Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, APRIL 22, 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, Shafer Gaston, Otis Maxwell, Chris LaPointe, Brad Gallagher, Robert (Bob) West (Alternate) ABSENT: Brendan Dailey, Jonah Cohen 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. #20240182, 140 Grand Demo & Construction. Area variance to permit the renovation of the existing duplex in the Arts and Culture (AC) District. Variance sought for 140 Grand Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED CORNER SIDE SETBACK 8 FT. 0 FT. 8 FT. (100%) Joe Snyder, Owner said the property is a duplex in the historic district. He’s seeking an area variance to demo and rebuild where the structure currently sits. Joe said he plans to demo the rear 2/3rds of the building and rebuild the back larger than the section being removed. He said he plans to keep the middle foundation and build back on top of it. Joe said he got approval from the real estate committee and he’s two feet over the property line onto Beekman St. The rear section of the foundation will be taken out and built back. He said his setback is 8 ft. and he's looking to rebuild on the property line, which would bring it in about 3 ft. from where it currently sits. Joe said he is demolishing the rear 2/3rds because it’s in a deteriorated state. He has received approval from the DRB/Historical to demo both sections. Joe said the variance is not substantial and will not be a detriment or produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or to existing properties. Joe said with the setback being 8 ft. and the 2 ft. that the building is already over, with the roof overhang the building would be about 11 ft. offset and the building’s only 26 ft. wide. Joe said he feels it would upset the character of the street and the house would look awkward. Joe showed images of other properties on Beekman St. that are right on the sidewalk. Joe said the variance will not have any adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or the district. He said this project is seeking to preserve the historical essence and architectural integrity of the district and is planned to be in harmony with the surrounding structures. Joe said they will work to minimize noise, dust, and traffic disruptions during the demolition and construction phases. He said the driveway is wide and the length of the house so it can be used for staging of construction equipment. Joe said this difficulty was not self-created. The rear 2/3rds of the building are severely deteriorated and lack structural integrity. Shafer Gaston said he has questions and concerns about the property. He asked Joe if the house was uninhabitable, and he said it was. Shafer asked when the house was constructed. Joe said the main house was constructed in 1850, the first addition in 1866 and the second addition 5 or 10 years later – before 1875. Shafer said the variance is substantial and asked why Joe couldn’t move all of the building in since he’s already doing that with part of the addition. Joe said he’s using the existing foundation, and all the utilities are against that wall. The utilities are coming in on the Beekman St. side. The shed on the west side of the property will be removed. Shafer said he would like to see a drawing that eliminates the shed. Shafer asked if the driveway would remain gravel. Joe said it has to because of permeability issues. Shafer asked if the tree on the southern side will remain. Joe said he will remove what is overhanging on his house. Shafer asked what the final permeability number will be. Joe will bring that answer back. Otis Maxwell noted that the zero clearance structures shown on Beekman are businesses or café type places and asked if Joe could show other residential properties with zero clearance. Joe said he believes they’re mixed use with commercial on the lower level and apartments above. Otis asked if Joe had any plans to change the sidewalk on Beekman and he said no. Brad Gallagher asked if the overhangs were hanging over the sidewalk. Joe said yes, and they will be adding gutters. Joe said he’s building it back exactly how it was. Brad said the overhang would be over zero and the board can only grant to zero. Joe said he got permission from the real estate committee. Aneisha said the ZBA is only approving to zero. Anything beyond is the city council. Bob West asked if he had DRB approval for the construction of the building. Joe said they’ve only gotten approval for the demolition at this time. Chris LaPointe asked why they’re not building back on the foundation of section 3. Joe said it’s a crawl space that’s crumbling. There was some discussion about rebuilding on the same foundation and that if that changes it would require approval. