Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2017 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Susan Steer; Adam McNeil, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck; Cheryl Grey; James Helicke; Oksana Ludd, Alternate: STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Steve Shaw, Building Inspector, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney, City of Saratoga Springs Vincent DeLeonardis, 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: #2966 BEHAN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE INTERPRETATION, 66 White Street, interpretation appeal of determination of the Zoning and Building Inspector that permitted water and sewer connections to a previously approved residential garage in the Urban Residential-3 District. #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. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2980 CODE BLUE INTERPRETATION, 14 Walworth Street, interpretation appeal of determination of the Zoning and Building Inspector that the proposed Code Blue emergency shelter is consistent with a use defined as neighborhood rooming house in the Urban Residential-4 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, “interpreting an existing code, rule or regulation: and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: -Special use permit and site plan review applications are pending before the Planning Board. -Area variance 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, approved April 10, 2017. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the Board is conducting procedural business this evening concerning the timeliness of the appeal. I would like to hear from the attorney’s, first Claudia Braymer, and then Libby Coreno concerning the timeliness of the appeal. DISCLOSURE: Board member Cheryl Grey stated she did have a conversation with Libby Coreno following the Zoning Meeting on Code Blue. We did not discuss anything to do with the application of Code Blue. This will not cloud my judgment in this application. Bill Moore, Chairman stated Claudia Braymer was the attorney on a house he purchased at foreclosure. Claudia Braymer stated she is an attorney representing a group of concerned neighbors who live in the vicinity of the Code Blue facility. There are 22 different appellants listed in the information packet. A visual presentation was provided to the Board concerning the timeliness of this appeal. Many of these neighbors live outside the 100 foot area and were never notified concerning the area variances. The first they heard of this application was when it went before the Planning Board and I have been representing them since. I did file a FOIL request for information from the City concerning the determination of the Building Inspector. The City informed me that there was no document and they were in the process of creating a document, which I received May 25, 2017, from the Zoning and Building Inspector. This document stated this fits the definition of neighborhood rooming house which we disagree with. The Zoning code and town law states this determination must be in writing and filed. That was not done so my time to appeal never began to run until it was filed. We filed our paperwork by June 5, 2017 well within our time frame to do so. I have sent off to the City Attorney case law with a case which is very much on point with this. So in my determination this was filed in a timely manner. Libby Coreno, partner with Carter Conboy. Counsel to Shelters since the beginning. I will start with state law which attorney Braymer referenced and the town law but we are under the General City Law, 81a(5)(b) which states an appeal shall be taken within 60 days after the filing of any order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination of the administrative official. In the first instance I have provided case law which stated the timing begins the first time the building inspector makes a determination, which “gives rise to an appeal”. Ms. Coreno reviewed the timeline. The first time this application was before the public -February 27, 2017 – an appeal for area variances resulted in appearing before this Board. Upon review of the building inspector as to facts and information submitted an appeal for an area variance was March 13, 2017. Subsequent to that the 100 ft boundary line notification was mailed on March 3, 2017 pursuant to certified mailing per city code notification. The application was adjourned to March 27, 2017 for the first time. During that meeting it was noted by the Board concerning the definition neighborhood rooming house as defined by the Building Inspector. Then opened a public hearing and held it open. On April 4, 2017, the Special Use notification went out the neighbors within the 250 ft boundary line owners. This is 6 days prior to this body approving the requested area variances. These are the distances required under the City code for notification because they will be the most impacted by any decisions made by the Boards. April 10, 2017 Building Inspector Shaw appeared before this Board and at a public meeting explained for over 10 minutes citing the reasons for his determination. On that night this Board produced a resolution which specifically referenced: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 2 of 22  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 Urban Residential – 4 district and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on March 27 and April 10, 2017. This specifically makes reference “from the determination of the Building Inspector”. On April 13, 2017 this application was heard before the Planning Board and all neighbors within the 250 ft designation were informed of this application before the Planning Board process. During that meeting one Planning Board member asked did you get a use variance or just area variances. Mr. Ingersoll stated just area variances. Principal Planner, Kate Maynard stated Steve Shaw is the building inspector but he wears another hat, Zoning Enforcement Officer. He made that determination of this being the definition that fit and most closely related to the proposal of the applicant. Counsel for the City advised the public body that a determination by the Zoning Enforcement Officer would be appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. As of April 13, 2017 in the public forum even the procedure to challenge the determination was made public. As a result, I have provided case law from the NYS Court of Appeals which states “as such time to appeal such a finding by the Building Inspector is 60 days from the determination which gives rise to the appeal under General City Law 81-a. The NYS Court of Appeals has gone further any attempts to widen the time to appeals should be met with scrutiny. The purpose of the 60 days limitation of the law is to provide repose to the property owner and those who buy or lend money should be able to rely on the fact that the time to appeal from the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy has run. We would like to be able to rely on the 60 days from the determination. