Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, JULY 10, 2017 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Gary Hasbrouck; Cheryl Grey; Oksana Ludd, Alternate LATE ARRIVAL: Adam McNeill, Secretary arrived at 7:18 P.M. ABSENT: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Susan Steer; James Helicke STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney, City of Saratoga Springs ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS: #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. #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. #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. #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 and maximum principal building requirements in the Urban Residential-2 District. Adjourned to July 24, 2017. #2987 SALZ POOL, 66 White Street, area variance to construct a pool; seeking relief from the maximum accessory Building coverage requirement in the Urban Residential-3 District. Adjourned to July 24, 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. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #2985 GLOSE ADDITION, 27 Northway Court, area variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum total side 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 total side yard setback: 20 ft. 25.3 ft. 16 ft. 4 ft. (20%) Applicants: Jason & Jennifer Glose Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated we are here asking for one variance for total side yard setback. The home currently is a ranch style home. They are looking to increase the size of their master bedroom into a master suite and the addition of an office. Existing and proposed plans were submitted for the Boards review. The home is not a very big home and neither are their bedrooms. We are adding space to the bedroom. We did try other options for the placement of the addition, such as adding space to the front of the home, adding the whole addition to the back of the house. We are using half of the master suite that is there for the addition, if we used another configuration the addition became larger than what was needed. We do not feel the variance request is substantial. Cherie Grey thanked the owners and their agent for working to make this a small addition. I think it is a minimum as you can get. I visited the site and it does not appear to change the character of the neighborhood. There are many homes in the area that also have additions similar. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:11 P.M. Cherie Grey presented the following resolution. #2985 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2017 - Page 2 of 10  Jason and Jennifer Glose 27 Northway Court Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 27 Northway Court in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 178.16-1-7 in the UR-2 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 July 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 variance for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum Total Side Yard Setback 20 feet 25.3 feet 16 feet 4 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 states that alternatives would require larger additions than the space requested on the side of the house. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The proposed addition is minimal at 20% of variance and consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed side setback does meet the 8’ minimum requirement and is in fact, 8.7’. 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. Further the roofline of the addition will not drain towards the neighbor to the South. 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 proposed coverage will be 24.5% which is within the 30% maximum coverage. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship; however self-creation alone is not fatal to the application. Gary Hasbrouck 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; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0. 2. #2924.1 NOONAN ADDITION MODIFICATION, 39 Schuyler Drive, area variance modification to demolish and rebuild City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2017 - Page 3 of 10 an existing single-family residence; relief previously granted from the minimum front yard setback, minimum side yard setback, minimum total side yard setback and maximum principal building requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: -Area variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence; relief from the minimum front yard, side yard and total side yard setbacks and maximum principal building coverage granted November 7, 2016. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: 30 ft. 16 ft. 11.8 ft. 18.2 ft (61%) Minimum side yard setback: 12 ft. 8.1 ft. 7.1 ft. 4.9 ft. (41%) Minimum total side yard setback: 30 ft. 24.6 ft. 25.4 ft. 4.6 ft (15%) Maximum principal building coverage 20% 30.2% 34.4% 14.4% (72%) Applicant: Tom & Susan Noonan Agent: Chris Semenza, Semenza Homes Discussion ensued among the Board regarding how to treat the application as a modification or a new application. It was the consensus of the Board to treat this application as a modification. Mr. Noonan stated what they had previously requested and the previous resolution which consisted of a porch off the front of the structure and a three season room off the rear of the existing structure. The project now is to remove the house and foundation and rebuild to the existing, and varied dimensions. The applicant states they have reduced the square footage of the new proposed second floor by 700 square feet by lowering the roof line and creating a more traditional Cape design. The requested variance is consistent with surrounding properties and the proposed design will enhance the neighborhood. This was a cost consideration and we feel it has an added benefit of being more consistent with surrounding properties. No relief is being requested from the permeability requirement. Mr. Semenza spoke about what the applicant was requesting and the expense involved in rehabbing versus new construction with the new building code. Cherie Grey requested the applicants provide comparables in the neighborhood. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Dave Carr, 30 Tyler Drive. I own a home at 13 Oakland Drive. This is eerily similar to the situation we have a modification application I submitted 3 weeks ago. We received variances for an addition to an existing structure, about a year ago and went through the process. In our case it was foundation, wiring and many other issues. I am just stating this to confirm what the Noonan’s have stated as being absolutely true. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2017 - Page 4 of 10 Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented in two weeks. 