Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, MARCH 4, 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, Brendan Dailey, Jonah Cohen, Shafer Gaston, Otis Maxwell, Chris LaPointe ABSENT: Brad Gallagher STAFF: Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, City of Saratoga Springs, Jackie White, Counsel 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: PROCEDURAL BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: 1. #20240043 15 Warren St. Additions. Area variance to permit the renovation of a single- family residence in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Variances sought for 15 Warren St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REAR 25 FT. 9 FT. 16 FT. (54%) Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America also “Y” Engineering. Tonya said her clients are looking to build a small two car garage with an apartment above. There is enough land as far as the area and width of the lot to build a second family dwelling. They are asking for a variance for the rear setback because the neighbor next door and to the south is very close to the property line. Tonya said it’s a very close knit neighborhood and to have less of an impact on that neighbor they would like to push the addition as far back as possible. She said 9 ft. works and stays away from the neighbor’s house. The addition is to the back and attached by a breezeway so that her clients can go out onto a new porch and then walk across to their garage under a breezeway. There’s a covered patio at the side of the garage. Tonya said they looked at other options that would require less of a variance. She said they could pull the garage all the way forward and remove the breezeway, but then they can’t get between the garage and the yard and would have to walk all the way around the garage or add a driveway to the north. If they bring the garage forward, they would also be impacting the neighbor because there would only be about 3’ between the garage and the neighbor’s property line. Tonya said they submitted a letter from Kirkpatrick’s at 13 Warren and they spoke in favor of the project. Tonya’s client is asking that the board approve the variance because it allows them to have less of an impact and more natural light on the north side of their residence. Tonya said they also looked at adding an addition to the right-hand side that would mean another curb cut and digging up lawn and garden. It would also be very close to the neighbor on the left. No large trees will be taken down, all the runoffs will go right onto the property. Tonya said the total impermeable space in this area is 36% and they are allowed up to 70%. The area coverage with the house and the carriage house is 29.5% and they are allowed up to 40%. Chris said one of his first questions would have been could they move the structure forward and that’s been answered. Chris asked if they considered making the proposed structure any smaller to limit the relief needed. Tonya said they did, but it would not meet the needs of the owner and they needed room for the stairs and storage of lawn equipment, etc. Tonya said there’s a school behind the garage/carriage house and there won’t be any impact there. Chris asked that they come back with comparable properties. Tonya said she has comps for two family residences that she provided in the packet. Tonya said lot 65 directly to the north is .2 acres - about the same as her client, that is being used as a 7-unit apartment building. At the corner of 15 York there’s 55 ft. wide lot with a two-family on .11 acre. Across the street at 16 Warren is a single family at .09 and 50 ft. width. At 14 Warren there’s a 40 ft. width lot and 13 Warren is a two-family on .12 acres at 51 ft. wide. Tonya said looking at the density of the use of the whole property her client is consistent with the character of the rest of the neighborhood. The lot is twice the size of some of the lots in the area. Shafer asked if there were garages with a unit above it in the neighborhood. Tonya said she doesn’t know if there are garages with units above, but she looked at 12 properties directly around the applicant’s and there are 5 two-families, 1 seven-family and 1 four-unit apartment dwellings. Shafer said he’s looking more for the lot to availability of covered off street parking ratio. Tonya said they’re not asking for a variance to build the garage because they can build one without a variance. It’s just the rear setback that they’re looking for. Tonya said they will not require off-street parking because they will have enough within the garage and the driveway. Tonya showed examples of several multi-unit dwellings in the area that do not have off-street parking. Gage clarified that they would only need a 5 ft. setback if they were to build a garage and wouldn’t need a variance. Gage asked if the garage has to be 25’ deep inside. Tonya said they are looking for one foot deeper for storage, so they won’t have to put up a shed. Tonya presented letters from the Dixon’s at 10 Warren St., Gary Hasbrook who owns the property directly north and the Shivers at 16 Warren (directly across the street) who are all in favor of the project. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 4, 2024 Page 2 of 12 Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. The public hearing will remain open. The next meeting is March 18th and Gage asked that they come back with comps that are similar to other principal structures that are close to the rear property line or that have garages. 