector’s determination and Whereas, the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority as per 8.3.5 of the Zoning Ordinance to hear an appeal by an aggrieved party seeking to overturn a determination made by the administrative official charged with the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. Whereas, the Board opened a duly -noticed Public Hearing on this appeal on October 24, 2016 which was continued to November 21, 2016, and then closed on December 19, 2016, and Whereas, this Board has reviewed Applicant’s appeal form, legislative and Planning Board review and approval histories and affidavits, and Whereas the Board has also considered the determination letter and supplemental letter of the Zoning and Building Inspector, Therefore, for the reasons set forth below, the Board finds that the Zoning and Building Inspector was properly justified and acted reasonably and appropriately in issuing his determination: 1) The Board notes that petition’s application seeks a determination that certain actions of the Planning Board “were valid and lawful approvals consistent with the provisions of the Interlaken PUD”. Nothing in the General City Law vests the Zoning Board with the authority to pass judgment on a Planning Board approval. 2) As to whether the applicant’s inquiry whether the pending application to the Planning Board for PUD site plan approval is zoning compliant, the Board finds as follows: a) The Interlaken PUD legislation was passed by City Council July 6, 1982. The legislation as it pertains to Zone B states, “60 acres, 19 of which will be developed. There will be a large open space in the interior – the “padded area” is a park. There will be 9 clusters of condominiums with the park for the residents. They will be linked by internal pathways and carriage paths”. b) The PUD legislation was amended four times after that in 1984, 1996, 1997 and 2003. Section IV of the most recently amended PUD legislation (2003) only pertains to Zone B/Marina, “This zone shall be developed for the sole purpose of permitting a boathouse for not-for-profit rowing association with associated parking, marina and docking facilities”. In Section VII, the setbacks appear to be for the marina use. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 7 of 19  c) The 1991 overall concept plan for Zone B, D and E does show the subject parcel (Phase 3) to be built out as two clusters of housing – one cluster accessed from Dyer Switch and the other from Regatta View Dr. However, the existing build out of the entire Zone B, including the Regatta View subdivision, is substantially different than shown on the concept plan. Zone B appears to be devoid of the paddock area as well as the 19 acres of open space that were identified in the original 1982 PUD legislation. d) The applicant has submitted sketch plan review applications to the Planning Board four times for the subject parcel, most recently in 2005 for 40 residential units. In the Planning Board minutes from the meeting where this was considered, November 16, Lew Benton, Chair, stated “There is no clean legislation regarding how the PUD would develop…Even if there was clean legislation, PUDs can be amended several times during their lifetime”. Later in the minutes, “He said the Board needs to be particular about the original parameters set by the City Council”. “There is a description of the ultimate build-out of the PUD and this submission is inconsistent with that”. In addition, the City Planner at the time, Geoff Bournemann, stated, “That there is a chance that the Board “erred” in approving Regatta View and they clearly changed the open space concept”. e) Furthermore, even if this Board could determine that the original intent of the legislation was to have residential uses in Zone B – the type of housing, residential density, general layout of the lot(s) (setbacks, green space, etc.) are not codified. Therefore, there is no area and bulk schedule to guide the administrative official, this board nor the Planning Board in reviewing any proposal. f) Finally, the Board notes the language in Section XV of the PUD Legislation, amended February 4, 2003, that “For all development in Zone “B”/Marina, the developer must obtain final PUD site plan approval and start construction prior to January 1, 2010 or the zoning shall revert to Rural Residential – 1 (RR-1) classifications and development standards that existed as of January 1, 2003”. This language, although not referenced in the findings of the Zoning and Building Inspector, leads to the very same conclusion that the present proposal is not zoning compliant. The Board further notes, without comment, the Zoning and Building Inspector’s further directive to seek legislative approval by the City Council. Cheryl Grey, alternate seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he is still totally confused. Keith’s resolution is very well written and right on point. PUDs are a living thing as they go on and are developed. I have no idea where this one should be. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated personally I would rather the ZBA not take this application and have it be a City Council determination. However, it is on our desk. I worry that we are trying to apply 2016 rules and regulations on PUDs and how the language is adopted and apply that to 1982 and 1991 characteristics of what the City had accepted and what was common practice. When the City adopts a PUD now, it is very descriptive and specific. When I look at the concept plan adopted by the City Council and the Planning Board it clearly shows some type of multi residential housing units. In my opinion it is the intent of what was approved. There is ambiguity present. Susan Steer stated this is not an issue of ambiguity but more an issue of insufficient information. I defer to Steve Shaw. I think this is an issue for the City Council. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman this is not an easy determination. I do side with Susan and agree it is an issue of insufficient information. I agree Mr. Shaw was reasonable in his determination. Cheryl Grey, Alternate stated there is insufficient information. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 8 of 19 Gary Hasbrouck stated he is opposed to the resolution. Skip Carlson stated he agrees with Adam and is opposed to the resolution. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, opposed; Gary Hasbrouck, opposed; Skip Carlson, opposed, Cheryl Grey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-3 2. #2935 DALEY RESIDENCE, 17 Murphy Lane, area variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side and rear yard setbacks in the Urban Residential-3 District. This application was heard at the December 12 meeting and adjourned to December 19, 2016. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the information requested was received. Agent: Thad Smith, Teakwood Builders Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Board. Cheryl Grey confirmed the amount of relief requested concerning the area variances. