Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, JULY 10, 2023 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Cherie Grey- Interim Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:32P.M. PRESENT: Cheryl Grey- Interim Chair, Emily Bergmann, Brenda Dailey, Shafer Gaston, A. Smith ABSENT: Gage Simpson- Chair, Brad Gallagher- V. Chair 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: NEW BUSINESS: 1. #20230358 182 Excelsior Area Variance, 182 Excelsior Avenue, Area variance to permit a 2-lot subdivision within the Urban Residential -4 (UR-4) District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED 3000 sqft/du Min Lot Size 2228 sqft/ du 772sqft or 25.7% The application was represented by Walt Lippmann, also present Mike Tuck. Walt noted the location of the project. He provided an aerial map with the neighboring zoning districts. He discussed the original project design which included the demolition of the historic structures. He noted after is initial project review by the planning board it was recommended the structures be preserved. This resulted in the most recent iteration which included a proposed subdivision and the relocation of the historic structures and a connection to the spring run trial. Lot 2 meets the requirement for density. He noted the project proposal is to have 1 dwelling unit per 22oosqft instead of the required 3000sqft. He discussed neighboring multi family dwelling units in the neighborhood under the 3000sqft although they were in different zoning districts they are part of the neighborhood. Mike Tuck noted the original plan was to demolish the existing structure. However since those buildings are being preserved the new structures had to be scaled to an appropriate mass and scale in relation to the existing historic structures. He noted the proposed materials are consistent with the recommendations from the Design Review Board. He noted the proposal includes 9 units per building and there will be 4 buildings. He noted the intent is to preserve the prominence of the historic structures and have the new building complementary background buildings. Cherie asked for confirmation on the number of stories Mike confirmed that the building will be 3.5 stories if you also count the attic space. He also confirmed that there will be 2 dwellings in the carriage house. Mike confirmed the relief is only required for the larger lot. Shafer asked for confirmation on the sq. footage of living space, mike conformed it would be approximately 1100sqft of living space. Shafer asked for conformation on the accessibility to transit and bus stops. Mike noted that further investigation into transit will be done during the planning board review phase. He noted during sketch plan the planning board asked for more information regarding connectivity. Shafer asked if the applicant considered keeping the lot together that would result in a lesser ask from the Board. Mike noted since the structures will be preserved from a financial perspective it makes sense to separate the condominium section from the rental units. He noted if it was one lot the sq. footage would slightly improve to app 2400sqft/du instead of the 2200sqft/du. Brandon asked for more information regarding storm water and permeability. He noted housing is desperately needed in Saratoga. Walt noted there was 1 non jurisdictional wetland on the property. He further noted measures are being put in place to improve drainage through landscaping and storm water management areas. He further noted the plan is to keep as many trees on the property as possible. Cherie noted the planning Board issued a favorable advisory and a negative SEQR Declaration. Emily noted based on the proposed density if there will be 10 additional unites. Mike confirmed the reduction in sq. footage will allow for 10 additional units. Alice asked for conformation regarding the rental and sale of the units. Mike noted the plan is to make the homes attainable at 15-20% below market value. The condominium units will be for sale. Cherie asked about the parking. Mike noted he parking requirements will be met. Cherie opened public hearing at 7:04pm Laura Rapaport at 22 excelsior Spring Avenue. She noted she has lived here for 22 years, and she previously sat on the planning board and although she is not here in that capacity. She noted she is not opposing the project however she strongly recommends it be scaled back. She further noted there needs to be significant consideration regarding the safety for pedestrians and motorist. She noted if the variance was to be approved there needs to be some conditions. She further noted as it pertains to neighborhood context, is primarily single family except for the water bottling plant. She noted she strongly disagrees with the planning boards favorable advisory or negative SEQR. She also states the role of the board is to balance the applicant’s needs to the impacts on the neighborhood. She further noted the board should not consider the financial implications as that is not part of the evaluation criteria. Public hearing remains open. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2023 - Page 2 of 15 2. 