Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, MAY 7, 2018 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Cheryl Grey; Brad Gallagher; James Helicke ABSENT: Susan Steer; Adam McNeill, Secretary STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Deputy City Attorney Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards exited the meeting at 8:35 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: #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. #2931 LAKE LOCAL, 550 Union Avenue, consideration for Coordinated SEQRA Review for expansion and construction of eating and drinking establishment, marina and docks and tourist accommodations in the Water Related Business and Rural Residential Districts. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #3037 NEUMANN BUILDING, 233 Lake Avenue, use variance to convert a portion of the senior housing units to multi-family with no age restriction in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: -Action appears to be Unlisted. -Planning Board is an involved agency. Part 1 of the short EAF has been submitted. Part II of the Short EAF to be completed by the Board. PARCEL HISTORY: -Site plan approval by Planning Board on July 23, 2014. -Special Use Permit issued by Planning Board for senior housing approved June 11, 2014. -Subdivision approval by Planning Board for three-lots approved May 14, 2014. -City Council approved a Comprehensive Map amendment and a Zoning Map amendment – from Institutional Educational to UR-1. Applicant: Sonny Bonacio, Principal Neumann Building, LLC; Kate Jarosh, Bonacio Construction. Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney Mr. Toohey provided a zoning history for this property. On March 6, 2014 the City Council unanimously allowed the change of this zone to UR-1. UR-1 is the zone which surrounds the property. It was the creation of a merged zone. Once that was approved we obtained a Special Use Permit from the Planning Board on June 12, 2014. Subsequent to that we were required to obtain a Full Site Plan Approval, and this was granted by the Planning Board on July 23, 2014. This is in fact a legal utilization of this property. The building was allowed to be senior housing with a requirement being one of the occupants must be age 55 or older. All of the financial information provided to the Board can be supported through these exhibits. The applicant reconstructed the legal utilization of this building for the sum of $18,716,201.62. It was opened in November of 2015. The space was marketed for senior housing. Something unforeseen happened. The code designation in the City of Saratoga Springs for senior housing is 55 years of age. We anticipated people in the age group of 55-65 years of age occupying these apartments. What in fact did occur was people 70-80 years of age who in fact needed significant attending care and in fact used this building as a stepping stone for an assisted living process. As a result the vibrancy of the building never took off. We had 51.3% occupancy rate and with this buildings cost and expenses you could not sustain with it. We could not break the barrier that this was an old age home. So we had financial stagnation and the death of this project as we had anticipated. We reduced rentals and amenities, so as to make the building cheaper for a rental point of view. Occupancy rate did not increase. As a result through December 31, 2017 the project lost $3, 011,468. That number was not sustainable and was exacerbated by the fact that the numbers were not going to get better because the occupancy rate became steady and unsustainable. 50% of your building occupied is not a viable number. In further calculations we forecast that by 2022, the building and project would have lost $9.9 million dollars. The project would have failed and perhaps gone into foreclosure. Mr. Bonacio was not willing to accept failure with this project. He understood there is a viable option and that is to stop advertising this property as senior housing. As soon as he began to do this, the building began to take off with increased occupancy and the age of the tenants dropped significantly. The age of tenants currently shows 80% are over the 55 age requirement. When the younger tenants began to occupy this building the City of Saratoga Springs cited Mr. Bonacio with a violation. Attempts to rectify this situation with the City were pursued. A meeting was held with the City Attorney and city staff. We are seeking a use variance. This will not eliminate the senior housing aspect of this building. What we are requesting is to reduce the senior housing aspect to 40% of the units. We are allowed to have 92 units in the building, so 40% would be 37 units that would continue to be senior units. Mr. Toohey reviewed the 4 tier test with regard to obtaining a use variance. The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return on his investment for any currently permitted use. Based on the Special Use Permit the current permitted use is Senior Housing. We have provided evidence that this has not worked. The UR-1 zone, single family homes are the primary principal permitted use. As a result that building cannot be used as a single family home. Private schools do not tend to go into a building of that size. Religious institution that operated this building, and the reason UR-1 has religious institutions listed was because of St. Clements and St. John Neumann. That is not viable. Another use is a neighborhood Bed and Breakfast that requires a single family home. Neighborhood rooming house requires a single or two family home. Senior assisted care facility is a medical facility and this building does not lend itself to that. The applicant legally built this project for $18,770,000. Senior classification stagnated occupancy. The project does not have a reasonable return on investment. In fact, it has no return on investment. The determination to stop marketing this project as senior housing was made in the first quarter of 2017. At which point the project lost $2,131,000. If we are granted to have 40% remain senior housing on this project we forecast the project will still have lost by the year 2020 $4,700,000. The reason we maintain we can sustain that is the trend is going upwards. So City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 2 of 20 although we will lose money, we will begin to come out of the hole and sustain a historic building in the City of Saratoga Springs. The second part of the test, the financial hardship relating to the property is unique and does not apply to the substantial portion of the neighborhood. The structure that is the core of this entire project at the St. John Neumann Residence was built in 1916. It is unique in the entire City of Saratoga Springs. It has nothing in common with any of the neighborhood that surrounds it. In fact I do not believe to the south, east and north there are no single family residential structures that were built in that neighborhood before 1916. So, the neighborhood grew up around the St. John Neumann Residence. There is no tie with the problems this building is having with the neighborhood. There is no commonality between the financial hardship this project is facing and the neighborhood that exists within. They are two different