Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2022 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Gage Simpson, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:32 P.M. SALUTE TO THE FLAG: PRESENT: Gage Simpson, Chair; Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair; Cheryl Grey; Brendan Dailey; Alice Smith, Alternate ABSENT: Emily Bergmann; Matthew Gutch STAFF: Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Jackie White, 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: PROCEDURAL BUSINESS: 1. ID#179-5-8 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, Crescent Avenue and Jefferson Street, Lead Agency Coordination to construct workforce housing by Zoning Map Amendment to convert parcel of land from RR-1 District designation to UR-4. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, stated this is a Zoning Map Amendment before the City Council. The applicants are before the Board this evening to provide a short presentation of the project. The City Council has asked for Lead Agency Status for SEQRA as well as an Advisory Opinion from the ZBA. If the Zoning Map Amendment is successful, the applicant will return before the ZBA for a variance for a height since the proposed project is above the height requirement for this area. Applicant: Liberty Affordable Housing Agent: Stephanie Ferradino, Attorney; Steve Dobbs, Phinney Design Group Ms. Ferradino provided a visual of the project site currently zoned RR-1 and the neighboring properties and zoning districts surrounding the site. The applicant is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning to UR-4. A visual of the 30-acre site was provided to the Board noting the applicant is looking to develop 9 acres. Four additional sites were noted within a block of this site which remain zoned UR-4. Aerial views of the trail connections in and through the 20 acres which will remain wooded as a buffer as well as views of the surrounding neighborhoods, racino and the racino hotel. In the UR-4 District there is a 40 ft. height limit, and we are proposing about 48 ft. In comparison the hotel located at the Racino is at 67-68 ft. almost 20 ft. higher. Steve Dobbs, Phinney Design Group, stated they went out and estimated the tree canopy height at Clubhouse Estates which are 90 ft. You may not be able to see the façade of the buildings through the trees. Mr. Dobbs provided views of the site and topography of the land. Ms. Ferradino reviewed the Use Variance Standards: - Impact on the neighborhood - The property hidden by trees -most impacted will be the Racino property.  - Substantiality – We do not feel the variance is substantial. - It can be achieve by other means – but that is not palatable for what the city wants to see. - Traffic study completed – no changes to impact no traffic mitigation required. Level of service will remain as is. Ms. Ferradino stated a question the Boards did have was affordability and what is the obligation for affordability. We are working with the city attorneys to link the use to the zone rechange to ensure affordability is what is built on the site. We have instituted a sunset clause stating if a building permit is not issued within 5 years, the zoning reverts to an RR-1. Affordability in perpetuity is not an option because of the function in the way NY State and IRS code regulates affordable housing. Affordable housing will be available on this site from 30-32 years depending on the funding structure. Ms. Ferradino reviewed the four main visions of the Comp Plan, and this project falls solidly within them especially community character. There is a waiting list for all the affordable housing projects currently being built in Saratoga. Comp Plan densities was also another area of concern. The language in the Comp Plan states the map sets the direction for future land uses within the city. It illustrates the City’s vision by identifying broad categories of land use. It is not a zoning map.” The various land use categories shown on the map represent the intended uses and densities desired or anticipated for the community in the future. The land use categories in the map are not zoning districted. The land use categories are broader and more general than zoning districts. The boundaries are intentionally non-precise and are meant to be fluid. Our site is bisected by both RR-1 which has a density requirement and Equine. All our development is in the Equine zone and there is no density for that area. We believe we comply with the Comp Plan as to the density. NY State funding has green building requirements. It means compact development, connected to transit, proximity to open space, connectors to the trails, the building envelope will be at least 15% more efficient than the 2020 energy code requires. All electric energy star appliances, HVAC, low flow plumbing fixtures, lighting to be dark sky compliant. Low VOC materials will be used. Cherie Grey stated the only variance required from the ZBA is the height restriction? Ms. Ferradino stated yes, and the official application will be filed until we receive the approved zoning. Cherie Grey questioned if there was a reason that the ZBA would not defer Lead Agency Status to the City Council. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner stated the ZBA is not being asked to assume Lead Agency Status. What is before the Board is deferring Lead Agency Status to the City Council for SEQRA and any comments in that regard or general comments for the project. We are only an involved agency because of the one area of relief required. Gage Simpson, Chair, questioned if the Board had any comments that they wished to have as part of the record. The Chair’s biggest concern is that it fits the neighborhood context which it appears to. Cherie Grey stated Sustainable Saratoga had comments regarding the Comp Plan and the influence with the UDO. Have they reached out to you. Ms. Ferradino stated they requested a meeting with Sustainable Saratoga, and they did grant us a meeting. They canceled an hour prior to the meeting. We re-engaged with them and were told that they needed to meet first to discuss the project. It would have been beneficial for them to hear our presentation prior to their meeting. They declined that. We reached out an additional time later and they declined meeting with us. They issued the letter never having even seen or discussed the project. We will be happy to meet with them at any time. Alice Smith, Alternate, stated the project consists of 30 acres. How many acres will be built upon. Ms. Ferradino stated 9 -10 acres of the site will be built upon. A significant amount of the 20 acres contains wetlands. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, stated although only 10 acres will be built out the other 20 acres of the site are undevelopable. they contain wetlands. Brendan Dailey stated this is a lovely project. He might be the only member of the Board who is a renter. All his colleagues are renters. The fact that there is a push in the city to provide affordable housing in a greenway is exactly what we want. Many people are unable to afford or find housing and are going to other municipalities. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 17, 2022 - Page 2 of 12 Cherie Grey made a motion in the matter of the Zoning Map Amendment, Crescent, and Jefferson Street, the ZBA defers Lead Agency Status for SEQRA to the City Council. Brendan Dailey seconded the motion. Gage Simpson, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Gage Simpson, Chair, in favor; Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; Brendan Dailey, in favor; Alice Smith, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 NEW BUSINESS: 1. #20220898 203 DIVISION CANOPY ADDITION, LOFT ADDITION, 203 Division Street, Area Variance to permit the construction of a second-floor loft in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Setback Front (to covered front stoop) 10 ft. 0.75 ft. 9.25 ft. or 92.5% Setback Front (to principal building) 10 ft. 4.5 ft. 5.5 ft. or 55.0% Interior Side 8 ft. 2.5 ft. 5.5 ft. or 68.8% Applicant: PJ Chilton, Owner Agent: Jason – Nolan Engineering Jason stated this is currently a one-story home. A visual of the property site was provided. The applicants are proposing to build a second story loft as well as an entry canopy on the front entry stoop like the neighbors. The issue with the project is that the neighbor’s home is right on the property line. We would like to build the canopy, but we will be in the setback. A visual of the existing site plan was provided to the Board and reviewed. We would like to build up in the side setback. We are proposing a new roof stepping the western side in. A mud room is also proposed to be added as well. There is no zoning relief required. Views of all elevations were provided. The two stories are consistent with other homes on the street. Cherie Grey stated the applicant have a deep lot, have they considered other alternatives. Scott – Nolan Engineering –Designer, draftsman. The client requested a loft space. We did go back for the mudroom area. He is unsure of any other alternatives since the clients specifically wanted a loft space, so we went over the existing. It is important to know that none of the new construction is encroaching any further than the existing. A visual of the floor plan was provided. It is a loft space open to the living room below and we will vault the ceilings. Ms. Chilton stated they just downsized from a large four-bedroom home. We are looking for a sleeping space over the kitchen for when the kids come home from college. Not big enough for them to move back in but enough space for them to spend the weekend. We are attempting to keep our living space small. We are going up two additional feet. We want to keep it functional but super small. Cherie Grey stated by going up you are triggering the variances. If they added onto the rear of the home, would they still be triggering variances? Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, stated yes, they would still be requiring variances if they decided to extend on the same plane as the house. This plan before the Board requires the least amount of relief as possible. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 17, 2022 - Page 3 of 12 Cherie Grey questioned if any other homes on the street are aligned like this home. It would be helpful if you identify any others. Scott – Nolan Engineering stated they do have an answer at this time. They are not going out any further than what is currently there. They are going up a bit higher, but not encroaching any further onto the property line. Gage Simpson stated a view from Google Maps showing neighborhood comparisons. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, questioned if the applicant is planning any changes proposed to the first floor. Ms. Chilton stated no changes are proposed for the first floor. Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, stated there is a driveway in place currently which is over the neighbor’s property. What are you planning for water mitigation and runoff. Scott – Nolan Engineering stated we will be providing gutters for drainage. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, stated since the property is existing over the property line, they may require an easement from the neighbors indicating it is okay for the keep the existing property where it is. If the relief is granted, we will then be authorizing the second floor to be over the property line as well. The applicants should provide the Board with an easement from the neighbors. This would require a letter from the neighbors stating this which would be a binding understanding between neighbors. Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, questioned if there were any windows on the sides of the property. Scott – Nolan Engineering stated there are no windows on the sides of the home. Gage Simpson, Chair, requested from the applicant’s agent comparables from the neighborhood, as well as an easement from the property boundary. Once the information is submitted to staff, we will place the application back on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, opened the public hearing at 7:27 P.M. Gage Simpson, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated the public hearing will remain open until the applicant returns before the Board. 3. #20220854 4 N CIRCULAR FRONT PORCH AREA VARIANCE, 4 N Circular Street, Area Variance to permit the renovation of a front porch in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Setback-Front 10ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. or 50.0% Applicant: Matt Neuringer Mr. Neuringer stated they purchased this home about one year ago. The intent is to renovate the home with architecture consistent with the neighborhood. It has become dilapidated over the years. A visual of the property site was provided. We intend to expand the porch by 5 ft. to the east to create a front porch. Cherie Grey questioned if the applicant is planning to replace the siding with brick to match the other side. Mr. Neuringer stated they are planning to remove the siding. They will be replacing it with thin brick. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 17, 2022 - Page 4 of 12 DISCLOSURE: Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, disclosed that his brother-in-law owns a home around the corner from this property. He has no financial interest in the project. He supports this project; the rendering is beautiful. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, opened the public hearing at 7:33 P.M. Gage Simpson, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated the public hearing will remain open until the applicant returns before the Board. The next meeting is scheduled for October 24th, 2022. At which time, a resolution will be prepared and presented. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, requested elevation drawings to be provided. No further encroachments on the property. Architectural renderings/plans should be submitted as well. 4. #20220843 SARATOGA COWORKS SIGNAGE, 92 Congress Street, Area Variance to permit the installation of a wall mounted sign above the first floor in the Urban Core (UC) District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Wall sign above the first floor Not Permitted Permitted 1 sign or 100% Applicant: Dorothy Rogers Agent: Adam Wakulenko, Adirondack Sign Company The applicant is looking to move the sign up to be more visible. We attempted to place it over the door, underneath the overhang and it is lost back there. It makes more sense to place it above the first floor. All other dimensions are within code – just the placement. Brendan Dailey questioned if there are any other signs in the area above the first floor. Mr. Wakulenko stated not that he is aware of. This business space is also on the second floor. Saratoga CoWorks will encompass the entire second floor area. Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, questioned if there is any illumination for the proposed sign. He is having difficulty with this and why it is necessary. There are second story businesses in this area. Mr. Wakulenko stated no illumination. There is no other business in this type of situation in this area. Mr. Wakulenko stated these businesses encompass the first and second floor space. If Saratoga CoWorks took both the first floor and second floor space, then it would be natural to put it on the first floor. DISCLOSURE: Cherie Grey disclosed that she does know the owner. She has no financial interest in this property and can be impartial in voting on this application. Dorothy Rogers stated she owns this building. This is the first CoWorks business in Saratoga Springs. We have brought nothing but young businesses to the town that cannot afford long term leases and rentals. This is a passion business she started with her husband. This is for small businesses to get recognized. She wants people to know where this business is. She feels this sign is classy, it has no lights on it, it is not neon. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 17, 2022 - Page 5 of 12 It recognizes the people who work there and is consistent with the area. They did look at options. They prefer not to do window signage. Cherie Grey spoke about consistency in the area with signage. She questioned window signage above the first floor. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, stated you can put signage in the windows from the inside. Ms. Rogers stated would you like to see window signage. Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, spoke about neighborhood character and the balancing test the Board must follow. Mr. Wakulenko stated there could be confusion if this sign was added to the first-floor level with the other business. Discussion ensued regarding the sign plan, precedent setting, neighborhood context, wayfinding sign, unique building. Gage Simpson, Chair, spoke regarding other signage in the area, neighborhood comparables would be helpful as well as a rendering of the sign and measurements. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, stated this will also require DRB approval. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, opened the public hearing at 7:55 P.M. Gage Simpson, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. Tonya Yasenchak stated her office is across the street from this building. She has been renting this office space for over 10 years. She feels what they are proposing is consistent with the Embassy Suites whose signage is above the canopy. It is a large hotel, and the signage really did not need to be above the first-floor level. CVS has a large sign as well. Across the street there is a Wendy’s, they have a canopy and signage above it. This is quite different district. It is growing and is different. Franklin Community Center across the street has signage above their main entrance. Many of these are pre-existing non- conforming to the current code. What the applicant is proposing is similar with the neighborhood and that speaks to the uniqueness. I drive by this every day; it is lovely and provides the ability for people to find it. With so many businesses in a building it is difficult to find them. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated if the applicant could provide the heights of the signage on the Embassy Suites, the Franklin Center, CVS, and all the signs above the first floor would be beneficial for the applicant to do. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated the public hearing will remain open until the applicant returns before the Board. The next meeting is scheduled for October 24th, 2022. 5. #20220855 139 STATE STREET GARAGE REO AREA VARIANCE, 139 State Street, Area Variance to permit the renovation of an existing home in the Urban Residential (UR-1) District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum Principal Coverage % 28% 35.8% Setback-Front 30 ft. 27 ft. 3 ft. or 10.0% Interior Side 12 ft. 1.4 ft. 10.6 ft. or 88.3% Minimum Total Side 30 ft. 1.4 ft. 95.3% Applicant: Gregg Travis & Karen Lazar Agent: Bob Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 17, 2022 - Page 6 of 12 Mr. Flansburg provided photographs of the property site. The property has been renovated over the years. We are proposing to turn the one car garage into a two-car garage. There is a large overhang in the front of the garage which is over 3 ft. which is in the city’s right of way. There is an existing negative front yard setback. On the north side is similar with a large overhang which encroaches on the Skidmore property. We have an existing negative setback in the front of the property and on the north side. A visual of the existing survey was provided to the Board. We are going to a 1 ft. overhang on the north side which removes the encroachment to the Skidmore property. It is a unique property in that it is surrounded by Skidmore property. This historic home when it was built comes in at 32.8% which as it currently exists is over the 28% coverage requirement. Our proposed increase is 3% bringing the coverage to 35.8% which is different than noted on the application. Those are the revised numbers based on the current survey which was just completed. Mr. Flansberg stated they are proposing to connect the existing space on the second floor with additional space. We are removing the current roof in this area and going up as well as adding an additional garage to the current one car garage widening it up to the interior of the property where the circular driveway is located. A visual of the existing survey was provided to the Board. The side walls will be fire rated. A visual of the proposed floor plans of the first and second floor were provided and reviewed with the Board. The garage wall will be widened to the left. We are making use of the space over the garage for a guest suite and a library loft with the staircase from the garage bringing us to the rooftop and connects to the main house to this wing. Mr. Flansberg provided a visual of the current garage and the proposed new project in this location with the second story along with a circular stair tower. Alice Smith, Alternate, questioned if the entire house was built at the same time. Mr. Flansberg stated he is not sure exactly. He believes a portion of the home was built at a different time but is difficult to tell. Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, stated you are adding a bedroom above the garage going straight up from the new garage area. What is the purpose of the space? Mr. Flansburg stated they do not have a guest room in the home. They have young adult children. This will fill that need. The applicant is has a workspace in the area, and likes the light and the windows. Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, questioned if the circular driveway in the front will remain. You are adding a two-car garage. Mr. Flansburg stated their intent is to keep the circular driveway. Cherie Grey questioned the south elevation of the home. Bob Flansburg stated the south elevation of the home contains the covered porch which goes into the mudroom, garden area in that area. Cherie Grey stated this is a substantial 2½ story building, particularly with the second story on the garage. Bob Flansburg stated he lowered the plate to help mitigate the size while retaining the usable space. Cherie Grey spoke about how this houses mass is larger with the second story addition over the garage. She is struggling with it. Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, stated this is a significant size home even by Saratoga Standards built right on the street. This is a large ask. There must be other options available. You are adding additional space and expanding. There is large homes in the area and the proximity to the street and Skidmore property but none of them appear to be as close to the street as this property. From his point of view, he would like to see it scaled down a bit and more into conformance. Discussion ensued regarding the percentage of coverage requested, the current design, the proximity to the street scaling down the project, a reduction in the size of the proposed garage. Mr. Flansburg stated we can look at the mass towards the street. The garage width matching the corner is for aesthetics. Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, stated the guest suite over the garage is large space, pulling it back from the street may help with the massing. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 17, 2022 - Page 7 of 12 Mr. Flansburg stated he will look at stepping back the guest suite over the garage. Alice Smith, Alternate, stated it is already non-conforming and will be even more non-conforming and a larger structure. Cherie Grey questioned staff with the three driveway cuts are we near the 25% or over? Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner stated she does not believe we are, but she will review it. Mr. Flansberg stated he believes we are in excess. We did have a discussion, but he is unsure of how to deal with this. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding exceeding the 25% driveway cut requirement. A variance will be required for this as well. Cherie Grey questioned if there is a patio in the rear of the home? Mr. Flansburg stated it is a small slate on grade patio. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, stated the patio can be in line with the existing home. She stated we are looking at 50% for the driveway cuts. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated so the house on both sides is on the property line. We are looking at total side, which is 1.4 ft. something we are trying to improve. The Chair is struggling with the maximum principal coverage, which is 35% and perhaps could be re-evaluated by the applicant’s agent. Mr. Flansburg stated he will provide the Board with neighborhood comparables. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, opened the public hearing at 8:42 P.M. Gage Simpson, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated the public hearing will remain open until the applicant returns before the Board. We would like to see neighborhood context, perhaps re-work the project to reduce the variances and coverage. The next meeting is scheduled for October 24th, 2022. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 6. #20220686 28 NORTH LANE-96 UNION DEMO AND CONSTRUCTION, 28 North/96 Union, Area Variance to permit the construction of a new three car garage and dwelling unit above in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. This is a previously opened application. The public hearing was opened and remains open. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Minimum Average Lot Width – Secondary Structure 80 ft. 46.6 ft. 33.4 sq. ft. or 41.8% Applicant: Sharon Byrne Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated we would like to remove the existing carriage house a 1½ story cement block building which was a garage converted to a dwelling unit with a previous variance granted to do so. We are proposing to construct a new three car garage with a City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 17, 2022 - Page 8 of 12 dwelling unit above which meets all the zoning requirements for size, area, setback, and coverage. The only variance we are requesting is a variance for minimum average lot width for a secondary structure. The Board requested an aerial view of the site showing the approximate location of the carriage house and that has been provided. We also submitted a revised site plan which notes the carriage house being moved 12 ft. from North Alley, which keeps the building away from the electrical lines, the existing tree canopies as well as building this within the allowable setbacks. A survey of the entire alley was completed for the entire block where this property is located. It revealed 27 properties on the side of North Alley as well as the properties across. 21 of those properties have two or more residential units; 6 of those 21 properties are on lots more 80 ft. in width which is the requirement. 15 of those 21 properties had more than two units and were on lots 50 ft. or less. 71% of those multiple dwelling unit properties were on lots 50 ft. or less. Our property along North Alley which is the variance we are requesting is at 46.63% but the property width at Union is 50 ft. So, the property narrows as it goes back to the alley. What we are proposing is consistent with the neighborhood. We included properties that had clear second units or carriage houses but were not on the tax rolls. Additional photographs were included of properties adjacent as well as directly adjacent to this project to show consistency. Also included were photographs of properties which included more than two units. A small streetscape was provided showing what our building would look like, what the neighbors looks like to provide mass and scale. We are only requesting a variance for a second dwelling unit which already exists. We are allowed to place this structure on the property and have habitable space above meeting the zoning requirements. There are no violations currently on this property and has a valid building permit. Discussion was held regarding the trees. 