Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 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; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Gary Hasbrouck; Cheryl Grey; James Helicke STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney, City of Saratoga Springs Steve Shaw, Zoning & Building Inspector, 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: 7. #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. 8. #2990 ACQUAVELLA ADDITION, 3 McAllister Drive, area variance for a two-story, two car attached garage addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. 9. #2993 OSBORNE RESIDENCE, 245 Nelson Avenue, area variance to construct a second-story addition to an existing garage structure for a dwelling unit; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width and lot size requirements for a second single-family residence, to permit a second principal structure on one lot, minimum side yard, minimum total side yard and rear yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. 10. #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. 11. #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. 12. #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. 13. #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. 14. #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. 15. #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. #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. This application was heard at the June 26, 2017 meeting and adjourned. The public hearing was opened and remains open. At the July 24, 2017 Planning Board workshop the Board adjourned the item from their July 27, 2017 meeting in order for the applicant/agent to meet with the City Engineer and Principal Planner regarding the possibility of extending utilities along Murphy Lane to service lots fronting Murphy. The Planning Board also suggested that the ZBA reconsider Coordination of SEQRA review. DISCLOSURE: Susan Steer disclosed that she does work at Saratoga Hospital, and Dr. Wang was on her unit. We exchanged greetings but did not speak of the application. Cheryl Gray stated she did review the webcast of the last ZBA Meeting, and she does feel current with all information and is informed to vote on all agenda items this evening. Adam McNeill, Secretary, stated he did review the webcast of the last ZBA Meeting, and he does feel current with all information and is informed to vote on all agenda items this evening. SEQRA: -Action appears to be an Unlisted Action, a short EAF was submitted. -Planning Board is the only involved agency. -Desire to coordinate SEQRA review. Planning Board to act as Lead Agency. 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 6.9 feet 1.1 foot (13.75%) Minimum side yard setback: Existing house on proposed Lot 2 8 feet *7 feet 1 foot (12.5%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 11, 2017 - Page 2 of 15 Minimum total side yard setback: Existing house on proposed Lot 2 20 feet *13.9 feet 6.1 feet (30.5%) *Per revised application and map dated July 2, 2017. 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 Board has seen this application on a prior appearance before the Board. The applicant would be happy to provide any information requested or answer any questions at this time. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the Planning Board has requested coordinated SEQRA review. Bill Moore, Chairman questioned if there was any objection to deferring SEQRA Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board. None heard. Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion in the matter of the Song & Wang Subdivision, 21 Murphy Lane to defer SEQRA Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman 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 2. #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. 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: -Area variance for construction of a detached garage, relief from the maximum accessory building coverage, approved on December 19, 2016. -A building and plumbing permit were issued to allow a half bath on the first floor of the garage on January 12, 2017. -Steve Shaw’s determination was issued on February 16, 2017. Applicant: Cynthia and John Behan James Helicke questioned procedurally this application was originally placed on the June 12, 2017 agenda, and City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 11, 2017 - Page 3 of 15 at that time the neighbors were not properly notified. We had two subsequent meetings, June 26 and July 24th. Why wasn’t this application heard at those meetings? We have rules regarding timeliness in filing an appeal. Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated both adjournments were at the request of the applicant. Mrs. Behan stated the first delay was the notification of the neighbors. We were given a list of names to provide notification to and the owners of the property were not on the list. So the application was pulled. The second meeting in June was adjourned because we thought we had already notified people. We received the notice too late to send out the mailings. The July 26, 2017 meeting we had a pre-planned family reunion and could not be present for the meeting. Gary Hasbrouck stated this is specifically an appeal of the Buildings Inspector’s determination as to whether he has the ability to determine whether the applicant can have a bathroom or cannot have a bathroom, not to argue the merits of whether the bathroom would be good or bad for you. Susan Steer stated the applicant is requesting the Board to review the definition of a garage accessory use and habitable living space. Mr. Behan reviewed the reasoning for the application. If a variance is based upon a finding and a presentation by an applicant on the occupancy and use of a space, and it is granted, then the facts