Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2018 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Susan Steer; Adam McNeill, Secretary Cheryl Grey; James Helicke, Oksana Ludd, Alternate STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney 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: #3007 BOLDER VENTURES SUBDIVISION, 116 High Rock Avenue, area variance for a proposed two lot subdivision; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width requirement for each of the lots and minimum front yard, side yard and total side yard setbacks and maximum principal building coverage requirements for each of the residences in the Urban Residential-5 District. #3006 BOUCHER SUBDIVISION, 2 Glenmore Avenue, area variance for a proposed six-lot residential subdivision; seeking relief from the minimum lot size requirement for two of the lots in the Urban Residential-2 District. #2953 STATION PARK MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, Washington Street and Station Lane, area variance for a proposed multi-use development containing a 110 room hotel, 88 senior housing units, 41 assisted living units, 90 townhouses, and 28,060 square feet of retail; seeking relief from the frontage build to and build out, minimum two story and maximum building height requirements in the Transect-5 District. #3001 ZIMMERMAN SUBDIVISION, 139 Grand Avenue, area variance with a two-lot residential subdivision; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width and minimum lot size (lot 1) and minimum lot area (lot 2) and minimum side yard setback or existing residence on proposed lot1 in the Urban Residential-3 District. #2817.1 ADELPHI HOTEL EXPANSION, 19-23 Washington Street, deferral of Lead Agency status to the Planning Board associated with construction of a hotel and spa; seeking relief from the frontage build-to and build-out requirements in the Transect-6 District. #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. #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.  #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. #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. #3014 BEYER RESIDENCE, 201 West Circular Street, area variance to construct a detached garage and pool; Seeking relief from the maximum accessory building coverage requirement in the Urban Residential-2 District. #3016 HODGE GARAGE APARTMENT, 39 North Street, area variance to permit a dwelling unit in an existing detached garage; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width requirement for a second single-family residence and from the maximum principal buildings on one lot requirement in the Urban Residential-3 District. NEW BUSINESS: RECUSALS: Bill Moore, Chairman recused from the following application. Susan Steer, Board member recused from the following application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman assumed the duties of the Chair. 1. #2776.2 GUARINO/HANER EXTENSION, 21 Park Place, area variance extension for construction of two (2) two- family residences; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback and minimum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: - Action classified as a Type I action – substantially contiguous to Congress Park-Casino-Circular St. National Register District (across Regent St.) -ZBA initiated Coordinated Review (with Planning Board) and requested Lead Agency Status on September 22. -Planning Board deferred Lead Agency Status on October 8, 2014. -ZBA issued a Negative SEQRA Declaration on December 15, 2014. -No further SEQRA action for an extension. PARCEL HISTORY: -Site Plan review application pending -Subdivision application pending -Area variance to construct (2) detached two-family residences and (1) detached garage on a lot occupied by an existing three-family residence approved December 15, 2014 (see resolution). City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – February 5, 2018 - Page 2 of 10 AREA VARIANCE – ORIGINAL ACTION: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: Park Place – two unit 25 feet 16 feet 9 feet (36%) Minimum front yard setback: Park Place – two unit addition 25 feet 16 feet 9 feet (36%) Maximum principal building coverage: combined 25% 27.8% 2.8% (11.2%) BACKGROUND: -The current approval expired on December 29, 2017 if not extended. This is the second and final extension. -The applicant is requesting an 18 month extension. June 29, 2019 would be the new expiration date. -The application states that the original timeframe was not sufficient because “Original application design is not approved by the Planning Board, application pending. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: -Planning Board site plan review required Applicant: David Guarino, owner Mr. Guarino stated there are no changes to the plan. We are back to the original plan and taking advantage of the extension. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated there will be no voting on this application this evening due to improper public noticing. No additional information has been requested from the applicant. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there were any questions or concerns from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. The nature of this application is an extension of a previously granted variance. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Andrea Gardner, 105 Regent Street. The residents of the Regent Street and Park Place neighborhoods remain unanimously opposed to the project. Barbara Lombardo, 35 Park Place. I am affirming what Andrea Gardner stated. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open until the next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, scheduled for February 12, 2018. Bill Moore, Chairman resumed the position of Chair. Susan Steer, Board Member resumed her position on the Board. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman resumed his position as Vice Chairman. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – February 5, 2018 - Page 3 of 10 2. #3013 FLAHERTY RESIDENCE, 100 Fifth Avenue, area variance to construct a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum rear yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. Applicant: MaryBeth Flaherty, owner Agent: Mike Toohey, Attorney; Mike Ingersoll, LA Group; Michael Tuck, Balzer Tuck Architecture SEQRA: -Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum principal building coverage 20% 31.83% 11.83% (59%) Minimum rear yard setback 30 ft. 24.5 ft. 5.5 ft. (18%) Mr. Toohey stated this property is located at 100 Fifth Avenue. We have a visual which presents 24 different lots on the south side of Fifth Avenue. You have seen this before for a prior application. They are proposing a new home for this property. It does not require any front yard setbacks. This proposed project will line up perfectly with the adjacent properties that are there. The lot size is the second largest lot in this area. Mr. Toohey reviewed the area variance considerations. Mr. Toohey stated both areas of relief could be considered substantial. The buildings coverage’s are principal 20% and accessory 8% total maximum 28% in the district. The proposed at 31.83% does not include accessory building coverage of 2.7% - total principal and accessory building coverage identified as 34.7%. The variances are not substantial in that they are either based on the historic size of the lot or are consistent with a substantial portion of the neighborhood and the neighboring home and parcel immediately to the east. The lot is pre-existing nonconforming with the minimum lot size requirement in the UR-1 existing lot is 11,249 square feet while 12,500 square feet is required. The original design of the home has been reduced to be consistent with the lot coverage of other properties in the neighborhood. The rear yard setback will have no effect on the New York Racing Association property to the South. The proposed home has a smaller percentage of principal lot coverage and total lot coverage than the lot and home immediately to the east of the parcel. Mr. Toohey provided the Board with lots and home comparables in the neighborhood area. The site to remain permeable would be 40.88% which exceeds the minimum 30% in the district. The Flaherty’s home is not the largest house on the block. It is not intended to be the biggest house on the block. It is consistent with the homes in this area. Oksana Ludd questioned if the Board would require a denial. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated we do not believe we need one. The lot itself has not changed and we would only look at the new construction proposed and the variances associated with that. Oksana Ludd stated in drafting resolutions we are always trying to explore alternative designs. The fact that this house fits the character of the neighborhood does not really address what alternatives have been tried. Mike Tuck, Architect, Balzer and Tuck Architects stated it would have been feasible in the past when rooms were smaller and there was less equipment going into homes. To build a smaller home in today’s society it would not be feasible. We do not build 8 foot bedrooms any longer. On the second floor we have bedrooms which help to dictate the first floor size. This current home has 3 bedrooms on the second floor and 2 bedrooms in the basement. Oksana Ludd questioned if there was anything the applicant could do to request a lesser variance. Mr. Tuck stated when we appear before the Board our goal is to present with what we believe is the minimum. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – February 5, 2018 - Page 4 of 10 Prior to the appearance before this Board we reviewed the plans and the applicant has opted for a breakfast bar instead of a breakfast room. These sorts of moves have already happened. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the proposed home. Mr. Toohey stated it is a personal choice for the number of bedrooms. The bedrooms in the basement do not count. The property has a pool but there is no pool house. Mr. Tuck continued that the mud room and office space have been combined as well to try to be more efficient with the use. The spaces are accommodating to the family needs but they are not outrageously large. Mr. Toohey stated the other aspect of this is in the past the garages were smaller. Today families like to have larger garages to accommodate their vehicles as well as storage. In this area there are a number of homes who have two car garages which face the street. All are comparable to that size. James Helicke stated if you look at the structure itself, this is quite large relative to the other homes on the lot. This is one of the larger lots on Fifth Avenue and we are reaching and covering quite substantially the lot. Therefore we are building one of the larger houses on Fifth Avenue and this is a concern for me. I am not sure that this fits into the neighborhood. I am at a loss here. If you look at the square footage and yes the next door home is larger but the remainder are smaller than this house. Mr. Toohey stated what we can demonstrate is that the house that is being proposed for this lot is comparable in size and mass to the two homes to the east and to the west of the house. Cherie Grey stated if the Blanchard lot is 70 x 100 and your lot 112 by 100 that does not make sense. Their lot is 7500 square feet and your lot is 11,000 square feet. Mr. Toohey stated a larger lot allows you to build a larger home. Within a 25 home sampling ours is not the largest home. Mr. Toohey spoke concerning homes in the area which have recently appeared before the Board that are brand new that do not in fact comply with the standards and they needed to receive approvals from the City for those to be constructed and the standard had to be that they were consistent with the neighborhood by themselves. James Helicke stated the Penny’s home was significantly smaller than what the current applicant is proposing, by about 700 square feet. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he is pretty uncomfortable with this. There are three homes which are larger among the 24 noted. This is quite large 3580 on a square footage is a large home living space but we are speaking about footprint. I find this to be outside of what I am comfortable with. Looking at the other homes this is on the large side within the neighborhood context. I was looking at neighborhood character and feasible alternatives. I am pretty uncomfortable with the sheer size of this. You have a family room, a three season room, office mudroom. I like the fact that it is tapered so from the road it is not as imposing. I would be more receptive if some things were taken off. Mr. Toohey stated what Mike Tuck has done is superimposed the home on the lot itself. Mr. Tuck stated in speaking about the size of the home he clarified the large overhangs and window wells add to the square footage. Approximately 700 square feet is overhangs. They are 3 ½ foot overhangs. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the absence of window wells in lieu of the two bedrooms in the basement. Mr. Tuck provided information concerning the location of the window well. Susan Steer questioned the outdoor areas and can it be made smaller. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – February 5, 2018 - Page 5 of 10 Mr. Ingersoll stated a large amount of time has been spent siting this home to avoid variances. Mr. Ingersoll provided a visual rendering of the outdoor landscaping and the pool. The garage is pulled back. Mr. Ingersoll reviewed the setbacks and the aesthetics in the siting of the home. Adam McNeill, Secretary he does not feel the home is inconsistent with the neighborhood. He stated he would like to have the resolution include a condition stating no additional accessory structures. DISCLOSURE: Board member Cheryl Grey stated she does live on Fifth Avenue and is outside of the 100 foot area. Cheryl Grey questioned the setback on the front of the home and how it was arrived at. She spoke concerning the urban lots versus suburban lots. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned if the applicant could submit lot coverage figures on just the home. Mr. Toohey stated he will provide this to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:16 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for February 12, 2018. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: No future accessory structures. 3. 3016 HODGE GARAGE APARTMENT, 39 North Street, area variance to permit a dwelling unit in an existing detached garage; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width requirement for a second single-family residence and from the maximum principal buildings on one lot requirement 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 average lot width: Second single-family residences 60 ft. 22.72 ft. 37.28 ft (62%) Maximum number of principal buildings on one lot 1 2 1 (100%) Applicant: Mike Hodge, owner City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – February 5, 2018 - Page 6 of 10 Mr. Hodge stated they have done a major renovation on the home on North Street both internally and externally. Since then we decided we want to have the carriage house renovated which is detached from the home at the end of the driveway. No work has been done on this structure in a long time. We replaced much of the wood siding, replaced windows and the roof. We applied for a permit to install new stairs and a new deck entrance to the second floor of the carriage house. During this process we were advised that the existing dwelling on the second floor was not recognized by the City. So, we applied to obtain a CO for the second floor dwelling as well as a variance for the lot width requirement as well as a maximum of two buildings on one lot. DISCLOSURE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman disclosed when he visited the property he met Mr. Hodge. Mr. Hodge provided general information about where things were. We did not get into detail. As a result I can be fair and objective in this matter. James Helicke questioned the applicant as to his building permit request, and how long the carriage house apartment has been in existence. Mr. Hodge stated he does not. The applicant purchased the home in 1996 and it was an existing dwelling spot at that time but was not being used and was in disrepair. Bill Moore, Chairman questioned the applicant if the current home was originally a two family which Mr. Hodge converted back into a one family home. Mr. Hodge stated that was correct. James Helicke questioned staff if the carriage house building is currently up to building code. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated if this variance is granted, a building permit will be required for the work which was done previously on the exterior. Bill Moore, Chairman questioned the applicant if any work had been done on the interior of the building. Mr. Hodge stated work had only been done on the exterior of the building. Bill Moore, Chairman questioned staff if this property is listed as having a one family dwelling unit on it. Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated it is listed as one family unit. Bill Moore, Chairman questioned staff if the property was ever listed as a two family dwelling and if that information could be provided it would be helpful. Bill Moore, Chairman also requested the applicant to provide pictures of the interior of the carriage house garage space. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned if the applicant if this space has been used to augment the space of your home or has it been used as a rental unit separate from your home. Mr. Hodge stated for quite some time it has been used for my kids. There has been an occasional rental about 5 or 6 years ago. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the applicant if it is his desire to have this space do both. Be used as extra space for the home and a rental unit. Mr. Hodge stated yes it would be used as both. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – February 5, 2018 - Page 7 of 10 Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there are any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. Susan Steer questioned if the home were converted back to a two family would additional variances be required. Susan Barden spoke regarding an additional variance requirement if the home were converted back to a two family. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated this was also a concern of his. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the resolution could be conditioned that this property house only two dwelling units. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:34 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Sue Davis stated she does live around the corner from this property since 1992. As far as she has known it has always been a usable space. There has not been any impact on the neighborhood. They have invested a lot into the property and she is happy to see it continue. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be provided and presented at the next ZBA Meeting scheduled for February 12, 2018. OLD BUSINESS: RECUSAL: Susan Steer recused from the following application. #3008 HENNESSY GARAGE, 165 Spring Street, area variance to demolish existing detached garage and construct new detached garage with second story finished space; seeking relief from the maximum accessory building coverage and to permit finished space in an accessory structure (residential) requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. This application was heard at the January 22, 2018 meeting and adjourned to the February 5, 2018 meeting. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Agent: Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture Ms. Davis stated she submitted a letter following the last appearance before the Board. There was some concern which arose concerning whether the benefit sought could be achieved by other means. Had we considered the office as an addition to the existing residence and also had we thought connecting it to the existing garage. I had taken the time to look at diagrammatically what it would do to the site. I would like to point out that there is a nice patio currently there. Ms. Davis read her letter into the record for the Board since they did not receive it prior to the meeting. She discussed the options available to the applicant and why this option was chosen. Also, Ms. Davis stated she spoke with Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation noting her agreement with the plans. PUBLIC HEARING: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – February 5, 2018 - Page 8 of 10 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 8:43 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. MOTION #3008 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Tom and Mary Hennessy 165 Spring Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 165 Spring Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.61-3-15 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to construct a detached garage with second-story habitable space seeking relief as described below in the Urban Residential – 3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on the 22nd day of January through the 5th day of February 2018. In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicants with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following variance for the following amount of relief: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Building Lot Coverage-Accessory Structure 10% 11% 1% coverage, 10% relief Habitable Space in an Accessory Structure Not Permitted Permitted with conditions 100% As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The applicants have demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicants. The applicants note that the dimensional relief is driven by the need for an interior stairway and constraining the size of the accessory structure to conform to district requirements would preclude functionality as a parking area for vehicles given the need for space for the staircase. The applicants further note that there are no feasible alternatives to their need for office space on the second floor of the proposed garage. The home layout has no suitable space for an office. Currently the applicants are using a bedroom for the office space and this is proving unworkable due to lack of quiet and privacy caused by the floor plan on the 1st and 2nd floor. Per the applicants, the bedroom on the third floor was also evaluated and found to have insufficient space. The Board notes that the relief required for allowing habitable space in an accessory structure could be overcome by attaching the garage and making it part of the principal structure, but that this would bring with it a need for dimensional relief on the principal building as well as impact on character of the property. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. The existing garage encroaches on side setback; this will be cured by the applicants moving the proposed garage away from the property line. The applicant’s further note that the habitable space will be used for a home office for which there will be no customer visits and for which use will only occur during the daytime. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – February 5, 2018 - Page 9 of 10  The Board notes the neighborhood is relatively densely constructed and many residences have carriage houses or garages. In terms of dimensional relief, the percentage of lot coverage is not significant enough to impinge on character, particularly in this neighborhood context. Considering also the limitation of the habitable space proposal to be for an office with no client visits, as well as the conditions noted below, the Board concludes this project to not adversely impact neighborhood character. 3. The request for relief for lot coverage for the accessory building is not considered substantial by the Board. The habitable space relief is substantial, but mitigated by the lack of impact of the proposed use and the imposition of conditions below. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. As noted by the applicant, moving the garage away from the lot line will have a positive effect on drainage for the neighbor, and permeability will not be significantly affected by the small lot coverage variance. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship due to the applicant’s desire to construct this garage and add this habitable space. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: Bathroom in accessory building is limited to sink and toilet. No overnight stays or kitchen facilities in the accessory building. Note: DRC Historic Review required. Adam McNeill, Secretary seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Oksana Ludd, in favor; Cheryl Grey, opposed; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-1 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the February 12, 2018 meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 4-23-18 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – February 5, 2018 - Page 10 of 10