Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, MAY 6, 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, Shafer Gaston, Otis Maxwell, Chris LaPointe, Jonah Cohen, Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair ABSENT: Chris Maslak (Alternate), Robert West (Alternate) 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: Gage Simpson, Chair made a statement that comments regarding the use of a property are not under the purview of the Zoning Board, so people should reach out to the Zoning Officer if they have concerns about how a property is being used. 1. #20220918 142 East Ave Garage Demo and Reconstruction. Area Variance to permit a garage addition to the primary residence in the Urban Residential (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 142 East Ave: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED INTERIOR SIDE 8 FT. 1 FT. 7 FT. (87.5%) MIN. TOTAL SIDE 20 FT. 9 FT. 11 FT. (55.0%) Megan Hayes said she’s no longer doing the big garage in the back because there were too many complaints about it. Megan said the last time she came before the board they suggested that she keep the trees so she’s trying to be respectful of that. She said her only other alternative is to put a garage adjacent to and attached to her house. Megan said she doesn’t have any storage in her house. She looked into having the crawl spaces under the house dug out and it would cost around $65,000. She said she’s trying to keep as much natural area as possible between her and her neighbors as possible. Megan said her driveway turns inward and the garage is all the way in the back of the property leaving a pie shaped, unusable piece in her yard. If she moves the garage up by the house, she can then have a straight driveway going to the garage. Megan said this would alleviate the driveway in her backyard that she doesn’t need, and she would be able to utilize that space for more of a natural setting with landscaping and plantings. Megan said her saddleback garage is crumbling and listing sideways, the sills are just dirt, and there’s plants growing in there. She said she can’t open and close her garage doors because it’s so uneven. Megan said there’s a wooded property adjacent to the yellow garage behind her and the mulched area is her property. She said she walked down her block and there are eleven houses that are either at the property line or the roofline hangs over the property line. Megan had photos of 6 of the houses that are over the property line. She said the other 5 are grandfathered in but hers was not. Megan said she believes that’s because whoever built the garage positioned it to make room for the tree. She said that’s likely the reason her garage has moved so much, because of the tree roots. Megan said all the garages that abut her property are either at the property line or within the one-foot variance setback. Megan gave the board a drawing of her proposal. She said she added the dormers for additional storage. She said the garage would also provide some privacy for her and her neighbor. Megan referred to Exhibit D, possible alternatives for a garage. She said she’s trying to maintain the quaintness of the property. Megan said she’s spent thousands of dollars on an architect for the last plan and doesn’t want to spend any more until she’s sure what she is able to do there. Megan said she’s made improvements to the house and cares very much about what it looks like. She said she would like to do plantings in the back equal to what’s at the front of the house, plantings, window boxes, etc. Jonah Cohen asked Megan to summarize how the plan differs from the previous plan. Megan said the other plan was a two-car garage and she would have to take down trees. She proposed to move the garage 3 ft. from the property line and the neighbors weren’t happy with her having a two-car garage in her back yard. Megan said she consulted with an arborist about the trees, and they said the trees and roots would have to be removed if she wanted to build a garage there. Shafer Gaston confirmed that the three trees will be able to remain with the new location of the garage. Chris LaPointe asked how the garage would be connected to the home. Aneisha said for it to be considered part of the principal structure there must be some kind of connectivity such as a breezeway or door where you can walk from one to the other without going outside. It must be physically attached. There has to be some flow between the two areas. Otherwise, it’s considered an accessory to the principal home. Megan said she’s fine with that. She originally wanted a gate, but Gage said that it would then be an accessory structure with different City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 6, 2024 Page 7 of 7 setbacks. Aneisha said if it were not connected the setback would be 5 ft. as opposed to the 8 ft. She said to keep in mind that the previous project had that presentation for the accessory structure and the neighbors were not supportive of it. Chris asked if Megan considered moving the garage back about 5 feet from the house. She said she had, and the garage would basically be floating in the back yard and would be difficult to access from the driveway. Brad asked Aneisha if the garage could be that