Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2023 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Gage Simpson- Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:31P.M. PRESENT: Gage Simpson- Chair, Brad Gallagher- V. Chair, Brendan Dailey, Shafer Gaston, Cheryl Grey, Emily Bergmann ABSENT: 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. 20230464 174 York Second Story, Extend Footprint, 174 York, Area variance to permit and expansion to the existing building within the Urban Residential -2 (UR-2) District. Applicant requested to be adjourned to a future meeting date. 2. 20230457 34 York Area Variance, 34 York, Area variance to permit the demolition and reconstruction of a two-story outbuilding to be used as a secondary dwelling unit within the Urban Residential -3 (UR-3) District.. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Min Lot Size 8000 sqft. 6620sqft. 1380sqft. (17.3%) Min Average Lot Width 80 ft. 49ft. 31ft (38.8%) Rear Setback 25ft. 10.5ft. 14.5ft (58%) The application was represented by Andrea Peak. She noted she provided to scale plans but have not yet submitted drawings. She noted the existing structure is not safe and her goal is to make it a secure structure. She noted it was previously living space but has since been used as a barn. She noted Emily noted she appreciates the proposed improvements but she was hoping to see a plot plan. Aneisha noted the applicant has provided a plot plan and pictures that need to be scanned in. Cherie asked about the size of the proposed size and location of the proposed structure. She also asked for conformation regarding lot coverage Brad asked for confirmation on permeable. Gage noted based on the proposed plans the proposed garage is smaller than the existing garage. The existing garage is also within the setback and the proposed will be an improvement. Gage opened public hearing at 6:33. No comments were heard. CONTINUED BUSINESS Emily, brad and Cherie noted They have watched the last meeting video and they are in a position to vote. 3. 20230307 56 Marvin Second Principal Structure, 56 Marvin, Area variance to permit the construction of a second Principal Structure in the Urban Residential -2 (UR-2) District. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – August 28, 2023 - Page 2 of 15 TYPE OF REQUIREMENT RELIEF PROPOSED REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Min Average Lot Width 80 ft. 49ft. 31ft (38.8%) 1second dwelling Second Principle dwelling Not permitted permitted (100%) Application was presented by Stephanie Ferradino. She noted she provided the material requested by the Board and further noted she would be happy to answer any questions Brendan noted the comps provided were very helpful Cherie noted she strongly believes the requested second dwelling is not appropriate as it becomes an easily rentable space and not consistent with the neighborhood Shafer noted he disagrees and believes the proposed is consistent with the neighborhood. Gage closed public hearing at 6:47pm Brendan Dailey presented the following motion. # 20230307 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Margaret Sweet 56 Marvin Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 56 Marvin Street in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 165.57-2-31 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance to permit a secondary principal structure, in the Urban Residential (UR-2) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on June 12th through August 28, 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 Proposed Relief Requested City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – August 28, 2023 - Page 3 of 15  Requirement Minimum Average 120’ 25’ (20.8%) Width 95’ 1 2 1 (100%) Maximum Dwellings 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 creating an in-law suit; however, that option is neither structurally, or financially feasible for the applicant. 2. The applicant provided comparable properties with similar dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood, demonstrating that this additional dwelling will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties or change the character of the street. Other properties on Marvin Street have a secondary structure bordering McNulty Way. Parking requirements will be met. 3. The requested variances are considered substantial; however, due to the details noted above, this is not necessarily fatal to the application. 4. The Applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. District permeability requirements will be met. 5. The request for relief is a self-created hardship, however, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. Notes: County Planning Board noted there will be no County Wide impact and issued a favorable advisory. It is so moved. Dated: August 28, 2023 Seconded by Cherie Grey Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 5 (G. Simpson, B, Gallagher, E. Bergmann, S. Gaston, B. Dailey) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – August 28, 2023 - Page 4 of 15 NAYES: 1 (C. Grey) 4. #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 provided all the responses the board required but he would be happy to discuss further if the board had additional questions. Emily noted the financial provided where not very clear and she would like to financial docs to be clearer. Discussion ensued. Public hearing remains open. 5. 