20230396 402 Lake Area Variance Extension , 402 Lake Avenue, Area variance extension to permit the construction of a new convenience store within the Rural Residential (RR)District. Chuck Marshal represented the application. He disclosed he is a member of the planning board. He noted the application previously received approval that has since expired. He noted there is a negative SEQR. He noted he received the DRB ad Planning Board approval. He noted when he applied for the building permit the office noted the variances expired. Cherie asked if any aspect of the project has changed. The applicant noted nothing has changed with project. Cherie opened public hearing at 7:14, no comments were heard. Cherie Closed Public hearing at 7:15 and presented the following motion. #20230396 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Stewart’s Shops Corporation 402 Lake Avenue 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 Stewart’s Shops Corporation for the property located at 402 Lake Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, and identified as tax parcel 166-3-26 that was granted on September 27, 2021 for construction of a new commercial structure with gasoline fueling canopies in a Rural Residential District, be approved and that the variance approval be extended from 18 months from the date that such resolution would have expired, March 27, 2023 with the new expiration date to be September 27, 2025. The variance shall expire on September 27, 2025 unless the necessary building permit has been issued and actual construction begun as per the Zoning Ordinance or otherwise further extended. It is so moved, dated: July 10, 2023, Seconded by Emily Bergmann Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 5 (C, Grey, S. Gaston, B. Dailey, A. Smith, E. Bergmann) NAYES: 3. 20230383 Cardona’s Area Variance Modification , 222 Washington, Area variance extension to permit the construction of a new convenience store within the Rural Residential (RR)District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED Max cumulative area of 1 story 3000 sqft 3820sqft 820sqft or 27.3% building Min Height 24’ 14’ 10’ (41.7%) Min build out Percentage 50’ 0’ 50’ (100%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2023 - Page 3 of 15 The application was presented by John Primo. He noted the previous land use board approval was granted from all three land use board. He noted since that approval the project has been modified. He noted the owner is planning to reduce the size of the building due to construction costs. He noted building height and elevation remains the same. The change will be on the size of the building. The exiting shell of the building will remain as is and the new areas will no longer be flush with the existing building. He noted there is 5/6ft parapet with everything draining to the back. He noted the new relief is an improvement as it pertains to the cumulative area of 1 story. He noted the build out percentage is the same 0%, just less area. Also there is an improvement in the parking spaces being provided. Shafer asked if the permeability will be increased. The applicant noted the paved area will be reduced. He noted the additional build out will be over paved area and not worsening the drainage. The Dave Carr noted the change in permeability net neutral. Cherie opened public hearing at 7:33pm. No comments were heard. Public hearing was closed at 7:33 and Cherie resented the following motion. #20230383 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Cardona’s Market 222 Washington Street Saratoga Springs NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 222 Washington Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.65-3-10.1 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance under the Zoning Ordinance of said City to permit a renovation and rear addition to the existing building within the Transect-4 Urban Neighborhood (UN/T-4) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on November 28th, 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 Maximum Cumulative Area of 3000sqft 3820sqft 820’ (27%) 1 story building Minimum Height 24’ 14’ 10’ (41.7%) Minimum 50’ 0’ 50’ (100%) Build-Out Percentage As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be APPROVED for the following reasons: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2023 - Page 4 of 15  1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicants. The applicant wants to conduct a renovation and rear addition to their building in order to expand their business. The applicant received variances and a favorable resolution (#20210935) but later found the construction costs where higher than anticipated. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The business has been in this location for an extended period of time and does not alter the current character of the street/neighboring properties 3. The Board notes the requested variances are substantial but not necessarily detrimental to the application. The rear addition was reduced in size resulting in lesser relief needs. The Height and Build out percentages are due to the pre-existing nature of the building 4. This variance will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. Standard permeability requirements will be met. 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. It is so moved, dated: July 10, 2023 Seconded by Emily Bergmann Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 5 (C. Grey, S. Gaston, B. Dailey, A. Smith, E. Bergmann) NAYES: 4. #20230279 43 Granite Porch Area Variance, 43 Granite Avenue, Area variance to permit the construction of a front porch with roof within the Urban Residential -3 (UR-3) District. Edward Baker represented the application he noted his wife and him purchased the property in 2013. They did significant renovation. The intent of this proposal is to build a porch which is more consistent with the neighborhood. They currently have a stoop and smaller porch and it is in significant disrepair. The stairs are a hazard due to the difference in rise and run. He noted the neighboring porch is 4ft to the setback. He noted his porch is way back. Shafer noted the application that was filled is not reflective of what was presented tonight. He noted in the application the applicant stated the hardship is not self-created. Shafer noted that since the applicant purchased the home and want to add the porch the hardship seems self-created although it is not detrimental to the application. He also stated he would need written documentation of the neighborhood comps and context. He further noted the applicant should work with city staff to add material to the application for the record. Cherie stated the she needs a survey to show where the proposed addition will be. The drawings and elevation drawings presented are not adequate. The applicant noted he didn’t provide the survey but felt the elevation drawings were adequate. He further stated he will provide the drawings. Alice noted she would like see the drawings and plans. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2023 - Page 5 of 15 Brendan noted he would appreciate additional information regarding the neighborhood context. Shafer noted the applicant should reach out to city staff to confirm the receipt of the information. Aneisha Samuels noted if the property is in the UR-3 then there may not be a need for the variances being requested. She further noted she will need to confirm the zoning relief being requested with the zoning officer. Cherie opened public hearing at 7:53pm. No comments were heard. 5. 20230335 9 Clark Zoning Interpretation , 9 Clark Street, Zoning Interpretation of the 1973 Zoning Code section 135-33 and a 1983 Variance Approval. The application was presented by Stephanie Ferradino. She noted the property is located in the UR-3 District. She noted the property was purchased in 2019 by her clients. She noted it was during a routine inspection that they discovered the 4th unit was not permitted as there was no Certificate of Occupancy/ CO. She further noted the lot is unusually shaped. In 1979 there were 4 units/buildings on the site and 1 was removed to increase the parking. At that time an application was made to place a 4th unit in the main house. At that time a variance approval was issued in 1983 to permit the 4th unit. It was constructed. However no building permit was issued. She further argues that variances run with the land and there is no time limitation at that time. She noted the zoning code at that time had no expiration clause or time limitations. She further noted that since those limitations were absent then the variance should go with the land. She further discussed how time limitations evolved in the City. She noted Mr. Biffer 1992 determination, and stated he was reviewing the wring code and Mr. Shaw’s determination followed a similar procedure and used the wring code. Cherie disclosed she knows the applicants however it doesn’t impact on her ability to make a decision. She noted she appreciates Stephanie’s presentation. Aneisha Samuels noted that a subsequent city council decision would preclude this approval from being valid. Jackie noted she us unclear where we are procedurally. She further noted she believes there needs to be some further discussion with the zoning officer. Cherie opened public hearing at approximately 8:15pm, no comments were heard. Shafer noted he has some questions for the applicant. He wanted some clarification regarding the validity of the expiration clause. Aneisha Samuels noted it would be a use variance to permit the 4th unit in this district. 6. 20230325 151- 153 Nelson Subdivision, 151 & 153 Nelson Avenue, Area variance to permit a subdivision in the Urban Residential -3 District AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2023 - Page 6 of 15 TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED Setback – Front (LOT 1) 10’ 4.4’ 5.6’ (56%) Setback - Interior Side (LOT 1) 5’ 2.3’ 2.7’ (54%) Parking (LOT 1) 14 10 4 (28.6%) Min Ave. Lot Width (Lot 2) 60’ 33’ 27’ (45%) Setback – Interior Side (Lot 2) 5’ 2.2’ 2.8 (56%) Parking (Lot 2) 10 6 4 (40%) Setback - Interior Side (Lot 3) 5’ 4.8 0.2’ (4%) Dave Carr represented the application. He noted there two existing building on the properties as there are two existing parcels, including an existing 5 and 7 unit. He noted provided a detail description of the existing conditions on the properties. He presented the proposed lot lines for the additional lot. Making it a total of three lots being proposed. The proposal is to create a lot around the barn and market it as a single family lot. The though is to make lot three as compliant as possible on requesting the interior side to the existing barn. He noted he is aware they need to go to the planning board for advisory and later subdivision approval. He noted the proposed parking is taking into consideration what he believes the planning board would recommend. He noted the proposed parking off north lane is similar to what it is now only deeper to meet code. Brendan Dailey presented a motion for coordinated SEQR and defer lead agency to the planning Board. It is so moved, dated: July 10, 2023 Seconded by Emily Bergmann Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 5 (C. Grey, S. Gaston, B. Dailey, A. Smith, E. Bergmann) NAYES: The Boards also noted a Planning Board advisory is required. Shafer asked if the newly subdivide lot would be UR-3. Aneisha Samuels noted the new lots would also be UR- 3 and would have the same zoning requirements. Cherie asked about the parking and does it have adequate parking for the number of units. Dave noted the applicant is seeking relief for parking on lots 1 and 2. Cherie opened public hearing at 8:34pm. Susan Kwasniski had comments. She noted she is confused about the parking. She noted based on observation especially during track season there isn’t adequate parking. She noted she is a fan of increased density in this area because she is a fan of the greenbelt. However she believes this City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2023 - Page 7 of 15 particular proposal is not consistent and she also believes it would be difficult for the applicant to claim/ prove the hardship. Trish Marquee also had comments she noted she believes this would be an undesirable change to the neighborhood. She also noted this proposal would result in a reduction in the available parking spaces. She stated the requested variances are substantial. She stated storm water is a big issue. She noted her home was purchased 20 years ago at the time she looked at the lighting and how the