Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2018 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Cheryl Grey; Brad Gallagher; Rebecca Kern, Alternate ABSENT: Susan Steer; James Helicke STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards exited the meeting at 8:00 P.M. 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: #3017 ADIRONDACK TRUST SIGNAGE, 473 Broadway, area variance for two wall signs, seeking relief from the minimum height for logo and lettering and placement above the first floor level of the building requirements in the Transect-6 District. #3021 DORSEY MIXED USE ADDITION, 15 Ballston Avenue, area variance to construct additions to an existing mixed-use (service and residential) building; seeking relief from the minimum frontage build out requirements in the Transect-5 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. #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. #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. Bill Moore, Chairman recused from applications 1-4 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman assumed the duties of the chair. OLD BUSINESS: 1. #3025 DAWSON/MOTO HOLDINGS RESIDENCE, Cobb Alley/77 South Franklin Street, area variance to construct a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum mean lot width and minimum lot size and minimum front and rear yard setbacks and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF RQUESTED Minimum lot size 6,600 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. 4,100 sq. ft. (62%) Minimum average lot width 60 ft. 50 ft. 10 ft. (17%) Minimum rear yard setback 25 ft. 7.5 ft. 17.5 ft. (70%) Minimum front yard setback 10 ft. .5 ft. 9.5 ft. (95%) Maximum principal building coverage: 30% 50% 20% 2. #3026 DAWSON/MOTO HOLDINGS RESIDENCE, Cobb Alley/77 South Franklin Street, area variance to construct a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum mean lot width and minimum lot size and minimum front and rear yard setbacks and maximum principal building overage requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF RQUESTED Minimum lot size 6,600 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. 4,100 sq. ft. (62%) Minimum average lot width 60 ft. 50 ft. 10 ft. (17%) Minimum rear yard setback 25 ft. 7.5 ft. 17.5 ft. (70%) Minimum front yard setback 10 ft. .5 ft. 9.5 ft. (95%) Maximum principal building coverage: 30% 50% 20% 3. #3027 DAWSON/MOTO HOLDINGS RESIDENCE, Cobb Alley/77 South Franklin Street, area variance to construct a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum mean lot width and minimum lot size and minimum front and rear yard setbacks and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF RQUESTED Minimum lot size 6,600 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. 4,100 sq. ft. (62%) Minimum average lot width 60 ft. 50 ft. 10 ft. (17%) Minimum rear yard setback 25 ft. 7.5 ft. 17.5 ft. (70%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 9, 2018 - Page 2 of 17 Minimum front yard setback 10 ft. .5 ft. 9.5 ft. (95%) Maximum principal building coverage: 30% 50% 20% 4. #3028 DAWSON/MOTO HOLDINGS RESIDENCE, 77 South Franklin Street, area variance to construct a new single- family residence and detached garage; seeking relief from the minimum mean lot width and minimum lot size and minimum front and rear yard setbacks and maximum principal building coverage requirements for the house and minimum side and rear yard setbacks and maximum accessory building coverage for the detached garage in the Urban Residential-3 District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF RQUESTED Minimum lot size 6,600 sq. ft. 3,600 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. (45%) Minimum rear yard setback 25 ft. 5 ft. 20 ft. (80%) Minimum front yard setback 10 ft. 0 ft. 10 ft. (100%) Maximum principal building coverage: 30% Approx. 37.5% 7.5% (25%) Maximum accessory building coverage: 10% Approx. 12.22% 2.22% (22%) Minimum side yard setback: Garage 5 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft. (60%) Minimum rear yard setback: Garage 5 ft. 4 ft. 1 ft. (20%) SEQRA: -Action appears to be Type I – any Unlisted Action occurring wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, any historic building, structure, facility site or district. -DRC is the only other involved agency. -The ZBA initiated coordinated SEQRA Review and sought Lead Agency status on March 19, 2018. -The DRC deferred Lead Agency Status. -The ZBA will review Part I of the Long Form as well as evaluation of Part II. -The applicant provided a search of available environmental records report and results of a DEC spill incidents Data search from 2012 to the present . -The property has been used as a junkyard/scrap yard since 1922. This application was heard at the March 19, 2018 meeting and adjourned to April 9, 2018. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The applicant submitted revised plans, floor plans, elevations, neighborhood coverages and additional information. Staff spoke with representatives from the Department of Public Safety. They had concerns with turning radius into the garages from the 12’ wide alley and compliance with the Fire Code for emergency vehicle access (20’ is standard for City Street). They suggested rotating the garage bays to the side of the home and not facing the alley and accessing from a shared driveway. In addition, to meet Fire Code they could have no more than 2 homes facing the alley or they will need to install sprinkler systems. This information was provided to the applicant’s designer. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE BOARD: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated additional correspondence was received on April 8, 2018 from Maureen Curtin, 125 Grand Avenue. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 9, 2018 - Page 3 of 17 Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated the Board is in receipt of revised plans as well as an email from the applicant addressing some of the comments from Public Safety. Also, some public safety comments were provided to the Board as well. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the Board will review SEQRA, Part II. The ZBA has sought and obtained Lead Agency Status for this application. The Board reviewed SEQRA Part I long form which was provided by the applicant and is complete and accurate. The Board reviewed SEQRA Part II. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated these properties are in a historic district that is why you are Lead Agency for the DRC as well. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman and the Board concurred with the notation that the property is located in a historic district and project requires DRC approval. Attorney Mark Schachner provided guidance to the Board concerning areas of concern the Board notes. It was the consensus of the Board there was no large or important areas of concern noted. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated a 2012 Environmental Report updated through current date with DEC search reveals no spills on the site. Adam McNeill, Secretary made a motion in the matter of applications of Dawson/Moto Holdings Residence, Cobb Alley and South Franklin Street stated based upon the information provided by the applicant in Part I of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, and analysis of the information provided and presented in Part II of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, the project will not result in any large and important impacts and, therefore, is one that will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on this, I move to make a SEQR negative declaration for this action. Cheryl Grey seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Rebecca Kern, Alternate, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated the Board is in receipt of a revised plan as well as a revised denial from the Building Inspector. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the Fire department has recommended a sprinkler system be installed in the three houses which face on Cobb Alley. Anthony Dawson, the applicant stated in response to the fire departments recommendation I do not have any problem installing sprinklers in the three homes which face on the alley. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 9, 2018 - Page 4 of 17 Cheryl Grey stated she has an issue with the garages being ½ foot off the alley and turning radiuses, the alley is too small. It opens up the potential for issues down the road. During a site visit she could not exit the property without much difficulty. Mr. Dawson, owner/applicant stated a tri-axel truck does enter and exit this area. Rebecca Kern, Alternate questioned the applicant if smaller homes were considered. Mr. Dawson stated owner/applicant stated much consideration has been given concerning this project. So, we have looked at townhouses, carriage style row houses and an apartment building. There was a significant cost involved. Since there are 4 building lots we determined 4 residences would be the best alternative. If this proposal does not work out we will retain the scrap yard at this location. Adam McNeill, Secretary, questioned the size of the garages, could they be made smaller. Mr. Dawson stated the dimensions have not been changed they are 2 car garages. Discussion ensued concerning the turning radius of the alley and difficulty with ingress and egress. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. The Board is still awaiting information from Public Safety. The applicant will return in two weeks and a resolution will be prepared and presented at that time. Bill Moore, Chairman resumed his position on the Board. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman resumed his position on the Board. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #3024 FAHY RESIDENCE, 166 Lincoln Avenue, area variance to construct a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width and 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-2 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. 4,419 sq. ft. 2,181 sq. ft. (33%) Minimum average lot width: Second single-family 60 ft. 0 ft. 60 ft. (100%) Maximum number of principal buildings on any one lot: 1 2 1 (100%) Minimum rear yard setback: 25 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. (60%) Applicant: Joe Fahy Mr. Fahy provided a visual presentation to the Board. This small cottage structure is for his mother in law. This lot is preexisting nonconforming with the minimum average lot width requirement at approximately 55.85 ft. This lot cannot be subdivided. Even though it is a UR-2 area there are not a lot of single family residences here. Mr. Fahy provided a visual presentation of the neighboring properties noting the presence of many multiple family units, commercial and businesses. His home is probably the only single family home in the area. The lot would not be able to be subdivided. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 9, 2018 - Page 5 of 17 The applicant indicates that neighboring homes have detached garages in similar locations to the proposed cottage. The property does not have any accessory structures. The cottage will not be visible from the street, with an elevation of 40 ft. high which is higher than the existing house. A two-story garage would be 28 feet high. The proposed cottage would use the existing driveway. The property abuts Siro’s and a three-family rental property. Mr. Fahy provided a visual of what they are proposing, as well as a visual of the current neighborhood, noting the size of their lot does allow for a two family structure on the site. If our variances are approved we will return to the Board with more detailed plans. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned if the new structure will have living space on the first floor only. Mr. Fahy provided a photograph of the proposed cottage for the site. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned what property and how many have more than 1 principal building on it and how high would the height of the proposed building be. I am looking for dimensions and data as well as the siting of the proposed structure. Mr. Fahy stated due to infrastructure from Siro’s as well as the utility lines this would be impossible to do. The property line issue will need to be resolved with Siro’s at some point. I am providing a current survey showing an infringement by Siro’s on my property. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated he has concerns regarding 2 primary residences on this property site and the amount of relief being requested from the Board with the proposed variances as well as the substantiality. Rebecca Kern questioned why an addition could not be placed on the existing home. Mr. Fahy stated we did look at this and the current home does not have the capability of an additional story. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he is opposed to the placement of the addition as it currently sits. This seems to be a high peaked roof and we need to be especially mindful of the rear setback. I am requesting the height of the proposed addition. Cherie Grey questioned the applicant as to the addition being placed on the back of the home as opposed to the side. You have a deep lot. Mr. Fahy stated the area in the rear of the home has many vents out the back of the home as well as the proximity to the commercial kitchen at Siro’s. The concern is this secondary structure would someday become an income property. Brad Gallagher questioned the square footage of the home, and the size of the proposed structure. Mr. Fahy stated approximately 2,200 square feet. Bill Moore, Chairman requested the applicant provide the number of 1 and 2 family homes in the area. This information can be provided to the Board when you return before the Board. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:35 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Rose Tait, I own the home contiguous to the applicant. I was surprised to receive notice of this project. I did not know of this project. I was under the assumption that this property was to be sold because of the renter on Frank Sullivan Place. Their present house is rented to several men during the racing season and applicants are out of the country for City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 9, 2018 - Page 6 of 17 periods of time. A new home for an elderly woman would be built several feet from Siro’s bandstand. Will this be more rental property during racing season and the future? Parking is difficult since the lot is narrow. There is no parking on Lincoln Avenue during the racing season. Where will visitors park? I have owned this property since 1971. During that time the house has been occupied by families with children. This was before there was a rear addition and the garage in the front was converted to a living area. I am concerned about the adverse effects on drainage and the effect it will have on my property. Concern as to the negative impact of runoff from this project with water and snow. Two primary residences on this small parcel seems a lot for one elderly person versus their large home with two occupants. Michael Bilock, 132 Nelson Avenue. I have submitted comments and photographs. I disagree with the application as currently proposed. I consider this a single family neighborhood. I have issues with the renters. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for April 23, 2018. NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT: -correspondence received from Rose Tait, dated 04/09/18. -correspondence received from Michael Bilock, dated 04/09/18. -email correspondence received from Ruth Edelson, dated 04/08/18. 2. #3029 BRASSEUR RESIDENCE, 6 Fish Creek View, area variance to demolish existing seasonal residence and construct a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard, minimum side yard (each) and minimum total side yard setbacks in the Rural Residential District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: 60 ft. 11 ft. 49 ft. (82%) Minimum side yard setback: 30 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft. (67%) Minimum side yard setback: 30 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft. (67%) Minimum total side yard setback: 100 ft. 20 ft. 80 ft. (80%) Agent: Peter Loyola, CLA site; Jim Warren, Builder Mr. Loyola stated the applicant is proposing the demolition of a 1925 building. We are looking for some dimensional relief on the newly proposed building. We have an 8300 square foot lot and we will be unable to meet any of the building requirements. It is a 680 square foot building. The setbacks currently are 9.7 feet, 8.8 feet. We have front setbacks of 11 feet and total side yard setback of 8.5 feet. The proposed house is located in the same location as the existing house to be removed at 840 square foot. There is a seepage pit which is grandfathered