Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2020 6:30 P.M. ZOOM WEBINAR CALL TO ORDER: Keith Kaplan, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 6:33 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Keith Kaplan, Chairman; Brad Gallagher, Vice Chairman; Cherie Grey; Gage Simpson; Christopher Mills; Matthew Gutch; Terrance Gallogly STAFF: Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Mark Schachner, 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. ZBA APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: NEW BUSINESS: 1. #20180185 SCHMIDT SINGLE-FAMILY EXTENSION, Cobb Alley Lot1, extension of an area variance to construct a new single family residence; seeking relief from the minimum mean lot width and minimum lot size, minimum front, and rear yard setbacks, and maximum principal building coverage requirements in the Urban Residential-3 District. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated this property received variances to construct a single-family residence in April 2018. Modifications were approved in June 2019. An extension is now being requested based on the expiration of the June 2019 date. SEQRA: This action appears to be a Type II action, and therefore exempt from further SEQRA Review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum Lot Size 6600 ft. 2500 ft. 4100 ft. or (62.1%) Minimum Average Width 60 ft. 50 ft. 10 ft. or (16.7%) Maximum Principal Coverage 30% 50.0% 20.0% or (66.7%) Front Setback 10 ft. 4 ft. 6 ft. or (60.0%) Rear Setback 25 ft. 4 ft. 21 ft. or (84.0%) No representative present for this application. Application deferred to the next ZBA meeting scheduled for November 30, 2020. 2. #20200713 SOUTHERN NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, 131 Middle Avenue, area variance to construct a new single-family residence with detached garage; seeking relief from the maximum accessory building coverage and minimum patio setback to an adjacent lot line in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum Accessory Coverage 10%. 12% 2% or (20.0%) Minimum Distance to adjacent lot line (patio) 10ft. 4.9 ft. 5.1ft. or (51.0%) PARCEL HISTORY: A variance for subdivision of lot in 2016 for minimum lot size and width. Applicant: Mike & Kim Southern Agent: Michael Tuck, Dennis McGowan, Balzer & Tuck Architecture Mr. Tuck provided a site plan of the property, noting the siting of the proposed new residence and patio. The residential structure meets the side yard setback. The addition of a patio to the rear of the home does not meet the 10 ft. minimum distance to the adjacent lot line and is the cause for the first variance request. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a detached two car garage to the rear of the site which does put this over the maximum accessory coverage percentage and requires the second variance. Photographs of the site were provided for the Board. Floor plans of the proposed structures were provided as well as those of the new garage. The applicants would like attic storage and there is insufficient space on the interior of the garage to provide access to the attic, so the applicants have decided to create exterior stairs with an exterior door to this space. The air conditioner and generator pads are also included in these calculations. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the size of the garage, the external staircase versus internal, feasible alternatives lot size dimensions, possible patio size reduction, and the two-car garage not having an adverse physical or environmental effect in the neighborhood and the height of the proposed home. Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner provided information regarding district permeability requirements which is 25%. Mr. Tuck stated 34.4% is what currently exists on the site. The Zoning Officer in reviewing the plans, questioned if the applicants were proceeding with the revised plans for the front setback. If so, it has not been verified with him. A separate determination would be required. Also, he noted a single-story garage would accommodate two cars and fit within the accessory structure limitations if the staircase were eliminated. The design of the garage second story with the shed roof, dormers and half light entrance door and prevalent windows does not support the idea that this would only be used for storage. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:02 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if anyone in the public wished to comment on this application. None heard. Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner noted the following correspondence was received by the Board. -letter from Anne Boyer, 147 Middle Avenue, dated November 8, 2020. -email from Eileen Christopher, 120 York Avenue, dated November 8, 2020. -letter from Fred Carpenter, 130 York Avenue, dated November 8, 2020. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. The next ZBA meeting is scheduled for November 30, 2020. No additional information has been requested from the applicant. A resolution will be prepared and presented at that time. 3. #20200714 LATERRA SINGLE-FAMILY ADDITION, 379 Caroline Street, area variance to construct a one-story addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the maximum principal building coverage in the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) 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 – November 9, 2020 - Page 2 of 10 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum Principal Coverage 20% 22.5% 2.5% or (12.5%) Applicant: Vincent LaTerra, Jr., owner Mr. LaTerra stated he owns this property and would like to construct an 860 square foot addition on the rear of the property including overhangs. His intention is to sell this property to his parents and their desire is to have the addition entirely on one floor. The addition encompasses a large kitchen, dining room and family room. The addition is not visual from Caroline Street so the façade will remain the same. The proposed addition would not encroach into the setbacks. Mr. LaTerra provided views from all elevations and neighborhood views as well. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the minimal amount of relief requested, sheds currently on the property, conditioning the resolution limiting any further accessory structure to 5½%, and air conditioning pad to be included in the lot coverage percentage. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:16 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if anyone in the public wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. Our next ZBA meeting is scheduled for November 30, 2020. A resolution will be prepared and presented at that time. 4. #20200725 RITE AID PHARNMACY SIGNAGE, 155 Ballston Avenue, area variance to construct a wall sign for an existing commercial building; seeking relief from the maximum height of a logo or lettering and maximum area of a wall sign in the Highway General Business (HGB) District. SEQRA: Action appears to be an Unlisted Action and does not exceed 25% of any thresholds set by 6 NYCRR Part 617.4C (9) and is therefore exempt from further review. PARCEL HISTORY: -It does not appear that approvals were south for the existing Rite Aid signage, either ZBA, DRC or Sign Permit. -Previous variance was sought in 2000 to permit blue paint behind the existing signage for a previous sign. Motion was denied. -No other variances for this storefront, others have been approved for other storefronts in the same plaza. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum Area of Wall Sign 100 sq. ft. 105 sq. ft. 5 sq. ft. or (5.0%) Applicant’s agent was unable to connect to meeting. Application deferred to the next scheduled ZBA meeting on November 30, 2020. 5. #20200617 GENNETT SINGLE-FAMILY DECK, 67 Kaydeross Park Road, area variance to construct a rear deck addition to an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum rear, side, and total side yard setback requirements in the Suburban Residential-2 (SR-2) 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 – November 9, 2020 - Page 3 of 10 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Side Setback Side 1 12 ft. 11 ft. 1 ft. or (8.3%) Applicant: Robert Gennett Mr. Gennett stated they are proposing to build a deck on the rear of their home. Visual of the site was provided. The proposed deck size is 20 ft. x 12 ft in size. This deck will not be seen from the street. Discussion ensued regarding the project. This is an exceedingly small variance and is very straightforward. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:27 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. No additional information is requested from the applicant. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. #20200544 NAPOLI SINGLE-FAMILY ADDITIONS, 28 Granite Street, area variance to combine two lots and demolish an existing single-family residence, make additions to an existing single-family residence and construct a two-story detached structure with first floor parking and second floor dwelling seeking relief the minimum front yard setback, maximum principal building coverage, maximum number of principal buildings on a lot, and minimum lot size requirements in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated this is a previously opened application. We have asked for no additional information from the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if anyone in the public wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:31 P.M. Cherie Grey presented the following resolution. #20200544 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF MICHAEL AND VALERIE NAPOLI 28 GRANITE STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 28 Granite Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.43-2-45 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit an addition on an existing single- family residence in a UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on application held on September 28, October 19, and November 9, 2020. 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 front yard setback –Granite Street 10 ft. 5.2 ft. 4.8 ft. (48%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 9, 2020 - Page 4 of 10  TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT Minimum front yard setback - Vermont street 10 ft. 3.4 ft. 6.6 ft. (66%) 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 is adding an addition to a pre-existing nonconforming home where the proposed setbacks on both Vermont and Granite Street have been in existence since it was built. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. The house is preexisting nonconforming predating current zoning regulations. Further, the applicant has purchased the property next door enlarging their lot and eliminating any further variances to build the addition. This additional lot size will allow the total principal coverage to be 29.4%; less than the district requirement of 30%. Accessory structures will be 7.5%, well below the 10% district requirement. 3. Although the variance is substantial at 48% and 66%, this is because the existing house is constructed at the distances above and any addition would impact the front setbacks. Further, the lot is on a corner and creates two front setbacks creating a larger percentage of setbacks on both sides. 4. The Board finds this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The purchase of the lot next door will allow for the addition to fit in well with the existing neighborhood. Permeability requirements will meet district requirements. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the proposed addition, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: 1. Variance shall only apply to renovation of/addition to existing structure. Vested right to the area for which a variance is granted will not accrue until completion of the renovation including the new variance area. If that construction is not completed, the variance is null and void. 2. Variance is conditioned on granting of lot line adjustment/lot merge through the City Planning Board. Seconded by Keith Kaplan, Chairman. Keith Kaplan, Chair asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Chairman, in favor; Brad Gallagher, Vice Chairman, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; Christopher Mills, in favor; Gage Simpson, in favor; Matthew Gutch, in favor; Terrance Gallogly, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 2. #20200675 BONITATIBUS SINGLE-FAMILY FENCE, 28 Ruggles Road, area variance to construct a fence around a sport court for a single-family residence; seeking relief from the maximum residential fence height requirements in the Rural Residential (RR) District. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated we have asked the applicant for photographic views from the road for the Board’s review and those have been received by the Board. DISCLOSURE: Keith Kaplan, Chairman disclosed that he and the applicant work for the same agency. He has no financial interest in this application and can remain objective in this matter. Applicant: Lexie Bonitatibus, owner City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 9, 2020 - Page 5 of 10 PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:47 P.M. Terrance Gallogly presented the following resolution. #20200675 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF ALEXANDRA & PETER BONITATIBUS 28 RUGGLES ROAD SARATOGA SPRINGS NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 28 Ruggles Road in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 167.-1-18.2 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 a ten (10) foot fence in a Rural Residential (RR) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 19th day of October and 9th day of November 2020. 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 PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT Maximum Height for Walls and Fences 6’ 10’ 4’ (66.7%) 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 proposed fence will surround a sports court used for tennis and basketball and, per the applicant, the standard height for such a fence is ten (10) feet, which helps to prevent balls and other objects from leaving the court. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The fence will be located around a sports court that is set back far from the nearest road. The applicant notes that the property is also surrounded by a significant number of trees and other shrubbery such that the fence will be “imperceptible” from the street. 3. The Board notes the requested variance of 66.7% are substantial. However, the Board notes that the relief requested is mitigated by its nature and its overall minimum impact on the neighboring properties, as discussed above. 4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district due to the visibility limitations noted above. 5. The alleged difficulty is considered self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the fence. However, this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: 1. The relief is limited to a chain link fence immediately surrounding the court area and would not apply to other fences on the property or near the property line. 2. The fence to be removed if sport court is removed. Cherie Grey seconded the motion. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 9, 2020 - Page 6 of 10 Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Chairman, in favor; Brad Gallagher, Vice Chairman, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; Christopher Mills, in favor; Gage Simpson, in favor; Matthew Gutch, in favor; Terrance Gallogly, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 3. #20200678 99 FIFTH AVENUE NEW SINGLE-FAMILY, 99 Fifth Avenue, area variance to construct a new single-family residence on a vacant lot; seeking relief from maximum principal coverage and minimum front yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated this is a previously opened application. The public hearing was opened and remains open. We have requested additional information regarding the comparables on the north side of Fifth Avenue. This information has been received by the Board. Applicant: 99 5th Avenue LLC, Charles Judge Agent: Michael Toohey, Attorney; David D’Amore, CT Male & Assoc. Mr. Toohey stated at the previous appearance before the Board that several suggestions were made for this application. The Board requested some changes to the variance on Schuyler Drive. We have reconfigured the garage making it longer and thinner moving it back towards the pool area. As a result, there are no setback impingements on the north side and the west side of the property. We have reduced the requested variance from 71/2 feet to 3ft.10” reducing the variance by 50%. Additional coverage for mechanical pads totals .4%. The coverage for the home remains at 24.3%, plus the mechanical pads at .4%, which totals 27.86% which is less than the 28% permitted in the zone. Additionally, the Board requested comparables on the north side of Fifth Avenue. This indicates 29 homes which were analyzed, 19 homes are above the 20% criterion. The variance request is not out of the norm. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding placing a condition on the resolution regarding conditioning the resolution regarding no further accessory structures. It was the consensus of the Board to condition the resolution adding no further accessory structures on this site. Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion by the Board. None heard. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated the public hearing remains open. Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:04 P.M. Cherie Grey presented the following resolution. #20200678 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF 99 FIFTH LLC 99 FIFTH AVENUE SARATOGA SPRINGS NY 12866 from the Building Inspector’s determination involving a parcel at 99 Fifth Avenue, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being Tax Parcel 166.14-1-21 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 a two-story residence and pool in the UR-1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on October 19 and November 9, 2020. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 9, 2020 - Page 7 of 10 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 PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT Maximum Principal Coverage 20% 24.3% 4.3% (21.5%) Front Setback—Schuyler Drive 30’ 26.1’ 3.9’ (13%) 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 wants to construct a single-family home on a vacant corner lot of Fifth Avenue and Schuyler Drive. To construct the home with an attached two-car garage, an additional 4.3% coverage over the 20% allowable has been designed to accommodate the additional storage necessary for pool and yard equipment. 