are changed and the impacts are changed because the occupancy changes to become a habitable space then it ties to this whole issue of the foundation of a variance. It is not just the water and sewer connection it is both of those things. Variances must be adhered to. The goal of a variance is to protect the neighborhood and their neighbors from overdevelopment and zoning changes made piecemeal by applicants who do more than what is allowed or granted by variance. In this case the applicants were granted a variance to create a use by building bigger than what was allowed. Part of what the applicant said was no water, no sewer and it will be unoccupied, unfinished space with storage space above. This affects us. The rules are not really strenuous in the city. There was no water or sewer proposed in this new structure. That does affect things which were done here. This variance was granted on December 19, 2016. This Board had a conversation about this, concerning placing a stipulation no water or sewer allowed. It was stated by the Board Chair, that it would illegal if the applicants did so. The applicants asked for electric but no water or sewer. We think it will be a quiet garage, but water sewer and heat pipes are going into this structure. Were those plans submitted to anyone? No. Now you have habitable space with no one approving or knowing it. We have taken pictures and informed the City otherwise this would be habitable space. Photographs were provided to the Board. We were told one thing and something else happened. In our area this is really tight space there is not a lot of room. A stop work order was issued. Several days later the applicant applies for a plumbing permit which was granted and the stop work order was lifted. Water and sewer plans continue. No return before the ZBA. Habitable space was created contrary to what was proposed and the intent of zoning. Mr. Behan read the specific words of zoning. Garage an accessory building or portion of a principal building used for the storage of motor vehicles of the occupants of the premises. This is detached and it is right next to our house. The garage was built we are fine with it. It’s the incrementalism. Also, an accessory structure residential is defined in the code as unfinished and uninhabitable space in a detached structure. The key words are unfinished and uninhabitable. We disagree from the building inspector’s determination that a bathroom is an allowable use in a garage because once a bathroom is allowed, especially in a separate structure, and occupancy is issued for that there is no other point of inspection to ascertain if habitable space has been created and you have put in everything you need for habitable space. This is an enforcement issue. The Building Inspector recited what the code says “a space suitable for living, sleeping, cooking, bathing, washing and sanitation purposes”. The key word in this definition according to the building inspector is the word “and”, which means that space is not considered habitable living space without all those components. No single or limited combination of these components would constitute habitable space. We contend that the key word is “suitable”. When you put those facilities in you make the space habitable. If there are people sleeping in that space what do we tell the fire department. Don’t worry about it, it is uninhabited. Uninhabited is the key word here. If it is going to be allowed it should be part of the code. The Board needs to make a line, allowing water and sewer to separate accessory buildings needs to have some oversight. The variance was granted based on what was presented to the Board. The question is would the variance have been granted if you knew that water and sewer were proposed as well as heat, insulation and finished space. Water and sewer is the key. We are asking the Board to find the installation of water and sewer and other utilities a violation of the zoning variance granted, are not permitted in occupied City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 11, 2017 - Page 4 of 15 uninhabited garage as presented by the applicant and also globally, that these things should not be permitted in accessory structures. Either the law needs to be changed or the applicant needs to appear before the Zoning Board for a variance for habitable space, that is the key. There are two points, the micro issue of the lot and further we ask that the determination of the code enforcement officer be reversed, and in the future be disallowed unless specifically allowed by the Board. Permits for plumbing which were granted be revoked, water and sewer lines be removed between the house and the garage. Do what you say you are going to do. Plans should not be changed after a variance is granted. Not in the public interest for this to be allowed. James Helicke questioned Steve Shaw, Building Inspector, as to if it is correct that water and heat and sewer have all been added to the accessory structure. Steve Shaw, Building Inspector stated all of the infrastructure items have been run out to the garage. James Helicke asked what constitutes uninhabitable space. Mr. Behan stated unoccupied, uninhabitable space. Steve Shaw, Building Inspector stated you cannot say unoccupied. Occupancy has several different levels to it. A garage, whether it is a shed, there is an occupancy to this garage. Mr. Behan stated it is unfinished and uninhabitable space. James Helicke stated he would like to be clear. We are giving an opinion on what constitutes unfinished, or uninhabitable space. The second question I hear from the Behan’s is whether installing the heat, water and sewer were allowable given the variances granted by the Board. Mr. Behan stated and allowable in general to an accessory building, unfinished and uninhabitable. James Helicke stated the key word is suitable. The question is not whether it is a habitable space or not it is whether it is suitable for that purpose and has all the elements. This Board needs to look at are those two things. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated this Board has had many applications before it to make many types of improvements to garages, carriage houses, pool houses, and the like. The Board has dealt with this in a variety of ways. It has been some time since I have read the original decision for this application. To my knowledge it does not specifically say that there shall be no water and sewer connected to this building. Here is why it is so important, it is pretty obvious that there were some comments made at the Zoning Board meeting that there would be no water or sewer. There are some court cases over the years which have been handed down and basically what they say is even though things may be testified to in a zoning meeting if they don’t end up in the written decision they cannot be held against the applicant. Susan Steer stated she understands what Tony Izzo is saying, but the problem the Board is having is in the past we have assumed if they asked for water and sewer, they need a variance for habitable space. We have always operated under that and that is why they are here. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated the interpretation you have in front of you that is properly before you, regards the definition of habitable space. That is an interpretation question within the purview of this Board to act upon and issue a decision on. The question is as I understand it is does the definition of habitable space, have to include each and every one of those criteria or can it include anyone of them or a combination of, or some other criteria. That is the interpretation question which is properly before the Board this evening. There are some other things which have been alleged, and I am not sure without doing some research if those other inquiries are properly before this Board. I do know the question of what habitable space means, within the context of that definition is a proper question which the Board can take up and analyze. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 11, 2017 - Page 5 of 15 James Helicke stated the Board assumes that what the applicant is presenting and proposing is what the applicant will build. Susan Steer stated that is not what we are discussing here. The applicant went ahead and did something else, which we had asked them about. The Building Inspector stated no that’s okay, it is not habitable space. These applicants are here stating it is habitable space. In every other circumstance an applicant has come to us and we have required a variance for habitable space. That is their argument. James Helicke stated Mr. Behan agreed with me. I think we base our decision on what the applicants ask of us. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated he believes based upon the information presented the Board is being asked to interpret what constitutes habitable space within the context of the Zoning Ordinance definition. Steve Shaw, stated he researched the Zoning Ordinance and is going purely on the definition. Just because the amenities are there does not mean that they will use it unlawfully. If the Board wants to clarify the habitable space definition and terminology that will be fine. Mr. Behan stated if you bring these amenities into this space it becomes habitable space. It was supposed to be simply a garage. It is all about impact. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning what constitutes habitable space. Gary Hasbrouck spoke concerning suitable for living and what does this constitute. Cheryl Gray stated it is very unfortunate that neighbors have to be watching neighbors. From the way the variance was written was it your interpretation that there would be an unfinished garage only and that is all you thought it was going to be once you saw the variance? Mrs. Behan stated yes, that is what was presented by the applicant. The applicant stated unfinished, uninhabited space - no water, no sewer, and no bathroom shown on the plans. Mr. Smith stated in the minutes no water or sewer proposed to the new garage. Steven Shaw, Building Inspector stated this was not a use variance it was an area variance. Those are items that are not pertinent to the discussion. Mr. Behan stated they are important because someone is proposing to occupy the space. It is different. Cheryl Grey stated I am very much in this situation in my neighborhood. This does concern me particularly when you all of a sudden can add water and sewer and your neighbor isn’t watching and taking pictures is this always going to be permissible. My question to Steve Shaw is when this permit is asked for is it included in the permit for the garage and shouldn’t the water and sewer be permitted right from the start not when all of a sudden the bulldozers are already putting it in? Bill Moore, Chairman stated I believe the applicants asked for a half bath on the first floor. Steve’s interpretation, I am not saying right or wrong, was that they could have a half bath on the first floor not the second floor. Steve Shaw stated they asked for it on the second floor and I said no. James Helicke raised an issue in the past on Fifth Avenue we had an application before us concerning a garage which was converted to a dwelling unit. It had by all definitions had all of these elements. The denial there I believe was about habitable space. My point is shouldn’t they need to proceed with a variance for habitable space. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 11, 2017 - Page 6 of 15 Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned what that applicant was looking for. We don’t know if it is germane to this application. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning garages which have been converted and the wording of the Zoning Ordinance and criteria. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated we need to stay within the parameters of what the applicant is appealing. The applicant is asking for a definition of garage accessory use and habitable living space. That is the definition of what you want an interpretation of. Then specifically how do you request that this section be interpreted. That a garage is an accessory use for the purpose of storage of vehicles and other incidentals and should not be allowed to be connected to water or sewer or finished or otherwise improved with elements associated with the principal use such as toilets, bathrooms that would permit occupancy and habitation. You are asking us on that sentence. We have departed from that and we are getting into other areas. You can have other applications of water and sewer. You can have a slop sink with a 2” waste line connected to sewer. Otherwise you are saying anyone that wished to have a slop sink needs a variance and that is not the way we should be going about this. The concern here is that they are going to set up an apartment on the second floor or it is going to evolve into a dwelling unit. Our responsibility is to rule, if the owner of the property asks for habitable space, and then we will look at it on its merits. What is before us now, here is a bunch of indicators of possible misuse of this space without an owner asking for habitable space. We are not going to wait for the applicant to ask for it, we are so concerned about elements coming to us that those elements by themselves are a clear and present danger that the property is going to be misused. This application that is before us right now is a gross oversimplification and I cannot possibly interpret it to say that it should not be allowed to be connected to water and sewer. This is what is in front of us. This was so poorly written with what you are asking for, I cannot possibly say yes to it. Mr. Behan stated it is important to the Board’s decision to limit the connection to water and sewer at the outset. That is the key thing. This is what is happening in the City. You do have to draw a line and it is important. Mrs. Behan stated if you see an application which does not show a slop sink on the plans then there should not be a slop sink. They have submitted plans by an architect. They said unoccupied, uninhabitable, no water, no sewer. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated he understands the applicants concern. I have issue with just because there is a utility connection does not mean that that is going to happen. This is the issue I am having a hard time overcoming. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated I am looking at what you are asking for. It is too sweeping. As much as I sympathize and understand the need to protect the neighborhood, I think that this is too blunt of an instrument and I just cannot stay with this unless it is changed somehow. Susan Steer stated she feels completely opposite of Keith. Especially with sewer. Once you create water, sewer, and include that we have already included for them electricity, and if there is heat it is suitable for habitable space. It is suitable for sleeping, cooking, bathing, washing and it is suitable for sanitation, which makes a habitable space, which means they need a variance. If their original plans had the sewer line I am guessing there would have been a conversation with Steve Shaw. I think they do need a variance for habitable space. James Helicke stated he agrees with Susan. They have all these elements. The applicants should return before this Board requesting a variance for habitable space. Bill Moore, Chairman stated if we go back (I am not speaking about the variance) to that question I don’t think they should get a half bath. I do not think anyone in the City should be allowed to have a half bath without coming before the Board. We are not talking about that. I agree with the applicant’s situation, disagree with your argument. It is not the same point, again, generic argument. I think if we start picking this apart it is tough for us to legislate against everything. We can only do so much. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 11, 2017 - Page 7 of 15 Mrs. Behan questioned if it is permissible for the Building Inspector to make the determination that a bathroom is okay in an uninhabitable space. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he agrees with her. I believe you would need a variance. Any type of bathroom in an accessory structure should have a variance. Again, this is my opinion. That is not the question before us. Again, I agree with the applicant’s situation, disagree with your argument. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated it seems to me what the applicants really want is an appeal of an Administrative Action. An action was taken by the Building Inspector. Frankly, I believe it was beyond the purview of what was discussed before this Board. It sounds like he went above and beyond what we wanted. One remedy the Behan’s have is to appeal the action which was taken by Mr. Shaw. That is not what you are asking. You have a specific administrative action that occurred on a specific piece of property and that is what I would specifically appeal. Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated we read this as what Keith Kaplan suggested. They filed an appeal of Steve Shaw’s determination in issuing the plumbing permit for the garage and in doing that his analysis of the definitions of “accessory structure (residential)” and “habitable space”. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning what the applicant is asking for. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman, opened the public hearing at 8:37 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Rachel Dunn, 74 White Street. I am here in support of the Behan’s application. I am here as the precedent it sets and that is the concern of me and other neighbors. As a property owner that sits two houses down. I want to build a garage as well, and I am concerned, thinking what do I have to do. I am concerned about setting precedent. This Board has to be consistent. Brian Rodems, 84 White Street. I agree with Rachel. Firmly against allowing this type of activity going on. Jaret Osborn, 245 Nelson Avenue. I am here for another project tonight. I am concerned because this seems to be a broad stroke. To have living space you would need a CO. Michael Toohey, attorney for the applicant whose home we are speaking about. I own property at 20 Kelly Lane and have a detached garage with water, sewer and heat. No one has ever told us we are the owners of a property with a second habitable space. There are numerous structures all across the City which contain these amenities and they are not being used as dwelling units. Mr. Toohey reviewed the zoning ordinance and read the interpretation appeal. There are no aggrieved parties in this application. This structure is not hooked up with water and sewer presently running into the garage. There is no limitation in zoning as to where plumbing is placed. Eileen Wood, 24 Joshua Road. Mr. Toohey’s comments cannot be left unaddressed. Neighbors can take picture so that issues can be enforced. Mr. Toohey made some comments which maligned the neighbors accusing them of unusual behavior with respect to this case. If this request of this garage was done honestly I do not believe the neighbors in this area would have the kind of view and concern they have. There is very little integrity with what this homeowner has done. Putting forth an application for a variance for a garage and then doing something completely different. Mr. Toohey’s comments should not go unchallenged. NEIGHBOR INPUT: -Written comments from John Boardman, dated July 10, 2017. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 11, 2017 - Page 8 of 15 Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and present at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on September 25, 2017. 3. #2991 CARUSO GARAGE, 565 Grand Avenue, area variance to maintain an existing residential garage; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Rural Residential District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Building permit application to locate solar panels on the roof of the existing pole barn revealed that a building permit was never issued for the structure. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum rear yard setback 50 ft. 3.7 ft. 46.3 ft. (93%) Applicant: Steve Caruso Mr. Caruso stated his application is self explanatory. I do have a letter signed by the closest visible neighbor who has no issues with this application. I have spoken to Pompa Stone and they have no issues either. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE BOARD: -Correspondence dated May 19, 2017 received from John Eibert, project coordinator. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the applicant applied for a building permit to install solar panels on the roof of the existing pole barn which revealed that a building permit was never issued for the structure. When was this garage built? Mr. Caruso stated approximately 5 years ago the pole barn was constructed. I have owned the property for 19 years. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked the applicant why a building permit was never obtained for the construction of the pole barn. Mr. Caruso stated he was told by the builder of the pole barn that he did not need a building permit. When the solar company applied for a building permit and it was refused. A survey was completed and it was determined this structure was to close to the property line. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman read from the correspondence received from Pompa’s. Their concern was that the variance would run with the property. Long term impact needs to be reviewed. This is not very complicated. This is already in place. Why was it placed here and not further from the property line? Mr. Caruso stated it was placed there for convenience. The building started off smaller and just grew into its current size. Susan Steer questioned the use of the building and if it could be moved. Mr. Caruso stated it is used for storage, and I don’t believe it can be moved. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 11, 2017 - Page 9 of 15 Susan Steer stated the variance runs with the land and you don’t put structures on the property line. There is no foundation and this can be moved. There is a small structure on the site as well, sitting on the property line, which would have to be removed. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated the amount of the variance requested will alter the character of the neighborhood. I cannot support this. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the structure and the five tests for area variance consideration. Bill Moore, Chairman stated I do not believe there is much support for this application. The applicant has an opportunity to modify his plan. I do not believe this will get passed at this time. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:22 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. Contact Susan Barden, Senior Planner and discuss your options concerning this application. 4. #2898.2 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY SUBDIVISION, 26 & 28 Cherry Street, area variance for a two-lot subdivision; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width and minimum lot size requirements for both lots, minimum side yard (both sides) and minimum total side yard setback for both residential units in the Urban Residential-4 District. SEQRA: -Action appears to be an Unlisted Action. A short EAF was submitted. -The project also requires subdivision approval by the Planning Board. -Coordination of SEQRA Review possible deferral of SEQRA Lead Agency to the Planning Board. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF APPROVED/EXISTING REQUESTED Minimum average lot width: Lot 1 100 feet 28 feet 72 feet (72%) Minimum side yard (west): Lot 1 20 feet 11 feet 11 feet 9 feet (45%) Minimum side yard (east): Lot 1 20 feet 0 feet 20 feet (100%) Minimum total side yard: Lot 1 45 feet 11 feet 34 feet (75%) Maximum principal building coverage: Lot 1 25% Minimum average lot width: Lot 2 100 feet 22 feet 78 feet (78%) Minimum side yard (west) Lot 2 20 feet 0 feet 20 feet (100%) Minimum side yard (east): Lot 2 20 feet 5 feet 5 feet 15 feet (75%) Minimum total side yard: Lot 2 45 feet 5 feet 40 feet (89%) Maximum principal building coverage: Lot 2 25% Minimum side yard (A/C units): Lot 2 5 feet 1.5 feet 3.5 feet (70%) Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated the applicant did not realize that subdivision of the parcel would be required to convey the property under its Homeownership Program, having previously thought that the variance obtained to construct a two-family home was all that would be required. Similar to the Song and Wang application it is an unlisted action. The Zoning Board and Planning Board could coordinate SEQRA review. The Zoning Board is also required to obtain an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board. Subdivision approval is required from the Planning Board as well. This application has been placed on the Planning Board agenda for Thursday, September 14, 2017. Agent: Adam Feldman, Executive Director City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 11, 2017 - Page 10 of 15 Cheryl Grey made a motion in the matter of the Habitat for Humanity Subdivision that the Zoning Board of Appeals Coordinate SEQRA review with the Planning Board and designate Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board as well. Susan Steer 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 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:27 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Linda Englert, I live on Franklin Street. I am confused about this because this is a very tiny lot. The request is now before the Board to subdivide. Bill Moore, Chairman stated this home is a duplex type of home. They want to divide the property so each side can be individually owned. This property is pre-existing and non-conforming. Nothing will change physically. Mr. Feldman stated the mission of Habitat for Humanity is long term stability and to maximize home ownership for low income families. Habitat for Humanity would never build a two family home where there is a homeowner with a sub- renter. The former leadership failed to convey that in the former application. Now we are here requesting a change so we can have two homeowners. There is a utility easement on the property. This property was donated by the City and they required the duplex style home to be built. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the application will return before this Board following an appearance at the Planning Board for an Advisory Opinion as well as subdivision approval. 5. #2992 NORTHBURG CAMPGROUND, 62 Muldowney Road, initiation of Coordinated SEQRA Review associated with a use variance for a campground; seeking relief from the permitted uses in a Rural Residential District. SEQRA: -Action appears to be a Type I action, “any Unlisted action occurring wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, any historic building, structure, facility, site or district or prehistoric site that is listed on the National Register of Historic Place. -A long EAF has been submitted. -The Planning Board is an involved agency. -Coordinated Review is required. The Board may want to defer Lead Agency to the Planning Board. Discussion ensued concerning lack of information provided and lack of representation. Susan Steer stated she feels the application is not complete; therefore she does not want to begin the SEQRA process. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the Board has deemed the application incomplete. It is the consensus of the Board to adjourn the application. OLD BUSINESS: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 11, 2017 - Page 11 of 15 6. #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 been recently received. 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 DISCLOSURE: Cheryl Grey stated on the site visit she made she did meet the applicant. They did not discuss the application. Cheryl Grey stated the requested information was provided to the Board. However, several Board members questioned if the applicant would be willing to decrease the mass and scale of the project, in fact moving it off of the property line to the south. Mr. Flansburg reviewed some of the questions the Board had requested more information on. This is 1.2 feet from the side yard setback. These are all existing and nonconforming. We want to go up and over the existing garage and so we need a variance to continue that line. The bulk of the addition is to the east side where they have the most yard. The side yard or front yard setbacks on the north, south and west are not changing. It is pre-existing non conforming. Discussion ensued concerning the proximity to the property lines and the size of the structure on the site. Mr. Flansburg stated this is a two car garage. We are looking to get both cars into the garage. We have changed the proposed garage door to one larger garage door. This does not change anything dimensionally, but it does give us the ability to get two cars off the street. Mr. Flansburg spoke regarding the