Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2017 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; Gary Hasbrouck Susan Steer; James Helicke; Cheryl Grey; Oksana Ludd ABSENT: Adam McNeill, Secretary; STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney, City of Saratoga Springs ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS: #2876.1 BENTON SUBDIVISION, 58 Fifth Avenue, area variance to construct a single family residence; seeks relief from the minimum front yard, minimum side yard, minimum total side yard and minimum rear yard setbacks, and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-1 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. #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. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2953 STATION PARK MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, Washington Street and Station Lane, consideration for coordinated SEQRA Review for the proposed mixed-use project. Bill Moore, Chairman stated procedurally public hearing was not noticed for this meeting. Noticing of the public hearing will take place after a SEQRA determination is made. SEQRA: -Action appears to be Unlisted – Part 1of the short form submitted. -Required approvals from Planning Board and DRC – both involved agencies -ZBA could initiate Coordinated Review and defer Lead Agency to the Planning Board should they seek it. AREA VARIANCES DRAFT: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum building height Lot 1 50 ft. 66 ft. 16 ft. (32%) Build-to: Lot 2 0-12 ft. 35 ft. 23 ft. (192%) Build-out Lot 2 70% 0% 70% (100%) Build-to: Washington St. Lot 3 0-12 ft. 155 ft. 143 ft. (1192%) Build-out: Washington St. Lot 3 70% 0% 70% (100%) Build-to: Lot 4 0-12 ft. 35 ft. 23 ft. (192%) Build-out Lot 4 70% 0% 70% (100%) Minimum two-story One-story not to exceed 3,000 sq. ft. 3,030 sq. ft. one-story 30 sq. ft. (1%) Build to: Lot 5 0-12 ft. 35 ft. 23 ft. (192%) Build out: Lot 5 70% 0% 70% Applicant: Don Minnery, Principal Saratoga Associates Mr. Minnery provided a visual presentation of Station Lane and the proposed site for the Board’s information. There will also be an entrance off of Washington Street as well. Mr. Minnery provided a narrative of the site noting the geographical constrictions on the site. We are proposing a 6 story 110 room hotel, with pedestrian access to the railroad station. Two senior housing units are proposed 33 assisted living in each building with 57 independent units in each building. Across the road we have 2 buildings with 36 unit condominiums in each. A two story retail building is also proposed with access off of Station Lane. This will be a boulevard street with strong sidewalk connections between retail and the senior housing. There is good vehicular and pedestrian circulation around the properties. We have space available for civic space. On street parking, curbing, sidewalks, and street trees are proposed. This is a wooded site and we will be maintaining borders along the railroad. Green infrastructure is planned using permeable pavers on the site. Geo-thermal will be used for heating and cooling. Shared parking will be provided as well as some underground parking. An aerial sketch of the proposed hotel was also provided. Mr. Minnery reviewed the requested variances. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion for Coordinated SEQRA Review for the mixed use project and defer Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board should they request it. Cheryl Grey seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 2. #2944.1 MCCARTHY TWO-FAMILY, 14 Stratton Street, area variance modification for construction of an addition to an existing two-family residence; seeking relief to expand a nonconforming use in the Urban Residential-2 District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 27, 2017 - Page 2 of 15 BACKGROUND: This application received area variances for renovation of an existing front porch and increased height and new roof line for an existing single-family portion on the side of the residence. It was determined when the building permit application was reviewed that the applicant did not receive relief for the rear addition to expand the existing two family residence. Section 5.3.4 states “A non-conforming use shall not be extended or physically expanded. Extension or expansion of a non-conforming use shall include expansion of the area or volume occupied by a non-conforming use, including expansion into previously underutilized, vacant or newly constructed space, or the increase of any parking related to the use. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance for construction of additions to an existing two-family residence, minimum side and front yard setbacks, approved February 27, 2017. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: -Expansion of a nonconforming use to provide for a 1,306 square foot addition. Agent: Jesse Boucher, Kodiak Construction. Mr. Boucher stated this project was presented at the February meetings. There was a misunderstanding of the area variances required. We are back tonight just to review the project hoping to receive an additional variance. The project is a two family residence recognized by the City as a two family residence since 1991, but it is in a one family district. We need a variance to keep this property as a two family residence. The lot size is 20,000 square feet and in the district 6,600 square feet is required for a single family residence. In terms of density there are no issues. Cheryl Grey reviewed the application noting the zoning in the area. Discussion ensued concerning the side addition when it was originally presented. No additional variances are required in the rear of the property due to the distance from the property line. The front of the home is also being worked on. Mr. Boucher stated the applicant is only cleaning up the front porch of the home. There is no change in dimension. The porch is too close to the front setback. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone on the Board has any further questions or comments. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:19 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 27, 2017 - Page 3 of 15 at the next ZBA Meeting scheduled for April 10, 2017. 