close to the garage if it wasn’t connected. Aneisha said under the previous ordinance they had a 5 ft. separation requirement that is not under the current UDO. She said there’s a requirement from the property lines but not the principal structure. Brad asked what Megan considered for drainage because it’s one foot off the property line. Megan said she had not considered it. She has to address it with the architect and will come back with a drainage plan. Brendan said he appreciates that she’s keeping the trees and that it will be a one-car garage instead of two. He agreed with Brad about the drainage plan. Gage asked how far the current garage was off the property line. Megan said about 5 or 6 ft. (4.4 per plan). Aneisha said the applicant needs to confirm if it’s going to be connected or an accessory. Megan said connected is fine. She said she doesn’t want to go to the architect until she has the variance. Aneisha said the board can’t grant a variance until they understand what is being proposed. Gage said with an accessory structure they would be approving less of a variance. Shafer asked if there were other detached garages in the neighborhood. Megan said the photos she submitted are all detached garages. Shafer said it’s fair to say that there are other detached garages in the neighborhood near the property line inside the setback. Gage stated that they would be eliminating one variance and drastically reducing another with the detached garage (accessory structure). He said a gate is not necessary, it just can’t be connected to the house. Aneisha reminded Gage that the public comments were not very supportive of a detached garage. Gage said that Megan needs to come back with something that says it’s an accessory structure with unfinished space, single car garage and a drainage plan for the next meeting on May 20th. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 6:53 p.m. John Conley appreciates the modifications and would support this approach. Every garage in the neighborhood is on the property line or within one foot. It would be consistent with everything else that’s there. The Public Hearing will remain open. 2. #20240196 16 Marion/2 Ave. A Subdivision Area Variance. Area Variance to permit a two- lot subdivision in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 16 Marion/2 Lot 1 Ave.: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 6, 2024 Page 7 of 7  TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. AVERAGE WIDTH 60 FT. 40 FT. 20 FT. (33.3%) Variances sought for 16 Marion/2 Lot 2 Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. AVERAGE WIDTH 60 FT. 44 FT. 16 FT. (26.7%) MIN. TOTAL SIDE 20 FT. 16 FT. 4 FT. (20%) ACCESSORY SHED TO REAR 5 FT. 3.6 FT. 1.4 FT. (28%) Stephanie Ferradino, Attorney represented the property owner Allen Tanner. She presented an aerial slide of the property showing 2 non-conforming uses because it has two principal structures on one lot. Stephanie said the top structure in the photo is a single family and the brighter white portion of it will be demolished. The duplex fronts Ave. A, and is not allowed in the UR-2 district. The owner wants to subdivide the lot to make it more conforming and to have each structure on its own lot. Stephanie showed a sketch of the variances they will need. On Lot 2 (top lot) there’s a shed that’s in the process of being removed and won’t need a variance. They are requesting the small side yard variance. She said the majority of the structure on Lot 2 is being demolished and the remainder will be reconfigured, but they may want a deck or something similar in the future. Stephanie said the owner is unable to purchase land from either neighbor because of the proximity of other structures. She said width is an issue for both lots. They have 44 ft. for Lot 2 and 45 Ft. for Lot 1. The total side yard is 16ft. The existing driveway is at 50% as opposed to 25%.  Can benefit be achieved by other feasible means? No, the city would like these lots brought into conformance. The structures already exist, the frontages can’t change, and they can’t purchase any property from neighbors. She said they’re mitigating a small amount of the circumstances with the removal of the structure on the duplex’s lot.  Will the variances produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? No, because it will be a paper only modification. They will be demolishing a portion of the structure on Marion Ave.  Is the variance substantial? No, because it brings the lots into conformance.  Will the variance result in adverse effects on the neighborhood? No adverse effect on the environmental aspects of the neighborhood.  Is the difficulty self-created? The structures are pre-existing and were allowed to be constructed prior to UR-2 regulations. The subdivision brings the lots more into conformance. The subdivision is impossible without variances. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 6, 2024 Page 7 of 7 Shafer asked if they would be constructing anything new and only removing a portion of one of the structures and the shed. Stephanie said that’s correct. She said they will internally reconfigure the structure that exists now. Allen said the existing footprint of 2 Ave. A and B will stay the same. The ranch on Marion Ave. has an attached garage with an apartment above it. The ranch portion of the home will be demolished but the footprint will not be increased. Grass will replace the demolished structure. Otis clarified that the existing non-conforming duplex was staying the same. Jonah said he appreciates the presentation and that this is generally being brought into more compliance. Brad asked if there was any way to improve the driveway. Allen said it’s paved. Gage noted that they won’t need the 3.6 ft. variance for the shed because nothing’s changing there. Aneisha said the applicant can ask for the variance but based on what they’re doing right now it’s not required. Stephanie said they may want to put a deck in the future so they would like to preserve the 3.7 ft. variance. Aneisha said they are improving on a non-conforming lot so they will need an advisory from the planning board. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 p.m. There were no comments, and the public hearing will remain open. 3. 20240190 28 Aletta Area Variance Lot Lines. Area variance to permit a lot line adjustment to allow for the development of three duplex dwellings in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Variances sought for 28 Aletta Lot A: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM LOT SIZE 8,000 SQ. FT. 5988 SQ. FT. 2012 FT. (25.2%) MIN. AVERAGE WIDTH 80 FT. 75.8 FT. 4.2 FT. (5.3%) REAR 25 FT. 13 FT. 12 FT. (48.0%) Variances sought for 28 Aletta Lot B: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. AVERAGE WIDTH 80 FT. 75.8 FT. 4.2 FT. (5.3%) MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY 25 % 52% 27% (108%) PERCENTAGE Variances sought for 28 Aletta Lot C: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 6, 2024 Page 7 of 7  TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. AVERAGE WIDTH 80 FT. 75.8 FT. 4.2 FT. (5.3%) MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY 25 % 52% 27% (108%) PERCENTAGE Dave Carr, LA Group presented for the owners Chris Schmidt & Ms. Schmidt. Dave asked previously if the rear yard was considered two fronts and was told yes. Aneisha said she’s not sure why, but based on further research it has been determined to be a rear. Lot A is the most corner (northern) lot. Dave presented the existing survey. There are three separate tax parcels that total about 29,000 sq. ft. with an existing house and garage. The lot line is very close to the house and runs through the shed (between Lot A & Lot B). Dave said the Schmidt’s had a conversation with planning staff prior to purchasing the property and are aware that the lots are zoned UR-3. Dave said if they get to the subdivision portion, they will need two lot line adjustments because there are 3 existing tax parcels. Dave showed photos of dwellings on Aletta St. and multi-family dwellings on West Circular St. Dave said Chris is currently living in the house and it is in a state of disrepair. He showed a sketch plan for the 3 proposed duplexes on 3 separate tax parcels. Dave said they are required to have 8,000 sq. ft. per lot (3 x 8,000=24,000) and their total for the 3 lots is 29,000+ sq. ft. Dave said all the parcels meet coverage for building and impervious area requirements. Dave said they balanced the variances required and the number always came up the same. He said having 70 ft. of frontage equally along Aletta St. made the most sense. The duplex on Lot A is smaller because the lot is smaller, and they had to meet the coverage requirements. Dave said putting a single-family residence, especially on the northern end, would be tough because of the apartment building across the street and a multi-family just north of that. Dave said there are single-family homes on Aletta St. to the south, but they feel that the character changes as you move farther north where their parcels are located. Brendan asked if they had considered reconfiguring the 3 duplexes to use space on the two larger lots. Dave said they did, and this plan worked best. Brendan asked what would be at the rear of the properties and Dave said lawn and the garages are in the front of the buildings. Brendan said he would like a list of duplexes/multi-family residences in the area for the context of the project. Chris LaPointe asked if the applicant had considered leaving the existing buildings and doing something with that. Chris Schmidt’s reply was inaudible, not speaking into the mic. Shafer said he’s struggling with Lot A because it pulls onto Shrade Lane and it’s a lot of building relative to the lot size. He asked if the applicant considered building a smaller single-family structure on Lot A. Applicant’s answer inaudible. Gage said the applicant previously mentioned the reason they chose the duplex over single- family is that it was more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Dave said the single-family would have been more in keeping with the neighborhood on the third (south) lot, but it’s also the largest lot and makes more sense for the duplex. Otis said he also has concerns about the duplex on Lot A, a single family would solve a lot of the problems the board has with Lot A. He said there are a lot of smaller single-family homes on West Circular. Otis said he City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 