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:33 P.M. Cheryl Grey, alternate presented the following resolution. #2935 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Rob Daley 17 Murphy Lane, Saratoga Springs NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 17 Murphy Lane in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.77-1-26 in the UR-2 District, on the Assessment Map of said City. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 9 of 19 The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of one foot eaves on the roof in the front, back and sides of an existing single-family residence in the UR-2 district and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on December 12 and December 19, 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 amounts of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT EXISTING PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK 25’ 21’ 20’ 5’ (20%) MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK 8’ 2.7’ 2’ 6’ (75%) MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE 30% 29.17% 30.74% .74% (2.5%) 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 benefit sought by the applicant is to add one-foot eaves to the front, back and sides of the existing roof per the designs provided. Per the applicant, no land is available to purchase from neighboring property owners to decrease the requested variances. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. Per the applicant, this addition will improve the appearance of the home, making it clear that the building, a former garage, is now a residence consistent with UR-5 district objectives. 3. The Board notes the requested variances are not substantial and the existing building already exceeds district requirements on all three areas of requested relief. Furthermore, the Board notes that the lot is undersized for the district, at 3,851 square feet, which adds significantly to the degree of coverage relief required. 4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. As per the applicant, permeability will not change. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed additions, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Skip Carlson seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor, Cheryl Grey, alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 3. #2934 SALZ GARAGE, 66 White Street, area variance for construction of a detached garage; seeking relief from the maximum accessory building coverage in the Urban Residential-3 District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 10 of 19 This application was heard at the December 12, 2016 meeting and adjourned to December 19, 2016. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the requested information was submitted to the Board for clarification. Agent: Thad Smith, Teakwood Builders Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the newly submitted information. Bill Moore, Chairman questioned the Board regarding the newly submitted information versus the initial submission. Gary Hasbrouck stated he does not feel that reducing the size of the garage will change the character of the neighborhood, or the substantiality of the project. I had no problem with the original proposal. Skip Carlson stated he reviewed the newly submitted information prior to writing the resolution. Cheryl Grey, Alternate stated this garage will impact the neighborhood and it is a substantial building. I have driven by this neighborhood several times this week and I do not seen anything close to this. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, stated he sees this as an avoidable variance. The needs of the applicant can be accommodated without a variance and would like to avoid one if at all possible. Susan Steer stated she agrees with Keith, the size of the structure is too big. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated he is in support of the application as it stands. Bill Moore, Chairman stated I do not have a problem with the original size. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:45 P.M. Skip Carlson presented the following resolution. #2934 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Michael Salz 66 White Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 66 White Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.76-2-23 on the Assessment Map of said City. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 11 of 19 The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of a detached garage; seeking relief from the maximum accessory building coverage in the UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 12th and 19th days of December 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: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT MAXIMUM ACCESSORY BUILDING COVERAGE: 10% 11.68% 1.68% OR 16.8% As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicants have demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant intends to use the garage to house two vehicles as well as bikes, a lawn mower and a snow blower. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The application states that “the size and scale of the garage structure is proper for the neighborhood”. 3. The relief may not be considered substantial at 1.68% or 16.8%. 4. This relief requested will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The combined area for principal and accessory coverage for the district is 40%. The application states the main building lot coverage is 24.6% and the garage will be at 11.68% for a combined total of 36.28%, well within the combined district requirement. The applicant stated that 51.6% of the site will remain permeable, sufficiently more than the 25% district requirement. Additionally, the new structure does not require any setback variances. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Cheryl Grey seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, opposed; Susan Steer, opposed; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor, Cheryl Grey, alternate, opposed MOTION PASSES: 4-3 4. #2615.1 KRYGOWSKI RESIDENCE, 120 Meadowbrook Road/30 Fishcreek View, area variance for construction of a new single-family residence and detached garage; seeking relief from the minimum total side yard setback for the residence and minimum front and side yard setbacks for the garage in the Rural Residential District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 12 of 19 This application was heard at the December 12, 2016 meeting and adjourned to December 19, 2016. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: -Area variance to construct a new single-family residence approved on June 20, 2011. Bill Moore, Chairman stated new plans were submitted for the Boards review. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the prior request was for a detached garage and three areas of variance relief requested. Since then the applicant has made a change to the residence eliminating the detached garage. Now there are two areas of variance relief requested to the house. Applicant: David and Irina Krygowski Agent: Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. A revised denial was provided to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:53 P.M. A resolution will be presented following the next agenda item. 5.#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. This application was heard at the November 21, 2016 meeting and adjourned to December 12, 2016. Additional information was requested by the Board and submitted by the applicant. The application was further adjourned to December 19, 2106. The public hearing was opened on November 21, 2016 and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Agent: Daniel Roicki, Adirondack Sign Company Mr. Roicki stated submitted new plans and photographs from the Marion Avenue and Excelsior Avenue intersection. Gary Hasbrouck stated the lettering at 24 square feet is a reasonable request and I am in favor of the application. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 13 of 19 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the renderings were taken too far away and not very helpful. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:00 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. #2929 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Empire Run 130 Excelsior Avenue Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 from the Building Inspector’s determination for the same premises, identified as Tax Parcel Section 166.-4-33, WHEREAS, the appellant has applied for AREA VARIANCES for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for maximum size freestanding sign, maximum number of wall signs and wall sign placement without street frontage in a T-5 zoning district; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on November 21st & 19th, 2016. WHEREAS, in consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the Board makes the following resolution that the requested AREA VARIANCES for the following relief or lesser dimensions be APPROVED: Required: Proposed: Total relief requested: Maximum size freestanding sign: 12 sq. ft. 24 sq. ft. 12 sq. ft. (100%) Max. no. of wall signs 1 2 1 (100%) Wall sign placement on building façade: On façade with On façade without (100%) street frontage street frontage 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. For the freestanding sign, the applicant produced pictures of 3 alternatives, all viewed from the intersection of Excelsior Avenue and Marion Ave. The first was a 3’x4’ sign (requires no variance) but was not clearly visible from the intersection. The second was a 3’x6’ sign which was visible but not readable from the intersection. The third was a 3’x8’ sign (proposed) which was more visible and readable from a greater distance. The Board notes the increased size of the sign will allow for the address to be included. In regards to the additional wall sign in the rear, the applicant indicated that it would help identify the entrance into the commercial occupant. The application states, “Only alternative would be window signage which would not be as impactful and meet building décor.” 2) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The Hamlet was recently approved for a 24 sq’ freestanding sign. The applicant indicated the rear wall sign would only be visible from the parking lot. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 14 of 19  3) The relief requested is substantial at 100%. The substantiality of the rear wall sign is mitigated by it only being seen from the rear parking lot. 4) The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The applicant is not proposing to exceed building coverage nor permeability requirements. The freestanding sign does not appear to cause line-of-sight issues with vehicles leaving the parking area. DRC architectural review is required. 5) The difficulty may be considered self-created. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. Saratoga County Planning Board letter dated November 21, 2016 noted no Significant County wide or Inter Community impact. DRC architectural review required. Susan Steer seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor, Cheryl Grey, alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will now return to Agenda Item #6 and a resolution will be presented. 6. #2615.1 KRYGOWSKI RESIDENCE, 120 Meadowbrook Road/30 Fish creek View, area variance for construction of a new single-family residence and detached garage; seeking relief from the minimum total side yard setback for the residence and minimum front and side yard setbacks for the garage in the Rural Residential District. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2615.1 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF David and Irina Krygowski from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 120 Meadowbrook/ 30 Fish Creek View in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 180.11-1-2 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 RR-1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 12th and 19th days of December 2016. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 15 of 19 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: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK- EAST SIDE 30’ 29’ 1’ OR 3.3% MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK 100’ 59’ 41’ OR 41% As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicants have demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The property includes serious grade changes further removed from its northern edge, thereby greatly limiting the choice of locations for the front of the proposed residence. Additionally, as noted by the applicants, the lot is relatively long and narrow, resulting in a total area that is sufficient to maintain proper principal building coverage but insufficiently wide enough to accommodate a house that can meet the applicant’s needs and stay consistent with houses in the area, which includes Autumn Lane and Beacon Hill Drive. Finally, location of septic facilities on the property also limits the location options for a house on this parcel, per review of the revised plot plan. The applicant’s note that, given this is a lakeside area and the applicant’s family driving needs, it is important having the home able to accommodate a three car garage for offseason boat storage as well as the family’s automotive usage needs. The Board notes that the option of making the house narrow enough to avoid any variances would result in a house not much wider than the attached garage width. 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. 3. The Board notes the side setback variance requested, at 3.3%, is not substantial, while the total side setback relief, at 41%, is substantial. The Board notes the impact of the substantiality is mitigated by the sitting of the house in a wooded area, with the subject parcel being bordered by a ravine on one side and woods on the other side. 4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The applicant notes that the building will take place largely on the area of an abandoned earlier project. The coverage and permeability computations will be easily met given the (over 2 acres) size of the parcel. 