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 22, 2024 Page 2 of 10 Gage Simpson, Chair said the applicant should come back with a formal letter from the City Council and Real Estate Committee, and an accurate site plan that shows the shed taken out. Aneisha said if the applicant provides the materials before the meeting, the board could potentially decide at the next meeting. Gage opened the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. and it will remain open. 2. #20240179 Cherry St. Single Family Construction. Area variance to permit the construction of a single-family home in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. Variance sought for Cherry St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED FRONT SETBACK 10 FT. 5 FT. 5 FT. (50%) David Duvall, Owner. Representative (Rep) did not announce his name. Rep said this was part of a two-lot subdivision. The front lot (lot 1) was a building that housed the owner’s office and a few residences and was sold. Lot 2, on the corner of Cherry and Marvin Alley, is before the board tonight. Rep said they’re looking for the same setbacks that were previously granted and are set forth in the application. David is not speaking into the mic. Inaudible. Aneisha said the UDO has eliminated some of the variances they had been initially approved for. There were 7, 6 have been eliminated. The 5 ft. they are seeking was approved previously. Rep said there have been no significant changes to the neighborhood. It is almost precisely what it was in 2020 when the approvals were granted. The board found previously that this could not be achieved through other means. The variance is substantial but is mitigated by the fact that it’s near Ellsworth City Center which is compact. Rep said historically on Franklin St. there are many pre-existing non-conforming setbacks. Gage asked what the actual address is. Inaudible answer from David, no mic. Aneisha said just Cherry St. Rep said John Witt has a customer who is all ready to construct a house at this site. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 p.m. Hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed at 7:02 p.m. Gage Simpson made a motion to approve the area variance for construction of a single-family home at Cherry St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Chris LaPointe. Vote: G. Simpson-Y, S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, R. West-Y. 6-0, motion carried. 3. #20240178, 26 Jumel Bathroom. Area variance to permit the construction of a secondary dwelling unit in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 22, 2024 Page 3 of 10 Variance sought for 26 Jumel.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. LOT SIZE 8,000 SQ. FT. 7,700 SQ. FT. 300 SQ FT (3.8%) Joe Moore represented Pete Procia, owner. Joe said the house and carriage house were constructed in 1993. The plan was to add a bathroom to the finished portion of the second floor of the garage, but it was not cost effective at the time. Joe said he thinks the regulations at the time didn’t allow for a bathroom, but they do now. Aneisha said this was not before the ZBA in the past. She said it’s a finished space and there’s no bathing facilities there now, so they wouldn’t have had a reason to come before. She said it’s her understanding they are asking for a second dwelling in the UR-3, which is permitted. It is a rentable, livable space. Joe said that nothing on the outside is changing. Aneisha said the setback requirements are different for a second dwelling and would require additional relief. Gage said they will need to know the rear and side setbacks. Aneisha said they need some clarification on the use of the space. Joe said they won’t have a kitchen, just a full bathroom. Joe said it was just meant to be a separate bedroom and bath for whoever is renting the main house. Aneisha said she’ll need a narrative saying what the use will be because that affects the variances. Chris asked what utilities are currently running to the building. Joe said there’s gas but no water or sewer. Joe will come back with more information about the use. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 p.m. and will remain open. 4. #20240173 219 Regent Addition. Area variance to permit an addition to the existing single- family home in the Urban Residential -3 (UR-3) District. Variances sought for 219 Regent St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAX. PRINCIPLE COVERAGE 40% 42.5% 2.5% (6.2%) REAR SETBACK 25 FT. 5 FT. 20 FT. (80%) TOTAL SIDE 12 FT. 7.5 FT. 4.5 FT. (37.5%) Joe Candida, Nolan Engineering, representing Brendan Kelly, owner. Joe was not talking into the mic. I was able to decipher some of what he had to say and will record that here. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 22, 2024 Page 4 of 10 Joe displayed a plan. He said the entryway is going to come down. ??? is going away. He said the property is so small that the rear, front and side setbacks are in the middle of the house right now. Aneisha said the front is off Regent, the rear is next to the neighbor, and then the two sides. He needs variances for coverage, rear and total side. Aneisha said the Zoning Officer has made a determination that says that Cottage Place is not a front. He determined that the front is Regent St., and the rear is next to John Wager’s property. Joe showed photos of the house and surrounding properties. Joe said their front entrance and driveway is on Regent St. The addition is a sunroom with a bathroom. It’s a small house on a small lot. Joe said he shrunk it to keep the coverage and impervious under. Aneisha said right now they’re over on coverage. The overhangs were not included in the calculations. She said they have received public comments both favorable and not supportive. Gage asked if they could make it smaller to get it under 40% and eliminate that variance. If they could make it further away from the side setback it will reduce the overall coverage to below 40% and decrease the amount they’re asking for the total side. Make it less deep from the house. Gage clarified that the rear setback will be to the left on the image displayed. The side setback is the top of the screen. The corner side is Cottage Pl., and the front is Regent St. Aneisha said initially the labels were different, but the Zoning Officer made a determination that Cottage Pl. is not a street, it’s just an alleyway. Joe said he didn’t know that until he got to the meeting tonight. Gage asked what the total lot size is. Aneisha said the total lot size is 2215 and is supposed to be 6600. Gage said their coverage will be filled up quickly. Brad agreed with Gage that the applicant should try to get rid of the coverage variance and try to shrink the house down and pull it in off the rear and the side. Otis agreed that they should try to reduce the footprint. Shafer said he wants to know if it’s in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Is this property substantially more built out and are there similar structures attached to other dwellings in the neighborhood. Joe said it’s hard to find similar lots that are that small. Shafer said that he wants to see if the buildings are in character with each other. Chris said for the record that he lives on Regent St. about a ½ mile down the road but not enough to recuse himself. He said he agrees with what everyone else has said so far. Gage said the applicant should bring back comps. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:33 p.m. Alisa Dalton Wager, the neighbor to the rear of the applicant. Alisa gave the board a copy of an objection letter that she had posted online. She said the owner of this property doesn’t live there and never has. Alisa said the owner purchased the property in 2021 and has rented it as Airbnb property ever since. She said it’s not a permitted use and is currently in violation of zoning. Alisa said it would also be in violation of zoning as proposed by the short-term rental changes. She said they are putting on this sunroom and bathroom to enhance the rentability of the property which this neighborhood does not have. Alisa said most of the houses are carriage houses, that’s the character of the neighborhood. She added that when the horse and carriage rides take place in the summer, they go down those streets because it looks like a historical photo. Alisa said Lake Ave. across from the school is already very congested with cars and City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 22, 2024 Page 5 of 10 parking and this would add to that. She said the addition will also increase runoff to her property because it changes the roofline. John Wager, 96 Lake Ave., said he lives very close to the carriage house. He said he’s lived in Saratoga for 30 years and loves the character of his neighborhood and the symmetry of the buildings and how they fit together. The owner, Brendan Kelly, doesn’t live there. He’s a super host on Airbnb (which requires a lot of rental volume) for this property. John said the owner is running a commercial entity in a residential neighborhood. John said this will be a barn with a giant nose on it that takes up every square foot of the property. He said he strongly objects to this addition. Elaine McArdle said she lives at 100 Lake Ave. with her husband Jack McGrail and her property abuts the applicant’s property. Elaine said Brendan Kelly asked them if they objected to the addition to make the house more livable and they had none. She said they were leaving to go out of the country at the time and when they returned, they found out there were new circumstances in that with the addition the home would no longer look like a carriage house. Brendan also mentioned that they wouldn’t have to remove a tree that they thought they might have had to. Elaine was