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he would like to open up the discussion on this Board concerning the timeliness of the Appeal and their opinions and how to proceed. Gary Hasbrouck questioned Libby Coreno when does the clock start for the 60 days. Libby Coreno stated it starts to run with the placement on the agenda indicating that an appeal is pending on Zoning determination on March 13, 2017. Claudia Bramyer stated the residents should also be able to rely upon the law and also on the Zoning Inspector to follow the law and he did not do that. There was no written determination until May 25, 2017. That is the date the clock starts. That’s per the law. There was no notice to the world that there was a written determination from the Building Inspector. It was an application for an area variance which is what the Board granted. Gary Hasbrouck questioned why an Article 78 was not filed within 30 days. Claudia Braymer stated they are not challenging the area variance. We are challenging what we believe is an incorrect categorization of this use as a neighborhood rooming house. Libby Coreno stated that underlies why the Court of Appeals takes this position in interpreting 81-a under the General City Law 276 the Town Law and 717 under the Village Law, this is a heavily litigated area over time. The reason for that is that the Planning Department would grind to a halt if every single thing a Building Inspector found had to be written and noted. Attorney Braymer just noted the arbitrariness of her position which is because it is important to these neighbors it should have a different rule. There is no support of that in the law. Cherie Grey questioned attorney Braymer as to when the FOIL request was made. Claudia Braymer stated approximately one week or ten days prior to the May 25, 2017 date. Cherie Grey asked if she was provided with any information. Claudia Braymer stated she received notification of her request. No information was provided at that time. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 3 of 22 James Helicke questioned where was the denial filed. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated it was filed in the Office of the Administrative Official, Steve Shaw’s Office. James Helicke stated the way this Board works is that we can only make a decision when the Building Inspector makes a written determination, and that is in the form of a signed denial. We do have one in this case and staff indicates that it was on file on March 13, 2017 and that would indicate it would be available to public. Does that make the formal determination of the Building Inspector? Libby Coreno stated in my opinion it would. The statement of the procedure is accurate as I have seen it. I do not know the scope of the request or what was requested. I was not aware of the declination since that is how this Board operates. This body has jurisdiction only upon a determination. Claudia Braymer questioned why she wasn’t given this information instead of this letter dated May 25, 2017 when I requested all determinations or send me the denial. I do not agree that placement on the agenda denotes a determination or denial. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated James asked his question concerning the denial and the purview of our Board. Susan Steer stated this is a jurisdictional issue. We can’t do anything until we receive a determination. When we receive a denial from the Building Inspector, on the form it lists whether it is an area variance, a use variance an extension or interpretation. This is dated March 13, 2017, when the clock started. Are you saying that every time the building inspector looks at a project unless he or she writes out that this particular use is permitted or explains in this document? In my mind this is implicit. The fact that he has not checked this off that a use variance is required; he has already made a determination. Claudia Braymer stated that it does not state that this is a neighborhood rooming house. I have never seen the document you speak about. I have a document dated May 25, 2017. Discussion ensued concerning uses and what is permitted. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned how long does a homeowner or property owners have in order to avoid this type of tyranny. What is the statute? Claudia Braymer stated we are not challenging the area variances. The Special Use Permit is before the Planning Board. They want your determination first. Libby Coreno stated in looking at 81-a these items trigger the 60 days. An order, a requirement, a decision, an interpretation, or a determination. What we are asking from Mr. Shaw is an explanation and that is not on this list. He is not required to give a written explanation. Claudia Braymer read the citation from the City Code which is different from the state law is 8.4.1 each decision of the administrative official charged with enforcement of this zoning ordinance shall be filed in the office of such official within 5 business days from the day that it is rendered and be a public record. The appeal shall be submitted 60 days from the date of the filing for that decision. Discussion ensued concerning the FOIL request and determination. Bill Moore, Chairman questioned Steve Shaw, Building Inspector, to his letter dated May 25, 2017, was that written words of what your determination was of March 13, 2017 or was that a new determination. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 4 of 22 Steve Shaw, Building Inspector stated that would be the written words. First I am not saying that there isn’t one, but I am not aware of a FOIL request. I have an email from Claudia Braymer to my secretary on the 22nd of May. That email which does not constitute a FOIL request. Mr. Shaw read into the record the email sent to Ms. Farone. In that email Ms. Braymer asked for copies of the Building Inspector’s determination regarding the Code Blue facility proposed for 14 Walworth Street. What you get for each meeting is not a determination only. It is a denial based on a decision of determination already made but not necessarily written out. I make a determination when I do the denial. The denial is the determination insomuch as it’s telling you what needs to be done to receive the variance. I did not see that email as a request for all documentation including a denial but rather that she was looking for an explanation or written interpretation which did not exist because I do not write out all interpretations. Planning and zoning staff come to me everyday sometimes multiple times a day to ask for my interpretation of how to categorize different things as they are being proposed. I make determinations all day long. I do not write down all determinations in that capacity. This is what allows them to move forward and what is needed in terms of variances. That is what we do in terms of the denial. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned when we receive a denial and it does not state anything about this particular project is less than the maximum height of the building. It doesn’t say anything about that. So, we in our capacity are operating under the assumption that there is not going to be a variance or a question about height. So all the things that are not written there are actually determinations that meet the requirements for building heights. You are also making the determination that this particular use meets the district requirements for use. When you made the determination in this case were you making the determination that this is a rooming house or are you making the determination that this was a project that was in the range of acceptable uses? Steve Shaw, Building Inspector stated he made the determination that this was a rooming house. I do believe it does meet the qualifications of a rooming house which does not need a use variance. James Helicke questioned whether the written document issued May 25, 2017, is a request from counsel was an explanation for a determination that you had already made and coincides with the Building Inspector’s denial. Steve Shaw, Building Inspector stated yes. That would have been made back in March which generated the denial. Bill Moore, Chairman took a straw poll of the Board concerning the timeliness of the Appeal. Gary Hasbrouck stated we need to move on the timeliness of the appeal first. Board Members agreed with Gary Hasbrouck’s suggestion. It was the consensus of the Board to move on the timeliness of the appeal first. James Helicke made a motion to present a resolution for the timeliness of the appeal. Cherie Grey seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 James Helicke presented the following resolution. #2980 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 5 of 22  ROBERT PRINGLE, ANGELA PRINGLE, KYRA PRINGLE, MARIKA MURRAY, COLLEEN MORGAN, CHARLES BENTLEY, CONSTANCE CONTOMPASIS, CHRIS ERMIDES, DAVID RAILSBACK, ALISON RAILSBACK, DAVID EGER, MATTHEW DICKSON, SUZANNE DICKSON, EMANUEL CONTOMPASIS, MARY ELLEN CONTOMPASIS, BETH DELLAROCCO, STEVE LABATE, MAUREEN CURTIN, ROBERT SPRING, KATHRYN SPRING, CELIA DILLION, THOMAS DILLION CONCERNING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR’S DETERMINATION FOR SHELTERS OF SARATOGA 14 WALWORTH STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 This Interpretation Appeal was submitted by several neighbors who reside in close proximity to a property located at 14 Walworth Street and identified as tax parcel numbers 165.58-3-24 & 42 in the Urban Residential – 4 District on the assessment map of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York. The applicants assert their standing as aggrieved parties to challenge the 2017 determination of the Zoning and Building Inspector that a proposed addition to an existing residence in order to provide Code Blue emergency shelter services constituted a neighborhood rooming house as defined in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and subject to the issuance of a special use permit by the City’s Planning Board. The Board has reviewed legal arguments submitted by both counsel for the Neighbors and for Shelters of Saratoga. In reference to this challenge, the Board makes the following findings: The Board notes that on February 27, 2017 Shelters of Saratoga submitted to the City Planning Office its application for area variances for proposed construction of a 6,400 sq. ft. addition to an existing residence to provide services pertaining to the Code Blue program. The Building Inspector determined that the proposed project met the definition of a neighborhood rooming house as outlined in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and also issued a formal “Zoning and Building Inspector Denial of Application for Land Use and/or Building” on March 13, 2017 indicating that area variances requiring approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) were required for the project to proceed. The Building Inspector Denial was dated and filed in the Planning Office on the same day. This Building Inspector Denial also shows the Building Inspector’s determination that no use variance was required for the Code Blue project. The Board notes that the Building Inspector Denial is an established component of ZBA process and procedures. The Board further notes that the Building Inspector Denial is required to provide the ZBA the parameters of its deliberations; any violations, encroachments, or inconsistencies with district requirements and uses are articulated on the denial. Deliberation by the Zoning and Building Inspector is performed in the preparation of the denial. The Zoning Board of Appeals held its initial public hearing on the Code Blue application on March 27, 2017, in which the area variances required by the building inspector’s determination and as outlined by the Building Inspector’s Denial were discussed. ZBA members also discussed the definition of neighborhood rooming house as determined by the building inspector at the March 27, 2017 meeting. The April 10, 2017 ZBA resolution approving area variances for the Code Blue project also made specific reference to the fact that the decision was drawn “from a determination of the Building Inspector.” The Building Inspector, Steven Shaw, explained on his prior determination of the project as a neighborhood rooming house both at a April 10, 2017 ZBA meeting and in May 25, 2017 correspondence issued solely at the request of counsel for the applicants for this appeal. The board finds that no new facts or evidence were provided by the Building Inspector in this May 25, 2017 letter, but rather the Building Inspector was commenting on facts already in the record and reviewed by the ZBA during its proceedings. The Building’s Inspector’s determination remained consistent throughout the land use process and the May 25, 2017 letter in no way constituted a new determination by the Building Inspector. Furthermore, as noted above, the denial provides the parameters of the ZBA’s granting of the variances. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 6 of 22 Thus the Board concludes that the building inspector’s determination was made, in accordance with City ZBA standard practice and procedures, at the time that the Building Inspector issued a formal Building Inspector’s denial on March 13, 2017 thereby permitting the Code Blue applications to land use boards to commence. New York General City Law 81-a (5) (b) provides: “An appeal shall be taken within sixty days after the filing of any order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination of the administrative official, by filing with such administrative official and with the board of appeals a notice of appeal, specifying the grounds thereof and the relief sought. The administrative official from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the board of appeals all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken.” This Board, therefore, finds that the current appeal, filed on June 5, 2017, exceeds the 60 days stipulated by this statute and is, therefore, time barred from further consideration. Note: Building Inspector denial dated March 13, 2017; ZBA resolution dated April 10, 2017. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the wording of the resolution. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 City Attorney Vince DeLeonardis exited the meeting at 8:13 P.M. Building Inspector Steve Shaw exited the meeting at 8:13 P.M. 2. #2981 KIRKLAND POOL, 2 Coesa Drive, area variance for a pool, seeking relief to permit placement within the front yard 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 PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Pool location on side or rear (not front) yard Side or rear Front Front yard placement (100%) Applicant: Todd Kirkland Mr. Kirkland stated due to the unusual shape of our corner lot and the placement of the house on the lot we have very limited open area to place an above ground pool. The property is a corner lot with two front yards. The pool would appear to be located in the side yard of the property. This is a minor change to the neighborhood and is in the character of the community. There are no open additional locations that give the required setback and separation from adjacent properties. This is a residential neighborhood with many families and swimming pools. This will blend with the existing properties and will not change the character of the neighborhood. The accessory building coverage for the detached garage, shed and pool would be approximately 6.5% under the maximum 8% permitted in the district. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 7 of 22 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he wants to focus on other feasible means and alternatives. Mr. Kirkland stated in the rear of the home is limited space. We have a large tree in the yard; however, we do not want to remove it. The entire yard is fenced. Discussion ensued regarding alternatives to side yard placement of the pool. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman requested a permeability calculation for the property. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning permeability and the calculation was determined to meet the district requirements. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented and the end of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:27 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. NOTE: The agenda was heard out of order. OLD BUSINESS: 3. #2964 SKIDMORE COLLEGE ROWING EXPANSION, Stafford’s Bridge & Meadowbrook Roads, area variance for construction of a training facility and boat storage buildings to existing rowing facility; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement for buildings and parking area in the Rural Residential District. RECUSALS: Board Member, Susan Steer recused from this application, her spouse works for Skidmore College. Board Member, James Helicke recused from this application since he is a faculty member at Skidmore College. Board Vice Chairman, Keith Kaplan recused from this application he is a neighboring property owner. Board Alternate Oksana Ludd assumed her position on the Board. This application was heard at the May 22, 2017 meeting and adjourned to June 12, 2017. The Board requested additional explanation as to why the discussed alternatives would not be feasible. The public hearing was opened on May 22, 2017 and remains open. The application was further adjourned to June 26, 2017 due to lack of a quorum. The applicant provided a Freshwater Wetlands permit as issued by the DEC on June 20, 2017. 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. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 8 of 22 Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:29 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. #2964 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL of Skidmore College North Hall, 815 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 from the Building Inspector’s determination for the premises, identified as Tax Parcel Section 167-3-12 & 167-3-17, WHEREAS, the appellant has applied for AREA VARIANCES for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for the addition of buildings to house and expand an existing rowing program in a RR zoning district; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on May 22nd and June 26th, 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 Min. front yard setback: Training and office bldg. 60 ft. 0 ft. 60 ft. (100%) Min. front yard setback: Boat storage bldg. 60 ft. 0 ft. 60 ft. (100%) Min. front yard setback: To parking 60 ft. 0 ft. 60 ft. (100%) 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. No adjacent land is available for sale. The applicant provided a memo dated 5/24/17 outlining several reasons why alternative designs were not feasible. The memo states, “…connecting a new building to the existing structure, which has a history of settling, is not advisable.” Combining the buildings would have reduced the number of variances requested. The applicant also noted the buildings would not be able to be set back from the County property due to the wet lands located within a foot of the rear of the buildings. The applicant also noted, “Building a two-story building was initially pursued. However, the poor underlying soil conditions and flood plain considerations led to a footing/structural system that was impractical.” 2) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant stated, “The smaller separated buildings fit the agricultural/rural scale and character of the neighborhood and vicinity better than a long narrow building.” The application also states, “The aesthetics will also be improved by providing more indoor storage for boats and equipment.” 3) The relief requested may be considered substantial. 100% relief is substantial but will be somewhat mitigated by “the 55’ buffer between the Staffords Bridge Road pavement and existing building.” The Board notes none of the buildings will be built any closer to Staffords Bridge Road due to the County ROW between the applicant’s property line and the pavement of the County road. 