Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, MAY 21, 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; Adam McNeill, Secretary; Cheryl Grey; Brad Gallagher; James Helicke LATE ARRIVAL: Rebecca Kerns arrived at 7:10 P.M. 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 exited the meeting at 8:00 P.M. ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS: #3038 BONACIO CONDOMINIUMS, 77 Van Dam, modification of previously approved use and area variance for an existing mixed use (office and residential) building to all residential (25 total units) 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. #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. #3032 ADIRONDACK TRUST SIGNAGE, 182 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. #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 placement on two directional signs, and to permit three logos on the kiosk in the Transect-5 District. #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.  #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. OLD BUSINESS: NOTE: The agenda was heard out of order – awaiting the arrival of 7th Board member. 2. #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. This application was heard at the May 7, 2018 meeting and adjourned to May 21, 2018. The Board requested submission of principal building coverage’s in the area. This information was provided by the applicant on May 17, 2018. The public hearing was opened and remains open. SEQRA: -Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. DISCLOSURE: Adam McNeill, Secretary disclosed that he has viewed the May 7, 2018 webcast and has read all the information. He feels comfortable voting on this application tonight. Agent: Dan Wheeler, Land Surveyor Mr. Wheeler stated the Board requested some comparables. I found two which were relatively close, one at 116 East Avenue at approximately 39% coverage. Also 3 doors down from the Carratelli’s at 39 Pinewood Avenue at 38%. 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 7:08 P.M. Brad Gallagher presented the following resolution. #3031 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Galarneu Builders, Inc. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 21, 2018 - Page 2 of 12  45 Pinewood Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From a determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises located at 45 Pinewood Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, tax parcel number 166.38-2-58 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 an addition to an existing single-family residence in a UR-2 District and public notice having been duly given of hearings on said application held on May 7 and 21, 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 SIDE YARD SETBACK 8 FT. 6.2 FT. 1.8 FT. (22.5%) MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE 30% 35% 5% (17%) AS PER THE SUBMITTED PLANS, DATED March 28, 2018, 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 if the proposed screened porch was located to the rear to the proposed TV room, a variance would be required for the rear setback. Thus, alternative designs, besides a reduction in the scale, would not have altered the need for a variance. With regard to a reduction in scale, the proposed addition aligns with the existing rear of the residence providing for a uniform appearance that would not be achieved by an alternative design. 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 provided documentation that two other residences within the proximity of the Applicant’s residence have principal building lot coverage that are greater than the Applicant’s request. In addition, the requested relief for the minimum side yard setback for the proposed addition addition of 6.2 feet is 13 inches less than the current side yard setback for the existing residence. The proposed addition also will align with the rear of the existing residence and not be visible from the street. 3. The Board does not find the variances requested substantial. The proposed addition requires a variance that is 13 inches less than the existing residence. The proposed maximum building coverage of 35% is less than two other residences within proximity to the Applicant’s residence. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that the variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The proposed additiotion will be located in the rear of the existing residence and will not be visible from the street. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the Applicant desires to construct an addition to a single-family residence, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: Accessory structures not to exceed 5% of the lot – total lot coverage not to exceed 40% Cherie Grey seconded the motion. Bill Moore Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 21, 2018 - Page 3 of 12 Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Becky Kern, abstained; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0-1 DISCLOSURES: Adam McNeill, Secretary, disclosed that he viewed the webcast of the previous meeting and has read all the supporting information. He feels comfortable voting on this application this evening. Rebecca Kern, Board Alternate disclosed that she has viewed the webcast of the previous meeting and has read all the supporting information. She feels comfortable voting on this application this evening. 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. This application was heard at the May 7, 2018 meeting and adjourned to May 21, 2018. The Board requested submission of marketing materials and other senior housing projects that were available around the same time period that the Neumann building was proposed, constructed and available for rent. The applicant has also modified their request to 50% senior housing and 50% multi-family. SEQRA: -Action appears to be Unlisted. -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: Neumann LLC; Sonny Bonacio, Principal Neumann Building, LLC; Kate Jarosh, Bonacio Construction. Agent: Libby Coreno, Attorney Ms. Coreno stated she is filling in for Attorney Mike Toohey. This project was presented in its entirety at the last ZBA meeting and she will not present the entire previous presentation. She did however provide the Board with a brief history and review of the application. Ms. Coreno reviewed the criteria for a Use Variance as cited from the City Code 8.3.2: Four elements which must be shown: The inability to realize a reasonable return on the investment based upon the existing use and all other uses in the zone. The hardships from unique characteristics. No essential change in the neighborhood. The hardship was not self created. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 21, 2018 - Page 4 of 12 Ms. Coreno stated she has all the prior information which was presented and submitted if there are any further questions from the Board. Discussion ensued among the Board members, Ms. Coreno, and Special Counsel Mark Schachner. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there were any further questions of the applicants. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Terry DeRule, 4 Victoria Lane. Our property backs immediately onto the Grove Property. I am hoping that tonight you will grant Mr. Bonacio’s request. He is a great neighbor and cares about us and the neighborhood. I am hoping that he owns the property for the duration of my lifetime. It concerns us that this will not be granted and we wouldn’t know how the next owner would behave. We hope you approve his request. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:42 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we will now review the SEQRA Short Form. SEQRA REVIEW: Bill Moore, Chairman stated Part I of the SEQRA Short EAF has been submitted by the applicant and is complete and accurate. The Board reviewed Part II of the SEQRA Short EAF and found no large or important areas of concern noted. SEQRA DETERMINATION: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion in the matter of the Neumann Building, 233 Lake Avenue to issues a SEQRA Negative Declaration for the application. 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; Becky Kern, Alternate, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 7-0 Bill Moore, Chairman stated the updated summary information provided by Ms. Coreno, this date was reviewed by the Board and we are comfortable with presenting a resolution. Adam McNeill, Secretary presented the following resolution. #3037 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Neumann Building LLC City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 21, 2018 - Page 5 of 12  18 Division Street, Suite 401 Saratoga Springs, NY From the determination of the Zoning and Building Inspector involving the premises at 233 Lake Avenue, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.-4-22.1 in the Inside District, on the assessment map of said City. The applicant having applied for a use variance under the Zoning Ordinance of the City to convert a portion of the previously approved senior housing units to multi-family dwelling units in an Urban Residential – 1 District. As shown by the submitted application, supplemental documentation and oral presentation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and public hearing having been held on May 7 and 21, 2018 be approved because all four standards required to demonstrate unnecessary hardship have been proven by the applicant. Background: The subject property had been part of a larger church complex including a Catholic Church and School and the subject building being a former retirement home for priests of the Redemptorist Order. The applicant sought a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment to rezone the property from Institutional Educational to Urban Residential – 1 District. The City Council in approving both actions established a maximum density of 92 units (May 6, 2014). The Planning Board approved a three-lot subdivision (May 14, 2014) separating the subject property from the remaining church complex, issued a Special Use Permit for “senior housing” (June 11, 2014) and approved Site Plan Review for 76 units (July 23, 2014). The applicant now proposed to convert use of a portion (40%) of the senior housing units (55+) to dwelling units with no age restriction. The applicant has further modified its request to 50% senior housing and 50% non-age restricted. The “conversion” is only in terms of the age-based classification of the residential use. No new physical construction activity outside of the existing footprint of the building is proposed. 1. The applicant has demonstrated that it cannot realize a reasonable return and that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. The applicant provided financial documentation that the property was purchased for $1,450,000 and construction costs for the renovation of the existing historic building and construction of additions totaled $15,962,365. The total project cost was identified as $18,716,201. According to the application, “The Grove” was open for rent in December 2015 and by the end of 2017 the occupancy rate was 51.3%. The application narrative states, “The project had a financial loss even with a reduction of rents and amenities, based on the project’s revenues minus expenses and depreciation, of $3,011,468 through December 31, 2017”. The applicant provided the projected loss of $9,900,000 by 2022 if limited to senior housing. The applicant provided a sampling of their marketing materials and marketing strategy. According to the applicant, the amount spent marketing the project to seniors from the opening of the facility to the end of 2017 was $145,617. 2. The applicant has demonstrated the alleged hardship relating to this property is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood or district. The Board notes that the surrounding neighborhood is single-family residences and the complex in which the project is located was built in 1916 for use of clergy. The Board is not aware of similar circumstances elsewhere in the neighborhood or district; certainly not in any substantial portion of them. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the requested use variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. This project included preservation and reuse of the historic building and preservation of the grounds (grotto, copse of trees, maintenance of trees buffering project and existing single-family residential neighborhood). The City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 21, 2018 - Page 6 of 12 property currently has the required parking already constructed on site to provide for the increase in the parking requirement from senior housing (1 per unit) to residential (2 per unit). The applicant has indicated that the restoration of the building with the maintenance of the historic chapel and grotto on the property as well as formal communing areas lends itself to an older age group. Because of this the average age of residents of the overall facility is still over 55+. 