spaces but they have always been two different spaces. That the variances granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The façade of the current building is the historic portion of the property. Its historic use was to house for multi non related persons to reside within. The zoning allows this building to have apartments within the building itself for nonrelated persons. The requested variance will continue to allow the residence of non related persons within the structures. It has nothing to do with the essential character of the building. Interiorly and exteriorly there will be no visible changes to the building. No trees will be removed, no blacktop will be removed, we have ample parking, no façade changes. There will be no visible changes to the property site. The neighbors will not have any feeling that there has been a change in the use and utilization from what we are proposing to what was permitted. That the alleged hardship is not self created. What we did was to have this building re-zoned. We had a Special Use Permit. We had site plan approval granted for this, we had this zone merged with the existing properties so that we were not creating an isolated zone within the city. This is in fact not self created. The fact that we made a business mistake is not a self created hardship. Every hardship you have seen has that component to it. Somebody made a mistake along the way. That is not self created. Self created is the ignorance or purposeful ignorance or happenstance ignorance of the zoning code and what limitations are and that is exactly what we did not do. The utilization of this property is a legal use. It is authorized by the City of Saratoga Springs, by the City Council, authorized by your Zoning Code and by the Planning Board. The legal use cannot generate a reasonable return on investment and without modification of the permitted use would generate $9.9 million worth of losses to 2022, but would be closed long before that time because the owners cannot sustain that kind of loss on a regular basis. The financial hardship of the property has nothing to do with the neighborhood. This is a unique property; we are not changing the essential character of this building. We are attempting to modify this use so the building can become and continue to be viable. The variances granted will not alter the character of the neighborhood in which it exists. There will be no evidence of the change in use. Everything will remain the same from the neighbor’s point of view. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the applicant concerning the self creation and the logic. Mr. Toohey stated this is not self created in the sense that the Zoning Code calls for self creation. Self creation has to do with an ignorance or a choice to ignore the Zoning Code that exists. Every use variance ever granted was granted because of a mistake. Mr. Toohey quoted from a lawsuit Russell Clark a citizen and an attorney in Saratoga Springs versus the Zoning Board of Appeals, City of Saratoga Springs, in an Appellate Division Court in 1988. “Hardship is self created when the applicant for a variance requires the property subject to the restriction from which he seeks relief.” We are not applying for a variance for what is illegal. We have a project which is 100% legal. The utilization of this building for the purpose for which we intended. We did everything we could possibly do to make that in fact correct. We had no idea that the population that would come to a senior housing project was in fact was 70-80 years of age and relatively infirmed. James Helicke questioned the applicant’s agent stating couldn’t you say this about any bad investment. Mr. Toohey stated this is the Zoning Board and the Zoning Code is the criterion we are being judged against. Bad business decisions are one thing but decision was one based on all the zoning approvals and criterion that we had was a reasonable return argument one that we cannot get on this property. Bad business decisions are independent of the Zoning Code. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated when he reviews a use variance something extraneous happens or changes to the applicant. Something since the original set of circumstances changed beyond the applicant’s control. I am struggling to City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 3 of 20 get there. The applicant in this case had full knowledge of the zoning and tried his hardest to make it a success. Despite those valiant efforts it has not been a success. The externality is what is troubling me. The changes beyond his control that have occurred. Mr. Toohey stated the change beyond his control was the inability to say the Zoning Code in the City of Saratoga Springs says that senior housing is for 55 years of age and up. This building was advertised for 55 years of age and up and needed to use the senior criterion because that is what the code determined. What happened is the utilization of the wording senior housing had such a massive impact on the use of this building. That the people who would have made this vibrant, who make it vibrant today, all said that this is really senior housing. Senior housing to the average people are for people who are significantly older than 75 years of age. As a result, the only market he could get into this building was the age bracket 70-80 years of age. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned if the applicant has done any polling of the people who are in the building now. Mr. Toohey provided statistics which were provided to the Board. The utilization of the people who occupy this building now – 80% qualify for the senior designation but are closer to the 55 years of age. Our current population is well over the age of 55. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman spoke concerning the demographics of the current tenants. The character of this building is still 55 plus. Mr. Bonacio stated that is correct. When we opened the building our average age was 87 years of age. It almost turned into a memory care facility, where we did not have the medical training to deal with the population coming. We saw a large group of people who did not want to go to Wesley yet but wanted a mid-stop. We were stuck at 33 tenants for about a year to a year and a half. All the advertising and marketing were geared to the empty nesters, but all we were getting was – at one point our average age was 84 years of age. Once we dropped the 55 years of age stipulation our average age right now is 67 years old. We have 18% which are below the 55 years of age. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned regarding the financials submitted. Why did the financials drop. Ms. Jarosh, Bonacio Construction, stated this includes accelerated depreciation for the first few years. Then the depreciation drops off. James Helicke stated in terms of the self creation, so you petitioned to change the Zoning District and then you engaged in the construction of a project with approvals, how is that not creating the predicament you find yourself in now. Mr. Toohey stated while the $17 million dollars was being spent. We anticipated that the project itself would be viable as a senior project. In fact it is viable as a senior project other than the fact that seniors who see senior housing on this particular building are significantly older than the mix would allow. As a result, that age bracket does not attract other people who want to occupy the 92 units that are in there. Because of that, and we could not have anticipated that, in spending the $17-$18 million dollars that this was going to be a bad deal for Mr. Bonacio and his investors. The circumstance that was out of our control, much as a zoning code change was the market place that did not allow us to utilize the building for the criterion that the code mandates. That as much as anything had to do with perception. This had the connotation of Wesley not the connotation of empty nesters. The proof is that as soon as we changed that the age bracket stayed in the correct range but it did not attract the people who were infirmed and needed specialized care. That specialized care was a detriment to the project being utilized by other people. Future tenants taking tours look at the ambiance and the amenities. They are also looking at the other tenants utilizing this space. What they found was the age bracket targeted for 65-67 year range did not want to move into a senior citizen center. That is what the perception of the building was. There is no way the builder could see the outcome of this. James Helicke stated he does not think reasonable return is making a profit. Reasonable return is you get what the property is worth in relationship to the other properties in the area. Why not sell the property. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 4 of 20 Mr. Toohey stated you cannot sell a building which has a 9.9 million dollar loss. They will not pay the amount of money the bank requires. It is cheaper for the applicant to turn it over to the bank. The code states the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return. Return means that you are getting more money on a regular basis than you invested on your initial investment for any currently permitted use within this code. Business return does not mean anything other than you have spent money and you have a reasonable expectation of some level of return. This is a building in which we are getting no return on our investment and we are losing massive amounts of money. James Helicke questioned the applicant as to possibly getting this re-zoned again. Mr. Toohey stated for one it would be spot zoning. We would have a zone which is 11.4 acres. You can’t have spot zoning. We melded it into the neighborhood that surrounds the property in the hope that senior housing would achieve some reasonable return on our investment. We cannot pursue a spot zone for this particular property. James Helicke questioned to the north and what currently is there. Mr. Toohey stated Victoria Lane to the north of that and that is all UR-1. Before you go down the hill there is nothing. Over to the east that is all 1950-1960’s homes which were built. If you go to the south it is the same vintage of homes, single family residential properties. To the east there is St. Clements’s Church and St. Clements’s elementary school. Beyond St. Clements School is the first time you get into older homes. The City of Saratoga Springs historically stopped at East Avenue. It was only in the later part of the last century that homes were built beyond East Avenue. James Helicke stated he is not quite there with the self creation. Mr. Bonacio spoke regarding the reasonable return. If you look at 2016 through 2022 we are looking at a 4-4.5 million dollar loss. If we continue on this path we are looking at a net profit of around $100,000 a year. It will take me 30 years. There never will be a reasonable return on this property. What we are trying to do is give it the tools to pay the bills and maintain the property which is a beautiful piece of property. Cherie Grey stated she is going to assume that the marketing was pretty well done based on the builder’s reputation. I am trying to understand what happened. This is a relatively short amount of time 3-4 years that all of the marketing presumptions were not met. That the age group that was anticipated to target did not happen. What happened that this was missed and cannot be filled with different terminology or a different approach? Mr. Toohey stated when the building was initially created the owners felt that they were going to provide a significantly higher end senior housing, for people who wanted to be residents of the City of Saratoga Springs, relatively close to downtown and become part of a community. What they found with all of the marketing that they had they did not have the ability to attract the people who would want to utilize this building as a 55+ year structure. They discussed the rents and looked at the amenities they were providing to attract the targeted age group. Those amenities were not being utilized at all. They discussed and lowered the rents for the units. Even though this will harm the income and expense, they reduced the rents and amenities and still could not attract people who fall into the category. Cherie Grey spoke about the people coming into Saratoga Springs and she is trying to understand why this did not become full. Mr. Toohey stated the marketing plan never required us to advertise/market this as a senior project. They knew exactly what the population would be that would occupy the space. It is the population that exists now 65-67 years of age. When you are required to push this number for senior housing, people are put off by that word and will not enter that door. It has to do with perception. They worked very hard to make this project work for the use permitted. It has not attracted the market that would sustain this building on the level that you need to have in occupancy. Mr. Toohey stated this is a senior housing project and is it viewed as such in the community. That is what the approvals dictated. Mr. Toohey stated the applicant is willing to keep 40% senior housing for this project. We can withstand that. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 5 of 20 Cherie Grey questioned the 40% senior housing; she feels it is too low. Mr. Toohey stated the applicant does not wish to appear before the ZBA again with this issue. We have to give ourselves some leeway. Discussion ensued regarding the percentage of senior housing for this project. Brad Gallagher questioned the percentage for senior housing and how do they propose to market the site to guarantee these percentages. Mr. Toohey stated the nature of the building does not attract young families. The nature of the building does not attract people in their 30’s, newlyweds or singles. The nature of the building attracts people who are 55-65 years of age because the feel of the building and how the building is formed and the use of the space as well as the amenities lend itself to a particular dynamic. There is no ambiance for children in this building and it was designed as such. We are confident that we can maintain that 40% effectively. Brad Gallagher questioned if the character and makeup of the building changes. Mr. Toohey stated we do not believe we will have any issues to utilize this building at the ratio we have provided. Bill Moore, Chairman stated you received approval for 92 units, you have 76. Are you going to build the