Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, JUNE 10, 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, Brendan Dailey, Jonah Cohen ABSENT: 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. 20240386 3320 Rt 9 Pet Lodge. Area variance to permit an addition to Pet Lodge in the Gateway Rural Commercial District. Variances sought for 3320 Rt. 9: (needs site plan review since addition is over 600 sf at 1520 sf) imperviousness appears ok at 22% needs confirmation from applicant) TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED INTERIOR SIDE 20 FT. 7 FT. 13 FT. (65.0%) MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE 50 FT. 35 FT. 15 FT. (30%) The applicant was not present for this project. Aneisha said that the addition exceeds the 600 sq. ft. threshold, being just over 1500 sq. ft. As such, a site plan review from the Planning Board is required. She said the board can open a public hearing tonight and then defer to the Planning Board for site plan review and modification, and then continue their review from there. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:30 p.m. There were no comments, and the public hearing will remain open, and the project is being deferred to the Planning Board. 2. #20240382 225 Clinton St. Subdivision. Area variance to permit the subdivision of lands in the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Variances sought for 225 Clinton St. (planning board advisory required):  TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM LOT SIZE 12,500 SQ. FT. 9,750 SQ. FT. 2750 (22.0%) MINIMUM AVERAGE WIDTH 100 FT. 75 FT. 25 FT. (25.0%) John Cannie, Snyder, Kiley, Toohey, Corbett & Cox represented John & Karen Harvey for the area variances for 225 Clinton St. They are seeking a two-lot subdivision from the current one lot. John displayed the plot plan for the proposed layout. Lot 1 currently has a house on it. They will potentially build on Lot 2 which is located at the corner of Clinton St. and Embury St. (one of the entrances to the Wesley Community). 225 Clinton is a single 24,700 square foot lot improved by a single-family home. The area was subdivided in 1924 creating the “Woodlawn Oval” subdivision. The property was split into smaller lots identified as lots 53- 60 – unimproved and vacant. In 1954 the Carroll’s purchased lots 53-57 and built a house on the property. The Carroll’s purchased lots 58-60 in 1960. In 1979 the property, as it is today, was conveyed to Mary Jane Ellis via a single deed with two separate descriptions. The applicants purchased the property in 2023 from the estate of Ms. Ellis. John showed site photos of the single-family home. There’s a gazebo on what will be Lot 2 that would be removed during construction. John said Lot 1 with the single-family home is in the approximate area of lots 53-57 of Woodlawn Oval; Lot 2 will be in the area of lots 58-59 Woodlawn Oval and is currently vacant except for the gazebo and plantings. John said Lot 1 conforms to all UDO requirements. Lot 2 will need the two variances being requested. John showed where a house could potentially be located on Lot 2 as part of the ZBA approval process, but they are not planning to build anything at this time. John listed the 5 criteria for an area variance: A. Other feasible means – Lot size is just 300 ft. under for lot size and they are unable to add to the property. They decided against creating a unique lot line because non-rectangular lots are not preferred and to reduce non-conformity. Lot width need a total of 200 ft. only have 190 ft. of frontage on Clinton. Purchase of additional land is not feasible. The lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 was placed to conform to the 12-foot side setback. To move the line north or south would require an additional variance. John showed photos of the home at 203 Clinton and the proximity to the lot line (about 12 ft.). B. Undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties – no detriment to nearby properties, no immediate neighbors to Lot 2 except the applicant on Lot 1. Setbacks stay the same for 203 Clinton. Density will increase minimally because they are only 300 sq. ft. under requirement. The proposed variance and subdivision bring back the historic character of 2 separate lots. Variances are consistent with the neighborhood character due to other neighboring lots being nonconforming in the same manner. Six of 16 lots are nonconforming lot size, 5 of 16 nonconforming lot width and 7 are nonconforming on Granite St. John displayed a neighborhood map that identified all the parcels that are nonconforming in size and width. C. Whether the variance is substantial – percentage wise is over 20% but not significant when considering the total size of the two lots – 300 sq. ft. shy of 25000 sq. ft. The lot width is not substantial because no setbacks will be violated, and the single-family home can still be built. Limited effect on neighbors because corner lot and Wesley open behind Lot 2. D. Adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental condition on the neighborhood – variance will not reduce permeable space below UDO requirements. No significant environmental resources are present on the property or in the surrounding area. Wetlands noted on EAF are Federal wetlands on the Wesley property, and far away from 225 Clinton. The property is not subject to runoff from this site. E. Alleged difficulty self-created – applicants purchased property with knowledge of the zoning requirements but that cannot be used as the sole basis for denying a variance request. