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 6:31 P.M. PRESENT: Gage Simpson – Chair, Brad Gallagher – Vice Chair, Cheryl (Cherie) Grey, Brendan Dailey, Emily Bergmann, Alice Smith and Shafer Gaston ABSENT: None STAFF: Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Mark Schachner 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 verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for-word transcript of the recording. ZBA APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Beige Berryman, Administrator of Planning & Economic Development introduced herself to the Board. Aneisha introduced Donna as new Secretary. 20230786 YMCA Senior Center Signage - Area Variance 290 West Ave to permit the fabrication and installation of a sign above the first floor at 290 West Avenue. AREA VARIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT RELIEF PROPOSED REQUIREMENT REQUESTED Sign above the first floor Not permitted permitted 1 sign or 100% Emily and Brendan recused themselves. Cherie stated that her husband does write insurance for the YMCA but that it won’t influence her decisions in this matter. The Saratoga Senior Center is seeking 100% relief to place a sign above the first floor of their entrance. A second floor sign is not permitted according to zoning regulations. The application was presented by Adam Wakulenko, Adirondack Sign Company. Adam said they would like a variance to place a sign with “Stewart’s Dake Family” written on it above the current “Saratoga Senior Center” sign. Lois Celeste, Executive Director, Saratoga Senior Center stated that the YMCA owns the structure and that the Senior’s have a 30-year, rent free lease based on a 3 million dollar donation from Stewart’s and the Dake family. Brad clarified that the relief being sought was for the height of the sign and that it is otherwise conforming. Cherie asked if Adam also presented to the ZBA for a second floor sign for Saratoga CoWorks. She is concerned that this sign will set precedence for the City, and that Adam will be back wanting one for another project in the future, likely citing this variance. Cherie questioned why the signage couldn’t be on the first floor. Adam said it wouldn’t look balanced and would look better above the current sign. Celeste stated that there are two other locations around the Y building that have signs on the upper part. Cherie said a 100% variance is a big ask. She stated the Child Care Center has “Stewart’s” above it also and that’s on the first level. Interior signage is fine but for the outside she prefers all the signage on the first level. Cherie noted that Saratoga CoWorks has 3 different businesses and that the sign for the business on the second floor would not show if it were on the first floor. Also, the sign designates an actual business on that second floor. There is no Stewart’s business at the Y. Celeste said that the sign will be facing west out to trees and it’s “not in the downtown” and “Pitney Meadows is excited to see us there!” Celeste also stated that Stewart’s has done a lot for the community, and in this instance, donated 3 million dollars. Cherie said the Zoning Board doesn’t base their decisions on how much someone donates to the community. Cherie noted that Adirondack Trust is also a big contributor to the community and they didn’t get all the signage they wanted. There were concessions. Cherie feels this variance would set precedence and she’s not comfortable with a 100% variance. Maybe consider 20%. The sign doesn’t fit. Alice said the sign is too high, too big and the variance is too large. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 2 of 12 Shafer said that no alternatives or demonstration of comparable variances were presented so he finds the application less compelling. He asked if they could provide information in a more formal format. Aneisha clarified to Alice that the applicant is not seeking relief for the size of the sign. Only the height of the sign. Gage suggested that the applicant return with examples of signs placed like theirs in other locations. Also, that the applicant should demonstrate why the sign can’t be done on the first level. Gage asked if the sign had to say the full “Stewart’s Dake Family” on it and Celeste said yes. They’ve already had a ribbon cutting ceremony. Aneisha said if they get their information to the ZBA by October 16th, they can be on the Agenda for October 23rd. This project will automatically need to go to the Design Review Board for architectural review. Gage opened the Public Hearing for comment on the matter at 6:49 p.m. and it will stay open. 20230682 233 Lake Ave. Sign Area Variance – Area Variance to permit the fabrication and installation of a monument sign for The Grove apartment complex in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District The application was presented by Adam Wakulenko, Adirondack Sign Company. The applicant is requesting a 276.7% variance for a sign at The Grove. The zoning requirement is 6 sq. ft. The proposed sign will be 22.6 sq. ft. Adam showed a picture with 3 signs. One was 6 sq. ft., one was a plastic mock-up with a person standing next to it to show it proportionately, and the third sign showed what the new size would look like with the variance. Adam said he compared the sign to the signs at St. Clement’s, and The Grove sign would be shorter and smaller. Cherie noted that The Grove currently has a sign on the awning and two on the pillars. How many signs are they allowed? Aneisha said they are allowed a free-standing sign and there is no conflict with the other permitted signs. Adam said they showed that you can see the sign from different vantage points. The sign is about 15’ from the sidewalk and centrally located on the property. Aneisha asked if that information could be emailed to her for record. Brad said the sign seems appropriate for the space and makes sense. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 3 of 12 Shafer said the applicant demonstrated the alternatives and showed comparable signs in the area. He has no further questions. Emily asked if there was any lighting involved. Response, no. Gage opened the Public Hearing at 6:58 p.m. and no comments were heard. Gage closed the Public Hearing at 6:58 p.m. A motion was made by Brendan and seconded by Emily. #20230682 IN THE MATTER OF APPEAL OF 233 Lake Ave Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 From the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 233 Lake Avenue in the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, being tax parcel number 166.4-22-1 on the Assessment Map of said City. The Applicant having applied for an area variance Under the UDO of said City to permit the fabrication and installation of a monument sign, in the Urban Residential (UR-1) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application on October 2nd, 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 Minimum Sign Size 6’ 22.6’ 16.6’ (276.7%) 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 other sign designs and sizes, however the proposed plans are the most feasible to the applicant. 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 sign is designed to be consistent with the aesthetics of the neighboring properties and will partially be mitigated by surrounding vegetation. The applicant provided examples of City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 4 of 12  comparable signs within the neighborhood. The applicant noted the sign will not be illuminated. 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. 5. The request for relief is a self-created hardship, however, self-creation is not necessarily fatal to the application. It is so moved, October 2nd, 2023. Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 7 (G. Simpson, C, Grey, E. Bergmann, S. Gaston, B. Dailey, A. Smith, B. Gallagher) NAYES: 0 20230578 72 S. Franklin Demo & Construction – Area variance to permit the demolition and construction of a new single-family modular home in the Urban District –3 (UR-3) District. The applicant, Edmund is seeking relief to remove a 1,000 sq. ft. home that he and his wife Deborah have owned for 17 years. He said the house is uninhabitable. Edmund wants to build a 1,700 sq. ft. modular home with 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. The lot is small and that is why he is seeking relief. The current home is about 4 ft. narrower than the new home. Cherie asked if there is a survey. Aneisha – yes. A plan with elevations needs to be submitted. Cherie asked if the applicant could keep the side zoning requirement at 5’ instead of seeking a variance for 4’ (one less variance). Cherie noted that because it’s a new build the applicant would have that ability. Edmund stated that parking was limited in the area. They would like to be able to park side by side on the left side of their house in the driveway instead of on the street. Without the 4’ side variance they would have to park tandem, which is very difficult, especially in the winter. Cherie asked how wide the driveway was. The applicant will bring those measurements back to the Board. Cherie asked if there would be an open front porch similar to others in the neighborhood. Edmund replied that there would be a porch, and that one of the reasons they are looking to move the house back is to get the front porch away from the street. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 5 of 12 Cherie asked if the minimum rear setback variance had to be 7’ and is it measured to the decks? Joe Urbanski, Showcase Homes stated that they need 35’ from outrigger to outrigger on the crane to fit in the yard and place the house. They can’t do it from the street because of powerline interference. Brad questioned a discrepancy on the right side of the house with the survey. One area notes 4’ and another 3.5’. Aneisha said based on the survey it is 4’ from the homes to the existing property lines. It’s 3.5’ from the fence to the lot line coming from the other side. The surveyor should confirm that this is accurate. Shafer said the application as written is light. He understands that they are dealing with an undersized, pre-existing lot. He is in favor of other dimensional variances because of what the applicant has to work with. There was discussion about a necessary curb cut. Shafer has concerns that if there will be off-street parking that the permeability requirement be met. Aneisha said that once the plan is submitted showing the location of the driveway the Board can review and consider whether a DPW permit is needed. It depends on the right-of-way. Gage said the applicant can lessen the trips back to the ZBA by providing as much information as possible when they return. Most importantly, the house needs to match the neighborhood. Aneisha said the applicant needs to provide detailed plans with precise measurements regarding the location of the driveway, whether there’s a garage, over-hangs, etc. Gage noted that the applicant’s front yard setback looks like everyone else on the street except one neighbor. Could they qualify for a modified front yard setback? Aneisha said the applicant may qualify