other 16? Mr. Bonacio stated we have within the building amenities which have been removed, the spa, the kitchen, and the dining room. We at some point will go in and repurpose those spaces within the existing footprint of the building. Bill Moore, Chairman questioned when the advertising for senior housing stopped what was the occupancy rate at that time. Mr. Bonacio stated we stayed at 31 units for two years. So it was 50%. Bill Moore, Chairman stated as soon as you removed the age stipulation the occupancy increased. Could you provide to the Board some examples of where you marketed the property for seniors. Mr. Bonacio stated every publication that lends itself to adult living. Down state was marketed. We did direct marketing to age groups within the neighborhood. People we thought might like to downsize from their homes and stay within the neighborhood. We mailed out about 3,000 flyers. We targeted the people who were not in the Prestwick Chase, Wesley level but an intermediate level. One of the problems we had and we made very clear that we did not have graduated care associated with this project like Prestwick Chase and Wesley. We have a very unique product and you cannot draw parallels. James Helicke questioned why don’t you want to have a facility like this it is permitted in this area. Mr. Bonacio stated this is a very unique product and you cannot draw parallels. We don’t have the medical facilities to do so. We have no idea how to run those. We did not initially intend to do so. It is not a business model when you get into Medicare and Medicaid. We were looking for a segment of the population that was not quite at the care level stage. Mr. Toohey stated there is no affiliation with a care provider for this property. The building itself is not designed to have those health care components within the structure. For there to be assisted care living, there has to be medical staff on call, and mechanisms between the facility and Saratoga Hospital. That was not the design for this property and I dare say that the neighborhood would not want this to be a JV Hospital for the use and utilization of this building. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 6 of 20 Bill Moore, Chairman asked Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards what his definition of self created is. Mark Schachner, Counsel the Land Use Boards stated he does not have a specific definition however he stated the phase beyond the applicants control is commonly cited, as for what would not be self created. A market downturn can absolutely be a viable not self created hardship. Market downturns happen typically if you have reasons to doubt the facts that the applicant has put forward that are a different story. I certainly don’t, but it’s not my business. If the facts are as the applicant alleges and another factor of a self created hardship is was there good faith intention to do whatever the applicant sought to do, or was there some reason for bad faith. Somebody entered into a transaction with the preconceived notion of it not working. Again, just hearing the facts and taking them at face value, I have no reason to not believe them but that is not my call. It is highly unlikely that somebody would go through the efforts that we heard from the applicant’s representatives with the intention of failure. It is not impossible but it is highly unlikely. The market downturn feature or factor again if we have no reason to disbelieve them that is a perfectly viable aspect of non self created hardship. In fact, it is one of the classic non self created hardship situations because a market downturn is not the creation of an applicant. Something beyond the applicants control a market downturn is not something that was within the applicant’s control. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated aside from the fact that you may have misunderstood the market, when you set out to do this project, did the market change from 2013-2014 when you were planning this and the market you are operating in. Mr. Toohey stated the market did not create itself. We are attempting to build a project in the City that is unique itself. We have an aging population that we believed would want to come into this. As a result there was not a market for this in the greater Saratoga area. Part of the population surges people comes in from out of the area and they did not want to utilize this project. They fully believed when they began the project that there was a population that wanted to live in senior housing in this area. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated you have done an excellent job of illustrating that point. I am trying to determine if there were any changes in the market during 2013-2014 that you may not have been aware of that have caused this problem to be worse than anticipated. Has the market deteriorated? Mr. Bonacio stated I guess I didn’t realize I was in that market. When we created what we thought the product would be, we didn’t realize that the general populous would turn that into memory care and actually assisted based on. I don’t know if it was because when this was Neumann it was elderly care for the priests and I don’t know if it was a stigma that remained. We just could not get over this. We had no idea we were going into that market. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the amount of supply greatly intensified during the period of time. I would like to know more about the supply and the change in the market and what new projects came on line in 2013-2017. James Helicke questioned if the applicant has marketing details and could some evidence be provided to the Board. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Board stated lack of market can demonstrate non self created hardship. My other concern was what a Board Member questioned regarding what might or might not constitute reasonable return. Frequently in use variance applications, there is vigorous debate because an applicant is saying I am only getting x percent profit and I want to get 2, 5, 10, 20 times profit. Many court cases stated reasonable return does not mean maximum return. I am concerned about a previous comment that reasonable return does not mean any profit at all. That would be contrary to the cases decided in New York. General proposition being that reasonable return means finishing in the black rather than finishing in the red. James Helicke stated he may have misspoken and what he meant was maximum return. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Board stated that is clear that an applicant in a use variance context cannot lawfully claim for a use variance because there is not a maximum return. Reasonable return does mean profit albeit it could be a very tiny profit. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 7 of 20 Cherie Grey questioned the applicant if they had considered doing these as condos. Mr. Bonacio stated in a condominium project there are limited use common areas. One of the challenges is the 11 acres to maintain them the HOA fees would have been upwards of $1,000 per month. We did not feel that would be marketable. James Helicke questioned if the Board could obtain projections concerning the percentage of senior housing units the Board determines appropriate. Mr. Toohey stated if the information requested by the Board could be supplied to the Board in a timely fashion and able to be voted on at the next meeting the applicant is willing to leave the senior housing units to 50%. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Board stated I am not sure I understand. The application is for x percent and I do not think it is appropriate for the applicant to tell the ZBA if you promise to make the decision by date so and so then we will change it to x %. Mr. Toohey stated the application will state 50%. We will provide all requested information to the Board in a timely fashion. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:25 P.M. Carl DeGruille, I live behind the Neumann property. We have invested quite a bit of money in our home. We heard that Sonny was involved in this project we decided to proceed with our renovations. I have found the property well maintained and Sonny a good neighbor. If there is a chance that Sonny will not proceed with this project makes us wonder if we should stay in the neighborhood. As a citizen of the area I am concerned that for economic reasons Sonny would not be able to proceed with the investment. Matt Jones, 2 Victoria Lane. My property is at the corner of Excelsior Spring Drive and Victoria Lane. I am 100 feet away from this property. I come here as a neighbor. I know how this property was managed in the past primarily for the retired Redemptorists priests, and active clergy. The building we are talking about was certainly not looked at and contemplated tearing down; it was going to be a renovation project which made it a much more expensive project. I am very pleased that Sonny came along and did this project. There is an existing structure which was renovated. This was a project of 11 acres of vacant land. He renovated a 100 year old structure and the interior in a significant way. It would not be comparable to a Prestwick Chase, all new construction. This was much more expensive project. This was a much higher risk project. This project is unique, and the application here has no impact on the neighborhood. I hope you do grant the application, I am in favor of the application. Charles Zieker, Pinewood Avenue. My wife and I are in favor of this project. It has no impact on the neighborhood. This would become a viable option for us we are in our 70’s. I do not quite see the point of worrying about the percentage. Cherie Grey questioned any restrictions on the lease or air B&B’s. Mr. Bonacio stated there is no subletting of their properties. We want the people to be home and know their neighbors. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated to the Board this is not an area variance for dimensional relief. We want this to be one and done in terms of them coming here. The numbers are arbitrary. I am very nervous about hiking it up. This is not dimensional relief. We should leave it at 40 or get rid of it completely. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 8 of 20 Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. 2. #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. The public hearing has not yet been noticed. The public hearing will be noticed after SEQRA determination and advisory opinion from the Planning Board. The Board is in receipt of an application for the area variances associated with the proposed new residence and attached garage on the proposed lot. If the variances associated with the subdivision are approved and the two-lot subdivision is approved, then we will accommodate the application for proposed new construction on the new lot. SEQRA: -The agency designated as Lead Agency will need to consider the entire action – area variance for the subdivision; subdivision, area variance for new construction on the new lot, historic review of the new construction on the new lot. -Action appears to be Unlisted, a short EAF was submitted. -Planning Board and DRC are involved agencies. -The ZBA could initiate Coordinated SEQRA Review, and defer Lead Agency status to the Planning Board. PARCEL HISTORY: -Pending area variance application for construction of a new carriage house submitted November 2016. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum average lot width: Cherry Street lot 100 ft. 58.1 ft. 41.9 ft. (42%) Minimum side yard setback: to parking 25 ft. 0 ft. 25 ft. (100%) Minimum side yard setback: to parking 25 ft. 5 ft. 20 ft. (80%) Minimum total side yard setback: to parking 45 ft. 5 ft. 40 ft. (89%) Minimum front yard setback: to parking 25 ft. 11 ft. 14 ft. (56%) Applicant: David DeVall Mr. DeVall provided a visual of the proposed site for the Boards review, noting this is the largest lot on Franklin Street. What we are proposing is a subdivision to allow the construction of a small residence in the rear. We are seeking the minimum relief to accomplish this while attempting to preserve the positioning of the historic building, preserve the green space and preserve the existing parking. We have six parking spaces currently. We are before the Planning Board now and have completed sketch plan review. We are before them currently for subdivision approval. It was suggested that we appear before the DRC for the orientation, position and look of the building. The DRC approved the orientation and design of the building with the recommendation for an attached garage. The new design reflects the attached garage. The city wants pedestrian connectivity. We are proposing new curbing, sidewalks and historic lighting which would meet up with the new construction on the Ellsworth property. We began this project one year ago and the project has changed from a three car garage with an apartment above in a carriage house style to what is currently proposed. James Helicke stated the public hearing was not noticed and we need an advisory opinion from the Planning Board. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated we do need an advisory opinion from the Planning Board as well as coordinate SEQRA review. The Planning Board and DRC are involved agencies. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 9 of 20 James Helicke made a motion in the matter of the application for the DeVall Subdivision, 59 Franklin Street, that the ZBA request an Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 James Helicke made a motion in the matter of the application for the DeVall Subdivision, 59 Franklin Street that the ZBA defer Lead Agency Status for SEQRA to the Planning Board. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 3. #3031CARRATELLI, ADDITION, 45 Pinewood Avenue, area variance to construct an addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage 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 side yard setback 8 ft. 6.3 ft. 1.7 ft. (21%) Maximum principal building coverage 30% 32.2% 2.2% (7%) Applicant: Karen and Joe Carratelli Agent: Dan Wheeler, Land Surveyor Mr. Wheeler stated he surveyed the property for the Carratelli’s. I am working with Gallarneau Builders. Right now there is a large deck and fence which encroaches somewhat on the neighbor’s property. This will be rectified with the new plans. What the applicants are proposing is a sunroom and a TV room. They are extending back with a modest addition and are not going any closer to the property line than what currently exists. Brad Gallagher questioned if the applicants considered any other design alternatives to help reduce the size of the addition. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 10 of 20 Mr. Wheeler stated the applicants worked with the existing size of the home which is relatively small and the flow of the home. Brad Gallagher questioned if the existing deck is to be removed. Mr. Wheeler stated the decking will be removed as part of this project since it does encroach somewhat. All encroachments will be rectified. Cherie Grey questioned the building coverage and if there are any accessory structures. Mr. Wheeler stated in reviewing the numbers for the project the principal building coverage has gone from 32.2% to 35%. Calculations previously were not taken to the drip edge. The architect agreed with my new calculations. There is a shed on the property and it is small. Cherie Grey stated this neighborhood has small homes and many homes have added on. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the Board would like to see neighborhood comparables for coverage and provide this to the Board. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the applicant has an undersized lot. We have a condition that limits additional accessory structures on the lot and he would like to see a condition on the resolution. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:53 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Charles Zieker, 45 Pinewood. Mr. Zieker stated he is the encroached upon neighbor. Happy to see the encroachment will be gone. He and his wife are in favor of this application. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA meeting. RECUSAL: Bill Moore, Chairman has recused from the next 3 applications. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman will assume the duties of the Chair. 3. #3032 ADIRONDACK TRUST SIGNAGE, 112 South Broadway, area variance for proposed signage; seeking relief from the maximum size for a freestanding sign, maximum height of logo for two logos on the freestanding sign, maximum height, size and logo placement on two directional signs in the Transect-5 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 11 of 20 Maximum height logo: freestanding sign 18” 24” 6” (33%) Maximum height logo: freestanding sign 18” 24” 6” (33%) Maximum size freestanding sign: 12 sq. ft. 40 sq. ft. 28 sq. ft. Maximum height: directional sign 4 ft. 5 ft. 1 ft. (25%) Maximum height: directional sign 4 ft. 5 ft. 1 ft. (25%) Maximum size: directional sign 4 sq. ft. 6 sq. ft. 2 sq. ft. (50%) Maximum size: directional sign 4 sq. ft. 6 sq. ft. 2 sq. ft. (50%) Placement of logo: directional sign Not permitted Permitted 100% Placement of logo: directional sign Not permitted Permitted 100% DISCLOSURE: Cherie Grey stated she did see Mr. Wakulenko at the sign shop this date while she was purchasing signs. They did not discuss this application and this will in no way affect her ability to vote on this project. No need for recusal simply disclosure. Applicant: Adirondack Trust Company Agent: Tom Wheeler, AJ Signs; Adam Wakulenko, Adirondack Sign Co. Mr. Wheeler stated the Board is familiar with the Adirondack Trust and their current rebranding since we appeared before this Board previously on another branch. There is a concrete monument structure out front with some aluminum pin lettering and some cast bronze medallions. What we are proposing is to replace the medallions with the new logo “A” which is the same size as the medallions and this will cover the damage to the structure from the previous signage. James Helicke questioned the applicant if they were simply replacing signs with new signs of the same size. Mr. Wheeler stated that is exactly correct. Mr. Wakulenko provided a visual of the proposed signage. We are not replacing with larger signage just replacing what is currently there. We are trying to update what is currently there with a push through letter which produces a soft glow. Cherie Grey questioned the applicant’s agent if the current medallion is 24” in size as will be the new logo replacement. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated she does not know if there were any variances granted for this back when it was initially installed. She researched this and could find no record of any. Susan Barden explained how the variance request figures were obtained. Mr. Wheeler stated there are also some directional signs which will be replaced and rebranded with the new logo as well. James Helicke questioned if the applicant would consider shrinking the signage. Mr. Wakulenko stated the applicant is requesting this height to accommodate winter weather visibility. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated it would be very helpful if the applicant’s could provide a simulation of what a compliant sign would look like. Take a picture from the road or a distance of what it is you are trying to install in the size requested. James Helicke stated he believes the directional signage could be made conforming. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman discussed the directional signage and also requested the applicants could possibly reduce the size so they conform thereby reducing the number of variances requested, as well as photo simulations. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 12 of 20 Mr. Wheeler stated the exit signage will be removed and replaced with the standard DOT directional signage. Cherie Grey stated there is no address on the signage, not only at this location but all the proposed signage replacement applications. GPS is all done with addresses. The County letter did mention that they requested more of a site plan and that is what the Board is requesting as well. James Helicke made a motion in the matter of the of Adirondack Trust Signage, 112 South Broadway, 315 Church Street, and 33 Marion Avenue, the ZBA requests Advisory Opinions on these applications from the DRC. Brad Gallagher seconded the motion. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0 PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:15 P.M. 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 until the applicant returns before the Board. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: -DRC Architectural Review is required. -Saratoga County Planning Board referral is required. Response “No significant countywide or intercommunity impact” with comment received April 20, 2018. 