Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, MAY 20, 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, Vice Chair ABSENT: Brendan Dailey, Jonah Cohen, Chris Maslak (Alternate), Robert West (Alternate) 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. #20240287 43 Central Ave. Garage Construction. Area Variance to permit the construction of a single bay garage in the Urban Residential-2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 43 Central Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED INTERIOR SIDE 8 FT. 2.5 FT. 5.5 FT. (68.8%) Nick ? said his dad moved in with him and he is an only child. He’s looking to build a single- car garage for his dad to store his special car. Gage asked why the garage had to be built in that spot. Nick said the left side (facing the house) of his house is close to his neighbors (30 ft. overall) so it’s not feasible to put the garage on that side. He said the right side is totally open and about 100 ft. to the neighbor and where his garage is now. Nick said he is proposing a 12ft x 20ft. bay. He said 40 Central Ave., across the street, has exactly the same garage he’s asking for. Brad was inaudible, no mic. Brad asked if the applicant could cut the garage back to 11 or 10 ft. The applicant said he would look into it to see if it gives him the door space he needs. Brad asked if the applicant planned on connecting the new garage to the original. Nick said he did not plan on opening that wall of the garage. There is a door to the outside and he would remove the door and leave the opening to connect to the new garage. Nick said another reason he chose that side of the house is because the area slopes upward and any rainwater will come back onto his property where he will deal with it appropriately. Shafer asked the applicant if there were any other 3 car garage setups in the neighborhood besides the one across the street. Nick said none that he’s aware of. Shafer said he would need to see other examples within the neighborhood that went over the side setback for it to be considered consistent with the character of the neighborhood, or other houses with 3-car garages. Aneisha noted that it doesn’t need to be garages, it can be any part of the principal home that is within the setback that the applicant is asking for. Otis said he’s concerned about the idea of a small structure that’s built for one car that might be difficult to use in the future for another purpose. He said he would like to know the exact dimensions of the garage across the street that he’s looking to emulate. Nick said he has confirmed that it’s 12 x 20 ft. garage. Gage Simpson, Chair asked that the applicant return with the following: The measurement for the smallest practical garage and comps of any other properties on his street or in the neighborhood that are into the setback in a similar instance. Adam Valdez, friend of Nick’s. Adam said he’s very familiar with the building process and has worked under Sonny Bonacio and Pete Belmonte. Adam said the 12’ by 20’ leaves about 8” from the outside of the post to the foundation wall. He said they might be able to shrink it down 8” all together. They can’t have the lift right next to the wall with cables and pulleys. A car will have to be able to park underneath it. Brad said the drawings show one car garage and now they’re mentioning a lift. Nick said the schematic is for a single-car garage. They will be putting in deeper footers for a potential lift in the future, but this will not be for a lifted car. Brad asked how tall the garage would be. Adam said they will have 7 ft doors and there will be 10 ft. from the top of the slab to the top of the ceiling. Adam said the overhead door will go all the way up to the ceiling. Brad and Adam not using mic. Difficult to understand. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the floor for public comment at 6:46 p.m. There were no comments, and the public hearing will remain open. 2. #20240284 24 Schuyler Dr. bedroom addition. Area variance to permit an addition to the principal structure within the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Variances sought for 24 Schuyler Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED SIDE 12 FT. 6 FT. 6 FT. (50%) Peter Spinelli, 580 Jefferson Court, Guilderland representing the Bernardo’s. Peter distributed a plot plan showing the addition and the 6 ft. variance request. They are showing an addition to the rear of the house of 20ft. by 36ft. Peter said they are looking for relief for 6 ft. from the side. They don’t need a rear setback. The chart has been corrected above. Brad said it shows City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 20, 2024 Page 2 of 8 13ft. off the property line. Adam said it’s 19.5 and they’re going 6 ft. from the main house. Gage said it looks like they will not need a variance according to the chart. Adam said the building department said they needed one. Jackie White said it’s the code enforcement officer’s determination if a variance is required. The board has identified an issue and there’s likely not a need for one, but it will need to be confirmed with the code enforcement officer. Aneisha said she will take the plans provided by Adam and speak with the code enforcement officer and let the board know the outcome of his decision. She said if they do need a variance, they can return to the meeting on June 10th where there will be a public hearing. If they don’t need a variance, they can continue with getting their building permit. Aneisha said she would inform them of the decision this week. 3. #20240267 10 Bingham Porch Enclosure. Area variance to permit the enclosure of a rear section within the setback within the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Variances sought for 10 Bingham St.