Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, JULY 24, 2017 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Susan Steer; Gary Hasbrouck; Oksana Ludd, Alternate; James Helicke ABSENT: Adam McNeill, Secretary; Cheryl Grey 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: #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. #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. #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. #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. #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. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance to permit the construction of a detached garage; relief from the maximum accessory building coverage granted December 19, 2016. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED APPROVED Maximum accessory building coverage Additional 2.16% (22%) 10% 11.68% 13.84% Total 3.84% (38%) Applicants: Mike and Gena Salz Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney Mr. Toohey provided a visual presentation of the site. The applicants are requesting an area variance for the installation of an inground pool. Mr. Toohey reviewed the five test criteria for area variances noting swimming pools are permitted in approximately 94% of the entire City of Saratoga Springs. The ZBA has history with these applicants who appeared before the Board and were granted a coverage variance which allows the 10% to be increased to 11.68%. The applicants did not use the entire amount of relief granted in the construction of the garage, in fact the garage is smaller than what was requested and they did not absorb the entire variance. They are looking to install an inground swimming pool which is allowed in this zone and measures 240 square feet. The pool is 10 x 18 and is as small an inground structure as you can reasonably build and functionally use. The garage is 78 feet less than what was granted by this Board for the accessory area variance. We can have a maximum building coverage of 41.68% or 3,126 square feet. We have the house 1,848 square feet and the garage 798 square feet and a pool at 240 square feet. The amount of building coverage on this lot will be 2,886 square feet which is less than the 3,000 square feet of building coverage which is permitted on this lot by 240 square feet. This is a minimal variance. The addition of 162 square feet of lot coverage behind the existing garage will not be discernible to nearby properties and presents no change to the character of the neighborhood. The applicants intend on placing a six foot high fence on the east side of the property and on the south side of the property. So the placement of the pool behind the garage is substantially invisible from White Street or Clark Street. With landscaping the inground pool will be shielded from the immediate adjacent neighbors. There are at least two parcels in this neighborhood that already have pools on the property. James Helicke requested lot coverage comparables from the applicant to gauge how the lot coverage for this applicants property compares to the neighbors. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he is struggling with the concept. Susan Steer questioned where the mechanicals will be housed for the pool. Mr. Toohey provided a visual presentation of where the mechanicals will be placed so the garage buffers the mechanicals and the neighbors home. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2017 - Page 2 of 16 Susan Steer stated she voted against the variance for the garage because this was not the only feasible means to achieve the benefit. Of course you can have a pool in this area and that is not the case. We spoke about habitable space and they put in water and were they looking for a pool house type structure I don’t know. Had the pool been planned and we could have looked at the substantiality at the last request. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:39 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Judy Chase, 24 Clark Street. My property borders the south side of 66 White Street. The proposed pool will be 35 feet from my back door. I have concerns. First and foremost is the noise. Our home is 160 years old and we do not have any air conditioning. We keep all windows and doors open day and night. Our bedrooms are on the second floor and they face the Salz’s proposed pool, fire pit and backyard. I can look directly down into their backyard and also can hear everything. This affects our ability to enjoy our property. They do have parties throughout the summer and they can get loud. There will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood especially the noise from the pool and the smoke from the fire pit will make its way into my home and others in the neighborhood. Photographs were provided to the Board. The garage is oversized and the lighting on the garage shines into our rooms. Amenities were added so the second floor can be used as habitable space. It’s a party house in a family neighborhood. This property is overdeveloped. Please deny this request. Eileen Wood Swick spoke on her own behalf and also concerning a letter submitted by Cynthia Behan, 70 White Street. There are zoning rules and variances required to be approved by the Board when there is something that is a necessity or a hardship. She spoke regarding the request of the applicants and the impact to the neighbors. Hoping the Board will protect the character of the neighborhood by enforcing the rules. Of the 100 homes in this area there are only 2 pools as pointed out by Mr. Toohey. She is concerned about precedent. This is a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood. Please deny this request. Rachel Dunn, 74 White Street. Concerned with the amount of green space which will remain. Questioned the permeability. We do not have anything against the Salz’s. We want a happy community. Gregory Robel lifelong resident of Saratoga, 24 Clark Street. Giuseppi read Mr. Robel’s statement. Our neighbors are proposing a pool to be built 8 feet from our property line and 35 feet from the kitchen window of my wife’s family home which was built in 1869. This has a negative impact on our property and our health smelling chlorine from the pool. I am not a well man and this will impact my health. