Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, MAY 8, 2017 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Adam McNeill, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Adam McNeill, Secretary; Susan Steer; James Helicke; Cheryl Grey; Oksana Ludd, Alternate ABSENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Gary Hasbrouck STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS: #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. #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. #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. #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. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2963 STEIGER ADDITION, 238 Maple Avenue, area variance for a previously constructed second story addition to an existing single family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard and minimum total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-2 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: -Building permit application for subject addition submitted December 2005 and denied based on the need for an area variance. -Area variance application submitted December 2005, but not pursued. -Building permit application for new second-story addition on the other side of the house and in a conforming location was not issued because of outstanding violation from 2005. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback: 8 feet .3 feet .3 feet 7.7 feet (96%) Minimum total side yard setback 20 feet 8.8 feet 8.8 feet 11.2 feet (56%) Applicant: Jim & Rochelle Steiger Agent: Matthew Hallanan, Contractor Mr. Hallanan stated the applicants are looking to complete the building permit application process for an existing addition. A building permit application was initiated by the contractor, however it was never completed. The applicants were living out of town at this time and were unaware of this situation. At this time, the applicants are looking to construct an addition on the other side of their home to match the existing. No variances are required or requested for this new addition. What the applicant is proposing tonight is approval for variances requested on the existing addition thereby bringing the old addition into conformance so the new proposed addition building permit can be issued. The applicant is aware there will be some retrofitting of the existing addition to bring it up to code. The proposed addition is a vertical expansion, the addition of a second story, the existing footprint of the residence would not change, only raised the roof height and 2nd floor volume. Adam McNeill, Acting Chairman questioned any other feasible means to achieve your goals or needs. These types of applications where the applicant is looking for forgiveness after construction. It puts the Board in a difficult position. Mr. Steiger stated the second story addition seemed to be the easiest way to achieve what we were looking for. Again, they were unaware of procedure for building permit was not completed by the contractor. DISCLOSURE: Board Member Susan Steer stated she does know Matthew Hallanan. She has no financial interest in this application. There is no need for recusal, simply disclosure. Susan Steer questioned if a building permit or certificate of occupancy was ever issued. Mr. Hallanan stated neither document was ever received that he is aware of. Cheryl Grey questioned the air conditioning unit location to assure it is not outside the eaves. Mr. Hallanan informed the Board where the units are located. PUBLIC HEARING: Adam McNeill, Acting Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:17 P.M. Adam McNeill, Acting Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 24, 2017 - Page 2 of 11 Adam McNeill, Acting Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for May 22, 2017. OLD BUSINESS: 1. #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. This application was heard at the April 10, 2017 meeting and adjourned for an advisory opinion from the DRC. The public hearing was opened on April 10, 2017 and remains open. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair stated a favorable advisory opinion without comments was received from the DRC. Was any further information requested of the applicant? Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated the Board did request rear setback information from the porch addition overhang to Morton Place. That figure is 57.3 ft, so we will not be requiring any variances there. Also, there was a question of permeability of the site which is at 49.7%, the district requirements are 15%. The DRC issued a favorable advisory opinion. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Adam McNeill, Acting Chair stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair closed the public hearing at 7:19 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. #2956 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Thomas Grossman 199 Milton Ave Suite 1 Ballston Spa, NY 12020 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 169 Union Ave. in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.69-3-12 on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of a porch on to an existing residence in a UR-4 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 10th day of April and 8th day of May 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: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 24, 2017 - Page 3 of 11  DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum Side Yard Setback (East) 20’ 10’ 10’ or 50% Minimum front yard setback (Ludlow St) 25’ 19.5’ 5.5’ or 22% Maximum lot coverage- principal building 25% 33.7% 8.7% or 34.8% As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicants have demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicants. The applicant notes that shifting the porch further to the west side of the property would not be as functional, and would increase the Ludlow St frontage setback variance. The applicant further notes that making the porch smaller would limit its functionality as a sitting area and that the size has already been reduced to minimize requested variances. Reducing the overhangs would slightly reduce the setback and coverage variances; however it would make the design inconsistent with the residence. The applicant also notes that there is no available neighboring land that could be purchased. The board notes that the property has preexisting nonconformity with building coverage and side setback requirements. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The proposed porch is in the rear of the home and not visible from Union Avenue. The proposed porch is no wider than the existing house, and, per the applicant, the replacement of the existing back stairs and deteriorating porch and roof overhang will improve the view from neighboring properties. The Board notes Design Review Commission issued a favorable advisory opinion on this project on May 3. 