Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2020 6:30 P.M. ZOOM WEBINAR CALL TO ORDER: Keith Kaplan, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 6:34 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 Patrick Cogan, Zoning & Building Inspector, 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: Keith Kaplan, Chairman provided information to the Board regarding the Consent Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any application that appears to be approvable without need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, then that item would be pulled from the consent agenda and dealt with individually. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated the applications on the consent agenda are all extensions of previously granted variances. This is a procedural item. All consent agenda items will be handled with one motion. Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner provided information to the Board regarding original expiration dates, and new expiration dates. Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if there were any questions or concerns from the Board. None heard. 1. #20180185 SCHMIDT SINGLE-FAMILY EXTENSION, Cobb Alley Lot#1, 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 (UR-3) District. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF EMILIA SCHMIDT 16 REGATTA VIEW DRIVE SARATOGA SPRINGS NY 12866 Based on the submitted evidence that the application for an extension of a granted area variance does not differ from the original application and approval, and that there have been no changes in the condition of the property or neighborhood warranting otherwise, the Board moves that the application of Emilia Schmidt for the property located at Cobb Alley, Lot 1 in the City of Saratoga Springs, and identified as tax parcel 165.66-2-70.1, that was granted on June 4, 2019 for the construction of a single-family residence in the UR- 3 District, be approved and that the variance approval be extended 18 months from the date that such resolution would have expired, March 6, 2021, based on a modified expiration date of December 4, 2020 per Executive Order, with the new expiration date to be September 6, 2022. The variance shall expire on September 6, 2022 unless the necessary building permit has been issued and actual construction begun as per the Zoning Ordinance or otherwise further extended. 2. #20180186 MOTOHOLDINGS SINGLE-FAMILY EXTENSION, Cobb Alley Lot# 2, 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 (UR-3) District. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF MOTO HOLDINGS, INC. 274 GREENFIELD AVENUE BALLSTON SPA, NY 12020 Based on the submitted evidence that the application for an extension of a granted area variance does not differ from the original application and approval, and that there have been no changes in the condition of the property or neighborhood warranting otherwise, the Board moves that the application of Moto Holdings, Inc./Anthony Dawson for the property located at Cobb Alley, Lot 2 in the City of Saratoga Springs, and identified as tax parcel 165-66-2-64, that was granted on June 4, 2019 for the construction of a single-family residence in the UR-3 District, be approved and that the variance approval be extended 18 months from the date that such resolution would have expired, March 6, 2021, based on a modified expiration date of December 4, 2020 per Executive Order, with the new expiration date to be September 6, 2022. The variance shall expire on September 6, 2022 unless the necessary building permit has been issued and actual construction begun as per the Zoning Ordinance or otherwise further extended. 3. #20180187 MOTOHOLDINGS SINGLE-FAMILY EXTENSION, Cobb Alley, Lot #3, extension of an area variance to construct additions to 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 (UR-3) District. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF ANTHONY DAWSON / MOTO HOLDINGS, INC. 274 GREENFIELD AVENUE BALLSTON SPA, NY 12020 Based on the submitted evidence that the application for an extension of a granted area variance does not differ from the original application and approval, and that there have been no changes in the condition of the property or neighborhood warranting otherwise, the Board moves that the application of Moto Holdings, Inc./Anthony Dawson for the property located at Cobb Alley, Lot 3 in the City of Saratoga Springs, and identified as tax parcel 165-66-2-65, that was granted on June 4, 2019 for the construction of a single-family residence in the UR-3 District, be approved and that the variance approval be extended 18 months from the date that such resolution would have expired, March 6, 2021, based on a modified expiration date of December 4, 2020 per Executive Order, with the new expiration date to be September 6, 2022. The variance shall expire on September 6, 2022 unless the necessary building permit has been issued and actual construction begun as per the Zoning Ordinance or otherwise further extended. 4. #20190500 DELARM SINGLE-FAMILY ADDITIONS EXTENSION, 96 Quevic Drive, extension of an area variance for the demolition of an existing 1-story garage and construction of a 2-story residential addition, 1-story single-car garage, and maintenance of a shed for an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum front and side yard setbacks for the residential addition and, minimum side yard setback for the shed maintenance in the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF MARY BETH DELARM 96 QUEVIC DRIVE SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866 Based on the submitted evidence that the application for an extension of a granted area variance does not differ from the original application and approval, and that there have been no changes in the condition of the property or neighborhood warranting otherwise, the Board moves that the application of Mary Beth Delarm for the property located at 96 Quevic Drive in the City of Saratoga Springs, and