Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, JULY 22, 2024 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Gage Simpson, Chair called the meeting to order at 6:31 P.M. PRESENT: Gage Simpson, Chair, Shafer Gaston, Otis Maxwell, Chris LaPointe, Brendan Dailey ABSENT: Jonah Cohen, Brad Gallagher, Vice Chair, Chris Maslak (Alternate), Robert West (Alternate) STAFF: Aneisha Samuels, Senior Planner, Jackie White, Counsel, City of Saratoga Springs 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. #20240517 128, 132 Washington two-family construction. Area variance to permit the renovation of a single-family home in the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Variances sought for 128, 132 Washington: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM REAR SETBACK 25 FT. 13.7 FT. 11.3 FT. (45.2%) Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture represented the applicant, Lori Sames. Sue presented a visual model of the project which is two lots that will be combined and a third lot that will also be combined. She said the property has been vacant for about 10 years. Sue said it’s been a challenge because it’s both a great location and a contributing building to the historic district. There are limitations to what can be done in an historic district. Sue said they’ve been working closely in conjunction with Samantha Bosshart at the Preservation Foundation and have gone before the DRB for an advisory sketch discussion. Sue pointed out that they had a meeting with Aneisha and Patrick Cogan because it’s a corner lot and has presented some challenges. She said her client’s daughter has special needs and is looking to have a two-family dwelling which is allowable in this district. She said architecturally they are trying to make it read as a two family with two structures and a courtyard in between. Sue showed the existing survey with the house. She said they have gotten approval from the DRB to remove the garage. Sue said when they met with Patrick, he reviewed the two lots as one, and they’ve been very mindful to try to meet the zoning. She said they would have met the requirements, but the current UDO requires a front yard, rear yard, corner side and interior side lot line. Previously a corner lot was considered to have two front yards and two side yards. She said the property currently exists over the front yard setback and over the property line, but the existing porch is important to the DRB, and they want to see it retained. She said they’re trying to appease the character defining features of the original structure, but the rear portions that have been added over time, she’s been told, would probably be okay to modify. Sue said they can’t meet the minimum rear setback of 25 ft. She said it’s been challenging but they have met every other setback and have been very intentional about meeting the lot coverage. Sue showed slides of the existing conditions and what they are looking to maintain and remove. She said if they wanted to take the house down and rebuild it, they can’t because it is over the property line. She said the intent is to structurally support it and perhaps alter the concrete slab that’s there. Sue showed slides of the neighborhood context. Sue noted because the front porch is over the property line they will have to appear before the Real Estate Committee. She said they were told by the city that the property across from Beekman is also right up to the property line. She said based on the article that allows them to take the average of the two adjoining properties, they are not looking for a 10 ft. setback, just the average of the two for the front. Sue said the neighborhood is basically comprised of worker housing with a combination of simple style gable roof structures. Sue showed a slide of the 1852 Bevan map which shows there was a structure there at one time. The 1858 Richard Clark Map also shows the current structure and an adjacent structure. The 1876 Louis Cramer Map and 1889 Sanborn Maps show that there was a structure behind the original structure – likely a large barn. The 1950 Sanborn Map shows some modifications and is likely when the garage was built (deemed non-historic). Sue discussed the proposed site plan and displayed a slide. She said the yellow highlighted area is what is currently there, the green indicates the green space they are trying to maintain, and the blue indicates the amount of square footage that’s over the rear setback. Sue said they are considering Washington St. the front, so 405 sq. ft. + 105 sq. ft. is the total that is over the rear setback. Sue said if they were to comply completely, they would have no garage for the client. Lori Sames said they just got the CAD from the surveyor and there appears to be even more greenspace over in the corner. Sue said they modified the plan but they’re still 13’ 