not aware that they had planned to take the tree down and would never have agreed to that to begin with. Elaine said she would no longer support the addition. She said she would have liked to talk to Brendan directly but he’s out of the country. She said she also wished that Brendan had talked with others in the neighborhood because they’re close and there could have been a better way to handle the situation. Elaine said if the plan moves forward, she hopes it is substantially shrunk and continues to look like a carriage house. Donna Hayes said she lives on Cottage Pl. in one of the 2,000 sq. ft. small cottages. She said she’s opposed to this new construction addition. Donna said she’s never seen anyone live at the home, it’s always different cars from New England states. She said it’s difficult to pull out of Cottage Place onto Regent because cars are pulled right up to that corner and it’s hard to see around them. Donna said she’s also opposed to changing the nature of the neighborhood. Jackie White, Attorney commented but was inaudible (no mic). CONTINUED BUSINESS: 5. #20240113 89 Court St. Garage construction. Area variance to permit the construction of a detached garage and potting shed in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Variances sought for 89 Court St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAX. PRINCIPLE 40% 46% 6% (15%) COVERAGE City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 22, 2024 Page 6 of 10 Sue Davis SD Atelier Architecture representing Joshua and Chelsea Silver who are proposing to build a new garage. Sue said 89 Court St. is a sub-standard lot that sits between Caroline and Phila St. Sue said some of the other lots in the area are quite large but have coverage over 40%. Sue showed photos of the existing site and an overview of the context. Sue graphed a 500 ft. radius to clearly show what the lot coverages were in the vicinity that have detached garages and over 40% building coverage. She said they assessed that coverage based on the county tax information and found the following:  139-141 Caroline St. = 52.74% +/- (has detached garage)  139 Phila St. = 40.74% +/-  179 Regent St. = 48.75% +/-  82 Court St. = 52.01%+/- (no detached garage)  107 Caroline St. = 47.95% +/-  115 Caroline St. = 55.81% +/-  119 Caroline St. = 44.16% +/- Sue also displayed photos of neighboring properties with detached garages. 140 Caroline St. = 34.76% & 131 Phila St. = 33.70%. Sue said it’s quite common to see these historic properties with detached garages. She said her client is looking for a one-car garage with a potting shed. Other properties have two-car garages with larger lots. Sue said they shrunk the garage/potting shed from 584 sq. ft. to 576 sq. ft. They have reduced the maximum building coverage from 45.52% to 45.38%. Sue displayed 3D views of the house and shed. Sue said there were some neighborhood concerns about looking into the yard. She said her client intends to use the garage for an exercise room and an office, but as a concession they made smaller windows on the one elevation that are up about 5 ft. She said they reduced the number of windows on the first-floor level to one and will be putting up a fence. Otis said the changes were great and he appreciated the comps. Otis asked about permeability and if they were going to remove the concrete pad under the existing potting shed. Sue said yes, that would be fine. Shafer said he appreciates Sue pointing out the radius, that helped with pointing out the properties that were being referred to when given comps. Chris asked if they were proposing to move the garage backwards into the rear setback. Sue said no, they were trying to show the reduction in size comparing previous proposed to proposed. She said they are maintaining the 5 ft. setback. Gage said they have no homework for the applicant, and they should have a resolution at the next meeting on May 6th. Gage Simpson, Chair said the public hearing will remain open. 6. #20240118, 169 Union Ave. garage demo and construction. Area variance to permit the construction of a second dwelling unit within the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Variances sought for 169 Union Ave.: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 22, 2024 Page 7 of 10 TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. AVERAGE WIDTH 80 FT. 50 FT. 30 FT. (37.5%) MAX. PRINCIPLE 40% 48% 8% (20%) COVERAGE FRONT SETBACK (GARAGE 10 FT. 9 FT. 1 FT. (10%) TO THE ALLEY) MAX. DRIVEWAY % 25% 40% 15% (60%) Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America & Y Engineering represented the owner of 169 Union Ave., Mr. Grossman. She said her client is proposing to remove the existing garage and rebuild it with a carriage house with a small apartment over a two-car garage. They are seeking the four variances listed on the chart above. Tonya said the board asked for additional information at the last meeting which she provided in a letter on April 9th as follows:  Reduction in width of building. Reduced by 12”. The carriage house coverage was originally 960 Sq. Ft. and has been reduced to 930 sq. ft. The new overall building coverage will be 46.8% (originally 47.3%). They are now asking for 6.8% (17%) relief. The building width will go from 32’ to 31’ including roof overhangs.  