identified as tax parcel 190.8-5-5, that was granted on July 9, 2019 for the demolition of an existing one-story garage and construction of a two-story addition to a single-family residence in the UR-1 District, be approved and that the variance approval be extended 18 months from the date that such resolution would have expired, April 11, 2021, based on a modified expiration date of City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2020 - Page 2 of 14 January 9, 2021 per Executive Order, with the new expiration date to be October 11, 2022. The variance shall expire on October 11, 2022 unless the necessary building permit has been issued and actual construction begun as per the Zoning Ordinance or otherwise further extended. Keith Kaplan, Chairman made a motion in the matters of the Schmidt Single-Family Extension, Cobb Alley, Lot#1, Moto Holdings Single Family Extension, Cobb Alley, Lot #2, Moto Holding Single Family Extension, Lot #3, and the DeLarm Single Family Additions, 96 Quevic Drive be approved as submitted. Cheryl Grey seconded the motion. Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. 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 5. #20200733 WAGHORN SHED, 27 Central Avenue, area variance to maintain a shed for an existing single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard setback requirement in the Urban Residential-2 District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Accessory to Side 5ft. 0.9 ft. 4.1 ft or 82.0% Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner stated the shed is currently in existence and located in a Utility Easement. Written into this subdivision regulations there are to be no structures, no fences, and no plantings in this easement. Patrick Cogan, Zoning & Building Inspector stated there is a 20’ utility easement in the rear portion of their lot. The subdivision regulations stated no structure, no fences and no plantings allowed. We did locate where the easement was filed when it was granted to the City and appears to be more of a drainage easement. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards voiced concern regarding the ZBA affirmatively granting relief for any structure that is situated in a utility easement. Applicant: Brian Waghorn Mr. Waghorn stated they purchased this home one year ago. A visual of the site was provided noting the location of the shed. A retaining wall and fence existed when the home was purchased. The shed location was chosen due to drainage issues on the other side of the property and inability to effectively use the shed. A copy of the lot layout was also provided. Keith Kaplan, Chair stated it appears the Waghorn’s fence and shed encroach on the utility easement. Patrick Cogan, Zoning and Building Inspector stated he has verified the easement which is 25 feet in width and filed in 2013. Discussion ensued regarding the utility easement and the applicant’s request, and feasibility of proceeding with this application. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated the applicant is requesting relief to keep the shed. Based on our Zoning Officer’s research and information presented my determination is no relief can be granted for a shed in a utility easement. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2020 - Page 3 of 14 Patrick Cogan, Zoning & Building Inspector suggested the Board table this application to provide an opportunity for the applicants to consult with the engineering department to determine the purpose of the easement and if any flexibility is allowed. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:03 P.M. Mr. David Gagnon, representing his father-in-law Raphael Robustiano who lives at 25 Central Avenue. My father-in-law had to move his fence to be in compliance with the easement. He has noted in his time as a Saratoga Resident is everything must be verified by the City to assure compliance with the codes, etc. This shed is not in code. DISCLOSURE: Keith Kaplan, Chairman disclosed that he is friends with the people who own 32 Outlook Avenue. He has no financial interest in the property and can rule objectively in this matter. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated for the record in this district structures need to be 5 feet from the property line and at least 5 feet from the house. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated we will leave the public hearing open. The applicants will consult with City staff. Our next meeting is scheduled for January 11, 2021. 6. #20200591 DINES TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION, 35 & 37-39 Ash Street, area variance associated with a proposed two-lot subdivision; seeking relief from the minimum and total side yard setbacks, maximum principal building coverage, minimum setback to a patio, and minimum lot size requirements for both lots in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. SEQRA: Action appears to be an unlisted and underwent SEQRA review by the City Planning Board. The Planning Board issued a SEQRA Negative Declaration on November 5, 2020. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum Lot Size –Lot 1 6600 ft. 6350 ft. 250 ft. or 3.8% Minimum Lot Size-Lot 2 8000 ft. 5700 ft. 2300 ft. or 28.8% Minimum Average Width-Lot 1 60 ft. 44 ft. 16 ft or 26.7% Minimum Average Width-Lot 2 80 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. or 50.0% Maximum Principal Coverage % for Lot 2 30% 57.0% 27.0% or 90% Side 1 Lot 2 East 4 ft. 2 ft 2 ft or 50.0% Total Side 12 ft. 2 ft. 10 ft. or 83.3% Minimum Distance to adjacent lot line (patio) 10 ft. 2 ft. 8 ft. or 80% Applicant: Matthew Dines Agent: Brett Balzer, Balzer Tuck Architecture Mr. Balzer stated this application appeared before the ZBA back in September. We appeared before the Planning Board on November 5, 2020 for consideration of Lead Agency Status for SEQRA and an Advisory Opinion requested by the ZBA. Mr. Balzer stated they are proposing the subdivision of 35-37-39 which is in the UR-3 