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REAR 25FT. 8 FT. 17 FT. (68.0%) David Nolen represented the applicant, Max Abbott. David said they are completely remodeling the two-story home and are looking to extend some of the interior space onto part of the existing porch. Shafer asked if the roofline and dimensions of the house would remain the same and David said it would. Otis asked if they intended to put up walls and siding to match the rest of the house. David said yes. Gage clarified that they are meeting the wall that already exists. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 6:57 p.m. There were no comments. The public hearing was closed at 6:58 p.m. Shafer Gaston made a motion to approve the Area Variance to permit the enclosure of a rear section of a preexisting porch at 10 Bingham St., Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Chris LaPointe. Discussion: Gage said it should be added to number two that the new exterior wall will be in line with the pre-existing, non-conforming wall currently within the setback. Vote: S. Gaston-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, G. Simpson-Y, O. Maxwell-Y. 5- 0 motion carried. 4. #20240254 18 Thomas St. Demo & Construction. Area variance to permit the demolition of an existing warehouse and construction of a new two-family home in the Urban Residential-4 (UR-4) District. Variances sought for 18 Thomas St.: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 20, 2024 Page 3 of 8  TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL 40% 75% 35% (87.5%) COVERAGE REAR 25 FT. 3 FT. 22 FT. (88%) INTERIOR SIDE 5 FT. 3 FT. 2 FT. (40%) INTERIOR SIDE 5 FT. 0 FT. 5 FT. (100%) MIN. TOTAL SIDE 12 FT. 3 FT. 9 FT. (75%) PARKING 1.5 CARS 1 CAR .5 (33.3%) Shawn Corp, Reveal Architecture Design represented the applicant. Shawn said the site is on Thomas St., between Clinton and Harrison St. on the west side of the city. Shawn showed an aerial view of the street and noted the denseness of the area. He said there’s a two-story commercial building to the west with a pitched roof, across the street are seven row houses (2- 2.5 stories tall), and to the east is a two-story, single-family house with a detached garage. Shawn gave some context a little further out siting brick row houses on Clinton St., the former chamber of commerce building to the east, Sonny Bonacio’s new condos to the north and then further south on Division St. is Belmonte’s new neighborhood. Shawn showed photos of the existing building – a one-story warehouse. It has a garage door and a man door on the front with a window. The building is slab on grade and there are no other windows on the building. The detached garage on the neighboring parcel to the east is on the property line. Shawn said there’s a detached garage that sits back about 18 ft. on the west side of the applicant’s parcel on the property line. Shawn showed photos of the neighborhood for context. Shawn said the minimum lot area is 3,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit for a two-family house. The existing building is about 2,300 sq. ft. The minimum lot width should be 80 ft. for a 2-family and the applicant has 40 ft. The maximum building coverage is 40% and the existing is at 89%, which would be reduced to 75% with their proposal. The impervious surface coverage required is 75% and is currently at 93%. They are proposing 90%. Shawn said the reason the impervious coverage is not reduced as much as the maximum building coverage is because they have a two- car garage with a driveway that connects from the sidewalk to the building. Shawn said the front yard required is 10 ft., they’re currently at 3.5 ft. and they’re proposing 6 ft. which complies with section 3.3B that says when the neighboring parcels don’t have the correct front yard setback, you can line up with what’s there. (Aneisha said the applicant would need to provide documentation to the zoning officer showing that both neighboring properties are sub- standard. He will then determine if they qualify for the modified setback) The commercial building to the west is 2 ft. off the property line, and the residence to the east is 6 ft. Shawn said they are looking to align with the single-family house to the east. Shawn said they are City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 20, 2024 Page 4 of 8 proposing to keep one of the side yard setbacks at the property line which is currently on the property line and straighten out the other. It’s currently 2.9 and 2.6 and they’re proposing 3 ft. They are proposing a rear setback of 3 ft. (currently .06). Shawn said they plan to have a two- family house with a two car garage up front (24 ft. wide), with a small foyer with a stair that goes up to the second and third floors. The second unit is a small in-law apartment in the back. Shawn said overall they need about 30 ft. Aneisha asked if the applicant is looking for a single-family with an in-law suite or a two-family. Shawn said the idea is for the in-law apartment to have a separate entrance. After discussion with the applicant, it was decided that it would be two-family, not an in-law suite. Aneisha said several things will change on the relief chart. Shawn said they did some massing studies of what the building could look like, and it will comply with the 40 ft. height restriction. Chris LaPointe said he appreciates the comps and understands the density of the neighborhood. Chris asked about the permeability and how they would mitigate drainage. Shawn said it’s early in the plan to work out the stormwater runoff. Chris asked if they considered doing just a single-family residence, it would be much less of an ask. Shawn said there was a plan that didn’t include the 2nd dwelling unit, but they are hoping to get the unit. Brad asked why they need a two-family in such a small space. Brad is not speaking into the mic, difficult to understand. Otis said the applicant showed what a conforming building would look like (small) and a couple of slides of the building covering most of the lot. He would like to see something in between those two extremes. If the applicant