Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2018 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER MEETING ROOM 2A CALL TO ORDER: Bill Moore, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Bill Moore, Chairman; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman; Susan Steer; Cheryl Grey; Brad Gallagher; Oksana Ludd, Alternate STAFF: Susan Barden, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Tony Izzo, Deputy City Attorney Justin Grassi, Counsel to the Land Use Boards ANNOUNCEMENT OF RECORDING OF PROCEEDING: The proceedings of this meeting are being recorded for the benefit of the secretary. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS: #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. #3052 SARATOGA PIZZA LLC, PIZZARIA, 44 Jefferson Street, use variance for an eating and drinking establishment; seeking relief from the permitted uses in the Urban Residential-2 District. OLD BUSINESS: 1. #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. 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 application was adjourned from the November 29, 2018 meeting by request of the applicant. The Applicant submitted revised narrative and plan on November 19, 2018. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: -Area variance for construction of a carport addition to the residence. Approved 7/19/78 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum rear yard: Carriage house 25 ft. 4 ft. 21 ft. (84%) Minimum side yard: Carriage house 20 ft. .9 ft. 19.1 ft. (95%) Minimum total side yard: Carriage house 45 ft. 21 ft. 24 ft. (53%) Minimum side yard: Mudroom Main house 20 ft. 8 ft. 12 ft. (60%) Minimum total side yard: Mudroom Main house 45 ft. 8.8 ft. 36.2 ft. (80%) Minimum side yard: Dining Expansion-main house 20 ft. 11.5 ft. 8.5 ft. (42%) Minimum total side yard: Dining expansion-main house 45 ft. 12.3 ft. 32.7 ft. (73%) Maximum principal building coverage: 25% 30.1% 5.1% (20%) Applicant: Sharon Byrne Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated the applicant appeared before the Board at an earlier date. At that time floor plans were submitted for the proposed renovations. Since the original application the owner changed her mind and has removed the spiral staircase to the second floor master bedroom. The applicant is now proposing a covered deck, screen porch type area. This is will be constructed across the rear of the home. The breakfast nook has been reconfigured to more of a dining room, extending to the rear. We added a mudroom on the first floor. The covered area over the entrance to the basement will be removed and a bilco door will be added. A letter was submitted noting how these modifications change our original application. We have added 70 square feet which comes from the dining room extension. Also, when we added the mudroom and covered entrance, our coverage exceeds the 25% maximum. We will be at 30.1% building coverage including the block house on the property. We are requesting a 12 foot side yard variance to accommodate the overhangs. Brad Gallagher did question the new variance requests. 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 7:13 P.M. Brad Gallagher presented the following resolution. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 2 of 19  3062 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Sharon Byrne 96 Union Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From a determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises located at 96 Union Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, tax parcel number 166.69-4-4 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 residence in a UR-4 District and public notice having been duly given of hearings on said application held on October 29 and December 10, 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 PROPOSED RELIEF DIMENSIONAL REQUESTED REQUIREMENT Minimum Rear Yard: Carriage House 25 ft. 4 ft. 21 ft. (84%) Minimum Side Yard: Carriage House 20 ft. 0.9 ft. 19.1 ft. (95%) Minimum Total Side Yard: Carriage House 45 ft. 21 ft. 24 ft. (53%) Minimum Side Yard: Main House (Mud Room) 20 ft. 8 ft. 12 ft. (60%) Minimum Total Side Yard: Main House (Mud Room) 45 ft. 8.8 ft. 36.2 ft. (80%) Minimum Side Yard: Main House (Dining Room) 20 ft. 11.5 ft. 8.5 ft. (42%) Minimum Total Side Yard: Main House (Dining Room) 45 ft. 12.3 ft. 32.7 ft. (73%) Maximum Principal Building Coverage 25% 30.1% 5.1% (20%) As per the submitted plans, or lesser dimensions, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The Board finds that the Applicant has demonstrated the benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the Applicant. This is a pre-existing, non-conforming lot that is less than 50 feet in width. The main house and the garage/carriage house presently have non-conforming setbacks. The Applicant considered other designs, including locating the staircase on the East side of the main house. However, the Board agrees with the Applicant that locating the stairway on the East side creates a security concern. The Board finds that the Applicant demonstrated that relocating proposed additions is not feasible because of the location of the main house on the lot. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The Board finds that other properties along North Alley have similar structures on the rear of the lot to the structure proposed by the Applicant. In addition, the Board finds the reduction of the number of dwelling units from 4 units (3 units in the main house and 1 in the carriage house) to 2 units (1 unit in the main house and 1 unit in the carriage house) will create a desirable change to the neighborhood character, as it will reduce the required number of parking spots. In addition, the proposed mudroom along the East side of the main house will not exceed the existing angled bump-out which is located closer to Union Avenue. As such, the Board finds that the proposed mudroom will not have a negative effect on the streetscape as viewed from Union Avenue. 