Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2018 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:15 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Cheryl Grey; Brad Gallagher; James Helicke ABSENT: Susan Steer STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards 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: #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. #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 in the Urban Residential-3 District. #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. #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. #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. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the Board was conferring with legal counsel and apologizes for the delay in the start of the meeting. NOTE: Board Member James Helicke disclosed that he did view the last webcast ZBA meeting and read the materials and he feels informed to vote on the projects before the Board this evening. Board Alternate Oksana Ludd disclosed that she did view the last 2 webcast ZBA Meetings and has read the materials and she feels informed to vote on the projects before the Board this evening. 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 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 2 of 26  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% 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%) Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the first four applications are matter which include the construction of 4 single family residences on 4 parcels in the Cobb Alley and Franklin Street area. The public hearing was opened and continues to be open. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Frank Capone, 119 Grand Avenue. I am in favor of the project and hope that the ZBA will grant the variances requested by Mr. Dawson for the construction of 4 residences, and removal of the scrap yard. It would certainly be an improvement. Mr. Capone read into the record correspondence from the McKeevers. Mr. & Mrs. McKeever, 120 Grand Avenue. The letter states they are in favor of the application. This will have an impact on our quality of life. We applaud Mr. Dawson for his proposal. John Kaufman, 44 White Street. Mr. Kaufman stated he does have some skepticism with what the applicant is proposing. They are asking for some extreme variances. A safety issue, there is no setback. He questioned the turning radius. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 3 of 26 NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT: -Letter from John and Helen McKeever, 120 Grand Avenue, dated April 20, 2018. -Letter from Joan Salmon, 75 South Franklin Street, dated April 13, 2018. -Letter from Maureen Curtain, 125 Grand Avenue, dated April 8, 2018. -Letter from Mark Benaquista, Department of Public Safety. -Response from the applicant on the aspects of that letter. -Video footage provided by the applicant this date. 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. This application was heard at the March 19, 2018 meeting and adjourned to April 9, 2018, and further adjourned to April 23, 2018. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The applicant submitted revised plans, floor plans, elevations, neighborhood coverage’s 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. Mr. Dawson provided a visual presentation to Board Members as well as audience members with regard to their concerns raised regarding this project. We have reviewed alternative designs and they were provided to the Board at several earlier meetings. I have done my due diligence and provided before the Board the best we have to offer. Videos provided to the Board show a 35-foot Mack truck entering the site with several 3 point turns on a 45-degree angle. The second video shows the same truck exiting off of Cobb Alley. This demonstrates an outbound load of scrap. Mr. Dawson stated he set up a perimeter showing the boundaries of a garage size and driveway utilizing a cone and string. A video showing a car from Beekman Street onto Cobb Alley turning into a “driveway” garage closest to South Franklin. This vehicle is 17 feet in length. Additional videos show this vehicle in place and an additional vehicle entering the site. This vehicle is coming from South Franklin into Cobb Alley. Also shown was parking of a vehicle side by side in the perimeter of a garage closest to Beekman, as well as a second vehicle pulling in place alongside this vehicle. The purpose of this demonstration is to show that a vehicle can safely access and egress the site. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the letter which was referred to earlier from Joan Salmon, 75 South Franklin Street is also the address of the Board Chairman who recused from this application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments for the applicant. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned the applicant regarding the possibility of moving the project even one foot to the rear, so you would have more of a front yard space between the property line and the building, and therefore less relief in the front. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 4 of 26 Mr. Dawson stated plans were submitted prior to the appearance before the ZBA and we were given some feedback and we reduced it accordingly. The original plans were larger homes. Brad Gallagher questioned why the applicant did not move the garage back a foot making the driveway longer. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated there has been some feedback from City Officials about flipping the garages, which does not seem to change the footprint of the house. Are you receptive to this request? Mr. Dawson stated he did respond to the City correspondence. The biggest concern was access and egress to the garages on a 90-degree turn, the suggestion which was made put the garages on a side load. Therefore, every vehicle accessing and egressing the garage would have to make two 90 degree turns. Cherie Grey wished to clarify when the applicant purchased the property. Mr. Dawson stated July 2012. James Helicke questioned if these lots were jointly owned and the provision about the four buildings lots was that addressed. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he would like to ask Tony Izzo about the common law ownership of substandard lots and the 1970 rule. Can you speak to that about this matter? Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney, stated this is Zoning Ordinance Section 5.5 Subsection B which states minimum lot size and minimum average lot width requirements shall not apply to any lawfully recorded lot which was under different ownership from an adjoining land on or before July 6, 1961. Factually we confirmed that there is one lot that actually qualifies for some nonconforming rights under that section. It is the lot farthest to the south, the closest to Beekman Street. So, we have confirmed through deed research that that actually was under different ownership on the key date, July 6, 1961. So, that particular lot gets a pass with regard to the requirements. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned so the lot next to it would be under different ownership from it. So, those two would be governed by the substandard lots provision. What is the implication for the other two lots. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney, stated the way the law reads in my opinion is the other lots are not really affected by this provision, only the one lot on the end. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned what does this mean in terms of our deliberation. Do we have an extra area of relief? Do we have less relief that we are granting as a result of that? Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney, stated all it means is that those two criteria minimum lot size and minimum average lot width do not have to be imposed on that one lot. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated it does not mean that someone cannot build on it, it means you have additional areas of relief that have to be granted. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated it refers to only two specific criteria and the fact that the one lot gets a pass on those two criteria, minimum lot size and minimum average lot width because of the deed status. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated and our denials reflect that. Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated our denial has both of those still required. They have the minimum lot requirements as required for that lot, it has not been amended. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 5 of 26 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated so if anything, it has more than it needs to have. Our resolution could theoretically have those struck or kept it in there. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated it has the nonconforming rights whether it is in the resolution or not. James Helicke stated we have 5 criteria we look at. One of the them is adverse physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood. Have any materials containing heavy metals like lead or chromium ever processed on the site. Mr. Dawson stated he could not answer that since he has owned the property only since 2012. We have handled lead acid batteries inside on the concrete floor. We have gone through the SEQRA application and I have provided a copy of the EDR report with my application indicating that there were no environmental issues on the property when we purchased it. I have also provided an updated report from the NYS-DEC indicating that there have been no reported incidents spills or issues on any other inspections made. James Helicke questioned if soil samples have been provided. Mr. Dawson stated no there is an EDR report which if there is an issue, soil samples would be taken. No samples were indicated. James Helicke spoke concerning his concerns with the 90 degree turns and backing into the alley. Mr. Dawson refuted these concerns. The Board recessed at 8:05 P.M. The Board reconvened at 8:30 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman apologized for the delay. Discussion ensued concerning closing the public hearing. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated typically the Boards open the public hearing, hear from the public, and you have given the public ample opportunity to participate. You have heard everything there is to hear, and you are ready to move to your deliberation, you would close the public hearing. I am concerned that you are going to start deliberations and the public will then get to comment on the deliberations. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:35 P.M. James Helicke stated there are facts that we do not know about this site and I am concerned that we do not have a soil sample and I think this should be taken into consideration. It was the consensus of the Board to read all four resolutions and then the Board will deliberate. Cherie Grey presented the following resolution 3025 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Anthony Dawson/ Moto Holdings, Inc. SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 6 of 26  From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at a vacant lot on Cobb Alley in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.66-2-70.1 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to permit demolition of an existing scrap yard and construction of a new single-family residence and seeking relief as described below in the Urban Residential – 3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application March 19 and April 9 and 23, 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 (the Board has reviewed Section 5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance with Counsel and has determined that no relief for minimum lot size and minimum average lot width may be required for this lot): TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED 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% (67%) 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 existing lot is lawful preexisting nonconforming to the lot requirements in the district. As the application states, “When seeking designs for each single lot it was not feasible under current zoning requirements to construct any building”. The applicant indicated that to provide for the required two parking spaces for a single- family residence in the district the proposed first floor area is at a minimum 1,253 sq. ft. including the attached garage. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. As the application indicates, the existing use of the property as a scrapyard predates the City’s Zoning Ordinance and is no longer in keeping with the current character of the neighborhood, which is primarily residential. The removal and demolition of this portion of the scrapyard (nonconforming use) and replacement with a single-family residence (permitted use) would result in a positive change to the neighborhood. The applicant has provided an analysis of existing lot sizes and principal building coverages in the neighborhood and has demonstrated that the existing lot size and principal building coverage proposed for the new residence is not inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, the Board notes that the property is located within a Historic District and Historic Review by the Design Review Commission is required. 3. The request for relief to permit a single-family residence on the existing lot is considered substantial; however, the lot is preexisting nonconforming with the district requirements and the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed size of the proposed structure (principal building coverage) and relationship to property lines is the minimum variance necessary per the applicant and noted by the Board. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The removal of the existing scrapyard and replacement with a single-family residence represents a positive environmental impact to the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated that the residence would produce less traffic counts and less overall impact to the existing alley. Finally, the proposed site to remain permeable is in excess of the minimum 25% required. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 7 of 26  5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship due to the applicant’s desire to construct a single-family residence at the dimensions proposed. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Notes: 1. DRC Historic Review for demolition and construction required. 2. Applicant must comply with 17 NYCRR Part 32 - Oil Spill Prevention and Control - Actions to Be Taken in Case Of Discharge, if applicable (attached). 3. Applicant must comply with 6 NYCRR Part 360.13 - Special Requirements for Pre-Determined Beneficial Use of Fill Material, if applicable (attached). Conditions: 1. Submit for review and approval by the City Engineer - Grading plan, utilities plan, erosion and sediment control plan, water connection application, right-of-way work cost estimate and letter of credit. 2. No accessory structures are permitted 3. Structure is required to be sprinkled per Fire Chief’s recommendation Adam McNeill, seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he has reconsidered and the Board will hear each resolution and deliberate on that resolution and vote separately. Cheryl Grey stated this is the lot which has the pre-1961 standards on it. The denial by the Building Inspector included the minimum lot size and the minimum average lot width. So, we had to include those on the chart, even though those are actually not required on this particular lot. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any discussion. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated he will begin with the conditions. #4 noting the property is required to be sprinkled per Chief William’s recommendation. I support the sprinklers. The applicant stated they will comply. Is there a better way to state this. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman suggested the removal of the Fire Chief’s name, the germane thing is the requirement to be sprinkled. Mark Schachner stated there was a recommendation from the Fire Chief. I recommend taking the person’s name out and leaving it as per the Fire Chief. Adding the date of that communication would be great. It could state the structure is required to be sprinklered per Fire Chiefs recommendation of and insert the date. This is appropriate and important. Adam McNeill stated no accessory structures makes sense on this application. City Engineer to review and approve a Phase I site environmental site assessment, including field inspection prior to issuance of a demolition or building permit. Demolition is the first thing this applicant will be doing. This is not very clear. I think we should say the demolition or the application for the building permit, if we are going to include this condition on the application to begin with. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned what the objection is. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated, #2 is vague. Can we have it state a building permit instead of the issuance of a demolition permit because quite frankly I don’t know the difference really between the two. Isn’t one part and parcel to the other. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 8 of 26 Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated some of the parcels have structures, that would require a demolition permit. Some do not. This is separate from a building permit and whichever comes first. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards made a recommendation to state any demolition permit or building permit, so it just makes it seem like we are not sure which type of permit will be needed. So, I am suggesting any type of this so it is clear there are two types of permits, and this condition is applicable to either/or. Adam McNeill, Secretary liked the recommendation of Counsel as did Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated Phase I Environmental Assessment, he doesn’t know what this is, and I don’t feel comfortable having this as a condition on an application if I don’t know what it is. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated you have the report, and the data search. This would be further investigation specific to that site. Soil samples may be required. Field investigation, visual inspection of the site to determine how far that Phase I would go. The report that you have is a part of a more complete Phase I investigation. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated for example it is not simply a soil sample test. This sounds like a rigorous environmental study and environmental review. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated you want the word to state approved not approval. Adam McNeil, Secretary stated #1 - submit for review and approval by City Engineer, grading plan, utilities plan, erosion and sediment control plan, water connection application, right of way cost estimate and letter of credit. Why do we have this here? Susan Barden, Senior Planner stated because these are four lots, and four proposed homes on these lots, there is no Planning Board review and approval required for site plan or subdivision. There are certain aspects of the entire site that would need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Most specifically the utilities which would have to be extended down Cobb Alley for each of the homes. This needs to be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Typically if it went through the Planning Board process, that is when it would be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Again, it is not going through that process so we are filling that gap by that condition. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated this is basically noted to protect the city. That ‘s fine. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards, stated he has a minor revision/suggestion on the 2nd and 3rd notes. The application must comply with certain NYS Regulations about oil spills prevention and control. The applicant must comply with another NYS Regulation about fill material. I don’t think it is clear in the record that those requirements are triggered by any of the proposed actions. I am just suggesting we add the words “if applicable” at the end of those two notes. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned if the applicant would need to do these two items in any case. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated not necessarily. That is my point, from what I have heard in this proceeding, I’ve not heard a factual basis that would lead him to conclude that these regulatory requirements are triggered. They may be but I have no way of knowing that, so I am not suggesting removal or deletion of the notes, I am simply suggesting the addition of the words “if applicable” so that if the activities on the site do not trigger the regulatory requirements, no one can come forward and question compliance. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he feels this is appropriate in a Zoning Board Resolution. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated he thinks it is, with the addition of the words “if applicable”. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 9 of 26 Oksana Ludd, alternate stated she would like to disagree. The applicant is going to have to comply with whatever the laws outside of what we say in here, he has to comply with. So, that we have chosen two of these to me suggests that there is some reason to select those. He has to do whatever he has to do not because of what is stated here, but because the condition of the property is going to mandate that he do it. From my perspective, I feel it is inappropriate for us to put these here and I guess that this also goes to the Phase I environmental review report. If the experts who have investigated and looked at this property and have not requested a Phase I, I am not sure why we are asking for a Phase I, and then what are we going to do. The applicant just needs to submit it. Is anyone going to review it? I am not qualified and I do real estate all the time. If I get a Phase I have an environmental lawyer look at it. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated we will not review it we are calling on the City Engineer to review it. Oksana Ludd, alternate stated what is he going to do say no you can’t build. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated it is for review and approval. He has to approve it. Oksana Ludd, alternate stated if does not approve it then the applicant cannot build. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated that’s exactly what it says. James Helicke stated he is completely in support of that condition. Oksana Ludd, alternate stated but an expert has determined we do not need one. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated that is why I am asking the Boards opinion. The condition states there is nothing prohibiting us from having these notes, but Oksana’s point is well made. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated I am not affirmatively recommending inclusion of these. So, what I was answering was can you lawfully include those notes and can you lawfully include those conditions. I believe the answer is affirmative to both those questions. In neither instance am I affirmatively recommending them. That is entirely up to the Board. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman is sympathetic as to where we draw the line and what not to include. Oksana Ludd, alternate questioned staff – if we did not have condition #1, and the applicant goes to apply for a building permit, would he not be required to do any of these things. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated he would have to submit a utilities plan. That utilities plan could be reviewed by the Building Inspector. This would require this level of information, and approval by the City Engineer under the Department of Public Works. So, it is requiring and putting it in the hands of the City professional that has the best experience to review and approve it. Oksana Ludd stated but normally, the City Code does not require this. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated again, typically this would be a Planning Board project. James Helicke questioned if this is a typical Planning Board requirement or condition. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated it is right off the checklist of submission items for Site Plan or Subdivision application. Brad Gallagher stated he is concerned. We are supposed to be reviewing these as separate applications and now we are grouping them together. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 10 of 26 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated we are representing the best interests of the City. We cannot be blind to this. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated that when he looks at condition #1 and #2 he feels absolutely ambushed right now. None of this was discussed about what this really means. None of this was discussed at deliberation. We always ask the applicants opinion about the conditions placed on their application. This is so far out of our wheelhouse. I am so uncomfortable with this. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he is sympathetic. This application represents like a site plan however, it is presented to us as four discrete properties. These items came off the Planning Board checklist. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the conditions imposed and the impacts of such, and the involvement of the City Engineer. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the Board about leaving the notes on the resolution and/or removal of such. Brad Gallagher stated he would like to see notes #2 and #3 removed. I feel we are treating this as 1 application instead of four. Some of the items in there I am not comfortable with since I do not have a full understanding of them. Putting these conditions in without discussing them with the applicant is unfair. With regard to condition #2 we do not need it there is no evidence of anything on that site. James Helicke stated he would like to reopen SEQRA. Oksana Ludd, alternate stated the DEC will be all over this if there is a problem. You cannot take dirt and just dump it. James Helicke stated he cannot in good conscience let a site be developed without doing our due diligence. Brad Gallagher questioned if any other applicant in this area adjacent to the property or across the street from the property be required to provide the same information. James Helicke is concerned about the existence of the scrap metal yards. Cherie Grey questioned who will call the DEC, or the City Engineer, how will they know to show up. How does that process work? Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated how does DEC get purview once the project has been started. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated if there is a spill then applicable environmental laws and regulations require whoever finds the spill to notify the State DEC. I can’t sit here and say that means it happens, but it is a legal requirement. James Helicke absolutely is neutral about the notes and he is fine one way or the other. The conditions must stay. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he wants the conditions to stay, neutral on the notes. Oksana Ludd, alternate stated she wants the notes to go but this will not change her vote. Nothing that has been submitted and an expert has done an assessment of the site and I have not reviewed it and we have been told the expert has not required a Phase I. If he had found something they would have mandated a Phase I. Not requesting one indicates there was not a call for one. Condition #2 we do not have any facts that trigger a Phase I and it is inappropriate to do so. I would like something noted required by the City Engineer. Condition #3 or #4 are fine. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 11 of 26 Adam McNeill, Secretary stated the notes he is neutral on they can stay or go. Conditions #1 and # 2, if I was briefed prior to the meeting on the meaning of them and what it means in detail there is a chance I would be in favor of them. However, I cannot think of a single application where we have added these types of substantial conditions to an application and have not discussed what they mean to the applicant, application and the city. #1 I am wishy-washy on #2 I do not know what a Phase I environmental assessment is and I do not feel qualified to require it. #3 and #4 are fine. Brad Gallagher stated he is fine with the notes if the Board want to leave them in fine. It is redundant to have them in. With regard to #1 I feel the same as Oksana and Adam. I believe we need more discussion about them but would not be opposed to leaving it. #2 needs to be removed. No basis to have it in. Cherie Grey, stated she feels strongly that they should all remain. #1 should have the City Engineer involved. Planning is usually involved and the City Engineer should remain. #2 could be removed, #3 and #4 should remain. James Helicke questioned if a soil sample would be required as part of the soil erosion and sediment control plan. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated they could ask for it under the soil erosion and sediment control plan. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated it seems to be the consensus of the Board that condition #2 requiring a Phase I study is objectionable. Would adding language about soil testing in Note #1 be objectionable. Adam McNeill, Secretary questioned what would they be testing for. Brad Gallagher, to what degree. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards, stated, remember if the Boards needs further information you do not have to vote tonight. You have 60 days following the close of the public hearing to make a determination. This is not a recommendation just providing information to the Board. James Helicke stated he would like to hold off voting on the project and the Board should review the information. He feels this project is of such magnitude we need to take more time. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated this project has been reviewed and discussed thoroughly. We are discussing four single family residences on four lots. We will be removing condition #2 about the Phase I environmental site assessment. We will retain condition #1 and #3 and #4. We will strike #2. The amendment to #1 would be to spell out ROW to Right of Way. These conditions will be renumbered. Condition #1 will be approval by the City Engineer, #2 will be no accessory structures and #3 will be the sprinkler condition. I will also advocate that we remove the 2 notes about complying with the NYS Code of Regulations. The note regarding DRC Historic review is retained, the other two will be removed. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs clarified some information to the Board concerning the Notes which refer to the NYS Code of Regulation and what that entails. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated with the additional information provided by staff the Notes which refer to the NYS Code of Regulations and the DRC Historic Review will all be retained. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned if there were any further questions or comments or amendments to the resolution. We are voting on #3025 now. We will not proceed to the other resolutions until this resolution has been voted on. The Board members can refer in the deliberations portions of the other resolutions noting the referral of comments which were made in application #3025. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 12 of 26 Cherie Grey stated she feels the variances are too strenuous for this application. I do not feel good about particularly the lot sizes they are too small and I will not vote in favor of the variances requested. James Helicke stated he is opposed to the application. There are feasible alternatives. This will create a positive change in the neighborhood. There are areas of concern here. These are very substantial variances and they are self created. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he is in favor of this. These are four separate parcels and is proximate to the Urban Core, the neighborhood context supports density. The substantiality is mitigated by neighborhood considerations. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated there are a lot of garages that are within 2, 3, 4 feet from the edge of the alley. It is part of the character of the community to have what is being proposed here tonight. I am supporting this application. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs clarified that one of the lots does not need to meet the minimum lot requirement. It is exempt from that requirement. The other 3 lots because they are owned in common, are separate parcels but you would be granting relief from the minimum lot requirement to build a single-family residence. They don’t have that right as they sit now. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, opposed; James Helicke, opposed MOTION PASSES: 4-2 Cherie Grey presented the following resolution. 3026 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Anthony Dawson/ Moto Holdings, Inc. SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at a vacant lot on Cobb Alley in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.66-2-64 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to permit demolition of an existing scrap yard and construction of a new single-family residence and seeking relief as described below in the Urban Residential – 3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application March 19 and April 9 and 23, 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: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT PROPOSED 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% 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 existing lot is lawful preexisting nonconforming to the lot requirements in the district. As the application City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 13 of 26  states, “When seeking designs for each single lot it was not feasible under current zoning requirements to construct any building”. The applicant indicated that to provide for the required two parking spaces for a single- family residence in the district the proposed first floor area is at a minimum 1,253 sq. ft. including the attached garage. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. As the application indicates, the existing use of the property as a scrapyard predates the City’s Zoning Ordinance and is no longer in keeping with the current character of the neighborhood, which is primarily residential. The removal and demolition of this portion of the scrapyard (nonconforming use) and replacement with a single-family residence (permitted use) would result in a positive change to the neighborhood. The applicant has provided an analysis of existing lot sizes and principal building coverages in the neighborhood and has demonstrated that the existing lot size and principal building coverage proposed for the new residence is not inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, the Board notes that the property is located within a Historic District and Historic Review by the Design Review Commission is required. 3. The request for relief to permit a single-family residence on the existing lot is considered substantial; however, the lot is preexisting nonconforming with the district requirements and the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed size of the proposed structure (principal building coverage) and relationship to property lines is the minimum variance necessary per the applicant and noted by the Board. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The removal of the existing scrapyard and replacement with a single-family residence represents a positive environmental impact to the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated that the residence would produce less traffic counts and less overall impact to the existing alley. Finally, the proposed site to remain permeable is in excess of the minimum 25% required. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship due to the applicant’s desire to construct a single-family residence at the dimensions proposed. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Notes: 1. DRC Historic Review for demolition and construction required. 2. Applicant must comply with 17 NYCRR Part 32 - Oil Spill Prevention and Control - Actions to Be Taken in Case Of Discharge, if applicable (attached). 3. Applicant must comply with 6 NYCRR Part 360.13 - Special Requirements for Pre-Determined Beneficial Use of Fill Material, if applicable (attached). Conditions: 1. Submit for review and approval by the City Engineer - Grading plan, utilities plan, erosion and sediment control plan, water connection application, right-of-way work cost estimate and letter of credit. 2. No accessory structures are permitted. 3. Structure is required to be sprinkled per Fire Chief’s recommendation. Brad Gallagher seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 14 of 26 Adam McNeill, Secretary stated the same conditions and notes expressed in Resolution #3025 apply here. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he refers to his previous comments on Resolution #3025. Cherie Grey reiterated that this resolution does have the minimum lot size and minimum mean lot width those are the conditions on this variance. I am again opposed. James Helicke stated he refers to his previous comments on Resolution #3025. He is again opposed. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated just to assure that the record is clear, those of you who just stated referring to my previous comments, I am interpreting the meaning of those comments is that I am saying without repeating all those words and comments, I have the same opinions about the criteria and the standards as I mentioned in application #3025. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated that is an excellent statement. Adam McNeill, stated he has the same opinion about the criteria and standards as mentioned in application #3025. Brad Gallagher stated he has the same opinion about the criteria and standards as mentioned in application #3025. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he refers to his previous comments on Resolution #3025. Cherie Grey stated she has the same opinion about the criteria and standards as mentioned in application #3025. James Helicke stated he has the same opinion about the criteria and standards as mentioned in application #3025. Oksana Ludd stated she has the same opinion about the criteria and standards as mentioned in application #3025. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, opposed; James Helicke, opposed MOTION PASSES: 4-2 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #3027 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Anthony Dawson/ Moto Holdings, Inc. SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at a vacant lot on Cobb Alley in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.66-2-65 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to permit demolition of an existing scrap yard and construction of a new single-family residence and seeking relief as described below in the Urban Residential – 3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application March 19 and April 9 and 23, 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: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT PROPOSED 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 23, 2018 - Page 15 of 26 Minimum front yard setback 10 ft. .5 ft. 9.5 ft. (95%) Maximum principal building coverage: 30% 50% 20% (67%) 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 existing lot is lawful preexisting nonconforming to the lot requirements in the district. As the application states, “When seeking designs for each single lot it was not feasible under current zoning requirements to construct any building”. The applicant indicated that to provide for the required two parking spaces for a single- family residence in the district the proposed first floor area is at a minimum 1,253 sq. ft. including the attached garage. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. As the application indicates, the existing use of the property as a scrapyard predates the City’s Zoning Ordinance and is no longer in keeping with the current character of the neighborhood, which is primarily residential. The removal and demolition of this portion of the scrapyard (nonconforming use) and replacement with a single-family residence (permitted use) would result in a positive change to the neighborhood. The applicant has provided an analysis of existing lot sizes and principal building coverages in the neighborhood and has demonstrated that the existing lot size and principal building coverage proposed for the new residence is not inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, the Board notes that the property is located within a Historic District and Historic Review by the Design Review Commission is required. 