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. The Board has requested additional information. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for September 11, 2017. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE BOARD: Cynthia Behan, 70 White Street, correspondence received on July 22, 2017. John Boardman, 66 White Street, correspondence received on July 10, 2017. 2. #2885.1 CARR RESIDENCE MODIFICATION, 13 Oakland Drive, area variance modification to demolish and rebuild an existing single-family residence; relief previously granted from the minimum front yard setback (Oakland Drive), minimum front yard setback (Lawrence St.) and maximum principal building coverage in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2017 - Page 3 of 16 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 Lawrence and Oakland and maximum principal building coverage granted April 25, 2016. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: Lawrence 30 feet 20 feet 17 feet 13 feet (43%) Minimum front yard setback: Oakland 30 feet 24 feet 22 feet 8 feet (27%) Maximum principal building coverage 20% 20 feet 25% 5% (25%) Applicant: Dave Carr Mr. Carr stated they received area variances last April to construct 3 small additions to the existing home totaling 450 square feet. Upon receipt of the requested variances we moved through the process of progressing the plans and speaking with builders on pricing, we discovered that significant portions of the existing structure were suspect with the largest issue being the foundation. It was cheaper to rebuild the entire home so we are here seeking only a change from using the existing structure with additions to building a new structure in exactly the same manner which we appeared before you except for the addition of several bedrooms in the basement. DISCLOSURE: Susan Steer disclosed that her son was a student of Mrs. Carr’s ten years ago. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:59 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 8:00 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. #2885.1 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF David Carr, Jr. 13 Oakland Drive Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 13 Oakland Drive, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel no. 166.10-1-9, on the Assessment Map of said City. WHEREAS, the appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City for relief from minimum front yard (Lawrence Street aka Audrey Lane), minimum front yard (Oakland Drive), and maximum principal building coverage for demolition of an existing single family residence and reconstruction of a new single-family City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2017 - Page 4 of 16 residence in an Urban Residential-1 District; and public notice having been given of a hearing on said application held on July 24, 2017, WHEREAS, on April 25, 2016, this Board granted area variances to construct additions to an existing single-family residence and granted dimensional relief from three requirements. The relief granted in that resolution is incorporated herein by reference, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has now submitted a revised description of the scope of work in a letter dated June 22, 2017. The revision includes complete demolition and rebuilding to original and varied dimensions. The Board has reviewed the modification request and has determined that granting it would not substantially affect the grounds for the relief granted in the April 25, 2016 decision specifically in that it would not adversely affect the neighborhood or adjacent properties. The Board therefore grants applicant’s request to substitute the letter dated June 22, 2017 for the description in the original application, and to hereby amend accordingly the April 25, 2016 decision. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman 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; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 3. #2988 KOSIBA GARAGE APARTMENT, 5 Beekman Street, area variance to construct a detached garage with dwelling unit; seeking relief from the minimum lot size requirement for a second single-family residence, to permit more than one principal building on a lot and minimum rear yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum lot size: Second single-family 6,600 sq. ft. 5,640 sq. ft. 960 sq. ft. (14.5%) Minimum average lot width: Second single family 60 ft. 42 ft. 18 ft. (30%) Minimum rear yard setback: 25 ft. 4 ft. 21 ft. Maximum number principal buildings on any one lot: 1 2 1 (100%) Applicant: Patty and Ron Kosiba Mr. Kosiba stated they would like to add an additional garage stall and provide housing for his in-laws above. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the denial and why this is being ruled on in this fashion and not a subdivision. Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated in a UR-3 District you are permitted a two family residence. What the applicant is requesting is to have that second permitted dwelling unit in an accessory structure. The way we would look at this is a second principal structure. So, the variance is to allow for a second principal structure where you can have only one single family or principal structure on any one lot in UR-3. Also to provide for the lot requirements for both the existing house and the new house. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2017 - Page 5 of 16 Discussion ensued among the Board concerning subdivision versus a second principal structure on the lot. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned if the applicant would consider moving the garage further away from the property line since this will be considered a principal residence and thereby reducing the number of variances requested. There are ways to make this less impactful. Perhaps you can revisit this and return before the Board with alternatives, including a two family home. Mr. Kosiba stated there is an alley behind the garage. The structure could be moved somewhat but they would like to retain green space. Do not wish to change the character of the home and it’s why we purchased it. Susan Steer stated she shares some of Keith’s concerns. Perhaps you can come up with a plan to move the structure forward somewhat or make the building smaller. Oksana Ludd requested clarification on the proposed area variance considerations. Gary Hasbrouck stated pulling the structure off the alley somewhat would be more agreeable. James Helicke would like a clearer explanation for showing why this is not feasible. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the Board would probably condition this resolution stating neither of these two buildings can be made into a two family. 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. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Additional information has been requested from the applicant. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA Meeting scheduled for September 11, 2017. #2989 PEPPERS CORNER MARKET, 173 Lake Avenue, area variance to demolish the existing structure and construct a new 1,960 sq. ft. market for two retail tenants and two wall signs; seeking relief from the minimum parking requirement and to permit two wall signs in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action “construction or expansion of a primary or accessory/appurtenant, non-residential Structure or facility involving less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance and consistent with local land use controls, but not radio transmission or microwave transmission facilities”. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum parking spaces: 9 4 5 (55%) Maximum wall signs: 0 2 2 (200%) Minimum front yard setback: Warren Street for parking space #4 10 ft. 9 ft. 1 ft. (10%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2017 - Page 6 of 16 DISCLOSURE: James Helicke stated he purchased $24.87 worth of squid at the site last weekend. Gary Hasbrouck stated he owns property within 500 feet of this property. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he has been a customer of Nine Miles East. Applicant: Tom and Renée West Agent: Jeff Anthony and Kiersten Anthony Catellier, Studio A Landscape Architecture Mr. West provided a power point presentation of the project. We are not developers. We have met with the Planning Department and the Building Inspector. We are cognizant about the building and the neighborhood present and in the past. We will be compliant with current zoning. We live in Saratoga. We have been working with Studio A. We want to come up with an architectural plan under 2,000 square feet which will fit into the community. Something that looks residential in nature and also has some Saratoga appeal. There will be a common area with one handicapped bathroom and a full basement. We have spoken to some of the neighbors. We have retained the best in class Landscape Architects to assist us. We have a web site. We have a petition and have submitted that to the Board. Off street and on street parking was discussed. Floor plans were shared. The applicant reviewed their plans to mitigate odors and flies. Stormwater plans were discussed as well as the traffic study. Dark sky compliant lighting will be installed. Signage was discussed. Gary Hasbrouck questioned the amount of available parking in the area and the variance requested for relief from the minimum parking requirement. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the lack of parking provided on-site. James Helicke requested the building inspector to attend a meeting and answer some questions from the Board. I have some real questions regarding the parking study and some of the assumptions. I would like to see how the seating area will affect the parking. Mr. West stated he will bring the traffic engineer in to speak to the Board. Susan Steer stated she feels the businesses are too big for the space. She questioned the possibility of a two story building, which would allow for more parking on site. I cannot support this project as it currently is presented. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated we are dealing with procedure. Our role in this process is extremely minor. There is a formula which decides the number of parking spaces required. Also discussion ensued regarding requesting an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board with regard to the parking and the amount of relief requested . Bill Moore, Chairman took a straw poll of the Board and it was determined that the ZBA request an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:40 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman instructed the public that the Board is to consider the parking and the two wall signs. Bonnie Sellers, Fifth Avenue. My brother lives down the street from the proposed business. Parking is a major problem. Sitting on his porch revealed nonstop traffic and insufficient parking. There is a big issue with the parking. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2017 - Page 7 of 16 Joseph Tychostup, 175 Lake Avenue. Submitted a letter parking is very bad at this time, especially for people who rent in this area and park on Lake Avenue. There is not sufficient parking in this area. I am against the project. Joan Brophy, 171 Lake Avenue. I have lived here for 15 years, in a historic home built in 1881. I have provided photographs of the parking issues and what is provided. Delivery trucks are there constantly. Karen Dixon, 10 Warren Street. I am submitting a petition with 30 names of neighbors on Warren and Lake who are directly impacted and we are opposed to this project and requesting the ZBA deny the application. Dave Dixon, 10 Warren Street. Spoke about the traffic report. No onsite parking at Moby Ricks. Warren Street traffic is awful. Please deny the application. Joe Ruckles, Warren Street. Born, raised and still living on Warren Street. The traffic on Warren Street is awful. Please deny this application. There are schools in this area as well which adds additional traffic. Abby Danzie, 15 Warren Street. Parking and safety is a large concern. Insufficient space with increased business it will get worse. Dr. Marybeth Wallingford, 104 Middle Avenue requested the Board to deny this project. Parking and lighting will shine into my bedroom window is a concern. Runoff and drainage is also a large concern. Snow removal is an issue as well. Richard Sellers, Fifth Avenue. Concern regarding parking. Dillon Moran, 177 Lake Avenue. Letter submitted. Lifelong resident of Saratoga. Aggravated by comments that neighbors were contacted, no neighbors were contacted. Traffic is a big issue. Jerry Star voiced his concern about parking and traffic. Jim Hannaway, 14 Warren Street. This is a quiet area. Traffic and parking is an issue. Street access is difficult especially in the winter months. Jack Kirkpatrick, 13 Warren Street. Family owned since the 50’s. School traffic is an issue as well. Many children in the area and safety is an concern. Matt & Dawn Shivers, 16 Warren Street. Our neighbors are wonderful. Not enough parking in this area. Fiona Ferrell stated there are a lot of genuine concerns expressed by the neighbors and indicative of problems that exist throughout the City. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for September 11, 2017. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE BOARD: David and Karen Dixon, correspondence received on July 20, 2017. John and Joe Brophy, 171 Lake Avenue, correspondence received on July 17, 2017. Ann Marie Cappulo, 25 Wedgewood, correspondence received on July 24, 2017. Joseph Tychostup, 175 Lake Avenue, correspondence received on July 18, 2017. OLD BUSINESS: 5. #2924.1 NOONAN ADDITION MODIFICATION, 39 Schuyler Drive, area variance modification to demolish and rebuild 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 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2017 - Page 8 of 16 District. This application was heard at the July 10, 2017 meeting and adjourned to July 24, 2017. The public hearing was opened and remains open. No additional information was requested from the applicant. DISCLOSURE: James Helicke stated he was absent from the previous meeting on July 10, 2017, but he has reviewed the materials and is comfortable voting on the remaining applications. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he was absent from the previous meeting on July 10, 2017, but he has reviewed the materials and the webcast and is comfortable voting on the remaining applications. Susan Steer stated she was absent from the previous meeting on July 10, 2017, but she has reviewed the materials and the webcast and is comfortable voting on the remaining applications. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. 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 10:25 P.M. Gary Hasbrouck presented the following resolution. #2924.1 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Thomas and Susan Noonan 39 Schuyler Drive Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 39 Schuyler Drive, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being Section 166.14-4-45.1, on the Assessment Map of said City. WHEREAS, the appellant having applied for area variances under the Zoning Ordinance of said City for relief from minimum front yard, side yard, total side yard setbacks and maximum principal building coverage for a proposed addition and modifications to an existing single family residence in an Urban Residential-1 District; and public notice having been given of a hearing on said application held on July 10 and 24, 2017, WHEREAS, on November 7, 2016, this Board granted area variances, “as described in submitted application” and thereby gave dimensional relief from four requirements. The relief granted in that November 7, 2016 area variance resolution is incorporated herein by reference, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has now submitted a revised description of the scope of work in a letter dated June 6, 2017. The revision includes complete demolition and rebuilding to original dimensions. The Board has reviewed [the present City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2017 - Page 9 of 16 application] and has determined that granting it would not substantially affect the grounds for the relief granted in the November 7, 2016 decision specifically in that it would not adversely affect the neighborhood or adjacent properties. The Board therefore grants applicant’s request to substitute the letter dated June 6, 2017 for the description in the original application, and to hereby amend accordingly the November 7, 2016 decision. James Helicke seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 6. #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. This application was heard at the July 10, 2017 meeting and adjourned to July 24, 2017. The public hearing was opened and remains open. No additional information was requested. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. 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 10:28 P.M. Oksana Ludd presented the following resolution. #2986 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Bonnie Wasson 3 Schuyler Drive Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 3 Schuyler Drive in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.14-2-75 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 construct a rear sunroom addition to an existing single-family residence in an UR-1 district and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on July 10 and 24, 2017. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2017 - Page 10 of 16 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: REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Max. principal building coverage: 20% 23.3% 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. As the application states, “The addition of a sun/family room, no matter how small, would require an area variance”. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The addition is on the rear of the existing residence (replacing a similarly sized sunroom) and will not be visible from the street. As the application states, “It will not significantly change the appearance, nor will it interfere with surrounding properties”. 3. The request for relief could be considered substantial at 20%, but the existing principal building coverage is pre- existing nonconforming at 23.3% and the proposed increase of coverage to 24% only adds 38 sq. ft. to the existing house footprint. 4. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The application indicates that the site to remain permeable would be 66%, which exceeds the minimum 30% in the district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the sunroom addition, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. James Helicke seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 7. #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. This application was heard at the July 10, 2017 meeting and adjourned to July 24, 2017. The public hearing was opened and remains open. No additional information was requested. SEQRA: Action appears to be an Unlisted Action. Staff requested the submission of a short EAF. 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 – July 24, 2017 - Page 11 of 16 Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:31 P.M. SEQRA: The Board reviewed Part II of the SEQRA Short EAF. No large or important areas of concern were noted. James Helicke made a motion for a SEQRA Negative Declaration in the matter of the Connors Residence, 87 Ludlow Street. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Oksana Ludd presented the following resolution. #047-143.1 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF JENNIFER CONNORS 87 LUDLOW STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Zoning & Building Inspector involving the premises at 87 Ludlow Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 166.53-2-53 in the Urban Residential – 3 district. The applicant having applied for a use variance modification to remove a condition of approval and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on July 10 and 24, 2017. Background: In May 21, 1947 a use variance was granted to “remodel dwelling into 4 apartments and to convert barn into a 2 car garage with 2 apartments” with the condition, “that apartments in the garage be on the second floor of the building only”. Decision: Whereas, the minutes from the May 21, 1947 meeting state, “On that portion of the application seeking permission to install one apartment on the ground floor of the garage and one apartment on the second floor of the garage, the Board granted the permission with the restriction that the apartment or apartments 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 was not good housing to have an apartment on the same level as the garage”. Whereas, the applicant has stated that the main house was converted into two-units and not four units as granted per variance and, furthermore, the applicant stated that she intends to further convert the existing two-family to a single-family residence, resulting in the combined number of dwelling units on the property being reduced from 6 units to 3 units and, Whereas, in the UR-3 zoning district 6 dwelling units would require 12 parking spaces and 3 units would require 6 parking spaces and, the applicant has stated that there is sufficient parking for 8 vehicles on the site, Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the Board finds: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2017 - Page 12 of 16  1. That the grounds stated by the Board on May 21, 1947 for the imposition of the condition are no longer relevant or necessary and, 2. That the reduction of the number of dwelling units on the parcel from combined 6 units to 3 units resulting in the required number of parking spaces being reduced from 12 spaces to 6 spaces justifies the removal of that condition. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman 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; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 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. This application was heard at the July 10, 2017 meeting and adjourned to July 24, 2017. The public hearing was opened and remains open. No additional information was requested. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. 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 10:40 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. #2943 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF VINCENT AND LOU-ANN VERDILE (PREVIOUSLY THE ROSEMARY H. BENTON TRUST) A NEWLY CREATED LOT ADJACENT TO 58 FIFTH AVENUE SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From a determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises located on a newly created lot adjacent to 58 Fifth Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being a portion of tax parcel number 166.13-2-45 on the Assessment Map of said City. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2017 - Page 13 of 16  The Applicants having applied for area variances under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of a single-family residence and detached garage in a UR-1 District and public notice having been duly given of hearings on said application held on January 26, July 10 and July 24, 2017. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the Applicants with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following area variances for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum principal building coverage 20% 28.62% 8.62 ft. (43%) Minimum rear yard setback 30 ft. 25 ft. 5 ft. (17%) Minimum front yard setback 30 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft. (33%) Minimum side yard setback 12 ft. 4 ft. 8 ft. (67%) Minimum total side yard setback 30 ft. 26 ft. 4 ft. (13%) As per the submitted plans (revised by letter dated June 26, 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 Applicant. The Applicants explained that the current design meets their needs while “respecting” the character, context and scale of the Fifth Avenue neighborhood. The residence is a three bedroom home with a master bedroom on the first floor and two bedrooms on the second floor and is similar in size to those in the neighborhood. To maximize habitable space and minimize the request for variances, the Applicants intend to finish a portion of the basement space. The Applicant was unable to change the location of the egresses and other mechanicals due to the design of the home, location of the side entrance and mud room and where the finished basement spaces would be located. 2. The Applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The Applicants state that “the variance would not affect existing street views as front yard setbacks will be consistent with the existing neighboring homes along Fifth Avenue.” The residence is similar in size and the front yard setback is similar to those of the neighboring properties. 3. The Board finds the variance for the maximum principal building lot coverage is substantial; however, this is mitigated by the fact that the coverage requested falls within the range of principal building lot coverages of the surrounding neighbors. Moreover, this approval will be conditioned with a requirement that no accessory structures may be built, with exception to the proposed detached garage, without this Board’s prior approval. The Board finds that the variance for the minimum side yard setback at 4 feet is substantial, however this is mitigated by the fact that this measurement is taken from the landscaped egresses which are at or near grade level and are as small as possible to meet building code standards. The egresses are required because the Applicants intend to finish a portion of the basement in an attempt to increase habitable space within the residence while keeping the residence as small as possible on the lot. Further, the Board notes that the distance from the overhang of the primary residence to the lot line is 8 feet and the distance between the proposed residence and the one on the lot to the east is similar to those of neighboring properties. The Board finds that the variance for the front yard setback is substantial, however this is mitigated by the fact that the setback is similar to those of the residences on the same side of Fifth Avenue. 4. The Applicants have demonstrated that the variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The Board finds that the residence and garage are consistent with the existing neighborhood and will not significantly impact the existing infrastructure. Further the Applicants have agreed to discuss the times during which the generators on the east side of the residence would run so as to mitigate any noise impact on that neighbor. The Applicants note they are City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2017 - Page 14 of 16  aware of and will comply with laws governing construction and noise on properties adjacent to the Oklahoma Track. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the Applicants desires to construct a new single-family home and detached garage, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: No future accessory structures Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. DISCLOSURE: Bill Moore, Chairman disclosed that he has been long time friend with Tom Roohan. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 NOTE: The following application was adjourned since requested materials were not provided to staff. The Chairman noted the application was adjourned when providing enumeration of other adjourned items. The applicant was not present at this time and had no knowledge that the application was adjourned. The Board discussed with Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney the ramifications of hearing this project after stating it was adjourned. It was determined after the applicant sat through the meeting to hear the additional information requested but no determination or vote will be taken this evening, since the public hearing remains open on this project and will be heard at the September 11, 2017 ZBA meeting. 7. #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. This application was heard at the June 26, 2017 meeting and adjourned. The Board requested additional information that has not yet been submitted. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Andrew Lancaster Agent: Bob Flansburg, Dreamscape Unlimited Mr. Flansburg reviewed some of the questions the Board had requested more information on. One of those items was to provide some neighborhood comparables. We are increasing this lot coverage from 33% to 44%. I reviewed the Oak Street corridor and reviewed 47 properties existing lot coverages. I did some calculations and they range from 20% to City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2017 - Page 15 of 16 89%. Information was presented to the Board for their review. We have taken out the window on the south side upper level. The existing hedgerow which was there was removed. Photographs will be submitted; however, site distance which was questioned is no longer an issue and is greatly improved. There are many two story properties in this vicinity where the garage and driveways are in between. The applicant wanted to address the Board’s concerns and provide documentation to that end. The applicants have agreed to no accessory structures. Bill Moore, Chairman stated that the application will be on the September 11, 2017 agenda to continue the public hearing. A resolution will be prepared and presented at that time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: James Helicke made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 12, 2017; June 26, 2017; and July 10, 2017 ZBA meeting minutes as amended. Gary Hasbrouck seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 9/11/17 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2017 - Page 16 of 16