71% of the properties have a second dwelling unit and we are not changing that. What we are proposing is consistent with the neighborhood and will go before the DRB for historic review. This applicant is not on trial. What happened with the trees became a civil action, has been decided and a settlement has been reached. Ms. Yasenchak reviewed the criteria for an area variance. Sharon Byrne, homeowner spoke and provided a history of the property, the number of units allowed on the property, the carriage house, the neighborhood, the trees and their removal, the renovation of the property and what is currently being proposed. Brendan Dailey spoke regarding the neighborhood, the proposed carriage house, and his concerns regarding the trees on the property. The variance is not much of an ask but the environmental issues are of a concern for him. Ms. Yasenchak stated the applicant can build a second dwelling unit anywhere on the site. There already is a second dwelling unit on the property with a variance in place. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner stated the Board looks at applications holistically, not just one aspect of it such as the width but looking at the impact of where the building is going to be placed. If the placement were to remain where it is currently located the Board would not have an issue. Their issues are stemming from the impact of moving the unit, and the potential environmental impacts. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated the applicant’s agent is correct. You could just build a garage anywhere on the site. Two years later someone could decide to put an apartment above it. That is an alternative. Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, stated the applicant’s agent has done a good job explaining the applicant’s position. He does not have any further questions. Cherie Grey appreciated the applicant reviewing the application information. She questions the tandem garage. It will be an improvement on the alley, and a nice addition. Ms. Yasenchak explained the reasoning for the tandem garage. The footprint of the proposed structure is within the allowable parameters. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated building where the garage is currently located looks ok. It is consistent with the neighborhood. Moving the structure back a bit omits a variance which the Board appreciates. The plans are appropriate. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Gage Simpson, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 17, 2022 - Page 9 of 12 Stephanie Ferradino, Attorney behalf of the neighbors. At the previous meeting you directed the applicant to locate the trees on the survey with the structure. We reached out to both the applicant and the city and were told that no submission had been made. We hired an arborist who visited the site and has been awaiting the plan to provide information to the Board. The arborist stated construction will have an impact on the trees. It is likely the root system of both trees grows together, and he could determine the amount of damage once the structure was located in relation to the trees. This will change the ecosystem and impact the neighbors. Keelie DeSalvo 88 Union Avenue. The trees were not on Ms. Byrnes property. This can be verified with the survey filed with the city. It is doubtful that someone with her business acumen would make such a mistake. She never notified us regarding the upcoming tree removal. Nothing can replace the trees which have been removed. This will impact the property environmentally. Steve DeSalvo 88 Union Avenue. What we are asking for is the Board to consider the environmental aspects of the proposed construction as well as the privacy issue impacts. Andrea Spungen 88 Union Avenue. Trees are precious to us. The trees being removed was devastating. These were historic trees, and we should all be aware of the impact the construction will have on these trees. Stephanie Ferradino, Attorney. The owner of 100 Union Avenue provided her with a survey from 2002 that locates a 36 ft. wide maple on his site. This maybe a resource the Board can utilize as a source. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, stated if the building were to remain in the existing footprint, they would not need a variance. It would be pre-existing, non-conforming. Ms. Yasenchak stated the original application did have the original survey. The existing structure infringes on the east side property line, it infringes on the front setback. The plans which were emailed and not received will be resent. These plans did locate the trees in comparison to the existing building and proposed building. If the building is moved closer to the alley the power lines would be impacted. The electrical lines do go through the trees. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated the public hearing will remain open. Additional information is forthcoming to be reviewed by the Board. The next meeting is scheduled for October 24th, 2022. 7. #20220446 1 ALGER AREA VARIANCE, 1 Alger Street, Area Variance to construct screened porch in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. ADJOURNED TO OCTOBER 24, 2022 8. #20220678 16 MACARTHUR GARAGE DEMO & RENOVATION, 16 MacArthur, Area Variance to permit the renovation of an existing home in the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. This is a previously opened application. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Applicant: Mary & Derek Hallquist Ms. Hallquist stated they have submitted the information requested by the Board. Cherie Grey stated she never suggested the applicant do an entire second story addition. Perhaps since she was on zoom it was misinterpreted. Ms. Grey also spoke regarding the architects notes on the windows, ventilation and code requirements and window locations. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding window locations, privacy to the neighbors, ventilation, and aesthetics. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, stated the public hearing was opened and remains open. Gage Simpson, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Gage Simpson, Chair, closed the public hearing at 9:45 P.M. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 17, 2022 - Page 10 of 12 Gage Simpson, Chair presented the following resolution. #20220678 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Mary and Derek Hallquist 16 MacArthur Dr. Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 16 MacArthur Dr. in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.14-2-22 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicants having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit the construction of an attached garage with a second story addition and the rebuilding of a front porch in the UR-1 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 26th day of September through the 17th day of October, 2022. 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 REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED Maximum Principal Coverage 20% 21% 1% (5%) Front Setback (Porch) 30’ 24’ 6’ (20%) Side Setback (South) 12’ 5.9’ 6.1’ (50.8%) Side Setback (North) - egress window 12’ 8’ 4’ (33.3%) Total Side 30’ 13.9’ 16.1’ (53.7%) as per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The applicants have demonstrated that they cannot achieve their benefit by any other means feasible to the applicants. The applicants note the garage roof was damaged by a falling tree and will need to be replaced. The Board notes that the attached garage is pre-existing, non-conforming and any modification to the garage will result in a side yard setback variance. The applicants note the front porch roof needs to be rebuilt to change it from a flat roof to a pitched roof. The Board notes the front porch is pre-existing, non-conforming and any modification to the porch will result in a front yard variance. The applicants also note that the front porch will be rebuilt at their current setbacks. The second story addition will be built on top of the newly constructed attached garage. The Board notes that this addition adds to the mass and scale within the side setback. Alternative plans were considered, and the applicants have demonstrated that adding the second-floor addition above the garage is the most feasible location. The addition of the egress window is per city code and would be allowed in the setback per the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The pre-existing, non-conforming setbacks will be maintained and not be increased. The applicants provided several neighboring properties with second story additions similar to the planned addition. 3. The Board notes the requested variances of 50.8%, 33.3%, and 53.7% are substantial, however the impact of the substantiality is mitigated by the fact that the pre-existing, non-conforming structures would need variances for any work done as mentioned above. Rebuilt structures will not encroach any further into the setbacks, and the egress window would not require a variance of 33.3% per the UDO. 4. These variances will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The property will meet minimum permeability requirements. 5. The alleged difficulty is considered self-created insofar as the applicant’s desire to build an attached garage with a second story and a new front porch, however this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: The window proposed on the south wall of the bathroom as per submitted plans shall not be permitted. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 17, 2022 - Page 11 of 12 Cherie Grey seconded the motion. Gage Simpson, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Gage Simpson, Chair, in favor; Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; Brendan Dailey, in favor; Alice Smith, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 9. #20220202 31-33 MARION AVENUE VARIANCE, 31-33 Marion Avenue, Area Variance to permit the demolition of the existing garage, mobile station, and car wash and to construct convenience store, gasoline canopy, car wash and rental space within the Tourist Related Business (TRB) District. ADJOURNED TO OCTOBER 24, 2022 APROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Cherie Grey made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 12, 2022, ZBA meeting. Brendan Dailey seconded the motion. Gage Simpson, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Gage Simpson, Chair, in favor; Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; Brendan Dailey, in favor; Alice Smith, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 Cherie Grey made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 26, 2022, ZBA meeting. Brendan Dailey seconded the motion. Gage Simpson, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. None heard. VOTE: Gage Simpson, Chair, in favor; Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, in favor; Cherie Grey, in favor; Brendan Dailey, in favor; Alice Smith, Alternate, in favor MOTION PASSES: 5-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Gage Simpson, Chair, adjourned the meeting at 9:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Minutes approved November 28, 2022 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 17, 2022 - Page 12 of 12