Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, MARCH 18, 2024 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Brendan Dailey, called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: Brendan Dailey, Shafer Gaston, Otis Maxwell, Chris LaPointe, Jonah Cohen, Brad Gallagher ABSENT: Gage Simpson 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. #20240111 41 Covell Single Family Construction. Area variance to permit the construction of a single-family home with an attached garage in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 41 Covell: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. LOT SIZE 6,600 SQ. FT. 4,248 SQ. FT. 2,352 SF (35.6%) SETBACK-FRONT 10 FT. 1 FT. 9 FT. (90.0%) SETBACK-FRONT RT. 50 10 FT. 1 FT. 9 FT. (90.0%) Darren Tracy, West Branch Engineering said he was representing himself and his wife Lisa Tracy. Darren said the property is a small triangular parcel fronted by Covell St. on one side and Route 50 on the other side. He said they have confirmed with the city that it is a buildable lot, but because it’s so small they are seeking variances for area and setbacks. Darren said there are no neighbors on the right/east side, and a neighbor on the left side. Darren said the bottom of the drawing is the Route 50 arterial (no display on monitor) and there are houses across the street on Covell Ave. Jonah Cohen said the plan looks relatively straight forward and he understands they have constraints because of the size and shape of the property. Jonah said it’s his understanding that the placement of the house is such to avoid removal of three large trees. Darren said that’s correct. There’s a 30” white pine, 30” yellow poplar and a 24” spruce tree. Darren said the white pine was struck by lightning last year so he isn’t sure it will survive. Shafer Gaston asked how the setback compares to the other properties near there. Are there comparable properties? Darren said there is no neighbor on the right and the neighbor on the left has about a 5 ft. setback from the property line. Shafer said he would like to know how this compares to other setbacks along the streets. Shafer said it’s not fatal to the application, but he would like that information for his consideration. Darren said he owns a property to the west on that side of the street and they are more or less in line with the house on the left side of the drawing. The setbacks of those houses are approximately 5 ft. Shafer asked if they had considered anything with a slightly larger setback that stretched further east to get similar square footage. Darren said they had not because they are looking to preserve the trees. He said the floor plan is 20x32=640 sq. ft. (2-story=1,280). Brendan Dailey said he very much appreciates them preserving the trees. He agreed with Shafer that the applicant should provide some comparable properties from the street/neighborhood that might have similar setbacks. Brendan Dailey opened the public comment at 6:41 p.m. There were no comments, and the public comment will remain open. 2. #20240064 59 Fifth addition. Area variance to permit the expansion of the existing single- family home in the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. Variances sought for 59 Fifth: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED INTERIOR SIDE 12 FT. 5 FT. 7 FT. (58.3%) MIN. TOTAL SIDE 30 FT. 25 FT. UNDETERMINED (16.7%) Michael Tuck, Balzer/Tuck Architecture representing the Otto’s. They are proposing an addition to support a ground floor master suite to help with eventual aging in place. They are proposing to take the existing garage setback on the easterly side of the property and maintain the setback as you move rearward on the property. Michael said the house and property line are not perfectly parallel with each other, so it gets tighter as you move back. He said the existing setback is 6.1’ and they’ll be coming down to 5.9’ at the rear of the property. Michael showed a diagram of the existing house and garage (I cannot see a display on the video). The garage will be removed, and a new one constructed further forward. Michael said they looked at City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 18, 2024 Page 2 of 9 putting a master bedroom on the west side of the home, which is currently compliant with the setback, but an addition on that side would make it out of compliance on both sides of the home. He said the addition to the east side made more sense and would be less disruptive to the neighborhood. There’s a deck that will be reconstructed. There are 3 bedrooms on the second floor, and they are adding a bathroom and a fourth bedroom over the new garage. Michael showed the plan elevations. Michael said they don’t believe this is any detriment to the neighborhood. He said there are examples along 5th Ave. that have tighter or similar setbacks. There will be no change in use and they’re not increasing the intensity of use or creating any impacts to the neighborhood. Shafer asked what the new square footage of the home will be. Michael said he doesn’t have it but will get it to the board. Shafer said he likes to consider the size of the home if it is significantly larger than surrounding homes in terms of square footage when the applicant is seeking a variance. Michael