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 10, 2024 Page 2 of 9 John said there is no impact on archaeological or historical resources. EAF Mapper identified potential for archaeological or historical significance due to proximity to Broadway Historic District. Applicant submitted to CRIS system for sign off from OPRHP (letter dated May 21, 2024, indicating no impact). Chris LaPointe, Brad Gallagher &Brendan Dailey said they appreciate the narrative and thorough presentation. Jonah Cohen clarified the lot sizes for the two lots. Otis Maxwell had no further questions and said he appreciated the comps for the irregular lot sizes. Shafer Gaston had no questions for the applicant. Gage asked about the size of the potential house that was used for Lot 2 and John said they took it from another project and that would be within the size the applicant would want. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:47 p.m. There were no public comments heard. Brendan Dailey made a motion to defer SEQRA to the Planning Board for 225 Clinton St. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Vote: B. Dailey-Y, S. Gaston-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, G. Simpson-Y, J. Cohen-Y. 7-0 Motion carried. 3. 20240373 127 Jefferson Ave. Area variance to permit the subdivision of lands in the Urban Residential -2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 127 Jefferson Ave.: Planning Board advisory required TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM AVERAGE WIDTH 60 FT. 50 FT. 10 FT. (16.7%) The Presenter, EDP representing Robert Toscano owner at 127 Jefferson St. He said they are seeking an area variance for his proposed subdivision. The presenter said UR-2 requires a 60 ft. wide lot and they are seeking a variance for a 50 ft. wide lot. The presenter said it’s an L-shaped lot with an illegal subdivision from 15 or so years ago where the county recognizes that there are 2 lots, and the city recognizes one. He said the applicant is seeking to rectify the situation with the subdivision. The presenter said they are proposing to create 3 lots – Lot 1 will retain the existing house and garage, and Lots 2 and 3 will be completely conforming within the city’s requirements. Nothing will change on Lot 1. The lots to the north and directly to the south are already 50 ft. wide which is characteristic for the neighborhood. The presenter said in 1872 all the lots were set up to be 50 ft. wide. Although Lot 1 will be 50 ft. wide, it will be larger than the original subdivided lot. Otis clarified that Lot 1 is the existing house and driveway and is nonconforming and there won’t be any change and the 2 new lots will be conforming. He asked for comps for the neighborhood. Otis asked how the new lots might be developed. The presenter said they have looked at a couple of configurations with smaller houses that fit within the setbacks, but the owner doesn’t have any intention of developing the lots himself. The lots will be vacant when they’re sold. Shafer asked why the lots are being subdivided in the proposed manner instead of making them consistent as they are along Jefferson. The presenter said they are trying not to seek any more variances than necessary. They would also have to remove the secondary structure on Lot 1. Shafer asked if it would be feasible to have the lots with the same width all the way down. The presenter said he doesn’t think the owner would be opposed to that, but he thought there would be more push back from the city. Shafer said it may cause more variances, but 50 ft. is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood in terms of size. Chris asked where the 2 new lots will front on. The presenter said one is fronting Hathorne and one on Fenlon. The code says you have to front on the busier of the two streets. Brad agreed with Shafer that the middle lot lines are awkward and could be troublesome later for future owners. He said he would be more in favor of it being more rectangular. Jonah asked if the hypothetical structures that are sketched out on the plan would City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 10, 2024 Page 3 of 9 conform with UDO requirements. The presenter said those are the setback lines, but any structure will fall within the setbacks. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 6:59 p.m. There were no comments, and the public hearing will remain open. Brendan Dailey made a motion to seek Lead Agency for SEQRA from the Planning Board for 127 Jefferson Ave. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Vote: B. Dailey-Y, S. Gaston-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, G. Simpson-Y, J. Cohen-Y. 7-0 Motion carried. 4. 