in. We are proposing an 840 square foot building which is the smallest building feasible for a one bedroom residential structure on the site. There is very little buildable area on the lot because of the floodplain. The proposed house would be a two-story on the lakeside 26.4’. We are attempting to make an improvement and cleaning up the seepage pit and the septic system. Mr. Loyola provided information concerning the septic system proposed for this area which is a state of the art system approved by the Department of Health. Municipal water is provided to the site which will be metered. DISCLOSURE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman disclosed 25 years ago his in-laws owned property nearby. I do not have a financial interest in this project. He would like to see the environmental engineers study concerning the impact on the neighbors. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 9, 2018 - Page 7 of 17 Mr. Loyola stated we are civil engineers and landscape architects which have reviewed the proposed system and have contracted with an expert for the state of the art septic system. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated the Building Inspector could review this prior to any resolution and provide information to the Board. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he would like to see some information from the septic system proposal from the engineer who is signing off on this project noting the distance from the lake to the septic system. Also, there is no Army Corp of Engineers information on this project. Mr. Loyola stated he will provide the information to the Board concerning the septic system. Also this property is out of the Army Corp of Engineers jurisdiction and there are no wetlands in this area. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the applicant concerning a pipe on the site dripping water and the retaining wall in disrepair. Mr. Loyola stated that is beyond our property line. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:00 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for April 23, 2018. OLD BUSINESS: Cheryl Grey stated she did review the webcast of the previous meeting. She feels comfortable and is informed and able to vote on the following applications. 1. #2988 KOSIBA RESIDENCE, 5 Beekman Street, area variance to construct a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum average lot width and minimum lot size requirement for a second single-family residence and to permit more than one principal building on a lot in the Urban Residential-3 District. This application was heard at the July 24, 2017 meeting. The Board stated concerns with the proposed new garage with dwelling unit and suggested that the applicant consider revising the plan. The revised plan has the dwelling unit in a separate structure and eliminates the request from the rear yard setback. 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 Mrs. Kosiba stated we appeared before this Board in July of 2017 when you suggested we return with several options. A visual presentation was provided to the Board noting the alternative designs reviewed by the applicant and why these City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 9, 2018 - Page 8 of 17 options are not feasible. Mrs. Kosiba provided the Board with an alternative design that meets their needs and does not infringe on their neighbors and keeps with the character of the neighborhood. The UR-3 zoning districts permits two- family structures on lots that are a minimum of 80’ wide and 8,000 square feet. The existing lot at 102’ wide and 12, 240 sq. ft. could provide for a two-family residence. The request to have the second permitted unit in a detached structure may not be considered substantial. Also, looking at a 15 foot setback versus 25 feet. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the applicant could consider a vegetative buffer on the side of the property closest to the neighbors. Also, I would prefer the 25 foot setback from the rear property is where I am comfortable and the height less than 20 feet. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the variances requested and the mass and scale of the project. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman, opened the public hearing at 9:20 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Jamin Totino, 23-25 Beekman. Purchased a home on Beekman 17 years ago. That was before revitalization took place in this area. We have a vested interest in our home and this neighborhood. We prefer that the structure is built as close to the alley as possible. More consistent with the neighborhood. A survey is recommended for reliable plan. Amy Totino, 23-25 Beekman. She also would like to have the new structure as close to the alley as possible. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman requested the applicant submit revised drawings and plans. Mitch & Renae Snyder, neighbors. We are supportive of the project especially moving the structure back to the alley as much as possible. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. The applicant will return before the Board following the submission of a survey. 2. #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. This application was heard at the January 22, 2018 meeting and adjourned to a future meeting. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The application was adjourned from the March 19, 2018 meeting at the request of the applicant. The applicant’s attorney submitted a letter and exhibits on March 14, 2018. SEQRA: -Action was classified as Unlisted. A full EAF was submitted. -Planning Board is the only involved agency. -The ZBA initiated Coordinated SEQRA Review and deferred Lead Agency status to the Planning Board on January 22, 2018. -The Planning Board accepted Lead Agency status and issued a Negative SEQRA Declaration on February 15, 2018. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 9, 2018 - Page 9 of 17 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum average lot width: Lot 1 100 ft. 47.97 ft. 50.53 ft (50%) Minimum front yard setback: Lot 1 25 ft. 4.7 ft. 20.3 ft (81%) Minimum side yard setback: Lot 1 20 ft. 0 ft. 20 ft. (100%) Minimum total side yard setback: Lot 1 45 ft. 20.9 ft. 24.1 ft. (54%) Maximum principal building coverage: Lot 1 25% 29.6% 4.6% (18%) Minimum average lot width: Lot 2 100 ft. 50.63 ft. 49.37 ft. (49%) Minimum front yard setback: Lot 2 25 ft. 4.9 ft. 20.1 ft. (80%) Minimum side yard setback: Lot 2 20 ft. 0 ft. 20 ft. (100%) Minimum total side yard setback: Lot 2 45 ft. 23.9ft. 21.1 ft. (47%) Maximum principal building coverage: Lot 2 25% 27.1% 2.1% (8%) Applicant: MaryLou Pickney, Owner Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney; Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America; Dave Gadomski, DSG Remodeling & Construction, LLC Mr. Toohey stated this application has appeared before this Board on several occasions. We have also appeared before the Planning Board as well. Mr. Toohey stated this property is a two story two family dwelling. It is on a site which was historically two parcels of land running parallel to the street and so noted on the deed. The important factors which should be emphasized is the parcel and the structure exists in a zone which allows two family dwellings. We are not outside our zoning use and utilization. The use allows us to do exactly what we are proposing from a use point of view. This could be a first floor second floor or a side by side building. There are no restrictions per the zoning code as to how you have a two unit building. A common wall design is not unusual situation in a two family dwelling. A visual presentation was provided for the Board to review the site and what is proposed. The signage on the building indicates that this building is uninhabitable and this distinction has been on the building for over 1½ years. As a result our client is attempting to renovate this building. It will not be demolished it will be renovated so that it will be a consistent building with the fiber of the park which exists across the street. This building is an eyesore in the City of Saratoga Springs and we are attempting to rectify that. According to the 1960 directory this was a two family dwelling in 1960. This pre-exists the modern zoning code. As a result this has been a two family dwelling in this configuration for a longer period of time that the Zoning Board has authority to dictate what can and cannot be done. The lot size is significantly larger than the 3,000 square foot lot size that is required in the UR-4 zone. What we have is a series of area variances that are required because of the original placement of the building and the modifications which are being made. The new construction proposed includes the two new front porches and bump outs on the front of the units and the rear porches on the back of the units. These improvements require relief from the minimum front yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements. These could be eliminated however they add little square footage and would provide architectural aesthetic to the utilitarian exterior of the residences. Some type of porch or stoop is required by the Residential Building Code at the main entry. The lots themselves present significantly greater green space than is required. The use is consistent with the zone, the Comprehensive Plan and does not require Architectural Review. A visual of the proposed project was provided, noting the subdivision of the existing lot will not increase the density of the neighborhood. Two residential units exist and two residential units will remain. The addition of the small front bump outs front porches and rear screened porches will add character to the existing building and provide better connectivity between the existing units and the streetscape in keeping with a traditional Saratoga Style. Mr. Toohey provided a visual presentation of existing neighborhood dwellings with common walls. A four unit, two story apartment building and also 15 properties which were built in 2005 which must have received ZBA and Planning Board approvals. This is 475 feet away from this site. Their lots are smaller than ours and they all share common walls. They are individually owned parcels. I can provide parcel sizes as well as a listing of property owners. Mr. Toohey provided square footages of lots. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 9, 2018 - Page 10 of 17 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he is opposed to this project. Mr. Kaplan questioned the applicant’s agent as to the feasibility of condos or townhouses. There are two feasible alternatives. One alternative a two family home was not considered by the applicant because they do not desire to become landlords we are opening the door to a precedent to be able to subdivide down the middle of a property. How does this not set that precedent? Mr. Toohey stated it does not set the precedent because it is zoned for four family and we are reducing it to 2. Also it does not set the precedent because the properties themselves do not have to be common ownership. You can have two individual homes on these two properties. We are saying the common property line will be closer than normal. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the applicant’s agent as to the dimensional relief requested was due to the placement of the property. I disagree. It is because of the fact that the applicant is proposing to split the property down the middle. It is the subdivision of the property, not the placement of the structure. There are multiple options available to the applicant. I have grave opposition to this application. Mr. Toohey stated with regard to the subdivision if we take the property, subdivide this property we would have two properties 4,000 square feet in size. If we subdivided it and tore down the building, the problem with that is the setback requirement for those two lots. On lot#2 would have the buildings space of 5’6”, and a building depth of 37.45 feet. You can have a building of 210 square feet. On lot #1 it is smaller you would have a house of 2.97 feet building window and a building depth of 37.41 feet for a house lot of 111.21 feet. Again if you want us to have single family homes for these properties you can’t do that. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he is speaking about a world where we are not subdividing. Subdividing is what is causing all the need for relief. So, it is a misnomer to think that our objection is based on demolition and two homes being built. The Planning Board had two objections to this project. One had to do with the old home but the other one was about creating two substandard lots by subdividing. Why subdivide? Do the project, build the project. Renovate it. The only objection is the applicant does not want to be a landlord. It makes zero sense to create a precedent. Mr. Toohey stated it has always been a two family. This is as it was in 1960. We are requesting a legal subdivision which is proper according to the Zoning Board uses and the Comprehensive Plan. It is not inconsistent with the neighborhood. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated regardless of what has occurred in the neighborhood. What we have here is a two family house that could work as a two family house, renovation could happen as a two family house. Frankly if a two family home fell down tomorrow and a proposal for three row houses were before the Board those variances would be less massive and less precedent setting. If we approved this application we would not be performing our duty. Mr. Toohey stated we may ask to have this adjourned. What I may be proposing is a use variance versus area variances. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated what the applicant has not established is a feasible alternative. Mr. Toohey provided additional information to the Board concerning additional conditions which could be applied to this subdivision to prevent the creation of two substandard lots. This would run with the land. Mr. Toohey reviewed these proposed conditions with the Board. Dave Gadomski, builder. We did investigate the site with attorneys and the City. We purchased this building and discussed the investment. MaryLou Pickney, owner. Spoke with City Hall staff concerning the property and alternatives. Our project is attractive and is in keeping with the neighborhood character. Discussion ensued among the Board and the applicant. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 9, 2018 - Page 11 of 17 Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we have some questions we would like to have answered. We will leave the public hearing open and the applicant will return before the Board. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: -Per 8.4.6 City Planning Board Advisory Opinion required – unfavorable. -Planning Board subdivision review and approval required. NEIGHBOR INPUT: -Letter from Donald Brookstein, dated March 19, 2018. 9. #3023 BUTLER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, 35 Dyer Switch Road, area variance to construct a detached garage and pool; 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-4 District. This application was heard at the March 19, 2018 meeting and adjourned to April 9, 2018. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Additional information was provided by the applicant. SEQRA: -Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Richard Butler Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated the Board did have some questions regarding the variances requested. What the applicant is requesting is a detached 3 stall garage. Since the last meeting the applicant did relocate the garage closer to the house and further away from the front property line increasing the front yard setback, and reducing the amount and number of variances. The proposed garage meets the requirements for an accessory structure. The following is a listing of area variance considerations. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum accessory building coverage 8% 9.3% 1.3% (16%) Minimum front yard setback: Garage 40 ft. 30 ft. 10 ft. (25%) Ms. Yasenchak stated the rear of the home shows the pool size at 518 square feet. The coverage variance that we are asking for is only for the pool. The height of the new structure and will be approximately 25 feet in height and not taller than the existing home. Also a streetscape of the site was provided for the Board. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. 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 – April 9, 2018 - Page 12 of 17 Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:25 P.M. Brad Gallagher presented the following resolution. #3023 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF RICHARD FRED BUTLER 35 Dyer Switch Rd. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From a determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises located at 35 Dyer Switch Road in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, tax parcel number 180.3.18 on the Assessment Map, of said City. The Applicant having applied for area variances under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of a new three car detached garage and installation of an in-ground pool in a SR-1 District and public notice having been duly given of hearings on said application held on March 19 and April 9, 2018. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the Applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following area variances for the following amount of relief: DISTRICT TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Minimum Distance to Accessory Building: Front Lot 40 ft. 30 ft. 10 ft. (25%) Line Maximum Building Coverage Percentage: Accessory 8% 9.3% 1.3% (16.3%) Building (Garage and Pool) As per the submitted plans, dated February 16, 2018 and marked revised April 2, 2018, or lesser dimensions, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The Applicant demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the Applicant. The Applicant considered alternative designs to the proposed detached garage and pool and stated that reducing the size of the structures would not permit the Applicant to satisfy the Applicants intended uses. Further, the Applicant stated that existing two-car garage attached to the principal residence is inadequate because of the support columns do not permit adequate space for storing vehicles. The Applicant also stated that the proposed garage could not be incorporated into the existing residence. The Applicant demonstrated the grant of a 25% variance for the front lot line setback was necessary in order to construct the three-car detached garage. With regard to the pool, the Applicant stated that a smaller pool would not permit an area for deep end. Therefore, the Applicant demonstrated the proposed maximum building coverage percentage of 9.3% is required. 2. The Applicant demonstrated that granting the requested variances will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The Applicant stated that the construction of the detached garage will permit the Applicant to store items, such as vehicles and a boat, and void “visual clutter.” 3. The Board finds the variances requests substantial; however, this is mitigated by the Applicant plotting the detached garage 6.2 feet from the primary residence in order to construct it as far from the front lot line as practicable. In addition, the maximum building coverage percentage for the detached garage and pool, as the pool does not impact the visual density of the site, particularly, since it is located directly behind the primary residence. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 9, 2018 - Page 13 of 17 4. The Applicant demonstrated that the variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The pool is located directly behind the primary residence and thus will not alter the physical appearance of the structure when viewed from Dyer Switch Road. In addition, the proposed attached garage elevation is similar to the existing primary residence and will not have any effect on existing neighbors. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the Applicant desires to construct a new three-car detached garage and in-ground pool. This is not fatal to the application. Cheryl Grey seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. Rebecca Kern noted she did review the project materials and viewed the webcast and is comfortable voting on this application this evening. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Rebecca Kern, Alternate, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 10. #3020 JPSMCS, LLC RESIDENCE, 155 Union Avenue, area variance to construct a new single-family residence seeking relief from the minimum side yard (each) and minimum total side yard setback for the main house and minimum side yard, minimum total side yard and minimum rear yard setback requirements for the carriage house in the Urban Residential-1 District. DISCLOSURE: Bill Moore, Chairman stated he knows Scott MacIntyre. He has no financial interest in this application. There is no need for recusal, simply disclosure. This application was heard at the March 5, 2018 meeting and adjourned. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The applicant provided a revised survey dated March 7, 2018 and additional information on March 21, and March 27, 2018. The revised plan moves the proposed house to the west and extends the driveway and adds a parking space to the front house. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Mr. McIntyre stated there was a question concerning a driveway off the side of the garage. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated the new denial was revised. There were some minimal changes to the variance requests which were provided to the Board. 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. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 9, 2018 - Page 14 of 17 Jesse & Melissa Smith, 165 Union Avenue. We are concerned regarding the side yard setback. We would like to maintain the 20 foot setback from our property line. Concerned with privacy and loss of light. Also, the value of our home as well. Bill Watkins owns the property on the west with his daughter. The Board was concerned about centralizing the building on the site. He would like to accommodate Jesse and Melissa Smith. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:40 P.M. Brad Gallagher presented the following resolution. #3020 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF JPSMSC, LLC 155 Union Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From a determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises located at 155 Union Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, tax parcel number 166.69-3-22.2 on the Assessment Map, of said City. The Applicant having applied for area variances under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of a new single-family residence in a UR-4 District and public notice having been duly given of hearings on said application held on March 5 and 19, 2018 and April 9, 2018. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the Applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following area variances for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMNENSIONAL REQUIREMENT Maximum Principal Building Coverage 25% 31.35% 6.35% (25%) Minimum Side Yard Setback (Front House) 20 ft. 9 ft. 11 ft. (55%) Minimum Side Yard Setback (Front House) 20 ft. 16 ft. 4 ft. (20%) Minimum Total Side Yard Setback (Front House 45 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. (44%) Minimum Side Yard Setback (Rear House) 20 ft. 5 ft. 15 ft. (75%) Minimum Total Side Yard Setback (Rear House) 45 ft. 32 ft. 13 ft. (29%) Minimum Rear Yard Setback (Rear House) 25 ft. 5 ft. 20 ft. (80%) Minimum Average Lot Width (Rear House) 100 ft. 71 ft. 29 ft. (29%) Minimum Side Yard Setback to Parking (Front House) 20 ft. 1.5 ft. 18.5 ft. (93%) Minimum Rear Yard Setback to Parking (Rear House) 25 ft. 8 ft. 17 ft. (68%) Minimum Side Yard Setback to Parking (Rear House) 20 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. (50%) As per the revised submitted plans, dated March 7, 2018, or lesser dimensions, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The Applicant demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the Applicant. The Applicant demonstrated that the proposed primary residence and garage/second residence conform to the surrounding properties and create a seamless streetscape. There are no additional properties for purchase and alternative designs would result in a primary residence and garage that it not in character with the surrounding properties. 2. The Applicant demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The Applicant stated that “the variances will allow the proposed house and garage/second residence to blend in with the surrounding properties thereby enhancing the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 9, 2018 - Page 15 of 17  neighborhood.” The proposed residence’s size and front yard setback is similar to those of the neighboring properties. In addition, the side yard setback of the primary residence was shifted to the east on the plot, which is in conformity with the neighboring properties. In addition, the garage/second residence was also plotted in a similar manner to those existing on neighboring properties. 3. The Board finds the variances requests substantial; however, this is mitigated by the fact that the maximum principal building coverage requested is only 31.35%, which is well under the total lot maximum coverage of 40% in this District. Moreover, this approval will be conditioned with a requirement that additional accessory structures are limited to a maximum of 8.65% of total lot coverage. The Board finds that the variances for the minimum side yard setbacks of 9 feet to the east and 16 feet to the west are substantial; however, this is mitigated by the fact the primary residence was shifted to the east in order to provide a more uniform streetscape. This is in conformity with the properties located at 153 and 165 Union Avenue, both of which have the primary residences that are constructed on the east side of the plots. The Board finds the variance for the minimum side yard setback (primary residence) of 25 feet to be substantial; however, this is mitigated by the fact the structure is in conformity with the neighboring properties. The Board finds the variances for the minimum side yard setbacks of 5 feet for the garage/second residence that borders Morton Place and 165 Union Avenue are substantial; however, this is mitigated by the fact that the setbacks are in conformity with the rear structures that are located along Morton Place. The Board finds the variances for the minimum side yard setback of 1.5 feet for the primary residence and minimum rear yard setback of 8 feet and minimum side yard setback of 10 feet for the garage/second residence for the purposes of parking only to be mitigated by the fact that the parking area is in conformity with the neighboring properties. 4. The Applicant demonstrated that the variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The Board finds that the primary residence and garage/second residence are consistent with the existing neighborhood. Moreover, the Applicant provided for the required 3 parking spaces for the two residential units. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the Applicant desires to construct a new single-family home and garage/second residence, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: Future accessories are limited to 8.65% 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; Adam McNeill, Secretary, opposed; Rebecca Kern, Alternate, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-1 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the next ZBA meeting on April 23, 2018. MOTION TO ADJOURN: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 9, 2018 - Page 16 of 17 There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 5-21-18 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 9, 2018 - Page 17 of 17