Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, APRIL 10, 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; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck Susan Steer; James Helicke; Cheryl Grey STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Steven Shaw, Building Inspector, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney, City of Saratoga Springs-Arrived at 9:03 P.M. 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: RECUSAL: Bill Moore, Chairman recused from the following application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman assumed the duties of the Chair. 1. #2957 MANEY MULTI-FAMILY, 18 Cherry Street and 38 Marvin Alley, discussion and consideration for Coordinated SEQRA Review for two residential condominium buildings and associated site work in the Urban Residential-4 District. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated this is a procedural item. The public hearing was not noticed for this meeting. This is merely to provide any initial guidance to the applicant pertaining to the project and requested variances as well as consideration for coordinated SEQRA review and Lead Agency Status. SEQRA: -Action appears to be Unlisted – Part 1 of the short form was submitted by the applicant. -Required approvals from the Planning Board – Site Plan Review. -ZBA could initiate Coordinated Review and defer Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board if they should seek it. AREA VARIANCES (DRAFT) REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: Cherry St. 25 ft. .5 ft. 24.5 ft. (98%) Minimum front yard setback: Marvin 25 ft. 4.5 ft. 20.5 ft. (82%) Minimum rear yard setback: 25 ft. 22.5 ft. 2.5 ft. (10%) Maximum principal building coverage: combined 25% 32% 7% (28%) Minimum lot size/per dwelling unit Max 9 units 27,726 sq. ft. 14 (42,000) sq. ft. 5 additional units (14,274 sq ft.) Applicant: Art Brokowski representing Anthony Maney Agent: Jon Lapper, Project Attorney; Jeff Anthony, Landscape Architect; Kristin Cavalier, Landscape Architect; Mr. Lapper stated that the applicants are before the Board this evening for discussion and consideration of Coordinated SEQRA Review as well as Lead Agency Status. We will provide information to the Board concerning this project. We consider this as a transition project due to its location to the City Square Project across the street. A visual presentation of the proposed site was provided to the Board as well as a schematic rendering of what is being proposed. Mr. Lapper stated the current property location is a much blighted site. We are looking to demolish the existing residence and we are proposing with this project two condominium buildings. One building is fronting Cherry Street that is four stories in height and has six units. The second building is fronting Marvin Alley and that is five stories in height and has 8 units. We will be requiring some area variances for the proposed project. We have considered several designs and have met with the Planning Staff, made some changes to be compatible to what they were looking for. Initially we are looking for Lead Agency Status and then we will return before this Board for area variance requests. Mr. Anthony reviewed the proposed project noting it is .61 acres. A review of what currently exists on the site was provided to the Board as well as the surrounding neighborhood. A visual of the site plan was provided for the Board, noting access from Cherry Street with a secondary access from Marvin Alley. Mr. Anthony noted 22 parking spaces will be provided, 18 will be indoors. 4 surface parking spaces on the Marvin Alley side. Floor plans were provided for the Boards review. A green roof is proposed for the building. Storm water will be managed by the green roof. All surfaces on the site will be permeable pavement maintaining as much green space as possible. A view of the neighborhood was also provided to the Board. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned if the 5 story building is identical to the four story building with an additional floor. Mr. Brokowski explained the positioning of the second building to the Board noting it follows the contour of Cherry Street. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the Board will provide to the applicant some suggestions and some concerns of their project. Susan Steer stated she has two concerns. One is that she is planning on never approving a project which fronts on an alley. In this case a single lane alley noting concerns regarding vehicles coming in and out. The fact that it is a five story building in a neighborhood which has two or three story buildings but not five is also disconcerting. I am concerned about the density requesting 14 units versus 9 and I will not approve this project as is. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned the need to allow vehicular access onto Marvin Alley. Jon Lapper stated that is something we can talk about. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 2 of 20 Gary Hasbrouck questioned the targeted audience for these condominiums. Also his concern regarding the project across the street, and the density of the area. He also has concerns regarding access to the alley. Mr. Brokowski stated young couples, perhaps empty nesters. Adam McNeill, Secretary requested a layout of the five story building, and what the building envelope would look like without any variances. Cheryl Grey questioned different variations of buildings which would require less variances. The front of the building is too close to Marvin Alley. James Helicke stated he shares many of the other concerns expressed here. The density is really the issue. It does not fit in the neighborhood. The variances requested are significant. Mr. Lapper stated we have spoken with the neighbors and they are happy we are cleaning up the site. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he has grave concerns regarding density, and the massiveness of the project. He is opposed to this project as it is currently presented. Keith Kaplan stated we have an application before us this evening for SEQRA Lead Agency Status. Susan Steer made a motion to defer SEQRA Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board should they request it. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Susan Steer in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, 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 Chair. 