3. #2986 WASSON ADDITION, 3 Schuyler Drive, area variance for rear sunroom addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the maximum principal building requirement 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 Maximum principal building coverage 20% 23.3% 24% 4% (20%) Applicant: Bonnie Wasson Agent: Mark Besman, friend Ms. Wasson is proposing to turn her 10 x 18 three season sunroom into a 12 x 18 three season sunroom. The project is fairly simple. The existing sun room will be demolished which will allow a new foundation to remediate water issues and raise the ceiling from its current 7 ft. height. It will increase the usability of the room. The proposed addition will not significantly change the appearance, nor will it interfere with the surrounding properties. This addition will be on the rear of the home and will not be seen from the street. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:36 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 at the next ZBA Meeting scheduled for July 24, 2017. 4. #047-143.1 CONNORS RESIDENCE, 87 Ludlow Street, use variance modification to remove a condition of approval that approved two apartments in a converted barn structure in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be an Unlisted Actions. Applicant: Jennifer Connors, potential homeowner; Jerry & Geri Ferris, current homeowners Ms. Connors stated she is seeking to purchase this property from the Ferris’. The property has a two-family home and a carriage house existing on the property. In 1947, the owner obtained a variance to convert the main house to 4 apartments, and 2 apartments in the carriage house, to be built over the garage. Between 1947 and 1980 when the Ferris’ purchased it, someone converted the main house into two apartments only and the carriage house into two apartments but those are on the first floor on one side and first, second and loft on the other side. No garage was built at that time. In 1982 the Ferris’ wanted to renovate an apartment, obtained a building permit however, in researching the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2017 - Page 5 of 10 property before purchasing it we discovered that the building permits were never closed and the apartments were supposed to be built over the garage. I am proposing to keep it as is with two apartments and no other changes. Cherie Grey requested clarification on the applicant’s request. Ms. Connors reiterated the carriage house looks like a two and one-half story home with an addition on one side. The addition is a one bedroom apartment; the taller portion is a two bedroom, plus a loft. Cherie Grey stated the applicants are looking to keep the one bedroom apartment on the first floor and the two bedroom plus loft on the other side. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney, stated the Board has dealt with the issue in other contexts of conditioned variances where the applicant has basically come before the Board and requested removal of a condition. The standard is basically to remove a condition, lawfully, properly; the Board has to be convinced that the reason for the imposition of the condition is no longer there. The condition was imposed for a reason and the reason is no longer applicable. It simply doesn’t matter anymore. Once that has been demonstrated that is sufficient reason for the Board to grant removal of the condition. The old use variance does not need to be reapproved. A visual of the original variance resolution was provided to the Board. Beginning with the condition itself, and the condition here is that the apartments in the garage be on the second floor of the garage or second floor of the building only. Tony Izzo referred to the minutes of the meeting referring to this resolution which cites the rationale for the Board’s decision to issue those conditions on the variance. Susan Barden read the following from the minutes in 1947. On that portion of the application seeking permission to install one apartment on ground floor of the garage, and one apartment on the second floor of the garage, the Board granted permission with one restriction, that the apartment be on the second floor of the building on the grounds that more garage space should be available to the residents of the proposed apartments, and also that it is not good housing to have an apartment on the same level as a garage. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated the rationale was the Board wanted more garage space available to the residents of the proposed apartments. So, basically the Boards procedure is a little different from a use variance application. It is just a matter of analyzing whether or not the reasons for that condition have changed sufficiently, or the circumstances have changed sufficiently, to justify the removal of that condition so as to allow the apartments on the first floor. Cherie Grey stated that was because the house was to be divided into four apartments with two additional apartments in the garage for a total of 6 units but they only have three units. So therefore we do not need to have 5 or 6 parking spaces available. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned the number of parking spaces needed. Ms. Connors stated her father has Alzheimer’s so they will not be driving. I have one car and my husband has one car. There is sufficient parking for 8 vehicles, possibly more. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he is aware the applicant is planning on converting the home from a two family to a one family but for simplicity sake of this application we will keep it as is. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning how this application will be classified. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated it will be a use variance modification. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:49 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2017 - Page 6 of 10 Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Mary Martin, 93 Ludlow St. & Mary Parliament, 89 Ludlow Street. We have lived in this area for over 30 years. Both ladies state that the carriage house has a lot of traffic due to the renters at times. This changes the quality of Ludlow. We are worried about the values of our homes. This does affect the peacefulness of the area and the quality of the street. DISCLOSURE: Adam McNeill, Secretary stated he lives 2 blocks away, per the new ethics policy issued by the City. Cherie Grey stated she also lives in the neighborhood. 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 24, 2017. 6. #2943 VERDILE RESIDENCE (FORMERLY BENTON TRUST RESIDENCE), 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. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback 30 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft. (33%) Minimum side yard 12 ft. 4 ft. 8 ft. (67%) Minimum total side yard 30 ft. 26 ft. 4 ft. (13%) Minimum rear yard 30 ft. 25 ft. 5 ft. (17%) Maximum principal building coverage 20% 28.62% 8.62% (43%) Minimum side yard setback accessory A/C units 5 ft. Approx. 