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. Cheryl Grey, Alternate seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor, City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 16 of 19  Cheryl Grey, alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 7.#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. The application was heard at the November 21, 2016 meeting and adjourned to December 12, 2016. Additional information was requested by the Board and submitted by the applicant. The application was further adjourned to December 19, 2016. The public hearing was opened on November 21, 2016 and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Agent: Daniel Roicki, Adirondack Sign Company Bill Moore, Chairman questioned the location of the proposed signage. He believes these are two separate tax parcels. He will need two variances due to the fact that these are two separate properties. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the tax parcel discrepancy. It was the consensus of the Board to adjourn the application to the January 9, 2017 meeting for further clarification. 8. #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 had been pending. This application was heard at the November 21, 2016 meeting and adjourned to December 12, 2016. The application was further adjourned to December 19, 2016. Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney SEQRA: Action appears to be Unlisted. A short EAF was submitted. The Board reviewed Part II of the SEQRA short form. No large or important areas of concern were noted. Bill Moore, Chairman made a motion for a SEQRA Negative Declaration. Adam McNeill, Secretary seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor, Cheryl Grey, alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 17 of 19 Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. #2889 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF CDJT Development, LLC Pine West Plaza 2, Washington Avenue Extension Albany, NY 12205 From the determination of the Zoning and Building Inspector involving the premises at 124 Jefferson Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 178.36-3-21 on the assessment map of said City. The appellant having applied for a use variance to convert senior housing to multi-family and seeking relief from the permitted uses in an Urban Residential – 2 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing held on April 25, November 21 and December 12, 2016. In consideration of the submitted application and supplemental documentation, be approved because all four standards required to demonstrate unnecessary hardship have been proven by the applicant. 1. The applicant has demonstrated that this property cannot yield a reasonable financial return as demonstrated by competent financial evidence, if used for any permissible use. The applicant received a special use permit to construct six senior housing units in 2005 and site plan review in 2010. These units were marketed on the multi-listing service and in publications to seniors in 2011 for $325,000, reduced to $327,900 in 2012 and then to $294,000. Four of the six units were rented from 2013-2015 with option to purchase with one unit left as a model unit for prospective purchasers. The applicant provided documentation of sales efforts from 2011 to present, spanning three realtor companies, and comments from showings that the units were desirable to a younger demographic. As the application states, “The applicant is presently losing significant amounts of money as the units cannot be sold…even with the granting of the relief from the ZBA, the loss is anticipated to be $360,000 without serving the purpose for which the additional density of two units was granted”. 2. The applicant has demonstrated the alleged hardship relating to this property is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood or district. The senior housing units were approved and built as six attached individual two-story units. The applicant stated that due to the layout of the units with living space on the first floor and bedrooms on the second floor that the units were not desirous to seniors. The applicant stated that the interiors of the constructed units cannot be modified to provide for a bedroom and full bath on the first floor. Because the units were approved and built the property could not be converted to any of the other permitted uses in the district – private schools, religious institutions, neighborhood bed and breakfast, neighborhood rooming house, senior assisted care facility. In addition, the applicant sought a zoning map amendment in 2012 to change the current UR-2 designation to UR-4A allowing for multi-family. The City Council, upon an unfavorable advisory opinion from the Planning Board, failed to consider the petition. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the requested use variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The multi-family residential use would not be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood or district. The UR-2 district permits single-family residences, but this historic neighborhood is characterized by many types of residential properties – single, two-family and multi-family residences. Jefferson Terrace and Whitmore Apartments are both multi-family uses within the neighborhood with the former directly across the street from the subject property. 4. The applicant has demonstrated that the alleged hardship is not self-created. The application states, in essence, that the applicant did not have anything to do with the conceptualization, design or construction of the project…It merely acted as a lender or backer in financing the construction only after it was completed and the owner was about to lose the completed project because it could not pay debts that were, in part, secured by this project. The City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 18 of 19 applicant, it is stated, was forced to step in and become the owner operator of the project. While the stated circumstances are unusual, the Board finds it reasonable to conclude that, in this instance, the applicant did not acquire sufficient information or knowledge to bar the requested relief on grounds of self-created hardship. Notes/Conditions: • Site plan review to implement the use variance for multi-family residential use is required. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the wording of the resolution. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, opposed; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Skip Carlson, in favor, Cheryl Grey, alternate, opposed MOTION PASSES: 5-2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the January 9, 2016 meeting. 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 1/23/17 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 19, 2016 - Page 19 of 19