Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, JULY 24, 2023 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Gage Simpson- Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:30P.M. PRESENT: Gage Simpson- Chair, Brenda Dailey, Shafer Gaston, A. Smith ABSENT: Brad Gallagher- V. Chair, Cheryl Grey, 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: 1. #20230233 Station Lane Site Plan, West Avenue and Station Lane, Initiation of coordinated SEQRA review for a proposed mixed-use project including 9,500 sq. ft. non-residential space and 68 multi-family residential units in the Neighborhood Center (T-5) district. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT RELIEF PROPOSED REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Build Out percentage 70% 61.8% 8.2% or 11.7% Brendan made a motion to initiate Coordinated SEQR and defer Lead Agency status to the Planning Board. It is so moved, dated: July 24, 2023, Seconded by Shafer Gaston Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 4 (S. Gaston, G. Simpson, A. Smith, B. Dailey) NAYES: 0 NEW BUSINESS: 2. 20230324 3 Oak Brook Pool House Shower, 3 Oak Brook, Area variance to permit the installation of a full bath within an accessory structure in the Rural Residential (RR) District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT RELIEF PROPOSED REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Full bathroom in accessory 1 full bathroom Not permitted permitted structure (100%) The application was represented by Robert Sommerville from 3 Oak Brook Saratoga Springs. He noted he is requesting the full bathroom to serve as a wash off area and to heal keep the dogs clean as they have a puppy. He noted he is proposing a door from the inside and the outside. Gage asked for clarification on the location of the pool and he asked for clarification on what is a definition of a full bath based on the UDO. Aneisha Samuels noted that once there is a bathing facility weather tub or shower it is considered a full bath. Gage noted he wanted confirmation that the accessory structure will not be used as a dwelling. The applicant confirmed the use will be accessory to the pool Gage Opened public hearing at 6:36. No public comments where heard. Gage closed public hearing at 6:36 and presented the following motion City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 2 of 15  20230482 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Robert Sommerville and Susan Gurian 3 Oak Brook Blvd. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises located at 3 Oak Brook Blvd. in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 167.-4-14.1 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to permit the installation of a full bath within an accessory structure in the Rural Residential (RR) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on July 24, 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: Type of Requirement District Dimensional Relief Proposed Requirement Requested Install Full Bath on the first floor of Not Permitted Permitted 100% an accessory structure 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 considered other alternatives, including an outdoor shower. Installing an outdoor shower will require the same amount of plumbing as installing an indoor shower. The outdoor shower is less desirable as neighbors could see the shower being used. Additionally there would be drainage and environmental issues should soap be used. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that this granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character and does not negatively alter the streetscape. The shower would be fully located within the first floor of the pool house and out of view from the neighborhood. 3. The requested variances are considered substantial at 100%. Substantiality is mitigated by the points stated in 1 and 2 above. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 3 of 15  4. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. Permeability remains the same 5. The request for relief is a self-created hardship as the applicant wishes to build a shower however, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. It is so moved, dated July 24, 2023. Seconded by Brendan Dailey Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 4 (G. Simpson, A. Smith, S. Gaston, B. Dailey) NAYES: 3. 20230381 17 Aurora Patio Area Variance, 17 Aurora, Area variance to permit the placement of a patio in the Oak Ridge PUD. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT RELIEF PROPOSED REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Patio to corner side 10’ 5’ 5’ (50%) Fence height 6’ 8’ 2’ (33.3%) Pergola in front yard Not permitted permitted 1 (100%) Kathleen and Ross represented the application. Kathleen noted the property is a side corner lot in the Oak Ridge PUD with SR-1 Designation. She noted she received approval from the oak ridge HOA. She noted she also met the builder did not inform her of any conflict based on the plans submitted. She noted the landscaper brought the setback encroachment to her attention. She further noted upon inspection from the city she learned that additional areas of relief where needed. She mentioned she is seeking relief for fence height, an in ground hot tub, the patio and an arbor. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 4 of 15 She outlined the location of the structures and noted she has a supporting letter from the president of the oak ridge PUD. Brendan disclosed he knows the applicants however he noted that does not impact his ability to make a decision. He noted he would like to see some comps to better under the neighborhood context. Alice asked if the home was already built and if they are asking for relief after the construction. Aneisha Samuels noted the hot tub has been removed so the applicant could get a temporary CO. she noted the home is already built. Shafer asked for clarification on the variance that was previously granted. The applicant noted no variances where previously granted. But they applied for the variance earlier this year and that’s when they learned about the other areas of relief. Gage noted the board has reviewed similar fence situations and he doesn’t have a big issue with. He further noted the pergola seems relatively easy to move so the applicants may want to move that to eliminate that variance. Aneisha Samuels noted the property has three front which makes it a somewhat unique lot. However hot tubs are not permitted in the front yard. Gage noted that the applications should provide neighborhood comps as he doesn’t want to create a negative precedence. Gage opened public hearing at 6:52pm Robert Keiser from 13 Oak Ridge- noted he and his wife has no objection to the proposed project. He noted the owners have done a beautiful job at landscaping, he noted the pergola and hot tub are not visible. He noted at the time of the approval from the HOA, he was president. Dean DeVito, noted he is also a neighbor. He noted he has no objection to the project and he believes the fence height is appropriate and without the fence it would be more of a detriment. He further noted there are several other homes in the neighborhood for a swimming pool in the front yard. He noted this approval would not be setting a new precedence. Public comments remains open. 4. 20230440 13 Briarwood Two Story Addition, 13 Briarwood, Area variance to permit the addition of a master bedroom to the residential structure in the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 5 of 15 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT RELIEF PROPOSED REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Setback - Interior 12’ 5’ 7’ (58.3%) Side to canopy 12’ 2.5’ 9.5’ (79.2%) Nicholas Sullia represented the application. He noted his clients are seeking an area variance to build a master bedroom on the second floor. He noted the existing home is within the setback and any modification would require relief. He noted the addition will be above the existing garage and family room. Nicholas discussed the proposed elevations and proposed plot plan. And discussed neighborhood comps Brendan asked about the impact of the windows. The applicant noted the permeability remains the same. Shafer noted he is concerned about the proximity of the openings (windows and doors) to the neighbor’s property. Gage asked for the applicant to consider elevations without windows on that side. He further asked if the applicant considered expanding to the rear. Nicholas noted this was the most financially feasible method to have the addition that would use the same load bearing walls. Gage opened public hearing at 7:10 pm no comments were heard. Public comments remains open. 5. 20230415 70 Fifth Demo & Construction Area Variance, 70 Fifth Avenue, Area variance to permit the demolition of the existing house and construction of a new single family residence in the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 6 of 15 AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED Max Principal Coverage 28% 33.9% 5.9’ (21.1%) Setback – Rear to Patio 30’ 7.4’ 22.6’ (75.3%) Min Total Side 30’ 26.4’ 3.6’ (12%) Setback – Rear 30’ 25.4’ 4.6’ (15.3%) Vince Deleonardis and Brett Balzar represented the application. He noted the applicant is seeking an area variance to permit the demolition of the existing house and construction of a new single family residence. He noted the Board may have received several variance requests from this location and that is because the existing lot configurations do not meet the zoning requirements for the UR-1 District. As such any modifications to these lots would require relief. He noted there is only one lot along Fifth Avenue that would meet the zoning dimensional requirements. He further noted the proposed structure is more in compliance with the zoning requirements as such the proposed structure is an improvement on the existing conditions. He noted the proposed structure will be improving conformity. He noted building coverage will remain the same as that currently exists. He further discussed the project and the limitations of the UDO as it pertains the patio as a permitted encroachment in the front but not the rear. He further noted the lot is undersized for the zoning District, if the structure was to build in a zoning complaint position the structure would be approximately 40x40 ft. buildable area. Brett noted he has approval from the zoning officer regarding a modified front setback as such he would not need relief fort the proposed front setback. He noted a two car garage is not appropriate for this lot and there are no bedrooms on the first floor. He noted from an elevation standpoint they will be around 26ft and they could have gone up to 40ft. Shafer asked for the applicants to submit an aerials showing the proposed setback compared to other rear setback in the neighborhood. Alice and Brendan agreed. However Brendan asked for the applicant to consider reducing the patio size. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 7 of 15 Gage opened public hearing at 7: 29pm Mr. Fusco noted he owns the property at 72 Fifth Avenue. He further stated he has some concerns one noted the property at 74 Fifth Avenue was approved in 97 and he wants to see if the setback is comparable. He was concerned about how far back the proposed project was going as it may impact his line of sight. Public comments will remain open. Brett noted he is cognizant of the view shed and the proposed project is intended to improve the view as it will be set back further from the rear lot line on that side. 6. 20230412 136 White Variance Extension, 136 White Street, Area variance extension to permit a front porch expansion in the urban residential -3 (UR-3) District. John Greenslade represented the application. He noted he applied for an area variance in February 2022 and was approved. He noted he is requesting to extend the front porch to the right. He noted it is very consistent with the neighborhood. Gage asked if anything has changed since the previous approval. The applicant noted nothing has changed. Gage opened public hearing at 7:35. No comments were heard. Gage closed public hearing at 7:36pm and presented the following motion #20230412 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF John and Lee Ann Greenslade 136 White Street 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 John and Lee Ann Greenslade for the property located at 136 White Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, and identified as tax parcel 166.77-1-12 that was granted on City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 8 of 15 February 28, 2022 for expansion of a front porch on a single family residence in the UR-3 District, be approved and that the variance approval be extended for 18 months from the date that such resolution expired, August 28, 2023 with the new expiration date to be February 28, 2025. The variance shall expire on February 28, 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 24, 2023. Seconded by Brendan Dailey Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 4 (G. Simpson, A. Smith, S. Gaston, B. Dailey) NAYES: 7. 20230413 44 Newton Area Variance - 44 Newton, Area variance to permit the construction of a pool in the Urban Residential -2 (UR-2) District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT RELIEF PROPOSED REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Max Principal Coverage 40% 45% 5% (12.5%) Justin Jarassi represented the application he noted. He noted the area variance is relatively modest and is being requested due to some miscalculations. He noted while the request is self- created he does not believe it is fatal to the application. He further noted there will be no environmental impacts from the proposed in ground pool. He further noted the pool is a modular pool and has already been purchased. Shafer asked if the proposal was signed off by an architect before review of the local ordinances. He also asked if the applicant could provide comps in the neighborhood where other pools required area variances. The applicant noted there are similar pools in the neighborhood or garages. Shafer noted a pool and garage are very different and he would like to see comps pertaining to similar pools requiring relief. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 9 of 15 Alice asked for confirmation regarding the structure next to the pool. Brendan confirmed he would like to see some comps. Gage opened public hearing at 7:46. No comments were heard Public hearing remains open 8. 20230422 12 Ballston Chipotle Area Variance, 12 Ballston Avenue, Area variance to permit the demolition of the existing structure and reconstruction of a one-story restaurant building in the Transect-5 /NC District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT RELIEF PROPOSED REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Build Out Percentage 70% 34.7% 35.3%’ (50%) (Ballston Ave) Build Out Percentage 70% 23% 47%’ (67.1%) (Hamilton) Kevin Solli Represented the application. He provided an overview of the location and stated the site is small and has two front yards. He further stated it is new to require build out frontage requirements on both fronts. He further stated his client intends to demolish the existing building a build a new structure to be used as a chipotle. He further noted that he worked with staff and the planning board to review design alternatives, of which the current layout was preferred. He further not the size and geometry of the lot is not conducive to that 70% build out percentage. Gage noted he is generally in favor of the proposed. Brendan stated he is curious of the applicants conducted a traffic study. The applicant noted there is a traffic study being submitted as part of the application process to the planning Board. Alice asked if the facility will also include dinning in or just take out and she further stated the current structure is an eyesore. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 10 of 15 The applicant stated there will be dinning in and take out. Shafer asked for further confirmation on the rationale behind the layout selected. He further stated the current layout seems it would allow for a cut through and he believed there should be some traffic calming. The applicant noted the design of the parking lot with undulations which will facilitate traffic calming. The applicant confirmed the Planning Board has seen this plan. Gage opened public hearing at 7:58pm, no comments were heard. Public hearing remains open CONTINUED BUSINESS: Gage noted he was absent from the previous meeting but has since watched the videos and is all caught up with the applications 9. 