building is designed and doesn’t impact the light and she noted if another home was to be built there being 11 ft. it may negatively impact on her light and privacy. She noted the barn being a dwelling drastically impacts on her and the neighborhood. John Bordmann noted he also has comments. He stated the parking space relief is unnecessary. He noted the owner operates a parking business during the track season. He feels the relief for parking is not called for. Liz Marchochio also had comments. She started in the application it stated the barn would be renovated. She further stated in the same application it states the barn will be demolished. She noted the barn adds value to the neighborhood and even though it is not in a historic district the barn should be preserved. She also noted parking is an issue. She noted if the subdivision was to be approved there should be a condition to limit the lot three to a single family lot. She noted the proposal would be an undesirable change and ask that it be denied. Bernard Marquee also had comments he noted he has concerns about the location of the dumpster. Public hearing remains open. 7. 20230324 96 Catherine Porch and 2ND Floor Renovation, 96 Catherine Street, Area variance to permit the renovation of an existing house within the Urban Residential-2 District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED Setback – Front 10’ 0 10’ (100%) Setback - Interior Side 8’ 0.7’ 7.3’ (91.3%) Gary Labate represented the application. He noted he is the owner of the property. He noted the home is an eye sore and visual nightmare. He noted he is appearing today for two areas of relief the front relief is an improvement on the exiting encroachment to create a wraparound porch. The interior side setback relief is for the existing home that will be extended to a second floor. Brendan CONTINUED BUSINESS Emily confirmed she was absent at the last meeting but she has reviewed the material and will be able to vote. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2023 - Page 8 of 15 Alice noted she was not at the meeting and she did not get a chance to catch up on the material as such she will not be voting tonight. 8. #20230087 85 Nelson Use Variance. 85 Nelson Avenue, Use variance to permit the conversion of an unlawful multi-family home to a two-family home within the Urban Residential-2 District. The application was represented by John Carusone. He noted he has submitted a comprehensive summary last week. Due to some technical difficulty the board have not been able to review. Emily requested that the applicant provide a synopsis of the material that was provided. John noted he provided a cost evaluation if the home was to be converted into a single family he would be at a loss due to the high conversion cost. He noted he also provided a cash flow analysis from the rental unit that showed a loss. He noted further evaluation of other permitted used would all result in high conversion costs. He further noted this is the retirement income for the applicant and the applicant would not have the money required for the conversion costs. John further noted in terms of self-created hardship, the home is assessed and taxed as a three family residence. The home was sold without a realtor and based on the plain language he found on the residence he say it listed as UR-2 and assessed as a three family. Based on his understanding at the time the home was a legal three family. John further noted he doesn’t believe the three family use would be a detriment to the neighborhood as the property has been used as a three family for over 20 years. He further noted he believes the hardship associated with this property is unique. He further noted other homes exist in the neighborhood that is three family with in-law apartments. Emily noted she wants to see the conversion cost associated with converting the home to a two family. The applicant noted the cost to convert to a two family would be negligible. Brendan noted he would like to see the conversion cost. Cherie asked if the applicant also owns 87 nelson, the applicant noted he also owns that parcel. Cherie noted that 83 nelson the other neighbor is a single family home with an in-law apartment as confirmed by the building department. Cherie noted that Ted noted in a previous discussion that he lived in the front unit but also noted he lost income from not renting the unit. Discussion ensued between Ted Waite and the board. Shafer noted the applicant purchased a home as a multi-family home and is paying taxes as such. He further noted the applicant bought the house. And it is a failure of the city why a voluntary board is being tasked with correcting past transgressions. Cherie noted the applicant should provide the conversion cost to convert to a two family and the feasibility to convert to a single family with in-law suite. Public hearing remains open. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2023 - Page 9 of 15 #9. 20220855 139 State Street Garage Reno Area Variance, 139 State Street, Area variance to permit the renovation of an existing home in the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED 28% Max Principal Coverage % 34.5% 6.5% (23.2%) Setback – Front 30’ 0 30ft (100%) Setback - Interior Side 12’ 5’ 7ft (58.3%) Setback - Min. Total Side 30’ 6.4’ 23.6ft (78.7%) Max Driveway Percentage 25% 34.2% 9.2% (36.8%) Bob Flansberg represented the application. Cherie noted the board had not requested any additional information last time. No additional public comments were heard. Cherie closed public hearing at 9:30 pm Emily presented the following motion: 20220855 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Greg Travis and Karen Lazar 139 State Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 139 State Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 152.