2. #20240033 150 Henry St. Two Family Construction. Area Variance to permit the construction of a new two-family structure in the Urban Residential -4 (UR-4). Gage Simpson, Chair said this project had prior approval in 2022. Variances sought for 150 Henry St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. LOT SIZE 6,000 SQ. FT. 45,060 SQ. FT. 1,440 SQ. FT. (24%) MIN. AVERAGE WIDTH 80 FT. 61.5 FT. 18.5 FT. (23.1%) REAR SETBACK 25 FT. 17.7 FT. 7.3 FT. (29.2%) MAX. DRIVEWAY % 25% 34% 9 % (36%) Dave Carr, LA Group representing William and Wally Allerdice. Dave said they are looking for re-approval of variances at 150 Henry St. Dave said they had variances approved January 31, 2022 that have since expired. Their architectural approval also must be renewed, and there is a pending building permit before the building inspector that was submitted last fall. Dave said they applied (the City is the applicant) to DEC for a sewer extension to the site last June and they are waiting to hear back on that. Dave said the zoning has changed since their 2022 approval from UR-4a to UR-4 which has allowed them to remove two variances that were originally approved, and has created one new variance. The property at 150 Henry St. is directly across from the back units of Spring Valley Apartments. Dave showed photos of a barn that was on the site that has been demolished. The Allerdice’s received a demolition permit because they had architectural approval. Dave showed photos of the existing site and context and neighboring properties. Dave said many of the buildings on the northern end of Henry St. are garages and carriage houses of the homes that are on Circular St. Dave showed renderings of their proposed two-family apartment building with garages underneath. The total footprint is just over 1,700 sq. ft. and is exactly the plan that was approved the last time. Dave said the one thing that has changed is that the lot is now sub-standard – the requirement was 4,000 sq. ft. and it is now 6,000 sq. ft. Dave said they did need a variance for coverage and now they don’t. He said with the zone change the coverage requirement got less restrictive and the lot size got more restrictive. Dave said they need the rear yard variance to fit a car in the driveway off of the property. Each driveway is 18’ and has a one-car garage which is the base footprint of the unit, just over 850 sq. ft. Dave said they do meet the side yard setbacks. Dave said the building will City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 4, 2024 Page 3 of 12 be built into the slope, so they plan to bring a swale up and collect the drainage and bring it into the storm system. He said there would also be swale on the south side along “Nick’s property”. There was an existing wall that will be removed, and the wall of the building will become the retaining wall on the south side. All the grading will be done within the perimeter of the property as a proper engineering practice. Dave said except for the sewer extension permit and this approval they are pretty much ready to proceed. Otis Maxwell said he reviewed the previously approved application and verified with the applicant that there have been no changes. Jonah Cohen asked if it was the sewer line that was holding up the project. Dave said it’s been a confluence of things, but the sewer line approval seems to take a long time. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:58 p.m. Property owner to the north said he is in favor of the proposal. Nick Palmetto, owner on the south side of the project said he is in favor of the project. Nick asked about the retaining wall distance from the property line. Gage Simpson, Chair closed the Public Hearing at 7:01 p.m. Otis Maxwell made a motion to approve the variances for 150 Henry St. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Vote: S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, J. Cohen-Y, G. Simpson-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, B. Dailey-Y. Approved, 6-0, motion carried. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 3. #20231018, 180 Fifth Ave. Area Variance to permit a two-car garage addition to the single- family residence within the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) District. Variance sought for 180 Fifth Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED SETBACK-FRONT 30 FT. 3.5 FT. 26.5 FT. (88.3%) Bob Flansberg, Dreamscapes Unlimited represented the applicants Bob and Heidi West. Bob said they are seeking a rear setback variance. He showed photos of the view from his client’s house toward the newly constructed firehouse on Henning Road, and the significant light pollution coming from that property. Bob said they moved the project in to 5 ft. from 3.8’ as the board had requested. Bob said the other thing discussed at the last meeting was for the applicant to request a variance for a higher fence than 6’ to block the firehouse from view so they are requesting a 10’ high fence. Brendan Dailey asked what the fence would look like. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 4, 2024 Page 4 of 12 Bob said they would scallop the fence upward from 6’ to 10’ with the 10’ centered on blocking the view of the firehouse. Chris LaPointe clarified the change from 3.8’ to 5’ rear yard variance. Shafer Gaston said there should be a plan submitted showing the fence design. He said that the 5’ setback is ok if it is in line with everyone else and works better with the plan. He likes that the fence will only be 10’ high where it’s needed the most, to block the view of the firehouse. Otis Maxwell said he appreciates the pictures showing the light pollution and that they are going with the higher fence. Jonah Cohen asked to look at the garage elevations. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open and asked if there were any comments from the audience. No additional comments were heard. Gage said the applicant could return for the next meeting on March 18th and the public hearing will remain open. 4. #20230497, 77 Franklin St. Area Variance to permit the construction of a single-family home within the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. NO ONE WAS PRESENT FOR THIS APPLICATION 5. #20240012, 29 Newton Ave. Area variance to permit the construction of a new single-family home in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. NO ONE WAS PRESENT FOR THIS APPLICATION (SEE MOTION AT THE END OF THIS MEETING) 6. #20230808, 86 Ludlow St. Area variance to permit a two-lot subdivision Urban Residential- 3 (UR-3) District. Matt Jones, Attorney represented the applicant. Also, Steve Grassi and Dave Carr from the LA Group were present. Dave Carr presented the proposal/change for 86A & 86B Ludlow St.:  The board asked the applicant to reduce the impervious coverage on Lot 1 and they were able to do that by removing pavement and thereby reducing the impervious coverage from 81.6% to 78.1% = 8.1% over the impervious coverage. Dave said everything else they needed – walkway, parking, driveway. Dave said this was the only change from the last time they were before the ZBA. Gage asked if the house on Lot 1 is multi-family and will be converted to a single family. Dave said no, it’s a single-family rental. He said because both houses are on one parcel it does not allow both to be owner occupied. It can’t be a single-family owner-occupied home as it exists today. Lot 2 is also a single family with nothing above the garage and can’t be anything more than a single family. Matt said they were before the ZBA twice, and before the planning board once and asked if everyone on the ZBA was familiar with the proposal. Matt said the planning board adopted a SEQR Negative Declaration and issued a positive recommendation with respect to the variances that were sent to them and the application as it existed at that time. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 4, 2024 Page 5 of 12 Matt reviewed the five components laid out in the application that the law requires the ZBA to use in their decision-making process. This review will be in the context of an application that has two single family homes on a single lot that have pre-existed the zoning ordinance going back to 1875 for 86A (front) and 1932 for 86B (rear), as far as the city registries show. This is a pre-existing, non-conforming use with two single-family homes residing together on a single lot. Matt said the Comprehensive plan, understanding that the zoning ordinance is the regulatory document for the ZBA to consider, mentions the desirability to maintain community character (2 single-family homes do that) and the desire to provide affordable housing. Matt said it’s difficult to market a single-family lot with two single family homes because it’s pricey for most people. It’s less expensive if the planning board allows a subdivision and they can only do that with a subdivision approval. Matt asked the board to give that some consideration. Matt went over the five criteria: 1. Are there alternatives to the two lots that would maintain the 2 single family homes? Only if they’re kept on a single lot. There’s no way to chop it up and achieve the 2 single-family homes. 2. Physical changes to the structure contemplated? There are no physical changes. 3. Are the variances substantial? They are not substantial taking into account the long- standing pre-existing structures. The variances will just allow it to be there for a long time. 4. There’s no adverse physical or environmental impact. 5. The difficulty is not self-created – it’s pre-existing. Matt is asking that the board consider approval tonight. He mentioned that the DRB looked at a proposal last week where they only had 6 members, which can make it difficult for the applicant, especially on a substantial project that has been before the board many times. It gets expensive. At that meeting the applicant asked the DRB for a straw poll as to whether they should wait for the next meeting and consider a vote at that point (hoping for 7 members present) or decide it at that moment. Matt explained that the DRB did a quick straw poll which allowed the applicant to make a meaningful decision based on that vote. Jonah said he appreciated all the revisions the applicant had submitted, and it was clear they had given it a lot of thought. Brendan said he appreciated them getting the permeability number down and explaining the unique property to the board. Gage Simpson, Chair said the public hearing was still open and asked if there were any further comments. There were none. Gage said there were comments about this subdivision creating precedence for the neighborhood. He said the property is unique so he’s not certain that it creates a clear precedence. Brendan agreed with Gage’s assessment. Shafer said he would need to see a City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 4, 2024 Page 6 of 12  lot that had two houses on it for 150 years, it’s unique. Otis said it’s a unique situation and he’s okay with the solution. Gage Simpson, Chair closed the Public Hearing at 7:34 p.m. Gage Simpson made a motion to approve the area variance to permit a two-lot subdivision at 86 Ludlow St. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. There was discussion about the imperviousness of the lot. Vote: S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, J. Cohen-Y, G. Simpson-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, B. Dailey-Y. Approved, 6-0, motion carried. 7. #20240003, 190 Woodlawn Ave./23 Greenfield Ave. Area variance to permit the construction of a new single-family residence within the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Variances sought for 190 Woodlawn/23 Greenfield: (potential modified front setback) TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAX. PRINCIPAL 28% 34.0% 6.0% (21.4%) COVERAGE SETBACK-FRONT 30 FT. 7 FT. 23 FT. (76.7%) CORNER SIDE 25 FT. 7.5 FT. 18 FT. (72.0%) John Witt, President, Witt Construction represented the applicant, Ken Ellis. John said they are proposing a single-family home on the property. John said he wasn’t asked by the board to return with anything new, but he would be happy to review the project again. Jonah asked if the applicant had considered a way to reduce the maximum building coverage, especially as it pertains to the garage portion. John said the garage is a tandem 4 car garage – 2 and 2. He said they took four feet off the back and 4 feet off another area making the footprint smaller. It equates to 34%. John said the average of the 6-home study that they did was 34.6%. John said other neighbors like Riggi’s have a 6-car garage, Sonny Bonacio has multiple cars. John said they fit in the vernacular of the neighborhood. John said the way the garage is designed and pushed back off the road, it looks like a two-car garage/carriage house. Brendan said it will be a beautiful house and it’s on a large lot. It just feels like a little bit could be taken off. Gage Simpson, Chair noted that the Public Hearing was still open if anyone wished to comment. There were no comments, and the public hearing was closed at 7:47 p.m. Jonah Cohen made a motion to approve the area variances for 190 Woodlawn Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Discussion: #3 the property line is angled and should be noted. Vote: S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, J. Cohen-N, G. Simpson-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, B. Dailey-N. Approved, 4-2, motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 4, 2024 Page 7 of 12 8. #20220202, 31-33 Marion Ave. Area Variance to permit the demolition of the existing garage, mobile station, and car wash and to construct convenience store, gasoline canopy, car wash and rental space within the Tourist Related Business (TRB) District. Variances sought for 31-33 Marion Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. FRONT YARD 40 FT. 8 FT. 32 FT. (80%) SETBACK SETBACK-FRONT -CANOPY 40 FT. 25 FT. 15 FT. (37.5%) SETBACK-REAR-CANOPY 10 FT. 0 FT. 10 FT. (100%) Libby Clark, Attorney represented Stewart’s Shops. Ryan Rebidu, Stewart’s Shops was also present. Libby gave a brief history of the project. There are 3 parcels along the Marion Ave. corridor that are owned by Stewart’s, and they are proposing to renovate the existing Stewart’s shop. Libby said it was originally designed around the year 2000 in keeping with the Gateway Marion Ave. Overlay District, which was intended to bring the buildings closer to the streetscape to create sidewalks and walkability. Libby showed a plan of their proposal. She said the Stewart’s shop is much closer to the road, with office space to the right and they would be relocating the carwash that exists on site now. The canopies will be moved back away from Marion Ave. Libby said this proposal was originally zoned in 2012 under the GC-U zoning and is now under the UDO in the TRB District. She said nothing has changed but showed a slide comparing the two. Libby gave the project history:  January 2021 – proposed PUD, (SEQRA – coordinated review and negative declaration by City Council on December 21, 2021). PUD was not passed.  February 2022 – Application for area variance filed with the ZBA based upon letter of interpretation from code enforcement. In January of 2022 Code Enforcement indicated that the design guidelines and the zoning code were in conflict. The design guidelines wanted the front facing streetscape close but there was a 40 ft. setback in the TRB.  March 2022 – first appearance at ZBA and concern of the “100 ft rule” raised at meeting. Libby explained that Stewart’s application and mapping contained the use of a 100 ft. extension because its parcels were in a split zone – two different zoning districts.  September 2022 – second appearance and formal decision issued by code enforcement to allow for the 100 ft. Appeal of code enforcement decision to ZBA on “100 foot rule.”  May 2023 – ZBA votes to reverse code enforcement officer determination. Stewart’s appeals decision.  January 2024 – Saratoga County Supreme Court confirms code enforcement officer determination. Underlying zoning request to proceed for area variances. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 4, 2024 Page 8 of 12   Libby showed a copy of Patrick Cogan’s letter indicating that “the 40-foot minimum front setback obviously conflicts with the design guideline for 50% buildout”.  Libby showed the proposal under the Gateway Design District zoning. Libby said the relief they are seeking for the front yard is for the convenient store with retail space - the requirement is 40 ft.; they are proposing 8 ft. Libby said the existing store is at 24 ft. which is already non-compliant from the early 1970’s. The front yard and rear yard to canopy are for the gas canopy. Libby said the existing front yard setback to canopy is less conforming now at 4 ft. She added that the rear of the parcel is a shared driveway with National Grid and the City of Saratoga Springs. Libby compared current photos of the Stewart’s Shop with renderings of their proposal. The new proposal will have sidewalk access to the building. Libby said she feels this project brings a beneficial change to the neighborhood. It’s more in compliance with the underlying comp plan as well as the design guidelines that were intended. She said the DRB looked at the proposal and thought it was an improvement. The goal is to come more into compliance with what the city has intended. A feasible alternative is to leave the site as it is. Libby said the environmental review was done by the city council in 2021 and the project was not found to have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Libby said the difficulty is not self-created because it was not zoned when it was originally constructed and has been part of zoning changes all throughout time. Gabe said there’s no need for a front buildout variance. Libby said that’s correct given the commercial calculation. Inaudible - Aneisha was speaking but mic was not on. Libby responded that the current proposal went down in square footage from what the City Council looked at – less 4 residential homes, area of disturbance went down 1.7 acres and the proposed commercial went down 1800 sq. ft. Gabe said gas pumps are being moved closer to the lake. Libby said yes, but more in conformance with the zoning requirements. Gabe asked if there was SEQRA review for this. Aneisha’s response was inaudible. Libby said gas pumps were being moved in the original proposal as well, so those aspects were reviewed. Libby said she would defer to Aneisha as to whether they were reviewed enough. Gabe asked that the applicant provide the old SEQRA. Jackie was inaudible. Libby said the proposal went to the DRB and Planning Board but was not coordinated with the ZBA because the zoning request was done to avoid the ZBA to harmonize zoning. They wouldn’t have asked the ZBA for any variances because they were asking for a zone change. She said it was a procedural anomaly. Gabe asked if the third unit was now TRB. Libby said the whole application is TRB up to the hundred feet, the property has been consolidated into one lot. There’s nothing proposed beyond the 100 ft. Aneisha and Jackie were inaudible. Jonah said the proposal is an aesthetic improvement over the current situation and he appreciates that it’s an improvement on the zoning situation. He said he was concerned over the potential for adverse environmental impacts, especially given that there are gas pumps and a car City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 4, 2024 Page 9 of 12 wash involved with a body of water behind the property that is a drinking water source. Jonah said he would like to see SEQRA review on this proposal. Libby said she would be happy to provide the SEQRA review that was done before. Otis said they should review what they have before requesting a new SEQRA review. Shafer said he’s not convinced that they don’t need a SEQRA review but will look at what’s been done. Shafer suggested that the applicant could discuss with the city about the sidewalk to nowhere and having it lead to a crosswalk, with the argument that it would make the project more walkable. Brendan agreed with the other board members that he would like to see more information on the SEQRA, it’s a critical environmental part of Saratoga Springs in that it is the City’s reservoir. Brendan said it would give some of the neighbors’ peace of mind to know that the area along Marion Ave. that’s owned by Stewart’s would remain forested. Libby said she can’t promise that unconditioned, but because the lots are combined, anything would require a subdivision and/or a variance for a second principal structure so it would have to come back for approvals. Brendan said it’s an improvement to move the car wash up and away from the shores of the lake and asked if it was moved up as far as it could be without messing up traffic. Ryan said it could be moved up slightly, but it would be a hard turn to get out. Gage clarified for board members that the TRB District was extended 100 ft into what used to be UR-2. After 100 ft. it is still UR-2. Gage asked Libby to submit the SEQRA review that was done showing the gas canopy and car wash locations. Libby said she will produce the record and the board can draw their own conclusions as to whether it is sufficient or not. Gage Simpson, Chair said the public hearing was still open and asked if there were any comments at 8:19 p.m. Deb ?, 11 Marion Ave., said she submitted comments to the board. Deb said a 40 ft. side setback is required next to the carwash and there’s been no request for that variance. Deb said she and her neighbors strongly