20240319 67 Ludlow St. Outdoor Entertainment space. Area variance to permit the construction of an outdoor entertainment space within the Urban Residential – 1 (UR-1) District. Variances sought for 67 Ludlow St. (speak with FD regarding fire separation): TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED INTERIOR SIDE TO PATIO 12 FT. 0 FT. 12 FT. (100%) IMPERVIOUSNESS 50% 90% 40% (80.0%) Chris LaPointe recused himself as the previous owner of this house. Chris & Patricia Arnone owners at 67 Ludlow St. said they’re looking to clean up the outside of the property and plant grass. They are proposing to install a 20 ft. x 25 ft. patio in the back of the house. Brad asked if the patio could be pulled off the property line because the setback is going to zero. Chris A. said the flower bed will run the whole property line and will be 4 ft. from the fence. The pavers would start 4 ft. off the fence line. Brad asked for a more precise drawing of where the pavers and flower beds will be. Chris A. was on and off speaking into the mic. I have recorded what I can hear. Aneisha asked the applicant to provide the most recent plot of the plans and what the coverage is on the parcel – garage and principal home coverage. Imperviousness will be part of what the board needs to consider. Gage said the next meeting is July 8th, but the owner wants to get the property cleaned up now. The owner will talk with Aneisha during the week to decide whether they are withdrawing their application. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m. There were no comments, and the public hearing will remain open. 5. #20240269 139 Elm St. Use variance to permit a second principal in the Urban Residential–2 (UR-2) District. Aneisha said this application was noticed for a use variance, but the Code Enforcement Officer has determined that it’s an area variance. Nick, IBL Engineering Clifton Park represented the applicant large vacant building which has fallen into disrepair. The current owner bought the property 2 years ago and was under the impression from the prior zoning that it could be used as a 3 or 4 unit. Within a few months the zoning in the area changed to UR-2 which would only allow a single structure, two units, on the property. They would like to get the building rebuilt and make it useful while making it financially feasible. They are in the process of combining the two lots (139 with vacant house and narrow lot) with the county. They would like to then put a second principal structure in the rear of the property (carriage house style) with a driveway going back to it. Nick showed some comps from the area – 168 Elm St. has a rear garage dwelling structure, 3-unit structures at 195 and 173 Elm St. on much City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 10, 2024 Page 4 of 9 smaller lots, 63 Ash St. is a multi-unit principal with a rear dwelling garage like what the applicant is proposing. The proposed carriage house would be a garage with a dwelling upstairs, roughly 1700 sq. ft. Nick said they’ve incorporated off street parking, 4 spots for the main building and two spots in the carriage house garage. He said with the combined lot they can meet setbacks. Aneisha said there was some miscommunication as to what the applicant was asking for. Initially they thought it was a use variance, but it is now an area variance for a second principal dwelling. She said the Zoning Officer has determined that the building in the front is legally existing having obtained a zoning variance in the past and that what the applicant is now seeking is an area variance. A condition is that any improvements to the existing building be made within the same footprint and height. Any other changes would trigger something else. Nick said they would rebuild the front structure as two units on the same footprint. Aneisha said that would be a condition of approval and they would need to re- notice as an area variance because it was initially noticed as a use variance. Aneisha said they meet all the dimensional requirements and are requesting an area variance for a second principal dwelling. Gage questioned why they will need an area variance if they meet all the requirements. Aneisha said because they are asking for a second principal dwelling which is not allowed in a UR-2 District. Gage said the application said that the backyard was in UR-3 and the front was in UR-2. Aneisha said prior to the UDO this was a split zone but since the UDO has come into effect the zoning in the area has changed and UR-3 was eliminated. If it were still split zoned, they would have been allowed to move 100 ft in either direction to do what they’re asking for. It’s not permitted now under the UDO. Jonah asked if they would be taking down the current structure and rebuilding on the same footprint. Nick said yes. Jonah asked what the access would look like for the second structure. Nick said there would be a shared driveway. Jonah asked how many units were in the vacant house prior to it being vacant. Nick said it’s been 4, 3 & 2 units according to documentation. The most recent (1990’s) being a 3 unit. Brendan asked if the shed would be removed. Nick said yes it will be taken down. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. There were no comments made. The public hearing will remain open. Gage said they had no homework for the applicant and should have something for them at the meeting on July 8th. 6. #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 Dr.