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 RELIEF PROPOSED REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Setback – Front 10’ 0 10’ (100%) Setback - Interior Side 8’ 0.7’ 7.3’ (91.3%) The board noted they had no additional questions. No additional public comments were heard Gage closed public hearing at 8:00pm Brendan Dailey presented the following motion City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 11 of 15  # 20230324 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Julie and Gavin Labate 60 Catherine Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 96 Catherine Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 166.29-1-45 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- 2 (UR-2) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on July 10th and July 24th, 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: Type of District Requirement Dimensional Proposed Relief Requested Requirement Setback-Front 10’ (100%) 10’ 0’ 8’ 0.7’ Interior Side 7.3’ (91.3%) 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 considered alternatives however the proposed plans are the most feasible to the applicant. 2. The renovation of the front porch setback is consistent with other homes on Catherine Street. The second story renovation is comparable to other homes in the neighborhood. The applicant provided comparable properties to the board within the district to demonstrate a consistency in neighborhood context. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 12 of 15  3. The requested variances are considered substantial. The substantiality is mitigated by the neighborhood context and the fact that the existing structure is non-conforming and any improvements or alterations would result in the need for relief. The proposed front setback request is an improvement to the current encroachment. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. Standard district permeability will be met. 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 24, 2023. Seconded by Shafer Gaston Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 4 (G. Simpson, A. Smith, S. Gaston, B. Dailey) NAYES: 10. #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 RELIEF PROPOSED REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Min Lot Size 3000 sqft/du 2228 sqft/ du 772sqft or 25.7% City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 13 of 15 The application was represented by Walt Lippmann, also present Mike Tuck. Walt noted he provided the requested information including the table format of similar type projects along the corridor and public transit information. Aneisha Samuels note the Board did not have any additional homework for the applicants. However the applicants provided material that suggested they were reliant on the historic preservation of the two structures as cause of the hardship that would require the additional units as such the board may want to request DRB advisory. The applicant noted there was already a joint meeting with the DRB and Planning Board. He further noted the preservation foundation is very active in this application process. Shafer noted he believes the intent of request is to have something in writing to outline the preservation significance. Discussion ensued. Shafer made a motion to request DRB advisory in writing It is so moved, dated: July 24, 2023, Seconded by Brendan Dailey Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 4 (S. Gaston, G. Simpson, A. Smith, B. Dailey) NAYES: Gage noted public hearing is still open on this matter Terry from 4 Victoria Lane commented. She noted she submitted a public comment. She noted she has upwards of 25 signatures supporting her claims. She noted that the impacts of this project are widespread. She noted the spring run trail is next to this project and she believes the project may negatively impact on the safety of using that trail. She further noted she consideration must be placed towards safety. Public gearing remains open. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 14 of 15 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 REQUIRED PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REQUIREMENT 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%) Sue Vie represented the application. She noted she has provided a narrative and comps of garages in the area within the setback. She further noted she also have DRB approval. She noted the initial proposal was 1.5 ft. for each side and has since made improvements resulting in the reduced request as seen in the table above. Gage closed public hearing at 8:27pm and presented the following motion #20230227 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Joseph DeLeva and Rachel Ferluge 2 West Street, Apt. 308 Saratoga Springs NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 69 Phila Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.68-68-1-67 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance under the UDO of said City to permit the addition of a two-car detached garage to an existing single-family residence in a UR-4 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on application held on May 22, June 12, July 10 and 24, 2023. 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: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 15 of 15  TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF REQUIREMENT REQUESTED MIN. SIDE YARD SETBACK 5 FT 2 FT 3 FT (60%) ACCESSORY MIN. SIDE YARD SETBACK 5 FT 2 FT 3 FT (60%) ACCESSORY MIN. REAR YARD SETBACK 5 FT 4 FT 1 FT (20%) ACCESSORY As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be denied for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant.. The bump out of the rear property creates a space for the garage. The garage was revised to minimize the setbacks to the above. The applicant eliminated a man door and separated the two doors per approval from Design Review Board. The applicant also reduced the size of the eaves and moved it away from the side setback of the neighboring property. The Board notes the changes on the design to reduce the percentage of variance. The Board also notes that this is an historic house that is being renovated with no other room to move the garage. 