Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (FINAL) MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 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 Matthew Gutch, via zoom; Brendan Dailey; Alice Smith, Alternate LATE ARRIVAL: Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair arrived at 6:36 P.M. ABSENT: Emily Bergmann 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: NEW BUSINESS: 1. #20220899 72 CATHERINE PORCH AREA VARIANCE, 72 Catherine Street, Area Variance to construct a side porch in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. DISCLOSURE: Gage Simpson, Chair, disclosed that he knows the applicant. They are both wrestling coaches at Saratoga High School. He has no financial interest in this application and can be objective in this matter. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, stated since we do not have a survey, we are unsure of the amount of relief requested or required for the project. Applicant: Rebecca & Pat Terramino Mr. Terramino stated they measured from the side of the home to the property line and were unaware they needed a survey. We were told we needed to be 8 ft. from the side of the porch, according to our measurements we are 7’9” to the property line and need a variance for 3”. The porch was deteriorated and removed. We have received a rebuild in kind building permit, which required leaving the roof. Upon reconstruction the roof was not properly attached to the house. They are looking to improve safety measures and rebuild the porch that was there, matching the porch on the other side of this duplex home. New building codes pushes this porch closer to the neighbor. Cherie Grey stated the applicant is looking to match one side of the porch to the other side of the duplex. She is concerned regarding the proper amount of relief, since the property lines are not always straight. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated what the Board is requesting is a survey to prevent an error and the applicant having to return for additional relief. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, stated a survey may not be required however in speaking with the Building Inspector he believes they are looking for side yard relief. There is a possibility a front yard setback may be required. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated if the applicant is confident of the requested amount of relief, we should have a resolution prepared and ready to present at the next meeting scheduled for November 28th. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, opened the public hearing at 6:47 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 next meeting scheduled for November 28th, 2022. 2. #20220872 SKIDMORE SIGN AREA VARIANCE, 815 Broadway, Area Variance to permit the relocation of the existing from North Broadway to Clinton Street within the Institutional Educational (INST-ED) District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Number of Signs 1 4 3 or 300% Maximum sign size 32 sq. ft. 35 sq. ft. 3 sq. ft or 9.4% Applicant: Skidmore College Agent: Dave Carr, LA Group; Dan Rodecker, Skidmore College Mr. Carr stated they appeared before the Board previously for signage currently under construction on North Broadway. We were successful in receiving relief for those three signs. Now, the existing sign was removed, and they were unsure what was to become of that signage, a visual of the signage was provided. They are proposing to move this sign to the Clinton Street entrance, which currently does not have a sign. An entrance graphic was provided showing the proposed location of this sign. There were no questions or concerns from the Board. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated there is no sign on this entrance and there should be. The sign already exists. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, opened the public hearing at 6:54 P.M. 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 6:55 P.M. Cherie Grey presented the following resolution. #20220872 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Skidmore College 815 North Broadway Saratoga Springs NY 12866 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 24, 2022 - Page 2 of 17 In the matter of the appeal from the Building Inspector’s determination involving 815 North Broadway, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being Tax Parcel 152.-1-3 on the assessment map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance under the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) of said City to permit an increase in the total number if signs and the relocation of an existing sign in the INST-ED District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 24th day of October 2022. 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 TOTAL RELIEF REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Number of Signs 1 4 3 or 300% Maximum Sign Size 32 sq. ft. 35 sq. ft. 3 sq. ft. or 9.4% As per the submitted plans or lesser relief, be approved as per this Board’s consideration of the following factors: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant desires to relocate an existing sign from the main entrance on the campus at North Broadway to the entrance of the campus on Clinton Street, which will increase their total number of signs to four. The applicant noted that other alternatives were discussed, however this option and location is the best choice. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting these variances will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. Per the applicant, the proposed sign will be located within an existing landscape area and there are no neighboring properties near the location. The Board notes that this property is unique due to its configuration and surroundings. 