2. #2952 SMITH HOME OFFICE, 78 Lincoln Avenue, area variance for a home office in a detached garage; seeking relief to permit finished/habitable space in an accessory structure (residential) in the Urban Residential-2 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 Home office (with half bath) in an accessory structure Unfinished /uninhabitable space Finished/habitable space 100% (residential): Applicant: Raymond & Karen Smith Agent: David Bernacki, Capital District Contractors City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 3 of 20 Gary Hasbrouck questioned why the applicant could not have an office in the home. Mrs. Smith stated she works primarily from home. 80-90% of her work is telephonic. We have four adults living in a four bedroom home. Her current office is in her bedroom. She needs some private work space. We received a building permit to construct a two-story garage with a storage room on the 2nd floor. The structure is built and we would like to put an office with a half bath on the 2nd floor. This was the most economical means to obtain a garage and a private office. Cheryl Grey questioned when the garage was built, and the size of the space requested for the office as well as the size of the powder room. Mr. Smith stated the garage was built in November 2016, and they have no plans to add a shower to this bathroom. Mr. Bernacki, Contractor, stated the area in question is approximately 500 square feet. James Helicke questioned the applicant if clients visit the office. Mrs. Smith stated all her clients are out of town. She travels to meet her clients. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the design of the storage space and noted that we are approving office space not living space. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. John Boardman, 118 White Street. Requested the Board deny the request for the home office conversion. There are far too many non conforming uses in this area. Dave Bernacki, contractor stated the building permit which was issued for this project included plumbing be run to the building from the home, drain and supply lines. No one is trying to hide anything. The space above the garage 500 square feet is not broken out for comfortable living space. Roof pitches play a major factor. Mr. Bernacki informed the Board what other municipalities do in these situations, which is changing the deed. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA Meeting scheduled for April 24, 2017. 3. #2954 KAZLO ADDITION, 8 Ritchie Place, area variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback, minimum total side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback: 12 ft. 1.6 ft. 1.6 ft. 10.4 ft. (87%) Minimum total side yard setback: 30 ft. 11.8 ft. 11.8 ft. 18.2 ft. (61%) Maximum principal building coverage: 20% 24% 26.8% 6.8% (34%) Applicant: Patricia Kazlo Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 4 of 20 Ms. Yasenchak provided a history of the home and the project. The home is a two story home, with one bath. The addition is 10 x 15 providing an additional bathroom and more closet space. The applicant does not wish to add a second story. Floor plans were provided noting the size of the proposed master bedroom 12 x 14 keeping with the consistency of the home in size, a nice quaint addition. The owner has requested three variances which do appear substantial; however as the existing house and site are preexisting and nonconforming the variances arising from the small addition are not substantial. The proposed addition would increase the existing principal building coverage by 2.8%. The lot area and width of the property are half of what is required in the district. Any addition would require a variance from the principal building coverage. James Helicke questioned the applicant’s agent as to why a smaller addition would not work. Ms. Yasenchak stated designing a more narrow addition to allow for less of a setback variance would prove more difficult as the proposed addition aligns directly with the existing rear bedroom bump-out. Relocating the new bath and closet area would result in the removal of windows in the kitchen and sunroom. There would be a jog in the room. Cheryl Grey questioned the coverage of the garage. Ms. Yasenchak stated 550 square feet. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:47 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 at the next ZBA Meeting scheduled for April 24, 2017. 4. #2955 TIN ROOF, LLC ADDITION, 32 Park Place, area variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum rear yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-2 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum rear yard setback: 25 ft. 4.3 ft. 5.5 ft. 19.5 ft. (78%) Applicant: Case & Helen Simpson, owners Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated this is an older building which has been vacant for quite a while. The applicant is proposing to remove the back portion of this home which is clearly an addition. The applicants would like to keep the remainder of the home as it was originally repairing to new condition and better the neighborhood aesthetic. We are proposing an addition to replace what is being removed. The proposed new addition requires one variance. The existing rear yard setback is 4.3 ft from the rear property line while the rebuilt addition would be more conforming at 5.5 ft from the same City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 5 of 20 line. Although the variance appears substantial, the site conditions are actually improving by 7.2%. The existing structure with roof overhangs covers approximately 30.5% of the site. The new design minimizes the footprint and will result in a compliant coverage of under 30%. We are trying to keep everything else as remains with regards to zoning. Ms. Yasenchak stated the applicant is in receipt of a letter from Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation noted the building is on a vacant building registry, and a requirement of the registry is that the owners provide a rehabilitation plan prior to bringing the building back to occupancy. The last communication from the Department of Public Safety indicated that the plan had yet to be submitted. The Foundation suggested the ZBA not make any ruling until the requirements of the vacant building