3 ft. 2 ft. (40%) Applicants: Vince & Luanne Verdile Agents: Dave Carr, LA Group; Brett Balzer, Trevor Flynn, Balzer Tuck Architecture; Matt McPadden, McPadden Builders Mr. Carr stated we submitted and presented the variances in the winter for 58 Fifth Avenue and received approvals for a subdivision as well as submission for a home on the lot. We spoke in February, and at the time the Board requested we further develop the plans. The plans are now fully developed and Brett Balzer will speak to the design. Brett Balzer, Balzer Tuck provided a visual presentation of the project reviewing all elevations and included some dimensional setbacks along Fifth Avenue from the curb. Averaging all the residences we reviewed the setback is 40.5 ft. We are well within the context of the southern portion of Fifth Avenue. No DRC review, no historic review is required. We request the Board to review the proposed home. What we are proposing is a craftsman style type home. A design Matt McPadden does very well and our clients are appreciative of. Using the right materials for a well designed and well built home on Fifth Avenue. Mr. Balzer provided a floor plan of the proposed home. We are proposing a 1st floor master suite and finished basement. While the variances may be substantial from a simple mathematical perspective as City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2017 - Page 7 of 10 compared against existing lots and improvements located along Fifth Avenue where nearly all of the lots in this neighborhood are preexisting nonconforming with regard to the UR-1 requirements for lots and single family residences on lots. The applicant’s agent provided an overview of the principal building coverage’s in the immediate neighborhood. There is a range from 8.8% to 24.5%. The lots on either side are identified as 24.5% and 19.8% these both appear to have attached garages. The chosen design is the best response to the client’s needs while respecting the character of the neighborhood. The variance would not affect existing street views as front yards setbacks will be consistent with the existing neighboring homes along Fifth Avenue. The proposed variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood because the lot and proposed improvements are consistent with the existing neighborhood and within the neighborhood and city limits. Bill Moore, Chairman read questions posed by Susan Steer. With regard to the side yard setbacks to be 4 ft. from the property line, the neighboring property’s home to the same property line is 7.6 ft. Request comparables of side yard setbacks in the neighborhood. Bill Moore, Chairman stated this information was just provided to the Board. Bill Moore, Chairman continued with Susan Steer’s questions. Any proposed mitigation or could they move or make any smaller. Brett Balzer stated the area ways are dictated by city code. When you open up a basement window, you need to have 3 foot clear before you hit a wall. Along with that you need a 9 ft. area to walk out to. So, that drives the stacked stone. What we are looking to do is to stack the stone as vertically as possible parallel to the house. Emergency egress would take place on the short sides of the rectangle. Oksana Ludd, questioned if this is because the basement is habitable space. Brett Balzer stated yes, when you have a habitable basement, you need two forms of egress. One of which could be a staircase up and out on the interior of the home. The second is an egress window. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated he applauds the design and size of the home. It is a beautiful design. It adds a beneficial impact to the character of the neighborhood. Gary Hasbrouck reviewed the variances requested in the UR-1 District with the applicant’s agent. Cherie Grey questioned if they had discussed placing the emergency egress and the mechanicals at the rear of the home versus the side in between the garage and the house. Also, concerning the noise of the generators has that been taken into consideration for the neighbors as well as the proximity to the horses on the Oklahoma track. Brett Balzer provided information concerning the reasoning for the placement of the egress windows and HVAC units. There is a noise ordinance for properties facing the track. The generators do not run all the time. A schedule for monthly checks can be arranged with the neighbors as to the best time of day. DISCLOSURE: Cherie Grey stated she does live a block away from this home. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:19 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Bonnie Sellers, 73 Fifth Avenue. The generator can run once a week if you want it to. There is an ordinance the City Council passed several years ago. I do know construction on that side of the street begins at 11:00 A.M. I am in favor of this project; it is a good looking house and will balance out the street. It is a different format now and we welcome a different use. Also, Ms. Sellers questioned the dimensions of the proposed garage and overall coverage of the lot. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2017 - Page 8 of 10 Matt McPadden, builder stated the garage is 22 x 22 and the eaves are outside of that. 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 24, 2017. OLD BUSINESS: 7. #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. This application was heard at the June 26, 2017 meeting and adjourned. The public hearing was opened and remains open. 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 8:23 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. #2983 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Mark Smisloff 109 Washington Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 109 Washington Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.66-2-12 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 UR-4 district and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the June 26th and July 10, 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 EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Max. principal building coverage: 25% 30% 33% 8% (32%) Min. front yard setback: Walworth St. 25 ft. 0 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. (60%) Min. side yard setback: 20 ft. Approx. 7 ft. 5.5 ft. 14.5 ft. (72.5%) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant noted that the previous application with a previous owner did develop a plan with an interior exit stair, as opposed to the exterior stair currently proposed, however that previously approved application used an existing City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2017 - Page 9 of 10  stairwell which does not satisfy building code requirements, and the addition of an interior stair would compromise the interior layout of the building. 2. The board finds that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant chosen to limit the visibility of the proposed addition as it will be located in the rear of the building. 3. The request for relief could be considered substantial. 4. The board concludes this variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The applicant has noted that the lot will continue to exceed the minimum permeability requirements set out for the UR-4 district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the exterior staircase, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Gary Hasbrouck 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; Cherie Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the July 24, 2017 meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 7/24/17 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2017 - Page 10 of 10