Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, JUNE 11, 2018 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Susan Steer; Cheryl Grey; Brad Gallagher; James Helicke ABSENT: Adam McNeill, Secretary 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: #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. #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. #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. #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. #3022 DEVALL SUBDIVISION, 59 Franklin Street, area variance associated with a two-lot subdivision; Seeking relief from the minimum average lot width for the proposed lot and minimum side yard setback to parking in the Urban Residential-4 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. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: Bill Moore, Chairman, stated from 6PM – 7PM the Board was conferring with legal counsel on several matters which are not related to any applications before the Board tonight. OLD 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. Bill Moore, Chairman stated a draft resolution was prepared and circulated to the Board. It was merely correcting some grammatical errors in the previously approved resolution dated May 21, 2018. Board members please review the amended resolution for a vote. DISCLOSURE: Susan Steer disclosed she was not in attendance at the last Board meeting when this was discussed. She will abstain from voting on this application. Additionally, I had a conversation with Sonny Bonacio, the applicant, several weeks ago. It had nothing to do with any of his matters before the Board this evening. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if the Board had reviewed the amended resolution. James Helicke questioned why this was being presented and amended. Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs stated there were some changes made to the draft resolution which did not make sense when she was incorporating them. Also, the applicant has further requested a modification for 50% senior housing and 50% non age restricted. We added a sentence which stated the applicant further modified his application to 40% senior housing and 60% non age restricted which is what the original submission requested. Also the conditions correspond to the paragraph we just spoke of on page 1. There is also consideration of a condition on reporting. The annual report that was included in the application was not noted as a condition of approval. This report will be submitted to the Planning Department Office. Bill Moore, Chairman explained to the Board that they will be voting on accepting the changed resolution. We are not bringing the matter itself back up, we are only voting on the changes to the resolution originally presented on May 21, 2018. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Board stated that is correct, these are minor revisions to the previously adopted resolution. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 11, 2018 - Page 2 of 13 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion in the matter of the Neumann Building, 233 Lake Avenue that the proposed minor modification to the resolution be approved. Cherie Grey seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, abstained; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0-1 NEW BUSINESS: 1. #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. SEQRA: -Action appears to be a Type I action PARCEL HISTORY: -Former school district building. -Use Variance approved in 1976 for 6 apartments and 3 floors of office (12 offices). Relief granted from the parking requirement -29 spaces required for office and 12 parking spaces required for the residence totaling 41. -Use Variance approved 1981 -15 apartments and 2 floors of offices (8 offices). USE VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: -The request is a Use Variance Modification to convert the remaining 8 office spaces to apartments-total 23 residential units. -Request for 2 additional residential units-totaling 25 residential units. -All 25 proposed to be condominium units. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum parking requirement 25 residences 50 31 19 (38%) The application indicated the property across Lawrence Street is commonly owned and would be available for overflow situations. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: -Saratoga County Planning Board referral required – response received. -Site plan review required. NEIGHBOR INPUT: -Letter from Kevin and Diana O’Brien, 99 Lawrence Street, dated May 15, 2018. Applicant: Sonny Bonacio, Bonacio Construction & Tom Roohan, 519 Broadway LLC. Agent: Libby Coreno, Attorney; Kate Jarosh, Bonacio Construction City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 11, 2018 - Page 3 of 13 Ms. Coreno provided a visual of the site which is the old Catholic Central High School Building. We submitted a lot configuration which indicates 99 Van Dam as well as 77 Van Dam, both currently under common ownership, and we expect it to remain that way. The building is four floors in height with currently existing office space on the first and second floor and residential units on the third and fourth floor. There are vacancies in the commercial portion of the property as well several office spaces remaining vacant for over two years. Existing floor plans were reviewed with the Board noting there is no elevator in the building. In summary there are 12 commercial units and 14 residential units. Ms. Coreno provided a history of the building for the Board. In 1976 the owner could not fill the space as an office building. At this time the building was a non conforming use. The only thing which was conforming was an institutional use which had been abandoned because the school had vacated. Use Variance was approved for 6 apartments and 3 floors of office. In 1981 the owner still could not fill the commercial units. A Use Variance was approved for 15 apartments and 2 floors of offices. Parking at that time was deemed adequate. So, this building