registry have been met. Ms. Yasenchak provided some information to the Board concerning this registry, noting the plan minimum states the owner shall submit a vacant building plan which must meet the approval of the Code Enforcement Officer. The plan at a minimum must contain from one of the following three choices for the property: A). If the building is to be demolished a demolition plan indicating the proposed time frames for demolition. We are not choosing that option. B). If the building is to remain vacant a plan for securing of the building as directed by Code Administration, if applicable along with procedures which will be used to maintain the property in accordance with New York State Property Maintenance Code. C). If the building is to be returned to appropriate occupancy or use rehabilitation plans for the property are required to be submitted. We are actually beginning that process. The owners of the property every year have a Code Enforcement Official who comes to the property and performs an inspection. Suggestions are provided if anything needs to be better secured and a $300.00 yearly fee is paid to be on this registry. Currently there are no violations on this property. Requesting this variance is a part of the rehabilitation plan going forward. Currently we are in compliance. The letter from the Preservation Foundation also requests an Advisory Opinion from the DRC stating why the rear addition cannot be preserved and plans for the proposed replacement prior to rendering a decision. Ms. Yasenchak stated we are a block and a half away from the historic district. We do not feel this is relevant to this project. We are doing everything which is required by the City to maintain compliance. A map of the proposed site noting the location of the historic district and the proximity to this application was provided to the Board. Adam McNeill, Secretary reviewed what the applicant is questioning the removal of the back addition of the structure. Ms. Yasenchak provided information concerning the applicants request for the removal of this portion of the structure. There is no foundation in this area and it was built in pieces. There has been a whole roof structure added on and exceeds the front peak of the home. Not in character of the neighborhood. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman requested elevation drawings of the proposed plan. Discussion ensued concerning the restoration of the property and the current condition. Steven Shaw, Building Inspector stated in his discussion earlier this evening my understanding is the front porch is too close to the property line. Discussion ensued concerning what is being proposed and the potential for additional variances. Steven Shaw, Building Inspector stated there is a potential for additional variances, however we do need to see plans. We are speaking hypothetically. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated we do need to see plans for clarification. Ms. Yasenchak stated there are no plans for any changes just complete rehabilitation of the porch. Susan Steer stated her concerns are that the applicants just want to fix up the back of the property, and not touch the front, you receive the variance, and it will sit like this. This is a disgrace what has been done to the building. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 6 of 20 She is surprised at what the applicants have done to their other properties. I do not know what the plan is for this property. I would love to see this property rehabilitated and see the final drawings of what is being requested prior to approving anything. Mrs. Simpson stated this is not the first restoration we have done in the City of Saratoga Springs. We have done two on Franklin Street, and also one on York Avenue which is where we currently reside, and we have resided in them all. We plan to live in this building. I understand the properties you are referring to and in all fairness you have not noted the properties we have done. Susan Steer stated this building has been vacant for a long time. Mrs. Simpson stated long before we owned the property. Now, we are trying to do something positive. Mr. Simpson stated we have done some preliminary investigation into the area we are removing prior to our decision. The foundation is crumbling and it is on piers. It needs to be rebuilt. Restoring the front is definitely part of the project. Susan Steer stated she has no problem with that. I want to see the plans for the entire project being proposed. Gary Hasbrouck questioned the Boards purview and standard and go from there. Does an addition to a house require the entire thing to be done. I would like to see the entire plan but does it require the entire proposed plan. The condition on one part of the house versus the addition on the other is that a standard that we have on this Board. Before we require these people to go above and beyond what other applicants are required to do and before we make the 50% rule, I want to make sure we are treating this applicant the same as we do other applicants. I am aware of their other properties. It is this application and this project and their reducing a variance and going through all of the parts to get a building permit how far is our purview in making sure this is done appropriately ahead of time. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated it within our purview to ask for elevations, and to ask for the full set of plans for the whole house I think is appropriate to determine if other variances would be needed. One statement made by the applicant was in the front section that certain things were going to actually improve. Once that statement was made, it indicated that things are moving. Discussion ensued on the scope of the Board requests for information from the applicant. Cheryl Grey requested floor plans, and elevations. Her concern is the front porch. Ms. Yasenchak stated these floor plans and elevation will be provided to the Board to show the intention of staying within the architectural character of this home and the neighborhood. The only variance that we are asking for, the only new construction is to the back portion of the home. The owner is allowed to remove it. It is not in a historic district and our intention is to make it better. We will provide the requested information to the Board. A survey was submitted showing the footprint of the building and property lines. The construction and repairs will be done at the same time. James Helicke stated he would like to see the floor plans and the elevations which will be provided. I share the concerns of the Board to see that this renovation is completed in a timely fashion. Ms. Yasenchak stated this home is not in a historic district and this is not a historic home. Information can be provided to the Board concerning the surrounding homes and work which has been completed and performed on these homes without benefit of historic review. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the historic registry. James Helicke stated this is not in a historic district and there is no reason for historic review. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 7 of 20 Cheryl Grey questioned why the applicant waited so long to make the repairs. Mr. Simpson stated working out of town has prevented them from moving forward on this project. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:17 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Jim Lombardo, 35 Park Place. A letter was submitted to staff. I am grateful to see something happening with the property. Wait to see full plans for renovation. I have lived 35 years across the street. Code violations exist and were not followed through. Pierre Wolf, 37 Park Place. Wild animals live in the basement. No attempt has been made to clean up the property. The property is a wreck. John Kaufman, 44 White Street. He is speaking for his neighbors. We are looking forward to the Boards review of this application. Camille Daniels, 101 White Street. I really hope that you can get really clear on what the purview is on this and all applications, and assess them objectively for everyone that is an applicant. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA Meeting scheduled for April 24, 2017. 5. #2956 GROSSMAN PORCH, 169 Union Avenue, area variance for a covered porch addition to an existing residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard (Ludlow) setback, minimum side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage 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 EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback: 20 ft. 16 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. (50%) Minimum front yard setback: 25 ft. 25 ft. 19.5 ft. 5.5 ft. (22%) Maximum principal building coverage: 25% 32.7% 33.7% 8.7% (35%) Applicant: Thomas Grossman Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated we are here this evening because Mr. Grossman would like to start renovations on his home. This property is within the historic district and an application has been made to the DRC. This is a unique project and has three fronts. The rear of the home has several different porches. A portion of the plan is to remove the metal stair case to the upstairs which is not used and remove all the porches and roof overhangs a build a porch structure that will be consistent and not a hodge podge of little roofs. Rear elevations of the proposed porch were provided to the Board. It is not a very large porch. It will be consistent with the character of the front porch. Columns and rails will be consistent. The lot is preexisting and non conforming so we do need a lot of variances. The lot width is only 50 ft. wide. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 8 of 20 The home itself does not meet code for setbacks. The new porch is significantly further away from the property line than what currently exists and therefore should not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the permeability of the site. Ms. Yasenchak stated she will provide permeability calculations for the Board. Gary Hasbrouck questioned any other renovations on the home. Ms. Yasenchak stated the applicant is looking to replace windows and the vinyl siding will be removed. The wood siding will be repaired or replaced in kind. No other structural construction. James Helicke made a motion in the matter of the Grossman Porch, 169 Union Avenue that the application be referred to the DRC for an Advisory Opinion. 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; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:36 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 following receipt of the Advisory Opinion from the DRC. 6. #2958 ENGLERT PORCH, 52 Franklin Street, area variance for an enclosed porch addition to an existing single- family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-4 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: -DRC historic review for rear porch enclosure, approved January 12, 2017. -DRC historic review for detached two story garage, approved October 15, 2004. -Area variances from minimum side and rear yard setbacks and minimum front and total side yard setbacks to parking spaces, approved August 11, 2004. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 9 of 20 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback: 20 ft. 3.5 ft. 3.5 ft. 16.5 ft. (82.5%) DISCLOSURE: Cheryl Grey stated she does know the applicants. She spoke with them when she made a site visit. This will in no way influence her decision. She has no financial interest in this application. No need for recusal, simply disclosure. Applicants: Michael and Linda Englert Mr. Englert provided some history of the home and their request to enclose the current deck. The dimensions of the proposed porch are 9 x 11 in size to be enclosed with French doors and divided light windows. DRC approval was granted on January 12, 2017. At that time it was determined to be zoning compliant. Cheryl Grey questioned the deck area in the rear and the proximity to the lot line and the variance requested. Does this need to be referred to the DRC. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning referral of this project back to the DRC. Applicants appeared before the DRC for the enclosed porch. It was the consensus to have the applicant return before the DRC for an Advisory Opinion for an existing deck. Cheryl Grey made a motion to refer the Englert Porch, 52 Franklin Street, to the DRC for an Advisory Opinion. 