size, the mass and scale. Properties in that area are all over the place in terms of lot coverage. There is precedent for it. Cheryl Grey stated the two story building being 1.2 feet away from the property line is too much. Gary Hasbrouck does not have any problem with the application. James Helicke asked if the applicant gave any thought to reducing the mass of the structure. Bob Flansburg stated the garage is something we are trying to hold onto the width. As far as reducing the roof pitches He is amenable to decreasing the roof pitch, thereby reducing the height of the garage. James spoke regarding the neighborhood character and that is the concern I have. Discussion ensued concerning reducing the size of the second story and the setbacks. Mr. Lancaster stated the second story on the southern border is the question. One of the earlier meetings we agreed to the stipulation of not having an accessory building. So, to me that is already off the table. If the second story of the garage, if the slope of some type facing north is desirable, I would agree to that. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 11, 2017 - Page 12 of 15 Bob Flansburg stated we can reduce and drop the height of the roof. 10:05 P.M. The Board recessed. 10:20 P.M. The Board reconvened. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:20 P.M. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. #2982 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Andrew Lancaster 74 Oak Street Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the Building Inspector’s determination involving a residential addition at 74 Oak Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being Tax Parcel 165.66-3-53 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 addition of a two story garage and additional space of a second story in a UR-2 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on July 24 and September 11, 2017. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move the following area variance for the following amount of relief: AREA OF RELIEF REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum bldg. coverage: 30% 44.6% 14.6% (49%) Minimum front yard setback: Walnut Street 10 feet 4 feet 6 feet (60%) Minimum side yard setback: Walnut Street 8 feet 1.2 feet 6.8 feet (85%) As per the submitted plans dated June 5, 2017 and amended per discussion at September 11, 2017 meeting, be approved per this Board’s consideration of the following factors: 1. The applicant has demonstrated the benefit sought in the proposal cannot be achieved by other means feasible. The Board notes that the addition extends the pre-existing side yard setback encroachment; much of the dimensional relief aside from lot coverage is for pre-existing conditions. The applicant notes that adding to the east side of the house without extending the existing side variance would encroach on the yard, and there is a neighboring house on the east property line. The applicant has consented to an alternative second floor plan, see below. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The overall lot coverage presented will be 44.6%. The City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 11, 2017 - Page 13 of 15  applicant has provided the Board with a sizable number of comparable properties in the area with similar coverage relief requirements. The other dimensional variances are mainly pre-existing and are not incrementally impactful. 3. The Board finds the amount of relief on the above dimensions to be substantial. However, the board finds this substantiality is mitigated by the fact that most of the areas of relief are pre-existing, and the lot coverage is not unusual per the applicant-provided information. Note also that the applicant has agreed to downscale the impact of the second story mass and scale in his revised drawings, which decreases substantiality. 4. The Board finds these variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. Permeability does not appear to be an issue in this case. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created; however, self-creation by itself is not fatal to an area variance application. Condition: No accessory structures will be permitted. Applicant has agreed to construct a knee wall on S. side instead of full wall on the second-story of the garage. 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; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, opposed; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: James Helicke made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 24, 2017 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting as submitted. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, abstained; Gary Hasbrouck, in favor; Cheryl Grey, abstained; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0-2 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BUSINESS: Susan Steer made a motion for submittal of a letter she drafted on behalf of the Zoning Board to be submitted to the City Council requesting review of the ethics, as well as Bill Moore, Chairman, of the Zoning Board of Appeals requesting from the Mayor the ability to have Mark Schachner consult with the Board as part of this Ethics Policy review. Adam McNeill, Secretary seconded the motion. VOTE: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 11, 2017 - Page 14 of 15  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 Bill Moore, Chairman made a motion to approach the City Council for more full time legal counsel for the Zoning Board of Appeals in the same manner as the Planning Board. Adam McNeill, Secretary 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 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:26 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 10/16/17 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – September 11, 2017 - Page 15 of 15