Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 2024 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Gage Simpson – Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: Gage Simpson – Chair, Brad Gallagher – Vice Chair, Brendan Dailey, Jonah Cohen, Shafer Gaston. ABSENT: Otis Maxwell, Chris LaPointe STAFF: Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs 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. Gage Simpson, Chair recognized Cherie Grey and her eight years of service. He congratulated her and thanked her for all her dedication to the city. Gage also thanked Alice Smith for her two-year cycle as an alternate on the board and dedication to the city. ZBA APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: PROCEDURAL BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: 1. #20230974, 106 Elm St. Area variance to permit an accessory shed to remain within setback, in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 106 Elm : TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED ACCESSORY TO SIDE 5 FT. 0 FT. 100% Aven Aimone, 106 Elm St., owner said they moved in about 14 years ago and the shed was already there. They would like to keep the shed in that same location. Jonah asked what brought the applicant in today. Aven said he only knew about the size limit for the shed because of a permit he was getting for a gazebo that was larger than the permitted 12’ x 12’ and the shed was on the site plan. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the floor for public comment at 6:33 p.m. There were no comments. Public comment was closed at 6:33 p.m. Jonah Cohen made a motion to approve the Area Variance at 106 Elm St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Vote: G. Simpson -Y, B. Gallagher-Y, B. Dailey-Y, J. Cohen-Y, S. Gaston-Y. 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. 2. #20230968, 65 Ash St. Demo & Construction. Area variance to permit the demolition and reconstruction of a single-family residence with a detached two-story garage within the Urban Residential -3 (UR-3) District. Variances sought for 65 Ash St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM LOT SIZE 6,600 SQ. FT. 4,500 SQ. FT. 2,100 SF (31.8%) MINIMUM AVERAGE WIDTH 60 FT. 30 FT. 30 FT. (50.0%) FRONT SETBACK 10 FT. 1 FT. 9 FT (90%) INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK 5 FT. 4.0 FT. 1 FT. (20%) ACCESSORY TO SIDE 5 FT 4.0 FT. 1 FT. (20%) Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America represented the applicant, the Metzgers. Tonya said they purchased the property in September of 2023 and the house was in a major state of disrepair. After further evaluation the owners decided it would be too much to repair the property because it had major foundation issues. Tonya said the house was so close to the property line it would have made it difficult to raise the house for a new foundation. The applicant would like to demolish and rebuild the house. Tonya said after the workshop Aneisha asked Tonya to put together a comparison table that shows the existing conditions and relief being sought by the applicant. Tonya went over the chart with the board:  Demolishing house and have to go back to the foundational sizes of the lot – area and width. It’s a pre-existing, non-conforming lot at 4,500 sq. ft. No additional land to be acquired.  Front setback required is10 ft., the existing is .8 ft. The porch roof would be at 1 ft. which is relief of 90% for the over-hang which is consistent with the adjacent houses in the neighborhood.  Interior side setback (west) supposed to be 5 ft., currently .6 ft over the west property line. The difference now is 5.6 ft. and they are asking for 4 ft. to the roof overhang, 5 ft. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – January 29, 2024 - Page 2 of 10  to the building so they are asking for 1 ft. They are asking for the 1 ft. instead of shifting the building over because they need space for the driveway along the east side.  East setback – no relief requested. Required 7’, currently exists at 1 ft. and by detaching the garage the 1 ft. goes to the roof of a carport or detached garage. Total side setbacks need to be 12 ft., they’re asking for 8 ft. and are only required to have 7 ft.  Coverage – 40% maximum – they’ll be at 37%, no relief requested.  Impervious surface – no relief.  Asking for a variance for the driveway width of 8 ft.  