3. The request for relief to permit a single-family residence on the existing lot is considered substantial; however, the lot is preexisting nonconforming with the district requirements and the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed size of the proposed structure (principal building coverage) and relationship to property lines is the minimum variance necessary per the applicant and noted by the Board. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The removal of the existing scrapyard and replacement with a single-family residence represents a positive environmental impact to the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated that the residence would produce less traffic counts and less overall impact to the existing alley. Finally, the proposed site to remain permeable is in excess of the minimum 25% required. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship due to the applicant’s desire to construct a single-family residence at the dimensions proposed. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Notes: 1. DRC Historic Review for demolition and construction required. 2. Applicant must comply with 17 NYCRR Part 32 - Oil Spill Prevention and Control - Actions to Be Taken in Case Of Discharge, if applicable (attached). 3. Applicant must comply with 6 NYCRR Part 360.13 - Special Requirements for Pre-Determined Beneficial Use of Fill Material, if applicable (attached). Conditions: 1. Submit for review and approval by the City Engineer - Grading plan, utilities plan, erosion and sediment control plan, water connection application, right-of-way work cost estimate and letter of credit. 2. No accessory structures are permitted. 3. Structure is required to be sprinkled per Fire Chief’s recommendation. Cherie Grey seconded the motion. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 16 of 26 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Adam McNeill, stated he has the same opinions about the criteria and standards as I mentioned in application #3025. Oksana Ludd stated she has the same opinion about the criteria and standards as mentioned in application #3025. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he refers to his previous comments on Resolution #3025. Brad Gallagher stated he has the same opinion about the criteria and standards as mentioned in application #3025. Cherie Grey stated she has the same opinion about the criteria and standards as mentioned in application #3025. James Helicke stated he has the same opinion about the criteria and standards as mentioned in application #3025. Also, have we done SEQRA on all four these sites. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated yes when the SEQRA form was completed there was a reference made to all four matters. James Helicke questioned why these require separate resolutions but only one SEQRA determination. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Board stated regarding SEQRA, and why not four separate determinations under SEQRA because that would be quite violative of the SEQRA mandate against which is called segmentation. Even though these are four separate applications on four separate pieces of property the SEQRA mandate is to consider the potential environmental impacts of all four together as one action. It would not have been legally appropriate to have done four separate SEQRA reviews and four separate SEQRA resolutions even though there are four separate applications subject to four separate decision resolutions. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, opposed; James Helicke, opposed MOTION PASSES: 4-2 Cherie Grey presented the following resolution. #3028 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Anthony Dawson/ Moto Holdings, Inc. SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 77 South Franklin Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.66-2-66 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to permit demolition of an existing scrap yard and construction of a new single-family residence and seeking relief as described below in the Urban Residential – 3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application March 19 and April 9 and 23, 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: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT PROPOSED 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% 50% 20% (67%) Maximum accessory building coverage: 10% Approx. 12.22% 2.22% (22%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 17 of 26 Minimum side yard setback: Garage 5 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft. (60%) Minimum rear yard setback: Garage 5 ft. 4 ft. 1 ft. (20%) As per the submitted plans as revised (revision date March 27, 2018) 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 existing lot is lawful preexisting nonconforming to the lot requirements in the district. As the application states, “When seeking designs for each single lot it was not feasible under current zoning requirements to construct any building”. The applicant revised the plans attaching the garage to the house per request of the Board; this change eliminated 3 areas of relief previously requested. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. As the application indicates, the existing use of the property as a scrapyard predates the City’s Zoning Ordinance and is no longer in keeping with the current character of the neighborhood, which is primarily residential. The removal and demolition of this portion of the scrapyard (nonconforming use) and replacement with a single-family residence (permitted use) would result in a positive change to the neighborhood. The applicant has provided an analysis of existing lot sizes and principal building coverages in the neighborhood and has demonstrated that the existing lot size and principal building coverage proposed for the new residence is not inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, the Board notes that the property is located within a Historic District and Historic Review by the Design Review Commission is required. 3. The request for relief to permit a single-family residence on the existing lot is considered substantial; however, the lot is preexisting nonconforming with the district requirements and the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed size of the proposed structure (principal building coverage) and relationship to property lines is the minimum variance necessary per the applicant and noted by the Board. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The removal of the existing scrapyard and replacement with a single-family residence represents a positive environmental impact to the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated that the residence would produce less traffic counts and less overall impact to the existing alley. Finally, the proposed site to remain permeable is in excess of the minimum 25% required. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship due to the applicant’s desire to construct a single-family residence at the dimensions proposed. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Notes: 1. DRC Historic Review for demolition and construction required. 2. Applicant must comply with 17 NYCRR Part 32 - Oil Spill Prevention and Control - Actions to Be Taken in Case Of Discharge, if applicable (attached). 3. Applicant must comply with 6 NYCRR Part 360.13 - Special Requirements for Pre-Determined Beneficial Use of Fill Material, if applicable (attached). Conditions: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 18 of 26 1. Submit for review and approval by the City Engineer - Grading plan, utilities plan, erosion and sediment control plan, water connection application, right-of-way work cost estimate and letter of credit. 2. No accessory structures are permitted. 3. Repair and/or replacement of the sidewalk along the frontage on South Franklin is required prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman pointed out the notes are somewhat different from the other resolutions. We do not have the review with the fire department and the sidewalk repair. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs, provided information on the sidewalk repair condition. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated he is somewhat confused regarding the proposed condition and the time frame. Keep in mind you are issuing this as a condition for a variance. The variance does not take effect until all those conditions are met. I am not understanding the timing. Discussion ensued concerning the wording and placement of the condition on the resolution for the requirement of sidewalks. Tony Izzo, Assistant City Attorney stated there is an ordinance to maintain the sidewalks. It was the consensus of the Board to keep the sidewalk condition in adding the sidewalks to be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Adam McNeill, stated he has the same opinions about the criteria and standards as I mentioned in application #3025. Oksana Ludd stated she has the same opinion about the criteria and standards as mentioned in application #3025. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he refers to his previous comments on Resolution #3025. Brad Gallagher stated he has the same opinion about the criteria and standards as mentioned in application #3025. Cherie Grey stated she has the same opinion about the criteria and standards as mentioned in application #3025. James Helicke stated he believes this application is fundamentally different than application #3025 and I will support this application, although I do continue to have concerns about the environmental aspects of this project. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, opposed; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-1 Bill Moore, Chairman resumed his position on the Board. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman resumed his position on the Board. Oksana Ludd exited the building at 10:00 P.M. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Board exited the building at 10:00 P.M. 5. #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-4 District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 19 of 26 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. The application was heard at the April 9, 2018 meeting and adjourned to April 23, 2018. The applicant submitted revised plans that eliminates the area variances associated with a two-lot subdivision. 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. Applicant: Marylou Pickney, Owner Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America; Dave Gadomski, DSG Remodeling & Construction, LLC Miss Yasenchak stated this application has appeared before this Board on several occasions. Since our last appearance before the Board the applicant decided to make some revisions and no longer subdivide the property. They would still like to do the improvements to the existing two-family house. We have discussed how this is a pre-existing two-family home and it will remain that way. The owners would like to update and renovate it. That has been their goal throughout the project. This has made the application less complicated. A visual of the project was provided to the Board. Ms. Yasenchak noted the wall which divides the property in half will be code compliant with the fire code providing a fire rated wall. The improvements include the bump outs which will help the aesthetics of the front. Porches will be added as well on each side. This will add to the connectivity of the street. We are now requesting only 3 variances. The proposed additions will add only 360 square feet to the overall total footprint. Ms. Yasenchak reviewed the variances currently requested. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed variance calculations. 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. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:20 P.M. DISCLOSURE: Bill Moore, Chairman disclosed he has spoken to the builder out in the hallway, they did not discuss the application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #3007 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF DSG Remodeling & Construction, LLC PO Box 2009 Gansevoort NY 12831 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 20 of 26 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 116-118 High Rock Ave. in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.44-2-32 on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellants having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit additions to a two- family residence in an UR-4 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 22nd day of January through the 23rd day of April 2018. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicants with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following area variances for the following amounts of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT Minimum front yard setback, unit 1 Bump out 25’ 4.7’ 20.3’ or 81.2% Minimum front yard Setback, unit 1 front porch 25’ 6.2’ 18.8’ or 75.2% Minimum front yard setback, unit 2 Bump out 25’ 4.7’ 20.3’ or 81.2% Minimum front yard Setback, unit 2 front porch 25’ 6.5 18.5’ or 74% Minimum Total Side Yard Setback, to front porches 45’ 44.2’ 0.8’ or 1.8% Maximum Principal Building Coverage 25% 28.7% 3.7% or 14.8% As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved. The Board has considered the following factors: 1. The Board notes that the applicants have demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicants. The Board observes that the building’s placement on the lot is such that the existing front of the house encroaches over the front setbacks. This makes any front addition, even a relatively modest set of additions such as these bump-outs and front porches, result in a need for relief. 2. The Board notes that the applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. As per the applicants, the additions would add to the aesthetic appeal of the building while providing functional space. The Board finds that the architectural features would be positive for neighborhood character. 3. The Board finds the front setback areas of relief to be substantial but mitigated by the fact that the placement of the building already is over the setback line and the proposal would add a relatively small amount of new relief. 4. The Board also notes these variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood or district. The lot as shown in the application materials would well exceed permeability requirements of 25%. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant’s desire to make these additions, however it is the placement of the existing building that causes much of the need for front setback relief. In any case, the Board notes that self-creation by itself is not fatal to the application. Cherie Grey seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 21 of 26 NEIGHBOR INPUT: -Letter from Donald Brookstein, dated March 19, 2018. 6. #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. This application was heard at the April 9, 2018 meeting and adjourned to April 23, 2018. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The Board asked that the applicant submit more detailed septic design and details. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the information requested from the application concerning the septic system was provided. Any further questions for the applicant. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked for a third party concerning the septic. I put a condition in the resolution to have a 3rd party approve the septic system, someone who is certified in waste water management. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:20 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #3029 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Curtis Brasseur 16 Alpine Trail Pittsfield, MA 01201 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 6 Fish Creek View in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 180.11-1-9 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 construction of a single-family residence in the RR District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 9th and 23rd days of April 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 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: 60 ft. 11 ft. 49 ft. (82%) Minimum side yard setback: 30 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft. (67%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 22 of 26 Minimum side yard setback: 30 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft. (67%) Minimum total side yard setback: 100 ft. 20 ft. 80 ft. (80%) 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 applicant. The lot is a pre-existing undersized parcel positioned on Fish Creek; this greatly limits the choice of locations for the proposed residence. The board notes the proposed placement of the residence is needed to provide the distance and elevation from the creek necessary in order to allow for a septic system and to minimize risk of flooding from the creek. The applicant notes “multiple floor plans were explored for the proposed residence and the 840-sf building is the smallest building feasible for a one-bedroom residential structure on this site.” 