10” from the lot line and they can’t acquire anymore land. She said the plan is to have a garage with direct access into a bedroom and the white section on the plan is going to be the second unit. Sue said the DRB liked that the units are two separate structures with a link in between and a courtyard. Shafer mentioned to Sue that page 1 of the application should be fully completed in the future. He asked where people parked when there were residents in the house. Lori said the parking is on the side of the house on the blacktop and there’s a curb cut on Beekman leading to the garage. Lori said ¾’s of her garage is on her neighbor’s property so she’s buying a parcel from them. She said everything has been done except for the title search, then they will be closing. The garage will be removed and there will be green space there. Shafer asked why they aren’t making it a two-family even if they don’t intend to use it as a two-family at this time. Sue said it is two-family. Sue not talking into the mic. Sue said the lot is supposed to be 8,000 sq. ft. and they are 8,446. Shafer said he appreciates that this project compared to the current situation reduces the variance overall. Aneisha said 2 spaces per dwelling unit are required in the UDO. Lori said they are providing 3 spaces. Aneisha said that will require a variance. Otis said he appreciates them using Washington St. as the front entrance with the historical porch. Otis asked where the garage was that was being torn down. Brendan said he appreciates the presentation and the applicant’s willingness to maintain part of the original structure. He asked if they would need to return to the DRB. Lori said yes. They requested a reduction in the scale of the garage, which has been done. Chris said he would like to see a plan for the fourth parking spot. Chris said as a ZBA member and not DRB, he would be happy if the entire structure was removed, and brought into compliance. Gage asked Sue to show comps for the rear yard setbacks in the neighborhood for the record. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 22, 2024 Page 2 of 10 Eileen Shire, 1 Dublin Square. Eileen is an adjacent property owner and HOA president of their 13- unit complex. She said the 3 areas she would like the ZBA to consider are: 1. The size of the project, whether the requirements are met for a two-family house as that seems to be driving the need for a variance. She believes a variance wouldn’t be needed for a one-family house. 2. Parking on Washington St. is alternate side but typically is not done because of 18 Wheelers that drive by. She said parking will be next to her back door and by her side yard where they have 6 to 8 ft. 3. Permeability – during a heavy rainstorm drains on Washington Ave. overflow, come up over the sidewalk and into their entrance way. She said at the corner of Beekman and Washington they have overflow all winter. She said it appears that one or two trees will need to be cut down which will impact people’s shade, wildlife and permeability. Eileen said she’s happy to have Lori as a neighbor and it’s going to be a big improvement and she’s hoping there’s a compromise. Constance Contompasis, 5 Dublin Square near Eileen and one of the three most impacted by the project. She said allowing the variance will create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and to her property space. She said the configuration of Dublin Square is unique in that the backs of their properties are shared side yard with the 128-132 Washington St. She said even though the setback variance request is from Grand Ave., it has the most implications for their properties. She said their sliding glass doors and patios will be facing the structure proposed in the plan. She noted that setback requirements are in place so that property owners each have adequate space to protect their property boundary lines. Constance said there are trees that are likely 100 or more years old, and it would be nice if those could remain. She said she appreciates that Lori will be maintaining the historical part of the home and maybe an alternate plan could be considered for the second part of the house. Something that would better meet the neighborhood character and streetscape while still meeting their needs. She said she is opposed to the rear setback request. Maureen Curtain, 125 Grand is a member of the Dublin Square Association. She said the request for a 45% reduction in the rear-yard setback to build a larger garage and additional living space is a detriment to the neighborhood in that it will obstruct sun and the view for several of the units on Dublin Square. She said Dublin Square Association has been around since 2001. She also mentioned the requirement for a parking variance and said that on-street parking is tough in this area. She said the UDO allows for 3 types of