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL 28% 32% 4% (14.3%) COVERAGE MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE 30 FT. 16.5 FT. 13.5 FT. (45.0%) Peter Spinelli, 580 Jefferson Court, Guilderland representing the Bernardo’s. Aneisha said the relief being sought is for maximum principal coverage and total side yard setback. Aneisha said one side is 13 ft. and the other is 3.5 ft. Gage clarified the 3.5 was already existing. He said the proposed addition is going further into the side even though it’s greater than 12 ft. from the side so the total side is getting smaller. Brad asked why the addition isn’t lining up with the structure. Peter said they need room for the bathroom. Brad said the house is already nonconforming and typically an addition would line up with the house. Peter said there’s an existing basement window there. There was conversation back and forth about the location of the addition/bathroom but Peter was not speaking into the mic so I couldn’t catch everything he was saying. Brad said he hasn’t heard a reason that the addition can’t be moved in 6 feet. Chris agreed with Brad that anything that will reduce the ask makes it easier for the board to approve a variance. Chris asked if the shed City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 10, 2024 Page 5 of 9 would remain. The applicant said yes. Brendan said he’s sympathetic to the applicant wanting to have the addition. What the board is saying is that 6 feet doesn’t seem like a lot and is there any way the applicant can reconfigure the proposal so they can keep the kitchen window, maybe make the addition smaller. Brendan asked if the applicant could demonstrate why something else that would reduce the ask isn’t feasible. Brendan said he would also like to see comps of other houses in the neighborhood that have additions, porches, etc. like what is being proposed. Aneisha offered to meet with the applicant to go over some options to make the ask smaller for the 6 ft. Applicant answered but inaudible. No mic. Jonah asked if the deck was part of the proposal. Aneisha said yes. Jonah said whether the deck is there might affect what’s possible for the addition. Otis said the applicant could consider taking the shed out because it would help to decrease the amount of the total coverage variance. Shafer said he would need to see examples of neighborhood context to know that this is consistent with the neighborhood. He said taking out a window over a sink doesn’t make the sink unusable. He said the house is already not in compliance with the side setback and they’ll be making it worse. Shafer said he would be more sympathetic if they were to keep it in line with what someone did many years before the applicant purchased the house. Gage said the applicant should come back with a floor plan that shows where the window/kitchen is and comps from the neighborhood. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:52 p.m. There were no comments made. The public hearing will remain open. Continued Business: 7. #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, Owner. Megan returned for a decision from the board. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:53 p.m. There were no comments made. The public hearing was closed at 7:53 p.m. Jonah Cohen made a motion to approve an area variance to permit a garage addition to the primary residence at 142 East Ave., Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Discussion: The second to the last sentence in paragraph one “the applicant also considered reducing the size of the proposed garage” but such a change would not meet the applicant’s needs. Vote: B. Dailey-Y, S. Gaston-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, G. Simpson-Y, J. Cohen-Y. 7-0 Motion carried. 8. #20240196 16 Marion/2 Ave A. Area Variance to permit a two-lot subdivision in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 16 Marion Ave. Lot 1: City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 10, 2024 Page 6 of 9  TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED SETBACK FRONT 10 FT. 3.7 FT. 6.3 (63%) Variances sought for 16 Marion Ave. Lot 2: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REAR 25 FT. 3.7 FT. 21.3 (85.2%) Stephanie Ferradino, Attorney said when she last came before the ZBA she was directed to go before the Planning Board to weigh in on the relief requested and the proposed subdivision. The PB asked the applicant to modify the orientation from the original proposal of the east/west line between lots 1 and 2 to a north/south line. Stephanie said they did that, and it resulted in the applicant needing less relief. She said the ZBA asked if they could remove one of the driveways and they took out the one in the middle of the properties. She said now each lot has one driveway going in, and she was told that won’t be an issue when they go to the PB for their subdivision request because the structures exist. Stephanie said her client is comfortable with the new configuration. She said they have a front yard setback on the duplex lot of a total of 3.7 ft. for the existing structure and 3.7 ft. in the back for the rear side yard for Lot 2. She said the shed will be removed as shown on the new plans that were submitted. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open if anyone wished to comment on the matter. There were no comments made. The public hearing was closed at 8:02 p.m. Jackie White presented the Part 2 SEQRA review: SEQRA, Part 2: 1. Material conflict with adopted land use plan…- No, or small impact. 2. Change of use or intensity of use of land… - No, or small impact. 3. Impair character or quality…. – No, or small impact. 4. Impact on environmental qualities…. – No, or small impact. 5. Adverse change in existing level of traffic… - No, or small impact. 6. Cause increase in use of energy – No, or small impact. 7. Public/private water supplies… - No, or small impact. 8. Impair Character or quality of historic… - No, or small impact. 