Asking for relief for the garage width because of the narrowness of the lot and the two- car garage. They are asking for 1 ft. that would be for the overhang. Tonya said they can’t make the garage any smaller, it’s 20 ft. – 22’ to the overhangs. Tonya said there are neighbors who are encroaching over the property line in this area of the backyard, but the applicant is not asking for anything to be changed. Tonya said she doesn’t think there will be any change in the character of the neighborhood for what they’re asking for and will be making the situation much better. Tonya said the width of the house is 16’ and they would like to keep it at that width, no smaller. She said there’s no environmental issues. Bringing the house away from the property line will allow the drainage to land on the property versus the way it is now – some going off property. Tonya showed a sketch of the proposal and photos of the existing house and adjacent properties. Brad Gallagher said the garage is shown as two-story in the back. Tonya said they haven’t designed that yet and wasn’t sure what the applicant planned to do with it. Brad said he would like some clarity on that. Tonya said there are two-story garages in the neighborhood with variances. Brendan Dailey asked Aneisha about the windows because the houses are so close. Tonya said at 4’ they will need a fire rating on the soffit, the building itself will be at 5’ so the wall of the building will not have to be fire rated. They will be allowed to have windows within that wall if it’s 5’. Brendan asked if the large pine tree in the back would have to come down. Tonya said because pine trees have a very shallow root system it may have to come down. Jonah Cohen said there’s not much they can do about the lot area and width, so he appreciates that they provided the chart that shows how they’re improving on the current conditions. Jonah asked if there was a reason that the front setback couldn’t be pushed back further. Tonya said it probably could be, but they were trying to make it even with the other properties. Aneisha said it’s a modified front yard setback, meaning that she gets the average setback from both neighboring properties. Both homes would need to be permitted homes and not illegal. Tonya said she would like to continue down the path of the zoning variance. She said they can measure where the other two houses are to show that what the applicant is asking for is consistent with that average. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – January 29, 2024 - Page 3 of 10 Gage Simpson asked Tonya if she’s sure the permeability is good. She said it is, but one foot of the driveway does fall under the roof overhang. Aneisha said the applicant is permitted to have 70% impervious and they are at 65%. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the floor for public comment at 6:56 p.m. The public comment will remain open. Gage said the next meeting is February 12th and the board should have something for the applicant then. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 3. #20230578, 72 S Franklin Demo & Construction 72 S Franklin Area variance to permit the demolition and construction of a new single-family modular home in the Urban Residential - 3(UR-3) District. Edmond & Deborah Cechniki, owners. Edmond said he and his wife are looking to remove a 900 sq. ft. one-family home on 72 S. Franklin Ave. and replace it with a 1700 sq. ft., 3 bedroom, 3 bath home. Gage Simpson asked about plans for the driveway curb cut. Edmond said behind the home there will be a 30’ depth and 55’ width area of greenspace. Edmond said the greenspace is presently to the left at the front of the home where they would like to put a side-by-side garage for parking. He said there’s not much on street parking on S. Franklin. It would be great for the neighborhood to keep two cars off the street. Edmond said they are looking to do a curb cut to the left of the house wide enough for the driveway. It would be up against the foundation and just to the right of a row of shrubs between the applicant and the neighbor. Edmond submitted a letter from Joe Urbanski stating that they can’t safely set up their crane if the house is moved any further to the left than where it is currently. Aneisha said that Edmond could get a note from DPW to show approval of the curb cut. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the floor for public comment at 7:03 p.m. Gage closed the public hearing at 7:03. Jonah Cohen made a motion to approve the area variances for 72 S. Franklin St. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Discussion: Gage said he would like the last sentence in #3 to say, “this is a pre-existing, non-conforming undersized lot”. Also add that the curb cut will require DPW’s approval. Vote: G. Simpson -Y, B. Gallagher-Y, B. Dailey-Y, J. Cohen-Y, S. Gaston-Y. 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. 