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 4’ 6’ 2’ (33.3%) Pergola in front yard Not permitted permitted 1 (100%) Ross and Kathleen Beckwith represented the application. Kathleen outlined the project timeline and the location on the property that requires relief. Gage confirmed the areas of relief. Emily outlined the presentation was clear Cherie noted that variances are substantial and further noted she would be more comfortable if the variances were reduced. She noted the variances seem very visible especially since it’s a City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – August 28, 2023 - Page 5 of 15 corner lot. She noted the neighborhood has done a very good job at obscuring other pools all of which seem to be in the rear yard. She further notes the fence may be appropriate but doesn’t believe it will be hidden by the fence. Further discussion ensued. Public hearing was closed by Gage Simpson at 6:35pm and presented the following motion #20230381 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Ross and Kathleen Beckwith 17 Aurora Ave Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 17 Aurora Ave in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 180.10-3-34 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicants having applied for an area variance under the UDO of said City to permit the construction of a fence and a patio with a hot tub in the Suburban Residential (SR-1) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on the 24th day of July and the 28th day of August, 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: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUIREMENT REQUESTED PATIO TO CORNER SIDE 10’ 5’ 5’ (50%) FENCE HEIGHT 4’ 6’ 2’ (33.3%) HOT TUB IN CORNER SIDE YARD Not Permitted Permitted 100% as per the submitted plans, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The applicants have demonstrated that they cannot achieve this benefit by any other means feasible to the applicants. The lot has 3 fronts and, per the applicants, there is limited outdoor living space. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The fence is the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – August 28, 2023 - Page 6 of 15  appropriate height from within the yard. The entire yard is elevated from the street level where the fence sits on top of a 2’ retaining wall. The patio and hot tub are contained within the fence and are nearly unnoticeable from the neighboring properties. The Board notes the Homeowners Association approved the plans for this application. 3. The Board notes the requested variances of 50%, 33.3%, and 100% are substantial, however the impact of the substantiality is mitigated by the fact that the patio and hot tub are not visible to the neighbors and the fence sits on top of a 2’ retaining wall. 4. These variances will not have a significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The property will meet minimum permeability requirements. 5. The alleged difficulty is considered self-created insofar as the applicants desire to build the patio, hot tub, and fence, however this is not necessarily fatal to the application. It is so moved. Dated: August 28, 2023 Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 6 (G. Simpson, B, Gallagher, C. Grey, E. Bergmann, S. Gaston, B. Dailey) NAYES: 6. 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. 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%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – August 28, 2023 - Page 7 of 15 The application was represented by Nicholas, he stated he provided the material requested by the board but would be happy to recap. He noted the applicant is seeking an area variance for a master bedroom addition. Further discussion ensued. Public hearing remains open. 7. 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. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT RELIEF PROPOSED REQUIREMENT 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%) The application was represented by Vince Deleonardis and Brett Balzar. Vince noted the variance being sought is to permit the demolition and reconstruction of a single family home. He noted the lot is substandard and he noted the variances being sought are consistent with variances granted for similar homes within the particular district. He further noted the proposed structure is more complaint with the zoning requirements than the existing structure. He further noted he does not believe if the variances were granted they would create any unfavorable impacts to the neighborhood. Further discussion ensued. Public hearing was closed by Gage Simpson at 8:12 and Cherie Grey presented the following motion: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – August 28, 2023 - Page 8 of 15  20230415 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Smokeshowcity, LLC 5811 N. Bayshore Drive Miami, FL 33137 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 70 Fifth Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.13-3-30 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance under the UDO of said City to seek relief to demolish an existing residence and construct a new residence in the (UR-1) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on July 24 and August 28, 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 REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT MAX. PRINCIPAL 28% 33.9% 5.9% (OR 21.1%) COVERAGE REAR YARD SETBACK 30 FT. 25.4 FT. 4.6 FT (OR 15.3%) MIN. TOTAL SIDE YARD 30 FT. 26.4 FT. 3.6 FT. (12%) SETBACK REAR SETBACK TO 30 FT. 8.3 FT. 21.7 FT. (72%) PATIO As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The Board finds that the applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant seeks to demolish and construct a new residence. The applicant wants to build a two story home and has worked within the setbacks of the current one story home on the property. The principal coverage, rear and side setbacks are the same as what currently exists on the property. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – August 28, 2023 - Page 9 of 15  2. The Board finds that the applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant presented materials that demonstrated to the Board that the proposed design is substantially similar in coverage and dimensions to many other existing residences along Fifth Avenue that are adjacent to the Oklahoma Track. 3. The Board does not find the maximum principal coverage or rear yard setback to be substantial. The Board notes that the lot is undersized at 7,500 square feet in the UR-1 district. The Board also does not find the total front yard setback to be substantial when viewed in the context of adjacent properties, which according to the applicant are an average of 23.9 feet. The Board does find the rear setback to patio to be substantial but notes the applicant has presented other patios along the Oklahoma Track to be the same distance or greater than the applicant has requested. 4. This Board finds this variance will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicant desires to construct a new residence, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. It is so moved. Dated: August 28, 2023 Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 6 (G. Simpson, B, Gallagher, C. Grey, E. Bergmann, S. Gaston, B. Dailey) NAYES: 8. 