6, 2024 Page 7 of 7 would like to see a comparison of single-family homes in that exact area. Jonah said in general this proposal does fit the character of the neighborhood. There are apartments directly across the street in multiple directions. He doesn’t think the duplex on Lot A needs to be a single- family dwelling. Jonah said it’s a very large variance for driveway percentage and asked if the applicant had looked at ways to make that smaller. Dave said they considered pushing the houses back and having one driveway that splits into two. Gage said 52% variance for the driveways is a lot, so if it could be smaller that would be better. He agreed that 2 driveways versus one that splits to two looks better. Aneisha said the planning board will also comment on the density, parking, and driveway widths. Gage Simpson, Chair said the applicant should come back with single family and duplex comps for the area. The ZBA is asking for an advisory opinion from the planning board on this project. Gage opened the Public Hearing at 7:29 p.m. Patty Morrison 67 Union St. said she’s in favor of two of the three lots but said one of the 3 doesn’t qualify for a variance. Patty said in July of 2023 the property owner purchased the single-family home, with a large vacant parcel. She said the owner could have done their due diligence with regard to the zoning appeal process beforehand and did not. Patty submitted photos of the single-family home on lot A and said it’s in good condition. She said there is no hardship for Lot A, not even a self-induced hardship. She said they’re not seeking an area variance to modify an existing residence, they’re looking to demolish a house and start over. Patty said the other two parcels are more appropriate for two-family homes. She said the variance application misrepresents the property’s current condition in that it states that it’s an apartment building when it is a single-family home. It was built in 1898 and is on the tax map for the city and county as a single-family residence and was sold as a single-family home. Patty said the building of a two-family home on Lot A is excessive and not harmonious with the neighborhood. Patty said the answer that the applicant gave as to whether the variance is substantial is not true for Lot A because it’s 25% too small for the proposed development. She said it meets the minimum size for its current existing structure shy of 600 sq. ft. Patty said the applicants answer regarding density is skewed and does not give all the details. She said the reality is that Lot A is sized for a single-family dwelling and has a single-family home on it that’s in good condition. Lots B and C with minor variances meet the two-family lot size. Patty said the owner did not come before the ZBA before purchasing the property. They now want to tear down a structure that meets the zoning requirement to put up a structure that does not meet the zoning requirements for financial reasons. She asked the ZBA to respect the neighbors, the neighborhood, and the UDO. Patty submitted an accounting of all the single-family homes in the neighborhood to the ZBA. Patty is asking that the application be denied. She said it is disingenuous, inaccurate, and doesn’t meet the zoning standards for Lot A. She supports the development on Lots B and C. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 6, 2024 Page 7 of 7 Barb Reno? 11 Perry St. said she has a single-family home near the proposal and is most impacted by this variance. She supports Lots B and C. She said Lot A doesn’t protect the city or the homeowner if a variance is granted. She said a duplex on Lot A would take away any greenspace on the lot. She said the owner knew the rules for this property when they purchased it. She said the property would not be able to accommodate 4 to 6 cars and there’s no street parking at that location. Patty Morrison read her neighbor’s (Lisa Reichert, 35 Union St.) comments into the record and submitted them to the planning staff. She asked that the variance be denied for Lot A because it does not meet current zoning regulations and has potential to negatively impact residents of Union St. that have rear facing garages to Shrade Lane. It will negatively impact traffic patterns, noise levels, decreased greenspace and the overall quality of life…If the property is replaced it should be within the current footprint and without a change in the current driveway access. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing will remain open. 4. 