has been plagued for nearly 40 years with this issue. Additional apartments are not detrimental to the neighborhood. The UR-3 neighborhood allows single and two family residential uses. Our proposal is 25 condominium units, which would be the addition of 10 new residential units and the abandonment of the commercial units. Ms. Coreno stated it is the applicant’s position that we are only seeking to modify the previously granted use conditions of approval, no requirement to prove entitlement to a use variance exists. We are proposing the removal of the condition for 15 residential units only and allow for 10 additional, and remove all commercial units. The supporting documentation proving the original hardship back to 1976 and again in 1981. The Board at that time found it was not a good commercial project. There is a higher conformance to neighborhood uses, which is residential in that neighborhood now. The parking variance dates back to 1976. This site was paved and stripped in 1976. Additional parking is available at 99 Van Dam. Susan Steer stated she feels the Board needs to discuss the Use Variance modification request first. We will need a new use variance and discussion concerning the adequacy of parking prior to the Planning Board review. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Board stated he is having difficulty discerning what the Board is identifying as the initial issue. What the applicant sought approval for in 1976 was a use variance. In 1981 the applicant sought and obtained further modification of that variance to allow a larger number of residential units in that building. Now, the applicant is seeking further modification. The question before the Board is to consider the further modification. The Board needs to see additional information about hardship and the like as if it were a new use variance application or you can treat it with less of a need for additional information as a mere modification. Susan Steer stated that is what she is saying. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Board stated the Board will need to decide how much additional information of the traditional use variance ilk or not. James Helicke stated to look at this as a modification one of the things we need to review is the hardship issue. Ms. Coreno stated we submitted rental history as well as rent roll information. A 15% vacancy rate exists. Commercial units remain vacant. The applicant is having trouble renting it out. This is a residential neighborhood with very few commercial buildings and UR-3 indicates that it is a residential zone. So, the proposal is in more conformance than what was originally approved as a beneficial impact. Susan Steer stated UR-3 is single and two family residences. One of the issues when I look at the opinion from 1976 there is not a lot of commercial in the area and it actually said in the decision proof has been shown that the combined apartment commercial use is the highest and best use of the premises. So they clearly at the time were contemplating both uses. They recognized that parking was a problem and by allowing the commercial uses where they only use the parking during the day. It is important why we need to get into the whole review of the tests. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 11, 2018 - Page 4 of 13 Ms. Coreno stated she concedes there are changes and that is the reason for the modification. It is very challenging to come back in and ask for a use variance which has already been granted. The conditions and the limitation on that use is what is being modified. Ms. Coreno stated there are no changes to the upper two floors of the building. This building exists under a mixed use variance. What I need to show the Board is good and sufficient reasons to modify the implementation of that use. The neighborhood has changed; the market has changed, as well as the need for an elevator. What people have come to expect from tenancy space changed. Those are the things I am requesting the Board consider sufficient. Parking is another issue if we left the parking alone the variance would stay at 60%, we are proposing 40%. What I am asking is to put me back to my proof on a use variance that was already obtained and in use for over 40 years is impossible to do. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Board stated I understand the applicants counsel to be suggesting that they not be held accountable to meet all four parts of a use variance test as if it were a brand new use variance application. I am also understanding from the applicant’s counsel to be suggesting you all know that one of the principal criteria for the granting of a use variance is financial hardship. I think I am hearing the applicant’s counsel indicating that even in the context of the modification request she is prepared to demonstrate that there are financial difficulties justifying the modification. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated what the applicant is offering is to provide additional information that would be similar to the financial type of hardship information you might be needing to look at a use variance from square one but that they should not be held to the standards of all types of use variance criteria because there has already been a use variance granted to allow this type of use on this property. Ms. Coreno stated that is exactly what she is proposing. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated in his opinion it is not an unreasonable request. Her point is that the ZBA has already authorized this mix of commercial and residential use at this property and no one intends to expand beyond this property. The proposed changes essentially is the mix. Ms. Coreno stated she has additional information for the Board. She has provided information as to the occupancy rate, the ability to maintain a commercial tenant, length of time that these units have been available for rent from a commercial standpoint. Also this is an incredibly expensive property to readapt to a permitted use in this zone. It is a landmark property in the City and has unique character. The immediate area is residential and this is a multi-family building, and we are trying to protect the character of the neighborhood. Of course this is not a self created hardship. James Helicke stated the Board has requested the financial information which speaks to the hardship and that would be one of the things we will be reviewing. I understand the property is unique in the neighborhood. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the financial aspect is what is needed. Nothing else has changed in terms of the other criteria. Bill Moore, Chairman stated although this application is similar, we are not holding this application to the same criteria of a use variance. The Board was questioned as to the possibility for a need for a new use variance Cherie Grey stated she feels there is a possibility for a new use variance due to the number of residential units being Constructed and also the fact that they might be condos versus apartments. I believe there are reasons for a new use variance versus a modification. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the applicant already has had the use approved. It was the consensus of the Board to treat this application as a modification. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 11, 2018 - Page 5 of 13 Bill Moore, Chairman questioned the Board as to the information needed from the applicant. It was the consensus of the Board for the applicant to provide rental history, financial information as well as marketing. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated in looking at the way the 31 parking spaces are currently configured, I would like to have the applicant provide to the ZBA several different iterations of how you can get to 31 spaces on the parcel. Bill Moore, Chairman questioned if there is to be a permanent easement on the other parcel used for parking. Ms. Coreno stated that is a suggestion that has been made from a legal component. If it is we will address it. James Helicke stated the question for him is the impact on the neighborhood in the area variance component of this. There is a change proposed in the parking and one of the things this Board might think about is deferring to Planning Board for advice/advisory opinion. Susan Steer stated she does not feel an Advisory Opinion to the Planning Board regarding the parking is warranted at this time. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman requested from the applicant’s agent why a lesser amount of apartments won’t work for this project financially and will not provide a reasonable return. Ms. Coreno stated they will provide the information requested by the Board. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding deferral of Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board. Bill Moore, Chairman made a motion in the matter of the Bonacio Condominiums, 77 Van Dam modification application that the Zoning Board of Appeals defer SEQRA Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board should they accept it. Cherie Grey seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:48 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Susan Barden stated the Board is in receipt of written correspondence. -email from Kevin Dwyer, 97 Lawrence Street, received June 11, 2018. -letter from Kevin and Diana O’Brien, 99 Lawrence Street, received May 15, 2018. Colin Klepetar, 20 Waterbury Street. The use is not a problem but the density is an issue as well as the parking. Concern regarding Pine Alley not able to handle two lane traffic or parking. Diana O’Brien, 99 Lawrence Street. Submitted a letter to the Board. We have been in our home since 1979. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 11, 2018 - Page 6 of 13 Many changes in the neighborhood. Many absentee landlords. Parking is on the street. We do not have a problem with the use of the building only parking issues. During the winter the street is reduced. Parking has to be looked at carefully. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. The applicant will return before the Board with the additional information requested. 2. #2945.1 BONACIO RESIDENCE EXTENSION, 22 Greenfield Avenue, extension of a previously approved area variance for an addition to an existing single-family residence, relief from the minimum front yard setbacks (both fronts), minimum side yard setback, and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: (Greenfield) 30 ft. 25. 25 ft. 4.75 ft. (16%) Main House addition Minimum front yard setback: (Woodlawn) 30 ft. 0 ft. 30 ft. Carriage House addition Minimum side yard setback: 12 ft. 5.5 ft. 6.5 ft. Main house garaged addition Maximum principal building coverage: 20% 38.4% (25.6% Main house and 12.8% carriage house) 18.4% (92%) Main house & carriage house combined. Applicant: Julie and Sonny Bonacio Agent: Brett Balzer, Balzer & Tuck Architecture Mr. Balzer stated we are requesting an extension on a previously approved area variance. Work has commenced on the project in a Phased manner. We have a carriage house as well as a main residence. The work on the carriage house has been completed, interior renovations only. We are moving onto Phase II which is the main house and attached garages. We have submitted for a building permit on the main residence in May. There is a 12-14 week lead time with permit currently. Which puts us at the expiration of the area variance. We are requesting an 18 month extension. Work will commence in the fall. The project is the same. No changes have been made to the plan. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:01 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. #2945.1 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Sonny and Julie Bonacio 22 Greenfield Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 11, 2018 - Page 7 of 13 Based on the submitted evidence that the application for an extension of a granted area variance does not differ from the original application and approval, and that there have been no significant changes in the condition of the property or neighborhood warranting otherwise, the Board moves that the application of Sonny and Julie Bonacio for the premises at 22 Greenfield Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, and identified as tax parcel #165.44-1-73 granted on February 27, 2017 for construction of additions to an existing residence in a UR-1 District be approved, and that the variance approval be extended for 18 months from the date that such resolution would have expired, September 15, 2018, with the new expiration date to be March 15, 2020. The variance shall expire on March 15, 2020 unless the necessary building permit has been issued and actual construction begun as per the Zoning Ordinance, or otherwise further extended. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, opposed; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-1 3. #2995.1 ROSECRANS RESIDENCE MODIFICATION, 748 North Broadway, area variance to construct an exterior stair addition to a previously approved attached garage; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: Area variance for construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence, approved October 16, 2017. NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: -DRC Historic Review is required. -Conditions and notes on the previous variance included – no additional accessory structures beyond the finished size of the pool. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED EXISTING PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF APPROVED MODIFICATION REQUESTED Max. principal building 20% 23.85% 30.98% 31.58% Additional .6% coverage: (3%) Min. side yard setback: 12 ft. 3.5 ft. 3.5 ft. 5.67 ft. to stairs 6.33 ft. (53%) North Min. total side yard setback: 30 ft. 15.5 ft. 15.5 ft. No change 14.5 ft. (48%) Applicant: Tom Frost, Frost Hurff Architects City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 11, 2018 - Page 8 of 13 Mr. Frost stated there is a slight change to what was originally submitted in with this application. Essentially this is the addition of a completely open stairway that we are adding to a very large three story garage structure which has been approved. The roof of the structure is basically a large deck and they have determined the need for a staircase down to the swimming pool in the rear of the proposed garage. It is an open stairway, no roof no walls. It does have open rails but not open risers. It increases the lot coverage by .6%. It is minimal in its visual impact. The current building figures setback from the north property line was submitted as 3.5 feet and this stair will be 5’8” from the property line. That is not correct. In configuring the stairs I have determined the staircase will be northward 1’9” from the 5’8” bringing it 3’11” inches from the property line. Brad Gallagher questioned the applicant’s agent if they considered placing the stairway in any other location. Mr. Frost stated they reviewed the south side of the garage, also the northeastern corner of the garage. It became a curved stairway and the access would be in the corner of the deck unlike what we have proposed as being located at a logical point on the deck and exits at a logical point in the design. Other options were discussed but were not feasible for the proposed use. Cherie Grey questioned the applicant’s agent as to the three staircases in this addition. One is in the back, one is in the middle and one is in the back. Mr. Frost provided a floor plan of the home and provided information as to the location of stairways. The north side stairway is in the mudroom and is a completely interior stairway. The second interior staircase gets you from the home to the garage. This one is which is proposed is basically access from the deck to the pool. Cherie Grey spoke of these concerns since there was a neighbor who spoke about encroachments onto her property and this will impact her visually. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:13 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for June 11, 2018. 4. #3043 GREGORY RESIDENCE, 328 Caroline Street, 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-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback 12 feet 6.4 feet 5.6 feet (47%) Maximum principal building coverage 20% 22% 2% (10%) DISCLOSURE: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 11, 2018 - Page 9 of 13 Cherie Grey stated she saw Mrs. Gregory while a passenger in a mutual neighbor’s vehicle. They did not discuss this application. No need for recusal, simply a disclosure. Applicant: Marina Gregory Ms. Gregory stated we are proposing a small addition to our home. It is about 8 feet back. The placement of the proposed addition on this side of the home is to basically extend the kitchen space. Our home is fairly small as are the other homes in our neighborhood. Our home is 900 square feet to begin with. The addition is approximately 200 square feet bringing the total square footage of the home to 1,100 square feet. The kitchen addition would continue with the electrical and the plumbing which is located on that side of the home. The proposed addition location faces the teacher’s parking lot of the Caroline Street School, does not face any homes and it will not be visible from the street. It will be visible only from over the fence of the Caroline Street School teacher’s parking lot. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the application was complete and well composed. My only question was answered by staff regarding the location of the addition. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:17 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:18 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution: #3043 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Marina Gregory 328 Caroline St. Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 328 Caroline St. in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.14-1-16 on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellants having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of an addition to an existing single-family residence in a UR-1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 11th day June 2018. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicants with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following area variance for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRUCT DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REQUIREMENT Minimum side yard setback 12 feet 6.4 feet 5.6 feet (47%) relief Maximum principal building coverage 20% 22% 2% (10%) relief 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 notes that the proposed design is the most efficient considering that it improves the house’s City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 11, 2018 - Page 10 of 13  functionality while only adding 200 square feet. The Board notes that this parcel is smaller in both area and width than district minimums; any addition of this size would cause the need for at least coverage variance. Per the applicant, the addition must be placed on the west side of the residence because that is where the kitchen is located and the project includes expansion of the kitchen and one of the bedrooms. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The application materials show that the addition simply extends the existing residence by 8.5 feet, without encroaching on rear setback lines. The Board notes that the addition will be partially shielded visually by the adjacent fence. The immediate neighbor on that side is the Caroline St. Elementary School. 3. The Board finds the side yard variance to be substantial on a percentage basis; however, the substantiality is mitigated by the limited visibility of the addition noted above, as well as the fact that the addition is an extension of the existing portion of the residence. The principal building coverage variance is not substantial. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The lot as shown in the application materials will still well exceed permeability requirements of 30%. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicants desire to construct the proposed addition, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. James Helicke 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; Susan Steer, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 5. #3045 PARK GARAGE, 34 Staffords Bridge Road, area variance to construct additions to an existing single family residence and a detached garage; seeking relief from the minimum rear yard setback for the e4xisting deck and master suite addition and minimum front yard setback for the garage in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and is therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: Garage 60 ft. 20 ft. 40 ft. (67%) Minimum rear yard setback: Master suite addition 100 ft. 81 ft. 19 ft. (19%) Minimum rear yard setback: Existing deck 100 ft. 72 ft. 28 ft. (28%) DISCLOSURE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman disclosed that he lives at 67 Stafford Bridge Road. This is more than 500 feet from his property. No need for recusal, simply disclosure. Applicant: Debra and Jim Park City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 11, 2018 - Page 11 of 13 Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated Debra built the house in 1998. The property was so shallow they built with a 60 foot setback. What we are proposing as far as the addition and a variance request, the applicants would like to take the 1 ½ stall garage and incorporate that into their home for a master suite on the first floor along with some other interior renovations. This is not a large project the applicants are trying to keep it consistent with the size of the current house. The first floor master suite addition will be aligned with the existing rear wall of the house. The second variance would be for the rear yard setback to accommodate the existing deck. This was built on the rear of the home without a permit and they would like to make that legal. The last variance requested is for a garage with unheated, uninhabitable storage space above it. They currently have a parking area in the front of their home towards the south side and they would like to place the garage in this location. Due to the shallow nature of their garage, they are requesting a variance for that detached structure. Bringing the garage closer would shade the home too much. Also, the large Right of Way from the road to the edge of the property line is about 40 feet. Significant trees in this area. Other alternatives were entertained and the applicants feel this works best for their needs and the property. Cherie Grey questioned the applicant’s agent concerning moving the garage to provide more room in the front off the road. Ms. Yasenchak provided information as to the reasoning behind the design proposal. The garage as a detached accessory structure fits within the rural nature of the neighborhood and is 40 feet off the road. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated this is a good plan and he concurs with Cherie to move it back as much as you can. A little further back would be great. Susan Steer stated she normally has an issue with a 20 foot setback. However, there is a significant ROW in this area. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:42 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated they will leave the public hearing open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for June 25, 2018. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to accept the April 23, 2018, and May 7, 2018 minute of the Zoning Board of Appeals with amendments as submitted. Brad Gallagher seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, abstained, Brad Gallagher, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; James Helicke, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 11, 2018 - Page 12 of 13 There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 7-23-18 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 11, 2018 - Page 13 of 13