3. The Board finds that that the areas of relief could be considered substantial, but this is mitigated based on the facts presented in this application. The Applicant proposed additions to the main house that consist of a mudroom addition and stoop, dining area expansion with a second-floor covered porch, rear stairs and stoop. No additions are proposed to the garage/carriage house. The main house, including the proposed new construction City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 3 of 19  increases the coverage by 70 square feet, covers 24.4% of the lot and the existing carriage house covers 5.7% of the lot for a combined total of 30.1%. The Applicant requires relief because the carriage house must be included in the calculation for principal building coverage. The Board notes that if the carriage house were considered an accessory structure that it is within the 10% permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. Based on the facts presented, the Board does not find the requested relief to be substantial. 4. The Board finds that the Applicant has demonstrated the variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The Applicant is reducing the number of dwelling units, thus reducing the number of required parking spaces from 6 spaces to 3 spaces. Moreover, the Board finds that the increase of 70 square feet to the main house will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect, as the total lot coverage 30.1% is less than the total permitted coverage of 40%. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the Applicant, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. CONDITION: Future accessory structures limited to 5.5%. NOTE: DRC historic review required. 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; Cherie Grey, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 2. #3047 STONE MIXED-USE, 68 Weibel Avenue, area variance for proposed 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. 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 submit floor plans and leasing information. The application was adjourned from the November 19 meeting awaiting submission of information as requested. Information was requested and submitted on November 20, 2018. Applicant: Tara Stone Agent: Jon Lapper, Project Attorney; Jeff Anthony, Studio A Mr. Lapper stated the improvements which are being made are the first step in the process to help develop this property. Mr. Lapper stated this is a large site in a prime location. Everything that is being proposed is positive for this location. 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. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 4 of 19 Libby Coreno, Attorney on behalf of Weibel Avenue Apartments, LLC. Ms. Coreno stated she has supplied correspondence to the Board concerning the two major T-4 developments which buttress this property. Of notable concern is the limitation of information provided to the Board with respect to the 5 part test. The Planning Board did issue a SEQRA Negative Declaration concerning impacts to the physical environment, which is a portion of the 5 part test for an area variance. We have provided information to the Board outlining concerns. Variances are not temporary, they run with the land. We ask the Board to acknowledge that these are substantial in nature, this is a self created hardship, and evidence of detriment to nearby neighbors and the overall master plan development which has been in place since 2004. Lastly, we also submitted information concerning feasible alternatives. There is nothing in this application to indicate why this cannot be brought into conformance. There is a lack of financial information concerning feasible alternatives. Mr. Lapper stated he did not see the letter submitted by Attorney Coreno. He refuted the allegations brought forth. Ms. Tara Stone stated this is a 75 plus acre site. This site cannot be developed overnight. Bill Moore, Chairman polled the Board concerning Ms. Coreno’s correspondence and the Board’s comfort in voting on this application this evening. It was the consensus of the Board that Attorney Lapper is allowed to determine if the application proceeds. Mr. Lapper stated the applicant is requesting a vote this evening. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. Brad Gallagher presented the following resolution. #3047 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Gary E. Stone 68 Weibel Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From a determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises located at 68 Weibel Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, tax parcel number 153.0-1-11.2 on the Assessment Map, of said City. The Applicant having applied for area variances under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the maintenance of existing improvements and uses on a mixed-use property in a T-4 District and public notice having been duly given of hearings on said application held on October 29, November 19 and 26, and December 10, 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 PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT Frontage Build-to 12-18 ft. 161.2 ft. 143.2 ft. Frontage Build-out 50% 0% 