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; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:47 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented following receipt of the Advisory Opinion from the DRC. OLD BUSINESS: 7. #2944.1 MCCARTHY TWO-FAMILY, 14 Stratton Street, area variance modification for construction of an addition to City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 10 of 20  an existing two-family residence; seeking relief to expand a nonconforming use in the Urban Residential-2 District. This application was heard at the March 27, 2017 meeting and adjourned to April 10, 2017. The public hearing was opened and remains open. This application received area variances for renovation of an existing front porch and increased height and new roof line for an existing single-story 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. Bill Moore, Chairman stated no additional information was requested from the applicant. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:49. Cheryl Grey presented the following resolution. #2944.1 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF SHANNON MCCARTHY 14 STRATTON STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 14 Stratton Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 166.77-1-41 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance for expansion of a nonconforming use in the UR-2 District and public notice having been duly given of hearings on said application on March 27 and April 10, 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: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED Two-family expansion of 1306 sq. ft. Not permitted Existing 100% As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1) The Board finds that the Applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 11 of 20  the Applicant. The addition to the south is a one-story addition and is existing and will not change the impact to the neighbor. This portion of the project will remain one story with only the roof pitch and eaves being changed. The rear or east portion of the addition will expand the main residence and the tenant apartment and will not need any additional variances to the lot line as there is more than adequate dimension to that portion of the property. The Applicant considered removing the tenant portion but would like to do the entire scope of the project, including restoring architectural elements to the porch and front and sides of the home and feels that the rent from the tenant would allow them to finish the project in a timely fashion. 2) The Board finds that the Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character and not be a detriment to the nearby properties. As per the Applicant, the two-family residence was confirmed to be pre-existing non-conforming by the building department in 1991. The two-family is a pre-existing nonconforming use. 3) The Board finds that the requests for relief are substantial, but substantiality is offset by the fact that the lot and house have existed in this condition for many years and will not impact neighboring properties. The additional area variance is to expand the two-family use by 1,306 square feet. The parcel is 20,168 square feet in size with the requirement for a single family residence in the UR-2 being 6,600 square feet. Therefore, the density requirement exceeds the zoning code in the district. 4) The Board finds that the Applicant has demonstrated that granting these area variances will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. This property has existed as a two-family since and prior to 1991. No additional tenant space is being requested for either the home or the garage. 5) The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship; however self-creation alone is not fatal to the application. Note: Variance approval #2944, February 27, 2017 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; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 8. #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. This application was heard at the March 27, 2017 meeting and adjourned to April 10, 2017. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The applicant provided a revised plan relocating the proposed pool and eliminating the relief from the front yard setback requirement. The revised pool is now kidney shaped instead of rectangular and is 511 square feet where the previous design was 448 square feet an increase of 63 square feet. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we are in receipt of the revised plans and the request for permeability. Susan Barden, Senior Planner City of Saratoga Springs stated the permeability calculation is 53%. NEIGHBOR INPUT: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 12 of 20 -Letter from Edward Baker, 43 Granite Street, dated March 23, 2017. -Letter from Linda Milner, 45 Granite Street, dated March 31, 2017. 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 8:55 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2950 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Edward McBain 41 Granite St Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 41 Granite St. in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.43-1-25 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 pool on the parcel of a single-family residence in a UR-1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 27th day of March and 10th day of April 2017. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following area variance for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum accessory building coverage 8% 12.3% 4.3% or 53.8% relief Pool location Locate in side or rear yard-not in front yard Locate in front yard 100% As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant notes that alternative designs have been contemplated, and the location has been altered to eliminate an area of dimensional relief. Per the applicant, the design and shape of the proposed pool also have helped to minimize the need for variances, by choosing a kidney shaped pool that bends around a corner of the residence structure. The Board notes this shape helps to provide the desired functionality without encroaching further into the setbacks. Per the applicant, a smaller pool was also considered, however it was not chosen due to risks associated with a pool that is too narrow for children to be able to jump into safely. The applicant also notes that the front yard variance could not be avoided due to the lot, situated on a corner, having two front yards. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The proposed pool will be buffered by an area of grass and fencing, thereby mitigating visual impact. Per the applicant, the pool will be installed below grade and will not be visible from the road, with the lot’s elevation from the road making the proposed pool less conspicuous. 3. The Board finds these variances to be substantial. The Board notes the accessory coverage variance is partly due to the lot being undersized relative to district requirements. The Board finds that the substantiality of this City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 13 of 20  area of relief is mitigated by the factors noted above relating to visibility. The front yard variance, while substantial at 100% relief, is caused by the house having two front yard, being on two streets. The need for this area of relief is therefore unavoidable. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The lot as shown in the application materials will still exceed permeability requirements of 30%, with 53% to remain permeable. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed pool, 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, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 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. This application was heard at the March 27, 2017 meeting and adjourned to April 10, 2017. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: -Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. 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: -Letter from Elliott and Cathy Masie, dated March 10, 2017. -Letter from Patricia McBride Friesen (and Citizens in Support of Code Blue), 223 Lake Avenue, dated March 1, 2017. -Letter from Cheryl Hage-Perez, Executive Director, Saratoga County RPC, dated March 22, 2017. -Letter from JoAnne Hume, Executive Director, Saratoga County EOC, dated March 22, 2017. -Letter from Sybil Newell, Executive Director, Transitional Services, dated March 22, 2017. -Letter from Maggie Fronk, Executive Director, Wellspring, dated March 13, 2017. -Letter from Andy Gilpin, Associate Executive Director, Captain Youth and Family Services dated March 22, 2017. -Letter from Kari Cushing, Executive Director, Franklin Community Center, dated March 15, 2017. -Anonymous letter, dated April 2, 2017. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 14 of 20 Applicant: Mike Finocchi, Executive Director Agent: Mike Ingersoll, LA Group; Mr. Ingersoll stated we have some information for the Board which is new to the record and was not presented at our last appearance before the Board. A visual presentation of the existing site of the two existing buildings with the proposed addition were provided to the Board. We reviewed the plan since our last visit before the Board and were able to decrease the rear yard variance somewhat. The rear yard setback is taken to the accessible ramp at 19.9 feet the actual structure is approximately 24 ft from the rear property line. The next item the Board questioned was the possibility of minimizing the size of the expansion. Mr. Tuck submitted a sketch floor plan. A letter was also submitted by Mr. Tuck which addresses the need for the proposed size of the addition at 6,400 square feet. Based upon studies to date any further reduction in area would come at the expense of the facilities ability to serve its intended 61 occupants. The next diagram will explain the history of the project and the size. The current capacity is 41. There is some overflow; the building space is too small for the need. On an exceptionally cold night there are upwards of 15 people being transferred to a hotel or out of town. Last year the capacity on one of the coldest nights was 58 beds. We are looking at 61. We are still serving some of the needs of the County. Lastly, we did provide a narrative for the Boards review. Gary Hasbrouck questioned if the application was given the relaxed community standard. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated he has done the research. There are only two categories which are clearly defined, educational and religious. The information stated there are some other type of public benefit uses which are very important to the community and are worthy of consideration in the same vein, but the line of cases simply is not as strong as it is for education and religious. Gary Hasbrouck stated his concern is he would like to see this be considered as part of public benefit. He feels it is important in this application. A relaxed standard is what needs to be used to determine this particular case. He does not think that there is any question that there is a community need here. The question has always been where. My concern is if the standard is not being specifically treated as a public benefit the substantiality and actual change in character of the neighborhood, self creation. There are very few things here other than other feasible means that would allow this variance to pass on its merits without that relaxed standard and that is my concern. We need to apply the relaxed standard to this application. Cheryl Grey stated she has traffic and parking concerns. Mr. Ingersoll stated they have been doing parking studies during the day and there is parking available on the street. There is more than ample room. The rooming house criteria as per the City when it goes through Special Use Permit we will be talking about a reduced standard for parking. Cheryl Grey also spoke about the size of this building and if any other alternatives were proposed. Mr. Ingersoll stated the mix in how this works would not be conducive to what the shelter is trying to provide here. Susan Steer stated she does hear what Gary is saying, however, she does not feel a relaxed standard is needed. We are speaking about the rooming house use that is a permitted use. The Special Use Permit and licensing, as well as Site Plan Review will address those issues. We are just looking at dimensional relief. The number of variances they are requesting is not so out of line with regards to what this Board has approved in the past. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he completely agrees with what Gary said and does not agree with what Susan just stated. From his perspective he cannot be supportive of this unless our resolution clearly states that that is the reason we are doing this in this context. Otherwise we are going to set a precedent that anybody else that wants to build anything will just point to this and say you allowed this. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 15 of 20 Bill Moore, Chairman questioned counsel if the Board could in the resolution state something to the effect that the public benefit –relaxed standard was discussed and considered. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated you can certainly elaborate on any consideration that you have. You are suggesting that you considered the public benefit but you didn’t use a relaxed standard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we didn’t use a relaxed standard but at the same token the whole application is considered with the benefit to the public as well. We are not saying we relaxed our standards but we want it noted that it is a vital part of the consideration of this Board. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated you are saying this is a distinctive feature of this application, that there is a public benefit. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman and Gary Hasbrouck both stated absolutely. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman added that it was critical to our deliberations. I would want this to be memorialized in our resolution and I would not vote for a resolution without it. Discussion ensued concerning the public benefit and relaxed standard. James Helicke questioned what Executive Order 151states. Mr. Finocchi stated when the Executive Order 151 was issued on January 3, 2016, and was enacted two days later on January 5, 2017 it states basically that whenever the temperature reaches 32 degrees, police, sheriffs, local DSS’ need to get the homeless individuals off the streets and into a sheltered environment. It does not mention anything about snowfall. The 32 degree is counting the wind chill as well. Adam McNeill, Secretary asked Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney, if the law of public benefit we are discussing right now Executive Order 151, or actually some type of either NYS Law or Court or Legal Precedent we are following. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated he does not know of any court cases that reference this particular Executive Order, not yet it is a relatively new executive order. I don’t know of any land use cases in which the executive order has played a part. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned where we are getting this public benefit outside of an Executive Order from the Governor of New York State. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated what he believes the Chairman is stating is because you know this is going to be a facility that is going to be used in the event of an emergency situation can the Board state in its resolution that the Board recognizes there is a public benefit to this proposal, I know of no reason why the Board cannot state that. That differs of course from Gary’s initial question, is there legal precedent from the courts that acknowledges this category of use as something that allows a relaxed standard. That is a different question. The question is can the Board acknowledge this proposal or any proposal that comes before them that has a component about it that serves the public interest, I know of no reason why it cannot be stated in its resolution. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned when an Executive Order is issued and it must be complied with is it implemented at the city level, community level, or county level. Mr. Finocchi stated it falls on the County; however, we are the only homeless shelter in Saratoga, Warren and Washington County. This is for Shelters of Saratoga. Code Blue referrals are 95% Saratoga County. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 16 of 20 Discussion ensued on wording of resolution including the wording public benefit and relaxed standard. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated he is concerned regarding multiple principal structures on one lot. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Mike Toohey, attorney for the Masie’s. The debate you are having is an important one to have. The last time we appeared before the Board we introduced the MOU. There are reasons why that may be vital to have included. It is incredibly important for the Masie’s and the neighborhood. The specificity of this project be understood and stated within your resolution. That specifically states it is to be used for Code Blue purposes. In the future if there is a request to do something else with the building the applicant will need to return and amend the Special Use Permit. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:35 P.M. SEQRA REVIEW: The Board reviewed the SEQRA Part I submitted by the applicant. Discussion ensued concerning SEQRA review by the ZBA or the possibility of deferring the Lead Agency Status. The Board reviewed the SEQRA Part II form. No large or important areas of concern were noted. Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion for a SEQRA Negative Declaration. James Helicke seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, opposed; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, opposed; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-2 James Helicke presented the following resolution. # 2951 IN THE MATTER OF APPEAL SHELTERS OF SARATOGA 14 WALWORTH STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 14 Walworth Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcels 165.58-3-24, 165.58-3-25, 165.58-3-26 and 165.58-3-27 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for area variances to construct an addition to an existing residence for the purposes of providing services pertaining to the Code Blue winter extreme weather emergency shelter program in the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 17 of 20 Urban Residential – 4 district and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on March 27 and April 10, 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 variances for the following amount of relief: 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. 