4. #3033 ADIRONDACK TRUST SIGNAGE, 315 Church Street, area variance for proposed signage; seeking relief from the maximum size for a freestanding sign, maximum number of wall signs, maximum height, size and logo Formatted: Tab stops: 2", Left + 4.12", Left placement on two directional signs, and to permit three logos on the kiosk in the Transect-5 District. + Not at 3.25" SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum size freestanding sign: 24 sq. ft. 45 sq. ft. 21 sq. ft. (87%) Maximum number of wall signs per street frontage: Parking lot side of building (12.7 sq. ft.) 0 1 1 (100%) Maximum number of wall signs per street frontage: Drive thru side lot of building (25 sq. ft.) 0 1 1 (100%) Maximum placement first floor level: Drive Thru side Not to exceed first floor height Above first floor (100%) Maximum height: directional sign 4 ft. 5 ft. 1 ft. (25%) Maximum height: directional sign 4 ft. 5 ft. 1 ft. (25%) Maximum size: directional sign 4 sq. ft. 6 sq. ft. 2 sq. ft. (50%) Maximum size: directional sign 4 sq. ft. 6 sq. ft. 2 sq. ft. (50%) Placement of logo: directional sign Not permitted Permitted 100% REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Placement of logo: directional sign Not permitted Permitted 100% Placement of logo: on kiosk Not permitted Permitted 100% City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 13 of 20 Placement of logo: on kiosk Not permitted Permitted 100% Placement of logo: on kiosk Not permitted Permitted 100% Applicant: Adirondack Trust Company Agent: Tom Wheeler, AJ Signs; Adam Wakulenko, Adirondack Signs Mr. Wheeler stated they are proposing to remove the current monument sign and build a new monument sign in the same location. It is a landscape block base. The sign will be push through acrylic lettering internally illuminated. It is taller than what is there currently. A visual of the site was provided to the Board. The existing monument is 28 square feet. The proposed is approximately 45 square feet. Cherie Grey questioned the inconsistency between the signage and the sites. We are looking for uniformity and less of a variance request. Mr. Wakulenko stated each location is unique. South Broadway location we are trying to accommodate what we currently have there. Monument signs will be installed at most of their sites. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the size of the signage and size and support structure. Mr. Wheeler provided information on the kiosk signage. We are removing the current signage on the kiosk and replace them with the new logo of the same size. A visual of the proposed location of the kiosks was provided to the Board. ATM lettering will be replaced with a panel stating ATM to cover damage. The signage on the kiosk will also have a panel to cover damage on the kiosk as well. Current wall signage will remain in the same location and size; it will just have a new face. James Helicke questioned if the applicant would consider shrinking the directional signage. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the wall signage proposed. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:40 P.M. 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 until the applicant returns before the Board. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: -DRC Architectural Review is required. -Saratoga County Planning Board referral is required. Response “No significant countywide or intercommunity impact” with comment received April 20, 2018. 5. #3034 ADIRONDACK TRUST SIGNAGE, 33 Marion Avenue, area variance for proposed signage; seeking relief from the maximum number of freestanding signs, maximum size for freestanding signs in the Tourist Related Business District. SEQRA: This action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 14 of 20 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum number of freestanding signs per parcel 1 2 1 (100%) Maximum size freestanding sign 24 sq. ft. Approximately 37.3 sq. ft. (2 signs combined) 13.3 sq. ft. (55%) Placement of wall sign on building elevation without street frontage Not permitted Permitted (100%) Applicant: Adirondack Trust Company Agent: Tom Wheeler, AJ Signs; Adam Wakulenko, Adirondack Signs Mr. Wheeler stated there are two existing box signs. Same size, same frame. The face will be changed to the new logo. A visual of the site and location of the signage was provided for the Board. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the placement of the signage. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:52 P.M. 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 until the applicant returns before the Board. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: -DRC Architectural Review is required. -Saratoga County Planning Board referral is required. Response “No significant countywide or intercommunity impact” with comment received April 20, 2018. Bill Moore, Chairman assumed the duties of the Chair. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman assumed the duties of the Vice Chair. OLD BUSINESS: 1. #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. This application was heard at the April 23, 2018 meeting and adjourned to May 7, 2018. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The applicant submitted a revised application requesting relief from the maximum principal building coverage on April 23, 2018. The applicant provided additional information on April 27, 2018 as requested by the Board. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. Applicant: Elizabeth Macy City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 15 of 20 Mrs. Macy provided comparables of setbacks and lot coverage from the neighbor’s property per the Boards request. Most of the houses around us do have the 15 foot setback. We are acceptable to the condition that we do exceed the 28% total coverage of the house and accessories. 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 9:56 P.M. Brad Gallagher presented the following resolution. #3030 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Elizabeth Macy Vacant Lot, Fifth Ave. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From a determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises located at Fifth Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, tax parcel number 166.14-5-19.12 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-1 District and public notice having been duly given of hearings on said application held on April 23 and May 7, 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: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: 30 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. (50%) Maximum principal building coverage: 20% 27% 7% (35%) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The Applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the Applicant. The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed residence conforms with the surrounding properties and creates a seamless streetscape. The lot is wider than it is deep at 150 ft. x. 100 ft. Thus, the shallow lot width and the minimum setbacks would only permit a house that is 40 feet deep. The applicant stated that they reviewed hundreds of designs and were unable to accommodate their needs in constructing a single-story residence. Moreover, there are no additional properties for purchase. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The Applicant stated the proposed residence is similar in the front yard setback and principal building coverage to those of the neighboring properties. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 16 of 20 3. The Board finds the variances requested substantial; however, this is mitigated by the fact that the minimum front yard setback requested is 15 feet, which aligns the residence with the neighboring properties. In addition, the Board finds the variance for maximum principal building coverage requested is 7%, which is in conformity with the other residences that are located on the south side of Fifth Ave along the Oklahoma Track. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that the variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The Board finds that the residence is consistent with the existing neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the Applicant desires to construct a new single-family residence, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: Future accessories are limited to 1% of the lot area or 150 sq. ft. Cherie Grey 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; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 2. #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. This application was heard at the April 9, 2018 meeting and adjourned to April 23. The application was further adjourned to May 7, 2018. The public hearing was opened and remains open. At the April 9, 2018 meeting the Board asked the applicant to submit additional information – an identification of single- family, two-family, multi-family residences in the neighborhood, clarification of height of the structure, identification of properties with two residences in the neighborhood, and ability to increase the rear yard setback closer to conforming. 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 stated there is a chronic lack of affordable housing in Saratoga Springs. 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 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 17 of 20 noting the presence of many multiple family units, commercial and businesses. His home is probably the only single family home in the area. The applicant indicates that neighboring homes have detached garages in similar locations to the proposed cottage. DISCLOSURE: James Helicke stated he was not at the meeting when this application was initially presented. He has watched the webcast and can participate in the deliberations. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. Cherie Grey questioned if the applicant considered adding on to the current home to serve the need you are requesting. If you had given any further thought for that. The footprint of the cottage is taking up quite a bit of space and it could be rentable in the future. Mr. Fahy stated they have consulted a builder. It is the unknown of the infrastructure in this area. We have reviewed several options and they are all at a greater expense. The other information we provided to the Board per their request. A visual of the site plan was provided to the Board. We are contemplating a smaller cottage. James Helicke questioned the size the applicant is considering. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman provided some information to the applicant concerning the size of the cottage and height and possible alternatives. Discussion ensued with the applicant about this application and consideration before we move on. The Board suggested the applicant work with staff on other considerations and then return before the Board. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing is opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated the Board is in receipt of 2 pieces of correspondence. -Email dated May 4, 2018 from Michael Bilok, 132 Nelson Avenue. -Email dated May 4, 2018 from Ruth Edelson, 134 Nelson Avenue. 3. #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. This application was heard at the March 5, 2018 meeting and has been adjourned awaiting a SEQRA determination by the Planning Board. The public hearing was opened and remains open. DISCLOSURES: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he was not in attendance at the March 5, 2018 meeting. He has viewed the webcast and is comfortable voting on this application this evening. James Helicke stated he was not in attendance at the March 5, 2018 meeting. He has viewed the webcast and is comfortable voting on this application this evening. SEQRA: -The Planning Board accepted Lead Agency status and issued a Negative SEQRA Declaration on May 3, 2018. -The DRC deferred SEQRA Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 18 of 20 -The ZBA initiated Coordinated Review and Deferred Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board. -Action appears to be an Unlisted Action. -Planning Board Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review is required. -DRC Architectural review is required. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a SEQRA Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Board on May 3, 2018. No Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board is required. 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 10:27 P.M. James Helicke presented the following resolution. #3021 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Jim Dorsey 15 Ballston Avenue SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 15 Ballston Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.83-1-41 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to construct additions to an existing mixed use (service and residential) building and seeking relief as described below in the Transect – 5 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on March 5 and May 7, 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 PROPOSED RELIEF REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Minimum frontage build-out: 70% 25.9% 44.1% (63%) 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 project includes maintenance of the existing structure and construction of an addition to the front. The existing structure is preexisting nonconforming with the requirements of the T-5 district. As the application indicates, the only other option would be to demolish the building which would be economically unfeasible. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 19 of 20  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 placement of the addition would result in greater compliance with the district requirements – the building would meet the build-to requirement and be more in compliance with the frontage build-out requirement. As the application states, “None of the structures in this vicinity have a frontage build-out of 70%, the reduced frontage build-out of this project will not look out of place nor be detrimental to the neighboring properties”. In addition, DRC Architectural Review is required. 3. The request for relief from the frontage build-out requirement is considered substantial by the Board at 63%; however the placement of the addition would result in greater compliance with the district requirements. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The existing driveway and circulation around the site will remain the same. The addition will provide a front entranceway and improved street presence. In addition, the Saratoga County Planning Board issued a response of “No Significant County Wide or Inter Community Impact” on March 15, 2018. 5. The request for relief may be considered a self-created hardship due to the applicant’s desire to construct an addition. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Notes: Planning Board special use permit and site plan approvals required. DRC Architectural Review required. Cherie Grey 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; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the next ZBA meeting on May 21, 2018. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 6-11-18 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 7, 2018 - Page 20 of 20