District. A visual of the site was provided along with a brief overview of the project. This is currently a two-family residence owned by the applicant. Lot#1 or 35 Ash Street is vacant land where the applicant is proposing to construct a single-family residence with a detached carriage house after ZBA and Planning Board approvals. We are proposing to subdivide this property into two lots. A survey of the proposed subdivision was provided. Mr. Balzer provided information on the lot sizes, noting an old lot line which existed at one point. On Lot #2 one of the goals is to allow access to both properties off City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2020 - Page 4 of 14 Ashton Lane. A visual of the proposed driveway and proposed parking locations was provided as well. The idea is to create Lot #1 and request as few and minimal variances as possible while creating a conforming lot. Mr. Balzer provided a history of the property noting the applicant will be returning this lot to its former subdivision. A previous residence existed on Lot#1, 35 Ash Street which was destroyed by fire in 1980. Previous Sanborn Maps indicate two lots and a home on Lot#1. The Planning Board requested some neighborhood comparables. The frontages along Ash to the north between Elm and South Franklin show 11 frontages. The average lot widths for those frontages are 49 ft. On the south end there are 10 frontages from Elm to South Franklin and Ash Street with average lot widths is 52 ft. We feel we are respecting the context of the neighborhood. What the applicant is proposing is the new single-family home which sits on the south end of the lot with a detached garaged. Prospective drawings of the proposed home on 35 Ash Street as well as views of the proposed carriage house off Ashton Street was provided. The variances requested for 35 Ash Street are tied to the lot. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated the application is very complete. We have reviewed this application prior to referring it to the Planning Board for their Advisory Opinion and determination of Lead Agency Status for SEQRA. The Chair questioned if the lot lines were reconfigured since in the prior application since the lots appeared to be in the 7,000 square foot range. Mr. Balzer stated he believes there was an old lot line which subdivided these properties at some point. A visual of the proposed lot subdivision were provided noting the sizes of the lots at 6,350 square feet and the other at 5,700 square feet totaling 12,050 square feet. Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner stated there was a dwelling at the rear of the two-family dwelling which was originally a part of that parcel 37-39 so perhaps that area was being incorporated into the figures as well. To retain the encroachment, special permission from the new property owner to resolve this. The City would like to see that encroachment disappear. Is there a concrete slab on this property to the right between the parking and building is that also patio space? That would also need to be 10 feet from the property line. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding proposed parking, percentage of lot coverages for the principal building at 35 Ash Street, and possible encroachment of a stone wall on the property, patio encroachment from 37 Ash onto 35 Ash Street, the carriage house garage housing vehicles and not having habitable space. Mr. Balzer stated the intent is to house a home office above the garage. No kitchen or habitable space. The owner is an educator and will be using this space for her consulting business. No clients or visitors to the office. This is not a part of today’s deliberation. Keith Kaplan, Chairman suggested the applicant may wish to consider combining the carriage house into the current application. This would require additional noticing for a public hearing. Cherie Grey questioned if the permeability calculation for the site was provided. Mr. Balzer stated the gravel driveway is 50% and permeable and these were factored into the coverage calculation. Patrick Cogan, Zoning and Building Inspector stated they would need more information to consider this 50% permeable. This would require an effect perm rating of the system installed indicating the amount of ground water the system could absorb along with maintenance. Discussion ensued regarding the parking requirement in this district, and permeability calculations for the project. Patrick Cogan, Zoning and Building Inspector questioned the applicant’s agent regarding the fire resistance rating for 37 Ash Street on the east side of the building. A lot line less than 3 feet from the building, means there will be limitations on the openings and fire resistance materials will be required. Altering that wall which will mean less of a setback. Have you investigated this at this time? Mr. Balzer stated he has not done a glazing calculation or open calculation yet to determine if there are too many openings. There is the thought regarding the siding and if it can be obtained in a noncombustible material. We will investigate this. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated this is an opportunity to remove a variance. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2020 - Page 5 of 14 PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:46 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 until our next ZBA meeting scheduled for January 11, 2021. 7. 