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. The application states, “The majority of the proposed improvements will be constructed within previously disturbed areas….” City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 9 of 22  5) The difficulty may be considered self-created. This, however, 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; Oksana Ludd, alternate, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, opposed MOTION PASSES: 4-1 4. #2970 SKIDMORE SCIENCE CENTER ADDITION, 815 Broadway, area variance for an addition to the Dana Science Center; seeking relief to exceed the maximum building height with placement of mechanical equipment in the Institutional Educational District. RECUSALS: Board Member, Susan Steer recused from this application, her spouse works for Skidmore College. Board Member, James Helicke recused from this application since he is a faculty member at Skidmore College. Board Alternate Oksana Ludd assumed her position on the Board. DISCLOSURES: Gary Hasbrouck Board Member disclosed that he has reviewed the materials for this application and is comfortable voting on the resolution this evening. Adam McNeill, Board Secretary disclosed that he has reviewed the materials for this application and is comfortable voting on the resolution this evening. This application was heard at the June 12, 2017 meeting and adjourned to June 26, 2017. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The applicant provided a visibility memo on June 15, 2017. 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 8:34 P.M. SEQRA: - A short EAF has been submitted by the applicant. No large or important areas of concern were noted on the EAF Part 2. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 10 of 22 Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion in the matter of the Skidmore Science Center Addition, 815 Broadway for a SEQRA Negative Declaration. Cheryl Grey seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. #2970 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Skidmore College Science Center, 815 Broadway Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 815 Broadway in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 152.-1-9 in the Inside District, on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit an addition to an existing building in an INST-ED district and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the June 12th and 26th, 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 variances for the following amount of relief: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum roof area to be covered with mechanicals that exceed the max. building height: 25% 47% 22% (88%) Max. height: For 160 sq. ft. of occupied space 50 ft. 60 ft. 10 ft. (20%) 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 noted that many alternatives were analyzed for the expansion of the science center, and “The chosen alternative allows the college to expand the facilities while having the least impact on the existing building, surrounding campus buildings and the existing site infrastructure”. 2. The board notes that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The application states, “The required height variance associated with the proposed building expansion is set within the college campus, well buffered from neighboring properties. The proposed expansion is 725 feet from the Fourth Street right of way, and more than 750 feet to the North Broadway right of way.” 3. The request for relief could be considered substantial at 88% and 20%. However, some of this substantiality is limited by placement of the occupied space and building mechanicals, which are stepped back from the edge of the main building to reduce its visual impact. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 11 of 22  4. The board concludes this variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The application indicates no adverse physical or environmental effects because the proposed expansion is consistent with the neighboring buildings within the campus and is well buffered from neighboring properties. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed addition, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: Planning Board site plan review required County Planning Board response of No County Impact Cheryl Grey seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Board Member Susan Steer resumed her position on the Board. Board Member James Helicke resumed his position on the Board. Board Member Keith Kaplan resumed his position on the Board. Oksana Ludd, Board Alternate exited the meeting at 8:45 P.M. NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED: 3. #2982 LANCASTER ADDITION, 74 Oak Street, area variance for a rear two-story addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback (Walnut St.), side yard setback an maximum principal building requirements 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 Maximum principal building coverage: 30% N/A 44.6% 14.6% Minimum front yard setback: Walnut St. 10 ft. 1.8 ft. Approx. 4 ft. 6 ft. 60%) Minimum side yard setback: 8 ft. 1.2 ft. 1.2 ft. 6.8 ft. (85%) Applicant: Andrew Lancaster Agent: Bob Flansburg, Dreamscape Unlimited Mr. Flansburg provided a visual presentation of the site with views of all elevations and floor plans. The applicant is proposing to remodel a portion of the home remove and replace the existing garage and add some additional two story living space to all of the above. Mr. Flansburg provided a history of the home and what is currently proposed. A plot City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 12 of 22 plan of the home was provided for the Boards review. The applicant’s home is on a corner lot at the corner of Walnut and Oak Streets. Mr. Lancaster stated they are trying to plan for the future for parents and in-laws moving in. It is a large one car garage. We have looked at options. James Helicke stated one thing is that they are basically maintaining current setbacks and that is appreciated. One thing which strikes me is that this seems to be a much larger mass. The proposed addition is really quite large relative to what it is now. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the size of the addition and a request of the applicant to provide the existing principal building coverage. James Helicke questioned if there is any possibility of making this project smaller. Mr. Flansburg stated we have been discussing this. There are a number of two story homes immediately adjacent to this home. The space above the garage adds to what you are speaking about. However a two story home is not unusual to this neighborhood. It is a corner lot and is more visible. Susan Steer stated she would like information concerning the lot coverage’s for some of the neighboring properties and would also like to see the calculation for the existing principal building coverage. I am not inclined to support this due to the proximity of the second story to the side yard. It is incredibly imposing to have two full stories that close on the south side 1.2 feet from the neighbor. That is a huge encroachment. I would like comparables in the area. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned if the applicant would be amendable to a stipulation for no accessory structures. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he also has an issue with the amount of lot coverage. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the addition. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman, opened the public hearing at 9:04 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Matt Sperzale, neighbor who lives across the street, stated he has no problem with the size of the addition. He is in favor of the project. There are a lot of bigger homes being built. Alex Menna, neighbor to the east. Mr. Menna has no problem or concerns with the proposed structure. Similar size, similar lot coverage in the area. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA Meeting scheduled for July 10, 2017. 4. #2983 SMISLOFF ADDITION, 10 Washington Street, areas variance for an exterior stair and rear/deck walkway addition to an existing multi-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback (Walworth St.), side yard setback and maximum principal building requirements in the Urban Residential-4 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 13 of 22 PARCEL HISTORY: -Site plan review approval July 9, 2014. -Area variance extension approved January 25, 2016. -Area variance to permit a three-family residence; relief from the minimum lot size (for three dwelling units) and minimum setback to parking, approved June 23, 2014. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum principal building coverage 25% 30% 33% 9% (32%) Minimum front yard setback: Walworth St. 25 ft. 0 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. (60%) Minimum side yard setback 20 ft. Approx. 7 ft. 5.5 ft. 14.5 ft. (72.5%) Applicant: Mark Smisloff Agent: Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architects Ms. Davis provided a model of the proposed project. This basically has been sitting vacant for about 10 years and fallen into disrepair. This will put the property back on the tax roll and provide a safe exit to meet code and not impact the neighborhood in a negative way. The previous application with the previous owner did not develop a plan with the interior exit stair which could be an option; however, the interior layout is significantly compromised along with the historic integrity of the building. A visual presentation was provided to the Board. The applicant is now requesting new variances. Mr. Smisloff is looking to return this to a 3 family home. This however requires two means of egress. Visual floor plans were provided for the Board’s review as well as what the applicant is proposing along with the exterior staircase. The parking will remain off the street as previously approved from the Planning Board. The site plan will remain as previously approved. Lot coverage comparables were provided to the Board. A good portion of them are well over what we are requesting. We are requesting from 30% to 33%. There will not be an impact to the neighborhood. Adam McNeill, Secretary, questioned if there is any other feasible means to achieve the benefit. This is giving him some cause for the concern. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the alternative plans and the variances requested as well as the original resolution and relief provided. Cherie Grey thanked the applicant for restoring the home. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:30 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 July 10, 2017. 5. #2984 SONG & WANG SUBDIVISION, 21 Murphy Lane, area variance for a two-lot residential subdivision; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width for Lots 1 & 2 and minimum lot area, minimum side yard and minimum total side yard setback requirements for lot 2 in the Urban Residential-2 District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 14 of 22 SEQRA: Action appears to be an unlisted action. A short EAF has been submitted. The project also requires subdivision by the Planning Board. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum average lot width Lot 1 60 feet 45 feet 15 feet (25%) Minimum average lot width Lot 2 60 feet 46 feet 14 feet (23%) Minimum lot size: Lot 2 6,600 sq. ft. 4,643 sq. ft. 1,957 sq. ft. (30%) Minimum side yard setback: Existing house on proposed Lot 2 8 feet 7.7 ft. .3 feet (4%) Minimum total side yard setback: Existing house on proposed Lot 2 20 feet 14.6 ft. 5.4 feet (27%) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: -Per 8.4.6 City Planning Board advisory opinion required. -Planning Board subdivision approval is required. Applicant: Renea Song and Chung Wang Agent: Mike Toohey, Attorney Mr. Toohey stated the property is located between Lincoln and Murphy Lane. The applicants have owned the property since 2003. They would like to subdivide the property into two lots. Currently there is an address designation for each property, lot. The front lot which is vacant is 133 Lincoln Avenue and the rear property is located at 21 Murphy Lane and has an existing structure on it. A visual presentation was provided for the Board. The new lot which will be created on Lincoln will be 6600 square feet. The building that can be placed on that lot. The only area this does not comply is with the mean lot width due to the 45 foot width of the property. There are 41 lots in the UR-2 and UR-3 zone in this neighborhood. Of the 41 lots 33 do not comply with the mean lot width. This is a historic neighborhood and there is no alternative to the mean width request as this is the historic width of these lots. What is proposed is consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Toohey reviewed with the Board the area variance considerations. Mr. Toohey stated adjacent neighbors are in favor of the project to fill in the vacant lot look. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the subdivision, variance requests and placement of a home on the lot, curb cut and access to public utilities, permeability, and lot coverage. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 10:08 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Eric Brodwin, own neighboring property and live on Stratton Street. This is a missing tooth in the neighborhood and does not make sense. Whatever is decided I think a house belongs on the lot. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated correspondence was received by the Board. -Correspondence from Eric Brodwin, Stratton Street, dated June 21, 2017. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 15 of 22 -Correspondence from Antoinette Moran. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA Meeting scheduled for July 10, 2017. #2969 PEEK CARRIAGE HOUSE, 34 York Avenue, area variance to demolish an existing barn/garage and rebuild a new garage with habitable space; seeking relief from the maximum accessory building coverage requirement and to permit habitable/finished space in an accessory structure (residential) in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: -Area variance to move and renovate an existing carriage house to include habitable area on upper floor, relief from The maximum accessory building coverage and to permit finished/habitable space in an accessory structure (residential), approved July 16, 2012. -Area variance modification to demolish the existing carriage house and rebuild a new, smaller, detached garage with Finished/habitable space, approved December 17, 2012. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Habitable area on the second floor to include ½ a bath: Unfinished uninhabitable space Finished habitable 100% space Maximum accessory building coverage: 10% 16.6% 6.6% Minimum rear yard setback: 5 ft. 0 ft. 5 ft. Applicant: Andrea Peek Ms. Peek stated she found strangers in this structure on her property which was vacant. It is in a state of disrepair. I put locks on the doors. I am looking to have it redone in the Saratoga Style of the neighborhood and make the best out of the structure. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated there is some history with this structure. The first encounter was to possibly move the building somewhat and the second time was to demolish. Is this the same proposal that we have already seen and approved. Ms. Peek stated the current request is to demolish and rebuild in the same size as the existing building. DISCLOSURE: Susan Steer stated her son and Ms. Peek’s son are good friends. This will not interfere with her objectivity. Susan Steer stated the applicant is demolishing and will rebuild. Why not rebuild closer to the home eliminating a variance. In terms of the habitable space neither kitchen facilities nor overnight stays. The applicant is agreeable to that. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the applicant concerning other alternatives. Ms. Peek stated she is looking for increased storage space. The basement has low ceiling height. The new space will City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 16 of 22 be used for storage and to house the applicant’s office, and a place for my son to practice the piano. There is no attic space in the home. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated this is quite a large additional amount being requested. Why such a large increase over the requirement. Ms. Peek stated the structure which was there I would just rebuild it in the same size as existed. This will have the style of the applicant’s current home. I am not planning on doing much with it. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated it is his opinion that this is too big. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he also agrees that this as it is proposed is too big. Ms. Peek stated one side of the garage would house her vehicle; storage space is needed as well as a home office space and a music room. James Helicke stated he also does have some concerns. Basically the applicant is looking for 3 rooms. I wonder if this can be reduced, the building is substantial. We are granting habitable space on the second floor. Cherie Grey stated the proposal for a 1 car garage with storage and what the applicant is looking for is a home office and a music room. Ms. Grey understands why this barn is this large but I too feel this building is very large and would like to see it reduced. Gary Hasbrouck stated he does not have a problem with the size of the proposed building. The building is already there. The size is the size and I can look at the plans and see where you might be able to reduce some of the size. However, what the applicant has done with the place is absolutely incredible. An extremely nice job. Upgraded the neighborhood. Whatever you do I have no doubt it will be huge plus to the neighborhood. It is a good project. No detriment to the neighborhood. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 10:25 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 July 10, 2017. OLD BUSINESS: 2.#2965 MARTINEZ ADDITION, 114 Fifth Avenue, area variance for a rear living room addition to an existing single- family residence; seeking relief from the minimum rear yard setback and maximum principal building requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. This application was heard at the June 12, 2017 meeting and adjourned to June 26, 2017. The public hearing was Opened and remains open. Additional information was requested and has not yet been provided. DISCLOSURE: Board Member Gary Hasbrouck disclosed he has reviewed the materials from the last meeting and is comfortable voting on this application. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 17 of 22 Board Secretary, Adam McNeill disclosed he has reviewed the materials from the last meeting and is comfortable voting on this application. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:26 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. #2965 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Mario and Dawn Martinez 114 Fifth Ave Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 114 Fifth Ave. in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.14-4-37 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 rear living room addition to an existing single-family residence in a UR-1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the June 12 and 26, 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 EXISTING/ PROPOSED RELIEF DIMENSIONAL PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED REQUIREMENT APPROVED Maximum Principal Building Coverage 20% 28% 31.3% 11.3% or 56.5% relief Minimum Rear Yard Setback 30 ft. 13.6 ft. 16.4 ft. (55%) As per the submitted plans (revised by letter of June 19, 2017) 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. Per the applicant, an alternate location was evaluated (east of the existing slate porch), however, as the application states, “Due to the existing roof geometry and existing fenestration openings those explorations became unfeasible. The Board notes that the proposed design has been reduced in size, per letter dated June 19 by the applicant’s consultant, “By omitting the proposed exterior door adjacent to the existing kitchen bay window, the applicant reduced the overall projection of the addition by 2’ while maintaining the intended use of the space”. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant provided an evaluation of the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 18 of 22  neighborhood context that identifies that there are 9 out of 24 residences within the 30’ rear setback and the minimum distance measured was approximately 12.5’ rear yard setback. In addition, the applicant provided that within the neighborhood 4 parcels along the Oklahoma Track are in excess of the 20% maximum principal building coverage, and states, “These parcels have been identified on the attached diagram with a range of 34.5%”. 3. The Board finds these variances to be substantial. However, the existing lot is preexisting nonconforming with the minimum lot requirements of the district – the lot is 10,000 sq. ft. where the minimum requirement is 12,500 sq. ft. In addition, the existing house includes an attached garage that contributes to the principal building coverage. Per June 19 letter from the applicant’s consultant, the applicants agree to a condition of no future accessory structures (without further variances). 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The application states that the addition “Is proposed within the existing hardscaped patio footprint”. In addition, the site to remain permeable is proposed to be 52% which exceeds the district requirement of 30%. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed rear living room addition, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: No future accessory structures Cherie 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 3.#2971 BUTTON ADDITION, 21 Elizabeth Lane, area variance for a front entry and porch addition to an existing single- family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential -1 District. This application was heard at the June 12, 2017 meeting and adjourned to June 26, 2017. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Additional information was requested – comparables in the neighborhood provided. DISCLOSURE: Board Member Gary Hasbrouck disclosed he has reviewed the materials from the last meeting and is comfortable voting on this application. Board Secretary, Adam McNeill disclosed he has reviewed the materials from the last meeting and is comfortable voting on this application. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 19 of 22 Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:31 P.M. Cherie Grey presented the following resolution. #2971 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Christine and Robert Button 21 Elizabeth Lane Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 21 Elizabeth Lane in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 166.10-2-37 in the UR-1 district on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance to construct a first floor addition to an existing single-family residence and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on June 12 and June 26, 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: DISTRICT RELIEF TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED REQUESTED Minimum Front Yard Setback 30 feet 20.7 feet 13 feet 17 ft. (57%) Maximum principal building coverage 20% 20% 24% 4% (20%) 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 an alternative was investigated to incorporate the entrance within the existing walls of the house but it resulted in reduction in the living area. There is also a deck proposed on the rear of the house measuring 20 x 16’ which is well within the rear setback requirement but adds to the principal building coverage. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. Most homes on the street not built at the district requirement of 30 feet and there are homes on the street with porches extending beyond the requirement. 3. The Board finds that the request for relief is substantial but the substantiality is offset by the fact that they are requesting the minimum amount of area needed. 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. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship, however self-creation alone is not fatal to the application Susan Steer seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 20 of 22 Cherie Grey stated she is opposing this application. She feels it is out of character in the neighborhood. 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, opposed; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-1 NEW BUSINESS – AGENDA ITEM #2 2. #2981 KIRKLAND POOL, 2 Coesa Drive, area variance for a pool, seeking relief to permit placement within the front yard in the Urban Residential-1 District. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:35 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #2981 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Todd Kirkland 2 Coesa Drive Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 from the Building Inspector’s determination for the same premises, identified as Tax Parcel Section 190.07-2-5, WHEREAS, the appellant has applied for an AREA VARIANCE for relief from the current City Zoning Ordinance for a installation of a pool in a UR-1 zoning district; and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on June 26th, 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 installation: In back or side yard In front yard 100% 1) The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant has noted that his property is on a corner; therefore he has two front yards. The applicant pointed out that the two other spaces where the pool could be placed were the back of the garage and the back of the one- story portion of the house. The applicant notes that the former is not feasible because it would require a large shade tree to be cut down, and the latter because of placement of sewer pipes. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 21 of 22  2) The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant notes that the pool will be visually blocked by a 6 foot high fence. 3) The relief requested may be considered substantial. 100% relief is substantial but the Board finds this is mitigated by the low impact of this project on the neighborhood. 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. Adam McNeill, Secretary 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 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Susan Steer made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 8, 2017 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting as submitted. Cheryl Grey seconded the motion. VOTE: Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 7/24/17 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 26, 2017 - Page 22 of 22