9. Adverse change to natural resources… - No, or small impact. 10. Increase in potential for erosion, flooding… - No, or small impact. 11. Hazard to environmental resources… - No, or small impact. Jonah Cohen made a motion to approve a SEQRA Negative Declaration for 16 Marion Ave. The motion was seconded by Otis Maxwell. Vote: B. Dailey-Y, S. Gaston-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, G. Simpson-Y, J. Cohen-Y. 7-0 Motion carried. Shafer Gaston made a motion to approve Area Variances for a two-lot subdivision for 16 Marion Ave./2 Avenue A, Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Discussion: add to #2 Planning Board advisory regarding alternate configuration resulted in less variances. Vote: B. Dailey-Y, S. Gaston-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, G. Simpson-Y, J. Cohen-Y. 7-0 Motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 10, 2024 Page 7 of 9 9. #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%) TO DRIVEWAY OVERHANG Applicant not speaking into the mic for the introduction. The applicant (Nick) was asked to return with 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. Nick presented the following comps:  61 & 57 Newton – 20-foot line goes over both properties.  53 & 51 Newton – properties on top of each other (4 to 5 ft.?)  23 & 25 Myrtle (2 streets over) – not 20 ft. or 10ft. setback for each property.  32 & 34 Outlook Ave. – pool or outdoor rec area.  62 & 64 Newton – new construction and the garage was built within the side setback.  43 & 38 or 40 Newton – building within setback. Nick said he presented one on Central Ave. the last time that had a third garage bay. Brendan said the neighborhood comparable was great! Gage agreed and said it was exactly what the board asked for. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open if anyone wished to comment. There were no comments. The public hearing was closed at 8:18 p.m. Gage Simpson made a motion to approve an Area Variance to permit the construction of a single-bay garage at 43 Central Ave., Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Vote: B. Dailey-Y, S. Gaston-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, G. Simpson-Y, J. Cohen-Y. 7-0 Motion carried. 10. #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.: (needs fire to meet NYS fire code) TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM LOT SIZE 6000 SQ. FT. 2294 SQ. FT. 3706 SF (61.8%) 300 SQ. FT./DU MIN. AVG. WIDTH 80 FT. 40 FT. 40 FT. (50.0%) MAX PRINCIPAL COVERAGE 40% 65% 35% (87.5%) SETBACK FRONT 10 FT. 6 FT. 4FT. (40.0%) City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 10, 2024 Page 8 of 9  TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REAR 25 FT. 3 FT. 22 FT. (88.0%) INTERIOR SIDE 5 FT. 3 FT. 2 FT. (40.0%) INTERIOR SIDE 5 FT. 1 FT. 4 FT. (80%) MIN TOTAL SIDE 12 FT. 3 FT. 9 FT. (75.0%) PARKING 3 2 1 (33.3%) 1.5 PER D/U IMPERVIOUSNESS 75% 90% 15% (20.0%) Shawn Corp, Reveal Architecture Design represented the applicant. Shawn said the last time before the board he was asked if there was a way to make the footprint smaller. Shawn said they looked at how tight they could make the floor plan and got it down to 20’8” interior dimension with a 16 ft. overhead garage door and a 6 ft. by 6 ft. foyer leading up to a 44” wide stair to the second floor. The overall width is 29’4” finish to finish. Shawn said they have 33.6 ft. in the back. He said previously they asked for a 3 ft. side setback on the east side and a zero setback on the west side. He said they were able to pull that in about a foot. He said previously they asked for a 3 ft. rear yard setback (25 ft. required). They’re going to maintain the ask for a 6 ft. front yard setback, which keeps the front of the building in line with the façade of the building to the east. They increased the rear yard setback from 3 ft. to 8 ft. to provide for a small garden in the back (not hard surface) which improves the impervious coverage, and they no longer need a variance for that. Shawn displayed the UR-4 District Dimensional Standards chart and compared the variances they’re asking for. Shawn said they’re seeking relief whether it’s a one unit at 3,000 sq. ft. or 6,000 for 2. Their overall height would be 37 ft. high, under the 40 ft. maximum for the zone. Chris asked if they were moving forward with the two-family. Shawn said if the ZBA is not opposed to it, that’s what they would like to do. He said on the floor plan they call it a workshop; it could be a studio apartment. They would need to maintain the ask for the parking variance because they will only have two spots instead of three. Gage said some of the bigger asks are for the two-family. Gage Simpson, Chair said the Public Hearing was still open if anyone wished to comment. There were people who commented who did not speak into the mic or state their names. The public hearing was closed at 8:29 p.m. Chris LaPointe made a motion to approve area variances to permit the demolition of an existing warehouse and construction of a new two-family home at 18 Thomas St., Saratoga Springs. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Vote: B. Dailey-Y, S. Gaston-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, B. Gallagher-Y, G. Simpson- Y, J. Cohen-Y. 7-0 Motion carried. Gage Simpson concluded the meeting at 8:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – June 10, 2024 Page 9 of 9