4. #20230955, 24 Jumel Place, Porch & Second Dwelling. Area variance to permit the removal and reconstruction of an existing front porch and conversion of garage to second dwelling within the Urban Residential -3 (UR-3) District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – January 29, 2024 - Page 4 of 10 Les Ackerman, Charette Associates & Andy Whalen, property owner. Les said the ZBA requested additional information from the applicant at the last meeting. Les said their goals are to obtain approval to replace the original porch, and to tear down an existing garage that is in disrepair, and replace it with a secondary dwelling structure at 24 Jumel Pl. The secondary dwelling would be for the owners to occupy from spring to fall. Les presented comps that he got using city tax rolls. He presented photos of homes with sub-standard lots, not in compliance with zoning, two dwelling units in separate structures or two-family dwellings on the property. Brad noted that just because the city is taxing a structure, doesn’t mean it’s permitted under the zoning. The board needs to be very careful with that. Les said if they need to look deeper into each property, he certainly can.  5 Jumel – 3 units on the property – 2 in the front, 1 in the back.  18 Jumel – 2 buildings, occupied. Just under the 8,000 sq. ft. requirement. Lot width-50 ft.  25 Jumel - 2 buildings, occupied. Substandard - 2,500 sq. ft. lot size, 25 ft. lot width.  180-182 East Ave. – 2 buildings, 2 units, ZBA approved dwelling unit in detached garage, occupied. 5,700 sq. ft. lot size, 57 ft. lot width.  194-196 East Ave. – 2 buildings, 2 units, occupied. 5,500 sq. ft. lot size, 54 ft. lot width.  207 Caroline St. – 2 buildings, 3 units (ZBA approval for garage apt.), occupied. 8,000 sq. ft. lot size, 50 ft. lot width.  99 Ludlow – 2 buildings, 2 units (’91 ZBA approved temporary dwelling unit in the detached garage), occupied.  167 Lake Ave. – 2 buildings, 2 units, substandard lot size 5,300 sq. ft., 50 ft. lot width.  198 Lake Ave./173 East Ave. – 2 buildings, 2 units, 7,510 sq. ft. lot, 44.3 ft. width.  248 Nelson Ave. – 2 buildings, 3 units, 8,100 sq. ft. lot, 50 lot width.  303 Nelson Ave. – 2 buildings, 2 units, (’22 Zon. Var. for detached garage with habitable space – side yard setbacks & habitable space). Les also presented secondary comps from further out or have only one criterion. The ZBA also asked the applicant to update the site plan to show the parking. Les said they are required to be able to park 2 cars for the primary dwelling and one car for the secondary dwelling. He displayed the updated site plan. Andy Whalen said he and his wife Nancy have been residents for 28 years. He said they’re trying to keep the house as small as possible. They would like to knock down the eyesore of a garage and beautify the front of the house with a proper porch. Andy said it would only be owner occupied. Their plan is to pass it down to their children. Gage Simpson, Chair thanked the applicant for doing a great job with the comps. Brad Gallagher said he appreciates the work they put in but still has concerns about the comps used. He said the applicant would need to dig in deeper for him to approve the variances. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – January 29, 2024 - Page 5 of 10 Shafer Gaston said he appreciates the extensiveness of the comps. He said the comps within one block and that are consistent with the neighborhood are the comps he’s interested in. Shafer said if the applicant can satisfy Brad’s question, the comps are consistent with the neighborhood. Aneisha said she would work with the applicant to provide Brad with the information he’s looking for. Gage said it’s less about whether people live there than about if the city identifies it and its use. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the floor for public comment at 7:26 p.m. Nancy Dominick, 192 East Ave. Nancy said she believes that if the new dwelling is built it will set a precedent and change the character of the neighborhood. It will open the door for other neighbors to want to do the same thing on their properties leaving less greenspace in the neighborhood. Maryann Adam, 190 East Ave. Maryann said she has no problem with the variance for the front porch. Maryann said she does not agree with the statement “the secondary dwelling would not be substantial if it blends in with other carriage houses and garages and in the architectural style of the neighborhood” because the applicant is proposing to build a secondary dwelling – not replacing the garage and not a carriage house. She said there are detached and attached garages, and some have office space, but not second houses on the same property. Maryann agreed with Nancy Dominick regarding setting precedence with allowing this second dwelling to be built. Maryann said sports activities and the track season already add to a lot of parking and congestion in the neighborhood, it’s a small street, and more houses would compound the problem. Sharon Maidment, 194 East Ave. Sharon said she concurs with Nancy and Maryann with everything they’ve said. Sharon said her apartment above the garage was grandfathered in when she bought her home. She said 200 East Ave. had just built a new garage and they were not allowed to have an apartment above. Sharon said a property on the east of the Whalen’s property has the same condition. To allow another two-story dwelling is setting a precedent. Olivia O’Malley, inaudible. Not speaking into the mic. Something with concerns about Airbnb. Andy Whalen said they are not looking for constant turnover with the rental property. They are currently renting to a college professor. The second structure would just be for him and his wife for 3 or 4 months a year. Legally it cannot be rented out. Andy noted that the UR-3 allows for a secondary structure if your lot is 80 ft wide, so if he didn’t need a variance, he would be allowed to build the structure. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – January 29, 2024 - Page 6 of 10 Gage Simpson, Chair said the public hearing will remain open and reminded people they can submit comments to the city in writing as well. Gabe asked the applicant to come back to the next meeting on February 12th with confirmation of the comps. 5. #20230464, 174 York Second Story, Extend Footprint. Area variance to permit and expansion to the existing building within the Urban Residential -2 (UR-2) District. Megan Lombard, Owner 174 York Ave. Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America said she is the applicant’s Architectural Engineer and did help them out with the plot plan. Tonya said she had to make a minor modification to the plot plan for a mudroom addition. She said the floor plan the board received is correct. The plot plan is revised and was emailed after hours prior to the meeting. Tonya distributed hard copies of the plot plan with the modifications. Tonya said the coverage remains under 40% and doesn’t change any of the setbacks they are requesting. Megan said they have a single-family house and are looking to extend the footprint back and up one story. Megan said they will not be changing any of the pre-existing, non- conforming elements of the property. Shafer Gaston commented that the architect submitted UR-3 minimums and the setback minimums should be for UR-2, that should be corrected. He said the original application has the correct numbers listed. Shafer clarified with Aneisha that the city still needs to review the plans before the ZBA can go any further with the application. Shafer asked if the applicants have a contractor lined up once they receive approval to build. Megan said yes, and that there was a public comment in that regard that she believes was because they don’t currently have siding on their house, they had to stop construction to start this process. Shafer wanted to be sure they would be ready to continue the construction once they received approval. The applicant said they will be moving out of the house so they can get the work done in a timely manner. Gage Simpson, Chair said Aneisha will review their plan and then they can move forward. Gage asked when the house was built – Megan said 1950. Brendan asked that the applicant speak to the character of the neighborhood. The applicant said that most of the houses are two- story. Gage asked that the applicant submit any pictures of comparable 2-story houses in the neighborhood within those side setbacks, undersized lots, etc. Gage opened the floor for public comment. Rob DuBoff 12 Pinewood. Rob said he supports the project. He suggested the board either visit the property or bring it up on Google Street view to see what’s going on. Gage Simpson, Chair said the public comment will remain open and asked that the applicant submit their information as soon as possible, a week prior, so the board can review it before the next meeting on February 12th. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – January 29, 2024 - Page 7 of 10 6. #20230808, 86 Ludlow Subdivision Area Variance. Area variance to permit a two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Matt Jones, Attorney, Dave Carr, LA Group Landscape Architect representing Dave Norton. Matt said they gave a presentation to the ZBA in November and received feedback regarding the site plan. They were sent to the planning board for SEQRA and received a negative declaration and a positive recommendation with respect to the variances that are pending before the ZBA. Matt said there were two points that stood out in the comprehensive plan for this neighborhood – “preserve traditional community character” and “encourage and increase housing diversity and affordability as well as neighborhood vitality”. Matt said the character is single-family homes on one lot. Matt said regarding affordability, two single- family homes on a single lot becomes an expensive proposition and out of character with the neighborhood. Matt said physically nothing will change, the two structures will remain the same. He showed an aerial photo of 86 Ludlow looking toward Lake Ave. and photos of 86A, 86B and the shed/garage with solar panels on the roof. Matt said the records of the city show 