50% (100%) Minimum Two-Story 2 Story 1 Story (17,450 sq. ft. total) 1 Story (17,450 sq. ft. total) As per the submitted plans and materials be APPROVED for the following reasons: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 5 of 19 1. The Applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the Applicant. The Applicant stated he would only be able to conform with the Zoning Ordinance by removing the improvements that pre-existed the Transect District requirements. Moreover, the Applicant would be forced to evict or find alternative spaces (at his expense) for the current tenants that occupy the commercial spaces within the existing structures. While the Board does not speculate or opine on potential liability related to the breach of the current tenant agreements, it notes the possibility of civil litigation and related costs to the Applicant in its consideration of the feasibility of other means. Accordingly, the Board finds on the evidence presented that the Applicant would be required to expend significant capital resources to bring the lot and its improvements within conformity of the Zoning Ordinance. These unique circumstances create an undue financial burden on the Applicant and render other potentially feasible means unreasonable. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. It appears that the existing improvements have likely been on the lot for several decades. Since that time, the current Zoning Ordinances were passed and rendered the improvements non-conforming with the Transect requirements. According to the Applicant, the prior uses of the lot were in conformity with previous zoning laws; but is unable to produce any documentation to support this statement. The Board notes that this is a unique circumstance wherein the passage of the Zoning Ordinance changed the character of the neighborhood, not a circumstance wherein the improvement by the Applicant did so or is attempting to do so. The Board finds significant development on other lots in the neighborhood has occurred. This seems to indicate that the existing improvements on the Applicant’s lot have not resulted in a detriment to nearby properties. 3. The Board finds that the variances requested are substantial, but that the substantiality is mitigated by the improvements having predated the T-4 District requirements. On July 19, 2018, the County Planning Board issued a referral response indicating that there was “no significant county-wide or inter-community impact.” 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that the variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The existing improvements pre-date the T-4 requirements of build-to, build-out and minimum two-story. The unique circumstances presented indicate that the improvements at issue have existed on the Applicant’s lot for decades. Only one of the buildings is visible from Weibel Avenue. The Applicant has proposed street improvements and paving of driveways and parking areas, but no new structures. The Board finds that these improvements will not adversely affect the neighborhood or district and, in fact, should improve it in some regard by reducing airborne particles caused by vehicular traffic on the lot and improving stormwater management. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. NOTE: (1) Planning Board special use permit and site plan review and DRC architectural review are required. CONDITIONS: (1) The variances granted only permit the maintenance of the existing improvements on the lot as per the submitted plans. These improvements consist of the following: (a) office building (900 sq. ft.); (b) warehouses (2,400 sq. ft. and 1,500 sq. ft.); (c) mixed office/retail/storage (12,500 sq. ft.); (d) clubhouse (150 sq. ft.). Maintenance, as used herein, shall be defined as making or keeping the structure, fixture or foundation of the existing improvements described above in proper condition in a routine, scheduled fashion. It specifically excludes the alteration or replacement, in whole or in part, of any existing improvement described above for any purpose other than maintenance. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 6 of 19  (2) No new structures or uses are permitted without seeking the appropriate relief. Susan Steer seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Discussion ensued among the Board concerning specific wording in the resolution. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 3. #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. 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 submit accessory building(s) coverage – pool and shed and principal building coverages in the neighborhood. The application was adjourned from the November 19 meeting awaiting submission of information requested. Information requested was submitted November 20, 2018. Applicant: Jenn Conners Agent: Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited Mr. Flansburg stated the updated survey information was provided to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this application. Mary Parlow, 89 Ludlow. Mrs. Parlow stated the neighbors did not receive notification of this meeting. Her concern is that this is a fresh build. This property is quite a large compound. It is 3 times the size of a regular lot. It is very out of scale for the neighborhood which has small homes. Maureen Skinner, 91 Ludlow. I am also concerned there is no green space in this area with the pool and the area around the pool. This is a large home with no trees or green space. Bill Moore, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:58 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #3064 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Jennifer Conners 87 Ludlow St Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 87 Ludlow St. in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.53-2-52 on the Assessment Map of said City. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 7 of 19 The appellants having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of a single-family residence on an existing foundation plus additions in a UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 29th day of October through the 10th day of December 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 DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT Minimum Principal Building Coverage 30% 34% 4% or 13.3% 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 has noted that there is a carriage house already on the property being used as a residential structure, which leaves a limited amount of lot coverage to be allotted to the main house. The applicant reviewed with the board the fact that the main house foundation was retained, so reducing the old foundation’s dimensions would not have been feasible. The applicant further notes that the screened-in porch area could have been detached from the main house, thereby reducing the need for principal building relief, however this would have reduced its utility. The Board notes that the current accessory structure- the pool area- is less than the 10% allotted, so some of the unallotted accessory area could have accommodated a detached covered sitting area such as a gazebo. Finally, the applicant noted that reducing the size of the porch additions in the back would have limited their usefulness. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The proposed additions are in the back of the house fronting Ludlow St., limiting their impact on neighbors. Additionally, the applicant has furnished information on neighboring properties indicating the areas of principal coverage sought for this property are not disproportionate. 3. The Board finds this variance not to be substantial on a percentage basis. Furthermore, the Board will impose conditions precluding further accessory structures, noting the district requirement of 30% for a principal residence and 10% for an accessory building. The current pool is approximately 5.4% of lot area. The Board notes the 4% of area variance allotted to this proposed project will result in total coverage allowable by district requirements. 4. This variance 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 25%. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicants desire to construct the proposed rebuilt structure with additions, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: Further accessory structures to be limited to 0.6% of lot coverage. Susan Steer seconded the motion. Bill Moore, Chairman, asked if any further discussion. Bill Moore, Chairman stated he is opposed to this application. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 8 of 19 Cherie Grey stated she opposed a variance on an earlier application. She is opposed to this application. Susan Steer stated she is opposed to this application. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated we are speaking about a 13% variance on a very large lot. It can accommodate that. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, opposed; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, opposed; Cheryl Grey, opposed; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor MOTION FAILED TO PASS: 3-3 Bill Moore, Chairman stated no action will be taken this evening the Board is at a stalemate. The application will return before the Board on January 7, 2019. 4. #3069 MCFADDEN RESIDENCE, 40 Lefferts Street, area variance to maintain a constructed deck and build a new screened porch to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard and total side yard setback requirements in the Urban Residential-1 District. The applicant submitted a building permit application to remove the existing sunroom and replace with a screened porch. It was revealed that the deck which the sunroom was on is to be replaced with a screened porch had not been permitted. This application was heard at the November 26, 2018 meeting and adjourned to December 10, 2018. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman stated Mr. McFadden has left the meeting. Additional information requested has been requested from the survey. The application has been adjourned until January 7, 2019. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience which to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. 5. #3070 ISRAEL RESIDENCE, 184 Spring Street, area variance to construct a new front porch addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement in the Urban residential-3 District. This application was heard at the November 26, 2018 meeting and adjourned to December 10, 2018. The public hearing was opened and remains open. 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 8:09 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 9 of 19 Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman presented the following resolution. #3070 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Katarzyna Israel 184 Spring St. Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 184 Spring St. in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.69-1-16 on the Assessment Map of said City. The appellant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the rebuilding and expansion of a front porch for an existing single-family residence in a UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 26th day of November and December 10, 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 DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF DIMENSIONAL REQUESTED REQUIREMENT Minimum Front Yard Setback 10’ 0’ 10’ or 100% Minimum Side Yard Setback 4’ 2’ 2’ or 50% 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. Per the applicant, the purpose of the project is restore to this property most of the previous dimension of the existing front porch. The applicant has submitted historic neighborhood detailed maps that show the house with a more expansive porch. Due to the positioning of this house and the existing porch, any such expansion of the porch would be located within the setback and require this extensive relief. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The Board notes numerous other porches in the subject neighborhood, closely arranged to the sidewalk. The applicant notes intention for the porch’s design to be historically appropriate, and the Board notes that DRC historic review will be required, which will help ensure consistent aesthetic character with the neighborhood. 3. The Board finds these variances to be substantial; however, the substantiality is mitigated by the proposal’s consistency with existing design as well as neighborhood character and context. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district, as the footprint will only change slightly and will not cause a lot permeability issue. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed porch, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. The Board further notes this is a restoration project and the positioning of the house dates to before zoning was in effect. NOTES: • DRC Historic Review is required. • The existing porch encroaches over the City right-of-way and that the relief requested above is up to the property line. Further relief, to allow a continuation of the present encroachment over the applicant’s property line, would have to be granted via an easement from the City. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 10 of 19 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; Susan Steer, in favor; Cheryl Grey, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 6. #3073 BROWN RESIDENCE, 79 Lake Avenue, area variance to convert the existing three-family residence to a two-family family and construct a rear addition; seeking relief from the minimum side yard (each side), minimum total side yard setback and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-4 District. This application was heard at the November 26, 2018 meeting and adjourned to December 10, 2018. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Agent: Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture Ms. Davis stated this lot predates zoning. It is a very deep but narrow lot. This project was reduced from a 3 family to an owner-occupied two family home. 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 8:17 P.M. Cherie Grey presented the following resolution. # 3073 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Jeff and Nancy Brown 79 Lake Avenue Saratoga Springs NY 12866 In the matter of the appeal from the Building Inspector’s determination involving a multi family residence at 79 Lake Avenue, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being Tax Parcel #165.52-3-23 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 construction of an addition to the existing multi-family residence in a UR-4 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on November 26 and December 10, 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 amount of relief: AREA OF RELIEF REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Side yard setback: West 20 ft. 1.6 ft. 1.6 ft. 18.4 ft. (92%) Side yard setback: East 20 ft. 8.3 ft. 8.3 ft. 11.7 ft. (58%) Total side yard setback: 45 ft. 9.9 ft. 9.9 ft. 35.1 ft. (78%) Minimum principal building coverage 25% 29% 4% (16%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 11 of 19 As per the submitted plans 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 applicant wants to build a residence onto the back of the existing building for personal use. The existing addition will be demolished as it is not in adequate shape to renovate; therefore, a new two-story addition will be built for the applicant. The pre-existing 1890 original home that exists on Lake Avenue will be converted to a single residence bringing the total of residences on the property from a three family to a two family, decreasing density on the 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 original home has been in existence since the late 1800’s and the addition was built around the 1940’s. The new addition will be built in the same location as the addition to be demolished and will have only 8’ of building at the distance of 1.6’. The rest of the addition will be 3’ from the west lot line to allow for windows on that side of the residence in the rear. The east portion of the addition will be maintained at 8.3’ which is the distance currently for both the front and rear residences. The height of the rear addition will not be higher than the original home and not viewable from Lake Avenue. The applicants also plan on maintaining the original porch on the west side of the front residence which was original to the home. 3. The relief requested is considered substantial at 92%, 58% and 78%. However, the lot is pre-existing non-conforming and no property is available for purchase to offset the side setbacks. The lot is 48.8’ wide and it would therefore, not be possible to maintain a total of 45’ in total side yard setbacks. 