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant notes that the existing residence is in disrepair and the proposed “new residence will beautify the neighborhood.” The Board notes that small residences and pre-existing undersized lots relative to the RR district are common in this area on the shore of Fish Creek. 3. The Board notes the relief requested is substantial and notes the impact of the substantiality is mitigated by consistency of the proposed residence with the others in the area, and the fact that this proposed residence replaces a pre-existing nonconforming residence in an advanced state of disrepair. 4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The applicant has submitted detailed engineering plans for the treatment of wastewater on the property using a contained system designed for small areas. Note the condition below. 5. The Board notes the alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed residence. This is mitigated by the fact that the parcel is pre-existing nonconforming, and in any case self-creation by itself is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: A third-party certified specialist review as determined by the Building Department of the proposed wastewater treatment plan is required prior to issuance of a septic permit. Cherie Grey seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. James Helicke stated he would feel more comfortable noting the 3rd agency to review. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated they would prefer someone with a certification in this area. It can be the City of Saratoga Springs building department. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 7. #3017 ADIRONDACK TRUST SIGNAGE, 473 Broadway, area variance for two wall signs; seeking relief from the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 23 of 26  Maximum height for logo and lettering and placement above the first-floor level of the building requirements in the Transect-6 District. The applicant appeared before the Board on February 12, 2018 for approval of two walls signs. Applicant: Dean Kolligian, Director of Facilities & Security Adirondack Trust Company Agent: Tom Wheeler, AJ Sign Company; Mr. Wheeler stated the applicant has eliminated the sign on the Broadway side of the building from the application. What is left is the sign on the back of the building facing the parking lot. DRC recommended that the sign be centered between the two windows with space between. We have approximately 8 inches of free space on each side of the sign between the windows. They also requested that the logo be reduced in size. We had it at 48 inches and it is now down to 30 inches. The location will remain where the existing sign is located due to the electrical service and wiring at this location and also to prevent additional damage to this building. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further questions or comments from the Board. Adam McNeill, Secretary stated he believes the signage is too small and would like to see it larger. 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 closed the public hearing at 10:40 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. MOTION #3017 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Adirondack Trust Signage 473 Broadway SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 473 Broadway in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.59-1-26.1 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to construct a wall sign and seeking relief as described below in the Transect-6 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on the 12th day of February and the 23rd day of April 2018. In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following variance for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT Maximum height logo: Broadway elevation 18” 30” 12” (67%) Maximum placement on building: 1st floor level Above first floor level Placement above 1st floor level of building (100%) As per the submitted plans (revised and received April 20, 2018) or lesser dimensions, BE APPROVED for the following reasons: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 24 of 26  1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. As the revised plan states, “Sign cannot be moved down due to location of access panel on inside of building. The DRC’s recommended changes have been incorporated into the revised plan that centers the sign between the windows and reduces the height of the logo and lettering. 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 sign is proposed to be placed in the same location as the existing sign. The Design Review Commission will consider appropriate lighting of the sign. 3. The request for relief from both height and placement is substantial; however, the proposed sign has been revised reducing the height of the logo and lettering. The proposed sign introduces a new logo. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The proposed sign would be in the same location as the existing sign and at a similar size. The applicant revised the sign per DRC recommendation and the County Planning Board issued a response of “No Significant County Wide or Inter Community Impact”. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship due to the applicant’s desire to construct a new sign, but this not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: DRC Historic Review required. Cherie 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; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Bill Moore, Chairman assumed the duties of the Chair. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman assumed the duties of the Vice Chair. NEW BUSINESS: 8. #3030 MACY RESIDENCE, vacant lot on Fifth Avenue (166.14-5-19.12), area variance to construct a new Single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type Ii action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 25 of 26 Minimum rear yard setback 30 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. Applicant: Elizabeth Macy Ms. Macy stated her mother currently owns the property which will be sold to her to build a single-family home on the parcel. We are asking for a variance of 15 feet to conform with our neighbors. Both homes at 172 and 174 Fifth Avenue have both received the variances for relief from 30 to 15 feet. We would like to be in alignment with them. We did also revise our application to request to increase the building coverage by 7%. I was remiss in including the porches and overhangs. Our lot size is 15,000 square feet and we will be building a 2,000 square foot ranch style home. Brad Gallagher questioned if any other alternatives were considered other than a ranch style home. Ms. Macy stated she is thinking to the future and possible relatives moving in she would like a ranch type home. All on one level. This will be her forever home. Brad Gallagher questioned the applicant concerning the setbacks of the neighbor’s homes. Measurements will be helpful. Also, maximum building coverages in the neighborhood would also be helpful. James Helicke questioned the possibility of the reduction of garages from 3 to 2. Ms. Macy stated the definitely need a 3-car garage. The garages will be a side load garage. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning lot coverage. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 11:00 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. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the Board has requested additional information. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for May 7, 2018. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the next ZBA meeting on May 7, 2018. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 6-11-18 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 23, 2018 - Page 26 of 26