3. #2934.1 ALTMAN RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 103 York Avenue, area variance modification for constructed changes to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback and minimum side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. This modification is due to the fact that when the as-built survey was submitted to the Building Department the front porch extended further to the east than previously considered by the Board. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED APPROVED Minimum side yard setback: front porch expansion 4 ft. N/A 1 ft. 3 feet (75%) Minimum front yard setback: 10 ft. 1.5 ft. 1 ft. 9 feet (90%) Applicant: James Altman, owner Mr. Altman stated this request is a modification to a variance which was granted in May of 2015 for a rear addition. That variance also included the rebuilding of the existing front porch to a wraparound porch to the west side of the home. The addition and front porch have since been built. In the final survey the building inspector noted that the as built front porch was a bit larger than what was approved. The error was not made in taking liberty to gain a larger porch but an oversight when I first appeared before this Board. The as built porch is in the character of the neighborhood and the porch does not increase the overall east side setback. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:24 P.M. 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 7:25 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. #2834.1 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF JAMES ROSS ALTMAN 103 YORK AVENUE SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 27, 2017 - Page 4 of 15  From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 103 York Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 166.45-2-40 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for a modification of an area variance approved by this Board on May 18, 2015 to construct a second story addition and renovate the Applicant’s front porch and notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on March 27, 2017. In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following variances for the following amount of relief: DISTRICT PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED RELIEF TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DIMENSIONAL APPROVED IN REQUESTED REQUIREMENT 2015 Minimum Side Yard Setback 4 feet N/A 1 foot 3 feet (75%) Minimum Front Yard Setback 10 feet 1.5 feet 1 foot 9 feet (90%) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The Board finds that the Applicant has demonstrated that the benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the Applicant. The Applicant renovated the porch according to the plans submitted in 2015 and approved by the building department that same year. According to the Applicant, a mistake was made in calculating the dimensions resulting in the porch exceeding the dimensional relief that was granted. The porch has been constructed and therefore to remedy the error, the only solution would be to demolish and rebuild the entire porch. 2. The Board finds that the Applicant has demonstrated that granting these variances will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character and will not be a detriment to the nearby properties. As this Board previously noted, the addition of a wrap-around porch resembles other porches in the neighborhood 3. The Board finds that the requests for relief for minimum side yard and front yard setbacks may be considered substantial however substantiality is mitigated by the fact that the existing porch was already in nonconformance with the zoning district’s requirement and the side yard and front yard setbacks are only 1 foot and 0.5 feet respectfully larger than what this Board previously approved. 4. The Board finds that the Applicant has demonstrated that granting these variances will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. As previously noted, extending the porch to the west would not affect that neighbor’s property since that residence is at the back of that property. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship; however self-creation alone is not fatal to the application. James Helicke 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; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, abstained; James Helicke, in favor City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 27, 2017 - Page 5 of 15  MOTION PASSES: 5-0-1 4. #2950 MCBAIN POOL, 41 Granite Street, area variance to install a pool; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback, maximum accessory building coverage and for placement of a pool in the front yard requirements 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 a new single family residence, relief from the maximum principal and accessory building coverage’s, minimum front yards (Vermont and Granite) and minimum side yard setback, approved 08/28/2006. -Area variance to relocate the previously approved new single-family residence; relief to increase the amount of relief To increase the amount of relief from the front yard setback (Granite St.) from 10’ to 3’ withdrawn 08/02/2007. -Modification to previous approval to revise plans approved 08/02/2007. -Area variance to construct a front porch addition, relief from the minimum front yard (Granite) setback and maximum principal building coverage approved 07/25/2011. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROPOSED TOTAL REQUIRED REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: to pool (Vermont St.) 8 ft. N/A 3 ft. 5 ft. (62.5%) Maximum accessory building coverage: 8% 9% 11% 3% (37.5%) Pool location on side or rear (not front) yard: Side/rear N/A Front Front yard placement (100%) DISCLOSURE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman disclosed that he has in the past worked with Mr. McBain on a political campaign. That was many years ago and has not had any contact with him since then. No financial interest in this project. No need for recusal, simply disclosure. Applicant: Edward McBain, owner Mr. McBain stated we have owned this property for the last nine years. The Chairman read the variances we are requesting for the installation of an in ground pool. The pool is on a side of the house that will not be seen from the immediate neighboring properties. Grade is elevated from the street level and therefore most aspects of the pool will not be visible. There is a 4 foot fence in that location which goes to 3 feet in some locations for privacy purposes. I have sent notices to my neighbors and have received some verbal notifications from neighbors noting no objection to our proposed pool installation. NEIGHBOR INPUT: Gary Hasbrouck stated the Board received the following correspondence: -Correspondence dated March 23, 2017 from Edward S. Baker, 43 Granite Street. -Correspondence from Linda Minor, 45 Granite Street. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated there have been a series of variances over the years. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 27, 2017 - Page 6 of 15 The lot in a UR-1 District is undersized. The percentages have to be kept in mind. The applicant was questioned concerning the possibility of a smaller pool. Mr. McBain stated they did discuss alternatives such as a smaller pool and a narrower pool. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman discussed the uniqueness of the property and alternatives feasible for the applicant perhaps a different placement of the pool and the question of dimensional relief as well as permeability calculation on the property with the pool in place. Susan Steer requested the applicant write up a short synopsis of what they are requesting with their pool choice and submit it to the Board. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the amount of relief requested and amount of permeability. The applicant was requested to recheck the numerical calculations. Mr. McBain will provide a final determination on the choice of pool style and final location of the pool. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:54 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Bob Werther, 24 Vermont Street. I have no problem at all with this project. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. We will prepare and present a resolution at the next ZBA Meeting scheduled for April 10, 2017. 5. #2951 SHELTERS OF SARATOGA ADDITION, 14 Walworth Street, area variance for an addition to an existing residence; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width, minimum side and rear yard setbacks and maximum principal building coverage for the building addition and minimum front, rear and side yard setbacks to parking requirements in the Urban Residential-4 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 Minimum lot width: Two structures on one lot 200 ft. 133 ft. 67 ft. (33.5%) Minimum side yard setback: 20 ft. 10.4ft. 9.6 ft. (48%) Minimum rear yard setback: 25 ft. 16.45 ft. 8.55 ft. (34.3%) Maximum principal building coverage: Two buildings combined 25% 36.2% 11.2% (44.8%) Minimum front yard setback: Parking 25 ft. 12.9 ft. 12.1 ft. (48.4%) Minimum rear yard setback: Parking 25 ft. 1.9 ft. 23.1 ft. (92.4%) Minimum side yard setback: Parking 20 ft. 1.9 ft. 18.1 ft. (90.5%) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Saratoga County Planning Board referral required – response “Approve” issued March 16, 2017. -Planning Board special use permit and site plan review is required. NEIGHBOR INPUT: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 27, 2017 - Page 7 of 15 -Letter from Elliott and Cathy Masie, dated March 10, 2017. DISCLOSURE: James Helicke stated he did make a charitable donation to the Shelters of Saratoga. His wife is also a volunteer. Susan Steer stated she is a volunteer for code blue. Applicant: Mike Finocchi, Executive Director Agent: Mike Ingersoll, LA Group; Mr. Ingersoll stated we have very generous donors, Ed and Lisa Mitzen who are offering to help the community solve a situation and rectify this by the end of the year. Many local businessmen have donated their time and services as well. Shelters does exist currently it is a managed property and oversees Code Blue. This will be managed by one entity for the first time in many years. Mr. Finocchi, director stated we are a not for profit organization and our mission is to provide individuals with safe shelter, supportive services and sustainable strategies to end homelessness in the Greater Saratoga region. Our houseguests have a safe place to sleep, food and individual support to gain independence in work and educational services through our supportive services. We do have rules and regulations to be followed. We have a zero tolerance policy. We have daily chores and encourage volunteering in the community daily to assist others from 9AM – 4PM. They have to leave the house during these hours to comply with our requirements. Curfew must be maintained and attendance at weekly house meetings is required. Code Blue Saratoga is an emergency shelter servicing individuals who are homeless in the City of Saratoga Springs who might otherwise remain unsheltered during periods of extreme winter weather. Code Blue protocols are in place between November and April when temperatures fall below the State related mandate of Executive Order #151 which is defined as 12 inches of snow, or 30 degrees or less including the wind chill factor as well. Mr. Ingersoll stated City of Saratoga Springs is the only Code Blue facility in the County. We are actually an extension of the County mission to serve as stated by this requirement. The City is obligated to provide this service. Most recently a Memorandum of Understanding has been reached with the neighbors concerning this project. A visual presentation of the site was provided to the Board, noting it encompasses four parcels which total less than a half an acre, each of the buildings is on its own parcel. Several variances would be required. We have made an application for a Special Use Permit, and the building inspector has determined we will proceed as a rooming house facility. The project is obligated to go through Site Plan Review and a Lot Line Consolidation will be required as well. Mr. Ingersoll reviewed the information criteria for an area variance. We believe the information submitted to the Board will answer