20230413 44 Newton Area Variance - Pool, 44 Newton, Area variance to permit the construction of a pool in the Urban Residential --2 (UR-2) District. Brad recused from the discussion of this application AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – August 28, 2023 - Page 10 of 15 Max Principal Coverage 40% 43% 3% (7.5%) Justin Degrassi represented the application. He noted the variance is needed because a pool that was already purchased is slightly over the permitted size based on the home size. He further noted he has provided the comps requested by the board and noted there are several other lots within this district that also have accessory structure relief. Further discussion ensued. Shafer noted the applicant has modified his design to only require 2% relief. Cherie notes the comps presented are for accessory structures when the coverage were not combined. So the overall lot coverage was less so as to not exceed the district coverage. She further asked what is the current home and garage coverage. Michael noted the current coverage is 38% Further discussion ensued. Public hearing was closed by Gage Simpson at 8:37and Shafer presented the following motion: # 20230413 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Michael and Helene Verdile 44 Newton Ave Saratoga Springs NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 44 Newton Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.57-1-82 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance under the UDO of said City to permit construction of an in-ground pool in the UR-2 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on July 24, 2023 through to August 28, 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 – August 28, 2023 - Page 11 of 15 Type of Requirement Requirement Proposed Relief requested Maximum building coverage 40% 43% 3% (7.5%) 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. Per the applicant, the pool has been purchased and contracted for installation per design from a licensed architect. 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 has demonstrated that a variance of this nature is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The pool will be flush with the ground and not visible to residents. 3. The variance at 7.5% is not considered substantial. 4. The Board finds this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The property will meet district permeability requirements 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicants’ desire to add an additional structure to the property, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. It is so moved. Dated: August 28, 2023 Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 5 (G. Simpson, C. Grey, E. Bergmann, S. Gaston, B. Dailey) NAYES: 0 RECUSAL: 1 (B. Gallagher) 9. 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%) Build Out Percentage 70% 23% 47%’ (67.1%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – August 28, 2023 - Page 12 of 15 The application was represented by John. He noted he responded to all the boards’ questions. Gage noted that the only concern the board had was traffic calming and was to prevent through traffic. The applicant noted there will be signs and the shape of the roadway should deter through traffic. Jackie noted SEQR has not been coordinated so before any decisions are made the SEQR should be completed. She further noted the Planning board will also need to conduct SEQR. She also noted the purpose of SEQR is to determine whether or not there will be a significant environmental impact. The Board conducted SEQR and determined there was no significant impact and a motion was presented for a negative declaration, Motion carries 6-0 Public hearing was closed at 8:38, and Brad presented the following motion: 20230422 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF CollabDev 2 LLC 529 Main Street, Suite 107 Boston, MA 02129 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 12 Ballston Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 165.83-1-3 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 the demolition of the existing structure and reconstruct a one-story restaurant building in the Transect-5 (T-5) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on July 24, 2023 through August 28, 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 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – August 28, 2023 - Page 13 of 15 TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF DIMENSIONAL REQUESTED REQUIREMENT BUILD OUT PERCENTAGE 70% 34.7% 35.3% (OR (BALLSTON AVE) 50.4%) BUILD OUT PERCENTAGE 70% 23% 47% (OR 67.1%) (HAMILTON STREET) 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. Per the applicant, the proposed project includes the demotion of the pre- existing, non-conforming vacant building and replacing it with a new building. According to the applicant, the variances requested are necessary because of the unusual shape of the parcel and limited area to accommodate on-site parking. The applicant stated that alternative proposals were considered and explored with the City. The applicant submits that the current plans best conform to the UDO requirements with the exception of the build-out requirements and increases safety related to parking and moving vehicles. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. Per the applicant, the existing structure is vacant, deteriorating and non-conforming. The applicant submits that the new structure will be conforming except the build-out percentage and improve access, landscape and storm-water management. 3. The Board finds these variances to be substantial on a percentage basis; however, the substantiality is mitigated by the fact the lot is of an unusual shape and size and that the propose plan will, according to the applicant, improve safety across the site. 4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The applicant submitted that the new building will improved the site through the demolition of a non-confirming, deteriorating structure, while also improving the storm-water management, site landscaping and safety across the site. 