20240193 31 Jenna Jo Ave. shed. Area variance to permit an accessory structure in the Oak Ridge PUD. Variances sought for 31 Jenna Jo. Ave: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED INTERIOR SIDE 20 FT. 10 FT. 10 FT. (50.0%) Nicki Hyme 31 Jenna Jo Ave. said she got a permit application on August 1, 2022, as required by her HOA for a shed that was built off-site and was being delivered to her home. The shed was to connect the electric to the pool. She said she was told at the time that because it was being built off-site, to have it delivered and the city would inspect it and sign off on it. Nicki said she included all the setbacks in her application. She said the City’s website was not updated and the zoning changed 15 days prior to her application. She said the shed has been delivered and they have not been granted the permit. She said they have now had the shed for two years and the electric to the pool is hooked up to it. Nicki said the shed is approved by the HOA, it matches their home (siding, roofing, door, windows) and they are asking that the rear set back remain at 10 ft. versus having to move it 10 ft. She said that would impact the electrical work that they have had done. Gage clarified that the applicant has an accessory shed that is 10 ft. from the rear property line in the SR District. Nicki said it’s 8 ft. from one side and 94 ft. from the other side. Aneisha said the zoning in the Oak Ridge PUD is different and the requirement for the shed is 20 ft. from the rear instead of the regular 5 ft. for an accessory. Aneisha said the plan provided by the applicant doesn’t show where the shed is. Nicki said it was provided in the application. Aneisha said it needs to be drawn on the plan where the pool City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 6, 2024 Page 7 of 7 and shed are located. Nicki said part of the problem is that the chart for the SR district isn’t correct, the website isn’t right, she said it’s a constant battle where the city’s information is incorrect. She said she is hoping they don’t have to move this another ten ft. Brad said there may be other comps that are already out there. He said he remembers others in the neighborhood who came before the ZBA for variances in the past few years. He said Aneisha can help her with that. Brad said she could draw on the plan she presented to the ZBA where the pool and shed are located. Brendan said the neighborhood photos will provide a little more context. It’s great that the HOA is in favor of it. Jonah said he’s sympathetic to the situation and not having to uproot the structure and everything that’s inside it, but to approve the variance they need to know the lengths they’re approving. Otis said it would be great if she could find a comp in the neighborhood that matches what she’s asking for. Shafer said sympathetic neighbors with similar structures are helpful but barring that a cellphone camera and a $20 laser range finder would provide the ZBA plenty of quantitative information regarding proximity to a property line. Gage said if the applicant submits her information to the board in time for them to review everything, they’ll have an answer for her for the next meeting on May 20th. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:48 p.m. There were no comments, and the public hearing will remain open. Continued Business: 5. 20240182 140 Grand Demo and Construction. Area Variance to permit renovation of the existing duplex in the Arts and Cultural (AC) District. Variances sought for 140 Grand Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED CORNER SIDE 8 FT. 0 FT. 8 FT. (100%) REC APPROVAL (ROW) Brendan Dailey and Jonah Cohen said were not present at the last meeting regarding this project but have reviewed the materials and feel comfortable moving forward. Joe Snyder, owner provided an updated drawing of his proposal. Joe said his homework was to update the drawing, remove the shed and get permeability. He included an email from Robin with the Real Estate Committee stating that they will be executing his license agreement to be over the property line tomorrow at their meeting. Aneisha said she has confirmation of that. Joe said they’re going to keep the middle section of the house (bottom on the drawing) and build it back up on the foundation and he will need a zero variance for that. He said the lower section will be jutted 3 ft. from the property line and he will need a variance to do that. Joe said City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 6, 2024 Page 7 of 7 this is in line with other houses on Beekman St. At the last meeting they presented on the property line and decided to move it in a little bit. He said the shed has been removed. The driveway has been shortened. Joe said he’s interested in putting in a curb cut and gravel driveway there. He said the permeability is at 60% with either gravel or grass. Shafer said he understands the applicant wishes to build on the existing foundation and that’s what’s driving the need for the 3 ft. variance. Shafer said the applicant should understand that if something is discovered during construction and it’s necessary to tear it all out, he would have to come back before the ZBA to consider that much of a variance. Joe asked if there could be a condition that he could run the 3 ft. right up the line. Shafer said the ZBA has to approve per the submitted plans so if he wanted to do that, he’d have to go through the procedure again and talk to the Real Estate Committee as well. Aneisha said if he’s building at the 3 ft. he wouldn’t have to go before the real estate committee. She said if it’s zero or more it’s only the ZBA. Shafer said he has very little concern about the plan as submitted, and some of the members feel the variance is justified because of the reuse of the existing foundation. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:54 p.m. There were no comments, and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:54 p.m. A motion was made by Shafer Gaston to approve the area variances for renovation and expansion of an existing duplex at 140 Grand Ave., Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Vote: J. Cohen-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, S. Gaston-Y, B. Dailey-Y, G. Simpson-Y, B. Gallagher-Y. Approved 7-0, motion carried. 6. 20240178 26 Jumel bathroom. Area variance to permit the construction of a secondary dwelling unit in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Variances sought for 26 Jumel: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. LOT SIZE 8000 SQ. FT. 7700 SQ. FT. 300 FT. (3.8%) Joe Moore represented Peter Proscia, property owner. Joe presented sketches of the garage in relation to the property lines and a sketch of the bathroom on the second floor. Joe said he also has a copy of the survey if needed. Joe said there will only be a bathroom added and that the owner is not interested in making it a second dwelling. It will be an accessory structure with a shower. Brendan clarified that it will be an accessory structure that will have a shower in it but no kitchen. Brendan asked if the applicant could provide comps from the neighborhood with something similar. Joe said next door at 24 Jumel where they’re tearing their structure down and moving it away from the property line and building something new. Brendan said that’s different than what’s happening here and asked that he provide comps of other instances of accessory structures adjacent to Jumel. Brendan asked that the comps be submitted in writing City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 6, 2024 Page 7 of 7 prior to the next meeting on May 20th. Gage asked Aneisha if she has Patrick’s determination on this project. Aneisha said she did not because what he’s asking for is not a second dwelling inaudible, no mic. Gage asked the applicant if he had a plan he wanted to present. Joe said it’s 4.5 ft. from the back property line, 4.5 ft. from the east side property line. Brad said he doesn’t have anything until they get a new determination. Aneisha is inaudible, no mic. Gage Simpson, Chair said the applicant can return May 20th and he would like to see comps of other garages with finished space above them. Gage said the public hearing was still open at 8:04 p.m. 7. #20240173 219 Regent St. 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. PRINCIPAL 40% 42.5% 2.5% (6.2%) COVERAGE % REAR 25 FT. 5 FT. 20 FT. (80.0%) MIN. TOTAL SIDE 12FT. 7.5 FT. (37.5%) No one was present to represent the application. Aneisha said the applicant had not provided her with anything different from the last meeting. Gage said they were looking for comps. Gage said the Public Hearing was still open. Alisa Dalton Wager lives next door with her husband John and opposes the project. She is requesting that the board deny the request because nothing was changed, and no effort was made to make any revisions. Alisa noted that she submitted a lengthy opposition letter at the last meeting. Elaine McCardle directly abuts the property at Lake Ave. She withdrew her non-objection letter until she could see the new plans and based on her concerns about fitting in with the neighborhood. As she noted at the last meeting, she learned after her first non-opposition letter that the applicant was going to take down a mature tree and had to move a shed from the back to build the addition to the front facing Regent St. They said they needed the shed for storage even with the new addition. Those two conditions are concerning with the size with the addition and with fitting in with the character of the neighborhood. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Comment will remain open. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 6, 2024 Page 7 of 7 8. #20240113 89 Court 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: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAX PRINCIPAL COVERAGE 40% 46.0% 6.0% (15%) Josh Silver, property owner, said this application has been before the board previously, so he won’t go into the details again unless needed. He said they’ve made some changes based on a discussion with his neighbor. In looking at the plans, Josh’s neighbor said that the windows on the southern exposure could potentially allow people to see into his pool area. His neighbor was also concerned about the potential for the property to be used as a rental unit, and the location of the utilities and where they would vent. Josh said they brought the southern windows up to eye level and made them shorter. He said they have no intention of using this property as a rental unit. He said it’s for his home office and they even moved the bathroom from the second to the first floor where they will be venting within the garage, which makes it un-rentable from an Airbnb standpoint. Josh said they will commit to the applicable board that no utilities will vent out across property line. There will be no HVAC. Sue Davis gave comps and said there are 8 properties within 500 ft. radius that are over 40%. Sue said if they didn’t have an overhang, they would be fine. Sue said this is one of the smallest lots in that area and pointed out that there are 11 other properties within that 500 ft. radius with detached garages. This is a one