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 applicant provided accessory structures in the neighborhood. Two-car garages were built on Lafayette Street. 3. Although the variance is substantial at 60%, the applicant was able to increase the rear setback to request 20% variance. Substantiality is mitigated by the points stated in 1 and 2 above. The principal building coverage will be met. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have any adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The garage is designed to be one story and will not impact neighboring properties. The property will meet the permeability requirements based on the submitted plans 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicants desire to build a two-car garage, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Note: Favorable DRB Advisory opinion June 7, 2023 It is so moved, dated July 24, 2023. Seconded by Brendan Dailey City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 16 of 15 Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 4 (G. Simpson, A. Smith, S. Gaston, B. Dailey) NAYES: 12. #20230141 130 Circular Carriage House Area Variance, 130 Circular Street, Area variance to permit the expansion of use in the detached garage within the Urban Residential -2 (UR-2) District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIRED PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REQUIREMENT Sleeping units in 4 units (previous 6 units. 2 Units. or (50%) accessory variance) The application was represented by Daniel Chertok stated he received a favorable advisory from the planning board and they had no issue with the parking. He noted the applicants have installed a bathroom without permit and two bedrooms. He noted there is a sprinkler system incorporated so it is save. He noted the request will not change the character or intensity of usage. He noted his request will have no change on the neighborhood. He noted there is no cooking in that building. He noted the space is needed to accommodate overnight guests who are part of the congregation. Shafer noted when a variance is granted is goes with the property and nit the use of the property. He noted the variance does not disappear with a future change of use. Jackie stated that can be imposed as part of a condition of approval. She further noted the previous variance had that conditioned imposed that nullifies the variances if the use changes. Alice stated she agrees the variance should expire with any termination of the special use. Rabbi stated he has no intentions of moving he has been there for 20 years. However he has no objection to addition that condition. Aneisha Samuels noted none of what the applicants are requesting is permitted in that district. However the previous approval allowed for 4 bedrooms and 1.5 bathrooms. The current request is for 6 bedrooms and 3 full bathrooms. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 17 of 15 Gage closed public hearing at 8:44 and Shafer presented the following motion 20230141 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Rabbi Abba Rubin and Chabad Lubovich of Saratoga 130 Circular Street Saratoga Springs NY 12866 In the matter of the appeal from the Building Inspector’s determination involving 130 Circular Street, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being Tax Parcel 160.60-268 on the assessment map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance under the UDO of said City to permit the location of two bedrooms in an accessory structure in the Urban Residential 3 (UR-3) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on April 10 and July 24, 2023. 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 DISTRICT PROPOSED TOTAL RELIEF REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Permitted use of 4 bedrooms (8 adults and 6 bedroom accessory structure- their children) (previous (12 adults and 50% carriage house variance) their children) Not permitted (1.5 bath Full bathroom in 3 full permitted from previous 100% accessory structure bathroom variance) As per the submitted plans or lesser relief, be approved as per this Board’s consideration of the following factors: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 18 of 15 1. The applicant has demonstrated that this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. In a previous resolution dated March 19, 2012, an area variance was issued to permit the accessory structure to include four bedrooms and one and a/half bathrooms. The bedrooms are necessary for the Temple to be able to hold religious ceremonies with the required number of persons in attendance. The participants cannot drive or be driven on the day of Sabbath, therefore requiring them to be within easy walking distance. Per the applicant, many of the religious ceremonies require at least eight participants and adding two bedrooms to the accessory structure would allow the overnight stays necessary for the weekly ceremonies. The Board noted the details of the special use permit granted July 24, 2002. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant stated that the accessory structure is in existence and has been used for this purpose since 2002. No kitchen facilities are permitted 3. The Board notes that the variance is substantial, since by code this zoning district does not allow habitable space in the accessory structure. However the board notes the previous variance would allow for 4 bedrooms and the current variance will allow for 6 bedroom or 12 adults and their children whichever is less. The previous variance acknowledged the use of 1.5 bathrooms this current variance will permit 3 full bathrooms in the accessory structure. 4. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. No additional parking will be required due to the fact that the overnight guests do not drive. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created, however this is not necessarily fatal to the application. Conditions: 1) This variance is conditioned upon the improvements not creating an accessory apartment. Specifically no kitchen will be allowed. 2) This variance is a modification of the previously granted area variance dated March 19, 2012 and has a new limit of 12 adult guests and their children (at any one time) for overnight accommodations relating to religious use of the property. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 19 of 15  3) Length of stay is limited to 15 consecutive days within the accessory structure. The variance is conditioned on the accommodations relating to the religious use of the property. 4) The variance expires with termination of religious use. Note: The City Planning Board issues a favorable advisory May 25, 2023 It is so moved, dated July 24, 2023. Seconded by Brendan Dailey Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 4 (G. Simpson, A. Smith, S. Gaston, B. Dailey) NAYES: 13. #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 applicants have requested to be adjourned to a future meeting. 14. #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 he had mistakenly identified the property as UR-3 however the property is zoned UR-1. He further stated he provided comparable homes in the district and noted he is one of two homes that has a stoop instead of a porch. He noted is request for the porch is to improve safety. He stated the rise and run on the stairs are not equal and are not safe. Gage asked if the applicant could qualify for a modified front setback. Aneisha Samuels noted it would need to be a determination made by The Zoning Inspector. Who has verbally confirmed by Patrick however the applicant would need to formally apply for that request. There current request is a lot less than would have been approved with a modified front setback. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 20 of 15 Gage noted public hearing is still open. Tracey Mcbaine at 41 Granite Street commented she noted she is supportive of the project. She noted there lot is substandard and she loves the idea of the project. Kerry Jignston of 44 Granite stated she is slos very supportive of the project. Gage closed public hearing at 9:03 and presented the following motion #20230279 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Edward Baker 43 Granite Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 43 Granite Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.43-1-24 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance under the UDO of said City to permit the construction of a front porch in the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on July 10 and July 24, 2023. 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 amounts of relief: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF DIMENSIONAL REQUESTED REQUIREMENT SETBACK TO FRONT 30’ 22’ 8’ (27%) MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE 28% 30 % 2 % (7.2%) As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 21 of 15 1. The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant desires to replace a front stoop with a front porch. Per the applicant, the existing front stoop is in need of repair and is unsafe to walk on. The Board notes many of the houses on this street have front porches including the two houses on either side of the applicant’s property. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. Per the applicant, the porch will match the neighborhood character and will be further setback from the front sidewalk than the two adjacent neighbors that are 4’ and 7.5’ from the sidewalk. Several neighbor comments were recorded in favor of bringing the applicant’s porch closer to the front of the property. 3. The Board notes the requested variance of 27% is considered substantial, however, the impact of this variance is mitigated by the discussions above. The 7.2% is not considered substantial and is further mitigated by the lot size being pre-existing, non-conforming undersized. 4. The Board finds this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The property will meet minimum permeability. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to keep build the porch, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. It is so moved, dated July 24, 2023. Seconded by Brendan Dailey Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 4 (G. Simpson, A. Smith, S. Gaston, B. Dailey) NAYES: APROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: No meeting minutes were approved. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 22 of 15 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Gage Simpson- Chair, adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:06 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Aneisha Samuels Senior Planner City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 23 of 15