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. Note: The ZBA conducted SEQR and found no significant impact resulting in a Negative SEQR Declaration on August 28, 2023 It is so moved. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – August 28, 2023 - Page 14 of 15 Dated: August 28, 2023 Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 6 (G. Simpson, C, Grey, E. Bergmann, S. Gaston, B. Dailey) NAYES: 0 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% The application was represented by Walt Lippmann, also present Mike Tuck. Walt noted the general location of the project in relation to neighboring zoning districts. He further discussed the proposed site plan and the associated parking and noted this was a two lot subdivision. He further outlined the variances being requested and noted there will be 64 parking spaces. He noted the storm water management area to the rear of the condominiums. He further outlined the neighborhood context in terms of densities and outlines many neighboring lots at greater densities. Cherie noted the comps being provided are not within the same district as such the density requirements may be different. The applicant noted the comps provided shows the neighborhood context even if the zoning districts differ. Further discussion ensued. Gage noted his concern is why the need for the additional units. Brian Greene noted that from a financial perspective the additional units are required to break even due to construction costs. The other scenarios would not be financially feasible. Gage noted the board has received the DRB Advisory and it was favorable. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – August 28, 2023 - Page 15 of 15 Aneisha noted the DRB Advisory was favorable however they did provide a number of features that needs to be preserved in a certain way to ensure the building remain architecturally and historically significant. Emily noted she wanted further clarification on the sources of the traffic data and the applicant noted the data is unbiased data that has not been manipulated by them. She noted based on the public comments the neighbors seem concerns about the impact on traffic and pedestrian safety. Cherie noted she would like confirmation on the distribution of units. Mike Tuck outlined the units that would be in the condos compared to the apartments. Further discussion ensued. Brendan noted he appreciated that they applicant intends to keep the rents affordable. Public hearing was closed at 9:17 and Gage Simpson presented the following motion: #20230358 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Green Springs Capital Group, LLC P.O. Box 3207 Saratoga Springs NY 12866 In the matter of the appeal from the Building Inspector’s determination involving proposed construction of a residential use building and adjacent condominium project at 182 Excelsior Avenue, in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York, being Tax Parcel #166-1-14 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 three-story residential use building and renovation of an existing multi family residence and carriage house in a UR-4 District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on June 12, July 10 and 24 and August 28, 2023. In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I move the following area variance for the following amount of relief: Total relief Required Proposed Area of Relief requested Minimum Lot Size 3,000 sqft. per 2,228 sqft. per 772 sqft. (25.7%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – August 28, 2023 - Page 16 of 15  lot 1: unit unit As per the submitted plans 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 had submitted plans based upon relocation of the historic house and carriage house on the property and using the entire lot for the multi-family project. Recommendations from the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation to move and renovate the house and carriage house constituted dividing the property into two lots, therefore reducing the size of the lot for the construction of the new multi-family use buildings. Further input from the Planning Board shifted the buildings and the parking to allow for more green space and making the configuration to consist of four buildings with nine units in each. The applicant provided financial information regarding the reduction of the number of units and projected income vs. cost to build would not allow for the required debt service coverage ratio to be met for the lender. Charts were provided to the board for 26, 31 and 36 units with only the projected 36 units satisfying the required amount. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The historic house and carriage house will be moved to the intersection of Excelsior Avenue and Excelsior Springs and will be renovated to meet historic structure practices. 3. The relief requested is considered substantial at 25.7%, however the substantiality is mitigated by the consistency with the neighboring properties. 4. The applicant has demonstrated this variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. The building will conform to many of the new buildings on Excelsior Avenue and further, the most visible part of the property (corner of Excelsior and Excelsior Springs) will have a renovated historic home. District permeability requirements will be met. 5. The difficulty may be considered self-created. However, this is not necessarily fatal to the applicant. Notes: This variance is based on a proposed two-lot subdivision and relocation of two historically significant structures. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – August 28, 2023 - Page 17 of 15 Saratoga Springs Planning Board issued a favorable advisory dated April 13, 2023 Design Review Board issued a favorable advisory dated August 2, 2023 It is so moved, August 28, 2023. Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 6 (G. Simpson, C, Grey, E. Bergmann, S. Gaston, B. Dailey) NAYES: 0 APROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: No meeting minutes were approved. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Gage Simpson Board Chair, adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:36 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Aneisha Samuels Senior Planner City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – August 28, 2023 - Page 18 of 15