said he will provide the habitable square footage for this home and three others in the neighborhood that they have worked on that are larger. Shafer asked if there was an attempt to purchase property on either side of their property to reduce the side setback variance. Michael said there were conversations with the neighbor to the east who submitted a letter of support for this project but was not interested in selling any property. The neighbor to the west has a pool almost up to the property line. Shafer asked if because they will have to do modification to the exterior wall, it would be feasible to angle straight with the house, so they get the desired use of the property without increasing the current side setback. Michael said with the intersection of the roof forms if they were to make a 3- degree tilt in the wall it would make it complicated to frame. Practically speaking it wouldn’t work because of the angle of the wall. He said the wall they could, the roof they can’t, and the side yard setback is measured to the roof. Jonah clarified that the house is currently in the setback, and this will be a small shift from 6.1 ft. to 5.9 ft. and it will not be further into the setback. Chris asked Aneisha if any setback was based off the egress window well. Aneisha said that the measurement would be based off the building wall and the egress well = 2 variances. Michael said egress wells are permitted within the interior side yard (up to 4 ft.) per the UDO. Chris asked if they had considered putting the master bedroom where the deck is now. Michael said they talked about it, but it would block off the view of the backyard where there are 3 young children playing. He said it would also block venting and lighting to the kitchen, living room and dining room area. Brendan said they would see the applicant back on April 8th. Brendan Dailey opened Public Comment at 6:53 p.m. There were no comments, and the public comment period will remain open. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 3. #20240043 15 Warren Additions. Area variance to permit the renovation of a single-family residence in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 18, 2024 Page 3 of 9 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 & Y Engineering. Tonya said she is representing her clients, the Dansie’s who are proposing to build a two-car garage with living space above it. It will be attached to the existing house by a breezeway. Tonya said as discussed at the last meeting they are requesting one variance – the rear setback to the garage. Because the garage will be attached to the main structure, the rear setback then goes to the garage. Tonya said the board asked for additional information at the last meeting:  Can the garage be made smaller and feasibly meet the needs of the homeowner. The homeowner has a very large truck, 6’8” by 20’ in length, leaving 3 ft. in front of the truck to work on it and 2 ft. if the door is closed to walk behind it. They don’t want to lose any space within the garage and want to locate the garage as proposed so that they don’t impact their neighbor to the south. The house to the south is very close to the Dansie’s property line and if they move the garage forward, they will be right in view of the neighbor.  Garages attached or otherwise that are similar – Tonya showed examples and photos of similar structures from Google GIS map viewer (I cannot see a display on the video). The board agreed that the applicant showed a very thorough set of comps and it’s very much appreciated. Brendan Dailey asked if there were any public comments. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 7:04 p.m. Chris LaPointe made a motion to approve the variance at 15 Warren St. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Discussion: should be “UDO”, in number 1. It’s not a second dwelling unit and will be referred to as an addition, also in number 1. The applicant demonstrated that they considered an alternate design and the board notes that there is no additional land for purchase. Vote: B. Gallagher-Y, B. Dailey-Y, S. Gaston-Y, J. Cohen-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, C. LaPointe-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 4. #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. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 18, 2024 Page 4 of 9 Variance sought for 180 Fifth Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED SETBACK-REAR 30 FT. 3.5 FT. 26.5 FT. (88.3%) SETBACK-REAR 30 FT. 10 FT. 20 FT. (66.7%) Bob Flansberg, Dreamscapes Unlimited represented the applicants Bob and Heidi West. Bob presented a site plan design showing the height, length and elevation of the fence (I cannot see a display on the video). Bob said the fence is about 27’ from the corner of the property and is as long as the house. They have proposed going from 6’ to 9’ and scalloping upward instead of the previously mentioned 10’. Brendan said they are permitted 8’ in the UDO (Aneisha because they are abutting a non-residential district). Brendan said he would like to see the 8’ fence with some tree plantings if their client is amenable to that instead of the 9’ fence. Bob said they would consider that because they weren’t aware they were permitted to have an 