3. The Board finds the east side variance to be substantial on a percentage basis; however, the Board notes the placement of the house on the lot close to the east property line is the reason for this. At 10 feet, the porch is actually further from the east property line than the existing house, which per the application materials has a back corner 1.9 feet from the line. On front setback from Ludlow, the Board finds the variance is not substantial. On lot coverage, the porch will result in an increase from the existing coverage of 32.7% to 33.7%; the Board does not find the incremental relief to be significant. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district, as the footprint will only change slightly to the extent of the small porch area; the lot’s proposed permeability % will exceed permeability requirements of 30%. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed porch, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: DRC issued a favorable advisory opinion on May 3, 2017 Cheryl Grey seconded the motion. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if there was any further discussion. DISCLOSURE: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 24, 2017 - Page 4 of 11 Oksana Ludd, alternate stated she did review all the materials from the April 10, 2017, and April 24, 2017, meetings as well as view the webcasts. She does feel confident to vote on the applications this evening. VOTE: Adam McNeill, Acting Chair, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 2. #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-1 District. This application was heard at the April 10, 2017 meeting and adjourned for an Advisory Opinion from the DRC. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if the Board had requested any additional information from the applicant. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated no additional information was requested. PUBLIC HEARING: Adam McNeill, Acting Chair stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair closed the public hearing at 7:26 P.M. Cheryl Grey presented the following resolution. DRAFT MOTION #2958 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Michael and Linda Englert 52 Franklin Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 52 Franklin Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.59-1-49 in the UR-4 district on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance to maintain a previously constructed deck and to construct an enclosed rear porch addition to an existing single-family residence and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on April 10 and May 8, 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 EXISTING PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REQUIREMENT City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 24, 2017 - Page 5 of 11  Minimum side yard setback 20 feet 3.5 feet 3 feet 17 feet (85%) 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 states that the porch has existed since 1894 and the enclosure will continue the architectural features. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. There is no property available for purchase and the 50’ wide lot has been in existence. 3. The Board finds that the request for relief is substantial but the substantiality is offset by the fact that the house is in existence and will not impact neighboring properties. The applicant has applied for an area variance to construct an enclosed rear porch on a previously constructed deck to an existing single-family residence. The deck has been in existence and only a portion will be enclosed with a roof extending 6’. 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. The additional roof will not be visible from the front of the home. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship, however self-creation alone is not fatal to the application. NOTE: Historic Review by Design Review Commission on January 4, and favorable advisory opinion issued on May 3, 2017 James Helicke seconded the motion. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Adam McNeill, Acting Chair, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 2. #2960 WHALEN GARAGE, 39 Second Street, area variance to permit finished/habitable space in an accessory structure (residential) in the Urban Residential-2 District. This application was heard at the April 24, 2017 meeting and adjourned. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if the Board had requested any additional information from the applicant. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated no additional information was requested. PUBLIC HEARING: Adam McNeill, Acting Chair stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 24, 2017 - Page 6 of 11 Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair closed the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. Cheryl Grey presented the following resolution. Application #2960 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Andrew Whalen 39 Second Street Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 from the Building Inspector’s determination for the same premises, identified as Tax Parcel Section 165.36-2-6. WHEREAS, the appellant has applied for an AREA VARIANCE for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for creating habitable space in an accessory building in a UR-2 zoning district; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on April 24th and May 8th, 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 VARIANCE for the following relief or lesser dimensions, be APPROVED: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Pool changing/entertainment area (with half Unfinished/uninhabitable Finished/habitable bath) in accessory structure (residential): space space 100% 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant spoke of the need for additional entertainment space due to the cost prohibitive nature of blasting bedrock from the basement. The alternative expansion was through the basement until bedrock was encountered. The applicant stated the height of the usable part of the basement was insufficient for entertainment space. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The garage meets the dimensional requirements of the district. The applicant has indicated that the finished area within the garage would be used seasonally (no heat) and would not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. 3) The relief requested may be considered substantial. 100% relief is substantial but will be somewhat mitigated by conditions placed on the variance. No bathing facilities nor kitchen will be constructed within the garage. 4) The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. No variance for impermeable area is anticipated. 5) The difficulty may be considered self-created. This, however, is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: Garage may not contain a kitchen nor bathing facilities and no overnight stays. Only a ½ bath will be allowed. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 24, 2017 - Page 7 of 11 Susan Steer seconded the motion. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if there was any further discussion. Cheryl Grey stated she will be voting against this application. This is a large space and is not in keeping with the style of the home. VOTE: Adam McNeill, Acting Chair, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Cheryl Grey, opposed; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-1 3. #2961 McMAHON ADDITION, 96 White Street, area variance to construct a second-story addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-3 District. This application was heard at the April 24, 2017 meeting and adjourned. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if the Board had requested any additional information from the applicant. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated no additional information was requested. PUBLIC HEARING: Adam McNeill, Acting Chair stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair closed the public hearing at 7:37 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF JENNIFER MCMAHON 96 WHITE STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 96 White Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 166.77-1-2 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 24, 2017 - Page 8 of 11 applied for an area variance to construct a second-story addition to the primary residence in a UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on April 24 and May 8, 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 variance for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT Minimum Side Yard Setback 4 feet 2 feet 2 feet (50%) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The Applicant desires to construct a second-story addition above an existing one and one-half story primary residence where the addition will be above the existing footprint of the residence. The residence is preexisting nonconforming. The Applicant desires to create an additional bedroom and considered other alternatives but explained that the basement is not habitable and due to the interior layout of the exiting residence, placing an addition on the first floor at the rear of the residence would not be feasible. 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. The addition is at the rear of the residence, will not be visible from the street and the residence on the adjacent property is not near the property line. Windows on the nonconforming side of the residence will be removed in accordance with city code regulations. 3. The Board finds that the request for relief is substantial however substantiality is mitigated by the fact that the residence is preexisting nonconforming, the second story will replace an existing one-half story and the addition will stay within the existing footprint. 4. The Board finds that the Applicant has demonstrated that granting this area variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. According to the Applicant, the addition “will not adversely affect the sight lines or shading of the adjoining property” 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship, however self-creation alone is not fatal to the application. Cheryl Grey seconded the motion. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Adam McNeill, Acting Chair, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 24, 2017 - Page 9 of 11 4. #2962 MUMFORD/KLEPETAR GARAGE, 58 Newton Avenue, area variance to construct an attached garage addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard and total side yard setbacks in the Urban Residential-2 District. This application was heard at the April 24, 2017 meeting and adjourned. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if the Board had requested any additional information from the applicant. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated no additional information was requested. PUBLIC HEARING: Adam McNeill, Acting Chair stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair closed the public hearing at 7:41 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. DRAFT MOTION #2962 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Megan Mumford and Colin Klepetar 58 Newton Avenue SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 58 Newton Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.49-1-21 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to construct an attached garage addition to an existing single-family residence and seeking relief from side yard setback and total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential – 2 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on April 24 and May 8, 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 REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback 8 feet 4.5 feet 3.5 feet (44%) Minimum total side yard setback 20 feet 11.5 feet 8.5 feet (42%) 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 indicted that that they considered pouring a basement floor to provide storage space, but were advised by contractors that, “…because of the slope of the basement floor, the grade of the lot and water runoff from a nearby property that this option would not work”. As far as alternate placement of the garage addition, City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 24, 2017 - Page 10 of 11  as the applicant states, “Given that our house is in the middle of the lot (North to South) and back towards the rear property line, we would need a garage on one side or another to avoid having one in front of our house”. The Board notes that the garage has been designed to be smaller in width than a typical two-car garage. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. As the applicant states, “We will be constructing a garage that will reflect the character of the neighborhood by building an attached garage that will look very much like the attached garages on Newton, Outlook, Central and Bensonhurst Avenues”. 3. The request for relief for side yard setback and total side yard setback is substantial at 44% and 42%; however, the total side yard setback is partly due to the preexisting nonconforming side yard (south) at 7.2 feet. As the applicant states, “Because of where the house is located on the lot (to the rear and central), no matter where we built an attached garage it would be likely we would need a variance”. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. As the applicant states, “The addition will not change the drainage or runoff patterns already associated with this site”. The applicant stated at the meeting that the existing driveway would be removed and relocated to access the new garage and would be constructed with a permeable surface. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship due to the applicant’s desire to construct this garage addition. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Susan Steer seconded the motion. Adam McNeill, Acting Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Adam McNeill, Acting Chair, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the May 22, 2017 ZBA meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Adam McNeill, Acting Chair adjourned the meeting at 7:46 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 6/26/17 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 24, 2017 - Page 11 of 11