car garage with a potting shed and not designed to be anything more than to have some storage there. There’s no intent to rent it out. Sue said she doesn’t think this garage is out of character with the neighborhood given the comps she has submitted. Gage Simpson, Chair said the public hearing was still open at 8:12 p.m. Vincent Pelliccia, 87 Court St., lives next door to the applicant. He said that Josh and Chelsea have worked hard with him to address his concerns. He said the remaining concern he has is about the plumbing and the sewer line and said, “it’s only a couple of pipes away from being a rental”. He said Saratoga is changing its character very quickly. He mentioned an article that he read that Albany is going to start permitting multiple buildings on single lots, noting that these laws can change. He said he believes Josh and Chelsea are sincere and don’t have any intent to rent the place, but things change quickly. Gage Simpson, Chair closed the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m. A motion was made by Otis Maxwell to approve the area variances for construction of a detached garage and potting shed at 89 Court St., Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Jonah Cohen. Discussion: Jonah said in the second paragraph regarding the date of the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 6, 2024 Page 7 of 7 hearing it should say “from April 8th through May 6th”. Brad said he doesn’t know if the language about the shed being removed needs to be in the resolution. Otis said he was concerned about the permeability and wanted it included in the record that it would be removed. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall remove the existing shed and concrete pad. Gage said after the second sentence, first paragraph it should be added that “per the applicant there is no additional land to purchase.”. Gage said the sentence after that should say “single-car garage” instead of “single-family garage”. Brad said that there are a few sentences in #2 and #3 that the wording is typically “the board finds” or the “applicant has demonstrated” and in this resolution they are worded more conclusory. It doesn’t really say where the evidence comes from or what the board is finding. That should be changed to “per the applicant”. The last sentence in number 2 will be removed. The second and third sentence in number 3 will be changed to “because of what’s noted above” and “mitigated by the discussion above”. Vote: J. Cohen-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, S. Gaston-Y, B. Dailey-Y, G. Simpson-Y, B. Gallagher-Y. Approved 7-0, motion carried. 9. #20240118, 169 Union Ave. 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.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MIN. AVERAGE WIDTH 80 FT. 50 FT. 30 FT. (37.5%) MAX. PRINCIPLE 40% 46.% 6.4% (16.%) COVERAGE MAX. DRIVEWAY % 25% 40% 15% (60%) 12.5 FT/20FT/7.5FT Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America & Y Engineering represented the owner of 169 Union Ave. Tonya said at the last meeting she was asked if they could make the building smaller. She said they started with 30 ft. by 30 ft. (32 x 32 footprint) and reduced it to 28 ft. by 28 ft., 30 ft. by 30 ft. includes the roof to the drip edge. Tonya said they are now asking for 3 variances instead of the original 4. Brad said he appreciates the revisions to the plan and for trying to bring the percentages down. Brendan asked if both trees were going to be removed. Tonya said she still isn’t sure about the one tree in the city right-of-way and they’re trying to determine who will take the tree down. Tonya said that the tree in the right-of-way is tearing up the sidewalk and her client would like to repair it. Tonya said there are also wires near the tree and her client doesn’t want to get involved with that. Tonya said the other tree is very close to the property line and is underneath part of the garage. They’re not sure if it will survive. Tonya said the project must go before the DRB for historic review and they are on the agenda for this week’s meeting on Wednesday. Tonya said she heard back from the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation, and they felt the City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 6, 2024 Page 7 of 7 mass and scale was a little large. She said in response they are going to reduce the roof line. The footprint and everything else will remain the same. Gage Simpson, Chair said the public hearing was still open for comments. There were no comments, and the public hearing was closed at 8:31 p.m. A motion was made by Brad Gallagher to approve the area variances for the demolition and construction of a new garage at 169 Union Ave. Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Discussion: Jonah said the second sentence on #1 should be split into two sentences “was preexisting, non-conforming with regard to width.” “Therefore the requested driveway width creates the need for the variance request”. Vote: J. Cohen-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, S. Gaston-Y, B. Dailey-Y, G. Simpson-Y, B. Gallagher-Y. Approved 7-0, motion carried. Gage Simpson concluded the meeting at 8:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 6, 2024 Page 7 of 7