two-family homes in the UR-3 District; detached secondary dwelling with specific rules, single-family attached dwelling with a party wall from foundation to roof, and one structure containing two-family dwelling units. She said this applicant’s proposal does not meet any of these three categories. She said the applicant is proposing two single family homes attached by a walkway and using the walkway to call it a two-family dwelling. The UDO says a two- family dwelling should be one structure containing two dwelling units on a single lot. This proposal is for two structures, two single-family homes. A variance is needed for the applicant to build two single-family homes. She said each home requires 6,600 sq. ft. or 13,200 sq. ft. for two and the applicant’s lot is approximately 8,500 sq. ft. or 36% short of that requirement. She said she strongly opposes this proposal for a two-family dwelling and asked the ZBA to consider this as two single- family homes. She said the proposal looks massive because it’s too big for the property and there’s not enough land to build two single-family homes. Bob Beyer, 3 Dublin Square said he came to thank his neighbors for keeping him in the loop with what’s going on with the proposal. He supports what his neighbors have said tonight and is opposed to the variance being granted. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 22, 2024 Page 3 of 10 Libby Brennesholtz, 7 Dublin Square said she’s happy the property is being developed because it’s an eyesore the way it is now. She feels it’s too big, doesn’t have the parking it needs and the proposed third parking space is in one of the green spaces. She said she’s opposed to it the way it is. Frank Capone, 119 Grand Ave. said he and his wife are members of the Dublin Square HOA and oppose the variance as requested for all the reasons previously given. Stacey Hill, 133 Grand Ave. said she is a member of the Dublin Square Association, and she supports her neighbors in the association and opposes the variance request. Anita Marzillow, 11 Dublin Square said she supports her neighbors in opposing this variance. She said she hopes the applicant’s disability needs get met but for all the other reasons, she’s opposed. Gage Simpson, Chair said the public hearing will remain open and the next meeting is scheduled for September 9th. Gage said there is not a variance request for the side yard setback. He said this is a developable lot and anyone who would build on that lot would be able to go to the side setback on that lot. The rear setback is what is being discussed and hopefully that will clear up some of the concerns. 2. #20240516 19 West Fenlon second story addition. Area variance to permit the renovation of a single-family home in the Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District. Variances sought for 19 West Fenlon.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK 8 FT. 5.6 FT. 2.5 FT. (31.3%) MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE 20 FT. 13 FT. 7 FT. (35%) Sue Davis, SD Atelier Architecture represented the applicants. Sue said 19 West Fenlon is a single-family structure near the State Park. She showed a street view of 19 Fenlon and an adjacent structure that was rebuilt about 10 years ago. She said the neighborhood is changing with ranches, split levels and some houses being turned into two-story homes. Sue said the applicant has an expanded family and would like to add a second story to the current 860 sq. ft. one story ranch. Sue showed a slide of a site overview with the park, split level homes, renovations, etc. in an evolving neighborhood. She said most of the homes were built in the 1960’s. Sue displayed the existing survey and proposed site plan. The existing minimum side yard setback is 7’, 8’ is required and they are proposing 5.6 ft. so that they have an overhang to the roof. Sue said the total side yard setback is required to have 20 ft., the existing is 16ft. and they are asking for 13 ft. She said they’re already in non-compliance with the existing setbacks. She said they are proposing to have a foot and a half overhang which would be architecturally appropriate for the style of the home. Sue showed slides of the existing site and one-story ranch, and comps for neighboring properties. She said the house will be an open floor plan on the first floor and the second floor will have the stairway, bedrooms and bathrooms. She showed sketches of the elevations. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 22, 2024 Page 4 of 10 Chris said he appreciates the project and understands it’s tight there to begin with and the need for the overhang. He said his major concern would be with the drainage and proximity to adjacent neighbor. Sue said they can address any viable concerns. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. There were no comments, and the public hearing was closed at 7:23 p.m. Chris LaPointe made a motion to approve variances for 19 West Fenlon St. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Discussion: Gage said it should be mentioned in number 1 that the current structure is in the setback. A note should be added that says water mitigation is expected – gutters, etc. The board decided to make it a condition that the applicant is to install stormwater control mechanisms to direct runoff away from the side yards. Vote: C. LaPointe-Y, B. Dailey-Y, S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, G. Simpson-Y. 5-0, motion carried. 3. #20240488 30.5 Caroline construction Area Variance. Area variance to permit a mixed-use development involving Sperry’s Restaurant and residential units in the Urban Core (UC) District. Variances sought for 30.5 Caroline.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM BUILDOUT 80% 63% 17% (21.3%) PERCENTAGE Dave Carr, LA Group & George Olsen, Architect represented the applicant. Dave said they are seeking a front buildout variance for the parcel that’s Sperry’s Restaurant. Dave showed the existing survey for Sperry’s and the open area between Sperry’s and Hamlet & Ghost, a project that he and George worked on. It was a vacant space for years due to a fire. Dave said they got a five-story building approved last year for that vacant space. The first floor is 1,800 sq. ft. of commercial space with 11 apartments on the 2nd floor. He said they’ve received DRB and site plan approval. Dave said between then and now Sperry’s went up for sale and his client purchased it in January of 2024 with the idea of tying the two projects together. He said they are before the ZBA seeking a variance on the Sperry’s lot because there’s a large easement that runs on the eastern edge of the building for a sewer line and stormwater structure that’s very close to the western edge of the building. Dave showed a slide of the proposed sketch plan and highlighted variance. He said they are proposing to put additional floors above Sperry’s. Sperry’s will be maintained and renovated, the name will remain Sperry’s, and they will keep the façade. Dave said George is designing additional apartments that will tie the two buildings together over the top of Sperry’s. Dave said they set the second story and additional stories right at the build to line. He said that would be the smallest variance possible because the easement is at an angle. He said if they were to leave Sperry’s as is and come back before the board for an addition the variance would be 55% of the 80%. He said the plan would be to drive underneath the building. There will be 8 parking spaces in the back with a handicap spot. Dave said they met with Aneisha, Susan & Beige and they are applying for Sperry’s parcel only because it is its own building. He said if they’re successful with their other project, then the two parcels will be combined as part of the site plan process. Dave said the variance would be reduced from 17% to 1.5%. He said they’re about 2 ft. off and there’s no other way to get there. George talked about the architecture of the building. George said 30 Caroline, the vacant lot next to Sperry’s, took about 2 years to get approved for a building because even though it’s not in the city’s historic district, it was tied to the Broadway Historic District in the 1980’s. George said they had proposed a more modern City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 22, 2024 Page 5 of 10 building and they compromised and came to agreement. He said the building is about 61 ft. high. George said they are proposing to step the apartments back over Sperry’s and will have to go back in front of the DRB for approval. Dave said they are proposing 40 to 45 apartments over Sperry’s and are still in the design phase. Chris asked Dave to explain the easement. Dave said the easement is over 50 ft. wide and is granted to the city. He said there’s a sewer line and stormwater. Dave said he’s fairly certain there are two 6ft. by 8ft. box filters that run side by side from Congress Park to Ebi. He said all the storm water in one part of the city bubbles into Congress Park, comes past Sperry’s and comes out High Rock behind Excelsior and dumps to Ebi. Chris asked if they were looking for a height variance. Dave said the way it works in the UDO is it’s a bonus and they won’t be required to come before the ZBA. He said the approvals will be between the DRB and planning board. They would have to meet certain criteria to get the height bonus such as affordable housing, energy incentives, etc. Gage Simpson, Chair opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. There were no comments, and the public hearing was closed at 7:46 p.m. Jackie White said it appears that this is an unlisted action. Dave said he believes it is because it went