20200749 YURKEWICZ MULTI-FAMILY, 47 White Street, area variance to maintain an existing multi-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum side yard and total side yard setback requirements 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 Setback – Side 1- East 4 ft. 1.5 ft. 2.5 ft. or 62.5% Setback – Side 2-West 4 ft. 4 ft. 3.7 ft. or 28.8% Total Side 12 ft. 4.2 ft. 7.8 ft or 65.0% Applicant: Bill & Diane Yurkewicz Agent: Matthew J. Jones, Attorney Mr. Jones provided a visual presentation of the site. This is an old established neighborhood noting the proximity of the neighbor’s structures. What the applicant is proposing are three variances to rectify an old issue which is an addition to the home in 1972. It is unclear how the building permit was issued for this project. A survey back in 1979 when the applicants purchased the home indicates the addition. There is no proposed construction to the site. No impact to the neighbors or the neighborhood, and no modifications by current owners who have held the title since 1979. The City authorized the construction with the issuance of a building permit. No ability to acquire any adjacent land due to setback limitations. An updated survey will be completed and provided to the Board prior to the next ZBA meeting updating relief calculations. Cherie Grey questioned the possibility of a future owner adding onto the property, as well as the 3 feet distance to the adjoining property. Will this also require fire retardant materials. Also, what are the parking requirements. Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner stated as with any resolution noting per these plans or lesser dimensions in the wording of the resolution. Patrick Cogan, Zoning and Building Inspector suggested the resolution be as specific as possible to avoid any issue in the future. The use of the property as a multi-family dwelling with 5 apartments predates comprehensive zoning and is legally pre-existing nonconforming and may continue in accordance with the provisions of Section 240-5.3. Further research will be needed regarding the fire suppression materials being required going back to the code in 1972 when the building permit was issued. It is complicated and the first step in rectifying some past mistakes and brings the property to a point where it is not a hindrance to the current or future owners. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards reiterated the need for specificity and any conditions be explicitly referenced in the resolution. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:07 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2020 - Page 6 of 14 Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open until the next ZBA meeting scheduled for January 11, 2021. Updated survey information will be provided to the Board when completed. 8. 20200760 TRIMBLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, 139 Grand Avenue, area variance to construct an accessory dwelling unit for an existing single-family residence; seeking relief to permit finished space in an accessory structure in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore is exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Finished space in accessory structure Not permitted Permitted 100% Applicant: Paul & Rebecca Trimble Agent: Bob Flansberg, Dreamscapes Unlimited Mr. Flansberg provided a visual of the survey of the site. There are two front yards Beekman and Grand Avenue and two side yards. The applicants are proposing a two garage in the rear of the property utilizing an existing curb cut. We are not looking for coverage variances but a home office above the proposed two car garage. The proposed garage is 24' x 28' allowing for an interior staircase and a man door facing the house. The current wood deck at grade level will be removed. No variances are required for the mudroom addition and the covered steps. Floor plans of the proposed project were also provided to the Board. The proposed home office space will include a ½ bath. Alternative options were entertained but were not feasible. Mr. Trimble provided information regarding the proposed finished space over the garage and his current working conditions and the need for an area away from the home and the children. This will simply be a home office. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the property being in a Historic District, other options for office space, finished space in an accessory structure, and conditioning of the resolution, location as well as height of the garage. Mr. Flansburg stated they have been in contact with Samantha Bosshart of the Preservation Foundation for her input on the proposed project. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:33 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Patrick Cogan, Zoning & Building Inspector stated this is a corner lot with two fronts and two sides. If this were attached to the house it would be allowed closer to the property line than the accessory structure is. There is a buried brick sidewalk on the Beekman Street side of the property. There are many people who would love to have that sidewalk restored. Any changes to the front and the sidewalk would be subject to DRC review. Maureen Curtin stated finished space is not permitted in this district. Why is it being permitted? We certainly do object to it, especially since it does not require any dimensional relief. It is right on the property line. The location is to the disadvantage to the people in the neighborhood. This structure is a contributing structure to the West Side Historic District. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open until the next ZBA Meeting on January 11, 2021. A resolution will be prepared and presented at that time. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2020 - Page 7 of 14 9. 20200760 SHEPANZYK NEW SINGLE-FAMILY, 11 Pine Alley, area variance to construct a new single-family residence; seeking relief from the minimum lot size requirements, minimum front and rear yard setbacks, and minimum first floor area requirements in The Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. SEQRA: Action appears to be a Type II action and therefore is exempt from further SEQRA review. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum lot size 6600 1729.9 ft. 4870.1 ft. or 73.8% Minimum average lot width 60 22 ft. 38 ft. or 63.3% Setback –front 10 3 ft. 7 ft. or 70.0% Setback-rear 25 8.4 ft. 16.6 ft. or 66.4% Side 1 – west 4 0 ft. 4 ft. or 100.0% Total side 12 5 ft. 7 ft. or 58.3% Min 1st Floor Area 1200 384 sq. ft. 816 ft. or 68.0% Applicant: Matthew & Meghan Shepanzyk Agent: Jeff Anthony, Kristen Catellier, Studio A A visual of the site was provided to the Board noting the applicants own two properties, 108 Clinton Street which houses a two story two family house with a barn at the rear of the property which is vacant and dilapidated. They also own a second parcel at 11 Pine Alley which is a vacant parcel currently at 1725 square feet in size. Their original request was to renovate and live in the barn, however there is a two-family home on this parcel at 4,143 square feet and is already non-compliant. Secondly, the barn itself was in bad shape and structurally is non-repairable. We then discussed placing a home on the triangular parcel on Pine Alley and demolishing the barn. They are proposing a carriage house type home which is not large and is equal in size to the barn. Photographs of the site were provided showing the character of the neighborhood. A visual of the proposed site plan currently and and with the barn demolished and the proposed new carriage house with two new parking spaces and adding two parking spaces for 108 Clinton Street property. Stormwater management will be handled with several rain gardens, one on Clinton Street and one on the southern portion of the Pine Alley parcel. Floor plans were provided of the proposed two-story carriage house. Views of all elevations were provided to the Board as well. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated this is really a massive set of variances. He is uncomfortable with the degree of these variances. This is a unique situation. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding two separate tax parcels, demolishing the barn and building a carriage house in that footprint, combining two parcels, minimum lot size, number of variances and amount of relief requested, other options, alternative designs, and permeability issues. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated there might be other alternatives to diminish the amount and number of variances, however adding to a house is a quite different proposal than an entire structure and meeting the needs of the applicant. Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner stated this project is in the UR-3 District which is a single- and two-family zone. Adding an addition to create three units or more would be a use variance not an area variance. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated the applicant has gotten a general census of the Boards reaction to the applicant. We suggest you confer with your clients as to the next steps in pursuing in this application. There does not seem to be support for the application as it currently is proposed. Our next meeting is scheduled for January 11, 2021. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2020 - Page 8 of 14 Amanda Tucker, Senior Planner requested the applicant provide to the Board information regarding where the utilities for the project would come from, the width of Pine Alley and emergency access to the site. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:07 P.M. Keith Kaplan, Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Patrick Cogan, Zoning & Building Inspector stated this is a unique configuration. A house facing on alley is not something the City is in favor of or would allow. One would need to review this like what the Planning Board would review in a subdivision request, by right a home would not be allowed on that triangular parcel fronting on the alley. The questions Amanda asked are extremely valid. Matthew and Meghan Shepanzyk spoke regarding this project and what they are proposing. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated the public hearing will remain open. The next ZBA meeting is scheduled for January 11, 2021. CONTINUED BUSINESS 10. # 20200617 GENNETT SINGLE-FAMIOLY AND 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. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated this is a previously opened application. The public hearing was opened and remains open. 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 9:15 P.M. Gage Simpson presented the following resolution. #20200617 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF ROBERT GENNETT 67 KAYDEROSS PARK RD SARATOGA SPRINGS NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 67 Kaydeross Park Rd. in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 193.5-1-39 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 deck in a Suburban Residential 2 (SR-2) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 9th day of November and the 14th day of December 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 Side yard setback 12’ 11’ 1’ (8.3%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2020 - Page 9 of 14 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 design places the deck directly off the back of the house in an orientation that does not interfere with the basement door. The applicant states they were unsuccessful with purchasing the adjacent lot to mitigate the variance. 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 notes that the property is “surrounded on two sides by green space”. The board notes the deck is a reasonable addition and does not encroach on any surrounding structures. 3. The Board notes the requested variance of 8.3% is not considered substantial. The deck is designed to align with the side of the house, which is outside of the 12’ setback, however, the side property line is angled so that a small portion at the rear of the deck is within the 12’ setback. 4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The deck is not substantial and does not have a significant impact on the overall lot permeability. 