3. The Board notes the requested variance of 9.4% is not substantial. However, the Number of sign request is considered substantial. The substantiality of the number of sign request is mitigated by the use and size of the property. The Board believes the number of signs is consistent with the property considering the two separate entrances. 4. The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood as noted above. 5. The alleged difficulty is considered self-created insofar as the applicant desires to relocate the existing sign and increase the number of over all signs. However, this is not necessarily fatal to the application. 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; Matthew Gutch, in favor; Brendan Dailey, in favor; Alice Smith, Alternate, in favor; MOTION PASSES: 6-0 3. #20220862 190-194 GRAND AVENUE VARIANCE, 190-194 Grand, Area Variance to permit the subdivision of an existing lot to create three lots in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 24, 2022 - Page 3 of 17 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Lot#1 Minimum Lot Size 6600 4274 sq. ft. 2326 ft. or 35.2% Minimum Average Width 60 ft. 28 ft. 32 ft. or 53.3% Corner Side 10 ft. 0 ft. 10 ft. or 100% Permeability 70% 74.3% 4.3% or 6.1% Lot#2 Minimum Lot Size 6600 3873 sq. ft. 2727 ft. or 41.3% Minimum Average Width 60 ft. 26 ft. 34 ft. or 56.7% Permeability 70% 76.6% 6.6% or 9.4% Interior Side 8 ft. 0 ft. 8 ft. or 100% Interior Side 8ft. 0 ft. 8 ft. or 100% Minimum Total Side 20 ft. 0 ft. 20 ft. or 100% Lot #3 Minimum Lot Size 6600 4152 sq. ft. 2448 sq. ft. or 37.1% Minimum Average Width 60 ft. 27 ft. 33 ft. or 55.0% Maximum Principal Coverage 40% 41.3% 1.3% or 3.2% Permeability 70% 77.4% 7.4% or 10.6% Interior Side 8 ft. 0 ft. 8 ft. or 100.0% Intrerior Side 8 ft. 0 ft. 8 ft. or 100.0% Minimum Total Side 20 ft. 0 ft. 20 ft. or 100.0% Accessory to Side 5 ft. 0.1 ft. 4.9 ft. or 98.0% Accessory to Rear 5 ft. 0 ft. 5 ft. or 100.0% Applicant: Mary Alloy & Gary Quirion Agent: Matthew Jones, Attorney, Dave Carr, LA Group Mr. Jones stated this application is a bit unique. There is nothing about the property that is a result of the applicants and what they have done. There is nothing that they are going to do which triggers these variances. All of this is driven by the client’s desire to take the 5-bedroom unit apartment building and turn it into 3 town homes. If approval is granted for the variances, we will then proceed to the Planning Board for subdivision approval. The property will remain as it looks today. The variances are required due to the new UDO. A visual of the site was provided to the Board noting the property will be designated as 190, 192 and 194 Grand Avenue. Mr. Jones reviewed the previous approved variances issued in 1994. Mr. Carr provided a review of all the variances requested, where they are located and the location of the subdivision lines through the property which follows the basement walls per the surveyor who went inside the building. These will be owner occupied units. The footprint will be maintained and there will be no change in the character of the neighborhood. Each lot will have two parking spaces as per code and there will be cross lot easements for the parking. Mr. Jones stated there is no change to the structure or accessory shed. It is the applicant’s desire to maintain the building footprint and exterior in its current condition. Modification will be made to the interior only. Converting five apartments to three single family residences. There is no opportunity to purchase additional land, no change in the character in the neighborhood, will result in reduction density and facilitates an opportunity for three single-family units that are privately owned. The applicants acknowledge the need for 18 variances is driven by the desire to subdivide the property into three units and maintain the existing storage shed. As determined by the 1994 ZBA Board, the property has existed in its current configuration prior to July 7, 1961. There will be no physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood only the reduction from 5 units to 3 units and the storage shed is remaining in its current location. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated he loves this project. The shed will belong to Lot #3, and can it be moved off the property line. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 24, 2022 - Page 4 of 17 Mr. Carr stated he will go back and see if the shed can be moved and provide that information to the Board. Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, stated the location of the shed looks like it could be improved, or the shed could be removed. Mr. Carr stated even though the shed is to be owned by one unit, these units do not have garages. So, this is used for storage. We will speak with the applicants. Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, also questioned permeability. Is there anything that can be done to improve the permeability. Also, does the back fence go over the property line. If so, that is something else you might wish to clear up. Mr. Carr stated he does not know about the permeability, but they can look at that and the fence as well. Cherie Grey questioned if the applicant considered a condominium project versus the three individual single-family residences. She is also concerned regarding the shed’s location. Mr. Jones stated it was cost prohibitive to pursue condominiums. He is unsure when the shed was placed in this location and how long it has been in this location. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated we do have questions for the applicant. The shed location, if it can be moved, permeability and if the fence encroaches. If this information can be supplied to staff by November 14th you can be placed on the next agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, opened the public hearing at 7:29 P.M. Gage Simpson, Chair, asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this application. None heard. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated we will leave the public hearing open until the next meeting. Gage Simpson, Chair also requested a written Advisory Opinion from the Planning Board on this matter. 4. #20220830 14 MACARTHUR REAR DECK, 14 MacArthur, Area Variance to permit the construction of a rear deck in the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Interior Side 12 ft. 5 ft. 7 ft. or 58.3% Interior Side 12 ft. 5 ft. 7 ft. or 58.3% Rear Setback 30 ft. 25 ft. 5 ft. Applicant: Robert & Karen Kear We are proposing to build a deck on the rear of the home and will require variances. DISCLOSURE: Cherie Grey stated she visited the site. The homeowner pointed out where the deck is proposed. That will not influence her decision in this matter. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, stated they have not provided a survey. Ms. Kear stated the are proposing a deck on the rear of their home. The deck is 28 ft. in width and 16 ft. into the backyard. This puts the deck about 4½ ft. shy of the 30 ft. requirement from the rear property line. There is no survey currently. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 24, 2022 - Page 5 of 17 Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, stated one of the tests is feasibility of other options or plans. Is there an opportunity to reduce the deck size to do away with the variances. Was a patio considered? Also, it would be helpful to have plans and information on what you are proposing. Ms. Kear stated the deck size is optimal for the proposed use and furniture they have for the area. They did not consider other plans. Cherie Grey stated she is uncomfortable without any plans. She feels we need to have something on paper to see what is being proposed. Brendan Dailey stated more information would be helpful. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated any additional information or plans would be helpful, either alternative plans or a survey. This information should be provided by November 14th, to be placed on the next agenda for November 28th. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, opened the public hearing at 7:48 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. 5. #20220828 3257 RT 9 NEW SIGN, 3257 Route 9, Area Variance to permit the installation of an externally illuminated directory sign 8 ft. in height and 28.3 sq. ft. in the Gateway Commercial Rural (GC-R) District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUESTED Freestanding sign size 12 ft. 28.4 ft. 16.4 ft. or 136.7% Agent: Darla Delshaw – Ray Signs Ms. Delshaw stated the applicant is looking to replace the 24-year-old internally illuminated damaged sign. The applicant is proposing a new sign to improve the look of the signage that fits the area. What the applicant is proposing is to remove the existing internally illuminated tenant directory sign 8’ height by 8’4” in width. We are proposing to install a new tenant directory externally illuminated sign 8’ height by 5’ 7” width with individual tenant plaques. Visuals of what is existing versus what is being proposed in this gateway with a 55 MPH speed limit was provided. Brendan Dailey questioned if there are comparable signs in the area. Ms. Delshaw provided visuals of comparable signage in the area. Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, questioned the placement of the new sign. He understands the reasoning for the size of the sign, his concerned regarding visibility in exiting from the site. Ms. Delshaw stated the new sign will be placed in the exact location where the current sign exists. The current signage is placed 32 feet from the edge of the roadway. The current sign is 32 sq. ft., and the proposed new sign is 28 sq. ft. which is smaller with ground lighting. Cherie Grey questioned if the number of tenants will remain at 8 and is this the maximum number of tenants for this space. She appreciates the address being included on the sign. Is it possible for you to provide a visual of what the signage will look like as you are approaching it in the car and how easily it will be readable, on the site with the building on the property. A photograph about 100 ft. away would be helpful. The size appears to be properly sized for this area and number of tenants. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 24, 2022 - Page 6 of 17 Gage Simpson, Chair, stated if you took a photograph from 100 ft. away and placed your sign dimensions in there, so the Board can visualize it at that speed. Ms. Delshaw stated there are currently 8 tenants, which is the maximum number of tenants for this space. The current sign has tenants with signage that have logos, with lower- and upper-case lettering, with different colors. The new sign proposed with be using plain text, which will be easier to read. The photograph provided was superimposed on the current sign. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated this appears to be the only information we have requested. We should have a resolution prepared to present at the next meeting scheduled for November 28th. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, stated we are awaiting a referral from Saratoga County Planning Board. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, opened the public hearing at 7:58 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. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 6. #20220446 1 ALGER AREA VARIANCE, 1 Alger Street, Area Variance to construct screened porch in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) 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 Maximum Principal Coverage 30% 56.7% 26.7% or 89.0% Setback-Front-Alger Street Home 10 ft. 7.1 ft. 2.9 ft. or 29.0% Setback-Front-Alger Street screened porch 10 ft. 0.3 ft. 9.7 ft. or 97.0% Applicant: Luke & Lauren Boughton Agent: Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America Ms. Yasenchak stated at the last appearance before the Board we had discussions regarding the size of the screen porch, if we could go back and revise the plans to lessen the relief requested. We were also asked for an existing floor plan and elevations of the porch. A CAD drawing was submitted along with additional photographs of the house and the neighborhood. A visual of the modified site plan was provided noting an additional 6 inches was shaved off the building, keeping the setback as previously submitted. The reasoning for this was to have a better elevation from the outside. We felt the mass and scale would be diminished if we removed it from the rake. The Boughtons feel that 7 ft. is adequate to fits their needs as a covered entry as well as a place to sit outdoors. A visual of the existing floor plans were provided to the Board along with the screen porch shown. The house has a unique floor plan which is very lineal, showing the garage at the far end of the home. The location of the screen porch was chosen due to the proximity to the kitchen and using a doorway which previously existed. Ms. Yasenchak provided a visual of the home’s elevations drawn in CAD showing the screen porch, and the additions to the home. The screen porch does help to break up the long train square box like look of the home and helps to blend in with the consistency of the neighborhood. Everything else in the neighborhood appears to be two stories and they all have porches. There is no other home on the street like this long and strung out. Photographs of the home from all streetscapes along with views of the fencing which will be kept but moved more onto their property. At an earlier meeting, the local building locations in the neighborhood on Alger Street were provided. The porch they constructed is on Alger and there are porches in the area and are difficult to measure. The measurements and comparables are from the road edge and not the property line. This does show it is not out of character for the neighborhood. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 24, 2022 - Page 7 of 17 Ms. Yasenchak stated Mr. Boughton provided a table of the homes in the surrounding neighborhood with decks. There was a total of 79 homes with decks, average number of decks per house was 1.35. He used porch and deck interchangeably. Percentage of homes with decks or porches was 97.47% in this neighborhood. He looked at the number of those decks/porches which existed, how many of those were roofed and that was 84 or 79%. There were 16 decks uncovered about 15% and porches that were roofed with windows were 7 or 6½%. The important number is 97% of the homes in this area had a porch or deck. 84 of them had roofs. What we are asking for is small screen porch which is very consistent with the neighborhood. We also included photographs of porches in the area which are right on the front property line. What we are asking for is small in comparison to the neighborhood but very consistent with the neighborhood. We do have strong neighborhood support and they spoke at a previous meeting and supplied written correspondence. The Boughtons are going through the process with code enforcement and hope that the Board reviews this application for the variances requested. Gage Simpson, Chair, questioned if the Board is to review this as a new build why the porch cannot be 6 ft. versus 7 ft. Ms. Yasenchak stated as we discussed previously changing the porch to 6ft. starts to get into the footers which have already been placed and would need to be replaced. Ms. Boughton stated the door onto the porch swings out and does cut into the usable space. 6 ft. is a bit too small and close to the wall. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated he does appreciate the data which has been supplied, the charts and neighborhood comparables. The Chair questioned what porches had six feet or less in terms of depth of those examples provided. On Alger Street 75% of them were six feet or less, Woodlawn Avenue 82% were six feet or less, on Vermont Street 50% and on State Street 70%. Ms. Boughton stated the houses on Alger Street come out farther than their home. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated his point is that 6 ft. is obviously usable. The porches you are referencing are 6 ft. or less. Some are 5 ft. and even 4 ft. Ms. Boughton stated they had furniture already had so they built around it. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated he does not have an issue with a front porch that matches everything else. We find ourselves where we need 7ft. prior to coming before the Board. Ms. Boughton stated, so it is a 6 ft. porch but now we have the mature shrubbery in the front and this space now that is going to be an unusable space for them for any purpose. Now we have a space in front of the porch which needs to be addressed. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated that is their decision if it must be 7ft. versus 6 ft. That is where he is. Ms. Boughton stated they are trying to make the most of the small lot size they have. It was a nonconforming lot to being with. We are trying to make it a family friendly lot. We have enjoyed the porch space and we are trying to keep it or a version of it. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated we are trying to provide a benefit to the applicant. The Chair stated he believes a 6 ft. or less porch is fully functional and might fit the house. Alice Smith, Alternate, questioned the fence to be relocated and what does that entail? Ms. Boughton stated we are proposing to remove the fence on the Woodlawn side of the home and still try to have privacy on the Alger Street side due to the foot traffic in that area. You would see the house from the Woodlawn side and the shrubbery bushes hide the rest of the structure. It is not necessarily changing the look of the neighborhood since you cannot see it from the neighborhood. Ms. Yasenchak stated they provided a CAD drawing of the front elevation as if there were no trees. Brendan Dailey stated he agrees with the Chair and would like to see the porch reduced to 6 ft. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 24, 2022 - Page 8 of 17 NOTE: Matthew Gutch exited the meeting due to internet difficulties. Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, stated on the Alger side there is a porch shown not screened in how close is that? Ms. Yasenchak stated it is right on the sidewalk. It is close. Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, questioned the depth of the porch. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, stated keep in mind these are historic homes. Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, stated he is aware, but it still goes to neighborhood character. Is there an overhang on the Alger Street side? Ms. Yasenchak stated just 6”. We kept the 7’6” footprint, just to be consistent. The porch is 7ft to the outside, on the side it 7’6”. Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, stated from a neighborhood character standpoint he does not have an issue with this. The shrubbery provides privacy and makes the porch hard to see. Neighbors did provide support for the project, and it is fitting in with the context of the neighborhood. Cherie Grey stated as noted by the applicant’s agent the Board needs to look at this as a brand-new project. Any footings or furniture purchased or anything else does not matter, because this is a new project. Ms. Yasenchak stated she asked the Board to look at this to stand on its own and not reflect on the past variances, decisions or discussions that were made. We have variances in place for this project now, but she was asking the Board to consider the project as it stands per the application. At the last few meetings there was discussion about well this happened six years ago during a discussion or this and that and she feels that they have a project before this Board now, and this is what we are looking at. It is Code Enforcements job to have discussions regarding violations with the owner. Cherie Grey stated she heard it said that the porch must be at this width due to existing footings, yet you are asking me to look at this as a new project where there would not be any footings. Ms. Yasenchak stated she did not say that she believes it was the Chair. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated he did state that he was looking at this as a new project because, they must remove what is there. Cherie Grey stated she cannot look at the footings, they are irrelevant. She is looking at this as a new project not as something that is in existence. What is feasible. She is looking at this as an addition to a room on the front of the house. This does not read as a porch to me like the historic ones in the neighborhood where you have a roof, it is open and there are rockers on it. Ms. Boughton stated she has a couch and a chair on the porch, not a massive amount of furniture. Cherie Grey stated if this came to us as a new project, I would be asking what alternatives you have looked at, not screening it in like the other historic porches in the area that you are comparing this to. Is there something that could be done with the door, could it be moved in a different location. Ms. Boughton stated it is a cinder block house and they were not looking to get into any further structural changes. Cherie Grey stated we would ask for all the alternatives. Tonya knows the questions the Board asks. Ms. Yasenchak stated she understands but since this was done under violation without a permit, the hardship was it has been built. Ms. Boughton was passionate before this Board knowing what they did was an error. My bringing information to this Board was knowing there was a structure there and the hardship. The size and scale were brought with those parameters in place. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 24, 2022 - Page 9 of 17 Cherie Grey stated the whole size of it also gets her back into the principal coverage. She feels that the principal coverage given to this addition by a previous resolution and a previous Board was extremely generous. She knows other houses in the neighborhood have higher percentages, but they have larger lots and not this type of percentage. It is a small lot, and she feels that is why the resolution was approved for that higher principal coverage and the best way to make this a more usable home. She is having a big struggle to even think about adding more principal coverage to this lot. She feels that decision was made by a previous Board in a previous resolution for this property and she is not comfortable adding more principal coverage to this property in this location. This is a room addition on the front of this home not a porch. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, stated the public hearing 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 8:29 P.M. Gage Simpson, Chair, presented the following resolution. #20220446 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Luke and Lauren Boughton 1 Alger St. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 1 Alger Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.43-4-18 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 addition of a screened porch in an Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 27th day of June through the 12th day of September 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 variances for the following amount of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Maximum Principal Coverage 30% 56.7% 26.7% (89%) Front Setback to House (Alger St) 10’ 7.1’ 2.9 (29%) Front Setback to Porch (Alger St) 10’ 0.3’ 9.7’ (97%) as per the submitted plans, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. While the applicants have demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicants, the Board finds the applicants’ desire for a screened porch does not outweigh the negative impact the structure creates to the zoning requirements. Per Zoning Board Resolution “2865 Boughton” the Board noted that several neighboring properties exceed 50% coverage and the approved coverage of 54% would be at the upper end of the range in the neighborhood. That Board also noted that further relief for maximum principal coverage would be inconsistent with neighborhood character. This Board agrees with that sentiment. 2. The applicants have not demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicants provided several neighbor comments in support of the screened porch. The previous resolution also had a condition of no additional accessory structures. The applicants have noted that they unintentionally built an accessory screened porch structure and now would like to convert it into part of their principal structure. 3. The Board notes the requested variances of 89%, 29%, and 97% are substantial. The substantiality of the maximum principal coverage can be reduced if the Board considers the previous resolution approval of 54% being increased by 2.7% to 56.7%. However, the previous Board’s decision to allow the 54% coverage is still considered at the upper end of the range in the neighborhood and this City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 24, 2022 - Page 10 of 17 Board notes adding an additional 2.7% would be considered substantial in this case. The 29% variance is mitigated by the house being pre-existing, non-conforming and any work done would require a variance. The Board finds it difficult to mitigate the substantiality of the 97% variance of the front setback to the porch. While neighboring properties have porches that extend to the sidewalk, the Board's responsibility is to reduce the number and size of the variances whenever possible. 4.This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The existing home meets district required permeability. 5. The alleged difficulty is considered self-created insofar as the applicant’s desire to build the screened porch. However, this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Cherie Grey seconded the motion. Gage Simpson, Chair, asked if there was any further discussion. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the resolution. VOTE: Gage Simpson, Chair, opposed; Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, opposed; Cherie Grey, in favor; Brendan Dailey, opposed; Alice Smith, Alternate, opposed MOTION DENIED: 4-1 Gage Simpson, Chair questioned if there was a resolution for approval. Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, questioned if the Board would postpone this application to the next meeting. This will provide the Board ample time to craft a new resolution to be presented at the next ZBA meeting scheduled for November 28th. 7. #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. This is a previously opened application. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Applicant: Gly Chilton Agent: Scott – Nolan Engineering Mr. Chilton stated the Board requested that he provide a statement/agreement from his neighbor with regarding to an easement. He met with them and explained the situation. The neighbor stated he was fine with the construction but preferred to have the agreement checked out. He has not provided the signed agreement at this time from him. The Board also asked about drainage. Scott – Nolan Engineering stated he did revise the drawings. Gage Simpson, Chair, explained that the driveway is not part of the addition. The property is existing over the property line, they may require an easement from the neighbors indicating it is okay for the keep the driveway on the existing property where it is. Jackie White, Counsel to the Land Use Boards stated the Board wants to be careful delving into property rights between neighbors. If you can identify an issue related to any of these encroachments that are related to the actual relief requested before you. There is a condition which could alleviate an impact that the relief before you are creating. Then it might be appropriate to have a condition. Otherwise, we would recommend that you not delve into anything that is not being touched as part of the project before you. Cherie Grey stated at the last meeting it was clear that we would need to have an easement on this driveway before we could present a resolution. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 24, 2022 - Page 11 of 17 Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, stated the easement is not on the driveway. The driveway is not impacted by the addition. The easement should be related to the overhang. The overhang is what is encroaching on the neighbors. It is just the rewording of the condition noting an easement being acquired. There are two options. An easement be obtained for the overhangs or to reduce them to remove them off the property line. The approval will be conditioned on acquiring the easement or removal of the overhangs on the property line. Scott – Nolan Engineering stated they had the guttering on the existing overhang face, which technically encroaches more. What exactly do you want us to do. We are willing to do whatever the Board wants we just need clarification. This entire wall will be fire rated. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated one of the Board members mentioned water mitigation and the possibility of guttering. That was a statement made by a Board member but does not necessarily mean you should install guttering there. Scott – Nolan Engineering stated to do the second-floor addition it makes sense to remove what is there, rather than clip every rafter down and try to support it. It is required to be fire blocked. In hindsight I might have said to keep the existing overhang. We are removing the existing roof, but we did not intend to encroach any more than what had existed. Cherie Grey questioned what the new revised plan is you spoke about. Scott – Nolan Engineering provided a visual showing comparables in terms of canopies in relation to the front property line proximity. We have attempted to illustrate this for the Board. We are not proposing to go beyond the front steps which exist. The engineer did place a dry well on the drawings if a gutter is indeed required. Cherie Grey questioned the location of the guttering on the upper roof or lower roof. Scott-Nolan Engineering stated they did consider the upper roof. Cherie Grey stated if the guttering were placed on the upper roof that would eliminate the issue with the increase in the encroachment and would capture the water off the roof. Brendan Farrington stated he is fine with the resolution being contingent upon the easement from the neighbor. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, stated the public hearing 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 8:55 P.M. Cherie Grey presented the following resolution. #20220898 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Glyn Chilton and Patricia Chilton 203 Division Street Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 203 Division Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.58-1-25 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 front porch alteration, and second story loft on an existing single-family residence in a UR-2 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on application held on October 17 and 24, 2022. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 24, 2022 - Page 12 of 17 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—Porch Canopy 10 ft. .75 ft. 9.25 ft. (92.5%) Minimum front yard setback—Principal building 10 ft. 4.5 ft. 5.5 ft. (55%) Minimum interior side setback—west side of loft 8 ft. 2.5 ft. 5.5 ft. (68.8%) 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 a second story loft addition to a pre-existing nonconforming home where the setback is pre-existing, non-conforming. The applicant states that although the house is built on the lot line, the second story loft will be stepped back to be further away from the lot line at 2.5 feet. The front stoop is also pre-existing, non-conforming and the applicant wants to add a canopy over the stoop for weather protection. The Board notes that the applicant provided homes in the neighborhood where the front stoops and porches are built on or very close to the front setback. 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. Other alternatives were considered; however, the applicant wants to keep the house a small footprint with the least amount of additions. The applicant states they have downsized to this home, but still want an area for visiting family to stay within the home. No windows will be installed on the loft on the side setback of 2.5 feet. 3. Although the variances are substantial at 92.5%, 55% and 68.8%, this is due to the fact that the existing house is constructed at the distances above and any addition would impact the front and side setbacks. 4. The Board finds this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. Permeability requirements will meet district requirements. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicants’ desire to construct the proposed addition, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Condition: The Current overhang encroachment shall be remedied by an easement or a reduction in the overhang or other permissible alternative. 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 NOTE: The agenda was heard out of order due to lack of representation for Agenda Item #8. 9. #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. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 24, 2022 - Page 13 of 17 This is a previously opened application. The public hearing was opened and remains open. Applicant: Saratoga CoWorks Agent: Adam Wakulenko, Adirondack Signs Mr. Wakulenko stated at the last appearance before the Board it was requested for the applicant to provide neighborhood comparables like what the applicant is requesting, as a narrative which was requested. The applicant’s agent provided neighborhood comparables, Key Bank; FedEx; Embassy Suites; Spa City Motor Lodge; Howard Hanna; Fingerpaint Marketing; Walgreens; Grand Pavilion Hotel, above the second floor. On Broadway, Faces of Saratoga, Columbia Cabinets, Pint Sized; CVS; Pizza Hut; and McFadden Administrative Building all signs are above the first floor. Gage Simpson, Chair, thanked the applicant’s agent for providing those examples. Were any of those signs specific to second floor businesses. Do these examples have businesses that occupy both floors. Mr. Wakulenko stated there are offices above the FedEx business, and those on Congress Street have other offices above where the sign is located. Gage Simpson, Chair, stated you are in a unique position where the business is on the second floor. Cherie Grey thanked the applicant’s agent for the examples of signage in this area. She is leaning towards the first-floor signage example. Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the alternatives for signage and the examples provided. PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, stated the public hearing 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 9:14 P.M. Brendan Dailey presented the following resolution. 20220843 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Saratoga Co Works 92 Congress Street Saratoga Springs NY 12866 In the matter of the appeal from the Building Inspector’s determination involving 92 Congress Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being Tax Parcel 165.66-2-90 on the assessment map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance under the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) of said City to permit a wall sign above first floor in the UC/T-6 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 17th day of October through the 24th day of October 2022. 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 TOTAL RELIEF REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Wall Sign above first floor Not Permitted Permitted 100% relief City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 24, 2022 - Page 14 of 17 As per the submitted plans or lesser relief, be approved as per this Board’s consideration of the following factors: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant desires to locate fabricated dimensional lettered sign above first floor, due to the building configuration and surroundings, and the uniqueness as the business is only located on the second floor. The applicant noted that the permitted dimensions do not provide sufficient visibility to their business location for customers and provided neighborhood context of other business signs above the first floor. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting these variances will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. Per the applicant, the proposed sign will not be illuminated, and will not impose upon any of the neighboring properties. The Board notes the applicant also provided other options but noted which one they believed would be optimal for their business. 3. The Board notes the requested variance is substantial. However, the Board notes that the substantiality is mitigated by its low impact on the neighboring properties, as noted above. 4. The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood; as noted above. 5. The alleged difficulty is considered self-created insofar as the applicant desires to install a sign above the first floor. However, this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: DRB Review is required for the proposed sign. 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 8. #20220854 4 NORTH CIRCULAR FRONT PORCH AREA VARIANCE, 4 North Circular Street, Area Variance to Permit the renovation of a front porch in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. This is a previously opened application. The public hearing was opened and remains open. No additional information was requested from the applicant. Applicant: Matt Neuringer PUBLIC HEARING: Gage Simpson, Chair, stated the public hearing 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 9:24 P.M. Brendan Dailey presented the following resolution. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 24, 2022 - Page 15 of 17  #20220854 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Jacquelyn Neuringer 4 North Circular Street Saratoga Springs NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 4 North Circular Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.44-1-8 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 renovation of a front porch in the Urban Residential -2 (UR-2) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on October 17th through to the 24th , 2022. 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 REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED Setback Front (to porch) 10’ 5’ 5’ (50%) as per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The applicants have demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicants. The applicants want to build an addition to. The applicants note they have considered other alternatives. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The replacement and extension is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood and does not alter the current character of the street. The proposed front porch will be at the same setback as the existing porch; however, the new porch will be extended widthwise. 3. The Board notes the requested variance is substantial but not necessarily detrimental to the applicant. Substantiality is mitigated by the points noted above 4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. Permeability will meet district requirements. 5. The alleged difficulty is considered self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct the addition; however, this is not necessarily fatal to the application. 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 APROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Approval of meeting minutes was deferred to the November 28, 2022, ZBA meeting. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 24, 2022 - Page 16 of 17 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Gage Simpson, Chair, adjourned the meeting at 9:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Diane M. Buzanowski Recording Secretary Minutes approved November 28, 2002 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – October 24, 2022 - Page 17 of 17