Increase in building coverage from existing conditions. The existing house and garage structure cover 2,883 sq. ft. (41.2% of the lot), the existing house with the new carriage house will cover 3,275.6 sq. ft. (46.8%). Increasing coverage on the lot by 5.6% (392 sq. ft.).  Difference in Permeability from existing conditions. The existing house, garage, driveway & sidewalks cover approximately 4,015.4 sq. ft. of the lot (impermeable area=57.4%). Tonya said when they build the new garage the asphalt near that will become green. The impermeable area with the proposed carriage house, existing house, driveway & sidewalk will be 53.8%. Increase in permeability by 3.6%.  Carriage house location. Were asking for a 1 ft. variance to the alleyway. Instead of 10 ft. to the alley they were asking for 9 ft. to the roof overhang to make better use of the lawn area. They were asked by ZBA if one of the variances could be removed if they moved the building back, so they did. They are now 10 ft. from the alleyway to the roof overhang and no longer need that variance.  Photos of similar buildings. Tonya said the building they’re mimicking off Nelson Ave. is not quite done. She included photos of two garages that are down the street. One is 3 properties down from the applicant and very similar to what they will build. The only difference is the applicants will face the alleyway. Tonya said the comp at 155 Union was not noted as an apartment carriage house on the tax record, so she had no coverage to compare with. It said there was a garage and that it was 621 sq. ft. but did not say it was a carriage house or second dwelling unit. At 153 Union the house is right up to the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 22, 2024 Page 8 of 10  alleyway and their proposal is 10 ft. back. It doesn’t show on the tax record as a garage, it just shows under improvements as adding a carport and a porch. Tonya showed an overall google map of the neighborhood and some commercial properties that speak to the coverage percentages – museum covers 77.6%, taverns and Inns 73%, 54% and over 52%. Tonya said in looking at the character of the neighborhood they are very consistent with what they’re requesting. Brad Gallagher said he appreciated the presentation and comparisons and that they brought down some of the percentages of the variances. He asked if there was any way to reduce the variances any further. Tonya said she would ask her client. Otis said he appreciates the many answers Tonya brought to their many questions and had nothing further. Shafer, Chris & Bob had no questions. Tonya mentioned that the garage as it exists is only 1.6 ft. to the side property line and 1.9 ft. to the western property line and it will be moved away to 5 ft. She said as it exists to the alleyway is about 3 ft. and they’re making that 10 ft. Gage said the board will have something for Tonya on May 6th. Gage Simpson, Chair said the public hearing is still open. 7. #20240157, L-28 South, two family construction. Area variance to permit the construction of a two-family residential structure in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Variances sought for L-28 South: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. LOT SIZE 8,000 SQ. FT. 7,875 SQ. FT 125 SQ. FT. (1.6%) MIN. AVERAGE WIDTH 80 FT. 50 FT. 30 FT. (37.5%) MAX. DRIVEWAY % 25% 48% 23% (92%) John Longo, 26 Stafford Bridge Rd., Saratoga Springs. John said the variance they’re seeking regarding the driveway is in keeping with the neighborhood. He said there are four driveways in the neighborhood that are much wider than the amount allowed for the dwelling. John said there’s also a 3-family dwelling behind him that has no driveway, so people are parking on the street. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open for comments. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing was closed at 8:15 p.m. Gage Simpson made a motion to approve the area variances for construction of a two-family home at L-28 South St. Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Discussion: Instead of Price Chopper, say shopping center entrance. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 22, 2024 Page 9 of 10 Vote: G. Simpson-Y, S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, R. West-Y. 6-0, motion carried. Gage Simpson made a motion to adjourn at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – April 22, 2024 Page 10 of 10