86A (2100 sq. ft.) being built in 1875 and 86B, where Dave lives, (1300 sq. ft.) also built in 1875. Matt said that is inconsistent with historical records. He said the Sandborn map shows only one house at 86 Ludlow (86A), the one Dave doesn’t live in and rents out. Matt said the best they could find out about 86B in the City Registry was that it has been there at least since 1932. In 1934 the registry shows 2 tenants living at 86B. Matt said the ZBA asked if there was an opportunity to have an entrance to the Norton property by making use of the Koransky and Amling properties. Matt said they are separate parcels with each having frontage on Ludlow St. He said in 1986 the parties entered into an agreement for the sharing of ingress and egress. Matt said they approached those two property owners and asked if they would be interested in some kind of arrangement. Mrs. Koransky said she has this arrangement with the Amling’s and is not interested in expanding or sharing. Mr. Amling’s caretaker said he would also not be interested. Matt said that Dave Carr made some adjustments to the site plan based on ZBA comments. Dave Carr said based on questions about lot size and possibly reducing some of the variances. He said they moved the side lot line to the south to create a larger Lot 1 thereby reducing the area requested for Lot 1, the lot width for Lot 1, and building coverage for Lot 1. They had to increase the impervious coverage because all the land that was included is impervious as part of the driveway. They were able to remove a total side variance toward the back for Lot 1. For Lot 2 they had to slightly increase the lot width because they took some away from Lot 2 to make Lot 1 larger. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – January 29, 2024 - Page 8 of 10 Gage Simpson said he has concerns about meeting the parking requirement. Dave Carr said it will be tandem parking in the driveway, which it is now, and they will have to increase the pavement to keep cars from blocking the sidewalk. They have 40’ and the city requires 18’ per car, so they are in compliance with the Code. Jonah Cohen said both structures would need two parking spaces. He clarified that for 86A they will be increasing the driveway and that 86B has two parking spaces and a garage. Dave Carr added that the existing curb cut does not need to be modified. Shafer Gaston said he is struggling with the odd shape of the lot, but they seem to be doing the best they can with what the lot is. Brendan Dailey said he’s concerned about the increase in impervious material. It was at 4% and now it’s 10%, could it be mitigated back closer to where it was originally? Dave Carr said he figured the impervious area very conservatively and had to take some of that from Lot 2, there was no other way to do it. Aneisha noted that with the modified lot lines the applicant has remedied the potential for creating a two-family on the second lot. She said the second lot was over 8,000 sq. ft. (now it’s under) which would have allowed for a two-family, now they cannot. Gabe Simpson said they will get the statement from the planning board and see the applicant back again on February 12th. Gabe said the public comment is still open. 7. #20230844, 10 Cottage Street. Area variance to permit the construction of a new single- family home to be used as a second dwelling within the Urban Residential -3 (UR3) District. Bob Flansberg, Dreamscapes Unlimited. Bob showed photos of the property. He said they are asking for 16 ft. from the rear yard. Bob showed that 12 Cottage and 14 Cottage are very similar. He said 14 Cottage has two principal residences on the parcel. Brendan asked if the rear residence at 14 is larger than the one in front. Bob said it is larger, but he doesn’t know how much. Gage Simpson asked about the square footage for the current principal residence. Aneisha said the square footage for the proposed larger dwelling is 2,155 sq. ft., 400 sq. ft. over what would have been permitted so a variance for that will be considered as well. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the floor to public comment at 8:16 p.m. There were no comments. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:16 p.m. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – January 29, 2024 - Page 9 of 10 Brendan Dailey made a motion approve the area variances for 10 Cottage St. The motion was seconded by Jonah Cohen. Aneisha added that the primary dwelling should remain single family (existing now). She also added that either of the homes should be owner occupied. Vote: G. Simpson -Y, B. Gallagher-Y, B. Dailey-Y, J. Cohen-Y, S. Gaston-Y. 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. MOTION TO ADJOURN: A motion to adjourn was made by Gage Simpson and seconded by Brendan Dailey. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – January 29, 2024 - Page 10 of 10