5. The alleged difficulty is considered self-created insofar as the applicant desires to build the rear deck addition. However, this is not necessarily fatal to the application Cherie Grey 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 11. #20200345 GUANILL TWO-FAMILY, 144 West Circular Street, use variance to maintain a two-family residence; seeking relief from the permitted uses in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated this is a previously opened application. The public hearing was opened and remains open. The Board has requested and received updated information. Applicant: Rosemarie Guanill Agent: Libby Coreno, Attorney, Chuck Marshall, Neighbor Ms. Coreno stated this is their third appearance before the Board for the use variance application for 144 West Circular Street. This home was purchased as a two-family home in 2012, and has been taxed as a two-family home since the 1980’s. An aerial view of the property was provided as well as an aerial of the zoning map. Ms. Coreno reviewed the history of the property for the Board. A timeline showing the history of the property was reviewed noting the property was built as a single family initially in 1928. In the 1980’s the property was changed to a two-family by the City. In 1996, 2002, and 2012 it was sold as a two-family residence. Two building permits have been issued since Ms. Guanill has owned the property one for a garage and one for roofing neither of which flagged it as a nonconforming use. There are no other permitted uses in this zone. Ms. Coreno provided information on lack of reasonable return on investment and provided a modified financial implication figures for the property in question. This has existed for 45 years. Investment has been made as two family, yet the value we can show you is that of a single family. If we are going to examine as a single family then everything must be examined as a single family, and if we are going to examine it as a two family than everything must be examined as two family. Ms. Coreno provided a table noting the lack of reasonable return on investment. Ms. Coreno outlined the impact of the denial of the use variance. The applicant is in violation pursuant to the Notice under the City Code. The market value of the residence is reduced to land value only as a nonconforming use in the zone and cannot be marketed for sale. Finally, the applicant must spend additional monies to convert the home to a conforming use as reflected in the assessor’s office as well as to prevent enforcement penalties for a violation. The applicants return after conversion is 2.4% over the last 8 years. Reasonable rate of return showed a 74% rate of return throughout the city for a two-family home from 2012 -2020. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2020 - Page 10 of 14 Patrick Cogan, Zoning and Building Inspector stated we the reviewed the records back in the mid 70’s. The information we have and the research we conducted there is no way to call this pre-existing nonconforming. This is not a fair deal for the owner. Prior record keeping in the building department during the 1961 and 1978 period was inconsistent. We end up with instances where there is no record of a permit being pulled or legally changed. In 1978 we received from the assessor’s office listing of what exists throughout the city. The owner legitimately purchased what she believed was a two family. I am in favor of any relief the Board can provide. Keith Kaplan, Chairman thanked the applicant’s agent for the newly submitted and reviewed information. It was highly responsive to the Boards questions. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the information provided, this unique situation, and possible conditioning of the use variance, how this application differs from other applications of the same type. Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated uses variances are notoriously difficult to meet the burden for but especially when residential properties of any kind are involved. Valuation is much more difficult than commercial properties when the purpose is to make a profit. It is the case that use variances are limited to the use capacity for which they are authorized. Variances go with the land. It can be seasonally temporal. The classic standards for meeting the burden of proof are dollars and cents. The applicant has done a fine job of presenting the dollar and cent proof. 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 stated the public hearing will remain open until the next ZBA meeting scheduled for January 11, 2021. No additional information has been requested. A resolution will be prepared and presented at the next meeting. 12. #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 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. Applicant: Vincent LaTerra, Jr. Mr. LaTerra stated the Board questioned the accessory structures if they are within the percentage and those calculation were provided indicating they are. Also, regarding one of the sheds being within 5 feet of the property line and it is conforming. No HVAC pad will be used. 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 10:05 P.M. Brad Gallagher presented the following resolution. #20200714 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF VINCENT LATERRA JR. 379 CAROLINE STREET SARATOGA SPRINGS NY 12866 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2020 - Page 11 of 14 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 379 Caroline Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.14-3-36 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to seek relief from the maximum principal building coverage requirement in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on November 9, 2020 and December 14, 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 Principal Building Coverage 20% 22.5% 2.5% (12.5%) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The Board finds that the applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant seeks a single-story living to accommodate long-term living needs. The applicant considered alternatives, but none of the designs were financially or personally viable to make the addition/renovation project advisable. 