through the process with the building next door. He said they chose to do an uncoordinated review – DRB did their own SEQRA and the Planning Board did their own SEQRA. Jackie said it doesn’t fall within the type 1 or type 2 list. She said an unlisted action does not require coordinated review with the other boards that have approval authority over the project. She said the important thing is that they must complete SEQRA review before a determination can be made. She said the short form part 2 can be used for the 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. Gage Simpson made a motion to approve a SEQRA Negative Declaration for 30.5 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Vote: G. Simpson-Y, B. Dailey-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y. 5-0, motion carried. Gage Simpson made a motion to approve area variances for mixed use development at 30.5 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Shafer Gaston. Vote: G. Simpson-Y, S. Gaston-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, B. Dailey-Y, O. Maxwell-Y. 5-0, motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 22, 2024 Page 6 of 10 CONTINUED BUSINESS: 4. #20240386 3320 Route 9 Pet Lodge. Area variance to permit an addition to Pet Lodge in the Gateway Rural Commercial District. Gage Simpson noted that he missed the last meeting but watched the video and read through the paperwork and he’s all caught up. Variances sought for 3320 Route 9: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK 20 FT. 7 FT. 13 FT. (65%) MINIMUM TOTAL SIDE 50 FT. 35 FT. 15 FT. (30%) Lori Sames, the owner, said she went in front of the planning board and received a favorable opinion. She’s seeking a zoning variance to build a canopy the length of an existing stone path and chain link fence on the north side of her building. Lori said she needs to cover the outside of her dog boarding yards to protect them from snow and sun. Aneisha inaudible. Gage asked about neighbors. Lori said there’s only one neighbor and they’re fine with her proposal and the other side is all wooded. Gage said they’re waiting for a referral from Saratoga County. The public hearing will remain open. 5. #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.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MINIMUM LOT SIZE 12,500 SQ. FT. 9,750 SQ. FT. 2,750 SQ. FT. (22%) MINIMUM AVERAGE WIDTH 100 FT. 75 FT. 25 FT. (25%) John Cannie, Attorney with Snyder, Kiley, Toohey, Corbett and Cox represented the applicants John and Karen Harvey. The applicants are proposing to subdivide into two lots keeping their current home on Lot 1 in the approximate area of lots 53-57 of Woodlawn Oval. Lot 2 will be in the area of lots 58-59 of Woodlawn Oval that is currently vacant except for a gazebo and plantings. John said Lot 1 is conforming but Lot 2 will require 2 variances – lot size and lot width. Lot 2 will be on the corner of Clinton St. and Embury (private street). John said they were before the planning board last Thursday where they received a positive recommendation and SEQRA Negative Declaration. He said the planning board was hopeful that Embury Dr. might be used for access. John said they are in discussions with Wesley regarding that. The planning board noted the history of the prior separation of title of the parcel, the community character being smaller lot sizes, and the need for more residential lots in this area as the basis for their positive recommendation. Gage asked who plows Embury Dr. John said he wasn’t sure but that will have to be discussed. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 22, 2024 Page 7 of 10 Gage Simpson, Chair said the public hearing was still open if anyone wished to comment on the project. Cliff VanWagner, 15 Rolling Brook Dr. represented Wesley. He said Wesley will not allow access on Embury Dr. Cliff said the applicant is looking for significant relief from the ZBA. He said the city requires 100 ft. from an intersection to a curb cut for a driveway. He said this is a very busy intersection for Wesley’s 37-acre campus with a 342-bed nursing home, 194 subsidized housing units at Embury, and 100 apartment units at Woodlawn Commons. Approximately 54% of the people living at Embury drive cars and enter and there. Cliff said 3 of the 5 buildings at Woodlawn Commons (60 units) access and exit from that side as well. He said 50% of their 600 employees use Embury Dr. All delivery trucks (food, laundry) that come to the campus enter via Embury Dr. Cliff said Embury Dr. is also the access for emergency services access to the campus. He said Lawrence St. is not a viable alternate route because cars are parked on both sides of the street and it’s not wide enough for trucks to get through without causing damage to cars and homes. He said public safety is a big concern. Aneisha inaudible, no mic. Gage Simpson, Chair closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Chris LaPointe made a motion to approve area variances for a subdivision at 225 Clinton St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following condition: approval is contingent upon a satisfactory access agreement on Lot 2 between DPW and DPS. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Discussion: Shafer said there needs to be more clarity on the condition. Aneisha inaudible, no mic. Gage said the condition would stay with the land and that before anything is built, they must get DPW to approve the curb cut. It is not feasible to put a driveway on Embury. Jackie inaudible. Gage – make a note that says there is an access issue that needs to be resolved. Vote: C. LaPointe- Y, B. Dailey-Y, S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, G. Simpson-Y. 5-0, motion carried. 6. #20240484 17 MacArthur Dr. Area Variance. Area variance to permit the renovation of the existing single-family home in the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) District. Variances sought for 17 MacArthur Dr.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL 28% 29% 1.0% (3.6%) COVERAGE Gage Simpson, Chair asked if there was any further comment on this project. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 8:12 p.m. Otis Maxwell made a motion to approve an area variance for renovation of an existing single-family home at 17 MacArthur Dr., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Discussion: Gage said #3 should say “the board finds that the 1% may not be considered substantial. It is also mitigated by the undersized, pre-existing, non-conforming lot.” Vote: O. Maxwell-Y, B. Dailey-Y, C. LaPointe-N, S. Gaston-Y, G. Simpson-Y. 4-1, motion carried. 7. #20240415 12 Nelson Ave. Two-story Addition. Area variance to permit the construction of a 2- story addition to the existing single-family home in the Rural Residential – RR District. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 22, 2024 Page 8 of 10 Variances sought for 12 Nelson Ave.: TYPE OF REQUIREMENT ZONE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED REAR 100 FT. 49 FT. 51FT. (51.0%) INTERIOR SIDE 30 FT. 9 FT. 21 FT. (70.0%) MIN TOTAL SIDE 100 FT. 29 FT. 71 FT. (71%) ACCESSORY TO SIDE 30 FT. 8 FT. 22 FT. (73.3%) ACCESSORY TO REAR 50 FT. 20 FT. 30 FT. (60.0%) PERMEABILITY 75% 71.0% 4% (5.3%) Brian Ragone, Environmental Design Partners represented the applicants Robert and Robin Gorham. Brian said they were able to remove the permeability request entirely by removing the existing shed in the back. He said they reduced the size of the driveway leading into the proposed garage, changed the rear patio to permeable pavers, and changed a portion of the walkway to the front door to permeable pavers. Brian said the architect reduced the building eave overhang widths by ¾ of a foot in the front and ¾ of a foot in the back, which also helped with the rear yard variance relief request. He said removing the shed kept them from having to seek variances for an accessory structure. Brian noted that this is a non-conforming lot to begin with so once the setbacks are applied there are no real buildable areas. Gage thanked the applicant for working with the board and said they made some great modifications. Gage Simpson, Chair said the public hearing was still open if anyone wished to comment on the project. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed at 8:32 p.m. Gage Simpson made a motion to approve area variances for the construction of a two-story addition at 12 Nelson Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Brendan Dailey. Vote: G. Simpson-Y, B. Dailey-Y, S. Gaston-Y, C. LaPointe-Y, O. Maxwell-Y. 5-0, motion carried. 8. #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%) Aneisha inaudible. Applicant inaudible. Not using mics. Gage went over the relief charts. City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 22, 2024 Page 9 of 10 Gage Simpson, Chair said the public hearing was still open if anyone wished to comment on the project. Mike Tuck, 19 Schuyler Dr. is the neighbor across the street. Mike said he looked at the satellite image of the site and the applicant has much better side yard setbacks than most of the homes on the street. He’s fully supportive of the application. Gage Simpson, Chair closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Shafer Gaston made a motion to approve area variances for the construction of an addition at 24 Schuyler Dr., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Otis Maxwell. Vote: S. Gaston-Y, O. Maxwell-Y, G. Simpson-Y, B. Dailey-Y, C. LaPointe-Y. 5-0, motion carried. Gage Simpson, Chair concluded the meeting at 8:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary City of Saratoga Springs - Zoning Board of Appeals – July 22, 2024 Page 10 of 10