4. The applicant has shown that the alleged hardship is not self-created. The applicant proposed a project that conformed to the permitted uses in the district – senior housing. The applicant received all of the necessary approvals and permits to construct the project. It was not until two years after the facility opened and the occupancy rate was at a little over 50% that the project was determined to not be financially viable. Condition:  Up to 60% of completed units can be not age-restricted Note:  Site plan review required Cherie Grey seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the proposed percentage of age restricted and non age restricted units cited in the resolution. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated there is some understanding of the people who were in the room 2 weeks ago about how this played out. It would be very hard if there is a decision that someone is sufficiently unhappy with to challenge, it would be very hard for someone who has not been in this room to understand how this all played out. I am a little concerned I take no position on the merits of the application as you know, but I am concerned if the Board wants to contemplate something different than what is currently being applied for. You can entertain modification requests from the applicant if you wish to do so, and that does not mean that the applicant has to make a modification request. Right now what we have in writing before the Board is an application for 50% age restricted and 50% not. My job is t crossing and i dotting, making sure that people that are not in the room during the proceedings understand what has transpired. I am concerned the Board is going beyond what has been applied for. My advice is if you want to consider deciding on something that is different than what is technically currently on the table, you should at least seek an applicant’s modification consent or something like that. It is not a problem when you are clearly trying to grant something that is less of a variance than what is applied for it is not clear here. Further discussion ensued among the Board concerning the percentage of age restricted units versus non age restricted units. Brad Gallagher stated he would not be opposed to 40%. Cherie Grey stated she is comfortable with the 50% figure, as the current application reads. James Helicke stated he is comfortable with the 50% figure. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated 40% is the original request of the applicant. Becky Kern, Alternate stated she is comfortable with 50%. Adam McNeill, stated he is comfortable with what the applicant had originally stated 40%. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 21, 2018 - Page 7 of 12 Bill Moore, Chairman stated he agrees with Keith this is an arbitrary number. I have no problem with either figure. So I believe we have a consensus. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if the applicant would like to modify their request. Ms. Coreno stated 8.3.3 does indicate it is the minimum relief required. Our position is once we complete the four part test the relief is crafted by the Board. Our belief when we came was that our numbers support 60-40. I do not believe 8.3.3 indicates that it is the Boards determination on relief. We believe our numbers support the original request. We are amenable to the relief granted by the Board. Bill Moore, Chairman questioned if the applicants would like to amend their application to 40%. Ms. Coreno stated yes. Bill Moore, Chairman stated so the resolution will be amended to reflect the change. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Becky Kerns, Alternate, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, opposed; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-1 NEW BUSINESS: NOTE: Board Member James Helicke exited the meeting. 1. #3039 BLACKLER RESIDENCE, 62 Van Dam, area variance to construct an addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard (each side), minimum total side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. The applicant will need to verify setbacks to constructed and proposed additions on the east side (location of upper and lower deck and second story stairs) in additional to principal building coverage. 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: 4 ft. .7 ft. 3.3 ft. (82.5%) Minimum side yard setback: 4 ft. 2.5 ft. 1.5 ft. (37.5%) Minimum total side yard setback: 12 ft. 4.7 ft. 7.3 ft. (61%) Maximum principal building coverage: 30% ? ? Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated there is a possibility for a permeability variance request. Applicant: Steve Blackler, homeowner City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 21, 2018 - Page 8 of 12 Mr. Blackler stated he is the homeowner and asked if there were any questions from the Board. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman spoke regarding having written a previous resolution for this property several years ago. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the applicant concerning the project having already been substantially built. Some demolition of what has been built is proposed as well as some modifications to take place. Discussion ensued regarding what the applicant is proposing. Mr. Blackler stated they have submitted plans. They are proposing raising the existing roofline of the existing building. This is not to extend beyond the current rooflines. Mr. Blackler spoke of the overhangs and their extending over the footprint of the building. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned the feasibility of alternatives. This is a very narrow lot with small square footage. There is no land available for purchase. Mr. Blackler stated going up is their only option. There are very few alternatives that would yield a reasonable floor plan other than straightening the roof-line and making the building a consistent 2-story plan as proposed. . Basically they are proposing new construction on the first and second story decks and exterior stairs from the second story deck to the ground to have two egress doors for safety for the two bedrooms in the rear of the building. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated what we will need for your next appearance before this Board is the building coverage as well as permeability coverage calculation. Cherie Grey questioned the applicant regarding the proposed renovations noting the applicant added only the second level, so the footprint of the building stayed the same. Mr. Blackler stated that is correct. Susan Barden stated fire retardant materials need to be used since the building is 2 feet from the neighbor’s property. No windows are allowed on this side of the building. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:26 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Dave Pentkowski, speaking on behalf of Irene Peronto, 64 Van Dam Street. I believe you are being misled to thinking this is a minor renovation. This addition which has been added overwhelms the home next door including blocking sunlight from a window in the kitchen. There is a substantial likelihood that the snow and ice coming off the roof will land in her kitchen. The distance is so minimal between the buildings. This is a monstrosity of an addition that has no place on this lot. In addition this second story is not in keeping with the neighborhood and so overwhelms the neighbor’s property. They have total disregard to the neighbor’s home. I would request that the Board not grant the requested variances. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he is concerned regarding the rear stairs coming off the second floor. I do not think it is necessary and I would not be in favor of any motion with this staircase. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. The applicant will return before the Board with the requested information. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 21, 2018 - Page 9 of 12 2. #3040 BAIRD RESIDENCE, 79 Lake Avenue, area variance to construct an addition to an existing three-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard (each side), minimum total side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements for the addition; and minimum side (each side), minimum total side yard and minimum rear yard setback to parking in the Urban Residential-4 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: The property is considered a lawful pre-existing nonconforming three-family. Multi-family residences are permitted with site plan review in UR-4. The lot is 7,309 square feet and large enough for a two family residence. The property would need to be at least 9,000 square feet for a three-family. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum lot size per dwelling unit: For fourth unit 3,000 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. (100%) Minimum side yard setback: 20 ft. 1 ft. 19 ft. (95%) Minimum side yard setback: 20 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. (50%) Minimum total side yard setback: 45 ft. 11 ft. 34 ft. (75%) Maximum principal building coverage: 25% 29.89% 4.89% (20%) Minimum side yard setback: To parking 20 ft. 4 ft. 16 ft. (80%) Minimum total side yard setback: To parking 45 ft. 31 ft. 14 ft. (31%) Minimum rear yard setback: To parking 25 ft. 16 ft. 9 ft. (36%) Applicant: Jeff and Nancy Brown Agent: Matthew J. Jones, Attorney Mr. Jones stated the applicants are from Gloversville and are part time residents of Saratoga hoping to spend more time in Saratoga. The applicants are trying to achieve 5’3” addition on the rear of the building. The rear of the structure is to be removed and replaced with the new addition that extends further to the rear and is an additional story in height. The fourth unit requires the most substantial relief at 100% and requires an additional 2 parking spaces to be constructed using porous pavement. The lower unit is to be occupied by the applicants. This is an 1870 building and predates modern zoning. DRC Architectural Review is also required. Mr. Jones provided a visual presentation of the proposed site. The garage area will be converted for the applicant’s modest apartment. Mr. Jones provided the Board with a visual of the site and proposed neighborhood which is very diverse in terms of uses. Mr. Jones explained the variety of zoning which exists in the area and the variances and amount of relief requested. Mr. Jones reviewed the five tests for an area variance, noting the amount of relief requested. Cherie Grey questioned the addition of a 4th apartment. Mr. Jones stated the reason for the 4th apartment is the applicants wish to spend more time in Saratoga in a modest apartment and their desire to have an additional apartment. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned if the applicant is removing the rear of the building and rebuilding why not narrow the project and decrease the amount of relief requested and move the project to allow for more space than 2 inches from the shared property line. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 21, 2018 - Page 10 of 12 Mr. Jones stated they are not sure the side walls of the project will be demolished. That will be determined by the DRC. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated if they are demolished I would like to see the project taken away from the west property line. That would be my preference. I am not in favor of the current proposal. Cherie Grey stated along the west property line there can be no windows installed along this property line due to fire regulations. The lot line is too close. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning requesting an Advisory Opinion from the DRC. Bill Moore, Chairman made a motion to obtain an Advisory Opinion from the DRC on this application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Becky Kerns, Alternate, in favor; Adam McNeill, Secretary, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman also questioned egress from the building. Considering this is a 3 story building and he does not see any egress for those apartments in the rear. There is a deck with no stairs. This may change the mass and scale and may change our perception of the impact of your application. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:15 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the application will return before the ZBA following their appearance at the DRC. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: -Site Plan review is required. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Cherie Grey made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 19, 2018 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with amendments as submitted. 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 MOTION PASSES: 4-0 Cherie Grey made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 9, 2018 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with amendments as submitted. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 21, 2018 - Page 11 of 12 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. 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; Rebecca Kerns, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 7-23-18 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 21, 2018 - Page 12 of 12