8’ fence but he said there’s no room for landscaping in that area because there’s a pool there with an existing patio. Bob noted that the fire department was supposed to plant evergreens along the west side of the property and the lighting was supposed to be below the roof of the firehouse, neither of those have happened. Brad asked if an 8’ fence is sufficient for Bob’s clients. Bob said if 8’ is the permissible standard they will go with that. Shafer clarified that for this project it would be the 5’ to the property line and 1ft. of relief for a portion of fence (not needed now). Shafer said the applicant has shown comps with the 5’in the setback and he has no additional questions. Brendan said they do not have a prepared resolution but will have something for the next meeting. Bob will re-submit the plan showing the 8’ fence. The public comment will remain open. 5. #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%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 18, 2024 Page 5 of 9 Libby Clark, Attorney represented Stewart’s Shops. Ryan Rebidu, Stewart’s Shops was also present. Libby said her notes from the last meeting indicated that the board wanted to revisit the 2021 City Council environmental record and findings for the project which will be the bulk of her presentation. (I cannot see a display on the video). What has changed from 2021 to now to make this a less intense project:  The largest portion of the request is the front yard setback because it conflicted with the design guidelines which were to bring the building closer to the road rather than to the rear. Most of the request was to create a sidewalk and for walkability in that corridor.  The bottom of the screen is where the proposed car wash was - on the right-hand side as you head toward Greenfield, up Marion Ave. It was much closer to Loughberry Lake than is proposed now. It’s closer to Marion Ave., much narrower, removed bays, smaller size (originally proposed as 2-bay, now is 1-bay), is substantially closer to the road and slightly closer to the northern border.  The gas canopy is being moved a little more north from where it has historically been since the 70’s and is about 5’ closer to Marion than to Loughberry Lake.  Stewart’s shop has remained the same size, the retail space is now attached and there are no single-family residences (there were 4).  The rental square footage has been reduced by 1,820 sq. ft. The car wash has been reduced by more than half and the residential by 10,000 sq. ft. and completely removed.  The asphalt coverage of the proposal was reduced by almost 50%. Libby said the original SEQRA review was a fully coordinated review with the Planning board, DRB and the DOT. Libby listed what was new since their last appearance before the ZBA:  The separation between Loughberry Lake, fuel dispensers, fuel tanks and the car wash.  Discusses the facilities’ level of service.  Stormwater management  Sanitary  Energy efficiency  Trip generation letter from Creighton Manning/no significant impact tht could not be mitigated.  SHPO no impact letter  Regarding the critical environmental area – letter from engineer indicating that the proposal is an improvement from existing conditions as the current petroleum were installed prior to regulations. Anything done now to move them will upgrade the DEC and petroleum bulk storage regulations that have come out since the original installation.  Because the City is an MS4 participant it will require the City’s approval for the entire stormwater. It will require the city’s review and approval to ensure that any runoff does not impact the watershed. Those regs have been modernized and updated from the original proposal. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 18, 2024 Page 6 of 9   The Licensed geologist who reviewed the petroleum bulk storage program for Stewart’s – the Loughberry Lake critical environmental area postdates the petroleum activities on site. The CEA was created after the petroleum was already on the site. Libby said because the ZBA was not involved in the 2021 proposal, no variances were requested, it’s very important that that the board review this now. Aneisha went over the changes to the relief being requested: 1. Fourth area of relief -Fueling stations within 250 ft. of a residential district (article 6.3.3b of Zoning Ordinance). Libby referred to the Gage Simpson letter 12/22 confirming that the determination they received from Patrick was that these are grandfathered because they pre-date the 250 ft. 2. Fifth area of relief - Rear yard setback to the car wash, 50 ft. requirement and proposing around 25 feet because they are abutting a residential district. Libby clarified that National Grid operating as a utility, preexisting zoning is now in a residential zone and the zone line did not move commensurate with their 100 ft. Aneisha said that was correct. There was a discussion regarding coordinated review with the planning board. Libby said the planning board does have a determination as it relates to this project from the 2021 coordinated review process on a more intense project. Libby said there would have to be material impacts that exceed the thresholds found in 2021. Brendan Dailey made a motion to defer lead agency and coordinate