Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2018 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER MEETING ROOM 2A CALL TO ORDER: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Susan Steer; Cheryl Grey; Brad Gallagher ABSENT: Bill Moore, Chairman STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Justin Grassi, Counsel to the Land Use Board 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: #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 #3024 FAHY RESIDENCE, 166 Lincoln Avenue area variance to construct a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum average lot size width and minimum lot size requirement for a second single-family residence, to permit more than one principal building on a lot and minimum rear yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-2 District. #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. #3062 BYRNE RESIDENCE, 96 Union Avenue/7North Alley, area variance to construct additions to an existing residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard and total side yard setbacks for the main house and minimum front yard, minimum side yard and total side yard setbacks for the carriage house/residence requirements in the Urban Residential-4 District. #3047 STONE MIXED-USE, 68 Weibel Avenue, initiation of Coordinated SEQRA Review associated with maintenance of existing improvements and uses on a mixed use property seeking relief from the minimum frontage build-to and build-out and two-story requirements in the Transect-4 District.  #3064 CONNERS RESIDENCE, 87 Ludlow Street, area variance to construct an addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: In the Chairman’s absence, Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, assumed the duties of Chairman for the meeting. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the Stone Mixed-Use application at 68 Weibel Avenue has been adjourned. Informational items were not received. Jon Lapper, Attorney for the applicants stated their application was on the agenda this morning. Jeff Anthony, Studio A, submitted the floor plans as requested to Bradley Birge at the end of last week. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the Board prefers to receive information one week in advance of the meeting. We are scheduled to have another meeting a week from tonight. The information sent out to us as Board members showed the application was canceled for tonight. We have not read the materials and are not prepared to discuss this application. Tara Stone stated we are on a deadline as well, and questioned no vote tonight. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman explained the situation again and the application will be on the agenda for next week’s meeting as well as perhaps a Board with more than four members. OLD BUSINESS: 1. #3060 CLANCY RESIDENCE, 2 Concord Drive, area variance to construct an addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. This application was heard at the September 24, meeting and adjourned to October 15, 2018. The Board requested submission of principal building coverages in the neighborhood. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The applicant provided the requested information on October 10, 2018. The applicant has been asked to provide existing accessory building coverage for the lot and alternatives to the proposed size of the addition. The applicant provided a revised plan reducing the addition from 528 sq. ft. to 360 sq. ft. reducing the request from 25.5% Principal Building Coverage to 22%. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Keith Kaplan Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:09 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. #3060 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 19, 2018 - Page 2 of 14  Thomas J. Clancy, Jr. 2 Concord Drive Saratoga Springs NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises located at 2 Concord Drive in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.15-1-17 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to construct an addition to a single-family residence and seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage and minimum front yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District and public notice having been duly given of hearings on said application held on September 24 and November 19, 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 PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REQUIREMENT Maximum principal building coverage 20% 22% 2% (10%) Minimum front yard setback 30 FT. 14 FT. 16 FT. (53%) 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 desires to construct an addition to his home for a larger family room on his first floor that “flows with the existing structure design.” The Applicant notes that the fact that there is a carport on the west side of the home and a pool behind the home that restricts where the addition may be placed. The Applicant states that there is no adjacent land for sale. 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 has provided information that the lot coverage is slightly larger than the existing homes in the neighborhood but that this is mitigated by the fact that his lot is smaller than that of the neighboring homes. 3. The Board finds that the variance of 10% for principal property lot coverage is not substantial. The Board finds that the variance of 53% for the minimum front yard setback is substantial; however this is mitigated by the fact that the house is on a corner lot and has two front yards which further limits the amount of space that is buildable. Typically this property line would be considered a side yard and the minimum side yard setback requirement for this district is 12 FT. The proposed setback of 14 FT. would fall within that requirement. Further, there is a substantial right of way on that side of the property that makes the setback appear more than 14 FT. from the road. 4. The Board finds that the variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The lot will remain permeable at 30% and the addition will be built upon an area where an existing impermeable patio is presently located. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: Accessory structures limited to 6% including the existing pool. Cherie Grey seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 19, 2018 - Page 3 of 14 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0 2. #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. Adjourned to November 19, 2018. This application was heard at the May 21, 2018 meeting and adjourned to a future meeting. The Board requested principal building coverage and permeable calculations. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The public hearing was re-noticed due to the time that has passed since the item was before the Board. The applicant needed to verify setbacks and constructed and proposed additions on the east side (location of upper and lower deck and second story stairs in additional to principal building coverage. The applicant has provided revised drawings that eliminate the previously proposed decks. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Keith Kaplan Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:17 P.M. Susan Steer Board Member disclosed that she did view the information and the webcast. She is prepared to vote this evening. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Board. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #3039 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Stephen Blackler d/b/a AVSBCC, LLC 51 Vanderbilt Ave. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 62 Van Dam Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.51-2-68 on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having requested an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction, already in progress, of a second-story addition to the rear of the principal residence in the UR-3 district. Public notice has been duly given of a hearing on this application, held from May 21, 2018 through November 19, 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 amounts of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT Maximum principal building coverage: 30% 47% 17%, OR 57% RELIEF Minimum side yard setback: 4 ft. .7 ft. 3.3 ft. (82.5% relief) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 19, 2018 - Page 4 of 14  TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT Minimum side yard setback: 4 ft. 2.5 ft. 1.5 ft. (37.5% relief) Minimum total side yard setback: 12 ft. 3.2 ft. 8.8 ft. (73% relief) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be denied for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that the benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicants. The Board first notes the following factors: • The applicant notes “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,” • The Board notes that the applicant’s lot is quite narrow and undersized, as are the neighboring lots, causing any sort of second-story addition, even one that stays within the first floor’s footprint, to require dimensional relief. • The lot size and shape also limits the applicant from a first-floor addition alternative; any expansion of footprint would require a variance. However, the Board also notes that it is not simply the existing first-floor encroachment that is the salient issue in this variance; it is the effect of proximity of the portion of the house where the work is being done, to the neighboring house; see 2), below. Had the applicant waited to perform the work on this addition until applying to this Board for relief, those effects could be weighed against the benefit sought by the applicant. Had he applied for an addition to the rear of the house to provide additional space, a different set of variances would be requested and would be evaluated by this Board, given the lot size limitations noted above. Instead, the applicant commenced work and has substantially built a second-story addition, thereby precluding the evaluation of an alternative plan with the Board. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The Board notes the proximity of this addition to the neighboring house at 64 Van Dam Street, and finds that a second-story addition blocks light and crowds the neighboring property with its mass and scale and less than one foot of setback. The raised roof and change of roof line adds rainwater and snowfall burden to the neighboring property; see below. 3. The Board notes the requested incremental variances are substantial. The side yard setback of over 82% is particularly substantial. The current design, rather than a design that would allow for more light and less rainwater, does not provide for mitigation of the dimensional substantiality. 4. This variance will have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. As per the applicant, permeability will be 53% with this proposed project. This would exceed district requirements of 25%. However, as noted above, the proximity of the second floor addition to the neighboring property blocks light and adds stormwater management and snow removal challenges to that property. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed addition. While the first floor’s proximity to the neighbor appears to pre-date the City zoning ordinance, this addition project must be evaluated under that ordinance and is found by the Board to be adversely impactful in this case. While self-creation is not necessarily fatal to an application by itself, it is considered nonetheless and in this case further weighs in the Board’s deliberation to deny this application. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 19, 2018 - Page 5 of 14 Cherie Grey seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor of the denial; Susan Steer, in favor of the denial; Cherie Grey, in favor of the denial; Brad Gallagher, in favor of the denial MOTION PASSES TO DENY: 4-0 3. #3065 DGD HOLDINGS, LLC, RESIDENCE, Lot 16 Shaw Drive (178.52-1-30), area variance for construction of a new single family residence; seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage requirement in the Urban Residential-2 District. This application was heard at the October 29, 2018 meeting and adjourned to November 19, 2018. The public hearing was opened and remains open. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Keith Kaplan Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:25 P.M. Susan Steer presented the following resolution. #3065 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF DGD Holdings, LLC Lot 16 Shaw Drive Saratoga Springs NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises located at Lot 16, Shaw Drive in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 178.52-1-30 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to construct a single-family residence and seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage requirement in the Urban Residential-2 District and public notice having been duly given of hearings on said application held on October 29 and November 19, 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 variance for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REQUIREMENT Maximum principal building coverage 30% 33.7% 3.7% (12%) 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 desires to construct a home with an attached two-car garage, first floor City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 19, 2018 - Page 6 of 14  master suite and screened-in porch. To minimize the variances required, the Applicant has designed a floor plan that minimizes the living spaces to their smallest size, while still serving their intended purposes. The size and shape of the lot and the existence of a protected land preservation area at the rear of the lot makes it difficult to construct a home and detached garage on the property. The home meets all other required setbacks and maintains the land preservation area located at the rear of the property. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The scale and architecture are similar with the existing homes in the neighborhood. 3. The variance of 12% for principal property lot coverage is not substantial. Further, the Board notes that in the UR-2 zoning district, an accessory structure may cover 10% of a property so a total of 40% of the property could be covered if the garage was detached. 4. This variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. All drainage will be handled on site and a minimum of 25% of the lot will remain permeable. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: Any future accessory structure will be limited to 6.3% lot coverage. The screened-in porch will remain one- story. Cherie Grey seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0 4. #2924.2 NOONAN RESIDENCE, 39 Schuyler Drive, area variance for constructed patio and shed and modification of condition of previous approval restricting accessory structures; seeking relief from the minimum setback to a patio in the Urban Residential-1 District. This application was heard at the October 29, 2018 meeting and adjourned to November 19, 2018. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The Board requested that the applicant consider whether a smaller patio would be A feasible alternative. The applicant submitted requested information on November 7, 2018. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Keith Kaplan Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. Cheryl Grey presented the following resolution. #2924.2 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Thomas and Susan Noonan 39 Schuyler Drive City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 19, 2018 - Page 7 of 14  Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the Building Inspector’s determination involving an accessory structure at 39 Schuyler Drive, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being Tax Parcel 166.14-4-45.1 on the assessment map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the placement of an existing patio in the rear of the property along with an accessory building in a UR-1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on October 29 and November 19, 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 variance for the following amount of relief: AREA OF RELIEF: REQUIRED: PROPOSED: TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED: Accessory building: No accessory Accessory building 100% building allowed Minimum side yard setback to patio: 10 ft. 3.8 ft. 6.2 ft. or 62% relief As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved as per this Board’s consideration of the following factors: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The shed is placed at the required 5 ft from the property line and is not impacting any other property. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The shed is small and hidden by the house. The Board notes that the patio is not impacting the immediate neighbor per public comment provided and other properties in the area have patios. 3. The relief requested may be considered substantial. However, the lot is a corner and therefore, the “rear property” incurs more set back due to the fact that it has two front and side setbacks. There is no other area on the lot to construct the patio. 4. The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environ-mental effect on the neighborhood. The shed covers 1.72% of the property bringing the total lot coverage to 35.72% No relief is being requested for permeability requirement. 5. The difficulty may be considered self-created. This is not necessarily fatal to the application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0 NEW BUSINESS: 1. #3052 SARATOGA PIZZA, LLC, PIZZARIA, 44 Jefferson Street, use variance for an eating and drinking City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 19, 2018 - Page 8 of 14  Establishment; seeking relief from the permitted uses in the Urban Residential-2 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be unlisted. PARCEL HISTORY: -Use Variance for a barbershop approved with conditions April 25, 2016. -Use Variance to “erect and operate a grocery store” approved June 12, 1946. Applicant: Nicholas Howland Agent: Angela Gonyo, realtor Ms. Gonyo stated she submitted her advertising records to the Board noting we have established a lease early on. Mr. Howland spoke regarding leasing the property which occurred in June of this year. It has been a lengthy process. It has been a commercial building since the 1940’s. The building has been vacant for some time now. Mr. Howland stated this under no circumstances will be a drinking establishment. This will be a small takeout/delivery business. Susan Steer spoke regarding the Use Variance and the fact that it is a big hurdle. Some financial information has been provided. Ms. Steer questioned the applicant’s agent regarding specifics concerning the property. When was it listed and when was it purchased. Financial as well as marketing information is needed and market values in the neighborhood as well as the listing of ads. Ms. Gonyo spoke regarding the listing of the property. Susan Steer questioned if this could be a residential property. When the use variance was approved for True Cuts it was noted that the traffic would not be excessive. Mr. Howland spoke regarding the type of business he is proposing, a small take out pizzeria. This was a commercial property. It is a small concrete building. This will be mostly delivery and walk up service. This is a very dense neighborhood. Ms. Gonyo stated she did market the property as commercial. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated we need to see that the applicant tried to market this as a barbershop. The materials we have received are not complete. We need more background information and evidence to prove that attempts were made to market this as a barbershop before we can change the use. Also, we will need some type of proof on how it is not practical to put a single family home on this property, as well as some market values from surrounding homes, would be helpful. Did the applicant’s agent receive any interest in this as a barber shop? Ms. Gonyo stated she never had one person call the entire time it was marketed for either a barbershop or a beauty salon. Cherie Gray spoke regarding what is allowed in a UR-2 District. I would be interested if anything else was explored for this property. Parking is a big concern and the impact a pizza business will have on this neighborhood. Mr. Howland spoke regarding the lack of eateries in this section of the City. I feel it is a good use for this building. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the impact on the neighborhood. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 19, 2018 - Page 9 of 14 PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:05 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Kevin Cost, Madison Street. When he built his home he liked the idea that there were no restaurants in the neighborhood. He likes it quiet. This area is booming now. Traffic and parking are issues in this residential area. This is not a good idea. Barb Stevens, 47 Jefferson Street. My experience with this property is not very good. There are drugs in this area. Many elderly neighbors who are targets. This is not a safe area. There is no reason for a pizza place in this area. Tom Stevens, 47 Jefferson Street. A business cannot be sustained in this location. Stephanie Melvin, 1 Jefferson Street. This is not a successful commercial property. This is not a good fit. This is a narrow street. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Additional information has been requested from the applicant. Please supply information one week prior to the meeting. 2. #3059 ASKEW MULTI-FAMILY, Station Lane, area variance for proposed multi-family residences; seeking relief from the minimum frontage build-out in the Transect-5 District. SEQRA: -Action appears to be an Unlisted Action. -Planning Board special use permit and site plan review required. -DRC architectural review required. -Planning Board has Coordinated Review with DRC and sought Lead Agency status. -The ZBA deferred Lead Agency to the Planning Board on September 24, 2018. -Planning Board issued a SEQRA Negative Declaration on November 1, 2018. PARCEL HISTORY: -Special Use Permit and site plan review applications are pending. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum frontage build-out 70% 40.8% 29.2% (42%) NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Planning Board special use permit and site plan review is required. -DRC Architectural Review is required. Applicant: Richard Askew Agent: Mike Toohey, Attorney Mr. Toohey stated this site is 8.43 acres in size. It is in a zone that permits this project to be built. 1.3 acres of the site is City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 19, 2018 - Page 10 of 14 buildable. Three buildings are proposed. We are also required to provide civic space. Mr. Toohey provided information regarding build out frontage percentages for this project as well as frontage impacted by the wetlands and buffer. Expanding the building frontage would result in NYSDEC wetland adjacent area disturbances which have been deemed unfavorable for the project. The proposed development is consistent with designs for surrounding parcel developments and would not create a detriment to said nearby properties or an undesirable change in the neighborhood character. Discussion ensued regarding the number of buildings proposed versus one large building, consistency in design with surrounding parcel developments and an undesirable change in the neighborhood character. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:31 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. No additional information has been requested. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for November 26, 2018. 3. #3066 GIANNINI RESIDENCE, 19 Jumel Place, area variance to construct an addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback and minimum distance from an accessory to principal building requirements in the Urban Residential-3 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: 4 ft. 2 ft. 2 ft. (50%) Minimum distance accessory building to principal building: 5 ft. 4.1 ft. .9 ft. (18%) Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated the applicants are proposing a two story addition to their current home. The lot is pre-existing non conforming at 50 feet in width and 8 feet from the east property line. The addition cannot be shifted to the left due to the existing garage location. Ms. Yasenchak explained the project to the Board noting the reasoning for the current variance requests and it will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character. A small addition does not work for the applicant. Brad Gallagher questioned the drainage on the site. Ms. Yasenchak stated the additional roof drainage will be managed in gravel perimeter drains and would not drain onto adjacent properties. Cheryl Grey questioned alternatives. Ms. Yasenchak provided other alternatives pursued by the applicant but were not feasible. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:43 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 19, 2018 - Page 11 of 14 Edward Miller, 102 Ludlow Street neighbor stated this is a wonderful addition to the home. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. We have not asked for any additional information. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for November 26, 2018. 4. #2914 SAMES MIXED-USE BUILDING, 20 Bowman Street, area variance to convert existing one-story building to an eating and drinking and add a second-story for a residential unit, seeking relief from the minimum front and side yard setbacks for the second-story addition and minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks to parking in the Tourist Related Business District. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated this matter was before the Board on October 24, 2016. No applicant was present. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated we will adjourn until the next meeting scheduled for November 26, 2018. PUBLIC COMMENT: Edward Miller, 1 Ludlow Street, owners of the nearby barn. Mr. Miller spoke regarding the intentions of the applicant. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to adjourn the application until the next ZBA meeting scheduled for November 26, 2018. Susan Steer seconded the motion. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0 5. #3068 BRANT CARRIAGE HOUSE, 695 North Broadway, area variance to finish the interior of an existing carriage house for sleeping accommodations; seeking relief to permit finished/habitable space in an accessory structure in the Urban Residential-1 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and exempt from further SEQRA review. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman spoke regarding additional areas of relief being requested. Proper notification was made to neighbors for the initial application. Additional areas of relief have been requested. It was the sense of the Board, and our comfort if the noticing had included all three areas of relief. If bifurcated, the application will include only the initial areas of relief. The additional areas of relief would require a separate application. The option the Board is offering to the applicant is truly bifurcate; the pool would be addressed separately on December 10, 2018 and would be handled as a separate application. The habitable space would be addressed tonight. Or, wait until the December 10, 2018 meeting, re-notice the application and handle all three together at that time. Mr. Toohey stated they will bifurcate the application and propose a separate application for a pool at a later date. Applicant: 695 Broadway, LLC Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 19, 2018 - Page 12 of 14 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED To permit finished/habitable space in garage: Not permitted Permitted 100% Mr. Toohey stated the Sanborn Maps show the building was built prior to 1954. The owner Mr. Brandt wants to utilize the carriage house for a guest house. Mr. Frost designed the project and he has been in contact with the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation and they believe this is an appropriate use for this building. Correspondence was provided to the Board noting the Preservation Foundations opinion concerning the rehabilitation of this building. The DRC has also reviewed this project noting that they have endorsed the utilization of this building for a guest house. There will be no cooking space in this structure. Mr. Toohey reviewed the five tests for an area variance. Neighbors are in agreement with the project. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman questioned alternative feasible means. The number of bedrooms proposed are four. It would be helpful if we had more information on why four bedrooms would be needed in an accessory structure. How many bedrooms are in the home? Discussion ensued among the Board concerning habitable space. Mr. Toohey stated the home is a historic home and adding on to the home is not feasible. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated he is not in favor of full baths in the accessory structure. Mr. Toohey stated than the applicant will not move forward with the project. We have stipulated no kitchen facilities will be in this building. Susan Steer stated we have been very strict about not allowing full baths in accessory structures due to the inability to enforce. I do not have an issue with people sleeping there. I will not support a resolution with a full bath. 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. Additional information has been requested from the applicant’s agent. 6. #2787.1 MELVIN RESIDENCE, 1 Jefferson Street, area variance for modification of previous approval for an addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum total side yard and rear yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-2 District. SEQRA: -Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: -Area variance for construction of an area variance(s) for a single-family, two-family or three-family residence, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 19, 2018 - Page 13 of 14  REQUIRED PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum total side yard setback: 20 ft. 13 ft. 11.5 ft. Additional 1.5 ft Minimum rear yard setback: 25 ft. 24.5 ft. .5 ft. (2%) Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Melvin Mrs. Melvin stated in 2014 when the addition was built they came before the Board for areas of relief. Very recently it has come to their attention that due to a construction error the rear yard setback and the side yard setback were more than what was granted. They are before the Board this evening to try to rectify this matter. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning the additional variances requested. It was the determination of the Board the application was very straightforward. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:24 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. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for November 26, 2018. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to approve the October 29, 2018 ZBA Meeting Minutes as submitted. Cherie Grey seconded the motion. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor MOTION PASSES: 4-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:26 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 1-7-19 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 19, 2018 - Page 14 of 14