believes it’s not feasible then they need to explain to the board why it’s not. Shafer said he appreciates the difficulty that the lot presents, and the applicant has improved on every area if the structure were to be built today. He said it appears that part of what is driving the width is to meet the parking requirements for the unit and asked if that’s necessary given the context of the neighborhood. There was one garage shown for a few dozen residences. Shafer said that would alleviate his concern over putting the building right on the property line. He said he also has drainage concerns. He said something to show that it’s under consideration from the beginning of the project planning would make him less concerned about the very large variance for coverage. Shafer further explained that a parking variance is a much easier ask than 90% lot coverage. Gage said for the record, they would get rid of the parking variance if it’s a single- family house. Gage said he thinks they should have a front porch like the rest of the houses in the neighborhood and ask for that variance as well. A covered porch would count as in the setback. He also asked why they need a two-family. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Linda Bullard lives across the street at 25 Thomas and said she was unaware of the parking regulations in the plan and was happy to see that there were some. She said parking on Thomas St. is a nightmare. She said more people living there would make it worse, but if they had a City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 20, 2024 Page 5 of 8 garage that would help! Linda said the house to the east that they referred to earlier is actually a two-family dwelling. Gage said the public hearing will remain open. Continued Business: 5. #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, property owner said she’s proposing a 14 ft. by 26 ft. garage addition. She said she needs room for a staircase to get into the house and dormers for head room. She said she will hire an architect to draw up the plan. Regarding stormwater mitigation, Megan said she would install gutters. She said the garage will be used as storage, unfinished space. Gage said the board wanted something final on paper to be referenced for discussion purposes. The plan shows that the garage will be one foot off the side yard. Brad is not talking into the mic. Gage said the board should have something for the applicant on June 10th. Gage left the public hearing open at 7:30 p.m. The Public Hearing will remain open. 6. #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%) Brett Hyme, property owner, said his wife provided the necessary measurements and setbacks (before the setback changes) at the last meeting before the board and said he is looking for resolution today. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 20, 2024 Page 6 of 8 Gage Simpson, Chair said the public hearing was still open if anyone wished to comment. There were no comments, and the public hearing was closed at 7:31 p.m. Chris LaPointe made a motion to approve the area variance for an accessory structure at 31 Jenna Jo Ave. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Vote: C. LaPointe-Y, S. Gaston- Y, O. Maxwell-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, G. Simpson-Y. 5-0 motion carried. 7. #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 said he emailed photos of comps to Aneisha as requested by the board at the previous meeting. Aneisha said she and the board have received those comps. Joe said 25 Jumel has a carriage house in the rear that’s inhabited. He said 202 East Ave. has a carriage house with someone living there. Gage Simpson, Chair asked if there were any comments from the public. There were no comments, and the public hearing was closed at 7:37 p.m. Gage Simpson made a motion to approve an area variance to permit the construction of a secondary dwelling unit at 26 Jumel Pl., Saratoga Springs with the following conditions: No cooking facilities or overnight stays. Discussion: In #2, change to accessory structure instead of carriage house. The motion was seconded by Chris Lapointe. Vote: C. LaPointe-Y, S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, G. Simpson-Y. 5-0 motion carried. 8. #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. Aneisha said the applicant has not responded to any of her emails and she’s guessing that the applicant has not come up with answers to the board’s questions about the application. Aneisha said the discussion can continue and she will give the applicant another meeting or two to respond after which it will be closed. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Comment is still open for comments. Alisa Dalton Wager lives next door to the applicant. Alisa noted that she has submitted an opposition letter previously and feels they have demonstrated that the project is substantial, it City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 20, 2024 Page 7 of 8 exceeds the 40%, three variances are needed and only one was applied for, it’s out of character with the neighborhood and has adverse physical and environmental impact to the neighborhood. Elaine McArdle directly abuts the property. She said she has three visitors from England who wanted to come and see a ZBA meeting. Conner (England) said that over in England they really value historic structures as well and disrupting the character of the neighborhood would not be very good. Macia (England, recent Skidmore graduate) said she thinks this city that she’s lived in for 3 to 4 years is gorgeous and thinks it should be maintained, historic structures included. She said that what Elaine and others have said should be kept under consideration. Lequeth? (England) concurs with his colleagues. Gage Simpson, Chair said the public hearing will remain open. Gage Simpson concluded the meeting at 7:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – May 20, 2024 Page 8 of 8