SEQRA with the Planning Board. The motion was seconded by Jonah Cohen. Discussion: Jackie was inaudible, not speaking into mic. Vote: B. Gallagher-Y, B. Dailey-Y, S. Gaston-Y, J. Cohen-Y, O. Maxwell- Y, C. LaPointe-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Brendan Dailey said he appreciates the presentation. Asked about the size of the Stewart’s building. Libby said it will stay the same size as what was presented in the PUD. He clarified that there will be less asphalt, no residences, car wash will be further from the lake and the rental property has decreased in size. Ryan was inaudible – not speaking into the mic. Chris LaPointe said he appreciates the presentation and background on the project. Shafer said he appreciates the environmental considerations. He said since the PUD is no longer active, he won’t consider anything that was approved before. He said he does appreciate the comparison between the existing and proposed project. He clarified that the applicant is stating that their proposal in every aspect of environmental and impact consideration makes an improvement. Libby said yes. Shafer asked with regards to the current site dimensions versus the proposal, are there any dimensions that may get a larger variance than if the current site were proposed today. Libby said yes, the buildout of the frontage is wider to satisfy the city’s design guidelines. It’s an improvement but a bigger variance. Ryan said he had a calculation on the site plan for the net area relief for compliance and the existing site would require 64’ of City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 18, 2024 Page 7 of 9 relief and the proposed site would require 57’. He said the 50 ft. rear setback was not in his calculation. They would still need relief for the rear setback either way. Shafer asked if they were keeping the same fueling stations that exist today. Ryan said they are being replaced. It will be a newly constructed fueling station in the same location. Otis said there are so many changes in regulations that didn’t exist before and he’s glad that the ZBA is coordinating with other agencies. He said he appreciates the work the applicant has done to make an environmental improvement on the property as opposed to what’s there now. Jonah said he really appreciates the applicant putting together the comparison presentation. Between that and the charts that were provided, his questions have been answered. The applicant will return after the meeting with the Planning Board. Brendan Dailey opened the floor to public comments at 7:49 p.m. Deb Lacone, 11 Marion Ave., said per the zoning ordinance the extension or expansion of a non-conforming use is prohibited. You can repair or replace within the same boundaries, but they are clearly making an expansion into a newly built building for the sale of the gasoline, and believes the canopy is also expanded. She thanked the board for doing a new SEQRA. Deb said they will ask the planning board to negate the special use permit for the car wash that was originally granted in 1976 because they will require a new special use permit because they’re tearing it down and moving it. She said they will ask that the business not operate after 9 p.m. and that they should consider the carwash special use permit again with the SEQRA. Deb said she would like the ZBA to take a hard look when these variances come back before them. Renee Taliana, Ave. A said she was happy that the 250 ft. was brought up, it was important to her. She said she would like to see an official determination on that matter. Renee referenced a letter sent from Patrick Cogan on January 28, 2022; the letter Libby referenced when she was before the ZBA the last time. Renee said that Libby pulled out points to support a variance but left out some very important points. She said in the middle of the letter Patrick says “without such clarifying statements, I have to take the position that the area and bulk requirements of the TRB zoning district would control over recommended design guideline of the gateway overlay. Other requirements of the gateway design districts are identified as mandatory, the 50% buildout is not… Right or wrong, the front setback requirement is currently 40 ft. Let me know if there are other questions.” Renee said she’s not against an improvement to the area. She said she bought her home not long ago and loves her neighborhood. She’s part of the 40-year-old HOA and she’s here tonight because so many of her neighbors can’t be who started the association. She said they continue to try to protect their tiny neighborhood. She said all they really want to see is the sizing appropriate for the neighborhoods that are around them and that it be within the size recommended in the comp plan. She said this is about an area variance. Do you need to get closer to the road to create this building? A very nice Stewart’s shop could City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 18, 2024 Page 8 of 9 be built 40 ft. from the road. Renee said she’s asking the board to keep the neighborhood in mind. Brendan Dailey said the public hearing will remain open. Brendan Dailey made a motion to adjourn at 7:57 p.m. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – March 18, 2024 Page 9 of 9