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 applicant has designed the home to fit in with the facades on the north side of Fifth Avenue, including a one-story front porch as the entry to the home. The applicant also moved the garage further away to 26.1’ from the first presentation of 22.5’ to create less impact on the Schuyler Drive site lines. Since this is a corner lot and has two fronts, the distance on the front setback variance is a reasonable request. 3. The relief requested for principal coverage may be considered substantial at 21.5%, while the Board considers the front setback not to be substantial. The applicant provided lot coverage information for homes in the neighborhood on both the south and north side of Fifth Avenue with maximum principal coverage at or exceeding the requested amount of 24.3%. Since this is a corner lot and has two fronts, the distance on the front setback variance is a reasonable request. Further, the home, pool and all mechanicals will total lot coverage of 27.9%, less than the permitted 28% Total Lot Coverage. 4. The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. Permeability will meet the district requirement. 5. The difficulty may be considered self-created. However, this is not necessarily fatal to the applicant. Conditions: 1. No further accessory structures. Gage Simpson seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Chairman, in favor; Brad Gallagher, Vice Chairman, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; Christopher Mills, in favor; Gage Simpson, in favor; Matthew Gutch, in favor; Terrance Gallogly, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 4. 20200635 WELL NOW URGENT CARE SIGNAGE, 204 South Broadway, area variance to construct signage on a commercial building; seeking relief from the minimum ground clearance for an awning, maximum lettering height on signage, and to permit a wall sign on an elevation not fronting a street requirement in the Transect-5 (T-5) District. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated this is a previously opened application. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Since the last meeting one of the variance requests has been removed and the awning relief was also removed. We are now down to one area of relief. The applicant was requested to provide photo simulation of a compliant signage versus what the applicant is currently requesting. This information was provided and received by the Board. Applicant: Tom Wheeler, AJ Sign Company City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 9, 2020 - Page 8 of 10 Mr. Wheeler stated they did provide the requested materials to the Board. Also, he provided a LED module which indicates the amount of light projection. Mr. Wheeler provided a visual of the LED module and explained the light projection for the Boards information. Cut sheets were also provided. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the lumens and amount of light spillage. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Chairman, closed at 8:23 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Chairman presented the following resolution. #20200635 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF WELLNOW URGENT CARE 204 SOUTH BROADWAY SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 204 South Broadway, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel 165.83-2-61 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City, to install a wall sign for a commercial building in a T-5 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on October 19 and November 9, 2020. 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 requested area variance for the following relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT Maximum Lettering Height 18” 24” 6” or 33.3% As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. No other feasible means exist to achieve the desired benefit. As noted by the applicant, the larger lettering is called for the sign to be visible from South Broadway. The applicant has provided a photo simulation of the sign with letter sizes compliant with district requirements; upon comparison to the proposed letter heights, the Board agrees that a compliant size would not be sufficiently visible from South Broadway. 2. This request will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties. The Board notes the neighborhood context is commercial and mixed-use properties. The parcel is on the South Broadway gateway entrance to the City, with numerous motorists driving on that busy thoroughfare. Having easily visible signage from South Broadway is not plainly important from a safety point of view to ensure people seeking this urgent care facility can easily locate it but is also consistent with the commercial context of the neighborhood. 3. The variance is substantial relative to what is allowed. However, the Board finds the lack of adverse impact noted above to mitigate the substantiality of the variance. 4. The Board finds the proposed sign to have a negligible physical and environmental impact. The applicant provided information on the projection of light that is expected from this sign and the Board concluded there would not be significant adverse impact. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 9, 2020 - Page 9 of 10  5. The applicant’s desire for signage is self-created, however this alone is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: 1. Sign to be illuminated during business hours only. Terrance Gallogly seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Chairman, in favor; Brad Gallagher, Vice Chairman, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; Christopher Mills, in favor; Gage Simpson, in favor; Matthew Gutch, in favor; Terrance Gallogly, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Cherie Grey made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 8, 2020, and October 19, 2020 Zoning Board of Appeals Meetings as amended. Gage Simpson seconded the motion. VOTE: Keith Kaplan, Chairman, in favor; Brad Gallagher, Vice Chairman, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; Christopher Mills, in favor; Gage Simpson, in favor; Matthew Gutch, in favor; Terrance Gallogly, in favor MOTION PASSES: 7-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Keith Kaplan, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 1/11/2021 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – November 9, 2020 - Page 10 of 10