4. The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. Many of the homes in the neighborhood are on nonconforming, preexisting lots and do not meet existing side lot dimensions. Also, by eliminating the third apartment, the lot will require less parking. Permeability will well exceed the minimum 15% in the district. 5. The alleged difficulty could be considered self-created, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: Design Review Commission review is required. 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; Cheryl Grey, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; Oksana Ludd, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 6-0 7. #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. This application was heard at the November 19, 2019 meeting and adjourned at the request of the applicant to December 10, 2018. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The applicant submitted a revised application requesting relief to permit two principal structures on the lot and a revised floor plan on November 30, 2018. Applicant: 695 Broadway, LLC Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 12 of 19 Mr. Toohey provided information concerning the location of this project. It is a 30,000 square foot lot. At our earlier appearance before the Board a discussion ensued regarding the use of the carriage house on this property. Mr. Toohey believed there was some reluctance on the part of the Board to allow this carriage house for an accessory use. Lesser plans have been submitted to the Board. We are also proposing this evening an alternate solution to our problem. It is very important to preserve the character of these carriage houses in the City of Saratoga Springs especially in the north corridor. We can create a subdivided lot. It would conform in every way. The main house will not need any variances at all. The rear lot would only need an area variance for the carriage house. This carriage house has been in existence since 1841. It pre-exists zoning. Subdivision of this property would be a bad land use decision and this is opinion is shared by the architect, the Planning Staff, the DRC and the Preservation Foundation. We are trying to find a utilization of this property without passing a precedent which the Board is reluctant to do. We are suggesting the Board allow 2 principal uses on this property, it is noted in the zoning code and is based solely on the fact that we can subdivide this property with virtually no problem. There is also an application for a pool on this property. We are asking for a variance for 1.69%. Discussion ensued concerning the amount of relief requested and the amended application. Cherie Grey questioned why the applicant cannot add on to the main home. Mr. Toohey stated you would need to change the architecture of this 1871 home to accomplish this. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:47 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. NEIGHBOR INPUT: -Email from Andrea Phipps forwarded from the applicant and submitted with the application. -Letter from Daisy Polito, dated November 9, 2018, submitted with the application. -Letter from Saratoga Preservation Foundation, dated December 7, 2018. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the Next ZBA meeting scheduled for January 7, 2019. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: Bill Moore, Chairman stated at this time he would like to thank Oksana Ludd for her service to the Zoning Board of Appeals. She has served as a Board member and Alternate. We wish her well. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #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. This is the same project and request for relief as previously approved in 2016. The applicant did not extend the approval and it has expired. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 13 of 19 SEQRA: -Action appears to be Unlisted. -Part 1 of the short form has been submitted. -Board issued a Negative SEQRA Declaration on October 24, 2016. The Board can reaffirm the previous SEQRA Negative Declaration. PARCEL HISTORY: -Area variance for the project approved October 24, 2016. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum side yard setback: 40 ft. (abuts UR-2) 6.8 ft. 33.2 ft. (83%) Minimum front yard setback: to parking 40 ft. 27.1 ft. 12.9 ft. (32%) Minimum side yard setback: to parking 20 ft. 1.8 ft. 18.2 ft. (91%) Minimum rear yard setback: to parking 25 ft. +/- 18 ft. 7 ft. (28%) Applicant: Matt Sames Mr. Sames stated he is requesting an extension. He is actively marketing the property. A tenant was interested; however, he is no longer interested. Susan Steer questioned the applicant as to any changes being made to the project or the plans. Is there anything different in the neighborhood that might affect the decision-making process? Mr. Sames stated there are no changes in the neighborhood. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated this is being considered as a new application. Currently signage on the property notes it is fully approved. This signage needs to be removed. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:52 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Ed Miller & Joann Faresta, 102 Ludlow Street. Mr. Miller stated they have a horse barn directly across the street from the proposed project. This will change the fabric and integrity of the neighborhood. The neighbors were opposed to this. The building was rented to the Horseshoe. Trees were removed. The property has always been up for sale, since June of 2017. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. We have asked for no additional information from the applicant. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the January 7, 2019 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. 2. #3071 CORBETT RESIDENCE, 45 Walton Street, area variance to construct a new front porch addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard setback requirement in the Urban-Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 14 of 19 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum front yard setback: 10 ft. 2 ft. 8 ft. (80%) Applicant: Cynthia Corbett Ms. Corbett stated she is requesting relief to construct a usable front porch on her 1850 home. Research and maps from 1850 show a porch was previously on the home. The proposed porch will be of the same character as the original porch that was demolished prior to 1975; 5ft. to 6ft. depth is required. The proposed porch would be 120 square feet. The applicant has provided photos of neighboring properties many of which have front porches similar to that proposed. The variance requested will allow the front porch to be rebuilt and will be a positive change that will bring the house more in keeping with the neighborhood as almost all of the buildings on the street have covered front porches. The property is a contributing property to the West Side National Register District. The applicant stated she will follow the Secretary of the Interior guidelines in the reconstruction of the porch, which will be all wood construction. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:58 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. We have asked for no addition information. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting scheduled for January 7, 2019. 3. #3074 ST. PAUL’S LUTHERAN CHURCH SIGN, 149 Lake Avenue, area variance to construct a freestanding sign; seeking relief from the maximum size requirement in the Urban Residential-3 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: -DRC Architectural Review approval for a freestanding sing on November 5, 1998. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum size freestanding sign: 4 sq. ft. 27 sq. ft. 23 sq. ft (575%) Agent: Adam Wakulenko Adirondack Sign Company Mr. Wakulenko stated the applicant is proposing a sign to be attached to the existing brick monument sign which has been in existence since the church. The lettering has been damaged and they are proposing to clean all signage off the monument sign, acid wash and reparge the top and bottom which is not brick. A photo simulation of the proposed 6.25 square footage signage was provided. The variance is substantial in nature but is necessary for the overall appearance and legibility. The property does have two frontages and could have a wall sign on each building elevation. Previously the existing monument sign was covered by a temporary banner. This permanent sign will be more desirable for the neighborhood. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 15 of 19 NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVALS: -DRC Architectural Review is required. -Saratoga County Planning Board referral is required. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding dimensions of the existing monument sign. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:07 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Mark Hugstley 72 Nelson Avenue, questioned if the addition of lighting is being added to the signage. Mr. Wakulenko stated there are no plans for lighting. Bill Moore, Chairman stated the Board has not asked for any additional information. The public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for January 7, 2019. 4. #3075 DORE RESIDENCE, 36 Forest Avenue, area variance to construct additions to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front yard, minimum side yard setbacks 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: 30 ft. 18.5 ft. 11.5 ft. (38%) Minimum side yard setback: Front addition 12 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. (50%) Minimum side yard setback: Rear addition 12 ft. 6.4 ft. 5.6 ft. (47%) Minimum total side yard setback: Rear addition 30 ft. 27.9 ft. 2.1 ft. (7%) Maximum principal building coverage: 20% 24.9% 4.8% 24%) Applicant: Judith Dore Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated the applicant recently purchased this property. The home is 2 bedrooms and one bath, a small garage and no front porch or mudroom. There is no front porch on this home simply a stoop. What the applicant is proposing are several additions to this property. A front porch is being added along with a mudroom to the front of the house. We are also bringing the garage forward a bit to add a master suite and sunroom to the rear of the home to add some additional living space within the home. We are adding 4 feet total to the front of the home. Ms. Yasenchak reviewed alternatives the applicant explored but would not achieve the benefit the applicant is seeking. The proposed additions are the minimum dimensions to achieve the benefit. The lot is preexisting nonconforming. The existing house encroaches into both side yard setbacks; the proposed front and rear additions would not encroach any further than what exists. This project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 16 of 19 PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:20 P.M. Bill Moore, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Bill Moore, Chairman stated we have asked for no additional information. The public hearing will remain open. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for January 7, 2019. 5. #3076 WINSUPPLY OF SARATOGA SIGNS, 5 Finley Street, area variance for construction of two wall signs; seeking relief for placement above the first floor level of the building and for placement on a façade without street frontage requirements in the Transect-5 District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Per resubmission 09/20/18 REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum number of wall signs per street frontage: Parking lot side of building (33.3 sq. ft.) 0 1 1 (100%) Maximum placement on building: East elevation 1st floor level Above 1st floor level Above 1st floor level (100%) Maximum placement on building: North elevation 1st floor level Above 1st floor level Above 1st floor level (100%) Agent: Adam Wakulenko, Adirondack Signs Mr. Wakulenko stated this is a new business located behind the old Topper Pontiac building. The building is currently under construction. The sign is conforming in all respects except for the placement above the first floor level. It does look appropriate in this location. Any other location it would look lost. A sign is also proposed on the north and east elevations both above the 1st floor level. Mr. Wakulenko provided a site plan of the project location for the Board’s review, noting the grade change from Broadway to the proposed site. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:27 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 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for January 7, 2019. 6. #3077 SARATOGA GOLF AND POLO CLUB, 301 Church Street, area variance for construction of platform tennis Courts, cabana building and expanded parking area; seeking relief from the minimum rear yard setback to the courts and cabana and minimum side yard setback to parking the Institutional Parkland/Recreation District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 17 of 19 SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. PARCEL HISTORY: -DRC Architectural Review approval for the tennis pavilion in 1996. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum rear yard setback: Platform tennis courts 50 ft. 14.68 ft. 35.32 ft. (71%) Minimum rear yard setback: 50 ft. 10 ft. 40 ft. (80%) Cabana building 30 ft. 15.6 ft. 14.4 ft. (48%) Applicant: Saratoga Golf and Polo Club Agent: Mike Ingersoll, LA Group DISCLOSURE: Susan Steer is an employee of Saratoga Hospital which is next door to this building. She has no financial interest in this application. There is no need for recusal, simply disclosure. RECUSAL: Cherie Grey recused from this application since she was a member previously and still holds a share in the property. Mr. Ingersoll provided a visual presentation of the 6 acre property noting the Saratoga Golf and Polo Club which currently has over 400 members. Site statistics were provided to the Board along with an updated survey. The proposed rear yard setback to the platform tennis courts and cabana building is the same distance as the existing accessory building near the north property line. Other locations were examined for this complex but the use that it complements the pool and cabana existed near this proposed area at the rear setback of the property as well as the occasional overflow parking. As indicated in the application, the proposed parking expansion is located in an area currently used for overflow and event parking and is buffered by way of a landscaped berm from the adjacent property. The proposed platform tennis courts and cabana building would be located at the rear of the property and behind the existing clubhouse and would not be visible from the street. The parcel will be have more green space and will be more permeable. Views of the proposed project were provided to the Board. As the site plan indicated we are increasing the parking from 96 to 104. The new drop off area at the front of the property would eliminate the nine parking spaces which will be relocated further back on the property and will not be visible from Church Street. Existing access and egress is to be maintained. Grass pavers are proposed for the expanded seasonal parking areas. These spaces will be used in overflow situations and would not contribute to additional impermeable surface area to the site. Inn buildings are located in an area of steep slopes and archeologically sensitive areas. There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood or increase in the intensity. Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman stated his concern is that it is right up against the hospital border. Mr. Ingersoll stated any change in the hospital expansion would require an amendment to the PUD. PUBLIC HEARING: Bill Moore, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:50 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 18 of 19 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 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting scheduled for January 7, 2019. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 26, 2018 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting as amended. Susan Steer seconded the motion. VOTE: Bill Moore, Chairman, in favor; Keith Kaplan, Vice Chairman, in favor; Susan Steer, in favor; Brad Gallagher, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 4-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Bill Moore, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:51 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary APPROVED 1-7-19 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 10, 2018 - Page 19 of 19