2. The Board finds that the applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant’s lot is located on the corner of Caroline Street and Wagner Road. According to the applicant, the addition will not be visible from Caroline Street and the façade of the house will remain in its current state. Moreover, the Board notes that there are many single-story homes located in the neighborhood. Finally, the Board notes that all the setback requirements are met. 3. The Board does not find this variance to be substantial at 2.5% or 289 square feet including the roof overhangs of the principal building. 4. This Board finds this variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct a new addition to an existing single-family residence, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: 1. Existing sheds to be moved or removed to be in compliance. Cherie Grey 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 13. #20200713 SOUTHERN NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, 124 York 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. Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated this is a previously opened application. The public hearing was opened and remains open. No additional information was requested. The front yard setback has been modified but relief is still required. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2020 - Page 12 of 14 Applicant: Mike & Kim Southern Agent: Michael Tuck, Dennis McGowan, Balzer Tuck Architecture Mr. Tuck stated we thought the porch on a neighboring house lawfully existed. Mr. Cogan’s research shows that there is no record of a permit for it. If there is no record, then we have no basis for an appeal of the decision. We thought the variance route was prudent. Patrick Cogan, Zoning and Building Inspector stated he does not want to allow front setback averaging between two illegal structures. Mr. Tuck stated they agree. Discussion ensued regarding the revised front yard setback figures. PUBLIC HEARING: Keith Kaplan, Chairman stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. 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 10:23 P.M. Terrance Gallogly presented the following resolution. #20200713 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF MIKE & KIM SOUTHERN 124 YORK AVENUE SARATOGA SPRINGS NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 131 Middle Ave in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.46-3-5.2 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 new single- family residence, patio, and a two-car garage in a UR-3 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 9th day of November and the 14th day of December 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 variances for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT Minimum Setback for Patio 10’ 4.9’ 5.1’ (51%) Maximum Coverage for Accessory Structures 10% 12% 2% (20%) Minimum Front Yard Setback 8.2’ (Modified 5.3’ 2.9’ or 35.4% Average) 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. With respect to the proposed patio, according to the applicant, the narrow width of the property necessitates the patio be aligned with the west side of the proposed principal structure, in order to allow the patio to be of adequate size and function. With respect to the proposed garage, according to the applicant, the garage has been designed to be as small as possible to accommodate two cars and, as a result, it is not feasible to build an interior staircase to reach the storage area above the garage. Therefore, the applicant intends to build an exterior staircase for the garage, which in turn will result in the garage exceeding the allowed City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2020 - Page 13 of 14  coverage area for an accessory structure. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting these variances will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. With respect to the proposed patio, it will align with the west side of the proposed principal structure and, as such, it will not impose on the adjacent property any more significantly than the proposed principal structure. In addition, the applicants intend to place shrubbery or some other form of vegetation between the patio and the adjacent property, which will allow for additional privacy. With respect to the proposed garage, it will be located at the rear of the property behind the larger proposed principal structure and, as such, it will be almost “imperceptible” from the street. In addition, the exterior staircase to the garage will be located toward the interior to the lot and, therefore, will not impose on the adjacent property. The permitted front setback has been reduced to 8.2’ using the average of the adjacent parcels as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. This modified setback is consistent with neighboring properties. 3. The Board notes the requested variances of 51%, 35.4%, and 20% 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. Substantiality of the front setback is mitigated by the consistency with neighboring properties. 4. These variances will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. Permeability requirements will meet district requirements. 5. The alleged difficulty is considered self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the patio and the garage. However, this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Cherie Grey 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: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the January 11, 2021 meeting. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR: Keith Kaplan, Chairman thanked Board member Christopher Mills for his service on the Board. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Keith Kaplan, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Approved: 02/01/2021 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – December 14, 2020 - Page 14 of 14