object to many of the points the applicant made regarding the criteria for variances. She said that all the lights from the canopy, Stewart’s sign on the building, another sign, sign on the car wash and monument sign all shine into the neighbors’ front living rooms and bedrooms across the street. She said she feels that the proposal is extremely undesirable and a detriment to the neighbors. She said the scope of this project is too large for their neighborhood and they don’t need a car wash. Deb said the applicant’s answers are based on a PUD that failed. They need to answer the questions as it pertains to today’s proposal. She said the 80% setback on the front is very substantial and comparing it to a non- conforming building that’s being torn down is not a reasonable expectation – it should be conforming. Gage asked Aneisha if there was a variance requested for signage. They’re allowed one monument sign and a building sign. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 4, 2024 Page 10 of 12 Ms. Millis – said she came on behalf of her husband, Tracey Millis who is with the HOA for the neighborhood. She said she is against the project and the trash it will bring. John Iacoponi, Ave. A. John said several letters were submitted to the city about the adverse effect of this variance on the neighborhood. He said 7,000 sq. ft. of commercial building in a residential neighborhood is excessive. John said the applicant only showed part of the letter from Patrick Cogan. What wasn’t shown was the UDO harmonizes all of these and it says 25’ front setback. Patrick Cogan said the design guidelines are not mandatory and the applicant claims this is not self-imposed. John said there’s no requirement anywhere to give an 80% variance. John said Patrick says in his letter that “25’ under the UDO is reasonable” – 8 ft. is not reasonable. John said this is now considered a redevelopment of the gas station. He said the definition of a gas station under the zoning ordinance is a place where gas is sold – including the pumps, canopy and where it’s sold, says it should not be within 250 ft. of a residential zone as defined by the property line. He said the property line of this redevelopment is the perimeter. John cited the code for expansion of a non-conforming use and noted that the canopy is expanded and asked if it’s been addressed. John feels these are issues that should be sent back to the planning department and if there are issues, let there be a determination, not an opinion. He said an opinion isn’t due process. John said the comp plan includes the entire corridor as TRB – residential neighborhood. He said the planning board rejected an earlier iteration of this proposal as a PUD because it was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan with a vote of 7-0 against. John said if you overlay that plan with the current proposal, it’s nearly identical. The variance is excessive, the project affects the neighbors and shouldn’t be approved. Jacob Reeder, on behalf of residents at 22 Marion Ave. Jacob said he opposes the proposal to build a Stewart’s and carwash. He said it’s redundant to tear something down that’s in use and working to move it back and pose a potential environmental danger to the drinking source. Traffic, light, and sound pollution could potentially increase from this project after completion as well as during the construction phase. Jacob said he doesn’t see how the sidewalk is of any benefit to people walking down the road. If a crosswalk were to be installed, who would oversee clearing snow from the other side? Would it be the taxpayer, or would Stewart’s be responsible? Jacob said he and his neighbor, John Armstrong, are in opposition to this plan. Gage Simpson, Chair said the public hearing will remain open and noted that the public can always submit more comments. The next meeting is March 18th, and the comments should be submitted prior to that meeting. Libby asked the board if there was anything other than the environmental record that she should submit. Shafer said the configuration of the sidewalk for walkability does not win him over for a selling point as it’s currently presented. Libby said they are required to submit a compliant plan and the only variance they’re asking for relates to the front yard for buildout. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 4, 2024 Page 11 of 12 Shafer said if it looks like they’re trying to make the sidewalk work, he’s more sympathetic to the overall presentation. 5. #20240012, 29 Newton Ave. Area variance to permit the construction of a new single-family home in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. NO ONE WAS PRESENT FOR THIS APPLICATION Gage Simpson, Chair closed the Public Hearing for 29 Newton Ave. at 8:34 p.m. Jonah Cohen made a motion to approve an area variance at 29 Newton Ave. to construct a new single-family home with an attached garage. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Discussion with Aneisha inaudible. Vote: S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, J. Cohen-Y, G. Simpson-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, B. Dailey-Y. Approved, 6-0, motion carried. MEETING MINUTES: A motion was made by Otis Maxwell to approve the meeting minutes from February 12, 2024, and seconded by Brendan Dailey. Approved, 6-0, motion carried. The meeting concluded at 8:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 4, 2024 Page 12 of 12