all those questions. Mr. Ingersoll provided views of all elevations of the current building, noting the parking situation. We will review this further as we move the application forward. There is an encroachment on the property, previously executed, and efforts have been made to minimize the encroachment into the rear yard setback. Mr. Ingersoll reviewed the property lines which will be merged. The proposed project will add an addition to the existing structure and will be located at the rear of the 2 story residential structure. We will clean up the front, create handicap access and accentuate the entrance for the new building off of Walworth Street. Employee parking will be in the rear. In speaking with our neighbors we have an obligation to place a solid fence in the rear, also to enclose our dumpster, add a gate and install some security lighting. Efforts have been made to minimize the encroachment into the rear yard setback. The layout selected is approximately 3,200 square feet per floor. A sketch floor plan has been submitted to the Board. The main entrance is in the front of the building. There is a rear door for some deliveries and emergency egress. Mr. Ingersoll reviewed the floor plan of the building noting the kitchen is not a full service commercial kitchen. Many area City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 27, 2017 - Page 8 of 15 restaurants donate food so it is more of a heating and reheating meal preparation. Mr. Ingersoll provided a visual rendering of the proposed massing of the new addition noting they have moved the building back, thereby reducing the rear yard setback variance. The building is towards the back and is tucked into the corner of the property along the industrial side. Mr. Ingersoll reviewed the area variance requested, including the parking setbacks. These variances relate directly to the new construction (and not the existing conditions or because of consolidation of existing lots) are side and rear yard setbacks and maximum principal building coverage (existing two structures and proposed addition). The side yard setback for the addition would not encroach any further into the setback than already exists with the current structure 5 ft from side property line. The rear yard setback is taken to the accessible ramp 16.4 ft. the actual structure is approximately 24 ft. from the rear property line. The majority of the variances are related to existing conditions; parking in setbacks, side yard setback. Others are a result of the combining of the commonly owned parcels; 2 buildings, small lot width and building coverage. Efforts have been made to minimize visual impacts of the proposed building plan. The permeability of the site will be 31% which exceeds the minimum 15% in the district. By placing the proposed addition behind the existing 2 story residence, the pattern along the street front will not be affected. The proposed addition would not change the use of the structure from single-family to rooming house. The Planning Board will need to issue a special use permit for a rooming house. Through that process the Board would consider compatibility of the proposed use and any potential impacts of the use on the neighborhood, and the layout of the lot with regard to access and parking arrangement will be considered by the Planning Board. James Helicke requested the visual presentation be forwarded to staff as well as questioning alternatives and why wouldn’t a smaller addition work. Mr. Ingersoll stated they are continuing to look at what meets the code for shelters and provide the necessities and training and dining. We have looked at providing the basic services and that is how we determined the size of the addition. We can provide more detail for the Board. James Helicke stated that would be important for the Board to review in considering the preparation of a resolution. Are there any alternatives that would make the variances less substantial? Mr. Ingersoll stated the addition has actually saved some economy with the existing water and sewer to the house already which we can utilize. The addition has somewhat accomplished better access to the existing house for not only utilities but handicap access. Any other configuration would have forced us to use Marvin Alley as the access and we did not want to do that. By leaving the traditional Walworth Street address, it would force entrance and exiting off the alley. In our discussion with the neighborhood we wanted to discourage that. We will keep the parking where it currently exists. Our patrons do not have parking requirements. In this configuration and area it does allow for a partial basement. Gary Hasbrouck questioned counsel since this is a not for profit organization are they entitled to a relaxation of the standards. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated possibly and stated he would do the research. It seems like there are some components of this proposal that might fit the public interest cases. I will look into this and report back to the Board. Cheryl Grey questioned if the existing staircase will remain and the possibility of a standalone building. Mr. Ingersoll stated that the existing staircase will remain for egress. The configuration of the addition was the best way to minimize the variances. Cheryl Grey questioned the additional door and safety concerns. Michael Tuck, architect stated what we are looking at is currently East Hall that was previously part of the women’s bunk room and did present a potential for inadvertent access since the women’s bunk room door could not be locked. By City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 27, 2017 - Page 9 of 15 introducing this East Hall that rear door can be controlled access. It can be signaled and alarmed. We have to have two doors with a minimum distance between warranted by the fire code. Discussion ensued concerning parking and the availability of parking spaces and the lines waiting to sign up for beds. Mr. Finocchi stated with the proposed 61 beds, as opposed to 41 beds hopefully this will eliminate this. That is the purpose of our choosing the main entrance in the location proposed. This new configuration will allow patrons to be processed quickly thereby avoiding the long waiting lines. James Helicke stated in reviewing the application what is missing is a narrative of what the applicant is trying to do. It would be helpful if you could provide some additional background in writing describing the benefit you are trying to achieve. Susan Steer thanked Mike Finocchi personally for everything he has done for this project. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated his main concern was the impact on the neighborhood and that has been addressed with the Memorandum of Understanding currently executed. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:38 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Dan Larkin, 126 Burke Road. I am a volunteer of Code Blue and SOS. I support this application. I have been a police officer for over 31 years. I feel confident that the Police will be able to respond to any issues that may arise with this venture. I also feel that it is our civic duty to provide for the most needy and most vulnerable in our society. Ideal setting and opportunity. Kathleen Fyfe, Vice President of Community Development with the Chamber of Commerce and Program Director of Leadership Saratoga. I believe you judge a community on how we take care of our most vulnerable. I am honored and thrilled to be a member of this community. Through the partnerships and conversations, we can work with the neighbors and the community to help with a solution. Mike Toohey, Attorney. I have been coming before this Board for 41 years. We have in that time tried to find a way for neighbors and people to cooperate with each other to create a common goal. I represent Elliott and Cathy Masie who have $3 million dollars worth of real estate in this immediate area. They are abutting neighbors and they came to me and we went to SOS and have come up with what we believe is a workable solution for the use and utilization of this building for Code Blue. I thank everybody who put this together. Libby Coreno and I worked all weekend to come up with the MOU agreement and we ask you to incorporate that agreement into any positive resolution that you have. Things can change over time, but at this time we would like to be limited to the Code Blue utilization. Today this agreement was signed by the Masies as well as SOS. We have honest, good, well intentioned people in this community. Wally Allerdice, Allerdice Building Supply. I am their neighbor and I have been there since 1982. I have never had one problem with the shelter. We have even hired a couple of the patrons and given them part time jobs. I cannot think of a better place in Saratoga for this project. I am very much in favor of it. Don Wildermuth, Board member for the Shelters of Saratoga for almost 5 years. The services we provide to those who most need it in our community are of such importance. We continue to do more as we need to do more. This is just another step in that direction. Thank you for your consideration and thank you to those in favor of this. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 27, 2017 - Page 10 of 15 Elliott Masie. As our attorney stated we are happy that a community can work together and have conversations. It is important and we support and are deeply grateful to the Mitzens for what they have done. The real challenge and opportunity and has a healthy impact on the neighborhood. It has a high communication impact to the neighborhood. This is a mixed area and our hope is that it not be the default ground for every not for profit seeking area. The positives that have come out of this are the way to keep a mixed neighborhood healthy, happy and we meet our obligations to those less fortunate. We look forward to working with them. Cheryl Gray questioned if there is a rooming house definition and what happens if this is not being used for Code Blue. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated we do have a rooming house definition. Mike Ingersoll stated it would become a two room rooming house. Susan Steer stated that is a Planning Board issue. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated this will not affect the scope of what we are doing, we are providing dimensional relief. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated this would require a Special Use Permit for the rooming house. It would be a change from a single family home to a rooming house. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE BOARD: Gary Hasbrouck read into the record the following correspondence received by the Board. -Letter dated March 15, 2017, received by the Franklin Community Center, signed by Cary Cushing. -Letter dated March 22, 2017 from Captain Youth and Family Services signed by Mike Finocchi. -Letter dated March 13 2017 from Wellspring signed by Maggie Fronk. -Letter dated March 22, 2017 from Transitional Services signed by Cybil Newell. -Letter dated March 22, 2017 from Saratoga County Economic Opportunity Council signed by Joanne Hume. -Letter dated March 22, 2017 from Saratoga Rural Preservation Company, signed by Cheryl Hague Perez. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will leave the public hearing open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA Meeting scheduled for April 10, 2017. OLD BUSINESS: 2. #2948 PERRY CARRIAGE HOUSE, 173 Phila Street, area variance for additions to an existing carriage house; seeking relief from the minimum side and rear yard setback requirements in the urban residential-3 District. This application was heard at the March 13, 2017 meeting and adjourned to March 27, 2017. The public hearing was opened and remains open. RECUSALS: Bill Moore, Chairman recused from this application. Susan Steer, Board Member recused from this application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman assumed the duties of the Chair. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated no additional information was requested from the applicant. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 27, 2017 - Page 11 of 15 PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:55 P.M. Cheryl Grey stated for the record the alley was something that had to be accessible to the neighbor’s garage. DISCLOSURES: Board Member Gary Hasbrouck stated he did review the webcast and the minutes and feels informed to vote on the remainder of the applications before the Board this evening. Board Alternate Oksana Ludd stated she has also reviewed the webcast and the minutes and feels informed to vote on this application. James Helicke presented the following resolution. #2948 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Kyle and Jennifer Perry 173 Phila Street SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 173 Phila Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 166.61-1-13 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to construct additions to an existing carriage house in the Urban Residential – 3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on March 13 and 27, 2017. In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following variance for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REQUIREMENT Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet .6 feet 4.4 ft. (88%) Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 feet 2.5 feet 2.5 ft. (50%) As per the submitted plans (as described as unfinished storage space) or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The Applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. As the application states, “The only alternative which would not require a variance would be to demolish the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 27, 2017 - Page 12 of 15  existing carriage house and construct a new carriage house within the minimum setbacks…It was not a desirable alternative to tear down the original carriage house within the city historic district”. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. The additions are setback from the rear and side property lines further than the existing carriage house. As the application states, “The additions will be in keeping with the original character of the carriage house”. In addition, DRC Historic Review is required. 3. The request for relief for side and rear yard setbacks is substantial, but this is mainly due to the location of the existing carriage house on the lot; both existing dimensions are preexisting nonconforming and both additions are more conforming to the district requirements. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. As the application states, “The variance will not have adverse environmental or physical effects on the neighborhood or district because they are minimal additions to an already existing structure”. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship due to the applicant’s desire to construct the addition. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: DRC Historic Review is required. Cheryl Grey seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; Oksana Ludd, alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Bill Moore, Chairman resumed the duties of the Chair. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman resumed the duties of the Vice Chair. Susan Steer, Board member resumed her position on the Board. Oksana Ludd, alternate Board Member exited the meeting at 9:05 P.M. 3. #2949 PASTECKI RESIDENCE, 12 Schuyler Drive, area variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard and total side yard setbacks and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the urban residential-1 district. This application was heard at the March 13, 2017 meeting and adjourned to the March 27, 2017. The public hearing was opened and remains open. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 27, 2017 - Page 13 of 15 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 9:07 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. #2949 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Elizabeth Pastecki 12 Schuyler Drive SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the Building Inspector’s determination for the same premises, identified as tax parcel number 166.14-1-5, Whereas, the appellant has applied for area variances for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for minimum side yard setback, total side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage for an addition to an existing single-family house in an Urban Residential – 1 zoning district; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on March 13th & 27th, 2017, 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 Minimum side yard setback: 12 feet 3 feet 9 ft. (75%) Minimum total side yard setback: 30 feet 10 feet 20 ft. (67%) Maximum principal building coverage: 20% 24.4% 4.4% (22%) 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The application states, “The existing house already exceeds zoning allowances. The addition of a family room, no matter how small, would require an area variance. There is no available land (for sale)”. The Board notes the home is older than the existing UR-1 zoning 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The application states, “The addition proposed will be on the back of the house”. The applicant also noted the addition would only be seen from the athletic fields west of the project”. The Board also notes the addition will be bordered by an existing garage which further shields the view of the addition from the neighbors. 3. The relief requested may be considered substantial. However, the addition will not encroach any further toward the side yard setback than the existing garage. The maximum building coverage variance does not appear to be substantial in this case. 4. The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The Board notes no request for permeability variances. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 27, 2017 - Page 14 of 15  5. The difficulty may be considered self-created. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. Susan Steer seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Kaplan, Vice Chairman; in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 13, 2017 ZBA meeting as amended. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Susan Steer brought up the use of alternates to fill absences on the Board. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning alternates. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 4/24/17 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 27, 2017 - Page 15 of 15