10.4 ft. 9.6 ft. (48%) Minimum rear yard setback: 25 ft. 19.9 ft. 5.1 ft. (20%) 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%) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The Applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the Applicant. Shelters of Saratoga, Inc. (Shelters) is a NYS not-for-profit corporation serving the homeless community in this area. Its Code Blue program is the only program across several counties to provide safe, warm and secure shelter during periods of extreme cold as set forth in New York Executive Order 151. Code Blue has been housed temporarily in other facilities, while Shelters has worked to meet the community’s need for a permanent home for Code Blue. Currently, Shelters’ existing Walworth Street facility is neither of suitable size nor functionally appropriate for this emergency program. As the application indicates, the consolidation of services at this facility will allow Shelters to provide necessary services to Code Blue clients and encourage their transition into more stable housing. According to the application, the demonstrated need for services is 61 individuals and the proposed addition has been designed to accommodate that need. Any reduction in the size or scale of the building would result in Shelters being unable to meet the need identified. The Board notes that the Applicant’s ability to meet this need serves a vital community benefit. The Applicant has stated that alternative orientations of the building were considered, but would increase the number of variances sought or the impact to surrounding properties. There is no available property to purchase adjacent to the site. Building design changes have reduced the initial encroachment into the rear yard setback to the maximum extent possible. 2. The Applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character, or detriment to nearby properties. The Board notes that Shelters already operates a facility on this site and, find upon review of the evidence submitted, that its expansion will not fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood. The Applicant also has taken numerous steps to reduce the impact of the proposed expansion. The mass of the building will be located away from Walworth Street in order to maintain the existing streetscape. The northern edge of the building will be adjacent to the Allerdice lot, which is currently utilized for a light industrial use, rather than the residential uses to the south. For safety and security, the main entrance has been located under a porch which faces Walworth Street. A second entrance along Marvin Alley will be reserved for deliveries and emergency purposes. Fencing is proposed to insulate neighbors along Marvin Alley from foot traffic when the Code Blue facility is open. Shelters also has worked with neighbors to mitigate the impact on adjacent property owners by City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 18 of 20 addressing lighting, gating, incident reporting, and proposed facility use. A memorandum of understanding between the Applicant and neighbors was submitted with this application. Finally, the Board finds that the Code Blue facility is anticipated to serve a vital need of the community at large by providing safe shelter to vulnerable community members. The Board notes that the current Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City Council on June 16, 2015 calls for support for efforts to “provide adequate temporary shelters for the homeless and at risk population.” 3. Although the Board finds several requests for relief substantial, other variances, including the side yard setback and lot width, are in part due to the existing configuration of the building on the lot, which predate current zoning requirements. The Shelters’ property comprises four substandard lots, which are proposed to be consolidated through a lot line adjustment thereby minimizing the number of variances sought. The Board finds that the requests for relief have been minimized to the extent feasible given existing constraints. Furthermore, the Applicant has sought to limit the size of the building to the extent possible, while still serving community needs. According to the Applicant, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance guidelines call for a building of more than 8,100 square feet to accommodate up to 61 overnight occupants. The proposed 6,400 square foot structure is able to achieve a 23 percent smaller use of space through the use of efficient, portable cot structures instead of more substantial framed beds, the construction of a partial basement for storage, the provision of meals in multiple sittings, and an open floor plan design. According to the project architect, “any further reduction in area would come at the expense of the facilities’ ability to serve its intended 61 occupants.” The Board notes that the fulfillment of this public need mitigates the substantiality of the required variances. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. There will only be minimal increased demands on the utility supply, but no other notable impacts to the physical or environmental aspects of the neighborhood. The site to remain permeable would be 31 percent, which exceeds the minimum of 15 percent in the district. 5. The Board notes that the Applicant is addressing a community need that was not foreseen when the Shelter began its operations on Walworth Street in 1991. As indicated on the application, “the need for emergency services became evident to all stakeholders in the region following deaths due to exposure during periods of extreme weather.” NYS Executive Order 151 calls for local authorities to assist homeless individuals when the temperature is 32 degrees or below. Although the request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship, self-creation is not fatal to this application. Notes: Saratoga County Planning Board issued an approval response on March 16, 2017. Planning Board Special Use Permit, Site Plan Review and Lot Line Adjustment required. Susan Steer seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning a relaxed community standard. Gary Hasbrouck stated without a relaxed community standard he cannot support this resolution. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, opposed; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 19 of 20  MOTION PASSES: 6-1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of Meeting Minutes was deferred to the April 24, 2017 ZBA Meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 4/24/17 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 10, 2017 - Page 20 of 20