for a modified front yard setback but the applicant needs to apply for that or request a determination from Patrick. Until they’ve been approved it will be a variance. Aneisha told the applicant she needs the plan by October 16th for the applicant to be on the Agenda for October 23rd. The timeline is dependent on the applicant. After three months off the Agenda the applicant will be required to re-notice. Gage opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 for comments and it will stay open. 20230559 1 Station Lane Mixed Use Building – Area variance to permit the construction of a level, mixed-use building in the Neighborhood Center District NC/T-5 District City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 6 of 12 Scott Lansing of Lansing Engineering is representing the applicant who is proposing the building of a mixed-use, four-story building located on Station Lane and West Ave. The first floor would have 9,500 sq. ft. of non-residential space on the West Ave. side of the building, with apartments in the rear. They are proposing apartments for the remaining floors for a total number of 68 units. Parking would be under the building accessed at an entrance from Station Lane, with roughly one parking space per unit. The property is approximately 1.99 acres of vacant land. It is currently zoned NC and was previously zoned T5. Scott noted that the project met the zoning requirements when the T5 zoning applied, which called for 70% build-out on the primary street. With the adoption of the new code, the UDO requires 70% on both frontages. The Planning Board does not want any impact on the 100’ buffer or the DEC wetlands, both located on the property. Access on Station Lane instead of West Ave. created a hardship for the applicant in that they can’t meet the 70% buildout and still have an access point to the building. They currently have 61.9% of the overall property frontage which is just shy of the 70% required. Scott said that if they subtract out the 100’ buffer and use a net evaluation of the remaining property frontage from the buffer to the property line, then they can meet the requirement at more than 70%. Shafer said he appreciated the applicant contacting the adjacent property owners to discuss a shared access point. Scott said that they did but they couldn’t come to an agreement on how it would work so they are proceeding on their own. Alice asked if there would be affordable housing included. Scott said no, that is not being discussed at this time. Emily expressed concern with the number of parking spaces for 1- and 2-bedroom apartments and the resulting traffic. Was a traffic study done? Scott said they are required to have 139 parking spaces and are providing 140. A traffic study was conducted and noted insignificant impact. The study is still being reviewed by the Planning Board and will be part of the approval process. Brendan asked Aneisha if SEQR will be required. Aneisha said yes, both the Planning Board and ZBA will perform SEQR. Brendan appreciates that the applicant is being cautious about building near wetlands and with the buffer zone. Brendan asked if there was any information about the building itself – electric codes, more efficient, etc. Scott said they are the site engineers not architects but he’s certain they will meet or exceed NYS Building Codes. The architectural renderings have been prepared and presented conceptually to the DRB as part of the initial application. He believes they are going in the direction of primary electric for heating but doesn’t have specific details. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 7 of 12 Cherie thanked the applicant for taking out the area that can’t be built on and working with the remainder that they can build on for calculations. Cherie asked where the sign for the train station would be placed. Scott said it may have to be relocated to the other side but has no details at this time. Cherie said she assumes all the parking close to the buffer and in the rear will be the required distance for zoning. Scott said that it would. Aneisha asked what the proposed height of the fence on West Ave. will be. Scott said the fence is part of an ADA accessible route and that he didn’t have the exact measurement. Aneisha said he needed to provide that information to her and that if the fence exceeds 8’ they would need another variance. There was discussion about doing SEQR but Aneisha said she still needed some information from the applicant so they will wait. Gage opened the Public Hearing at 7:33 p.m. and it will stay open. 20230457 – 34 York Area Variance The applicant is seeking an 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. Andrea Peek, Homeowner said that after the last meeting she contacted Dan Wheeler for a to- scale drawing of the building. Andrea staked out the building moved 25’ forward and said she loses turn-around and parking space, and would have to remove the walkway from the driveway to the house. She would need to have a one-car garage instead of two and would lose off-street parking. There would also be a lot more space in the back that couldn’t be used. In looking at the survey, there was discussion among the Board and Aneisha about the dwelling being 25’ forward versus 10.5’. Cherie has concerns that a two-car garage with a second full story would be too imposing for the neighborhood. A 58% variance is sizable. Andrea noted other structures that her property borders are also two story. She said there is a two-story garage that backs up to the left side of her property. Another neighbor 40 to 50 feet behind has a 3-car garage on middle street that goes with a Nelson Ave. property. There is also a tree line of 20’ trees that border her property. Aneisha said a 15’ variance could work. Gage noted that there’s currently a larger structure right on the property line. Aneisha agreed stating that the applicant would be improving conditions in both size and the setbacks. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 8 of 12 Brad asked about whether the staircase would be external or internal. Some considerations with an external staircase would be snow and ice, making for slippery conditions. Andrea agreed and will likely have an internal staircase. Aneisha said an external staircase would go into the setback. Gage mentioned public hearing was still open. no comments were heard. Gage closed the Public Hearing at 7:48 p.m. and presented the following motion. #20230457 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Andrea Peek 34 York Ave Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 34 York Ave in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.45-4-9 on the Assessment Map of said City. The applicant having applied for an area variance under the UDO of said City to permit the demolition and construction second dwelling with a garage in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District and public notice having been duly given of a hearing on said application held on August 28 through to October 02, 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 DIMENSIONAL PROPOSED RELIEF REQUIREMENT REQUESTED MINIMUM LOT SIZE 8000 SQ FT 6620 SQ FT 1380 SQ FT (17.3%) MINIMUM AVERAGE 80’ 49’ 31’ (38.8%) WIDTH REAR YARD SETBACK 25’ 10.5’ 14.5’ (58%) 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 desires to replace a large barn structure that contained habitable City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 9 of 12 space with a smaller garage with habitable space. Per the applicant, the current structure is in a state of disrepair and is unsafe for any functional use. The applicant notes there is no additional land for purchase. The Board notes the existing structure sits on the rear property line and is within the west side yard setbacks. The proposed structure will eliminate the side yard setback and reduce the rear yard setback. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting these variances will not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties. Per the applicant, the garage will match the neighborhood character and will improve the aesthetics and safety for the surrounding properties. The Board notes the proposed structure is smaller and more consistent with the neighborhood character than the currently existing structure that sits within the side and rear yard setbacks. 3. The Board notes the requested variances of 38.8% and 58% are considered substantial, however, the impact of these variances is mitigated by the lot size being pre-existing, non- conforming as well as the discussions above. The 17.3% is not considered substantial. 4. The Board finds these variances 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 build the garage with habitable space, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. It is so moved. Dated: October 2, 2023 Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 6 (G. Simpson, , E. Bergmann, S. Gaston, B. Dailey, A. Smith, B. Gallagher) NAYES: 1 ( C, Grey) 20230517 2 Loughberry Front Porch Roof. Area Variance to permit the expansion of the front porch in the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. Gage stated the Public Hearing was still open. No comments were heard. Gage closed the Public Hearing at 7:56 p.m. and presented the following motion which was seconded by Brendan. #20230517 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF Mark Mcbride 2 Loughberry Rd City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 10 of 12  Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 2 Loughberry Road in the City of Saratoga Springs, New York being tax parcel number 166.23-1-9.2 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 September 25 and October 2, 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 FRONT YARD SETBACK 30 FT 25 FT 5 FT (16.7%) 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 desires to build a roof over a front porch that currently exists within the front yard setback. Per the applicant, there is no additional land for purchase. 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 12’ x 10’ covered porch is consistent with neighborhood character. The Board notes there are several neighboring properties with similar front porches. 3. The Board notes the requested variance of 16.7% may not be considered substantial and the impact is further mitigated by the discussion above. 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 build the roof over the front porch, but this is not necessarily fatal to the application. It is so moved. Dated: October 2, 2023 City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 11 of 12 Adopted by the following votes: AYES: 7 (G. Simpson, C, Grey, E. Bergmann, S. Gaston, B. Dailey, A. Smith, B. Gallagher) NAYES: 0 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: A motion was made by Gage and seconded by Shafer to approve the minutes from January, 2023 to July 24, 2023. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED 7-0 MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business to discuss Gage Simpson, Board Chair, adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 24, 2023 - Page 12 of 12