-1-5 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to permit the renovation of an existing home in the Urban Residential (UR- 1) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application from October 17, 2022 through July 10, 2023. In consideration of the balance between the benefit to the Applicants with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move that the following variance for the following amount of relief: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2023 - Page 10 of 15 Type of Requirement District Dimensional Requirement Relief Requested Proposed (% variance) Max Principal Coverage % 28% 34.5% 6.5% (23.2%) 30’ 0 30ft (100%) Setback – Front Setback - Interior Side 12’ 5’ 7ft (58.3%) Setback - Min. Total Side 30’ 6.4’ 23.6ft (78.7%) Max Driveway Percentage 25% 34.2% 9.2% (36.8%) 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. In ten months in front of the Board, the applicant has revisited the design of their project numerous times in order to reduce the percentage of variances needed. While the applicant has landed on a zero ft. setback for the front, it is an overall improvement as the current setback for the front is around negative 3.5 feet. This front setback of zero ft. is for the two-car attached garage only as the applicant wishes to have a two car garage replace the current one car garage. The applicant redesigned this garage to push back the second story of the garage approximately 21ft. so that there would not be a second story with a zero percent setback. Additionally, the two car garage is 20 feet deep rather than the standard 24 ft. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or be a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant was able to purchase about 5 and a half feet of land from neighboring Skidmore College in order to help offset part of the side variances and principal coverage. Additionally, the Board notes that the overall design of the house will be more aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. 3. The requested variances are considered substantial. The variances requested are similar in width and square footage to some other approved UR-1 variances, however, this lot is generally larger than the comparable approved variances. For the maximum principal coverage, the current property, if left as is, is 32.8% when the zoning requirement is 28%. However, the proposed survey currently shows it to be 34.5% and therefore. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The existing drainage patterns will remain unchanged. Any changes that would impact drainage are being done toward the interior of the lot, where there is green space to accommodate roof runoff. 5. The request for relief is a self-created hardship. However, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. It is so moved, dated: July 10, 2023 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2023 - Page 11 of 15 Seconded by Brendan Dailey Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 4 (C, Grey, S. Gaston, B. Dailey, E. Bergmann) NAYES: ABSTAINED: A. Smith 10. #20230307 56 Marvin Area Variance, 56 Marvin, Area variance to permit the construction of a second Principal Structure in the Urban Residential -2 (UR-2) District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED Max Dwellings 1 unit 2 units. 1 unit. or (100%) Min Average Lot width 2F 120 ft. 95 ft. 25 ft. or (20.8%) Stephanie Ferradino represented the application. She provided a location analysis and an overview of the variances being requested. She noted the board had asked for comps and she provided some comps including the neighboring parcels which has a similar lot composition as she is proposing for her clients. She reviewed several other comparable lots. She noted her clients made significant investment in the property and she provided an over view illustrating why renovating the existing home further would not be feasible. She also noted any addition to the existing home would cause damage to some existing trees. Cherie noted she believes the proposed second principal is inconsistent with the neighborhood as the most of the ones existing may predate zoning. Brendan noted he believes the proposed is consistent with the neighborhood having lived in this neighborhood before. Public hearing remains open. No additional comments were heard. 11. #20230227 69 Phila Garage Area Variance, 69 Phila Street, Area variance to permit the placement of a detached garage within the Urban Residential -4 (UR-4) District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIRED PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED Accessory to rear 5 ft. 4 ft. 1 ft. or (20%) Accessory to side 5 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft. or (60%) Accessory to side 5 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft. or (60%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2023 - Page 12 of 15 Sue Vie represented the application. She noted based on the feedback from the last meeting they have amended there request. She noted the proposed garage has been bought in to reduce the relief request. She noted the proposed garage would still accommodate two cars. She later discussed comparable lots of garages. Cherie asked if there were any additional lots for purchase. Joe (The owner) noted no additional lands were available for purchase and he has approached the neighbors but no one was willing to sell any additional lands. Cherie asked if the applicant considered a single car garage or another alternative that would eliminate or further reduce the relief. Discussion ensued between Sue and the Board. Public hearing remains open. No additional comments were heard. APROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: No meeting minutes were approved. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Cherie Grey, Interim Board Chair, adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Aneisha Samuels Senior Planner City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 10, 2023 - Page 13 of 15